of 224 West Tulpahawken. Isn't that right? Yes. Okay. Did you walk down Tulpahawken? Yes.
And was there adequate sidewalks along Tulpahawken to walk east west? Yes.
Did you walk down West Walnut Lane? I believe so. Yes. Same question. Were there adequate
sidewalks to walk in an east or west direction along west walnut lane yes okay and both generally
get you to the same place they run parallel with pastoria street isn't that right yes okay um there
are numerous other curb cuts along west pastoria street correct yes okay i believe uh you know
Mr. Ramos and other individuals who had testified noted that they have curb cuts that provide for vehicular ingress and egress on Pastoria Street.
Is that right?
Now, you had just testified that Pastoria Street should be pedestrian only.
Is that correct?
In my opinion, yes.
so that in your opinion you would eliminate all of the uh curb cut along past aria street
along pastoria street if that is going to be used as a pedestrian area then yes yes okay and so then
if that is going to be used as a
you would uh seek to have all ingress and egress to the properties along either via
at Topahawkins or West Walnut Lane? Correct. Okay.
And did you participate or were you at all involved in the preparation of Ms. Templeton's report?
I was not involved in that report. I have read the report, but I was not a part of it
as I was not at the company at that time.
And were you,
at the time you walked it,
you said that the speed bumps
had not yet been installed?
Correct.
Do you think the speed bump improved the condition on West Astoria Street?
I would say no, because you're still left with the initial problem of not having adequate sidewalks.
And in certain areas, there are no sidewalks, correct?
Correct.
Would you agree that generally drivers should be aware of their surroundings?
They should be, yes.
and uh that the driver's looking in front of them and there is an individual walking in front of
them that generally the driver would see the individual they should yes okay
and did you see any or i know that you said there was a one uh electric vehicle that pulled up
behind you did that vehicle to your knowledge slow down as it approached you i i can't answer
that because again it was behind me so i don't know and again i couldn't hear it so i could not
specify to how fast it was going prior to coming up on me okay um but it didn't strike you right
Didn't strike Mr. Cromey?
And you're not aware of any vehicular accidents along West Pastoria Street in the past 15 years?
Not aware of any vehicular contact made with any pedestrians along Pastoria Street in the past 15 years?
how many individuals did you view what was the day you were there walking up and down past
street roughly um maybe six or so give or take i mean it was midday when i was there so
and it was middle of the week um so you know it was prime time that you know kids were in school
people where it worked, things of that nature.
And you didn't see a landscape buffer
on site, did you?
I do not recall.
I actually do not have any.
Oh, actually, I do have one further question.
You had stated that the addition of the 15 parking spaces would not comply with the ADA. Is that correct?
I did not say that. I said with the 15 parking spaces, if they were moved over in the landscape area that we had suggested, they would be in compliance.
I also specified that when you're having parking spots in a development for every 25 parking spots, you're required to have an ADA parking spot.
And for every 100 parking spots, one of those four ADA accessible parking spots needs to be for a van accessible parking spot, meaning that particular parking spot is a little wider than the traditional ADA parking spots.
And you reviewed the plans that accompanied this application?
And did the plan show and establish an ADA compliant parking spaces?
I will be honest, I do not recall.
Would you agree that reviewing plans to ensure that there are adequate and sufficient ADA
plans to ensure that there are adequate and sufficient ADA parking spaces is part of the
zoning code? Yes, it should be. And so then if there were not adequate ADA parking spaces,
that would have resulted in a refusal, correct? More than likely, but not necessarily.
Okay. Is it your position as you're sitting here today that the proposed plan
does not have the requisite number
of ADA-compliant parking spaces?
How many, and you base that,
even though you can't recall
how many ADA parking spaces are on the plan?
That's correct.
Okay, so then how do you form your opinion
if you don't recall what the plan shows?
Can you repeat the question?
I asked whether it is your opinion
that the plan as shown and applied to
does not contain the requisite number
of ADA parking spaces?
Again, I can't remember the amount that's on there,
so I can't say if it has the required amount or not.
Okay, so you just can't say one way or another.
Correct.
Whether it happened, okay.
um and um you had noted that the plan again your testimony was that the plan does not comply with
the ada i'm trying to get a sense of of of how you form that opinion and upon what is it based
it's it's not it's based upon that you know again you're looking at safety it's not
solely an ada issue it's a hazard issue you know we want to we don't want people to get killed and
you know for the vision zero program and the safe streets you know having sharing a walking space
with vehicles is is unsafe and it's a hazard not to mention for those who use mobility devices the
sidewalk that is currently on pastorius where there is not a curb cut someone cannot get up
on that sidewalk if a vehicle is coming and that is not that that's what i'm saying is not ada
compliant if i'm walking down the street and i have to get on the sidewalk because the sidewalk
has now appeared on pastoria street where i can step up on the sidewalk but i'm in a wheelchair
i cannot step up on that sidewalk therefore i'm required to still maintain walking in the street
and so that in itself it makes it not ada compliance because there's not equal access for all
specifically what aspect of the proposed plan does not comply with the americans with disabilities act
I'm going to object that it's asked an answer.
I'll ask it in a different way.
Can you cite to the provision or a section of the Americans with Disabilities Act that is violated by the addition of 15 parking spaces on site?
There is none with the addition of the spots in the location.
okay can you cite to this section of the americans with disabilities act that would be violated
no okay and uh it is true is it not that uh there are depressed areas in the curb
for vehicles to both enter and exit the 15 proposed parking spaces are there not
it is and wouldn't it be fair to say that any individual with a wheelchair or mobility device
would be able to also utilize those curb cuts to both get on the sidewalk
or get off the sidewalk as needed not necessarily because if there's a car parked there they're not
going to be able to get on the curb if there's a vehicle parked in that area
okay but isn't it fair to say that the vehicle cannot be so mr phillips just for mr phillips
just for point of information i guess eight questions ago you said you had one more question
and that let that opened it up we probably have to start moving the closure here understood
um there was just an an allegation made that didn't comply with the ada i was looking for
specific i think we got to the point where we needed to be with that okay um
let me just clean up that last question i asked again i was not speaking to uh
speaking to uh i should strike that the length and width of the proposed parking spaces
I'll extract that.
The...
comply with the philadelphia zoning code do they not yes okay and the sidewalk
that was uh constructed is not part of the parking space isn't that correct that's correct
okay so a vehicle that would be parked legally in the parking space would not block access
to the sidewalk is that correct if parked correctly correct okay i have no further questions
do you have any follow-up um really briefly so um nicole your um your testimony is both around
the ada and around more broad um safety issues would that be fair to say yes um in your view
does the ada cover every possible area that you wanted to cover or or are there some gaps in the
ada that you wish that there weren't no there are some gaps within the ada uh some gray areas
of the ada is a standard um of what should be done um but it doesn't require you know you can
go above and beyond those standards. It's more so a guideline and things are changing within the ADA
every day. And when you came up with your safety recommendations, were you factoring in that
vehicles are going to be driving down the length of Pastorius and not just right in front of this
property that's correct okay so um your testimony about uh what the the lack of sidewalks in certain
areas um do you feel that that's relevant to to evaluating this project because because the
vehicles can drive different locations i'm sorry can you repeat the question your testimony was
that in many places there weren't any sidewalks or or very or very um very inadequate sidewalks
right correct yeah um what's that connect what's the connection between the sidewalks that are not
directly on this property with your evaluation of whether the additional parking spaces at this
property would be safe or not um because you're adding traffic onto pistorian street for those
who are parking in those four 15 spots i'm sorry um having that alternate parking area you would
limit all traffic to custodius therefore being able to make that more of a pedestrian friendly
area i have no further questions mr phillips you are you through no recross okay thank you
Thank you for your testimony. So for both councils, we'd like to have one more meeting.
We're going to take public testimony and also the city planning commission.
Also, there'll be written summations that we that we would take from both of you after that.
Is there anything else where we need to get to?
Mr. Chair, I would have some very brief, I do not believe much at all, but I would have just some very brief rebuttal exhibits that I would like to authenticate for Mr. Beelby, the owner, at the next hearing.
However, it is solely to introduce and to submit them into the record.
We have to figure out some time, Chair. How long would that take you?
i do not believe it would take more than 10 minutes steve we well i don't know what these
exhibits are but if it but if um if it involves new new um new material that was created after
after mr bilby's case was was rested then we we do object to it because what what's basically
happening is the applicant is continuing to create more and more uh arguments and more and
more studies which which is which is counter to how we organize this whole procedure so so so let
me say this much we would rule on that that particular day if you can mr phillips if you
can get that to 10 minutes and you tell us beforehand where you're going to be we'll make
a ruling that day okay what we want to do is have one more meeting and and have this through
so mr char are you are you saying that after the last after the next hearing we then will
have a period of time where we're going to be submitting like proposed findings of fact and
conclusions absolutely absolutely absolutely and and i think if we talked to hillary about that
that we we'd give you several weeks or a few weeks anyway am i right hillary
we'd give you several weeks or a few weeks anyway. Am I right, Hillary?
Yes, and I don't think they'd be proposed findings and conclusions.
It would be basically, you know, your closing statements in written form, summarizing your arguments.
Okay, because in the past, you had asked us to stipulate to certain, if we had, if we could stipulate to certain facts that we would agree with.
I mean, if you could, if you're able to do that as well, that would be great. But we would like a summary of the arguments in writing instead of closing statements, just in the interest of time and of the complication of this case.
Sure. And the last thing I would just like to clarify, I know that we are speaking about members of the public testifying. I know both Mr. Masters and I did include certain members of the public on our respective witness list.
I have no objection to the order in which these individuals appear as members of the public, but would just, you know, ask and confirm that members who are listed on our witness list would just be called as members of the public and be open to both direct and cross-examination by both counsel.
Hillary, I think we can do that, right?
we can but we're going to have to be mindful of the time because first of all there were a number
of people on both lists um that met that criteria as well as i'm sure there are a number of other
people in the community that would like to speak as well so just being mindful mindful of the time
and and duplicative absolutely next next we want to get through this we really will
okay truly yes don't laugh please don't laugh okay all right no thank you everybody thank you
for your 90 minute presentation and then what no i mean two hour presentation but uh i do think we
got a lot accomplished today and and hopefully the next time we we end this okay is there anyone
in the 930 list
whose case has not been pulled?
I see no hands.
Thanks, everyone.
I appreciate it.
Thank you.
Thank you.