two or three or four maybe parcels so just so the records clarified we're with respect to those
properties there it's all this as far as we're concerned i think those are all actually the
same properties that things just happen uh under different addresses i mean i've seen properties
along Delaware Avenue that have as many as seven different sets of records under different
addresses.
So it's not that unusual.
So I have no further questions, though, for Mr. Tintala.
Okay. And just clearly, though, no matter, although I think our research shows that 412 North Front Street is a different ownership on a different property.
And just clearly, though, no matter, although I think our rat...
There's a section that's, but we don't need to get into that.
We don't need to get into that, but from the pictures, I think the board is clear, Mr. Tantella, that no matter what the property addresses are, that there are non-accessory signs in that vicinity directly to the cross where you had been previously asked by Mr. Rudder, the suggestion had been made that there were only non-accessory signs on that location.
Isn't that correct?
Yes, I was previously asked that, and I believe we've clarified that there are non-accessory locations, as shown by my prior exhibits.
And Mr. Polk, your next witness?
I call Mr. Jeffrey Jones.
Thank you.
Thank you, Michael.
Thank you. Thank you for your time.
And this will be my last witness, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you.
Jeffrey there?
I know he. Mr. Jones has been allowed to speak. Hi. Hi. Mr. Jones, could you state your name,
please, and spell for the court reporter? Jeff, you're muted.
We see. Mr. Jones, can you unmute, please?
can you hear me now yes we can could you just take the volume up a little bit you're a little
low okay jeff are you in a spot yep i'm here are you in a spot where we can have
have your video image certainly okay great
there you go there you go could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
jeffrey jones j-e-f-f-r-e-y-j-o-n-e-s right do you swear for him to tell the truth the whole
truth and nothing but the truth i do proceed counsel okay uh mr jones thank you for being here
you are, tell the board what you do these days. I am the real estate manager for Outfront Media
here in Philadelphia and the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. And how long have you been involved
in outdoor, the outdoor advertising industry? I've been in the industry for a little more than
18 years, almost 19 years, and with Outfront for the last three and a half years.
And before that, were you with Clear Channel?
I was.
You've attended faithfully all these hearings, the one back on June 15th and then September 20th of 2022.
And I believe you were present when Mr. Cochio testified at those two hearings.
Is that correct?
That is correct.
And you heard and have looked at the correspondence and interaction that the TWU had with Joanne Parkins of PennDOT.
I did.
And from your years in the outdoor advertising industry, what is PennDOT's role in Philadelphia these days with regard to outdoor advertising?
Since 2015, PennDOT has assumed the role of applying their regulations under the Highway Beautification Act to Philadelphia's, the city of Philadelphia.
So prior to that, did they allow Philadelphia to control everything as to its, as to outdoor advertising structures?
That is correct.
And what is the significant impact of PennDOT now overlooking Philadelphia with regard to outdoor advertising structures?
They apply their layer of regulation on top of the Philadelphia Zoning Code, and they oversee that all the regulations under the Highway Beautification Act and the Federal Highway Administration is adhered to in the city of Philadelphia.
So you could, correct me if I'm wrong, could you get approval if you were able to succeed and get a variance from the city of Philadelphia, PennDOT could still apply some regulations and deny you a license?
That is correct.
Okay. So what do you find significant from your read and the testimony Mr. Koccio gave us with regard to the correspondence he had with Joanne Parkins of PennDOT?
that only local approval would be necessary that it meets.
That only local approval would be necessary that it meets, this location meets all the current regulations of PennDOT and the FHWA to allow for a billboard to be operated there.
Okay. Now, with regard to this particular location, TWU is not in the business of being an outdoor advertising sign company.
correct? No, they're not. And what is your understanding? Do you have any kind of an
agreement with TWU to do anything for them at this point? Not at this time, no. At your company.
Have you been contacted with regards to developing a potential management agreement with them?
Yes. And as part of that management agreement, would you help them obtain advertisers?
on the sign? Yes, we would. Okay. And as part of that agreement, however,
our understanding as you move forward with nothing being formal, no contract or written
agreement or anything's been put in paper, down the paper, is that correct? That is correct.
What would, given the nature of the desire of the local to have, it is a, we call it a hybrid sign
that they still need to be able to convey their message to the ridership of SEPTA
and to the people that get off at the front in Spring Garden Station.
What do you foresee as something of the role of the sign down there as proposed?
Well, to use your term, it would be a hybrid, right?
We would definitely integrate their message and guarantee a flip or two of space to that messaging and then use the remaining messaging or the remaining available space for advertising purposes.
Okay. And Mr. Reuter asked Michael Tantella, our previous expert witness, and you were there to hear that just today, with regard to how this sign, if it's allowed to be modernized, what impact would it have in terms of the way you could get your message across and its impact on surrounding neighborhood structures?
the modernization would allow for the for the illumination to be controlled better um our
contact would be uh via an internet connection um so that would that would just be faster um the
readability would be better the uh clarity of messaging would be better uh but it is no they're
both LEDs, right? So they're both light emitting diodes. So the basic functionality is the same,
just be an improvement of sensors and things like that. Okay. So with regard to the area that
we're intended to be visible, the road surface would be intended to be visible.
or principally viewed, I guess, is the term used in the ordinance.
What is that? Michael has testified it's essentially the ramp.
Obviously, there'll be some viewing by people walking along 2nd Street, but...
I would concur with that. Yes, the ramp and pedestrian traffic,
riders coming off the L, things like that.
Okay. Now, what kind of messaging, has there been any, in the industry, what do you usually limit in terms of the messaging that you do?
So we self-regulate. We don't allow for adult entertainment. We adhere to the city's codes of limiting alcohol in proximity to playground schools and things like that.
And in fact, TWU, I believe, given that their membership is given the quintessential gift of safety or responsibility of safety for its ridership, I guess they probably don't want to have anything that would advertise something that might impair the ability of anybody to drive a car, drive a train, or a bus. Is that correct?
That is correct. And if they have any restrictions they'd like to impose, we would definitely work with them on that.
And what kind of public service messaging has been able to be done by the industry over the years?
has been able to be done by the industry over the years?
We are a good partner, right?
So we engage with the Bethesda Project.
We engage with Caring for Friends.
These are all nonprofit organizations that do good things in the city.
We partner with them.
I mean, Mr. Coccio testified that there are at least about 170,000 people that come and go at the Spring Garden train station and that there also are.
I know I count myself as one person who over the years is known to always look and see what time it is or what the temperature is when I've been driving and getting off of Calla Hill.
None of that will change, correct? The message will still be there if something gets, even with the increase in the size.
Yes, it would still be there.
Okay. And so given your work in the industry of over 18 years and your understanding of the operation of PennDOT,
um do you and you you let's strike that you've looked at the neighborhood and you've heard mr
tantella describe the neighborhood as something where uh there are other signs in the area are
there out there advertising signs in this area there are yes okay and this is an existing digital
sign isn't that correct that is correct and it's not going to be 12 it's not going to be a 14 by
48 or 20 by 60. Is that correct? That is correct. So in the general market of
outdoor advertising signs, it seems to be, what is the standard size usually that's being
put up for digital size? Isn't it the 14 by 48 or the 20 by 60s?
Yes. Yes. That is fairly standard. Yes. Okay. So this is at 12.33 by 31.
this is a unique size sign, isn't it? It is. It is. Okay. And therefore, they're not asking for
the maximum to create something that would compete with across the street where we've shown
there's a 70-foot sign that's 20 by 60, correct? That is correct. So would you consider this to be
a minimal minimum request to modernize the sign so that you can make it from its existing size
to just to increase it to the 12.33 by 31? Yes, I would agree with that. Okay. Do you feel given
that you've driven this neighborhood, I'm sure many times and driven down Second Street, I'm
sure many times. Is that correct? Yes, that is correct. And you've seen the new building going
up next door or a little bit away because there is a unit in between the TWU location
and the corner at 200 Spring Garden.
But do you agree that there's sort of like a limited range of visibility because of some
of the physical characteristics of that neighborhood with this new building and some of the trees
that are along 2nd Street and some of the growth along the off ramp of 95 at that location?
Yes, I would agree with that.
Okay. And do you feel, do you have an opinion as to whether allowing the sign, existing digital sign to modernize and just get a little bigger at 12.33 by 31, will that have a detrimental impact on what's going on in this neighborhood?
No, no. I think that it would not impact the residential neighborhood down the road.
Okay. And again, I just wanted to – you're in the industry, so I know being in the industry, I know I'm going to make the argument, but again, I just wanted to – you are aware in the industry that under 1490515 and the outdoor non-accessory advertising section of the zoning code,
that a municipality like the city of philadelphia although maybe they haven't taken advantage of it
yet but does have the right to put up digital signs objection to the relevance this has nothing
to do with the case yes it does you're here is for the city representing the city you you literally
just admitted that the city mr pop i i agree i agree with that okay i agree let's let's let's
move on from there all right so that uh that that would be it then i have nothing further than okay
uh just to cross yeah very briefly um mr jones and again um you had you testified regarding uh
the correspondence between uh um mr coche am i pronouncing that correctly coche coche and um
uh representative of pendot is that right you you did review that correspondence i did
uh representative of pendot is that right you you did review that correspondence i did yes okay
and you've uh testified that it's your opinion uh or your understanding from those from that
correspondence that pendot would approve uh this sign just based on that correspondence
yes okay uh but isn't it true that the correspondence dealt with whether or not
um so the correspondence was triggered initially because the existing sign was being used uh for
non-accessory purposes isn't that right that is what the the email i believe said yes okay and
then that's proposed right and then the pond hockey sign was removed and then mr coach who
asked whether or not um if they got the variance uh whether or not uh pendot uh would approve
um the sign for oad permitting purposes isn't that right yes okay so but isn't it true that
the only thing that miss perkins said was that the variance for zoning wouldn't be required
uh for oad purposes so long as they had the proper zoning isn't that right
um objection why don't we read what what we sure why don't we look at uh and again it's i think
their exhibit a7 uh number one steve if you already had that up um i don't nico can you
get that up i can i have can i have my associate nico realbuto um elevated to panelists so you
could share share the screen we can i'd be happy to share it i i do uh but um forgive me uh in
advance if it crashes because i'm on the city network so uh just give me a sec there
you're going to try and bring it up yourself yeah yeah that'll be it'll just take me a sec
this is it great can you all see that it's coming up now it's coming up okay great um here we are
sure um this will make it a little easier to see all right so um mr jones then i'm just going to
real quickly run through this because i just i just wanted to be clear what is actually in this
correspondence. So, if I go down, whoops. So, again, this is in response. So, again, the email
of May 10th, 2021, Mr. Coccio is indicating that the pond, that's the pond, the hockey ad was
removed. Blah, blah, blah. Then she responds. He follows up and says, then again, she said
there's no longer a need to get the off-premises advertising permit from PennDOT. Right. And
And then on, I think, let me just see, unfortunately, yeah, he's saying, asking, unfortunately, it's at the top here, but it says checking in about, there it is, it is their intention to get an off-premises permit, but they would need a variance.
and he's questioning whether PennDOT would approve
if it was obtained by variants.
She responds and says,
it depends on what the variants was issued for.
We don't accept a variants for zoning purposes.
Otherwise, it may be perfectly fine.
And he said, this would be for the zoning district.
Blah, blah, blah.
Again, he's just explaining to her
that they need a variants because it's CMX3.
And he asked specifically, if we get a variants,
will you still issue an off-premises state permit thanks her response is
you do not need a variance for zoning for oad permitting purposes as long as the zoning is of
commercial industrial nature that's acceptable i'm not sure what other issue you're having but
it should not affect the permitting process that it and he says thanks he says you're welcome
What is it in that statement that indicates in any way, shape, or form that PennDOT is actually going to prove the sign?
PennDOT's regulations require that the property where the sign is located be commercial or industrial in use.
The regulation goes on further.
There's spacing requirements and things of that nature.
I'm not asking what PennDOT's regs are.
I'm asking, what is it that Ms. Parkins writes there that indicates that PennDOT is going to issue the permit?
Perkins, Parkins writes there that indicates that PennDOT is going to issue the permit.
Isn't she just saying that whether they need a variance or not does not affect their permitting
process? And that's all she says. I read this as long as the zoning of the property is commercial
or industrial in nature, they would issue the permit because all other requirements apply here.
well okay i i think i think i don't want to keep belaboring this i think i think the email speaks
for itself you would agree that there is nothing in that email that addresses whether other
requirements of the oad permitting objection he's asked and answered that already no that's fine
you said it speaks for itself yeah so i don't have any further questions thank you thank you
uh mr park you're done with your witnesses we are mr chairman okay we are we would rest and
we would move for the admission into the record or our exhibits a one through a 23 i believe or
24 that's great excuse me sorry excuse me mr chair this is hillary i'm mr pollack i didn't
receive any supplemental exhibits for today so to the extent that exhibits weren't already others
already otherwise submitted can you please have them to the board by close of business today
yeah we will but the reason i didn't do that was like you know it was it was really a
on cross-examination um and if we had been at the hearing we you know uh so we'll get them to you
definitely uh we would move mr chairman that any members who didn't make all the three hearings
have can you know we have no objection to them reading the transcript to be able to render a
decision so that you would have a full five-member board on this thank you all right uh leonard do
you want to make a presentation? Sure, just briefly, and I don't have witnesses to present
per se, but just so it's the records clear about why I'm even here. And again, first of all, I think
it goes without saying that the city of Philadelphia, the administration, the city, city
planning, in this case, has every right to oppose a variance as much as any other entity in the
city's right to participate as a as a either a party or as just a participant in in any matter
including zoning matters is pretty well established so there's no conflict there's no issue with the