I have.
In the lower left-hand corner,
can you read out loud what this box says?
No sidewalk existing or proposed
along West Pastoria Street.
So is it true, Mr. Montanez,
that this proposed development
is not creating any sidewalks along Pastoria Street?
That is what's proposed,
no sidewalk on Pastoria Street.
Okay, in addition, this plan, let me look at the key up here, or it might be, oops, it's a little hard to maneuver this thing, let's make it smaller.
Okay. This is the legend. I'm going to try to get this without it moving away. In the legend
to this plan, do you see in the left-hand column an item called bollards?
yes letter b okay so
are there actually bollards that are identified on the plan to you
um i'm i know it's a little difficult to see but i oh what about this right here yep there's a
bollard there on the opposite. The opposite side of Pastorius from the property? It says existing
for the E. Okay, so the parentheses with the E means that it's existing? Yes. Okay. Do you see
any bollards that are proposed along the property, the boundary with Pastorius Street?
From what I can see, and bear with me, I'm taking a look at all the symbols.
Benchmark, baller existing, curve cut existing, patio setback, DC, TC.
So far, I only see the baller that's existing, unless I'm missing it.
And this is why it takes us a while to review plans.
And all right, so these, as you probably recall, Mr. Montanis, this is not the first.
As you probably recall, Mr. Montanis, this is not the first plan that was proposed for this property that came to the streets department. Is that correct?
Correct. This is a different plan that previously you showed me.
Right. And that original plan that came to the streets department had extremely long curb cuts and it had parking along Pastorius. Is that correct?
I will have to go back to the original plan you showed me to verify that.
This is a plan dated June 17, 2019.
have you seen this plan before
i have okay and does this plan
show parking uh and then some landscape buffer areas along pastoria street
it's a little one car i'm sorry it's a little blurry on my side so i apologize is that's a
one car, something parking. I apologize.
Yeah, sorry.
When I make it a little smaller, it's
clearer, but it's smaller.
It's one car,
I don't know what the next word is, and then it's parking.
Oh, I see what you're saying. You're looking at that area right there.
One car exterior parking.
Exterior parking. Okay.
Yeah, those are proposed off-street parking.
Right. Are there any bollards that were that are indicated that are proposed under this plan?
We see the same existing one. I see the same existing one, but I do not see any. And again,
it's a little difficult with all the numbers. It does take us a while to review,
but i do not currently see one okay so do you also recall mr martinez that
the um the first plan that was submitted in 2017 uh that the streets department
had at one point approved a plan for very large uh curb cuts and then the the streets department
had changed its position and no longer approved
that particular design?
I would have to take a look at that plan that got approved
in order to verify that we approved the large curve cuts.
This is the one that was stamped?
Yes, but there is an email.
In correspondence from Pat Ifrig, Pat Ifrig is an employee in your department?
Pat Ifrig was the right-of-way engineering supervisor at the time.
He is no longer in the city of Philadelphia.
you. Okay. Um, this is an email from October 23rd. Uh, let's find out a year here.
Uh, 2018. Yeah, I do see the email where he does say that the curve costs have been rescinded.
Okay. Was that a decision that you and your department made?
That was a decision the department made. Uh, I'm not Pat, so I don't know where that he could have
have conversations with somebody. So I don't want to speak on his behalf, nor can I speak on his.
Okay. And when you then re-approved a parking plan, it was not the extremely long curb cuts
they were, they were, they were broken up by landscape buffers. Would that be correct?
Again, I have to look at the timetable along with that email to see what the plans were.
again i have to look at the timetable along with that
Just returning to-
In this one, it shows a patio, a paver.
So these paver patios.
But it's your testimony today that there are no bollards that you see in this plan to block off access from cars to go onto these paver patios.
Is that correct?
In the Plains, I do not see any bollards.
Now I'd like you to review a stipulation that was entered into by the law department.
Objection.
Well, is the stipulation about the curb cuts?
I mean...
Yes, it's a stipulation that was approved by the Commonwealth Court, and I wanted to show this.
It's a stipulation between Mr. Masters and Mr. Reuter who is here.
No, it is not between, I'm sorry, it's not between Mr. Masters and Mr. Reuter.
Mr. Reuter entered into a stipulation on behalf of the law department.
It's not him personally who entered into something.
And I signed on behalf of the objectors, but the court upheld it.
And so it is a stipulation that has been upheld by the Commonwealth Court and that was entered into by the city of Philadelphia.
Okay. Well, if you're going to reference a stipulation that does not have really the binding effect of law or that was further clarified by Mr. Reuter in a subsequent email and not include the subsequent email clarification, then you're taking it out of context.
You can argue that, Mr.
So listen, we'll look at it, but we'll also look at the further stipulation that was sent by Mr. Reuter.
Okay, Reuter.
Well, Mr. Chair, just to be clear, this stipulation was entered into by the city and the objectors and approved by the court.
It was not approved by the court. That's a misrepresentation. It's never been approved by anybody.
Yes, it was approved by the court.
Where's the judge's signature?
Mr. Phillips made a motion to strike the stipulation and the court.
So we're going to take a look at it, and Mr. Phillips, I'll give you plenty of time to respond to this.
Thank you.
All right, Mr. Montano, as we're going through this stipulation here,
in paragraph one
can you read for the board
what it says in paragraph one of the stipulation
this court July 6, 2021 final order
reinstates a proviso
objection why does Mr. Bontanez
what does he have to do with the stipulation
I mean, Mr. Masters, there's no reason he has to read that.
You want to read it?
You want to present it?
All right.
In number three, Mr. Montanis, the stipulation says that counsel for the city and the petitioners stipulate that the language of the proviso, along with the statements of the ZBA members at the hearing,
require that any new zoning application and building plans restrict access through any
remaining curb cuts along pastoria street for the use of service delivery and emergency vehicles
only it also says that the city will instruct its department license and inspections to require
any building or zoning plan submitted by the property owner to restrict access through any
remaining curb cuts along pastoria street for the use of service delivery and emergency vehicles
only um are you familiar with legal restrictions that that are placed from time to time uh
on certain driveways to limit ingress and egress in the city of philadelphia
objection that's not as a concern of the streets department
it's a zoning issue let him he can answer honestly if he knows
Again, I'm only aware of a few and we do those for special events, such as around the sports complex, in order to deter people from gathering or parking in neighborhoods that they should not be parking.
If the zoning board were to place a condition that limited ingress and egress from Pastoria Street to only emergency service and commercial delivery vehicles, how could the streets department ensure compliance with those conditions?
How could the streets department ensure compliance with those conditions?
What what procedures or or objection actions that the streets department take along those lines?
Objection of the streets department. That is not for the streets department to enforce.
It is a zoning issue. And again, this is this is the legal question is whether again and Mr.
phillips disagrees he doesn't believe uh that the proviso on emergency vehicles is still valid i'll
take i'm taking a neutral position on that but even if it were it's an enforcement issue we're
looking at whether this is an appeal against the validity challenging the validity of the zoning
permit at this point it's been so long i don't even remember which zoning permit he's appealing
but the point being that uh he is the the basis of this entire appeal is that the zoning permit
should not have been issued uh whether so whether or not the city needs to enforce to prevent
emergency other non-emergency vehicles or delivery vehicles from accessing
this driveway isn't the subject of this matter well my question
i agree with i agree with this and and we had all this discussion of bollards i don't remember
when bollards ever came up at all bollards have come up multiple times by mr phillips claiming
that that his client doesn't have to restore the curbs along pastoria street because there
are bollards that apparently are magically available to stop cars from parking there
If they're not on the permit, they're not the subject of this hearing.
That's an enforcement matter.
So, Mr. Masters, could we move on with Mr. Montanez?
My last question, though, Mr. Montanez, so is it your testimony that the streets department does not regulate the signage that's placed on the public right-of-way as to certain limitations for ingress and egress?
As in, I'm not following, I mean, the Street Department places all the signage on the public right-of-way when it comes to regulations, stop signs, one-ways, do not enter, but are you asking me like signage to a private property?
I'm asking you that if the zoning board issued a condition saying that the ingress and egress off of this new curb cut on Pastoria Street is only for emergency service and delivery vehicles, that it would be the streets department that would approve the sign that would be placed there to inform the public as to the limits of who can cross into the property.
the sign will be placed on private property and it'd be the property owner's responsibility
to own and maintain similar to any other development such as acme
wawa there's a stop sign right at their driveway that it is the city approved but it's not the
city's to own and maintain that's right right but who approves it wouldn't the streets department
approve that sign we approve it as part of the review but it's not ours to own and maintain
that's fine all right i'm i am uh i'm going to rest um with with the option to redirect
reuter would you want to go next please uh sure just a couple brief questions uh mr montana's
um there were some questions regarding uh whether the the street department had
a proof and again i'm just of existing driveways and curb cuts and i just
if a plan is submitted that indicates certain curb cuts and they're delineated and some are
marked as existing and others are marked as new does just so the board understands does this
does the reviewer for the streets department verify whether they're existing or do we accept
the plans that have been stamped by an engineer as being valid on their face we accept the plans
that were submitted or the plans that were stamped by an engineer as being valid and that they have
proved that the uh curve cuts are legal and when uh when plans are submitted by uh and stamped by
a licensed professional engineer um those plans and that submission does the department uh
is it understood that that stamp by the engineer is a certification that all the information
provided on that application and plans is accurate and true that is correct okay so uh and
with respect to the reconfiguration of the existing driveway uh and i believe you had
indicated and correct me if i'm wrong that the streets department did say if you want that
that's the streets department did say if you want that driveway exiting out onto i believe
driveway
and let me let me back up mr masters had had indicated or had had you indicate that there's
there wouldn't there's no specific requirement uh that there be a driveway uh out on to
going in and out of pastorius but to the extent that the applicant uh whether that
driver had been existing or not that the applicant wanted that driveway there there was
the existing curb cut and the streets department believed that that curb cut
and driveway should be basically straightened out is that right that is correct okay and at some
point um and did that did that straightening out if you recall did that require a relocation of a
telephone pole
or a pole holding of utilities?
I do not recall that.
I'm sorry.
Now, with respect to this straightening
out of that
driveway and reconfiguration
of the curb cut, is that
something that was requested
or made a requirement of
the approval of the plan because
for safety reasons?
It was requested to facilitate
the ingress and egress into the property and one of the things we do take a look at is
the size of the vehicles that could probably be entering and exiting including fire trucks okay
and let me just check real quick i don't think i have
Now, I don't think so.
I don't think I have any other questions, but I'll reserve for I guess this would be
still we're asking directs of redirects and I'll yield the rest of this to Mr. Phillips.
Okay, Mr. Phillips.
Thank you.