COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, October 6, 2004 10:15 a.m. - - - - BILL 040643 - An Ordinance authorizing the Paving of Capri Drive... BILL 040763 - An Ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades... BILL 040766 - An Ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code... BILL 040781 - An Ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 146... BILL 040782 - An Ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 238... BILL 040783 - An Ordinance amending Section 18 9-208 of the Philadelphia Code... BILL 040784 - An Ordinance authorizing the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society... V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS I N D E X BILL 040766 PAGE OTIS HAIGLER, L&I.................... BILL 040783 WILLIAM MAUTZ........................ BILL 04784 WILLIAM MAUTZ........................ MAITREYI ROY, Phila. Green........... BILL 040643 HERMAN LEDGER, Streets Dept.......... BILL 040763 HERMAN LEDGER, Streets Dept.......... MARTIN SOFFER, City Planning......... JERALD BATOFF, Esq................... 28 BILL 040781 HERMAN LEDGER, Streets Dept.......... 32 MARTIN SOFFTER, City Planning........ 32 4 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040766
Good morning. We do have a quorum. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the Chair of the Streets and Services Committee. In attendance today are to my left Councilman Rizzo; to my right Councilmember Donna Reed Miller and Councilman Nutter. We have a short list, so it shouldn't take very long. With that I would ask the Clerk to read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 040766, an ordinance amending Section 9-205 of the Philadelphia Code relating to sidewalk sales and vending in residential areas by adding a new provision prohibiting sidewalk sales and vending in the areas of bordered by and including Chew Avenue, Stenton Avenue, Johnson Street and Mount Airy Avenue, both sides.
Good morning, Mr. Haigler. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Councilman DiCicco and members of the Committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Director 5 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040766 of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 040766 which, if enacted, will prohibit sidewalk sales and vending in the area bordered and including Chew Avenue, Stenton Avenue, Johnson Street and Mount Airy Avenue, both sides. The Department offers no objection to the enactment of Bill No. 040766, as this is within Council's prerogative under section 12 9-205(8)(p) of the Philadelphia Code. The Committee and Council should, however, be mindful that continued limitations placed on location where vending is permitted with impact on this type of activity in the City since legal locations to conduct vending operations will be at a premium. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony. And if you have any questions, I'll be happy to answer that at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Haigler. Any questions for this witness from 6 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040766 the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. This is a bill that we submitted, that I submitted, at the request of the neighbors in that particular community. So I thank you for your testimony and just wanted to state that for the record.
Thank you. Any other questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I just want to recognize that Councilmember Cohen is in attendance as well. And bill 040782 is being tabled at the request of the sponsor who just happens to be me. 7 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040783 The Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040783, an ordinance amending Section 9-208 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sidewalk Cafes," by permitting sidewalk cafes to be maintained on Ninth Street, both sides, between Christian Street and Federal Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 19 040783. This bill amends Section 9-208 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Sidewalk Cafes" by permitting sidewalk cafes to be maintained on Ninth Street, both sides, between Christian Street and Federal Street. The Streets Department has no 8 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040783 objection to the passage of the bill.
Could you tell us the basis of your decision to approve this bill? What process did you go through in the Streets Department?
In terms of process, it's basically adding a location that no 13 longer requires an ordinance, a private interest ordinance, but it would still need to placement requirements under the code.
Could you explain that in simple language? What's a replacement part?
In order words, Councilman, it's adding a location to the code that can be approved without a private interest ordinance. What would need to be done is they would need to follow the process which is to submit a sidewalk cafe plan showing the amount of tables, where it's 9 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040783 located within the right-of-way, and the Streets Department would review it based on the Code requirements.
If there's a sidewalk cafe that's going to be in this area, that would be done.
In order to get approved and ultimately get a sidewalk cafe license, they would need to apply to the Streets Department. In terms of what record do I have in that particular area, I'd have to see what was submitted.
Well, could you see that and furnish it to the Committee Chairman?
I'm sorry, I didn't hear that question. Was that directed to me? I apologize.
Could you 10 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040783 repeat that question, Councilman?
His answer was that he would need to see something in order to know whether that was done, the process was followed in this case. I asked him to see if he has it and submit it to you as Chairman of the Committee. This is evidence that it was done. I'm interested in knowing whether the process provided for was, in fact, done.
Maybe I can shed light on this particular piece of legislation. I'm not speaking about generally sidewalk cafes throughout the City, but everyone is familiar with Ninth Street, the Italian Market, the open-air market down there. And for some reason --
Most people are familiar with the Italian Market in South Philadelphia, the open-air market
And most people, I think, would be under the 11 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040783 impression, including myself, that the outdoor vending including outdoor cafes was legal, it was permitted. But we found out going through a process from the time we began the reconstruction of Ninth Street several years ago up until recently that although vending was permitted on the cart-way as well as on the sidewalk, there was no provision -- and you can correct me Mr. Mautz. There was no 11 provision -- and the term I'm using may not be correct when I say provision or Code. Did not allow for a sidewalk cafe, although there are a number of business folks who are using the sidewalks for that purpose. So what I am attempting to do is legalize an existing use for a number of the businesses that had been using the sidewalks for the purpose of outdoor cafe.
I'm trying to find out what the Streets Department did beyond receiving a copy of the request from the local Councilman. I'm just interesting in the process. I have no problem with your result. I want to now how you achieved that 12 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040783 result.
Okay. In terms of our non-objection I'm the person that made that determination. In terms of what's being added to the code, it's really discretionary on the District Councilman he wants to add that to the locations that can be approved without a private interest ordinance. Past that point, they still need to go through the process to legalize what is out there. Or if it's a new sidewalk cafe application, they would still need to come through us to get approved in terms of placement, how many tables, open space, things of that nature.
In this case it was recommended by the District Councilmember?
Thank you. That's all I wanted to know, what the process is and for different kinds of activities. And in this case, all you need is a recommendation. Thank you.
Thank you. The Clerk will read the title of the 13 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040784 next bill.
Bill No. 040784, an ordinance authorizing the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society to construct, and the Fox Chase-Rockledge Business Association to maintain, a Welcome to Fox Chase sign in the Fox Chase Traffic Island located between Hasbrook and Oxford Avenues, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz and I'm a construction engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 16 040784. This bill authorizes the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society to construct and the Fox Chase-Rockledge Business Association to maintain a Welcome to Fox Chase sign in the traffic island located between Hasbrook and Oxford Avenues. The non-electrified sign which is approximately 4 feet wide by 5 feet will be located at the south end of the landscape traffic island. 14 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040784 The Streets Department has reviewed the plans and has no objection to the passage of the bill.
Please identify yourself for the record, spell your name for the stenographer and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Councilman DiCicco and Members of the Committee my name is Maitreyi Roy, M-A-I-T-R-E-Y-I, and the last name is Roy, R-O-Y. I'm with the Philadelphia Green Program at the Pennsylvania Horticultural Society. Philadelphia Green, working in partnership with the Fox Chase-Rockledge Business Association request approval of this ordinance granting permission to construct and maintain the sign that states "Welcome to Fox Chase." This sign is locate in the newly installed median planting at the intersection of Oxford and Hasbrook Avenues 15 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040784 and is designed and constructed according to the standards and specifications approved by the Streets Department. Philadelphia Green has been working in the City for nearly 30 years helping neighborhood residents, community organizations, City agencies, and other groups to create and maintain quality open spaces. Last year, as a part the Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, we worked with the Business Association to develop this new gateway to their business district. Together, we've taken a bare unattractive median area and turned it into an attractive colorful gateway to the community. The Business Association is committed to providing all ongoing maintenance and care for the newly installed plantings as well the new sign. They've entered into a formal agreement with the Streets Department regarding the ongoing maintenance and care that they would provide so that the new improvements continue to positively contribute to the quality of life in this community. A 16 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040784 formal agreement signed both by the Streets Department and Business Association is on file 4 with the Streets Department. Philadelphia green will work with the Business Association and provide the necessary technical assistance regarding landscape management to ensure that the new improvements are cared for. The Fox Chase Business Association and Pennsylvania Horticultural Society's Philadelphia Green Program will request approval of this ordinance in support of this worthy project. Thank you.
To the representative from Philadelphia green, is your agency interested in the general foliage? For example, recently ly a business and a school cut down huge amounts of greenery, one near residential area, the other in a kind of open area. Neighbors have been complaining because the areas now look barren. Now, what was cut down was on the property they 17 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040784 presumably owned, both the business and the school. Would your organization be concerned about that fact? Should people notify you? Do I advise them to and you will decide under your theories of landscape management it was appropriate to do?
We'd be happy to provide any technical assistance regarding projects like that, and we do that frequently. Most plantings in such areas are typically managed by either Fairmount Park Commission or other City agencies, and we work closely with them if there's a need to provide any landscape management assistance.
There are a lot of very old, dying trees in the City and they need, actually, to be removed and replanted. So it's an ongoing and challenging issue across the City with the older tree population.
Let me give you two illustrations that I have in mind that rose very recently. One was in the northeast 18 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040784 where Morrissey Corporation. They own a lot that's land locked apparently, and the community and contractor trying to deal with that. I don't know whether they'll be successful or not. Councilman O'Neill and my office will be working on that phase. But the contractor Morrissey on land that he clearly owns cut down huge amounts of greenery so that what is now visible seems to people to be a blighted area rather than an attractive area. That's instance number 1. Instance number 2 is along Ogontz Avenue near Lindley there used to be a private Catholic school. I think a Greek Orthodox Catholic school. It was taken over by LaSalle and it was high on top of a hill. Nobody knew it unless they drove up the roadway. Nobody knew of its existence. It was covered by lovely greenery, which if you drove on Ogontz Avenue you saw the greenery but you did not see the outline of buildings. Apparently, LaSalle University decided to cut all the greenery and now it clearly supposes the building which is far less attractive 19 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040784 greenery. Now, I assume it's on LaSalle property. And assuming that it's on LaSalle property, is an owner free to destroy that kind of foliage when it's owned without communication with anybody? That's the question I'm raising really both areas. Assuming they did it on their on property, does the community which was affected by the change in scenery, does the community have any answer to that? Is there anything that stops people from cutting down greenery on their own property?
I'm not sure if I'm the right person to be answering that question. I think there are certain City laws that protect trees and open space, but I'm not sure what laws apply to this one. Overall, we believe that trees and open space in the City are positive assets and should be protected, but it's hard to comment on those specifics without knowing all of the details.
Well, what agency, if any, you believe would have 20 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040784 jurisdiction over that?
If I may, interject, I think Fairmount Park may have some involvement in --
Fairmount Park Commission, I think. I know from time to time constituents in my district request to have trees removed that are not yet dead and they want it removed for certain reasons, too big, it's overgrown, what have you. And in my experience, Councilman, generally the decision lies with the Fairmount Park Commission. So that may be where you might want to start.
Thank you. Let the record reflect that the Councilman Ramos is now in attendance as well. Any questions for these witnesses 21 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040643 from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes s to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040643, an ordinance authorizing the paving of Capri Drive, DaVinci Drive and Verona Drive, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Ledger. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name Herman Ledger. I'm acting Survey Borough Manager for the Department of Streets. The Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 040643. This is not an administrative ordinance but an ordinance requested by Mr. 22 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040643 Peter Kelsen of Blank Rome, LLP, One Logan Square, 18th and Cherry Streets, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The purpose of this ordinance is to pave these new streets to facilitate a revised development plan proposed by Westram Development Company. This ordinance supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Do you know who the principal of Westram Development Company is?
You said this ordinance is requested by a law firm on behalf of Westram Development Company.
And who are the principals of Westram Development Company? That's the name? I've never heard the name before. 23 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040643
Councilman, I've only been in this position for one week, and I'm not as familiar with this development as I would like to be. I'll find out and I'll get right back to you.
Well, I would appreciate it because I'd like to know upon whose request this is being made. It does not help us if we're given a name that we're unfamiliar with.
I've been informed that the president of the company is John Westram.
Yes, I'm sure. But like I said, I'm not familiar with these because I'm just new at this position, so I can check into it and get back to you as quick as possible.
Could you ask that you give the information of all the officers of the company to the chairman of the Committee?
Would you check into it and list all the officers and send that list to the Chairman of the Committee?
Yes, I have a list of all the officers and I will send it to everybody.
Any other questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040763, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 187 by striking from the City Plan and vacating a portion of Salmon Street between Castor Avenue and Butler Street and reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes within the 25 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040763 bed of Salmon Street, under certain terms and conditions.
The Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 040763. This is not an Administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. Jerald S. Batoff, Esquire, 200 South Ithan Avenue, Villanova, Pennsylvania 19085. The purpose of this ordinance is to facilitate further development of a retail shopping district. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Could you tell us who the attorney represents? I'm mystified. Why are attorneys asking for that, hiding the name of the people involved directly? Who is does this attorney represent? 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040763
The attorney who represents this commercial development is Jerry Batoff.
Has anybody checked to see whether all the taxes due from the person have been paid? We've been embarrassed recently by a number of City offerings to people who owe taxes.
Councilman, I can't speak to this particular development. But in the developments that Mr. Batoff and his company have done in my district and primarily along Aramingo Avenue, I have full knowledge that he has paid all taxes and is up 27 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040763 to date. So as far as know --
That's as far as one-tenth of the City. Before we act, it seems me we ought to get --
So they only pay taxes if they develop in my district? That's okay. Well, I'll have to expand my district citywide maybe and make that work. Mr. Batoff is here, Councilman. He just entered the room.
Mr. Batoff, would you please approach the witness table? I believe, Mr. Batoff, when you were out of the room, Councilman Cohen asked a question of these gentlemen as to, A, who the developer was, and do we know whether the developer is in good standing with the City of Philadelphia, specifically in terms of any back taxes and alike.
If he's the son of the original William Batoff, I assume he's 28 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040763 in good shape.
Excuse me. Would you identify yourself for the record and then proceed?
Jerry Batoff. I'm the principal of this particular development. Actually, I've done numerous developments in this particular area. And, in fact, we just received Zoning Board approval with 500 residents in support of the project for community groups and one Councilman, but no 15 partridges in a pare tree. Councilwoman Krajewski is firmly in support of the project. And, in fact, I don't know why it said that it's a plan for me because it was based on discussions with the Councilwoman. I thought actually it was a request by the Councilwoman's office, not by me.
On this little portion of a street that's being stricken. 29 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040763
Because I wondered why the name your name or whoever the developer was --
Well, because I'm involved with the development group, that's probably why my name is on it, but I'm not here as an attorney.
What struck me was on several other bills this morning names of attorneys have been given which means we don't know who the people are that are really interested. I was wondering why. Is it necessary to have an attorney to deal with the Streets Department?
There is none. It just puts his name down. Because he is an attorney, they list it that way out of respect.
In this case, Councilman, Mr. Batoff who happens to be an attorney who happens to also be the developer.
It would be the same thing if he was a doctor. Out of respect, we would put it down as M.D., even though it has nothing with this particular situation.
Let me complete the question to Mr. Batoff since he's here. Is your company, whatever you do with respect to the City, fully paid up on City taxes?
That's fine. If we limit our approvals to groups yours, we'll have no problem.
And you're paid up 100 percent not only in the 1st Councilmanic District but other districts where you did development? 31 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781
Thank you, Mr. Batoff. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the Clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 040781, an ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 146 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Morse Street from Beach Street to Allen Street, by striking from the City Plan and vacating Allen Street from Morse Street northeastwardly approximately 80 feet to a dead end, and by reserving and placing a right-of-way for gas main purposes within the lines of Morse Street from Beach Street to 32 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 Allen Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
The Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony Bill No. 040781. This is not an administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Edward A. Taraskus, Esquire, Suite 603, 1530 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19102 who represents John Catagnus. The purpose of this ordinance is to grant the legal authority to strike these streets from City Plan. This ordinance is supported by Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action.
Good morning, Chairman and Members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Martin Soffer, I'm a City Planner and I'm here today to testimony on behalf of the City Planning Commission. This bill authorizes the striking 33 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 from the City Plan and the vacating of two unneeded paper streets located in the Port Richmond section of Northeast Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to remove the legal encumbrances and permit future development. The Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 040781 be approved. Thank you.
Mr. Soffer, explain to us why the Planning Commission is following your recommendation. You just said it's for development. Can we know what kind of development? What caused this to come to the surface now? Does somebody have a specific plan? Have neighbors been notified of the fact there may be a change? They are the kinds of questions we'd like to know. Does the Planning Commission deal with those. 34 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781
Could you limit yourself to this situation? What did you do in this situation?
The developer would submit to the appropriate City agencies conceptual plans and legal portions, meaning they're in control of all the properties around these stub end streets. This pre-development stage meets that legal criteria for them to consolidate parcels, relocate or abandon any rights-of-ways or utilities are there within that property which they own for future development. At this point and time, there are conceptual plans but not a fine engineered plan which is still subject to review and approve by all the appropriate City agencies. But this is actually what they call the pre-development 35 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 stage.
Well, why don't we get to know that now early on? Isn't that public information?
Yes, it is. And that's part the legislation. I don't have that name with me.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I suggest that before we get approval if we get the name of the developer.
Do we know anything about him? Has the City had him as a developer before. I've never heard the name. That doesn't mean much. There are many developers I've never heard of. 36 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 What's the history of the City with Mr. Catagnus? What does he usual develop? That kind of information is important to have early on.
This gentleman would have to meet all the requirements of all the agencies that are involved in this development process. John represents what's under his name but it's actually the Polonia Social Club. That's the name of that structure. It's under his name. This is an L-shaped stub end street.
And L-shaped stub end street. This will be for a future addition, parking, but he controls that land around the L of that stub end street and he has the support of all abutting neighbors to close this unneeded street.
You mean he personally has unlimited support to do whatever he wants? 37 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781
He has support for the striking of the street from the official City plan. His proposed development would be subject to the review by the appropriate agencies and the public at large at the Zoning Board or at a public body when the development is submitted to the City.
You mean the neighbors, you believe, have given him unrestricted freedom to develop whatever he wants there and not authorize it in advance? I don't believe that for a moment, Mr. Soffer.
Councilman, the action before us today is the striking of this unneeded street.
But why don't you level with the people and tell them was it's for?
Councilman, I introduced this bill on behalf of the applicant. If the applicant at some point decides to develop that site after vacating the street, he would have to go or she would 38 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 have to go through the same procedure that anyone else would if they do not conform with the Code. If they want to build a facility there that requires a hearing in front of the Zoning Board of Adjustments, they will be required to get a hearing. The striking of the street does not preclude them having to go through a process, a public process, for developing that site in the future
But if there's any information, why shouldn't it be made available now? Maybe the people will refuse go along with it. They might say, "We want this street stricken if such-and-such is done, but if something is else is done we're against the striking the street." Level with the people and give them all the information instead of hiding it.
Councilman, he would have to present whatever his proposal to --
He must have some reason. What's his reason? Don't we ask? Or are we dummies and we just listen and say, 39 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 "Oh, you want to move it for some unknown reason?"
Councilman, his reason for whatever it is today does not necessarily mean that that is something that he'll pursue in the future. I've seen -- developers from time to time may change what it is that they wanted to develop at a particular time in their life and then change it five years later to become something else. And at that time, there will be a public process where the community will be heard, have an opportunity to be heard
But that's late in the game. Why don't they tell us now? Why do we have a system that permits all the preparation for something that we suddenly explode upon the people when he's got a contract set and already, he comes in, he yells he's got a loan good for a certain period of time, the time is of the essence --
I don't understand. 40 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781
Mr. Soffer, this is a Council hearing. I must say that when a Councilman is indicating that he or she wants to ask a question, you permit them to ask the question.
And my question is, has this always been a procedure or is this a change in procedure of the Planning Commission to do things without knowing why? Just a developer comes in and says, or an owner of the property, "I'd like a street stricken." You say, "Yes, sir. Let's see is there any reason not to strike it" and you say no and you never ask him what he's going to do about it? Are you part of the effort to keep information from the people of Philadelphia? I thought the Planning Commission favored openness.
The Planning Commission does favor openness. 41 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781
Why now? If he changes his mind, there are procedures for changing one's mind. I understand that. There's no reason why people shouldn't be given a reason for this happening now so they can begin their thinking process and their planning process. They'll probably agree with them or they won't. But whichever way, let's be fair with citizens instead of suddenly unleashing a plan upon them and then telling them, "You've got to move quickly because we only have a guarantee for month or to two"? Why can't we ask? You mean, we're mummies, we're not permitted to ask the developer questions? Is that what the City has developed into?
If I may, in the routine striking of minor streets where the property is controlled by the applicant, he does have a right of due process to strike that street if he's in total of the properties but is still subject to the review by neighbors and the public bodies for whatever he's going to propose, whether it be a parking 42 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 lot or an addition to his building. It has not been confirmed what he wants to do with it years from now, years from now. Right 5 now it may be temporary use of increasing the 6 parking. But, again, he still has a right to 7 change that direction, whatever his proposal. 8 The striking of such streets is a 9 routine pre-development process, with the 10 exception of large developers where you're reconfiguring public streets for large subdivisions.
Is his the only land that covers the area, is his the only contiguous property?
He has the support of his abutting neighbor for this particular action before you today.
Well, tell me what the abutting neighbor thinks is going to happen to the land, why he agreed. On what basis did he agree to this?
On what basis? 43 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 What do they believe is going to be happening?
I just don't understand this policy. You mean a developer asks and people are afraid in government to ask him why he's asking for the change? I just don't understand that kind of government.
Maybe what we should refer to this as a property owner, not necessarily a developer. The person that we're talking about already owns the land abutting the street, which I will point to you in a second.
Except he said there's another owner. He says there's another owner.
Next door to this property there's abutting owner. If you look at the map the street actually goes nowhere but onto the property of both the owners of both properties on either side. It is not a through street. The public really has no use for it. 44 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781
The person, whose name I don't have, who originally -- the person who owns the property.
That's John Catagnus who owns the abutting land that's basically --
What does he pay for the new land? Now he's got additional property.
I assume it will now become part of his deed and the taxes will be accordingly. He gets new land added on to the existing parcel. His taxes will go up accordingly.
His taxes, but what does he pay for the land? Everybody pays taxes on proper real estate they acquire. But to acquire real estate generally costs money. I'm not saying this is right or 45 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 wrong. I'm just trying to figure out why it's such a mystery and nobody knows anything.
I don't know what, if any, costs other than the $200 posting of --
In some cases, streets are placed on official City Plan but the land underneath it is owned by one party or another. In the event where land under a public street is not within the deed of the abutting property owners, then the normal procedure is it is split down the middle.
It reverts back to the abutting owners. If it's in somebody's deed and that encumbrance is stricken, that goes to the party of interest whose deed is underneath 46 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 that public street. In the event that the public street is not in the abutting property owner's deeds, then it goes to the middle of that street to be stricken and every abutting property owner gets a portion of that street to that mid point line. In this case, it's our understanding that John Catagnus owns the underlying land.
Let me ask you a question. Presently that street is the City of Philadelphia's responsibility; is that correct?
The public really has no use, it's not a thoroughfare, it doesn't connect you from one street to anther, it dead ends on this property and the adjacent property?
So technically any maintenance of that street as it exists today is the responsibility of the City of Philadelphia, the taxpayers of the City of 47 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 Philadelphia?
Once we strike this from the City Plan, then the expense for the maintenance and all and ongoing improvements to that street will become the sole responsibility of the owner or owners of that land?
So the taxpayers in one sense may not be getting any financial payment for the street, but we do relieve ourselves from any ongoing maintenance of that particular street; is that correct?
That is correct. Also, Councilman, one part of the street is reserving a right-of-way for gas main purposes. It will still remain with the gas department so nobody --
I noticed that in the legislation under Section E, I believe. Section E on , "The agreement shall 48 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 provide that no changes in grades shall be made and that no buildings or other structures either overhead, underground or upon the surface shall be constructed within the lines of the right-of-way or abutting thereon unless the plans for such structures shall be submitted to and approved by the Philadelphia Gas Works."
So in addition to any zoning that may be required, there are utility companies that will have a say in what will be permitted to occur on that site, on the existing street?
Mr. Chairman, it seems to me if it were in the interest of PGW and/or the City of Philadelphia to close the street, one of them would have moved to do so. The fact is that the street closing is being sought not by the City or by PGW, but by a private owner. Now, somebody tells me in testimony that it is believed that Catagnus is the owner of the deed of the land underneath. What is 49 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 your evidence on that?
In answer to your question, if it was in the best interest of the City to do something with the street, I think this legislation speaks to that. It is in the best interest of City. I thought it was in the best interest of the City to vacate this street because they have no need for it but to maintain it for no purposes but for the owners who own the properties on either side. So why shouldn't we not get rid of this, vacate this street and let the owners decide?
But we're not the ones moving to do it. He mentioned an attorney's name representing Catagnus?
That's the application process, Councilman. You've been around here long enough; you understand that. And so what's the different who initiated it? The bottom line is -- 50 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781
Because who initiated it had an interest in initiating it, and the City had an obligation to find out what that interest was --
But the City doesn't go around looking to vacate streets to somebody unless somebody needs it.
-- instead of hiding from the developer and saying, "Yes, sir. What else can we give you today? We'll give you a street, we'll give you property, we'll give you everything." Why is the City so complacent when somebody asks for a give-away? I've never heard of such a thing. No wonder there's an element of the City of cynicism and corruption when you can just ask the City for things and they say, "Yeah, you want it, okay, have it. We're not even going to ask you any questions as to why." It's about time we changed the way of doing business.
Any other questions for these witnesses? 51 10/06/04 - STREETS - BILL 040781 (No response.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against? (No response.)
Seeing none, this concludes the public hearing on the Committee Streets and Services. - - - - 52 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - - Wednesday, October 6, 2004 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee on Streets and Services, held in Room 400, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 040643, 040763, 040766, 040781, 040782, 040783, 040784. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chair COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS 53 10/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING
We'll now move into the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ramos.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 040766 be reported out of Committee with a --
Mr. Chairman, may I note that in the instances I've raised serious questions, my vote will be no until the information is furnished. There's no reason to doubt the final outcome, but I'm very worried about the lack of process.
The one prior to that one was Mr. Batoff, Salmon Street.
Well, there's a motion that 040766 be approved and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying 54 10/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The bill is approved. Councilman Ramos.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 040783 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next scheduled Council meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 18 040783 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? (No response.) 55 10/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 040784 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next scheduled Council meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 14 040784 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Mr. Chairman, I 56 10/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING move that Bill No. 040643 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next scheduled Council meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 10 040643 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 040763 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next 57 10/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING scheduled Council meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 040763 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 040781 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next scheduled Council meeting. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 58 10/06/04 - STREETS - PUBLIC MEETING 040781 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.)
Let the record note that Councilman Cohen is voting no on that bill, 040781. Thank you for your cooperation. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. (Council adjourned at 11:03 a.m.) - - - - 59 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, October 6, 2004, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR