COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, November 19, 2003 10:18 a.m. - - - - BILLS 030671, 030672, 030681, 030683, 030685, 030687, 030688, 030691, 030693, 030694, 030696, 030697, 030712, 030714, 030715, 030720. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN WILSON GOODE COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - - 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 I N D E X BILL 030671 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I................ BILL 030672 PAUL LONIE, Dept. of Streets.......... BILL 030681 6 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept.............. BILL 030683 7 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I................ KEITH DAY............................. 17 8 ABDUL SMITH........................... 26 GEORGE JENKINS........................ 31 9 ETHEL DYSON........................... 34 SHARIF FORD........................... 40 BILL 030685 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept........... 42 BILL 030687 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept........... 43 BILL 030688 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept.............. 45 BILL 030691 PAUL MCCLOSKY, Water Dept............. 46 BILL 030692 PAUL MCCLOSKY, Water Dept............. 49 BILL 030693 PAUL MCCLOSKY, Water Dept............. 50 BILL 030694 PAUL MCCLOSKY, Water Dept............. 55 BILL 030696 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept.............. 57 BILL 030697 MARK WASHINGTON, Streets Dept......... 58 BILL 030712 PAUL MCCLOSKY, Water Dept............. 59 BILL 030714 PAUL LONIE, Streets Dept.............. 62 BILL 030715 WILLIAM MAUTZ, Streets Dept........... 92 BILL 030720 GREG JAMES, Overbrook Farms East Residents Association. ............. 94 JUANITA DANIELS....................... 95 ROBERT SKOMORUCHA, St. Joseph's....... 96 3 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030671
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing on the Committee of streets and services. We have a quorum. In attendance are Councilmembers Donna Reed Miller, Councilman Rizzo, Councilman Goode and Councilman Clarke, myself, Councilman DiCicco; I'm the Chair of this Committee. The Clerk will read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 030671, an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales by restricting the prohibition of sidewalk sales on that portion of the south side of 900 West Nedro Avenue beginning and extending east from the south side of 1000 West Nedro Avenue for a distance of 77 feet, 10 feet from the curb.
Good morning, Mr. Haigler. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good day, Councilman DiCicco and Members of the Committee. I am 4 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030671 Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 030671, which, if enacted, will prohibit sidewalk sales on portions of the south side of the 900 block of West Nedro Avenue and the south side of 1000 West Nedro Avenue block. The Department offers no objections to the enactment of Bill 030671 and is prepared to enforce provisions of this bill 13 should Council vote for it's passage and the Mayor signs it into law. Thank you. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Are you aware of an amendment that's being offered by the sponsor of the bill?
Maybe for the purpose of moving this hearing along, we can read those amendments into the record and then we'll have them for the public meeting. 5 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030672
The amendments to 030671 under 9-2058 Subsection P, Subsection .354, it is added "and on the south side of the West Nedro Avenue from 10th Street to a point 75 feet east from Street. 7
Thank you, Mr. 8 Haigler. 9 Any questions from this witness from 10 the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the of next bill.
Bill No. 030672, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance, Bill No. 010268, approved August 31, 2001, entitled an ordinance authorizing the vacating of River Road from a point approximately 10 feet southwest of the Philadelphia and Montgomery County line, northeastwardly to 6 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030672 Philadelphia AND Montgomery County line, as amended.
Goon morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets. And the Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030672. This is a Councilmanic ordinance 11 requested by Councilman Michael Nutter. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the time to authorize the Board of Surveyors to legally close a portion of the street. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, 7 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030681 the Clerk read the title of the next bill.
Anyone who's here who wishes to testify on any of one of these bills, after the bill has been read and the testimony from the various it City agencies has been entered into the record, you're then permitted to come to the witness table and testify as well. Anyone. It's a public hearing. Thank you.
Bill No. 030681, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 24-S by placing on the City Plan a certain right-of-way for gas main purposes within the lines of former Morris Street from 30th Street to 31st Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Paul Lonie, the Survey Bureau Manager 8 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 for the Department of Streets. And the Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030681. This is an Administration ordinance 6 requested by the Streets Department. The purpose of this ordinance is to create a right-of-way for the benefit of the Philadelphia gas works in the bed of former Morris Street which was stricken and vacated by the Board of Surveyors. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030683, an 9 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales to permit sidewalk sales on Germantown Avenue between York street and Butler street if the vendor inclusively sells goods that are different in kind from those sold by owners or tenants on the abutting property, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Good day, Councilman DiCicco and Members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 18 030683 which, if enacted, will permit sidewalk sales on Germantown Avenue between York Street and Butler Street if the vendor exclusively sells goods that are different in kind from those sold by owners or tenants on the abutting property, under certain terms and conditions. The Department offers no objections 10 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 to enactment of Bill 030683 and is prepared to enforce the provisions of this bill should Council vote for its passage and the Mayor sign it into law. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? Councilman Rizzo.
Mr. Haigler, could you please describe the process for enforcement? It's nice that we enact these things, but in the event a merchant starts selling something that does compete with the store owner, how quickly is L&I prepared -- and I'd like a commitment. How quickly is L&I prepared to respond to complaint that a merchant may have.
That complaint would have to be made to the Department by the merchant. We would take that complaint, as we 11 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 would take any other complaint take in, it would be entered into our computer system and then it would be routed to our inspectional unit. Our Inspectional Unit will register or schedule that complaint to go out for investigation to see whether or not the complaint is justified or not. The inspectors would go out, inspect that situation. If the complaint is justified, they would take the appropriate action citing the violator for violating the Code or violating this section of the Code and, if necessary, go further with any other enforcement action.
Could you give me an expectation on the turn-around? A Friday afternoon, a wallet store has a vendor selling wallets out in the front of that store. How quickly is L&I's inspector going to be there to verify that?
I really can't give you a definitive pinpointed time as to how that will take place. I understand that if the complaint were called in and if our 12 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 Business Compliance Unit was notified of this, we could act on it immediately if necessary. If necessary, we could send an inspector out immediately to take a look at that.
For the record, what would -- maybe you can come back to the record. I need to know that we're protecting the businesses and what kind of response we can expect L&I to provide a business in the event that there is an inquiry.
I can certainly discuss this with our Deputy Commissioner over our Business Regulatory Enforcement Unit to try to pin down exactly what their response would be. That would be Deputy Commissioner Verdi. I can certainly talk to him about this.
Yes. 13 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 Good morning, Mr. Haigler. What about the reverse? Because I know that when we were doing the vendors bill in Germantown, one of the issues that we had to deal with was that vendors would be selling something and the merchant would then start to sell it, too. And, you know, in a sense it works both ways. Has that ever been worked out? It's been years since I worked on that in Germantown.
I'm aware of that situation. But the way this bill is crafted, it indicates that if somebody is already been given a license to sell there, then they can't sell something that's the same as what's being sold in the store. I think probably what might be needed is some sort of grandfathering for people who are already there. I don't know.
We can talk about that later, but that is an issue. I do know it's an issue.
I can't speak to Germantown Avenue issue, but we're able to do this in this particular bill because there 14 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 currently technically is no vending allowed, so in crafting the authorization to vend, we put that caveat in there that if there's a property owner, a building owner whose primary sales is a particular item, say sneakers as an example, that the vendor could not vend if that was their primary sales item in front of that property owner store, and they would have a couple stores down. And that was the biggest complaint that we got from the business owners. But we also wanted to take into account that we wanted to make sure that vendors had an opportunity to make a living, so we felt that that was reasonable compromise authorizing them to vend but not necessarily in front of the store that had a like product. But that's because we did not have --
Well, that's the same way it was in Germantown. And then we put together an ordinance to permit 15 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 vending. But that is one of the issues that kept coming up. I just know it can be an issue.
That was one of the primary issues of the store owners. And I met with the vendors a couple of months ago to talk about some of the issues relating to the operational functions of the vending, and we came to an agreement -- the vendors actually met the elected leadership and I talked to the business owners and the leadership there, and we thought we crafted what was a reasonable compromise. Subsequently, the Department of Licenses and Inspections will then work with venders on a regulatory fashion, not needing legislation but to talk about the operation of the vendors on that particular corridor. But what we wanted to do was get people legalized and get them legalized in a way that it wouldn't create problems for the store owners.
Mr. Chairman, I'd like to follow-up. 16 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683
I'd like to follow up with Mr. Haigler. Mr. Haigler, is there any proactive response from the Business Compliance Unit. In other words, what I'm trying to say is rather than have a merchant physically call to complain, does Business Compliance ever visit these locations proactively to make sure that they're in compliance.
Yes, they do. They do periodic program inspections. They do periodic inspections of certain areas of the City. If they're there for some other reason, if they notice that there is a violation, say, if they're there at a business for some other reason, another license purpose, they notice that there is a violation, they can pick that violation up as well.
Thank you. Any further questions from any other 17 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 Members of the Committee of this witness? (No response.)
Anyone who wishes to testify for or against this bill? If this is the bill you're interested in, now is the time to approach the witness table. Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
I was wondering as far as the store owners as they have L&I to represent them, do we have like a person that can come and speak for the merchants' behalf on laws and things that we don't understand?
I'll yield in a minute to the sponsor of the bill, Darrell Clarke, who is your Councilperson. But I would think that if you needed some education, 18 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 if you will, in the area of vending that the Department of L&I -- Mr. Haigler is shaking his head in the affirmative -- would be more than willing to come out and talk to you about what you can and cannot do, what you're permitted to sell, what you're not permitted to sell. And I would request that through your Councilman, Darrell Clarke.
If I had a problem, I would get with Darrell Clarke, the councilman.
You would call him an arrange for a meeting with the Department of L&I.
Okay. Thank you. I understand that they're letting us vend on a place where they said wasn't no 18 vending allowing, which is appreciated but when it says a merchant can't sell the same product as another store owner, but is it permissible for that store owner once he knows you're selling this certain thing, can he sell it now?
I think that was the question that was asked by 19 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 Councilwoman Miller of Mr. Haigler. Would you like to hear that answer again?
Actually, your question sounded a little different. You said that if a vender is selling a product, right? And he has a location and then all of a sudden the store owner decides to sell the same product?
As far as I'm concerned, that vendor who has been given that location -- those locations will be given out once you sit down with the Department License and Inspections. That vendor, if that's the primary product, he will not be asked to moved if the store owner all of a sudden decides to sell a different product. But is your question, is the store 20 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 owner prohibited from selling what the vendor is selling?
No. I was just wondering would it fall into conflict under the rules that --
No. If you're selling a product and we agree that you're selling a primary product, whatever it may be. And you're not in competition with the primary store of that store owner. If three weeks out that store owner decides to sell what you're selling, you will not be required to move nor will you be required to change your product. Once it's determined what your primary product is, my understanding working with L&I that would be the --
Councilman, I would ask maybe if that could be possibly indicated in the ordinance, because I don't believe that's basically what it states in the ordinance. It basically states that if the vendor is selling something that's exclusively the same in kind as what the store owner is selling. It doesn't say whether or not the 21 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 store owner sold it first or the vendor sold it first. So I think you probably need to clarify that in the ordinance for clarity purposes.
Okay. Before we get into the public meeting, we will hopefully sit down and craft an amendment that clarifies that specifically. And at the time of the public meeting, we'll amend that to reflect that so it's clear as it relates to the primary product of both the vendor and the store owner.
It's bit ambiguous the way it's written. Any other questions from this Committee? Councilwoman Miller
See, I think that it's important that we keep our store owners, but we also keep our vendors. And vending is a legitimate way to earn a living and support a family. But I know that we had the same kind of circumstance in Germantown where vendors were selling a product different 22 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 from the store owner, and then the store owner decided to sell the same product. And that can just cause a lot of trouble. So I agree maybe it is good to put it in the ordinance 6 because the situation is just going to continue to come up over and over again when vending is permitted.
I'm still struggling with this. I just want to make sure when I leave this hearing I understand. We are now limiting a store owner? In the event I'm vendor and I sell XYZ, you're telling me that the store owner can't sell XYZ?
No, the store owner can. It will not remove the vendor. If I'm a store owner and I sell products -- I'm a vendor, and I sell handbags and store owner doesn't sell handbags but at some point in time decides to sell handbags, that will not exclude the vendor from selling handbags even though the way the ordinance written it says 23 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 you can't same products of the store. It's who was there first, I mean, what came first? Kind of like the chicken and the egg thing.
Who's going to manage this? It sounds to me like a management nightmare. What are we going to do, take photographs of the vendor when he starts handbags to set up a time line. It sounds to me like L&I is not equipped enforce this.
I think what we're going to have to do is we're going to have to, again, meet with the vendors, meet with the Councilman. The vendors may have to identify exactly what they are selling and they may be held to what they are selling at the time that they're licensed. And at that point, they won't be able to change any items that they sell. Once they've been given their locations as to where they are vend, then they're going to be held to vend whatever those items are that they agreed to.
And there should also be a process for them add to that list. 24 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 There should be a way that if they decide some new widget becomes available and they choose to sell it, that there should be a process where they can add that to their inventory. I don't think that they should be limited to six items for the rest of their vending career.
The only time when that will come into play, if that vendor makes a determination that they want to sell a product that's the same as the primary product of the store owner. So we're not limiting the vendor to the product that they're selling at that particular time of the designation of their location. The only issue when this comes into play is if that vendor decides, "Well, I want to sell the same thing as the store owner that I'm in front of, that I abut." But other than that, the vendor has the option to change his product any way that they are comfortable with doing that. But we'll specify via an amendment to make sure that it is clear as it relates to the product and the timing the products. And once that location is selected, that vendor determines 25 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 determines what product their will be, will be grandfathered in.
And I was wondering, as us being street vendors, we have to get a license to set up. Is L&I only for the store owners or they're for vendors? Because we have a license, too. What would L&i job fall in line with that? Can we call them if we have a complaint?
I can answer that exclusively. We're not for anybody. We're a regulatory that enforces the laws of the land equally; vendors, store owners. We enforce laws that are enacted. We're not for any particular group or organization or particular business operation. We're just a regulatory enforcement agency that enforces the laws of the City of Philadelphia.
So if I had a complaint about a store having loud music, could I call L&I?
Absolutely. Any 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 citizens of the City of Philadelphia can call the Department of Licenses and Inspections to register any complaint to have an inspection done for any violation of the City Code.
Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Abdul Smith. The question I had was concerning L&I about the laws they have presently concerning vendors as far as like if you can by a license to vend, a sidewalk vendors license and then you need more space for your vending stand -- because they give you an 8 by 4. But if you need more space, they say, "Okay, you can buy another license." But if you by another license and your name is the name on the license that you presently have and the license that you're going to buy, then you have to move to another block. You can't sell on the same block. 27 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 That's very -- you're not going to be able do what you were trying to do, which trying to make a stand that holds more items because now you have to separate your other stand totally to a whole other block. They say if you need to try to have a location that's closer to the location you already have established, then you can use someone else's name to try to get that other spot and then you can move 30 feet from the spot that you already have. This is a vendor's nightmare because the vendors don't have the ability to try to structure anything that they need to make a little bigger area, to make the area more presentable. When you're dealing with a 8 by 4 and you have a lot of merchandize, you're making the streets look raggedy, you're making the area look like it's just something thrown together. So if we could have bigger areas --
Yeah, for sure. I mean, we're paying -- not to say the amount of money 28 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 is what I'm saying, but we're paying $500 for every new license. But for every new license we buy, whether it be business privilege license and sidewalk sales license, then we have to move 30 feet from -- it's hard to monitor that kind of activity.
I think that the reason that the limit on the 4 by 8 and the space between the stands was to allow for some other pedestrian movement on the sidewalk so that you don't have kind of a non-break in the stands where people will not be able to either get out of their car, get onto the sidewalk or cross the street. It's not a perfect situation, I understand. But given the experience, I think, that L&I has had over the years with vendors, this is the best that they can come up with at this time. As an example in your case, if you were allowed to continue to add on to the existing stand, where do you draw the line?
No, no, no. It would be a lawn drawn. We wouldn't say we can get 15 licenses and just stretch it all the way out. 29 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 If you're saying 2 or 3, and then even if you need breaks in between so that the people could get out of their car, so forth like this, I could see you saying 5 feet apart, 10 feet apart so that you have breaks, like if a car door opens and needs to get in and out like this. But you're making it real difficult tax-wise because now we have to have different people to go get a license. So now we figure out how we're going to do it tax-wise to say this person sold this, this person sold that, and it's all one business.
Well, I appreciate your comments. Not being disrespectful, it really is not germane to the issue at hand with this bill. I think this is a matter that we might want to talk about going forward because I have many vendors in my district and we always have that continual back-and-forth as to where should they set up, are they exceeding the amount of space, they want to expand. That's a subject, I think, in a hearing for another time. Again, not that your comments are not important, but it 30 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 doesn't reflect what this bill is all about. Thank you.
Mr. Chairman, one of the things that we discussed when I met with the vendors is that they form an association, formalize their organization and it would be better in terms of our ability to interact with any changes in legislation, both the Councilmembers and also the Department of Licenses and Inspections so we can have that formalized discussion and talk about problems associated, not only with this particular bill 14 or this particular location, but just in general. So I, again, encourage the vendors to formalize and sit down with us and have that discussion about other issues other than this.
There actually is a vendors association that exists. I hear from them from time to time when I do something that they're not happy with. But there is association. I don't know the name of it off the top of my head other than vendors association. You can, obviously, form 31 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 your own if you'd like for your particular community, but there is a more broader city-wide organization that exists today. Please identify for yourself for the record.
George Jenkins. And I just had a question to reiterate about the personalized items. Who's going to go out to the stores? Let's say the store owner sells sneaks and sweat suits and caps. Who's going to determine what is personalized item is? Or would he be able to say, "I got four different personalized items or primary items. You can't sell this. I'm selling four different primary items. These are all my primary items. " You're saying there's only going to be one?
And who will be able to go to the stores and document the store's primary item? If it's one, who will be in charge of doing that and in what kind of timely fashion will that get done? 32 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683
I would say that the Department would, again, meet with -- we need to meet sit down, we need to meet, we need to go over the logistics of all of this. I hear a lot of things right now that we need to talk about. We are open and available to sit down and meet with the vendors, as well as the Councilperson, to go over the logistics of how this will be set up. That's all I can really commit to at this present time, that we will sit down and go over the complete logistics of how this is going to work out.
Because I had a store owner tell me he sold sneaks, he sold sweat suits. Okay, I had sweat suits. He's telling me, "Listen, you selling sneaks and sweat suits. I got sneaks and sweat suits." So he's telling me basically I can't sell whatever he's selling. And if he has one primary item, say he sells sneaks, then from what I understand, I can come along and sell sweat suits and caps, too, and it shouldn't be 33 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 a problem. But from the store owners point of view, that's a problem. So I'm just puzzled in my mind, who's going to organize and put this thing together? Because it sounds like this is bananas.
You can't have but one primary -- the ordinance says "the primary item." You can't have more than one primary item. So they have to determine, working with the Licenses and Inspections, what their primary item is. That's it. Then that vendor will, based on their primary item -- because you will also be asked to determine what your primary item is and that will then determine the location as it relates to abutting on property owners that sell the primary item. Once they make that determination, that's it. Like I said earlier, they can't just decide, "Okay, well this guy out here is selling sneakers, he's 34 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 doing pretty good. I'm going to start selling sneakers here and then make you move." That's not going to happen. Once that determination is made, that's it. Unless there are any changes in the ordinance. But I doubt that that will happen. Okay?
Good morning, ma'am. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Ethel Dyson. I just wanted to get back to the issue that brought us here. Are they ever going to -- as far as we prohibited to vend there, is it ever going to when we are not prohibited to vend there? Or is going to be like every so often they're going to ordain us and tell us we have to move or --
No. That's why I'm doing the ordinance, to authorize you to be at those locations. Because in the past, it was a thing where we just kind of looked the other way. It was illegal to vend. 35 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683
And then every now and then, the Department of Licenses and Inspections would go on the scene based on a complaint from a store owner or somebody else and basically issue some violation that you were in violation of the law that was passed, what, years ago. I'm not even sure when 11 the original prohibition was put in place. 12
That's actually what I was going to ask L&I to explain just the history of the law that we've gone through before in Streets and Services hearings. The fact that the way the law was crafted was that vending and sidewalk sales were basically prohibited everywhere. And then you actually had to create a new law to allow it wherever you're going to allow it. And so what Councilman Clarke has done is actually say 36 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 that we're going to allow it here. So once that becomes law, it is the law. But when the law was originally written, it basically just prohibited sidewalk sales and vending everywhere. But if L&I just actually just elaborate on the history of the law and how it actually originated.
I really can't. I think you did a great job. I will defer to the Councilperson.
That's basically our main issue. We're talking about what you're going to sell and this and that, but the main issue is if we're not there to sell it --
What happened historically when the law originally crafted was it was disallowed everywhere. And so basically District Councilpeople would have to decide where it's going to be allowed. In this case, Councilman Clarke has decided that it will be allowed there under these provisions. So once that becomes law, it's disallowed everywhere except District Councilpeople have come back and decided to 37 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 allow it.
Once it's law, it's law. And then that's when it becomes under the regulation of L&I.
We will designate you an assigned location. Once this becomes law, we will set up the process to designate an area for you vend within that boundary area.
I just want to make a comment that you have to make sure that you're legal. Make sure you have your license and all that. When we did the vending law in 38 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 Germantown, I think at one point we had about 105 -- we had 90-something, we had lots and lots of vendors and it ended being 55 slots. But there were a tremendous amount of the vendors that were there prior to it becoming legal that was not licensed. So you've got to go get your license and you have to make sure that you are right.
I think that's a good point. If I can just add from my personal experience in my district on South Broad Street. Several years ago, we had a serious problem with the vendors. There's always this contention between the vendors and business owners. And everybody does have rights, and we all want to see people have the opportunity to earn a decent and legal, fair living. But after two and a half years of many, many hours of my time trying to work out an arrangement with the vendors, unfortunately, the vendors in my district at that time did just not want to cooperate. There are rules and regulations for everyone. There are rules and regulations for the store 39 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 owners, and there are rules and regulations for the vendors as well. You're not supposed to selling anything out of a car, a truck parked next to there. I mean, the vendors on South Broad Street were hanging a lot of their merchandise on the parking meters, continually feeding the meters. We can make all the reasons and all the excuses why that's necessary, but there are rules and regulations. And I suspect with this legislation and the amendments that will be attached to it, if everyone follows the rules and does their part, think both the business, folks the storefront owners, and the vendors can all do well and live in harmony and be able to operate under the best circumstances, because I think you do offer the citizens an opportunity for different kinds of products to be able to shop. So there's a lot of different things that people come out there for, and it actually could be healthy to business. But everyone has a certain set of rules. Yours are no greater or lesser than the store owner. And if you follow the rules, 40 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030683 I think it will be a wonderful thing for everyone. What happened in my case, they just didn't follow the rules. And after two and a half years, which was a considerable amount of time, I just threw my hands up and we made it a restricted area and there's no longer any vending. Yes, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Sharif Ford. And my question is regarding the designated areas. Now, once the law -- if the law it passed about the designated areas, who and what is going to determine where and what designated area each vendor will be? If you're going to be like a licensed vendor, it's just going to be based on seniority, based upon who was there, who had the license and all? What's going to be the regulations to decide how these areas will be designated?
We will sit down and discuss that again. That's part of the logistics after the law is passed, and we'll 41 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030685 have to sit down, meet with the Councilperson, as well as the Vending Association to go over just how that process is going to work out. I can't tell you what the process is now because I don't know it myself. It has been to be worked out. It has to formulated after the law is passed. That's what usually happens. After law is passed, we have to sit down and work out the process as to how we're going to enforce it.
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030685, an ordinance granting permission to Sally Ferry, owner of Sprig's Restaurant, tenant of the property located 3649-51 Midvale Avenue to operate and maintain an open air sidewalk cafe 42 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030685 on the west footway of Midvale Avenue, north of Ridge Avenue, adjacent to 3749-51 Midvale Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz, and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 10 030685 on behalf of the Streets Department: This bill grants permission to Sally Ferry, owner of Sprig's Restaurant, tenant of the property 3749-51 Midvale Avenue to operate and maintain an open air sidewalk cafe on the west footway of Midvale Avenue adjacent to this property. Eight tables are proposed. No 17 rails will be used. A minimum of 12 foot clear width will be maintained for pedestrians. The Streets Department has reviewed the cafe plan and has no objection to the passage of the bill.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) 43 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030687
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030687, an ordinance granting permission to Sandra Davis, owner of Hidden River Cafe, tenant of the property located at 3572 Indian Queen Lane, to operate and maintain an open air sidewalk cafe on the north footway of Krail Street at the northeast corner of Krail Street and Indian Queen Lane, adjacent to 3572 Indian Queen Lane, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 23 030687 on behalf of the Streets Department: This bill grants permission to Sandra Davis, owner of Hidden River Cafe, 44 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030688 tenant tenth of the property 3572 Indian Queen Lane to operate and maintain an open air sidewalk cafe on the northeast corner of Krail Street and Indian Queen Lane adjacent to the property. Four tables are proposed for the north footway of Krail Street. No rails will be used. A minimum of eight feet clear width will be maintained for pedestrians. The Streets Department has reviewed the cafe plan and has no objections to the passage of the bill.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030688, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 163 45 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030688 by striking from the City Plan and abandoning a portion of a certain right-of-way for drainage purposes and gas main purposes and by placing on the City Plan three additional areas of right-of-way for gas main purposes in the vicinity of Ridge Avenue and Roosevelt Boulevard Extension, under certain terms and conditions
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul Lonie, the Survey Bureau Manager with the Department of Streets, and the Department would offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030688: This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. H. James Tullet (ph) of Winter Investment, Incorporated, Suite 3101 Houston, Texas. The purpose of this ordinance is to legally realign and extend the existing right-of-way to allow for expansion and improvements on this site. The ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable 46 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030691 action.
Any questions from this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030691, an ordinance authorizing the construction of sanitary sewer and appurtenant work in portions of Westview Street, Spring Bank Street, Kitchens Lane, Wissahickon Avenue, in an existing drainage right-of-way in former Park Line Road, and in proposed drainage right-of-way through 1027 Westview Street and from 1027 Westview through Fairmount Park to Kitchen's Lane.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul McClosky, I'm with the 47 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030691 Philadelphia Water Department. In regard to this bill, it was introduced on October 23rd by Councilman Nutter by request. The Water Department submits the following testimony: This bill authorizes the Water Department to construct sanitary sewers in Westview Wissahickon area of the City. The area is bounded by Wissahickon Avenue, Kith chen's Lane, Fairmount Park, and former Park Line Road. The area consist of approximately 37 single family dwellings in the Westmount area section of the City. The properties are currently being serviced by individual cesspools for each property. The systems have out-lived their usefulness and require a total replacement. However, it is doubtful in our current Commonwealth regulations that the systems will be allowed to be rebuilt. The malfunctioning of the septic systems have created an unsanitary condition. In light of the fact the residents are serviced by public water, the residents have requested a public sewer. An assessment shall be levied against 48 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030692 the owners having frontage in order to absorb a portion of the cost of construction that the residents shall be required to connect to the new sewer at their cost in accordance City Code. We recommend that the bill be favorably be reported out of Committee and request a suspension of the Rules in light of the pending recess of City Council.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030692, an ordinance authorizing the Water Commissioner on behalf of the City to enter into an agreement with the owner of 1027 Westview 49 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030692 Street for the grant of a right-of-way to the City for drainage and sewer purposes through the property from Westview Street to Fairmount Park property, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Again, my name is Paul McClosky. I'm with the City Philadelphia Water Department. This bill is was introduced by Councilman Nutter by request by the Water Department on October 23, 2003. It authorizes the Water Department to enter into an agreement with the owner of 1027 Westview Street. The area is bound by Wissahickon, Kitchen's Lane, Fairmount Park and Parkline Road in the Mount Airy section of the City. It serviced by individual on-site cesspools. The cesspools are beginning to fail and the property owners are requesting public sewers. The natural drain is a portion of the area is through the southern undeveloped area of 1027 Westview. The owner of the property has agreed to grant the City a right-of-way through his property from Westview to 50 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 Fairmount Park in order to accommodate the proposed sewer system for the area. We recommend a favorable report out of Committee and request a suspension of Rules in light of the pending recess of City Council.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will please read the title of the bill.
Bill No. 18 030693, an ordinance authorizing the construction of sanitary sewer and appurtenant work in portions of Dearnley Street, Flamingo Street, Wigard Street, Fowler Street, Manti Street, Culp Street, Newland Street, Lawn Street, Shaw Street, Edsall Street, Oriole Street, Pawling Street and Hillside Street.
Good morning, Mr. 51 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Paul McClosky, I'm with the Philadelphia Water Department. The Water Department submits the following testimony: This bill authorizes the Water Department to construct sanitary sewers in the Dearnley Park area of the City. The area is bounded by Dearnley Street, Wigard Street, Silverwood Street and Hillside Street. The area consists of approximately 135 single family dwellings in the Roxborough section of the City. The properties are currently being serviced by cesspools for each property. The on-site systems have out-lived their usefulness and require a total replacement. However, it is doubtful under current Commonwealth regulations the systems will be allowed to be rebuilt. The malfunctioning of the septic systems have created an unsanitary condition. In light of the fact that the residents are serviced by public water, the residents have requested a public sewer. The Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection has also requested the City to 52 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 provide a plan to resolve the sanitary issues in this area. An assessment shall be levied against the owners having frontage in order to absorb a portion of the cost of construction, and the residents shall be required to connect the new sewer at their cost in accordance with City Code. We recommend that the bull be favorably be reported out of Committee and request a suspension of the Rules in light in the pending recess of City Council.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? Councilman Rizzo.
I just have a quick question, a spin-off of the issues that we're discussing today. You know I've talked to you in the past about the big picture, city-wide about the on-site systems. And I 53 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 understand there's close to 3,000 of them throughout.
I don't know if it's that high, but there is a large number.
I would hope the Water Department has a big picture plan to address the entire City to eventually deal with the systems throughout the City, because I'm telling you that when out walking that you can tell when you've walked passed a property that's got an on-site system. So I would hope that there would be some big picture plan to look at the City city-wide to start developing an engineering plan to eventually connect all of the sites that are possibly able to be hooked up to City sewerage. And it's revenue also, plus the health consideration. You see Hepatitis A killing people. I think that it's something that we really need to take seriously. And I know it died on the vine 54 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 when I asked about it before, but I would like you to look at that City-wide to see what we can do to at least look at it and what the obstacles are to eventually hook up all of the on-site systems to public sewerage.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill 030694, an ordinance authorizing the Water Commissioner, on behalf of the City, to enter into an agreement with the owner of the property at 201 through 229 Shawmont avenue for the grant of a right-of-way to the City for drainage and sewer purposes through the property from 55 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 Umbria Street to Hillside Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Paul McClosky. I'm representing the Water Department. This bill was introduced on October 23rd by request by Councilman Nutter. The bill authorizes the acceptance of a right-of-way for drainage and sewer purposes for the proposed Glen at Manayunk APARTMENT development located at 201 through 299 Shawmont Avenue. The developer proposes to construct a sanitary sewer for his complex in a zig-zag direction up the side of a 100 foot hill from Umbria to Hillside Street south of Shawmont Avenue. The area east of Hillside is Dearnley Park. Dearnley Park has approximately 137 single family houses and are serviced by individual on-site cesspools. The cesspools have failed and a comprehensive public sewer system is required to support the houses in the area. The natural draining of the area is 56 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030693 through the Glen at Manayunk. The developer of the apartment complex has agreed to build a sewer for the complex at his expense, the City standards. He will then grant the City a right-of-way for sewer and drainage purposes for a new sewer. The City will assume ownership and maintenance of the apartment complex's sewer which will be the much needed sewer system for Dearnley Park area made possible. We recommend that the bill be favorably reported out of Committee and also request suspension of the Rules in light of the pending recess of City Council.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next 57 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030696 bill.
Bill NO. 030696, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 97 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Reese Street from Bainbridge Street to Kater Street and reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes, water main purposes and gas main purposes within the bed of Reese Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Again, my name is Paul Lonie, and the Streets Department would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030696. This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance 19 requested Carlos Asher of Carlos Carpet Service, 515 Bainbridge Street. The purpose of this ordinance is to strike and vacate Reese Street from the City Plan to secure the area and prevent short dumping. This ordinance is supported by the 58 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030697 Department of Streets and is recommended to Committee for favorable action. Economic.
Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030697, an ordinance establishing a no parking regulation on Red Lion Road between Norcom Road and Roosevelt Boulevard, both sides.
Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Mark Washington and I'm the District Traffic Engineer for the Northeast section of the City. I am here today to offer testimony on Bill 030697, a bill establishing a no 25 parking regulation in a tow away zone on both 59 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030712 sides of Red Lion between Norcom Road and Roosevelt Boulevard. The Streets Department has no 5 objections to this bill. We are posting the no parking anytime tow away zone signs under a trial ordinance. We can have the signs posted within four weeks.
Thank you, sir. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030712, an ordinance authorizing the construction of a sewer and appurtenant work, required to alleviate unsanitary conditions, in a portion of McCallum Street.
Good morning. Again, 60 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030712 my name is Paul McClosky. I represent the Water Department, City of Philadelphia, in regards to Bill 030712, this bill was introduced by Councilwoman Miller on October 30th of this year. This bill authorizes the Water Department to construct a sanitary sewer on McCallum Street from Lincoln Drive to Westview Avenue. This block consists of three single family dwellings in West Mount Airy section of the City. The properties are currently being serviced by private sewer. The sewer has out-lived its usefulness and require a total replacement. This area of the sewer has created an unsanitary condition. In light of the fact the residents are serviced by public water, the residents have requested a public sewer. Assessments shall be levied against the owners having frontage in order to absorb a portion of the cost of construction and the residents shall be required to connect to the new sewer at their cost in accordance with Philadelphia Code. I recommend the bill be favorably 61 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 reported out of committee and also request a suspension of the rules in light in the pending recess of Council.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee. (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 030714, an ordinance amending Section 11-505 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Paving and Other Improvements By Property Owners," by revising the process governing the grading, paving, repaving or repair of sidewalks and the setting or resetting of curbs, and by revising the assessment of property owners for the cost of such work, all under certain terms and conditions. 62 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name, again, is Paul Lonie, the Survey Bureau Manager for the Department of Streets. And the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 030714. The blight and decay of broken sidewalks has plagued the City of Philadelphia for many years. A majority of these dangerous cracks and undulations are caused by age or the roots of street trees. Many attempts have been made to remedy this problem, but none recently. The two major challenges that will hamper this effort are the enforcement of the Pennsylvania laws that make the property owner totally responsible for any repairs to the sidewalk and Fairmount requirements that healthy street trees be maintained, not destroyed or damaged. In order to appreciate the enormous scope of this problem and the challenge that it presents, it is important to highlight certain facts and statistics and understand how this impacts the problem at hand. Please 63 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 note the following numbers are only an estimate based on computer mapping. We have 2300 miles of streets in the City. Lining these streets are approximately 4557 acres of sidewalk. The City sidewalks are made up of an estimated 22,154,325 square blocks of concrete. It costs approximately $50 per square block to repair a sidewalk. Using these numbers as a base of calculations, we estimate that a 5 percent of the City's sidewalks need to be replaced. It will cost $55,385,814. Under the proposed legislation, the City would be expected to pick up $38,770,069 in direct funding. Finding a source for the substantial funding burden, almost $39 million, will be extremely difficult in this challenging economic time. In the past, community development block grant funds have been used for streetscape improvements. But this source of funding is at the present no longer available for this purpose. We have also been told that we may not use departmental dollars for this type of 64 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 effort even if it is allocated. In addition to overwhelming cost, proposed legislation also presents other challenges. Presently, the City does not have the number of employees necessary to patrol uniformly the various sidewalks of the City. If we relied on complaints about these problems, unfair enforcement of this effort may result. Further, the legislation leaves out some important guidelines for implementing this effort in a fair and evenhanded manner. For example, it is important to ask whether a property in an area of this City with a great deal of street trees should be eligible for a 70 percent reduction in the cost of repairs subsidized by all the taxpayers of Philadelphia, including those that me live in high-rise condominium or something else that have no street trees at all. Also, should all citizens be eligible for the same amount of government assistance regardless of income? While it is not productive to engage in an analysis of a dollar-per-dollar value of 65 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 taxes paid versus City services received, it is our duty to examine the most responsible way to manage the issues facing the City and determine if a proposed change is the most prudent thing to do. For these reasons, the Department of Streets feels Bill No. 030714 is premature without following questions answered: Can a solid, reliable funding source be identified? Can the issues of caring for street trees pursuant to Fairmount Park guidelines be addressed in a simple and efficient manner? And have neighborhood guidelines been established to prevent abuse of the program? Until these crucial questions are answered, the Streets Department cannot support the proposed legislation.
However, we would be glad to work with Members of this Committee to examine the issues and the questions it presents in the hope that a positive and practical solution can be developed that helps those citizens faced with 66 11/19/03 - STREETS - BILL 030714 a challenge of damaged sidewalks. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. This concludes my formal question. I will now be glad to answer any questions.