COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, May 8, 2008 2:10 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, CHAIR COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE BILLS 080162, 080163, 080164, 080406, 080380, 080404, 080129, 080382, 080383, 080384, 080408, 080374 and 080375 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, everyone. I apologize. We're a little bit late. I apologize, for those of you who have been waiting. I'm going to hand out a memorandum that was sent to me from Julia Chapman, the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Mayor. At a hearing that was held on April 3rd of this Committee, we held a bill that was introduced by Councilman Kenney regarding sidewalk closures for construction projects. We're not going to be doing anything with that bill 16 today, but I just wanted to, for your purposes, see what the response to that asking for holding of the bill was at that time. With that, I will now ask Mr. Abernathy to read the title of the first bill -- the first three bills. Same testimony for all three?
Yes. Bill No. 080162, an ordinance 3 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. amending Chapter 11-200 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Openings and Excavations in the Streets," to revise the operative period of permits to break streets and footways for the installation and repair of underground conduit, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 080163, an ordinance 10 amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," and Title 11 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Streets," to provide authorization to the Streets Department to adopt regulations establishing fees for issuing permits for hauling oversized and overweight vehicles; breaking streets and footways for the installation and repair of underground pipes and conduit; placing construction materials, construction equipment and portable on-demand storage units in the right-of-way; and for providing accelerated service for the survey activities and City plan changes 4 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. and plan reviews of private paving plans; and to establish supplementary inspection fees when the work or activity has been commenced without the permit first having been obtained. And Bill No. 080164, an ordinance amending Chapter 11-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Construction Encroachments and Projections Over, On and Under Streets," make the Streets Department the permitting agency for the placement of construction materials in the right-of-way; adding a section 15 prohibiting the blocking or closure of a roadway or sidewalk for loading or unloading, building maintenance or related activities without a permit; and authorizing the Streets Department to issue regulations for such permits; all under certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Perri, Mr. Denny. Good afternoon, gentlemen. 5 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Decide among yourselves who will be providing the testimony.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is David Perri and I am the Chief Engineer for the Bureau of Surveys and Design for the Department of Streets. Joining me today to my right is Deputy Commissioner Michael Zaccagni and to my left, Chief Traffic Engineer Charles Denny. We're here to offer testimony in support of Bill 0801620, 0801630 and 0801640. Combined, these three bills will accomplish the following seven objectives: Number one, transfer the permit issuance responsibility for the use of the right-of-way for temporary storage of construction materials in the roadway from the Department of Licenses and Inspections to the Department of Streets. Number two, provide the Department of Streets with the authority to charge supplemental inspection fees 6 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. whenever work or activities that are regulated under Title or Title occur 4 without first obtaining the required 5 permits. 6 Three, provide the Department 7 of Streets with the authority to 8 establish permit fees by regulation for 9 activities that are regulated under Title 10 9 of The Philadelphia Code. 11 Four, provide the Department of Streets with the authority to establish optional accelerated services for survey activities and for the review of private paving plans. Five, provide the Department of Streets with the authority to charge permit fees for the placement of pods, dumpsters and other construction equipment in the public right-of-way. Six, provide the Department of Streets with the authority to charge permit fees for full or partial street and sidewalk closures. Seven, changing the valid 7 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. operative time for a street opening permit from two weeks to 30 days and the elimination of permit renewals. These seven objectives support the following goals: One, improve pedestrian and bicycle circulation by providing a disincentive for the extended use of public roadways and sidewalks for the staging of construction and maintenance activities. Two, improve customer service by offering optional accelerated services. Three, cost recovery for services performed by the Department. Attached is the proposed fee schedule. The process for implementing these fees will be by formal regulation. As you know, the promulgation of regulations to The Philadelphia Code includes a legal review by the Law Department and public advertising and recording by the Records Department. 8 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Thank you for consideration of these bills. We are available to answer any of your questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Before I begin, for the purpose of the record, we do have a quorum. To my far left is Councilman Green, my immediate left is Councilman Greenlee, to my far right is Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller, and to my immediate right is Councilman Jones, and myself as Councilman DiCicco as Chair. Is there anyone else testifying or just you?
That's it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any questions for these folks from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there anyone here who wishes to testify on behalf of this bill, either for or against this bill? (No response.) 9 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 080406, an ordinance amending Chapter 12-2400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Towing and Immobilizing of Parked or Abandoned Vehicles," by adding and changing towing zone locations, all under certain terms and conditions. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, Mr. Fenerty. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and Councilmembers. My name is Vince Fenerty and I'm the Executive Director of the Parking Authority. I'm here to testify on behalf of Bill 080406. I would like to thank Chairman DiCicco and the members of the Committee 10 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. for allowing me to testify here today. I am testifying in favor of Bill 080406, which would extend the boundaries in which the Parking Authority can impound a vehicle in the City of Philadelphia. Please note that there is an amendment attached to this ordinance and I am asking for approval to the amendment also of Bill 080406. Currently, the Parking Authority may impound a vehicle from Spruce to Vine Street for rush hour or safety violations. The Authority would also like to extend the boundaries from Spring Garden Street to Bainbridge Street and from the Delaware River to the Schuylkill River. The streets which lie in between those boundaries have several "no stopping" or "no parking any time" zones and rush hour zones. The boundaries also conform with the Center City boundaries for other parking violations. When reviewing traffic patterns 11 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. in the Center City area, you will note that the exit to Interstate I-95 northbound is at Callowhill Street. The extension of the tow enforcement area would include this street. By granting the ability to enforce from Spring Garden and Callowhill Streets with tow-away zones, the Parking Authority would be able to keep all lanes of traffic open during the morning rush hour. I am confident that there will be a vast improvement of traffic flow arriving into the City during the peak hours if this ordinance is passed. Bill No. 080406 also includes extending the rush hour enforcement on Broad Street from Spring Garden Street to Hunting Park Avenue. Currently, North Broad Street is enforced for rush hour by parking enforcement officers, but the Authority cannot tow from Spring Garden Street north on Broad. Broad Street is a major artery for the City of Philadelphia and to have one lane blocked by vehicles 12 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. in the morning or afternoon rush hour impedes the flow of traffic. Located along North Broad Street there are several large businesses, a major university and a large hospital. Along with these institutions, there are several fire hydrants, "no stopping" and bus zones. By granting the Authority the capability to enforce the tow zones along North Broad Street, you would greatly enhance the safety of drivers and pedestrians alike. I ask that this Committee give Bill 080406 a favorable recommendation and request that the rules be suspended to allow the first reading at the next Council session. Thank you again for the opportunity to testify before the Committee this afternoon, and I would be happy to answer any questions which you may have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. 13 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Fenerty. Just so I'm clear on this, this would allow you to tow anywhere where there's "no parking any time"? We're not just talking rush hour. I'm not real clear.
It would be "no 12 parking any time" in a marked tow-away zone.
Yes. There are many areas that are just marked "no 18 parking any time" which are not marked tow-away zones.
I guess the reason I'm asking, I can think -- you mentioned bus zones. Is that a tow-away zone?
Most bus zones are a tow-away zone. 14 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
And the other thing I'm thinking of -- and I don't know if it's in this area, but it's in the area just north of Spring Garden, which I have a little interest in, there's some old signs which we've been trying to get taken away -- maybe they finally have been. I'm not sure -- that say things like no parking during Wednesdays between such-and-such. I think they were left over from street-cleaning days.
If there's any signs, Councilman, that are in your district, we would be glad to look at them.
It has to say tow zone. And when you leave here today and maybe walk towards home, if you look at 15 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the sign, it will have a little tow truck also on the top of it, say tow-away zone. Some of them have a little tow truck.
So just plain illegal parking doesn't necessarily get you towed?
All right. We'd probably have chaos. Okay. Thank you. Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
I was just wondering, too. Councilman Greenlee did ask basically what I was going to ask, the difference between a tow-away zone and what's there now. I would think that it's important that when you decide to -- the bill is approved, that the signs are large enough that people 16 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. understand that if they park there, there's a chance of getting towed. Does this mean that -- I believe during rush hour here in Center City if a car is parked in one of those zones, you immediately tow it?
So that means that from Spring Garden up to Hunting Park any car parked at 4 o'clock -- is it 4 o'clock?
-- (continued) would be towed if they're in that lane?
Right. A parking enforcement officer or a police officer would have to cite the vehicle first with a parking ticket, and then sometime after it's cited, the tow truck would come up and move it. And the reason for that is because we have going towards north going along North Broad Street, both in and 17 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. out, we have complaints in the morning. There's a bottleneck here. We can't do anything with it. We can't move it in a bottleneck traffic. It's been something we studied for a long time. The traffic patterns have changed. And before we naturally would do this, we would make sure the whole stretch -- the signs are corrected and we would for at least a period of one to two weeks "steer clear out" first, which means people who are used to squatting, some people just take a ticket and pay it or not pay. If we would put "steer clear out" before we could start towing the vehicles.
Those vehicles would be taken to Lot No. 1 down in South Philadelphia.
Is there such a thing that you just take vehicles to a place where parking is permitted? I think I recall a constituent or so that 18 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. have had their cars towed, but then nobody kind of knows where the car is.
We primarily do that during snow emergencies and also street closures for police, temporary no 7 stopping where it wouldn't be. We don't move a car and impound it to another street as a normal course of business. It would become an impound.
So what would happen if, hypothetically, my car was towed? I then call probably 9th and Filbert to say, Hey, my car is not here, can you tell me where it is.
They would tell you where it is. Everything is computerized. They will be able to tell you immediately where it is. You could go to that lot and you could pay for the towing fee, and if you felt that the towing was improper, there you would be given the proper paperwork to file to contest the towing of the vehicle or the ticket, and a hearing would be scheduled 19 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. later at the Bureau of Administrative Adjudication.
So on Broad Street, North Broad Street, in the morning coming south is when you have enforcement and then in the afternoon going north?
I'm certainly familiar with the fact that sometimes those lanes are blocked with cars.
And it does cause a bottleneck. I mean, that's happened for years. So this would actually change it.
It would change it and how the towing would be done. You can imagine a bottle. You open the bottleneck up. So going-home traffic going northbound, you would start on the southern end closest to Spring Garden and you would open the bottleneck up. Coming 20 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. in in the morning what you would do is, you would reverse it the same way. You open the bottleneck up.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Chairman. Good afternoon. Just for the record, how much is the towing fee and what is the average ticket? Is that in addition to the towing?
The towing fee is $125 and the average ticket for no 18 stopping -- I don't have a book in front of me. I think -- and please don't hold me to it -- I think that's a $41 ticket.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any further questions? Councilman Green. 21 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Can you refresh my recollection about how money flows from the Parking Authority to the City of Philadelphia and then --
The money flows from the Parking Authority. We submit a budget to the City Finance Director by December 1st of each year.
No. I mean particularly what I'm thinking of is after million, the rest of the money 17 does not come to us or -- 18
The rest of the 19 money goes to the Philadelphia School 20 District. 21
I've read 22 public statements that where the Parking 23 Authority has said that they are going to 24 give the -- the City of Philadelphia is 25 going to get its whole $25 million. 22 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Councilman, our fiscal year goes from April 1st to March 30th of each year, and we reconcile our books two months after the close of each month. Our Board approves it. The City of Philadelphia for our last fiscal year, which ended March 30th, there has been $25 million already transferred. We transfer money each month. We're currently reconciling the books for the last two months. We will meet the goal and we will exceed the goal of 1.25 million for the School District this year, and I don't know by how much. I will know within the next week or two, and our Board will approve those financials the day after Memorial Day at its Board meeting.
And you project that you will provide the City of Philadelphia million next year? 23
And that's 23 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. without -- you're doing that without some of the things that I've seen recently, extending hours of parking on streets --
-- and this towing proposal and other things like that? So I guess just from an economic perspective, from the City of Philadelphia's perspective -- and I understand that cars need to be towed if they're a danger, but why should the Parking Authority do it rather than have a unit of the Police or Streets or somebody else do it where we can get the revenue and put the dollars into the City budget? Because we're capped out from everything we can get from the Parking Authority. Why continue to provide you additional dollars versus maximizing the City's revenue when we have a $200 million hole in our own budget over the next five years?
Well, Councilman, 24 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. there is an agreement of understanding between the City of Philadelphia and the Parking Authority where we enforce the on-street regulations, and going back to 1983 when the duties were transferred over, it was so that the police tow squad, which has very small numbers, would concentrate on crime scenes and the Streets Department would concentrate on "downed" vehicles. We concentrate on those vehicles which are in violation. And we're not -- we don't need to add any employees or staff for these expanded boundaries.
No. I wasn't suggesting that. I'm just saying -- which means it's definitely going to hit the bottom line, increase revenues.
The profit will go to the Philadelphia School District, not to the Parking Authority.
Right, and not into the City's General Fund, which 25 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. is 200 million short over the next five years in our Five-Year Plan.
I understand your point, but the City has no impoundment lots, so, therefore, the City is not equipped to do this type of towing. We estimate --
But it's a good business, right? I mean, if we went into it, we'd probably make money.
If you went into it, you would probably make some money, but what you would be doing is replicating the same services.
But we'd get the dollars. Is there any way that you can share dollars with the City of Philadelphia if we extend your authority or permit you to extend hours on parking signs?
The money goes to the schools. Personally, if that were changed, if the Mayor found a way to change it and all the money went into the City budget, that wouldn't matter to the Parking Authority, the same as we had hoped to change the red light camera money from going to PennDOT into the City schools to keep it local. We weren't successful in Harrisburg on doing that. It doesn't matter to me where the money goes. What matters to me as the Executive Director of the Parking Authority is trying to clear the streets.
But we could do it. I mean, a police unit could write tickets, a police unit could tow, and we could generate profits that come right into the General Fund, essentially go into competition with you.
I don't mean -- don't take this as a contradiction, but 27 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. in order to do that for the amount of additional towing, it wouldn't be cost effective in any way, because once we start enforcing, we estimate that we'll probably pick anywhere from five to eight tows up total along Broad Street. Once we start enforcing, people who get towed one time will not do it again. The towing is the deterrent. The towing is not a great moneymaker.
No, no. I understand. My questions really didn't relate to the specifics of this towing proposal, but just the public policy in general.
Well, I don't know how Council or the Mayor are going to formulate their budget, but the more money the Parking Authority generates for the schools possibly, that's less money the City has to provide to the schools. So it's all going into the same pot. It's just how it's divided is up to this Council and to the Mayor. 28 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Right. Councilman DiCicco, who decides where the -- the extension of hours for parking meters on the street? Is that something that has to be done through the Streets Committee or can that be done unilaterally by the Parking Authority? In other words, where the sign used to say 9:00 to 6:00 and now it says 9:00 to 10:00 p.m. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think that varies depending on --
It varies. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- the neighborhood. I mean, as an example, parking permits are not consistent in terms of the hours on which you need to have a permit to park in a particular neighborhood, and I think the same probably goes for parking regulations throughout the rest of the City, depending on the environment, whether it's a commercial corridor versus a mixed use. 29 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. I don't know if I'm saying that right, Mr. Fenerty. You can correct me if I'm wrong.
You are correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's based on what the City Streets Department feels its needs are on cars being removed from a particular street at a certain time in order to allow a more appropriate flow of traffic, rush hour. Walnut Street certainly would be a different time than maybe -- I'm just using Spruce Street, but another street as an example.
I won't belabor the point because I know that's not the topic of your testimony today, but I do understand that the Parking Authority is unilaterally putting up -- changing hours on signs and then enforcing those.
Well, but you do it without authority from the City 30 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. of Philadelphia.
I'm not prepared to answer those full questions today, but I can tell you, for instance, what Councilman DiCicco brought up. A residential parking permit area, a question came from another Councilmember that he had a complaint about we extended the time from 10:00 p.m. in a residential parking zone, which would mean no parking unless you have a residential parking permit. And we researched that. When we do a study, we have to talk to the neighbors, a petition has to be filed by the neighbors, and notification of change of hours have to be filed with the Chief Clerk of City Council. And when that question came up, everything had been properly done. There is a set of formula regulations where we just can't go out and unilaterally change hours. There's a formal notification process. And I'm a little rusty on what it is, Councilman 31 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Green, and I'd be glad to find that out for you.
-- many times to come down and ask me all your questions, give you a tour --
-- so I can answer all the questions you have. And whenever your schedule allows it, I'll give you a whole day.
Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just since the question was raised about possibly the City doing towing and what the benefits may be, if there are any benefits, if you can supply the Chair with a breakout of what it costs to run 32 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. your towing fleet in terms of equipment, man hours, person hours, they're operated, just to get a sense of whether it would make sense. My guess is it's not. I think your doing it one-stop shop, if you will, probably makes more sense, but I think it will be helpful to this conversation. Councilman Jones.
Very quickly, Mr. Chairman. Pretty much the idea here is to give you a wider range of authority to tow in order to alleviate traffic in certain timeframes, correct?
In fact, what are those timeframes? Are they what are traditional timeframes such as rush hour, both in the morning and afternoon?
Rush hour as posted on the rush hour streets. We enforce "no stopping" zones. We enforce the loading zones. We enforce "no 33 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. parking" zones, valet zones, to name -- they're the major we would do. For instance, if someone is parked in a passenger loading zone or a regular loading zone for a truck, the sign would specify how long that vehicle can be there, if it's minutes or 30. After 9 30 minutes, when a parking enforcement 10 officer is making the rounds, they ticket 11 the vehicle. We would remove that 12 vehicle in order to open up the loading 13 zone for deliveries so the streets don't 14 get bogged down with double-parkers. 15 Someone is parked in a "no stopping" 16 zone, which is a bus zone, it would say 17 "no stopping, bus" or "no stopping here 18 to corner." When the vehicle is parked 19 in there, it's properly marked, we tow 20 it. And that's generally during the normal hours. We don't go out and tow them in the middle of the night. In Queens Village, Society Hill on the weekends, we do tow down there, and that's at the request of the neighborhood 34 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. and the restaurants. We have to keep order.
Just one other observation. In the traffic patterns, are you noticing or do you take into account that there is an increase in traffic congestion in coming into the City on Friday evenings now and is that a part of your --
There's traffic congestion coming into the eastern end of the City on Friday and Saturday evenings. There are no rush hours that extend for that type of violation. What we have done is, we've extended some areas where meters go now until 12:00 and until 2:00 a.m. to turn it over. We've extended many residential permit parking zones at the request of the community so people will be able to get back into their neighborhood and park, so it wouldn't be totally loaded where someone who may own a home at 3rd and Pine has to park at Broad and Pine and walk back. So we 35 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. limit it, and we have a good study on everything, and all that is done by petition with the residents.
Just as a footnote, with the increased amount of popularity of our Center City nightlife, I just want to make sure that as we start to make these adjustments on times on signage, that it's taken into account some of the folk who have to live through our prosperity almost in a negative way because of the parking and congestion.
We do do that, and also within the upcoming year, Councilman, you may not know, but we've experimented with what we call a multi-space meter, and there are six of them down in the Headhouse District in Councilman DiCicco's district. The Parking Authority has just contracted to buy 50 more of them, and they will be primarily located in Center City business districts. For instance, along Broad 36 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Street where there are restaurants or along Walnut Street where there are restaurants, you need a two-hour zone normally during the day to turn the traffic over. The current stand-alone parking meters only allow one type of regulation, two hours, three hours, four hours, whatever they're set. If we set them in the restaurant zone for four hours, that would be good -- for the stand-alone meter, that would be good for the evening business in the City, but it would be no good for the retail business or the hospital business during the day, because it wouldn't turn it over. With the new multi-space meters, you eliminate ten parking meters that handles ten spots. We can set those type of meters to, for instance, from 8:00 a.m. until 6:00 p.m. or until 4:00 p.m., whatever the time may be, for two-hour parking and thereafter we can set it for three-hour parking, four-hour parking, three-and-a-half-hour parking to 37 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. accommodate the businesses that have moved into Center City so people don't, I'm eating dinner, I got two hours and at one hour and 50 minutes they have to walk down the street to feed the meter. We're looking at that. The technology has changed drastically in the last several years. Those multi-space meters take Smart Cards, they take debit cards, they take credit cards, and you'll start seeing them being placed at the end of the summer in Center City. They also do turn a projected additional revenue of 30 percent, and that's because when you drive away from a stand-alone meter and you place your change in it, that time is still on there. The next person can come up and use that time. With a multi-space meter, it gives you a small ticket to put on the left-hand side of your window inside. The parking enforcement officer walks by, looks at it and you have until 3:30 or 38 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. 3:43, whatever you paid till. When you drive away, you drive away with that in your car. The next person coming in has to buy new time. And down in the Headhouse District with the six multi-space meters, which handle approximately 60 spaces, we have seen a 30 percent increase in the revenue.
That's right, parker's luck. But these are things which we are doing that moving along to enhance technology in the City of Philadelphia with parking.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other witnesses here to testify for or against this bill? 39 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Fenerty.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, the title of the next bill, please.
Bill No. 080404, an ordnance authorizing the construction of a sewer and appurtenant work required to alleviate unsanitary conditions in a portion of East Willow Grove Avenue. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We just jumped around a little bit from the Calendar because there are a couple bills which we think will take a little bit longer. For those non-controversial bills, we want to get those folks to testify so they can get on their way. Thank you. Mr. Holst.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Committee of Streets and Services. I am 40 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Arthur Holst, Government Affairs Manager of the Philadelphia Water Department. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 5 080404, which authorizes the construction of a sewer and appurtenant work required to alleviate unsanitary conditions in a portion of East Willow Grove Avenue. Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller introduced this bill on April 17, 2008. Bill No. 080404 authorizes the construction of a sewer and appurtenant work in a portion of East Willow Grove Avenue from Germantown Avenue to Winston Road. The properties at this location currently have a private sewer which is failing. This situation is creating an unsanitary condition. To alleviate the problem, the construction of a public sewer is required. The residents affected by this construction shall be assessed for a new sewer in accordance with The Philadelphia Code. The Water Department recommends 41 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. that this bill be reported favorably out of Committee and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for a first reading of this bill at the next session of City Council. This concludes my testimony. I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Holst. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 080129, an ordinance granting permission to Sunil Shroff, owner and operator of the newsstand located on the northwest corner 42 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. of 40th Street and Spruce Street, to construct, use and maintain conduits for fiberoptic facilities in, under and across the northwest corner of 40th Street and Spruce Street, for the purpose of supplying electrical service and telephone service to said newsstand.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Robert Black and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I am here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 080129. This bill grants permission to Sunil Shroff, owner of the newsstand at the northwest corner of 40th Street and Spruce Street, to construct, use and maintain an electrical conduit with electrical service line and a telecommunications conduit with a telephone service line in and under the public right-of-way, for purpose of supplying electrical and telephone service to the newsstand. 43 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. The Streets Department has reviewed the construction plans for this project and has no objection to the passage of this bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? Councilman Green.
How much do we charge somebody for a permit like that, to use the public right-of-way?
There's degradation fees that's just based on the linear amount of damage to the street, and that's how it gets based on. For something like this, it's very, very minor.
But that's essentially recovering -- it's not a fee because it's what it costs us to maintain the street is what they pay?
Exactly. A lot of the major fees for this comes from the bigger animal such as Verizon, PECO. 44 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Okay. Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: On that same note, did we not a couple years back have some discussion and agreements that in the cost it was built in for five, six, ten years out? Because a lot of times when you do excavation, the settlement doesn't happen for a few years out, and did we not factor in those costs that we anticipate in the out years?
There is a degradation chart that goes with that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions for this witness on this particular bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Abernathy, the title of the next bill, please. 45 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Bill No. 080382, an ordinance authorizing Mariner Commercial Properties, Incorporated, owner and developer of 1441 Chestnut Street, to construct, own and maintain various encroachments to be installed in conjunction with a mixed-use development, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Robert Black and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I am here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 080382. This bill grants permission to Mariner Commercial Properties, owner and developer, to construct, use and maintain various encroachments to be installed in conjunction with a mixed use for 1441 Chestnut Street. There are various building encroachments on Chestnut Street. There is a rigid canopy approximately 124 foot wide and 16 foot high. There are two 46 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. cornices. The first is 124 feet wide and 54 feet high. The second is 124 feet wide and 150 feet high. There is a balcony 124 feet wide and 78 feet high. There is a bay window approximately 90 feet wide and 158 feet high. There is an angled bay window approximately feet 9 wide and 109 feet high. There is also a 10 light box encroachment on 15th Street 11 that is approximately 23 feet wide and 12 approximately 18 feet high. 13 The Streets Department has reviewed the preliminary construction plans for this project and has no 16 objection to the passage of this bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else testifying on this? Mr. Patterson.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Ronald Patterson with the Klehr Harrison law firm, 260 South Broad 47 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. I'm the land use attorney for this project, and with me is Tim Mahoney and David Ertz, architect. We thought you should just see at least what the encroachments regard, if you'd like. In 2007, we obtained a zoning permit for this 58-story building, about 670 feet, to contain a mix of condominiums, hotel rooms and parking spaces in the lower pedestal, and this ordinance would approve the encroachments over the sidewalk, as I'm depicting, as part of the architectural design. And I have Tim Mahoney here, who you can address any other questions you may have. Tim, if you want to say a few words.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Council. What we plan on building here is a five-star hotel, true world-class, truly unlike anything that's in Philadelphia now and even some of my 48 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. colleagues are building that are here today. But the encroachments are strictly architectural to accentuate the building at the base for the guest entrance and the guest experience walking in as the portico share encroachment. And then we have an actual day-lit ballroom up on the 11th Floor, 10th Floor where you have the cornice encroachment and, above that, the bow -- the very pronounced bow window that David is pointing to right there. The fourth and final encroachment is what's referred to as the light box at 15th and Chestnut. That will be above a signature retail store. So we see that as, again, a prominent architectural feature to make this building really truly stand out along Chestnut Street.
And while we do have the zoning permit, we have filed plans to make minor adjustments, and these plans contain the minor adjustments 49 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. that are within this ordinance in front of you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This building is the one that is immediately south of the Ritz, right?
That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is between the north side of this building and the south side of the Ritz building? Is there --
There's Ranstead Street that was vacated, which will remain a vacated street the Ritz will use for access, and as part of, I'll say, a settled lawsuit between the two developers, we worked long and hard to ensure that there were no build zones so that the two buildings could be aligned in certain configurations so as to provide each the best views possible.
Ron summed it up. 50 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. The buildings are very sympathetic to each other, and that was the result of very long and protracted negotiations. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah. I'm aware of that. One of the few I didn't have to deal with in my district. It's not my district. I understand that there has been an amendment that has just been -- are you aware of any amendments to this --
Yes, I am. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- that's been sent up by the Administration? Mr. Black.
Yeah. There is an amendment to make it appurtenant to 1441 Chestnut for Section 1. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you guys are okay with that?
Yes. That's fine. It was a correction that was needed. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman 51 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Green.
You said you had a zoning permit, so I'm sure the answer to this is yes, but I just want to confirm. This has been approved by the Planning Commission?
Yes. The 2007 permit was. And we then resubmitted plans. The Planning Commission has reviewed and approved it. However, they wanted to see this ordinance go through to allow for the encroachments before they released the plans, and then we'll get an updated permit.
But the Planning Commission has publicly met and approved what you're proposing today?
I personally am not comfortable voting for anything 52 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. that hasn't been approved by the Planning Commission itself, so for that reason, I'll be voting no. 5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Abernathy, the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 080383, an ordinance authorizing Arch Street Hotel Partners, LLC to construct, own and maintain various encroachments at 1421 Arch Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Bill No. 080383, granting permission to Arch Street Hotel Partners to construct, own and maintain various encroachments to be installed on 1441 Arch Street. 53 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. There is an awning that's feet wide and 21 feet long. There are two movable urns along Arch Street to an amended four feet in diameter. There is a bike rack on Arch Street approximately ten feet in length. The Streets Department has reviewed the preliminary construction plans for this project and has no 11 objections to the passage of this bill. There is an amendment that is added that specifies the four foot in diameter for the urns. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Mr. Patterson.
Yes. Good afternoon again. Ronald Patterson on behalf of the owner. With me is John Hayes, architect on the project. By way of background, in April of 2007, we obtained a "by right" zoning permit to convert the old YMCA building into a 198-room hotel called the Le Meridien, with retail and commercial on 54 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the first floor, and this ordinance, as John could depict again, is to approve projections from the building over the sidewalk, including the awning that's shown on the plan, some movable urns and a bike rack. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none --
I just want to mention, because Councilman Green asked, when this permit was issued, as all zoning permits are issued, the Planning Commission reviews and stamps the plans. So this permit did go through Planning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: By the way, what hotel will this be? 55 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
It's a Starwood brand hotel. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Old age. I couldn't see.
John Hayes of Blackney Hayes Architects. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry. I couldn't read it from here. That's why I had to ask.
Le Meridien. It's a Starwood brand. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's the old YMCA building.
I'm sorry. Excuse me, Councilman. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Did you say the Planning Commission has approved this, the Commission itself?
Not the 56 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. ordinance, but the zoning plans that were filed to get the zoning permit.
No. We did not run that through Planning. That goes through Streets because it's a street encroachment.
You're welcome. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There is also an amendment to this bill, as you know.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Thanks. I'll read the next bill while he's talking. Bill No. 080384 -- I'm sorry. 57 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Is anybody else testifying on this, on 383? (No response.)
It's the next bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Grasso is coming up for 384, right? Bill No. 080384, an ordinance 10 authorizing Grasso Holdings, Inc., the owner and developer of 1601 Vine Street, to construct, own and maintain various encroachments to be installed in conjunction with a mixed-use development, all under certain terms and conditions. Mr. Black.
I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 19 080384. Bill No. 080384, granting permission to Grasso Holdings to construct, own and maintain various encroachments to be installed in conjunction with mixed-use development projects for the lots known as 1601 Vine Street. 58 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. There are various building encroachments on Vine Street. There are three rigid canopies of varying width, from feet to approximately feet in 6 width, and varying heights, from 19 feet 7 to 56 feet. There is a facade overhang 8 encroachment along Vine Street and 9 Franklin Boulevard, varying width from 18 10 feet to 62 feet and 12 feet to 46 feet in 11 height. There are three rigid metal 12 canopy encroachments on Franklintown 13 Boulevard. These vary in width from 14 eight feet to an amended 104 feet and 12 15 feet to 17 feet in height. There are two 16 rigid metal canopy encroachments on Wood 17 Street. These canopies are approximately 18 25 feet wide and 25 feet high. 19 There are two amendments to this bill, one in Section 1 relating to the width being changed to 104 feet and also in Section 1 dealing with the appurtenant 216 -- 1601 Vine Street for the actual place. The Streets Department has 59 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. reviewed the preliminary construction plans for this project and has no 4 objection to the passage of this bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Patterson.
Thank you. Good afternoon again. Ron Patterson on behalf of the owner, and David Grasso is here as the owner. By way of background, in January of 2007, we obtained a "by right" zoning permit to construct a 33-story and a 45-story tower connected with a pedestal base for a combination of a mixed use of 530 residential units and 278 hotel units, with an interior parking garage with over 900 parking spaces and retail on the ground floor, including a large Fresh Foods space. With that plan in mind, we then recently submitted a revised site plan that would break this into phases, with the larger tower going first, and with those revised plans, we made some 60 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. revisions that would require this ordinance to approve the encroachments over the sidewalk. And I'll turn it over to David to explain more about the project.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. I'm David Grasso. I'm the CEO of Grasso Holdings. I'm a developer here in Philadelphia. And this project, 1601 Vine Street, has been in the planning stages for several years now. We're at the final stages, and I'm happy to come here and tell you a little bit about the project. It's a pretty big project, so I think it's worth explaining to you kind of what it's all about. It will probably be one of the largest projects that -- private projects, that is -- that goes on over the next couple of years. The project in -- Phase I of the project, which entails the Whole 61 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Foods Market at 60,000 square feet, Best Buy stores at 45,000 feet and the signature tower, which you see in that rendering there, which includes the 250-key InterContinental Hotel, with about an 8,000-square-foot ballroom and 15,000 square feet of additional meeting space, which is primarily used as an executive conference center. Above that you have around 200 residential units in the tower, which are substantially all rental apartments, which there's a drastic need in Philadelphia for rental apartments. Everything has been converted to condominium. This project is a joint venture between myself and the State Employees Retirement System of Pennsylvania. This is an example of the State Pension Fund's investing their dollars back into this Commonwealth. We're proud to be a part of that. Like I said, it's a big job. 62 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. It's going to create approximately 600 well-paying jobs. Most of them are permanent jobs -- I mean, most of them, excuse me, are full-time jobs. It's going to generate approximately $15 million of additional tax revenues for the State and -- the City and the Commonwealth. So this is a substantial generator of jobs and economic benefits to the region. We've gone through a lengthy process of entitlements here. We spent a long time getting the neighborhood to approve our project and ultimately won their support after a long road. We were originally -- we were originally in the overlay which Councilman Clarke introduced, I guess, a year or two ago creating a height restriction in this entire area, and through our endeavors, we were able to convince him and the community to allow us to be the only property to be excluded from that height restriction. 63 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. So it's been a long road. We've generated the support of everyone who can be opposed to it over a long process, and I just wanted to tell you a little about the project, and I'll answer any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Grasso. This project is, if I'm not mistaken, is that kind of like the perimeter of the overlay?
I think it is the perimeter of the overlay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Towards the eastern end of it; is that right?
That's right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I remember there was some original controversy when you first proposed it. And Whole Foods would be the retailer, right? Is that what I heard you say?
Correct. They're the anchor. They're on the ground floor. 64 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Their entrance would be on the corner of 16th and Vine Streets, which would kind of enliven that whole street there. I mean, it's pretty dead around there. This has been a parking lot for the past 30 years. It was originally part of the original Franklintown Redevelopment Area, which all this ground around here was condemned 30-some-odd years ago and the parcels were doled out to developers, as well as major corporations. SmithKline, their headquarters are as a result of this, and the streets were realigned and infrastructure was put in place to foster large-scale development. This is one of the largest last remaining tracts in the Franklintown Redevelopment Area, and it was zoned specifically for this type of use when it was rezoned 30 years ago. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The other question is, as it relates to Whole 65 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Foods, they will be vacating their current site?
That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because they just kind of grew out of space there, right?
That's right. They're in approximately 20,000 square feet in their existing location, with only about 40 parking spaces. They're going to be now 60,000 square feet, with 300 parking spaces. So it's a much better deal for them and for us. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And it's much needed in that community.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I apologize, Mr. Grasso, for having your lawyer educate me on zoning law in Philadelphia. I know you pay him by the hour. 66 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
My apologies. So when you originally submit plans to the Planning Commission, did they in 382, 383 and 384, did they include these encroachments? In other words, did the plans approved by the Planning Commission include the encroachments?
Are you talking all three? Do you want to go through all three again?
Yeah. They would see the encroachments and they would stamp the plan, allow us to go to the next step, which would normally be the Streets Department, before we would go to L&I.
So all of these encroachments were seen in the designs provided to the Planning Commission? 67 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Whether they have the authority to say we approve the encroachments --
No, no. 8 That's not the question I was asking. They were seen in the designs submitted to the Planning Commission.
Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So, in effect, if they didn't like the plan and maybe the encroachment was one of the components that they didn't like, they wouldn't give you an approval?
Correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It kind of goes together, right?
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman 68 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Greenlee.
Just a quick observation, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Grasso, I agree that Whole Foods will be much better served here, even though you're stealing it from my neighborhood. I think it's a good plan, and good luck. I know it took a long time to get this approved. So I think it will be certainly a major positive addition to that area.
I'll just have to go farther to Whole Foods. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I'm not a member of the Committee, but thank you for giving me an opportunity to say a couple words. I just wanted to say that this 69 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. is obviously, from our perspective, a very exciting project. There have been significant meetings in the surrounding community about the project for quite a while. This is one of those projects where I guess there's pretty much a consensus. You can always find one or two people who don't like anything you propose, but in this particular case, there was actually -- at one point it was a height overlay, and as a result of the discussions in the community, there was an agreement to remove the height overlay to allow this to proceed. So I just want to say that I'm very supportive and happy and look forward to a groundbreaking ceremony.
Thank you. Me, too. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I'm sure of that, Mr. Grasso.
Thank you for all your help, Councilman Clarke. You've been great. 70 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again, to Mr. Patterson, you know there's also an amendment that has to do with the size of the canopy?
That's correct. It's a needed correction. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No 9 concerns about that, right?
No. 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? Please join us. Just pull one of those chairs up. (Witness approached witness table.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'll be really brief. Rob Stewart, Van Pelt Street, President of Logan Square Neighborhood Association. I want to note that Mr. Grasso appeared before our association several 71 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. times, and while we don't yet have a finalized neighborhood development agreement which we -- because this project has been in the works, and then in terms of a volunteer association, we've been working on other things. We expect that now that this is moving forward, we will ink that agreement. It's been worked out in principle and we will be supportive of the project. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, thank you for your testimony. I can assure you having worked with the Grasso family on numerous projects in my district, they've always lived up to those agreements, even if we were not finalized at the time approvals were -- they've always acted in good faith, and I suspect they will do the same in this regard as well.
We have no doubt. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions? (No response.) 72 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, thank you, gentlemen.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, title of the next bill.
Bill No. 080408, an ordinance granting permission to Howard Foreman, owner of the Island Caribbean Restaurant, 1338 to 44 Rising Sun Avenue, for a raised deck encroachment for accessory seating for the restaurant, under certain terms and conditions.
I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 20 080408. This bill grants permission to Howard Foreman, owner of Caribbean Feast Restaurant and the property 1338 to 1344 Rising Sun Avenue, for a raised deck encroachment to an existing restaurant along Rising Sun Avenue and Westmoreland 73 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Street. The raised deck is approximately inches high. The deck 5 is approximately six feet wide and 37 6 feet along Rising Sun Avenue and six feet 7 wide by 12 feet along Westmoreland 8 Street. This encroachment still leaves 9 approximately eight feet of clear footway 10 space on Rising Sun and six feet of clear 11 sidewalk on Westmoreland Street. 12 The Streets Departments has 13 reviewed the encroachment and has no 14 objection to the passage of this bill. 15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. 16 Any questions for this witness? 17 (No response.) 18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, the title of the next bill, please.
Bill No. 080374, an 74 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. ordinance establishing a one way regulation on Guilford Street, from Crispin Street to Rowland Avenue, westbound. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon, Councilman DiCicco, honorable members of the Committee, ladies and gentlemen. My name is Dave Dlugosz. I am the District Traffic Engineer for Northeast Philadelphia, District 3. I am here offer my testimony on Bill 080374. The Streets Department has posted this block on a trial basis for one way direction on October 12, 2007 and since has received no negative feedback from the residents of this community or the Councilwoman's office. Therefore, the Streets Department has no objection to this change. Thank you for the opportunity to appear and I'd be happy to take any questions. 75 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any questions for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, the title of the next bill, please.
Bill No. 080375, an ordinance establishing a one way regulation on Brighton Street, from Sackett Street to Rowland Avenue, eastbound.
Good afternoon, Councilman DiCicco, honorable members of the Committee. My name is Dave Dlugosz, District Traffic Engineer, District 3, which is Northeast Philadelphia, for the Department of Streets. I offer my testimony on Bill 080375. The Streets Department has posted this block for one way on a trial 76 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. basis on October 22, 2007 and since has received no negative feedback from the residents of the block or the community. Therefore, the Streets Department has no 6 objections to this change. Thank you for the opportunity to appear, and I'll take any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone here who wishes to testify on behalf of this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. The title of the next bill.
Bill No. 080380, an ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of curb lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 97 by relocating the easterly curb line of Broad Street approximately nine feet six inches eastwardly, from a point approximately 77 77 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. feet one inch south of the south curb line of Fitzwater Street the distance of approximately 112 feet two inches to a point approximately 189 feet three inches south of the south curb line of Fitzwater Street, under certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, Mr. Morelli. Please proceed with your testimony
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, and with me is Darin Gatti, Transportation Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 21 080380. This is not an administrative ordinance, but an ordinance introduced on behalf of Dranoff Properties, 3180 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19104. 78 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. The purpose of this ordinance 3 is to realign a portion of the easterly curb line of Broad Street south of Fitzwater Street to establish a nine foot six inch wide traffic layby lane. The location of the proposed layby as described in the bill is not consistent with its location as shown on the plans submitted to the Planning Commission. This proposal was not reviewed by the Department of Streets prior to its introduction in Council. The Department does not approve of this layby on Broad Street due to its detrimental impact on pedestrian traffic. The Department's policy is not to permit layby lanes when there is parking lane available for a loading zone, as is the case here. The proposed nine foot six inch depth of the layby, when added to the existing parking lane, will encourage several rows of parking and create safety hazards because the inside of the lane will be out of the 79 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. sight line of traffic. Covered drop-offs, such as the one proposed for this site, cannot be safely created with layby lanes. They must be outside the right-of-way with driveways. Additionally, a review of the utility records indicate that a proposed new curb at the interior of the layby will conflict with utilities under Broad Street sidewalk at this location. In view of these issues, the Department of Streets does not support this bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Morelli. Are you testifying, Mr. Gatti, or are you just here to help with the questions?
Just to answer questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. In your testimony you say that the proposal was not reviewed by the Streets Department prior to introduction. 80 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Would that have changed your recommendation? I'm not being critical. I'm just curious.
No, it would not. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The recommendation would be the same whether -- okay.
Correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the proposed nine feet six inch depth of the layby, when added to the existing parking lane, will encourage several rows of parking and create a safety hazard because of the inside of the lane will be out of the sight line of traffic. I understand that. Are you suggesting or telling me that there are no -- we don't have any layby lanes where we have parallel parking on the same block?
We don't like layby lanes being that deep. Nine feet six inches is too deep for a layby lane. It will encourage two -- more than one 81 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. row of cars will be pulling in that area. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Into the layby?
Into the layby area, yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: In the plan was it -- I'm going by memory. In the plan was it a four foot layby.
No. When I say it's not consistent with the plan that was submitted to the Planning Commission, it doesn't agree with the ordinance. In the ordinance it says it begins 77 feet down from Fitzwater. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Going south.
Going south, from the house line. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But what is depth of that lane?
That depth, that's consistent on the plan. It's the nine foot six inches. There's no -- they're consistent on both plans and the 82 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the ordinance. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So your concern has to do with the length of the layby?
No. That's where they're inconsistent. The inconsistency is the 77 foot one inch, it says, from the house line, but it's actually from -- it's from the curb line at Fitzwater Street. The ordinance says from the curb line of Fitzwater. It's actually from the house line of Fitzwater Street. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm a little confused. The house line, are you talking about what the width of the sidewalk we would be left with after the layby?
In the ordinance 20 it's saying beginning from the house line, and it's actually -- it's saying -- the layby begins so many feet down from the curb line down from Fitzwater, but the plan is dimensioning it from the house line. So there's an inconsistency 83 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. there. I can show you on the plan if you want me to show you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah. I'd like to see that, and maybe we can bring up -- Mr. Chapman, you have something, some visuals, for myself and the Committee?
What Frank is talking about there is actually the location of the layby lane, not the dimensions of it.
It's 77 feet one inch from the house line. The ordinance 15 is saying from the curb line. That's one of the inconsistencies I'm mentioning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And that changes your position on support?
No, it does not. That's just an inconsistency. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. I want to get to the heart of what the width and the depth are as it relates to -- put it on the side, if you can. This way we won't block the witnesses. 84 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. So at the bottom right there, the inconsistency that Mr. Morelli is talking about is, in the plan it's 70-something inches from that -- if you could point that out, Mr. Chapman.
Yes. For the record, Thomas Chapman, Blank Rome, representing the interested party here. What Mr. Morelli I believe is saying -- and I don't want to put words in your mouth, Frank -- is that the bill 13 describes the beginning of the layby lane as being measured from the curb line. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Of Fitzwater Street.
Yes. When it really should have said from the house line. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The house line. But that's not a deal breaker. We can amend that. Is that correct?
That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So the 85 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Streets Department will be fine if we make that correction?
And the description is -- the description is what's different. The location of this layby is exactly where it was presented to the Planning Commission. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is the objection again on the proposed nine foot six inch depth of the layby; that is, taking it from the curb line into the property line? They're proposing nine feet six inches, which, in your opinion, your expertise, would create two parking lanes in the layby
Correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is acceptable to the Streets Department?
Normally we do not encourage layby lanes when there is an existing parking lane where the property 86 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. owner could apply to the Parking Authority for a loading zone for pick-ups, drop-offs. And when you have the parking lane there, they're adding nine foot six inches to the depth there. So you have nine foot six inches of depth, then you have another eight foot, which was the parking lane. So now the inside of that curb now is almost feet 11 from the travel lane. The cars that are 12 in the layby lane will not be able to see 13 the oncoming traffic in the rear-view 14 mirror. The oncoming traffic will not be 15 able to see the entire layby lane as 16 they're driving down. And so we see 17 that, one, for the sight distance problem 18 and also if you have two rows of cars parked in there -- there's enough room 20 for that -- you're stacking up cars, and we have a real problem with layby lanes and cars being stacked in layby lanes, because it becomes very dangerous to pedestrians then. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I 87 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. understand that. I do understand and appreciate your concern. However -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- you're suggesting that layby lanes when you have a parking lane is not something that you support. That's something that you would rather not see. Is that accurate?
Yes. We would prefer not to see that. There are cases where they -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you would say put a loading zone. So eliminate the layby and just create a loading zone?
We prefer them to -- yeah. We prefer for people to go to a loading zone first and then -- before they start taking up the sidewalk. We do have a problem with Philadelphia sidewalks not being walkable, and the layby lanes take space away from the sidewalk, which means there's less room for the pedestrians. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I 88 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. understand that. I'm getting to that question. Before I get to how much sidewalk would be left under the developer's proposal, if you create a loading zone, it means the curb line is the same all the way from Catharine to Fitzwater.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My concern -- and I'm not an expert in this -- is that people then begin to discharge into a traffic lane. So for me -- and, again, I'm not an expert -- a layby makes more sense. Maybe not to the extent that's being asked for here, but a layby, which the purpose is to get people away from discharging into the traffic lane.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if that scenario were to play out, where we would agree on a layby, what would be the maximum depth of the layby that you would be supportive of? And if you're not 89 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. supportive, say that as well. If we came to an agreement on a layby.
We were looking at a four foot deep layby, is something that the Streets Department could support. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is that similar to the laybys that are on Market Street, as an example, in front of 1234 Market or Loews? Is that similar to that?
Actually, the last three layby lanes that came through our office that were approved -- actually, one of them is the 1400 block of Arch Street, where the parking lane is rather narrow, and using that as a drop-off would be unsafe for a hotel there. We approved a three foot deep layby lane. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's for the bill we just heard on the 1400 block?
Yes. Yes, it is. We had another one -- we had two others, similar circumstances. One 90 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. of them was for a senior center, which needed appropriate space to drop off, for Paratransit to drop off, in which case we got the three foot there to allow that extra space to be able to open up the door. So there have been instances where we've approved it once we agreed that a layby lane was appropriate in those cases. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Go back to a question Councilman Greenlee is going to ask, but I had it on my list as well. If the proposed layby -- the layby area that is proposed by the developer, were it to become a reality, what would be left of the sidewalk in that portion of the layby? How much space would be left from that curb line of the layby to the property line?
It's currently a 22 foot wide footway on Broad Street. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So we're backing nine, ten feet out. So you wind up with a 12 foot sidewalk? 91 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Yeah. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What is a typical sidewalk on Broad Street?
Twenty-two feet. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's pretty consistent all the way down?
So basically you're cutting the sidewalk in half. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Even on the west side?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Symphony House and all, that's feet? 17
Twenty-two. 18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It doesn't 19 look it. Maybe the building kind of 20 distorts it. But when you get further 21 south of Washington Avenue, it probably 22 changes, because you have row house steps and stuff coming out, right? I mean, if you took it from the step, from a person's step, on the 1300 block or 1200 92 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. block of South Broad --
Steps may extend into the right-of-way. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They extend into that foot. 7
There's a lot of 8 cases where stairs extend into the 9 right-of-way, planters, signs, and that 10 reduces what's left of the usable space. 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right. 12 1300 block South Broad east side, Jimmy 13 Tayoun's neighborhood, they had those 14 extended garden areas, whatever. What's 15 the width of that sidewalk; do you know? 16 But it's less than 22 feet. 17
I can check on 18 that for you. 19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. All 20 right. 21 I'm sorry. Councilman Green. 22
I guess my question is, did you raise the objection with respect to the layby at the Planning Commission level? 93 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
It went to the Planning Commission. I wasn't aware of this project. It didn't come through the Streets Department originally.
So the Planning Commission didn't hear this objection and then say, no, we want -- they've never heard your objection to this.
They usually do. This was something that it didn't come our way, but most projects do.
They don't ask you your opinion about this before they approve plans?
Do you know 94 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. what happened?
Okay. That's all. I just -- so you would oppose it at the Planning Commission level and at this level?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe we can hear from Mr. Chapman and Mr. Roller and whoever else on the developer side.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Tom Chapman. I'm with Blank Rome. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Before you begin, Mr. Chapman, just for purposes of -- so if my colleagues aren't familiar, this is on the east side of Broad between Fitzwater and Catharine. It's apparently a vacant lot. At one time it was a hospital, Broad Street Hospital, and St. Theresa's Church was at 95 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Catharine, and where this dark part here was used to be the Broad Street Hospital. They use it pretty much for parking when Cirque du Soleil is in town. Right now it's just a pebble, gravel, empty, vacant lot on Broad Street. Just so you get some familiarity with the site. Thanks. Here's a photo. It tells you exactly what it is.
Mr. Chairman, excuse me for recycling some photographs that we used for the Zoning Board hearing, but they do indicate the current condition of the property. It gives you a view of the property from across Broad Street from Fitzwater and Catharine Street and a view from the property looking north and south on Broad Street. I don't know if I stated this or not, but we represent the interested party here, Carl Dranoff Properties and 777 South Broad Street Associates. With me here today from JK Roller and Associates is Jerry Roller, principal of 96 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the firm and architect for the proposal, as well as Rich Stewart. As was previously stated, this bill authorizes the placement of a layby lane for the development of the property that's known as 777 South Broad Street. The site contains approximately 85,400 square feet and is zoned C-3 Commercial, C-2 Commercial and partly R-10A Residential. In January of this year, the Zoning Board of Adjustment approved a modification of a previously approved development plan for this property. Back in November, the Zoning Board had granted variances to allow for a mixed-use development at this site that included residential and retail commercial at the ground floor. The previous approval allowed for the development with 146 apartments, including 20 one-bedroom units and 126 two-bedroom units, about 19,000 square feet of retail commercial use on the ground floor and 155 parking 97 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. spaces. The change approved by the Zoning Board was to reduce the height of the building from six stories to five and to allow for accessory parking to be contained with the interior courtyard of the site. Originally the site had been proposed for below-grade parking. There was no change in the unit count. We have had the support of the community association, the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition and we have a Memorandum of Understanding with them that's dated August 3, 2007, and we also had your support, Councilman DiCicco, when this has gone before the Zoning Board. The revised plan has been reviewed and approved by the Planning Commission. That was at its meeting of October 16, 2007. We had been requested by the Commission to revise the plan so that the curb cut on Broad Street would be limited to ingress only. Originally 98 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. in the previous iterations of this plan, that curb cut had been for ingress and egress and there was no layby lane as part of this proposal. We agreed to do that, and that's basically what led to our request for the layby. The layby allows us to load and unload passengers out of Broad Street lanes of traffic. It provides a better situation, especially for children and the elderly, as well as in instances where there's a resident that has packages to contend with. By limiting the curb cut to ingress only, it limits our ability to pick up passengers when leaving the building, since vehicles can't exit out onto Broad Street. The layby provides a safe and reliable place to pick up and drop off passengers at the main entrance to the building. We have met with representatives of the Streets Department, as well as representatives of 99 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the staff of the Planning Commission in an effort to address the concerns of the Streets Department, but we were not able to agree on a compromised solution. Streets has expressed concerns regarding the establishment of the layby in general, as well as with its length and depth. The length is approximately 112 feet, but a good portion of that length is due to the fact that the layby also incorporates the driveway into the site. In other words, if this were simply a layby lane, we wouldn't need it to be as long as it is. As was stated earlier, the sidewalk is feet wide at this location 18 and the proposed building is set back as 19 much as six feet five inches from the 20 property line along portions of the Broad 21 Street frontage.
Even at a width of nine 22 and a half feet, there would still be 12 and a half feet of public sidewalk left for pedestrian traffic. And just as a point of reference, I believe that both 100 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Chestnut Street and Walnut Street for the better part are about feet wide. 4 We believe that the creation of 5 the layby does not significantly impact 6 on the walkable and usable area of the 7 sidewalk. 8 We thank you for scheduling 9 this hearing, and we would be happy to 10 answer any of your questions. And as I 11 stated, we do have Jerry Roller here, the 12 architect for the project. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. All the chairs are rolling up, as you noticed. We don't have copies of your testimony.
I'm sorry. I actually do have copies. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If you can, because Councilman Greenlee missed something when you said that the plan was submitted with the layby or something like that.
Yes. When this 101 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. proposal was considered back in October by the Planning Commission, the layby lane was indicated on the plans, was shown on the plans at that time. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I see it on the last page in the second paragraph. "We had been requested by the Commission to revise the plans so that the curb cut on Broad Street would be limited to ingress only. We agreed to do that." Mr. Roller, do you have anything to add to that or do you want to wait for some questions?
I'd be happy to answer any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I guess the big question for me is, why is it -- and I think you touched on this a little bit, Mr. Chapman. Why is it necessary that the layby be nine feet six inches, whatever, wide as opposed to the three foot, four foot, which the Streets Department would be somewhat acceptable of? 102 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
Well, at three feet or four feet, we believe that we can't get an entire -- the entire width of a car out of the lane of traffic. We're trying to establish an area where you can fully put a car. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That goes to my comments earlier, that people discharging out into a lane of traffic. So four foot -- what's the typical width of a car? Four foot maybe?
Yeah. Cars typically -- a parking space is eight foot, nine feet. So a car is typically six foot wide. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm talking about the width.
Six foot wide. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So even with four foot, you'd be discharging into a travel lane. That's why you're looking for the nine foot. Is that --
Yeah. The other purpose of bringing the layby in is to 103 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. address the discharge and the distance between the car and the cover over the canopy, because the sidewalk on Broad Street is so extremely wide, if you keep somebody out at the curb, you've got a 7 foot distance to go before you get under 8 cover and that's a problem. When the 9 Planning Commission asked that we not 10 bring people out onto Broad Street from 11 the cover that we have, the only other 12 choice is for people to exit the parking 13 onto Catharine Street, then make the turn 14 and come up Broad Street, and that's when 15 we introduced the layby at the request of 16 the Planning Commission so that we could 17 bring people under cover for pick-up and 18 discharge. 19
If I could just 20 add, both Fitzwater Street and Catharine 21 Street are westbound at this location. 22 So there's really only one way for you to get out of the property and around to pick someone up, and that's exiting out onto Catharine and you would make a right 104 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. onto Broad and then around to the front of the building. So if that lane, what is currently a parking lane in front of the building, is all parked up, then you're kind of out in a lane of traffic picking someone up. And, of course, that's not going to be every time that you leave the property, but on the other hand, there are going to be folks with infants and elderly people that are living there, and you kind of want to get that out of the lane of traffic. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Now, there will be parallel parking along the curb of the entire project but for the layby? There currently is now.
Yeah. I don't see any reason why that wouldn't continue. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I guess I'm just trying to -- maybe this isn't the right answer or the right solution. Hypothetically, if on-street parking were eliminated, then maybe the layby wouldn't 105 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. have to be as deep. No, it still would have to be, because that becomes another lane. All right. Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Real quickly, because I think my question was answered, but I'm still totally not clear on this, because I can picture the area. But, Mr. Chapman, I'm reading your testimony now. So it was the Planning Commission that originally requested or suggested that you apply for this; am I correct?
I'm using your words. "We had been requested by the Commission to revise the plan so the curb cut on Broad Street would be limited to ingress only."
If I may, Councilman, the Planning Commission did 106 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. not ask us to create a layby. Let me be perfectly clear about that. They did ask us to limit the driveway to ingress only, and that led to our coming up with this request.
That's okay. I probably just missed it. That's okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Jones and then Councilman Green.
Just a point of information. Did you say in your testimony that originally this project was to be six stories and it was reduced to five?
And you said it did not impact the number of units? 107 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc.
How was that accomplished? Did you widen the footprint of the building?
It reduced parking slightly. We still have more than one-for-one parking.
What's the width of a Paratransit vehicle, multi-passenger, average? Anybody know?
Or greater? I raise that point because your original request was how wide?
The length of it is approximately three cars plus the driveway.
The point that I tried to make, Councilman, part of the length of the lane is dictated by the fact that it includes the driveway. If this were strictly a layby lane, it would probably be at least one-third less in length than what we see right now.
I'm just -- I know we're increasing our activity south of Broad. I'm aware that we're marketing our stadiums. At certain points in the season Broad Street traffic is going to be horrendous, and I would be 109 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. less than responsible if we didn't try to kind of minimize some of the impact by that layby. What it gives you is a safe haven for people and you don't obstruct traffic. The question I think most of us have is, does it have to be that wide, in your opinion?
In our opinion, it has to be that wide in order to get people close enough to the cover of the canopy of the building so that they can exit and get under cover appropriately. This was a trade-off with the Planning Commission. When they said we can't pull under the building, the request was, well, then if you don't pull into the building, could we use a layby to accomplish the same thing, and that's what the Planning Commission accepted as their compromise on traffic on Broad Street.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman 110 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Green.
Thank you. I'm glad you clarified your testimony, because I was going to call you on it, when you said at the request of the Planning Commission, we created a layby, and that was misleading in the most generous use of that term. I assume it was a mistake. The other thing that is very troubling to me is that you testified that you have had discussions with the Planning Commission and the Streets Department since the last Planning Commission meeting or prior to coming here today. You were unable to resolve them, and we didn't find out about that until we sat down for this hearing. In other words, the people on this Committee did not know that there was a disagreement on this, and I don't know how we're expected to be the judge of what the right thing is to do. None of us are Streets engineers and none of us 111 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. are members of the Planning Commission. So I don't understand how we're coming in here with this disagreement between the developer, Streets and Planning Commission, which it sounds to me didn't have the advice of Streets, and I don't know what you expect us to do, except vote against it or hold it until you can work it out with the Planning Commission and Streets. And, finally, although I'm not a Streets engineer, it's clear to me the reason they want three feet or four feet is specifically so that the car will abut the parking lane and you don't create a second place for cars to stack up, which creates a larger safety concern, in their view, than the need to pull cars all the way in, because obviously everybody can exit the vehicle on the curb side. I also note that your testimony emphasized that the priority here was to get people under a canopy; in other words, to keep them dry if it's raining 112 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. or to keep them out of the snow versus the public safety concerns raised by the Streets Department, and I find on balance the public safety raised by the Streets Department to be far more important than whether or not someone who lives in a half a million dollar apartment gets wet. Would you characterize that as accurate?
Councilman, I know that I testified that safety is one of the prime concerns. I believe Mr. Roller testified about the placement of the canopy on the property, but if you look at the top of my testimony --
Yes, sir. Yes, Councilman. You know, it is clearly, in my opinion, my belief and in my testimony, that a good part of the reason for having this is a safety concern.
And the Streets Department, who worked for the City and the citizens of Philadelphia, 113 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. are saying despite what your training as an attorney, they may have a little bit more information on this. They're saying it's a safety issue to have it go to nine six. So how do you react to -- what does your safety expert say? That's what they do.
That's what they do. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'd like to bring up the Streets Department folks again, please. And stay there, Mr. Chapman and Mr. Roller. Just pull an extra chair up. For the record, Mr. Chapman, are you an attorney?
Yes, I am. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I didn't realize that. I knew you worked for the planning -- I never knew you were an attorney. I apologize. I didn't realize he was an attorney. 114 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Either one of you testified about the 1400 block of Arch Street and the layby that has been approved or recommended for the 1400 block of Arch Street as being three feet deep?
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Would not people who are discharging from the driver's side, won't they be discharging into the street, into a lane of traffic?
No. They'll be into the parking lane, because you're adding three foot to the width of the parking lane. So on Broad Street when you add nine and a half feet to the eight foot parking lane that's already there, the curb is now almost 18 feet from the travel lane. That was our objection. One other point about the driveway, the ingress and egress of the driveway, the Streets Department does not have an objection to their driveway being two way. We're not sure why the Planning Commission required it to be one way. 115 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are either one of you going to speak to that issue? Or if you don't, you don't. I'm just curious, because he's making a statement that the Planning Commission made that a requirement. Or was that part of the design feature? Does that make more sense?
That was a request, a recommendation, of the Planning Commission. I'm well aware of Mr. Gatti, the Streets Department's objection to that. We've discussed -- we've met with Mr. Gatti and other folks from the Streets Department, and I think that I've made it clear at least to your office, as well as to folks in the Administration that we had attempted to -- we had at least discussed the matter. We weren't able to resolve our differences here, but we did meet. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I want to go back to this one point again, because maybe I'm not absolutely clear on it. 116 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Arch Street will have a three foot deep layby, so that people who are discharging from the driver's side of their vehicle will be discharging into the parking lane.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Hypothetically, someone comes to the extreme westerly end of that curb line where it meets the layby. They're going to back in or pull in and then back out. Aren't they somehow competing with each other discharging from the car? As the car is going to be parking, he's going to pull in. Because you are, in effect, even though it's a parking lane, you have to drive either forward or in reverse to get into that parking spot. Now, I'm not trying to split hairs here, but it's still somewhat of a lane in which traffic will be moving in until the car is parked and it's stationary. But getting in and out of it requires some activity in the parking 117 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. lane, which would be competing with the layby. Does that make sense what I'm saying to you? Do you understand what I'm suggesting here?
If someone is pulling into the layby lane at the same time as someone getting out of their car, there could be a conflict, and that goes -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me stop you a minute. Someone who is parking in the parking lane where it meets up with the layby.
No, because there's a "no parking" zone at the beginning of the layby. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How far back?
To allow for site distance. I believe it's like 20 feet usually. It depends on the case. Sometimes it's greater, but our standard when we put like what they call the X in 118 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the box, we put them at intersections. We put them at the beginning and the end of the layby lanes to make sure that you have proper sight distance pulling in and pulling out. And we would have the same thing in any case for a layby lane where you would have that so you wouldn't be that close. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right up to the layby.
Point of information, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.
Thank you. That is certainly a safer situation, the one Councilman DiCicco just described, than a normal parking lane where people -- you're going out into traffic as opposed to having the extra five or six feet that you have as a result of the layby; is that correct?
Right. Just as an 119 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. example, right out on Arch Street behind our building, which everyone is kind of familiar with, if you park there, you open up your door, you're taking your life into your hands, because you're opening your door right into the driving lane, because in that particular case, the parking lane is rather narrow. Most other cases the parking lane is a bit wider where you have a little bit of room, but there's always some conflict on a normal parking lane.
Have you sat with the Planning Commission? Where are they on your objections right now?
Okay. So maybe you guys should talk to the Planning Commission.
That's one of the things we've been trying to do, is to set up a meeting to find out what's --
They've already 120 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. approved this plan, so although they may sympathize with our objections, they've already approved the plan.
But will they talk to you? Are you telling me the Planning Commission won't talk to you about your objections and whether or not they would be happy with your recommendation for changing?
Our Chief Engineer had sent a memo to the Planning Commission, and I'm not sure what the response was. The previous Planning Commission had approved this.
The current Planning Commission really didn't have anything -- wasn't part of the negotiation. So the people that we need to talk to aren't around anymore, and I 121 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. think that's where part of the problems come in. If we were involved earlier on, which is the normal case, one of the things that we could have done was discussed the idea of the entrance being one way versus two way, which might have helped the developer's plans a bit. Unfortunately, we were not part of those discussions, and we're not sure why the Planning Commission had requested that, because both our Transportation Office and our Traffic Engineering Office, Charlie Denny, my counterpart, agreed that that driveway could have been made two way. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Wasn't there some concern -- point of order. Wasn't there some concern from the community? Did that change the --
No. 22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- ingress/egress on Catharine or Fitzwater at one time?
No. 122 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Wasn't that part of that discussion?
No. That was strictly a request from Planning Commission and its staff. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I haven't been involved in this for a long time. I have several projects. I wasn't sure if that was an issue. Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I know we can analyze this to the death, but to the gentleman from the Streets Department, just so I'm clear, the two main problems, one is the stacking issue, right, and the other is what you are saying are the sight lines, trying to pull out? Is that basically what we get down to here?
On the sight lines and you pointed out on Arch Street you have -- and I didn't know if you had these by laybys -- like sort of 123 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. the boxes to give a little clearance. Is that -- you do have that, or you could put it in? Let me put it that way.
That will be put in when that layby lane goes in. That's going to be later on, much later on in the project. It's been through the review. I'm not sure if the final approval is done, but we're not objecting to it. And when it does get built, we would have the line striping at the beginning and the end of the layby lane to allow better sight distance.
Okay. So that would improve at least what we're talking about here, wouldn't it, your concern of pulling out and sight lines and all? I mean, if the cars aren't right up to there, would it be -- maybe it would not be ideal, but we have a lot of non-ideal things in the City. Wouldn't that improve things by having those boxes in? Am I making sense?
They reduce the 124 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. risk somewhat, but it really does not improve anything. We're still --
Well, if it reduces the risk, doesn't it improve it? I'm not trying to pick your words apart.
If you have a street where there's no parking and we have a layby lane, that layby lane has to be at least seven feet deep, generally about eight to nine feet deep, if it's approved in some of those cases, because you have to have a parking lane. And there's cases where we bump the curb in to make the intersection safer. When you already have a parking lane, you already have that buffer between the traffic and the curb and then you extend that, now you're pulling -- now you're pulling everything further away from the traffic 125 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. lane. People aren't looking that far out of the traffic lane. They're looking at the line of parked cars as their -- when they concentrate. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of information. Councilman Jones.
Other than in my garage, where is it safe to get out of a car?
Could I just finish on one thing? I'm sorry. On the stacking issue, because wouldn't that car parked there, the stacking car, that would be illegal parking; am I right? Because you're blocking in another vehicle. And if it is illegal parking, could there not be -- and you guys would know better than this -- but either a box or something, some sign that you could not park there? Because if it's illegal parking, there 126 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. must be something that can be done to try to avoid that or have cars avoid that. Am I making sense? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah.
The City has not been very successful in the enforcement of preventing double parking. As a matter of fact, the Marriott right outside here of City Hall --
-- has been a real problem where they're blocking SEPTA buses, and we get complaints all the time about that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me -- I'm sorry.
Go ahead. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I want to go back to one more thing, because I know we're beating this thing to death. The sight line, typically is it -- the setback for the on-street parking, is it generally 20 feet back 127 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. from where the layby begins?
Our standard, what they call, X in the box -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me interrupt you. What would be your recommendation here on this project? How many feet back? And, look, if you're off a couple feet, I'm not going to hold you. I'm just curious. Is it ten feet, 15 feet? 16
Normally we do 20 17 feet at the beginning and the end of a 18 layby lane. 19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 20 Hypothetically, if you move that sight line piece, that first parking space back another ten and opened up 30 feet, would that not improve your sight line?
It improves the sight line a bit, but you still -- the 128 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. person parked up in the curb of the layby lane still will not see traffic in their rear-view mirror. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thirty feet back?
Because your rear-view mirrors aren't looking out to the side. They're looking more behind you. We're looking at the sight lines. There's two sight lines, the sight line of the driver driving down Broad Street and there's also the sight line of the parked car out their rear-view mirror, which is a limited sight line. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When you come out of a parking space on any City street, which is parallel parking, you're always looking to see if traffic is coming, and there is no space between where you're getting out of your car and the travel lane. I mean, that's typically the way we drive. We look in either side mirror or look back. And I'm 129 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. thinking that if you did 30 feet, it gives you an extra ten feet of open space clear sight line that may eliminate some of those concerns.
But if your cars are stacked up in there, you're not going to have that sight line, and that's what really makes it dangerous. You have two rows of cars where people -- you're not going to see someone getting into a car possibly and pull into that spot and hit them. We don't want -- well, whenever you have stacking, it's really unsafe. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Look, and I know you're doing your job and I appreciate that, and you guys do it well, but I'm so familiar with South Philadelphia parking, St. Rita's -- every funeral home down there, they're double parked, stacking up. I mean, that doesn't mean it makes it right. It's reality as it relates to the environment that we live in. And we don't live in suburbia where we have wide swaths of 130 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. land where we can create all these -- we got to try to figure out how to make this work and promote development at the same time where we try to make it as safe as we possibly can. In a perfect scenario, you guys would be absolutely right on target, and I do appreciate your comments and your concerns, but in the reality of living in Philadelphia, in a congested area, we're never going to have it the way we'd like to have it, so we have to kind of bite the bullet sometimes and do the best we can.
And that's why we're willing to negotiate to a four foot layby lane, which basically gives you the safety that you need and we think is the safest solution. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, but we don't get the other stuff that the Planning Commission about the discharging onto the sidewalk with the canopy and everything else.
Councilman, one 131 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. other thing, this project never went in front of the Utility Board of Review. That's where all the utilities would be contacted if there was a conflict with any of the utility lines. So I did a quick look, and there was a conflict. I contacted the gas company, and there was an eight inch gas main. The gas company is very concerned about that this would be a conflict with the gas line under there.
Mr. Chairman, we're aware of that. That was also brought to our attention by the Streets Department, and we've contacted PGW about that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me ask you a question before I recognize Councilman Green. Does that issue, could it potentially change some of the stuff we're talking about here? Where I'm going is, I'm going to call the bill up. Whether it passes this Committee or not, I'm not sure yet, but assuming we vote it 132 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. out, I know you guys are likely to get a suspension, but can we get an answer maybe before we recess, assuming it gets a favorable recommendation from this Committee?
Sure. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because if it's going to change any of these issues that we've been talking about for the last hour, then everybody, including yourselves, we need to know that.
Mr. Chairman, if it involves the relocation of this line, we're prepared to take on that expense, if that's the case. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not concerned about expense. I'm just talking about functionality and do you have -- I know there's some subway grates along that street. Does that come into play if you had to move it either way? Yes? No?
No. 133 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Councilman Green.
I just want to confirm briefly the testimony of both sides so that we've got enough on a bunch of issues, but I want to make two things clear that I think are clear. Number one, it's the testimony of the professionals at the Streets Department that you would be willing to accept a four foot layby and that is the safest option, in your opinion?
Okay. Leaving aside the utility issue. And it is the testimony of the people representing the developer that the reason you don't want a four foot layby is because people will have to walk five feet in the rain?
Well, that's the only rationale for going -- that I've 134 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. heard from the architect from going from the four foot layby to the 9.6 foot layby. That's the testimony. Every time he's testified about it, it is so that people can get under the canopy and not get wet. So the only difference here between the two of you, it appears to me, is people getting wet or not getting wet. So why not go with the safer option and let them get a little wet and rely on the professionals who work for the City of Philadelphia. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Roller, do you want to take a stab at that one?
I'll take a stab at it. We feel -- and we disagree professionally with the folks at the Streets Department, but we're --
No. I'm an 135 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. architect.
Okay. Thank you. I don't know how you can disagree professionally when you're not a street engineer.
Well, we do do a little bit of land planning as part of our responsibility, so I would beg to differ, and you can judge for whatever that's worth in regard to the safety. We feel that it is safer to pull those cars completely out of any other traffic lane, whether there are parked cars or are no 15 parked cars there, because it's not terribly busy. If you look at the pictures, there aren't any parked cars there now. It's hard to know what will be parked there. So we believe that to get the car completely out of any part of the street is a safer situation.
We also believe, by the way, that stacking is not an issue 136 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. at an apartment building unlike someplace like a hotel where you have a lot of people. There is no valet parking with this building, so that anybody who is going to drive there is driving their own car and unlikely to wait for somebody to pick it up.
In this location, we'll now have three cars stacked. You may not be familiar with the area. At any rate --
At any rate -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: He lives in Queen Village.
Okay. At any rate, I want to put my lot with the professionals that the City of Philadelphia hired, who is telling us the safest thing to do is have a four foot layby, and so for that reason, I would -- I will be opposing this. I would be 137 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. amenable to an amendment that had a four foot layby. Is that something that's unacceptable to the developer?
I'm sorry, Councilman. Yes. We believe that it doesn't work for us at four feet.
Mr. Chairman, if I may, we did have a traffic study done for this proposal and I have a letter, a memorandum from Orth-Rogers and Associates dated December 19, 2007, and as part of the traffic analysis, Mr. Orth also looked at the proposed layby lane. And if I could just read one sentence into the record. "The proposed layby lane should eliminate or at least minimize potential conflict and delay with northbound foot traffic, which might otherwise be caused by motorists dropping off or picking up passengers or packages at 777 South Broad Street." I have a copy that I'd be happy 138 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. to submit for the record.
I have one question about that, if I may, Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Green.
Thank you. Did the traffic study compare the alternatives of a nine foot six layby lane and four foot layby lane?
So maybe you could ask your -- it seems to me that your traffic, based on what our professionals are saying, your traffic engineer might conclude that a four-foot layby lane would be safer, and you have no -- you're not submitting any testimony that essentially refutes the City's professionals who are here before us today.
Councilman, I'll submit the traffic report that we have, 139 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. and it's just a point that we just have to agree to disagree here. We have our architects. We have --
Okay. I have your answer. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Anyone else here who wishes to testify on this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, this will close the public hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. We will now go into the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee for an amendment to Bill No. 17 08016 -- no. There's no amendment on that one, is there?
The first one? No. 21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee for a motion on 080162.
I move that Bill No. 080162 be reported out of 140 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. this Committee with a favorable recommendation and, further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 10 080162 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 22 is approved. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 080163 be 141 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and, further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080163 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 21 is approved. Councilman Greenlee for the amendment to Bill No. 080164, which all members have received a copy of.
142 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Mr. Chairman, I move the passage of the amendment to Bill 080164. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 080164 be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee for the amended Bill 164.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080164 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and, further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that 143 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Bill No. 080164 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 13 is approved. Councilman Greenlee for the amendment to Bill No. 080406.
Mr. Chairman, I move the approval of the amendment to Bill 080406. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill 080406 be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) 144 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The amendment is approved. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080406 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080406 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those 145 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. opposed?
No. 4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Three yes, one no. The majority passes. The bill 6 passes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee for a motion on Bill No --
Just a quick point of order on this. I think we're getting to 380. The sight line in the -- there was a difference in feet to begin with and we don't have -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That will be done at the time of final passage. The language didn't come over yet. We can amend it on the floor.
Okay. I'm still going to vote against this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080380 be reported out of this Committee with a 146 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 080380 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
No. 16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let the record reflect there are three ayes and one nay. The majority having passed Bill 19 No. 080380. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 080404 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first 147 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. reading at our next session of Council (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080404 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 18 is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080129 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first 148 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080129 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 17 is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee for an amendment to Bill No. 20 080382.
Mr. Chairman, I move the amendment to Bill 080382. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has 149 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 080382 be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080382 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and, further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080382 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. 150 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee for an amendment to Bill No. 080383.
Mr. Chairman, I move the approval of the amendment to Bill 080383. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 080383 be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The amendment is approved. 151 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080383 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and, further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080383 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 24 is approved. Councilman Greenlee for an 152 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. amendment to Bill No. 080384.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendment to Bill No. 080384 be approved. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 080384 be approved. All in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The amendment is approved. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080384 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. 153 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080384 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 16 is approved. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080408 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) 154 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080408 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 15 is approved. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080374 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has 155 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 080374 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 14 is approved. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 080375 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that 156 5/8/08 - STREETS - BILL 080162, etc. Bill No. 080375 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 13 is approved. Thank you, everyone. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. Thank you all for attending. (Committee on Streets and Services adjourned at 4:15 p.m.) - - - 157 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on May 8, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)