COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Friday, April 5, 2024 10:20 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JEFFREY YOUNG, JR., CHAIR COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN KENDRA BROOKS
240021, 240022, 240086, 240090, 240100, 240121, 240122, 240123, 240155, 240156, 240158, 240186, 240188, 240189, 240190, 240212, 240213, 240214, 240217, 240218, 240219 RESOLUTION: 240136 - - -
Hi. Excuse me, everyone. Because of what felt like an earthquake, we're going to evacuate City Hall. They were telling us we have to evacuate City Hall, so we're going to pause. (Recess.)
Good morning, everyone. Sorry about that delay. God had other plans today. This is Philadelphia City Council Committee on Streets and Services. I note that the hour has come. On the Committee, we have Committee Vice-Chair Councilmember Squilla, Councilmember Harrity, temporarily appointed by the Council President we have Councilmember Rue Landau. So I note that a quorum has been established. This is a public hearing of the Committee of Streets and Services considering testimony on Bill Nos. 240021, 240022, 240086, 240090, 240100, 240121, 240122, 240123, 240155, 240156, 240158, 240186, 240188, 240189, 240190, 240212, 240213, 240214, 240217, 240218, 240219 and Resolution 7 240136. Mr. Pullin, please read the title of the first bill of the bills.
Thank you, Chairman. Bill No. 240021, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of Gravers Lane and Millman Street. And also Bill No. 240022, entitled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of Rockland Street and North 2nd Street; Lawrence Street and Rockland Street; Ruscomb Street and North 2nd Street; Ashdale Street to North 3rd Street. And also Bill No. 240090, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of Old York Road and Courtland Street and Loudon Street. And also Bill No. 240188, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of: Montrose Street between South 7th Street and South 8th Street; Montrose Street between South 9th Street and South 10th Street; Montrose Street between South 10th Street and South 11th Street; Beulah Street between Montrose Street and Carpenter Street. And also Bill No. 240189, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of: South 12th Street between Jackson Street and Wolf Street; Emily Street between South 6th Street and South 5th Street; Winton Street between South 5th Street and South 6th Street; Mercy Street between South 5th Street and South 6th Street; Sigel Street between South 5th Street and South 6th Street; South 4th Street between Mifflin Street and McKean Street; McKean Street between South 5th Street and South 6th Street; Sigel Street between South 5th Street and South 4th Street; South 3rd Street between Mifflin Street and McKean Street. And also Bill No. 240190, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of Jackson Street between South 12th Street and South 13th Street; Snyder Avenue between South 13th Street and Juniper Street; Jackson Street between South 6th Street and South 7th Street; Mercy Street between South 7th Street and South 8th Street; Watkins Street between South 11th Street and South 12th Street; South 7th Street between Johnston Street and Oregon Avenue; Moyamensing Avenue between South 5th Street and South 6th Street. And also Bill No. 240212, titled establishing a parking regulation on Green Street and North 40th Street; North 41st Street and Spring Garden Street; North 41st Street and Powelton Avenue; North 32nd Street and Haverford Avenue; Brandywine Street and North 36th Street. And also Bill No. 240214, titled establishing parking regulation on Hazel Avenue and South 55th Street; Cedar Avenue and South 51st Street; Cedar Avenue and South 55th Street; Hazel Avenue and South 46th Street; Hazel Avenue and South 47th Street; Hazel Avenue and South 48th Street; St. Bernard Street and Pine Street; St. Bernard Street and Spruce Street. And also Bill No. 240155, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of: North 20th Street and Fairmount Avenue; Tioga Street and Old York Road; Westmoreland Street and 13th Street. And also Bill No. 240156, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of: North 30th Street and Master Street; North 29th Street and Master Street and Oxford Street; Oxford Street and North 30th Street and North 29th Street; North 15th Street and Parrish Street; Swain Street and North 17th Street. And also Bill No. 240186, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of: Pacific Street and North Broad Street; North 13th Street and Allegheny Avenue; Marlborough Street and Thompson Street; North 4th Street and Master Street. And also Bill No.
240217, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of: Parrish Street between North 16th Street and North 17th Street; Perkiomen Street between Vineyard Street and North 19th Street; Gratz Street between Jefferson Street and Harlan Street; Cambridge Street between North 30th Street to a dead-end; Jefferson Street between North 18th Street and North 19th Street; Newkirk Street between Thompson Street and Stiles Street; Brown Street between North 16th Street and North 15th Street; Seybert Street between North 24th Street and North 25th Street; Flora Street between North 29th Street and North 30th Street; Olive Street between Shirley Street and North 19th Street. And also Bill No. 240218, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of: Watts Street between Cambria Street and Rush Street; Camac Street between Cambria Street and Glenwood Avenue; Cambria Street between North 13th Street to North 12th Street; Silver Street between North 13th Street and Broad Street; Rush Street between North 12th Street and 13th Street; North 12th Street between Cambria Street and Somerset Street; Marvine Street between Susquehanna Avenue and Diamond Street; Thompson Street between North 27th Street and North 28th Street; Montgomery Avenue between Uber Street and North 20th Street; North 19th Street between Montgomery Street and Berks Street. And also Bill No. 240219, titled establishing parking regulations in the vicinity of: Bailey Street between Poplar Street and Parrish Street; North 20th Street between Oxford Street and Jefferson Street; North 27th Street between Girard Avenue and Thompson Street; Folsom Street between North 18th Street and North 19th Street; Uber Street between Parrish Street and Poplar Street; North 19th Street between Master Street and Jefferson Street; Herald Street between North 22nd Street and North 23rd Street.
Thank you, Mr. Pullin. I note that Councilmember Kendra Brooks, a member of the Committee, is also present. Mr. Pullin, can you please call the first witness to testify.
The first witness to testify is Lester Emerson, Deputy Manager of the Philadelphia Parking Authority. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Can you please state your name and proceed with your testimony.
Good Day, Council. My name is Lester Emerson, Deputy Manager for the Philadelphia Parking Authority. Thank you for allowing me to testify before Council regarding Ordinances 240212, 240214, 240217, 240218, 240219, 240021, 240022, 240090, 240155, 240156, 240186, 240188, 240189 and 240190, establishing parking regulations. The Philadelphia Parking Authority has no objection to the ordinances previously read before Council and recommends favorable consideration. Thank you again for your time.
Thank you, Mr. Emerson. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none thank you, Mr. Emerson, for your time. Mr. Pullin, could you please call the next witness -- I'm sorry, Mr. Pullin. I'm sorry. Please read the title of the next bills.
Bill No. 7 240100, titled establishing parking regulations, one-way regulations and a closure of the public right-of-way to motor traffic regulation in the vicinity of Washington Avenue from 4th Street to Water Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
The next witness to testify is Noelle Marconi, Legislative Affairs Director for the Department of Streets.
Good morning, Chairperson Young and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Noelle Marconi and I'm the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Streets. I'm here today to offer testimony on Bill No. 240100, introduced by Councilmember Squilla. This bill establishes parking regulations, one-way regulations and a closure of the public right-of-way to motor traffic regulation in the vicinity of Washington Avenue from 4th Street to Water Street. This work on Washington Avenue consists of upgrading the traffic signals from 4th Street to Christopher Columbus Boulevard, including the Washington Avenue side road on the south curb in conjunction with the reconstruction of the roadway itself in order to create a side path on the south side of Washington Avenue. The project aims to provide improved pedestrian and cyclist connectivity between the neighborhoods abutting Washington Avenue and the Delaware River Trail. This Streets Department project is being completed in collaboration with the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation and furthers their efforts to improve access to the Waterfront while providing traffic signal, roadway street lighting and landscaping improvements to the segment of Washington Avenue. The Department of Streets supports this bill. We hope to start construction on this project in the fall. This concludes my testimony and I'm pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Ms. Marconi. Are there any questions for this witness from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, are there any members of the public wishing to testify on Bill 4 No. 240100? (No response.)
Seeing none, Mr. Pullin, could you please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 10 240213, titled authorizing Rekhaben Patel, owner and operator of the newsstand at the northwest corner of 30th and Market Streets to construct, use and maintain conduits in, under and across the northwest corner of 30th and Market Streets for the purpose of supplying electrical service to said newsstand, under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Mr. Pullin, please call the next witness to testify on this bill.
The next witness to testify is Noelle Marconi, Legislative Affairs Director for the Department of Streets.
Good morning, Chairperson Young and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Noelle Marconi and I'm the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Streets. I'm here today to offer testimony on Bill No. 240213 introduced by Councilmember Gauthier. This bill authorizes Rekhaben Patel, owner and operator of the newsstand at the northwest corner of 30th and Market Streets to construct, use and maintain conduits in, under and across the northwest corner of 30th and Market Streets for the purpose of supplying electrical services to said newsstand. The Department of Streets is not opposed to this bill so long as the owner meets all the requirements of the appropriate departments, boards, agencies or commissions, including approval of the site plan. This concludes my testimony. I'm pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Ms. Marconi. Are there any questions for this witness by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, are there any other witnesses to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, Mr. Pullin, could you please call the next bill.
Bill No. 22 240086, titled amending Sections 23 and 2 of an Ordinance (Bill No. 24 170086), approved May 22, 2017, 25 entitled "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 269 by relocating portions of the houselines and curblines of Convention Avenue, from 34th Street to Health Sciences Drive, and placing on the City Plan two rights-of-way for drainage purposes within the vicinity of the intersection of Convention Avenue and Health Sciences Drive and authorizing acceptance of the grant to the City of the said rights-of-way for drainage purposes, all under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City of the beds of the areas proposed to be placed on the City Plan as portions of Convention Avenue," by adding additional necessary City Plan changes and revising the terms and conditions stated therein.
The next witness to testify are -- witnesses to testify are Noelle Marconi, Legislative Affairs Director for the Department of Streets; and Ian Hegary, Senior Environmental Planner for the City Planning Commission.
Thank you. Good morning. Can you please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Chairperson Young and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Noelle Marconi and I'm the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Streets. I'm here today to offer testimony on Bill No. 240086 introduced by Councilmember Gauthier. This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Ira A. Kauderwood, Esquire, Associate General Counsel for the University of Pennsylvania. The purpose of this proposed ordinance is to amend a previous ordinance, Bill No. 6 170086 previously amended by Bill 7 Nos. 190379, 210828 and 230652 approved on May 22, 2017, which authorized the relocation of portions of the houseline and curblines of Convention Avenue from 34th Street to Health Sciences Drive and the placing on the City Plan of two rights-of-way for drainage purposes in the vicinity of the intersection of Convention Avenue and Health Sciences Drive. This action is part of the development of the new Penn Medicine Patient Pavilion Hospital building. The purpose of this action is to redesign Convention Avenue to accommodate a reconfigured streetscape and enhance pedestrian access to better serve patients and users of the new facility. During development of this project, additional changes to the City Plan not provided for in the original ordinance became necessary. The proposed amendment will authorize an additional right-of-way for drainage purposes in an area for the public pedestrian use. The Department of Streets has no objections to this proposed ordinance and recommends it to the Committee for favorable action. Thank you for the opportunity to testify and I'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Ms. Marconi. Mr. Hegarty, will you proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair Young and members of the Committee of Streets and Services. I'm Ian Hegarty, City Planner with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 240086 introduced by Councilwoman Gauthier on February 8, 2024. As Ms. Marconi gave an overview, this bill added drainage right-of-way and a pedestrian easement to the City Plan, specifically to place on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes within the areas being stricken. And two, to plot upon the City Plan area for public pedestrian use of the southwest corner of Convention Avenue and Health Sciences Drive. This action is consistent with the original Bill No. 107 -- excuse me, 170086, which was to facilitate construction of Penn Medicine's new pavilion building. The additional drainage right-of- way and pedestrian easement are needed for this development. The City Planning Commission approved Bill No. 170086 on February 21, 2017, and this is another end of series of subsequent bills to extend the timeline for compliance. Therefore, the City Planning Commission at its meeting on February 15, 2024 recommended Bill 10 No. 240086 for approval as an item in accord with the previous policy. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Hegarty. Are there any questions for these witnesses by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, Mr. Pullin, could you please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 240121 titled, authorizing encroachments in the nature of a sidewalk café in the vicinity of 2401 East Norris Street, all under certain terms and conditions. And also Bill No. 240122, titled authorizing Norris Street Holdings, LLC to install, own and maintain a streetery in the right- of-way adjacent to 2401 East Norris Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125-2913, under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you, Mr. Pullin. Can you please read the names of the witnesses to testify on these bills.
The next witnesses to testify are Noelle Marconi, Legislative Affairs Director for the Department of Streets, and Ian Hegarty, Senior Environmental Planner for the City Planning Commission.
Thank you. Good morning. Could you please state your name again for the record and begin your testimony.
Good morning, Chairperson Young and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is NoelLe Marconi and I'm the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Streets. I'm here today to offer testimony on Bill No. 240121 introduced by Councilmember Squilla. This bill authorizes Norris Holdings, LLC or a subsequent owner, the owner, to install, own and maintain encroachments in the nature of a sidewalk café at 2401 East Norris Street, all under certain terms and conditions. A total of 8 tables and 32 seats for a sidewalk café will be located adjacent to the building line of 2401 East Norris Street. The Department of Streets is not opposed to this proposed sidewalk café building as it will maintain the feet passable sidewalk spaces required by the Code. This concludes my testimony. I'm pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Are there any questions for this witness on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, Mr. Hegarty, can you please proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. Good morning, Chair and members of the Committee of Streets and Services. I'm Ian Hegarty, City Planner with the City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 240121, which was introduced by Councilmember Squilla. The bill will allow an open air sidewalk café with 8 tables and 32 seats to be located adjacent to the building line of 2401 East Norris Street. It will leave a minimum of 5'0" clear unobstructed footway on the sidewalk. The proposed encroachment therefore meets the Complete Streets policy of the City. City Planning Commission at its meeting on March 21, 2024 recommended Bill 9 No. 240121 for approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.
Are there any questions for this witness on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, Mr. Pullin, could you please read the title of 240122 once more.
Bill No. 20 240122, titled authorizing Norris Street Holdings, LLC to install, own and maintain a streetery in the right-of-way adjacent to 2401 East Norris Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19125-2913, under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Can you call the witnesses please for this bill.
The next witnesses to testify are Noelle Marconi, Legislative Affairs Director for the Department of Streets; and Ian Hegarty, Senior Environmental Planner for the City Planning Commission.
Good morning, Chairperson Young and members of the Streets and Services Committee, my name is Noelle Marconi and I'm the Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Streets. I'm here today to offer testimony on Bill No. 240122 introduced by Councilmember Squilla. This bill authorizes Norris Holdings, LLC, the owner, to install, own and maintain a streetery in the right-of-way adjacent to 2401 East Norris Street. The streetery will occupy the parking lane of the cartway. It will be comprised of 2 structures, 6 tables and 20 seats that will be located adjacent to the curbline of 2401 East Norris Street in the parking lane. The Department of Streets is not opposed to this proposed streetery as long as it complies with the laws, rules and regulations of the City, and specifically those of the Departments of Licenses and Inspections, the Department of Streets and the Art Commission. This ordinance authorizes the location of the streetery subject to those rules. This concludes my testimony. I'm pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. Mr. Pullin, please call the next witness on this bill.
Thank you, Chair Young. Good morning, Chair and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. I'm Ian Hegarty, City Planner with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 240122, which was introduced by Councilmember Squilla. This bill will allow a streetery in the right-of-way at 2401 East Norris Street. The proposed encroachment meets the Complete Streets policy of the City. And therefore, the City Planning Commission at its meeting on March 21, 2024 recommended Bill 21 No. 240122 for approval. I'm happy to answer any questions at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Hegarty. Are there any questions for these witnesses by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, Mr. Pullin, could you please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 9 240123, titled authorizing Pat Olivieri doing business as Pat's King of Steaks, to vend from a location in the right-of-way adjacent to the Pat's Steaks location in the vicinity of 9th and Wharton streets, under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Mr. Pullin, could you please read the name of the next witness to testify.
The next witness to testify is Sarah Adamo, Legislative Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections.
Thank you. Good morning, Ms. Adamo. Will you please proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Chairperson Young and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. My name is Sarah Adamo and I am the Legislative Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill No. 240123 introduced by Councilmember Squilla. As amended, the bill would authorize Pat's King of Steaks to vend from a food truck, trailer or similar facility located in the roadway in the parking lane across from the location of Pat's Steaks on the west side of Passyunk Avenue between 9th Street and Morton Street for a period of six months from the effective date of this ordinance. Considering its proposed amendments, the Department has no 3 objection to this bill and is prepared to enforce its provision should it become law. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the Department's testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Ms. Adamo. Are there any questions for this witness by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, is there anyone else in the chambers willing to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, Mr. Pullin, please read the title of the next bill 240158.
Bill 240158, titled amending Chapter 12-900 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking Regulations and Penalties," by providing for parking prohibitions for motor vehicles with sunscreening devices and for penalties and enforcement, all under certain terms and conditions.
Mr. Pullin, please call the next witness for this bill.
The next witness to testify is Francis Healy, Deputy Commissioner for the Philadelphia Police Department. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Good morning, Mr. Healy. Please state your name for the record and begin with your testimony. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Sure. Good morning, Councilmember Young and Vice -- I don't see him, Vice-Chairmember Squilla. My name is Francis Healy and I'm Deputy Commissioner Philadelphia of the Police Department. First, on behalf of Commissioner Bethel, thank you for allowing the Philadelphia Police Department the opportunity to voice its opinion on Bill No. 240158, providing for additional parking regulations to Chapter 12-900 of The Philadelphia City Code. As you know, the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code Section 13 4524, Subsection 3 prohibits driving motor vehicles with any sunscreen device or other material, which does not permit a person to see or view inside the vehicle through the windshield, side wing or side windows of the vehicle. While this bill 21 incorporates the terms and conditions of the State Code, this bill prohibits parking of any motor vehicle on a public highway in Philadelphia with such sunscreening. Further, by referencing the state statute, all exemptions set forth at the state level are hereby incorporated, and that the appropriate exemptions are provided, the Philadelphia Police Department can support this legislation. If the vehicle is illegal to drive, then the similar rationale exists to prohibit such vehicles from parking on any public highway. In closing, I'd like to thank Councilmembers Driscoll and Squilla for introducing this legislation. This is yet another tool for law enforcement and this concludes my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Healy. I do have one question on this bill. So there won't be any preemption issues with this bill given what the state holds, any conflicts? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Well, this bill is substantially dissimilar from the state in the fact that the state deals with the operation of the vehicle. This one is strictly a parked vehicle.
Okay. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: So it's distinguishable from the state. Therefore, it should not be preempted.
Thank you. Are there any other questions for the witness by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, are there any members of the public wishing to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, Mr. Healy, thank you for your time. I appreciate it. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER HEALY: Thank you. May I be excused?
I note that we will now transition into our public comment section. Mr. Pullin, please call the first witness.
Chairman, I don't believe there's anyone on the public comment list.
So the Chair now recognizes -- so I note that we are -- thanks. So we will now temporarily end the public hearing and go into a public meeting. I note for the record that a quorum is still present. And the Chair recognizes Councilmember Brooks for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 25 240022.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I offer a technical amendment to Bill No. 240022. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the Committee, and I move that the amendment to Bill No. 240022 be adopted.
The ayes have it. It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 240022 be adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Brooks for a motion on amendment to Bill No. 240213.
Thank you, Chairman. I offer a technical amendment to Bill No. 240213. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the Committee and I move that the amendment to Bill No. 240213 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that all those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
In the opinion of the Chair, the ayes have it and the motion carries. Amendment to Bill 240213 has been adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Brooks for a motion for an amendment on 240123.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. I offer a technical amendment to Bill No. 240123. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the Committee. And I move that the amendment to Bill No. 240123 be adopted.
It has been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill 240123 be adopted. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion for amendment 240123 has been adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Brooks for a motion on Bill Nos. 240021, 240022, 240086, 240090, 240100, 240121, 240122 as amended, 240123 as amended, 240155, 240156, 240158, 240186, 240188, 240189, 240190, 240212, 240213 as amended, 240214, 240217, 240218 and 240219.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill Nos. 240021, 240022, 240086, 240090, 240100, 240121, 240122 as amended, 240123 as amended, 240155, 240156, 240158, 240186, 240188, 240189, 240190, 240212, 240213 as amended, 240214, 240217, 240218 and 240219 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Thank you. It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill Nos. 240021, 240022, 240086, 240090, 240100, 240121, 240122 as amended, 240123 as amended, 240155, 240156, 240158, 240186, 240188, 240189, 240190, 240212, 240213 as amended, 240214, 240217, 240218 and 240219 be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of these bills at the next section of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. Those bills will be reported from this Committee with a favorable recommendation with a request that the rules of Council be suspended to permit the first reading at our next section of Council. This concludes the public meeting of the Committee on Streets and Services and we will now re -- and we will enter the public hearing, excuse me. Mr. Pullin, please read the title of the resolution for the public hearing.
Resolution No. 16 240136 titled, authorizing Philadelphia City Council to conduct hearings to investigate the efficiency, implementation and enhancement of the outdoor dining program and improve opportunities for restaurants to operate streeteries and sidewalk cafés.
Thank you, Mr. Pullin. We will proceed with panel testimonies. But before we proceed with calling witnesses, will any of the members of the Committee have any comments to make first? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you. Mr. Pullin, please call the first witnesses to testify.
The first witness to testify is Michael Carroll, Deputy Managing Director of the Office of Transportation, Infrastructure and Sustainability. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Good morning, Mr. Carroll. Please proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Chairman. My name again is Michael Carroll. I'm the Deputy Managing Director for Transportation and Infrastructure in the Managing Director's Office. Good morning, Chairperson Young and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Mike Carroll. I am here to offer testimony on Resolution No. 240136 introduced by Councilmember Landau. This resolution authorizes Council to conduct hearings to investigate the efficiency, implementation and enhancements of the outdoor dining program and improve opportunities for restaurants to operate streeteries and sidewalk cafés. The outdoor dining program encompasses sidewalk cafés and streeteries each defined separately in The Philadelphia Code. Sidewalk cafés are under Section 9-208, streeteries are under Section 21 9-215. The Sidewalk Café initiative predates COVID-19, while the Streeteries program was introduced during the peak of the pandemic. It's imperative to note the distinction between these two programs as each necessitates a separate license. Nonetheless enforcement of both programs is a collaborative effort between the Streets Department and the Department of Licenses and Inspections and I must mention the role of the Health Department as well. Since March 2023, the Streets Department has conducted daily inspections of the right-of- way in issuing notices of violation for illegal streeteries, and in 2023 a total of 88 such notices were dispatched leading to compliance from 50 businesses while 36 remain noncompliant with fines pending collection. Since the fall of 2022, the Streets Department has received 118 streetery applications, approving 36 to date. Of those 36 approved for Streets Department review, only have applied for L&I for actual streetery licenses under The Philadelphia Code. Notably, all applications are reviewed within 6 days for professionally rendered 7 drawings when they are received by 8 the Streets Department. 9 If individual restaurants 10 provide us with hand-drawn 11 sketches, those will take 30 12 business days for review. 13 Nonetheless delays in approvals 14 often result due to applications failing to submit up-to-date drawings when submissions are subjected to comments. When speaking of sidewalk cafés, specific data on the application process is not available for us at this time. However, L&I confirms the existence of 244 active licenses under that program. Businesses seeking licenses for sidewalk cafés and/or streeteries are advised to utilize the eCLIPSE format, which is an online e-permitting system and the Streets Department uses the Formstack application form online for submissions for its review. gov, both on L&I's website and on Streets Department's website. We recognize that streeteries have been a lifeline to struggling businesses whose bottom line has been affected by and since the COVID-19 pandemic. The City has worked with restaurants and other businesses to streamline the process for applying for streetery licenses and is willing to continue to work to make that process smoother for everyone. At the same time, to maintain functions of City infrastructure and to make sure that we take precedent in mind in terms of how we manage the right-of-way, we must maintain safety, accessibility, have fire and emergency access and allow for utility work, rubbish and recycling collection for paving and for City-approved special events. We must also adhere to state and federal regulations. Streeteries are not allowed on state and federal roadways according to state statute and federal guidelines. There have been challenges with streeteries, and we continue to seek cooperation from restaurants and businesses to make outdoor dining more enjoyable for the community. Streeteries have presented certain issues from residents dealing with either the level of noise going up and also issues related to late night dining activities. They've also taken in some cases resident parking, which has led to complaints.
In addition to this, concerns have been raised because streeteries have become in some cases havens for homeless folks who are seeking shelter. And we had at least one instance where a fire was created outside of one restaurant causing a streetery itself to burn down. Thankfully no one was hurt, but the circumstances could have been far worse. Streeteries make it difficult for the Fire Department under some circumstances to address the frontage of the adjacent building if there's an emergency in that location. So it is necessary to make sure they are not blocking fire hydrants, utilities or manholes and that emergency access can pass through the frontage to access the frontage in case of an emergency. The City has had the utmost consideration of the safety of outdoor diners in mind when instituting the regulations on streeteries. Safety must be our number one priority. There have been several accidents where a car has struck a streetery or a truck has struck a streetery. Several people have been taken to the hospital in one instance where a car struck a streetery. Thankfully no one was seriously hurt. That's not the case as we've seen in other cities however. With this in mind, we require that streeteries have to be accompanied by crashworthy barriers. Streeteries must also comply with the Americans with Disabilities Act. There must be clear pedestrian pathways. They must also comply with the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code and must allow for sight lines of neighbors, pedestrians and vehicles. The Streets Department strongly advises businesses that there is a significantly easier path for restaurants to apply to set up only tables and chairs with crashworthy barriers rather than erecting a structure. This approach requires no building permit from L&I. It also requires no Art Commission approval. In terms of public safety, we know that this approach also significantly reduces the concerns over traffic crashes, it eliminates worries over emergency responsiveness and decreases concerns over fire hazards, especially any risk of fire starting in a streetery and spreading to an adjacent building. It eliminates the risk of encampments forming if it's only being applied for tables and chairs, and problems we have seen with unsecured structures being the housing place for drugs and other illegal activities outside -- I'm sorry, off hours are also eliminated. It eliminates problems from unresponsive businesses refusing to move structures when it's time to maintain our roads for water, gas or electric lines underneath the right-of-way where the streetery is placed and we've seen from previous experience that this has been an issue in many cases. The City has worked hard over the past two years across many departments to create a streetery program essentially from scratch in the middle of a pandemic. We recognize that there's room for improvement and we are committed to make those improvements as long as they keep safety as the number one priority. We acknowledge that there have been bumps in this road, so to speak, but we're always open to continuing the discussion on how to make this program better. We look forward to continuing to work with restaurants, businesses and with Council to achieve that result. This concludes my testimony and I'm pleased to answer any questions.
Thank you, Mr. Carroll. I do have one question. I frequent New York and I like to eat outside. My family and I like to sit outside to eat. And I've noticed that they don't require those large barriers that we require. For the most part, they're planters they have. So could you describe to us some of the rationale behind why we have a little bit more onerous regulations and requirements than peer cities?
Yeah. So New York has a different setup in some respects, but we do allow planters. Those planters just need to be crashworthy. So they have to be inspected either by a professional engineer who establishes that they're crashworthy of if they meet guidelines that already exist, and PennDOT has looked at crashworthy planters on other roads and we've looked at crashworthy planters. So in terms of the aesthetics, there's really no difference in our opinion as long as they're crashworthy. I'd also mention that New York has seen fatalities where folks have really plowed directly into planters -- I'm sorry, into streeteries and they have been killed. And so, part of our emphasis on safety reflects making sure that whatever is put in place around a streetery, whether it's a planter or not, is able to withstand the force of a crash.
Now, when there are injuries, essentially who is at fault, who takes that risk? Is that on the business owner? Is that on the City? Who bears that risk?
That would be determined in the case, and we cannot as a City assume that we wouldn't be held liable. In similar circumstances if we're involved in an approval process and plaintiffs make the case, make a claim that the City's approval led to damages to their client, we can't guarantee that we wouldn't be in a situation where we would have to settle or a judgment would come in against us.
As a part of the approval process, could the City ask for the applicants to indemnify the City or add the City as an additional insured for their policies in order to try to mitigate that issue?
So in the current law, that isn't something that we require. There was a proposal that that would be incorporated, but that was not incorporated in the legislation that Council passed. And I would just offer that in the conversation it seemed like that was too onerous and that certain businesses would not be able to meet that standard.
Thank you. Are there any questions for this witness from members of the Committee? Chair recognizes Councilmember Landau.
Thank you. Thank you so much for your testimony. Can you tell me what other agencies you collaborate with on streeteries and sidewalk cafés?
So Commerce Department, I mentioned Licenses & Inspections, I mentioned Health Department, also the Planning Department. In particular, we coordinate since the Planning Department provides staff with the Arts Commission.
I should also mention the Fire Department has been a partner in this process and in terms of representing the emergency responsiveness.
And are members of all of those departments here today?
I believe so. I think the Planning Department may have had other commitments. So we can certainly get any feedback you want from them.
So you said there were 39 approved streeteries, but only 14 approved licenses. What's the difference between those two numbers? Why don't the people who are 25 approved not have licenses?
Well, I'll offer my theories. I mean, ultimately it's the responsibility of the business itself to get that license. The Streets Department in reviewing those 39 was satisfied for the things that we look at, that they met all the right criteria. Some of those may have been required to get a building permit. They may have got stuck in the process of getting a building permit. There's also I feel like a tendency for certain operations to feel like once they got the streets approval they didn't need to come back and get the license. There's a fee involved in terms of actually getting the license. And so, some businesses may have felt like they didn't want to pay the fee or they couldn't afford the fee. And to be honest, one of the issues even going back to the pandemic is that we've tried to show some restraint in terms of enforcing and there's some legal thresholds that we have to pass before we can actively enforce let's say in terms of removing a streetery from the street and some businesses I feel have taken the position that they're going to wait until they're absolutely compelled for one reason or another to be taken out of the street before they comply with what the law requires.
So you named about seven different departments that you coordinate with for both streeteries and sidewalk cafés. Can you describe what kind of outreach or one-on-one assistance has been done to help support the restaurants through the process? And does anyone ever come in person from the City to the restaurant to help them through that process?
So we do daily inspections. That daily inspection doesn't necessarily occur at every restaurant but we're out there every day. And in those inspections in terms of enforcing the rules, our first option is not to cite people when there's a conversation we're trying to have with the business owners to explain what's wrong. And if people can commit and we come back and they've addressed the situation, we're not writing citations in that. So that face-to-face interaction happens in the street. I'll say that during the pandemic we weren't meeting face- to-face, but there were regular Zoom meetings and online meetings with folks who represented the industry, individual restaurants. I also want to say, I mean we've got guidance that we worked on several years online. And in the application form, it's linked on phila.gov. It's linked from the Streets Department's website, L&I's website. And I was just going back and speaking with folks from the Commerce Department, we've never received one question from anyone about the guidance. So the main thing is that we hope that the businesses are doing research. But if there's an issue they're confused about something, we would expect the businesses to call the Commerce Department and ask what does this mean, what does that mean. And we speak with Council a lot, we speak with Council staff a lot, but we're not seeing that there's this uptick in the materials that we're putting out there for the businesses to look at and to help us get where we need to be.
It looks nice, but it's still complicated and there's so many steps and so many departments involved. And so, even when I asked about if there was one person or one way in which there could be contact between the restaurant and all of the entities, you were talking about citing the entity, but I'm talking about helping them through the process and streamlining the process to make it as easy as possible. You spoke that you use both eCLIPSE and Formstack applications for the licenses, it's two different systems maybe with two different online processes. Have any efforts been undertaken to help walk applicants who might not be particularly tech-savvy through the process to help navigate the applications?
Well, I am open to suggestions on that. Businesses in general that are working in Philadelphia are going to end up working with eCLIPSE. Anyone who's built anything requiring a building permit is going to end up working with eCLIPSE, which is L&I's online permitting system. So there is a presumption that at a minimum folks who are engaged in these types of activities have to understand at some point in time how to work with the eCLIPSE. The Formstack process is something we had to put together because eCLIPSE is an enterprise system. And as an enterprise system, we have certain commitments where we have to pay for improvements or changes in that system. And in the middle of the pandemic, the determination was that this should basically be incorporated into eCLIPSE. But we needed to have the funds in order to pay for in the sequence of working through that software upgrade. And Formstack felt like it was a good way for us to give people an opportunity before all that was set up. And we can revisit that, but we have to go through a technical process in order to do that work. And again, if we have not received specific complaints about what steps aren't working, it just seems like in general people are not satisfied that they have to go through these steps. And I'm certainly open to hear that. We're certainly open to work on improving it. But when we get the specific issues where people are stuck, we can work with them. We can help them get unstuck, but we're not hearing the specific issues. We're hearing the general frustration, and there's a difference in what we can do with that.
Thanks. For the record, the Chair notes that Michelle Brisbon and Keisha Duckett from the Streets Department are also here to testify as a witness.
So I'm going to turn it over to Keisha Duckett and Michelle Brisbon both with the Streets Department to talk about the appointment process that we have stood up with. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good morning. My name is Michelle Brisbon. I'm the Assistant Chief Engineer for Streets Department.
Good morning. Keisha Duckett, Assistant Chief Engineer of Streets Department.
So I know y'all question about if there's assistance, so Deputy Director Carroll, he mentioned the several agencies. But for intake, it's just Streets Department. So Streets Department is bringing in the applications and reviewing it. And when there are questions, we offer appointments and they can come in and we'll review the plans with them.
On the same -- so what issues have emerged during this time regarding the streeteries and their operations during the pandemic and how can we learn from those experience? Like from the pandemic to now, I know you say that too many people don't reach out. But from what you have experienced around regulations and fines and having closure, have we found a way to kind of be proactive in supporting streeteries and not making these violations or making not just the process of applying easier but to maintain licensure easier based on frequently asked questions or frequently fined issues or however to describe it?
Okay. So from I guess you're saying during the pandemic up to now?
So I guess some of the initial things were the width of them. So some of them were beyond the parking lanes. So for the most part, I believe all of them that were beyond the parking lanes are now either within the parking lane or they've been removed completely. But I mean --
Right. I guess during the pandemic they were allowed to operate beyond their property, so they could get permission from the adjacent properties. Now, they can only solely be in front of their own property. I think --
So there's been, you know, during the pandemic some evolution in the guidance as we learn things, and I think maybe that goes to your question as well. And so, in the beginning we tried to make it clear that we expected folks to exercise judgment in terms of how they heated them, in terms of whether electrical was added to them so they could be lit up. We in particular had a lot of concerns about the use of propane in the right-of-way because that could lead to a real catastrophe if those were struck by a vehicle and there was a combustion. And so, that type of interaction I think we've got to a point where we're not seeing as many issues from those perspectives. You can't run a line across the sidewalk or have a cord coming across and have high-powered lights. We don't want heating elements in the streeteries. These things are made out of timber and some of them have had scorch marks you see the next morning. And like we said, there's been a couple fires that have taken place. Securing streeteries, I think we're trying to be out there consistently. Not only do you have people who open the streeteries go into them overnight and kind of encamp there, you have folks who stash things in the streeteries. You've had incidents where we couldn't guarantee there was prostitution, but you see evidence of things like that taking place in the streeteries, in terms of vermin being in the unsecured streeteries, which is sometimes a function of the cleanliness of them. In some instances, restaurants will sort of abandon a streetery and just let it be there and not really maintain it at all and sometimes it's because the business itself is going out of business, but we don't always get notification of that. So you've got this object in the right-of-way that nobody's really taking care of and eventually we need to find out and then address that type of situation. So over time these things are improving. There's still instances of pretty much everything I just said that's out there, but I think the communication with responsible businesses has been improved over time.
I have one other question. And another thing, I enjoy streeteries. So like Councilmember Young, I enjoyed that experience during the pandemic and I've noticed the decrease in that availability since things have opened back up. So I was wondering with the eye on economic development, what type of support do you think smaller restaurant owners could use in order to make sure the opportunities as is available in other parts of the City, because we see a lot popping up in Center City or -- what's the new area, North Central or whatever they call it. But past that, there are other smaller eateries that could benefit from this. But if the guidelines are so intense and the regulation isn't clear as to how the booklet is nice, but --
Because people open up restaurants because they like food and can cook, not necessarily business- savvy and techy. So how can we provide support to expand this opportunity to new smaller up-and- coming Black and Brown businesses around the City?
Well, what makes this guide so thick, and I'll take what words you guys are using, complicated, the majority of it is about structures. The roads weren't built with the idea people were going to build little buildings in them so there's a reason for all of that complexity because we're dealing with a complex situation that nobody expected 20 years ago, right. So I really want to emphasize this gets a lot simpler if we start from the perspective that when somebody wants to try it out we have some standards around the barriers. Look, we'll come up with some templates about what planters could look like that you can take in, roll in or roll out. But if we just start from a basic, you know, put some tables out, put some chairs there, accommodate people in wheelchairs and then when you're done, just get it out of the street, then that is infinitely simpler than trying to figure out how to fit a square peg into these round holes that all the laws, state laws, City laws, City code, building code, fire code were written not anticipating this. And trying to make it simpler, make it more streamlined certainly has a benefit until we see something goes wrong and then suddenly we feel like we went too far, and finding that middle ground is part of what makes it so complicated.
Thank you, Councilwoman. I have a couple of questions. Why was the requirement or the ability to get permission from the neighbor removed from the regulations if a streetery wanted to expand into that neighbor's property if the neighbor is okay with that? Why is that no longer an option?
Yeah, we're just talking it over. There were a couple arguments and one of them had to do with the distance in the health code for food to travel from the kitchen to wherever the table is. So for any form of outdoor dining, there are some health standards that the food not be exposed. I don't think that was it though. I think what it came down to was disputes that we were seeing which the City was sort of being put in the role of adjudicating between neighbors, between landlords and tenants, and we don't have a way of verifying if we see a signature, is that person necessarily responding owner-to- owner, are they responding tenant- to-tenant, are they responding onwer-to-tenant, one way or the other. And so, if the adjacent building owner gets a request to sign off on the streetery that's next door and he lives in Detroit or Chicago and then we get a complaint from the person he's renting to here in Philadelphia, I did not approve this and now my business is impacted by people can't load and unload to my bridal shop because the restaurant next door, we're getting drawn in to try sorting that out and we weren't set up to do that. There was an expectation that all the parties involved would agree, and we just didn't have the capacity to sort through these four-way fights that were cropping up.
Yeah. So I think that that is a private matter between that particular tenant and their building owner. I don't think the Streets Department should get into that. I think if the property owner allows that, then their tenant should have to, you know, that's something they need to take up with their landlord, right, and that's something they need to work out in the private landlord-tenant matter. You mentioned having just tables and chairs just set up in the street. But from what I've noticed is that our streets aren't level, right. And so, a lot of our restaurateurs may need to build some kind of platform to keep it level because if you sit a glass of water on a table, the table's going to get wobbly, it's going to spill. So are there ways that we can I guess create a more simple method of just creating or allowing restaurateurs to provide just a level platform in order to have that --
Absolutely. So that actually was an option or is an option that's in the guidance as well. Because we even before the pandemic had a parklet program we called it. And basically this is something we saw other cities were doing, and this goes back two Administrations ago, where we had a standard designed for people to build a platform and some seating on that platform. That was not intended for commercial purposes. That was sort of give people in more built-up neighborhoods a little tiny bit of open space. It worked pretty well, and there was an expectation that Streets Department will give it a quick engineering review. They were really supposed to use the template that we supplied them with. It went in, in the spring. It came out in the fall so we could plow and that worked pretty well. So something similar to that does exist in the guidance, and we feel like, yeah, that's a reasonable compromise for people who do want to have a surface. One of the other benefits of that is that for wheelchair access it makes it easier because you don't have the curb to contend with, but we want to be careful that if we give you this template, you follow the template. And kind of what we saw in the pandemic is people would sort of start with that and then suddenly there would be a structure that was up there and we weren't always getting notified when those structures were going up. But I think there is something to work with there.
But even with that, right, so in a prior life I represented a restaurateur applying for one of these streeteries and that took forever. The issue that we're seeing is that when there is I guess an agreement between the restaurateurs, engineer, architect and the Streets Department on certain I guess placing of the streetery, again you mentioned it goes back to the queue, takes another 30 days for review, right. And for the most part, these restaurateurs need this for the warm weather months. And so, there's two issues. You're losing the summer right there. So is there a way when an application is submitted to kind of have a more quicker process? What is the delay that creates that 30-day window or review process?
So the 30 days has to do with just someone takes a napkin out and draws what they're thinking and gives it to us because we have to kind of go out in the street and see if this kind of sketch works in that space. And if we get a professional drawing, it should be days. 13 Now, we're going to give 14 comments back and we can't just give the comments back and walk away. We need to see another submission, so that restaurant is going to have to re-engage somebody unless they feel like they can draft something that looks professional and bring it and get it stamped by somebody. They have to respond to the comments. And so, that starts the new clock when we get the comments back. And that sometimes is what makes it become an extensive thing. But we feel like if folks really, you know, if you have a professional, that professional should be able to deal with these guidelines. And if they're faithful to the guidelines, then we don't see a lot of resubmission. And it's the same as anything else that gets approved in the right-of- way. The closer people stick to the standard that we're comfortable with, the less repetitive interaction there's going to be.
Yeah. I mean, I'm an attorney, right. We had a professional engineer. It's still going through that pamphlet, right. I think it's a little bit more onerous even for folks who are licensed professionals in this particular area.
Yeah. If I could just make one more comment. One of the issues we had when we talked with some third-party engineers and we asked them to try and work with us to come up with a template, and I also expect a lot of the restaurants have when they go to an architect or engineer and they try to engage them is that these professionals are often feeling some nervousness about their own liability. And so, again this is the inherent issue that comes up when you're building buildings in the right-of-way. And any engineer or architect who says, oh, that's going to work isn't really thoughtful and thorough and isn't trying to make sure that they're dotting all the I's and T's and exposing themselves to liability if they sign off and stamp on it. And so, I don't want to minimize that, but that nervousness and that extra attention to detail on their part and that back and forth that gets initiated isn't from nowhere. They're trying to protect themselves, right. They're trying to protect themselves from being sued because they came up with a design that led to something bad. And the restaurant that engaged them may not appreciate that, but we certainly do appreciate that because we have to protect ourselves too. So that's some of the tension and that's one of the reasons why we want to move people away from the instinct to always go for that sort of Taj Mahal and just try to moderate a little bit more what they're trying to do, at least out of the gate. And maybe when we see it works well at this location, there's no issues, the neighbors have no complaints, we can start to look at something that's a little bit more elaborate once the pattern's been set.
Thank you. And thanks so much for all of the testimony you're giving us to explain the process. I want to shift for just a second to sidewalk cafés because I just want to first clear something up. Sidewalk cafés, they don't go through Streets for intake, right?
They do go -- everybody goes through Streets for intake?
Okay. Can you talk about the current regulations surrounding sidewalk cafés, in particular how the permitting process differs from the streetery process and any efforts that have been taken to coordinate between those two processes?
Yeah, it's not really different. So sidewalk cafés only allow tables and chairs. We don't allow structures at all. Of course, the locations. Some locations require you to get an encroachment ordinance. If it's not by-right, then you have to basically go through I guess two processes. So you have to get an encroachment ordinance and then you also have to submit the plans, but -- we create it in eCLIPSE, correct?
Yeah, so we create the project in eCLIPSE for the applicant once they submit the drawings to us for the sidewalk café.
And I think one of the things that I'm hearing here today is, and that's what I think you'll hear from some of the restaurant owners, again they just feel there's a lot of steps and a lot of different entities to talk to. I didn't think it was Streets that was overseeing sidewalk cafés too. I thought Streets was just overseeing streeteries and sidewalk cafés had a little different back and forth. But I think having one point of contact, and I brought this up to Commerce during their budget testimony this week too, having one point of contact of somebody who is your person who might have a docket of new restaurants or something like that, would be so helpful for our small businesses in Philadelphia so that they know who their point person is, who's checking in with them as well.
Yeah, I think that does make sense to have one person who can be the concierge for this. The challenge I think is that we had the expectation that this program was essentially going to pay for itself. And throughout the pandemic, we were all just doing what we needed to do. We understood folks were under a lot of duress. We were seeing a lot of restaurants go out of business, all kinds of businesses going out of business. But as we were coming out of the pandemic, some clear direction we got in the Mayoral Administration under Kenney but also from Council because there was a diversity of opinions on City Council is that this should be something where the revenue generated by it pays for the extra support, and that just hasn't panned out frankly. It's a function of the lower number of folks than we expected who were getting through the process, paying the fees and moving on. So I think there is a calculation that we need to make, you know, how much we invest and how much we put on the table in order to make it work as smoothly as I think I understand you guys would want it to.
So one of the things that I expect we're going to hear today is concerns about the Art Commission's review being required to put up a streetery. Can you speak to why that's necessary, part of the process or any efforts that are being undertaken to streamline that process to simplifying the design review?
Well, I'm going to stray a little bit away from the efforts that could be made to streamline it, but I think it's worth recognizing that the Art Commission stands independent of the Administration. And for anything that goes on in the right- of-way, there's always this dialogue with the Art Commission as to whether or not they have purview and what form that purview takes for them to provide recommendations or if you look at the other end of the spectrum, you know, kind of issue findings that require changes in something. And for streeteries, there was no formal process. We sort of had to kind of come up with what we thought was going to be defensible. And the Art Commission's take on that was that they did. And if you think about other things in the right-of-way, I think they have some good precedence to work with. So bus shelters require Art Commission review. You see these kiosks that come up, they require Art Commission. The newsstands I believe also have to go through the Art Commission. And so, what would make this different so that it wouldn't require the Art Commission to weigh in. There was not a strong argument that there was something distinct here.
I do think that the low numbers that you're seeing is just because of the process, right. I think it's not allowing more restaurateurs to engage in the process. So I do look forward to working with you on working on regulations to streamline this process because I do think that this is something that could benefit our entire City and we can expand it where more restaurateurs can benefit from having this experience as Councilmember Brooks said, because again my fiancee and I, we choose restaurants based on who has outdoor seating. And if you don't have it during the summertime, we're probably not coming. And so, I want every restaurant in our City to be able to experience that opportunity to attract more customers. I do have a question on the regulations regarding the lift of feet from stop signs, right. I believe it's like 30 feet from stop signs. I mean, that's a lot of space and we have a lot of restaurants that are on corner properties. And so, that 30 feet is essential space where they can use that streetery. So can you explain the rationale behind why it's 30 feet versus 15, 10, something like that?
So it's in the vehicle code, Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, that there be a clearance in front of a stop sign or a crosswalk basically back from the intersection. And I can appreciate what's frustrating for the average citizen or especially a restaurant that if you go around the City, you will see parked cars in that space, which is illegal. I mean, those cars aren't supposed to be there. So naturally the next question is, well, why aren't those cars being cited. And where we have installed signage or basically provide an indication for a driver, those cars are being cited. But we've got about 70,000, 80,000 corners in the City and we don't have signs at all of those corners. Now, what makes this different is we're creating something from scratch and we wouldn't want to take something that's already wrong and make it worse by allowing for obstructions to the lines of sight. So when drivers are driving up and someone's crossing the crosswalk, they're kind of ducking out right into a traffic crash. And that's the rationale behind the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code, but that's where we're put in the role of enforcing the vehicle code.
So that's something that we would have to work with our state partners to try to see if we can get some relief from that. Because I do think something we could do is just require that the height of certain streeteries is just lower so the stop sign remains visible. And even when there isn't an actual structure, even if there's a platform that a restaurateur is trying to put there, they're still not allowed to do it even though that sign will remain visible through the entire block. So I think that's something that we should work on with our state partners to see if we can get some relief from the code. But I recognize Councilwoman Landau.
Okay. A little bit of commentary and then one last question for you. Although I would like to know are you going to stay through all the other testimony in case we have more questions for you?
Great. The commentary I wanted to talk about is ADA disability access, because I know we often talk about having enough space on the sidewalk so wheelchairs can get by. But I also even from my own life experience can say that sidewalk cafés and some streeteries are the way to make restaurants accessible for people in wheelchairs. And I had spent many days and nights wheeling my dad up to certain places where he would never be able to get into the building or it was just too cumbersome to get him in, and we loved being outside. So I'm a huge fan of the outdoor dining as well and that is one of the reasons. I had just one more question about streeteries with roofs versus streeteries without roofs, because we've heard from the Admin, and thank you so much for all the time you've given to us before now to try to understand this process. We've heard that a streetery without a roof is easier and quicker to get, but we've heard people tell us that it's just as long of a process to get a streetery approved with a roof versus without a roof.
Hello again. Sarah Adamo. So essentially if there is no roof, you cut L&I's building permit out of that process. So L&I is still included in the process when it comes to issuing the license. However, we don't need to issue a building permit. So I can't give specific timelines for one without or one with, but I would assume that in almost all cases it would be a lot quicker of a process and simpler without a structure involved.
Yes. I'm sorry. When I say structure, I mean something with a roof as opposed to a platform.
Are there any other questions for these witnesses by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you for your time and your testimony today.
I apologize. I want to ask if we can have Palak Raval-Nelson from the Health Department come to clarify some of our testimony. (Witness approached Witness table.)
Sure. I don't know if this is on -- hello. Good afternoon. My name is Dr. Palak Raval-Nelson. I'm the Deputy Health Commissioner for the Health Department and I just wanted to clarify regarding the question about streeteries using space adjacent to their properties and that it was a health issue. It is not. It is only a Health Department issue if the streetery location is across the street because it becomes a food safety issue. As you're carrying a meal across the street, pigeons and other things can get into the food, so that is where the food safety lies and the food safety issue comes into play. We do not have a role if the streetery wants to expand to the location adjacent to the property. So I just wanted to clarify for the record that the Health Department only has an issue when the place is across the street.
So you're just clarifying across the street, not on the same --
Exactly, the adjacent property issues -- and again, we worked tirelessly during the pandemic. So the adjacent property issues came into play. It was more of a Law Department issue where the properties next to the restaurant and Deputy Managing Director Carroll mentioned this, had issues with the streetery expanding without permission. So the Health Department issue is if the streetery is going to locate itself across the street and won't have a way to cover the plates of food practically as they walk them across the street dealing with oncoming vehicle traffic and everything else as well as -- not to be gross before lunch, but pigeons and other things flying in and adding to the food.
Thank you. Mr. Carroll, I'm sorry. I do have one more question while you're up there. So right now streeteries are only allowed I guess by-right in Center City, certain parts. Does the Administration have a position on expanding, allowing the streeteries, allowing sidewalk cafés to be by-right in other parts of the City versus just Center City?
I want to be careful. I don't believe that the Parker Administration has had a chance to develop a position. I can talk a little bit about the thinking in the Kenney Administration, which was essentially that they wanted to make sure that City Councilmembers and more outlying districts had an opportunity to weigh in. And so, the sort of compromise between the one objective to make sure that there was equity for people who weren't in the usual neighborhoods where a lot of the activity is, and on the other hand making sure that Councilmembers who represented more residential areas in the City weren't kind of blindsided by streeteries appearing and creating different types of conflicts within those neighborhoods was that there would be a process, which actually we undertook a couple times today where Council could introduce an ordinance that would allow those steeteries to come to be.
Yeah. I only say that because that just adds again for our neighborhood- based businesses, the ones who aren't getting as much foot traffic as Center City, it just adds more time to their application process and they can lose the summer, right.
And then that's revenue that our City is losing essentially. So just want to see ways that we can explore adding a more by-right nature, particularly on commercial corridors that already have a lot of commercial foot traffic and activity. So again, I thank you for your testimony today. Thank you for your patience.
Mr. Pullin, can you please call the next witnesses to testify.
The next witness to testify, witnesses to testify are Ben Fileccia, Senior Vice-president of Strategy and Engagement at the Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association; Jason Evans, founder and Chief Executive Officer of JD Evans Solutions; and Sean McGranaghan, Director of Operations for Winnie's Manayunk. (Witnesses approached Witness table.)
Good morning, gentlemen or afternoon now, right. I'm sorry. Please state your name for the record. And if you submitted written testimony, please just summarize your testimony and we will have questions for you. Thank you.
Great. My name is Ben Fileccia. I'm the Senior Vice-president of Strategy and Engagement for the Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association.
Good afternoon. My name's Jason Evans, owner and operator of JD Evans Solutions. MR. McGRANAGHAN: Good afternoon. Sean McGranaghan. I'm the Director of Operations for Winnie's Manayunk.
Thank you. Please proceed with your testimony, gentlemen.
Great. Good morning, Chairperson Young, Vice- Chairperson Squilla wherever he may be, and esteemed Councilmembers. As I said, my name is Ben Fileccia, and I'm with the PRLA. The PRLA represents over 400 operators in Philadelphia and more than 5,000 members statewide. Today on behalf of the Pennsylvania's vibrant hospitality industry, I'm here to share insights and recommendations regarding Philadelphia's streetery and sidewalk café programs. You'll also hear today from many op owners, operators and other stakeholders who are enthusiastic, passionate and in some cases frustrated with the program. There are many misconceptions out there about who we are in hospitality. And so, I want to share with you some background on the industry. out of 10 restaurants have fewer than 50 employees. out of 5 restaurants are single unit 6 operations. 8 out of 10 restaurant 7 owners started their industry 8 careers in entry-level positions. 9 I'm one of them. Nearly 63 percent of adults have worked in a restaurant making it the nation's training ground. 41 percent of restaurant firms are owned by minorities compared to 30 percent of businesses in the private sector. Prepandemic nearly 40 percent of all Pennsylvania restaurants were women-owned. Restaurants employ more minority managers than any other industry. Hospitality is and always will be an industry of opportunity. I want to thank City Council for their efforts in formalizing the permanent Outdoor Dining program. Special recognition goes to Councilmember Rue Landau for her leadership in advancing the resolution 5 authorizing these hearings. While outdoor dining has become a beloved aspect of Philadelphia life, it's essential to recognize that this program is still in its relative infancy. With recent changes in Administration and City Council, it's pressing that Philadelphia comprehensively evaluates the current program, identifying what works well and what requires improvement. It's important to note that there's an urgency to this conversation. There's a pressing need for improvements considering the upcoming spring and summer seasons as well as the anticipated influx of visitors in 2026. We've identified four overarching themes for consideration: clarity, efficiency, fairness and investment. Clarity is paramount. Transparent and predictable guidelines are essential for program success. Complex regulations hinder participation and innovation, necessitating clearer directives that move at the speed of business. Efficiency is key. Philadelphia's government should align with the pace of Commerce, streamlining processes to support the industry effectively. Mayor Parker has been a champion already in the space. With her leadership, we're confident that government is more aware than ever before of the cadence and pace in which business moves. Fairness and equity ought to be non-negotiable. The program should not favor those with extensive resources but should be accessible to all, including small businesses of all sizes. Investment is essential. Rather than solely regulating the City, the City should invest in the industry's growth and sustainability. Similar to other jurisdictions in Pennsylvania, Pittsburgh is a golden example of a city that has proactively invested in its outdoor dining program, mostly using federal ARPA funding. We've seen similar efforts in local jurisdictions throughout the Commonwealth. I'd ask you to imagine a partnership where both business and government have skin in the game. I promise you there will be a positive return on your investment to achieve these goals.
We propose the following changes: Streamline permitting processes to reduce bureaucratic hurdles, provide flexibility in design while ensuring safety and accessibility, consider additional geographic flexibility as it relates to both programs, establish rules and regulations to allow for outdoor heating and lighting, enable and authorize the use of adjacent property, especially for operations located in unique spaces like corner properties and historic neighborhoods, consider offering financial incentives for expansion, particularly in underserved areas. We encourage the City to consider providing applicants with a direct liaison they can communicate with throughout the permitting process. We've been eager to have this conversation and I'm excited for you to hear from other stakeholders who are much more familiar with the ins-and-outs of this program than I am. The Streetery and Sidewalk Café programs have enriched our city without compromising its essence. As representatives of Pennsylvania's hospitality and tourism sectors, PRLA is committed to collaborating with the City Council and the Administration to enhance these programs. PRLA stands ready to support the City as we collectively move forward. And I should note there are many other stakeholder groups like the BIDS in Philadelphia, the diverse Chambers and others that would all be willing to engage and help as a group as this Committee continues navigating this important conversation. I'll add that countless others would have loved to have been here. However, due to time constraints, earthquakes, they could not be. We will all be available for questions today as well as in the future as City Council continues to explore and navigate this conversation. Thank you, Councilwoman Landau and Council, for initiating this crucial dialogue.