m. - - - BILL 000658 - Re Sidewalk Sales (vending). BILL 010065 - Striking portion of 13th Street. BILL 010066 - Extend compliance time of ordinance. BILL 010128, 130 (Companions) Re 7 new streets. BILL 010230 - Withdrawn. BILL 010234 - Withdrawn. BILL 010267 - No-truck-parking on Lancaster Ave. BILL 010268 - Adopt resolution vacating River Road. BILL 010336 - Re PF. Net, Inc. Telecommunications. BILL 010339 - Vacating of Byberry and Bensalem Rd. BILL 010342 - Water service to 4 East Sunset Ave. BILL 010343 - Strike 17 streets from City Plan. BILL 010344 - Vacate portion of Latimer Street. BILL 010345 - Re Global Crossing Local Services BILL 010346 - Re concrete planters on Arch Street. BILL 010350 - Re curb line of Arch Street. ) - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. ) BILL 010370 - Re new sidewalk cafe - Oregon Ave. BILL 010375 - Re new Starbuck's Coffee cafe. BILL 010376 - Re curb lines of Spruce Street. BILL 010377 - Vacating Clarkson Avenue. BILL 010379 - Vacating portion of Lancaster Avenue. BILL 010380 - Revise curb lines, Schoolhouse Lane. BILL 010381 - Building addition on 57th St. footway BILL 010383 - Re southerly curb line, Race Street. BILL 010384 - Strike from City Plan Willard Street. BILL 010385, 386 - (Companions) Re Sunesys Inc. BILL 010387 - Re GPU Telecom Services Inc. BILL 010388 - Re CTSI Incorporated. BILL 010389 - Strike portion of Germantown Avenue. BILL 010390 - Re paving of Latimer Street. BILL 010391 - Re Williams Communications LLC. BILL 010395 - Meridian Partners bldg. encroachment. BILL 010396 - Construct electrified marquees. BILL 010397 - Re WXII/PHL Real Estate Ltd. Part. BILL 010398, 399, 400 - Companions - SAS-1600 Arch. ) 3 6/5/01 - COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES I N D E X Bill No. 010267 Charles Denny, Streets Dept. . . . . 5 Bill No. 010065 6 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 7 Bill No. 010066 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 8 Judith Robinson, Concerned Citizen. . . 13 9 Bill No. 010128, 130 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 17 10 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 18 11 Bill No. 010268 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 20 12 Bill No. 010339 13 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 21 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 21 Bill No. 010343 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 23 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 23 Bill No. 010344 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 24 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 25 Bill No. 010350 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 26 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 26 Bill No. 010376 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 27 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 28 Bill No. 010377 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 29 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 30 Edward Turzanski, LaSalle University. . . ) Bill No. 010379 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 36 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 36 Bill No. 010380 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 39 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 39 Michael Baylor, Esq. . . . . . . 40 Bill No. 010383 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 53 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 54 Bill No. 010384 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 59 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 60 Katherine Levins, Temple Univ. Health System 60 Bill No. 010389 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 62 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission. . . 62 Bill No. 010390 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 63 Bill No. 010394 Paul Lonie, Streets Dept. . . . . . 64 Bill No. 010230 Kent Miller, Owner of 4 Sunset Road . . . 66 Bill No. 010342 Kent Miller, Owner of 4 Sunset Road . . . 67 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 68 Bill No.
010346 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 66 Bill No. 010370 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 72 Bill No. 010375 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . ) Bill No. 010381 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 77 Bill No. 010395 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 79 Bill No. 010396 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 79 Bill No. 010398, 010399, 010400 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 82 Bill No. , Licenses and Inspections 85 Jerome Balka, Esquire . . . . . . 90 United States Vendors of Philadelphia Al Taubenberger, President. . . . . 101 Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce Noel Perloff, Owner, Country Club Restaurant 103 on Cottman Avenue Bill No. 010336 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . Net. . 137 Charles Hart, Project Manager . . . . 137 Bill No. 010345 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 138 Bill No. 010385 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 141 Bill No. 010386 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 141 Bill No. 010387 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 143 Carl Primavera, Esq. . . . . . . 145 Bill No. 010388 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . ) Bill No. 010391 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 149 Charles Naselsky, Williams Communications . 151 Valerie McCaw, Williams Communications. . 151 Bill No. 010393 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 152 Bill No. 010234, 010397 Peter Kelsen, for Archon Group. . . . 155 Nancy Sen, Streets Department . . . . 155 7 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010267 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Streets and Services. We have a quorum here with Councilmembers Rizzo, Ortiz, Clarke, and including myself. We have a lot of bills today and we won't necessarily adhere to the order of the bills as they're listed on the public notice because we find that when we choose those bills off the list to go first that may not have any opposition or just a brief introduction and brief testimony, we get through the list a lot quicker. So with that, the clerk will read the title of the first bill to be heard.
Bill No. 010267, an ordinance establishing a no-truck-parking regulation on Lancaster Avenue, from 52nd Street to 63rd Street, both sides.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. My name is Charles Denny, the Assistant Chief Traffic Engineer, 8 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010267 Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill 3 010267. The Streets Department has no objections to this bill. We do recommend that regulations be imposed under a trial ordinance and a hearing can be held in six months, and the area residents and businesses would have an opportunity to comment on this regulation at that time after seeing how the regulation operates. The actual test of the posting will be no tractor-trailer or truck parking at any time. We can have the signs posted within four weeks with Councilman Nutter's approval.
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a brief testimony.
Absolutely. With regard to Lancaster Avenue, one -- thank you, Mr. Chairman -- how long will it take to get the signs up once the bill is approved? 9 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010267
We could do this under a trial ordinance and feel we can have it up in four weeks, approximately four weeks.
We have to make the signs and make sure we have all the poles we need out there.
If you could expedite that, it would be greatly appreciate that, and until we have signage, we can't get enforcement from the police department. So is it just a sheer production problem? Why does it take four weeks to make a note tractor-trailer sign?
We have to write work orders and get approval for erections of any poles. We're going to try and do it in four weeks. We'll see if we can get it done quicker.
Thank you. The clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010065, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 10 No. 990337) approved July 1, 1999, authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 207 by striking from the City Plan and vacating 13th Street from Wagner Street southwardly to a SEPTA right-of-way and by striking from the City Plan Duncannon Avenue from Wagner Street to 13th Street, under certain terms and conditions, by extending the period for compliance with the authorization conditions therein.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Lonie. Would you please identify yourself for the record.
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 11 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010065 offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010065: This is not an Administration ordinance 4 but an ordinance requested by Reverend Harry B. Steward of the Fair Havens Baptist Church. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the compliance time for an ordinance approved July 1, 1999. The purpose of that ordinance was to legally close 13th Street to allow an expansion of the church. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wish to see testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010066, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 24 No. 980717) approved March 23, 1999, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and 12 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010066 grades on portion of City Plan No. 128 of an area bounded by Cambria Street, 19th Street, Indiana Avenue, and 17th Street, by striking from the City Plan and vacating 18th Street from Cambria Street to Indiana Avenue, and reserving and placing on the City Plan a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes, under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the authorization conditions therein.
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 Bill No. 010066: This is not an Administration ordinance 18 but an ordinance requested by Larry Anthonsen, President of Concord Products Company, 1951 South Broadway, Camden, New Jersey. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the compliance time for an ordinance approved March 23, 1999. The purpose of that ordinance was to legally close 18th Street to secure a site for the proposed new manufacturing facility for Concord Products. 13 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010066 This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Ma'am, would you please approach the witness table and identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Judith Robinson. I guess it's not so much testimony as 14 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010066 questions that I have to be answered. In this same perimeter is a prison that the community was really not given as much information as we think we should have on it so I thought that possibly I could get some information here as to whether this changing of the street, etc., was in relationship somehow to that prison being there. So if I could ask this gentleman if he knows anything about that?
I'm not -- I don't think that this bill has anything really to do with that but, Mr. Lonie, could you shed some light on that?
Absolutely. The prison is located approximately two blocks, I think --
It's at 17th, so one block over. This has absolutely nothing to do with the prison at all. What we originally requested was that -- there's apparently a vandalism problem in that street and the only thing that's there are three factories now, I believe -- Concord Products and a 15 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010066 theatrical design firm. The only reason they had asked to close this street was to secure parking for their employees in the beds of the street. All they had planned to do was basically put a gate across the ends of the streets and not really have anything to do with anything else. And I think if, you know, you have questions, Mr. Anthonsen is in the building on the east side of 18th Street up at the north end there, and that's Concord Products. You can go and ask him anything. I mean, he's the one that started this, and whether this is actually going to go through, I'm not really sure because they're having trouble getting agreements from even the neighbors there.
Okay. I think maybe that's the reason why, because the neighbors are concerned that they aren't getting full disclosure. So I hope I didn't digress too far from what your hearing is about today, but it's unfortunate that some folks aren't represented as others and we have to come to a public hearing to get information, but I appreciate the time.
Well, you called my office earlier today? 16 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010066
And I apologize that I wasn't able the get back to you. My chief of staff said she did speak with you.
Excuse me. Let the record reflect that Councilman Cohen is here, I think, for this meeting. I know he's lobbying for another bill, but I believe he's a part of this committee as well. Thank you.
Bill No. 010128, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on portion of City Plan No. 319 of an area bounded by Rhawn Street, Dorcas Street and the New York Shortline Railroad by striking from the City Plan and vacating portions of Stanwood Street, 17 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010128, 130 Pennway Street, and Solly Avenue; by placing on the City Plan Meadow Brook Drive, Peach Tree Lane, Apple Blossom Way, Cherry Blossom Way, Apple Blossom Drive, Rose Petal Way, and Rose Petal Drive, and by placing on the City Plan two rights-of-way for drainage purposes, all under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication of the City free and clear of all encumbrances of the beds of Meadow Brook Drive, Peach Tree lane, Apple Blossom Way, Cherry Blossom Way, Apple Blossom Drive, Rose Petal Way, and Rose Petal Drive. And companion bill, Bill No. 010130, an ordinance authorizing the paving of Meadow Brook Drive, Peach Tree Lane, Apple Blossom Way, Cherry Blossom Way, Apple Blossom Drive, Rose Petal Way, and Rose Petal Drive, under certain terms and conditions.
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 Bill No. 010128: This is not an Administration ordinance 25 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Bienenfeld, 18 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010128, 130 Champion Development Corporation, 828 Red Lion Road, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to add seven new streets to the City Plan to allow for the construction of 85 detached single-family dwellings on 87 lots. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action. Concerning Bill No. 010130, this is not an Administration ordinance but an ordinance 11 requested, again, by Mr. Jack Bienenfeld of Champion Development. The purpose of this ordinance permit the Streets Department to enter into a private paving agreement with the developer to pave the streets to allow for construction. This ordinance 16 is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Planning Commission. The placing of these new streets will allow for the construction of 85 single-family detached dwellings. The Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat of the subdivision on 19 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010128, 130 November 2, 2000. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends approval of Bill No. 010128. Thank you.
Any question for this witness? Councilman O'Neill, do you have anything? Councilman O'Neill, do you wish to speak on this bill or no?
As far as I'm concerned, everything's been worked out and ready to move it and suspend the rules. Thank you.
Thank you. And how many new homes are being built there?
85, thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010268, an 20 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010268 ordinance authorizing the Board of Surveyors to adopt a resolution vacating River Road from a point approximately ten feet southwest of the Philadelphia and Montgomery County line, northeastwardly to the Philadelphia and Montgomery County line.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010268. This is an Administration ordinance 13 requested by the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to grant the legal authority to vacate a portion of River Road to allow for physical closing of the roadway. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 21 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010339 clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010339, an ordinance authorizing the vacating of Byberry and Bensalem Road from South Hampton-Byberry Road to the Philadelphia and Bucks County line and the vacating of Burling Avenue from the Roosevelt Boulevard to a dead-end approximately 3,900 feet southeast of the Roosevelt Boulevard, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010339. This is an Administration ordinance 17 requested by Mr. Roger Fickes, Director of the Pennsylvania Bureau of State Parks. The purpose of this ordinance is to obtain the legal authority to vacate these streets from the City Plan. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name 22 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010339 is Martin Soffer from the Planning Commission. The purpose of this ordinance is to remove the legal encumbrance of two roads and permit the development of the Benjamin Rush State Park. Therefore, by action at its meeting on May 24, 2001, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 8 010339 be approved. Thank you.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Bill No. 010343, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No.'s 296 and 240 in the vicinity of the Schuylkill Valley Nature Center by striking from the City Plan various unpaved and unopened streets and placing on the City Plan a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes. 23 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010343
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets Department, and the Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010343. This is a Councilmatic ordinance 8 requested by Councilman Nutter. The purpose of this ordinance is to obtain the legal authority to strike these 17 streets from the City Plan. This ordinance 11 is supported by the Department of Streets and recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the City Planning Commission. The purpose of this ordinance is to remove 17 new streets to consolidate the Schuylkill Valley Nature Center. Therefore, by action at its meeting of May 24, 2001, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 010343 be approved. Thank you.
Anyone else here 24 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010344 who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010344, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 308 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Latimer Street from Darien Street to Schell Street by striking from the City Plan and vacating Schell Street from Latimer Street to a point approximately 39 feet southwardly therefrom, and by placing on the City Plan a relocated Latimer Street from Darien Street to Schell Street, under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City, free and clear of any encumbrances of the bed of relocated Latimer Street.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010344. This is not an Administration ordinance 25 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Carl Zucker, 842 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010344 South Second Street, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally reconfigure these streets to allow for onsite parking purposes. This ordinance is supported by the Streets Department is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Planning Commission. The proposed ordinance authorizes the realignment of two minor streets in the Washington Square West neighborhood. This is to allow the development of a 39-unit expansion of the St. George Senior Housing and to include a 40-space parking lot. Therefore, by action at its meeting of May 23, 2001, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 17 No. 010344 be approved. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Is there anyone here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010350 clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010350, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 307 by relocating a portion of the southerly curb line of Arch Street between 16th Street and 17th Street, under certain terms and conditions.
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 Bill No. 010350: This is not an Administration ordinance 15 but an ordinance but an ordinance requested by Mr. Dennis Martin, Esquire, President of SAS-1600 Arch Street General Partnership. The purpose of this ordinance is to reconfigure the curbs located at 16th and Arch Streets. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. 27 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010350 The purpose of this ordinance is to better define the intersection controlling traffic and accommodating pedestrian street crossing. Therefore, by its action at its meeting of May 24, 2001, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill 7 010350 be approved. Thank you.
Anyone have any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes the testify on behalf of the bill or against the bill? (No response.)
Bill No. 010376, an ordinance authorizing the revision of City Plan No.'s 43 and 269 by relocating portions of the curb lines of Spruce Street from 34th Street to 38th Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of 28 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010376 Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010376: This is not an Administration ordinance 5 but an ordinance requested by Titus Hewryk, University Architect, University of Pennsylvania, 3451 Walnut Street. The purpose of this ordinance 8 is to reconfigure the curb lines of Spruce Street to comply with the University's plans for landscaping redevelopment. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Planning Commission. At its meeting of May 21, 2001, the Planning Commission staff had recommended that Bill 19 No. 010376 be approved. Thank you.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? 29 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010377 (No response.)
Bill No. 010377, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 178 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Clarkson Avenue from Wister Street to 21st Street; by reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes, and public utility purposes within the bed of Clarkson Avenue; and by striking from the City Plan 21st Street from Belfield Avenue to Clarkson Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions.
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 Bill No. 010377: This is not an Administration ordinance 22 but an ordinance requested by Brother Michael McGinniss, President of the LaSalle University, 1900 West Olney Avenue, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally close these streets to 30 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010377 improve quality of life for the students, employees, and residents of LaSalle University and their neighborhood. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the City Planning Commission. At its meeting of May 21, 2001, the Planning Commission staff recommended that Bill No. 13 010377 be approved. Thank you.
You stated that this ordinance was requested by LaSalle University. Is there someone here from LaSalle to speak on the matter?
There is an individual here, I believe, yes, sir. Let me bring him up. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon and please identify yourself for the record and proceed 31 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010377 with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Edward Turzanski. I'll spell the last name. It's T-U-R-Z-A-N-S-K-I. I'm the Assistant Vice President for Government and Community Relations for LaSalle University.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Turzanski, can you tell us the basic purpose of this bill, which is one step on the road to the use of this land. Can you tell us who owns it now and what purpose it's going to be used for by LaSalle and its importance to LaSalle University as well as to the community.
Thank you, Councilman. Currently, Clarkson Street comes from Wister Street into the LaSalle University campus. LaSalle borders the street on the north and on the east and a portion of the Fairmount Park known as Wister Woods Waters on the south. The purpose in striking the street for 32 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010377 LaSalle to be able to erect a security barrier, an arm at Clarkson and Wister so that some of the problems we're experiencing with illegal short-term dumping and the leaving behind of abandoned and stolen vehicles does not occur. Also, as a measure to provide security for students who reside in the San Miguel Townhouses, which are on Clarkson Street. In terms of the street itself, what you referenced, Councilman Cohen, is a project that the University has proposed to the Fairmount Park Commission and which Fairmount Park has approved in concept to take the Wister Woods, to clean up the area to, provide fencing and security. And eventually, the University will move tennis courts and erect a jogging and walking trail through this area.
And what will the University do with the land which is currently being used by the tennis courts and any other portion that the University intends to move to the Wister Woods area?
The University will erect a science facility, a new science center, on the site of the campus where we currently have 33 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010377 tennis courts. And in terms of the Wister Woods area, besides tennis courts, there will be a play and practice area which will be along the Belfield Avenue portion of the property, and we are going to erect a jogging and walking trail through that portion of the woods that's not covered by the tennis courts with a play and practice area.
And will the area that is developed, the Wister Woods area in general, be available for use by the residents in the area?
Yes, Councilman. The University currently allows neighbors in the three zip codes contiguous to the University to use tennis courts and a jogging track that we have surrounding our football team from dawn till dusk. The only requirements are that people need to register at least once a year so that for insurance purposes, we know who is coming to the area. And, currently, we have 351 individuals from the neighborhood who use the facilities. Those policies will continue for this Wooster Woods area.
Good. And initially, you talked about security 34 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010377 needs. Could you explain some additional detail what those security needs are for the closing of Clarkson Street?
What we need to do there, Councilman, because of vehicular thefts we have and also because of short-term dumping that is taking place in the area, including the leaving behind of vehicles that have been stolen or burned out, what we need to do is to secure that area so that we can control access into Clarkson Street. The plan is to provide 60 parking spots which are not currently there so that University students can park in this area and thereby alleviating problems of parking on neighborhood streets.
Will there be any building of fences or anything of that sort?
There's going to be one of those security arms at the street to make sure that vehicles will have to enter through Olney Avenue, through the University access at Olney Avenue, and that will be strictly for egress, to leave the area.
Will the University be prepared to discuss these issues with the 35 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010379 community in the area?
We have, Councilman. We have a group neighbors that we've been meeting with on a regular basis. This was presented to them, they were supportive of it, and the same was expressed to Councilwoman Miller.
Any other questions for this witness? (No further questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify on behalf of this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010379, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 161 by striking from the City Plan and vacating a triangular-shaped portion of the southerly side of Lancaster Avenue from 56th Street to a point approximately 391 feet westwardly therefrom and by reserving and placing on the City Plan a certain right-of-way for drainage 36 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010379 purposes, water main purposes, and gas main purposes and by placing on the City Plan a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes, under certain terms and conditions.
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 Bill No. 010379: This is not an Administration ordinance 12 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Steven Pollack of Ciccone & Pollock, Attorneys at Law, 1717 Rittenhouse Square, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to grant the abutting property owners the ability to expand their parking facilities and develop a shopping center. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission has previously 37 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010379 approved this City Plan change and recommends that Bill No. 010379 be approved. Thank you.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify on or against this bill? Councilman Nutter.
I appreciate the opportunity. Mr. Soffer's correct. A previous bill 13 was done with regard to this location. That proposal did not go forward at that time, but in my capacity as the District Councilperson and also on behalf of the surrounding neighborhood community, we're looking forward to success at this time with this proposal. Mr. Broverman (ph.) has been a good corporate citizen in the community and we're excited about the prospect of this development taking place on Lancaster Avenue. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
As far as I can 38 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 tell, there's no aggrievement in this matter. Thank you.
Is there anyone outside the community who is aggrieved? That's more important. I got to have fun, you know, 'cause it's going to be a -- I better get my laughs in now 'cause I think Thursday's going to be rough. But anyway, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010380, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No.'s 162 and 310 by revising the curb lines and grades on a portion of Schoolhouse Lane from Henry Avenue to Cresson Street, by placing on the City Plan Schoolhouse Lane from Cresson Street to Ridge Avenue, by revising the lines and grades of Ridge Avenue from a point approximately 120 feet southeast of Schoolhouse Lane to a point approximately 500 feet northwest of Schoolhouse Lane, by vacating that portion of the open and traveled Schoolhouse Lane lying between the existing open and traveled lines and the lines as proposed to be displaced under the 39 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 authority of this ordinance, and by reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes and public utility purposes within the bed of Ridge Avenue and a portion of the open and traveled Schoolhouse Lane, under certain terms and conditions.
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 Bill No. 010380: This is an Administration ordinance 14 requested by the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to facilitate the reconstruction of Schoolhouse Lane, and this ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Are there any questions for these witnesses? Marty, I'm sorry. You didn't testify yet.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Philadelphia City Planning 40 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 Commission. At its meeting on May 31, 2001, the Planning Commission staff recommended that Bill No. 5 010380 be approved. Thank you.
Anyone here who wishes to testify on this bill? (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon sir, please approach the witness table. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you. I appreciate being allowed to testify today, but I would like to say that even though the Schoolhouse Lane neighborhood and myself and several others of us have been acting as spokespeople and leaders that we had no notice of this hearings whatsoever. The Streets Department has known of our interest, we've met with the Streets Commissioner many times, and we had no notice of this hearing 41 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 until one of our neighbors heard thirdhanded last night that this may be happening today. I eventually was put in touch with Miss Schatz, and she very kindly and graciously invited me to come over and testify. And I just find that difficult to believe that in a democracy, we would have no notice of a hearing like this. Secondly, I would like to --
I think that there is proper notice and it generally is done by way of the print media. I think we're required, if I'm not mistaken, by the City Charter to do that. So if someone missed it and did not -- or just, for whatever reason, didn't read it in the paper, I mean, that's unfortunate. But to my knowledge, public notice was given.
Well, certainly, Mr. Nutter has known of our concern and opposition to this project for many years, for seven years plus. But I'd like to move into the substance of the testimony, if I may.
Councilman Nutter. Excuse me, sir. Councilman Nutter. 42 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate that. One, naturally, Mr. Chairman, you are absolutely correct: The public notice is provided for every bill and any resolution heard here in City Council. Secondly, there are supporters and opponents to a potential project on Schoolhouse Lane Mr. Baylson is absolutely correct that I did not notify him directly or personally, nor did I notify any of the supporters of the proposed project directly, indirectly or in any other way, shape, or form. This is, quite honestly, in the scheme of things a rather routine matter and there are many other facets to this particular project and proposal, this being one of the elementary parts of it. And so, no, there was no personal notice but I do trust that our Chief Clerk's Office did provide the proper notification, as they probably did -- I'm sure they did -- for the other 41 bills on today's hearing schedule. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
And you're correct, 43 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 and if that notice had not been properly advertised, we wouldn't be hearing this bill today, because we've had a couple of those instances in the six and a half years that I've been here. Very few, but occasionally, that does happen.
Well, I'm not -- I don't have any knowledge about the advertisement, and all I'm saying is that as a matter of just -- it would seem to me as knowledge that there's a very concerned citizens group that has been fighting this for over seven years, that something would have been done to let us know specifically that this was coming on for a hearing other than just the routine publication in the newspaper. But I would like to move on if I may.
We had had many discussions with the Rendell Administration about Schoolhouse Lane. When the Street Administration came into office, we set up meetings with the new Streets Commissioner, Mr. Johnson, and expressed to him our views about Schoolhouse Lane. He eventually told us to communicate with Kenneth Trujillo, the City Solicitor. 44 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 We had a meeting with Mr. Trujillo on February 7th, and I confirmed that meeting by writing, and Mr. Trujillo agreed to have a mediation between the Schoolhouse Lane neighbors who were opposed to this project and the City Streets Department, and I confirmed that arrangement in a letter to Mr. Trujillo the same day. And I also said in that letter, which had specifically discussed that we have agreed that the City -- and I'm quoting. We have greed that the City and Schoolhouse Lane neighbors will adhere to a 90 day standstill during which time City will not move forward on Schoolhouse Lane reconstruction project (including any forwarding of materials to PennDOT). The Schoolhouse Lane neighbors will not institute any litigation and the City will agree that latches is not run during this standstill period. During this 90-day period, the City and Schoolhouse Lane neighbors will mediate that dispute, and then I went on with some details. Mr. Trujillo at that meeting had thrown out the suggestion of former federal Judge Edward Cahn, C-A-H-N, being the mediator. I then wrote to Mr. Trujillo on February 20th, 13 days later, and 45 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 said we accept the concept of Judge Cahn as the mediator with respect to Schoolhouse Lane, and I never heard back from Mr. Trujillo. At the end of the 90 --
Mr. Chairman, I'd be intrigued to know whether or not any of that correspondence as well as the meeting that took place, I believe it was mentioned February 7th -- was the Councilperson notified of any of that material? Was any of that material shared or the opportunity to participate in the meeting, since there are so many complaints apparently here on the record about who's sharing what information with whom.
And not enough public noticing going around on one side but --
I assume that the meeting with the City Solicitor was a private meeting?
I had no knowledge of it. 46 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380
As the chair of this committee, I have no knowledge of any correspondence from the community group or the law office concerning this bill.
Okay. We had set up our -- we had initiated our discussions with Mayor Street's administration through the Streets Department and Commissioner Johnson, and those meetings were attended by Commissioner Johnson personally, by other people in the Streets Department, by a representative of the Managing Director's Office and several of us. We did not specifically notify Councilman Nutter or anyone else.
Don't you think that that would have been the appropriate thing to do since the Councilman is the person who is 47 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 directly responsible for introducing legislation and/or making adjustments and amendments to that bill.
Well, we had no idea legislation was pending. No, I didn't see any need for it but, you know --
You testified that for seven years, this has been a pending issue.
And you were concerned and upset that there was not public notice, at least public notice directly, to your Friends group or your organization. I would just think that if it was in my district, I would be a little bit offended that no one contacted me and who subsequently accuses me of not properly notifying them so --
We have had many meetings with Councilman Nutter, and he has consistently and adamantly supported the Streets Department and their proposal to widen Schoolhouse Lane despite our 48 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 giving him --
I am not going to sit here and listen to false testimony. Now, there is no proposal to widen Schoolhouse Lane. Mr. Baylson is very clear and knows that the travel lanes on Schoolhouse Lane will remain at eleven feet in both directions. With regard to notice to groups or organizations, there is overwhelming support in the larger community for a proposed project. This bill 15 does not make a project go forward. There will be no work done tomorrow or next week as a result of this particular bill. But the gentleman has a right to have meetings with whomever he chooses to have meetings with. Whether or not I'm notified --
-- is immaterial. Whether or not other people in the community who care about this particular project are notified of meetings that the gentleman has either with the 49 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 Streets Department Commissioner, City Solicitor or whomever, that is, again, his prerogative. The concern was suppressed about today's hearing and proper notice. We absolutely advertise our meetings. That did not take place in the previous situation. And whatever the agreement, quote/unquote, agreement was with the City Solicitor, that was made with the City Solicitor and that has nothing to do with the particular legislation in front of us today. I was not a part of that meeting, that discussion, or that agreement, and so I have no information as to what the gentleman is testifying to about whether there should be a project or not and who made what agreements with whom, because I was not a part of that process. Lastly, the gentleman's absolutely correct. I have been in favor of the reconstruction of Schoolhouse Lane. It is a mess. The reconstruction comes as a response to continual complaints over the past seven years and the obstructions that have taken place over that time in opposition to the mere reconstruction of a street that is in horrible condition, has no drainage, has 50 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 no shoulders for motorists to ease their car out into from side streets and is not a proper street under any circumstance and condition. We have patched it on numerous occasions; it does not work. And the gentleman is opposed. I understand that. And the fact that we would be at a point to have a former federal judge mediating a dispute about whether or not a street should be reconstructed for the safety of pedestrians, motorists, cyclists and college students at Philadelphia University is beyond the pale.
Yeah, you can continue as long as your comments are germane to the bill that's in front of us.
Yes. First of all, just to set the record straight, the Streets Department proposal is to widen Schoolhouse Lane. It is a reconstruction that includes widening the curb-to-curb width, and that is in the Streets Department proposal. Secondly, when we met with Mr. Trujillo, we advised him that Councilman Nutter was our 51 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 representative and that Councilman Nutter had supported the Streets Department for many years, and we made that very, very clear. And we also told Mr. Trujillo that there were other people in the community who were in favor, although we made it clear, and I'm going to present for the record, that 100 percent of the homeowners who live on Schoolhouse Lane between Henry Avenue and Gypsy Lane, which is the great majority of this area that's being reconstructed, are opposed to this, and they have signed petitions, which we have consistently presented to Councilman Nutter, Mayor Rendell, Mayor Street and the Streets Department. And the last thing I would like to say, and I appreciate your giving me this time, is that after this 90-day standstill, we then found out that despite the absolute agreement of Mr. Trujillo to a standstill, including not forwarding plans to PennDOT, that the Streets Department had done specifically what Mr. Trujillo had agreed the City would not do: They had forwarded the plans to PennDOT, and we did not know that, and PennDOT approved them in April of this year, which I just got by a letter from PennDOT, which I am also going 52 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 to respectfully ask be made a part of the record. So we think, respectfully, that our rights have been violated, that the City has not lived up to the agreement it made through Mr. Trujillo. We think mediation is a very good idea. It has been suggested by Mayor Rendell, it's been suggested by Senator Specter, who has also attended some of these meetings, and we are still willing to do it as long as the City willing to refrain, because this project is not necessary for the safety of Schoolhouse Lane. There have been no 13 accidents here. What they want to do is widen Schoolhouse Lane, Mr. Chairman, and all of the engineering studies show that widening streets make motorists go faster. And when they go faster, there tend to be more accidents. And our engineer who we hired, a former PennDOT official and executive director of the Pennsylvania Turnpike Commission, has written numerous reports, the latest of which is attached to the materials I'd like to submit, saying that this reconstruction, the widening, is not necessary and will make this street less safe. And we are respectfully opposed to the 53 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010380 bill and we appreciate the opportunity to be heard. If I may have this group of documents marked for the record and included in the record, I will appreciate.
It will be so noted. Any other questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk -- thank you, sir, for your testimony.
Bill No. 010383, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 307 by relocating a portion of the southerly curb line of Race Street between Independence Mall East and Independence Mall West, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman 54 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010383 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. 010383: This is not an Administration ordinance 7 but an ordinance requested by Miss Emily Bitten bender of the Bourse Building, 111 South Independence Mall East, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to create a protective lane on the south side of Race Street and part of the construction of the new Constitution Center. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets Department and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Planning Commission. At its meeting on May 31, 2001, the Planning Commission staff recommended approval of Bill No. 010383. Thank you.
Any questions for these witnesses on this bill? (No questions.) 55 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010383
Anyone else here who wishes to testify? Before we get into the next bill, Councilman Nutter wants to be recognized, and I believe he has a request question for Mr. Lonie on the previous bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lonie, could you just make the record clear as to some of the testimony that was given earlier with regard to the provisions of the proposal with regard to the reconstruction of Schoolhouse Lane and provide some clarity to the record with regard to what the project is about and what it is not about.
I'd be glad to. What this project is about is to make it a safer street. Is the project widening Schoolhouse Lane? No. The answer is, we're actually narrowing it. We could build Schoolhouse Lane legally down to Gypsy Lane at a width of 40 feet wide. Because of the neighborhood opposition to some of those, it's part of compromise and we've narrowed that down to 28 feet. 56 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010383 What we're doing is revising the lines and grades to match the smaller street, in a way protecting some of the interests of these folks so that we can never, without going back through Council, widen it up to its full width again. As far as the meeting between the City Solicitor and the Streets Commissioner, no one else from the Streets Department attended that meeting, as far as I know. And there's constant correspondence back and forth between PennDOT and the Streets Department. As far as, you know, if everything had to stop, I don't know as far as that agreement goes, but I'm sure there was correspondence, as there is every single day between the State and the City on any construction project. There just has to be. But, again, we are trying our best to make this the safest street we can under the circumstances. It's -- whatever problems in reconstruction could save us because the design flaws that exist out there now, one bad accident, two bad accidents, the City would lose a fortune on bad design claims. So we are trying our best to do that, and I believe that's what we're going to 57 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010383 accomplish. Thank you.
Thank you. Lastly, Commissioner Johnson found himself in a situation where he was in a meeting, I assume, with the City Solicitor where there were no 8 other Streets Department employees involved; is that correct?
As far as I know, there was no one else from the Streets Department except for our attorney, Gerald Clark.
Okay. Do you have any reason to believe that prior to his time as Streets Commissioner, during the six or seven years of this proposal for a project has been going on, do you have any reason to believe that Commissioner Johnson would have any previous knowledge about the history and the complexity of this particular project before he came to that meeting?
Functionally, I'm sure he did, I'm sure he's heard horror stories about --
-- the problems of Schoolhouse Lane. 58 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010383
-- and the design problems that have gone over the years, but I'm sure he did not have an intimate knowledge of the project itself. Unless you were working on it for those seven years, it would be impossible to do that.
And lastly, are you here today with the knowledge and the support of the Streets Department with regard to your testimony about this bill?
Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Mr. Baylson, I think we really have enough testimony on it and we heard everything that you had to say. I believe the Councilman just wanted to clear the record on some of the statements that were made earlier. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
(Inaudible, off-mic.) 59 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010384
At this point in time, I would not recognize that. Thank you.
Bill No. 010384, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 196 by striking from the City Plan Willard Street from Memphis Street to Agate Street and Agate Street from Willard Street to Westmoreland Street, and reserving and placing on the City Plan two rights-of-way for drainage purposes, water main and gas main purposes, under certain terms and conditions.
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 Bill No. 010384: This is not an Administration ordinance 19 but an ordinance requested Miss Katherine Levins, the Community and Government Liaison of Temple University East, Inc., 1334 East Montgomery Avenue, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally close the block of Willard and the 3200 block of Agate Street to facilitate improvements in parking and security at the Northeastern Hospital. 60 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010384 This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets Department and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Philadelphia Planning Commission. At its meeting on May 21, 2001, the Planning Commission staff recommended approval of Bill 010384. Thank you. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. If you're testifying, would you please identify yourself for the record and please spell your last name for the purpose of the stenographer.
Good afternoon, Chairman. My name is Katherine Levins, L-E-V-I-N-S. I'm here on behalf of Temple University Health System and its request that the City strike and vacate the referenced streets. I would just like to add that Temple University Health System has been working with the community over the past two and a half years, both 61 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010389 its industrial and residential neighbors, and it has proceeded with this request at the request of the residential neighbors of the community. And in the end, should our request be granted, what we intend to do is to help to improve the community. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Anyone else here to testify on or behalf of this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you.
Bill No. 010389, an ordinance repealing an ordinance (Bill No. 000411) signed by the Mayor on August 11, 2000 and authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 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 Germantown Avenue from Second Street to Wildey 62 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010389 Street, by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes, and by placing on the City Plan a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes, under certain terms and conditions.
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 Bill No. 010389: This is not an Administration ordinance 14 but an ordinance requested by Mr. Bart Blatstein of Tower Investments, One Reed Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally close a portion of Germantown Avenue to allow for the development of the former Schmidt's Brewery site into new, modern shopping district. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Martin Soffer from the Philadelphia City Planning 63 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010390 Commission. At its meeting on May 21, 2001, the Planning Commission staff had recommend approval of Bill No. 010389. Thank you.
Is there anyone else to testify on behalf of these bills? (No response.)
Seeing none, the clerk will read the title of the of the next bill.
Bill No. 010390, an ordinance authorizing the paving of Latimer Street under certain terms and conditions.
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 Bill No. 010390: This is not an Administration ordinance 21 but an ordinance requested by Carl Zucker, 842 Second Street, Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is for the paving of Latimer Street and this ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for 64 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010394 favorable action.
Anyone else who wishes on or against this bill? (No response.)
The clerk will read the title of the next bill thank you.
Bill No. 010394, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 13 No. 990816) approved December 30, 1999, entitled, "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on portion of City Plan No.'s 319 and 347 by striking from the City Plan Stanwood Street from Verree Road to Rising Sun Avenue and by striking from the City Plan and vacating the legally open portion of Rising Sun Avenue from Rhawn Street to Solly Avenue under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the authorization conditions therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of 65 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010394 Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 010394: This is not an Administration ordinance 5 but an ordinance requested by Mr. John Conroy, President of Conroy Catering, 721 Wicker Avenue, Bensalem. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the compliance time of an ordinance approved December 30, 1999. The purpose of that ordinance 10 was to strike and vacate the legally open portions of these streets, to remove title and zoning issues within an old estate. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action. Furthermore, Mr. Chairman, I would like to request that rules of Council be suspended on all bills heard from the Streets Department so as to allow for first reading at the next session of Council.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? 66 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010230 (No response.)
Again, Mr. Chairman, I'd like to request a waiver of the rules for all of these bills.
We have nothing to do Thursday, we'll be here. Okay, thank you. Thank you for your testimony.
Bill No. 010230, an ordinance granting permission to Kent R. Miller and to his successors and assigns to construct, use, own, and maintain a private combination sanitary/storm sewer main within the right-of-way of the unit block of East Sunset Avenue to provide service to 4 East Sunset Avenue; all under certain terms and conditions. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Kent Miller. I 67 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010342 live at East Sunset Avenue in Chestnut Hill. Asked Councilwoman Miller to introduce this ordinance, but I'm now asking that it be withdrawn. There is a subsequent revised ordinance, which you'll get to later, which is 010332, and I guess Nancy Sen will talk about that later.
Bill No. 010342, an ordinance granting permission to Kent R. Miller, and to his successors an assigns, to construct, use, own, and maintain a private sanitary sewer main within the right-of-way of the unit block of East Sunset Avenue to provide service to 4 East Sunset Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions.
I'd just like to say a word about that. Again, it's Kent Miller. I live at 4 East Sunset Avenue. There are a number of homes in my area that have had cesspools for many years. Mine has been in existence for over 50 years and it's 68 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010342 beginning to fail. And looking at the options, the best choice was to connect to the public sewer which is about 1250 feet away along the public right-of-way on East Sunset Avenue. So I'm asking for an ordinance to be able to construct the sanitary sewer line.
Good afternoon, Nancy, would you please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. I'm here to -- my name is Nancy Sen, and I'm here to testify for the Streets Department on Bill No. 010342. This bill allows Mr. Kent Miller to construct and maintain a private five-inch diameter sanitary sewer main in the unit block of East Sunset Avenue for servicing the needs of his property at 4 East Sunset Avenue. The Streets Department has reviewed the construction plans and has no objection to the passage of the bill. Thank you.
Thank you. 69 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010342 Any questions? Councilman Rizzo.
Thanks. To the Streets Department, could you explain what the policy is when a person has a septic system, abandons that system or comes off of that system, and hooks up to the City system? What's the requirement? Does that have to be removed? What exactly occurs?
I believe that would be a Water Department issue. We don't at the Streets Department get involved. And it's probably the responsibility of the property owner because it's on their property. I can't speak as an expert on that.
Then I'll ask the property owner. I'm just curious 'cause I'm one of those folks. What are you required to do when you abandon your system?
We're required to pump out the system and backfill it so there's no danger in the future of it falling in. And in my case, it's about 12 feet deep, so it's very important that it be properly eliminated.
Thank you. Good 70 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010346 luck.
Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010346, an ordinance authorizing the United States of America, acting through the United States Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to construct and maintain various precast concrete planters in the south footway of Arch Street and the west footway of Seventh Street adjacent to the Federal Detention Center, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members the committee. Again, my name is Nancy Sen. I am here to testify on Bill No. 010346 on behalf of the Streets Department. This bill authorizes the US Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Prisons, to install 71 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010346 and maintain a total of precast concrete planter containers encroaching on the south footway of Arch Street and the west footway of Seventh Street. The planters are a maximum size of 4 feet wide by feet 6 long and 3 feet high. They're set back a minimum of 1-foot-11-inches clear from the curb and leave a minimum of 7-feet-4-inches of clear sidewalk passage between the rear face of the planters and the face of the building. All the planters leave adequate width and clearance of obstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 13 objection to the passage of the bill. 14 Thank you.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against it? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010370, an ordinance amending Section 4 of an ordinance (Bill 25 No. 000161), entitled "An ordinance authorizing 72 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010370 Anthony Lucidoni, owner of the property 39 Oregon Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19148, to construct and maintain a sidewalk cafe, awning, electric sign, and seasonal enclosure onto and over the north footway of Oregon Avenue adjacent to the property 39 Oregon Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the authorization conditions therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Again, my name is Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor for the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill 010370 on behalf of the Streets Department. The Streets Department had previously reviewed the plans for this project, and we have no 17 objection to the extensions authorized by the bill. Thank you.
Not specific to this bill but, I guess, in harmony with the bill. Does the Art Commission have any role in this -- did they have any role in this? 73 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010370
So if the awning, canvas awning had signage on it, then they would be involved?
Right. And actually, it's -- usually the Law Department puts terms in there that there should be -- all approvals should be made, you know, that need to be made, you know, over and above Council's approval.
You're familiar with the problem we're having with the new restaurant Maggiano's.
Well, the Art Commission has been -- has literally brought them to the point where they are no longer looking to do any more development in the City of Philadelphia because the Art Commission has been literally driving them so crazy with some of the requirements on a canopy and an awning, which aren't much different than this except for the fact that I think the word "Maggiano" is on the canopy.
To tell you the truth, I 74 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010370 personally know about it. I used to work in the bridge section and they used to give us a hard time about our proposals. They too also had to go before the Art Commission. So I can empathize with what the folks are going through, and it's a rough battle and they have to work it out.
Welcome to Philadelphia. We love for you to have to do business with us, okay. Thank you.
No. 14 Councilman Ortiz is saying, would I like to eliminate the Art Commission? No, I guess not. I like commissions and boards who make life so miserable for people to do business here that they don't come to do business. I fully support that, and that is in the interest of the City of Philadelphia that we do those things.
The best we can do is when they come in the door to warn them, you know, what they have to do to get things done.
Actually, I just had an idea, thanks to Councilman Ortiz. What we 75 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010375 should do is have Maggiano make a $500,000 contribution to SCRUB since they are in the advertising business, and I'm certain that we can convince the Art Commission to do the approvals. Just joking, but have a nice day anyway. Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010375, an ordinance granting permission to Starbuck's Coffee Company, tenant of the property 3401 Walnut Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19104, to operate and maintain an open-air sidewalk cafe on the west footway of 34th Street adjacent to 3401 Walnut Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen, engineering supervisor for the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 010375 on behalf of the Department. This bill authorizes an open-air sidewalk cafe with additional furniture at the Starbuck's Coffee location on the northwest corner of 34th and Walnut Street. Six tables and four 76 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010375 freestanding canvas umbrellas with bases are proposed on the 34th Street west footway. No rails will be used and a minimum of eight feet clear width will be maintained for pedestrians. All encroachments leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 9 objection to the passage of the bill.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010381, an ordinance authorizing Edward Flippen, owner of the property located at 5651 Lansdowne Avenue, Philadelphia, PA, 19131, to construct, use, and maintain a one-story building addition on and over the east footway of 57th Street adjacent to the property 5651 Lansdowne Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions. 77 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010381
Again, my name is Nancy Sen, representing the Streets Department to testify on Bill No. 010381. This bill allows Mr. Edward Flippen, owner of the property 5651 Lansdowne Avenue, to construct and maintain a one-story building addition serving as a basement entrance on the 57th Seventh Street face of his two-story rowhouse property. The encroachment leaves adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 13 objection to the passage of this bill. Thank you.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010395, an ordinance authorizing One Meridian Partners LP, 121 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 78 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010395 19107, owner of the property 1414 through 1438 South Penn Square, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102, to construct and maintain a building encroachment under the south footway of South Penn Square, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. 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. 11 0100395 on behalf of the Department. This bill authorizes One Meridian Partners Limited Partnership, owner of the property at 1414 through 1438 South Penn Square, to legalize the existing below-grade building encroachment in and under the public footway of South Penn Square for the South Penn Square Plaza building now operating as a parking garage. The building encroachment is under the right-of-way of South Penn Square projecting a maximum of 15 feet into the south footway. The encroachment extends vertically from the footway grade of South Penn Square, which serves as the roof slab of the upper concourse level of the building, down to the lower concourse level at approximately feet below grade. All 79 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010396 encroachments are below grade and so leave adequate width of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 5 objection to the passage of the bill. Thank you.
Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill 010396, an ordinance 16 authorizing the Parkway Corporation, owner of the properties 1501 to 1509 Spruce Street and 1506 to 1508 Latimer Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102, to construct and maintain two electrified marquees with illuminated hanging signs attached to the properties and projecting over the north footway of Spruce Street and the west footway of 15th Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Again, my name is Nancy Sen. I'm an engineering supervisor for the Streets 80 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010396 Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 3 010396 on behalf of the Department. This bill authorizes the Parkway Corporation to construct and maintain the following encroachments above the public footways for the parking garage structure being developed in the area bounded by Spruce Street, 15th Street, and Latimer Street: Two electrified marquees with illuminated signs hanging below. Each marquee leaves a minimum of 10 feet vertical clearance below the sign and the combination has a total height of 12 feet. Both marquees project a maximum of 8 feet into the footway. The first marquee and sign are approximately 16 feet in length and are located over the garbage entrance on the north side of Spruce Street, and the second marquee and sign are approximately 30 feet in length and are located over the garage entrance on the west side of 15th Street. All encroachments leave adequate width of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 24 objection to the passage of the bill. Thank you. 81 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010398, 399, 400
Anyone here who wishes to testify on or against this bill? (No response.)
I will read the title of the next three bills since they are companion bills, starting with: Next Bill No. 010398, an ordinance 12 authorizing SAS-1600 Arch Street LP, owner of the property 1600 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103 to construct, own, and maintain underground conduit, various pedestrian light bulbs with attached floodlight fixtures, and various ground light fixtures in and on the south footway of Arch Street, the west footway of 16th Street, and the north footway of Cuthbert Street adjacent to the building 1600 Arch Street, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 010399, an ordinance 23 authorizing SAS-1600 Arch Street LP, owner of the property 1600 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, to construct and maintain an electrified metal frame 82 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010398, 399, 400 and glass skylight marquee with support posts attached to the building and projecting on and over the south footway of Arch Street, all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 010400, an ordinance 7 authorizing SAS-1600 Arch Street LP, owner of the property 1600 Arch Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103, to construct and maintain various fabric awnings on a rigid metal frame attached to the building and projecting over the south footway of Arch Street and the north footway of Cuthbert Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the committee. Again, my name is Nancy Sen and I'm here to testify on these three companion bills, 010398, 399, and 400 on behalf of the Department. Bill No. 010398 will authorize SAS-1600 Arch Street LP to construct and maintain the following encroachments and private utilities on, above, and below the public footways around their building being renovated at the corner of 16th and Arch: A total of 16 pedestrian lighting poles with attached flood lights, a total of 7 in-ground flood 83 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010398, 399, 400 light fixtures and a private underground conduit feed for lighting the poles described above. All of the encroachments leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. The Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill. For Bill No. 010399, it authorizes the same owners to construct an electrified metal frame and glass skylight marquee with support posts. Again, these encroachments will leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of the Bill 010399. And finally, for Bill 010400, this bill 15 authorizes the same owners of the building to construct and maintain a total of ten fabric awnings on ridged metal frames. And, again, these encroachments will leave adequate width and clearance of unobstructed footway. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill also. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness from the committee? 84 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 (No questions.)
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. 000658, an ordinance amending Chapter 9-200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Activities on Streets," by requiring persons licensed under that chapter 12 (including under section 89-201, "Curb markets"); Section 9-203 ("Street Vendors"); Section 9-204 ("Sidewalk vendors in Center City"); Section 9-205 ("Sidewalk Sales"); Section 9-206 ("Sidewalk Vendors in Neighborhood Business Districts"); Section 9-208 ("Sidewalk cafes"); Section 9-210 ("Telephone Booths"); Section 9-211 ("Boxes for the Distribution of News and Printed Material"); and Section 9-212 ("Newsstands") to obtain the consent of the property owner abutting the location at which the licensed commercial activities are conducted, under certain terms and conditions. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. 85 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. My name is Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I would just stipulate to the testimony that we've given on Bill 000358 on May 16th, and the position of the Department is basically the same on the bill.
Let me ask you, Councilwoman Blackwell's clerk was just here saying that there may be some other concerns that she may have with the bill in addition to the amendments that she asked me to consider last week, which I'm prepared to introduce today. He also mentioned something that you had suggested. There may be an administrative problem as it relates to this bill 21 within the Department?
Well, as I read the amendments, the amendments basically are confusing to a certain extent. The amendments that I have, if I can get a copy of it -- the amendment that I have 86 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 states to a certain effect that if we were to obtain permission from the property owner, then that's all well and good and we can proceed with issuing the license. If we don't obtain permission from the property owner, that's well and good and we could still proceed with giving the license. It's only where the property owner fails to respond one way or the other, where there is no position given by the property owner where we can't issue the license. So it's kind of puts us in a --
I believe what the Councilwoman was asking for us to consider by way of her amendments was that every reasonable attempt should be made to contact the owner, and if that failed, then the Streets Department would have the right to grant permission to the vendor, but every attempt needed to be made, and if they failed to identify or locate the owner, then the Streets Department would be able to issue the location to vend without having the, quote/unquote, permission of the owner.
I understand, but just the wording of it here, just the last part of it says, "but with evidence of the property owner's position 87 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 is necessary for issuance," that's the last part of it. So we need to know specifically what their position is one way or the other.
Not at this time. It will take some thought and I would have to sit down with our Law Department to go over this.
And so I'm clear, and I apologize if I'm asking the same question over again, but I'm just still not clear on it and maybe you can clear it up. What is the problem that you see if this amendment were offered and the bill were to be voted on favorably?
There is no real clear direction as to when should we issue the license, we really don't know. And there's so many categories of licenses to deal with, not just vending, but we have categories related to curb markets, categories related to street vending, categories related to honor boxes, newsstands, etc., so we need some clear direction, especially for the clerks that we have that issue the licenses.
As to what type of 88 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 activity could take place there?
As to where it basically states that the owner has to give permission.
I mean, maybe I'm oversimplifying it, but the intention -- my intention when I introduced this bill was that an individual property owner should have the right to decide what, if anything, gets placed on his or her sidewalk, her property, his or her property.
No, it does not. It belongs to the owner of the property. We got a legal opinion on that in the May 16th hearing. The sidewalk is owned by the owner of the property with the exception of Center --
With the exception of Center City, I believe, we were informed at the last meeting.
I believe the sidewalk is -- 89 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
I think the only time that the municipality would have jurisdiction over that sidewalk or a portion of it is if were in the public interest to provide utilities and public services for the benefit of the community at large, but I believe it's everything from the curb in towards the property line are owned by the property.
Could I -- Councilman, with all due respect, could I finish what I'm saying and then I will certainly acknowledge you. Now, I'm not an attorney and you guys are, but obviously your opinions are much different than mine in most cases, even though I'm not a lawyer and you are, and neither side is right or wrong, I guess, until the Law Department makes that determination, but I believe on the May 16th hearing on this very bill, it was determined and testified to that the property is owned -- the sidewalk is owned by the individual property owner.
The gentleman that testified, I believe he wasn't with the Law Department and I think he had brought up some issue 90 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 related to William Penn and -- I don't remember all of the background of that hearing.
I think that the attorney who represents the vendors association who, I guess -- have a seat, sir -- for all intents and purposes, I would assume, is an opponent of this bill, could testify to the legality of who owns what. Councilman Ortiz, this is, I think, his opinion, and you can ask the question. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name's Jerome Balka and I'm associated with United States Vendors of Philadelphia, an organization acting on behalf of its membership of 250 or more sidewalk sale vendors in the City of Philadelphia. I testified at the last hearing, Councilman, and one of the questions that was raised was about who owns the sidewalks, and since I've been doing this work for 30 years, I have a pretty good handle on it. In Center City, the sidewalks are not owned by the building owner; they are owned by the citizens of Philadelphia on the grant from William 91 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 Penn of the --
Excuse me, sir. What I said, if you were listening but you were interrupting me, was, with the exception of Center City, and that's what the gentleman is going to explain now. Thank you.
Outside of Center City, the deed, the property owner's deed runs to the curb so that the sidewalk outside of Center City is owned by the property owner whose building is there. However, the sidewalk, even though it's owned by the property owner, is dedicated to the public use. That's what permits pedestrians, bicyclists, honor boxes, and all of these other things. So that while ownership is not the real issue here. What is the real issue is, are we going to give abutting property owners the right to say who will work on their sidewalk or not work on their sidewalk. This bill is defective, I believe, in another respect. Take Center City, for example. 92 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 The current Center City vending law licenses a vendor to work on a block face. A block face can be 15th Street from Market Street to Chestnut Street. Work anywhere on that block face. And by the way, the current law regulates the number of vendors on a particular block face. It may be three, it may be four, it may be two, depending upon the size of the block face. Now, which abutting property owner is the vendor to go to? The one that has feet or 12 does he move down and go to the one that has 13 30 feat? There's no way we can deal with this. 14 Councilman, and members of the 15 committee, what will happen here, even if we could 16 deal with it, is that a property owner, an abutting 17 property owner will either say I don't want any 18 vendor on my sidewalk. 19
See, I just don't want to talk about vendors, because that's the real sensitive thing which gets people's emotion that I'm 93 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 kind of, sort chasing people who are trying to earn a living off the street, which is not my intention.
And I'm not saying you're doing it, but that's how this all gets interpreted around here, to suit everyone else's 'cause, except my cause.
Let me talk about all three of them for a minute because I think newsstands and honor boxes even occupy a greater and more honorable right to the use of the sidewalks, and that is to provide the public with information.
But there are sales of information, there's someone who is making a profit, even an honor box. Honor boxes provide material in most cases free of charge, that people who print the paraphernalia that goes into those honor boxes are in business. They sell advertising within their brochure. So I own 1207 Federal Street, I don't want an honor box on my sidewalk, I don't want somebody to put their business on my sidewalk without my permission.
No one has ever wanted to because it's economics that controls the whole 94 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 situation. The honor boxes are going to be where the people are so that people can get the news --
Honor boxes -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Sir, let me tell you something. I said this earlier today. If you stand still long enough on any street corner in the City of Philadelphia, you will either have an honor box attached to your leg or someone will nail a political poster to your back. (Laughter.)
Everything that stands still in this town has something attached to it.
There are gray boxes, orange boxes, purple boxes that spring up overnight.
If you are saying that we should regulate the number of honor boxes at a particular location, I couldn't agree with you more, Councilman. 95 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
No, no, I'm not saying that. I am saying that with the exception of Center City, because you very accurately described and you enlightened me a couple of weeks ago as to who owns what in Center City, outside of Center City, I want people to have their property rights. Individual property owners should have their individual property rights as to what occurs on their sidewalk, outside of the interest of the public good where it pertains to infrastructure, electrical power and things of that -- and light fixtures. Outside of that, I don't want something on my sidewalk unless I want it there.
And does the fact that news is provided to the people via an honor box or via a newsstand in the public interest --
And you can get it on the Web today, you can buy the newspaper at a corner store, you can even buy two newspapers for the price of one if you set up a stand in the middle 96 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 of Broad Street, which is totally illegal, and knock the guy who has a newsstands out of business.
I agree it's illegal. Here's the department, let them enforce it.
They need 4,000 more people to enforce everything that we want them to enforce.
And I'm not being argumentative with you. You and I understand each other, I think, quite well. Thank you. Councilman Rizzo. Would that include the US Postal Service wanting an honor box?
I guess -- yeah, Councilman Cohen said you could talk to the President and maybe if somebody -- you probably could 'cause you're a Republican. We can't, we're Democrats.
Unless we get a ruling from the United States Senate on Friday, then 97 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 we'll be in control and we could talk to them.
I'm glad to hear you publicly acknowledge that, Mr. DiCicco.
But I think that may fall under some federal -- I think the federal government probably has total jurisdiction over those things, I would assume.
How would you deal with a tenant -- who would the negotiation be with, the landlord or is the tenant?
But the landlord would have to give permission to the tenant to display his or her products on the sidewalks, assuming it met with the other standards that --
You mean like the 98 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 eyeglass company at 11th and Market who has to deal with a guy who sets up a card table and sells the same product for a third of what they sell inside the store? They don't want that eyeglass vendor on their sidewalk.
If the tenant didn't want the person, would they have any standing?
No. It would have to go the owner, the owner. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
The tenant could make the complaint to the owner, and if the owner decided that they didn't want that person there, then I think they would have standing.
Councilman, my office is at 1500 JFK, Two Penn Center. The owner is in New York, they don't know what's going on down here, and you want a fellow who's running a newsstand or an honor box to find out somebody in New York to talk to? 99 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
I think the question Councilman Rizzo was asking is, if you had a newsstand business, if you were selling newspapers and magazines and you occupy a little 200 square foot piece of the property, a retail space which is connected to the building, it's a part of the ground floor retail space, and someone wanted to set up a newsstand outside on that same pavement, would that tenant be able to block that?
And I would suggest that the tenant complain to the landlord, if you want me to still be a tenant and pay you rent, I can't compete with what's going on outside, I would probably ask the landlord to have that person removed.
I think that it can be. I also think it's a public safety issue and I really think it's an issue of protecting individual 100 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 private property owner rights. That's my opinion.
The bill as presented, even with the amendment, deals only with the owner; it doesn't deal with the tenant at all.
But if a tenant wants to complain to the owner about the competition, that's up to the owner ultimately to make that decision if they want to make the complaint to L&I about having that person removed.
And then the owner says to the tenant, Listen, I want to let that guy stay there 'cause I worked out a deal out with him. Nobody knows about it, he's got to pay me $200 a month to stay there.
Well, I would say he probably is dealing with SCRUB, but that's beside the point, 'cause they make those kinds of deals.
Oh, don't they? I could tell you some of them, Councilman DiCicco, because I know of them.
And I'd like to remind the chairman that if you would have stayed 101 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 Republican, you might have been able to speak to the President. (Laughter.)
If they make that type of deal, then he fits right into the Council.
Yeah, I guess he does. Anyway, I believe the two gentlemen in the back wanted to testify on this bill? Any other questions for these witnesses? They'll be here for a while, I'm sure. Thanks, Otis. (Witnesses come forward.)
It's called having it both ways, having it both ways, protect certain rights and. . .
Yes, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
All righty, thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. My name is Al Taubenberger, and I'm President of the Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. My name is 102 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 spelled T-A-U-B-E-N-B-E-R-G-E-R. The Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce has been around since 1922 representing nearly a thousand members in Northeast Philadelphia.
And I have with me today Mr. Noel Perloff, who serves on our board of directors and has actually a very interesting story to tell as it relates to his situation. But before -- I do have a answer to Councilman as it relates to the US Postal Service. My father owned a little delicatessen Oxford Avenue and St. Vincent Street. It's also a home in which I have lived until a few years ago. And my father always wanted a post box because it would attract the people to the delicatessen. He went to the post master, couldn't do it, wasn't available. Finally, after our store was closed and it was just a private residence, the post office contacted me and asked for permission -- they asked the permission of the land owner for putting a post box there at that 103 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 point, after those many years of asking and the store being closed, I denied it.
I'm glad that the US government is more sensitive than the City of Philadelphia. Thank you.
At this point, I'd like Mr. Noel Perloff to say a word on his situation. He is the owner of the Country Club Restaurant on Cottman Avenue.
Thank you, Mr. Taubenberger. Thank you, Mr. Chairman for the opportunity to testify today. My name is Noel Perloff, that's P-E-R-L-O-F-F. I'd like to start off by reading a letter to the ladies and gentlemen of City Council. I've been the owner of Country Club Restaurant and Pastry Shop for the past 45 years. We are located at 1717 Cottman between Northeast High and Wilson Junior High. Over a period of years, more and more carriers are placing their boxes in front of our restaurant on Cottman Avenue. Some of these boxes hold published newspapers while others hold nothing more than advertising for cars, apartments, housing, and personal dating services. 104 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 From time to time, children in the area have opened the boxes, spilled the contents over the sidewalk and in the street. This represents an unsightly mess and a hazard to our senior customers. I'm requesting that the ladies and gentlemen of City Council have these boxes removed or come up with a suitable solution. To that I would like to add I have some pictures of the boxes, the trash that's in the boxes. We find that this prevents the proper -- our guests from properly getting in and out of their automobiles, even though we provide plenty of off-street parking in our parking lot. The boxes have graffiti on them, sometimes the students upset the boxes, and it's -- we're in a commercial- residential area, and across the street, it becomes an unsightly mess. From time to time, our customers do complain to us to see what I can do about removing these boxes and the mess that they bring to the neighborhood. I thank you for this opportunity.
Thank you Mr. Perloff. How many boxes do you have on that site? 105 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
Yeah. I saw this about a year ago when I introduced this bill. Councilman Mariano supplied some of these photographs. Have you ever asked any of these companies to place boxes there?
Have any of the people who own these companies or distribute this information ever contacted you and asked you if it was okay for them to place their boxes on your sidewalk?
Have you ever complained to anybody at L&I or anything about these boxes?
Well, did they 106 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 respond to you, did they say anything?
They said -- what I've heard back, not in an official letter, it's the right of the these news boxes to place them wherever they want, and they have no power to remove them.
Is there parallel parking next to these boxes permitted?
So if someone were parking -- and I'll share these photographs with my colleagues. If someone were parking parallel or adjacent to those boxes, they would have a very difficult time getting in and out of their war on the passenger's side.
Do you see any benefit to your business in having those boxes on your sidewalk?
Maybe the Department 107 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 of Licenses and Inspections can clarify something. We just heard that outside of Center City, it's the property owners' sidewalk. Would it be appropriate for you to call a scrap metal dealer and come and say there's things on my sidewalk -- since you're not in Center City -- and have them taken away and maybe make a few bucks on the scrap metal, recycling. I'm being serious.
And I can tell you that I have been a party to removing several boxes in South Philadelphia. We've cut the chains and taken things away, but that shouldn't be my responsibility. I think the message has to be clear, and that's what I believe the intention of this bill is, that you seek permission before you even go to that extreme. And people may violate that from time to time.
Yeah, I know. 108 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
My question is, if Mr. Perloff had a piece of metal that fell off a truck and went onto to sidewalk, you'd be able to take it away with no problem. If Mr. Perloff had a person that wanted to -- and I'm just trying to find out what is legal here. If he called a person in the community and said there's five metal boxes on my sidewalk, come and get 'em, could he make that call and legally have them removed?
Well, first of all, let's go back to the licensing of the boxes. I believe the bill that the Councilman had passed a few years back only dealt with the licensing of honor boxes in Center City; it didn't deal with any honors boxes outside of Center City. So I don't believe that there is a provision now under the code to license or regulate honor boxes outside of Center City.
So the answer to question is, he could call and have someone come and load them on a truck and take them away, and there would be no ramifications, other than somebody might get in his face that owns the box, but I'm talking about, there would be no police showing up, saying that you -- 109 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
Would you like to comment on that? Pull the chair up and get close to the table. The response is then to Councilman Cohen next. Thank you.
Jerome Balka, with the United Vendors. And by the way, they have the best cheese cake in Philadelphia at the Country Club Diner. Let me respond to what -- we go back a long way up there. There is no licensing of honor boxes outside of Center City. To the best of my knowledge, there is absolutely no reason why the Country Club Restaurant can't remove those honor boxes. There is no law which permits those honor boxes or mandates that they be there.
It's no big deal. But I would like to suggest, Councilman DiCicco, that a bill might be appropriate to regulate honor boxes outside of Center City, and in 110 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 that way, you can limit where they go and how many.
I have attempted to do that as well. And, again, I was accused of tearing up the Constitution so -- (Laughter.)
We did that bill 9 when introduced the other one and we held off till this was all done and taken care of. Maybe this time to come back and do that, that was my bill. Maybe we should do it.
Either do it your way with an ordinance or do nothing and let the gentleman take the honor boxes down.
You know, I have a problem, I'll give you an example, at Broad and Federal, on the northeast corner in front of the First Union Bank.
The people who operate First Union, they're tenants there. The owner has a lot of properties throughout the City. No one's really paying attention to it, except the people who live and commute in that general 111 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 vicinity. I pass by it most mornings, and the newspapers in cold weather are used as cushions to keep someone's bottom warm as they're sitting on the ledge of the bank building, waiting for the bus. I don't expect the bank manager to remove them. It's very difficult for me to contact the owners of all these buildings and say, Look, why don't you get them out of there, 'cause it doesn't really matter to them. I just would like to have some order out there on the sidewalk so that people would have the right to say -- when that box gets placed there, Mr. Perloff should be able to make a call to whoever owns that box and say, I would appreciate your removing the box from my sidewalk. That should be not be his responsibility to continually pay to have those boxes removed 'cause that's what will happen. I said this and it sounded as though I was being facetious. You stand too long on a corner in this town and you will have something attached to your body. And I mean that.
Mr. Perloff -- it would probably take him a week to locate who to call to get rid of the box. But be that as it may -- 112 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
But if there were no boxes and we started with nothing and one box appears and he makes one call. Now that he has eleven boxes, it's going to take him a considerable amount of time, if he can even find those people, if he can even find who the owners are.
Either you regulate all boxes outside of Center City, and you've tried, and you ran into a flak with the newspaper people, I am sure; or you do nothing and you say to these gentlemen, Get a clipper, clip it away, and take it off. I don't know which is better.
Well, I have a gentleman, and I think I mentioned this at the last hearing, who lives in Society Hill, residential property, and has asked two or three of the honor box owners to remove them, and they have refused and they cite some first right amendments that they got the opportunity -- First Amendment rights, excuse me, that they have the right to put their stuff out there because this is news. The guy's afraid to remove the boxes.
Put him in touch with me, I'll help him. 113 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
You're going to be a busy man if I give everybody your number in my district to call you who don't want boxes on their street. Believe me, you're going to be a very busy man.
Could I finish this? I would think if I were in the business of distributing a publication like one of these books that sell real estate or automobiles or boats, that if four or five vendors -- and I assume these things cost a few bucks, these boxes. I assume that if five or six of their boxes suddenly disappeared and wound up in a shredder that they'd be more careful about how they distribute them.
I appreciate what you're saying, Councilman, but those boxes are not cardboard boxes that you're picking up. It takes a considerable amount of time and energy to remove those boxes. I don't think that -- Councilman Rizzo, would want somebody putting an honor box on your sidewalk without your permission? I don't 114 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 think you'd want that. I don't want it and I want to return some rights to property owners, 'cause there's a lot of issues floating around this council this week about taking people's rights away. In this case, I want to give the rights of a property back, I want those rights to be given back to that property owner.
I just want to note that the honor boxes and the other metal contraptions, if they're not abandoned, whoever disposes of them who's not the owner may be subject to a theft charge. Anybody can pick up something if it's been abandoned, but I'm not sure that the owners of those boxes would agree that they're abandoned. So I would just suggest caution in any property owner just arbitrarily calling, say, a junk yard saying, Come and remove these boxes. You may get yourself into trouble. And that's the only notion -- Now, do we -- did I hear you correctly, Mr. Balka, when you said that other than in Center 115 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 City that in -- other than in Center City, you believe that nobody has a right to place a box, so there's no law on it?
There is no law regulating honor boxes outside of Center City, and I verified that with the gentleman from L&I.
But to maybe raise the shackles of the chairman again, the First Amendment is really not limited to Center City.
Ah, here we go. Mr. Perloff, I will guarantee you, you will be in court if you remove those boxes. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
And with respect to the honor box that conveys information, I think there may well exist a First Amendment right. It's something that ought to be looked at before anybody's urged to do things. I think we do have to find some way of dealing with this situation, but I hope it's within constitutional limits. I think it's a shame that all of these boxes appear and nobody, you know, takes responsibility for them. I think there can be 116 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 a requirement that whoever places a box must maintain it, must keep it clean, you know, or subject it to removal by an appropriate department of City government. I think maybe that's the direction we ought to move in.
And I think, Councilman, we did address that to a limited degree in Center City when we did the honor box legislation a couple of years ago, where we provide corrals for honor boxes, but I will tell you from the experience of that bill, if it were not for the Special Services District in Center City, which has a staff that goes out and cleans sidewalks and maintains sidewalks and removes graffiti, that bill would be useless. It is a very time-consuming and expensive ordeal to continue to monitor these boxes, remove the graffiti, because basically, the attitude from these folks who put these boxes out there is, nothing's going to happen to me, I'm going to do it, I don't care. They're selling a product on somebody else's pavement who may not want them to be there, and there's no repercussion for it. And to ask an individual property owner 117 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 to take that additional responsibility in not only maintaining his or her sidewalk, which is what they're responsible for, but now to take on the responsibility of monitoring honor boxes, making a phone call to make them get cleaned or removed, I don't think that is fair to the citizens of this city.
I don't think it is either, and I think that may be the responsibility of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. They have inspectors out, they monitor graffiti on buildings and tell property owners to remove it.
But, sir, truthfully, there are not enough inspectors to do all of this work. There are inspectors who I wish were citing political candidates who fail to remove posters from the last primary election. That's not getting done. There's stuff that goes on out there every single day, and if we ban it and you're not allowed unless you get permission and then the Department would agree, provided the honor boxes meet the code requirements, whatever, it's okay.
I would have to just comment on -- 118 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
It is nothing but additional trash that is put on the sidewalks of the City.
I would just want to comment on the gentleman's statement there. The Department only has inspectors that work in our 8 Business Compliance Unit, and they inspect 9 everything from licensing of businesses to vendors 10 on the street to all other activities related to 11 business regulatory. We just don't have the 12 manpower to do all of that. 13
And I don't know if 14 you doubled it if that would make a difference, I 15 rally don't know. 16 Again, why should we, the taxpayers, pay 17 the cost that we will incur to monitor something 18 that is on a person's pavement who didn't want that 19 something on there in the first place? 20 Councilman Mariano -- you have some testimony?
No, no, very simply, a lot of things are being kicked around and 119 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 we're concerned about a lot of things, but what I remember, and that was probably the last session of Council -- or was that this one when you did the other honor box with the corrals and I did a bill 6 and didn't know, then we talked, and when we went down 'em, I wanted to do it citywide, and Councilman DiCicco said probably I want to do it citywide too, but we'll have better luck in Center City if we do it first and spring out. But what I remember -- and not being an attorney, not being a First Amendment right person, and I understand Councilman Cohen and the attorneys on this board that are concerned about this. But when the people from the big newspapers came in, what I remember was, they said, first of all, we don't care about the ones that you're not buying, we only care about the dailies. The weeklies, we're not concern about. Now, I have a real problem, concerned about it. If Councilman Clarke and I started a business that sells cars in the newspaper, that's a little different than one of the dailies. That's even more different than the Northeast Times or the Gleaner. And the Northeast Times and the 120 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 Gleaner called me during that and I gave the picture to Councilman DiCicco that was in front of your restaurant, Mr. Perloff, that somebody gave me that showed that. And I said, Look, here's one at the end of my district and Councilman O'Neill's that we shared, it's a total disgrace. So we understand what -- you understand trying to separate -- like I don't want to hurt the Gleaner and the Northeast Times 'cause they're selling legitimate papers that only comes out once a week, and they don't sell 'em anymore, they save 50 cents or 75 cents, but they give 'em away in cleaners. But what does that have to do with the guy selling apartments and cars? So what's next? You know, that's the whole concern, trying to not trample on anybody's First Amendment rights but doing the right thing, but it comes down basically to you got to make sure that Mr. Perloff doesn't have to clean up outside of the store for something he's not making money on. It's simply that easy.
I'm as zealous of First Amendment rights as you are. That's what keeps us alive and going. 121 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
But are limits, just like you can't yell "fire" in a crowd in a crowded theater, First Amendment rights have limits. How about limiting, one, the number of honor boxes at any particular location and --
Well, I think it's regulation. What we did in Center City, we need as a council to expand that. I think this will all pretty much address that if we get through this, whatever happens, and we go onto that next.
And I think all of us, the business association, the property owners, my people, we'd like to all pitch in and work out what is best for all of us. We don't -- we're not going to be able to ban honor boxes, period. Let's face it. I think there is a First Amendment right, but we can do something to make it better.
I disagree on that, but I think, if you're telling me that someone who has an honor box to distribute and/or sell their product has more rights than I do and I pay the real-estate taxes on that property, we're in 122 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 trouble, we're in big trouble.
Let me tell you about newsstands for a second. The City licenses newsstands. To obtain a newsstand license, you have to go to L&I, give them the location and a diagram and so forth. Let's leave the diagram and so forth out. You have to go to L&I and give them the location. They do not have to automatically approve every location.
And neither do they have to go -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Haigler. Neither do they have to go to the owner of the property and say, We're going to drop 4 by 8 by 8 foot box on your sidewalk.
I just want to clarify first that L&I doesn't approve the location. The locations are approved by the Streets Department.
Okay, but the Streets Department, as far as I know of -- and I think it was testified to at the last hearing -- 123 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 never contacts the owner of the property.
That's correct, they don't. But they look to see whether there is sufficient passage.
Yeah, but that goes to the heart of what this bill is, in my opinion, that the individual property owner has limited rights as to what happens on his or her property, and the Streets Department, government tells you what you can live with and what you can't live with. That doesn't make sense to me.
No, no appeal, that's it. Streets Department says you meet the criteria, you fit the code, the box is the right size, there's enough place to walk. You, Mr. Rizzo, who own the property, you have no say in the process. (Unintelligible, parties talking over 124 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 each other.)
A property owner can appeal from the issuance of a newsstand license to the L&I Review Board.
But doesn't that generally happen after the box has already been placed?
No. And in fact, actually, that's a back door way to any kind of rights. I would like to say a word if I could.
Once again for the record, my name is Al Taubenberger, T-A-U-B-E-N- B-E-R-G-E-R, President, Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce. Absolutely at this point, the property owner has virtually no rights. And even, as explained by my fellow witness here, it's very limited. It's almost a back door approach to rights. So, I mean, there absolutely are no rights, 125 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 and no one in this room would ask for an honor box on their property. There's not anyone in this room 4 who would ask for honor box on their property simply because it doesn't enhance their property, it doesn't help the neighborhood. Really, the bottom line is, Philadelphia people like to keep their neighborhood clean. The property owners, the businessmen, the residents want a clean city to live in, and an honor box does not enhance that motive. There's no reason to have them without some regulation. I think really to enhance our city, to give property owner some right, 'cause now he has no 15 rights, there ought to be some regulation on this. And we are very much in favor of this bill or something like it to regulate the uses. You saw the extreme, without any regulation --
I see the extreme walking through this city and driving through this 126 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 city day in and day out. I spend 99 percent of my life in this city and I see it all over the place.
How do you deal with the existing honor boxes in front of Mr. Perloff's restaurant? After this legislation, how would he proceed? Would they be grandfathered or --
If you're asking me my opinion, I wouldn't grandfather anybody in 'cause it doesn't make sense.
But legally, they're not supposed to be there in the first place, so what am I un -- I'm not undoing anything, they weren't supposed to be there in the first place. And all I'm saying going forward, so that everyone is on a level playing field, if you want to put a box, contact the owner and get permission. If permission is denied, you don't put it there. 127 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
Is it the City responsibility to remove them? Who's going to have to them?
No, the property owner -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
Sir, excuse me. I'll tell you what, it's three and a half years, I've been trying to get three newsstands that were abandoned, have been abandoned for a better part of six years, and I know 'cause I look at one every morning as I look out my window on Market Street. In fact, one newsstand at Fourth and Market has a for-sale sign on it. It's three and a half years. Every department has guaranteed me it would be removed. It's still there. I'm not going to depend on that. I don't want that box or any other thing put on someone's pavement without the explicit permission of the property owner. They have first rights as far as I'm concerned. Any other questions for these witnesses? I'm apologizing to everybody. I know 128 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 it's been a long day and we have a lot more bills, but I knew these would be the most controversial, and I wanted to get the other people out as quickly as possible.
Councilman, let me just address one question -- one issue on the sidewalk sale vending. This bill will be the death of sidewalk sale vending if passed.
I thought you said that in Center City, they may have some protection because the property owners don't own the sidewalk.
I know, but you're going to -- this bill gives the property owner, even though he doesn't own the sidewalk, the right to tell L&I, I don't want this vendor on the sidewalk in front of my store.
If you want to ban vending, sidewalk sale vending, introduce a bill and say no 24 sidewalk sale vending, period. Hold hearings on it and see what the public wants. 129 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
No, no, no, no, no, no, no. I did the honor box legislation a couple years ago. I spent the better part of a year and a half to two years with the print industry, PNI, PGN, all other groups to design a program that would work in Center City when my hope was to get that same program throughout the rest of the City. It is cost-prohibitive. And I said this earlier and I think I have to repeat it again. Were it not for the Special Services District in Center City and the fee structure that paid for the corrals and monitors those things on a daily basis, 'cause they have a staff that walks the streets of the Special Services District hours a day, 7 days a week, it would not 21 be worth the paper it was written on. 22 There's no way we can do it in South 23 Philadelphia, in North Philly, or in Northeast 24 Philadelphia. You don't have the community wherewithal and organizational strength to be able 130 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 to control it. And who's going to pay for the corrals, and who will pay for the policing when people attach an honor box to the outside of the corral, which they do almost on a daily basis in Center City. The special Services District has the resources to remove it. It will not -- we will not improve quality of life on our sidewalks unless we do something, I believe, in my opinion, that this bill 11 addresses. Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Chairman, I think there is a problem here that needs to be dealt with, but I think doing it with a blunt instrument and eliminating all runs you directly into all kinds of constitutional problems. There are First Amendment rights; like it or not they exist. They ought to exist, they ought to be strengthened, in my opinion. But in any event, they exist. What you've got to do is to find a way to distinguish between the First Amendment kind of boxes and the others. Do we have an opinion from the City Solicitor with respect to the legality of this bill? If you don't, I suggest strongly that 131 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 you seek such an opinion because if you just blanketly ban all of these boxes, you're flying right into the face of the First Amendment, and you're not achieving anything, except a lot of expense.
Well, I would like to see what the City Solicitor's Office says because there is a right of newsstands to furnish news to the public. It's protected constitutionally, and we ought not to fly in the face of it, but at least let's get a City Solicitor's opinion as to what has to be done.
Well, I don't have that opinion with me, but I know the City Solicitor was very much involved in the honor box legislation for Center City, and I don't recall any issues on the First Amendment rights issue.
That's because you 132 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 weren't eliminating them.
Yeah, well, then you could eliminate those that are not involved in the -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
This is not an attempt by me to eliminate honor boxes entirely from the City of Philadelphia. This is kind of what we do with the other bill that we'll do on Thursday, diverting the attention somewhere else. All I'm saying is that an individual property owner should have his or her rights to decide what goes on that pavement. It could be an honor box, it could be a vendor, it could be -- I don't know what else it could be, it could be anything that appears out there.
It could be a pay phone, a pay phone -- thank you, Robin -- that gets dropped -- see -- 133 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658
There's a difference between constitutionally-protected rights and those that are not. As to those that are not constitutionally protected, we would have the power to eliminate them.
I appreciate what you're saying, and all I'm saying, with all due respect, Councilman, this has been argued for the last approximately four years when you take in what we took -- when we debated the issue on honor boxes in Center City, and there have been all these opinions and no one has suggested that there's any constitutional violations here. That's all I'm saying.
Because you weren't eliminating them. You could regulate, but you can't eliminate.
We eliminated them on some intersections and didn't on others.
But that's part of regulation. You can limit the number of them, you 134 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 can decide how many there should be.
But can't say that the citizens of the Northeast, South Philadelphia -- and I could name all of the communities -- will have no rights to free information. Say if City papers that are given out freely without cost, you can't say the residents of that area can't have any of them if all of the property owners say no. You've clearly breached the constitution.
I'm just suggesting let's do it in a sensible, reasonable way.
And please don't misunderstand me. I don't know what information people need to know about apartments that are for rent in Bala Cynwyd when they're being distributed on a street corner in Somerton.
Councilwoman 135 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 000658 Blackwell has sent me a note that she would request that I not introduce the amendment that she offered last week and is asking me to hold the bill. And at this time, I will not introduce the amendment, but I am not inclined to hold the bill. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Thank you, gentlemen. I do appreciate your testimony.
The clerk will read the title of the of the next bill.
Bill No. 010336, an ordinance granting permission to PF, Net, Inc., its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain, operate, replace and remove a telecommunications system along, over, in, and under the public rights-of-way and City streets and/or to place such telecommunications system within the existing 136 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010336 facilities owned by Verizon-PA, PECO Energy Company, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, Shared Assets, AT&T, or other entities holding a grant pursuant to other City ordinances, all under certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen and I'm here on behalf of the Streets Department to testify on Bill No. 010336. This bill authorizes PF.Net, a Delaware corporation, to install underground fiber optic conduit within the public right-of-way under certain terms and conditions. The purpose of this request is to provide a primary route for PF.Net between the western City limits and an AT&T pop at 500 South 27th Street, which falls between Lombard and South Street. PF.Net is undertaking a joint bill project with AT&T throughout the entire country and includes this stop in Philadelphia. For this route, PF.Net will install eight 1-1/2-inch diameter conduits. The entire route totals approximately 4.6 miles. 137 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010336 The Department of Streets has reviewed the proposed route and given preliminary approval. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. And thank you, gentlemen, for your patience. If you're testifying, please identify yourself, spell your name for the record, and begin with your testimony.
My name is Dave DeSanto. That's D-E, capital S, A-N-T-O. I'm project engineer for PF.Net.
My name is Charles Hart. I am the project manager for (indiscernible) Corporation, the contractor responsible for the engineering construction of this project from Arlington, Virginia, to New Jersey.
Well, we're just here just in case the chairman or anybody on the committee had questions to ask us.
Had I known this, I 138 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010345 would have called you guys earlier. I apologize. We never know about these things, and sometimes there's opposition. So thank you. Thank you for your testimony and your patience again.
Bill No. 010345, an ordinance granting permission to Global Crossing Local Services, Inc., its successors and assigns to see construct maintain, operate, replace, and remove a telecommunications system under certain public rights-of-way and City streets and/or to place such telecommunications system within the existing duct facilities holding a legal grant pursuant to other City ordinances and to lease telecommunications systems or portions of a telecommunications system holding a legal grant pursuant to other City ordinances, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen, I'm the engineering supervisor for the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 139 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010345 010345 on behalf of the Department. This bill authorizes Global Crossing to install and/or lease underground fiber optic conduit within the public rights-of-way under certain terms and conditions. The purpose of this project is to provide backbone route for Global Crossing around Center City originating from their gateway location in the Telecom Hotel at 401 North Broad Street and to provide ten laterals off this backbone which connect to various other pops in Center City. Global's route leaves Philadelphia via a long haul connection with Quest at the 2300 Chestnut Street Telecom Hotel location. A majority of the route is comprised of leased fiber and existing conduit space within the right-of-way. A small amount of construction will be required to link existing and new facilities. The Streets Department has reviewed preliminary plans for the project and has no 21 objection to the passage of this bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness from the committee? 140 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010385 (No questions.)
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. 010385, an ordinance granting permission to Sunesys Inc., 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 or facilities of other entities holding a grant pursuant to other City ordinances subject to such owner's consent, all under certain terms and conditions. And Companion Bill 010386, an ordinance 18 granting permission to Sunesys Inc., its successors and assigns to construct, maintain and operate, replace and remove a ductbank for certain telecommunications uses under and in the public rights-of-way, City Streets and the Frankford Creek Channel, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy 141 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010385 Sen. I'm an engineering supervisor for the Streets Department. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 010385 and companion Bill No. 010386 on behalf of the Department. Bill No. 010385 grants permission to Sunesys Incorporated to install a new fiber optic system, primarily aerial, with some underground facilities between the Delaware River near the Frankford Creek and the Telecom Hotel site at 401 North Broad Street. The beginning of the route is an aerial line on poles within the Frankford Creek right-of-way. Sunesys has obtained permission from the Water Department to run the route from the Delaware River bore site into the Frankford Creek right-of-way to a point near Richmond Street. The remainder of the route occupies various Philadelphia rights-of-way between Richmond Street near the Frankford Creek and the intersection of 13th and Noble Streets, where the route ends at the Telecom Hotel located 401 North Broad Street. And for companion Bill 010386, it grants permission to the same company, Sunesys, to install a fiber optics underground ductbank system between the Delaware Avenue River bore site mentioned in the 142 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010385 previous bill, then under Frankford Creek right-of-way to a point near the intersection of Richmond Street and Lewis Street. The installation includes a boring under the Delaware River to a location in New Jersey. Sunesys has also obtained permission from the Water Department to continue the route from the Delaware River site into the Frankford Creek right-of-way to a point near Richmond Street where it will end. The underground ductbank is comprised of eight 5-inch-in-diameter conduit with four 1-1/2-inch diameter interducts in each. Some of the total interducts are to be 14 used by Sunesys and the remainder to be leased or 15 sold to other telecom companies. 16 The Streets Department has reviewed the 17 construction plans mentioned under both Bill 010385 18 and 010386 for this project and has no objection to 19 the passage of the bills. 20 Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Anyone else here 143 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010387 who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 010387, an ordinance granting permission to GPU Telecom Services Inc., 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, the City streets and/or to replace such telecommunications system within the existing facilities owned by Verizon-PA, PECO Energy Company, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, National Railroad Passenger Corporation, or other entities holding a grant pursuant to other City ordinances, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Again, my name is Nancy Sen, engineering supervisor for the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 24 010387 on behalf of the Department. This bill authorizes GPU Telecom to 144 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010387 construct a fiber backbone network in the City of Philadelphia. GPU will be placing cable both aerially and underground. They propose a total of three routes through railroad right-of-way that are mix of aerial and underground, and the third is all underground. The aerial cable will be attached to existing Amtrak catenary structures, the underground cable will be placed in existing conduit leased from Amtrak. In addition, they propose two Center City underground routes. One route will link 30th Street Station with 401 North Broad, and the second route is a new lateral construction in front of the 401 North Broad Street building. In all five, distinct routes segments will be placed within the City limits. They are: the northern route on Amtrak catenary and in their conduit; Southern route on Amtrak catenary and in their conduit; the western route in Amtrak conduit; the Center City route in SEPTA conduit; and new underground construction at 13th and noble. GPU Telecom has been asked to coordinate with the Streets Department to provide details of the proposal to assure that the locations do not 145 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010387 interfere with future maintenance or reconstruction of City bridge structures. The underground construction locations will have minimal impact on the City's right-of-way. The Streets Department has reviewed preliminary plans for this project and has no 8 objection to the passage of this bill.
My name is Carl Primavera, and with me today, I have Nancy Palmer and Dave Hillenbrand. It won't be necessary for them to testify, but they've been working with the Streets Department and with Councilman DiCicco's office. This will be a great upgrading of the infrastructure for the fiber system in Philadelphia. It's going to be business-friendly, it's going to be done through a partnership, as has been testified to, with Amtrak. It's really going to be a carrier's carrier and it's going to really allow a lot of wonderful things to happen in Philadelphia. Rather than taking the time today, there is a statement, along with a map, along with other information regarding GPU Telecom Services, and I'll pass them up with the hope that Council will become 146 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010387 more familiar with them.
Any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
And you notice the expeditious in which we did the calendar helped you out today. You see, you're still not the last person.
Okay. Again, thank you. I do appreciate your patience. You've been here before and you know how these things go. We try, but sometimes we're just not successful. Thank you for your testimony.
Bill No. 010388, an ordinance granting permission to CTSI Incorporated, its successors and assigns to construct, maintain and operate, replace and remove telecommunications 147 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010388 system along, over, in, and under the public rights-of-way and City streets and/or to place such telecommunications system within the existing facilities owned by Verizon-PA, PECO Energy Company, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, or other entities holding a grant pursuant to other City ordinances, all under certain terms and conditions
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen, an engineering supervisor for Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 010388 on behalf of the Department. This bill authorizes CTSI Incorporated to install aerial and underground fiber optic cable within the public right-of-way. The purpose of this request is to provide a primary route for CTSI between Plymouth Meeting and the Telecom Hotel at 401 North Broad Street. They'll enter the City limits on existing poles on Ridge Avenue near Northwestern Avenue. The route then travels south within various rights-of-ways to Center City to the end point at Broad and Callowhill Street. The route 148 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010388 is primarily aerial with a small portion of underground conduit construction on Ridge Avenue between Main Street and Schoolhouse Lane. In addition, new conduit will be placed to enter the Telecom Hotel building at the end of the route. The Streets Department has reviewed the preliminary construction plans and has no objection to the passage of this bill. However, to correct a clerical error in the draft of Bill No. 010388, the Streets Department offers the following amendment to Section 1. Revise the location of the company office of CTSI incorporated to read "Dallas, Pennsylvania" rather than "Dallas, Texas." Happy to say they're a local company and I totally overlooked that.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.) 149 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010391
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next to the last bill. Who drew the lucky number to be last?
Peter Kelsen is the last one. Bill No. -- actually, we have three more. Bill No. 010391, an ordinance granting permission to Williams Communications LLC, its successors and assigns, to construct, maintain, operate and replace and remove a telecommunications system under certain public rights-of-way and City streets and/or to place such telecommunications system within existing conduit facilities owned by Verizon-PA, Inc., PECO Energy Company, Southeastern Transportation Authority, CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, National Passenger Railroad Corporation, or other entities holding a legal grant pursuant to other City ordinances, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Nancy Sen, an engineering supervisor for the Streets 150 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010391 Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 3 010391 on behalf of the Department. This bill authorizes William Communications LLC to install and/or lease underground fiber optic conduit within the public right-of-way under certain terms and conditions. The purpose of this request is to provide a diverse route for Williams between the AT&T pop at 2401 Locust Street where they have existing facilities and a second at 801 Arch Street where they have recently secured office space. Council recently passed legislation, Bill No. 010195, authorizing Williams to install and/or lease conduit for a primary route between these same buildings mentioned above for the diverse route Williams has contracted with PECO Energy to lease existing interduct space in the right-of-way. A small amount of new conduit construction will be required to complete this route. The Streets Department has reviewed the preliminary plans for the project and has no 23 objection to the passage of this bill. (Witness comes forward.)
Please state your name for 151 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010391 the record.
Charles Naselsky on behalf of Williams. With me today to testify is (indiscernible) McCaw, who is the project manager on behalf of Williams.
My name is Valerie McCaw, M-C-C-A-W, with Williams Communications. I'm a project manager. This is our diverse route. We started construction today on our primary route. We're thrilled to be here and we'll be happy to answer any questions.
I apologize. Still working on honor boxes. Not that you're important or just as important. How are you?
Thank you. And, again, I apologize for the length of this hearing. All the opponents left. If you wear 'em down, sometimes it works. Oh, you did testify, I'm sorry. Charlie, do you wish to speak? You spoke as well. You guys talk fast. 152 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010393 Okay, thank you for your testimony. And, again, I apologize for the length of these hearings.
Bill No. 010393, an ordinance granting permission to Third Wire Incorporated, its successors and assigns to construct, maintain and operate, replace and remove a telecommunications system along, in, and under the public rights-of-way and City streets and/or to place such telecommunications system within the existing facilities owned by Verizon-PA Incorporated, PECO Energy Company, Southeastern Pennsylvania Transportation Authority, CSX Corporation, Norfolk Southern Corporation, Consolidated Rail Corporation, or other entities holding a grant pursuant to other City ordinances, all under certain terms and conditions.
Again, Chairman and members of the committee, my name is Nancy Sen and I'm an engineering supervisor for the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 010393 on behalf of the Department. 153 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010393 This bill authorizes Third Wire to install underground fiber optic conduit within the public right-of-way, including all appropriate terms and conditions. The purpose of this request is to construct a fiber optic network in the Center City area and the University City area, linking primarily the carrier hotels at 401 North Broad Street and 2401 Locust Street. The network will consist of four loops: a northern loop, a northern loop A, a southern loop, and a south loop A. This network will consist of pulling through fiber and conduit owned by SEPTA, Verizon, and PECO Energy. The new conduit indicated on the route will be in the SEPTA subway surface tunnel in the vicinity of City Hall. Portions of the proposed route will also be pulled through existing conduit attached to four bridges. Third Wire is aware of the proposed South Street bridge reconstruction in the near future and the associated facility relocation costs that the company could bear. The Department of Streets has reviewed the proposed route and given preliminary approval. Thank you.
Any questions for 154 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010234, 397 this witness? (No questions.)
Anyone here who wishes to testify? If you do, please approach the witness table. (No other witnesses on this bill.)
Bill No. 010234, an ordinance granting permission to WXIII/PHL Real Estate Limited Partnership, its successors and assigns to construct maintain and operate, replace and remove ductbanks for certain telecommunications uses under and in the public rights-of-way and City streets; all under certain terms and conditions. And Bill No. 010397, an ordinance 18 granting permission to WXII/PHL Real Estate Limited Partnership, c/o Archon Group, LP, its successors and assigns to construct, maintain and operate, replace and remove ductbanks for certain telecommunications uses under and in the public rights-of-way and City streets, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, 155 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010234, 397 Mr. Chairman. Peter Kelsen, K-E-L-S-E-N, for Archon Group. I would like to start off by thanking you for your consideration. It has been an exciting day.
Be here Thursday morning if you want to see excitement.
I may pass on that one. Let me start off by saying that we are withdrawing Bill No. 010234 and proceeding with Bill 11 No. 010397 due to some route changes. And for simplicity, we will only go with 397. Nancy, do you want to go through the rap?
Again, my name is Nancy Sen, engineering supervisor for the Streets Department, and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 010397. This bill grants permission to WXIII/PHL Real Estate Limited Partnership to install a new fiber optics underground raceway structure to achieve three purposes: service the needs of tenants by providing a convenient primary and diverse entrance way which bypasses the bridge structures in the area and is located nearby existing backbone routes in the area; to link their 156 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010234, 397 property at 440 North Broad Street under development to become a telecom e-commerce site to two existing telecom hotels in the area, 401 North Broad and 1309 Noble Street; and, thirdly, to provide strategic manholes for a future link between their property at 440 North Broad and a similar proposed ductbank entrance way for the Networks Building at 1500 Spring Garden Street described in a previous bill 10 before Council, 010182. The Streets Department has reviewed the proposed plans for this project. The route to these buildings -- this building was coordinated to minimize excavation in the right-of-way while allowing an economical link for the many companies eager to make connections to the telecom pop sites concentrated in this area. It is expected that multi-duct installation will meet the demands of the growing telecommunications sector in the City. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of the bill. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, we thank the committee for its consideration. We believe that the proposed 157 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010234, 397 ordinance will reduce the impact on the public ways. We've designed this to as to have minimal -- and I repeat, minimal -- impact on the public right-of-way. Most of the build is going to be affixed to existing bridge structures. We've coordinated our process with the Streets Department and other telecommunications providers. We think this is a tremendous opportunity for the City to enhance its telecommunications capability. And we thank you. We would also ask for a suspension of the rules and abbreviated consideration of the ordinance.
Since there's no 18 one else here but me, I have no further questions. And I want to apologize to you and clients as well for the time it took to get through these hearings today.
Thank you. And being the last hearing of the 158 6/5/01 - STREETS & SERVICES - 010234, 397 season, enjoy and see you in September.
You're welcome to come Thursday morning at 9:15 as well.
Okay, thank you. And thank you, gentlemen, thank you. We will take a brief three-minute recess. I want to go over some of the legalities of what I need to do next to continue this hearing. Thank you. (Break taken.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
This concludes the public hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. We will continue -- the public meeting is recessed until Thursday, June 7, at 9:15 a.m. Thank you for your attention. Thank you. (Adjourned 5:15 p.m.) 159 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 Tuesday, June 5, 2001, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES BILL NO.'S 000658, 010065, 010066, 010128, 010130, 010230, 010234, 010267, 010268, 010336, 010339, 010342, 010343, 010344, 010345, 010346, 010350, 010370, 010375, 010376, 010377, 010379, 010380, 010381, 010383, 010384, 010385, 010386, 010387, 010388, 010389, 010390, 010391, 010395, 010396, 010397, 010398, 010399, 010400 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter