COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 6, 2004 10:15 a.m. - - - - BILLS 040028, 040112, 040135, 040150, 040151, 040158, 040182, 040185, 040186, 040188, 040208, 040209, 040264, 040265, 040266, 040271. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 040185 PAGE CHARLES DENNY, Streets Dept......... BILL 040186 CHARLES DENNY, Streets Dept.......... BILL 040209 CHARLES DENNY, Streets Dept.......... BILL 040028 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept.......... BILL 040150 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept.......... BILL 040188 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept.......... BILL 040209 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept.......... 30 PETER KELSON, Homewood............... 31 BILL 040135 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept............. 33 MARTIN SOFFER, Planning Commission... 34 BILL 040158 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept............. 36 BILL 040264 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept............. 38 BILL 040266 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept............. 39 MARTIN SOFFER, Planning Commission... 40 BILL 040112 OTIS HAIGLER, Licenses & Inspections.. 41 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept........... 42 TOM NUXOLL, SEPTA..................... 42 3 I N D E X (cont'd) BILL 040151 PAGE OTIS HAIGLER, Licenses & Inspections.. 48 BILL NO. 040271 Otis HAIGLER, Licenses & Inspections.. 49 MANUEL DELGADO (ph) 4 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040185
Before we get started, Bill No. 040182 is being held at the request of the sponsor. Also, Bill No. 040265 is being held at the request of the sponsor. The Clerk will read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 040185, an ordinance establishing a "No Truck Parking" regulation on South Seventh Street between Washington Avenue and Fitzwater Street, both sides.
Good morning, Mr. Denny. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Charles Denny. I'm the Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I'm here to testify on Bill 040185, a bill establishing a No Truck Parking regulation on South Street from Washington Avenue to Fitzwater Street, both 5 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040185 sides. The Streets Department has no 4 objections to this bill. We are posting it under a trial ordinance. We can have the signs posted within four weeks.
Any questions for the witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here to testify for or against this bill?
On these trials that you do, could you describe how it gets to the trial part? Is it a request of the District Councilperson and you can just go and install signs and then do the ordinance later?
In other words, if you get a request, you look at it and say it's worthy of a trial and you'll do a trial. 6 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040186 And then if it works out, you'll go back to the District Councilperson and do an ordinance? Does that fairly describe that?
If it's worthy of a trial, we'll prepare work orders, post the signs, prepare paperwork that says it's a trial ordinance and forward that to the District Councilperson.
How often have you -- have you had a situation where you did a trial and you took the signs down and said, "This isn't going to work"?
Bill No. 040186, an ordinance establishing a "No Truck Parking" regulation on East Passyunk Avenue between 7 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040186 Washington Avenue and Fitzwater Street, both sides.
Thank you again, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name again is Charles Denny and I'm the Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets. I'm here to offer testimony on Bill 040186, a bill establishing a No Truck Parking regulation on East Passyunk Avenue from Washington Avenue to Fitzwater Street, both sides. The Streets Department has no 14 objections to this bill. We are posting it under a trial ordinance. We can have the signs posted in four weeks.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next 8 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040209 bill.
Bill No. 040209, an ordinance establishing a "No Truck Parking" regulation on the 10900 block of Dutton Road.
Thank you again. My name is Charles Denny and I'm here to offer testimony on Bill 040209, a bill establishing a "No Truck Parking" regulation on the 10900 block of Dutton Road, both sides. The Streets Department has no 12 objections to this bill. We are posting it under a trial ordinance. We can have the signs posted in four weeks.
I'm still a little confused here. Where does it say trial ordinance? It doesn't say trial. This is, to me, an ordinance.
Well, we can't post the signs until the ordinance passes unless we do it first as a trial. And then when the ordinance passes --
You just told me 9 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040209 that you didn't need to be here to do a trial.
A bill was introduced and we are here. We can either wait until the bill is passed and then post the signs or we can post it ahead of time as a trial. So it gets done before the bill gets signed.
If the District Councilperson put an ordinance in to put the signs up, why does it have to be trial? Why can't it just be a done deal?
It's not a done deal until the bill passes Council and then signed by the Mayor.
But you keep using the word "trial." It isn't a trial as far as I'm concerned. Maybe your language is trial, but what I'm reading here doesn't mention the word "trial."
Then it's a trial. We can't post the signs before the bill is signed 10 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040209 unless we post it as a trial.
Well, if this flies through, it will be a done deal. You said it's going to take four weeks to get the signs up, so by the time you put the signs up, this should be signed by the Mayor.
Councilman, I think -- we're getting into kind of semantics here. If for some reason I held the bill, I'm not around to move the bill out for a second and final reading beyond the four weeks, it would still be in that trial phase. The likelihood is that won't occur, but the potential is that it could be voted out of committee today favorably. It may not get to second and final reading within the four weeks. It could possibly happen much later than that.
But if it did and the ordinance passed, at that moment it is no 24 longer a trial. You'd have to have an ordinance to back out of that ordinance. 11 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040209
But my point being is you used the word trial, if this bill 5 passes within the next three weeks, you don't have the signs up, you need another ordinance 7 to cancel the trial.
If the bill passes, we need another ordinance to cancel the bill, yes.
All right. I just want to make sure because sometimes you say four weeks and it's eight weeks.
Excuse me. I rescind that statement. Strike that from the record.
Any other questions from the Committee for this witness. (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) 12 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040028
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040028, an ordinance granting permission to 900 South Front Street, LLC, owner of the property 900 South Front Street, Philadelphia, PA 19147, to operate and maintain an open air sidewalk cafe on the southwest corner of Front and Christian Streets, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is William Mautz and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No 17 040028 on behalf of the Streets Department. This bill grants permission to 900 South Front Street, LLC, owner of the property 900 South Front Street to operate an open air cafe at the southwest corner of South Front and Christian Street adjacent to the property. Four tables are proposed. Two tables will be located on Christian Street which will leave 8 feet, 6 inches of clear unobstructed footway. 13 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040150 Two tables will be located on South Front Street which will leave feet of clear 4 unobstructed footway. No rails will be used. 5 The Streets Department has reviewed 6 the cafe plan and has no objection to the 7 passage of this bill. 8
Thank you. Any 9 questions for this witness from the Committee? 10 (No response.)
Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040150, an ordinance granting permission to Carmen Polutro and Joseph Polutro, owners of the property 2650 South 15th Street, to operate and maintain an open air sidewalk cafe on the northwest corner of South 15th Street and Oregon Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman 14 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040150 and Members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 6 040150 on behalf of the Streets Department. This bill grants permission to Carmen and Joseph Polutro, owners of the property 2650 South 15th Street to operate an open air sidewalk cafe on the north footway of Oregon Avenue adjacent to the property. Six tables are proposed which will leave nine feet of clear, unobstructed footway. No rails will be used. The Streets Department has reviewed the cafe plan and has no objection to the passage of the bill.
Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
The Clerk will 15 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040188, an ordinance granting permission to TCG Delaware Valley, Inc, a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns to construct, maintain and operate, replace, and remove telecommunications service connections and fiber optic cables for telecommunications purposes along, over, in and under the public rights-of-way of Caroline Road and Comly Road; all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz, and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I am here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 18 040188 on behalf of the Streets Department. This bill authorizes TCG Delaware Valley, Inc., to construct, own and maintain an underground telecommunications service connection and fiber optic cables for telecommunication purposes under the public rights of way of Caroline Road and Comly Road. The Streets Department has reviewed 16 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 the construction plans for this project and has no objection to the passage of the bill.
Mr. Mautz, in this particular ordinance, is there any new aerial construction associated with this project. Are we adding any aerial construction at all in this community?
That's standard language that the Law Department would put in the bill, but this is entirely underground.
Thank you, Madam 17 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 Chairman. I have a question more in a general sense as it relates to trenching. Are we looking at a policy to increase fees for trenching and excavation for communication lines?
As far as communication lines, I'm not specifically aware of that. I'm not aware of that.
Do we traditionally -- is there a cost to the City as a result of trenching above and beyond what the normal fees are for complete restoration, just generally?
For this type of bill 17 and the permit that would be issued for it, which is a highway opening permit, the grantee or the contractor is required to restore the trench to our specifications. Currently, this isn't fee based, but through an application to the Community of Highway Supervisors it's mandated that they're going to go and restore the trench to our requirements.
To your 18 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 knowledge, the restoration of the streets, has it traditionally withstood the winters, the seasons that we have in the city of Philadelphia, or do we have a situation that as a result of the restoration during bad weather that comes up more so than it would if it were just a normal street?
It's my opinion that once you go and make any sort of hole in the street, whether it's a plumber's trench, something that PGW or PECO might do in terms of emergency repair or any sort of trenching operation that you do compromise the life of the street. If one could go and completely rip something out and restore it in kind, you would have much better integrity in life of the particular street. But once you would go and physically open something up, there's all kinds of contractors that do great jobs, there's other ones that don't do such good jobs -- I mean, I'm generalizing, but once you would go and open up a street in any fashion, over the years that's going to be a point of deterioration. 19 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188
And I'm assuming that the specifications that we give are minimal specifications? A good contractor would probably make restoration better than a lesser contractor, but the lesser contractor meets the traditional specs.
I don't know if I would necessarily categorize it as minimum. I mean, a lot of stuff that the Streets Department mandates is very similar to what PennDOT requires in their roadway restoration. So I don't think we would necessarily be requiring minimum effort by anybody.
Do we require minimal life of the restoration, say that our specifications on the restoration would have a life span of two years, five years, under normal conditions? Or we just simply say restore at grade certain materials? And I know it's difficult to project a life term of a restoration, but I'm wondering because I see visually, you know, you see these potholes, they're traditionally 20 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 around plumbers ditches or other types of within vehicular way. I'm wondering if we --
Unfortunately, no matter how great of a job one would do, the materials that we use are subject to a lot of environmental conditions, heat, cold, expansion, contraction. No matter how great of a thing we would specify -- I guess what I'm saying is our materials aren't perfect, they're only going to last for so long. I know the Streets Department has done some studies in terms of streets, degradation studies I believe it's called. We have looked at it.
Correct me if I I'm wrong, Mr. Mautz. A few years ago I know I had some legislation for a company that was looking to lay some cable throughout the City. I forgot what the purpose was. RCN, RNC, something like that. And we were involved in the conversations at the time about the cost of maintaining the highways because it does 21 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 interfere with the integrity. And once you dig up the street, the life expectancy of that street is reduced significantly. And I know we talked some fee structures at the time. Did we not implement some prorated, if that's the correct way of describing it, cost to the contractor for the purpose of opening the street that would benefit the City or defray some of our costs, the City's costs going forward?
The only thing where there's anything fee based has to do with plumbers permits for ditches. There is a component in there for fees where the plumber would pay for the ditch to be restored up front and the Streets Department would physically go out and do the work within 30 days of the trench being filled. But other than that, our highway opening permits are currently not fee based.
If memory serves me right -- Excuse me for interrupting, Councilman Clarke. 22 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 But I thought we agreed at the time that there would be some change in the fee structure to address those very issues that Councilman Clarke brought up because there are a lot of companies who were opening up streets, especially in those areas where they couldn't coexist with another company who already had services in those conduits or whatever that were under the street where you had to literally start a whole new set of conduits. I thought at the time there was some agreement with the Streets Department that the fees would be restructured not to be unbusiness friendly but as a way of reducing the cost to the taxpayers going forward. You're saying that, to the best of your knowledge, that hasn't occurred.
That's correct. The highway opening permits for this type of work are not fee based.
I'm glad 23 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Clarke brought this up. For years I've been talking about the fact that we use the word "pothole" broadly. And I can tell you, most of the potholes that I hit weren't the ones that God made; PGW made them, PECO Energy made them, the Water Department made them. And it really distresses me when I see a crew leave a location, a Water Department crew or a PGW crew, and what they call their temporary patch where they just throw the backfill back in the hole they tamp it. Scenario: It rains that night. The next thing, you're coming down the street and that entire excavation has started to erode and you hit that and you blow out two front tires or whatever, and it's because the crew did not restore that to the temporary standard that they're supposed to restore it to. So this wasn't a pothole that just happened to happen. Or I can tell you that there are some utilities -- and I have to say PECO Energy does a good job at replacing -- you know, I see temporary repairs done all the time where the joint isn't sealed with tar 24 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 around the perimeter of the repair. And what's going to happen? The first thing, water's going to get down there and it's going to buckle. I believe, and I've been talking to every Streets Commissioner since I've been here asking them -- they told me that there was supposed to be a task force with all the utility companies to talk about how we repair these, and I haven't seen anybody really grab ahold of this and fix it. Because, you know, maybe now that we're losing some of the City cars and they hit it with their own, they might get the attention. But it's a damn shame to see a person on the side of the road with their four-ways on that hit one of these temporary excavations or they hit one of these repair jobs that's only lasted a couple cycles, a couple years. Somebody's really got to do something about this, because I believe what Councilman Clarke allude to, I think they're cutting corners. I think that there is a standard that's supposed to be introduced when they make these repairs, and I think that they are saving a lot of dollars. And if 10 25 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 holes are being repaired, they look good a week after they're done, but a month or a season later they're in big trouble and they create a problem. I think that the Commissioner should assign somebody to look at this, because we don't even protect these -- a crew leaves and they put a traffic cone. You know, Hunting Park Avenue, big hole, they put one traffic cone; that's work area protection, one traffic cone. The first truck that comes by blows it away and everybody behind winds up hitting this hole. I think it's, again, a disgrace that we expose people, visitors and our motorist and pedestrians the way we leave some of these excavations. I don't mean to preach, but it's been something that's been bothering me a long time. And I'm glad Councilman Clarke brought it up because somebody really needs to do something. So would you carry this message back to the Commissioner and let him know that I think really something's got to be done to enforce the standard. And if the stand is 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 loose, it should be tightened up because the subcontractor that gets paid big money to repair those should be repairing them according to the specification that you have and not one inch of material instead of four-inch or modified -- it's just, I think, a very bad situation. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Any questions? Let the record reflect that Councilmember Ramos is now here as well. I want to go back to the two previous bills concerning the outdoor cafes, Mr. Mautz. Will the owners of this these properties need to have to wait for the bill 18 to pass? What I've done in the past in my district -- one of the bills is my district. The 15th Street bill, Bill No. 040150 is in Council President's district. I've done a letter to your office or the Commissioner's saying that I have every intention of passing the bill, getting it out of Committee, so if 27 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 the owners decided they wanted to set up this weekend they would be allowed to. There won't be any problem if they do that?
I certainly wouldn't have an issue with it. You might want to include something to Licenses and Inspection.
Yes, I'll do a letter to the Commissioner of L&I. Mr. Polutro, hopefully the weather will break in the next few days, so if you get an early start and set up the cafe, you don't need to wait because we're not in session this week. Mr. Haigler has a comment, I'm sure. We won't be in session this week so by the time we get to the second reading we're three weeks out which is almost a month out and I'd like to get them started as quickly as possible. Mr. Haigler.
Otis Haigler, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for Licenses and Inspections. Yes, Councilman, you're correct that in the past you have given us letters 28 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040188 indicating that -- giving some dispensation to persons who want to operate. The only thing we ask, though, is that they comply with all of the requirements of the particular ordinance, meaning that they have to have the insurance, the bonding that I believe that's required. So as long as they were to do that, then I believe --
I apologize. I didn't notice you back there, Mr. Haigler. I certainly would have brought you up for your comments, but I didn't notice you were sitting in the back of the room. I apologize.
Thank you. You understand, Carmen, that you can now go, provided you have the proper licensing and bonding, whatever it is -- I'll do a letter -- I can't do a letter for you, actually, you should see Councilwoman Verna. Go across the hall, ask for Dianne. If she 29 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040208 needs any explanation, ask her to come over and see me. So you can start it rather than wait three four weeks for the bill to pass.
I hope so. I hope the weather is fine. The Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040208, an ordinance authorizing Homewood Suites Hotel, Stout Road Associates, 4200 City Avenue, Philadelphia, PA 19131, owners of the property 4200 City Avenue, their successors and assigns to construct and maintain a building addition and footing into the public right-of-way of Stout Road east of City Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz. I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 25 040208 on behalf of the Streets Department. 30 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040208 This bill authorizes Homewood Suites Hotel, Stout Road Associates, owners of the property 4200 City Avenue to construct and maintain a building addition and footing into the public right-of-way of Stout Road. The 12-story building addition will partially encroach into the north footway of Stout Road at three locations. The Streets Department has reviewed the construction plans for this project. As the encroachments do not affect public right-of-way, the Streets Department recommends passage of this bill.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Peter Kelson on behalf of the Homewood Suites Hotel, Stout Road Associates. The encroachment, Members of the Committee, that we're proposing is extremely small and it will allow us to construct this addition to the existing hotel, a 12-story addition and a real complement to the City 31 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040208 Avenue area. The area in which we would encroach, as indicated, is very small, but it's also on the grassy area of Stout Road. There will be no physical encroachment into anything remotely appearing to be sidewalk or streets. And, therefore, we would ask your consideration for the grant of this relief. In addition, we would ask for suspension of Rules to allow more favorable time frame. If you have any questions, we would be happy to answer it.
Councilman Nutter, who is not a member of this Committee but who has joined us this morning.
Actually, this is my first week of service on this Committee, which I've been trying to avoid for 12 years now. But I'm now on this Committee.
I apologize. I'm so accustomed to you sitting in your chair at these hearings, I didn't realize it.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would only add to the record that 32 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040135 there have been community meetings about the proposed expansion of the City Avenue Hilton and at this location. The owner has been very forthright with the community, and we're very excited about this particular project. So I can only give my strong support for it. Thank you.
Thank you. And again, I apologize for not recognizing who was on my Committee. Any other questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040135, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 307 by striking and abandoning portions of a 33 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040135 certain pedestrian walkway and right-of-way for gas main purposes lying between fourth street and fifth street within the lines of former Commerce Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department would like offer the following testimony on Bill No. 040135. This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. Christopher Preate of Cozen O'Connor Attorneys, 1900 Market Street, who represent the National Museum of American Jewish History. The purpose of this ordinance is to vacant a pedestrian walkway and right-of-way to allow for building expansion. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Good morning, 34 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040135 sir.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Martin Soffer, I'm a City Planner and I'm here to testify on behalf of the City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking and the abandon of certain portions of an existing pedestrian walkway in the Old City section of Center City. The purpose of this ordinance is to relocate the existing pedestrian walkway to allow for the expansion of the National Museum of American Jewish History. The Planning Commission staff reviewed and tentatively approved this action on October 11, 2002. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that the Bill No. 040135 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else 35 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040158 here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040158, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance, Bill No. 020740, approved January 23, 2003, entitled an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines grades on a portion of City Plan No. 13 58 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Olive Street to Percy Street to 10th Street by striking from the City Plan and vacating Hutchinson Street from Olive Street to Brown Street and by reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes and public utility purposes within the bed of Hutchinson Street, under certain terms and conditions by extending the time for compliance within the conditions stated therein.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Again, 36 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040158 my name is Paul Lonie, the Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets. The department would like the offer the following testimony on 040158. This is not an Administration ordinance but an ordinance requested Mr. Jian Li Wen of Sun Kee Tofu 715 North 10th Street. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the time period to strike and vacate Olive and Hutchinson Streets to enhance the safety and security of the businesses and alleviate short dumping in the area. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, 37 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040264 the Clerk read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040264, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on City Plan No. 42 by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain right-of-way for municipal and public utility purposes extending from Market Street southwestwardly to 33rd Street and reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes, and public utility purposes, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Again, my name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager for the Department of Streets, and the Department would like offer the following testimony on Bill No. 040264. This is not an Administration ordinance but an ordinance requested by Alice Beck Dubow, Deputy General Council, Drexel University, 3201 Arch Street. The purpose of this ordinance is to relocate existing utility lines in the campus to facilitate new construction at Drexel 38 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040266 University. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Any questions for this witness from the committee? (No response.)
Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040266, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance, Bill No. 020716, approved January 23, 2003, entitled an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 197 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Wensley Street from the Southeasterly line of the Delaware Expressway more or less, to a point approximately 183 feet southeastwardly therefrom, under certain terms and conditions, by extending the time for 39 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040266 compliance with the conditions stated therein.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets. The Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 040266. This is not an administration ordinance but an ordinance requested by William Parker, the president of William Parker Associates, 2845 West Moreland Street. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the time period to strike Wensley Street from the City plan to solve a rear entrance security problem and expand existing businesses. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Martin Soffer, City Planner, and I'm here to testify on behalf of the City Planning Commission. 40 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040112 The proposed ordinance, formally introduced as Bill No. 020716, authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of a minor stub-end street located in the Port Richmond section of North Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit William Parker Associates, Inc., the adjacent property owner, to secure the area for future expansion. Therefore, by action at its meeting on December 17, 2004, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 040266 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040112, an 41 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040112 ordinance amending Section 9-212 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Newsstands" by prohibiting the newsstands within the area bonded by Dyre Street, Cheltenham Avenue, Penn Street and Frankford Avenue, including both sides of the streets and avenues bounding this area, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Haigler. Please identify for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Councilman DiCicco and Members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. First of all, I'd like to apologize. I didn't prepare any written testimony for this particular bill because it was a little bit of confusion there as to exactly the role of L&I with respect to the location of newsstands. This is, I believe, the first bill that we had to deal with since the original newsstand ordinance passed where we are prohibiting a location for newsstands. 42 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040112 But I had read the bill, and the Department of Licenses and Inspections offers no objections to the enactment of this ordinance. I also had spoken with Councilwoman Krajewski's office and ascertained that at the present time there were no newsstands at that present location. So we have no objection with the prohibition of newsstands at that location.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I have not made any formal testimony, but I will second what Mr. Haigler has said, that the Streets Department is not in opposition of this bill.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else who wishes to testify? Ms. 43 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040112 Jones and whoever is with you. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Streets Committee. My name is Tom Nuxoll, SEPTA's Communication Manager for the Frankford Transportation Center Project, and I'm here to testify in support of Bill No. 040112. Frankford Transportation Center Project or FTC is a $187 million capital improvement project to replace the defunct Frankford Terminal, the eastern terminus of SEPTA's Market-Frankford line. Although SEPTA began operating the new City-owned facility last August, work on FTC continues and will reach completion with the opening of a 1,000 space parking garage in 2005. Built into the FTC project are retail spaces to accommodate up to 11 businesses. While all these locations are not yet ready for leasing, several of the spaces were publicly advertised over the winter and the first businesses are expected to begin 44 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040112 opening for the public this summer. Last fall, with the interest of bolstering the viability of these business outlets within the terminal, SEPTA contacted Councilwoman Krajewski's office and requested that steps be taken to prohibit the licensing of outdoor vendors in the immediate vicinity of the FTC complex. SEPTA has shared information regarding this proposed prohibition on outdoor vending at meetings of the Bridge-Pratt Business and Professional Association and the Future of Frankford Committee. SEPTA has received no objections on this proposals. I will also note that the Frankford Community Development Corporation supports this ordinance. The FTC project has physically transformed the Bridge-Pratt area, greatly improving the likelihood of additional private investment. SEPTA believes that the proposed ordinance serves the common good in providing viable business opportunities for those who wish to serve the riding public, while also preventing the unplanned establishment of 45 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040112 outdoor stands that frequently detract from the aesthetics of a community.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from these from the Committee? Councilman Rizzo.
Is the Newsstand Association aware of this prohibition?
I don't know either, Councilman Rizzo. I suspect that if they were aware of it, they've made their position known to the sponsor of the bill, Councilwoman Krajewski. The only time there's activity with newsstands in my district, they do contact me. But I'm just guessing that they've already made that contact. 46 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040112
Well, it would be, but it doesn't mean that newsstand is part of the association. There are a number of newsstand operators out there who are not part of the association. So at this point, it's anybody's guess. I would like to point out to you, Ms. Jones, for a number of years it's been on my mind. There's a newsstand located at the northeast corner of Broad and Snyder. I think it's a public safety problem there. It's right where people board the bus, the Snyder Avenue bus, and exit or enter the subway station. You might want to take a look at it. If you think that it's an impediment for SEPTA customers, please let me know. I don't want to eliminate the newsstand, but maybe we could move it a little bit further east on Snyder or maybe around the corner onto Broad Street. I think it's a serious problem there and has been. For whatever reason, I never did any legislation, but it just came to mind. If you 47 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040151 wouldn't mind looking at that.
As well as the newsstand at the southeast corner of Broad and Tasker. But Broad and Snyder causes me most of the problems in terms of public safety and circulation for your customers. Take a look at it. If you think it is an impediment, I certainly would do legislation to adjust that or correct that.
Thank you. Any other questions for witnesses? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040151, an ordinance amending Section 9-204 of The 48 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040151 Philadelphia Code entitled "Sidewalk Vendors in Center City" by exempting sidewalk sales by owners and tenants of 1523 and 1529 Spruce Street, and permitting such activity under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Haigler. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and Members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 040151, which if enacted will permit the vending of goods and merchandise by the owners or tenants of 1523 and 1529 Spruce Street on the sidewalk abutting their business establishments under certain terms and conditions. The Department offers no objections to the enactment of Bill 040151, as this is within the sponsor's prerogative. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time. 49 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271
Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
There is no one else here to testify. The Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040271, an ordinance amending Sections 9-205 and 9-206 of The Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales and sidewalk vendors in neighborhood business districts, by adding designated neighborhood business district on Germantown Avenue between York Street and Butler Street, and making technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and Members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 040271, which if enacted 50 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 will create a new neighborhood business district for vending on Germantown Avenue between York and Butler Streets. Bill 040271 was drafted with the assistance of the Law Department as a replacement for Bill 030683 which was passed by Council on December 4, 2003. The purpose of bill 040271 is to assign specific locations within the designated area for vending and to give authority to the Department to promulgate regulations setting forth guideline for vending operations in the designated area. The bill establishes vending 15 locations which were based on a survey 16 conducted by the Department between February 17 23, 2004 and February 27, 2004. The survey 18 was to determine which vendors were currently 19 licensed and located within the affected area 20 and whether the operation of the vendor was 21 compatible with the business operation of the 22 store that abutted the vendor location. Based on the survey, it was found that there is no 24 conflict between the goods sold by the 22 vendors currently located in the affected area 51 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 and the stores abutting their operation. Also, during this survey vendors in the designated area were given written notice of the passage of Bill 030683 and advised that vending locations within the designated will be assigned in the future. Further, Deputy Commissioner Dominick Verdi, Gerald Richards, Jr., Chief of L&I Business Compliance Unit and myself met with William Carter and Melvin Smith of Councilman Clark's staff on March 31, 2004, to discuss the provisions of Bill 040271 and possible language to be included in the regulation that will be promulgated by the department. Once this regulation has been drafted and circulated for review to Councilman Clarke and those mentioned earlier, the Deputy Commissioner has agreed to host a meeting with the Councilman and/or his designee, the affected vendors, and business operators to review the proposed requirements of the regulation and receive input. We have and will continue to 52 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 cooperate and maintain an open dialog with Councilman Clarke's office to effectuate a smooth transition implementation of Bill 5 040271. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's testimony. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Any questions for this witness from the Committee? Councilman Clarke, do you have any comments on this?
Mr. Haigler, with respect to this particular bill, do you know at this point how many vendors will be allowed based on the available slots?
At the current time, based on the survey that was conducted, 22 vendors are mentioned in the ordinance itself for the locations, 22 vendors that the Department went out and reviewed their 53 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 operation, determined whether or not they were in compliance with the provisions of the previous bill, making sure that the goods that were sold by the vendors were substantially different from the goods sold by the business operators. They were fine. So at the present time, the operators are currently good for 9 their locations. 10 Now, based on discussions that we've 11 had with your staff last week, there was 12 indication that that could be expanded a 13 little bit further, but we don't have a 14 definite number at this present time. 15
Was that at 16 both, Germantown and Lehigh and Germantown and 17 Erie? 18
Yes, sir, between York 19 and Butler. That's the affected area on 20 Germantown Avenue so it could even further, I 21 guess further down towards Lehigh Avenue or in 22 that area as well.
Okay. I actually had a question posed to me by one of the members from the community 54 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 organization, Mr. Chairman. I don't know if you want him to come up and ask the question.
While the witness is approaching the table, I do have a question. I understand the language of the bill. I'm just curious as to how it's all playing out. If you're a vendor, you are not permitted to sell items that are being sold.
That are essentially similar to the items that are sold by the business.
But if I'm three stands, three vending locations down from the shoe store, am I allowed to sell shoes there?
You're not abutting the store operation, right. 55 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271
As far as I know, based on the survey and the information that was provided to me, yes.
Based on the survey and the information that was proved to me, and I do have the information that indicated that the inspector did go out, they did do a survey of the area, they did check both store operation as well as vending operation and they did give out the written notice to the vendors at the time that they were out there. So as far as I know, yes.
Good morning. What did you do regarding the potential of the store owner that begins to sell the same goods as the vendor?
That was written in the ordinance, that was part of the ordinance 56 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 indicating that a vendor has already been vested for that location, then if a store owner were to subsequently operate or a new store owner were to take over that store at that location, it would not disenfranchise the vendor because the vendor was licensed and legal for that location at the time that they were initially given their license. And we will license the vendors specifically for their location.
So you're licensing the vendor to operate and you're also monitoring what they're selling, correct?
Well, I think at the time that they were approved, they're going to be restricted. They're basically going to be restricted to whatever we've approved them for at the time that we licensed them because that's the only way we can do this. We can't be back and forth all the time checking to make sure that they're selling something 57 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 differently. But if they are found to have sold something differently it's in conflict with the business operator, then at that point they're in violation of their license, and their license at that point could be suspended.
But as long as they're not in conflict with the business operator?
As long as they're not in conflict with the business operator and we get no complaints to the contrary, then they're going to be licensed to operate at the location that we're going to designate for them.
And they can still sell whatever? Suppose your merchandise is just selling good right now. Like vendors that sell hats and scarves and gloves, as an example. I'm sure they do very good in the winter, but in the spring and summer and fall they may not do as well. So if they want to sell something else --
We're going to write 58 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 in our regulation that they'll have to notify the department. We're going to put that language in our regulation. Those are certain areas that we're going to tighten up in the specifics of the regulation as to what they will have to specifically do as far as notification to the Department. If they decide they want to do something substantially different that might bring them into a conflict with the business operation and also might jeopardize their license.
But as long as it doesn't bring them in conflict with the business operator, they should be okay?
They should be okay. There's also another provision that's in the ordinance that says they can't sell anything counterfeit. We're going to be definitely checking in on that issue as well.
Is that the only location in the City where you're not allowed to sell counterfeit goods? Are you suggesting at other locations it's permitted?
No, not in other 59 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 locations, but we're going to make sure we check on that as well.
I was in New York, and I guess New York is comparable, and an L&I person was coming around, and I couldn't believe how everybody was pulling down their grates and people running with their carts because they didn't want their materials and goods confiscated. Okay, thank you.
I just want to follow up on that, not to beat a dead horse, but if I am a vendor and I am selling hats, gloves, scarves today. And come June, obviously people aren't buying those products, I can sell different types of goods?
Because I thought I heard you say earlier that when they were given the license, they agreed to sell certain products. Did I misunderstand that.
No, you didn't. What we did was when we did our survey, we 60 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 inspected both operations and made sure that there weren't in conflict. The only way to really enforce this is that we would have to some responsibility on the vendors to notify us of a change in what they're going to sell as far as merchandize to make sure that still remain not in conflict with the business operator because if we get a complaint about, we're going to inspect to determine what the problems are. And if it is found that there is a conflict now based on the fact that the only thing that's changed is the vendor selling their goods now comes into conflict with the business operations, then we're going to have to address that issue maybe in the way of a violation, maybe in the way explaining to vendor again that your license for the location based on the fact that you were in compliance at the time that you were issued a license.
So that same vendor sells the scarves, gloves and hats and whatever who is maybe Vendor No. 12 -- I don't know if you do it by number or letter -- it's 61 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 my responsibility as the vendor to notify L&I that in June I'm going to be selling different products?
I would say yes, because that's the only way I believe we're going to be able to deal with this issue. We're not going to be able to go back and forth to --
I know. I'm certainly not being critical. I'm just trying to --
It can be some sort of a little bit of a nightmare out there for everybody.
Because hats gloves and scarves are seasonal items. So when you go and apply for your vending license, is there a question that says or is there a space you could write that I'm a vendor that sells seasonal goods. In the winter I sell hats; in the summer I sell T-shirts as an example? Otherwise, they would 62 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 have to keep coming to you each time they decide to change, right?
If you have a broader list of potential items that you will sell, although in the wintertime you'll the hats, gloves, and scarves, knowing full well come summer you want to sell T-shirts and other things that are seasonal, you would have a broader list of things, understanding throughout the 12-month process you will sell these items throughout that time, not necessarily all concurrent but at a particular time in a season. That would seem to me to cover everything.
As long as nothing on that list was in conflict with the abutting business owner. As opposed to you every time there's a change of season he has to come and you have to amend your regulations. Most of these vendors tend to 63 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 know what they're going to be selling throughout the course of the year. So if they could just have a broader context of what it is they'll be selling throughout the year's period, therefore not requiring them coming back.
That's a good point, and I agree with that. And at the time that they submit for their license along with their application they can submit that list along with their application. Now, they're going to be pretty much held to whatever's on that list at the time that they submit their application.
Right. So it would be a lot easier, I think, for everybody.
The question was, if they're not in conflict with the abutting property, why are they held to the items on the particular list? What I thought I heard you say earlier would better enable you to enforce 64 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 what they were authorized to sell at the time of the license.
Exactly. Because at the time they were licensed they were approved based on an inspection that was done of both the vending operation as well as the business operation. That was only way to give them that approval. So we would have no way of knowing when conflicts would arise so we have to hold them to some sort of standard that we have to indicate that you provided us with information and this is the information that you provided us to get your license approved, and that's the only way we can hold them to something that says that this what we approved your license based on. We have would have no 18 way of knowing when something might change other than somebody letting us know that.
So if you did a broader, more comprehensive list, therefore, not requiring they come back. Because most of these guys -- I'm assuming because I've never been a vendor, but I'm assuming most of them know what's going to go sell and when it's 65 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 going to sell, so if you just incorporate that into the list, there would be need to come back.
Mr. Haigler, I'm going to take advantage of the record and ask you to give me an update on where we are with dumpster legislation, at least L&I's participation in that.
Last I recall, this is something that the Streets Department Commissioner had the -- let me make sure I'm correct because you're kind of throwing me off now because this has been a while. But the Streets Department's been reviewing, I believe, the regulation or something that the Streets Department is reviewing on this issue. I don't want to be precise. My memory is kind of fuzzy right now on that.
Could you get back to me on L&I piece of it that you're prepared to roll this out? Because I was told this would be done by last year, and it's now 66 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 the's the fourth month of this year and we still don't have that ordinance in effect. So I'd appreciate --
You have an ordinance. I think it's the regulation or something -- but I will definitely check on your issue and I definitely will get back to you on that.
Thank you, sir, for being patient. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Manuel Delgado. I'm the Assistant Director of Housing and Development for APM. Forgive me for not having an opportunity to fully read the amendment or the change in the ordinance. But I saw it this morning and just thought, is now an appropriate time? I saw the boundaries being up to York Street, and APM has a development plan has developed a commercial corridor with the Gateway Plaza, the Cousin Supermarket there. And it is an appropriate 67 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 time now to come forward and ask that the district extend not only to York Street but down to Berks Street.
Is your request to authorize extension to accommodate the shopping center? You would like to have vending throughout that corridor?
It would be the shopping center, but also the gap that exists currently between the shopping center and York Street. We are planning a commercial development along that corridor, so is now an appropriate time to introduce this legislation or should we come back later?
I'm actually not sure that there is a prohibition on vending in that particular portion of the avenue. Because this particular ordinance was amending a prior ordinance that was done some 15, 20 years ago where there was a prohibition placed on vending from York to Butler. So it could very well be that from York south that there 68 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 could be authorized vending locations. Mr. Haigler. This particular ordinance changes an ordinance that was done some time ago that prohibited vending on that particular corridor. Now we're authorizing it but regulating the location and the types of operations. So I'm not sure that if there is prohibition on vending south of York.
As far as I know, there isn't unless there's something under Section 9-205 that prohibits a specific street locates or street area. As you are aware, Council from time to time does amend 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code, and they're approximately close to 400 locations that are prohibited under 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code. So I am not aware of any specific area within that area that might be prohibited now.
When you get chance, can you just check? In the event that there is the need to extend it, we can do it on a final reading on this particular bill.
I don't know if you 69 04/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040271 could do it on this one because the title.
If in fact you are going encourage vending, you may want to look at doing something like this so you can regulate it. Because what we don't want to do is open up a can of worms and encourage vending, and a year later come to me and ask me, "Please, Councilman, put in a bill to get these guys off the street. They're not properly regulated are the operating on the streets." So I may want to look at that.
Any other questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, this concludes the public hearing on the Committee on Streets and services. - - - - 70 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - - Tuesday, April 6, 2004 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee on Streets and Services, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 040028, 040112, 040135, 040150, 040151, 040158, 040185, 040186, 040188, 040208, 040209, 040264, 040266, 040271. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE 71 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Ramos for reporting those bills out of this Committee.
Mr. Chairman, is there a request for a suspension of the rules?
I move that Bill 10 No. 040185 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 18 040185 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? 72 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING (No response.)
I move that Bill 7 No. 040186 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 040186 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The bill is approved. 73 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING Councilman Ramos.
I move that Bill 4 No. 040209 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 12 040209 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 25 No. 040028 be reported from Committee with a 74 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 9 040028 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 22 No. 040150 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting 75 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 040150 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 19 No. 040188 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been 76 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 3 040188 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 16 No. 040208 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 24 040208 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further 77 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 13 No. 040135 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 21 040135 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by 78 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 10 No. 040158 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 18 040158 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? 79 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING (No response.)
I move that Bill 7 No. 040264 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 040264 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The bill is approved. 80 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING Councilman Ramos.
I move that Bill 4 No. 040266 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 12 040266 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 25 No. 040112 be reported from Committee with a 81 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 9 040112 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 22 No. 040151 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting 82 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 040151 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
I move that Bill 19 No. 040271 be reported from Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that Rules of Council be suspended to allow the first reading of this bill at our next meeting of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been 83 04/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 3 040271 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The bill is approved. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee on Streets and Services, and I thank all Committee Members, including our newest member, Councilman Nutter, for attending this meeting today. Thank you. (Council adjourned at 11:30 a.m.) - - - - 84 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of April 6, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR