you just have you just have a few questions
well i'm just saying so the ending time is sometime between sometime before so but why
don't you just we the guys here why don't we bring him up yes swear him in and start the questions
yes swear him in and start the questions madam chair i don't think that mr bonnie was saying
madam chair i don't think that
it was
that that was the end of his presentation that's correct isn't it mr bonnie you had other witnesses
information you wanted to present yes well mr whalen has a traffic engineer and i have my own
witnesses yes thank you thank you all right madam chair i believe mr spitson is on now
mr spitson can you put your name and address on the record spell your last name
and then i'll swear you in well spitz in s-p-i-t-v-e-n uh 150 monument drive
do you swear or firm excuse me your audio is not that well i need you to speak up louder thank you
sorry is that better it's great do you swear or firm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the
truth yes i do okay you may proceed okay thank you and thank you mr spitz in
You know, this ATAPCO, which is your company, made an offer to PHA, which is the current property owner, to purchase this property in and around 2019.
Is that correct?
The agreement that we have with the seller was dated in 2019.
Right.
So I assume the offer was, you know, somewhere in the first eight months of 2019.
In making the offer to PHA, is it correct that a TAPCO, or shortly after making the offer,
described, gave a general description of the project to PHA?
um madam chair i don't mean to be rude um mr bonnie has just a few questions i understand but
um yeah this is wholly irrelevant and we've already been delayed through one hearing
this hearing needs to be completed tonight and there's uh zero relevance to the zoning matter
at hand about uh you know what happened in 2019 uh yeah there's no doubt and no argument that
a TAPCO is not the equitable owner of the property or that PHA is the present owner of
the property. So therefore standing has been, you know, kind of, I'm not, I'm not getting into
issues of standing. I'm getting into how the property was described by a TAPCO to PHA. It's
like two questions and we'll be done. Okay. So how was it described?
y'all that was placed um on the property i'm sorry could you say that again we can't hear you
clearly mr spitz and you need to speak up sorry is it is it better can you hear me now now it's
better yes okay sorry about that yes uh we made an offer on the property based on the existing zoning
and is it correct that that atapco described the proper described its proposed project
as multi-family residential with ground floor retail and with the residential to include
plus or minus 150 units i don't recall that there was any description provided to pha when we made
our offer now you're saying that you don't recall whether there was any description
Madam Chair I'm happy to allow this to go forward but again the board has an application
in front of it it has proposed plans that have been revised in front of it that show 185 units
whether or not there was a discussion at any point in time about 150 units is irrelevant
and just more delay stop stop accusing me of delay please Mr. Whelan you've you've just
your clients have testified that this cmx3 commensurate project has to be 185 units i think
that um it's relevant as to whether in fact uh it was described as significantly less um your
your client has answered the question and i'm i'm done with this line of questioning but but
you know okay so you're done with that line of question yes i i am and thank you thank you
he doesn't remember surprise surprise um that's not okay
next question
i'm finished all right thank you as witness thank you obviously before uh letting uh mr spitson off
i would obviously offer him to the board if they have any direct questions does the board have any
questions to Mr. Spitson? No. No. No. Okay. Thank you. In that case, Madam Chair, I would call
Guy DiMartino. Okay.
Guy DeMartino.
Mr. Martin, excuse me, Mr. DeMartino, you can unmute yourself.
I think you did.
Yes, Mr. Martino, can you put your name and address on the record and spell your last name?
Yes, my name is Guy DeMartino.
I'm employed with Traffic Planning and Design, Inc.
Address is 1617 JFK Boulevard, Suite 1230, Philadelphia, PA.
Do you swear or affirm to tell the whole truth and nothing but the truth?
Thank you. You may proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair.
Mr. DiMartino, are you familiar with this project?
Yes, I am.
And I jumped ahead.
You are with Traffic Planning and Design, is that correct?
that's correct and how are you familiar with this project uh we are engaged to perform a
traffic study for this application okay and you presented a report to the board for the board
uh with regard to that traffic study that's correct okay and um mr demartino obviously we
all understand that evening is late uh i will offer you up at the end of uh my presentation
for any direct and specific questions the board may have.
But if you would, would you give us sort of your summary
and conclusions of your report?
Yes, we conducted a traffic study following all the standard procedures
and industry standard practices when preparing a traffic study,
evaluating the signalized intersection of Ridge Avenue
and MERIC and then the site access intersections. And in doing so, and following all the standards
and procedures, we determined that the intersections that we evaluated will comply with
all the standards that are required to meet the PennDOT standards, the streets department level
service standards. All right. Thank you, Mr. DiMartino. So if I can just very quickly kind of
sum up where we're at. We obviously all know and have personal experience with Ridge Avenue and
understand the type of road and, you know, its current conditions. Did you, when you were taking
into account the current conditions, am I correct that your conclusion is that the increased
traffic from this project will not lead to any further deterioration of Ridge Avenue?
Yes, that's accurate.
When you're performing a traffic study, you're charged with looking at the incremental impact
that the subject site or the application will have, and we will have a material impact,
de minimis impact, to the intersections evaluated.
Okay. And finally, Mr. DiMartino, I assume, and I'll let you correct me if I'm wrong,
that your numbers and traffic counts that you used incorporated both the new developments
that have happened recently and the planned, the approved, but not yet constructed developments
that I referenced immediately across the road and up and down Ridge, and obviously took into
account non-COVID numbers. Is that correct? Yes, all of that is accurate. Okay. Thank you very much.
Obviously, Madam Chair, that was very truncated, but the report speaks for itself, and I'm happy
to offer Mr. Demartino up for any questions the board may have. Does the board have any questions?
No, Madam Chair. All right. In that case, Mr. Bonney, I would turn him over to you.
Okay. I'd like to share my screen to put the traffic report up there. Can you folks see it?
Thank you. Yes, we can. Thank you. Mr. Demartino, thank you for being here.
on page three of your report you have traffic counts and I see that the traffic counts that
you have for Ridge and Merrick which is you know exactly where this project would sit
are from June of 2014
um yet uh the traffic counts you so my first question is why is that why so old
they were we utilized traffic counts from 2014 due to the fact at the time this traffic study
due to the fact that at the time this traffic study was prepared, it's dated May 4th,
was prepared it's dated may 4th
2021, we were in the midst of COVID. The utilization of 2024 traffic counts
is accepted practice for PennDOT standards and streets department standards
at the time this traffic study was prepared due to COVID. If we were to conduct traffic
counts at that bridge merrick intersection um in may of of this year the traffic volumes
um would have been reduced um when compared to the 2014 volumes due to the travel patterns we're
all experiencing or were experiencing at least in in may um with schools being closed or not being
open full-time people working from home more frequently than they may be today those sort of
things. So the utilization of 2014 counts is an accepted practice due to the COVID situations.
Okay. Well, we don't know what the counts would be today unless we took them today.
Would you agree with that? Well, I would agree that the utilization of 2014 counts is an accepted
methodology approved by PennDOT at the time of traffic studies prepared. Okay. Yet on the next
line um did you did you well maybe i'm misreading it uh did you collect traffic counts on merrick
road and palisades drive on march 25 of this year yes we did okay so if if so if you collect
so the policy guidance that you're referring to which is in this paragraph it's called a
PennDOT strike-off letter, 494-2004, basically says that due to COVID, you can use 2014 data.
And you took advantage of that for one intersection, yet would you agree with me that for the other
intersection, Merrick Road and Palisades Drive, you went out and collected current data. So why
didn't you just collect the current data for the first intersection? Well I would I would disagree
with the disadvantage statement or the advantage statement of collecting at Palisades and Merrick
utilize the 2014 counts at Ridge and Merrick were conducted by our firm for another application so
we had those historical traffic volumes. We did not previously count Merrick and Palisades in 2014
or any other prior year that would have been permitted to be used by PennDOT.
So I disagree with the statement where you said we took advantage of using the 2021 volumes at American Palisades.
I would actually suggest it was a disadvantage to us to utilize 2014 volumes at American Ridge.
If we wanted to create an advantage, we would have used COVID volumes,
which would have been less than the 2014 volumes at Ridge America.
Yes, I didn't mean advantage in terms of advantage versus disadvantage. I meant advantage in the sense that you used the allowance by the strike-off letter that allowed you to go back to 2014.
That's the only sense I said you took advantage of it, not that it biased one way or the other, but of course we don't know because we don't have the current data.
So what you're saying is you were allowed to use the 2014 data for one intersection, but you didn't have any usable data for the other intersection, so you went out and did the counts for the second intersection.
that's accurate and and and in order to account for the difference between any difference that
may have occurred between the two we balanced the volumes or adjusted the volumes on um along
merrick okay at palisades to account for any any change in traffic volumes that were that may have
occurred between those two different dates that accounts were conducted in this report so so you
adjust. In this report, are those adjustments found in this report? Yes. And where is that?
In the appendix. Well, okay, we'll go to those in a minute. I didn't see them, but
uh well let's go there now um where
do you know do you have the report in front of you do you know what page it's on
i do what how many pages is the pdf document you have 80 80
I do. How many pages is the PDF document you have?
80. So if you go to PDF page 38.
Okay. Thank you for helping me.
Is this it?
That is.
Okay. Can you just very briefly explain to us where these adjustments are?
So if you look in the area towards the top of the page, it's tough for me to see on your screen,
but also i'm going to look on mine um it says 2021 existing or 2021 counts yes um and then
there is a then there's a row walks through westbound left there we counted 16 vehicles
and one that this is the weekday am peak hour during a 60 minute period there's 16 people
making a left from palisades on to southbound merrick um and if you continue across the
row where the 16 is, it continues on with various vehicular traffic movements. And what you can see
the next row below it is balancing. So that's 16 that we counted in the west down left. We then
added 26 additional vehicles to that movement in order to balance with the traffic volumes that
we collected in 2014 at Bridging. Thank you. Would you agree with me that the PennDOT letter
that came out because of COVID allowed people in your industry to go back to all data,
not forget all that go back to data um as far back as 2014 but no further
i believe that's accurate okay and that this data was in fact from 2014 so there would be in keeping
with that um with that strike off with that pendot guidance letter yes it's in compliance
with the PennDOT strike-off letter.
So it would allow to go back seven years,
but no further.
Would you agree with me
that that PennDOT guidance letter
was April 23rd of 2020?
I don't have the date of that.
I don't have the date of that strike-off letter,
but I can't tell you specifically
if that date's right or wrong.
Okay, does it sound wrong to you?
It's in the ballpark.
the time frame i can't thank you okay and so now being in um uh 2021 that we're um one year past
that uh here we are in september of 2021 we're one year past that and your report even was in
may of 2021 so that that would make the 2014 data um even old one year older at this point
Would you agree with me?
Would I agree with you?
May 2021 is one year after April 2020?
Okay, so now you're using data that's over seven years,
which is too old at the time PennDOT came out with its letter.
PennDOT didn't specifically state a duration from the time that their strike-off letter was issued.
They said it was, and I'm going to actually try to pull it up as we speak,
um i have it handy given the questions and the dates you've uh indicated but um the guidance was
2014 counts um and this is the this is essentially i'm paraphrasing but the guidance in that strike
off letter was this is the methodology and the practice that will be accepted by penn dot by
the department um for utilization of traffic counts dating back to 2014 or newer um until
until further direction or update is provided.
I agree with you.
At the time of the traffic study
that we're speaking of this evening.
I agree with you and I don't want to argue with you.
I'm just making the point that at the time
it was, PennDOT was comfortable going back seven years
and now we are more than seven years past it
and that, you know, the TAPCO certainly had the ability