COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, March 11, 2010 1:20 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER BILLS 080029, 090925, 090926, 100015 and 100102 - - - 2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good afternoon, everyone. This is the Committee on Streets and Services. My name is Frank DiCicco. I'm the Chair. And we do have a quorum. To my immediate left is Councilman Greenlee. To my immediate right is Councilman Curtis Jones, and to his right is Councilwoman Donna Miller. I would ask Mr. McMonagle to read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 080029, an ordinance authorizing the vacating of Byberry and Bensalem Road from Southampton-Byberry Road to the Philadelphia and Bucks County Line and the vacating of Burling Avenue from the Roosevelt Boulevard to a dead-end approximately three thousand nine hundred feet southeast of the Roosevelt Boulevard, all under certain terms and conditions. (Witnesses approached witness table.) 3 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 080029. This is an Administration ordinance requested by the Streets Department in coordination with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania Department of Conservation and Natural Resources. The purpose of this ordinance 15 is to authorize the vacating of Byberry and Bensalem Road from Southampton-Byberry Road to the Philadelphia and Bucks County Line and Burling Avenue from the Roosevelt Boulevard to a dead-end approximately 3,900 feet southeastwardly therefrom. Both of these roads were legally opened before 1900, but were not placed on the City Plan. These roads extend through land owned by the Commonwealth of 4 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. Pennsylvania, commonly known as Benjamin Rush State Park. The Commonwealth's Department of Conservation and Natural Resources intends to develop this land as a state park and has requested that the City vacate its rights in the beds of those roads. This authorization is conditional upon the execution of an agreement between the Commonwealth and the City wherein the Commonwealth shall assume ownership, operation and maintenance responsibilities for the historic stone arch bridge extending over Poquessing Creek at the northeasterly end of former Townsend Road. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am William Erickson, a City Planner with the 5 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill 080029, which Councilman O'Neill introduced into City Council on January 4, 2008. The purpose of this ordinance 8 is to remove the roads through the Benjamin Rush State Park and allow the PA Department of Conservation and Natural Resources to improve the conditions at this state park. These improvements will include a new trail and the construction of a comfort station. The Planning Commission at its meeting of February 19, 2008 recommended that Bill 080029 be approved. This concludes my testimony. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Jones.
Just out of curiosity, we are vacating this so that the bridge primarily can be picked up by 6 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. the Commonwealth for enhancements and improvements or is this a part of a strategic plan to --
This area is going to be part of Benjamin Rush Park and the roads will be vacated, which will leave an historic bridge crossing Poquessing Creek. The Streets Department no longer wants to maintain a bridge that's not supported by a City street leading to it. And when this bill was previously introduced, the Commonwealth signed an agreement that we would turn over the maintenance to them. So we just wanted to continue this that was first introduced back in 2002.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) 7 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 090925, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 248 by placing on the City Plan Saybrook Avenue from Lloyd Street to Seventy-Second Street, approximately two hundred three feet southeast of Woodland Avenue, under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to the City of the bed of Saybrook Avenue.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 090925. This is not an Administration 8 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. Michael Johns, General Manager of the Philadelphia Housing Authority, South 5 23rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. 6 The purpose of this ordinance 7 is to authorize the placing on the City 8 Plan of Saybrook Avenue from 72nd Street 9 to Lloyd Street as part of a project to 10 redevelop the Paschall Village Public 11 Housing site by replacing the existing 12 structures with 100 new rental housing units. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am William Erickson, a City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 090925, 9 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. which Councilwoman Tasco introduced into City Council on December 17th, 2009 for Council President Verna. This bill will allow Saybrook Avenue to be placed between 72nd Avenue and Lloyd Street in order to enable the PHA's Paschall Village Revitalization Project development of 60 single-family homes and duplexes to meet its subdivision and infrastructure requirements. The Planning Commission at its meeting on January 19, 2010 recommended that Bill 090925 be approved. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. The purpose of this is to authorize the placing on the City Plan of Saybrook Avenue from 72nd Street to Lloyd Street as part of a project to redevelop Paschall Village Public Housing. Are we vacating any street or --
No. They're actually placing it back on the Plan. They're going to make houses facing on -- 10 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. it was stricken before when they did the Paschall Village and it was a private. Now they're going to replace the street back there, take the old houses down, build brand new houses, and in this block 60 new properties will face a new Saybrook Street at that location. Well, 60 total. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But it was vacated in the past?
In the past it was. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And what was the purpose of vacating it then; do you remember?
It was in the middle -- PHA is here and will be able to answer those questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm just curious, was there any consideration for vacating it at that time?
No, there wasn't. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When we 11 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. get to the last bill, I'm going to ask the same question. Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 090926, an ordinance authorizing the paving of Saybrook Avenue from Lloyd Street to Seventy-Second Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 090926. This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Michael Johns, General Manager of the Philadelphia Housing Authority, 12 South 12 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. 23rd Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The purpose of this ordinance 4 is to authorize the paving of Saybrook Avenue from 72nd Street to Lloyd Street. This authorization has been requested by the Philadelphia Housing Authority as part of a project to demolish the existing public housing units at this location and construct an affordable housing development consisting of 100 new rental units. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Mr. Erickson, no testimony?
No. 20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any questions, any comments? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.) 13 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, please read the title of the next bill. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh, I'm sorry.
I was hiding behind him. We stayed up all night preparing it. We have to say something. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Absolutely. Absolutely. Whenever you're ready.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Committee on Streets and Services. My name is Robert Archie. I'm a partner at the law firm of Duane Morris LLP, and I'm here today as counsel to the Philadelphia Housing Authority. As you know, is referred to as PHA. I'm here to testify on behalf of PHA in support of Bill Nos. 090925 and 090926. These bills provide for, as you heard earlier, the revision 14 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 248 by placing on the City Plan Saybrook Avenue from Lloyd Street to 72nd Street approximately 203 feet southeast of Woodland Avenue, under certain terms and conditions, which are set forth in Bill No. 090925, including the dedication to the City of the bed of Saybrook Avenue, and we're also going to -- the paving of Saybrook Avenue from Lloyd Street to 72nd Street, under certain terms and conditions, which are also set forth in Bill No. 090926. The factual background as to why PHA supports the approval of these bills, the Philadelphia Housing Authority received federal funding pursuant to the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, a portion of which will be used to revitalize Paschall Village. This development will initially involve the demolition of 223 antiquated existing public housing units, which were built in 1966, and are situated on two parcels of 15 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. 2 acres in the Paschall neighborhood. After demolition, PHA will undertake to construct a two-phase affordable rental housing development project. 18 acres, which is generally bounded by Woodland Avenue, Paschall Avenue, 72nd Street and South Lloyd Street. This is found -- my testimony is found in the Tab No. 3 of what was handed up. 02 acres, which is generally bound by Cobbs Creek Parkway, Greenway Avenue and Greenway Place. The two phases of the development of the project will be known as Paschall Phase I and Paschall Phase II, respectively, and will contain, in the aggregate, 100 newly constructed townhouses and duplex residential rental units, with approximately a 4,000 square foot 16 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. community facility, management office building with community space, storage and a management office built and a computer lab. This will be shared by all the residents of Paschall Village. By placing Saybrook Avenue from Lloyd Street, 72nd Street on the City Plan, dedicating the bed of Saybrook Avenue to the City and paving Saybrook Avenue, it will provide vehicular and pedestrian access to the first phase of this development. These 100 residential units will be constructed with a stick frame on a slab on grade. The exterior, as Michael pointed out on the other side, will consist of a combination of brick, vinyl and stucco facades, with off-street parking in the rear. The development will also feature several green and energy-efficient elements, including compliance with the Energy Star building standards, geothermal heating and cooling, solar panels and storm water 17 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. recycling. PHA, in order to do this development, has formed or will form two Pennsylvania limited partnerships, one for each phase of the development. The general partner of the partnership will be an instrumentality of PHA, and the limited partners will be an affiliate of Wachovia Bank National Association. The total development cost for the development is expected to be approximately $46 million. The project will be funded by Low-Income Housing Tax Credits awarded by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency, as well as PHA capital funds from the federal government. It is anticipated that the development will take place in May of 2010. There will be infrastructure work and construction of the development which is scheduled to commence May of 2010, and it will be completed in August of 2011. PHA expects that all 100 units will be 18 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. fully leased by November of 2011.
I thank you for your time and consideration of our request. In anticipation of a question which I expect to be asked, there'll be 200 jobs created by this project. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, thank you. Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Archie. Just a question on the number of units. So the Paschall development will now have a total of, what, 100 units?
Okay. And you said, I think, in here there were originally 223?
Were some of those 223 still occupied or were they all vacant?
They're all 19 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. vacant. Mr. Johns, the man who -- introduce yourself and answer these questions, please. He's the architect.
Michael Johns, General Manager of Planning and Design, Philadelphia Housing Authority. They originally had had 223 units on site. At the time we decided to do the demolition, it was about half occupied. The majority of the residents either took Section 8 vouchers or they moved to some of our conventional sites or our scatter sites or opted out of public housing all together.
So these 100, are they going to be new PHA tenants then or are they transfers or some of both?
No. It will be a site-based waiting list. All of our new 20 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. developments that are Low-Income Housing Tax Credit developments have site-based waiting lists. So they'll be all new tenants. There will be an option for the -- an option for the tenants who were there to apply first, but there's no 8 guarantee that they'll be admitted. They have to -- there's certain criteria under PHFA guidelines that they will need to meet in order to become a tenant there.
Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions? Councilwoman Miller.
Hi. Good afternoon. What is site-based waiting list?
Site-based waiting list means that -- typically for public housing we have a location that is a general location where everybody that wants to come into public housing will 21 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. go, like North Broad Street or South 17th Street. But when we talk about a site-based waiting list, we mean that the location where the new units are built is where people will go to apply for housing at that site.
Okay. And what is the criteria? I know that you have -- why would someone who lived there in the past may not qualify to move back? I guess that's what I'm trying to --
Well, there's a criminal check, there is a credit check, and there is -- if tenants have been relocated from that location and they moved into, say, for example, a newly renovated unit, then typically that's a permanent relocation. But if they were relocated to someplace that either is a temporary or not completely renovated location, they would give their -- they would be given the first opportunity to apply. And so the other criteria would 22 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. then have to kick in. For example, while they were away from the site during the construction, they would have to be up in their rent, they would -- they can't have any unpaid utilities and issues while they're away from the site and while it's under construction. And, of course, there'll be the criminal check and the other check before they could be eligible. And then the way that we do the eligibility, because we try to get a mix of incomes, typically because the Pennsylvania Housing Finance regs, we typically are below 50 to -- 70 to 50 percent AMI, but even within that range, we'll try to target so many units for people that make between zero and 20 percent of area median income and then families that make between, you know, 20 and 30 and then 30 and 50, something like that. So we try to get a mix.
Okay. All right. I understand a little better, 23 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. not completely. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here to testify? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you both, gentlemen, for your testimony.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Please read the title of the next bill.
There is a proposed amendment. The Philadelphia Housing Authority has entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with respect to building permits in connection with their development. This ordinance 20 provides there will be a $200 fee paid. Under the MOU, that fee would be waived. So if you look on each of the ordinances on the bottom, it says that there will be a $200 fee. PHA is asking, respectfully, that that ordinance be amended -- that 24 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. these ordinances be amended and that $200 fee be removed. Is that possible? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I honestly do not know, and I see some people smiling in the background. Could anyone shed some light on this? If not, what we could do is vote --
I can hand you up an amended version of this ordinance. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think you might want to discuss that with the sponsor of the bill. We can vote the bill out of Committee, and if possible, if we need to, then we can always make some amendment going forward.
That will be fine. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just not to slow the process down.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Discuss it with the sponsor of the bill. 25 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc.
I certainly will. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you again for your testimony. Please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 100102, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill No. 080725) approved November 19, 2008, entitled "An ordinance 11 authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 120 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Cleveland Street from Girard Avenue to Stiles Street, under certain terms and conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the terms and conditions stated therein. (Witnesses approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Please proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 100102. This is not an Administration ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Ms. Carolina C. Spaventa, Esquire, of Stradley, Ronon, Stevens, Young, LLP, 2600 One Commerce Square, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The purpose of this ordinance 13 is to amend a previous ordinance, Bill 14 No. 080725, which authorized the striking from the City Plan and vacating of Cleveland Street from Girard Avenue to Stiles Street. This amendment will extend the time period for compliance with the terms and conditions of the ordinance for an additional two years. The purpose of this proposed action is to allow the abutting owner, St. Joseph's Preparatory School, to improve and consolidate existing parking areas on either side of Cleveland Street. 27 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am William Erickson, a City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 100102, which Councilman Clarke introduced into City Council on February 25, 2010. This ordinance is a time extension to Streets Bill No. 080725, which authorizes the vacating of Cleveland Street between Stiles Street and Girard Avenue to allow St. Joe's Preparatory School to consolidate two existing parking lots into a single parking facility. The Planning Commission at its meeting of October 21, 2008 recommended that Bill No. 080725 be approved and, 28 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. therefore, recommend that Bill No. 100102 also be approved. This concludes my testimony. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I'll ask the same question again. Is there any consideration for vacating?
Cleveland Street was opened by affidavit, so we didn't -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry. Say that again.
It was legally opened by affidavit, so we didn't pay any damages when the street was opened. So we only collect damages for street striking when the City -- when the street was initially opened. If we pay damages, then we have an appraisal done at the end. If there was no damages, we didn't receive any money. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm confused. I apologize. You're saying "damages."
When we opened the street, if the City had acquired the 29 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. property through condemnation, if we had to pay to acquire the ground, then we at the end ask for fair market value for the street, but some streets are just dedicated to the City, free of any costs, so when we strike those streets, no fee is required. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm a little confused, I'll be honest.
Councilman, maybe I can explain it. When a developer comes in and wants to build a bunch of houses, they'll give us the street for free just to get it on City Plan. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right.
So if they give it to us for free, when we no longer need it as a street, we have to give it back for free. If the City pays money to acquire it -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Then you have to be made whole.
Then they want to be paid back. 30 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: At least made whole.
No damages were paid, so we didn't -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. Please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 100015, an ordinance authorizing Charles Weiner to construct, own and maintain a building encroachment at 3653 Germantown Avenue, under certain terms and conditions. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Michelle Brisbon and I'm a Staff Engineer with the Transportation Planning and Analysis Unit of the Department of 31 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. Streets. I'm here to offer testimony on Bill No. 100015, which Councilmember Clarke introduced into City Council on January 28th, 2010. The Department of Streets does not support this bill. The building encroachment which this bill seeks to accommodate was initiated without the approval of the Department of Streets. It is the policy of the Department of Streets not to approve permanent commercial intrusion into the public right-of-way solely for the purpose of expanding a business use. Requests for permanent private building structures within the right-of-way should be referred to the Department of Streets City Plans Unit for a City Plan change ordinance. Requests to strike a portion of the right-of-way are first reviewed by the Department of Streets, City Planning Commission and any affected utilities. Once this process has been completed, an ordinance can be introduced to strike 32 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. this portion of the right-of-way from City Plan. This would allow the owner of 3653 Germantown Avenue to incorporate the foot by 75 foot parcel into their 6 deed. 7 Once again, this bill is not 8 supported by the Department of Streets 9 and is recommended to your committee for 10 unfavorable action. 11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 12 Mr. Erickson.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the Streets and Services Committee. I am William Erickson, a City Planner with the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill 100015, which Councilmember Clarke introduced into City Council on January 28, 2010. This bill will allow the owners of the Eagle Bar located at 3653 Germantown Avenue to build and maintain a 12 foot by 75 foot encroachment on the 33 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. south side of Erie Avenue. The sidewalk is 28 foot wide at this location and this addition would reduce the unencumbered sidewalk to feet wide. The City 6 Planning Commission does not believe that 7 a permanent building encroachment should 8 be allowed in the street right-of-way. 9 The street is for public transportation 10 and utility purposes, and private 11 interests should not encroach on those 12 interests. Except when a street 13 right-of-way can be reduced and still 14 allow safe pedestrian travel and 15 vehicular movement and utility functions, 16 then the City Plan changes should be requested. The City Planning Commission at its meeting on February 16, 2010 recommended that Bill No. 100015 be disapproved. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate any comments -- I appreciate to appear before you and if you have any questions. 34 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Mr. Erickson, for what reason is this being disapproved? Your testimony says that the street is for public transportation.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Et cetera, except when a street right-of-way can be reduced and still allow pedestrian travel. Does it meet that standard?
The reason the bill is being recommended disapproval is, we think this is the wrong way to do it. What we think is appropriate would be a street change where you would strike the 12 foot and allow the person to purchase it and it would no longer be a street. Therefore, he would be building on ground he owns instead of encroaching on the right-of-way of a street. In this particular case, it's a 28 foot wide sidewalk. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It would meet that criteria of still being -- 35 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc.
Well, it's not that we don't like the building encroachment. We just don't like the idea of a bill that says we're going to put a building there, it's going to be permanently in the sidewalk and it's still going to be considered a street. When we build a building into the sidewalk, the applicant is required to indemnify the City in case somebody runs into the building. Well, this is going to be a permanent building here. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Which the applicant would be more than willing to do.
Yes, but it's permanent. You don't know how long the applicant is going to own it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The applicant, whether he owns it for a long time or a short period of time, if it 36 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. became part of the deeded property, if the City were to vacate that --
Well, in that case, he would. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's the suggestion you're making?
That's what we're suggesting. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And for public disclosure, I'm a personal friend of the applicant even though this property resides in Councilman Clarke's district. So I do have a personal knowledge of what he was trying to do, because we're friends and we've talked from time to time. And I know that he would entertain a recommendation for financial -- a financial consideration to take that portion of the sidewalk and allow it then to become part of his deed. The question now is how much.
Well, realistically, the Planning Commission doesn't determine how much and we don't 37 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. even determine whether or not he would get charged. It all depends on how the street was opened. In this particular case, it just so happened that this one there was damages paid. As we testified on the other one, it's not. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How do we handle other situations that are similar? I know there was a controversial issue in my district before I was the District Councilperson on Broad Street at what was then Bocce, or I can't remember the name of the place, across from the Bellevue. There's the restaurant with the atrium that was built, I believe, without approvals, if memory serves me right. How did eventually we legalize that encroachment?
I think that was an encroachment built similar to this that was introduced. In this particular case, I mean, the gentleman is doing it 38 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. the correct way. He's applying for an encroachment ordinance prior to any construction, and we really appreciate that he's taken those steps. He had the Survey District do a plan up. The only issue really is that when they wrote the ordinance -- normally the Streets Department will write an ordinance for the party-in-interest. As part of that writing, they put a clause in there that says under 90 days or 180 days, at written notice by the Streets Department, the building would have to be removed. Well, I mean, when you're building a building and a bank is going to give you money, they don't want to see that clause 90 days or 180 days it has to be removed. So I can understand why they didn't include it in this, but when you take that clause out, it sort of makes this really permanent here, and we think that it would be more appropriate to strike the street, take it out, have him acquire the property and then build his building 39 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. that way. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. And I'll get back to you in a minute. Ms. Brisbon, in your testimony you state that the request to strike a portion of the right-of-way are first reviewed by the Streets Department. Are you suggesting that it had never been reviewed by the Streets Department?
I'm sorry? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are you suggesting that -- are you telling us that it has never been reviewed by the Streets Department, this application?
No. What I'm stating is, that's the process if they wanted to go through to strike it, that they would submit the application to strike it from City Plan and it would be through the Streets Department. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. But my understanding -- I could be wrong -- is that the owner, Mr. Weiner, had an idea to expand his property to do an 40 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. encroachment.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It was my understanding that I believe someone from the Streets Department at first rejected it because they believed that there was either a water main or a lateral or some utility under that area, the foot 10 area, from the property line out to the 11 sidewalk. 12
Yes. The Streets Department -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And it was also suggested, if memory serves me right, that if he would bring the extension out only to nine feet, then there would be no other problem. So I guess what I'm getting at is, I'm confused with your testimony that that should have been the first thing. But didn't he already get that review?
I'm not aware of -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I 41 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. could be wrong, but I think that review has already taken place.
Okay. Yeah. I'm not aware. Are you aware of that, Bill? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm just doing this to establish a record so that we all are on the same page here.
Councilman, the plan that he had drawn up was done by the 9th Survey District, which is a part of the Streets Department. John Parkinson did the drawing. And what you're talking about is, there's an abandoned water right-of-way underneath where he had planned on -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: At the time the survey was done, they didn't know if it was abandoned.
Well, they know it's abandoned now. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But at that time, they didn't. The surveyor 42 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. said, Well, only go out nine feet and you won't have to deal with that service under there. But we find out it's abandoned.
They found out it was abandoned and the proposal is for the by 75. 9 Normally the process when 10 you're looking to do a Streets bill is, 11 the first step is you send a letter to 12 the Streets Commissioner, who then sends it down to different departments. The department that handles encroachments is not the department that handles street strikings. Basically you're dealing with Michelle on encroachments, and Frank and Tom do the street striking. So different people actually look at it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. I was also at a sidebar earlier with Councilman Clarke, the person who introduced this bill, that an appraisal would have to be made. The owner can't do the appraisal on his own? It has to 43 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. be from the Planning Commission?
The Streets Department has a list of approved appraisers. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Certified appraisers.
And there's five of them. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What I'm getting at is, certainly we want this to be done correctly. We want it to be done legally so that going forward there's no 14 question of who owns what. I know that the applicant has been working on this for several months now, and with the weather changing, he was hoping to get under construction as quickly as possible. Do you have any sense of how much time this would take for him to get the appraisal and get it back and then have it reviewed by your respective departments?
Councilman, we did a -- 44 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Why don't you come up, Frank. Again, I'm not trying to rush it. It's just that he's waited and now he thought he would be able to be under construction. Assuming at some point if the appraisal comes back at a figure that he is accepting to move forward with, he'd like to get this construction started ASAP.
The appraisal would just be one of the conditions in the ordinance that would have to be carried out before the change is confirmed, but the ordinance could be drafted and we could have it back to you still in this Council session. But that would be something that would need to be done after the bill is introduced. It's not a condition that we would need done immediately. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I know I spoke to the Councilperson's chief of staff -- or legislative assistant. I 45 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. apologize if I didn't get your title right. And they asked that we hold this bill. I'm just wondering, is there anything that the applicant could do as we're going through these other processes to get this project going? Could he start pulling permits, getting things in order so that when the appraisal and everything comes in, he could just begin the project?
I know that -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If he can't, he can't. I'm just asking.
L&I is going to want to see at least that there has been a bill introduced before they start their review. So we can immediately start drafting a Streets ordinance and get it to you in this session. And the appraisal would be a condition that's before confirmation. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You frighten me a little bit when you say "this session," meaning that they may not 46 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. get approved until June and then the construction -- well, he still has the summer, but all right. I'm just trying to see if we can expedite, because he has been waiting for a while to get this project underway. Any sense, Frank, on the timing it would take to get this?
I mean, once we receive it, we have to distribute it to all the utilities and it has to go in front of the Committee of Highway Supervisors.
We did distribute it to all the utilities and we took it to DEC. I had mentioned that this encroachment bill is probably going to come back as a Streets bill, so we did send it to all the utilities today in the event to try to speed it along. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. So as soon as you get the bill, it will be sent over to Councilman Clarke's and we'll get it reintroduced. 47 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Morelli, I think you said the price was just one condition. What else has to happen here?
When there's a street striking, there's an indemnity agreement that's in all street striking agreements that would be required. There's a signoff with the abutting property owners that they don't object to it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: He owns both abutting properties.
That's good. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't think he'll object.
No. We have a list of five different appraisers. They can -- the party-in-interest could choose any one of those. 48 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc.
All right. And just one other question on the encroachment issue. I know there's a lot of properties around that have like these sort of entryways that kind of enter onto the sidewalk. Is that how all of them were done over the years, what you're suggesting, or is it the size of the encroachment or the size of the sidewalk that makes the difference? I don't know who is supposed to answer that. Ms. Brisbon maybe. Am I making sense?
I don't believe that -- I don't think they have to go through an ordinance. I mean --
That's why I'm asking. Is it the size? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They were just encroachments?
Well, you are allowed to encroach depending on the width of the street. The smaller the street, the smaller the encroachment. So 49 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. you're allowed to have stairs into the bed of the street some, but once -- there's a specific limit depending on the size of the street. Once you get it past that, you then have to get an encroachment ordinance.
And what is sort of the rule on that? You say in your -- or Ms. Brisbon says, leaves a distance approximately feet for clear 12 pedestrian traffic. 13
The encroachment 14 can only be up to four foot six, is the 15 maximum encroachment. This is a 12 foot. 16
All right. I didn't know what the rule was. Okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just a crazy question. Maybe I got my facts mixed up. If we just did it as a straight encroachment and not a striking, does that speed it up and could he come back later and could it be stricken later? 50 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc.
That would be up to you, Councilman. I mean, our recommendation -- the Planning Commission's recommendation is just that, a recommendation. We'd recommend you go through the City Plan change process. If you would prefer to -- that would be your call or Councilman Clarke's call on whether or not -- but we recommend that -- we just don't like the idea of permanent structures in the streets, and that's why we're opposed to it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other questions? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. This concludes the public hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. We will now go into the public meeting, but before we do so, at the request of the sponsor, Bill No. 100015 is being held until some of the matters that we discussed in the public hearing have been resolved. 51 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that the following bills -- Bill No. 080029, 090925, 090926 and Bill No. 100102 -- be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and move further that the rules of Council be suspended to allow them to be heard at first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that the bills that have just been read into the record be approved by this Committee and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This 52 3/11/10 - STREETS - BILL 080029, etc. concludes the Committee on Streets and Services. Thank you for attending. (Committee on Streets and Services concluded at 2:05 p.m.) - - - 53 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on March 11, 2010, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)