COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400 City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, April 11, 2000 9:30 a.m. - - - BILL 000139 - Authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 376 by striking from the City Plan and vacating McNulty Road and a portion of Meeting House Road. . . BILL 000145 - Authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 46-S in the area of Geary and 20th Street. . . BILL 000166 - Amending Chapter 9-200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Activities on Streets," by adding a new section regulating the location, size, operation, and maintenance of newsstands. . . (Full text of all bills within transcript.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chairman COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 4/11/00 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE I N D E X BILL 000139 Paul Deegan, PIDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . (Attached written testimony from Streets Dept.) BILL 000145 (Attached written testimony from Streets Dept.) BILL 000166 Arthur Kaplan, Art Commission Member. . . . . 8 Otis Haigler, Regulatory Affairs Manager, L&I 22 Tom Chapman, City Planning Commission . . . . 24 Nancy Sen, Engineering Supervisor, Streets. . 26 George Claflen, Claflen Associates. . . . . . 45 Architects & Planners Joseph Beller, Esquire. . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Attorney for Newsstand Operators Dave Curry, Eller Media . . . . . . . . . . . 62 3 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 139 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. The Committee on Streets and Services is now in public session. Councilmembers in attendance are Councilmember Rizzo, Councilmember Clarke -- as in Darrell Clarke -- Councilmember Goode, and Councilmember Donna Reed Miller. What we will do is, the first two bills we will take into consideration are the bills that require Streets Department testimony and PIDC, and then we will do the newsstand bill at the end, 'cause that will take the most time. Thank you. The clerk will read the title of the first bill.
Bill No. 000139, an ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 376 by striking from the City Plan and vacating McNulty Road and a portion of Meeting House Road by placing on the City Plan a dead-end turnaround at the terminus of McNulty Road and at the terminus of Meeting House Road, by reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage, water main, and gas main purposes within the beds of 4 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 139 Meeting House Road and McNulty Road being stricken under the authority of this ordinance, by placing on the City Plan two rights-of-way for drainage purposes and water main purposes, and reserving and placing on the City Plan a right-of-way for drainage purposes within a portion of the existing right-of-way for water main purposes, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul Deegan, D-E-E-G-A-N, and I represent the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, the owners of the adjacent properties affected by this bill. We are the party of interest for this bill, and I'm here to testify in support. The bill authorizes the revision of the existing street system in the Byberry East Industrial Park to accommodate the development of approximately 40 acres of vacant Keystone Opportunity Zone land with new industrial development. We currently have this land under agreement of sale, the two companies, and the removal of Meeting House Road and McNulty Road and 5 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 139 the creation of cul-de-sacs, rather than the loop street system, will allow us to create the larger sites needed by the two developers. And I have a plan here if you'd like to see how this lays out. The development of these properties will result in the construction of over 700,000 square feet of new warehouse and distribution space. Approximately 500 existing jobs will be retained in the City and 100 new jobs will be created. I ask that the committee consider this bill favorably and that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading at the next regularly scheduled session of Council. Thank you for the opportunity to testify, and I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you for your testimony. Are there any other questions for this witness from the members committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the 6 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 139 bill? (No response.)
I have written testimony submitted by the Department of Streets. I don't see Mr. Lonie here.
We have worked very closely with the Streets Department and the Water Department and also with Fairmount Park, which is adjacent to the site.
Thank you, that ought to do. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 000145, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 19 No. 980709) approved December 30, 1998, entitled "An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 46-S in the area of Geary and 20th Street by placing on the City Plan Geary Street from 20th Street to Davinci Drive and Justinian Circle from Davinci Drive westward, all under certain terms and 7 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 145 conditions, including the dedication to the City free and clear of all encumbrances of the beds of Geary Street, Davinci Drive, and Justinian Circle under certain conditions," by extending the period for compliance with the authorization conditions therein.
I have written testimony provided by Commissioner Larry Moy, the Commissioner of the Streets Department, in support of the bill.
All right, the letter from the Commissioner will be a part of the testimony. Any questions? There's no witness to question, right? Is there anybody else here who has anything to offer concerning this bill for or against? (No response.) 8 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill 000166, an ordinance 5 amending Chapter 9-200 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Activities on Streets," by adding a new section regulating the location, size, operation, and maintenance of newsstands on the public sidewalk and by making conforming amendments to other sections of the chapter, all under certain terms and conditions. Arthur Kaplan?
You can come up in the interest of time and. . . (Witnesses come forward.)
We understand you have another appointment, Mr. Kaplan, so we will get your testimony first.
Please have a seat and speak directly into the microphone, state your name for the record.
Arthur Kaplan. I'm a member of the Art Commission and I'm appearing today on behalf of the Art Commission. Thank you 9 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 very much for giving me the opportunity to appear here. Actually, I have two different bills. There was a bill which I received from Art Commission staff and I reviewed it in advance of today's meeting, and another bill which I received this morning. It might make sense for me to give some background with respect to this legislation as it appears from the perspective of the Art Commission. The Newsstand Owners Association appeared before us a while back with a design for a new and very much improved newsstand, which we frankly thought is a terrific -- and still do think is a terrific design. The fly in the ointment was that the design was linked to commercial internally lit advertising. And just by coincidence at that meeting, the issue also arose of advertising for cultural groups. The newsstands on Chestnut Street -- excuse me, the --
The bus shelters on Chestnut Street were being removed and replaced with a new designed bus shelter that doesn't accommodate advertising for cultural groups. The 10 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 Center City District said that these cultural advertisements were very much in demand among cultural groups, and actually Councilman DiCicco suggested a solution that appealed very much to the Art Commission, which was that the advertising on these newsstands be used for cultural group advertising at the same kind of reduced rate that they enjoyed on the bus shelters. When the proposal then came back to us -- and subsequently prototypes were erected of these newsstands, which look at least as good or better than they did on paper -- we were very happy with the design of the newsstands. When the proposal came back to us for the newsstands and the advertising, it was not linked to advertising for cultural groups and we were given to understand that there had really been no 19 discussion among the Newsstand Owners Association and either the Center City District or the cultural groups about using the advertising for that purpose. We were told that it simply wasn't economic, that the cultural groups couldn't afford the kind of advertising that was involved. And basically we felt that we had a 11 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 hard choice to make because, on the one hand, the prototype for the newsstands is a vast improvement on the current newsstands. On the other hand, we -- we had reservations about the precedent of allowing commercial advertising on the public right-of-way. Ultimately, we've decided that although it was a close call, we would approve these newsstands with the commercial advertising; the thought being that the incentive of this revenue stream would perhaps be sufficient to induce newsstand owners to replace the old unsightly newsstands with the new, improved newsstands. It was, therefore, with considerable concern that we received the bill which I reviewed in advance of today's hearing because that bill 18 would, we believe, actually be counterproductive. It -- the bill which we reviewed in advance of today's meeting permits commercial advertising on newsstands and it could be read to permit commercial advertising on newsstands, regardless of whether the newsstand is the new, improved variety or the old unsightly variety; and, therefore, there would be really no incentive to 12 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 replace the old newsstands with the new ones because the advertising would be permitted in any event. In fact, the bill that we reviewed permits commercial advertising of publications and the lottery without regard to the size of the advertising, and it could be read or misread to actually permit more advertising on a newsstand than the limited-size advertising that we had approved at the Art Commission for the new newsstands. The bill also legalized the protruding security grates on the old newsstands, which was one of the selling points for the new newsstand. In other words, we were told at the Art Commission that one of the reasons we should approve the package that included the advertising and the new design was that we were going to get rid of these unsightly and possibly illegal protruding grates, but the bill that we were provided before today's hearing actually would legalize the existing situation with the protruding grates; and once again, it would, therefore, create a disincentive to replace the old unsightly newsstands with the new, improved version. 13 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 Now, this morning, I was handed a bill, which seems to be substantially different than the bill which I had reviewed previously. And looking at it for the first time, it appears that it is -- it's intended to move in the direction of legalizing the advertising only for the new, improved prototype newsstand.
And to the extent that the intention of the bill is to permit the construction of the newly designed prototype newsstand, including the limited -- the advertising limited in size and content that we approved at the Art Commission, we do support the more limited legislation.
Is that the first -- you're speaking of the first version of the new bill as opposed to the one that was distributed yesterday sometime, I understand, around 5 p.m., which I have not had an opportunity to read 'cause I've not seen it yet?
Yeah. The first version is the one which we believe is overbroad and would actually create a disincentive to improve the newsstands. The version which I --
And could you 14 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 explain again why you think it's a disincentive? 'Cause I heard you mention something about the security gates.
Yes. I think it creates a disincentive to replace the old newsstands in two regards: One is, I think it could read as legalizing advertising on all newsstands, including the old newsstands.
But there are certain types of advertising that are permitted already on newsstands: you can advertise for lottery and any type of printed material that is being sold at that newsstand is permitted on that newsstand.
Perhaps this is a misunderstanding on my part because the language permitting the advertising was, I believe, italicized. It was my understanding and, I think, the understanding of the Art Commission staff that this language permitting advertising on newsstands is new language, but I certainly stand corrected if advertising is already permitted on the newsstands.
Counsel for City 15 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 Council, Mr. Auerbach, suggests that maybe the L&I -- is there anyone here from L&I? Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm looking right at him back there. I think L&I could explain some of that 'cause that's done by regulation. But for your information, again, the lottery sales, the signs for lottery -- and I don't know if there's any limit on the size of a lottery sign that could be placed on there, I'm not sure, and L&I could speak to that -- and other types of printed material that are sold on that newsstand are permitted to be advertised on the newsstands. And you're correct. When I did come up to the hearing, which was my first and only appearance in front of the Art Commission, we were looking to find a way to have a much more attractive way of displaying materials that are being sold either on the newsstand or maybe some commercial advertising -- I'm not trying to get away from that. But I also had suggested at that meeting that we might want to look to a way in which we can advertise some of the cultural events that we want to promote in Center City on the newsstands. I mean, that is something that, I 16 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 will be perfectly honest with you, I really haven't had much discussion with the advertising agency concerning that portion of advertising, and I take responsibility for not discussing that. It's just one of those things that kind of got away from me. Again, I was more excited and concerned about replacing the newsstands from -- most of the newsstands that are out there that are in dire need of repair, and most of them are literally illegal today, and we have not done any enforcement through L&I 'cause we were trying to find something that would be a suitable replacement and would also meet the standards of the materials that are required -- "materials," meaning that the newsstands now have to be made of either fiberglass, steel or aluminum. So we were looking for an opportunity to -- and that's how whole thing came about with Mr. Rocco from the Newsstand Association saying, I know we have to do something. The City's been kind enough to give us a certain amount of time to comply and we haven't met that date of compliance, so could you give us a little bit more time? and 17 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 we will come back with a design of a structure that will meet those material requirements but maybe help the newsstand owners be able to create a revenue stream that would help them maintain these things in an orderly way. And that's how this whole thing came about, and we're trying to get through some of that today. The new piece of legislation that was forwarded yesterday, again, I have not had the opportunity to see that yet. There -- I believe that is -- they're asking for some amendments to the size of the signage that is on the prototype. I'm not suggesting I'm for or against that at this time 'cause I want to get a lot of testimony on that and there are a number of people in this room 17 who want to testify as to whether or not that would be the appropriate thing for us to do. I think what we --
Could I make the suggestion that perhaps the best course -- leaving aside the issue of whether the security grates should be legalized, the Art Commission's view is that they shouldn't, the protruding security grates. 18 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
In the bill that I read, it says -- and unless there's another -- it may be on the new amended bill -- "Security gates on newsstands provided that they are within the structure of the newsstand." So we wouldn't be legalizing, but the regulations would have to be consistent with the existing regulations. And go ahead, finish. I didn't mean to interrupt you but I'm trying to -- you raised a lot of points.
In terms of the old bill, I'm relying on a staff memo that, you know, results from a meeting of the City Planning Commission and our staff and others. And the staff seem to believe that the ordinance would allow security grates two feet beyond the stand's facade to some greater extent than the existing legislation but, you know, I can't really vouch for that. My overall comment, Councilman, with respect to the new legislation which we're looking at this morning would be that any -- that any 19 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 design for a newsstand that differs in any respect, whether the respect is additional advertising or otherwise, from the prototype that was approved by the Art Commission should go back to the Art Commission for approval. And I haven't had an opportunity this morning to study the new bill to the extent where I can say with certitude whether by attempting to kind of describe generically what the new newsstand is like, whether it may be more permissive than the design that we approved. And likewise, I don't know whether it's more permissive in terms of the amount of advertising. But my suggestion would be that any legislation should make clear that to the extent that anyone is proposing a design that's different in any respect than the prototype that we previously approved, whether it's in terms of advertising or otherwise, that they be required to go through the process of Art Commission approval.
Let me ask you a question, maybe you can answer this. If today this committee were to vote out of this committee and approve the legislation as it relates to the 20 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 prototype newsstands -- no changes to the signage, the size of the signage or anything else -- would you have a problem at a later date if they came back to suggest that -- if they would ask for consideration for an increased -- to increase the sign, the size of the signage on the prototype. What I'm asking you is, there's a timing issue here. My understanding from the association and Eller Media is that the contractor who is building these newsstands, in order for to us get a significant number of new newsstands in Center City in time for the RNC, they need to have a go-ahead signal within the next couple of days. Otherwise, they may not meet that deadline. And I have suggested to Eller and the other folks that I think at this late hour is not the proper time to come and ask us for any increase in size, and I'm going to respect the Art Commission and the Planning Commission, but I also would like to see these newsstands being replaced in Center City in time for the RNC.
So would we, but I think we share your concern that it's a little bit of a 21 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 pig in the poke. You know, at first, at your suggestion, which, I think, every member of the Art Commission thought was a good suggestion, we were very hopeful that there would be some exploration of cultural advertising. We were later told that was uneconomic but without any detailed exploration of the economics. And, you know, what we have here is essentially commercial advertising by people who aren't paying real-estate taxes -- there's no user fee for this use of public land, and the signage is signage which someone who is paying real-estate tax for the store nearby wouldn't be permitted to erect over the sidewalk. And so, you know, we're doing quite a bit already in order to get these old newsstands replaced with the new newsstands. There's -- in the absence of any financial analysis that really supports the notion that there's now a need for additional commercial advertising over and above the commercial advertising that the Art Commission agreed to as an incentive and we were told sufficient incentive to get these newsstands on the street, I would be somewhat reluctant to just accept at face value 22 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 that additional commercial advertising is necessary.
Thank you. Let's hear from the Department of L&I and let me clear up some of this You can stay there. (Otis Haigler comes forward.)
Good morning. My name is Otis Haigler, Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. In regard to the some of the issues and questions that were raised particularly about the security gating and the gating protruding from the newsstand facade, the bill that I am familiar with, 000166, that was introduced on March 23rd, clearly states that the security grating would be within the structure of the newsstand. Regarding the fact that Section 9-212, which specifically addresses newsstands now in the Philadelphia Code as part of the ordinance, those requirements were basically taken from the current regulations that we already have in existence. Nothing has materially changed from the 23 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 two prototypes that were approved back last year, that the ordinances were specifically to address those prototypes on 12th and Market and the one at Fourth and Chestnut. Nothing in this ordinance 6 materially changes what was approved through those ordinances. I'm not aware of any additional amendments or a new ordinance that was circulated last evening. I only have the ordinance that was introduced on the 23rd.
My Chief of Staff, Robin, is correct: What is being referred to is not a new ordinance that was sent over last night; it's a request for amending Bill No. 000166.
And I hadn't had an opportunity to see the amendment, so I really don't know what the --
I'm in the same boat that you are, and I don't know if any other members of this committee have had the opportunity to see it either. So this is coming as a first for all of us. Is there anyone else up at the witness table who needs to testify or who wishes to testify at this time? And then we'll have the 24 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 other folks, and Mr. Claflen, I think, can clear up some of those questions that have been raised. (Tom Chapman comes forward.)
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Tom Chapman. I'd like to preface my comments by saying that I was personally not aware of the timing deadline mentioned by Councilman DiCicco, and I'm also sure that the Planning Commission was not aware of this deadline when they considered this bill this past Thursday. The Planning Commission's recommendation was that either the bill be tabled for further discussion with the various interest groups involved or that the bill be amended. There's -- I have like about a page and a half of amendments that I could submit to the committee today, but just to summarize those amendments, I think that they're generally, we've been -- they've been discussed already this morning in one form or another, and they are concerns regarding the advertising, the size of the advertising, and sidewalk clearances. 25 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
Let me ask you a question. You're saying that the Planning Commission is asking for a continuance in this to address some issues as it relate to the bill, 000166, and not to the amendments that were circulated last night?
Yes. Regarding amendments that were circulated last night, I know that personally I didn't see them.
Okay, all right. I just wanted to get that clear. My concern is, the reason that the prototypes were put out there, I guess, at least six months or so ago was to give everyone an opportunity to take the time to go out there and look at these things. And for the Planning Commission, with all due respect, to come back now and say that they have some concern about the size of the advertising and other issues as it relates to the prototype, I just find that a little bit unusual that it would take all this time. I mean, the Art Commission has been well aware of it and they have looked at these things and commented on them rather favorably, and their only concern is 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 these amendments that were sent out last night, for the most part, with the original. And I wouldn't be inclined -- and I don't know how the rest of the committee feels, but I'm not inclined to just continue this because the Planning Commission is now saying, Oh, we need more time. I don't know how much more time you need than six months. And these things have been out there. These aren't sketches, these aren't photographs that have been circulated around; these are things go out and see and touch. So I have a little bit of a problem with that. And, again, I know you have your job to come here and report their recommendations, so please don't take that personal. Is there anyone else at the witness table who needs to testify?
Good morning. My name is Nancy Sen. I'm an engineering supervisor with the Streets Department. With regard to Bill No. 166, the following is offered as testimony from the Streets 27 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 Department: This bill charges the Streets Department with the responsibility of reviewing and approving proposed locations for newsstand structures on the public footway. The legislation addresses the Streets Department's concerns that each proposed location provide adequate setback distance from the curbline and clear footway for unimpeded pedestrian passage. On the sidewalk side of newsstand, a minimum of six feet of footway must be maintained at all times measured from the outer-most point of any shelving, security gate housing, racks, or appurtenances for advertisements. Aside from the necessary room required for handicap access, it is the policy of the Streets Department to maintain at least this minimum for pedestrian flow and safety. Even the six-foot value becomes inadequate on rainy days when pedestrians open umbrellas. Therefore, the bill allows the Streets Department the right to increase this minimum requirement at any location to adjust for increased pedestrian flow when it is deemed necessary. The Streets Department supports the new size restrictions as long as all 28 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 clearances may be maintained at each proposed location. The Committee of Highway Supervisors' review and approval for all newsstand anchorage devices greater than four inches below grade is put in for the safety and protection of existing underground utilities in the right-of-way. Basically, the Streets Department has no objection to the passage of this ordinance. However, we would like to propose the following technical amendments to the bill. Each amendment serves to clarify that all required footway clearances mentioned will be measured from various appurtenances of the newsstand rather than the basic footprint size of the newsstand. And I would like to read into the record these amendments. I believe you have a copy up there for following along. 1) Two shelves immediately adjacent to the window opening shall be permitted provided that no shelf shall project beyond the permitted 10-foot length of the stand, and no 13 shelf shall project more than 12 inches from the facade of the newsstand on the sidewalk side. 2) One rack shall be permitted on each side of the window opening for the display of newspapers, magazines, and/or periodicals, provided that each rack is installed on the front of the stand and parallel to the front of the stand, and no rack is hung from the roof of the stand, and provided the rack does not exceed 22 inches in width, projects no more than inches 23 from the facade of the newsstand on the sidewalk 24 side, and does not exceed 5 feet in height. " And basically, just to reiterate, that's just new language that we felt would clarify and leave when the newsstand is in full operation, that there would be adequate footway passage, and also that the stand would be set back from the curb the 18 inches required because we don't want any of these nice stands to be hit by, you know, trucks coming by the rearview mirror. 32 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 And so that's the testimony.
Thank you. I have a question. How do we enforce, or what are we doing about those newsstands that are out there today that don't allow for the six-foot clearance? And I know one in particular that I always bring up, at Seventh and Chestnut. It's amazing that no one has been killed yet over there.
I mean, I have the same problem with hot dog stands that you can't pass on 11th Street. It's 11th and 12th Street that I'm familiar with off the top of my head. It's outrageous, and I'm just curious, what's being done, if anything, about that?.
Basically, both the Streets Department and L&I have, you know, our eyes out there, and when they report certain locations, it's been our practice to try to talk to the newsstand owner to try to come up with perhaps another location that, you know, could suit the geometry or the size that he needs. I think also we all feel that once all 33 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 of this is said and done and we have a new chapter 3 in the Code, that there will definitely be a reeducation of both streets and department forces who are responsible for also going out there. And if we could just, you know, get -- have something that everyone's happy with, and I believe the way that this is written, when applicants come to L&I for their locations, they will know up front, you know, no ifs, ands or buts, whether their stand will fit at their proposed location. And I think it would just be -- once we have this on hand, it will be our job to make sure that we do a better job of educating the inspectors that we have out there.
And I would agree with Miss Sen. L&I and the Streets Department have a very good working relationship, and anytime that we receive complaints relative to newsstands, our inspectors are out, the Streets Department people are out. We work together to try to solve or rectify any problems that we've had in the past, even if it means that we would have to remove the 34 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 newsstand. We work together to do that. So as far as the ordinance that's in place, as Miss Sen states, this puts the requirements right up front where everybody can see them, it gives everybody the -- the ordinance 7 -- again, we would have to educate the public, as Miss Sen says, as to what their full requirements are for newsstands, but it puts everything up front.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. After visiting the prototype of the newsstand at 12th and Market -- I don't know whether this is a question for L&I or the Streets Department, I speculate the Streets Department -- I noticed that on the overhang on the street side, they've integrated a rain spout into that overhang, which drains onto the sidewalk. My concern would be that in the winter, during the daylight warmer temperature hours, the snow runoff could accumulate ice on the sidewalk. So someone should take a look at that. 35 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 Possibly there's a way to reconfigure the way that drains rather than on the sidewalk -- possibly into the street or a collection device or something. But I know that could probably be a problem.
I guess by the amendment we're offering today, we're hoping that for the short time in Philadelphia, you know, when the water can turn to ice, the rest of the year and with buildings right besides it, there are downspouts. So in talking with people about how to address drainage, we came up with the amendment that kind of puts the onus on the operator to make sure that the sidewalk is free and clear of any ice that may build up as a result of that. And that's in the amendment that we offer today. I mean, is that satisfactory or --
Well, I understand that putting the onus on the operator is obviously good, but in the event -- I think the design should be considered to be also more efficient than it running off into the sidewalk.
One of the things that makes -- I mean, maybe I should have the people who 36 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 designed the prototype. But in talking to them, it has an arched roof, and so in reality, we're not talking about, you know, the whole entire roof area being drained -- it's really just half of it -- and for them to incorporate some downspouts into the design. I believed, in talking to them, that it probably would significantly change the appearance of it. You know, it's something that could be thought of, but I think it might even change what is something that's, you know, pleasing to the Art Commission Committee already, so we tried to address --
I'll be honest: I'm more concerned about a senior citizen or me slipping on my butt and hurting myself than what it looks like. So I'd like to see something -- I'd like to see something incorporated and that would prevent it from draining onto the walkway, even if it drained into the street, because that would be an unexpected ice patch that would be --
I don't mean to interrupt, but think that Mr. Claflen can speak to that, but I'm going to ask him to hold his 37 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 comments. Mr. Haigler, Councilmember Clarke has a question for you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Mr. Haigler. Mr. Haigler, I have a question with respect to the process. In the event that there's a request for oversized stand, can you tell me about the process? And is it strictly n administrative process, and does the City Council Councilmember get involved in any aspect of this process?
In accordance with the ordinance, the provisions of the ordinance, Council is involved when the stand requires electrification. Once the ordinance is passed, the requirements to place an oversized newsstand at any particular location would be based on the approvals of the Department of Streets. The Department of Streets -- once we've received the application, we will forward the application to the Department of Streets, they would do a review of the application along with any plans that may have been submitted with the 38 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 application. They would also do a site survey of the area to determine whether or not the newsstand could be accommodated at that particular location.
So traditionally, the electrification of the particular newsstand is done prior to the submission of the plan?
No. A newsstand can exist without electrification. If the person should choose to electrify their newsstand, they would have to come before Council for a specific ordinance to do so.
Right. So in this new process, for instance, if we're now going to get new electrified stands with the new prototype and the ones that don't currently have electrification, would that plan be submitted to the Councilmembers at the time of request for electrification?
Yes. The Streets Department would introduce a private ordinance and actually locate any conduit underground and the newsstand. If it doesn't meet the ordinance, we would definitely, you know, have a paragraph to that 39 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 effect in the ordinance and kind of tie the two together, both the electrification and any other size other than that.
Okay. Is there any process -- when you spoke earlier about some potential abuses of the existing newsstands that may not necessarily fall within the code, is there a process that the electrification of that stand can be revoked?
'Cause I could think of a couple of stands that are not within the Code and actually have electrification, so I was wondering if --
I believe once they're a customer and, you know, the electric will flow. The only thing that we in the Streets Department, working together with L&I, could do is to go out and cite someone who is operating a stand that doesn't meet any of the requirements. But once it's electrified, the job is done up front, you know, before construction, to make sure that we're okay with the plans. And, as a matter of fact, before they get their permit, 40 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 they're supposed to be signed off by both Bell and PECO to make sure that the connection is safe, and they must do an investigation before they start construction to make sure that they're not going to be in the way of any other utilities that are already in the roadway or the footway, you know, in their connection.
Again, also, if the person's in violation of the Code and we should issue citations against that person to comply with the Code and they choose not to do so, eventually, we can revoke their license, we can revoke their privilege to even operate the newsstand. And, thus, we could remove the newsstand from the location.
I understand also that there's going to be an effort on these new facilities to put alarm systems in them to notify, obviously like any other business, fire or police for a response. And they'll have to pay the alarm 41 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 license fee?
So electrification is absolutely a necessity for any newsstand operator that would want to equip his facility with an alarm.
Could I just make one comment, one additional comment. Having looked at the revisions that are suggested by the Newsstand Association of Philadelphia --
Yes, the 5 p.m. revisions. I do think that in general, these represent a good-faith effort to reflect at least what the Art Commission believed it was approving. With respect to the difference, which they note in their submission -- they're very up-front about it in terms of the size of the signage -- one possible way of going about this might be to authorize the larger signage by legislation but to expressly provide that any signage needs Art 42 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 Commission approval, which is not unusual. In fact, any signage over the public right-of-way usually requires Art Commission approval. That approval has already been given with respect to the prototype, but with respect to any signage larger than the prototype, it would require them to go back to the Commission, which, in the past, has been quite willing to hold emergency meetings where there is need to hold emergency meetings. So we could probably more or less accommodate their schedule in terms of reexamining the signage issue. In terms of the drainage issue that was raised by Councilman Rizzo, I think it's the general sense of the Art Commission that there is -- that usually good design in the sense of something that works well is compatible with good design in the sense of something that looks good. And certainty the Art Commission would be more than willing to review a redesign that functions better in terms of drainage but also preserves the really terrific look of the redesigned stands.
It doesn't appear that it's a major modification. Rather than a 43 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 drain on the sidewalk side, where you'd be -- where most traffic would be, it snows, the snow melts, it runs down. The next thing you have is a two foot in diameter ice patch and you're walking down the street. So if it drained under the stand, behind the stand, into the street, just relocate the ice patch.
Thank you, Mr. Kaplan, and you're going in the direction that we've been discussing from early this morning, that we may want to look at this on a case-by-case basis. And I think it's already in the legislation that it would require the Art Commission. So if a particular stand were being proposed at a certain location and the newsstand owner and the advertising agency wanted to get something larger than the 2-by-7, which is on the back end of the newsstand, it would have to come to the Art Commission for approval, and I personally have no problem with that, and I'm not sure what the other members of this committee feel about this, but I think that is the appropriate way to go 'cause we may be able to accommodate the 44 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 needs of everyone. 'Cause the advertising agency is now saying that in order for it to work economically, they need a little bit more signage space on the back. You know, again, I don't want to throw this at everybody at the 11th hour 'cause that's not the way I like to do business. We've been working on this thing for months -- everyone up there and other people who are even in this room today have had meeting after meeting after meeting, and there's a considerable amount of time that went into this. And I appreciate all of the time and effort that went into this, and I just don't want this to be an 11th hour attempt to throw everything out the window and start from scratch, 'cause I don't think it benefits any of us. Are there any other questions for the folks who are at the witness table? (No further questions.)
Mr. Claflen, I think this might be the opportunity for you to come forward now that you've heard some of the questions that have been asked, and you might be able to address those. 45 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 (Mr. Claflen comes forward.)
Good morning. My name is George Claflen. I'm an architect in Philadelphia and a resident of the 5th Councilmatic District, where I've resided for twenty years. I teach architecture at Temple University. In 1997, I was the president of the American Institute of Architects Philadelphia Chapter, and I have an architectural practice. To my right is David Curry of Eller Media. To my left is John Rocco, the President of the Newsstand Association in Philadelphia. ) of Claflen Associates. m. Monday morning. We tried in very good faith, I believe, to respond to the process that has evolved in this very, very exciting project to us. 46 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 And I want to summarize first before I go into point-by-point issues that in terms of the big picture, we fully agree with the testimony of the Art Commission. We believe that the modifications that we are suggesting here by amendment are consistent with the approval and the meaning behind the approval, the intent behind the approval that we believe the Art Commission gave to us on two occasions, in September and in February. We have a number of issues. I know the advertising one is a significant one but, in fact, in the way the bill is written, that is the last item. And if you could direct your attention to our testimony, I'll just go through the items where we propose changes as quickly as I can. On our text, , it's the section 19 on the setback from the curbline is the first point where we propose a modification. Many of the numbered streets in Philadelphia have sidewalks that are 12 or 12-foot and a new inches in width, and when you add in a 4-foot newsstand with a 1-foot shelf, it becomes difficult to maintain the 6-foot pedestrian clearance. And the 47 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 only thing that we see that can give on that is to move the newsstand closer to the curb. We don't like that we, but we feel that that flexibility is desired for the numbered streets. You have cases where you have had a newsstand in some cases that's been in existence for years on that location. So the enforcement 9 situation, I think, would be a bit of a nightmare 10 to move those stands. 11 We fully agree with the Streets 12 Department intention of maintaining a 6-foot 13 right-of-way, and this is our attempt to balance 14 the interests of the longtime newsstand operators 15 with the need for the 6-foot right-of-way, which, 16 we agree, is quite important. So that's our first 17 comment on of our text. 18 The second one is on the design of the 19 newsstands, Section 5, number (a). We propose 20 that a newsstand not exceed 4-foot-6 in width. What we have found in the prototyping is that the 4-foot width is very, very tight and has proven to be difficult ergonomically in terms of the use of some of the newsstand operators. And we, therefore, propose that where possible, where it 48 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 does not conflict with the 6-foot right-of-way, basically on a case-by-case basis, that up to 4-foot-6 feet be allowed. And we've also further proposed the text that newsstands higher than feet or longer 7 than 8 feet may not have externally applied 8 exposed security grills or shutters, including the housings for such grills or shutters. Where the sidewalk width available is less than feet, the 11 newsstand shall not exceed 4 foot in width. 12 And those two provisions really, I 13 think, achieve the objective of the Art Commission. The first sentence is intended to achieve the objective of the Art Commission, that only the new newsstands can benefit from the larger size. And the public benefit from that is the hidden security grills. The security grills and the housings for them are invisible. As written, the bill would appear to permit any newsstand to be the larger size and to have exposed security grills.
Similarly, the 13-foot sidewalk reference is -- 13 feet is the threshold sidewalk where you can get a 6-foot clearance with a 49 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 4-foot-6 newsstand. So that's the reason that that is referred to. We have some more comments about the security shutters, but I want to comment on the materials. When L&I introduced the regulations in the fall of 1998, they said that newsstands should henceforth be metal or fiberglass. The new regulations refer to fire-resistant material, which means that in theory, a new newsstand could be made of fire-retardant firewood, which we do not believe is the intent of L&I or the Council. So on the top of our , we propose to reword the materials clause to read the following: "No newsstand shall be constructed of any structural or exterior material other than aluminum, steel, or fire-retardant fiberglass. " And our comment there is simply to clarify what we believe was the original intent all along and to distinguish fire-retardant fiberglass from flammable fiberglass, which is also an available product, and to clarify the use, which we believe is appropriate, of fire-retardant 50 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 wood on the interior but not the exterior of newsstands. 5), this is to us the confusion about the security gates. Although Mr. Haigler testified -- by the way, I do want to comment that we appreciate very deeply the cooperation that each City agency afforded us -- L&I, Streets, and City Planning, as well as the Art Commission. And while we may disagree on certain points, the cooperation and professionalism was exemplary. And we hope that are comments will be viewed in that context as well. 5), it refers to the gate housing and it refers to a gate housing that could be of inches in size and could overhang on the 18 street side. And we propose -- our experience 19 with these gates, which we've researched in some 20 intensity, is that a 15-inch gate housing is 21 adequate for an existing newsstand. 22 So in the case of an existing 23 newsstand, we propose to limit that to 15 inches 24 and to allow no overhang for security gates on the street side. Typically, they are not furnished on 51 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 the street side, so we don't think that's a problem for either an existing or a new newsstand. " This, again, requires 8 anyone who wishes to take advantage of the larger size of the newsstand to give a benefit to the City in terms of a better appearance, the appearance that the Art Commission desires and that we desire. I think we're in no substantial agreement on the rack and shelf provision. I think I'm just going to skip that. The wording is a little bit different. We do propose on our a specific discussion of the roof. We don't -- we see no 19 discussion of the roof in this legislation. And in the past, the way this was structured was very limited authorization from Council and very detailed regulations from L&I and the Streets Department, and now we're going and putting all of this in the legislation. So we feel that it's appropriate here, in sections (g) and (h), to 52 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 cover some things that weren't in the regulations. Section (g) covers a roof, and our position on the roof is essentially the same as the Streets Department and, I believe, consistent with the Art Commission in that the roof we describe is the same as the one that you see on the prototype newsstands. It overhangs inches, 9 which is what has been permitted for years, on the 10 front side and a foot on each of the ends and 4 11 inches on the rear side. 12 The next item, (h), which we propose to 13 add, regards the color. The color that we've 14 recommended and that the Art Commission approved 15 is, in fact, the color used within the Center City 16 District.
And we're aware that on the Avenue of 17 the Arts and in the West Philadelphia-University 18 City District and possibly other districts 19 throughout the City, other colors may be desired. 20 But our principle here is that the color of the 21 streetscape is a matter of civic interest to the 22 City of Philadelphia and should not be at the 23 discretion of either advertisers or individuals. 24 And we propose a consistent look in terms of color within each district of the City, subject to the 53 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 approval of the Art Commission as we propose in liaison with the various service districts that may apply. And now we come to advertising. Our position is consistent with that of the Art Commission. We feel that there is no reason to grant the advertising privilege to the existing newsstands, and as written, that could be misconstrued in that direction. The existing newsstands may -- that is, existing newsstands and newsstands with exposed security gates, we propose that they continue to be allowed to have what they have now: namely, the Pennsylvania Lottery, if they have a lottery machine, and advertisements for any newspaper or publications sold in the newsstand. We propose that newsstands built -- new newsstands that have concealed security shutter housing may have illuminated advertising as follows: In a band not to exceed 6 inches in height, located at least 6-foot-4-inches above the sidewalk. That's the identity band in which the newspapers and publications within the newsstand might be identified, such as the New York Times, 54 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 USA Today, and so forth. We propose that there then be up to three backlit panels. And the initial proposal to the Art Commission proposed two such panels -- one on either end of the newsstand and another one at the rear, which you see in that photograph on the front of your package, which is horizontal in proportion and approximately 2 feet by 7 feet. And we propose that the content of these light-box advertisings not be limited, except that it may not include advertising for tobacco products, alcohol products, adult entertainment, casino gambling, or any other content otherwise prohibited by ordinance in public streets. We also propose -- and this was actually recommended to us by a member of the Art Commission -- that the rolling security shutters themselves may contain a graphic logo identifying the owner or sponsor of the newsstand, subject to the approval of the Art Commission. That logo is not to be illuminated. And the intention was, when the stand is closed, that something that engages the eye of the public be available. 55 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 I should comment also that Mr. Kaplan commented extensively on the public-interest advertising. And a couple of things there that -- I believe the Eller Media organization has already agreed to accept public advertising where there's no other use for the space, where the space is vacant. So that far, which I realize, may not be the extent of the program Mr. Kaplan desires, has already been suggested by one of the sponsors. The other factor comes to the size of the advertising. And on the size of the advertising, we're here today to ask you to approve what was submitted to the Art Commission with the three small ads, the two small ones on the end and the larger one on the back, the 2-by-7, we would like to point out, however, that the 4-by-6, which is contained in the second package that you have, the loose sheets, the 4-foot-by-6-foot advertising is a known size within the advertising industry. It would have the following effects: It would permit greater substitution of public-interest advertising, because the public- interest advertising is already available in that 56 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 format; And secondly, obviously, because it's a larger size, it would result in increased revenue.
And the consequence of that increased revenue would be greater availability of newsstands within the neighborhoods of Philadelphia, that is a greater opportunity to develop newsstands at locations which might not otherwise be economically viable. So it's a difficult decision, and we understand your concerns on it. On the issue of the ice, we do agree with the wording proposed by the Streets Department. We can indeed develop a tube or other downspout condition which might be subject to vandalism, but which would also obviously be beneficial, as Councilman Rizzo suggests. I think -- let me just ask Mr. Rocco if there's anything I've left out, and my associate, Mr. Summers-Effler, if there's anything I've left out. (Mr. )
Do you have any 57 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 questions? Again, I want to reiterate our great joy in engaging in this process. I also want to point out that in comparison to many other cities in the United States, this is the only program that I know of that has been initiated by the actual newsstand operators themselves. In many other cities, it's a very large-scale concession operation, and I think this is a tremendous opportunity to set a national model for Philadelphia of helping small-business persons who are working on the streets every day in sometimes very difficult conditions to improve both the appearance of the city and their businesses. So I thank you very much for the opportunity to testify. And if you have any questions, I'll be glad to try to answer them.
For the record, I want to acknowledge that Councilmember Nutter is now in the chambers. Are there any questions for any of these witnesses from members of the committee? Councilmember Nutter?
Thank you. Thank 58 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 you, Mr. Chairman. I want to make sure that I have all the players correctly. Now, you're Mr. Rocco? You're Mr. Rocco?
Now, you were reading from a document and, unfortunately, during some of your reading, I was having a very important conversation with the chairman. Is it my understanding that from -- I have two documents here. One has a picture of the prototypes on it, the one at Fourth and Chestnut, which I have seen at night; I've not seen the one at Twelfth and Market. It appears that you have taken the 59 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 current bill and made some proposed amendments, and that's what you are reading into the record and giving your explanation as to what their about; is that what you were doing?
Okay. And were these initially proposed today or yesterday?
The synthesis that this document represents was not completed until very early on Monday morning. The issues had been a matter of discussion between the City agencies and our organization and sponsors over the last two weeks.
Okay. Well, I can appreciate that, I know this is a very involved process, and I know my colleagues have known me on occasion to come in with things almost right up until the time we start. So I'm very familiar with that. How much do these things cost?
Well, it probably depends on what kind of car you buy, right?
Since the vendor is in 60 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 this room and we have to negotiate a price with them --
I mean, are we talking about a Volkswagen, a Cadillac, a Maserati? You know --
I'm going to answer it as best I can. The vendor is in this room and we have to negotiate a price with him, presuming we can move forward.
I recently bought a Porsche; I don't know what a Taurus runs. Could you tell me about the price of the Taurus?
Even if it's that done -- excuse me, Councilman Nutter. Even that's done on a large production, if you do 100 versus 10, the number's not going to change that much?
We're taking what we think the outside number is, we're taking the outside number.
I understand you want to look at me. Why, I don't know, but I need you to use the microphone so that the stenographer can hear you.
Joe, would you identify yourself for the record, please.
Joseph Beller. I'm the attorney for the newsstand operators. And I was answering because we are talking about at actual price now. The figure that Mr. Rocco gave you -- he's the president of the association -- is the ballpark figure we're working with right now.
And if I understand from the pictures and what I saw very quickly down at Fourth and Chestnut, this would have three sides of advertising, all three sides being illuminated; is that correct?
Okay. And what does it cost to advertise on one of these?
Hi. I'm Dave Curry, with Eller Media. Well, obviously, that varies. That's one of the reasons we're in here today trying to change the size of the sign on the back. Not only do you have to look at the cost of buying these things out front for approximately $20,000, but you also have the cost of running the power lines. But what will really be the bigger cost in the long run is maintaining the newsstands while they're out in the street. I mean --
Well, there's -- obviously 63 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 sometimes, if you look at them, you're going to see graffiti.
You need to turn your chair around, whatever works for you to speak closer to the microphone and explain what you mean by "maintenance."
Obviously, there's graffiti and different stickers and all kinds of things on the newsstands right now. This plan will eliminate all of that stuff. We will be in charge of all maintenance, we'll make sure that if there's graffiti, it's removed. The newsstands are designed specifically so we can get the graffiti off. We won't allow any other stickers or anything else that you see on these things now. It will strictly be the ad boxes. So, in essence, there will actually be less, probably, square footage of advertising than you see of them now because right now, there are signs everywhere on them. We're proposing to leave the two signs on the sides as 18-by-36. That's a foot and a half by 3, very small signs in the advertising business. On the rear, the sign is now 2-by-7, 64 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 it's a horizontal sign, and that was pretty much done for -- you know, when this project started, it was a Center City project pretty much 'cause that's where most of the newsstands are -- at lease we assume most of the newsstands were in Center City. And it was designed that way because of cars parking and things like that, to get the ad over the top. But 2-by-7 isn't a standard size in the business. It's kind of just the size that came up. It doesn't meet with any national or large-type advertisers, the type of production they're running right now. It would have to be something that they printed separately. Just like the stuff that the cultural places are using on the bus shelters wouldn't fit in these signs, and they would have to do new production and spend money to use these signs. Our proposal now to help -- well, one of the things that a lot of the Councilmen and their associates came up to us and said, Well, what about in our district? Why not Center City? We were realizing that there were that many newsstands all over the City. 65 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
We did not, no. It was at the luncheon we had on Thursday or Friday, and they wanted to make sure that their newsstands that are in their areas would be included in the program.
So in order for us to do that, you know, obviously, advertising drives this whole program, and it's very expensive to buy and very expensive to maintain. And in order to do that, we felt that changing the ad box from 2-by-7 across to 4-by-6 vertical, which is a standard size in the industry, it's the same exact size as bus shelters, that would enable us to market those with the surrounding bus shelters all outside the City, and we could tie those in.
Well, 4-by-6, I mean, that's like about the size of a piece of plywood or something, right?
So it's a little smaller 66 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 than a piece of plywood. It's the exact same size as a shelter. It's a little bit bigger than the 2-by-7 that's there now.
Mm-hmm. I appreciate your response, but the question was, how much does it cost to advertise? And I appreciate you're going into the -- changing from -- 'cause, I mean, that was smart on your part to take my question and really answer what the answer that you want to give.
But, you know, I was kind of paying attention so let's get back to what I was talking about.
Well, it's different. The size across the top sells for less than the 4-by-6 because it's standard. I can't sell a 2-by-7 to General Motors because they have to buy different production, and they're buying in the suburbs and everywhere else. But we would like to think that we could sell a 4-by-6 for somewhere between 5 and $600.
Well, I understand, 67 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 but for the moment, you're not at 4-by-5; you're at 2-by-7 based on the, I think, the picture I saw and --
And I'm going to assume that the bill allows for 2-by-7, so you've got the 2-by-7, and what's on the sides?
Okay, 18-by-36 inches. Somewhere in Center City -- I mean, what does that sell for?
Somewhere around -- the one in the back would probably sell for somewhere between 350 to $400. The sides, maybe $100 each.
About 100 -- again, it's not a standard size, so it's a new size in the business. So it's kind of a guess, but somewhere like $7500 a month.
That's each sign? 68 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
Okay, so one 2-by-7 and so two 18-by-36's. On a good day, they get you about $600 a month; is that right?
Well. . . well, you know, it's hard to say for each individual newsstand what we're going to have as a maintenance cost. We'll have probably two or three people assigned, depending on how many newsstands we finally get up to do it. I mean, there's a lot of variable costs. If someone runs into the side of a newsstand, we have to repair that newsstand.
Well, I understand but, I mean, you're proposing to embark on this endeavor, and I get the impression that you'd like to do it relatively soon, and being a good business person, at some point in time, I know 69 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 you're going to figure all these things out, otherwise, you wouldn't do it, right?
That's correct. There is a proforma that's been done on it, on the entire project.
Well, I personally don't have it. It's done by our -- we have a sister company called Ad Shell. Ad Shell is our street furniture branch of Eller Media, and they have done the proforma. But I want to say that we're going to need two or three full-time people maintaining the newsstands, depending, again, on how many we put on. I mean, we'll have -- you know, I could tell you what our people make at our place now. We hire 120 employees now and each make between 40 and $50,000 a year. I don't know what the salary scale's going to be on this type of a job, but we also have materials, the cleaning. There will be a lot of things involved in it, so it will be expensive.
I'm sure it will 70 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 be.
But at the end of the day -- I mean, you're not running a charity, right?
So you have two or three people who are going to maintain the stands. This is citywide or just Center City?
Well, again, as I said before, originally, we were thinking Center City, but we are now planning on doing this citywide. Everyone has asked that we put it -- you know, the newsstands in their place.
Right. Let's just talk about Center City. I mean, do you have a ballpark figure or a range on what you think your monthly maintenance costs will be for -- how many stands do you plan to put in Center City?
I don't represent Eller so you'll understand that my answer is really keyed into the newsstand operators. It's impossible for us to imagine what it might cost, even when we try to do our own survey, because every location is different. Some are prone to have people who put graffiti there, some are prone to have people who put election stickers for all sorts of things. And one of the things that we're trying to do is --
You just had to attack the elected officials as a part of the --
I have not only run for office, I actually worked in this august chamber 72 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 for some years when all of you were little children some 30-some years ago, and so I appreciate the fact that no good elected official would do that. It's obviously some other organizations.
At any rate, at any rate, one of the problems from our point of view is that this is the opportunity for us -- and when I say "us," I'm talking about the independent newsstand operators. Remember, it's not a monolithic organization; it's the last of the small independent people. And this is our opportunity to have somebody else provide for a stand that is beautiful for the City and possible for us to live in and work in, with heat and electricity and so forth. And we know that Eller's going to make a profit. We hope they make a tremendous profit because we'd like to see this spread throughout the City. Obviously, we've been over this with them and we've tried to do our own proformas. Obviously, they can obtain more profit from an ad 73 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 in Center City than perhaps in some outlying district, but we don't want anybody excluded from this, Councilman.
And so -- well, obviously, I know that you have the absolute right to go into that. We have impressed them as hard as you are because in addition to maintaining, repairing and, most important, initially providing the stand, they are also going to be paying a commission, which will be paid to our individual members. So we're as much interested in those numbers as you are but I don't know that, in all fairness to Eller or to Add Shell, that they can even begin to guess at what maintenance will be. The only thing we could look to is what the Center City District is.
And you know and you have been a supporter of cleanliness in your own district, I know it well. And you know what it is to maintain, and that's the problem. I'm not trying to save him; I'm just trying to have you understand. 74 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
I don't think he's being disingenuous because I don't think he knows what it's going to cost yet, and I don't want you to scare him off.
No, no, no. You know, I'm a kinder, gentler councilman at this point, but I do like to talk about money -- not that I have any but, you know, it kind of becomes the bottom line. Let's figure out the maintenance cost for a second. There's $600 a month in ad revenue. Are there any other financial components to this? Is there something that kind of flows between Eller and the individual newsstand operator?
Yes. There's a percentage share in the revenue, that's correct.
Whatever revenue the signs generate, the Newsstand Association would get a percentage of that, before expenses.
Well, does Eller 75 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 participate in any of the other revenues generated witness the newsstand itself.
Okay. Well, let me -- we were all the beneficiaries of little dual solar calculators from PECO Energy. They might be an advertiser on the thing there. But at 600 a month, that came to $7200 a year in revenue for the stand. That's just 600 times 12.
Does that sound right? I mean, that's what the calculator says.
Well, just so you know, you can't use the number 600, but you're assuming that we're sold 100 percent of the time. Our typical number around the City of Philadelphia and in the surrounding suburbs is somewhere around 70 to 75 percent sales, plus you're not including -- we pay an ad agency a commission of 15 or 16-2/3s, depending on who's buying the ad. That comes off 76 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 the top.
I understand. I'm just going based on what you shared with me.
Our sales (unintelligible) gets 5 to 10 percent for selling it on our end. There's a million costs that --
Wait a minute. Everybody has got to eat that, I understand that.
But based on the figures you gave me of 350 to 400 a month for the big one --
-- 600 a month, 7200 a year. And you're paying $20,000 for the facility.
I understand that, but you're going to have that anyway 'cause many of the stands have electricity already. 77 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
It's more, right. Basically, you have about a three-year payback on the newsstand, if you're fully rigged up for the year.
If we're 100 percent sold and you don't count any of our expenses, yes, it's a three-year payback.
I mean, 7200 times 3 years is $21,600. Those are the numbers.
If you have 50 stands at those rates, you're talking about $360,000 a year in ad revenue, 2 people, maybe you have 30 to do the maintenance operation, so you're talking about another 60 or 90, plus all the things that you laid out.
Right. Plus we have to 78 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 take off the share that the Newsstand Association gets.
Okay, all right. But, I mean, these -- the numbers are not outrageous. I mean, they're not that far out of the ballpark as to be absurd?
No, but you're not taking into consideration a lot of different things. You're assuming it's sold all the time, you're not including any of our costs.
Again, not to be in an argument with you. I can only take what you give me. I've asked you for a number of things, and you said, Well, we have a proforma, but that's at another company, and I don't have that, so I'm limited in my ability to get to where I'd like to be based on the information I get. I'm willing to factor anything into this equation based on what you're willing to share with us.
Well, you can use a 75 sold ratio and you can take percent off for sales 23 commission, and then I'm not at liberty to tell 24 you what commission I'm paying to the Newsstand 25 Association. 79 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
I can tell you that it's substantial. So you're three-year payback is nowhere even close.
Okay, all right. Now, with this particular bill, would this allow anyone who presently has a newsstand to have this new type of newsstand?
Yes, but let me qualify that by saying that we have promised the Newsstand Association that we would do all the Newsstand Association members first, and we would actively try and recruit other members -- non-members to be members of the association to --
I mean, my contract is between the Newsstand Association, so --
Oh, okay, all right. So you have a contract with them. 80 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
Yeah. You know, we promised them that we would try to do theirs first. Most of their members are Center City. And we would try and recruit along with John Rocco in going out and saying, Would you join? You join get a free newsstand, you get a share in the revenue, it doesn't cost you a thing, and the outside is maintain. We pretty much feel that just about everybody would like to join that. The membership fee is not that expensive, I don't believe, to join.
Councilman, for $150 a year, you too can have the Taurus. (Laughter.)
And, incidently, Dave is quite right, we do have a contract with them because, as you know, along with the cooperation that was mentioned from the City from Councilman DiCicco's office, from City Council, Streets 81 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 Department, L&I, and so forth, the Art Commission, it really has been the newsstand operators that have really spearheaded this with that. And so, obviously, we're the ones who enter into the first contract. We're not going to ever exclude anybody else, and no one has to join anything. And I just think, as I say, for $150, you too can have the brand new Taurus.
Let me ask one last question. The Chairman has been most accommodating with me and I appreciate that. What is the light issue, the illumination issue? Is that just a further enhancement of the advertisement and the concern that people can't see whatever is being advertised at night? I mean, why do these have to be lit up?
Why do the signs have to be lit up or why does there have to be electricity to the newsstand?.
No, I know why there's electricity to the newsstand, but why do the signs have to be lit up?
Well, I mean, all signs 82 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 like that it's just part of selling it to national clients.
We have light in bus shelters because wept people to stand there.
By putting it in new newsstands, if the city goes dark by 5 o'clock -- not in the summertime -- you need backlit light. It's pretty much standard in the industry that these type of signs are going to be illuminated. I mean, we would obviously have to charge less.
It's standard in the industry that 11 or 12 o'clock at night is when it's shut off. And you could look at it as a secure area. They're not that bright, but it does illuminate the area right around the newsstand and keeps it more secure from a lot of break-ins, and it not going to blind anybody and it's just going to illuminate the area, it will probably make it a safer and more secure area. 83 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
Again, I hate to interrupt, Councilman Nutter, but I want you to know that at one point, long before we talked about the new newsstands, representatives of the Police Department came to our meetings and asked if we could put lights around the various newsstands and keep them on all night as a help to them. So lighting's not a new concept for us, and we're willing to cooperate. As Dave said, normally, you could put them on a timer and they would go off at 11, 12 o'clock.
Are there any newsstands on Walnut Street or soon-to-be-remade Chestnut Street? (Individuals at witness table confer among themselves off the record.)
Yeah. Well, I'm thinking of the immediate vicinity of Walnut that I'm most familiar with. Most of them are on the cross streets at the intersection with Walnut, such as 84 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 18th and Walnut.
Walnut Street is one of the brightest streets in the City of Philadelphia. I mean, it has a foot candle reading of 4 to 5, as compared to most City streets, which is a quarter to a half. I mean, what's the additional light that you're providing that our new pedestrian light out there aren't providing? I mean, I'm just kind of intrigued at the notion that -- I mean, if people want to have new newsstands and get away from the wooden ones and have aluminum and steel and, you know, titanium might be next, I mean, that would be very interesting. I mean, they'll withstand, you know, fallout or something. But, I mean, I thought it was the Street Department's responsibility to make sure that our streets are well lit and not necessarily have that burden or responsibility on newsstands and advertising companies.
Yeah. I mean, obviously, you know, we're not backlighting signs just for safety and security reasons. It's an added benefit that comes out of it. 85 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166
And in certain areas, it will definitely help because a lot of them are very dark. On Walnut Street, it may be very light at night. However, we can't sell half of them lit and half of them not lit. You know, everything in advertising is sold in a package and it will be -- they all -- and that's why I'm asking for a standardized size, because we're going to tie it into the rest of the City and the suburbs with the advertising and it will make it easier to sell so that we can get closer to our 75 or 80 percent sales rates.
You really want to take me back to that 4-by-6. You really like that 4-by-6, don't you?
And it will also help -- all the cultural places, they already have 4-by-6 copy right now that they're using in the bus shelters. It's very expensive, that stuff, and if anybody has ever bought it, they realize it. They 86 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 can take it right now and we've offered it -- at the Art Commission, we've offered it and we can make the same offer and we can put it in the legislation. And anytime we have unsold space, we'll put them up free of charge as long as they supply the advertising.
All right. Let me just lastly say that -- I mean, my limited observations of the advertising industry is that at the end of the day, people will make, cut, shape, whatever it is they need to make, cut, shape to fit in wherever it needs to be fit in, because that's where the money is. I mean, that thing that's wrapped around that building down there near the Ben Franklin Bridge, I don't think that's a standard size -- is that a standard-size building rack?
Okay. So someone made that to go with that particular building, right?
That's correct, but that's a larger-scale type thing. When you're talking smaller signs, you know, an advertiser like 87 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 McDonald's will come in and buy 100 signs at one time. They're not going to buy 3 to their 10-by-20, 3 to their, you know 10 inches by this. They all have to be the same because it's all done at an ad agency and it's all produced the same size. And, you know, every time you change the size of an ad, not only do you just have to -- you don't just reprint it. The design people have to redesign it to fit on that size.
It's just much easier to have a standard size. It will help us sell the signs that are outside of the Center City area, it will help us tie in all the stuff in North and Northeast Philadelphia and South Philly, and it will make it that an easier sell if it's all the same.
Thank you. I need to make an announcement. There is another hearing that was supposed to begin at 10 o'clock this morning. And while this, I think, is very important and I've been working on this for the better part of a year, I guess, with a 88 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 team of people from all different agencies, for the hearing that is coming up, there are a number of people who are CEOs from these major companies which are really important to the economic benefit to the City of Philadelphia. And because of the last-minute introduction of amendments that were distributed late last evening, which I have not even had the opportunity to see, I'm probably going to go back on what I said originally. I didn't want to delay this, but I think at this point, there's no other way to do this in a proper way and to have full participation in the discussion but to allow people to take some time and look into those amendments. And because of the hearing that's following us, I'm going to recess the hearing on this bill, 000166, until April 26th at 3 o'clock p.m. We will vote out the other two bills momentarily. And, again, I apologize to those of you, Paul and Kathy and other folks who were here, and I appreciate the fact that you came today, but we are really running out of time. And, again, I think for all of us to us got back and digest some 89 4/11/00 STREETS/SERVICES - BILL 166 of these things over the next two weeks might be beneficial to all of us and will help Council and other members of Council who are not a part of this committee who may be affected -- in particular Councilmember Nutter and other District Councilpeople -- to look at this and cumulatively come back with some suggestions, amendments, reamendments, whatever it is, to get this thing to work. So I want to thank you all for coming. I want to again apologize. We're going to recess the hearing on this bill. This concludes the public hearing on bills on the Committee of Streets and Services. - - -
We will now move into the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 000139.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move for motion on Bill No. 000139 with a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.) 90 4/11/00 - STREETS/SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000139 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 000145.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. A motion on Bill No. 000145, with a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 000145 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor of the bill, signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The bill is approved. 91 4/11/00 - STREETS/SERVICES - PUBLIC MEETING Thank you for your patience. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. (Adjourned at 11:13 a.m.) - - - 92 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, April 11, 2000, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES BILL NO.'S 000139, 000145, 000166 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter