COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, November 20, 1997 2:10 p.m. - - - BILLS 970246, 970552, 970583, 970593, 970594, 970595, 970596, 970610, 970611, 970612, 970669, 970671, 970672, 970673. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center Plaza, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILL 970246 Brian J. O'Neill, Councilman, 10th Councilmanic District--------------------------------------- Paul Lonie, Manager, Survey Bureau, Department of Streets---------------------------------- 24 Bob Roland, President, Liberty Square Homeowners' Association--------------------- 34 Frank Rebstock, Homeowner, Liberty Square------ 35 Page Kochar, Homeowner, Liberty Square--------- 36 BILL 970552 Mike Longshore, Permit Officer, Department of Streets------------------------------------- 39 Duane H. Bumb, Deputy Director of Commerce, City of Philadelphia------------------------ 39 BILL 970583 Paul Lonie, Manager, Survey Bureau, Department of Streets----------------------------------- 42 Martin Soffer, Representative, City Planning Commission----------------------------------- 44 Andrew Toy, Representative, City Commerce Department----------------------------------- 44 BILL 970593 (Withdrawn)------------------------- 47 BILL 970594 Charles Trainor, Assistant Chief, Traffic Engineering, Department of Streets----------- 48 Lorraine Brill, President, Upper Northwood Community Council---------------------------- 53 Bradley K. Moss, Esq., Counsel, Champion Toyota- 63 Tom Taylor, General Manager, Champion Toyota---- 64 Mike Longshore, Citizen------------------------- 76 Mike Lee, Citizen------------------------------- 79 Corin Leare, Citizen---------------------------- 80 Joanne Ware, Citizen---------------------------- 82 Jeremiah Leary, Citizen------------------------- 85 BILL 970669 Mike Longshore, Permit Officer, Department of Streets-------------------------------------- 99 Nicholas Pinardo, Citizen----------------------- 100 BILL 970595 (Withdrawn)------------------------- 101 BILL 970596 (Withdrawn)------------------------- 101 BILL 970610 Paul Lonie, Manager, Survey Bureau, Department of Streets----------------------------------- 102 3 I N D E X (Continued.) BILL 970611 Paul McCloskey, Representative, Philadelphia Water Department----------------------------- 103 BILL 970612 Paul McCloskey, Representative, Philadelphia Water Department----------------------------- 107 BILL 970671 Mike Longshore, Permit Officer, Department of Streets-------------------------------------- 108 BILL 970672 Mike Longshore, Permit Officer, Department of Streets-------------------------------------- 109 Julian Nix, Citizen----------------------------- 110 BILL 970673------------------------------------- 111 - - - Public Meeting---------------------------------- 112 - - - 4 BILL 970246 CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: If I can have everyone's attention, the Committee on Streets and Services will be starting very shortly. So if I can get everyone in order here, we will get started with the next committee. Thank you. Good afternoon. The Committee on Streets and Services is now in session. My name is Councilman DiCicco. In attendance at today's committee hearings are, to my right, Councilman Nutter, Councilman Rizzo, Councilman O'Neill. To my left is Councilman Mariano and Councilwoman Miller. If anyone during the time of the hearings wishes to testify, when you come up to the table, would you please bring the microphone as close to your lips as possible and state your name for the record. The clerk will read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 970246, An Ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 377 of an area bounded by Knights Road, Mechanicsville Road, and Medford Road, by placing on the City Plan 5 BILL 970246 McCarthy Circle, Galdi Lane, Galdi Spur, Cliffe Drive, Cliffe Spur, Cliffe Court, Duffy Lane, and Gleason Lane, including the dedication to the city free and clear of all encumbrances of the beds of McCarthy Circle, Galdi Lane, Galdi Spur, Cliffe Drive, Cliffe Spur, Cliffe Court, Duffy Lane, and Gleason Lane, all under certain terms and conditions. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Please state your name for the record.
My name is Brian O'Neill. I am the City Councilman representing the 10th District, which includes this area in question in this bill. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Philadelphia, right?
In Philadelphia, yes. Thank you, sir. City and County. Not Liberty County; Philadelphia County. This is Liberty Square, but not Liberty County. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Just checking, Councilman. Thank you.
By way of 6 BILL 970246 background, the development that you are going to hear testimony about today is a development of small single homes that was built in the mid to late '80s. It is called Liberty Square. You drove through it. It is up right next to Franklin Mills, across Knights Road from the Franklin Mills Mall. It looks like a regular development with city streets. It gets trash pickup. You go in and out of that development. There is no sign saying these are private streets, or anything. It is complete access to the public. The only difference is that the streets themselves have never been dedicated and accepted by the city. Now, during this period of time when this development and others were being built, there was more or less a real estate boom in the city, which ended in the late '80s, early '90s. And prior to that time -- I am going to guess the cutoff was around '83 -- when a developer went to build a new development, the city put in the streets. And there was a 7 BILL 970246 per-foot-of-frontage assessment charged to each lot, which was just passed along to the homeowner as part of the sale price. The city lost money on that because the per-foot charge was much less than the actual cost of putting the street in. The Streets Department told developers around '83 or so, "No more. If you want to put a street in, put a development in, you pay for the street. You guys are out there, there is a big real estate market," and they were right. These developments were going to be built without that installation by the city. So they allowed a street to be built that wasn't quite up to the specs of a full city street that would have to be built if it was dedicated and accepted by the city. They accepted it at a lesser spec. And it was a spec that would be accepted for the trash trucks of the city to go down and pick up the trash. They require a certain amount of stone, concrete, asphalt, whatever that is. So there was a spec that was given to the builders. And these streets were built in 8 BILL 970246 accordance with that spec. On the other hand, the Water Department said, except in one case, a very small development, which isn't before us today, "We will only accept our full specs for water and sewer. And we will accept that water and sewer system once it is put in, because you are going to be building it exactly the way we would if we put it in." The Water Department also needs to put in the water and sewer prior to this time. They were losing even more money on it than the Streets Department. So that's what happened in several developments. This is the first one that's being brought before the committee and the Council to now accept those streets as city streets. What is the effect of it? The effect is that, instead of homeowners, who are paying top-level taxes -- you can't get taxed for these homes any more, this home of this value, than they are. Because they came in at the height of the market. Most of them couldn't get what they paid for their houses, but they are taxed at 9 BILL 970246 new-home-construction level. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Could you give me an average?
Probably about $2,500 a house. And the houses probably average in the high '90s to the low 100's, in terms of what they sell for. Now, they basically don't sell for much more than the row homes in the area. And they are small, modest singles. The effect is that the city, if repairs have to be made on the street -- which there aren't any today, but when another winter comes, who knows -- if a pothole has to be filled, the city will go out and fill it, if this passes. If the street ever needed to be totally repaved, either the coating of asphalt, as we do throughout the city, they would be eligible for that paving. If someone in this development said, you know, we have never had a full, certified, 18-inch deep, or whatever a full city street is, that they would have had if the developer had built 10 BILL 970246 in the specs of a full city street -- he built something less than that, which the Streets Department gave him the specs for -- that would be the construction of a street in the parlance of the department and the city. It would be their having their street reconstructed or constructed, which we never do. We never go out, hardly ever go out, and see a street in this city actually being dug up to the bottom, filled with stone and concrete and asphalt. But if that were done, each of these homeowners would have to be assessed per linear foot. So I can assure you it will never happen. We are never talking about a full construction of a street. We are either talking about black-topping it or we are talking about pothole repair. That's it. Many of the streets in my district, and throughout the city -- and I happen to live on one of them -- have less of a spec, there is less in the construction of the streets, than our full city streets. They have been accepted and dedicated over the years by the city. 11 BILL 970246 They are usually referred to as country roads. Country roads because they're asphalt over dirt. They don't have a base. These streets have a base, they were built with a spec that was given to the builder. Now, would anyone on my street ever ask for a full city street to be constructed and pay thousands of dollars for it? No. They will take the blacktop over the dirt. And it is up in Somerton and Fox Chase and out in Roxborough and parts of Chestnut Hill, I believe. It is in the older sections that are on the perimeter of the city that were farms and all when they were being built. So what we're asking, what I am asking and the neighbors are asking, is that this Council recognize that these are full city streets, these are full city taxpayers -- this is not a private community, it is not gated in any way -- and just give them the same rights and privileges as to their streets as everyone else in the city has. And I would ask you first to look at the Ordinance, which took me two years to get drafted. And it was David L. Cohen's good-bye gift 12 BILL 970246 to me when he left the government. But there are provisions in here that I don't think are needed. And I think they just burden the homeowners' association and this transaction from private street to city street. And I will go through them by section, and I would just ask for them to be deleted. I will let the city comment on justifying it. But from where I sit, I can't see the justification. Because, remember, we were dealing with homeowners here. We are not dealing with some big corporate entity that is coming in with a deep pocket. The first is under Section 2, the filing of an agreement satisfactory to the Law Department by the owner or owners of property affected hereby. I mean, it is all the homeowners' association. There are no neighboring properties affected here. To release the city from all damages or claims for damages which may arise by reason of 13 BILL 970246 the city plan changes. If somebody can suggest one that's valid, I will withdraw my request to delete. But I can't imagine one.
I think this is pro forma language that comes in a lot of these deals, particularly where, say, you are striking a street, but there is another company that might be affected next door. This isn't the case here. These are homeowners that are all in the same neighborhood and they are all signing a petition for the same action by the Council. The next section under Section 2 that I would like to be deleted, subsection, is C, the filing of agreement satisfactory to the Law Department by the party in interest to release, indemnify, defend the city for all damages or claims for damages which may arise by reason of the City Plan changes authorized herein. We don't have people, when they buy a house on a city street, have to do any of this. And I can't understand what damages will come out. The only people that can sue us -- now, if we want them to release us, that's 14 BILL 970246 different. We can prepare the forms. They will all sign. I don't have a problem with that at all. I just have a problem with burdening this with hiring lawyers and draining taxpayers that we're getting pretty good taxes from. The next paragraph for deletion is D under Section 2, the filing of an agreement satisfactory to the Law Department by the party in interest to make any and all changes, adjustments, and additions to curbing, sidewalk paving, and cartway paving, as necessary by the Water Department, then it goes through the sewers. This wasn't built without the city's knowledge. When this builder built this development, he did everything the Streets Department and Water Department told him he had to do. So there is no need to change anything. This is a development where the curbs are where they were told to be, the sidewalks are where they were told to be, the street was where it was told to be, the sewers, everything. So to me, again, this just burdens the record and the ordinance. And I think anything that might prevent this from happening, I would like 15 BILL 970246 to eliminate. Getting now to -- I am just trying to follow this -- E, again under Section 2. E is the filing of a bond with corporate surety satisfactory to the Law Department to cover the cost of the work under Section 2D, which I hope we have just eliminated. But, again, this isn't corporate. Homeowners filing bonds and surety, when all we are asking them to do is take the same city street and just dedicate it to the city, I don't understand the need for a bond or corporate security. And, again, we are talking about expenses and legal costs that I don't think the homeowners should have to bear. The next one I would ask you to delete is G, the payment by the party in interest. " By the party in interest, the cost of advertising a public hearing by the Board of Surveyors on the City Plan changes authorized by this Ordinance. 16 BILL 970246 I mean, come on. These are homeowners. We don't charge homeowners for these kinds of things. We do charge corporate people that request bills. But I would ask that be deleted. And the last section under Section 7 -- I'm sorry; Section 4. Section 3 is okay. Section 4 is the $200 charge. And we have always, when the bill is at the request of area residents, we always eliminate the $200 charge. So I would ask that that be deleted. And other than that, I would just mention there are the President, Vice-President of the Association here, Commissioner Rebstock, who lives in the development is here to testify. They forwarded, I believe, a copy of a petition to the chairman. I would like to hand in a copy of the petition, the original, for the record, from the homeowners. And I would like to mention that as you hear the names of these streets, they are all named after police officers and firefighters who were killed in the line of duty. And it was the first development where a builder did that. Every street was named. Lists were 17 BILL 970246 gotten from the FOP and the Firefighters' Union. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: I am glad you mentioned that.
Because that was going to be one of my questions. I have relatives who live across Mechanicsville Place. On Mechanicsville Drive, actually. And when I go up there to visit them and this was finally completed, I saw that the Galdi Lane -- I had an uncle who was a police officer whose name was Galdi, but he was not killed in the line of duty. That was going to be one of my questions. I always thought it was dedicated to police officers. But for what reason, I didn't know.
Some of them actually have the first name, where there was another with the same last name. But I wanted to mention that, because they are all last names of heroes. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Councilman. The deletions that you have requested, has any discussion between yourself and 18 BILL 970246 the Law Department taken place regarding that prior to today's hearing?
No, sir. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: So I assume we may be hearing from the --
Yes. And I am willing to listen -- CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Okay. I just wanted to check if that was done prior to this. Any questions from this Committee? Councilman Rizzo.
First of all, Councilman, I congratulate you on your persistence to get this done. It has been around for a long time. My only question is, is this a unique situation in Philadelphia?
No. There are others. I think I may have six or seven other developments like this; some smaller, a few slightly larger. They were all built around the same time. I think Councilwoman Krajewski has a few. I am not sure if Councilman Nutter has, but I think they may be in those areas. 19 BILL 970246 Because that's where construction was going on. That was the only place we had ground to build new construction. What happened -- I really should clarify -- when the builder went to build, there weren't streets on the map, except for the outside streets; in this case Knights and Mechanicsville, I believe a little bit of Medford. It was a wooded area that no one had ever wanted to build on before. The choice was to come to City Council and have streets dedicated, which would have meant you have to do X number of stones and X number of inches of stones and concrete, or whatever, to do what the spec was for a city street then. Which, by the way, this whole program is no longer in existence. Two things happened. One, the Streets Department started opposing these at the Zoning Board. These were actually done by Zoning Board authorization. " Why? Because we are eventually going to 20 BILL 970246 have to take them over. This has happened cyclically through the history of the city. The country road that I live on someone allowed to be built, even though it is just dirt and asphalt, a couple of inches of asphalt over dirt. But these were country roads. They were, at that time, in the '20s or whatever, we were allowing builders to do that. So the Zoning Board was allowing these developments, even though they didn't have what we call a certified city street as their frontage. " Later -- and I guess it was around the late '80s -- the Streets Department began opposing at the Zoning Board these developments, and there were no more. After that it got even better. Because there was a very small development like this that went through the Zoning Board. In fact, in that case, the builder 21 BILL 970246 was going to build, even though it was only for five or six homes, a full city street. So the Streets Department couldn't oppose that. It was the exact street they would have accepted had it come through a Council ordinance. A nearby neighbor opposed that granting of the variance, which the Zoning Board did. And the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, about three years ago, ruled -- and it was actually in my district; Thackery is the name of the case -- that the Zoning Board cannot take away the discretion of the City Council and authorize a street that the Council hasn't exercised its discretion on. So now a builder can't even go to the Zoning Board and do this, whether the Streets Department agrees with it or not. So we have really changed in the last ten years. We are talking about a finite number of developments that are never going to happen again in our lifetime. The Streets Department has evolved and changed its position on it. What they now tell a developer in this situation is, "You have got one 22 BILL 970246 choice. ". They go in -- you go into these developments and come out of them again, but they are not through streets, they are not Academy Road or Broad Street or anything like that. The little developments that you drive in and you have to drive out again somehow. And so the city Streets Department reduced its specs. There have been several developments built since these that I referred to, and they have been built. I have introduced the ordinances, Streets Committee has passed them. And they don't look or feel any different than the streets in front of you today. But they don't have that history where they were built in a period of transition, between when we used to pay for the streets and when the developers started having to pay for the streets.
Councilman, this effort, this hard work, and also the input from the 23 BILL 970246 community, can the Streets Department citywide identify similar situations? And maybe we can mirror this similar effort to correct this discrepancy citywide, not just --
Well, I think we are well on the way to doing all of them. Because, as I said, most of them are in my district. But what I have wanted to do is not bring all the bills in front of the Streets Committee until the neighbors themselves have had a chance to meet, consider what it means, make sure they are 100 percent behind it, they know what's going on, and not wake up one morning and someone say, "You now have a city street." Have the petition process. And this is the first development that has been the most organized and has come forward.
Thank you. Congratulations. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions for this witness from the committee?
And I will be 24 BILL 970246 here to answer any questions or comments? CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie. I am the Survey Bureau Manager, and I represent the Department of Streets in this action. And I would like to report on Bill 12 No. 97046. Let me pre-empt that a little bit. I am going to give my testimony. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Correction, 970246.
I'm sorry. I would like to give my testimony as I submitted it, then I will answer questions as it comes along. This is an Ordinance authorizing and directing revisions of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 377 of an area bounded by Knights Road, Mechanicsville Road, and Medford Road, by placing on the City Plan McCarthy Circle, Galdi Lane, Galdi Spur, Cliffe Drive, Cliffe Spur, and Cliffe Court, Duffy Lane, and Gleason Lane, all 25 BILL 970246 under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication of the city free and clear of all encumbrances of the beds of McCarthy Circle, Galdi Lane, Galdi Spur, Cliffe Drive, Cliffe Spur, Cliffe Court, Duffy Lane, and Gleason Lane. This is not an Administration Ordinance, but an Ordinance recommended by Councilman Brian O'Neill of the 10th Councilmanic District on behalf of the affected property owners. No party at interest has yet been identified. McCarthy Circle, Galdi Lane, Galdi Spur, Cliffe Drive, Cliffe Spur, Cliffe Court, Duffy Lane and Gleason Lane are not on the City Plan and are not legally opened. These streets have improvements not made under the supervision of the Department of Streets. The purpose of this Ordinance is to grant the authority to place McCarthy Circle, Galdi Lane, Galdi Spur, Cliffe Drive, Cliffe Spur, Cliffe Court, Duffy Lane, and Gleason Lane on the City Plan 15 feet wide and variable width. The Department of Streets will not oppose this ordinance if a party in interest is BILL 970246 named. However, if the party in interest is the homeowners' association, we would like to have a copy of the association's bylaws so the Law Department can determine if the association has the legal authority to become the party at interest. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Any questions of this witness from the Committee? Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify either for or against the bill?
Again, this testimony was given on the bill as presented, not the amendments. The Streets Department would oppose those amendments. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: I was just going to ask you that question. Would you explain why.
Well, for two reasons. The Streets Department, in writing this ordinance, was driven by the Philadelphia Code, which is again something that's done by City Council. We are not necessarily opposed to the paving and a lot of the other things that the 27 BILL 970246 Councilman has stated. Our concern is more with the legal issues involved. When the Councilman asked that Section 2C be removed -- and that's a filing of agreement satisfactory by the party in interest to release and indemnify the city -- if we go ahead and City Council passes this ordinance, we know that there are certain things that have nothing to do with the paving. What I was mainly concerned with were the streetlights. That if someone drives in there and has an accident or runs over a child because these are decorator lights, and not to city specifications, and they become legal city streets, then the city is liable for something. And they can be sued simply because the streets, as given, were not up to code. There are no sidewalks in this development. And, again, any handicapped individuals that would be there have no access, except through the cartways, to get to public transportation. And there is just a lot of different issues that I feel that have to be addressed. 28 BILL 970246 One of the things that's goes to, not necessarily in this, but in some of the other agreements that will release the homeowners for some of the obligations that every other homeowner in the city has dealt with over the years. Every place has been assessed, every street in the city, except for certain country lanes, and has dealt with these things. And they have dealt with them in a cheaper format, guaranteed, in 1929 or 1937. But it is difficult to single out this development unless -- again, that's Council's decision, not ours. All we can go by is the Ordinance as written. And we feel that it is our responsibility to protect all the citizens of the city, and not just the people in this development. And that's why, assuming the amendments we change -- we are not interested in the physical structures; that's minor, in this case. In some of the other ones, it is.
Paul, I won't get into your statement, or say anything about your statement that the Streets Department had nothing to 29 BILL 970246 do with these streets. They actually speced them out and agreed to them. Because they wouldn't have trash pickup had the Streets Department not speced them out and told them what they would accept as a street for that purpose. But as far as streetlights, I do not want to muddle this hearing with streetlights. It is my intention at a later time -- not by Ordinance, because we don't have to have an Ordinance to light streets -- for the city, once they are city streets, to go in and put the same kind of streetlights they have in every other neighborhood in the city, regular, city streetlights. So I would say, as far as that's concerned, that's a nonissue. Because I don't know how the city can have a city street and not have regular streetlights. I mean, a lot of people put extra streetlights in on their street. That's about what they have. That's what the builder left them with. That's what the city allowed. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: My question was along the same lines when you brought up lighting. Did not the city approve the lighting 30 BILL 970246 for those streets, even though it was not a typical streetlighting?
See, you had three players here. You had the Streets Department, which said, you have to build this kind of a street or we won't have trash delivered. The builder did that. They didn't get involved in the streetlight. The guy couldn't sell houses without some kind of lighting outside. He put lighting in. The Water Department said, we will accept the water system and the sewer system, but you have to build exactly what now if a builder comes in, the Water Department and the Streets Department are on the same page, doing the exactly thing. It just wasn't the case for a window of about five or six years. There was a different requirement in the Streets Department then there was in the Water Department. Lights were never really talked 31 BILL 970246 about. My intention is that once these developments become city streets, they will have city lights. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: And I --
And the Streets Department will do it much quicker if they think there is some liability exposure on their part. If we relieve them of it, they will never put them in. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: So presently -- and correct me if I am wrong -- is that the lighting that is in there now is the responsibility of the association?
And that will continue until the city puts -- CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Isn't this something kind of in reverse order of what we just did at Market Street East? Where they had us put in new decorative lightings, and their lighting and they are responsible for certain things? So it is kind of reverse order?
That is true. One of the things that, again, is 32 BILL 970246 very important -- I think it is important to put this in the testimony -- is that there are certain legal expenses that are going to be incurred by the homeowners, the costs of the Ordinance and the things that as an Ordinance progresses have to be paid by someone. If City Council says that we will pay it, we will pay it. That's your decision. But there are some things that still have to be borne. All these individuals will have to remortgage their properties. They will have to obtain surveys so that the -- because their deeds now run to the centers of the streets. If they are dedicating that ground, we need to know where the ground is. The Streets Department never laid that out, so we don't know, except from a builder's plan, exactly where the streets are. As far as we are concerned, they are private driveways. That's what dedication is all about.
And we can help them with that. That's why we are here. That's why they pay us taxes. I mean, these people pay high 33 BILL 970246 taxes. This is not a group -- they are in front of the Board of Revision of Taxes every year. So these are the things we can work with them on. And they are ready and willing to accept our help in doing this. But they shouldn't have to go out and hire lawyers or be in fear of some legal problem if we are just doing what we should have done originally.
Well, I agree. And if Council is willing to take that responsibility -- with the Streets Department, like I said, it is difficult to do that. And that's why we have some of these provisions in the Ordinance. And if City Council wants to take those provisions over, that's fine. As long as, you know, the monies are available. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: And, obviously, we are going to work. As Councilman O'Neill said, these are city taxpayers, they are city residents, they are city voters. They haven't been annexed into the city; they have been there from Day One. So thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes 34 BILL 970246 to testify for or against this bill? For the record, I want to mention that Councilman Ortiz is now with us. Good afternoon, sir. Would you speak into the mike and state your name for the record, please.
I am Bob Roland. I am President of Liberty Square Homeowners' Association. Basically, we are here today to try to get the streets dedicated back to the city. Because we believe we deserve the same benefits that every other city resident gets, versus their streets. We have a problem with Police and Fire not being able to find us. We are not on the maps. We pay -- like Councilman O'Neill already said, we pay very high taxes. We pay city wage taxes. A lot of us are city employees. We request that we get the same benefit that every other city resident has today, as far as streets and benefits go, that goes with the paying of taxes, paying your city wage tax. 35 BILL 970246
If I may, I have one thing, Mr. Chairman. They shouldn't have to apologize or explain to a potential buyer, if they are selling their house, what this all means. Because it sounds like a second-class homeownership. And it shouldn't be, when actually they are paying top dollar to us. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? And if there are two or three of you, you can come up and pull the chair around that table in the interest of time. Councilman Cohen has now joined us. State your name for the record.
Mr. Chairman and committee members, my name is Frank Rebstock. I would just like to reiterate the concerns of our President, Mr. Roland, and also thank Mr. O'Neill for basically doing a good job of outlining our concerns. And I would just like to make one 36 BILL 970246 quick point. And I believe the representative from the city indicated that he was concerned about our development being singled out in some particular way regarding any type of special treatment involved that the bill might entail. And my point would be, we don't want to be singled out. We would just like to be accorded the same treatment as every other citizen in the city. We don't want anything more than anybody, and we would ask not to be given any less than any other constituent. And that's my only concern. And that would be my response to the city's concern. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Point well taken. Anyone else who wishes to testify? Please state your name for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Page Kochar. I spell, K-O-C-H-A-R. I am one of the original homeowners of the McCarthy Circle, Liberty Square. I have come here to request the 37 BILL 970246 members of the Council that our streets be dedicated as city streets. We got electric. We got gas. We got telephone. We have cable. We have water. We have mail delivery and trash pickup. The only thing we deprived of is pizza delivery. When I call the pizza delivery, they say, "You don't exist. You are not on the city map." I don't know why we are deprived of this pizza delivery. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. You want to be treated equally. Since you are not receiving any reduction in wage taxes or property taxes, you feel as though you want to be treated as every other citizen in the city paying high wage and real estate tax. Okay. Anyone else here who wishes to testify? Yes, I was a pizza delivery boy myself once. I can understand that. The clerk will read the title of the next bill. And for those of you who are new to this process, we need to go through the calendar of 38 BILL 970552 bills that are before us today. And then after the committee hearing, we will vote on the bills individually. So you are welcome to stay. But it is just a little bit longer in time before we get through this calendar.
Bill No. 970552, An Ordinance amending Section 1 of Bill No. 970457, approved July 1, 1997, entitled, "An Ordinance 11 authorizing the owners of certain properties in the 9th Street Market to install canopies over the entire width of the east and west footways of 9th Street, from the north houseline of the intersection of 9th and Christian Streets to the south houseline of 9th and Wharton Streets; to install polls along the curb to support the canopies; and to install awnings over the cartway of 9th Street from the canopies over the east footway only; all under certain terms and conditions, to clarify that the permission granted to install canopies includes properties abutting 9th Street, between Christian and Catharine Streets. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. State your name for the record, please. 39 BILL 970552
Mike Longshore, Streets Department, Permit Officer. Councilman DiCicco, in reference to the above-mentioned bill, we at the Streets Department have been working closely with the 9th Street Market, as you know. And we support and recommend passage of this bill. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of Council. My name is Duane Bumb. I am the Deputy Commerce Director. I am here in support of this bill, as well. I have some testimony, which I am not going to read to you, as a favor to you all. But just to say that we were before you just a few months back on a bill almost identical to this, which allows for canopies over the full width of the sidewalk on those specific blocks along the 9th Street Market, and allows for awnings on the eastern side of the same blocks. And Council approved that. We subsequent to that found that we needed to make some technical geographic corrections to it. And, in fact, that is the sole reason we are 40 BILL 970552 back before you with this bill. And so for all the reasons we cited previously, we cite those again as the reasons why we would advocate that this bill be passed. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: For the record, Duane, how many years have those canopies been up? About a hundred years?
That's correct. We are, I believe, going to try to legalize those that are existing and to, more importantly, legalize those we would like to help to finance in the future. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: I just wanted that for the record. And I also wanted the neighbors from the Northeast to hear that those canopies on 9th Street, which we have all become accustomed to, have literally been not legal for about 100 years. So you guys are like new. Your streetlights and your paving are relatively, new compared to 9th Street. Anyway, thank you. Is there anyone here who wishes to 41 BILL 970583 Testify for or against this bill? Are there any questions from the committee for this witness? Anyone here to wishes who testify for or against the bill? Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill 970583, An Ordinance 10 authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 278 by striking from the city plan and vacating Robbins Street from Tacony Street to Milnor Street, by relocating the northwesterly house line of Milnor Street, 7 feet and variable distance southeastwardly from Robbins Street to Barnett Street, by relocating the northwesterly curbline of Milnor Street 7 feet and a variable distance southeastwardly from Robbins Street to Barnett Street, by reserving and placing a right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes within the lines of Robbins Street from Tacony Street to Milnor Street, and by reserving and placing a certain 7 feet wide and variable width right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes for the northwesterly portion of Milnor 42 BILL 970583 Street being stricken by this ordinance, all under certain terms and conditions. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: State your name for the record, please.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. Again, my name is Paul Lonie, L-O-N-I-E, since I forgot a card, representing the Department of Streets. And I would like to give testimony on Bill No. 970583, An Ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 278 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Robbins Street from Tacony Street to Milnor Street, by relocating the northwesterly house line of Milnor Street 7 feet and a variable distance southeastwardly from Robbins Street to Barnett Street, by relocating the northwesterly curbline of Milnor Street 7 feet and a variable distance southeastwardly from Robbins Street to Barnett Street, by reserving and placing a right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes within the lines of Robbins Street from Tacony Street to Milnor Street, and by reserving and placing a certain 7 feet wide right-of-way and 43 BILL 970583 variable width right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes of the northwesterly portion of Milnor Street being stricken by this ordinance, all under certain terms and conditions. This is not an Administration Ordinance, but an Ordinance requested by Mr. Robert Cantor, President of Insinger Machine Company, 6245 State Road, Philadelphia, 19130, the abutting owner on a portion of the southerly side of Robbins Street who will be acting as the party in interest. Milnor Street, 60 feet wide, is on City Plan, legally opened and physically improved. It was opened by bond and an appraisal is taking place. Robbins Street 60 feet wide is on the City Plan legally opened and it is approved. The purpose of this Ordinance is to grant the authority to close Robbins Street, narrow Milnor Street, and place the right-of-way. This Ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any one else here? 44 BILL 970583
Good afternoon, Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the City Planning Commission. The proposed Ordinance authorizes the striking of unneeded minor streets in the Wissinoming section of Northeast Philadelphia. The purpose of this Ordinance is to enable the adjacent businesses to use this area for surface parking and to permit the expansion of a self-storage warehouse company. Therefore, by action at its meeting on October 9, 1997, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 970583 be approved. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Anyone else?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Andrew Toy, and I am here on behalf of the City's Commerce Department. I am here in support of the street strikings being requested today on Robbins Avenue and a portion of Milnor Street. The Commerce Department has been working with the Insinger Machine Company, Public 45 BILL 970583 Storage, and Councilwoman Krajewski's office for over two years on this issue. The closure of Robbins Avenue from State Road, or Tacony Street, to Milnor Street will accomplish a number of objectives focused on helping us to retain Insinger, a manufacturing company that currently employs around a hundred people. Insinger, a long-time Philadelphia company, located at Robbins Avenue and State Road, manufactures high-quality industrial dishwashers for hotels, restaurants, and other major users. Insinger competes nationwide with other companies located outside of Philadelphia. Keeping good employees and a secured facility are company priorities that the city can have an impact upon. By closing Robbins Avenue, we will allow Insinger and its neighbor down the street, L & R Shipping, to physically fence the street. This will help to resolve the many car break-ins and thefts that have plagued Insinger employees over the last few years. Even with stepped-up police patrols and Insinger's purchase of a closed-circuit TV 46 BILL 970583 system, this problem has persisted. The closure of the through street will also allow for additional secured employee parking should Insinger or L & R Shipping expand. The other advantage is that it addresses a concern of PECO Energy's that a transformer box on Robbins Avenue be less accessible to the public. And, finally, the city should save some of these sources, since we will no longer be responsible for the maintenance of the street. The small portion of Milnor Street the city is proposed to sell at fair market value will benefit the adjoining business Public Storage. The relocation of lot lines will have no impact upon traffic on Milnor Street. It will allow Public Storage to expand very slightly its storage space. Essentially, the Milnor Street relocation has made Public Storage amenable to the striking of Robbins Avenue, which Public Storage also abuts. In summary, we see the passage of this order as a win/win proposition both for the 47 BILL 970593 local businesses and for the city. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses from the committee? Is there anyone here to wishes to testify for or against this bill? Seeing none. The clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you.
Bill No. 970593, An Ordinance granting permission to Jose Luis Garcia, 3310 B Street, to construct a cement deck encroaching a maximum of 12 feet, 3 inches, onto the east footway of B Street.
Mr. Chairman, I need to withdraw this bill. There is a problem with the printing. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: It has been recommended by the sponsor of the bill that Bill No. 21 970593 be withdrawn.
Bill No. 970594, An Ordinance regulating the direction of movement of traffic on St. Vincent Street, from Castor Avenue to Loretto Avenue. 48 BILL 970594 CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, Chairman, Council members. Charles Trainor, Streets Department, to testify. The Streets Department offers the following testimony in opposition to Bill No. 8 970594, changing the flow of traffic on St. Vincent Street, Castor Avenue, Loretto Avenue, from two-way traffic to one-way eastbound traffic. St. Vincent in this area runs from west of Rising Sun Avenue to its T-intersection with Roosevelt Boulevard. For this approximately 1.5 mile length, this major collector is a two-way street, 36 feet wide, with parking on both sides. Its intersection with Castor Avenue is controlled by a traffic signal and with Loretto by an all-way stop. Traffic counts done three blocks east and west of this location showed daily volumes of 3500 and 2200 vehicles respectively. These volumes are relatively evenly split in both directions. The hourly volumes between 7:00 a.m. and 6:00 p.m. range from a low of 104 vehicles, to a high of 299 vehicles. A change in the traffic flow 49 BILL 970594 will require half this volume to find an alternate route. This will result in an increase of traffic on Castor Avenue, Cottman Avenue, Princeton Avenue, Tyson Avenue, and probably Wellington Street. It would also result in increased turning movements at numerous intersections. Police accident records show that the intersection of Castor Avenue and St. Vincent Street has averaged less than three state-reportable accidents per year since January 1990. A change in the direction of St. Vincent Street will increase the hazard of this intersection by having two lanes of eastbound traffic, opposed by one exit lane eastbound and one lane of westbound traffic. This results in a head-on situation on the north lanes of St. Vincent Street. In addition, requiring the westbound to turn increases the hazard to pedestrians and vehicles. Therefore, because of the increased hazard and the detrimental effect on circulation, the Streets Department opposes this bill. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Any questions for 50 BILL 970594 this witness from the Committee?
I have a question. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Mariano.
Mr. Trainor -- my nickname for Mr. Trainor is Dr. Know, just so everybody here knows. I hope there are some neighbors from St. Vincent Street here. Let me give you a brief history here how this happens. I do not invent these things. I don't go around looking for streets to turn over. The great residents of that street called me, and they have a problem. And we tell them how to go about doing this. Now, I am not sitting up there on St. Vincent Street; they are. Mr. Trainor, this is not to pick on you, but you get the big bucks, and you are here, and you take the targets for just the end of my conversation. I asked the Streets Department 51 BILL 970594 because it has been my practice. I usually ask for a temporary posting of this. And the reason I do this is, very many times -- and Mr. Trainor will probably testify to this -- when you mess with directions of streets, it is like a giant Rubick's cube. Once you mess with one, it affects, believe it or not, traffic all over the city. It really affects the traffic around the streets a lot. And that's debateable. I mean, it is what the people up there live with. So I asked for a posting. And most of the time when I get a temporary posting, the people change their minds because they see the Streets Department is usually right with their traffic studies. About the three or four times I asked for temporary postings, once it wasn't withdraw and I had to make it law. Every other time I said, "See," and the people realize their concern becomes a bigger concern for the whole neighborhood. And you cannot get a temporary posting here, so that is why we are here today. If we could have had that temporary posting, it would 52 BILL 970594 have probably happened in the summer, and we would have had the experience of living through the temporary posting and the problems that come with that or the problems that don't come with that. Now, everybody is going to testify either for or against this. And, in their mind, and that's perception, that's what we think is going to happen. We do not know what's going to happen until we actually post this. Mr. Trainor is an expert from the Streets Department. And they are guessing, too. But it is more of an educated guess than I would guess or some people that live in the neighborhood, either way. So the way I want to sum this up is, this could have all been avoided, we might not have been to this point, if we could have had a temporary posting. So as a District Councilman, and for district prerogative, I need to have these temporary postings. So if you could take that back to the Streets Commissioner. And tell him when I ask for a temporary posting, it is not because I sit around or 53 BILL 970594 drive around and look for things to do -- because we have plenty of things to do around here -- these people are inconvenienced, they are down here now, they wouldn't have had to have been down here, even the people that oppose it, if we had a temporary posting. It could have lasted two weeks, it could have lasted two months. There might have been an accident every day. And I hope that wouldn't have been the case. But we could have found out what's going on. Thank you, Mr. Trainor. That's where I am on this. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions from this witness of the committee? Is there anyone here who wishes to testify before or against the bill? You can all come up, please.
I am Lorraine Brill, President of Upper Northwood Community Council. We represent home and school associations, playgrounds, libraries, religious institutions, and veteran organizations within our boundaries of 54 BILL 970594 Cottman Avenue on the north, Roosevelt Boulevard on the east, Oxford Circle on the south, and Oxford Avenue on the west, comprising the 53rd and 54th Wards. We monitor zoning, traffic, and quality-of-life issues that affect our community. UNCC opposes City Council Bill 9 970594, which would change the 1400 block of St. Vincent Street from its current two-way traffic pattern to one-way eastbound. If this change goes into effect, it will have a major detrimental impact on the current traffic patterns within the area bordered by Oxford Avenue, Cottman Avenue, Roosevelt Boulevard, and Tyson Avenue. Within this area there are only two major east-west through streets, Cottman Avenue and Tyson Avenue, and two minor east-west through streets, St. Vincent Street and Princeton Avenue. And we have attached a map to our statement so those people who are not familiar can follow along. Cottman Avenue is a major state highway. It is called Township Line in Montgomery 55 BILL 970594 County. Goes from Jenkintown through to State Road, which is near the Delaware River and I-95. St. Vincent Street is a wide street, with two parking lanes and two traffic lanes, one in each direction, going from Oakley Street, near the Montgomery County line, through to Roosevelt Boulevard. Princeton Avenue is also a wide street, with two parking lanes and two traffic lanes, one in each direction, going from Algon Avenue to Roosevelt Boulevard. Tyson Avenue is a wide street, with two parking lanes and four traffic lanes, two in each direction on most blocks. Some blocks have islands, which reduce the traffic lanes to one in each direction. Tyson Avenue goes from Oakley Street to Keystone Street, which is also near the Delaware River and I-95. Only Cottman Avenue and Tyson Avenue cross the Boulevard. Princeton Avenue and St. Vincent Street dead end at the Boulevard, but start again on the east side of the Boulevard. The point we are trying to make here 56 BILL 970594 is that St. Vincent Street and Princeton Avenue are used mainly for local traffic by residents of the area to access destinations within the local community. Both streets have four-way stop signs at residential intersections, and traffic signals at main north-south streets such as Algon Avenue, Castor Avenue, and Bustleton Avenue. It is almost impossible to speed on St. Vincent Street because a driver has to stop at every corner. Some of the reasons we are opposed to this bill are: One, on the southwest corner of Castor Avenue and St. Vincent Street is a new car agency, Champion Toyota. The entrance to their service garage is on St. Vincent Street, west of Castor Avenue. If St. Vincent Street becomes one-way east, cars going to the agency that now enter from Castor Avenue would have to travel east from Loretto Avenue, through the residential part of the block, in order to enter the garage. On the northwest corner of Castor 57 BILL 970594 Avenue and St. Vincent Street is St. Luke's Lutheran Church, with the entrance and loading for their pre-school center on St. Vincent Street. Making St. Vincent Street one-way east will force the parents who drop off their children to drive through the residential part of the block twice as often as they do now. Three, cars traveling on St. Vincent Street, in a westerly direction from points east of Castor Avenue, would have to turn on to Castor Avenue if they cannot continue west on St. Vincent Street. Four, two lanes of traffic eastbound from the 1400 block of St. Vincent Street would require one of the two lanes to turn at Castor Avenue, since only one lane could continue through to St. Vincent Street after crossing Castor Avenue. Five, westbound traffic that is now distributed between St.
Vincent Street, Princeton Avenue, and Tyson Avenue would be diverted to Princeton and/or Tyson Avenues. Drivers who need to return to westbound St. Vincent Street, west of Loretto Avenue, would have to use one of the north-south 58 BILL 970594 streets, such as Loretto Avenue, Somerdale Avenue, et cetera, to get there. All these additional turning movements that would occur if this one block of St. Vincent Street becomes one-way could potentially lead to more accidents. Turning a perfectly good two-way street into a one-way street for one block, thereby disrupting the "through" traffic pattern, is not the appropriate solution. It would only create more traffic problems for the neighborhood. We want the 1400 block of St. Vincent Street to maintain its current status as a two-way street. Therefore, UNCC requests the members of the Committee on Streets and Services to vote against Bill No. 970594. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Any questions for this witness from members of the committee? Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ms. Brill, I would like to thank you for your detailed study on this. And I know you put 59 BILL 970594 a lot of time in it. A lot of the things you stated were pretty much what Mr. Trainor stated. There is a perception here that this is going to be dangerous. Is this just from your own personal observation?
Absolutely. Yes. I live at 814 Disston Street. And I do I drive on St. Vincent Street a lot. I use it purposely because maybe the times that I go, but because it is a quieter street, there is not a lot of traffic. And when you get to the other side of Castor Avenue, and/or Bustleton, it is the only way to access some of the north-south streets on that side of Castor Avenue. And I use it to come back. And, again, because I am not looking for a lot of traffic. I am one of the people that likes to take a street where there is not a lot of traffic.
How many streets, for the people that don't know -- 60 BILL 970594 Councilman DiCicco doesn't know anything above Broad Street -- tell me, how many blocks away from this 1400 block of St. Vincent is it?
About ten blocks. I am ten blocks west of 1400 St. Vincent. But I drive through there a lot, as do a lot of other local people going through the neighborhood. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Miss Brill, I too want to thank you for your testimony. Apparently you did spend a lot of time on it. And I just was wondering, have you had any contact with the residents on St. Vincent Street?
We did not know about this until we saw the legal notice in the paper about a week or two ago. We called our political representatives, and they didn't know about it, either. And, you know, we are concerned that there should have been meetings with the people. There should have been a lot of things done. 61 BILL 970594 But, in any case, I understand what the people are saying. I understand the petition said excess speed and talked about traffic.
Miss Brill, can I ask you a question? You said you called your political representatives. Who would that be?
She told me she thought there was a petition, and I was supposed to talk to Ed Kirlin. I spoke to Ed Kirlin, Ed Mulvahill. And I said, "Do you have the petition?" They said, "The Streets Department has it." The Streets Department read me the petition. And when I spoke to Christine Solomon, who is the ward leader, she didn't know about it. Al Buckowitz didn't know about it. And 62 BILL 970594 Tina Tarlag didn't know about it.
Yes, they knew about it. But we weren't included in. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Obviously from the Councilman's question, it is obvious that there was a petition signed by the residents.
I understand that. I am not saying that they don't have a problem. I am just saying, this is not the appropriate solution. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Let me ask you -- and I don't mean this in any way to be sarcastic. Because when we have people like you in the city, it is important we have people that are involved. And you are definitely involved. But had this situation been existing on your street, do you think it would be fair for someone who lives ten blocks away to take the position that you are taking today?
I live on a one-way street. We have one lane of traffic. And we have many streets -- yes, it is. If it would affect 63 BILL 970594 my -- the other neighborhoods. This happens to be off of Castor Avenue, which is a main, busy, north-south street, with the trackless trolley route. It is one block south of Cottman Avenue. If you live on that street, you are inevitably going to get more traffic. I mean, it is just a given. And if you buy a house on that street, you have to be aware that that's the situation. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Anyone else here to wishes to testify? Please state your name for the record. BRADLEY K. MOSS, ESQ.: My name is Bradley K. Moss. I am an attorney at Mesirov, Gelman, Jaffe, Cramer & Jamieson. And I represent one of the neighbors, Champion Toyota. I have with me Mike Taylor, who is the General Manager of Champion Toyota. We have a map which shows Champion Toyota's position on the street that's going to be affected. Champion Toyota employs approximately 50 people in the community. Many of them live in 64 BILL 970594 this community. I have copies here, if I may. Champion Toyota employs approximately 50 people, many of whom come from the community. Surprisingly -- picking up on what you were asking, Chairman DiCicco and Councilman Mariano -- my client, although it is a neighbor, was never approached with the petition to ask to sign or not sign it. And, in fact, did not learn of this until Tuesday. Although we now know that this was in the making much longer than that. I don't want to belabor this point, but I would like to ask Mr. Taylor to make a few comments about how he believes this will affect his business, as well as affecting the community. Mr. Taylor.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: State your name, for the record.
My name is Tom Taylor. I am the General Manager of Champion Toyota. 65 BILL 970594 We have been in business on Castor and St. Vincent for approximately a little over four years now. And I believe that this bill creates a problem for Champion Toyota, in that one of the things that I am always trying to do is make it easier for our customers to do business with us. And what this, I believe, would do was to have a negative affect on that and make it difficult for our customers to get into our service entrance. And right now most of our customers, I believe, come in off of Castor Avenue, which is probably 50 feet from the corner. What this would do would cause them to go around Castor Avenue, up Friendship Street on your map there, around Loretto, and back down the full block of St. Vincent. This would also cause all of our test drives to do the same thing. So it is going to trouble the amount of traffic going down the major part of the block, where right now most of it is coming on and off of Castor Avenue. That in itself is a problem. It would be pretty tough for us to 66 BILL 970594 change our structure internally to effect this change. Thank you.
One final thing Mr. Taylor didn't mention that we had spoken about before. And that is, that this is not a business that is simply plopped in the neighborhood. I think it is important. Not only is this a business that employs people in the neighborhood, but I also would just like to ask Mr. Taylor to explain how this business is involved in the neighborhood otherwise.
We support the neighborhood in a number of different ways, with advertising for community groups and so on. We sponsored the St. Vincent block party this year. We donated a ride to them for that. So we are very involved with the community.
Write that down. Can I ask a question, Mr. Chairman? CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Questions for this 67 BILL 970594 witness from any members of the committee. Councilman Mariano.
Mr. Taylor, I was up there last night again. On your map on Friendship Street, there is a door on there that's not on this map. Is that missing for a reason? When I think I talked to you upstairs -- on Friendship Street there is a door to your place; right?
Now, could you go in that door if you came up Friendship and drive all the way through your business and come out the service? I didn't go in your business, so I don't know. If you come in Friendship Street, exit or entrance, can you enter in there, and then come out and exit onto St. Vincent?
That could be done. We would require tens of thousands of dollars of changing our internal shop.
Out lifts are angled in 68 BILL 970594 a certain way. It would be a real problem for the way the building is set up internally for that to be done.
As I said, I wasn't in there. But you didn't have that on the map, so I was concerned.
No, we couldn't use that door. Reverse the flow, you mean? That would be a big problem.
When you look at it from outside, it looks like you could drive up St. Vincent, come out, and then drive up Friendship, go in, and then come out St. Vincent.
Let me tell you -- CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Are there walls or something in there?
There are walls. The way it is set up, it is kind of -- the internal structure is not shown here. 69 BILL 970594 But it would be difficult to come in from Friendship Street and come into the service reception for customers, and then come out. We would have to revamp the whole --
When you come in the service entrance, though, you have bays back there --
-- where you work, and there are lifts and everything?
Correct. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Again, because I am not familiar with the property, I assume that's an overhead door on Friendship Street?
That's right. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: What is the purpose for that overhead door? Where does that lead to?
So you can come in on St. Vincent and go out on Friendship, but you can't reverse it?
You could do that. But 70 BILL 970594 it would be much more difficult for our customers to do that. And our lifts are angled the other way, from St. Vincent. We would have to change the whole flow of the shop, reverse all the lifts the opposite way. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: So it is not because there is a wall; it is because of the position of the lifts. Is that correct?
We are not trying to trick you here. We are trying to get a mental picture in both our minds because we haven't been there.
There is a wall that separates. The shop is in two portions here. I didn't draw this map; somebody else made the map. Generally in the building, towards the back, towards Friendship, there is a wall with an opening that you have to kind of negotiate. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: My point to you is this: Let's just assume that there were no lifts anywhere on that side of the property. 71 BILL 970594 If I were to drive a car, could I drive my car from St. Vincent Street to Friendship Street?
Yes. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: What would prevent me from driving from Friendship Avenue back to St. Vincent, if there was no lifts there?
You could do it. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: You could. So there is no construction, obstruction, to prevent that from happening?
To prevent that from happening, no. 15 CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: What we are talking about -- correct me if I am wrong -- is the position of the lifts?
Position of the lifts and the way you drive through the back section into the larger section. It would be a major overhaul to change everything.
Councilman DiCicco, there is a problem with Friendship Street, and you should know. It is a very narrow street. It has 72 BILL 970594 one lane of traffic. It currently, on the 1400 block and 1300 block, there is currently -- there has two-way traffic on that particular street. You have to -- cars going in and out that have to wait for somebody else to go through the street. There is parking on both sides. That is a street that --
That's a small street. And if people want that changed to one-way, nobody would have any problems with that. That is a street that should be changed to one-way. And the neighbors have been told, if they want it, to get a petition. But it is not a good street to use to access going in.
That isn't really what we were quizzing him about. We are thinking about coming off Castor Avenue, zipping in that door on Friendship Street. We are not going to go up Friendship Street that far, except for that entrance or exit there. In our mind, we are trying to get -- 73 BILL 970594
Yes. But that's right near Castor Avenue and then -- CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: I think I would like Mr. Taylor to address that, if you don't mind.
All right. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Cars are exiting on to Friendship Avenue today. I mean, that's what happens now; right?
Correct. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: And those are cars that had already been serviced?
That's right. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Now, how do they get from that service entrance on St. Vincent to that area that allows them now to exit onto Friendship Avenue?
What happens is, they drive in the service entrance you see here. And there is an exit omitted on this picture here. 74 BILL 970594 And the customers drive in to our drive through. And our service reception is in the middle of this building you are looking at. They then get out and leave their cars. And we then take them and park them either on the lift to be worked on, or to the parking lot where it is gotten later to be repaired. So it does come in through that one entrance and go out through the back of the door. And we usually made a left onto Friendship Street to go out onto Castor Avenue. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: All right. I must be missing something. Maybe if I saw it, I could understand it a little bit better. I am still a little confused. If you go in off of St. Vincent and you can exit onto Friendship, you are saying that you can't reverse that because of the position of the lifts. But do cars come in off of Friendship now? And how far in --
No. We have one-way going from St. Vincent to Friendship. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: So no one is 75 BILL 970594 coming in off of Friendship Avenue?
No. Very rare occasions. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: On that rare occasion, how do they get back out?
They will turn around inside and go back out. Or they may come out at times, if somebody pulls in at this end of St. Vincent, they may come out there, but is very rare. The traffic flow goes from one end to another. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: So it is possible, I assume, from what you are saying, that you can go in and exit from Friendship?
Well, the way the shop is set up, the lifts are positioned in such a fashion that makes it easy to pull right in. They are angled towards St. Vincent's. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: It just makes it easier the way it is designed today?
Well, we would have to almost change it. I mean, it would be very inefficient to be backing up, turning around five times to try and fit the car on the lift. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Any other 76 BILL 970594 questions for this witness? Thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against? Mike Longshore, Streets Department. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Name hasn't changed, just the title.
I am testifying as a constituent now of Councilman Mariano's. In reference to this traffic flow bill here, I don't live eight blocks away from here, I live four blocks. However, my son does attend St. Luke's pre-school. And to change this direction flow, I feel, to a one-way would cause a very dangerous and unsafe condition for pre-schoolers. Most of the people -- there is very limited parking there now on both sides of the street. Most people double park to drop their kids off. If you are going to limit it to one-way, you are going to have a major safety problem here. 77 BILL 970594 CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Are you familiar with the Champion Toyota?
Yes, I am. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Are you familiar with the interior?
Not the interior, Councilman. But a lot of people do leave their vehicles out on St. Vincent Street for the car dealer, also, for service. And then they are driven in. At the same time you have pre-schoolers' parents dropping their kids off and double parking, also. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: The reason I ask, Mike, I was just trying to draw from your experience, whether or not some of the questions we were posing would make sense, and could this change -- could we change the direction of the activity inside the building?
I have never been inside it, Councilman. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilman Mariano. 78 BILL 970594
What is your job with the Streets Department? Are you an expert like Mr. Trainor, Dr. Know, on this thing here?
Now, these two streets here, St. Vincent and Friendship, the school, I am picturing this church as a school. It is where the voting place is; right? So that is on St. Vincent or Friendship, for the record?
Thank you. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here 79 BILL 970594 who wishes to testify? If so, please pull the microphone as close as possible to you and speak directly into it. And also please state your name for the record.
Good afternoon, Council. My name is Mike Lee. I reside on the 1400 block of St. Vincent Street. What we are requesting is actually, correction one, our traffic flow to go, let's see, request that the existing two-way east-west traffic pattern be restricted to one-way flow from eastbound from Loretto to Castor. That's what we are requesting. And we are concerned with our children's safety. We are concerned with the noise and the speed at which the traffic flows on our street. We are concerned about our neighbors, and including Champion Toyota. We do not want to disrupt their business. But, at the same time, we do not understand how our street being one-way will actually impact their business. And with St. 80 BILL 970594 Luke's, also, the pre-school. Because if we go from one-way from Loretto to Castor, Champion Toyota does have two-door garages that we did go through already. And with St. Luke's, if we do make it from one-way from Loretto to Castor, with the door of St. Luke's being on St. Vincent Street, there are several cars that must double park because of the restricted area. That will prevent the amount of cars sneaking up, as if it was one-way the other way. Again, safety with the children. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Next witness, please.
My name is Corin Leare. I live at 1405 St. Vincent. I live at St. Vincent towards Loretto. I am also concerned with the speed of the traffic. And I am concerned about the Streets Department who said there were only three accidents within a seven-year period. We have had seven accidents since August. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: I think what the testimony was was reported accidents, if I am not mistaken. 81 BILL 970594
There were police at all these accidents. So I don't know why it wouldn't have been reported. We had a girl across the street, her car was totaled. She has a 15-month-old. And her car was parked and it was totaled. I have an eight-month-old. When I take her to my mother, who watches her, I have to put her in the street and avoid the speeding cars coming up and down the block from Champion and from the daycare. St. Luke's also has an entrance to daycare on Castor Avenue, the building next to the church. They park on the street. They park all the way up towards Loretto. The double parking -- I was home all day today. They parked all the way up the street. So they don't double park that much to take their children in and out of the car, where I have to watch getting my eight-month-old in and out of the car when I go to work every morning. We also have 23 kids on the block under the age of 15. 11 of those are under the age of 6. 82 BILL 970594 And I think the concern with the two-way traffic is that people speed, they zoom, they do not stop at the Stop sign. And Loretto. It is a four-way stop, but they all glide through it. And kids are playing. They can't be near the street, can't be near the curb. We don't -- a lot of homes don't have patios, and the kids have nowhere to play, and someone is going to get hurt. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Anyone else?
My name is Joanne Ware, and I also live in the 1400 block of Saint Vincent. First of all, we didn't go -- I apologize to Toyota. We didn't go down to them because I think we all assumed that their address is on Castor Avenue. I, for one, purchased a car from Toyota, from Champion. I have been in their service garage. There is an entrance on St. Vincent. There is an exit on Friendship. I know that firsthand because I have taken my car in there. 83 BILL 970594 Addressing St. Luke's, the daycare. The inconvenience that it will cause people to drop their children off for five minutes is nothing compared to the inconvenience that we deal with every minute of every day. I also understand that the traffic flows will increase on Cottman Avenue, as well as Tyson. But we are a residential street. We were not -- this street was not designed to have people going from Castor Avenue to St. Vincent, and going 50 and 60 miles an hour in the process. It is far from a quite street. It is not. We have had numerous accidents. You can't park your car on a Friday night at 6 o'clock because you have the moron in back of you riding up your bumper, beeping his horn, and getting out and hitting your windshield. And then you have the people coming down the other way who stop, they can't move because now the person behind you is trying to pass you, and now we have a big traffic jam. So I understand that the people in our surrounding area will be inconvenienced by this, but we are inconvenienced on a daily basis. 84 BILL 970594 And that's all. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Anyone else? Any questions for this witness? Councilman Mariano.
I really don't have a question. I just have a statement. These neighbors have been very patient. There was a little confusion at the beginning as to whose Council District it was. Because on the other side of Castor Avenue is the 54th Ward, which is Councilwoman Krajewski. But they started this in December of '96. And by the time it got where we were going to do something, it was time to end for Council, and we were gone for the summer session. So they have been very diligent. And they never changed their story on this. I can take the blame for the neighbors not notifying. I didn't think at all about Champion Toyota, because I figured you guys came in and out the front. It is obvious when I went back up there again last night and really looked at it, that 85 BILL 970594 there would be a problem. All I can say is, every time we do something up here, it is going to affect not just this street. Any time we change streets, directions, one-ways, it is a giant puzzle effect, and it is going to affect everybody. These people are here. They spent time with petitions. They did everything we asked. So I would like to thank you personally for coming out and doing all that, and taking the time to come down here. And we are going to try to work something out here so everybody can be happy. I am going to try to talk to you on the side.
Council, my name is Jeremiah Leary. I wanted to address one thing. Our street is actually the first residential street that cars approach coming from the Boulevard. So coming from the Boulevard to Castor Avenue, that is within a 20-block radius, it is all commercial traffic. And at the same time our street, 1400 86 BILL 970594 block of St. Vincent, once you cross Castor Avenue, is the first residential street where houses are actually on both sides of the street. At the same time, when we purchased our house, as someone else addressed beforehand, that we should have been expecting it. From the time we purchased our house, in the meantime you have built the new J.C. Penney, the new Toys R Us, the Super Fresh, which has all produced traffic on our street, which should not be advised and should not be accepted. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: It wasn't existing when you bought your homes?
It was not existing. The Super Fresh is exactly the most recent store that's been built. Well, Sears has been around since Gimbel's. And that's it. Thank you very much. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Just as a point of information, had there been a temporary period where this street direction had been changed, and had the findings come back from the Philadelphia Streets Department that it really, or from your own observation, that 87 BILL 970594 it really did not correct the situation, I would assume that that would have been acceptable? I mean, the fact is that you don't know because there was never any temporary --
You understand the difference in the temporary, nobody knows the difference when they are driving. The only people that would know would be the Streets Department and myself and you. It is just like it is permanent; it is just not a law. It is my pleasure for a while, a District Councilman's pleasure for two months, three months, or a month. And I think that would have took care of that. This may happen. And you may come back to me in a month and say, "Councilman, do you know what? They are right. It is a headache because everybody is going around Champion Toyota, those guys are flying around." That's why I wanted to do that. I apologize that didn't happen.
Just to address that Champion Toyota. They do drive around the block awfully fast. But you can see the tag numbers from 88 BILL 970594 the cars when the people drop off the keys, the numbers they put on the rearview mirror. And, also, they use our block to park their cars. So when I come home from school at 6 o'clock at night, I have to park on Loretto Street 7 because cars are already parked lining up for the 8 Toyota there in the morning. And that forces 9 everyone to park on the block, so I am left around the corner.
And now you see Mr. Taylor. Now you know what he looks like. You can stop and call him. He will listen to your complaints, no matter what, night or time of day. He will probably give you his home phone number. And you call him and tell him, "My parking spot is not there." CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: This may already have been testified to, so I will just ask the neighbors. On St. Vincent Street, there is parking on both sides of St. Vincent?
Yes, there is. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: There are two lanes of travel? 89 BILL 970594
It is a four-lane highway, actually. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: One lane, two lanes of parking?
But there are no lines that designate two lanes. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Mr. Trainor, Councilman Cohen has a question.
I don't know whether it is a question or a comment that I would like a response to. If you sat down with the representatives of the community organizations that spoke before in opposition to the bill, do you think there is any possibility of achieving an agreement? Or do you feel that your position is one that could never change, under any circumstances? What we are trying to do, this is the most difficult problem we ever have, when two sets of folks in the community, both full of integrity, both wanting the best thing for themselves and their family, reach opposite results. 90 BILL 970594 And then we have got to act like Solomon did, only none of us have the wisdom of Solomon. I may have the age, but not the wisdom. And none of us have. So that's why it is so tough. You make a very compelling case, and the people before you made a compelling case. Would there be anything you think that could be achieved if you all sat down together? Or is this one of those neighborhood problems that we have to make a decision on, and just hope and maybe do a little praying that we have reached the right decision? We are looking for a way. Because we know the community group that testified before, they testified on a number of things, they always are looking for something that helps the whole community. We know that you have strong feelings. Your families live on this block, and you have a right to be concerned, very deeply concerned, about the safety of the family. We would love to find, as Councilman Mariano before said, we are working to try to find, 91 BILL 970594 something that can meet the needs of both.
Excuse me, Councilman. I would say, I would strongly agree with Councilman Mariano about going with the temporary. Because temporary would be a test run. It will give everyone the ability to see what would actually happen and what would actually be taking place. So the actual agreement, I would say, from the neighborhood side, would be to do the temporary one-way, so this way everyone could see exactly what's going to happen.
Were the other folks -- Miss Brill testified, too. Is that all right, Mr. Chairman, to have them come for a moment to the speaker? CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: I yield to your age.
It works sometimes. Sometimes it doesn't. Sometimes we have to make believe we have the wisdom of Solomon.
We would not oppose a temporary, although our concern would be that people from the other streets and neighborhoods would sort 92 BILL 970594 of be taken aback if they see a Do Not Enter Sign. And I am just concerned that there might be some accidents that wouldn't happen if we didn't have the temporary. But if that's the answer -- as we said before, the reason we think this is wrong is, in addition to cutting, you know, blocking the through street, is that we think they are going to end up with more traffic, not less, on their street.
Well, if they wind up with more traffic, I think they will be wanting to move it back. Because I gather what they are looking for is getting less traffic. And an experiment may prove to them that the direction they are going on only made it worse, rather than better.
Some of the problems that they are addressing, like in terms of double parking, whatever, we could ask the police to monitor the situation, to start ticketing. If they do this, then some of that -- there are other ways to handle some of these problems. 93 BILL 970594 CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. My question is to Mr. Trainor. And then I think, in all fairness, we need to get a response to Councilman Cohen's question from Champion Toyota. So let's do Champion Toyota first.
Brad Moss, on behalf of Champion Toyota. I have spoken with my client. We think it is an excellent suggestion. The only thing that we would like to suggest is that the period of time be one month. I think we are going to be able to find out very quickly whether this is a good idea or not. And I would hate to, if it is not a good idea, I would hate to see the experiment last any longer than it has to. If it is a good idea, well, then, we can quickly move forward with it. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: I have had some experience in my district with direction changes of streets. And I have found, in some cases, the difficult way, that after we made the change, people realize that it was not in their best interest. 94 BILL 970594 Without asking for you, Mr. Trainor, to make a direct decision, one month, is that too short a period of time, generally? Generally speaking.
Generally speaking, it is probably too short a period of time to shake the tree effectively. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: And I assume it has to do with lots of things, there are seasonal, especially with the business there, there are probably seasonal issues, where you might be more busy in certain months, as opposed to other months and certain technical reasons you have. So what would be generally the period of time that your department would keep a temporary posting up?
The normal temporary posting is kept, it is basically for an eight-month trial period. But any time during that trial period, if the negative totally outweighs, then there is a change. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Which was the case, I believe, on the 1400 block of South Juniper 95 BILL 970594 Street in my district. It didn't last for eight months.
I will agree with you. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: I want that for the record. So the people who are here today understand that if, if there is a consensus to do a temporary directional regulation, and we find in one month, two months, that the condition is worse than it is today, we don't necessarily have to wait for the eight-month period.
If I may, Mr. Chairman. Although eight months -- I have been involved in this myself. Eight months -- I don't have the expertise of Mr. Trainor or Dr. Know, as he is referred to --
But certainly I am aware that shorter times have been suggested than eight months. I don't think in this situation that eight months is required. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: I have another question for Mr. Trainor, which is why I asked him 96 BILL 970594 to come back to the witness table. This is a perfect example of some of the issues we were addressing about a week or so ago, with the Public Transportation Committee hearings. Is there anything on the drawing board as relates to St. Vincent Street, any calming effects, striping, or anything that is being discussed?
There has been nothing discussed as far as St. Vincent Street is concerned. Some of the problems that they have addressed here is the first time I am hearing the problems. In actuality, when we received the request back in January, we did not read the petition. We look at the request, which is basically to make the street one-way. The double parking, as was mentioned, is illegal. The parking of vehicles for the use of the auto dealership on St. Vincent can be addressed with permit parking. I am just throwing that out as an example. 97 BILL 970594 The marking of the street, either a double yellow center line and a parking lane, is possible. The marking of the intersections with crosswalks are possible. If we do not have speed limit signs within the appropriate distances, that is possible. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions?
First of all I will address the speed limit sign. There is a speed limit sign for miles per hour at the Stop sign at 13 Loretto, which is ignored. So there is a sign 14 there. 15 And to address the woman speaking 16 against us, she does not live in our neighborhood. 17 She lives on a quiet, one-way street. So why would 18 she have a say in where we should live and how we 19 should live? 20 CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: I think I asked 21 that question earlier. Thank you. And I 22 understand. 23 Understand it is not the Streets 24 Department's fault. They are not at fault because 25 people are not obeying signs. They do their job, 98 BILL 970594 post the signs. I live along a street, there is a school on the block we live. And you think the sign said it is a speed zone, meaning go faster. But that's just a habit that some people have. They don't respect the law. But I think what we are getting here -- and the sponsor of the bill, I am sure, if he hasn't already talked to the community people, will talk to them after this hearing -- that there may be some temporary solution, maybe some suggestions that we can get from the Streets Department and Mr. Trainor just to recognize a few of them, striping and things like that, that may help the situation. But that will be up to the sponsor of the bill to talk to the community about. I thank all of you for being here and thank you for your testimony.
I have one more question. Now, as in the posting speed limit signs to slow down traffic and stuff, my suggestion would be, how about a possibility of speed bumps? That would slow down the speed of traffic. 99 BILL 970669
They are illegal. We would love it. They don't do it. Let's all talk about it. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: We are going to move down on the list, as an accommodation to Councilwoman Miller. The clerk will read the title of that bill.
Bill No. 970669, An Ordinance authorizing Nicholas Pinardo, owner of the property located at 6224 Wayne Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19144, to construct and maintain a one-story masonry building and an illuminated awning extending over the south footway of 6224 Wayne Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Mike Longshore, Streets Department, Permit Officer. In reference to Bill No. 970669, An Ordinance authorizing Nicholas Pinardo, owner of the property located at 6224 Wayne Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19144, to construct and maintain a one-story masonry building and an illuminated awning extending over the south footway of 6224 Wayne Avenue, under certain terms and conditions, we at the Streets 100 BILL 970669 Department have been working closely with the owner, Mr. Pinardo, on this project and recommend passage of this bill. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: State your name for the record.
Okay. Councilman, my name is Nicholas Pinardo, owner of the property at 6324 Wayne Avenue. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Do you have anything to add to the testimony you have heard?
No. 13 CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Obviously you are in support of the bill.
Obviously. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Any questions or comments of this witness from the Committee? Councilwoman Miller.
It is my understanding that this structure has been there about 30 years anyway; right?
So we are just correcting something that needs to be corrected.
That's right. We are 101 BILLS 970595, 970596 just legalizing the existing conditions. Is there anybody else here who wishes to testify before or against this bill? Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 970595, An Ordinance authorizing the paving of Hoffnagle Street, under certain terms and conditions. Anyone here who wishes to testify? Bill No. 970595 is being withdrawn at the request of the sponsor, Councilman Mariano. I also informed that the next bill, Bill No. 970596, is also being withdrawn by its sponsor, Councilman Mariano.
Bill No. 970610, An Ordinance authorizing and directing the placing on City Plan No. 377 of a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes extending from Stokley Street northwardly, northeastwardly and northwardly to a certain right-of-way of the Chestnut Hill branch of the Connecting Railway Company under certain terms and conditions, 102 BILL 970610 including the dedication to the city free and clear of all encumbrances of the bed of such right-of-way.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie. I represent the Streets Department. I would like to give the following testimony on Bill 9 970610. This is an Ordinance authorizing and directing the placing on City Plan No. 377 a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes extending from Stokley Street northwardly, northeastwardly and northwardly to a certain right-of-way of the Chestnut Hill branch of the Connecting Railway Company under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the city free and clear of all encumbrances of the bed of such right-of-way being placed on the City Plan by this Ordinance. This is an Administration ordinance 22 requested by the Water Department to update its infrastructure. The purpose of this Ordinance is to grant the authority to place this right-of-way on 103 BILL 970611 the City Plan. This Ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Any questions for this witness from the Committee? Anyone else here to wishes to testify for or against the bill? Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 970611, An Ordinance authorizing the construction of a sewer and appurtenant work, required to alleviate unsanitary conditions in a portion of Crestview Road. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Please state your name for the record. MR. PAUL McCLOSKEY: Mr. Chairman, my name is Paul McCloskey. I am representing the Water Department. Regarding Bill No. 970611, entitled, An Ordinance authorizing the construction of a sewer in a portion of Crestview Road, introduced on October 9, 1997, by Councilman Nutter, the Water 104 BILL 970611 Department submits the following testimony: This bill authorizes the Water Department to construct a sanitary sewer at Crestview Road, from Henry Avenue to Lawton Street. Crestview Road is a block of single-family dwellings in the Andorra section of the city. The block is currently serviced by individual cesspools for each property. These have outlived their usefulness and require a total replacement. The malfunction of the septic systems have created an unsanitary condition. In light of the fact that the residents currently have public water, they have requested public sewers. An assessment will be levied against the owners in order to absorb a portion of the costs as the residents are required to connect to the new sewer at their cost, in accordance with the Philadelphia Code. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you for your testimony. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? Anyone else here who wishes to 105 BILL 970611 testify for or against the bill? Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, no 5 questions. Just for the record, Mr. Chairman, this bill, and I think there is another bill --
-- all come out of a number of discussions between myself and the Water Department and the constituents. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me. Would you hold the conversations down in the back, please.
Thank you, Chairman. These bills come as a result of a number of conversations of what I would categorize as fairly serious public policy matter. In various parts of the city, Mr. Chairman, we still do not have sanitary sewer systems in place. And I think the Water Department is trying, within reason and within budget, to move toward a day when just about everyone is connected 106 BILL 970612 to the city sewer system. We still have these septic tanks in various places of the city. Many of them are old, many of them are failing, and they do present the potential of a serious health hazard. So I believe the testimony was just on the Crestview bill. And coming up, I believe, will be Manatawna Street. And my remarks would be the same for that one. And I ask that the Committee expeditiously take action on both of those bills. And I know I have a couple of others coming up. Thank you. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions? Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 970612, An Ordinance authorizing the construction of a sewer and appurtenant work, required to alleviate unsanitary conditions in a portion of Manatawna Avenue. 107 BILL 970612 MR. PAUL McCLOSKEY: Yes, Mr. Chairman. Again, my name is Paul McCloskey. I am here representing the Water Department. As Councilman Nutter had pointed out, this bill is the exact same conditions as the previous bill. The only difference is location. It is located in Manatawna Avenue, from Likens to Wissahickon Road. The sewer systems are failing, it has become a public health hazard, and it would be required to replace the sewers. Again, the residents will be assessed to cover a portion of the cost. And, again, they are required to connect to the sewers at their cost. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions of this witness from the Committee? Anyone else here that wishes to testify for or against the bill? Thank you. The the clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 970671, An 108 BILL 970671 Ordinance authorizing Anthony Amen, owner of the property located at 6701 Haverford Avenue, to construct and maintain various encroachments on and over the west footway of 67th Street adjacent to the property 6701 Haverford Avenue, including a masonry coping wall, a wooden vestibule, a wooden deck, and a one-story brick addition, all under certain terms and conditions.
Chairman DiCicco, Mike Longshore, Streets Department, Permit Officer. In reference to Bill No. 970671, authorizing Anthony Amen, owner of the property located at 6701 Haverford Avenue, to construct and maintain various encroachments on and over the west footway of 67th Street adjacent to the property at 6701 Haverford Avenue, which includes a masonry coping wall, a wooden vestibule, a wooden deck, and a one-story brick addition, the Streets Department has been working closely which with Mr. Amen on this project and recommends passage of this bill. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? 109 BILL 970672 Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Thank you. Bill No. 970672, authorizing Julian Nix, owner of the property located at 5735 Race Street, to construct and maintain a two-story masonry addition encroaching onto the north footway of Race Street and a two-story masonry addition encroaching a maximum of 5 feet onto the west footway of Cecil Street, each adjacent to the property 5735 Race Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Again, chairman DiCicco, Mike Longshore, Streets Department, Permit Officer. In reference to Bill No. 970672, an Ordinance authorizing Julian Nix, owner of the property located at 5735 Race Street, to construct and maintain a two-story masonry addition encroaching onto the north footway of Race Street, also a two-story masonry addition encroaching a maximum of 5 feet onto the west footway of Cecil Street, each adjacent to the property known as 5735 Race, we at the Streets Department have been working 110 BILL 970672 closely with the owner of this property, Mr. Nix, and recommend passage of this bill. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Sir, do you wish to testify?
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my constituent, Mr. Nix is here. He came down and wanted to watch the proceedings. And he just wanted to have the opportunity to thank the committee for their review of the bill. I am supporting his need to do this, across the street from the Mt. Carmel Baptist Church on Race Street, as well as Mr. Amen's bill. Good constituents up in the 34th Ward. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
I would like to thank the committee, especially Michael Nutter, and the Streets Department for working with me. I thank everyone that's here, and I really appreciate it. 111 BILL 970673 CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Thank you for coming down and seeing your government at work.
Mr. Chairman, the Mayor is waiting for us to go downstairs. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: One more bill.
Bill No. 970673, an Ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Broad Street, from Snyder Avenue to McKean Street, east side. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Anyone here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Any questions for the sponsor of the bill? Thank you. This concludes the public hearing. (Public Hearing adjourned.) - - - 112 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING of the COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Thursday, November 20, 1997 - - - 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 970246, 970552, 970583, 970610, 970611, 970612, 970669, 970671, 970672, 970673 970594 - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - 113 PUBLIC MEETING CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: We will now move into the Public Meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz for amendments on Bill No. 970246.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments of Bill No. 970246 be moved and approved as stated. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Second by Councilman Mariano. All in favor of the motion to amend signify by saying aye. Opposed.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 970246, as amended, be approved and submitted to Council with a suspension of the Rules. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: A motion has been made. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Second by Councilwoman Miller. All those in favor signify by saying aye. 114 PUBLIC MEETING Nay. The bill is approved.
Can I continue? Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 6 970552 be moved out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules so that it may be heard in the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Second by Councilman Mariano. It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 970552 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor of the bill 17 signify by saying aye. Nay. The bill is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 970583 be moved out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a suspension of the Rules, so as to be read in the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.) 115 PUBLIC MEETING CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: The bill has been moved and properly seconded. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. Bill No. 970583 is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 970610 be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request that the Rules of Council be suspended as to be considered in the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 970610 be voted out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Opposed. The bill is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 970611 be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request that the Rules of Council be suspended as to be read in the 116 PUBLIC MEETING next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 970611 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor let it be known by saying aye. Opposed. The bill is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I moved that Bill 970612 be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 970612 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Nay. The bill is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I 117 PUBLIC MEETING move that Bill 970669 be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to be considered at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 970669 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Nay. The bill is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 970671 be moved out of the committee with a favorable recommendation and a request that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to be considered at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 970671 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. 118 PUBLIC MEETING Nay. The bill is approved.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 970672 be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to be considered at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 970672 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Nay.
I am coming into the stretch. Bill 970673 -- we will get to the wire -- we move it out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to be considered at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.) CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: It has been 119 PUBLIC MEETING properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 970673 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Nay. The bill is approved.
Mr. Chairman, there are people here with respect to 970594. Can you state what the position of the committee is on that? CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Mariano.
There are folks here who are interested in whatever action Council may take. 970594.
Just tabled. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: All right. Bill No. 970594 is being tabled at the request of the sponsor, Councilman Mariano. CHAIRMAN DiCICCO: This concludes the Public Meeting of the Committee on Streets and 120 PUBLIC MEETING Services. Thank you for attending and your interest here. (Public Meeting adjourned at 4:00 p.m.) - - - 121 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 Thursday, November 20, 1997, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES _____________________________________ DEBRA A. WHITEHEAD, RPR