m. 'S: 990144, 990148, 990456, 990457, 990458, 990459, 990460, 990461, 990462, 990530, 990531, 990646, 990647, 990648, 990672, 990674, 990676, 990677, 990684, 990713, 990720, 990721, 990725, 990726, 990727, 990754, 990756, 990763, 990765, 990766, 990811, 990814, 990815, 990816, 990834, 990835, 990837, 990839, 990840, 990845. 'S: 990557, 990558, 990559, 990603, 990649, 990714, 990813, 990832, 990833, and 990841 are withdrawn at the request of the sponsors. BILL NO. 990529, 990556 - continued to 12/9/99. ) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chairman COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 12/2/99 STREETS & SERVICES I N D E X Page Bill 990845 Joseph Doyle, Streets Lighting Engineer . . Streets Department 5 Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner . . . Public Property 6 Kimberly Krack, Local Market Manager. . . 11 Metricom, Inc. 7 Lee Gopadze, Senior Vice President. . . 23 Metricom, Inc. 8 9 Bill 990713 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager Streets Department 50 10 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 51 Joseph Cascerceri, Vice President . . . 52 Government & Community Relations, Drexel Univ. Bill 990457 Kasim Ali Acting Asst. Chief Traffic Engineer 64 Bill 990548 Kasim Ali Acting Asst. Chief Traffic Engineer 65 Bill 990549 Kasim Ali Acting Asst. Chief Traffic Engineer 66 Bill 990529 Kasim Ali Acting Asst. Chief Traffic Engineer 67 Bill 990530 Kasim Ali Acting Asst. Chief Traffic Engineer 69 Bill 990531 Kasim Ali Acting Asst. Chief Traffic Engineer 71 Bill 990835 Kasim Ali Acting Asst. Chief Traffic Engineer 72 Bill 990840 Kasim Ali Acting Asst. ) Bill 990462 Catherine Confair, Analyst, Parking Authority 78 Bill 990464 Catherine Confair, Analyst, Parking Authority 79 Bill 990647 Catherine Confair, Analyst, Parking Authority 80 Bill 990648 Catherine Confair, Analyst, Parking Authority 81 Bill 990674 and 990677 Robert McCloskey, Water Department. . . 83 Bill 990676 Robert McCloskey, Water Department. . . 86 Bill 990720 and 990721 Robert McCloskey, Water Department. . . 89 Bill 990763 Robert McCloskey, Water Department. . . 93 Bill 990456 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . 96 Edward Duffy, PIDC and PAID . . . . . 97 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 99 Bill 990725 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 100 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . 101 Bill 990756 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 103 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . 104 Bill 990765 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 105 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . 106 Bill 990811 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 107 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . ) Bill 990816 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 109 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . 109 Richard Bruno, representing Councilman O'Neill 110 Bill 990834 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 113 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . 114 Elizabeth Bresse-Stoppe, Vice President . . 115 Executive Affairs University of the Sciences Bill 990754 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 116 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . 116 Elizabeth Bresse-Stoppe, Vice President . . 118 Executive Affairs University of the Sciences Bill 990837 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 121 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . 121 Vincent Dougherty, Enterprise Zone Manager. 122 Department of Commerce Bill 990839 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 124 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . 124 Bill 990672 Paul Lonie, Survey Manager, Streets Dept. . 126 Marty Soffer, Planning Commission . . . 127 Marjorie Greenfield, East Falls Comm.
Council 153 Michael Markovitz, East Falls Resident. . 159 Antoinette Stone, East Falls Resident . . 163 Susan Rubinovitch, East Falls Resident. . 165 Bill 990684 Dwayne Bumb, Director of Commerce . . . ) Bill 990726 Dwayne Bumb, Director of Commerce . . . 183 Tim Lidiak, Assistant Director. . . . 187 Avenue of the Arts, Inc. Michelle Shannon, Director of Marketing . . 189 Center City District Kristen Young, Program Director . . . . 191 Rittenhouse Row Ashley Andrus, Chamber of Commerce. . . 192 Ruth Ann Madway, Executive Director . . . 194 East of Broad Improvement Association Otis Haigler, L&I . . . . . . . , Center City Res. Assoc. 207 Nancy Lavin, Chair, Philly Walks. . . . , Counsel . . . . . 223 Newsstand Operators Association . . . Otis Haigler, L&I . . . . . . . , Counsel . . . . . 227 Newsstand Operators Association Otis Haigler, L&I . . . . . . . 227 6 12/2/99 STREETS & SERVICES P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, everyone. The hearing on the committee of streets and services is now in session. In attendance today are, to my extreme right is Council President Anna Verna, Councilmember Rizzo, Councilmember Clarke, and Councilmember Nutter. We have about 45 bills today. We generally try to combine certain bills that relate to one department so that people don't have to keep getting up and coming back and forth to the witness table. Unfortunately, there are those who will all be left last, so there's no way of making everyone first. We're generally able to get through the hearings a lot quicker by combining various departments or agencies that have a cumulative number, a significant number of bills. So we will from time to time go out of the order that the public notice that you may have in your possession. The clerk will please read the title of the first bill.
The first bill is Bill No. 7 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 990845, an ordinance granting permission to Metricom Incorporated, a Delaware corporation registered to do business in Pennsylvania, and its successors, assigns, and agents to construct, install, maintain and operate, use repair, replace, and remove a communications system and appurtenances for the provision of wireless data communications services in, over, under, and across the public rights-of-way and City streets; and/or on certain City-owned or -controlled street light fixtures, street light poles, as designated by the Streets Commissioner and the Commissioner of Public Property; and/or within or on the existing facilities owned by other entities holding a grant of permission, pursuant to other City ordinances, all under certain terms and conditions.
Is there anyone here to testify for or against this bill? Would you please come to the witness table and identify yourself for the record, please. (Witnesses come forward.)
State your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Whoever's going to be testifying, testify first, Joe.
Returned herewith is Bill 9 No. 990845, granting permission to Metricom, Incorporated, a Delaware corporation registered to do business in Pennsylvania, and its successors, assigns, and agents to construct, install, maintain and operate, use, repair, replace, and remove a communication system and appurtenances for the provision of wireless data communication services in, over, under, and across the public rights-of-way of way and City streets; and/or on certain City-owned and controlled street light fixtures, street light poles, and traffic signal poles, as designated by the Streets Commissioner and the Commissioner of Public Property; and/or within or on the existing facilities owned by other entities holding a grant of permission pursuant to other City ordinances; all under certain terms and conditions. 9 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 The Metricom plans to install radio transceivers on approximately 750 street light poles and will work with the Department to coordinate this without any disruption to street lighting operations. The Department of Streets Department, therefore, recommends the favorable consideration of this legislation.
Joseph James, Deputy Commissioner, Public Property. Councilman DiCicco and members of the committee, I'm here on behalf of the Department of Public Property to testify on behalf of Bill 990845, granting Metricom, Inc. To provide wireless data communication services on the public rights-of-way on City streets and on certain City-owned or -controlled street light fixtures, as designated by the Streets Commissioner. Based upon negotiations pursuant to this agreement, it is my recommendation that City Council give its approval for this transaction. Bill No. 990845 was introduced on November 18, 1999. Representatives from the Streets Department and the Department of Public 10 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 Property have engaged in continuous discussion with representatives from Metricom, Inc. concerning use of City property, as permitted by the bill. Through the negotiation process, we have sought terms that will best serve the needs of the citizens of the City and facilitate the efforts of Metricom to construct a very high-speed form of wireless data communications network. Metricom will deploy a new generation of wires technology that will make the City's information infrastructure competitive with other cities, such as New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, Seattle, and the District of Columbia. The timing of this agreement would also position Metricom to showcase the city and this technology nationally during the upcoming Republican National Convention. The term of the agreement is for five years, with a provision for a five-year renewal, contingent upon acceptable performance of the agreement terms. Specifically, the terms include compensation in the forms of annual and (unintelligible) fee payments with phased guaranteed minimum payments, complimentary service 11 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 subscriptions, and discounts for equipment. In conclusion, the terms to which Metricom, Inc. is committed are acceptable to the Department. I respectfully ask the committee that the rules of Council be waived to allow this bill 7 to be reported out of committee and to have its first reading at the next Council session. I am now available to answer any questions that you may have.
Is there anyone else who is going to be testifying at the table? (Kimberly Krack comes forward.)
Excuse me. Our wireless system -- we have a wired communication system here that doesn't work well. If you can fix this, we can vote this out quickly today.
Thank you. My name is Kimberly Krack, and I'm the local market manager with Metricom, Inc. Thank you very much, Chairman DiCicco and committee 12 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 members for allowing me to appear here today. With me is Mr. Lee Gopadze, senior vice president of Metricom. I am responsible for the deployment of Metricom's wireless data system throughout the greater Philadelphia region. Metricom, Inc. is a leading provider of wireless Internet access for computer users in the corporate, public service, consumer, and education market sectors, using an advanced spread spectrum, packet radio technology. Our Ricochet service provides the pipeline to wireless Internet access and data communications services.
Ma'am -- Mr. Chairman, may I ask that you ask the witness to just go a little bit slower.
We're not at a race 13 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 track, and for us, it's the first time hearing this so --
I understand. Thank you. The Ricochet service provides the pipeline to wireless Internet access and data communications services that provide subscribers with a portable, high-performance alternative to existing wire line and wireless network access services at a very low cost. Very simply put, what you currently do with a modem and a telephone line, you can do with a Ricochet modem, which we have here, wirelessly. At incredible speeds of 128 kilobytes per second, Ricochet provides subscribers wireless Internet, e-mail, local-area network access from literally anywhere within the coverage areas, without the confines of an office or even a wall jack. Ricochet offers the fastest data connection speeds, "always-on" connections, flat-rate, "all-you-can-use" pricing, no metered roaming fees, and true mobility to 70 miles per 14 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 hour for productive mass transiting. Metricom is currently providing Ricochet service in the San Francisco Bay area and in the Seattle and Washington, DC metropolitan areas. Philadelphia will join other 7 metropolitan areas across the United States 8 boasting of 128 kilobytes-per-second wireless 9 service by mid-2000. 10 The Metricom network consists of a 11 shoebox-sized radio transceiver -- I have one on the back window sill there -- which are typically mounted to the mast arms of street lights, as depicted up front, without penetrating the mast arm itself. There is no penetration to the facility. No trenching, cable or street hardware is needed. To achieve complete coverage, approximately six to eight radios per square mile are installed, utilizing less than 3 percent of your street lights. How odes it work? When you send a message or dial into the Internet, the message is sent wirelessly from this modem to the pole-top radio. The radio ricochets the message to a collection site for transfer to a telephone line, 15 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 and you're connected. Today many cities recognize the unlimited potential that wireless access provides the police-service segments and the public-service segments of their community. The Port of Seattle Police Department is one of those on the leading edge by digitally scanning crime-scene photos, digital fingerprints, and other information for immediate and widespread use. The Chevy Chase, Maryland Police Department uses Ricochet to prepare and process police reports as well as access the police database from the field. Their Police Department is also able to research license plate numbers, background checks, and other important information within minutes, right from the police cruiser, using Ricochet. Ricochet is used by schools and libraries to help bring the Internet to those who normally wouldn't have access. San Francisco, Sunnyvale, and Richmond, California are using bookmobiles equipped with Ricochet to access underserved children and senior citizens to provide them use of the public library as well as access to the Internet. San Leandro, California 16 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 uses Ricochet to connect the city library back to the city network. The school districts use Ricochet in their operations as well as classrooms. The County School Board of Fairfax, Virginia has Ricochet by field service and maintenance personnel, as well as in their portable classrooms. Are there any other wireless alternatives today? Sure. 8 kilobytes per second, significantly slower than Ricochet's 128 kilobyte-per-second speed. A cable modem provides high-speed access, but that cable doesn't stretch from your connection to the street or to the police cruiser or to the children's center Ricochet is the only technology available today that provides untethered, high-speed access. In conclusion, the availability of Ricochet service throughout the City and County of Philadelphia provides new ways of communicating without wires. With the Ricochet network and wireless technology, public safety and 17 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS.
- BILL 990845 community-service opportunities are available anytime, anywhere. Thank you for taking the time to consider our proposal. Mr. Gopadze and I are also available to answer any questions that you might have.
Thank you. Before we entertain questions, I just want the record to reflect that Councilmember Cohen and Councilmember Mariano are in attendance. The Chair recognizes Councilman Rizzo.
Thank you. One of my questions was going to be to look to see what the attachment to the street light would be. The Streets Department, obviously, has no concern about this additional attachment. Do you know what it weighs? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's relatively light-weight, three pounds. In discussions that we've had with the City Law Department and the Public Property, the attachment of it should not present any problem whatsoever to the operation of the street light or the safety of the public. As 18 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 far as the attachment of it to itself, the responsibility would be that of Metricom's to operate and maintain it so that if any problem did develop from their end of it, it would be their responsibility.
And let the record reflect that this young lady can carry the box in one hand, without any effort.
It appears that -- and Joe Doyle can answer this question. It appears that this is tied into the photocell that operates the street light. Now, you're under contract with PECO Energy for a fixed for energy to operate the street lights. How is PECO Energy being compensated for the energy that this light uses -- that this device uses?
We enter into separate agreement with the prevailing utility company, and either use existing tariff or have a new tariff developed to compensate PECO for all the electricity that's used. It is an unmetered use.
And that has not been done yet? 19 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845
We also -- and this is to the to the Deputy Commissioner. I remember when a particular wireless company came to this region to establish their service, that we prohibited that utility company, or that particular wireless company, from attaching their antennas and cell sites to utility poles that were within the County of Philadelphia. What's changing here? Are they now going to be permitted to -- for reconsideration, to attach antennae and cell sites within the County of Philadelphia?
Councilman Rizzo, to answer your question, we had not opposed the deployment of the wires technology in the City and County, only in the manner and the method that they went about pursuing that, because it wasn't a direct attachment to an existing -- if you want to call it "street furniture." What it involved was the replacement of poles to a higher level of height that was over and above the standard that we have in the City, 20 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 and it also added additional height and weight to the pole itself. As you see in this device, and in many cases, we think its innocuous to most people as far as its appearance at that height, and it doesn't add anything more to the street furniture that already exists.
My final question. There's a Pennsylvania Real Estate Act, and from what I understand, you use contractors for site acquisitions. And according to the Pennsylvania Real Estate Act, it is unlawful to conduct business without a licensee or a registration certificate. Do you plan to use the site acquisition people that conform to the Pennsylvania Real Estate Act?
Yes. We've subcontracted the work for the site acquisition services that you're referring to WFI. WFI employs Gavin and Associates and Gale Telecommunications, who are licensed real-estate agents within the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.
And they conform with Section 301 of the Pennsylvania Real Estate 21 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 Act?
I don't know specifically what that paragraph states, so I'm not. . .
Could you check on that point and get back to the Chair with that information?
And so that others members on the committee know what both of you were talking about, could somebody tell us? I've been trying to follow this conversation on this last question.
You apparently got a memorandum from somebody or from your staff or somewhere on this, but could you tell me --
I just know these 22 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 things.
No, I just know these things. There is an act in the State of Pennsylvania, the Pennsylvania Real Estate Act, that has requirements for firms, individuals -- correct me if I'm wrong.
For any purpose, when they want to attach a transmitter and receiver at a particular location and they have to rent a space on, let's say, a water tower on the Boulevard, they approach the ownership of that tower and negotiate a lease. Well, that person must be a licensed person with the licensing credentials. They have to have a license or a registration certificate. And it --
To involve themselves in the negotiations for site 23 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 acquisition.
Just for any kind of -- to buy a building, for example?
No, to negotiate a lease to attach a device to a facility. In other words, if you want a water tower, AT&T Wireless would come to you and say, Look, we need to attach an antenna to that tower. We'll pay you $1,000 a month. The person that does that negotiation for AT&T Wireless, or for Metricom, needs to be licensed by the State of Pennsylvania.
Well, suppose they want to attach a billboard, something --
Chairman DiCicco, I might also point out that our proposed agreement --
Excuse me. Could you please identify yourself for the record.
I'm sorry. My name is Lee Gopadze, and I'm the senior vice president for 24 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 Metricom, Inc. I also might point out that our proposed agreement with the City requires that we comply with all applicable statutes and laws regarding the placement of any facilities within the City. So it would certainly be our intent to comply with the law that you're speaking of.
The concern, obviously, is that some of the companies that are involved in site acquisition do not have the credentials that this act states, and we would hope that you would only use people that would conform with the act.
Mr. James, is there any indication that any current users of these poles beyond the City of Philadelphia -- are there any other current users, or would this be the first company that would be attaching something to these poles? 25 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845
Councilman Cohen, to our record, this is the first that we have of a company of this type that's deploying the technology on the City streets.
Is there any company of any other type that's attached anything to the poles?
Not that I have any record of. I don't know if the Streets Department -- the Streets Department acknowledges that there's no 12 one else out there like this.
And have there been objections from whoever uses the poles now, the telephone companies, the electric companies, whoever uses the poles? Is there any objections from them?
We're not aware of any objections from any of the utility companies or any of the owners of the poles themselves to object to this? And, of course, they have to ensure that the light fixture belongs to the City, and they have to get the permission of --
And we're not going to get calls from our constituents saying that 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 ever since they put that thing on there, our lights have been flickering on and off and never did that before? That's usually what happens, you know, when this type of --
I don't believe that that will happen, but I cannot guarantee it because we have not had that experience before, but I will assure you that if, in fact, we had a complaint from a constituent that since the implementation of that device has affected the function of the street light pole, it will be upon Metricom to rectify that immediately.
And that would apply if there's any interference with TV or telephone, that we suddenly get strange noises or the lights flicker?
I believe Metricom can answer that question, but they would affirm that they would do what is necessary to make sure that they are not imposing themselves upon any of the constituents?
And what do we know about Metricom as a company? Because it took 27 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 Public Property and the Law Department quite a long time, apparently, to reach this final conclusion that it's okay. So forgive us if we have to take some time to find out why it took you that long.
That's quite all right. We spent a good deal of time -- I would say over a year -- in discussions with Metricom on this, and we have checked with the other cities that have the service -- in particular San Francisco. We've talked to both their law department and their public works folks. We've talked to the City of New York, to their technology people as well as their public works folks. And the District of Columbia, as well as some other cities and counties that are local, to find out what is their experience with Metricom. And it was our conclusion that they are a good operator, that they do not create an undue burden on the city, and that they do not create an unnecessary risk in deploying this technology.
I think they're better able 28 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 to answer that question than I am, Councilman.
Scattered throughout the country, in approximately 13 different locations. But the majority of those, approximately 250, are located in Los Gatos, California.
And what is the nature of the work of those employees? Are hey technical employees, are they salespeople, are they office people?
Today, they are primarily technical and operations in nature, as we are building out these systems across the country.
Now, could you, in a simple way to a totally non-literate, non- computer-literate person, explain what this would 29 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 do? What is it that we're dealing with?
And, you know, don't overwhelm me with your knowledge and your speed.
Councilman, I think the easiest way to perhaps describe what our product does is the freedom that you have with a cellular telephone today, the freedom to go wherever you may, that same capability for the use of a laptop computer or a personal digital assistant would accrue to the subscriber to the Ricochet service. They would not need to have their computer be wired into the wall. They would be able to take that laptop or computer, if it were portable, and move it from any location to any other location within the coverage area; and merely by turning it on, be able to access either the Internet or a private Intranet, such as the City of Philadelphia may have for itself, to access databases, to access information, or to do other work that requires a computer.
So that, 30 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 essentially, it's a technique which improves the capability of computers or people who use computers. For people who don't use computers at all, does it play any role at all?
Absolutely. It also gives people that currently don't have access to the Internet, such as children in areas of our city that perhaps are less fortunate, that they do not have computers or Internet access at home, it allows us to place Ricochet a modem and a portable computer or a desktop on a bookmobile and take into their neighborhoods. So now the children that didn't have the ability to either research on the Internet or view what's out there from other countries or from the Smithsonian Institute are now able to do that just by hopping onto their bookmobile. They're always connected into the Internet without having to find that telephone line.
Well, I know the City library system has been equipping all of their libraries with computer facilities that enable them to have access to these various 31 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 groups. I don't mention them because I may mention the wrong ones. I don't know anything about how computers work. I don't say that proudly, but merely state it as a fact. Have they been brought in? Does Elliot Shelkrot, the president of the library system, feel that this would increase the capabilities and the usefulness of his library system?
Well, the overall strategy for deployment of technology in the City is something that we discussed with all of the departments, and we have had discussions with departments like the libraries.
Like the Police Department, like the Recreation Department, like opportunities for like the PALs, who are not the traditional type of environment where the City would be deploying a wire-line technology would have the opportunity to use this technology. Recreation centers who don't have a lot of computers and it would be over cost to build in that technology for one or two computers where they could deploy this 32 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 type of technology and it would be cost-effective. So while I can't say that Mr. Shelkrot himself is aware of it, there are other people within the various departments who understand the direction and the strategy of the City to deploy the most advanced type technology at less of a cost to the City.
And does the City -- you refer in one of the statements to compensation, and I think you indicate there's some temporary compensation and some later compensation? I'm not sure exactly what --
Could you tell us the nature of the compensation? What is it in terms and agreements?
There's two forms of -- well, there's actually three forms of compensation.
There's three forms of compensation. There is a pole fee for each pole that they attach their light fixture to. 33 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845
For the life of the agreement. It's a five-year agreement for each pole, on an annual basis each year of $60.
Right. There is also a guaranteed minimum revenue-sharing with Metricom, that the City receives either 5 percent of the adjusted gross income or a guaranteed minimum that is scalable. In the first two years, it's $100,000 each year; in Year 3, it's 200,000; and in Year 4 5, it's 250,000. And in addition to that financial compensation --
The total amount is $1,125,000 minimum guaranteed to the City for 5 34 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 years. There is also, as you were talking about earlier, there is a program that Metricom has entered into with the City for the use of 150 subscriptions, where we could provide 150 subscriptions to those -- that type of opportunities, whether they're the recreation centers, PAL centers, or whatever opportunities, where they would be a need to deploy this technology. And in addition, there would be 150 discount for the modems, these actual devices that we need acquire to use this technology.
Right. And that -- the City would use that to deploy, you know, based upon where the most critical need is. And, of course, as this technology becomes deployed, I see there's opportunities where the City will probably be buying subscriptions as well to deploy it in certain opportunities where it would be more cost- 35 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 effective than building a wired-line connection.
All right. Now, in the past, this Council has authorized the City to take fees from companies. I'm thinking of the field of public access. And at least since 1983, I've never been able to find out whether there has been money paid or not, but the amount involves many millions of dollars by now. There was supposed to have been by cable companies a 5 percent fee for public access. Now, is there any provision, since we are giving this company, if this gets past an approval, is there any such form of compensation? A number of us in Council -- how many there will be, only a vote will ultimately determine. At one point in 1983, I think the unanimous Council insisted on having the cable companies provide the financing for public access. Is there any requirement being made of this company to perform a similar kind of service? And the second part of that question is, how does this technology affect, if it does in any way, whether it benefits or hurts or has no impact on the question of public access? 36 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845
As viewed by the cable franchise, it has nothing to do with cable access.
Okay. And number two, the benefits that I just explained to you, the financial benefits, do accrue to the City, and it's not a set-aside, it's not a "we're going to do it." The monies, the encumbrance fees are paid, and they're paid to the City. The monies that you can view, that are being provided for the free subscriptions is complementary to what you might consider to be public access. We are providing free access on their network to citizens and are providing this service to the communities at no cost to them, as 37 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 Metricom is providing to the City.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have a couple questions. When I go out into my Council district and at public meetings, a lot of times, people want to know questions, and there's information I can access on my computers upstairs that I can't access -- for instance, real estate, as well as water bills, that's a big concern of people. Now, I tried to get something through the Council's offices here with Comcast Metrophone, and they offered something, but there's nowhere to plug into. So we can use this for that purpose?
Because I can't get through to the file where the City's got this big secret file that we can't get through. I know that's doable, because we can think of it, it's 38 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 already been thought of by much brighter people, so it's down to this point now. Now, will the City be able to do that? Is this part of the deal? Do all ten District Council offices get that access free for a while, or can we get a discounted rate? Or can I, as a private citizen, buy this?
There's -- the plan has a set-aside for a certain amount of free subscriptions. There is also discounts on their regular cost for the subscription.
We are still looking at that since we won't be ruling out for another six months, but it's our expectation that that cost would be somewhere between 50 and $75, depending upon the services that you would subscribe to.
Now, in the vein of my alleged esteemed colleague here, Councilman Cohen --
Monthly, right, $70 monthly. 39 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845
Then will it be the case where we start out with $20, and then it will be up to $2,000? My cable bill's $39 now, and it was -- you know, what Councilman Cohen was talking about, it was in them days. I mean, 8 you know, is that what's going to happen here? 9 Will you give us discounts up front and get us to 10 realize we can't live without this and this and 11 that we can't live without that and everything's 12 going off at once and it's how much we're going to 13 pay every month? 14 I mean, the citizens of Philadelphia 15 ultimately pay. If we can get that at a discounted rate, I can give them better service. But as a private citizen, that should be offered to me, but is there any kind of limit where you can raise your fees so much in five years? 'Cause this is bigger than I think any of us realize.
Yeah, but I think that's going to be market-driven. People will have a choice.
Just like you do 40 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 with certain programs in cable. I choose not to have HBO and some of the other things 'cause I'm never home so I just have basic.
I would point out, I think, to the Council two things that typically, or at least until recently, cable has not had significant competition, and that's what allowed them to drive.
This is a nonexclusive agreement with the City, number one. And, number two, there are alternate service-providers, and we would expect that the market will --
No, we actually expect that it will go down over time as more competition develops.
Well, you're obviously offering us some kind of a discounted rate or free because you want to come here and get us to say yes. And probably, we will.
You're offering us -- I mean, there's a carrot, there's always the proverbial carrot. And this is the carrot: we're going to give some rec centers access to stuff that they probably already get over a hard cable already. Can I yield to Councilman Cohen?
Just a moment. One of the carrots we would like to see is, as Councilman Mariano have brought out, that this would have specific advantages for Councilmembers. We would like to see, as part of the agreement, that each Council -- that we don't get confronted with the fact, Well, our Council budget cannot afford to pay for this. Since it's clear that it would be very useful to City Council, we would like to suggest, Mr. James, an agreement that at least Council offices, and maybe other City offices, should be furnished with this, you know, without compensation.
I think, Councilman, I would disagree with your request. All I'm saying to you is that we're talking 150 subscriptions, so 42 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 if you're talk or or -- 3
Since there's only 17 here, 6 then we're not talking, you know, about a big 7 demand and a need to do anything special to 8 provide for the Council. 9 The only thing I would consider is that 10 the technology is also available for what they're 11 talking about in a LAN line in your environment 12 today. And that I think, more to what Councilman 13 Mariano said, is the type of situation that we 14 want to be able to provide the service for is when 15 you go out in the field and you have a critical 16 need where there is no service today and you have 17 the need where you want to get to your databases 18 or your e-mail, that's where we would like to see 19 it. We would not like to see 17 of them sitting in offices right next to computers that already have line locations. They would be available to you to be deployed in the field.
Well, what I'm suggesting is an easy solution, which is to raise your 150 to 175 so that when we call "public property," you may not be there, and you may the head of some other department at the time. We can say we had an agreement that there would be enough provided so that whenever Council needed them, they'd be available. That's all I'm asking. Whether in the office or out. If you think 150 is necessary, we would like to have a general memorandum of understanding between the City of Philadelphia and the Council that that number would include -- would enable the City to fulfill any requests from Councilmembers in connection with their official Council work, you know, whether it's in the office or not. That's all we're seeking.
I would just like 44 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 to remind this committee that we have 42 other bills, and I know these questions are important and I don't want to rush it but --
Thank you, Councilman. All right. My second question is the mobile data terminal that the police use. What system do they use now? Is it something similar to this?
The police currently use a Bell Atlantic Mobile technology called "Cellular Data Packet," and it's CDPD service. And it's at 19.2 speed; it's not at the 128 speed that they were referring to earlier.
Sure, they would like to be there. Again, we need to see the technology deployed, we need to see it operate. And then there has to be some technical consideration whether or not in moving to that platform, we're going to provide the police with any more 45 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 efficiency. And if so, then I think that's where we see the opportunities where we're actually going to be buying the service --
Yeah. We're going to be buying the service, and if, it's going to provide competition for the folks at Bell Atlantic Mobile to increase their speed to be competitive.
Because if you live a boring life like I do and you listen to the police scanner, they are terribly slow. I mean, I know we're working on that, but the data terminals are slow too, and if they could get this, they could have less down and more time doing police work. My third and final question. You talked, about applicable necessary applications and fees and licenses. Who will be getting all the licenses when somebody actually installs it? We're talking about two different things here. We need to install these things. Who will do the installation? Will Metricom do the installation? Or you hire subcontractors, I suppose? 46 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845
No, Metricom will not be doing the installation. We would go ahead and open it up to bidding within the local area to companies that are able to go ahead and deploy the service to install the radios and then maintain the radios throughout the life of the agreement.
They would be licensed, correct. There are standards that we lay out, that they have to be licensed, they have to pay prevailing wage, etc., etc. They have to have the ability, the wherewithal, the licenses, and the technology to go ahead and install.
Where are you with your minority business, you know, for women and minorities to be able to get on the bidding list?
Absolutely. We would invite the bidding to minority-owned businesses, women-owned businesses. And we'll also have a bidding conference for those companies that aren't quite sure exactly what we are doing, because this is a little bit different, to be able to explain to them the parameters of the job. 47 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845
Do you think there's anybody around here that absolutely -- I mean, the technology's new, so you're going to have to have technicians to teach, somebody that's done this somewhere else to teach the crews to do this stuff.
Absolutely. There's very detailed instructions that the Metricom personnel provide and training that they provide to whatever company would do the installation.
Will I get to see Joe Doyle up on a cherry picker actually installing some of these? Joe, I'll go with you.
Councilman, it's early. 48 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845
The -- this goes to Joe Doyle. This configuration now puts an interface between the photocell and the head of the street light. Do you have a contract with a maintenance company? We're talking 700 sites just mounted to street lights?
950. Now, Mr. Doyle, the interface becomes the problem and the street-light maintenance gets a call that there's a street light out. They get out there, they find the problem's defective interface, and the reason for the call-out for the maintenance contractor wasn't related to the street; it was related the device. Who pays?
Well, right now, our maintenance contract with PECO is a lump sum number every month, so there's no specific payment for each individual call-out. Clearly, a contractor would have to notify us if, in fact, he felt that the device was somehow interfering with the operation of the street light. Because we have an agreement with Metricom, and presumably they would be interested 49 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990845 in having it renegotiated, then I would expect that they would be very quick to remedy whatever problem arose, either directly compensating PECO for the call or making whatever collection action they have with their own people. So right, now the technology seems to be pretty straightforward, that the City's photo control plugs into this device and that device plugs into the City's luminary. I do not expect there to be any ripple effect here back to the contractor to cause him any additional service calls.
I'm hearing you say today that you don't think that 950 of these devices that we are going to have failures associated with that device that's going to cause a street light to go out?
If I might address Councilman Rizzo's concern. We currently, in the cities of San Francisco -- the market areas of San Francisco, Washington D.C., and Seattle have approximately 50 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 22,000 of these types of units up, and we have experienced no significant concerns from any of those cities to the issues that you've addressed.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. And thank you very much.
The next bill is Bill No. 18 990713, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 42 by striking from the City Plan and vacating the legally open portions of 32nd Street, from Market Street to Chestnut Street; and by reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes, gas main purposes and public utility purposes within the 51 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 lines of 32nd Street being stricken from the City Plan and vacated, under authority of this ordinance, certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. The Streets Department would like to give the following testimony on Bill No. 990713: This is not an administration ordinance 12 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Joseph Cascerceri, Vice President for Government and Community Relations, Drexel University. The purpose of this ordinance is to permanently close 32nd Street between Chestnut and Market Streets to (unintelligible) vehicular traffic. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Martin Soffer. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of a minor one-way street in the University City 52 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 section of West Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to consolidate and unify the Drexel University campus and to permit development of a landscaped pedestrian corridor. The Planning Commission requests that the streets bill include a condition that the Streets Department will conduct a larger-scale traffic impact study that will include all proposed development around 30th Street prior to the final street confirmation. Therefore, by action of its meeting on November 4, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 14 990713 be conditionally approved. Thank you.
Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee, good afternoon. My name is Joseph Cascerceri, Vice President for Government and Community Relations at Drexel University. I am pleased to bring you greetings on behalf of Drexel's President, Dr. Constantine Papadakis and our students, faculty, staff and over 7,000 alumni. Thank you for this opportunity to make a few remarks about the proposed permanent closure 53 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 of 32nd Street between Market and Chestnut. My purpose in coming before you today is to explain how the permanent closure of this portion of 32nd Street and the subsequent construction of the Drexel Grand Plaza will create a magnificent gateway from Center City into West Philadelphia. Market Street is one of the main vehicular arteries through Drexel and one of the most heavily traveled corridors for motorists and pedestrians between Center City and West Philadelphia. Recently renamed "The Avenue of Technology," this street symbolizes the area's tradition of leadership and technological development, and embodies the collegiate atmosphere of University City. A painted railroad trestle over Market Street provides a gateway element that draws the attention of motorists and pedestrians to Drexel University. Westbound Market Street travelers pass through this visible University City threshold and are left with the strong impression of Drexel's presence. I might add that recently, we've cleaned up the trestles, removed the graffiti and the billboards that have been there 54 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 for many, many years. One of the challenges we face as an institution is striking an appealing or efficient balance between the physical realities of an urban area and the needs and look of a major university campus. In light of this central goal, the segment of 32nd Street between Market and Chestnut takes on a special significance. The area is important because it represents a junction between the main building, which houses the Drexel University administration, and the quadrangle, the hub of our student activity. It provides space for campus visitors and members of the Drexel community to mingle. With the opening of our new alumni center, which will be housed in the renovated Furness Building, at 32nd and Market, Drexel alumni will also mix with students and faculty members in the closed portion of 32nd Street. As many of you know, the famed Furness Building was designed by architect Frank Furness in the early part of the century, who's a native son of the City. The currently cordoned-off area must be enhanced in order to provide a seamless inroad to 55 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 the collegiate landscape. A carefully planned open space will enable campus visitors and University City residents to more easily identify the whereabouts within the context of the university as they walk between Chestnut and Market on 32nd. Such a common area would also offer a more appropriate border for the main building, one of University City's most impressive and architecturally sound structures, built in 1890. As part of a comprehensive Master Plan designed to beautify the campus and create a more structured collegiate atmosphere, Drexel is planning to build a paved surface shaded by a canopy of trees on the site of the currently cordoned-off portion of 32nd Street. If you'll follow the arrow that Eric (unintelligible) from my staff is pointing to now, it will more delineate the designs of the Grand Plaza. Drexel Grand Plaza will provide a more intimate view of the main building for pedestrians walking through the university's interior and offer those passing by on Market or Chestnut Streets a more distinct impression of a cohesive 56 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 campus landscape. Vehicular and pedestrian travelers will benefit from the improved lighting of the Plaza.
Creation of the Plaza will also allow for better coordination between Drexel's administrative and student-life functions. 8 million to begin construction of the Plaza. This Plaza will connect our main building alumni and computer centers, business college, and one of our main teaching facilities, helping to create a cohesive whole rather than a disjointed set of academic buildings. The Plaza protect the integrity of the 32nd Street grid and replace a congested corridor with a well-planned open space that's accessible from both Chestnut and Market Streets. The Plaza will tremendously enhance the campus and make Drexel more competitive, allowing us to attract more and better students to our city. This benefits Drexel, of course, as well as the city. A study by the Pennsylvania Economy 57 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 League, which is attached for the members of the committee in your handout today, has determined that for every two new students who we bring full-time to Drexel University, it has roughly the same economic impact on the area and the city as the creation of one new job. This past September 20th, we brought to the City of Philadelphia 1,000 full-time brand-new students, which is the equivalency of creating 500 new jobs for the City. Education, members of this committee, is an industry, and we need to be competitive in order to thrive. That means implementing an attractive and efficient campus design. The closure the 32nd Street and the construction of the Plaza are among many campus enhancement projects that have either been recently completed or are currently underway. Again, Eric will point to $93 million in current construction on our campus. These include the renovation of academic halls, the construction of a park on Race Street, a dormitory, and other facilities, as well as the renovation of the new alumni center, which will 58 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 complement the adjacent Plaza. I might add that we are now constructing the fourth brand-new dormitory in five years at Drexel, which, according to the Chronicle of Higher Education, is the most construction of dormitories of the over 4,500 colleges and universities in the United States today. In summary, members of the committee. Drexel's Master Plan establishes the University's commitment to beautify its campus, create a more professional collegiate atmosphere, and enhance the visible identity of University City. The permanent closure of 32nd Street fits into Drexel's larger vision, a vision of more efficient, usable campus space, and a more appealing physical link with the surrounding community, and a more distinctive gateway between Center City and West Philadelphia. Thank you for your time today, and I'd happy to answer any of your questions.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. 59 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 How are you doing, Mr. Cascerceri? Good to see you back.
Mr. Cascerceri, can you acclimate me a little bit on that map? Where is the post office in relationship to that map there, on the larger map? On the larger map. The post office, okay.
On Walnut, further down? Okay, is there traditionally any traffic utilizing the post office? Do they use 32nd Street at all? (Mr. Cascerceri responds off mike.)
Was it done based on the ultimate -- I mean, what was the basis for the temporary closing? (Mr. Cascerceri responds off mike.)
Okay. I have a very 60 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 similar to the situation in my district with Temple University. Question. With respect to the development opportunities, had you found that the inability to close 32nd Street on a permanent basis inhibited your ability to clear the additional development opportunities? 'Cause that's somewhat. (Mr. Cascerceri responds off mike.)
You need to use the mike. I apologize to the stenographer.
Most definitely, Councilman. 32nd Street, like most urban campuses in our city -- and I'm talking Temple, Penn, St. Joe's, LaSalle -- it's a major artery, but it's also a major connect between all of our buildings. Our classrooms are here, here's 32nd, and here's all the administration. For all those students to get back and forth for the records, for the rosters, etc., etc., they have to cross 32nd, and for years, it 61 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 was a very, very unsafe situation, with 14,000 students at any given time crossing that street into the main building.
Okay. And as you said, during that short -- that temporary closure of 32nd Street, was there an ongoing traffic analysis done by the Streets Department or by some other entity?
We did not necessarily have a full, ongoing traffic analysis. It was one of those a little bit more informal basically. If we're going to get a lot of complaints, we're going to have a lot of accidents and our statistics are going to jump up; and in this case, they did not.
But the Planning Commission has asked to us look into that a little further in their testimony, and we will do that in the future.
Are there any 62 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 other questions?
I think we're going to do that with all the bills today, as far as I know.
Mr. Cascerceri, I'm also concerned on the closing issue. Is there any residential community nearby?
The closest community, Councilman, is about a quarter of a mile north of that street, Powelton Village. And those residents have not -- it's being pointed out there, Councilman, on the chart. Powelton Village is north of our campus to the extreme far north, and those residents have not complained about this issue at all.
There's never been a 63 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990713 complaint from the residents?
Not on this issue; there have been on others but on others.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Thank you, gentlemen. And hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Thank you, members of 64 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990457 the committee.
I want to announce that the following bills have been withdrawn at the request of their respective sponsors: Bill No.'s 990557, 990558, 990559, 990603, 990649, 990714, 990813, 990832, 990833, and 990841. The next bill is Bill No. 990457, which is an ordinance establishing a no-truck-parking regulation on K Street, both sides, from Erie avenue to Sedgley Street. State your name for the record.
Hi. My name is Kasim Ali. I'm the Acting Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer. Good afternoon, committee members, Honorable Councilpeople, ladies and gentlemen. With reference to Bill No. 990457 proposing to establish a no-truck-parking regulation on the east side of K Street, from Erie Avenue to Sedgley Avenue, the following report is submitted: K Street is 30 feet wide, two-way, with parking on the east side only. The Streets Department has no objection to this proposed ordinance. 65 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990458
Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
The next is Bill No. 10 990458, which is an ordinance establishing a no-truck-parking regulation on L Street, both sides, from Erie Avenue to Sedgley Street.
With reference to Bill No. 14 990458 proposing to establish a no-truck-parking regulation on the east and west sides of L Street, from Erie Avenue to Sedgley Avenue, the following report is submitted: L Street is 50 feet wide, two-way, with parking on both sides. The Streets Department has no objection to the proposed ordinance.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone 66 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990459 else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990459, an ordinance establishing a no-truck-parking regulation on M Street, both sides, from Erie Avenue to Kensington Avenue.
With reference to Bill No. 12 990459 proposing to establishing a no-truck- parking regulation on the east and west sides of M Street, from Erie Avenue to Kensington Avenue, the following report is submitted: M Street is 36 feet wide, two-way, with parking on both sides. The Streets Department has no objection to this proposed ordinance.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? 67 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990529 (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990529, an ordinance establishing a no-parking regulation on both sides of the 4300 block of Belgrade Street, from 100 feet south of Gillingham Street to the end of the street.
With reference to Bill No. 11 990529 proposing to establish a no-truck-parking regulation on the east and west sides of the 4300 block of Belgrade street, from 150 south of Gillingham Street, south to the end of the street, the following report is submitted: Belgrade Street is feet wide, 17 two-way, with parking on both sides. In June of 18 1998, Traffic Engineering posted on a trial basis 19 no-truck-parking from 6 p.m. to 6 a.m. on the east 20 and west sides of the 4300 block of Belgrade 21 Street. This was done in response to a request 22 from Councilwoman Krajewski on behalf of her 23 constituents. This regulation has been in effect 24 for several months, without any complaints to our 25 knowledge. Therefore, the Streets Department has 68 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990529 no objection to this proposed ordinance.
Thank. Any questions for this witness? Were you aware of a change that may be needed to amend a part of the body of the bill? And I have in front of me a memo from Chris Creelman from Councilwoman Krajewski's office. It says it has been brought to the Councilwoman's attention that Bill No. 990529 will be amended during testimony, to read -- the change should be from 150 feet south of Gillingham Street to the end of the street -- not 100 feet, as it is stated in the original ordinance. Does that sound familiar to you?
Uh, this is the first time that I've been made aware of it, but. . .
I guess that would require a change in the title of the bill, which we really can't do. Could that be amended?
All right. I think I'll yield to your expertise. I don't think we could amend that, could we?
So we'd have to withdraw the bill and then reintroduce it.
We have another Streets and Services hearing next week, and we'll continue it till next week. And I'll give you a copy of this memo from --
We'll get it to you, don't worry about it. Just -- we'll go through the other bills. All right, so I think what we'll do is, we'll continue that bill until the next Streets and Services Committee hearing, which, I think, will be next week. With that, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990530, an ordinance establishing a no-truck-parking regulation on both sides of St. Vincent Street, from Brous Avenue to Roosevelt Boulevard.
With reference to Bill No. 23 990530 proposing to establish a no-truck-parking regulation on the north and south sides of St. Vincent Street, from Brous Avenue to Roosevelt 70 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990530 Boulevard, the following report is submitted? St. Vincent Street is 36 feet wide, two-way, with parking on both sides. In September of 1997, Traffic Engineering posted on a trial basis a no-truck-parking regulation anytime on the north and south sides of the 2800 block of St. Vincent Street. This was done in response to a request from Councilwoman Krajewski on behalf of her constituents. This regulation has been in effect for several months without any complaint, to our knowledge. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to this proposed ordinance.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990531, an 71 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990531 ordinance establishing a no-truck-parking regulation on both sides of Keystone Street, from Devereaux Avenue to Robbins Street.
With reference to Bill No. 6 990531 proposing to establish a no-truck-parking regulation on the east and west side of Keystone Street, from Devereaux to Robbins Street, the following report is submitted: Keystone Street is 40 feet wide, two-way, with parking on both sides. In October of 1998, Traffic Engineering posted on a trial a no-truck-parking regulation anytime on the east and west sides of the 6200 block of Keystone Street. This was done in response to a request from Councilwoman Krajewski on behalf of her constituents. This regulation has been in effect for several months, without any complaints, to our knowledge. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to this proposed ordinance.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone 72 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990535 else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990835, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on the east side of State Road, between Linden Avenue and Rhawn Street, for the purposes of securing and facilitating a control area for emergency response in front of the northeast municipal complex by posting "No Parking This Side" signs, spaced intermittently along the affected area.
With reference to Bill No. 16 990835 proposing to establish a no-parking regulation on the east side of State Road, from Rhawn Street to Linden Avenue, the following report is submitted: State Road is 60 feet wide, two-way, with parking on both sides. The Streets Department has no objection to this proposed ordinance.
Thank you. (Witness comes forward.) 73 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990144
Do you wish to testify? Please state your name for the record. CAPTAIN RAPONE: My name is Captain Rapone, the commanding officer of the 8th Police District. I was told to come to this meeting in order to answer any of your questions in regards to the change in the ordinance.
Are there any questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. And thank you for your patience, Captain.
Bill No. 990144, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Lenox Avenue, south side, Broad Street to 15th Street. Did you have another one? I'm sorry. I didn't realize he had another one. 74 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990840
Oh, I'm sorry. It is. Bill No. 990840, an ordinance 6 establishing a no-truck-parking regulation on Stenton Avenue, both sides, from Broad Street to 17th Street.
With reference to Bill No. 10 990840 proposing a no-truck-parking regulation on Stenton Avenue, from Broad Street to 17th Street, the following report is submitted: Stenton Avenue is 60 feet wide, two-way, with parking on both sides. The Streets Department has no objection to this proposed ordinance.
And are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Before the clerk reads the title of the next bill, I just want to 75 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990144 recognize Councilwoman Miller as being in attendance to this hearing. Thank you.
Bill No. 990144, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Lenox Street, south side, Broad Street to 15th Street. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. My name is Catherine Confair, and I'm an analyst coordinator with the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Bill No. 990144 introduced by Councilwoman Miller by request. This bill 19 establishes a parking regulation on Lenox Avenue, south side, Broad Street to 15th Street. This deregulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. 76 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990460 Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990460, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on 13th Street, east side, Jackson Street to Snyder Avenue.
Bill No. 990460, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill establishes a parking regulation on 13th Street, east side, Jackson Street to Snyder Avenue. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 21 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this 77 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990461 witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990461, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Sixth Street, both sides, Christian Street to Montrose Street, and Sixth Street, east side, Montrose Street to Carpenter Street.
Bill No. 990461, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill establishes a parking regulation on Sixth Street, both sides, Christian Street to Montrose Street, and Sixth Street. Each side, Montrose Street to Carpenter Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. 78 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990462 Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990462, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Sydenham Street, west side, Cecil B. Moore Avenue to Montgomery Avenue.
Bill No. 990462, introduced by Councilman Darryl Clarke by request. This bill establishes a parking regulation on Sydenham Street, west side, Cecil B. Moore Avenue to Montgomery Avenue. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this 79 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990646 witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990646, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Snyder Avenue, north side, Watts Street to Broad Street.
Bill No. 990646, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill establishes a parking regulation on Snyder Avenue, north side, Watts Street to Broad Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? 80 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990647 (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990647, an ordinance establishing a parking regulation on Passyunk Avenue, both sides, Christian Street to Carpenter Street.
Bill No. 990647, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill establishes a parking regulation on Passyunk Avenue, both sides, Christian Street to Carpenter Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 19 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.) 81 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990648
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990648, an ordinance establishing parking regulations on Juniper Street, west side, Porter Street to Ritner Street.
Bill No. 990648, introduced by Councilman DiCicco by request. This bill establishes a parking regulation on Juniper Street, west side, Porter Street to Ritner Street. This new regulation has been in effect for a period of at least eight months, with no 18 apparent problems. The Philadelphia Parking Authority recommends favorable consideration of this bill.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone 82 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990674, 677 else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990674 and companion Bill 990677. Bill 990674 is an ordinance authorizing the construction of the sewer and appurtenant work required to alleviate unsanitary conditions in portions of a proposed right-of-way for drainage, sewer, and water main purposes in Rodney Street, a private street. And Bill No. 990677, an ordinance to authorize the Water Commissioner, on behalf of the City,, to enter into agreements with the owners of the properties and their successors of a private street known as Rodney Street, from South Ferry Road to a dead end approximately 448 feet northeasterly of South Ferry Road for the grant of right-of-way to the City for drainage, sewer, and 83 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990674, 677 water main purposes. (Paul McCloskey comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul McCloskey. I'm representing the Water Department. These two Bill No.'s were introduced on October 14, 1999 by Councilman Nutter by request. Bill No. 990674 authorizes the Water Department to construct the sanitary and storm sewers on a private street known as Rodney Street, from South Ferry Road to approximately 448 feet northeasterly of South Ferry Road. Rodney Street is a private street in the East Falls area of the City. The west side of the street is Fairmount Park. The east side of the street is the rear of houses that are 19 fronting on the 4000 block of Ridge Avenue. These 20 houses are a mixture of three-story single-family houses and triplexes. These properties are currently serviced by a public water main and gas in Ridge Avenue and a private sanitary sewer in the rear of the property on Rodney Street. The sewer was placed at the turn of the 84 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990674, 677 century at private cost. The private sewer has failed off and on during the last ten years and requires total replacement. The public sewer available is deep in rock and is on the opposite side of Ridge Avenue. Besides being expensive to connect to the existing sewer, the area would be severely impacted by this construction. In light of the fact that they have public water and have been paying water and sewer bills for over 90 years, the residents have petitioned the City for a public sewer. A portion of these bills provide for debt service for capital projects such as new and reconstruction of water mains and sewers, and so it's only reasonable that such revenue should be used for their own utilities. Further, revenues received by the properties exceed the construction cost of the facilities. An assessment shall be levied against the owners having frontage in order to absorb a portion of the cost of construction, and the residents shall be required to connect into the sewer at their cost, in accordance with the City code. 85 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990674, 677 Since Rodney Street is a private street, the property owners must grant a subsurface utility right-of-way to the City. This will allow the City to legally enter the private street to initially construct utilities and provide for access for future maintenance. Bill No. 990677 provides for this access by authorizing the Water Commissioner, on behalf of the City,, to enter into agreements with the owners of the properties and their successors for the grant of the right-of-way to the City for drainage, sewer, and water main purposes. This agreement shall also provide language that the City may place the right-of-way on the City Plan at a future date. We recommend that this bill be favorably reported out of committee, and we ask for a suspension of the rules on this and on any other Water Department bill sponsored today.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone 86 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990676 else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990676, an ordinance authorizing the construction of a sanitary sewer and appurtenance work on a portion of Minerva Street.
Bill 990676 was introduced by Councilman Nutter on October 14, 1999 by request. This bill authorizes the Water Department to construct a sanitary on Minerva Street to Bean Street to Ridge Avenue. Minerva Street is a block of single-family dwellings in the upper Roxborough section of the City. The block is currently serviced by individual on-site sewerage treatment facilities for each property. Since it's outlived its usefulness, it requires replacement. The malfunction in the septic systems has created an unsanitary condition. In light of the fact that the residents are serviced, public water and public sewer was requested. 87 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990676 An assessment shall be levied against the owners having frontage to absorb a portion of the cost of the construction. The residents shall be required to connect to the new service at their cost, in accordance with the City code. We recommend that this bill be favorably recommended out of committee.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the committee? Councilmember Rizzo?
When a septic system is abandoned, does it have to be removed, or can it be abandoned in place?
In this particular case, Councilman, this was put in a long time ago. These are rowhouses, and the systems are in the rear. Now, for some of people, they have gone totally bad. I did speak with one of the residents up there, and she had managed to keep hers going for a couple more years for $3500; she just put it on her Master Charge. We're trying to provide the sewer 88 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990676 availability to these people when they finally do collapse totally so that they can tie in.
But the general concept, when a person has a -- I'm amazed at the number that we still have in the city.
When you do this process, hook them up to City sewage, are they allowed to leave the existing system there just underground or do they have to dig it up and take it away?
They have to make provisions to neutralize it, you know, to have it cleaned out and neutralize the soil, you know, so it won't go down into the ground table.
With concrete or something? Something similar to what you would do with a --
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990720, an ordinance authorizing the construction of a water main and appurtenant work required to replace a private main and to ensure better water supply in portions of a proposed right-of-way for drainage, sewer, and water main purposes on St. Bernard Street, a private street.
Again, my name is Paul McCloskey, with the Philadelphia Water Department. This bill is tied in to Bill No. 23 990720, authorizing the construction of a water main. It is in conjunction with a sister bill, Bill 990721, which is a right-of-way authorization 90 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990720 bill. I wish to testify simultaneously on the two. The two were introduced by Councilman Nutter on October 21, 1999 by request. Bill No. 6 990720 authorizes the Water Department to construct a water main in a private street known as St. Bernard Street, from Woodbine Avenue to approximately 85 feet northwesterly of Woodbine Avenue. St. Bernard Street is a private street in the Wynnefield area of the City. The west side of the street is the rear of the properties of 50th Street. The east side of the street has three single-family houses. These houses are currently serviced by a private water main, private sewer and public gas main. The facilities were replaced at the turn of the century at private cost. The facilities have outlived there usefulness and require total replacement. The water main, in particular, is beyond repair and temporary measures were taken to provide water service. The residents have been paying water and sewer bills for over 90 years. A portion of 91 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990720 these bills provide for debt service for capital projects such as new and reconstructed water mains and sewers. It's only reasonable that such revenues be used for their own utility. Further, the revenues received by the properties exceed the cost of the new construction. An assessment shall be levied against the owners having owners have frontage in order to absorb a portion of the cost of reconstruction, and the residents are required to connect to the new main at their cost, in accordance with the City code. Since St. Bernard Street is not a public street, the property owners must grant a subsurface utility right-of-way to the City. This will allow the City to legally enter the property to initially construct the utilities and provide for access for future maintenance. Bill No. 990721 provides for this access by authorizing the Water Commissioner, on behalf of the City,, to enter into agreements with the owners of properties and successors of St. Bernard Street for the granting of a right-away to the City for drainage, sewer and water main 92 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990721 purposes. We recommend that this bill be favorably voted out of committee.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against these bills? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990721, an ordinance to authorize the Water Commission, on behalf of the City,, to enter into agreements with the owners of the properties and their successors of a private Street known as St. Bernard Street, from Woodbine Avenue to approximately 385 feet northwesterly of Woodbine Avenue, for the grant of a right-of-way to the City for drainage, sewer, and water main purposes.
I believe that we just received testimony on that one. 93 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990763
Right, and we just read the title of the bill into the record.
Yeah, but we just needed to enter the title into the record, so we're clear. Thank you.
Bill 990763, an ordinance 16 to authorize the Water Commissioner, on behalf of the City,, to enter into agreements with the owners of the properties and their successors, of a P-shaped private street known as Parkwood Lane, that is located northwesterly if Fairmount Park property, 100 feet northwesterly of Summit Avenue, approximately 600 feet southwesterly of Old Line Road, for the grant of right-of-way to the City for drainage, sewer, and water main purposes.
Again, my name's Paul 94 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990763 McCloskey and I represent the Water Department. Bill No. 990763 was introduced by Councilman Nutter on November the 4th, 1999, by request. Pennsylvania Sprango (ph.), Incorporated, the developer is currently constructing single-family houses at this 8 location. The new street servicing the 9 development shall be private. The new water mains 10 and sewers are intended to be designed and built 11 to Water Department standards, at the sole cost of 12 the developer. In accordance with the 13 Philadelphia Code, the developer should turn 14 ownership of these utilities over to the City at their completion. Since Parkwood Lane, again, is not a public street, the developer must grant a subsurface utility right-of-way to the City. This will allow the City to legally take over the ownership of the facilities, provide access for future maintenance. This bill provides for this access by authorizing the Water Commissioner, on behalf of the City, to enter into agreements with the owners of the properties and their successors of Parkwood Lane for the grant of the right-of-way 95 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990763 to the City for drainage, sewer, and water main purposes. The agreement also provides language that the City may place the right-of-way on the City Plan at a future date. We recommend that this bill be favorably reported out of committee.
Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Thank you very much for your time, and you have a good holiday also. The clerk will please read the title of 96 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990456 the next bill.
Bill No. 990456, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 197 by striking from the Russell Street from Casper Street to a point approximately 311 feet southeastwardly therefrom by striking from the City Plan and vacating Ontario Street from a point approximately 507 feet southeast of Casper Street to a point approximately 52 feet southeast of Casper Street; by reserving and placing on the City Plan a certain 60-feet wide right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes; and by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain 50-feet wide right-of-way for drainage purposes from Ontario Street to a point approximately 231 feet eastwardly therefrom, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. And good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Martin Soffer from the City Planning Commission. 97 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990456 The proposed ordinance authorizes the removal from the City Plan of two unneeded dead-end streets located in the Port Richmond section of Northeast Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to assist in the assemblage of a nine-acre development parcel that will permit the Isbrey (ph.) Holding Corporation to construct a 100,000 square foot water bottling and distribution facility. Therefore, by action at its meeting on June 17, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990456 be approved. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Edward Duffy, and I represent the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development. And I am here to testify in support of Bill No. 990456. This ordinance will strike from the 98 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990456 City Plan Russell Street for a distance of 311 feet from Casper Street, strike and abandon a drainage right-of-way north of Ontario, and strike and vacate Ontario Street for a distance of 507 feet to its terminus at the railroad right-of-way in the bed of Carbon Street, subject to retaining a 60-foot wide drainage and water main right-of-way in the stricken portion of Ontario Street. Bill No. 990456 has been submitted at the request of the Isbrey Spring Water Company, which proposes to acquire the entire nine-acre site on the north side of Ontario Street at Carbon Street and develop it as a port terminus bottling and distribution facility that will employ an estimated 150 workers at the site. This acquisition of this City-owned site was previously approved by City Council in its Ordinance 980966, enacted April 27th of 1999. I ask that the committee consider this bill favorably and that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next regularly scheduled meeting of Council. Thank you for this opportunity to 99 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990456 testify. I would be happy to answer any questions that you may have regarding this witness.
Thank you, Mr. Duffy. Is this a new company or are they expanding their operations?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 16 990456: This is not an administration ordinance 18 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Edward Duffy, Senior Vice President of PIDC. The purpose of this ordinance is to strike Russell Street and remove a drainage right-of-way for the development of a natural spring water importation bottling and distribution facility. The ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to 100 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990725 committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990725, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 307 by relocating a portion of the southerly curb line of Cuthbert Street between 12th Street and 13th Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 24 990725: This is not an administration ordinance 101 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990725 but an ordinance requested by Mr. G. Ross Wilson, Senior Vice President or Presidential Real Estate and Development Parkway Corporation, 150 North Broad Street, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to reduce the south sidewalk width to accommodate deliveries for proposed retail stores fronting on Filbert Street to be built in conjunction with the 12th and Filbert Street Convention Center garage. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Marty Soffer, from the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the revision of the lines and grades of a minor street in the Convention Center section of Center City. The purpose of this ordinance is to improve service access to the rear of a proposed parking garage retail development. Therefore, by action at its meeting on November 4, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990725 be approved. 102 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990725 Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Lonie, this will not have any effect on the garage that is being built by Parkway, would it?
Yeah. What they wanted was, they were concerned -- their plan is to have retail stores on the first floor fronting on Filbert Street, and they needed to widen Cuthbert Street in the back to have --
Thank you. Are there any questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 103 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990756 clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990756, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 194 by striking from the City Plan Hope Street from York Street to Cumberland Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 14 990756: This is not an administration ordinance 16 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Matthew Walker, of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority. The purpose of this ordinance is to close Hope Street for the new Hunter Elementary School. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to the committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? 104 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990756 (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
-- and members of the committee, the proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City of a minor unneeded street in the Huntington section of North Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to assemble a property for the construction of the new Hunter Elementary School. Development costs for this kindergarten-through-8th-grade school are between 16 and 18 million, with an enrollment of between 8 to 900 students. Therefore, by action at its meeting on November 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990756 be approved. Thank you.
Now, are there any other questions for these witness from the 105 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990765 committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990765, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 97 by relocating a portion of the southerly curb line of Pemberton Street, between Seventh Street and Eighth Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 21 990765: This is an administration ordinance 23 requested by the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to widen the street in front of City property to alleviate neighborhood 106 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990765 congestion. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the proposed ordinance 7 authorizes the relocation of a portion of a southerly curb line of a minor street in the Bella Vista section in South Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to improve the street parking adjacent to (unintelligible) by permitting a one-and-a-half-foot widening of a cartway. Therefore, by action at its meeting on November 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990765 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 107 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990811 clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990811, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 97 by striking from the City Plan and vacating a three-foot wide portion of Passyunk Avenue from Sixth Street to Catharine Street and a three-foot wide portion of Sixth Street from Passyunk Avenue to Catharine Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. The Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 990811: This is not an administration ordinance 18 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Louis Arkowsky (ph.), 830 South Street, Philadelphia, PA. The purpose of this ordinance is to build a single-family dwelling on this site. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members 108 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990811 of the committee, I'm Martin Soffer, from the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes reducing the sidewalk way of two minor streets in the Bella Vista section of South Philadelphia. This ordinance would able the party of interest to build a house on the vacant property adjacent to these streets. Therefore, by action at it meeting on November 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990811 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990816, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and 109 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990816 grades on a portion of City Plan No.'s 319 and 347 by striking from the City Plan Stanwood Street from Verree Road to Rising Sun Avenue, and by striking from the City Plan and vacating the legally open portion of Rising Sun Avenue from Rhawn Street to Solly Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 14 990816: This is not an administration ordinance 16 but an ordinance requested by Mr. John Conroy, President of Conroy Catering, Bensalem, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this ordinance is to strike and vacate the legally open portions of these streets and remove title and zoning issues within the Nollton (ph.) Estate. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members 110 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990816 of the committee, my name is Martin Soffer, from the Philadelphia Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of two paper streets in the Fox Chase section of Northeast Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to remove the legal encumbrance of certain street areas to permit the future expansion of a catering business. Therefore, by action at its meeting on November 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990816 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Bruno. And I'm here today representing Councilman O'Neill. I'd like to propose an amendment to this, which I have copies for all of the members. It would be amending Subsection e. of this bill. It's my understanding that the payment of those amounts to the City treasury are for streets that 111 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990816 have improvements. In this situation, they're just paper streets, and it's my understanding that that clause is not necessary for this ordinance.
Well, that's basically a legal issue. But the Streets Department -- this does not change the ordinance, and we still recommend it.
Okay, all right. And we will make that amendment at the time of the public meeting. If you would leave us a copy with the clerk, please.
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I'd like to ask the committee to act favorably upon this. If you have any questions, also, Mr. Conroy is also here to answer.
We're getting to him next. Mr. Conroy, please state your name for the record if you wish to testify.
Good afternoon. My name is John Conroy, Jr., and I own Conroy Catering, 112 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990816 Inc., in Bensalem, Pennsylvania.
Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? Richard, did you read the amendment in? Why don't you just do that again and we'll make sure we have it in there. Please.
The payment into the City treasury of the sum of $300, $1,081, and $1,441 for the respective cost of water pipe, sewer pipe, and paving constructed in the beds of Stanwood Street and Rising Sun Avenue, abutting the beds of Verree Road, Rhawn Street, and Solly Avenue, and not previously assessed.
-- that portion of the ordinance. Thank you. And thank you for your patience, Mr. Conroy. 113 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990834 Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990834, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 246 by striking from the City Plan and vacating the legally open portions of 46th Street, Saybrook Street and Melville Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager with the Streets Department. The Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 990834: This is not an administration ordinance 20 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Gary Riser (ph.), Vice President for Finance and Administration, University of the Sciences, in Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to construct a campus Plaza walkway and consolidate 114 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990834 noncontiguous parcels. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer, from the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of two minor unneeded streets in the University section of West Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit the consolidation on the University of the Sciences Philadelphia campus and enable the construction of a campus plaza walkway and a new academic building. Therefore, by action at its meeting on December 2, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990834 be approved. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Elizabeth Bresse-Stoppe. I'm Vice President for Executive Affairs at the University of the Sciences, in Philadelphia. 115 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990834 We would like to request passage of this proposed ordinance, which will allow us to continue our expansion plans for the University onto the abandoned Breyer's Ice Cream plant site, which we acquired from Unilever a number of years ago, and the striking of these streets will allow us to continue the expansion. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Could we go to Bill No. 17 990754 next? Because that's a companion ordinance.
Certainly. The clerk will read the title of the bill.
One moment. Bill No. 990754, an ordinance 23 authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 246 by striking from the City Plan and vacating 42nd Street, from Woodland 116 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990754 Avenue to 43rd Street; striking from the City Plan and vacating 43rd Street, from Woodland Avenue to 42nd Street; and by reserving and placing on the City Plan certain rights-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes, and gas main purposes, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager of the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to give the following testimony on Bill No. 13 990754: This is not an administration ordinance 15 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Gary Riser, Vice President for Finance and Administration, University of the Sciences. The purpose of this ordinance is to construct a campus plaza walkway and to consolidate nine contiguous parcels. This ordinance is supported by the Department of supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is 117 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990754 Martin Soffer, from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of two minor unneeded streets in the University City section of West Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit the consolidation of the University of the Sciences Philadelphia campus and the enable the construction of a campus plaza, walkway, and a new academic building. Therefore, by action at its meeting on November 18, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990754 be approved. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Elizabeth Bresse-Stoppe, Vice President for Executive Affairs, University of the Sciences, in Philadelphia. We would like to request passage of these propose ordinances to allow us to continue with our expansion plans for the University and to construct new facilities on the site of the former Breyer's Ice Cream plant. The University acquired 118 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990754 this parcel from Unilever a number of years ago, and it is our intention to continue to upgrade our facilities. We would like to construct a new academic building for technology programs and to construct some open green space, a quadrangle, which would be an extension of the neighborhood Clark Park. We have met with neighbors and members of the community, and they have no 10 opposition. The streets in question traverse no 12 property other than the University's, with the exception of the pumping station for the Water Department. We have met with all of the utilities involved and have received the tentative approval of the Planning Commission. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions from the committee for these witnesses?
I have one 119 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990754 question. The expansion of the sciences service center, you said?
It's the University of Sciences in Philadelphia, not the University City Science Center.
We were formerly the Philadelphia College of Pharmacy and Science.
All right, okay. I just wanted to mistake sure. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you for your patience. The clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990837, an ordinance authorizing the revision lines and grades on portions of City Plan No. 194 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Bodine Street from Cumberland Street to Huntington 120 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990837 Street, under certain circumstances.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager of the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to give the following testimony on Bill No. 8 990837: This is not an administration ordinance 10 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Anthony Fellini (ph.), 207 Hanover Street, Pemberton, New Jersey. The purpose of this ordinance is to expand his business, creating new jobs and investment in the American Street Corridor and Empowerment Enterprise Zone. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and it's recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, members of the committee. The Planning Commission supports this ordinance. At the meeting -- I believe it was in November? We do support it; I just can't find it.
Next witness, please. Thank you. 121 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990837
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Vincent Dougherty, and I'm the Enterprise Zone Manager for the Department of Commerce, assigned to the American Street Corridor. I'm here today to testify on -- I'm here on behalf of the Commerce Department to testify in support of Bill 990837. This bill, which authorizes the striking and vacating of Bodine Street between Cumberland and Huntington Streets in the American Street Corridor, will allow the owner of the abutting properties to consolidate the four parcels that make up this block between American and Third Street into one contiguous parcel. Once this site is consolidated, the property owner, who operates a cheese-making business on this block, will rehab a long-vacant building next to his existing business that he recently acquired. He will also build an 8,000-square-foot expansion onto that building. Upon the completion, he will move his cheese-aging operations into the rehabbed facility. In addition, a tenant in his present 122 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990837 building, H&R Foods, will expand into the face being vacated by the cheese company. In all, it's expected, between the two companies, that much 5 needed jobs will be created in American Street, 6 and 35 jobs will be retained. 7 The striking of Bodine, a narrow, 8 generally unused street, is critical to the 9 success of this project. For this reason, I 10 respectfully request your favorable consideration 11 of this bill. 12 Thank you. 13
Thank you, Mr. 14 Dougherty. 15 Are there any questions for these 16 witnesses from the committee? 17 (No questions.) 18
Is there anyone 19 else here who wishes to testify for or against 20 this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990839, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and 123 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990839 grades on a portion of City Plan 152 by placing Yokum Street on the City Plan in the vicinity of 68th Street and Greenway Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Manager of the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 11 990839: This is an administration ordinance 13 requested by the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to place Yokum Street on the City Plan and legally open the street. This will more closely conform to existing physical conditions. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Marty Soffer, from the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the placing on the City Plan of a 40-foot-wide and 124 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990839 200-foot-long street in the Elmwood section of Southwest Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally open an existing street that is currently in disrepair and in need of repaving. Therefore, by action of its meeting on December 2, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990839 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990672, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 163 of the area bounded by Ridge Avenue, Calumet Street, the Philadelphia Germantown and Norristown Railroad 125 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 (SEPTA), and the existing lines of Schoolhouse Lane, by striking from the City Plan and vacating Merrick Road, Creswell Street, Earlham Street, Winona Street, and Arlen Street, by placing on the City Plan Heritage Drive, Palisades Drive, Merrick Road, East Falls Lane, Capital View Drive, Gustine Lake Drive, Schuykill Falls Circle, Genesis Terrace, Hilltop Lane, Falling Water Lane, and Founders Place, under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City free and clear of all encumbrances of the beds of Heritage Drive, Palisades Drive, Merrick Road East Falls Lane, Capital View Drive, Gustine Lake Drive, Schuylkill Falls Circle, Genesis Terrace, Hilltop Lane, Falling Water Lane, and Founders Place.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name's Paul Lonie, Survey Manager of the Streets Department. And the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 23 990672: This is not an administration ordinance 25 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Cordell Blue, of 126 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 the Philadelphia Housing Authority, 12 South 23rd Street. The purpose of this ordinance is to allow for an infrastructure for the Schuylkill Falls Housing Development Project. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended your committee for favorable action.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, my name is Martin Soffer, from the City Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the striking from the City Plan and vacating five streets and placing on the City Plan eleven streets in the East Falls sections of northwest Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to assist the Philadelphia Housing Authority with the implementation of the Schuylkill Falls Hope Four Revitalization plan. This $55 million subdivision proposal includes the construction of 300 housing units and 17,000 square feet of retail commercial space. Therefore, by action at its meeting of November 4, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990672 be approved. Thank you. 127 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (Unidentified person respond off mike.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lonie, let's go through a couple of the elements of this plan just for the record. And let me say first to Mr. Soffer, who I do respect greatly, we will get over to the Planning Commission a full chart of all of the Roman numeral designations and the numbers underneath of it. This is not Hope IV; it is Hope VI. The I is on the other side of the V.
Yeah, it's three years of Latin in high school that will get that you. Can you talk, Mr. Lonie, a little bit 128 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 into the record on the size of this development, the number of units, and some of the planning process.
Yes, Councilman Nutter. There's approximately 300 units that will be going in here. From what I gather from some meetings that I attended on this project, they are mixed units, a lot of single-family homes. I believe there also is some apartments. Mr. Soffer can also address that fact of the demographics of this site. Marty?
Approximately half of those 300 units, I don't have the final subdivision preliminary plat with me. Approximately half will be sales, and a half will be rentals.
The two apartment structures will face the main street -- excuse me, Ridge Avenue frontage. The interior, that which backs up to the railroad, will be market rate homes. And that's the long-range proposal. 129 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
And there are a number of new streets on that plan as compared to the way the original Schuylkill Falls looked, and that's to accommodate a larger level of residential units as compared to how the development had been situated before with the high-rise towers; is that correct?
Okay. There's been a fair amount of discussion with regard to the plan about some of the streets, how they come off of Ridge Avenue. Can you give us some description about what has been Merrick Road and what the new Merrick Road will be and also, at least on the plan, Heritage Drive. Where are these streets in comparison to the present streets and can you tell us what they may line up with on the other side of the street?
I'd be glad, to Councilman. Merrick Drive is substantially in the same place that it exists today. It's going to be the main entrance and exist from this; as a matter of fact, its going to be the main entrance, but it's going to be the only exist onto Ridge 130 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Avenue. Heritage Drive is proposed to be a one-way street coming in, because it was felt that we didn't want to increase congestion down at Calumet Street and the Falls Bridge. So Heritage Drive will be one way coming in, and Merrick Road will be two ways in and out. The newer street configurations deal with the philosophy of this being more of a suburban-type housing development rather than an inner city structure, and we wanted that to conform to a lot of those design criteria. One of the difficult things is that there's a tremendous elevation difference between this development and down onto Ridge Avenue, which would make it virtually impossible to build a road coming straight down to Ridge Avenue any other place except in the far easterly section of this development.
Now, there's been a fair amount of discussion, to say the least, about some access points to the site. Obviously Merrick Road is the main entrance, I think, as laid out in the plan, what the Streets people might refer to as almost a boulevard style. Merrick Road is -- 131 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 you're going to have these islands in the middle of Merrick as you enter off of Ridge Avenue; is that correct?
And Merrick Road then goes up to a certain point and begins to turn, as you're looking at the plan to the left, in an ark, or what I've often referred to as a horse shoe; is that correct?
And looking at the plan, if you go right at the point where the word where "ark" is written equals 190 feet plus or minus.
If there were an accident, a fire, a tree fall, serious ice, or anything else in that ark, in that roadway, the people who live on Genesis, Gustine Lake Falling Water, and Hilltop Lane, how would they get off the site?
They would not be able to get off the site, except through Founders Place, which is -- 132 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Well, according to our plan, they would be able to exit at Founders Place.
Okay. If Founders Place wasn't on the plan, how would they get off the site.
They could not. The grades are too steep coming down to Ridge Avenue, and there's a railroad bordering it on the north. There would be no access out of there.
Now, in one of the designs of this development, it seems like many years ago, there was a proposal before the street had a name, but for the moment this Genesis Terrace, I seem to recall a proposal that had that road coming down and not turning as sharply into Gustine Lane, but coming down and angled parallel to Schoolhouse Lane down to Ridge Avenue. Are you familiar with that?
And why was that street taken off the plan? 133 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
It was taken off the plan basically for the reason that when we went out there, that is a solid rock shelf. And from an engineering standpoint, it was virtually impossible to build that road coming down there. It would have been -- everything would have had to have been blasted through there to cut a road through that rock. You could not go over the top of it so it was just felt that it was just an impractical solution.
It's my understanding that there were estimates of upwards of $6 million may have been the cost of just putting in that one street?
If Founders Place did not exist and you couldn't put a $6 million road in and justify the cost of a $6 million road, and there was no other way to get off the site if something happened between Gustine Lake Drive and Merrick Road, is that the genesis of the idea for emergency ingress-egress at a point that is now presently called Founders Lane?
That is correct. We just 134 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 felt from a safety and a quality-of-life issue, that these folks needed to have either an emergency or a real access out to another place, and the only place that seemed logical and doable was Schoolhouse Lane.
Now, at the point where it comes out, and I'm certainly not an engineer so I'll need to rely on your expertise and training, do you have any estimate as to the distance between Founders Place, the road, and the railroad tracks where they cross Schoolhouse Lane? How much distance is there between that road and where the railroad tracks are?
50 feet. And is there any other point off of either Genesis Terrace or Gustine Lake Drive that you might be able to move Founders Place further down, if you will, or I don't know what the direction is, but away from the railroad tracks and closer to Ridge Avenue in that direction?
Well, as you can see by the drawing, as Schoolhouse Lane angles away, that's where it becomes a very, very steep cliff. And as 135 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 you move it, probably for every foot you would move it towards Ridge Avenue, the cost would go up about $10,000 for that one street.
Let me ask this question: what's the grade from Genesis Terrace to Schoolhouse Lane at the point where you propose to put Founders Place?
And have you explored the possibility of -- again, if you will, in my inarticulate engineering language, have you explored any other rational possibilities of moving Founders Place as far away from the railroad tracks and closer to Ridge Avenue at a point that, for the moment, putting the money aside, would have engineering viability and vehicular safety?
Well, again, as that begins to slope, you're talking about building up the road on one side and basically building a wall to support it and cutting into the side of the hill on the other side. And as you move further down 136 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 there, the cost is going to go up. Like anything else, you know, if you wanted to spend $20 million, you could build anything you wanted to. You have to look and see where exactly that break-even point is. And I think from an engineering standpoint, which is how we had done this, where we placed the road there, was probably the best. We felt that it was far enough away from the railroad to be a safe distance; yet it was still much easier to build the road in that place than it was to build it in another position.
Well, I understand that you don't control the financing on this particular development, but if either PHA or the developer said to you that some additional funding might possibly be available for that road, would you be able to go back to the drawing board and make any adjustments? Is there any, as they often call it, "wiggle room" with this from an engineering and safety standpoint, putting costs aside?
Not from an engineering and safety standpoint. There is some wiggle room as 137 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 long as we connect basically across to Schoolhouse Lane. If you can picture the side of the hill, which is what that is out there, and the land goes down like this, very sharply, where it becomes expensive is in connecting a higher elevation to a lower elevation.
If we move it down parallel, then, yeah, I think we could probably do that -- if the additional funds are made available.
Okay. Let's talk about Founders Place for a second. On the plan I have, Founders Place -- and you'll correct me if I use the wrong terminology -- has a 34-foot wide cartway.
And the cartway, as I best understand it, is for the regular person. That's the roadway and that's where the cars are, right?
Is it possible, 138 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 based on the safety concerns that have been articulated by either current Schuykill Falls residents or East Falls residents who live around the site and have lived in the neighborhood a long time and have safety concerns as well, is it possible to accomplish essentially the mutual goal of having an emergency-only ingress-egress road at that point of a width that is less than the 34-foot wide cartway that is listed on this plan?
I'm not sure about the emergency part of that, but I think we could probably -- there's a little, again, like you said, and I'm quoting you, "wiggle room" in there to narrow that cartway down slightly. However, the Planning Commission would be, I'm sure, opposed because the Philadelphia Code states that the minimum cartway width for that is 34 feet.
In the subdivision code for a standard Philadelphia street, 34 feet is the minimum standard for a cartway.
Well, Mr. Soffer, Mr. Soffer, talk to me about Hilltop Lane and 139 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Falling Water Lane, which, I believe, are streets that abut homes that would be on the site. And again, if I'm reading the plan correctly, those streets are listed as having a cartway of 28 feet, right?
Again, you're right. The subdivision code is meant to be the design guide for everything, but that's why we have a commission. We can look into a narrower cartway, and I think that would be acceptable during a lot of these things since this is not necessarily a residential street, and I don't think it was ever designed to be.
The primary purpose of the street, Mr. Lonie and Mr. Soffer, was for emergency ingress-egress in case something would ever happen in, again, what I would call "the horse shoe area." Because of my concern and the concern of others, both on-site and I believe off-site, that if something happened in that area, 100 homeowners would not be able to get off the 140 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 site if there were no other point like a Founders Place to get off of this property. What I would like to ask is whatever that wiggle room may be, if the purpose of this road is for emergency use, and I don't know how wide a fire truck is, I don't know how wide a medic unit is or a car. But it would seem to me that for those purposes, you don't necessarily need 34 feet for the cartway to accomplish the primary purpose of why this road exists in the first, place which is for public safety use. What, in your engineering opinion, would be the minimum width to accomplish that particular purpose of a car or a truck, a Philadelphia fire truck being able to access and use that road in either direction at the same time? Because the scenario would be, something's happened on the site, the residents need to get off, they're in their cars, the fire trucks or medic units need to come in at the same time. What's the minimum width you would need in the road to accomplish that purpose?
I would not feel comfortable with anything less than 18 feet; you 141 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 would need 9 feet for ingress and egress in either direction.
So, based on your engineering opinion, Founders Place could, in fact, have an 18-foot-wide cartway, as it will primarily be used only for emergency ingress-egress. Whether you like the word "emergency" or not, its for ingress-egress. It's propose that it be a bollard road that can be accessed by the Police Department, Fire Department, or any security service that may or may not function on the site as the appropriate protocols as to how to use that device in an emergency situation. But you're saying that an 18-foot-wide cartway would accomplish that particular goal?
An 18-foot cartway would logistically allow two vehicles to pass each other there. Again, you would not allow parking in that street, you would not allow any activity in there. And you would need that because other than that, you could not get a fire engine in there if it became necessary to do so.
How can -- go 142 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 ahead.
I was going to say, one of the other problems we have to be aware of -- and, again, that's just one, which is driving. There are also utility easements that need to go through there, again, for economic reasons that we would not be comfortable having less than that 54-foot- wide right-of-way. Whether we constructed a narrower cartway is something that we could discuss and probably, you know, work on. But again, because of the Water Department with the sewer tie-in and different things like that, it would be necessary to maintain that right-of-way area.
Well, you need the right-of-way because if we had utilities in there, we had to essentially have the right to get to them and work on them.
Okay. For the plan that's in front of us today, if, as indicated, has 143 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 a 34-foot cartway, how do we get it down to 18?
I -- I -- I'd really like to sit down with some of the folks and deal with some of our actual transportation design engineers and see if we could come up with that. Now, whether this cartway at this point in time is 34 feet or 64 feet or feet, it does 9 not change this ordinance. This ordinance does 10 not say how wide that has to be. The only time 11 that is finally decided is when the City Plan is 12 could be firmed by the Board of Surveyors. That's 13 when that final determination will be made. 14 If this ordinance passes -- which I 15 hope it does -- we can sit down and negotiate, and 16 that will not change that at all. We can still do 17 that and make that cartway what we feel is 18 necessary.
Well, when you say what you feel is necessary, that means that you've also taken into consideration the issues as articulated either by the East Falls residents around the site or even the on-site residents who have as well expressed the same concern of wanting to have emergency ingress-egress, but also not 144 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 wanting to have a full drive-through street.
That's correct. And, again, that will still -- may -- will not be finalized until this plan is confirmed by the Board of Surveyors. And, again, that will not affect this ordinance one way or the other, because the ordinance does not -- it authorizes us to place a street; it does not necessarily say where; it does not necessarily, except in the code, say how wide it must be; it only authorizes us, as the Board of Surveyors, to place it. If we place that street and this ordinance passes, then be we can sit down and deal with those issues at a later time, without taking up Council's ideas. I mean, that's something, I suppose, that, you know, your office and the engineering people and the community should kind of work out together. And I think we can do that.
Well, let me just -- I mean, you'll hear a fair amount about this, but maybe I should prepare you for it. This has been an ongoing discussion for a long time, and I will diplomatically say that there has not been a significant amount of 145 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 openness about this particular issue. And the conflict here is, we're faced with a bill, we need to put streets on, the project needs to get started, it can't get started without its financing, the financing people want to see that they've got their proper zoning and they've got streets that they can go ahead and build. So there's a little bit of pressure on one side of this. That's compounded by a lack of compromise at times on the Streets Department's side of this in understanding what the real needs and issues are for the people on-site and off-site. The primary purpose of this road and the concept of this road was for emergency use. The railroad people understand, or are certainly aware, that at some point in time, the 300-plus people who have who will live at this site may want to talk to the community about this issue again, and you can't certainly stop people from wanting to have a discussion about something that now affects them as homeowners, renters on a brand-new development, but that really is another issue for another day. My goal here today is to make sure that 146 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 not only we get an ordinance done and get streets on the plan, but that we have a clear record about what the purpose of this street, what the legislative intent is, and what the commitments are that have been made, both from a zoning standpoint where, the developer agreed to own and build this road for emergency ingress-egress purposes, that is the same level of agreement that the developer has made with the off-site East Falls residents. So there is a conflict but at least the record should be clear that I support those agreements that have been made, we need to get along with this process, but we need a lot more openness on the Streets side, the Streets Department side on this particular issue. And your testimony, I believe, has been helpful in clarifying what can and cannot be done, what the needs are, and what the issues are at this particular point. Are you -- this is my last question, and then the community people wish to testify. Are you in a position to -- strike that. I don't have any more questions for Mr. 147 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Lonie and Mr. Soffer, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lonie, in the event that there was a quote/unquote emergency road, how would that operate? I mean, is it a turnstile? I mean, how do you determine when it can be used and when it cannot be used?
Well, I believe Councilman Nutter's referring to bollards that basically have locks in them, and what you can do is, certain people -- the Fire Department, the Police Department, and in certain cases, I'm sure, members of the community -- would have a key that they could simply turn and knock them over. You wouldn't want to have anything temporary. I believe that's what you're referring to, Councilman?
Yes. Councilman, in another part of my district, which my constituents have heard too much about over the past couple years, there was a similar situation. 148 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 A development was built with 300-plus units, and there was only one way in and one way out. The residents on that particular sites, for years, prior to my even getting in office, complained that they were literally hostage if something ever happened out on (unintelligible) Avenue, in Roxborough. They eventually, through a driveway concept, were able to access another street. There is a device that is called a "collapsible bollard" that goes up about four feet high, kind of stands right in front of you, and if you have a couple of them across the road, cars can't go through, but people can walk in between them, bikes can go through, carriages; just about everything can go through except a car. Down at the bottom -- police and fire carry them in their vehicles. It's something similar to the key that you use for fire hydrants. You turn it and it goes down, and then the vehicle can go over it. And in that particular case, only police fire or security service would be able to operate it in an emergency situation. So it's a way of preventing 149 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 the back and forth of vehicular traffic, and that's what we proposed at that location. Generally the way it works is, certainly police and fire -- there have been discussions at Schuylkill Falls that eventually, there will be some kind of -- I mean, there will certainly will be a management company on-site, and there's been talk of a security service, potentially resident-owned on-site. Out of those discussions have come, if this were to happen, the security service would have a protocol to deal with the bollard, anticipating that they would be on-site, and if something happened, they would have quicker access to it maybe than the Police or Fire Department because of, you know, response time and that kind of stuff. We have not gotten to the point, quite honestly, of the larger discussion about, you know, is Miss Jones, a block away, is she going to have a key? Or Mr. Williams, who lives on-site and is the closest house to it, is he going to have a key? I mean, we haven't gotten to that level of detail yet. 150 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Mr. Chairman, I think you can call the residents up. I want to read one letter into the record. Then I will be done.
While Councilman Nutter is reading that letter, the witnesses can come forward and have a seat at the table, please. (Witnesses come forward.)
Mr. Chairman, this is a letter from Mr. Matthew J. McCrory, Jr., Deputy Commissioner, Technical Services, Philadelphia Fire Department, to Joseph Syrnick, Chief Engineer and Surveyor, Department of Streets. The memo's dated March 5, 1999. The subject is Schuylkill Falls Housing Development. The memo reads: "The Fire Department has reviewed the Perks-Reutter plans for the Schuykill Falls Housing Development. We agree with the Streets Department that the temporary street, highlighted and labeled as 'Z' on the plan, should be a permanent street. 151 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 "Many times during Fire Department operations at emergency scenes, fire apparatus and police vehicles block each other in. This is especially critical when medic units must transport patients from a scene to a hospital. "Having a second way into and out of this 300-unit development will benefit the Fire Department, and more importantly, the people that live there. "If you have any questions, feel free to call me at 686-1304." Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Are you the only one testifying from the community? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: No. 18
All four of you will be? Well, whoever else is testifying, you can come up and sit at the table and pull up a chair and get around the table now if you're going to testify now to make it easier. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: She's going to wait to hear what we have to say. 152 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Oh, okay, sure. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: If we miss anything, she's going to do cleanup.
My name is Marjorie E. Greenfield, and I have had the pleasure of testifying before you before. I am the Vice President of the East Falls Community Council. I chair its zoning and land use committee. And I have worked long and hard with other people in the community on this development, which we think will benefit everybody in the community. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you, and I want to tell you that I've lived in East Falls for 15 years. I think you know East Falls is a neighborhood which runs approximately from Wissahickon Avenue to the river, and from the park, west to Schoolhouse Lane to the Boulevard. Now, I'm appearing before you today because the community at large has a grave concern about the course taken in the planning of the new Schuylkill 153 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Falls Development and the attitude and actions to date -- and I begin to hear a glimmer of hope, but I'll withhold judgment -- of the Streets Department with regard to the community's concerns about safety. By way of background, over the last two or three years, I've been personally involved in community attempts to have the Streets Department address in a constructive manner our concerns about traffic, which is overwhelming parts of our neighborhood, about speeding and about congestion and parking problems. While part of the problem is due to lack of enforcement by the Police Department, much is due to the Streets Department's approach, which we have found to be basically inflexible in the interpretation of what it says are applicable regulations. And I believe that Council is not unfamiliar with this kind of approach. We're now faced with a new problem. We have the imposition on the community of a new hazard, and I'm talking about Founders Lane, an unwanted road from the new Schuylkill Falls Development onto Schoolhouse Lane at a point just 154 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 below the railroad crossing of the R6 line. We've tried to resolve this dispute for more than two years. The Streets Department, until today, has been unyielding. I hope that our future discussions will be more fruitful. In the meantime, I think it is important to make a record. For those of you who are not familiar with this road -- and Mr. Markovitz has pictures -- Schoolhouse Lane at that point is quite steep and narrow. The site lines are poor. The road is heavily traveled at rush hour and whenever there's a tie-up on the Lincoln Drive or East River Drive. And while the developer and the Streets Department say that this location is a good one for access to Schoolhouse Lane because the grade at the site is just about level with Schoolhouse Lane, if you were to visit the site, you'd find that is simply not the case. The only place it approaches being level is at the railroad grade crossing. Below that there's a significant drop -- I'd say six to ten, twenty feet in various place -- off the site, to Schoolhouse Lane. This means that Founders Lane is going to have to be 155 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 built at a considerable pitch. And into this problem area, the site of numerous accident, the Streets Department proposes to dump more traffic. Now I understand that now they're willing to consider making this an access road only; we're delighted to hear that, but we want to make sure that that happens. We think that it's necessary not only to avoid increasing the traffic on Schoolhouse Lane, but also, if we limit the access on this road to emergency purposes, it will prevent people from cutting through this new residential development to avoid the light at the bottom of the hill. And I can tell that you the East Falls community is at one on this opposition to a road in any way functioning as a regular traffic passage at the site they're talking about.
While Councilman Nutter has discussed his concerns about emergency egress and ingress, and we respect those concerns, we don't all agree with him but we're willing to accept its use as an emergency access. If this, quote, road is blocked by collapsible bollards, which he has described, and if there is an ordinance in place which will 156 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 prevent the opening of that road to regular traffic without an act of Council -- and I don't hear that yet, I'm hoping that it will come -- it is subject to these conditions, among others, that the East Falls Community Council, which represents the entire neighborhood and which is open to all residents of the community, agreed to support the developer's requests for variances at the Zoning Board of Adjustment yesterday, variances which the developer needed to move this project ahead. The variances were granted, subjected to this use limitation and other provisos. We're all working to build a new desirable community at the site of the old Schuylkill Falls project. And if this Founders Lane is left open to traffic, it's going to become a cut-through, which is going to make that community less desirable. The solution, of course, is not to build this road. It should not be a road at all. It should not be built to the specifications on the plan, it should be no wider than necessary to accommodate emergency vehicles. It should be an easement properly built to accommodate emergency 157 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 use and, properly described, an easement which would have to be granted by PHA. It should be a paved dedicated opening designated as a walkway and emergency access. We implore you to take this opportunity to direct the Streets Department, which has been willing up to now to hold up the entire development, from what we're told, because we're told that they simply said to the developer, Put it in or we won't approve your plan unless it gets its way. This has been a streets department which has been unable or unwilling in the past to respond particularly constructively to our community's concerns. We ask you to put in place some constraints and some requirements which will protect us from a road -- an open-access road being in that place at any time now or in the future. We need these restrictions to avoid creating a new hazard on Schoolhouse Lane. It's already too dangerous. Thank you for your attention, and we'd be happy to answer your questions.
Thank you. 158 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Next witness, please. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Michael Markovitz. I'm a resident of East Falls. I live a little bit up on Apalogen Road. I've resided in the area for almost 38 years. I welcome the access to the development that is to be put in. I am, however, very unhappy and dismayed that the Streets Department feels it needs to be done through a street and that a walkway or an easement is not adequate enough. If this development does not find a way to be integrated with the rest of East Falls, it will fail just as Schuylkill Falls failed over the last 30 years. It is important that access, foot traffic and pedestrian traffic and vehicular to the extent of bicycles and strollers and other things, go through this new development up to Henry Avenue and down to Ridge Avenue. It is important that the people and students at Philadelphia University be able to get to Ridge Avenue and to the commercial development that is contemplated by the this development. 159 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 A street doesn't do it. A walkway that has benches alongside of it and other decorative features would greatly enhance the access to this pathway. I am principally concerned about the safety issue with the area below the railroad tracks. For the period ending in June of 1998, there were 36 accidents on the stretch of Schoolhouse Lane between Ridge Avenue and Henry Avenue. The bulk of them were on this part of the road where the Streets Department is proposing to provide an additional access or dumping street into. I have pictures here, which are labeled A to F, which I'd like to submit. And I'll explain the views to you as the committee has them. Unfortunately, I only have two sets. (Pictures are distributed.)
The first picture is labeled A, and I'll share it with the Streets Department since they're here, 'cause if they want to disagree with the pictures, they can. This pictures shows the -- I believe it's the eastward approach looking up Schoolhouse 160 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Lane. You'll see the set of steep steps there that provide access. This picture is taken from the railroad tracks. The second picture, B, shows the steps that I just described.
Picture C shows the railroad tracks that presently abut or form the eastern border of the current Schuylkill Falls Development. And you can see the berm at minimum, and for want of a better word, that is there. And you will also start to see on the edge the project itself. Next is E -- I'm sorry. D is taken looking over the railroad tracks at a field. That field is going to disappear under the plans that have been submitted, and houses will be -- the street, I believe it's called Genesis Drive, that circles the whole thing will go where the field is. Houses will be building up to that and, therefore, the residents will have closer access to Schoolhouse Lane as well as to the railroad tracks. E is a better picture from the railroad 161 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 tracks showing the outline of the building that is presently there. And F, perhaps the most telling of all the pictures, represents the drop-off. This was taken from the railroad tracks, and you can see the crossing sign off to the upper left-hand corner. And it shows how dramatically the road drops off 'cause you don't see it continue. It curves to the right and is very steep. I believe that what I heard from Mr. Lonie's testimony is such that the 50-foot distance is somewhere within this black piece, but it angles up at some kind of significant pitch. So that's the pictures. They speak for themselves. We need curbs along Schoolhouse Lane; they're not there, as you can see. The safety issue really isn't being addressed by putting onto a plan a street that isn't needed. I believe the access issue which we're talking about is one of emergency and, therefore, could easily be handled by way of an easement and not something that's a dedicated street, as on the City Plan. Thank you for your time. 162 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Good evening. My name is Antoinette Stone. I am a resident of East Falls and I have lived in the neighborhood for almost 9 years. 10 I second the comments made by Miss 11 Greenfield and Mr. Markovitz, and I would also 12 like to mention to Council that for the past two 13 or three years, the neighborhood has been begging 14 and pleading with the Streets Department to listen 15 to us with respect to our concerns about this 16 access road. 17 I can honestly say that now that we're 18 here at the eleventh hour, we still haven't gotten 19 cooperation from the Streets Department. And I 20 would like to ask the representative of the Streets Department who's here today to state on the record his department's intention with respect to the use of Founders Lane, and whether he can commit to the use of that road for emergency purposes only. And if not, why he cannot do that. 163 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 Thank you.
Yes, I did. Actually, there's certain things the Streets Department can do and there's certain things the Streets Department can't do, and the only body that can designate something, a street, for whatever reason is this Council. They can authorize us to do things, they can pass ordinances and not call it a street or call it a street. But the original City Charter has given this City Council that authority over us. I don't know anything in the Charter that called the or in the Philadelphia Code that mentions emergency streets. But, again, I think that that's something that this Council can definitely address. I mean, it's not something that's within the power of the Streets Department to do. There are areas of the City, for safety reasons, that temporarily will be closed off. Anytime there's construction, we have to close off a street. But as far as a designating street an 164 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 emergency street, really it's something that would probably require an ordinance of Council. I don't know of any statute or anything that we could do that. I asked Marty, and he --
This witness had asked, you know, if the Streets Department could designate that as an emergency street. And my knowledge of the Code does not allow us -- I mean, I don't know of any -- I don't know how to do that. That's something that, in the original City Charter, was given to -- that power was given to Council, and I'm sure Council can do it somehow or another, but I'm not sure how the Streets Department could accomplish that. (Unidentified person responds off mike.)
Excuse me, ma'am. If you have a question you need to come to the table and identify yourself. And address your question to the Chair, please.
My name is Susan Rubinovitch (ph.), and I am a resident of this 165 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 neighborhood. And from what you just said, since there is no way to call it an emergency egress and ingress, then you're saying it has to be a full street or it is nothing; is that what you're telling us now? A full street, whatever that means in terms of --
Well, I believe, at the zoning hearing, they put some restrictions on that, and I think that was the proper place to do that. But as far as we're concerned, I don't know, again, of any vehicle within the Code that lets us call something that's -- you know what I mean?
No. For the point of the record, I find his answer exactly the anxiety-provoking situation that has caused us to be here in the beginning. We hear over and over that there's 150,000 people leaving Philadelphia and nobody knows why. I am not saying that you are responsible for 150,000 people leaving, but your good faith is very slim. Our trust in you is even slimmer. And when you come up with answers like 166 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 this, the anxiety level goes through the ceiling. If we are planning to keep the city alive and well, and if we are trying to do things in a constructive manner to make it a better place to live, you're sure not helping. Thank you.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter, you're in a thought-process mode, I can see.
Well, just, I guess kind of two items. Number one, Mr. Lonie touched on the issue of the zoning restriction, but to go back to some of the earlier questioning, I thought it was somewhat clear that the Streets Department does have the ability to designate on its plans what becomes the official plan for this particular development, the actual width of the street. I don't believe the actual ordinance and past ordinances that I've seen put in streets on a plan. I've done streets ordinances for Spring Lane Meadows, and I don't believe any of them had street widths or lengths on them.
Right. Maybe I can lower 167 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 some anxiety levels here. I did not mean to say that we do not have the ability to design streets the way that we feel is necessary to do, and we do have that ability at the final design to change the roadway widths, that's correct. But the ability of calling something "a street," City Council has that authority; we don't have that authority. If they say this Founders Place is a street, as they did in this ordinance, we can't overrule them. That's my only question here.
All right, okay. I mean, I understand what you're saying.
Okay. Does that answer somewhat? I mean, not happily, but somewhat the question?
Ma'am, you're at the table now. Do you have another question or is it in the same line of questioning?
Identify yourself for the record. 168 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672
Marjorie E. Greenfield for Community Council. It is the consensus of this group that this designated road should be stricken from this ordinance and that an easement should be provided for the access that is needed to protect the residents in emergency situations. And easements can be granted, and there was no reason why it could not be granted. There's nothing unlawful about it, there's nothing improper about it. PHA owns the land, it is concerned about the people who will be living there. And that an easement could be properly drafted, and the easement area could be paved and the bollards could be placed, and then we wouldn't have this problem of what the Streets Department can and can't do, or does or doesn't know how to do. And it would satisfy everybody's needs. And I don't know whether Councilman Nutter necessarily agrees with me, but that's where we think that this ought to go.
Mr. Chairman, Miss Greenfield and I and the group had a little bit of a discussion about the easement issue, which is 169 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 certainly an idea that I'm more than willing to pursue and find out about. It already sounds like we need -- I think Mr. Lonie's testimony was that we already needed a right-of-way over there to deal with utility issues anyway. My concern, if not reservation, with regard to striking the street off the plan at this moment is that I don't have an easement in hand. And, as Miss Greenfield said, certainly something like that may possibly be able to be granted. I've never personally worked through that process. I know that there is a process and we could explore that. My concern, though, is that striking from the plan the street with no easement in my other hand leaves me without anything at the moment, and I would rather be in a safer position of having something possibly that I don't need, which I can worry about later, than needing something that I don't have. And that's a little bit of difficulty just for me as a legislator in dealing with this particular issue at this moment.
And I guess my question is, what is the anticipated time if all 170 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 these issues were resolved and easement issues, aside from when the construction of these streets was to begin? Do we have a --
Well, the site itself -- I mean, Mr. Soffer and Mr. Lonie may have more up-to-date information, but the site itself is -- the construction of, quote/unquote, Phase I, which is actually, if you look at the plan, the right side of the plan, more the Merrick Road, Heritage Drive side of the plan is -- the construction is slated to start sometime early next year. The still have demolition work to do and the low rises and all of that activity. So, you know --
So there's sufficient time, should the bill pass, to work through some of those other issues and the easement.
I'll put it to you this way: I don't know that anyone's going to be sitting in their living room, you know, watching, you know, next season's TV shows for -- at this particular development.
Okay, thank you. Yes, sir? Identify yourself again, please.
This is Michael Markowitz. I appreciate the dilemma that Councilman Nutter's facing, but for two years, the community has been asked to trust the good faith of the Streets Department, the executive branch of the City of Philadelphia, and for two years, we've trusted it. And we've gotten to a Stage I today where we see on a plan Founders Lane or Place -- I don't know which. It's a street, it's 34 feet wide, it has to be done to code, it's got a 54-foot right-of-way. And now Councilman Nutter would have the community suggest that we should go along again and trust in the good faith of the Streets Department to modify this and to agree to come back to Council and have this street struck. This street isn't necessary for the first phase of the development of the project to begin with, because, 172 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 as you just heard, it's off to the other side of the project. Secondly, to a person in the community, there is no opposition to an emergency access easement to be provided. We're talking about a day or two days of drafting a document that would satisfy this need. And it's a question of whether the City wants to push the Streets Department bulls around the neighborhood, or the neighborhood gets something, i.e. nothing at the moment, with the street being struck, and we get the easement in hand at a later date. I strongly support what Mrs. Greenfield said about how we should have an easement and this street should be struck from this ordinance.
Well, I have all the confidence in Councilman Nutter and in this committee that, going forward, I believe we'll get this resolved to everyone's satisfaction, everyone, in particular the community. With the exception of the two gentlemen that are here, we have all had problems with the Streets Department, but we have been able to get through those things through the process, and I'm 173 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 confident in Councilman Nutter getting the community through that process. And I understand the frustration of two years, and I'm not going to belabor this record or your time with some of the problems that we've had to live with for two years or four years that I've been Chair. Councilman Nutter?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just a couple other items that I think at least need to be placed on the record. Again, with regard to the proposed striking of the street, the other slight complication here is, there are still residents living on this site. And, I mean, it's just the reality of this particular development. It is planned that they will stay there during construction. And for a while, there will not be a Merrick Road that will be drivable. That point over at what is now technically called "Founders Place," will be the off-site access for those residents during the construction of Phase I. When Phase I is completed, those -- some of those 174 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 residents, and I cannot tell you who 'cause I don't know who and there's a whole process for that. All of those residents will come out of what is on the left side and called Phase II. Some will relocate to Phase I. I don't know where, I don't know who they will be, and I don't know where they will go. So that is another issue that, again, I'm somewhat confronted with in terms of striking something today for a road that I know that I will need shortly for people to be able to get off-site.
Let me just finish. Secondly, I believe that there are some levels of protection with regard to many of the difficulties that have already been articulated with regard to the Streets Department in that the community did get agreement from the developer to only use that road for that purpose and build that road for the purpose that we've discussed. By way of their conditional support of the zoning 175 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 variance -- there was a zoning hearing yesterday, I think that's been testified to -- they also requested, and I'm sure it's a little more complicated than just someone asking and the other person saying yes, but they've also requested a deed restriction from the developer which, again, will probably be somewhat complicated by the fact that PHA actually owns the site, although there is still an unresolved question of who will ultimately own the site because of the nature of the Hope VI application, the fact that people will be buying homes. And I've ask the question on a couple of occasions of, for instance, who are they going to get their deed from? I've not ever gotten a straight answer to that particular question, so. . . And I don't -- I can't tell you here today that PHA will always own this particular property, but those discussions are ongoing as well. And, I mean, I foresee at least a draft of a document for an agreement. I wasn't at the zoning hearing yesterday; I think Meg Greenfield was. And I will assume -- so correct me if I'm wrong -- that there was a signed agreement between 176 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 the parties. So, I mean, there's a couple of other little factors there that affect all of us.
I'm Meg Greenfield. May I address that? First of all, I know that you do not need a city-dedicated road in order to service a community. I live on one; we maintain it. There are private roads and for temporary purposes of access in and out of the site.
We live on a private road. It's Apalogen Road, it's a cul-de-sac. We have one way in and out. There are, I don't know, 15, 20 houses on it. We maintain it. You do not need a public road in order 177 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 -- a public road in order to connect with a city road to get off that site. If they need an access there during construction, it can be constructed without having it dedicated on the City Map. Secondly, the agreement with the developer, while we wanted the developer to make the commitment that it would use that road soley for access purposes, the developer refused. The developer said they would use their best efforts, but they said, We cannot make that commitment because the City will own the road, and the Streets Department will not allow it. So we have now been pushed from one to the other and back again. And that is the change that was made after the draft that you may have, Councilman. They said they'd do their best, but they would not commit to it because they didn't think they could deliver it -- because of the Streets Department more than anything else, and because they won't own it once dedicate the road. And I could understand that. And so it isn't simply an answer that the developers made an agreement; they made an agreement to try, which will ultimately be 178 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990672 determined by this City Council and the Streets Department.
It appears to me ultimately by City Council, from what Mr. Lonie's testimony was, and I think that there is where your Councilperson, in conjunction with this committee, can do the appropriate things for the community.
Well, that is why we are asking you to take that out of this ordinance. There is no reason why a road can't be cut there for the temporary use of the tenants when they have no other way to get in and out of the site. It does not require an ordinance 16 placing it permanently on the City's map in order to let them get off that site.
Thank you. Councilman Nutter? Any other questions for these witnesses from the members of the committee. (No further questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) 179 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990684
Thank you for your testimony or patience. The clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No.990684. This is a very quick one, for all these people who have been waiting very patiently. An ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of Public Property and the Director of Commerce, on behalf of the City, to grant to the Department of Transportation of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania a perpetual area and structural support easement for the use, operation or occupancy, maintenance, repair, and placement of certain highway improvements, including roads and related improvements over a portion of certain land located at Penn's Landing-Stage I to replace the Market Street and Chestnut Street ramps and elevated viaduct connecting Market and Chestnut Streets, under certain terms and conditions.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Dwayne Bumb. I'm the Deputy Director of Commerce. I'm 180 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990684 here today to give testimony in support of Bill 3 No. 990684. This bill will allow the City to demolish the two existing ramps that connect both Chestnut Street and Market Street to Christopher Columbus Boulevard as well as the connecting viaduct. The developer for the Penn's Landing family entertainment center will construct that large development and reestablish the ramps that conduct Chestnut and Market Street to the development. The bill allows us to give perpetual easement to the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation for the permanent maintenance of the new ramps. All the costs associated with this construction will be borne by the developer.
My name is Henry Schwartz. I'm with the City Law Department, just here to --
Just here to keep me straight. 181 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990684
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you, have a nice day, and I appreciate your patience. No, wait, I guess you might as well stay here, right?. Dwayne, you've got a couple more.
Bill No. 990726, an ordinance amending provisions of the Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk cafes in Center City; in particular, amending Section 9-208, entitled "Sidewalk Cafes," by permitting sidewalk cafes to be maintained on Broad Street, between Bainbridge Street and the north houseline of Washington Avenue; and amending Section 14-1607, entitled "Special Controls for the Center City Commercial 182 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 Area," by providing that nothing in that section 3 shall prohibit the maintenance of or require a Zoning Board of Adjustment certificate for the maintenance of licensed sidewalk cafes along certain portions of Chestnut Street, Walnut Street, Market Street, and Broad Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good evening Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Dwayne Bumb, Director of Commerce. And I'm here in support of Bill No. 99726. This bill seeks to alter the review process for restaurants pursuing sidewalk care licenses in the Center City overlay areas, as defined in the Philadelphia Code. Specifically, the areas are: Chestnut Street, between Front and 18th Street; Walnut Street, between Front and 18th Street; South Street, between City Hall and Washington Avenue; and Market, between Front and Fifth. All the areas I've just mentioned are key commercial areas in Center City. During the last decade, this administration and this City Council have invested, and continue to invest, 183 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 heavily in infrastructure and improvements in each of these areas. As Philadelphia Center City continues to grow in popularity, attracting more and more visitors from all over the region, as well as tourists from all over the world, restaurants continue to thrive. In order to position Philadelphia as an international destination, we are capitalizing on the city's strengths as one that is accessible by foot, as well as one that has a reputation for a strong restaurant industry. Sidewalk cafes are a natural extension of the existing successful Center City that will undoubtedly add a great deal of liveliness and vitality to the city streetscape. In concert with the tangible changes that have taken place, this administration and City Council have tried to foster an environment that works not only to retain businesses, but to help them grow in the city. The ordinance for which I m testifying today fortifies this objective. From an administrative standpoint, the effects of the ordinance do not impose any added 184 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 costs to the departments involved with the review process. We believe that a streamlined license review will only stimulate growth of existing restaurants. By allowing restaurants to expand existing operations within a greater sense of ease, it allows these businesses to create jobs as well as increase revenues to the City. This year, the Mayor issued an executive order that allows restaurants located within the areas that we are discussing to receive licenses through a typical review. This order created a trial period for us to determine whether to pursue the legislation that we are discussing today. Business and development organizations with whom we've discussed this order and this legislation were pleased with the City's efforts to streamline the license review process. We believe the efforts of this order were very positive. We are unaware of any negative effects this order had on any of the relevant commercial areas or any costs to the departments involved with the license review. The Commerce Department, in concert with other City agencies, has been trying to 185 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 implement practices that are both business- friendly in an effort not only to retain City businesses, but to help them expand. This ordinance does both of these things. This ordinance signifies that we as a city are encouraging business to grow by making it easier for them to do so in the City. This ordinance 9 will truly add to the City's efforts to create a more attractive business environment and will result in a win/win for everyone. Thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this bill. I respectfully request this committee give this bill your favorable consideration. And just sort of one sort of unwritten comment that I have. Just to give you an update, City Planning Commission, which I attended immediately before coming to this hearing, did vote to approve this legislation subject to us working with community and business associations that may have some concerns and trying to address those concerns within the context of the legislation.
Thank you. 186 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 Do you happen to know, Dwayne, the number of businesses, restaurant and bar businesses, what have you, that took advantage of the Mayor's executive order? Or would L&I be more in a position to answer that?
To the best of my knowledge, a total of two businesses took advantage of that.
Thank you. Whoever else is testifying next, please state your name for the record.
You need to speak a little bit closer to the microphone.
My name is Tim Lidiak and I'm the Assistant Director of Avenue of the Arts, Inc. My responsibilities there include the physical planning, economic development, and street maintenance of North and South Broad Streets. Two years ago, our board embarked on a strategic planning exercise to map out a long-term vision for the Avenue of the Arts into the 21st century. The first goal that emerged from this 187 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 exercise focussed on getting more people out on the streets of the arts district hours a day, 7 4 days a week. 5 Ordinance 990726, which amends the 6 City's zoning code and permits sidewalk cafes 7 within certain districts of Center City, including 8 South Broad Street, will assist us (Avenue of the 9 Arts, Inc.) greatly in meeting this defined goal. 10 Allowing sidewalk cafes on South Broad Street will 11 be a welcome boost to our efforts to create a 12 lively, distinctive, and secure and safe 13 atmosphere that will attract patrons, visitors, 14 workers, tourists, and residents, and will support 15 our campaign to make the Avenue of the Arts a 16 premiere destination both day and night. 17 The diversity and number of restaurants 18 within the Avenue of the Arts District are an 19 essential element to its economic vitality. 20 Allowing the City's growing list of restaurateurs 21 to place seating outdoors will strengthen their 22 operations and increase their clientele, as well 23 as build much-needed foot traffic on South Broad 24 Street and support the long-term goals of the Avenue of the Arts. 188 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 Thank you for your time and for your support of this ordinance.
Good evening. I'm Michelle Shannon, Director of Marketing, for the Center City District, and I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on behalf of Ordinance 10 No. 990726, sponsored by Councilman DiCicco. On behalf of the Center City District, I'm extremely pleased to support this ordinance 13 which will enable outdoor, unenclosed sidewalk cafes on Chestnut and Walnut Street- from Front to Eighth Street, Market Street - from Front to Fifth Street, and Broad Street - from City Hall to Washington Avenue. The Rendell Administration, City Council, and countless other organizations have worked incredibly hard to make Center City an attractive destination for residents, workers, and visitors to enjoy dining, culture, and the arts. Creating a lively street front atmosphere is an integral part of continuing to build that vitality and the success of Center City. Sidewalk cafes 189 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 are an important effective tool in animating our street front and adding to the sense of safety and festivity. Restaurants and cafes are often pioneers in the revitalization of a neighborhood, enticing other businesses to reap the benefits of the newly enlivened area. Yet only to stroll the sidewalks along lower East Market Street or Rittenhouse Square during a fall or a summer evening, to see the diners enjoying a meal or a cocktail at a sidewalk cafe, there are crowds of people in the evening animating the sidewalks of Old City and Center City, where there was once little or no activity. Sidewalk cafes are a symbol of a city that is civil and welcoming. By expanding seating areas and facilitating impulse decisions to enjoy a meal or refreshments, cafes can also expand a volume of business, creating new jobs and tax revenues for Philadelphia. And on a side note, if a few extra paper napkins blow onto the sidewalk, the Center City District will be pleased to sweep them up. Thank you very much. 190 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726
I'm Kristen Young, Program Director for Rittenhouse Row. I'm here on behalf of Neil Stein, Chairperson of Rittenhouse Row Restaurant Committee and also a member of the board. I'm here today representing Rittenhouse Row, which is a destination marketing organization composed of over 200 businesses, from Avenue of the Arts South Broad Street to 21st between Spruce and Market, which is committed to promoting our area as Philadelphia's premiere location for working, living, and visiting. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to testify today in favor of Ordinance 990726, which will extend on a permanent basis Mayor Rendell's executive order of May 26, 1999, which allows outdoor unenclosed sidewalk cafes in Center City. The bill addresses all concerns of congestion, number of tables, and cleanliness to our satisfaction. Rittenhouse Row feels that the sidewalk cafes bring a terrific ambiance to our destination, adding to our reputation as an 191 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 exciting area for diners. Neil's restaurant, Rouge 99, and many of the neighboring restaurants have enjoyed much success as a result of the addition of sidewalk cafes. It has also done a great deal to improve the neighborhood in terms of safety, creating an exciting environment in which many people are out on the streets after business hours. The increased number of people spending time in our neighborhood because of the cafes also stimulates business in our area's boutiques and greatly contributes to ensuring that Rittenhouse Row continues to be known as an exciting destination. On behalf of all the members of the Rittenhouse Row, we applaud Mayor Rendell and Councilman DiCicco for taking the next step in making Philadelphia a great place for restaurants to thrive. Thank you.
I'm Ashley Andrus, Director of Public Policy for the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. 192 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 And I submitted my full text of my remarks to the committee. In the interest of time, I will just provide some summarizing remarks, because every point made by previous witnesses was made in my written testimony, but I have two side notes. We worked with the Mayor's Office this summer on creating the executive order, and when we notified our members of the executive order, they were all very pleased with it and urged us to support any action making the executive order permanent. We did so in a letter urging Mayor Rendell just last month, and are here today to urge City Council, through approval of this bill, to make the action permanent. And on a personal note, I am a resident of Center City, as are many of my friends. And even with all the development and progress in Center City, probably the thing that we're most excited about is the growth in sidewalk cafes. And with that, we would urge support and approval of this bill. Thanks.
Thank you. 193 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 Ruth?
Chairman DiCicco and members of the committee, my name is Ruth Ann Madway, and I'm the Executive Director of East of Broad Improvement Association. However, I'm here today as a private citizen, a long time resident of Center City, and someone who has long been active in civic improvement efforts in Center City. My academic background and training are in the field of architectural history and American city planning, and so I come to the issue before City Council both with an avid interest as a citizen concerned about her community, as well as someone who has studied and focused on these sorts of issues in a professional context. I am testifying here today in support of Bill No. 990726, which will amend relevant sections of the Philadelphia Code to permit sidewalk cafes in Center City and to make the licensing of sidewalk cafes in Center City a standard part of the business environment in the downtown. This legislation would streamline the 194 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 zoning and licensing process and remove the current ban on sidewalk cafes. The legislation would eliminate unnecessary costs and uncertainty for restaurateurs in Center City who are willing and eager to enhance the Center City business environment by adding outdoor cafes. Bill 990726 would go a long way towards making City government a full partner in Center City's economic renaissance. Outdoor cafes have a strong, positive, and highly visible effect on the business and cultural life of the city. They create a sense of place and add real excitement and visual appeal to the streetscape in Center City. This proposed legislation would have the effect of encouraging and enhancing the viability of the restaurant industry, which is critical to Center City's economic health and well-being. On the blocks west of Broad Street and around Rittenhouse Square, the temporary lifting of the ban on sidewalk cafes has proven to be successful. The outdoor cafes in this area convey a sense of street life and urban vibrancy and a climate where outdoor dining can thrive for six to 195 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 eight months of the year. It is critical to the continued revival along the Avenue of the Arts, as well as east of Broad, that City government encourage a similar vibrancy in these areas. The addition of sidewalk cafes to Center City will have an additional beneficial effect on the safety, security and appearance of the downtown. With more people on the streets enjoying Center City's varied dining experience, it is far less likely that opportunistic crimes, such as purse-snatching, car break-ins, and similar kinds of quality-of-life offenses will occur. Moreover, with the addition of sidewalk cafes, restaurant owners themselves will become more concerned and vigilant about the appearance, safety, and lighting of their own blocks. This proposed ordinance will have the practical effect of invoking one of the most efficient and cost-effective economic development tools, namely enlightened self-interest. In conclusion, these proposed legislative changes regarding sidewalk cafes will be a positive thing for the economic and cultural life of Center City. With a reasonable degree of 196 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 diligence and a provision for incorporating community input and comment in the process, the legislation Council is considering today will have a beneficial impact on the continued renaissance and viability of Philadelphia's downtown, making it an even greater attraction for residents, business people, and visitors alike. Thank you.
Thank you, thank you for your testimony. And of all the things you said, I certainly agree with everything, but I think the one most important thing that some people miss out is, no one would want to have customers on the sidewalk if the sidewalk wasn't being maintained, so it does basically provide the City with a service that we'd otherwise be paying for, or through the Special Services District. So I certainly agree with you there. And my experience in Chicago in the early '90s, my son was out in school in Chicago. One of the nicest things I found out about Chicago is that they have all these outdoor cafes, and I said, Why don't they do more of those in 197 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 Philadelphia? And then more recently, my trip to Europe, it's a phenomenal thing. But thank you again for your testimony. Councilman Rizzo?
I've got a question. In the winter, nice days, is there a restriction on the time, like June, July or if they choose to --
No, no. If you go to Rittenhouse Square outside of Rouge and Devon's, they have these kerosene heaters. I've been out there two weeks ago, and it was 50-something degrees.
I guess where I'm heading is that, when the weather becomes cold, are we going to permit canopies or awnings and things like that to be erected?
That's going to be up, I think, to the individual owner of the establishment if they want to provide those 198 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 heaters and whoever's willing to sit outside. Again, I've seen it when the weather was in the middle 50s a couple of weeks ago on a Saturday night. And for one who doesn't like the cold, it was very warm under there with those heaters. So I think that's just going to be a judgment call by each individual establishment, whether they want to provide those heaters or not.
I think that's a good question for L&I as far as the safety issue concerns.
Well, I would assume that if there's canopies, there would have to be some coordination of noncombustible materials with kerosene heaters.
Well, L&I is here, and I think they can answer that. Thank you. Thank you, Ruth Ann. (Otis Haigler comes forward.)
My name is Otis Haigler, 199 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. To answer Councilman Rizzo's question, if someone wanted to erect a canopy or a tent to cover the sidewalk cafe tables and chairs, they would need a permit for that. They would have to come into our department and secure a permit for the erection of a tent to cover tables and chairs. We would then review their permit application to determine whether or not they're in compliance with the Fire Prevention Code, including whether or not the heating that they're going to provide for the tent is sufficient or is covered under the requirements of Code. That was my previous job so I know that part.
That's great. So what you're basically saying is that it won't be just an automatic; you come in for a permit and you get it without any oversight.
No, sir. No, sir. They would also work in concert with the Fire Department, the application would be submitted to them as well so that they could review the heating 200 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 for the tent.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good evening. My name is John Cunningham, and I'm the Right-of-Way Manager for the Department of Streets. Regarding Bill No. 990726, an ordinance 12 amending provisions of the Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales in Center City, and in particular, certain streets such as Broad Street, Chestnut Street, Walnut Street, the Department of Streets offers no objection to the passage of this ordinance.
Since we're talking about right-of-way, we have utility, we have electric, bell, we have cable, we have all types of facilities in the sidewalk. Would the operator of a cafe, a outdoor cafe, have to immediately give right-of-way to a utility company that might have facilities in the area that they're utilizing? 201 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726
Right. That would be part of the review process. When they submit a drawing to us, we compare that drawing to existing structures underground. If, in fact, there is a conduit beneath the proposed cafe, we would request that the licensee get a waiver from that utility to erect the structure.
Thank you. I'm Judith Eden, Vice President of the Center City Residents Association. And I would like to point out that within the CCRA membership area is the very first licensed unenclosed sidewalk cafe, Elephant and Castle, at 18th and Market, which we were extremely supportive and instrumental in having happen. However, we have great reservations about this bill at this time. We had expected 202 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 that after the trial period implemented by the Mayor's executive order, that there would, in fact, be an opportunity to appraise the results of what, I guess, we could call an experiment. And I find the most interesting testimony that I heard here today the fact that exactly two licenses were issued under it, which would tend to track my observation that most of the sidewalk cafes that we're seeing out there are, in fact, completely unlicensed at all. But we've certainly had enough experience now, legal or illegal though the cafes may be one, to see that one size does not fit all. And the kind of law and regulatory scheme that would be appropriate for a restaurant that has tables with waitresses and waiters and non-disposables is one thing; the kind of sidewalk cafe that is operated by an all takeout restaurant with nothing but disposables is another. We see a need for provisions for umbrellas and railings and heaters and the paraphernalia that comes on with it. We see a need that the law be made very clear that you, in fact, have been to be a restaurant. We know of a Wawa that has a sidewalk cafe 203 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 license, we know of a number of retail bakeries. We've had inquiries at CCRA to have sidewalk cafes from stores that are just selling housewares and ladies' accessories. And we don't find this law to be a complete and comprehensive scheme. And it's not the product of the conversation that included, I think, many people that could have contributed to it from actual experience.
Thank you. I asked the question as to the number of establishments that took advantage of the Mayor's executive order only to see if there was a rush to do this. And if I recall correctly, my conversations with the administration, was that at least as it pertained to the 1st Councilmatic District and a number of establishments who had contacted my office seeking to get a sidewalk cafe license, the process would have taken them probably the better part of the warm weather months to get the license which, in fact, they would have been granted anyway, or at least my office was prepared to support. So it was an effort basically to get these cafes established in 204 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 anticipation of approval of the ordinance. So I'm not certain that all of the other licenses or sidewalk cafes that are out there today, with the exception of those two, are illegal. And I think L&I can probably answer that better. My guess is, from the experience that I've had here for four years, a number of establishments are legal because they went through that process. And it's okay if you begin the process in January, which may take you sometime -- and L&I can correct me if I'm wrong -- probably through the better part of April or May to get the license. So all we were trying to do is saying if "Establishment X" is going to apply for the license and in fact we're going to approve it, why not give them the right in anticipation of the act being passed so that at least they can conduct business over the warm weather months in anticipation of Council approval.
Well, be that as it may, I do think that the ordinance is very inadequate. And if I could just close, I mean, with one particular. There's actually no connection 205 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 between the size of the sidewalk seating available and the amount of seating, for example, that a restaurant would otherwise have. And, therefore, an all takeout restaurant could apply and receive a license, put the tables and chairs out there, even though it will all be disposables. They will have no people to clean, etc. And, in fact, we do know of two instances on Chestnut Street where people have taken minute spaces for rent. I'm talking 350 square feet, and it is fully their intention of using that as like a base, and all of their seating will be outside and none would be inside. And I would suggest to you that Chestnut Street, at least west of Broad, does not need to turn into one huge outdoor food court with no one to clean up after anyone.
Well, I can appreciate your concern for cleaning, as one who walks down the street and picks up paper constantly. As you know, my mother made me that way. But besides that, I personally --
Well, we're looking to west of Broad. 206 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726
On a personal note, I would welcome every food establishment to put some people back out on the street because I think it was very eloquently described in Ruth Ann Medway's testimony about bringing people out on the sidewalk, which I think makes better, safer environment and puts people out there. And --
And if someone wants to -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
But this does not provide for a distinction between lunch, dinner, how late you --
I don't know if we need the distinction. I mean, in Europe, people are outside, morning, noon, and night, and I think that really is a wonderful experience. I think it makes for a much safer, more vibrant environment, for which people will want to come and visit. And whether it's a 350-square-foot minute, little building and may take advantage of putting tables 207 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 outside, so what? I mean, that's the intent, to put activity back out onto the sidewalk to bring people out, as opposed to keeping them in.
Well, believe it or not, people trip over the tables on 18th Street at lunchtime.
Please. And I think there's some provisions, if I'm not mistaken, where we can talk about what the allowable space of the sidewalk for pedestrian travel may be. I mean, you can only bring the tables out so far, if I'm not mistaken. Correct me if I'm wrong. Streets Department.
Yes, you're correct, Councilman. We have to control the available width for pedestrian travel. So certainly, a 20-feet and a 12-foot wide sidewalk would have to be treated accordingly.
And I would just like to add for the record that our policy at L&I is not 208 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 to issue any licenses to takeout restaurants. You would have to be a full-fledged restaurant with 75 percent seating in order to get the sidewalk cafe license. So if you know of locations where you know of a takeout restaurant, let us know, and we will send out an inspector to write violations against those persons. We would have to check into that.
Miss Eden, if you have a question, you can address it to me, and if you do have a location, as you just stated, please let us know or let your Councilman know.
There's one location. As I said, it's a Wawa, so it's not a restaurant tall.
Okay. So I suggest you bring it to Councilman Clarke's attention or to L&I, and we'll address that. Councilmember Rizzo?
Could I just make a quick observation? Rather than we depend on the community to report these, could we ask L&I to do a survey of the outdoor facilities and you identify whether they're legal or not. If you 209 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 send an inspector out and you see a outdoor, then check to make sure that they're appropriately licensed, and you take the action.
I think I understand what you're saying, but today they can inspect it and then tomorrow, something's there. So I think the community, which is Center City residents, also are a very active and vigilant community group, as was just pointed out. Miss Eden said there's a couple places that -- one is a Wawa, which is not a restaurant, and I would agree on that one. But with the combination of the two, we'll be able to police it.
Sure. You said the magic word. As long as there is some proactive enforcement from L&I, along with the community's assistance, but I think primarily L&I should be -- now that you're aware that this condition may exist, that you're out there looking for these unlicensed outdoor facilities.
Our department periodically conducts program inspections for various activities. Specifically on an issue such as this, I would have to take this back to the 210 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 manager of the unit that handles this, because he would have to allocate his resources in order to do this, and that would be our Business Compliance Unit, and they only have twenty inspectors, and they do various inspections for various things out there.
You know, I also think what may give the community some leverage is, aside from the already-existing establishments, any future restaurant -- most restaurants will apply for a liquor license, and I think that's where the community could get involved in the process, on the transfer of the license and make some provisions as to whether or not you do want another outdoor cafe as a proviso for support for the transfer or limit the number of tables. So I think the community can still be a part of that process for any future restaurants, at least when it comes to restaurants that have to apply for a liquor license or a use permit. So I don't think the community is going to be excluded 211 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 from the process for any future.
Mr. Chairman, does a bring-your-own-bottle require a use permit?
Well, if the establishment doesn't have the liquor license, no. 7 If the establishment has to go for a use permit to provide for the business of a restaurant, if they're changing the use, then they would have to go in front of the Zoning Board for a use permit. Am I correct? In most cases?
My questions is, can you bring -- can an outdoor cafe that doesn't have a liquor license, can a person bring a bottle of wine or a bottle of scotch?
Can you bring alcoholic beverages to a BYO restaurant facility and put that bottle on the table outside? I would think so. It's part of -- it's an extension of the property.
But I thought that it was a violation of the Liquor Code if you were in a bar and brought a bottle of beer outside.
Yeah, but the outdoor cafe becomes an extension of the 212 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 facility. Am I correct?
Yes, it does. And if the facility has a liquor license, then it would extend to outdoor cafe.
So whether you have a license or not, a liquor license or not, the sidewalk cafe is an extension of your existing property, and that would not violate the container-drinking, or whatever the term is I'm looking for -- it's getting late. You know, for bringing drinks outside the establishment, because you are, in fact, a part of that establishment; you're not walking down the street with it. Does that make sense the way I'm --
You need to speak directly into the microphone and identify yourself for the record. Thank you.
I'll try. My voice isn't much better than when you were on the panel at my 213 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 forum last month. I'm Nancy Lavin.
I'm the Chair of Philly Walks Organization. And for those who may not have heard of us, we are the only organization in Philadelphia that's solely dedicated to a word that I haven't heard from any of the professionals here, and that is "pedestrian." You've talked about people, you've talked about diners, etc. But I'm here to talk about the pedestrian. And as you have been talking about the cafes along 18th Street in particular, I am quite sure -- I haven't gone out there with my ruler, but I'm positive that the required six feet doesn't exist in front of some of the places. And we'd appreciate it if you could verify that for us and see what can be done.
This is John Cunningham, with the Streets Department. I'll glad to look into that matter for you. Could you give me the exact locations on that?
Yes. That would be the Rouge restaurant, I believe, and maybe even the one next to it, where especially they have -- 214 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726
Let me ask you a question, and I don't want to get into a debate or an argument. Are you suggesting, in the case of Rouge or Devon's, if the sidewalk is less than six foot for pedestrians, that we should eliminate those outdoor cafes?
Well, you're asking him to go out and measure the sidewalk, and I have a feeling that at least when it comes to Rouge, it's going to be under six foot. I could be wrong, but that may be under six foot.
For this very reason, I think that it warrants continuing this until next year so that we can further discuss it and find out what's realistic and what isn't. To me, the idea of sidewalk cafes is akin to motherhood and apple pie. What's to say evil about them, really? My family's from Paris. Need I say more? I couldn't love them more. But, of course, Paris boulevards are a little different from our narrow sidewalks and 215 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990726 streets. So I'm not going to go through a whole text of what I was going to say because Judith Eden really said most of it for me. So I do reiterate what she has to say, and those are my feelings.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Could we take a two-minute break? I think Councilman Clarke wanted to offer an amendment to this bill, if I'm not mistaken. (Short break taken.) (Proceedings resume.)
We're going to continue with the hearing. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990148, an ordinance authorizing Michael Del Quadro, the owner of the property of 1100 Mercy Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19146, to construct 216 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990148 and maintain various encroachments onto and over the west footway of 11th Street and the south footway of Mercy Street adjacent to the property 1100 Mercy Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is John Cunningham, Right-of-Way Manager, Department of Streets. Returned herewith is Bill No. 990148, an ordinance authorizing Michael Del Quadro owner of the property at 1100 Mercy Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19146, to construct and maintain various encroachments onto and over the west footway of 11th Street and the south footway of Mercy Street, adjacent to the property at 1100 Mercy Street, all under certain terms and conditions. Due to the numerous encroachments contained in this ordinance that in particular reduce the legal (unintelligible) width of 11th Street to less than 50 percent of its designed width, the Department of Streets objects to the passage of ordinance. 217 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990148
Thank you. I'd just like to read into the record -- a declaration from Debra M. Russo, R-U-S-S-O, Title 2 Coordinator for the Americans Disabilities Act for the City of Philadelphia. She's in support of Bill No. 990148 and her declaration goes as follows: I Debra M. Russo, Title 2 Coordinator for the American with Disabilities Act, conducted a site investigation on the subject property. The area between the planter and the curbside does not violate any promulgated rules by the United States Department of Justice dealing with pedestrian sidewalk guidelines and the ADA. Anyone here have any questions this bill? (No questions.)
Anyone here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990556 will be continued to a December 9th hearing. 218 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990556 Bill No. 990727, an ordinance 3 authorizing LaLiberte L.P., 245 Park Avenue, New York, New York, 10167, owner of the properties 116-122 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103, and 1729-1735 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103, to construct and maintain two electrified marquees and six rigid awnings attached to the property and projecting over the public footways of 17th Street and on Sansom Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Mr. Chairman, my name is John Cunningham, Right-of-Way Manager for the Department of Streets. Regarding Bill No. 990727, an ordinance 17 authorizing LaLiberte, L.P., 245 Park Avenue, 26th Floor, New York, New York, 10167, owner of the properties 116-122 South 17th Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, and 1729-1735 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, to construct and maintain two electrified marquees and six rigid awnings attached to the property and projecting over the public footways of 17th Street and Sansom Street, under certain terms and conditions. 219 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990766 Since these encroachments do not impair pedestrian travel, the Department of Streets has no objection to the passage of this ordinance.
Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990766, an ordinance authorizing Filbert Street Associates, L.P., 150 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 191023-1424, owner of the property bounded by 12th Street, 13th Street, Filbert Street, and Cuthbert Street to construct, own, and maintain a bridge over Cuthbert Street, between 12th Street and 13th Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Mr. Chairman, my name is John Cunningham, Right-of-Way Manager for the Department of Streets. 220 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990766 Regarding Bill No. 990766, an ordinance 3 authorizing Filbert Streets Associates L.P., 150 North Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19102-1424, owner of the property bounded by 12th Street, 13th Street, Filbert Street, and Cuthbert Street, to construct, own, and maintain a bridge over Cuthbert Street between 12th Street and 13th Street, under certain terms and conditions, the plans for this structure were approved by Jack Lutz, Chief Bridge Engineer for the Streets Department, on October 19, 1999. Therefore, the Department of Streets has no objection to the passage of this ordinance.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990814, an 221 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990814 ordinance Frank Milorey, owner of the newsstand located on the northwest corner of 12th and Market Streets, to construct, use and maintain an oversized prototype newsstand on a temporary basis, under certain terms and conditions.
Good evening, Mr. Chairman. My name is John Cunningham, Right-of-Way Manager for the Department of Streets. Regarding Bill No. 990814, an ordinance 13 granting permission to Frank Milorey, owner of the newsstands located on the northwest corner of 12th and Market Streets, to construct, maintain, and use an oversized prototype newsstand on a temporary basis, under certain terms and conditions, for the past several months, the Streets Department has been working with City Council, the Newsstand Association, and the Department of Licenses and Inspections to develop legislation to permit the placement of this prototype newsstand located only at Market Street for the purpose of determining standards upon which future newsstands of this type will conform. 222 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990814 Since this ordinance allows a one-year evaluation period, the Department of Streets has no objection to the passage of this ordinance.
Joseph Beller, attorney on behalf of the Newsstand Operators Association. We're delighted with this bill, and we thank the Streets Department, L&I, Councilman DiCicco, and all of those who worked so very hard to bring this to fruition. We think that once it's up and it's in place, it will be the prime example of how the City and individuals can work together to improve cityscape and to improve their lives as individual operators of the stand, and to make the city more beautiful. And there are provisions in the Newsstand Operators Association to make sure that these places are maintained properly, no graffiti and so forth during this trial period and forever thereafter, assuming they are approved as the prototype as the regular thereafter.
Otis Haigler, Department 223 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990814 of Licenses and Inspections, Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager. Regarding granting Frank Milorey, owner of the newsstand located at the northwest corner of 12th and Market Streets, permission to construct, use and maintain an oversized prototype newsstand on a temporary basis, under certain terms and conditions, we have no objections to the passage of this ordinance.
Just a comment, Mr. Beller about the newsstands in general. I got a call from one of the owners indicating that they were being burglarized regularly, and I have had a letter from an alarm provider that would like to work with your organization to alarm all of the newsstands so if they are burglarized, that they could get a response, just like any other property within the city.
I would be delighted to have the architect who designed them to look at that. And in addition, I would just like to 224 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990814 tell you, Mr. Councilman, that the new construction will make them a lot tougher to burglarize, and the gates will be inside, and that will be, of course, more sightly but more protective so. . .
If you would like, I will share with you the design of the prototype, and you'll see the security systems that Joe's speaking to in there.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990815, an ordinance granting permission to Sing Tak Wong, owner of the newsstand located on the northeast corner of Fourth and Chestnut Streets, to construct, use, and maintain an oversized 225 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990815 prototype newsstand on a temporary basis, under certain terms and conditions.
Mr. Chairman. My name is John Cunningham, Right-of-Way Manager, Department of Streets. Regarding Bill No. 990815, an ordinance 8 granting permission to Sing Tak Wong, owner of the newsstand located on the northeast corner of Fourth and Chestnut Streets, to construct, use, and maintain an oversized prototype newsstand on a temporary basis, under certain terms and conditions, for the past several months, the Streets Department has been working with City Council, the Newsstand Association, and the Department of Licenses and Inspections to develop legislation to permit the placement of this prototype newsstand located at Fourth and Chestnut for the purpose of determining standards upon which future newsstands of this type will conform. Since this ordinance allows a one-year evaluation period, the Department of Streets has no objection to the passage of this ordinance.
Joseph Beller. I'll just incorporate my previous remarks into this as well. 226 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990815
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Okay, this concludes the public hearing of the Committee on Streets and Services. Thank you. - - -
We will now go into the public meeting. We have a proposed amendment to 990816 that was read into the record at the public hearing. Do I hear a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 998016?
So moved. (Duly seconded.) 227 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990815
It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990816 be amended to delete Section 2, Subsection e., as in Edward. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The amendment is approved. I make a motion on Bill No. 990816, as amended, be approved by this committee, with a suspension of the rules request. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990816, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved as amended. For Bill No. 990529, the hearing will be continued until Thursday, December 9th, at 9 o'clock a.m. 228 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990815
Mr. Chairman, I make a motion for an amendment to Bill No. 4 990726. I would like to amend Section 5 14-1607-19a. and b. as follows: a. Chestnut Street, from Front Street to Broad, delete 18th Street. b. Walnut Street, from Front Street to Broad, delete 18th Street. That's it. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990726 be amended. All those in favor of the amendment, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is amended.
I make a motion that Bill 990726, as amended, be reported out, with a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 990726, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a 229 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990815 favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved as amended.
Bill No.'s 990144, 990148, 990456, 990457, 990458, 990459, 990460, 990461, 990462, 990530, 990531, 990646, 990647, 990648, 990672, 990674, 990676, 990677, 990684, 990713, 990720, 990721, 990725, 990727, 990754, 990756, 990763, 990765, 990766, 990811, 990814, 990815, 990834, 990835, 990837, 990839, 990840, and 990845 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a suspension of the rules so they may be read at the next counseling meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It has been properly moved and seconded that the bills that have just been read into the record by the clerk be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor will signify by 230 12/2/99 STREETS & SVCS. - BILL 990815 saying aye. Those opposed? All those bills that have been read into the record have been approved:
Bills No. 990557, 990558, 990559, 990603, 990649, 990714, 990813, 990832, 990833, and 990841 have been withdrawn at the request of the sponsors. Bill No. 990529 and 990556 have been continued to December 9, 1999, 9 o'clock a.m., at the Streets and Service Committee meeting. That's it.
This concludes the public meeting. I want to thank all of my colleagues for hanging in here today. Thank you and have a good evening. (Adjourned at 6:35 p.m.) - - - 231 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Thursday, December 2 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES BILL NO.'S 990144, 990148, 990456, 990457, 990458, 990459, 990460, 990461, 990462, 990530, 990531, 990646, 990647, 990648, 990672, 990674, 990676, 990677, 990684, 990713, 990720, 990721, 990725, 990726 990727, 990754, 990756, 990763, 990765, 990766, 990811, 990814, 990815, 990816, 990834, 990835, 990837, 990839, 990840, and 990845 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter