m. ) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Vice Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 /00 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE I N D E X Page Resolution 000041 * Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager, L&I . . * Neighborhood Representatives: Michael Moffitt. . . . . . . Ed Bradley . . . . . . . . Albert Carter. . . . . . . Ralph Wynder . . . . . . . Robert Fortt . . . . . . . Jean Thomas. . . . . . . . Edith Hart . . . . . . . . John Carter. . . . . . . . John Teague. . . . . . . . Earl Grant . . . . . . . . Lucy Tendle. . . . . . . . - Attached written testimony only from: Carolyn Sutton, Tameka Jones, Jane Glenn, E. Younger-Bagby, Dennis Moore, John Altomare Bill 000121 - Cont'd from previous hearing, no live witnesses. - Letter from S. Perkins, Counsel, Cavalier Telephone - Written rebuttal testimony from M. Arias, Cavalier Telephone Bill 000218 - Cont'd from previous hearing, no further witnesses. Bill 000220 - Withdrawn Chas. Denny, Traffic Engineer, Streets Dept. Bill 000279 * Martin Soffer, City Planning . . . . * Frances Jones, SEPTA . . . . . . Bill 000281 * Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . Bill 000339 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. ) Bill 000340 * Nancy Sen . . . . . . . . . * Joseph McCullough, Amtrak . . . . . Bills 000358, 000359 * Otis Haigler, L&I . . . . . . . * Patrick Mulligan, Deputy Managing Director * Jennifer DePaul, Regional Advocate, EPVA * Dan Sullivan, hireAbility . . . . . J. Lewis, Voter Accessibility Reform. . . Hi Goldberg, Jewelers Row . . . . . Richard Dixon, Philadelphia Parking Authority Bills 000360, 999361 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . Marty Soffer. . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bill 000362 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bill 000363 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . Marty Soffer. . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bills 000364, 000365 Chas. Denny, Traffic Engineer, Streets Dept. Bill 000366 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . * Marty Soffer. . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bill 000367 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. ) Page Bill 000368 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . * Marty Soffer. . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bill 000369 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bills 000372, 000373 * Nancy Sen . . . . . . . . . Marvin Gerstein, Temple University. . . Bill 000374 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . * Marty Soffer. . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bill 000394 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . * Marty Soffer. . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bill 000396 * Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . Bill 000399 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bill 000400 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bill 000401 Otis Haigler. . . . . . . . . - Attached written testimony only from: Guy Bruno, Philip Steinberg, Carolyn Sutton Bill 000402 * Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . Guy Eberwein, Conectiv Communications . . ) Page Bill 000403 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . * Marty Soffer. . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bill 000405 * Nancy Sen . . . .
. . . . . Bill 000406 * Nancy Sen . . . . . . . . . Bill 000409 * Nancy Sen . . . . . . . . . Bill 000410 * Nancy Sen . . . . . . . . . Bills 000411 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . Marty Soffer. . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. Johnson Streets Bills 000415 * Paul Lonie. . . . . . . . . Marty Soffer. . . . . . . . - Written testimony attached - W. ) 6 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000220 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning. The committee on Streets and Services is now in session. We have a quorum. Council President Anna C. Verna is here. Also to my left is Councilmember Rizzo, Councilmember Cohen. And to my far right is Councilmember Goode. As most of you know who have come to these Streets and Services Committee hearings, we generally don't go in the order in which the notice has been published. We try to do that so we can get through some of these bills more quickly, and I think it does work better that way. So we'll take them out of the order that they're on the notice, but I think you'll find the hearings will go much quicker that way. We will get all the people from the Streets Department up rather than have everybody come up, sit down, get up, sit down, get up sit down and go back and forth. We have a considerable number of bills today. The clerk will please read the title of the first bill. 7 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000220
Bill No. 000220, an ordinance amending Section 12-2409 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Towing Zone Locations and Hours," by adding a towing zone location on the north and south sides of Green Street, between 11th Street and Street, under certain terms and 8 conditions. 9 (Witness comes forward.) 10
My name is Charles Denny. 11 I'm the Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer, and here 12 to testify on Bill 220. And our records, we believe the block in question is the wrong block. The request is for the 1000 block, not the 1100 block. And what we would like to do is have the bill withdrawn. We can post the tow-away zones as a trial basis. And when the bill is brought in in the correct format, we'll have a chance to have that as a trial and see how it's working and testify at that time.
Okay, why don't 8 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000220 you proceed with the first bill.
Bill No. 000364, an ordinance authorizing the installation of stop signs on Venango Street at the intersection of Janney Street.
The Pennsylvania Vehicle Code requires the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation to develop regulations governing traffic control device in accordance with Federal Highway Administration Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. These regulations apply to all public highways in Pennsylvania, and the City Solicitor has ruled that the Streets Department is legally obligated to comply with the Vehicle Code and related PennDOT regulations. The federal and State criteria require that an all-way control be warranted by an engineering study of traffic conditions, police accident records, traffic volume, speed, distance. A study has not been requested before the introduction of this bill. We have initiated the study. This study should be completed within two weeks. We recommend that the study be done prior to taking action on this bill. This bill is 9 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000365 not supported by the Streets Department.
All right. Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000365, an ordinance authorizing the installation of stop signs on Venango Street at the intersection of Weikel Street.
This request came in at the same time as the previous bill, and our answer is essentially the same. We have initiated the study, but study will take two weeks to finish, and we recommend that the study be done prior to taking action on the bill, and the bill is not 10 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000365 supported by the Streets Department.
Do you have any reason to believe that the study will come back any different than the studies that have come back in the past when City Council has requested stop signs based on what the State laws are?
I have looked at both intersections and both streets. The cross streets only run for one block. From Venango to Pacific, they don't have very much traffic, the sight distance is good, and there is no crash problem there, so it's unlikely that there will be any change. And we did notice there was a stop sign missing at one intersection, and we replaced that stop sign.
Just a quick question. This criteria that you use, or that you're telling me you're required to use, to decide whether or not an intersection gets a stop sign or not, why are we obligated to follow that if these aren't State highways that we're trying 11 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000365 to post?
The Vehicle Code requires that all traffic control in the State be in accordance with PennDOT regulations, and we're in the State of Pennsylvania.
But it's clear that we must follow that even when we're regulating a non-state highway?
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you.
Bill No. 000401, an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code related to sidewalk sales by 12 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000401 adding a new provision prohibiting sidewalk sales in the area bounded by and within Wissahickon Avenue from Schoolhouse Lane to the Roosevelt Boulevard Extension, the Roosevelt Boulevard Extension from Wissahickon Avenue to Scotts Lane, Scotts Lane from the Roosevelt Boulevard Extension to Ridge Avenue, Ridge Avenue from Scotts Lane to the Roosevelt Boulevard Extension, the Roosevelt Boulevard Extension from Ridge Avenue to the Schuylkill River, the Schuylkill River from the Roosevelt Boulevard Extension to the Wissahickon Creek, the Wissahickon Creek from the Schuylkill River to Ridge Avenue, Ridge Avenue from the Wissahickon Creek to Schoolhouse Lane, and Schoolhouse Lane from Ridge Avenue to Wissahickon Avenue, under certain terms and conditions. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. I am Otis Haigler, Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I'm here to testify on 13 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000401 Bill 000401. The Department of Licenses and Inspections currently enforces provisions of Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code relating to the prohibition of sidewalk sales in various sections of the City. The Department, through its Business Regulatory Enforcement Unit, is prepared to effectuate enforcement action in this area delineated in the legislation if Council adopts this legislation. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have concerning this legislation. Also, I have been given some last-minute amendments to the bill and I'd like to read those into the record. Section 9-205(8)(p), there is no 18 particular number here, but the last section, right below where it says "business property," on the last page right, there below "business property," I would like to insert "such building owners or their tenants shall comply with all provisions of Section 9-205, including, but not limited to, the licensing requirements of Subsection 3, except that such building owners or 14 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000401 their tenants shall be exempted from the following provisions: "Subsection (8)(c), relating to placement of stands at the curb line. "Subsection (8)(d), relating to proximity to other licensed vendors. "Subsection (8)(o), relating to the number of stands, and that part of subsection (8)(m), which prohibits the placement of stands within 10 feet of the intersection, as defined therein." These were amendments that were given by the Law Department that were indicated they should be placed in the record.
Thank you. Do you happen to know why there is no 18 number or letter in those parentheses? Is that --
Okay, I just 15 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000401 wanted to make sure we don't have a problem with that. We're fine. Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
We have a number of letters from the community in support of this bill and, I would assume, in support of the amendment to the bill. (Letters from community in support of Bill No. 000401 attached hereto.)
Without this amendment, what are the occupiers of these buildings permitted or forbidden from doing on the sidewalk? And can you tell me, does the sidewalk cover from the building wall to the street?
To the curb line. 16 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000401
Correct. That would be the sidewalk, from the building wall to the curb line is considered the sidewalk.
And if this prohibition occurs, then there can be no sidewalk sale on any part, nothing can be taken outside, say, the building front.
Councilman, I just received this. I would have to really read this again. I'm not -- I don't think I really understand your question. Can you repeat your question.
Well, I'm not asking specifically about this. I'm asking about, in general, what is the area that the prohibition on sidewalk sales covers?
It covers the sidewalk, from the building front to the curb line.
Any other questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the 17 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000279 next bill.
Bill No. 000279, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 329 by relocating a portion of Bridge Street between Penn Street and Bustleton Avenue and by declaring the unopened portion of the cutback at the northwest corner of Frankford Avenue and Pratt Street to be legally open, and by declaring the relocated portion of Bridge Street to be legally open, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 21 000279: This is not an administration ordinance, but an ordinance that was requested by a Miss Cynthia Brey, Project Manager for SEPTA 1234 Market Street. 18 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000279 The purpose of this ordinance is to revise the house lines and curb lines of Bridge Street to facilitate SEPTA's plan for a new transportation center. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer, and I am the Environmental Officer with the Project Planning Division of the City Planning Commission.
Marty, could you speak a little more directly into the microphone thank you.
I am here today to testify in support of Bill No. 00279. The proposed ordinance, as earlier described, authorizes the relocation of an intersection in the Frankford section of Northeast Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to improve pedestrian and vehicular traffic flow and SEPTA vehicle access in 19 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000279 support of a $140 million of improvements to the Frankford Transportation Center. By action at its meeting on May 18, 2000, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 6 No. 000279 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Frances, do you wish to testify? Please identify yourself for the record.
Sure. My name is Frances M. Jones, I'm Assistant General Manager of Government Affairs at SEPTA, and I'm here to provide testimony in support of the proposed Bridge Street realignment project. We are currently developing a new state-of-the-art intermodal transit facility to replace the old Bridge Pratt Terminal at Frankford Avenue and Bridge Street. The Frankford Transportation Center Complex includes the replacement of the subway elevated station, extensive track guideway signal track power work, as well as a 1,000-car parking garage. All of this construction will occur while maintaining service operations. 20 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000279 As you know -- or if you don't know -- this is one of the busiest and most heavily used lines within SEPTA, providing service to 150,000 riders daily. The Bridge Pratt Terminal is the most active transportation center, with 250,000 passengers daily. We're basically here to support it and to request that the committee today suspend the rules to permit first reading in City Council on Thursday, June 15th, year 2000. So if any questions, we're here to answer them.
I think my question is process. The residents of this community, the business community in general, when we make this type of a change, are they aware that there's going to be an actual physical change in their community?
Yes, Councilman. There are letters of support that were submitted from the Frankford -- the Bridge Pratt Business 21 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000279 Association, the residential community, and all of the business associations in support of this project. They were sent over last week.
Councilman, too, just going a little further with that. As part of any of these changes to the City Plan, part of our process is a hearing, a public hearing before the Board of Surveyors, at which you testified a little while ago, and our responsibility is to actually go out and actually put physical posters around the neighborhood. So if anyone has any concerns or things like that and would like to get on the record that have maybe missed this hearing, they have the opportunity to do that.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? 22 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000339 (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000339, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 10 No. 990308), entitled "An ordinance authorizing the vacating of Walker Street from Pearson Avenue to a dead-end approximately 108 northeast of Pearson Avenue, under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the authorization conditions therein.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 22 000329: This is not an administration ordinance 24 but an ordinance requested by Ms. Elaine Kochanski, of Feasterville, Pennsylvania. 23 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000339 The purpose of this ordinance is to extend time period to vacate Walker Street northeast of Pearson Avenue. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000360, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. No. 308 by on the City Plan Gaskill Street and Philip Street, all under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City free and clear of all encumbrances of the beds of Gaskill Street and Philip Street. Companion Bill No. 000361, an ordinance 24 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000360, 361 authorizing the paving of Gaskill Street and Philip Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 9 000361: This is not an administration ordinance 11 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Stephen Mark Goldner, President of Goldner Kline Architects, 260 South 23rd Street, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to place on the City Plan a new section of Gaskill Street and Philip Street to facilitate 45 new housing units. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer, and I am the Environmental Officer with the Project Planning Division of the City Planning Commission and I am here today to testify in 25 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000360, 361 support of Bill No. 000360. The proposed ordinance, as earlier described, authorizes the placement on the City Plan of two minor streets along the southerly side of the 200 block of Lombard Street and the easterly side of Third Street, located in the Society Hill section of Center City. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide legal street frontage for the subdivision of a 1.5-acre parcel of land and allowing for the construction of 45 single-family attached dwelling units. By action of its meetings on June 1, 2000, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 15 No. 000360 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000362
Bill No. 000362, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 4 No. 990376), approved July 1, 1999, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 97 by striking from the City Plan Park Avenue to Catherine Street to the southerly line of Clymer Street produced by striking from the City Plan Park Avenue from the northerly side of Clymer Street produced to Fitzwater Street, by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain 40-foot wide right-of-way reserved for drainage purposes, by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain 20-foot wide right-of-way reserved for drainage purposes, by placing on the City Plan Juniper Street, Clymer Street, and Fawn Street, including the dedication to the City free and clear of any encumbrances, of the beds of Juniper Street, Clymer Street, and Fawn Street; all under certain terms and conditions," by extending the time for compliance with the conditions stated therein.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul 27 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000362 Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 5 362: This is not an administration ordinance 7 but an ordinance by Mr. Robert C. Totaro of Penrose Properties Incorporated, One Liberty Place, Suite 3810. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the time period to vacate Park Avenue and place several new streets between Broad and 12th Street from Catherine Bainbridge Street on the City Plan to facilitate the development of 92 townhouse units and expansion of the Community Center and the creation of a small community park. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? 28 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000363 (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000363, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 97 by striking from the City Plan Watts Street from Catherine Street to Clymer Street by striking from the City Plan Clymer Street from Watts Street to the easterly line of Park Avenue, and by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain 20-foot wide right-of-way reserved for drainage purposes and gas main purposes, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 21 000363: This is not an administration ordinance 23 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Robert Totaro, Penrose Properties, One Liberty Place, Suite 3810, Philadelphia. 29 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000363 The purpose of this ordinance is to vacate Watts and Clymer Street between Fitzwater to the north, Catherine to South Broad Street and west to Juniper Street for the assemblage of mixed-use development. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer, and I am here today to testify in support of Bill No. 000363. The proposed ordinance, as earlier described, authorizes the striking from the City Plan of two unneeded streets in the Hawthorne section of South Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to assemble a parcel of land for office-commercial development. This proposal includes the construction of a building with 34,000 square feet of retail space, 75,000 square feet of office space, a day care center, and a multilevel parking garage. By action at its meeting on June 1, 2000, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 30 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000366 No. 000363 be approved. Thank you.
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, in the absence of the clerk, I'll read the next title. Bill No. 000366, an ordinance 15 authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 319 in the area of Ripley Street and Tabor Avenue by placing on the City Plan Tabor Avenue from Ripley Street to Loney Street, Tabor Avenue from Loney Street southwesterly to a dead end, Loney Street from Lawndale Avenue to Fox Run Lane, Lawndale Avenue from Fox Run Lane to Loney Street, and from Fox Run Lane to Lawndale Avenue to Loney Street, all under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City free and clear of all 31 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000366 encumbrances of the beds of Tabor Avenue, Loney Street, Lawndale Avenue, and Fox Run Lane.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 9 000363: This is not an administration ordinance 11 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Ray Fox, the Western Development Company, 370 Commerce Drive, Suite 100, Fort Washington. The purpose of this ordinance is to place these streets on the City Plan for the development of 66 new single homes. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Marty Soffer, and I'm here today to testify in support of Bill No. 000366. The proposed ordinance, as earlier described, authorizes the placement on the City 32 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000366 Plan of four new streets in the Fox Chase section 3 of Northeast Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit the subdivision of a 12.3-acre parcel of land to allow for the construction of 66 single-family attached dwellings. By action at its meeting on June 1, 2000, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 10 No. 000366 be approved. Thank you.
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the next bill is Bill No. 000367, an ordinance 21 authorizing the paving of Tabor Avenue, Loney Street, Lawndale Avenue and Fox Run Lane, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul 33 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000366 Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 5 000367: This is not an administration ordinance 7 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Ray Fox, Western Development Company, 370 Commerce Drive, Suite 100, Fort Washington. The purpose of this ordinance is to place -- to give the legal authority to the Streets Department to enter into a contract to pave these streets that have been mentioned in the previous bill. This is a companion bill to Bill 15 No. 000366. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.) 34 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000366
Hearing none, the next bill is Bill No. 000368, an ordinance 4 authorizing and directing the placing of City Plan No. 396 of Gina Street from Verree Road at a point approximately 446 feet northeast of Welsh Road and extending into the northwesterly direction the approximate distance of 359 feet to a dead-end turnaround, under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication free and clear of all encumbrances of the bed of Gina Street.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 17 000368: This is not an administration ordinance 19 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Nick Rose, ProTract Engineering, for Costa Homes, Incorporated. The purpose of this ordinance is to obtain the legal authority to place Gina Street on the City Plan in order to develop a subdivision at 9748 Verree Road. 35 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000366 This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Marty Soffer, and I'm here today to testify in support of Bill No. 000368. The proposed ordinance, as earlier described, authorizes the placement on the City Plan of a new cul-de-sac street located in the Bustleton section of Northeast Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide a new street for the subdivision of a 2.2-acre parcel of land to allow for the construction of six single-family detached dwelling units. By action at its meeting of June 6, 2000, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 19 No. 000368 be approved. Thank you.
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone 36 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000366 else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Bill No. 000369, an ordinance authorizing the paving of Gina Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 15 000369: This is not an administration ordinance 17 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Nick Rose, ProTract Engineering, for Costa Homes Incorporated. The purpose of this ordinance is to grant the authority to the Streets to enter into a contract with this developer for the private paving of the street to facilitate this development. This ordinance is supported by the 37 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000374 Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000374, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 121 by striking from the City Plan and vacating a portion of Chang Street and by placing a dead-end turnaround at the terminus of Chang Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 25 000374: 38 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000374 This is not an administration ordinance 3 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Philip Licht, Esquire, The Pavilion, Suite 621, Old York Road, Jenkintown, Pennsylvania, who represents the 27th & Girard Trust. The purpose of this ordinance is to combine three parcels, eliminating a portion of Chang Street, which borders and separates these parcels in order to facilitate commercial development. This ordinance supported by the Department of Streets and is recommend to your committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer, and I'm here today to testify in support of Bill 000374. The proposed ordinance, as earlier described, authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of a portion of an unneeded street from the southerly side of the 2600 block or Girard Avenue, located in the Fairmount section 24 of North Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit the assembly of a parcel of 39 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000394 land for the development of a 13,000 square foot retail building, complete with 65 off-street parking spaces. By action at its meeting of June 6, 2000, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 7 No. 000374 be approved. Thank you.
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000394, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 18-S by striking from the City Plan and vacating 36th Street from Wharton Street to Grays Ferry Avenue and placing on the City Plan a certain right-of-way within the bed of 36th Street.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman 40 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000394 and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 6 000394: This is an administration ordinance 8 requested by Mr. John Edelstein of the Commerce Department. The purpose of this ordinance is for a proposed industrial development to benefit Federal Express. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer, and I'm here today to testify in support of Bill No. 000394. The proposed ordinance, as earlier described, authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of an unneeded street located in the Point Breeze section of South Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit the assembly of a parcel of land for the development of a 110,000 square foot Federal 41 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000394 Express building, complete with 320 off-street parking spaces. At its meeting of June 15, 2000, the staff of the Planning Commission will recommend to the Planning Commission that Bill No. 000394 be approved. Thank you.
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000399, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 20 No. 990143), approved June 11, 1999, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the striking from City Plan No. 163 of East River Road from Calumet Street to the line of Fairmount Park, under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the authorization and conditions 42 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000399 therein.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 8 000399: This is not an administration ordinance 10 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Robert Lane, of Morgan, Lewis, and Bockius, 2001 Logan Square, Philadelphia, who represents Amoco Oil Company. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the time period to legally strike East River Road from the City Plan. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.) 43 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000400
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. This is fast process for the people who are at the top of the list, right? Unfortunately, somebody's always at the end. Sorry about that.
Bill No. 000400, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 9 No. 990369), approved July 1, 1999, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 297 by striking from the City Plan certain portions of Keely Street from Henry Avenue southwestwardly to a dead-end turnaround and making Keely Street conform more nearly with existing physical conditions, under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance of the authorization conditions therein.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 24 000400: This is not an administration ordinance 44 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000400 but an ordinance requested by Mr. John Murphy, 730 Caledonia Street, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the time period to make Keely Street conform more nearly with existing physical conditions. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets Department and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. What's the difference between when the City initiates the action and when a private person does? Why doesn't the City, if it approves -- you've been stating that the Streets Department approves of this. Why aren't these other bills also introduced by the City? What's the distinction?
The distinction is basically in Section 2 of the ordinance, that there's a lot of agreements that must be entered into, and there's a lot of responsibilities that 45 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000400 are taken over by the private parties that the City doesn't want to assume that liability. In an administration ordinance, we assume all of the liability for anything that happens as part of the street striking. In Section 2 of the private interest ordinance, what we do is, we ask the party in interest who is going to benefit from these strikings to assume the liability, and that way, the City doesn't necessarily have to take on that risk.
Well, when the City introduces it, does it indicate that it's a City loan or a City grant?
No, it indicates that the City is the abutting property owner, as is the case for 36th Street. There's no abutting- property owners other than the City. And so that's when we generally would do it by administration.
Let the record 46 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000403 reflect that Councilmembers Clarke and Mariano are now in attendance. The clerk will now read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000403, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 307 by relocating a portion of the westerly side of Independence Mall East a certain distance easterly, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 17 000403: This is not an administration ordinance 19 but an ordinance requested by Miss Emily Bittenbender, of the Bourse Building, 111 South Independence Mall East, Philadelphia 19106. The purpose of this ordinance is to provide additional bus parking for the new Constitution Center and revise the lines and grades to meet that need. 47 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000403 This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Marty Soffer, and I'm here today to testify in support of Bill No. 000403. The proposed ordinance, as earlier described, authorizes the revision of lines and grades on a portion of a street located in the Society Section of Center City. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit the development of a bus drop-off area for the National Constitution Center. At its meeting on June 15, 2000, the staff of the Planning Commission will recommend to the Planning Commission that Bill No. 000403 be approved. Thank you.
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone 48 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000411 else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000411, an ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan 271 of an area bounded by Girard Avenue, Hancock Street, Wildey Street, Germantown Avenue, New Market Street, Laurel Street, and Second Street by striking from the City Plan and vacating Germantown Avenue from Second Street to Wildey Street, by striking from the City Plan and vacating Hancock Street from Pollard Street to Germantown Avenue, by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes, by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain right-of-way for gas main purposes, and by placing on the City Plan certain rights-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul 49 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000411 Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 5 000411: This is not an administration ordinance 7 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Bart Blatstein, Tower Investments, Inc., One Reed Street, Philadelphia, PA. The purpose of this ordinance is to develop the former Schmidts Brewery site into a new modern shopping district. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to the committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Mr. Chair and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer, and I'm here today to speak in support of Bill 000411. The proposed ordinance, as earlier described, authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of two unneeded streets and two unneeded rights-of-way located in the Northern Liberties section of North Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to permit the 50 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000411 assembly of a parcel of land for the development of a neighborhood shopping center. The Planning Commission previously approved Bill No. 956, which authorizes action at its meeting on November 17, 1994. The Planning Commission staff will recommend to the Planning Commission that Bill No. 000411 be approved at its meeting on June 15, 2000. Thank you.
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000415, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 58 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Melon Street from Ridge Avenue to 13th Street, by striking from the City Plan and vacating Park 51 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000415 Avenue from Wallace Street to Melon Street and by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain right-of-way for drainage and water main purposes, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 11 000415: This is not an administration ordinance 13 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Sterlin Daniel, Project Architect and Manager, The School District of the City of Philadelphia, at 734 Schuylkill Avenue, Philadelphia, PA. The purpose of this ordinance is to strike these streets for the development of a new Franklin Learning Center High School at Broad and Ridge. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for a favorable action.
Good morning. My name is Marty Soffer, and I am here today to testify in 52 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000415 support of Bill No. 000415. The proposed ordinance, as earlier described, authorizes the striking from the City Plan and the vacating of two unneeded streets and two unneeded rights-of-way located in the West Poplar section of North Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to assist in the assembly of a parcel of land for the development of a 210,000 square foot magnet school for medical and the performing arts. By action at its June 15, 2000 meeting, the Planning Commission staff will recommend that Bill No. No. 000415 be approved at its meeting on June 15, 2000. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, gentlemen. I have one question with respect to a pedestrian right-of-way. I just want to get for the record -- there was some discussion about having the ability for pedestrians to walk through the school with some sort of a pedestrian 53 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000415 right-of-way. Is that still a part of the plan, if you recall?
I wish the architect was here; he was supposed to be, but he didn't quite make it, for whatever reason. We have the ability within, I believe, Section 2 (c) the of the ordinance to enter into an agreement for basically anything we need to do within that timeframe. If you feel that's something that is necessary, then please let us know and we would be glad to insert that into the agreement, that the School District has to enter into as part of this ordinance.
But I don't know at this point in time what the exact plans are for that right-of-way. I remember a discussion about it.
And I will be at a meeting at the Franklin Learning Center Friday on this project, and I will make sure I bring that up.
Any other questions for these witnesses? 54 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000415 (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Paul, I assume you will be asking for a suspension of rules?
Bill No. 000281, an ordinance authorizing the McDonald's Corporation, 150 South Warner Road, King of Prussia, Pennsylvania, 19106, tenant of the property 942 Market Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, to construct and maintain various encroachments attached to the building and projecting onto and over the south footway of Market Street and the east footway of Tenth Street, all under certain terms and conditions. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Nancy Sen. I'm an engineering supervisor for the Streets Department and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 55 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000415 000281 on behalf of the Streets. This bill authorizes the McDonald's Corporation to construct and maintain the following encroachments on and above the public footways at the southeast corner of Tenth and Market: an electrified marquee and three-dimensional icon over the entrance to the building at the corner of Tenth and Market, planters and fabric-covered awnings encroaching into the Tenth Street footway at four window areas on the face of the building, architectural embellishments running along the Tenth Street and Market Street faces of the building, and a permanent cloth banner projecting over Market Street footway. All encroachments leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway on both Market Street and Tenth Street. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill.
Is it a department of the City that authorizes signage? 56 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000415
Well, when a project comes, it's looked at both L&I at the building permit stage, and also they would send up anything that's a little unusual or projecting too far out into the footway to the Streets Department to look at. So both departments -- L&I and Streets look at it from different views.
And this is not something the Art Commission gets into?
The Art Commission, as a matter of fact, I understand from the applicant, has looked at it this just last Wednesday. They don't have their letter yet, but they got a favorable view of it.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 57 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000340 clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000340, an ordinance granting permission to the National Railway Passenger Corporation, 60 Massachusetts Avenue, Washington, DC, 2002, to construct, use, and maintain various underground facilities within, under, and across Delaware Avenue between Wheatsheaf Lane and Lewis Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Again, my name is Nancy Sen, and I am an engineering supervisor for the Streets Department. I am here to testify on Bill No. 340 on behalf of the Streets Department. This bill allows the National Railroad Passenger Corporation, also known as "Amtrak," to construct and maintain the following underground utilities below the public right-of-way of Delaware Avenue between former Wheatsheaf Lane and Lewis Street: a precast cable trench, buried communications, duct bank and hand holes, ground grid cables, sanitary sewer, main and manholes, an 8-inch water main extension, a 2-inch water main connection branch, and an 8-inch fire line 58 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000340 extension. The Streets Department has reviewed the plan and given preliminary approval. We have no 5 objection to the passage of this bill. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. I'm Joseph F. McCullough, Program Director of the Electric Traction Department with Amtrak. Members of the committee, thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of Bill No. 340. Amtrak's northeast corridor operation provides intercity passenger train service between Boston, New York, Philadelphia, and Washington. The multiple track main line rail road between New York, Philadelphia, and Washington and between Philadelphia and Harrisburg was electrified by Amtrak's predecessor, the Pennsylvania Railroad, in the 1930s, to provide electricity to trains of hertz or cycles, rather than the 60 hertz, 23 which is now almost universal in North America. 24 The choice of 25 hertz to power trains 25 reflected the state of electrical engineering in 59 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000340 the 1930s. More than 60 years later, Amtrak needs to modernize and expand the capacity of its power system where it's constructing a new facility at 3801 North Delaware Avenue to meet our future power requirements. The purpose of the Richmond static frequency converter project is then: 1. To replace antiquated equipment with modern equipment, which is more reliable and more efficient; and 2. To provide for an increase in power system capacity. Bill 340 will permit Amtrak to construct, use, and maintain a series of infrastructure connections to support our new facility, specifically upgrade precast cable trench, a below-grade duct bank to carry control connections between 30th Street Station and the project site, three at-grade hand holes, two below-grade grid cables, a below-grade sanitary sewer main, an at-grade sanitary manhole, a below-grade water main, a below-grade fire line, a below-grade water line and branch. The above facilities are necessary to tie the new converter station into the existing City of Philadelphia 60 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000340 water and sewer utilities in the Amtrak power system. I will be pleased to answer any questions.
And who in Amtrak people -- maybe it's you, I don't know -- would people go to or Councilmembers who are concerned about the upkeep of areas where Amtrak tracks run?
Well, there are any number of people. You could certainly come to me, and I could give you a list of other folks.
Yes, sir. They will be assigned to maintain and operate that facility in the years to come.
My phone number is 61 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000340 215-349-1511.
This is for Nancy. Could you, for the record, define "within, under" -- "within, under, and across"? I can -- what exactly does "within" mean when it comes to this bill?
It's -- all of these are just at-grade, where you could see the top of the trench, so we kind of say "on" for that. If any of the mains, like water, that's further under, that would be "under." And "within" is just within the Delaware Avenue right-of-way. That's how we would -- why we use the three terms.
In other words, it could include the shoulder of the road?
Yes. Most of these, I believe, are in the shoulder of the road; they're not going to be in what is now Delaware Avenue.
And this actually is at the end of Delaware Avenue, the last block, before it dead-ends at Lewis Street. It's not down where there's a little more traffic.
Any other questions of these witnesses? (No further questions.)
If I may, we ask that the committee grant 340 a favorable recommendation and a suspension of the rules.
Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.) 63 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000372, 373
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you.
Bill No. 000372, an ordinance granting permission to Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education to construct, use, and maintain various underground utility facilities and appurtenances within the public right-of-way of an area bounded by Cecil B. Moore Avenue, 13th Street, Oxford Street, and Park Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions. And companion Bill No. 000373, an ordinance granting permission to Temple University Commonwealth System of Higher Education to construct, use, and maintain a telecommunications duct bank and manholes within and under Diamond Street between Broad Street and Tenth Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Again, my name is Nancy Sen, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 372 64 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000372, 373 and companion Bill 373. The purpose of ordinance 000372 is to grant permission to Temple University to install and maintain private utilities under the public right-of-way surrounding their proposed student residence building that will fill the entire block bounded by Cecil B. Moore Avenue on the north, 13th Street on the east, Oxford Street on the south, and Park Avenue on the west. The encroaching private utility facilities to be incorporated in the construction project include Temple University electric power lines and manholes, Temple University telephone conduit and manholes, Temple University steam, water lines and manholes, Temple University chilled water lines and manholes, and Temple University underground conduit for 32 street light poles surrounding this site. The Streets Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for this project and no 22 objection to the passage of this bill. Before I go on, I believe Temple is here to testify for 372. (Witnesses come forward.) 65 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000372, 373
Good morning, gentlemen. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Chairman and members of the committee. I'm Marvin Gerstein (ph.), Director of Planning and Design for Temple University. This is Kevin O'Tool, who is Assistant Director of the Office. We appreciate your consideration of this ordinance. There has been a serious shortage of on-campus housing for our students. In order to meet that need, we have under construction at the present time a new 1,000-bed facility on the subject block. We would appreciate your consideration of our bringing our central utilities and various other utilities to this site to this site.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilmember Clarke?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. Mr. Gerstein, with respect to the closing, you recall in the past we had some 66 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000372, 373 concern about 13th Street in particular and some of the community residents. What has the University done in terms of notification to the surrounding residents about this particular closing?
We don't anticipate any permanent closings of the streets in order to do this. We expect portions of the street to be closed on a temporary basis simply as needed to the construction of the facilities. There will be no long-term closing of streets proposed for this proposed.
My question was, what outreach has the university done to the surrounding residents to let them know the timelines associated with the temporary closings?
Both Tom Anderson and Chip Marshall of the University have spoken with the local residents in the immediate vicinity of the project.
Okay. Is there anything documented to that effect? In the event that somebody calls me wants to know why is that street closed again. 67 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000372, 373
Okay. Yeah, I just want to -- you know, this is a relatively sensitive issue, and I just want to make sure that people --
I appreciate and I'll have -- I'll ask Tom to give you some correspondence about what was said specifically.
Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000396, an ordinance granting permission to Sophia Saritsogloy, owner and operator of Sophia's Lunch Truck, located on the north side of Market Street between 39th and 40th Streets, approximately in front of 3901 Market Street, to install, use, and maintain certain electrical wires, conduits, and 68 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000396 appurtenances in, under, and over the north footway of the north side of Market Street between 39th and 40th Street for the purpose of supplying electricity to said lunch truck, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name in Nancy Sen, and I'm here to testify on Bill 396 on behalf of the Streets Department. This ordinance grants permission to Sophia Saritsogloy, owner and operator of Sophia's Lunch Truck, to connect and maintain electrical service to her lunch truck. The Streets Department has not seen the actual plans for this proposal, but most hookups to vendor trucks usually include attaching a meter and plug receptacle to either an existing PECO pole or a privately owned pole. The Streets Department is opposed to this type of electrification connection because it will cause unsafe conditions for pedestrian traffic, become an attractive nuisance for vandalism or possible injury, and would set a very unsafe precedent. 69 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000396 We understand that vendors need to have a power source for their refrigeration systems; however, there may be alternate technologies that prove beneficial, economic, and ecological to be used. There are gas propane refrigerator units on the market. We would hope that the need for power could be addressed by alternate means.
You just described a condition, which I don't think is a precedent. Are you telling me that we have no other installation anywhere in the City of Philadelphia that resembles what you've just described?
There are some lunch trucks that are hooked up that stay parked all night so that they are permanently at -- the meter and the receptacle is on the top of truck and then it's wired to a PECO pole that's right beside the truck. But a lot of these trucks are -- they drive home at night. So, really, what's proposed about four years ago was to put a pole, similar to a light pole, that would have a locked box with a meter and a receptacle in it. And at that time, the 70 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000396 Streets Department opposed it. You know, the Streets Department doesn't want to see, nor does L&I, more street furniture in the right-of-way that is not attended in the evening, just because these trucks leave at p.m. or around that time. 7
So you're opposed to this based on esthetics and you threw the word "safety" in there, 'cause I don't see a safety issue here.
Well, the meters will be locked, but if anybody should, you know, get into the lock, it's a meter and an electric receptacle and --
So you're basing your position on safety and also the fact that esthetically, it doesn't work.
Esthetically, will it be maintained, you know, once it's there. If the truck ever goes out of business five years from now, it's something in the right-of-way that Streets would have to deal with maybe --
But I respectfully disagree that maybe vandalism or something like that could be an unsafe situation, but there is 71 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000396 applications and installations like that everywhere that are considered appropriate. You couldn't get an electrical cert if it were an unsafe situation, so I don't think it's a matter of being an unsafe situation. Thank you.
Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, I will read the title of the next Bill. Bill No. 000406, an ordinance -- is that yours, Nancy?
Councilman, I believe we missed this testimony on the second Temple bill, 373.
I'm sorry. 72 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000396 Okay, Bill No. 000373, an ordinance 3 granting permission to Temple University of the Commonwealth System of Higher Education to construct, use, and maintain a telecommunications duct bank and manholes within and under Diamond Street between Broad Street and Tenth Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Again, my name is Nancy Sen, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 373 on behalf of the Streets Department. This ordinance grants permission to Temple University to install and maintain private utilities under the public right-of-way of Diamond Street between Broad Street and Tenth Street. These facilities will connect their proposed football facility at Tenth and Diamond Streets to an existing telecommunications manhole at Broad and Diamond Streets. The encroaching private utility facilities to be incorporated in the construction project include: a maximum of nine 4-inch-diameter conduits, making up a duct bank, which runs in the Diamond Street cartway 73 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000396 approximately 2 feet north of the south curb line of Diamond Street; along with four manholes placed along the conduit run. The Streets Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for this project and has no 7 objection to the passage of the bill.
We should get our stadiums done as easy as this. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Cohen?
Good morning. This is Marvin Gerstein, Director of Planning and Design at Temple University. This is a cable that will connect this facility, which is comprised of both a practice field and a 23,000 square foot building to the University's telecommunications system. And this is cable which brings telephone and data to the site essentially to connect it, as all of our other buildings are connected.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness 74 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000406 from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000406, an ordinance authorizing Wolf Street Partners LP, owners of the property 2400 South Weccacoe Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19148, to construct and maintain fence on the west footway of Weccacoe Street and the south footway of Wolf Street adjacent to the property 2400 Weccacoe Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Again, my name is Nancy Sen, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 000406 on behalf of the Streets Department. This bill grants permission to Wolf Street Partners Limited Partnership to construct various footway encroachments on the public rights-of-way surrounding the Unique Industries Incorporated site being developed at the 75 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000406 intersection of Wolf Street and Weccacoe Street. The encroachments are as follows: an 8-foot high chain-link fence bordering both the Wolf Street and Weccacoe Avenue public rights-of-way; a strip of land between the encroaching fence described above in the Wolf Street and Weccacoe Avenue public rights-of-way to be used for purpose of extending the parking area of the site. The strip is to be finished with asphalt paving or gravel from the fence line back into the property. Concrete sidewalk will be maintained on the right-of-way side of the fence out to the respective curb lines. On the Weccacoe Avenue side of the property, the strip's approximately 12-foot wide inside a 22-foot wide footway, leaving approximately 10 foot of clear footway. On the Wolf Street side of the property, the strip is approximately 5 feet wide inside the Wolf Street 15-foot footway, leaving approximately 10 feet of clear footway. The Streets Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for this project and has no 25 objection to the passage of this bill as the 76 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000409 proposal leaves sufficient footway width for pedestrian passage.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000409, an ordinance authorizing Reading Terminal Market Corporation, 51 North 12th Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19107, tenant of the Reading Terminal Market, to construct and maintain various electrified aluminum icon signs anchored into the facade of the Reading Terminal Market and extending over the public rights-of-way of Arch Street, 12th Street, and Filbert Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. Again, my name is Nancy Sen. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 000409 on behalf of the Streets 77 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000409 Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to allow the Reading Terminal Market Corporation to erect and maintain signs above the public footways surrounding the Reading Terminal Market Building at 12th and Filbert Streets. The signs project a maximum of 5 feet into the footways, with the lowest point approximately feet above the 10 footway, with the highest point approximately 14-feet-10-inches above the footway, for an overall height of approximately 4-foot-10 each. There are six signs anchored to the Arch Street facade of the building, 10 anchored to the 12th Street facade of the building, and 4 signs anchored to the Filbert Street facade of the building. The Streets Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for this project and has no 20 objection to the passage of this bill, as the proposal leaves sufficient footway clearance for pedestrian passage.
Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.) 78 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000410
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000410, an ordinance authorizing Keystone Properties LP to construct and maintain various encroachments above and over the north footway of the 1000 block of Market Street adjacent to the Gallery II, all under certain terms and conditions.
Again, my name is Nancy Sen, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 000410 on behalf of the Streets Department. This ordinance grants permission to Keystone Properties Limited Partnership to erect and maintain signs above the Market Street public footways for the Old Navy Store now being developed at the Gallery II Complex at Tenth and Market Streets. The encroachments are all anchored to the Market Street facade of the building and they are as follows: one electrified icon sign, two stainless-steel flag poles with cloth flags, four 79 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000410 rigid steel canopies over the windows. The Streets Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for this project and has no 5 objection to the passage of this bill, as the proposal leaves sufficient footway clearance for pedestrian passage.
Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, we will now move into the telecommunications bills.
Bill No. 000402, an ordinance granting permission to Conectiv Communications Incorporated, a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain and operate, replace, and remove a telecommunications system along, over, in, and under the public rights-of-way and City streets and to place such telecommunications system within the existing facilities owned by Bell Atlantic PA, PECO Energy Company, 80 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000410 Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Shared Assets, or other entity holding a grant pursuant to other City ordinances, subject to such owner's consent; all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and members of the Committee. Again, my name is Nancy Sen, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 000402 on behalf of the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to grant permission to Conectiv Communications, a Delaware corporation, to construct and maintain a fiber optics network and a telecommunications system in, under, and above the public rights-of-way at various locations along the route, as specified in the ordinance. The proposed route will predominantly run in existing underground conduit, with a small portion running aerially on existing pole lines. Additionally, at 10 intersections along the route, CCI will construct approximately 800 feet total of new underground conduit. At each intersection, a CCI manhole will be installed to 81 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000410 connect the new conduit to existing Bell Atlantic and PECO Energy underground facilities. The Department of Streets has reviewed the preliminary plans and has no objection to the passage of this ordinance. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Guy Eberwein (ph.), and I'm Manager of Outside Plan Engineering at Conectiv Communications, Incorporated. Conectiv Communications, Incorporated is a subsidiary of Conectiv, which was formed by the merger of Del Marva Power and Light and Atlantic Electric. And we're here today as part of the process so that we can install a fiber optic network within the City of Philadelphia, and we respectfully request a suspension of the rules.
So noted. Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.) 82 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000405
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000405, an ordinance granting permission to Sunesys, Incorporated, its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain and operate, replace, and remove a telecommunications system along, over, in, and under the public rights-of-way in City streets and/or to place such telecommunications system within the existing facilities owned by Bell Atlantic PA, PECO Energy Company, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Shared Assets, or other entity holding a grant pursuant to other City ordinance, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen, and I'm here to testify for the Streets Department on Bill No. 000405. 83 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000405 This is not an administrative ordinance 3 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Brian Heverin, Senior Project Engineer for Sunesys, located at Post Office Box 1776, Horsham, PA. The purpose of this ordinance is to construct and maintain fiber optics network and a telecommunications system in and under the Callowhill Street public right-of-way between the Delaware River and a telecommunications facility at 401 North Broad Street. The Department of Streets has reviewed the preliminary plan and has no objection to the passage of the ordinance.
Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 00121, which was continued from May 31, 2000. This is an ordinance 25 granting permission to Cavalier Telephone 84 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000121 Mid-Atlantic LLC, its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain and operate, replace, and remove a telecommunications system along, over, in, and under the public rights-of-way in City streets, and/or to place such telecommunications system on or within the existing facilities owned by Bell Atlantic PA, PECO Energy Company, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Consolidated Rail Corporation, Shared Assets, or other entity holding a grant pursuant to other City ordinances, all under certain terms and conditions.
Is there any further testimony on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
And Bill No. 000218, also continued from a public hearing on May 31, 2000. This is an ordinance granting permission to Columbia Transmission Communications Corp., a Delaware corporation, its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain and operate, replace, and 85 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000218 remove a telecommunications system along, over, in, and under the public rights-of-way in City streets and/or to place such telecommunications system within the existing facilities owned by Bell Atlantic PA, PECO Energy Company, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Consolidated Shared Assets, or other entity holding a grant pursuant to other City ordinances, all under certain terms and conditions.
Is there any further testimony on this bill? (No response.)
Is there anyone else wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000358, an ordinance amending Title 12 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Traffic Code," by amending the provisions relating to parking by physically handicapped persons and disabled and severely 86 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 disabled veterans. And its companion bill, Bill No. 4 000359, an ordinance amending Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades, and Professions," by conditioning the issuance of licenses for public garages and public parking lots and the provision of accessible parking spaces in such garages and lots, and amending Title of the Philadelphia 11 Code, entitled "Traffic Code," by prohibiting 12 parking in such accessible parking spaces, except by persons parking vehicles lawfully bearing registration plates or parking placards issued to physically handicapped persons or severely disabled veterans, all under certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning and please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. " My name is Jennifer DePaul, and I'm a regional advocate with Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association. ), our Regional Administrator; and to my left is our Associate Advocacy Director, Marlene Perkins. I'm speaking on behalf Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association, a private, nonprofit organization dedicated to enhancing the] Lives of veterans with spinal cord injury or disease by assuring quality health care, promoting research, and advocating for civil rights and independence. For more than 50 years, EPVA has been an effective advocate for all persons with disabilities throughout the Delaware Valley. Over the years, EPVA has played a significant role in ensuring that local governments meet the mandated requirements of the Americans With Disabilities Act. For example, here in Philadelphia, EPVA has been active in both the Mayor's Commission on People With Disabilities, as well as a SEPTA 88 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 Advisory Committee for Accessible Transportation. We have advised SEPTA of their obligations under the Americans With Disabilities Act (or the ADA), and most recently, EPVA successfully improved accessibility for patrons of the First Union Center. It is in this capacity that EPVA offers the following remarks. The issue at hand with regards to this ordinance pertains to the exemption for physically handicapped persons and disabled or severely disabled veterans from parking time limits and parking meter fees. The proposed ordinance 14 provides that a motor vehicle bearing a handicapped or disabled plate or placard may park for a period of 60 minutes in excess of the maximum time limit, rather than for unlimited periods of time on streets where parking is limited, but not prohibited, under certain terms and conditions. EPVA supports equal access to all services provided by State and local government agencies, as outlined in Title II of the Americans With Disabilities Act. Given that the City of Philadelphia does not currently have meters that 89 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 are accessible to all persons with disabilities, nor are there accessible routes to all of the meters in question, we feel that Section 12-1117 should remain intact. Under Title II of the ADA, it is illegal to implement a policy that discriminates against persons with disabilities, as this proposed will, in effect, do to those persons with legitimate disabilities who park at meters in the City. In other words, if an able-bodied individual has the ability to park at a meter and pay for that time, persons with disabilities should be able to do the same. However, the obstacles that prevent people with disabilities from doing so stem from barriers such as inaccessible meters and a lack of accessible routes to those meters that only the City of Philadelphia can correct. Additionally, EPVA does not feel that the proposed ordinance is entirely addressing the problems associated with the metered parking. If the City's intent is to curb the abuse of metered parking spaces and increase turnover for merchants, why hasn't the issue of feeding the 90 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 meter been addressed? Many individuals continue to park at metered spaces all day long, even where time limits exist, and feed the meter throughout the day, thus not allowing for any turnover of that parking space. In fact, an article that recently appeared in a local newspaper indicated that some of the worst abusers of the feeding-the-meter practice are business owners themselves. And, finally, exception 2(b) in the proposed ordinance would allow wheel chair lift-equipped vans with placards or plates to park without time limitations and without payment.
EPVA recognizes that while this exemption will be of assistance to some individuals with disabilities, a large portion of the disabled population who use assistive devices such as wheelchairs and do not drive lift-equipped vehicles will be discriminated against by this exemption. EPVA also supports the proposed amendment Subtitle 9, or licensing, of the Philadelphia Code, which is Bill No. 000359. In closing, EPVA would like to stress 91 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 that while it has been documented that a variety of individuals, both disabled and non-disabled, abuse meter parking. This proposed ordinance is only examining people with disabilities who choose to park at meters in the City of Philadelphia. Not only will this ordinance hurt people with disabilities, but we do not feel that it will adequately address the abuse of metered parking spaces by able-bodied individuals. Thank you for this opportunity to present the views and comments of the Eastern Paralyzed Association.
And I agree with you on your comments concerning the abuse of folks who may not have handicapped plates that feed the meters all day long. And I think there's someone from the Parking Authority who will probably address that issue today, and it has been a problem because a number of the communities that I represent are commercial communities, and that is a serious problem. Again, I think the Parking 92 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 Authority is looking into how to curb some of that abuse. My intention, when I did this bill, was certainly not to harm people from being able to use Center City commercial corridors throughout the City, those folks who have handicapped needs for parking. The problem is, it has just gotten so out of control in Center City -- and I think the Parking Authority will testify to the number of spaces. Somewhere over 54 percent of the spaces in the core of Center City alone on a daily basis are occupied by those vehicles with handicapped placards or plates. And there's a lot of abuse. I mean, just this past Thursday or Friday, on the 1300 block of Chestnut Street, as an example. You know, Chestnut Street has now been reopened to traffic in our hopes that we will create some vitality back on Chestnut Street by bringing traffic out there full-time, hours a 22 day, 7 days a week. Five of the twelve cars that 23 were parked there had handicapped plates. Two of 24 the plates had expired; one had expired in December of 1997; and another one, more recently, 93 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 in the year 2000. I understand that these are enforcement issues that both the Police Department and the Philadelphia Parking Authority needs to address, but I was just concerned as to two of the vehicles -- or one of the vehicles was parked at a meter, and this was the vehicle whose tag had expired, I think, in either April or May of 2000. The car was parked within about 100 feet of the entrance to a parking garage. And I was just curious -- I don't know who owned that car, whether that person was working or shopping. Why was it so difficult for that person to get to the garage and park within a hundred feet of the meter. I think what I'm looking to do here with this bill is to make less -- to eliminate a lot of abuse all the way around, but more particularly, for those people who are using handicapped plates and should not really be using them today. And I'll just cite one another example. In and around the time the bill was introduced, one of the local news teams were out at Ninth and Race, and they interviewed a 94 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 gentleman that had a handicapped plate, who had an operation on his knee three or four year ago. So he was granted a handicapped placard and plate because he was going through a certain amount of therapy at the time. He's -- obviously, since that time, he's fully recuperated. He works for Bell Atlantic, and his job is a lineman or something, where he climbs a ladder all day long and strings telephone wires throughout the City of Philadelphia. And those are the kinds of people we want to weed out so that truly handicapped folks have a better opportunity to get on street parking at meters. I mean, that's the intent of this. This is no intention on my part to discriminate against anyone who may have some handicap needs. But, in fact, I think we can weed out those people who are abusing it, and I think we'll actually be benefitting those who are truly needy of handicapped parking. 'Cause when you think about 54 percent of 1100 meters -- and this is just the core of Center City alone -- that's over 500 spaces a day that are occupied full-time, and a significant 95 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 number of those people, based on just some preliminary inspections that we had made, are for people who should have long time ago given up their placards or tags.
In South Philadelphia, where I live, along Broad Street, I see people come in every day from New Jersey and Delaware, park their on a meter along South Broad Street, and everyone knows that parking is a premium in South Philadelphia. They park their car, put the club on it, walk a block or two to the nearest subway entrance, go down into the subway concourse, take a subway into work, come back at the end of the day, and take their car. That's the stuff that is really harmful to all of us.
My name is Marlene Perkins, and I'm an advocate with the Eastern Paralyzed Veterans Association. Just to add on to what you just said, Councilman, maybe that's one way that EPVA can 96 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 work with the Council and your office, because we believe that the issue of abuse starts beyond just people pulling into parking spaces. It's the issuance of those placards and those plates, whether it's from the medical community or whoever issues those -- the agencies that issues those placards and plates. As an organization, one thing we've done over the past year is to look at the issue of abuse and enforcement throughout Pennsylvania, New Jersey, and New York, the areas that our organization we covers. And one of our sort of targeted groups to address is the medical community, how those placards and plates are issued to anyone who may have gone to a physician for years and then, all of a sudden, feel that 18 they need a placard or a handicapped parking 19 plate. 20 And that's one thing we could probably join forces on and work together.
And I certainly agree with you, and I think tat that's probably one of the core problems is the issuance. I mean, someone goes to their family doctor, they've been 97 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 treating the family for the last 30 years, and it's very difficult, I assume, for some doctors to reject someone who has an application. I'm familiar with the abuses and how that occurs. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilmember Rizzo.
Thank you. I think what you just described is very important, the process. As you drive around, and knowing that this hearing was going to take place, I started to observe the different symbols that authorize this type of parking. There's a physically disabled tag, then there's one that's handicapped. Are they all treated equally as long as they have the symbol?
On the tag? And one is on the right side of the tag, the other is on the left. It is so confusing --
I think the right side is if it's the placard or plate was issued to the passenger, as opposed to the owner of the vehicle.
Well, as long as there is 98 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 a placard in the vehicle, it's not necessarily the driver who has to be disabled. A lot of people who are visually impaired have somebody who drive them around, and they will have a placard hanging in the car.
If a person has a physically disabled license plate, or one that's for handicapped, can the law enforcement enforce -- is there anything enforceable where if the person that parks in the spot -- I know -- I mean, I was at a party recently where a person had to run out to the supermarket, and they were looking for the car of a family member that had the handicapped tag so they could get a better parking spot at the mall. But can law enforcement issue a ticket to the person if they're not the one that's intended for that space?
Yes. In the State of Pennsylvania, they now issue identification cards, along with placards and plates, and they have the same information. If I'm issued a placard or a plate, I have an identification card with information that matches the information on the 99 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 placard or plate, and an enforcement officer can ask to see that identification card.
So if someone is improperly using a vehicle and taking advantage of that privilege --
There is something in the Motor Vehicle Code that can be enforced.
Just to give you another example, when this matter was brought to my attention, it was brought to my attention by a business owner in the Jewelers Row section of the City, Eighth and Sansom. And on the 700 block of Sansom Street, there's somewhere between and 17 parking meter spaces. 18 On two separate mornings that I 19 observed, there were over 16 of those spaces that 20 were occupied by handicapped placards or plates. 21 Now, on the second morning of my visit, a police 22 officer, who was telling they have a very 23 difficult time enforcing the regulations and 24 providing spaces for short-term customers, 'cause that's what meter parking was really designed to 100 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 be, for short-term parking, a gentleman was literally jogging, chasing after a UPS truck. And he asked me, he said, Do you see that gentleman there? He said, Do you think that man's handicapped? I said, Well, from my visual perception, it doesn't appear to me he has a handicap. It was a business owner, obviously beating the system, abusing the system. He parks there full-time 8 to 10 hours a day. So, I mean, that's really what created this bill. It wasn't just a question of revenue, has nothing to do with the Parking Authority. We brought the Parking Authority in to figure out what we can do to create more spaces for all folks, especially including handicapped folks. There's just too much abuse out there, in my opinion. Councilmember Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In your testimony, I think you said there's a particular type of vehicle that may not be under this particular bill?
Mm-hmm, yes. There is an 101 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 exemption in this ordinance that would allow a lift-equipped van, a van for somebody who uses a wheelchair that has a lift or a ramp in it. They would not have to abide by any time limits or meter feeds. They would be exempt from this ordinance.
And the EPVA's position is that there are a lot of individuals who use wheelchairs, for instance, do not drive vans, who just drive normal cars, and they transfer from their vehicle to a wheelchair. They would not be exempt, and they would still be -- you know, they would have to abide by this ordinance. That is what I was speaking of.
Any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Thank you for your testimony, thank you for coming to be.
Good morning, and please identify yourself for the record.
Yes, good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Dan Sullivan. " hireAbility is a nonprofit employment program for people with disabilities, located at Magee Rehabilitation Hospital at 16th and Race. We're a regional program that's a free service to people with disabilities and to the business community that assist a person with a disability and the employer in recruiting and hiring qualified folks with disabilities. And we have been doing this program -- I've been the Executive Director and was the founder of it since 1982. I appreciate the opportunity to come before you this morning. I want to present a perspective to you. I believe some of my colleagues from EPVA gave you some of the perspective that may also be in my testimony, and I did submit written testimony. So, therefore, 103 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 what I'd like to do is just give you the highlights of what my concerns are. I want to look at it from one specific issue, but a couple of aspects of that. I want to look at it from the economic impact on people with disabilities that this legislation would have. Obviously, I'm a person with a disability myself. Most of the time, I use a wheelchair. When I'm going around the City, I'll use my scooter simply because once I get a place to park, I'm not going to find another place to park. As I said, since 1982, we have been running this employment program for people with disabilities, and I'm very proud to say that we have assisted close to 100 people with disabilities since 1982 in finding full-time competitive employment. And we have worked with, since we're a program to assist the business community, some of the larger and more respected businesses in the Philadelphia area, like Independence Blue Cross, SmithKline Beecham, Mellon Bank and others, and would testify also to the services we have provided. One of the biggest challenges for 104 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 people with disabilities to become employed in this, or any other community, is transportation. While mass transportation is becoming more accessible to people with disabilities, and paratransit does exist, it's still grossly inadequate and incomplete at this time. In the 1980s, I was the chairperson of the Mayor's Commission for People with Disabilities in this community, and we worked very hard with the then-City Council and the then-mayor to pass this regulation that would provide free parking at meters for those with handicapped placards in place. We looked upon it as a cost-effective, reasonable accommodation. And, in my opinion, it still is. One of the things that I think folks in this society do not realize is that while throughout the United States for folks that are perceived to not have a disability, we have one of the lowest unemployment rates we've ever had. For folks with disabilities, it's still 75 percent, and that's across the country. That means that approximately out of every adults of working age, who are looking for a job, are unemployed. 105 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 To try to deal with this challenge, in 1980 -- and I'm sure most of you know this -- the Congress, signed by the President, passed the Americans With Disabilities Act. And, interestingly enough, July 26th of this year, next month, is the 10th anniversary of the ADA. One of the purposes of the ADA was to try to remove some of the barriers that exist in our society to people with disabilities becoming employed and, at the same time, provide accommodation in the community for people with disabilities, like myself, to use public accommodations. Now, people often perceive public accommodations to be something different than what it really is. What it is, is any business that provides a good or service to the community, to anybody, including people with disabilities.
I think one of the things that's missing here, and I'm very sympathetic to the abuse of the system, but I think one of the things that are missing here is to look at who folks with disabilities are in this community. We're not people most of the time going to the doctor's 106 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 office; we're not people most of the time suffering, afflicted, or victimized. We are hard-working people who are trying to get up in the morning, do a day's work for a day's pay, go to work, shop, be customers, be taxpayers, and as more of us are identifying ourselves, become voters. We want to use the business that is exist in this community, and we want access to those businesses. As a matter of fact, I have to be honest with you, and I'm around this community an all of lot, I think if some of the businesses that have pointed out some of the issues having to do with transportation would invest some time and money in making their own businesses accessible for people like I, they would look at us more as customers, as opposed to someone who, by parking near their building, are taking away their customer base, which are things that I read about in the newspaper. Throughout my whole life, I have discovered that the biggest handicap to anyone with a disability is attitude, and this attitude is prevalent in this particular legislation, all 107 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 due respect, 'cause it's based on the concept that we're providing a privilege to someone with a disability like myself to park, as opposed to a reasonable accommodation for someone like myself to be able to either be employed or use a business in this community. I, like the folks that were just here from EPVA, am very sympathetic to the abuse. As a matter of fact, if you have a disability yourself and you drive around the community and you try to find a place to park and you see people who are using the system who are not disabled, or you think are not disabled, don't you think it angers me more than it would anger someone who doesn't have a disability? But I think by eliminating the privilege, what you're doing, to use an old phrase, is, you're throwing the baby out with the bath water. What you're doing is, you're reducing the opportunities for folks like myself who really need it by saying that the system is abused. We, all of you in this community, all of us in this community, that have a disability and that are active want to work with City Council 108 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 to try to come up with a system that will help eliminate some of the abuse. And that is something that we want to work on together. I'm just concerned that the economic impact of this legislation on people with disabilities is greater than is being perceived. I also want to address part that talks about lift-equipped vehicles. A lot of nowadays are driving -- I drive a mini van. It's not modified on the exterior like with a raised roof so you can easily see that it has a ramp in it. What it is, it lowers itself through some remote, and a ramp comes out to the side. It would be very difficult to identify just by looking at it that my vehicle was modified. It's a start in the right direction, and I have offered some wording that has to do with any modified vehicle, but you wouldn't be able to tell it simply by that perception. The other thing I want to point out is that making the parking lots accessible for people with disabilities -- again, a very good idea and very needed. Many of the folks who are working in our society can't afford to park in private 109 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 parking lots. And to be honest with you, if I was in my wheelchair, I couldn't push two blocks or three blocks from the nearest parking lot to go where I want to go in to shop or to go to work. So that's just not a reasonable accommodation.
Finally, what I do want to point out is that in my opinion, this limits people with disabilities from being self-supporting citizens. It doesn't fall into what is the goal of the Americans With Disabilities Act, and to be honest with you, I don't think it's in the spirit of what the City of Philadelphia is all about. The legislation, while well intended, at the same time, doesn't address the real issue, and that's the abuse of the system. If we looked at other cities around the country -- I'm a transfer -- many year ago, I lived in New York -- I forgot what the word is. I know they have a special identification vehicle tag that you can in the city that you have to apply for yourself, that the city controls. I know cities like San Francisco, Chicago, places like that, have looked at this problem and have come up with a solution to it 110 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 that doesn't take away the privilege of free parking for people with disabilities who need extended time parking, and I think it's incumbent upon us to take a look at this before you pass legislation that would limit this and, as I said initially, throw the baby out with the bath water. My whole program is based on working cooperatively with business and industry and with people with disabilities. I think we can come together and help City Council find a solution to this, but I don't think this particular piece of legislation does that. And I appreciate the opportunity to make what was too-long remarks, but thank you very much.
Mr. Sullivan, I think you're going to hear some testimony from the Parking Authority that will address some of the concerns that you raised-- from Patrick Mulligan, I'm sorry, who's the Deputy Managing Director. But you did mention something that was interesting when you spoke about being able to want to shop in Philadelphia and go places. There's no guarantee that you're going to be able 111 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 to park within close proximity of the places you wish to shop at or even the place where you're employed. I mean, if you're employed at 13th and Chestnut and you're looking for a metered parking space, there's no guarantee you're going to get one within a block or two. And in some cases, you would probably be closer to a parking lot to your place of business or to your shopping than you would be with a meter. I mean, I see it all the time. You mentioned something that it would be difficult for you to get two blocks or so with your wheelchair. So if you were shopping at Lord & Taylor, what do you do if you can't get a space on the 1200 block of Chestnut Street and assuming, based on some of the statistics that we have, a large portion of those cars that are parked on those blocks with handicapped placards or plates are not in need of them. So I think that we would be doing you a service by eliminating a significant number of these vehicles that are out there on a daily basis, and it's really hurting everyone, including yourself as an employee, and the business 112 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 community. Parking meters were meant for short-term parking. They were never meant for all-day parking. And I don't mean to be disrespectful, but if you want to talk about the economics, in a 1997 report from the Philadelphia Parking Authority, just in the core of Center City alone, the number of spaces that are occupied on a daily basis by handicapped placards or plates contributed to a $2.5 million loss in revenue in parking meters alone. And if we can figure out -- and I'm not sure if somebody has been able to figure this -- out what the impact on the business community is as a result of the number of -- the lesser number of parking spaces for short-term parking, that people who want to come into the City and shop can't find the space, keep driving around. And you know what they eventually do? I'm out of here. They'll go to the malls, they'll park free in Jersey, they'll park free in King of Prussia -- although it's still going to take money for gas, but that's what they believe, that it's free. We're year chasing people out of the City, 113 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 all people, people who have handicapped needs and those who don't. So there's a huge, beyond what the meter revenues are; there's a significant economic impact that the City of Philadelphia is paying because of the abuse that's out there. And I'm not suggesting that you as an individual are one of those persons. And, again, I think that Patrick Mulligan is going to speak some amendments to this bill, that we're going to have ways to identify those vehicles that do have a ramp by maybe not necessarily identifies it on the -- and he'll speak to that more clearly than I can. But there's a whole host of reasons out there, which, I think, have led me to introduce these bills.
May I briefly respond? You said a lot of things in there and, you know, some of them I do agree with. The abuse of the system, you and I agree upon. I think there's a number of things, though, that from my perspective are not being considered. What's the economic impact to the City for anybody that's even using a handicapped 114 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 placard in either adding to the purchasing power of the City by -- we're either shopping or we're working, so we're paying back many times over what it must be costing the City in any lost revenue. That is my opinion and it's based statistically on the difference between what it costs to have somebody unemployed in our society that has a disability that people pay for, as opposed to having somebody employed. The other thing is, I agree that there needs to be a greater system, and it's not in the control of the City right now, so that you could identify who really qualifies for it. But there's many people with hidden disabilities. If you have a heart condition, if you have MS, if you have an asthmatic condition, you may need even closer than I even may need pushing a wheelchair. As far as my pushing the wheelchair two or three blocks, sure if I can find a parking lot on a particular block, I might use it and I might be able to afford that. But on any given week, if anybody wants to ride around with me, I can tell you there are a number of times I'll drive around for 15 or 20 minutes until I see somebody pulling 115 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 out of a parking space so that I can pull in there so that it's close to where I'm going to get. That's just one of the challenges of living your life with a mobility disability. This just creates a greater challenge by taking that right away.
Well -- and I agree. And, again, without trying to sounding insensitive to your situation, that same rule applies to folks who may not be handicapped, that they have to drive around for or minutes to 13 find a space, because when 54 or 60 percent of the 14 spaces in the core of Center City have cars that 15 are parked there with handicapped placards or 16 plates all day long, I don't think it's fair to 17 those folks either. 18 Do you work in the City? 19
Where do you live 116 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 now?
You live in Jersey. So you have to commute in in the morning.
Are you always guaranteed -- do you normally find a place close to where you work?
I do because of where I work, but that doesn't necessarily mean every -- my job takes me out of there 50 percent of the time because I'm out visiting businesses. See, I'm out promoting employment of people with disability, and we go to them. So I have to go all over the City. If it's within 3- or 4-block radius, 5-block radius, from 16th and Race -- to come over here, I took my scooter. If I was going down to South Philly --
You live in South Jersey. Where, the Washington Twp. area?
What's the rules and regulations out there? Do you have all-day 117 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 parking?
There's -- I believe -- I have the licensed tags. It's not a placard.
I have a plate, right, and it's accepted over there. There's -- I believe there's always been reciprocity between South Jersey and --
Is it free all day? Or is it the one-hour grace period that the State law in Pennsylvania originally --
I actually don't know the answer to that, to be honest with you.
You mentioned that there are some cities that have superceded the State law. You have to agree that if anyone's shopping for six, seven hours, that that's not what this is, I believe, intended to do. An 118 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 eight-hour shopping tour on Sansom Street just doesn't seem to be the appropriate thing. Do you know, for the record, these other cities, do they, in lieu of the obstacles that were described earlier, access to the meter that are the responsibility to the City, has that permit that allows cars to park at a meter have a fee associated with it? In other words, the obstacles -- you can't feed the meter, you can't get back and forth, which I don't believe is legal anyway, feeding the meter -- is that permit process in these other cities something that you would have to buy, pay a fee for?
For the record, it's been a number of years since I looked into it, but what I was most familiar with was in New York, and it was called "a special vehicle identification," and you had to apply for it personally, have medical determination of need. But there was no 21 cost to it, nor time limit on it, as far as I knew, as far as I remember. That's a while ago. But you had to apply for it yourself. You had to show up and determine that you had this disability that would require you to park close to 119 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 where you work or where you live, or whatever. I'm not saying there shouldn't be some controls on this and that the City shouldn't find a way to provide more controls. So that those of us that need it get it. But, at the same time, I think by eliminating the privilege for everyone -- and people are missing the point that this is an accommodation. You know, we always talk about how we're going to treat everybody equally. No one in this world gets treated equally. We need equal opportunity to shop or to work or to go to where we're going. This provides an opportunity for equal opportunity. It's not a matter of treating people equally; it's giving people equal access. I don't have equal access, having a mobility disability, so this gives me an opportunity for that kind of access. And it's an accommodation, and I think it's a cost-effective one.
Thank you. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Ma'am, I think you're next. 120 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 (Witness comes forward.).
I have my reading glasses. I'm pleased to be here today and --
My name is Jessie Jane Lewis, and I'm with the Voter Accessibility Reform Initiative, and I'll say something. Now that people with disabilities are starting to vote and we're aiming to get more and more people voting, so I'm just telling you that. People come to Philadelphia for jobs, they come for shopping, they come for recreation. And people with disabilities are part of the fabric of Philadelphia, and we're trying to have a life -- and we're trying to have a life and we're trying to enter the mainstream. We drive. We take public transportation if we can. It's not always -- they don't let a Harley Davidson on the SEPTA sometimes. I had trouble getting this on there. And trying to just get away -- get along any way we can is sometimes the goal. I have a job, I shop, I go to theaters, I do things, and I need 121 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 the parking that is afforded to me by the meters. I have a van. The van has a lift -- it's not a lift, it's a ramp, it opens up sort of like a Star Wars affair and sort of comes down, and all the kids say, Wow. And that's how to impress a 12-year-old. I know I'm impressed because I couldn't do things as well otherwise. And when I was walking in my walker -- when I was walking in my walker, I couldn't even -- I had HP tags and I couldn't even go one block with my walker. With the van, I now can go maybe, I don't know, ten blocks, if I need so to. So -- but I need parking with a certain kind of configuration. I need to have a space next to me to open up the ramp, I need more room 17 than the average person for a parking space. And it seems that the only -- sometimes the only place that I can find is a meter that would be appropriate, where I can find a place on the side to open my ramp. I can't always go into a parking garage.
Miss Lewis, do you know that under the bill that your vehicle would be permitted to park all day free? 122 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359
And I know that if I had my previous transportation arrangement with my station wagon and walking with a walker, it would have been far more difficult for me to feed a meter. I know you're not supposed to feed meters, but people do it, people do it, believe me. And it would be far more difficult to walk to a meter. There's one other thing about meters too that I think you should be aware of, and that is that I can hold a pen, it has to be a built-up pen a little bit. This is a little -- almost too narrow. I can't tell the difference between one $20 bill and two $20 bills. And when I hold -- and it takes me a long time to get change out, and when I do get change out, it's very hard for me to feel it. And for me to put it into the meter, it would take me a very long time if I could do it at all.
But you're not going to have to because your vehicle will be permitted free parking all day. 123 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359
Well, I'm saying that with my vehicle, yes, but I'm speaking for other people as well, and that other people that aren't here today because of many things, I'm speaking for them. And just imagine, too, that a person with a disability who has the chutzpah and wherewithal to get here, and with the average population, how many people would be showing up to talk about this issue? I think the important thing would be to cut out the abuse of the able-bodied people, not -- do you want me to wait?
To cut out the abuse by able-bodied people. And I get infuriated when I see people parking in spots that I want. And it's -- I think we need to engage in some creative thinking on that. I don't know all of the answers. And I would welcome the opportunity to work with someone and talk with you and talk with your committee about it. And I just think that taking away -- it 124 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 was very hard-won, the curb cuts, the parking meters. All of those things are very hard-won and I just -- to take that away from the people you're trying to help and to penalize everyone for the abuse that able-bodied people using the placards and the tags illegally is really, I think, not the goal. And I would like to engage in some creative thinking, joining with you, and I don't know if any people with disabilities helped you design this ordinance but --
Well, we have some people here who will testify to some of those issues today. You may not be fully satisfied, but I think you'll hear some things that are a little bit more creative, that we may have to add some amendments to the bill today.
Okay, that would be great. Also, the reliance on the tech. People can't always get back to feed a meter, so I'm not talking about just my van. People can't get back, so people with disabilities that are with a wheelchair that may be -- I know I used to get held up by things like there not being a chair next to an elevator and I'd have to wait and I'd 125 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 have to -- it was just little things like that that sort of foul you up. So you can't -- you can't get to what you need -- your appointment that you need to because of little snags like the elevators that are not being place to wait by the elevators so you have to wait elsewhere and then sort of hobble over and hope the door opens. And it's just a difficult -- a more difficult -- there are more variables that are at play with people with disabilities. We're seeing more and more people out on the streets every day with disabilities. On my way here, I saw another person in a wheelchair. And I thought, Oh, she's coming to this meeting. She wasn't, I don't know, I didn't see her here. But we're seeing more and more people out every day on the streets, having lives, having jobs, with disabilities. And I think it's important to encourage that and to be -- to be mainstreamed, to be on the mainstream. That's sort of where we went to be, and we want to have it be as seamless as possible so that we're not -- it's not always thrown up to us. Yeah, you're not going to make 126 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 it because you're going to fall down or you're not going to feed the meter or you're not going to be able to hold the money, you're not going to be able to turn the meter, you're not going to be able walk there, so don't even bother going into town. And we're not going to take my grandmother because she can't come into town either. So an able-bodied person. . . it's different, it's just different.
I want to say the voting clout, that people will be voting, people have a voice, people are -- people with disabilities are trying to be non-disabled, we're trying to pass as able-bodied people. And how dare we, but we're doing it. I mean, we're having jobs and we're shopping. And help us.
You made, I think, a 127 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 very interesting point a few minutes ago that, frankly, I had not realized. You said that able-bodied people are abusing the privilege, and disabled people are being punished for it.
I, frankly, have to say that I had not seen it that way. How long -- I notice this bill was introduced by Councilman DiCicco on May 18th. That's not a very long time ago, but I'm wondering, do you work with the Mayor's Commission on Disabilities?
Has that commission, which is set up to deal with questions like this, has it discussed this situation; do you know?
I'm not -- I don't focus mainly on that. I focus on the voting rights aspect. I know that there are committees that work with this issue, but I don't know what has -- I don't have any knowledge of it personally of what has transpired.
Mm-hmm. Well, I'm hoping that the issue you raised that disturbs me 128 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 very much gets resolved in some way. I don't think that disabled people ought to lose their privileges because of the abuses by non-disabled people.
I think life for a person with a major disability is an extremely trying experience. I think we ought to be able to deal with abuses without harming people who really need the kind of supportive services that disabled people need in order to become full members of mainstream society. And so --
And you indicated by your opening remark that you're -- that you have less than naivete about politics on the side. And I'm urging that you move ahead and do what you have to do to organize strength. I, frankly, even have concerns about the legality of this.
We did not -- as a society, this is the work that has been accomplished by the curb lines, by the lowered curbs. That kind of thing didn't come about because anybody really wished disabled well; it came about because of the law. And we now have laws that guarantee standards of behavior. And I am concerned, among other things, as to whether or not this bill may violate those standards of behavior. I assume we may have testimony. But whether or not -- whether or not people feel that this is a violation of federal law, I have to tell you, it would be up acceptable to me to just use a hatchet on the rights of disabled people in an effort to deal with a problem. If there is abuse, it's clearly a problem. I've often wondered, when I do shopping in the markets, I often find disabled spots not much used. And I'm stunned by the statistics that Councilman DiCicco referred to when he indicated that there's that vast percentage of disabled cars parked, you know, in various parts of the City. I have not observed that, but I haven't been 130 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 looking, and I'm going to be watching it. I think there needs to be much more discussion as to how we deal with the abuse. If it exists, it's unfair to everybody, and it's particularly unfair to the disabled because if an able-bodied person is using a spot illegally, it's denying that spot to a disabled person. So I just make that comment that this is before us just a very brief time, let's see where the evidence goes. But to all people who are threatened by legislative action, I say the best thing is to begin organizing and begin realizing you may be in a very difficult situation.
Does anyone else have any questions of this witness? (No further questions.)
The next folks to testify, please come to the witness table. Thank you, Miss Lewis, for your testimony.
Thank you. (Witnesses come forward.) 131 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359
Identify yourself for the record and speak directly into the microphone.
My name is Hi Goldberg. I'm President of the Philadelphia's Jewelers Row Association. And with me is Jack (unintelligible), a member of the Association also. Good morning and thank you for hearing us. We are in favor of this bill. We feel there's a tremendous abuse of the current handicapped parking law, and we wish to address this abuse only. On any given day, you will find, before business even begins in the morning, over half the metered parking spaces are always occupied by owners and people who are employees in our district. They do not put money in the meters, and they are there all day long. Many handicapped spaces are taken by people who are not handicapped themselves but, rather, their spouse may have a handicapped tag, and the person uses the spouse's car soley to be able to park in the City for free. And there's a former employee of mine who used to park -- because I prevented him from 132 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 parking in the district, he used to park four blocks away, north of Market Street, and walked, passing three parking lots, in order to be able to park for free. It costs me $180 a month for hi parking in any of the parking lots in our area. The main reason why the handicapped parking is abused is financial. It hurts us in the district very much because there is no -- when people come out of town, the suburbs specifically come in, they find a hard time finding parking spaces. It is used all day long. And what happens is, we find people constantly coming in and saying to us, Parking is the hardest thing here, it's not worth coming into Philadelphia to shop. We have a high-ticket item. And by forcing those people not to come into the City to shop because parking is difficult, we are just chasing business out of the area. We give free parking to anybody that comes in. A customer still prefers, especially short-term, if they happen to just run in for a few minutes to pick up a piece of jewelry or something, they still prefer to just pull up and be able to get it. 133 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 The parking by the police -- we've spent many times with the Police Department. They feel their hands are tied and that they cannot issue tickets, and are also very much in favor of this bill, again, only for the abuses that have occurred. I thank you.
Thank you. Are you testifying, sir? (Unidentified man shakes head.)
I assume you concur with all of the remarks made by Mr. Goldberg, right? UNIDENTIFIED MAN: I certainly do.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness? Councilman Rizzo?
Mr. Goldberg, I think today you've heard the word "abuse." Don't you think there might be a different approach to resolve the problem than penalize the folks that legitimately need this privilege? Rather than just going after this thing without any -- going 134 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 to the State, to try to make sure that when placards are issued, they are issued to people who legitimately need them? Don't you think a first crack at it might be to try to fix the problem at the way that these permits and tags, etc., are issued?
Well, there are several things involved. First of all, as Councilman DiCicco pointed out before, many of these tags and placards are -- a family doctor knows somebody for 30 years. I know a situation where a woman had a bypass surgery ten years ago and still has a handicapped plate, and her husband's the one that uses it. She'll go down -- she goes to the race track, she'll go to the casinos, she'll walk, go shopping forever. And when she has to go shopping, she can't park in handicapped 'cause her husband has the license to park for free.
Well, didn't you hear earlier that there's an ID card associated with that that the police -- you said that the police said that they couldn't enforce it. Well, the police can enforce it.
There is no ID card when 135 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 there's nobody in the car.
Right. And, Councilman Rizzo, I think when Patrick Mulligan and some of others folks come up to testify, I think some of those questions will probably be more appropriate for them. But just to let you know -- and I hope everyone understands that what this bill says, this really puts us back in compliance with the State code. The State code says that if you have a handicapped placard or plate, you get a one-hour grace period beyond the period that the meter allows. So if it's a two-hour meter parking, you still can park three hours free 'cause short -- meters were intended for short-term parking, regardless of whether someone was disabled or not. They were never intended for long-term parking, and they are placed only in business districts for the turnover so that we can continue to do business. Business people -- you know, we deal with all of these issues all the time, where the business community has been complaining -- and rightfully so, in most cases -- about the high 136 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 cost of doing business in Philadelphia. And all this does, I think, is put another layer on that by giving them inability to have turnover to be able to accommodate their customers. People can go over the bridge and park in New Jersey in any mall basically free. There's a cost associated, I understand, with the cost of the bridge toll and some gas, but it's still free and less expensive than here. And if someone needs to go shopping more than three hours, which is typically the two-hour meters are allowed in commercial district, I don't think they're really just doing shopping. And if someone has to go to work, whether you're disabled or not -- if I'm -- I'm not disabled, I have to park in a garage, I have to pay if I'm going to be there for 8 to 10 hours a day. I don't think that this is being disrespectful or insensitive to folks who are truly in need. The bill has provisions for severely handicapped folks who are disabled veterans; they can still continue to park free. And for those folks who had vehicles with ramps, 137 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 they can still continue to park free. But the rod-setter in South Philadelphia who can pick up this table with me and you and sitting on it and throw us across this room, who had a knee injury two years ago, and has since been rehabilitated and walks around in my face and parks there all day, is doing an injustice to everybody -- more importantly, to the folks who are truly handicapped. They don't get a shot at it. It's -- there's no equity here. It's very, I think, discriminatory for those who are truly handicapped people who want to come in to shop. We're telling them to come in and shop, we're trying to make accommodations for them. But if you've got to go pick up a piece of jewelry or you're going to go to one of the other department stores to pick up a package or buy a gift and it's only going to take you an hour -- You got to read through some of these statistics I handed to you. In 1997, 2,000 extra vehicles are put on the streets of Center City at peak hour, because there is that many less parking spaces to park. Then we'll get into air quality. And you want to talk about revenue, which most 138 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 people say, Well, this is the only reason this was designed; it's not just designed for revenue, but the City of Philadelphia is taking almost a $3 million hit in loss of revenues at parking meters along. That's a significant amount of money -- in addition to what the business community is losing. And this isn't here just to promote -- it's not just for the business community. I think it's for every citizen in the City of Philadelphia, to have an equal opportunity to be able to pull in a parking space anywhere from one minute to two hours or three hours, if you have a placard or a plate and shop and do what you have to do and get back in your car.
The guy I used as the example, who works at Bell Atlantic at Ninth and Race, parks on Race Street. Race Street is a commercial corridor. There are restaurants, people want to go in and get lunch, they want to have a bite, maybe have dinner. They're not going to be there all day. They are forced to go into a garage because that guy who climbs a ladder all day, who's been rehabilitated for the better part of 139 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 four or five years, is still using the tag. I don't know how many hours we're going to have with the police worrying about -- standing at that car, waiting for that person to return to show them identification to prove, in fact, they are the person that the tag had been issued to. I think our police should be doing other things. Any more comments? Any more questions to these witnesses? Councilman Cohen?
I agree that you have a problem on Sansom Street, but I think the best approach, first at least, to see whether it works, is to take the handcuffs off the police. I don't understand why for a moment the police don't ticket cars if they believe there is an abuse. There's a court system we have, people that get tickets can appear if court. And if they've been given the ticket improperly, they have, you know, a right to come in. If -- you know, the Chairman of the committee earlier talked about a businessman on one of the blocks in Jewelers Row who uses -- I don't know whether he has the handicapped or 140 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 whether he's using wife's handicapped, you know, I don't know what the circumstance is, but he abuse it and parks all day long. That many ought to be getting a ticket every day that he parks there improperly. And we ought to find out what the true picture is. I don't believe that you -- just because of abuses, you don't solve the abuse by taking a hatchet. You know, there's that famous saying about, you don't think the best way to remove a fly from somebody's forehead is to use a hatchet to get rid of the fly. It seems to me that we're doing some -- I understand your problem and I agree it is a problem. I think we ought to eliminate that abuse and I think we ought to be talking about how we punish the abusers and get them to stop abusing it.
The best way is for the City to have the same law as the State and not to go ahead and give additional unnecessary, unwarranted free usage for someone to park eight hours a day. That is hurting the handicapped person that needs that spot. I want the handicapped to be able to find the spot and to 141 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 have free use of that spot. You are preventing that by allowing an able-bodied person to abuse it. And that's what this whole situation comes down to.
Wouldn't it be wrong for that businessman to use that spot for three hours, just as it's wrong for him to use it for eight hours?
He's not going to use it for three hours because in three hours, he may have a customer and he can't get out to his car and then he can get a ticket, and then he'll park in a parking lot, where he should be.
And I think, Councilman Cohen, the issue, again, is a police officer has to be at the site, at the space where the car is parked in order to be able to ask for identification. And you have Sansom Street -- well, maybe you could do it a little easier there 'cause there's 16 cars there every day, just block off the street and not let anybody out until you show I.D., but in other places where it's sporadically done, you know, what's the chances of having a police officer at that location at the 142 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 time that the person is coming back to their vehicle. You know, when I speak to 54 or 60 percent of the core of Center City, there are about 1100 parking meters in that core. You're talking almost 600 spaces that are used on a daily basis for any length of time over and above the grace period, which is the hour over the metered parking.
I don't believe the police officer has to be there to see it; he can act on information that's given to him, if it's reasonable information.
Well, I'll let the police answer that question. But thank you, thank you for your testimony.
Thank you for coming today. Mr. Mulligan, I believe you're the next witness. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. 143 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Patrick Mulligan, and I'm Deputy Managing Director, in charge of parking and traffic management for the City of Philadelphia. I'd like to read in a couple proposed amendments to the Bill 000359.
Excuse me, Patrick. Do you have copies of those amendments?
Amend Section 9-601, part (2), part (g). City of Philadelphia police officers and Philadelphia Parking Authority officials shall be authorized to enter public garages for the purpose of enforcing the provisions of subsection 12-1117(4)(b) relating to improper parking and accessible parking spaces. We'd also like to amend Section 9-601, part (4), section (e). City of Philadelphia police officers and Philadelphia Parking Authority officials shall be authorized to enter parking public lots for the purpose and enforcing the 144 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 provisions of subsection 12-1174(4)(b) relating to improper parking in accessible parking spaces. In addition to this, the other proposed amendment to Bill 000359 as follows: Section 6 9-601, part (2). The applicant provides accessible parking in accordance with the following: Except that a public garage existing at the time this subsection became law, which does not permit self-parking and at which vehicles are parked only by attendants need not provide any particular number of accessible parking spaces but need only provide at least one accessible drop-off and pickup, provided that the garage accepts for parking all vehicles modified for people with disabilities, including vehicles equipped with hand controls. And an additional amendment. Subsection 9-601, part (8). The applicant provides accessible parking in accordance with the following: Provided that a public parking lot existing at the time of this subsection become law, which does not permit self-parking and at which vehicles are parked only by attendants, need not provide any particular number of accessible 145 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 parking spaces, but need only provide at least one accessible drop-off location and pickup location, provided that the parking lot accepts all parking of vehicles modified for people with disability, including vehicles equipped with hand controls. The Traffic Code, as we've been discussing here --
Patrick, you need to pull the microphone up a little closer. I'm sorry.
The Traffic Code currently permits vehicles bearing plates or placards for people with disabilities free unlimited parking at parking meters and in time zones. Pennsylvania law only requires that people with disabilities be granted one hour over that posted time limit. The purpose of this proposed ordinance would make City policy consistent with Pennsylvania law. As you all know, in 1992, the City Council adopted the current ordinance sponsored by then-Councilwoman Joan Spector, and passed it with a 16-to-0 vote. Under State laws, vehicles with disabled stickers were allowed to park at meter 146 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 spaces for free for up to 60 minutes. Spector's bill did away with the one-hour time limit, providing unrestricted parking at meters and in time-limited zones. Without a time limit, a person with disabled credentials is allowed to park free all day in metered spots and in time zones. My understanding of the 1990 Americans With Disabilities Act is that people with disabilities are to be treated in the same nondiscriminatory manner as everyone else. And to accomplish that, reasonable accommodation is a necessary requirement. It seems to me that free, all-day parking is not one of those reasonable accommodations. When the Spector bill was passed in 1982, parking in Philadelphia was difficult for the disabled due to the lack of curb cuts allowing access to many buildings. Since the inception of the ADA in 1990, the number of sidewalks in Philadelphia without curb ramps is almost nonexistent. Although there are some sidewalks in the City of Philadelphia that do not have curbed ramps, that is not the case on both ends of the 147 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 walkway. There have been -- since the inception of the ADA, there have been 16,000 curb cuts in the City of Philadelphia. Currently, there's about 117 -- approximately 117 locations in the City that are not able to have curb cuts due to other restrictions. Curb spaces are regulated in order to provide sufficient turnover so the greatest number of people will have access to short-term parking spaces. Time limits are generally set so that adequate time is provided for customers to transact business and return to their vehicles within that time limit. Recognizing that the disable community often requires more time to get to and from business, the State has provided one additional hour beyond the posted time limit in order to ensure equal access to the disabled community. It is clear that the current State and federal law is to provide equal access. Unfortunately, the current City ordinance has done the opposite effect. The problem is with abuse of the placard system. The problem lies directly 148 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 with PennDOT's criteria on how these placards and HP plates are issued. Non-disabled drivers are allowed to use placards if they are using it to transport a person that is disabled so long as the placard is only used for the person it is assigned to it. Many people with a grandmother, disabled sister, brother, friend, may use these placards in addition for their own self work. Many of them have received them for injuries that have already healed, but due to PennDOT's system, these placards continue to be renewed without review. The economic incentive due to free, all day parking at meters and the high parking rates in garages has increased the fraudulent use of HP plates and placards to an all-time high. The disabled community will say we should create a separate placard to be honored only in Philadelphia. This is not only expensive, but also, it would require people with disabilities to apply from for a placard or a plate both the State and the City. This would also cause hardship upon the many visitors our city receives every year since they would not 149 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 qualify for our system.
Cities that have adopted similar ordinances, such as the one proposed here, are Baltimore, Maryland; Arlington, Virginia; Phoenix, Arizona; Columbus, Ohio; New Orleans; and Orlando, Florida. The following Pennsylvania cities also follow State law: Allentown, Bethlehem, Erie, Harrisburg, Lancaster, New Hope, Pittsburgh, Reading, Scranton, and Upper Darby all follow the State law. People with disabilities say they need the free space to park close to businesses or offices of their destination. Most, if not all, of the space is occupied early in the morning, leaving no space for disabled and non-disabled persons alike. Driving into Center City for an appointment at noontime and finding a parking space on the street is highly unlikely. Center City meter occupancy, especially within the core area of Center City, is at an excessive 98 percent. The resulting parking, traffic, and transit impacts from motorists unable to find convenient metered parking create public safety and environmental problems and contribute to the 150 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 public perception of Center City being a parking nightmare.
I'd just like to make a statement. Are you claiming that finding a parking space in the core of Center City during the daytime is because of the disabled taking up all of the parking?
No, I'm not. I'm saying it's now the actual disabled, but the abuse of the placard system has resulted in that. A lot of these figures were created by parking surveys conducted by the Parking Authority in November and December of 1999 and in April of this year. The number of vehicles parked with plates or placards for people with disabilities continues to grow to the point where it represents 40 percent of the parking meter spaces in the core of Center City. That means that more than 1600 parking spaces are effectively unavailable for patrons of business because they are taken early in the morning by people with credentials or by people with disabilities who remain there throughout the day. This means that more than 500,000 parkers, including people with 151 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 disabilities, are displaced annually. This, in turn, creates additional unwanted traffic congestion on our streets throughout the City due to people searching for a parking space. When a motorist fights traffic in search of a parking space, they add to congestion, increased fuel consumption, and has a reduced effect on the timeliness of our mass transit system. The Parking Authority performed a percentage of analyses on meters both by physically disabled vehicles and non-physically disabled vehicles. For both, the core and the fringe areas of Center City -- the core encompasses the area within Race to Locust and Eighth to 20th Streets. This enables them to separately determine the degree of turnover and occupancy that occurs on meters in general and on those metered spaces not occupied by physically disabled vehicles. Those percentages were then applied to the standard number of parking opportunities available on Center City meters. During a typical 8-hour work day within the core and fringe, the 152 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 results are: within the core, nearly 1600 motorists in search of parking meters may be displaced by physically disabled-permitted vehicles; in the fringe, due to the relatively high number of meters and lower occupancy rates, the number of displaced motorists drops off to 577 daily. Eliminating unlimited free parking for the physically disabled-identified vehicles should significantly improve meter space availability and vehicle turnover within the core. Although this original City ordinance 14 sought to address the disabled community's needs, the current ordinance has actually become a disservice to them and to the general public. The abuse of the system and the proliferation of the placards and handicapped plates has actually made it harder to find a metered parking space in Center City and has created greater problems for disabled in their efforts to find close, affordable parking. The proposed ordinance eliminates the provision for free, all-day parking, and applies the provision of State law, which allows one 153 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 additional hour. This proposal will increase parking availability by increasing turnover at parking meters, while accommodating people with disabilities who may require additional time to return to their vehicles after completing their business. It also accommodates those individuals who are unable to operate a parking meter by exempting the vehicles which are equipped with lift devices from the time limit and meter fees.
Thank you, Mr. Mulligan. Before we get into any questions, the Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to do make sure I could get on the record that I know that this hearing actually started some time ago, about 9:30 this morning. There are a number of community residents who are here still for the streets and services committee hearing for the resolution on retaining walls, driveways and alleys, and I just wanted to make sure, Mr. Chairman, to let them know, 'cause they're starting to get a little concerned, they've been here since 10:30. They would like to be able to testify based and, I 154 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 believe, on our earlier conversation, the resolution for that matter will be coming up next; is that correct?
Thank you, Councilman. Any questions for this witness? Councilman Rizzo?
Mr. Mulligan, the amendment in reference to Philadelphia police officers and Philadelphia Parking Authority officials entering a private garage for the purpose of issuing a violation for parking in a spot that's for handicapped, would that also authorize the Parking Authority to use City-owned vehicles to tow that out of there?
We didn't address it in that way. We addressed it as a ticketing infraction point, and typically using the Parking Authority enforcement officers or are a police officer who has been called into a garage to enforce, such a law should be enough. We did not 155 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 intend for the car to be impounded.
So, for the record, it would not include towing services.
It would not include towing services. If I may say my personal feeling. I don't think, you know, in that case, you should -- unless it obstructs something or there's a person there who needs that vehicle, then you relocate that vehicle within the property, but you don't impound the vehicle.
That leads me to my next question. Why do we need this amendment? If a parking garage operator has a vehicle that's improperly parked, taking two spaces or parking a vehicle in a way that's precarious to the operation of the garage, I believe they're authorized to call a contractor that works for them to relocate the vehicle or to take the vehicle away, if necessary. Why do we need this amendment if they're authorized to remove a car that is improperly parked on their property?
Well, what I'm saying is 156 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 that we shouldn't use City property to remove the vehicle. If they want to use a private contractor, that's fine.
But why do we even need to issue a ticket for that vehicle that's parked there when the garage already is empowered to deal with that issue? Why do we have to expose our police officers, expose our Parking Authority representatives to go to private property to enforce this improper action when that operator, to the best of my knowledge, is already allowed to remove a vehicle that is not conforming to the policies of that facility?
We wanted to provide a way for enforcement. And by creating more turnover on City streets, you're creating opportunities for people in long-term parking -- who meet disabilities for long-term parking in a garage, in a garage. There are garages out there -- there are companies out there who run the garages very efficiently and there are garage companies out there who only care about getting the cars in and getting the bottom dollar. We want to ensure that 157 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 those spaces are every day available for an individual if the need exists.
Well, couldn't that be -- and I hate to burden the other regulatory departments, but couldn't that be a function of L&I to check to see if this garage is not just using those spots for revenue rather than for their intended purpose? And legally, are they required -- how many spots is an average garage -- is it a mandate that they must have handicapped spaces?
Yeah. The mandate is in the building code, it's already a part of the code, from when the garages are being built. It's one space for every 25, and it's already mandated in there. And I agree with you, we could make it a part of L&I.
You know, I just personally have a problem with sending police officers and Parking Authority people into private property to start issuing tickets.
Thank you, 158 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 Mr. Chairman.
Thank you. Mr. Mulligan, I have a quick question. I just wanted to get some clarity on one part of the bill. It talks about the wheelchair lift- equipped van being operated for the transportation of a physically disabled person or a severe disabled veteran. Does the severely disabled veteran apply to this particular vehicle, or is that a separate category?
Okay. My request is the following. And the lady earlier talked about politics and people that vote, and it kind of made me think of that two committee people that I have in my district. One is a gentleman who has a disable veteran tag, who's probably healthier than me. The other is a lady who has a relatively 159 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 old station wagon, and she needs a walker to get around from time to time in the neighborhood. She uses one of the motorized vehicles, but she does not have that type of vehicle that will allow her to park unlimited. And I'm trying to get some clarity. Why should the individual with the disabled veteran tag have the ability to park unlimited and this lady does not?
Well, there's two types of tag for a disabled veteran. There's the disabled veteran tags and there's the severely disabled veteran tags. There's two different criteria as to how they are issued, and I can't tell you verbatim exactly what the rule is, but someone who is mildly disabled and has full function of all of their bodily functions, and if they apply for a disabled veteran tag and they're a veteran, they typically get assigned it. You have to be severely disabled in order to get the severely disabled veteran tag.
So does that severely disabled veteran have a more rigorous medical history? I mean, do they have to, like on 160 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 a six-month basis, keep going back to the doctor or does this person have an injury that they will never recover from?
Again, Councilman Clarke, I'm not a physician and, you know, I don't know the law verbatim; I would have to go back and consult the law itself. But a person who is a severely disabled veteran typically is, you know, needs assistance once they're out of the vehicle in getting to where they need to go.
Okay. So this lady who has to use a walker and a motorized vehicle, because she's not veteran, she, therefore, doesn't have ability to park unlimited like this veteran does.
She has a handicapped placard, but it's not in this 161 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 particular category, so she's limited.
It was not an exclusion on the veterans; it was an exclusion for people who -- the thought process was severely disabled individuals typically do not possess the motor functions to feed quarters into a meter, and those individuals typically were in wheelchairs with hand control type lifts. And to accommodate their needs in this proposal was to give them the freedom to park all day, and those numbers are very small.
And so they traditionally are able to drive themselves is what you're saying?
A severely disabled vehicle without a lift is also a part of the exempt; is that what you're asking me?
Well, I mean, this lady's a low-income lady, she doesn't -- I don't think she has the wherewithal to buy a vehicle with a lift. She has a 1970-something station 162 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 wagon. She gets around. You know, she gets out, she needs a walker, and she's not covered under this, and I'm just trying to --
Well, neither is the disabled veteran unless they have a lift-equipped vehicle.
I'm sorry. I wasn't making myself clear and I apologize. So she and the disabled veteran, if they're driving same vehicles, except one walks with a walker and one doesn't need the assistance of a walker, they're still the same, they're identically the same.
So unless you're a severely disabled vet, you still have to be in a --
Councilman Rizzo. 163 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359
Could I read one short letter into the record first. I have a letter here addressed to me from Nicholas J. Maile. "I want to expend the support of the Multiple Sclerosis Society Delaware Valley Chapter, for the above ordinances. The handicapped parking spaces and privileges addressed by the ordinance are of great importance to the thousands members of the Society, many of whom are dependent on these privileges in order to get about and attend to heir daily activities. The abuse of these privileges harms our members greatly by reducing the availability of such parking for those who are in need. "Your attempt to address the misuse and abuse of these privileges will benefit the public at large and our membership in particularly." Signed by Nicholas Maile, M-A-I-L-E, Chair of Government Relations Committee for the National Multiple Sclerosis Society. Thank you. 164 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 Councilmember Rizzo?
Mr. Chairman, for a brief period, I have to leave the chamber, and I'd like to leave my vote for the various bills before this committee. I'd like to vote yes on all bills, except Bill No. 358, and I'm going to vote no on that one.
Any other questions for these witnesses? Councilman Ortiz?
I'm troubled again. I want to know, is this really a problem? I mean, how big of a problem is it? How many people are misusing this that it needs legislation by this Council to fix this, or there something that could be done with the law enforcement laws that we have now on the books in terms of ticketing, in terms of other aspects? I -- it seems like we're legislating for every little problem that comes up, and usually it's to limit some rights in some 165 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 way. And it troubles me and I'd like to find out how big a problem is this. Is it real, and who is being bothered by this problem, who is being hurt and so on down the line?
With the proliferation of placards, the occupancy of the meters in Center City, starting back as far as the fall of '92, the Parking Authority is keeping records and has done some surveys. In fall of '92, the core area of Center City had about 11 percent occupancy for the disabled, who were using 11 percent of the parking spaces in Center City, the metered parking spaces. In the fall of '95, that increased to 20 percent. In June of '97, it increased to 24 percent. And as recently, as I stated before, as December of '99 and this past April, it has concluded that 40 percent of the meters in Center City are going to vehicles displaying the handicapped placard or the handicapped plate. This is not trying to keep disabled individuals from getting parking; it's actually geared to give them a better opportunity to have a space that they have a given right to as much as 166 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 anyone else out there driving a vehicle. We understand there's a large abuse problem, like in many states, and the State law has accommodated people with disabilities by adding one hour to the posted time limit. Therefore, if the meter in Center City has two hours time on it, the person displaying a disabled tag or placard gets three hours if it takes in certain accommodations over and above, and that is considered a reasonable accommodation based on the ADA law.
So they use -- the meters are timed, and they come into the City and they stay there a couple of hours and then they leave, right?
We are finding that most people come in and stay all day stay, they stay for the entire balance of the day. Forty percent of the meters are being occupied all day, Monday thank you Friday.
Well, that can be taken and done by making sure that meters -- no 25 one uses a meter more than the allocated time. 167 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359
In '82, the State Code was amended by City Council to allow people unlimited time at meters in Philadelphia. What we're asking is to repeal that, go back to the original intent of the State Code, which would give you 60 minutes beyond the posted time. Councilman Cohen and I were having discussion, why don't we just a little bit better at enforcement? If you know someone, you in general know someone who is abusing it, why don't we just ticket them? I have my own answer, and maybe you can answer or maybe the Parking Authority would like to answer that. I mean, I see some problems with it, but -- maybe could someone attempt to answer that question?
My name is Richard Dixon. I'm the Director of on-street parking for the Parking Authority. The difficulty with trying to enforce determining whether the person who is actually in control of the vehicle is the person to whom credentials were issued for a disability is that 168 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 you are almost never there when the person parks the vehicle. So the parking enforcement officer coming in contact with the operator of the vehicle happens so infrequently that it would be almost impossible to find the person who is driving the vehicle. When our officers patrol the streets, they see an expired meter, they write a ticket on it. If they see a vehicle that's bearing credentials for a person with disability, there is no way for them to know whether the actual operator of that vehicle is the person for whom those credentials were issued.
But on the example given by the group from the Jewelers Row, they know of a person who owns a jewelry store, apparently, who, every morning, a fully able person every morning parks his car this all day long, day after day. If they would have inform the police officer, give him the car and the tag number, the police officer would have a basis for issuing a ticket. Councilman DiCicco knows of a person whom -- I don't know whether he knows him 169 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 personally, or sees him, who parks in the same way, you know, a jogger or somebody. Nobody wants these abuses. What we're saying is, there ought to be a method of enforcing the law. Maybe there has to be a lot of work done. I'm very suspicious of bills that come in at the last minute and hurriedly are being bushed, which take away rights from people. If the disabled community itself gets together -- we had one view from the multiple sclerosis organization, we have other views from others. They may be helpful in resolving this problem. I think issue deserves study. We don't want an abuse. It hurts everybody whenever there's an abuse. But the answer to abuse isn't to take away everybody's rights. The answer to abuse is to develop a program to deal with abuse. Somebody ought to sit down find out who's entitled to what and develop a program. If we could move 40,000 abandoned cars off the street -- everybody said it was impossible, but it was possible. All we needed to do was to get people to begin thinking and using some real thought process to 170 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 develop an approach to a problem. This, if it is in fact a problem -- and I think it's a problem if a single person abuses it -- we ought to develop an approach, instead of coming in saying, We don't care what happens to the disabled. The disabled community is a community which has struggled so many years to obtain recognition of the fact that they have a right. Like all other groups of minorities, they have a right to become citizens in the mainstream, they have a right to jobs. And they've shown by the ability that they have that they can hold many of these jobs. Why should we make it tougher for them in order to eliminate abuse by well-bodied people. What you're doing is, you're punishing disabled folk because you're not willing to take on the problem of solving abuses by those who are physically able, and that ought not to be. I'm suggesting that we ought to study this problem immediately. We have a Mayor's Commission on Disabilities, we ought to bring in all of the groups and begin developing an answer so that we don't take away the rights from the 171 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 disabled. They have an awful tough time surviving. Many of them are very low-income because they never have had the good fortunate like the rest of us to have a decent job and decent pay. And I think we ought to be looking for ways to assist them, not ways that may hurt them. (Applause.)
I would think that the studies -- and I don't know if either of you two gentlemen can speak to it, but the studies were probably done when the State originally created enacting legislation in order to accommodate people with needs. That was the reason they enacted that legislation, was to give people an opportunity to be able to move around a little bit more freely and accommodate them by offering them an additional hour over and above whatever the posted time was. And in Center City, if we're speaking of Center City, you park three hours free. I mean, I think that's a reasonable accommodation.
But for many years in Philadelphia, Philadelphia unanimously back -- 172 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 was it in the early '80s -- passed a law that said, We don't have to be limited by the narrow rules of the State on this. We believe Philadelphia citizens are entitled to more rights. They passed this. For twenty years, apparently it's worked. Suddenly a bill comes in, and immediately we want to take away rights and suddenly we find great wisdom in the State law. Well, I don't think so. We didn't find wisdom in the State law before, it wasn't broad enough. Let's get together and discuss all of these issues and come to some conclusion that eliminates the abuse. It will be better for able-bodied people and it will be much better for the disabled community.
I just want to say that although I introduced the bill about a month or so ago that I don't think anybody rushed in to change this. When this bill was first presented back in 1982, or the amendment to the State Code was enacted by the City Council, over those years -- and your statistics point out -- what was a minimal amount of parking spaces being used are now, almost the majority of the parking spaces are 173 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 being used, and I think that's what prompted this. This isn't something that just came up overnight. And normally, we don't agree with State law, I agree, I understand that.
Councilman DiCicco, I don't know anything about these statistics. I would like to have an opportunity to form a judgment. I ride around the City and downtown Center City very, very frequently. I have not been aware of this, and I often look at license plates.
Well, Councilman, not to be disrespectful and cut you off, but we did -- and maybe a week wasn't enough, but we did hand a packet out to all members of this committee last week so you'd have some time to look at some of those statistics, all members of City Council, so that you would have some opportunity to look at some of the statistics.
Well, I said it may not be sufficient, but there is information that is out there. 174 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 Mr. Dixon, were you looking to make another comment?
I was just going to comment that the Authority's job in this is to manage what is a very scarce resource available in the City of Philadelphia. As in every other old city, we have a limited amount of curb space and we need to regulate it in a way to maximize its availability to the greatest number of people who want to shop and do business in the City. That includes people with disabilities. In order to strike that balance, I think Councilman DiCicco's two bills -- we spent almost all of the attention on one bill, but there are two bills that he's introduced. The first mandates that the operators of all parking facilities set aside spaces in those facilities for people with disabilities to be available for long-term use. In that way, we balance off the needs of those people that only need parking opportunities for short-term use and provide a reasonable accommodation for those people who have a more difficult time getting to and from their destination by providing an additional hour beyond 175 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 the time limit for those people mobility impairments that limit their ability to get back and forth. Those people that have the need to park all day to work or to transact other business and obligations in the City will now have the opportunity to park in off-street parking facilities because the law will now mandate that those facilities set aside spaces exclusively for their use. And that was the reason that the amendment was proposed, as Mr. Mulligan just said, that the Police Department or the Parking Authority could enforce the provisions of the law concerning that set-aside and make sure that people who do not have credentials for people with disabilities do not take those spaces in those off-street facilities as well.
Thank you. And I just want to point out for the record -- and, Councilman Cohen, you make mention of the fact that, you know, we enacted this law for the citizens of Philadelphia. It's people who are not just citizens of Philadelphia who are taking, in my case, most people are taking 176 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 advantage of this free meter parking. Of the five cars that I observed on Chestnut Street on the 1300 block last Thursday or Friday, two of the five cars had New Jersey plates, so it's not just Philadelphia residents. And I see in my community, in South Philadelphia, along South Broad Street, the majority of the vehicles that are parking there all day are non-Pennsylvania tags. They're either Jersey or Delaware. These are people who were, in most cases -- many cases, I should say -- former Philadelphians who have move out of the City, have a placard or plate, live in South Jersey or live in Delaware, park on South Broad Street in South Philadelphia, get out of their car, walk to the bus stop or walk to the subway station, get onto public transportation, come into Center City, work, go back at the end of the day, and leave the City at the end of the day.
So, again, your answer is, I have to point out, because of abuses by people who are not disabled, disabled people are going to have some rights taken away from them. 177 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359
But disabled people who are truly disabled who may want to go shop in South Philadelphia or conduct business or go to doctors or dentists on South Broad Street now have less parking spaces available to them because of some former Philadelphia residents -- whether they're former or not is not the issue here. Non-Philadelphia residents who work in Center City take that parking space away from the very people we would rather see park there at least for two or three hours. If you're a Philadelphia or a Pennsylvania resident or a non-Pennsylvania resident and you have to go to a doctor, you have to go shopping on South Broad Street, that space is now taken up for anywhere from 8 to 10 hours a day free by someone who's working in Center City because they don't want to pay for parking in Center City.
Representatives of the disabled community came and testified today and that said this bill was harmful to the disabled community. I think we owe them the courtesy and I think they have the right to expect an opportunity to discuss the issues and to 178 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 participate in the solution instead of having just us make the decision to deny them their rights.
Councilman, we are the decision-makers, and I agree that --
Yeah, but I think there ought to be time. I don't think in this case we're being reasonable decision-makers.
Okay. I can agree with you to a certain degree that we may need a little more time, but I think that the folks who came in to testify today I think, when you say that they're in here today saying that this is something that's going to be harmful to them, I respectfully disagree. I disagree because meters are for short-term parking, that's what they were created for. They were never intended for long-term parking. The State, although I don't normally agree with a lot of things that they do, saw fit back in the early '80s to give those folks with placards or plates an additional one hour over and above and beyond the posted time that other folks get free.
The State in its 179 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 wisdom also saw that there was absolutely no need to do anything about assault weapons that are killing our kids on the streets, so don't say because the State did something, that proves that it's a great thing.
I said I don't normally agree with them, but in this case, I do.
All right, okay. Any other questions for these witnesses?
The residential permit parking, and it's somewhat unrelated but related in terms of our ability to enforce and how aggressive we are. Can neighborhood, the residential permit parking -- well, actually not the permit parking. The handicapped parking signs that, from my understanding, are being abused to the point where we've actually have news stories on it, how aggressively is the Parking Authority 180 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 going after it?
We've established a program by which when a zone is approved, the applicant's physician sends the medical documentation to an organization that is contracted with the Health Department to review the medical documentation to make sure that the person is mobility-impaired and is not some other kind of disability. We also require that the applicant be the principal driver of the vehicle and they not have off-street parking available to them. When the Health Department approves the medical documentation that's been submitted, he recommends to the Parking Authority that there be a review on a one- to three-year basis determined by the nature of the disability. So that is, if it's only a short-term disability, the Health Department would say, This one should be reevaluated in one year. If it's a more long-term disability, it may be three years. And we sent out restriction forms to those applicants based on that cycle that's been given to us by the Health Department.
Okay. So could a 181 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 similar formula be applied -- and I know we could probably only do Philadelphia and maybe Pennsylvania residents -- in terms of parking placards to cut the abuses?
They are issued by the Pennsylvania Department of Transportation, not by the City of Philadelphia. And they're also issued by each of the 50 state transportation departments.
So have we asked the State to look into possibly changing the formula that they currently use?
A couple years ago, there was correspondence back and forth between the City and the State regarding the way these placards particularly are issued. They did make some changes in the application procedure, and I believe that there is now a recertification involved with that. One of the problems still associated with those forms, I understand, is that any applicant -- the disability could be certified by a physician or by any police officer. I'm not aware that police officers are trained to make it 182 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 their determination about people's medical conditions, but that is an acceptable certification by the Department of Transportation for an applicant's disability.
Well, okay. As was mentioned earlier by Councilman Cohen, he talked about this abandoned vehicle issue, and the State was a key participant in resolving that, and I'm just wondering if we get our heads together, can we come to some resolution as it relates to abuses on the State level as aggressively. As we did with the abandoned vehicle issue, maybe we can be as aggressive on this particular issue.
I can't respond to the level of how aggressive it was. The problem has been that Harrisburg perceives this as a problem that is unique to Philadelphia, and because of that, has not been as interested in addressing it. Their response initially was, the reason it's a problem in Philadelphia is because the City has created an economic incentive for people to abuse these things, and that is the reason they feel it's not necessary for them to deal with it as aggressively. 183 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 And the other issue related that is the issue that Councilman Cohen raised before, in that maybe the placard was issued legitimately to a person with a disability but it is not being used by that person, it is being used by a family member or someone else. And the ability of the City to enforce that is very limited because even if -- even if we got information from an individual that this particular person is abusing it or that and we were able to issue citations based on that, we're talking about thousands of people in the City every day, and it's impossible to enforce that in an equitable way across the City without having hundreds of officers out there virtually on every block, trying to make determinations as to whether this person or that person is the person to whom those credentials were issued.
So if they ticketed all of the vehicles that were parked illegally, does that person -- if that person, in fact, could prove that they were legally the driver of that vehicle, is there an appeals process that that person can come in later on the adjudication 184 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 currently?
There is a process where someone could adjudicate that, but that would mean writing violations on every vehicle that was bearing credentials for people with disabilities and then putting the burden on the operator of the vehicle to then prove that they are the person to whom the credentials were issued and they were the person that was being transported on that day and would have to appear before the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication to then have that ticket dismissed.
All right. I would just, you know, just ask that you -- regardless of what happens with this bill, that you kind of reignite that discussion about the issuance of handicapped placards, 'cause I think that's probably the biggest issue here -- citywide, not just in Center City where we have this problem with meters. I think we really need to look into it that. And thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair.
Thank you. Any other questions for these 185 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - BILL 000358, 359 witnesses? (No further questions.)
Is there a representative on the City's Commission on Disabilities here by any chance?
They declined to testify. Robin Schatz, my chief of staff, did contact them and they refused to testify.
Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the resolution.
Resolution No. 000041, authorizing the Council's Committee on Streets and Services to hold hearings on the dangers and damage caused by the deterioration of retaining 186 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 walls, driveways and alleys, and the complications involved in coordinating necessary repairs by abutting property owners; and to determine the scope of these dangerous conditions throughout the City and the cost to repair them; and further authorizing the committee to formulate a program to correct these hazardous and dangerous conditions in neighborhoods through the City. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Resolution No. 000041: The Department of Streets has a long and intimate history in dealing with these structures. The abatement process for these alleys, driveways and walls crosses divisional lines within the Streets Department and departmental lines with the involvement of the Health Department. The process for this interaction is clearly outlined by State law and administrative 187 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 direction. Briefly, this policy sets the procedure to be followed in the abatement process. The Streets Department is directed follow up on requests for repairs with inspection. After this inspection, if the condition is deemed serious, it is to be reported to the Health Department to be condemned. The respective homeowners could jointly make these repairs, or after 60 days' notice, the City would let a contract for the abatement of the nuisance, with the bills for the repairs going to the homeowners. Over time, there was increased community pressure to have more of an input into this process. This process was continued and refined by a committee formed in 1972. This committee within the Streets Department tried to allow more time for the homeowners to hire a contractor without City involvement. This sometimes slowed the process but was more easily accepted by representative property owners. This process was in place but always difficult because costs were increasing and the public sentiment expressed at community meetings 188 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 was becoming more resistant to this procedure. Finally, on September 16, 1980, an amendment was issued by the chief highway engineer stating that no further action on alleys, driveways, or retaining walls could be taken unless a majority of the abutting property owners signed a petition requesting the City to contract for the repairs. In the formal testimony, I've given a year-by-year breakdown. I think that would be difficult to read now and I'll just continue and refer to the written testimony to that part. I'm going to summarize later in the report.
This is a brief history of the Streets Department's involvement with this issue in the past. The next part of our report deals with the problems and conditions of today. As we were charged in this resolution, we have labored to find the most current information on the existing conditions of these structures. I'd like to outline the steps we have taken to assure this committee of our diligence. We in the Streets Department are 189 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 charged with keeping many records of our research and billing methods. We have searched through our files and come up with the following information that has made this task possible. We keep on file in our Bridge Engineering section all requests for failed retaining walls. We broke this list down by survey district and asked the district survey and regulators which of these walls were repaired or not repaired to actually make a field inspection. Since we do not know where the problem walls exist, the Council President requested other Councilmembers to ask for constituent help. We then took the list of walls not repaired and did a current cost analysis on each wall. We next placed these walls in our geographic information system and broke them down by Councilmatic District. This graphic is a compilation of this effort. The cost estimates are shown there. On driveways. Although most of our effort was spent on walls, the problem of driveways is just as pressing. Not as individually expensive as walls, but much more 190 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 numerous, these structures are also in need of repair. Since the Survey Bureau is charged with assessing the cost of these driveways, we have kept records of these charges. This will serve as a benchmark in what we can expect of these driveways when they fall into disrepair. We have again asked our GIS system to show us the driveways that are used as trash pickup routes. This is an overwhelming majority of the driveways. The replacement value of the driveways is shown on the second graphic. This is not meant to imply that these driveways need to be replaced. However, they do have a finite life span. We do have records of over 200 driveways that people have complained about and have never gone to contract. We estimate this work, which would be our current estimate, would be below approximately $8 million. Philadelphia a city of rowhouses, and most houses built before the 1940s had rear yards facing alleys. These alleys were primarily used for safety exits and garbage pickup. Since garbage is now collected with the trash, these alleys get very little use. Like driveways, these 191 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 alleys are private and within the deeds of the abutting property owners. Our only access to information about these alleys is through the alley lighting program. However, this information is contained in old books and has not yet been converted to our GIS system. The Survey Bureau has kept track of the assessments for repairs of these alleys and we kind of presented how many of those were done earlier in the testimony. One other problem with alleys is access. Many have been illegally gated, many are overgrown with abutting vegetation and some simply have vanished, being taken over by the abutting property owners. Now, these are expensive to reconstruct since all work must be done by hand with wheel barrels. Both excavation and concrete placement also adding to the expense is the abutting fences that almost always need to be replaced. We feel that if further research is needed, it should be done on a case-by-case basis, and we'll glad to comply with this request. In summary, the problems of alleys and driveways and retaining walls has been with the 192 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 City for many years. Our first formal occurrence of the wall problem was a collapsed wall in 1926. Since that time, the City has wrestled with the issue many times over.
This case tested a law passed in 1923, Public Law 1032, that outlined all our involvement in this process. Through the 1950s and '60s, the infrastructure of the City aged while new construction outside the inner-city boomed. The City, at that time, used its powers it had been given to keep these private structures in good repair. Following are the number of alleys, driveways, and retaining walls that were constructed and repaired, using private funds from 1950 to 1980: 541 alleys, 520 driveways, and 49 retaining walls. The following are the number of alleys, driveways, and retaining walls that were constructed or repaired, using private funds, from 1980 to 2000: alleys, driveways, and 5 retaining walls. The difference is striking. In 1980, we received a directive, stating that no formal action would be taken in the condemnation process 193 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 unless a petition was received by a majority of the abutting owners asking us to continue. This administrative decision changed our responsibility towards these walls, driveways, and alleys. It became the responsibility of the abutting property owners to say if these structures should be repaired. We, as an operating department, work under the direction of the Manager Director and the Mayor. No one has ever questioned the private ownership of these structures, but we look at the quality-of-life issues and our moral obligation to facilitate the repair of this deterioration. I talked to the my counterparts in New York, Baltimore, Chicago, and Pittsburgh. The only other city that has taken over some of their driveways is Pittsburgh. Robert Booker, Chief Maintenance Engineer of Pittsburg, relates that as much as 30 percent of his maintenance budget goes to the repair of these driveways. We also are concerned over the legal issues. We feel comforted by the fact that we have an amendment from the Law Department outlining the legal issues with regard to the 194 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 repair of these structures. I've enclosed a copy of this memo for your files. The alley, driveway, and retaining wall issue is one that should be discussed and decided by the citizens and their elected officials. The Streets Department is ready and able to carry out any mandates that are in our charter and follow the directives of the Administration to the best of our ability. That's my formal testimony.
Mr. Lonie, do you have any information for the moment that you'd like to add to the record?
I'd just like to make a little bit clear the graphics that are there. The driveways that are shown in the figure of $86 million is a total replacement value. We're not saying that they have to be replaced right there, but that's probably pretty close to what it would cost to replace all of the driveways.
Do you have a sense of what -- and I understand that you're showing us 195 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 what the universe of driveways may be based on the routes of the Sanitation Division. Do you have a sense of what the narrower universe would be of driveways that have either failed or are in extremely deteriorated condition, how many that would be, and what the proposed costs would be?
We have on our record approximately 200 that have been reported deteriorated and should be repaired that we have no records of every contracting anybody to fix them, and we estimate of cost of those repairs to be approximately $8 million.
Okay. So you have $8 million in repairs for driveways, and my sight is pretty good but not that good, but my recollection is that there are 90 retaining walls, at a total cost of $9.4 million?
That's approximately correct. One thing I would like to say, when we went out and made this physical survey of all the walls that had been prepared, one of the things that we were absolutely surprised about was that 58 walls that had been reported to us as deteriorated had been repaired. We don't know 196 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 how. They didn't come through the City. They simply maybe hired a contractor, or the neighbors got together with troughs and did some fixing or whatever. But 58 was the number that we had found that had been repaired that we had no record of that repair.
Well, approximately, we started with about 190 and 58 were repaired. Some others were deemed not to be serious, maybe they'd been repair 30 years ago. And 90 are the ones that we found were critical.
Approximately 90 that had been reported as deteriorated were still falling down, had not be repaired.
Right. And is it from the map I have or from the chart over there, 60 of the 90, I understand, are between two Council Districts -- the 4th with 24, and the 8th with 36. I think the 8th has the largest number of retaining wall problems in the City? 197 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
Okay. And the 9th, I think, has 12, and that gets you up to, I guess, about 72 out of the 90 are in 3 Councilmatic districts.
Okay. And for the driveways, do you have a sense of what that breakdown is of the 200 and how they're broken out throughout the City?
You know, mainly you have to look at a driveway as a finite life. And if your -- people or builders didn't start building driveways until the late '30s, early '40s, really booming after World War II. So if you start looking at neighborhoods that were constructed somewhere right around World War II, they're the driveways that are critical. The ones that have been built in '50s and '60 are still in pretty good shape -- they will fail eventually. And the ones before that didn't have them; they had alleys.
Just again for the record, I heard your testimony, and the entire 198 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 testimony will be entered as if you had read the entire testimony, but just so we're clear, the history on this is, the City used to do this work some number of years ago. And then in 1980, was it, a directive came down that for all intents and purposes, either put the work to an end or placed an additional requirement on the neighbors that -- this is where we got into the signed petition routine?
Right. Well, no, the City never, in its history, has ever done these repairs. What the City did would condemn the driveways and force the neighbors to have them done. What the City stopped doing was basically forcing the neighbors. They said, If you want it done, fine; if you don't want it done, well, okay that's fine, too.
But these are walls that have been condemned primarily by the Board of Health as a danger to the public health, safety, and Welfare?
But then the City said, If you want to get it done, fine; if not, 199 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 that's your problem?
Well, the City always said, just like any house, if you have a house that's condemned by the Board of health or something like that and has to be torn down, it's the same as a driveway. These are structures that were built to facilitate the houses, they were built on private property, they were not built in the rights-of-way. They were built so that a builder could build more homes and things likes that, and it's generally never been considered public property.
Well, I understand that, but similar to the house example that you gave, when the house has been deemed imminently dangerous by L&I, the person gets a notice, the owner. They can either do it or not do it, but at some point in time, L&I will come in and just knock the property down and that's the end of the story, right?
Well, again, that's the way we did things in the past. We would say, You have to get this fixed. And if people said, Well, we can't it afford it, we would let a contractor out 200 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 and we would have the walls repaired and then we would pay the contractor and the assessment bill 4 is made out in the name of the abutting property owners.
Why don't you give us a little more information about that whole payment and scenario and how that worked out.
Okay. What had happened was, there was a company that used to specialize in collecting municipal loans, and this person would go and look at a driveway or a wall, and he would bid to the contractors how much he would discount their bills, and it could be as much as or 30 percent. Contractors hate to collect 16 bills; they're in the building business, not in 17 the bill-collecting business. 18 And what would happen is, under -- 19
Why don't we try to 20 use some numbers in this example. Let's just -- hypothetically, the person went out and said, This wall will probably cost about $100,000.
And the person would then say to the contractor, I will give you 201 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 $80,000?
He would get $100,000 worth of bills and he would pay $80,000 for them.
Okay. And so then his job and responsibility and goal, naturally, was to try to collect as much of that percent 14 discount as possible. 15
And that's how he 17 made his money and life went on. 18
Exactly, that's how he 19 would do that. 20 Regrettably, he went out of business and no one really replaced him. I was a surveyor and regulator in the 8th Survey District when the last driveway -- I signed all the bills when the last one was done, in 1989. And he had told me that this was his last job. He was going out of 202 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 business simply because anymore, people were just, in a way, getting too smart and they were hiring attorneys to block the bills, and he just could not make any money in this business any longer. That word also spread to the construction community and different things like that. We tried subsequently to bid out the driveway and where, before we were estimating for our streets work at $45 a square yard, the lowest bid we got from a contractor was $125 a square yard. It's just not fair to go to these folks and say, hey, you know, you're going to pay five times what you're actually getting because your neighbors aren't going to be paying. And this is where we always ran into trouble. We want to organize, we want to help these people do that, but there's just certain things we can't do.
So in that scenario, the good neighbor, the paying neighbor, would literally end up subsidizing the nonpaying neighbor.
And the way the 203 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 industry dealt with that was to super-inflate the bills, anticipating that a certain number of people wouldn't pay.
Right. And you'll hear testimony later from a community group that I had met with, that Councilman Cohen had recommended I talk to about -- sometimes what can happen on the other side of that, one of the things that the contractors will ask for is to put the money up front to these people. Sometimes, though, as you'll hear, you get what you pay for.
Right. Why don't we get some of the community people on. You're able to stay 'cause I'm going to need to ask you some additional questions.
Yeah. I would be stunned if he didn't. 204 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
What I'm going to do is call up a number of community people all at the same time. You can pull up some chairs and get right to the table, maybe four or five. Mr. Ed Bradley, Mr. Albert Carter, Mr. Ralph Wynder, Miss Carolyn Sutton, Mr. Michael Moffitt and Mr. Robert Fortt. (Witnesses come forward.)
Why don't you just start, whoever's closest to the mike. Tell us your name for the record and tell us a little bit about your situation, and then we'll spread it around.
Good afternoon, Councilmembers. My name is Michael Moffitt and I'm representing the Berks Street and Euclid Street community group. And, again, I'd like to thank you for allowing us this opportunity to testify again regarding the retaining wall between the 5200 block of Berks Street and Euclid Street. The residents here have tried for over twenty years to have this wall repaired. Over the 205 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 years, there have been numerous meetings, and we have been in touch with various City officials, including Councilman Michael, to try to facilitate the repair of this retaining wall. To this end, there is a virtual mountain of paperwork and correspondence between the residents and various City agencies regarding this particular wall. This retaining wall urgently needs repair. The large hole and broken debris pose a serious health and safety hazard to the children and residents of these two blocks. The condition of the wall also affects those who serve this area in other capacities as well. , have fallen into the hole and have had to be towed. Trucks other utilities, such as Bell Telephone and PECO, have also been stuck in the hole. Over the past year, at least five to six vehicles have been towed from this area. As the wall continues to deteriorate, the safety issue becomes more pressing. On May 17 the of the year 2000, officers from the 19th Police District became all too aware of the danger that this wall poses when 206 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 an officer almost drove some feet off the ditch created by the deteriorating condition of the wall. Had she driven just a little further or had her vehicle rolled over, she could have been critically injured. Instead her patrol car, which was patrol car 1916, sat precariously on the edge of the damaged drive until it could be towed hours later. We have been very fortunate that to this date, no one, particularly a child, has been critically injured as a result of the condition of this wall. In September of 1993, a meeting was held at the Tuscon Recreational Center at 60th and Columbia Avenue with Mr. Donald S. Graham, coordinator of highway projects. At that meeting, Mr. Graham stated that the wall was determined to be the property of the 5200 block of Euclid, and that they were soley responsible for initiating repair of the wall. Subsequently, the residents of Berks Street could not initiate repair or any alterations to the wall. Mr. Graham also stated that the City had condemned the wall in 1975. He noted that while the primary cause for the collapse of the wall was heavy traffic, primarily 207 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 from City trash trucks, the City takes no 3 responsibility. Several of the properties closest to the most damaged portion of the wall are, or were, PHA properties; thus, PHA certainly bears some responsibilities regarding the repair of this wall as well. PHA inspected these properties prior to the property sale to private owners. In many cases, the City has held title to these properties and passed them on to unsuspecting owners through programs such as homesteading and etc. for low- and middle-income families. The City then makes the new homeowner responsible for often overwhelming problems with the homes that they knew existed before they sold the homes. In my particular situation, it was a purchase of a property through the Philadelphia Homestead Program. A thoroughly itemized inspection report was rendered prior to sale. The damage to this wall was not even mentioned. We were not warned prior to our purchase of this property that the wall was deteriorating. This damage should have been repaired prior to the sale 208 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 of the property. At the very least, buyers of homes surrounding the most damaged area of this retaining wall should have been made aware that these repairs were needed prior to the sale of the property.
This way, prospective owners would have been fully informed of what we were getting. Yet, this was not the case. The City should not be allowed to avoid its responsibility in contributing to this dangerous situation. L. 1032 of July 11, 1923, the mechanism to repair the retaining wall was in place in 1975 when the wall was condemned. If these repairs had been effected at the time the wall was condemned, the costs would have been minimal compared to the estimated quotes to residents in 1993. However, since no 18 action was taken to remedy this condition, the cost has continued to soar. The deteriorating condition of this values also affects the salable value of properties in this area. The value of our homes continues to go down because of this situation while ours taxes have continued to rise. In most cases, the purchase of a home is one of, if not 209 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 the largest investments families make. It is disheartening when this investment crumbles before your eyes through no fault of your own. The pride and morale of our neighborhoods has to be affected by the crumbling condition of that wall and the lack of movement by City officials to help. On April 22, 1999, Councilman Michael Nutter introduced Bill No. 990250 to City Council. In addition to Mr. Nutter's comments at the public hearing for this bill, Councilman David Cohen noted how we, the residents of these two blocks, have been avoided, stalled and, stonewalled in return. He very eloquently outlined the long history of constant stonewalling by City officials with regard to repair of this wall, and indicated that it is now time to do something about this situation. Councilman Frank Rizzo Jr. expressed astonishment that this situation had been allowed to continue for so long. He compared it to raging fire that City officials are watching burn while they try to figure what it will cost to put it out rather than consider the safety and welfare of the residents first. We wholeheartedly agree with him 210 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 that this crisis has been gone on long enough and should be taken care of now. Councilman Angel Ortiz was not able to be there for the entire meeting but also made it known that when the bill reached City Council for a vote, he would support it. The support of these Councilmen and their agreement that this matter require immediate attention is gratifying. While we have not received official word of the outcome of the vote on the bill, a neighborhood publication, the Neighborhood Leader, October 30th through November 14, 1995 reported that Bill No. 990250 has been passed by a 16-to-0 vote. We are hopeful that this means that the repair of the wall is imminent. Gentlemen, we watched last summer as the City moved quickly to resolve the problem of sinking homes in the Wissinoming section of the City. Within a matter of days, the City rushed to pack, store, relocate, and demolish and compensate private-property owners to the tune, according to a 10-NBC news report, of up to $4 million. Yet, in over twenty years, residents of the section of 211 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 the City, after repeated requests for help, are unable to get what would have been $11,000 worth of repairs done to this wall. According to Mr. Nutter's most recent correspondence, as many 189 retaining walls are projected to need repair in the City. However, of those, only 68 are now seriously deteriorated, and certainly this wall between the 5200 block of Berks Street and Euclid is among the worst, if not the worst. Bill 990250 was introduced in May of last year and apparently approved. Yet, a year later, we are considering more legislation, as in Resolution 41, to remedy this matter. What will it take before this damaged wall is taken seriously. It will not be long before someone is seriously injured or there is significant property damage.
It is our sincere hope that this resolution receives a favorable hearing and response from City Council, and that this will be the final piece of legislation needed to facilitate the immediate repair of this retaining wall.
Thank you. Thank 212 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 you, Mr. Moffitt. Mr. Bradley?
Thank you, Councilman Nutter and gentlemen. Good afternoon. Thank you for giving me an opportunity to speak today on behalf of my friends and neighbors who live on the 6400 blocks of Woodcrest Avenue and Morris Park Road. First of all, I'd like to say that I wholeheartedly agree with everything that was just said by my friend to my right. I think he put his finger on exactly what the problem is. I want to take a minute, however, to explain to you our story, which, I'm sure, will be very similar to all of the stories that you hear regarding this issue. I live, as I said, on the 6400 block of Woodcrest Avenue in the Overbrook section of Philadelphia. I have lived in that section of the City my entire life. It's a wonderful neighborhood and the neighbors are all quite happy there. However, there are occasionally some problems such as this which crop up. Our street shares an alleyway with our 213 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 neighbors behind us, who live on the 6400 block of Morris Park Road. That is a concrete alleyway, which, for as long as I remember, living in the neighborhood, has been in deplorable condition. From 64th Street to 66th Street, it is cracked, it is broken, it is full of rubble, which comes up from out of large potholes and other hazards, which go from end to end. This condition represents, obviously, a hazard to those who drive along the driveway, making our alleyway or our driveway an obstacle course for drivers, making it a hazard for those who would like to walk across or along the alleyway, making it impossible for our children to safely play in the alleyway. After I moved into my current home on Woodcrest Avenue, I undertook a little research with some of my neighbor regarding how we might go about repairing the driveway. This was approximately six or seven months ago. I learned, after calling the Streets Department and speaking to some engineers in the Streets Department, that one time, as has been explained to you, the City would become involved in the repair of the 214 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 driveways. They would condemn the driveway, they would bid the repair of the driveway out, and then they would assess owners and assist in the collection of the payment. I was told, however, that in this day and age, there is no assistance to be provided by the City under any circumstances. I was told that the repair of the driveway was exclusively the responsibility of the owners. At that point, I undertook to bid it out myself, to find a contractor who might do repairs, and too, with the help of some of my neighbors, organize those who live along the alleyway. We held a meeting. Of the 100 or so residents who border our driveway, we were able to draw about to 30 residents out. All expressed 18 an interest in participating, all expressed an 19 interest in participating by way of offering some 20 payment. 21 We undertook to survey the remainder of 22 our neighbors. To date, we have collected 23 approximately 60 percent of the names of the 24 owners along the driveway who have agreed in 25 principle to participate by paying. However, 215 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 there is a large percentage of individuals who have said that under no circumstance will they participate by paying anything. As the number of those individuals who will not participate grows, the cost to the remaining neighbors grows as well; and the number of neighbors who are willing to participate, therefore, begins to go down as the cost becomes prohibitive.
Mr. Bradley, I'm sorry. If you could just repeat. Was it 60 percent were in favor of doing something and 40 percent said --
Well, to date, we have collected the names of approximately 60 percent who have said in principle that they are willing to participate by paying. That's not necessarily a hard number because there have been residents we had not been able to contact, and there is a large percentage number of residents who have flatly said that they will participate at all. I suspect there's going to be a certain number of residents that we never are able to speak to at all.
The people who said that they flat out don't want to participate, is 216 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 it because they don't think it's dangerous, it's not dangerous near them, they think the City should take care of it, or they believe it's just someone else's responsibility?
It's actually a combination of factors. Some have said, It's not dangerous behind my house, it's not cracked there; therefore, I don't care about what it looks like at other parts of the block. Frankly, I think those people are mistaken because, frankly, from end to end, it's a mess. There are some people who say, I don't have the money, I'm raising a family, I have children, I'm trying to pay my bills, and I simply can't afford to have this done. Other older folks on our street who live on fixed incomes don't have the wherewithal to participate and, understandably, have said that though they would like to help, unfortunately, they cannot. So we are faced with a very difficult situation in terms of repairing this. Interestingly, before -- before I lived on Woodcrest Avenue and in other homes in this neighborhood, I lived on Morris Park Road, the 217 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 street behind where I know live. At the time I lived there -- and I'm talking some 30 or 35 years ago -- my father attempted to organize neighbors at that time to try to repair driveway because at that time, it was in what he considered to be a deteriorating and dangerous condition. He was unable to get the driveway repaired at that time because he ran into the same obstacles with the City that we are running into today and the same obstacles with neighbors that we are running into today. I agree with what has just been said, again, by my friend seated to my right, that the City cannot abrogate its responsibility here. The City cannot simply say that because the driveway is jointly and severally owned by 100 people who happen to abut it, we are not going to do anything about it. The reason that I feel that the City cannot do that is because it, frankly, is a part of the infrastructure of the City. It is something that the City uses in its trash collection, and it is something that will not, I feel, ever realistically be repaired through the efforts of the homeowners alone. 218 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 In my neighborhood, people have the wherewithal to make choices about where they live. Some of those people ultimately may make the choice, if this part of the infrastructure continues to deteriorate, to move. Other folks, unfortunately, don't have the wherewithal to make those decisions, and those folks wind up trapped in neighborhoods that are falling apart around them that become dangerous to them, to their children, to their parents, and to their grandparents. And that simply is not right either. I think in a day an age where this Council and other members of our political community are going to be discussing paying 500, 600, 700 million dollars for the building of stadiums -- and this is going to be a refrain that I'm sure you're going to be hearing more of, and you may not happy to hear it now, but in a day and age when you're going to undertake that, I think that it is a responsibility of this Council and for all of those responsible for the health and welfare and safety of our citizens to consider, before building a stadium for millionaires to get 219 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 richer, to think about repairing the driveways, the alleyways, and the retaining walls for the people who want to make this City their home. I think that is a responsibility that should be first foremost and one that should be properly considered by this Council. And I hope that some resolution which is satisfactory for everybody can be reached.
The two gentlemen to my left said what I'm going to say, but I'm going to say it anyway.
I just want to make sure the 8th District is represented today.
I have been a resident at 1912 Nedro Avenue for 42 years. Here's a brief description of our problem. Our rear driveway is not a through-driveway. You can drive from 1956 220 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 Nedro to 1912, that's houses, and then you have to back out or vice versa. There's a gradual incline from 1956 Nedro to 1912; or from ground level to about feet high. The adjacent 6 driveway is level, which is the rear of the 1900 7 block of Conlon Street. There's a retaining wall 8 along the entire driveway to hold the Nedro Avenue 9 driveway in place. 10 Approximately 15 years ago, our 11 driveway showed serious signs of deterioration. 12 We attempted to get it fixed by having meetings, 13 estimates, petitions, and politicians, to no 14 avail. Finally, a section of the wall collapsed 15 in the rear of about three or four houses. 16 We, the residents of the Nedro Avenue, 17 had more meetings after meetings. On 3/1/95, we 18 got notices from the Department of Streets that we 19 would have to reconstruct the wall and repave the 20 driveway, or the City would get it done and bill 21 the homeowners or put liens against their property. That never happened. We had more meetings among ourselves. We finally got a contractor to do the job. Some homeowners of Nedro Avenue put out a set amount of 221 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 money and signed a contract with a contractor in October of 1997 to get the entire driveway paved and a section of the wall replaced. The job was completed in 1998, late '98. In August of 1999, less than one year later, part of a wall he built collapsed. The contractor said he would only fix it if a judge ordered him to do so because he had no money to fix it. We cannot afford a lawyer to sue the contractor and we cannot get residents interested. Some are sick, some are older, some poor, etc. can't our City government help us? We have pictures of the severity of the problem. It is very dangerous. Children play all around the driveway, the soil is eroding under the driveway. And three of the residents got notices from the City Department of Licenses and Inspections to demolish or repair the wall immediately or they, the City, would have it fixed and put liens against the property. We, the residents of the 9800 block of Nedro Avenue, support Resolution 41. Thank you. And I do have pictures of the problem.
Could we -- the Sergeant-at-Arms will get those pictures from you 222 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 so that we can see them. Thank you very much, Mr. Carter.
Mr. Carter, that's -- you're describing the situation that exists currently on that block of 1900 Nedro. It also affects Conlon Street?
I was told one time that that was a party wall, and all parties of Nedro and Conlon Street were responsible, but when we got it fixed, we only got neighbors from Nedro Avenue to contribute to fix the wall.
And when you stand on Conlon Street, I understand, you can look up and see the road, the bottom of the road on Nedro; is that right?
Yes. Since the collapse of the wall, yes. Yes, you can see it by the pictures when you get them. That is a very dangerous condition and children can go underneath that driveway where the wall fell and get trapped under there, as well as some cars or trucks are still using the driveway, which the driveway itself has a chance of collapsing. In fact, there's a crack in the driveway now. 223 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
And among the politicians that you met with at various times was myself, Councilman David Cohen, right?
My name's Ralph Wynder. I'm representing the 38th Ward as the ward leader as well as the residents coalition community organization of which I'm the chairperson, that's Ridge Allegheny Huntington Civic Association and the North Penn Civic Association. I'd like to first say good afternoon to all Councilmembers who are present, and I'm here to express my support for Resolution 41. In our area, neighbors have come alive in recent years with campaigns to clean up our community. We have waged a war against dirt in our community, and we have armed ourselves with brooms, bags, shovels, 224 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 hoses, in a effort to clean up all around us. But there is one problem that exists that, even with brooms, shovels, and hoses, we cannot remedy, and that is the problem of retaining walls that are crumbling, alleyways that are crumbling and have debris that prohibit people from going in and out, and driveways which are in very bad shape. When I first moved in the 3300 block of Allegheny Avenue, the driveway behind my home was in very terrible, terrible condition. And the neighbors in our community, in the front of my home and in the back street, all got together in a effort to repair this problem by selling chances. And we sold chances and we raised money; some participated and others didn't. But with the money that we saved, we went out and we got a contractor, and he attempted to do some work. Well, we didn't raise nearly enough money to cover the damage of that driveway. And so what we were able to get done, it was done. But over the years, of course, what wasn't done affected what was done, and crumbling and deterioration continue to exist, even with our 225 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 best efforts. We see that, you know, in some communities, money from the City is allocated for various housing programs. And in the 38th Ward, which is a part of the 4th Councilmatic District, which encompasses North Philly, Germantown, and a large part of East Falls, the major problem in our community doesn't already to be abandoned housing; it does appear to be economic improvements that are needed with these retaining walls and these driveways and these alleysways which need attention. We are in 100 percent in harmony with parts of the City that have great abandonment and poor housing stock, we've 100 percent in agreement with them receiving funds to solve that problem. But we do not feel our area, which has other types of problems, that we should be covertly, consciously, or unconsciously discriminated against because we do not have the type of abandoned housing, but we have other problems that need attention from the City. And so we are, you know, calling upon the City Councilmembers and all of those to be, as 226 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 a part of their urban blight removal, to include this problem, just as they are attacking the problem of abandoned cars and abandoned homes. We think that this problem of retaining walls and driveways and alleys crumbling in the eyes of the people is a fault of the City, and they have abandoned us because we need their assistance, because there is no way that the residents of these homes can accomplish this problem, there's no way. If I fixed the back of my home without the support of the homes that adjoin it or are up the street from it, there's no way that my home's problem won't come back again because this problem is comprehensive. It is not piecemeal. We need the support of the City. The City clearly saw this as a problem back in 1980, or what was testified recently, because instead of considering these areas condemned and making the homeowners deal with the problem, then the City found the need to just stop dealing with that condemnation and stop making homeowners pay for a problem because they recognize that the problem was overwhelming, that the problem was unfair, and that the neighbors should not be charged for 227 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES.
000041 fixing that area. But in one sense, that was compassionate; in another sense, it was far too little. Because where you are not charging the neighbors or making them fix up their properties, you've let the properties to continue to deteriorate, to continue to destruct. And what you've done basically is allow the problem to escalate to the point of, I see where the City's records show that there were, what, 63, 63 retaining walls that needed serious repair back in '78. The number today is 189. Somebody testified today that 90 of those properties are very seriously damaged. So the problem continues to triple and cripple our neighborhood. The problem continues to escalate, while folks look on and wait for someone else to take care of it. Well, we think that the City government, in an effort to protect and support its citizenry, should come to the aid of these folks because the problem will not be solved if people are unable and unwilling to deal with this problem in a comprehensive fashion. My community showed that we will 228 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 attempt to solve the problem, but we cannot go far enough without funding and some resources. Other communities have clearly attempted to do this. The gentleman earlier, in his testimony from the City, stated that about 58 or so, 58 walls were fixed without the City's support. So this means that neighbors have put forth their best efforts to solve this problem but just are incapable of handling the mass deterioration that has occurred across the City. Clearly, it is the job of government to step forward and assist the citizens who are trying to do their best. And I'm appealing to members of the Council today, I'm appealing to those people in those communities which are falling apart, even as they try to clean them up and fix them up. I'm appealing to everyone who has a role in this problem to come forward and do their best. Even if the City is not capable of funding 100 percent of this problem, then they should at least cover two-thirds of the problem, as the citizens do their best to handle what they can. You know, I think that this is only fair to ask of it. We might as well recognize that this 229 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 problem will not go away and it will not improve without the help of city government. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Wynder. Let me put some additional information on the record, and then Mr. Fortt is going to go on. Mr. Bradley, I thought you had indicated that you had sought some cost estimates for your wall, and I don't believe you mentioned exactly what it was.
We did. We spoke to a contractor, and this is for a driveway, not for a wall. He gave us several options. Right now, what the driveway is, or is supposed to be, is concrete. He said that he could simply put two inches of asphalt over the top of it, the length of the driveway. The cost of that was $17,000, which would have been $170 per household, if we have 100 percent participation, which, as I said, we're having difficulty getting close to that. He said that if we wanted him to remove the old concrete, lay a new foundation and then put an asphalt top, it would be $30,000. And he 230 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 said if we want concrete, he said that's basically out of the question, in all likelihood, but it cost anywhere 60, 70 or $80,0000 to do.
Okay. And, Mr. Moffitt, my recollection of our situation, Berks-Euclid, the history on that in terms of cost, I believe there was a cost estimate back in the '95-'86 timeframe, it may have been about 14-or-so thousand dollars to fix that wall back at that time.
No, this was -- in '78, it would have been $11,000. And then it escalated -- from that time to 1993, it went to close to $200,000.
Right. It went to 198 and now the most recent estimate is $258,000 for the Berks-Euclid wall. Thank you. I just wanted to get that cost on the record. There's been a lot of discussion about that. Mr. Fortt.
Yes. Good afternoon. My name is Robert Fortt. And I'm here too to support Councilman Nutter's bill. 231 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 I own a property that's on 60th -- between 61st and 62nd and Jefferson. Adjacent to that property Nassau Road, and there is a retaining wall that has totally collapsed. We've sought how to go about fixing it, talked to Councilpeople, had skirmishes with the City, saying it is my wall, it's the neighbor's wall, whose wall is it. It's plain that these gentlemen here have also had similar problems. Probably the worst problem is that we don't have a solution and we're coming to you for some solutions. I can only echo what they're saying, and they're saying more than what I could say myself. So I'm just saying that I want to support your bill. And I do, too, have pictures of the wall before and after.
Yes. I thought you might. Okay,. Thank you very much Mr. Fortt. 232 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 If there are no other questions for this set of witnesses, we will have the next set up. Let me first thank you for your testimony. We expect at the end of the testimony that Mr. Lonie will come back up, and we want to get some information on the record in terms of potential funding sources for this kind of work. And then, ultimately -- and your testimony is very helpful and you've been very straightforward. Ultimately, it is a decision for the City to make as to how to respond to this issue. For me, there is virtually no difference between what our response should be to a dangerous property. When we send out a notice, the person either can fix it or not fix it, but at some point in time, the City will come, in fact, and demolish that property and remove the dangerous condition. This is a slightly different situation, but the result ultimately should be the same. We can send the notices out. If people don't respond, there is a clear threat to the public safety, health, and welfare of people in these situations, and there is an obligation, I believe, 233 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 on the City's part to respond to it. And if that's means fixing it and trying to figure out the funding or some level of participation by the homeowners, I don't think that is inappropriate. But to leave them for 10, 15, 20, going on now some-odd-30 years, there are two things that are going to happen: One, people become more entrenched in their opposition to do anything about it; and, two, the cost begins to increase in an astronomical fashion, which only leads people to not want to put any of their money in it. Councilman DiCicco?
Could I ask a question, and Councilman Nutter, I'm not very familiar with this. I understand the problems related retaining walls, but I'm not familiar with any City assistance that may have been offered. Was there ever a time where there was any offer of assistance, similar to what the -- when we have broken (unintelligible) for people who have limited incomes, where we have a certain amount of time to pay off the debt that's incurred?
Councilman, my experience with this has primarily been with the 234 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 Berks-Euclid wall, although I've had other experience with Stewart Street and Oxford Street and a number of others. In the Berks-Euclid situation, the response I received two months into my first term, in early '92, was that there was no 7 money to take care of this or respond to this problem; it was the property owners' problem, and that's the way it was left. And I continued to push in that regard. And to fast-forward to late last year, after the bill was passed, Mr. Moffitt will recall, we actually had a bill passed similar to our problems that we've been having with stop signs and traffic signals, I had a bill passed. I was told by the Administration at that point, the then-administration -- it's a new administration now -- that they would commit to $100,000 toward a problem that was, at that time, estimated to be 198, but that the City would only put up its money at the point when all of the neighbors had put up out of their money first, and then the City would match it that. That becomes a chicken-and-egg scenario, where the neighbors, some of whom might 235 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 actually participate, you don't get the others, and the City gets to sit back say Well, you know, we tried but the neighbors don't want to do anything and, you know, whenever they get their act together, we'd be glad to put up some support.
There has never been an offer of payment plan. I've had discussions with the Administration about capital funding over an extended period of time and taking a portion of our capital program every year dedicated to this. It is clear to me from reading the HUD regulations that the community block development grant funds are eligible to be used for these kinds of purposes. Again, this is not building houses; this is really more about stabilizing neighborhoods, and I would not propose to take any large, sizable amount of CDBG funds. But, again, if we get $79 million, if you put or million aside for these kinds of problems, and we'll have more of this discussion with Mr. Lonie, you could lay out a schedule of what you want to do maybe 236 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 over the next four to five years combined with capital funds. There this just has not been the interest we have creatively figured out how to solve a whole host of problems around here, and this is one that people have desperately tried to avoid for a long period of time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you very much, gentlemen. Mr. Donald Green. Ms. Edith Hart, Mr. John Teague, Mr. James Grant, Ms. Janice Gary, Mr. James Carter, and Miss Jean Thomas. Well, why don't we have Mr. Neal Parnell also come up, and that will exhaust the list. (Witnesses come forward.)
My name is Jean Thomas, and I am a community activist, and I'm concerned about my block, which is the 200 block of North Horton Street. 237 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 And, Michael, I support your bill but, you know, the 200 block of North Horton Street is a poor block, and the people don't have anything. And these houses, they just seem like they're deteriorating. What makes me mad and pisses me off is, they stay there so long and deteriorate, and it goes on and on and on. And then when they decide to tear them down, then they damage other people's properties. And I believe the City owns 'em and the City better fix 'em up, because I'm just sitting of here, listening to all of this, you know, going on. They had money when all of these houses start sinking in Wissinoming, or whatever it is. Well, they better have money for our community, too. Because, see, I'm sick and tired of it. If you ask me, it's a racial thing. It's a disgrace. When I bought my house, the lady told me, she said, I've been here over 50 years. There was a playground, nothing in it, hadn't done a thing to it. I said, Oh, no, our tax dollars go like this, they're not concerned about our community. Now maybe we'll get a decent playground. But the house that's right next to 238 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 the playground, that's falling in too. So you better get L&I out there. And them jack-legged contractors that you sent before, we don't need 'em no more, because they put their little truck up there on the lot and sped off 90 miles an hour and damaged property across the street. It don't make sense. And we want -- need our alleys fixed. They have never, ever been fixed along there in the 200 block of Horton, and I am on the south side of the street, okay?
Never, ever. So they need to go on the north and the south side of the 200 block. I know what they're doing now. Sure, they got L&I out there now, giving us water pipes and sewer pipes, which makes me think, Oh, they doing all this? What are they trying to do, push us out after they get this all in and condemn everything? I don't know. It's, you know, you got to watch these people very closely, I'm going to you.
You better keep your eyes 239 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 open.
And all the houses, we got about five in the block that belong to PHA but that one at 238 should be unfit for human habitation, and I'm saying the Philadelphia Housing Authority, right along with L&I, they are no good to -- not to condemn that place. The beams in the kitchen keep falling, no heat in the house, but yet he collects money, he's a owner, and he put it in the hands of the Philadelphia Authority, and he collects rent.
It's a disgrace. And I cussed him out, I sure did. I told him, You don't live like that and you live out on the Main Line, get out of my community. And I meant it, too.
I know you did. And you know from our previous conversations that we are working on that. We did have --
Well, Michael, right across the street from me, 237, we would have never knowed it but for the kids throwing the balls, the ball went up there, was thrown in the 240 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 house. They went up there to get it, a great big hole. So that's another one going fall, so you can expand the playground now. Get it knocked down now, don't wait.
And these -- the houses that they did tear down on 62nd Street and Horton Street, they didn't retain them walls. No, indeed they didn't. They only came to 238 and retained that porch.
I seen the birds making the birdhouses, getting the woods and going in there. And the people came to me and I told 'em to get a lawyer and sue 'em, I said, 'cause this city is rotten. When it comes to your tax dollars, you should get something for it. And the only reason why they tore it down was because it was falling down, and I told 'em if any of these kids get hurt and it was a open porch, you're going to be sued.
And I said I'm going to be a witness for everybody on the street. And we had 241 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 taken pictures anyway, because we were tired of, you know, calling and telling 'em.
If they could come along and go to every house that's vacant and get in it if it's sealed, and if it's no good, tear it down and build it up, don't make our property value go down. They built up in other communities. See, I'm sick and tired of this city. And, see, I know the games that they play, Michael. You know I wasn't born yesterday, you know I know the games that they play in this town.
And, yes, I told the people on 62nd Street, too. That house was so bad on 62nd Street. That lady lives in 239, it came 242 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 out in the alley. It was, oh, about this wide, it was like a tree, and then it swerved and missed my house and went onto 239 and the house next door to tear their fence down --
-- before they decided to do anything. And then when they did knock it down, all of the debris is still out there in the alley, you know.
And the blocks aren't even smoothed off or nothing, and the kids could run over there. It's like live wire, you know. I don't know if it's coming from cable or where, but it's live wire.
I will check on all of that for you, Miss Thomas. Thank you.
This game-playing is too much, and I'm tired of it. I'm going, I've had 243 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 enough.
Thank you. Thank you, Miss Thomas. Thank you. Yes, ma'am. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Edith Hart, and I represent the 5700 block of Stewart Street, the even side. Our retaining wall fell down in 1988, and they told us what we could do: we could do nothing, get a private contractor, or let the City do it. I took the petition had it signed sign properly, and we gave it to the City, and they told us they had no one to bid for the job.
So the City attempted to find a contractor, put the contract out for a bid, and none of the contractor community responded to it?
And your block was actually prepared to try to pay for it.
The homeowners, we were told we were responsible. Whether it fell down behind 244 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 your house or not, the whole block. And so far, nothing has been done.
When Ann Land was in, when Councilwoman Ann Land was in, 'cause she hooked me up with the Commissioner of Streets at that time.
Yes, in 1988, it fell. And it's still down, and some of the children that come back there, they're going to get hurt back there.
Now, I do have some pictures that were submitted. They must have been submitted on the other side, and you can't really see the full damage that it's done, but I'll submit these. The lady that was supposed to testify didn't come today, but I have other 245 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 pictures that I can send to you and you can see a fuller picture of what it really is going on.
Okay, all right. Let me just add for the record that according to the Streets Department, the estimate on that wall back in 1989 was apparently $76,500. The estimate this year is $148,500, which is about a 100 percent increase in estimated costs for your wall. Miss Hart, anything else?
My name is John Carter, and I'm representing the 5900 block of Woodcrest Avenue. I've contracted your office before, Mr. Nutter, about the problem we had repairing a spot 246 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 in the driveway, which PGA had dug up previously,.
They had repaired part of a -- repaired a pipe in the driveway, they filled it with blacktop, and over the years, that sunk in. Well, anyway, that problem was taken care of. And the only thing I'd like to say now is, we have other problems in the driveway that we've been trying to correct and contacted your office to get some kind of -- exactly what are the standards that you go by, you know, as far as repairing the driveway, whether you have to use blacktop, cement or whatever, and what depth, you know, that the concrete should be. And that's a problem we have, as far as getting any kind of specifications. I did get some reply from the office -- from the Streets Department about some specifications. And the other thing is getting a 247 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 contractor to adhere to those specifications. A lot of contractors come out and they say they want to do it a certain way and, you know, their way is the only way. And the other thing is getting the people in the neighborhood to agree on who's responsible. You know, if you don't -- if my driveway is okay and the back of my house, a lot of people say, There's nothing wrong with my driveway, you know.
Right. They're not dealing with the fact that whatever that problem is at the upper end or the lower end or in the middle, it's going to spend and eventually affect them.
Yes, yes. And people are willing to undertake the responsibility to get it done and other people are not. And, you know, we do need help with this problem. And even if it's just to set the guidelines as to how you go about it and what is accepted and what is not. 248 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
When we have Mr. Lonie back up, I'm going to ask him about that. And if you're able to stay, I'm sure that he can give us the answer, and we do expect people to adhere, when they do the work, to certain guidelines, and that's the permit that they would get, but we'll go through all of that with Mr. Lonie.
My name is John Teague. And I'm President of Central Manayunk Council, and I'd like to thank Councilman Nutter and all members of Council for allowing me the opportunity to present testimony with reference to Resolution 19 41. On behalf of the Manayunk community, I am humbly requesting that you give Councilman Nutter your full support on this proposed amendment to the City ordinance that pertains to alleys, driveways, and retaining walls. It is my understanding that currently, repair and 249 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 maintenance of the above-mentioned infrastructures is the sole responsibility of the homeowner if their property is abutted or, for lack of a better word, connected to an alley, driveway, or a retaining wall. Although downtown Manayunk is a successful model for the region in urban economic development and the home of many new buildings, the surrounding residential community has not been maintained in some areas since its conception, in the late 1800s to the early 1900s. Simply put, my community is very old. In the near future, Central Manayunk Council will submit a small list of alleys, driveways, and retaining walls to the office of Councilman Nutter that are in need of repair and require the attention of the Streets Department. Three retaining walls in particular that require repairs for many years are now in jeopardy of causing harm to school children and the general public. There is a retaining wall that extends from Tower Street and Lyceum Avenue to Fleming Street and Lyceum Avenue that is already crumbling 250 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 in some locations. This wall extends approximately 30 feet high above the sidewalk. Lyceum Avenue is better known as "the Manayunk Wall." Wall number two is immediately around the corner from Lyceum Avenue and is located between two elementary schools on Silverwood Street between Lyceum/Levering and Graves Street. Many school children lean and huddle along this wall, unaware of the potential danger. The other wall that has raised concern is the wall that divides Main Street and Ridge Avenue, located on the 3800 block of Main Street. When driving by this wall, it is clear to see that other people -- that others are also concerned because they made a haphazard attempt to make some repairs. This wall also supports the sidewalk and the street, and the deterioration continues due to the rain water erosion. To continue to place large unforeseen public structure responsibilities on everyday working families, the taxpayer, is unfair. A large majority of families in Manayunk and in other sections of the City are working 60 or more 251 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 hours a week just to make ends meet and cannot afford added such an financial burden. I am confident that you will do the right thing and give break to the little guy and work with Councilman Nutter on this very important issue. Thank you.
First of all, my name is Earl Grant, and I am representing the 5300 block of Sydenham Street.
And before you get started, Mr. Grant, is Mr. Donald Green here, Mr. James Grant or Mr. Neal Parnell? (No response.)
Okay, please 252 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 proceed.
First I want to read a letter from my block captain that she wrote to -- Miss Brenda Kaiser (ph.).
To City Council. The concerned neighbors of the 5300 of Sydenham Street in the 5300 block of 15th Street have been tapped with a major problem. We have been faced with the repair of a retaining wall for the past about 12 years ago or more, okay? 13 During those years, Councilman David 14 Cohen put forth an effort to help us resolve this 15 problem. At that time, it wasn't clear who was responsible. Therefore, nothing was done. It is my understanding that there is a file in City Hall concerning this problem. This wall has become very dangerous and there are two large trees growing beneath it, and the wall is falling down. There's a driveway above and below it. Due to this problem, the trash collectors will no longer pick up track in the driveway. On the 29th of February, the wall collapsed again. The impact was so great that it 253 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 shook the homes. This would have been a tragedy if someone were walking by or if a child was playing the area, as they often do. If you recall last year, at 33rd and Diamond, there was a tragic and fatal accident which took the life of a little boy, due to a damaged retainer wall. We would not like for history to repeat itself and take the life of another person. The City once served notice, on May 19, 1998, that each home would be charged a large sum of money to rebuild the wall, then later we were told at a town meeting that we should get a private contractor to do the work. We discovered that no private contractor was willing to give an estimate because of the difficulty in collecting from individual homeowners. This leads us back to you. We are seeking some type of point financial assistance where each homeowner will be held liable -- or a supplement that will help us defray the cost. Approximately two years ago, we received an estimate from a private contractor in the amount of $51,488. 254 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 This is blight on our neighborhood. We need your help. And it's signed by Block Captain Brenda Kaiser. Council, I just have a couple of statements that I would like to make on behalf my block.
Now, we had a local television station that came out, Channel 61. They came to our community last summer and they taped a half-hour segment. That segment is available from Councilwoman Reed's office. We have it on video that shows very graphically the problem that we are having with this wall. There are certain things that were brought out and were made public and were made known to the interviewer, Miss Carolyn Pugh, okay. Case in point: if we have a major fire in the community whereas if a fire truck needs to come down in that driveway, they can not do so. As Brenda's letter so eloquently mentioned, also the trash collection, they will not come out of danger or harm to themselves. 255 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
They have changed it to front, okay. And that, to me, is only putting a Band-Aid on a severe wound.
It's a clear indication that there's a problem, and it's not the sanitation side of the house, it's really not their issue; their responsibility is to try to pick up your track. If they can't do it in the back, they just say, Let's do it in the front. I mean, it's of no interest to you as which part of the government has any responsibility but, I mean, they solved their problem for the time being, which does nothing for you.
This is exactly true. I talked to a repeat neighbor who just moved into the community, and I asked her very specifically, did the Realtor mention that wall as a part of the sales pitch? The Realtor said, and I quote, "That is not your problem." I said to her, Well, it is going to be your problem.
It is absolutely 256 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 her problem.
Okay. So -- but my point is that Realtors are telling people, because they know this is a genuine problem when it comes to try and sell these homes, that this not their problem. Then people will come in and find out that this is they problem. On the subject of real estate, as you know, this does bring down the value of a property, because who wants to look out their back window and see a 30-some-odd foot retaining wall that's collapsing right before their eyes. Now, this retaining walls runs the entire length of the back of my home. I live on the 5300 block of Sydenham Street. It's at least a 20-foot high wall that provides for the foundation of the 15th Street side. Their driveway is actually supported by this retaining wall. And in two locations that this wall has fell, it looks like actually a cave. That's how large of an opening it is.
You've got a 257 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 high-low situation.
Yes, sir. Okay, and what has happened is, these large stone structures, when the wall was constructed over 50 years ago, they were constructed, I believe, erroneously inasmuch as that the base of the wall did not have a place for water to escape. And in doing so, the trees took root. And, as you know, you cannot hold back these trees, and they actually push the wall out, and the wall actually collapsed. And you can see this large, I would say, 8- to 10-inch trunks that are actually going beneath this driveway. It is a real, real problem. It's a problem with children that have taken up to climbing up, thinking this is an area to play. I've chased them from there myself many, many, many times. It's a problem with people who decide to throw their trash there because they think we don't care -- when, in fact, just by evidence of all the testimony that has been before you today, sir, we do care. And we will take responsible action as we can but, you know, our numbers are few and the task is large. 258 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 And, you know, if we go back to just looking at Mr. Street's campaign to remove blight, sir, just to coin a phrase: If we have blight, it ain't right. It's the only way that we're going to -- we got to fix this. We got to bring the focus back to the neighborhoods.
I need you to say that again for the record, make sure we get that right.
Okay, sir. Not to take anything away from Mr. Cochran. You know, we've heard it all today. We've heard it from every neighborhood in your community. As the Streets Department has put forth a very good map and I would like to have a copy of this to see how big the problem is, but it's a real problem. And we as individuals do not have the resources, do not have the manpower, do not have the ability, if you will, to fix this as individuals. So, therefore, we come before our 259 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 government to give us some assistance.
Mr. Grant, one, thank you very much for your testimony. It has been right on point. Two, in any of our discussions with the neighbors, similar to some of the other neighborhoods that have testified, has there ever been discussion about some level of partial payment by the neighbors with obviously some significant City support? And if you had that discussion, can you tell us a little bit as to what the reaction was?
We've had several discussions, Councilman Nutter. The subject has always come up and, as you heard in earlier testimony, it always starts at a relatively smaller amount. I believe when I first started hearing about the discussion, it only worked out to about $1,000 a home, if every home contributed. That price is probably closer to $2,000 a home now if every home contributes. We do not have 100 percent participation. We've heard all the stories that that's not my problem, that's not my wall, that belongs to the City. I've heard it all, to the 260 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 point where I don't use that driveway. I use the argument of saying, if you have a fire or a medical emergency and that's the only path they have to get to you, how are they going to do that?
And, you know, we think this is a problem that needs to be addressed.
Now, I remember being in that driveway -- did you say 15 years ago? It was many years ago.
Yes, sir. Yes, sir. We've met with you on this, I would say, years ago. 20
There was a storm when the first wall fell. I was in my back bedroom, and the storm had still been going on. 'Cause at one time, along with this particular retaining wall, 261 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 someone put double courses of cinder blocks across the top of it, I guess, to reinforce it. It's only cosmetic, it did nothing to reinforce the wall. The wall is still deteriorating.
Right. Thank you very much. Thank you. Mr. Lonie? (Mr. Lonie returns to witness table.)
Mr. Chairman, before we have Mr. Lonie on, I would like to have some documents entered into the record as if they had been read. First is a letter from Carolyn Sutton, 3429 West Penn Street. That's a letter that's been distributed. I'd like to give that to the stenographer to add to the record. (Sutton letter attached hereto.)
In addition, there are some letters and written testimony on retaining from Miss Tameka Jones, 5791 Hunter Street; Miss Jane Glenn, President, Manayunk Neighborhood Council; Mr. John Teague, who did in fact testify, from Central Manayunk Council. With regard to driveways: E. Younger-Bagby, 2639 West Westmoreland Street; 262 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 Mr. Dennis L. Moore, Democratic Committee Person, 38th Ward, 2nd Division, regarding the 3300 block of Fox, the 3200 block of Bailey, the 2600 block of West Westmoreland; and Mr. John Altomare, the 4100 block of Merrick Street. I'd like to have all of those added to the record, Mr. Chairman. (All above-noted correspondence attached hereto.)
Could you share with us, when the Streets Department did do this kind of work in the past and, again, we let a contract and there was no City money put into this; is that the way it worked?
Okay. Has there ever been a time when there was City money?
Not that I'm aware of, not for this type of -- again, the only time you would 263 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 have any type of City money involved is if this was -- and there was one that I sort of remember because -- and it really wasn't the City, it was the School District, where you had the schools on one side of the whole thing, and they had agreed to pave over wall if the adjoining people paid for the driveway.
Okay. Let me ask you this question. Based on your experience, as well as the legal memorandum, can you tell us what information you may have about the prospect of either City capital dollars, community block grant development funds, or any special assessment that could be made over some relatively short period of time where the City, in conjunction with the Board of Revision of Taxes, and/or the Revenue Department May, might be able to add a special level of assessment to the neighbors for their real-estate taxes in order to get the repayment over some period of time?
Right. Well, let me answer that, then I'll get to Councilman Cohen's question. I think there's a lot of things we can 264 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 do. I think if we put our heads together as a city government that there are grant programs and different things like that that could be put back. We could start some type of a revolving fund where some community grant money could be used to start with. We would have to initiate a system of collecting bills over a longer period of time. If that came back in, that could refurbish the fund. How much money was left in the fund would be how much we could dole out the next year. The one thing with that, and I just want to warn Council, and hopefully I'll be back here in the spring with some of this legislation, is that if we use anything except assessment bills, there's a little caveat in the Code that if we do not use assessment bills for the abatement of this nuisance, every one requires an ordinance 19 of Council. So I will be coming back here asking for Council, if we do --
The abatement process. If we use anything other than assessment bills, which are made out in favor of the homeowner or to the 265 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 contractor, it requires an ordinance of Council. So if we go against the thing, if we just say, Okay, we're not going to pay any money or we're not going to administer this fund, then we're still going to have to come back to Council to get their permission, so it's going to be your decision, which of these driveways and different things get done.
Okay. And on that particular point, if you could forward to the Chair a rather detailed memo explaining the particulars of what you've laid out and what the different scenarios are, that would be helpful, and what the particular Code section is that you're referring to.
Mr. Lonie, why can't we reinstate the system that existed up until it was discontinued in 1980? Not every -- not every homeowner needs the City to take over the financial responsibility. Those that do ought to be helped by the City. But take the Woodcrest Avenue block, which was mentioned before by Mr. Bradley who, I think, represented them. He stated his community 266 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 basically was able to pay for it. Now, the need here is not just money; the need is, how do you get a community together? When it comes to expenditures of money, it is very difficult -- in fact, it's impossible for the community to have any effective way of bringing everybody into the ballgame. And the only way you get everybody into the ballgame is the way the City used to do it: they would send out the Health Inspector, who would then give a recommendation, which would cause the condemnation. Everybody would get a notice that they had to fix it up, and then the City put out an advertisement, you know, put out an RFP and handed out a contract. The problem was on the payment. I think that's an area where the City can take over the responsibility. Why couldn't a system work in which we went back to the old method?
And then -- wait, let me finish -- I'm just getting rid of this luncheon bag. We go back to the old method, and the 267 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 City enter into a contract in which the City pays the contractor. Therefore, you're not going to have to have inflated bills, and people owe the City the money, and the City puts a lien on their house if they don't pay it. That's what happens, say, if you demolish a house. What's wrong with that? Most of the people, where they can pay, will enter into an agreement to pay the City, just as they entered into an agreement to pay the contractor. That would limit the City's liability, it would take care of the contractor's concerns about not getting paid, and the City might get some contractors to apply.
I agree 100 percent, but we need -- as I discussed with Councilman Nutter, we need to prime the pump, we need to isolate funds that should be used legally, outside of the operational funds. But if we could isolate funds to get this program started so that then you would get the tax bills going, that's what we have to do. That's what this Council is charged with doing.
Well, I don't know 268 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 why we have to isolate funds any more than we isolate funds for the Police Department.
Because that's for the public benefit. This is still private property.
Oh, I think the City faces enormous liability here. I think anybody who got hurt in a driveway accident as a result of tripping over the broken-up pavement or had got injuries from retaining walls, they would have a perfect case again the City.
Oh, I think the Law Department is dead wrong on that. The City has the responsibility to guarantee the safety and the health of people. Where there are imminently dangerous circumstances -- and many of these driveways have already been officially declared dangerous -- the City is negligent in not proceeding to correct the condition. The City has a method of correcting conditions. We do it all the time with the demolishing of houses, we do that all the time. I don't see anything different here. The City knows 269 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 of dangerous situations that exist in the City and does nothing about 'em? The City has -- and I don't think we ought to face that kind of responsibility.
Well, again, that's a decision of how we deal with these driveways that really should be left up to the elected officials of this city. And if the elected officials of this city say to us, Go find the driveways, go find the walls, serve the notices on the people and somehow get it done, we'll do it, but that's not what we were told before. We were told that no, it's too expensive, let the people have a choice, let the people say whether they want to have it done or not, let them decide whether it's safe.
Councilman, it's usually type of moment that you would normally call for the resignation of everyone in the Law Department. Do you want to take advantage of that opportunity right now? (Laughter.)
They find dangers everywhere, and I don't understand why they don't 270 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 find a danger here.
Mr. Lonie, hold on for one second. I need to recognize a group of my constituents from Haddington Lane. And I need to ask, do you want to put any information on the record? It was my mistake to call up Mr. Lonie at the time I did 'cause we had had some conversation over there -- don't go anywhere Mr. Lonie. Madam, do you want to tell us anything about your situation? (Witnesses come forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and just tell us a little bit about your situation.
My name is Lucille Tendle (ph.), and I'm the block captain of the 5700 block of Haddington Lane. And the problem -- our problem is -- I know this about the driveways and retaining walls, but we had our driveway done about ten years ago, on the north side of Haddington Lane. On the south side of Haddington Lane, there's Stowe (ph.) 271 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 Street, and Stowe Street have a fence around their yards, but they come out in our driveway, which is a private driveway because we have to pay for that driveway. And the kids come up there and the parent allow them to come out, and it just destroy -- they destroy stuff and like that, and we don't want that. So this is our problem. We wonder what can be done about this.
Ma'am, what I'd like to suggest to you is, there's a very nice young man right behind the rail there, a very young-looking guy -- not as young as he looks, but he's young-looking nonetheless. He's John Gallagher, he's a special assistant to Police Commissioner Timoney. And I'd like you to mention in a private conversation all of the particulars of the problem that you're having back in that driveway area and see if there are any things that we can do with regard to the basketball playing and some of the other activity going on out there, okay? And we'd like to help you with that, 'cause you had your driveway repaired; is that 272 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 correct?
I don't have the exact figure. It was about ten years ago. It's not cement.
Oh, sure, I'm sure. None of those materials last forever, but I believe it's a little cheaper with the asphalt and you can repair it a lot quicker than -- as compared to the concrete. But he's right there, back behind you, and why don't you talk to him about those enforcement issues that you're having back in that area.
Thanks for coming up. Mr. Lonie, Councilman Clarke has a question. 273 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
Thank you, Councilman. Mr. Lonie, as I look at that map that you have up, I don't see maybe but three or four dots in my 5th District, and I'm going to try and see if I can create some more dots in the 5th District. There's a development called "People's Village" east of Broad, around 13th, 10th, just above Temple University, just above Diamond Street. Actually, my State Senator lives there. And for a period of years, they have been having a problem not with driveways, but there are several parking lots that were built when the development was built there, I believe, years ago. And it 17 wasn't clear at the time as to who was responsible 18 for the maintenance of the driveways. You know, 19 people just kind of purchased the homes and had 20 their off-street parking and it wasn't explained 21 to them that this was not public property, what 22 would happen 10, 15 years ago down the line. 23 And around 10, 15 years ago, these 24 driveways started sinking, and they've sunk to the 25 point where you can no longer utilize them. And 274 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 as I'm listening to the discussion, it kind of seems relatively similar to the issues about the driveways and the retaining walls, although they're not public property, they were built for the public good, and that those individuals are members of the public and have off-street parking. And we can't get a resolution. We attempted to get the City to get involved on several occasions, and they basically said that that's private property. When we asked them to specify whose private property as it related to the individual homeowner, no one could ever come up with a resolution to that because the way it was configured, the parking lots weren't necessarily adjacent to any particular homeowner, so we could never really get a sense of who was responsible. In this particular issue, can you kind of give me a sense of how we may be able to resolve that? And I heard you talk earlier about some long-term strategies in terms of assessments to owners of real estate and all.
The first thing that would 275 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 have to be done would -- probably the district surveyor and regulator would have to look into who's responsible. I mean, it is their job to look at it and say who would be assessed for the driveway. And, so, if you could let me know specifically where they are, the surveyor and regulator -- is that south of Susquehannah?
Just south. Actually, Susquehannah is the northernmost border and Diamond Street is the southernmost.
So that would be the 3rd Survey District. The district regulator would give you a full report on exactly who would be assessed. We used to make something called "registered owners plans" when we'd get a request for a driveway. And what that would be would be the driveway in question, and it would be a minor plan that would basically show who would be responsible for what. And, again, now if this was something that was taken by the Housing Authority, then it's still their responsibility.
No, no, it's a private home ownership development, actually, not 276 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 the Housing Authority.
This was a development that was built years ago, they sold 7 the homes to the individuals, but there are, like, 8 I think, 7 or 8 parking lots throughout the 9 development complex, but no one was given specific 10 information in terms of who owned the parking 11 lot. 12
I understand. I worked on 13 a similar development just off of Roosevelt 14 Boulevard, around St. Luke's Street, that has a 15 very similar type of thing. And I remember 16 specifically that that ground was designated by 17 parking to the individual -- to the -- I guess it 18 was the homeowners association or whatever. 19 I think we need to talk about that, 20 though. Why don't you let me know, and I'll stop 21 over and get the outline of exactly what it is, 22 and we'll look into all of those issues. 23
Thank you, 277 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 Councilman. Mr. Lonie, what I want to ask at this point -- and I need to ask the Chairman's indulgence. We're about to wrap this up, but there are obviously still some questions that need to be answered, things like standards. You heard from one of my constituents asking about standards for repair and how to ensure that the contractors adhere to the standards, whatever they may be, whether it's two inches of asphalt on top of concrete or take out the first two inches and create a base and all of those kinds of issues. What I would like to ask you to do and what I will be asking my colleagues who are members of the committee, through the Chairman, is if the Committee on Streets and Services would actually consider adopting a motion requesting that a study group be put together of the Streets Department, the Law Department, probably the City Planning Commission, the Finance Department, and possible OHCD, or any other agencies that are appropriate in dealing with this particular issue, and come back to this particular committee for then Council's consideration a program to deal 278 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 with these types of problems, lay out what all of the legal issues are, and then basically how we respond to those legal issues, the funding opportunities that may be available, or any creative funding sources that can be developed among study group members, and then lay out potential a timetable for responding to driveway work as well as retaining wall work, and show us over what period of time it would take to get significant completion of what you have laid out. For the tremendous work that the Streets Department has done on this, I'd like to thank you and commend you for that. And, Mr. Chairman, I know that it's been rather long, but I would ask that that type of motion be made at the appropriate time, to have the Streets Department then in a position and the Commissioner and Mr. Lonie to have a directive, if you will, from this committee to take certain action and to study certain things in order to broken back maybe in about three months or so the kind of information that we're talking about, but that their work is geared toward trying to solve a problem, not just to reiterate what the problems 279 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 are and what the challenges are and why we can't do something, but that how we can do something, having taken the appropriate amount of time to study this particular issue.
I would think that we probably have some foundation to begin to do these things. As I was suggesting earlier, I know sometimes when there's street reconstruction that goes on and there are lateral conditions that may require a homeowner who does not have the wherewithal to pay for those laterals, there's accommodation that are made for payout, so that's just one component of this entire study, I think. So we do have some creative ways of doing things already in place, so it shouldn't take, I don't think, that much time. Do you think three months, Mr. Lonie, would be --
I'll be here all summer. We could meet in August, I don't mind.
I have telecommunications. I met with them a couple years ago all summer long, but whatever it takes. Thank you. 280 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 We'll make that recommendation at the appropriate time, Councilman.
And I think this study is an excellent idea, if it's done quickly. And please understand, in my judgment, it is not very much a money matter; it is much more the fact that there is no way practical way that anybody has found to get a group of homeowners, or any other group of people, to decide to spend money. That's where government comes in. There is a perfect technique because we're trying to deal with public safety. We have the power as a city to condemn the property and then to require everybody to make an appropriate payment. Now, there will be cases where payment is not possible. Or where maybe partial payment is possible, but there aren't areas where the community is prepared to pay. Some of these speakers that were here were involved in trying to get the community together. In the past, the City discouraged them, the City did nothing to make it possible for contractors to carry out the work because the contractors were not money-collectors. 281 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041
And I think you have enough talent to work out methods first to maybe put a program into effect wherever it can be done, without large expenditures of money, you know, for those homeowners, but the City there would have to provide a contractor with the assurance that he's going to get paid. I think there can be some pretty creative ideas on doing that. So we're not necessarily talking about the $78 million that you talked about. It may be a very small sum. It may be even that for those homeowners who cannot afford to pay, maybe we can work out a method like a little neighborhood TIF so that taxes that people pay in the community go toward the payment, you know, of fixing the driveways. You know, we can use creativity. What I'm suggesting is, you ought to be able to come forth with a very workable program that offers assistance to people in the neighborhoods. It's the neighborhoods mostly that need this that are currently very stable, viable neighborhoods. That are being threatened with blight. Let's not wait until blight comes before 282 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - RES. 000041 we help the neighbors.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, could I ask one thing? Mr. Chairman, one question. As part of that study group, I really would feel comfortable, and I think it's very important that representatives -- not necessarily the Councilpeople themselves, but maybe staff from some of the Councilmatic offices could be on that study. I think that would help my efforts out a great deal.
Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, this concludes the public hearing on the Committee on Streets and Services. We will now move into the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember 283 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 000220.
So noted. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Ortiz for a motion on Resolution No. 000041.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution No. 41 be approved by this committee and that the recommendations of this committee be enforced? (Councilmembers Ortiz and DiCicco confer off-record.)
The committees on Streets and Services thereby will convene a committee, a task force of the Streets and Services Committee and any other City departments as deemed necessary. The committee will report back to the Streets and Services Committee for approval of its report and at that point -- September 30th, and at that point, action will be taken.
Thank you. Is there a second? (Duly seconded.) 284 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING
It's been properly moved and seconded that a task force by the Streets and Services Committee be convened to report back to this committee on Resolution No. 41 by September 30th of this year. All those in favor of the motion signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Ortiz for a motion on Bill No.'s 000279, 000281, 000339, and 000340.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the Committee on Streets and Services move out of committee with a favorable recommendations Bills No. 279, 281, 339, and 340, with a request for a suspension of the rules so as to have first reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bills No. 000279, 000281, 000339, and 000340 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit 285 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING first reading at our next session of City Council. All those in favor signify by saying aye. Those opened? The bills are approved.
Now, Bills No. 8 000358 and 000359 will be held to the call of the Chair. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Ortiz for a motion on Bill No. 000360, 000361, 000362, 000363, 000364, 000365, 000366, 000367, 000368, 000369, 000372, 000373, 000374, 000394, 000396, 000399, and 000400.
Okay, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 372, 373, 374, 394, 396, 399, and 400 be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading in the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No.'s 360, 361, 362, 363, 364, 365, 366, 367, 368, 369, 372, 373, 374, 286 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING 394, 396, 399, and 400 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of those bills will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? Those bills are approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 12 000401.
It's been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 18 401 be approved. All those in favor of the amendment signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The amendment's approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ortiz for a motion on Bill No. 401, as amended.
Mr. Chairman, I move 287 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING that Bill 401, as amended, be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading in the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 401, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading in the next session of City Council. All those in favor, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill passes. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Ortiz.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 402, 403, 405, 406, 409, 410, 411, and 415, be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit reading at the next session of City Council. 288 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 402, 403, 405, 406, 409, 410, 411, and 415 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council suspended so as to permit first reading in the next session of City Council. All those in favor of the bills will signify by saying aye. Those opposed. The bills are approved. This concludes the public meeting on Streets and Services and I thank all for attending. - - -
The Committee on Streets and Services is reconvening for the purpose of motions on Bills No. 000121 and 000218. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Ortiz.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 121 and 218 be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a 289 6/12/00 STREETS, SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit reading at the next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 121 and Bill No. 8 218 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council suspended so as to permit first reading in the next session of City Council. All those in favor of the bill will signify by saying aye. Those opposed. The bills are approved. Thank you, gentlemen, for waiting. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee on Streets and Services. (Adjourned at 2:45 p.m.) - - - 290 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 Monday, June 12, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES RES. NO.: 000041 BILLS NO.: 000220, 000279, 000281, 000339, 000340, 000358, 000359, 000360, 000361, 000362, 000363, 000364, 000365, 000366, 000367, 000368, 000369, 000372, 000373, 000374, 000394, 000396, 000399, 000400, 000401, 000402, 000403, 000405, 000406, 000409, 000410, 000411, 000415 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter