COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400 City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Mon., 5/10/99, 2:10 p.m. - - - BILL 990143 - Authorizing striking from City Plan of East River Road from Calumet Street. . . BILL 990151 - Authorizing construction of sanitary sewer, appurtenant work in portion of Trevose Rd. BILL 980758 - Authorizing construction of water main and appurtenant work to provide. . . BILL 990205 - Authorizing G&G Enterprises to construct and maintain building encroachment. . . BILL 990218 - Authorizing LaLiberte, LP to construct and maintain building footings. . . BILL 990139 - Granting permission to Charles M. Falk, owner of the newsstand located at. . . BILL 990145 - Granting permission to Girish P. Sanghvi, owner of the newsstand located at. . . BILL 990159 - Authorizing Joseph Stanfa to construct and maintain a canopy. . . BILL 990185 - Authorizing Gino DeJesse, owner of the property 1824 East Passyunk Avenue. . . BILL 990202, 990203 - Authorizing the University of the Arts to construct and maintain. . . BILL 990204 - Granting permission to Elizabeth M. Landy to construct. . . BILL 990226 - Amending an ordinance authorizing and directing revision of lines and grades. . . BILL 990252 - Granting permission to Thomas J. Elliot to construct. . . BILL 990250- Rehabilitating retaining wall. . . PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO, Chairman COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 5/10/99 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE I N D E X Bill 990143 Martin Soffer, Planning Commission . . . . . . 4 Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager, Streets . . 5 Bill 990151 Paul McCloskey, Water Department . . . . . . . 6 Bill 980758 Paul McCloskey, Water Department . . . . . . . 9 Bill 990205 10 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets Carl Primavera, Counsel, G&G Enterprises . . . 11 Jerry Roller, J.P. Roller Architects . . . . . 19 12 Bill 990218 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets 21 13 Sharon Ciletta, Esquire, LaLiberte Counsel . . 23 Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll 14 Bill 990139 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets 27 Bill 990145 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets 30 Bill 990159 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets 36 Bill 990185 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets 39 Bill 990202 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets 41 Bill 990203 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets 43 Bill 990204 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets 45 3 5/10/99 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE (Index, cont'd.) Bill 990226 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets 46 Bill 990252 Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, Streets 48 Bill 990250 Michael Moffitt, Private Citizen . . . . . . . 51 Alfred Taylor, Private Citizen . . . . . . . . 55 Alphonso Rowley, Private Citizen . . . . . . . 56 Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager, Streets . . 72 4 5/10/99 STREETS & SERVICES COMMITTEE P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, everyone. The public meeting for the Committee on Streets and Services is now in session. We have established a quorum, and in attendance are the committee members. To my far left, Councilmember Rizzo, Councilmember Cohen. To my extreme right is Councilwoman Miller and myself, I'm Councilman DiCicco, I'm the Chair of this committee. And also in attendance is Councilman Nutter. The clerk will please read the title of the first bill, please.
We're going to start with Bill No. 990143, an ordinance authorizing the striking from City Plan No. 163 of East River Road from Calumet Street to the line of Fairmount Park, under certain terms and conditions. (Marty Soffer comes forward.)
Good afternoon and please state your name and title for the record.
My name is Martin Soffer. I'm from the City Planning Commission. Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. 5 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990143
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, the proposed ordinance 5 authorizes the striking of a paper street located in the East Falls section of northwest Philadelphia. The purpose of this ordinance is to remove the encumbrance of the street and legalize the construction of a gas station and convenience store. Therefore, by action at its meeting on April 15, 1999, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 990143 be approved. Thank you.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 990143. This is not an administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. Robert Lane of Morgan, Lewis & and Bachius, 2001 Logan Square, Philadelphia, who represents Amoco Oil Company. The purpose of this ordinance is to 6 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990151 legally strike East River Road from the City Plan. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to the committee for favorable consideration.
Thank you. Are there any questions for these witnesses from the members of this committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990151, an ordinance authorizing the construction of a sanitary sewer and appurtenant work in a portion of Trevose Road. (Paul McCloskey comes forward.)
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Paul McCloskey. I'm representing the Water Department. I'd like to offer some testimony on Bill No. 990151. 7 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990151 This authorizes the Water Department to construct a sanitary sewer on Trevose Road south from Edison Avenue to approximately 1400 feet southeast of Edison Street. Trevose Road is a block of single-family dwellings in the 700 section of the city. This is a long block which is apparently being serviced by individual cesspools for each property. These on-site systems have outlived their usefulness and require total replacement. However, it is doubtful, under current Commonwealth regulations, that the systems will be allowed to be rebuilt. The malfunction of the septic system's created an un-sanitary condition. Over the last ten years, we've been able to resolve problems of some of the residents by allowing them to connect one of their on-site septic sewers located along a creek at the rear of their properties. However, the remaining properties can only be relieved with the construction of a sewer. In light of the fact that the residents are serviced by public water, these remaining residents requested a public sewer. An assessment 8 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990151 bill should be levied against the owners having the frontage in order to absorb a portion of the cost of construction, and the residents shall be required to connect a new sewer at their costs in accordance with City code. We recommend that this bill should be favorably recommend out of committee.
Are there any questions for this witness from any members of the committee? Yes, Councilman Cohen?
Is this any different from the usual City policy or is this the regular City policy?
This is the regular City policy, sir. If on-site -- it's -- these people have on-site septic systems; they'd have no 18 other place to go. Their systems have failed for the most part, and there is no public sewer available in front of their houses. They have -- if -- if we do not put a sewer in, they will literally have to abandon their houses when where cesspools fail.
About how old are the houses? 9 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990151
The houses are -- I believe the houses are about 50 years old.
Is there unanimous approval of all the residents? Is there anyone balking that they don't want to be part of this project?
There is a majority -- there are petitions submit by the majority of the its residents. That is basically the procedure. What we did, at Councilman O'Neill's request, was to issue a letter to all of the property owners explaining to them that the -- even though that they would have to connect to the sewer, that they would have to pay for a connection once the sewer is built, and to give them an opportunity, you know, to explain their costs involved in this. And we received no 24 protest whatsoever. Even people who had cesspools that are 10 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990151 still active basically said that because of the difficulty it is for resale of the properties and the enhancement that this would make as far as the upscaling of how much their properties would cost that they were agreeable to it.
Is there any policy in the Water Department if anyone would have a hardship in the connection fee?
We do have a low-cost loans system that we would offer to them if that would be the case.
Thank you. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you for testimony.
Bill No. 980758, an ordinance authorizing the construction of a water main and appurtenant work required to provide public water service in a portion of Berkshire Street. 11 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 980758
Again, my name is Paul McCloskey. I'm representing the Water Department in regard to Bill No. 980758, we offer the following testimony. This bill authorizes the Water Department to construct a water main on Berkshire Street from Richmond Street to approximately 235 feet west of Salmon. Berkshire Street is a block of single-family row houses located in the Bridesburg section of the city. The block is currently serviced by an existing private water main that has deteriorated beyond its usefulness and requires total replacement. A public water main has been requested by the residents. An assessment shall be levied against the owners having frontage in order to absorb a portion of the costs of the construction in accordance with the Philadelphia Code.
Thank you. Any question from this committee? Is there an effective date for this, Paul?
Is there an effective date? Councilman Cohen is asking, is it -- is this the whole bill, is there anything else that belongs to this?
Are there any other questions for this witness from the committee? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990205, authorizing G&G Enterprises, owner of the property 1605 to 1627 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103, to construct and maintain a building encroachment with electric lights over and above the south footway and cartway of the 1600 block of Stock Exchange Place adjacent to the rear of the property 1605 to 1627 Sansom Street, all under certain terms and conditions. (Mike Longshore comes forward.) 13 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990205
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of City Council. My name is Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, representing the Streets Department in today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990205, this is not an administration ordinance but rather an ordinance by request on behalf of G&G Enterprises, owner of the property 1605 to 1627 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19103. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to construct and maintain a building encroachment with electric lights encroaching approximately 9 feet 11 inches from the property line over and above the south footway and cartway Stock Exchange Place, with a minimum vertical clearance above the public right-of-way of approximately 17 feet. This encroachment extends 11 stories in height, and is approximately 100 feet west of the west curb line of 16th Street to a point 290 feet from said point. The Department of Streets has reviewed the plan for this property and had some 14 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990205 reservations about this encroachment as it pertains to the public right-of-way, in particular the safety issue involved with the vertical clearance above the footway and cartway areas. This issue has been resolved to our satisfaction. Therefore, the Department of Streets has no 8 objection to the passage of this bill.
Yes. Carl Primavera, P-R-I-M-V-E-R-A. With me is Dan Zablosky (ph.). We're both principals with regard to G&G. And also Jerry Roller, who's the architect. I'd like to pass up for the record reduced graphics showing the proposed parking garage, both from Sansom Street and from the former Ionic, which is now Stock Exchange Place, along with a floor-by-floor layout of the garage. What I'd also like to do while I briefly describe it is have Jerry Roller point on 15 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990205 the enlarged graphs so you'll be able to see what we're talking about. This is the block on Sansom Street which was formally under the control of the Rappaport estate, and it previously had been a good service block with some restaurants. But over the past, I don't know, five to eight years, it has deteriorated to a point where it's really considered -- it's kind of off limits. And there's nothing that really can be done with those buildings because they're obsolete and they're really in no condition to be rehabbed. So based upon some discussions and some investigation, it was determined that the block would be most appropriately designed for a parking garage since Sansom Street, at that point, is really a service corridor. The only problem with the design is that the depth of the properties are so narrow that there was insufficient surface for a turning radius. So what was designed and what Mr. Longshore just mentioned is that there will be an encroachment over the former Ionic Street, which is now Stock Exchange Place, at an elevated level so that you'll still be able to transverse it with trash trucks or utility trucks. But now 16 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990205 it will be able, at about 17 feet up, to extend over a portion of the right-of-way, and in doing so, be able to develop this garage. And as you'll see from the photographs, it looks like this is really going to be a handsome addition. We're also going to maintain the improvements that we make, and you'll see lighting and you'll see a whole reconfiguration of that Stock Exchange Place. So instead of a lot of the Dumpsters and the rats and the trash, you're going to see an attractive, well-lit area. It's still going to be the back of the buildings, but it's going to be much, much more conducive to what we hope to be the substantial investment in Center City. So with that and with the hope that you'll be favorably reporting on this, we'd request that you suspend the rules also. If, as we hope, at some point in the future, there's another building that we may acquire, we're talking to the owners right now, then we would extend it all the way to 16th Street. It's currently a building which is vacant, and it previously had the old Holtz Cigar, but we don't 17 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990205 control that can't so we ask for any relief with regard to that. But if, as we hope in the future, we acquire that, then that building too would be removed, and it would be consolidated into this garage.
Is there anyone else going to be testifying? You don't have to if you don't want to. (Laughter.)
We brought everyone here in case there was any specific questions.
I just have a question. I'm familiar with this, as you know, and I've had some meetings with you, Carl, and Mr. Spilo (ph.). The community issues have all been resolved?
And I actually have a letter which I can pass up. We went to CCRA, and they --
Right. Would you explain what that acronym is 'cause others don't 18 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990205 know.
Yes. It's the Center City Residents Association. We also will need zoning for this ultimately, and we explained to them and we showed them this, and they did give us a letter of support. I guess that was about three weeks ago.
Thank you. And for the record, I've had some conversations with Judith Eden from CCRA, and she had indicated her support for the project also. But I just wanted to get that on the record. Councilmember Cohen?
One question I have is on line 4, section 1. It says you're planning to construct and maintain a building addition with electric lights. And I don't see anything else that refers to electric lights, so I'd like to know why do you have that and what are your plans with respect to electric lights.
Yeah, I'll let Jerry Roller handle that. It's really part of what we had spoken about. The City has requested certain upgrades, which we're going to handle at our own 19 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990205 expense, but I'll let Jerry talk about that.
Jerry Roller, J.P. Roller Architects. The picture that we have of the rear of the building which is the area in question shows that one of the conditions is that there be down lighting underneath the overhang to provide illumination for the street area. This was something the Streets Department has requested and we've agreed to do; that's why it's in the ordinance. These are lights which we will illuminate and maintain as a part of the building.
All right. At this time, no further questions. They're just the lights as shown on this? Obviously, I'm concerned about whether it was lights in connection with the billboard or something of that --
No, no, no. That's just strictly illumination for the street. There will be other lights in the garage for safety, but there is no signage or advertisement considered as 20 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990205 part of this rear addition.
Actually, from my knowledge of that street, when this project is complete, even though the building will be canter levered over the street, which tendency would black out natural light, this will actually make it brighter than it is today with the installation of those lights.
Thank you. Could you tell me the height of the first overhang to the street.
The clearance under there is a minimum of 17 feet. It may be higher or lower as we engineer it, but that's the minimum requirement from the City Streets Department.
And I don't like to assume that the lights will be illuminated 365 days a week from sunset to sunrise.
Are there any other questions for these witnesses from the committee? (No further questions at this time.)
Hearing none, is there anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill. Thank you, gentlemen.
Bill No. 990218, an ordinance authorizing LaLiberte, LP, owner of the properties 116 to 122 South 17th Street Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103, and 1729 to 1735 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103, to construct and maintain building footings in and under the north footway of Sansom Street and the south footway of Stock Exchange Place, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, members of Council. My name's Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, representing the Department of 22 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990128 Streets in today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990218, this is not an administrative ordinance, bur rather an ordinance by request on behalf LaLiberte Limited Partnership, owner of the properties 116 to 122 South 17th Street and 1729 to 1735 Sansom Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19103. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to construct and maintain building footings that extend approximately feet below the grade of 13 the north footway of Sansom Street and the south 14 footway of Stock Exchange Place. The footings 15 will be encroaching three feet under the north 16 footway of Sansom Street from the property line 17 and three feet under the south footway of Stock 18 Exchange Place from the property line. 19 The Department of Streets has reviewed 20 the plan for this property and has no objection to the passage of this bill.
Good afternoon. You wish to testify, ma'am? LALIBERTE COUNSEL: My name is --
You'll have to 23 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990128 pull that microphone much closer to you. LALIBERTE COUNSEL: My name is Sharon Ciletta (ph.), and I'm with the law firm Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll, and we represent LaLiberte, the owner of the property that will be affected by the ordinance. And we're here in support of the ordinance and to request that a suspension of the rules so that it might be read on Thursday, and also to answer any questions that you might have.
Is this in anticipation of the hotel? LALIBERTE COUNSEL: Yes.
Okay, I wanted to make sure. How many rooms are going to be in that hotel? LALIBERTE COUNSEL: 306.
Okay. It's a French hotel or something, right? We didn't TIF it, I don't think there's a TIF involved in this, right? Is there a TIF? Are you familiar with that? LALIBERTE COUNSEL: I don't know, no. 25
It is -- what's 24 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990128 the name of the hotel? It's on here.
I was wondering if it has. . . what's the planned hotel? Do we know of any planned hotel there? Is that involving the Ritz Carlton moving?
No. 8 LALIBERTE COUNSEL: This is the hotel (unintelligible).
This is not -- maybe I can explain it. This is -- the Ritz Hotel is moving across the street to the Mellon Bank Building. This is the Stock Strange building at 17th and Sansom being taken over by a private developer for the purpose of building a hotel at that sight. LALIBERTE COUNSEL: That's right. It will be the renovation of Stock Exchange and the demolition of four one-story buildings in addition will be built on that ground.
That's in the Liberty One Building. It's the Liberty Two or Liberty One -- it's in that complex this is 25 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990128 separate.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Does this bill have anything to do with the bill we just heard? Is there any connection since both projects are so close?
The only connection I could see, Councilwoman, is that the first bill 19 that we just heard will probably greatly enhance this property as far as alleviating traffic congestion and having parking available for the hotel residents.
Yeah, maybe I can address that 'cause even though it's not in my district, in the absence of Councilmember Street, 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990128 I've been dealing with some of these issues. There is a great demand for additional spaces in Center City, especially on the west side as it relates to the hotels and restaurants. And that parking garage that we just heard about, as Mr. Longshore just stated, will go a long way in enhancing that, the ability of future development. My guess is that this hotel will probably be using some of the spaces in that garage for guests, overnight guests or whatever else they're going to have in that hotel to accommodate banquet rooms. So they really will go together even though they're two separate and distinct entities, not related in that regard but they will come together at some point, I'm sure. LALIBERTE COUNSEL: There will additionally be 59 accessory parking spaces in the structure itself.
Could you speak into the microphone; we can't get your voice. LALIBERTE COUNSEL: There will additionally be in the hotel 59 accessory valley-style parking spaces. 27 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990139
Okay. Any other questions? (No further questions at this time.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Thank you. Thank both of you. Thanks, Sharon. The clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990139, an ordinance granting permission to Charles M. Falk, owner of the newsstand located on the northwest corner of 36th and Market Streets, to construct, use and maintain an electrical line and telecommunications fiber optic line over and across the north footway of Market Street for the purpose of supplying electrical and phone service to his newsstand, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of the City Council. My name is Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, 28 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990139 representing the Department of Streets in today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990139, this is not an administration ordinance but rather an ordinance by request on behalf of Charles M. Falk, owner and operator of the newsstand located on the northwest corner of 36th and Market Streets. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to construct and maintain electrical and fiber optic conduit and appurtenances to the above newsstand. The purpose of these utility connections are for lottery sales which results in queues on the sidewalks, causing unsafe conditions for pedestrians and vehicular traffic as well. In light of these safety issues, the Department of Streets does not recommend passage of this bill.
Councilmember Cohen 29 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990145 almost heard -- he thought he heard you say you do recommend it; he was quite taken aback by that.
I was going to say congratulates on changing your position.
Any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990145, an ordinance granting permission to Girish P. Sanghvi, owner of the newsstand located on the northeast corner of Ninth and Market Streets, to construct, use, and maintain an electrical conduit and service line and a fiber optic conduit and phone service line in and under Ninth and Market Streets for the purpose of supplying electrical service and phone service to his newsstand, under certain terms and conditions. 30 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990145
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of City Council. My name is Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, representing the Streets Department in today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990145, this is not an administration ordinance but rather an ordinance by request on behalf of Girish P. Sanghvi, owner and operator of the newsstand located on the northeast corner of Ninth and Market Streets. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to construct and maintain electrical and fiber conduit appurtenances to the above newsstand. The locations of these proposed underground connections are in and under the public right-of-ways of Ninth Street and Market Street. The purposes of these utility connections are for lottery sales, which results in queues on the sidewalk, causing unsafe conditions for pedestrians. Therefore, the Department of Streets does not recommend passage of this bill.
Could you tell us 31 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990145 again why the Department of Streets has this position.
The administration of the Department of Streets' position is the unsafe queueing of the pedestrians on the sidewalk to purchase lottery tickets. The access on some of these newsstands is in front of the stand, causing a limited access for pedestrians walking down the street.
The Department doesn't think it's that possible people might queue up for other things, just for lottery tickets.
I'm just trying to figure out again why the Department is opposed to this.
Because I think in the purchasing of the lottery tickets, I think there's a time factor where sometimes people will purchase a significant number of tickets, and it does require a lot of time. But I also think that the one thing -- 32 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990145 and I appreciate what the concerns of the Streets Department is. When it comes to very narrow sidewalks, sometimes even the purchasing -- I think in some cases, we probably shouldn't even have newsstands there at all, and we've been talking about this with the new design of the newsstands we're looking at for Center City. But I think it's something that we need to look at more carefully, and maybe we'd look at the width of that sidewalk and the conditions of that intersection. It would probably give us a better understanding of whether or not we should pass or, you know, support some of these bills. Councilmember Rizzo?
I can understand Councilman Cohen's concern about the sale of lottery tickets because when he's a senior citizen -- the proceeds of the lottery ticket sales go to senior citizens. Isn't that right? In all seriousness, why do we have just a blanket policy? Why don't we evaluate location by location? I don't think it's fair because, seriously, the proceeds of lottery ticket sales go for a very good cause. And just to have a blanket 33 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990145 statement that all newsstands should be rejected because of the potential of congestion, I don't think is a fair response -- unless you correct me and tell me that look at each one and have a quantitative way of coming to this decision. But just having a blanket decision I don't think is appropriate.
We don't look at each individual stand as far as recommending whether they should be supported for lottery, you're correct, Councilman. That was never in place in the City, as far as I'm aware of in the Streets Department to look at each individual on a case-by-case basis. Hopefully, as Chairman DiCicco said, in the near future, with discussion ongoing with the Newsstand Association, we could possibly allow some modification to our regulations.
Yes. Is there any data on people getting hurt or any accidents happening in and around those newsstands 34 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990145 throughout the city or in the congested areas or smaller sidewalks?
There is data from Traffic Engineering for, I believe -- now I'm not sure if that's on sidewalk injuries or connected with vehicular traffic, but I will find out for you. I know they do in-depth studies for pedestrian and vehicular accidents at different locations throughout the city. As far as this being related to lottery sales, I will check with Traffic Engineering and get back to you on that.
Just for the benefit of members of any members of the audience, this is the recommendation of the Streets Department; it does not mean that City Council will necessarily follow that recommendation. City Council considers that recommendation and, generally, we reject it with respect to the question of these newspaper stands and the selling of lottery tickets. 35 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990159 What the chairman talked about was an effort to bring everybody together on it. There may very well be, as the Chairman and Councilman Rizzo said, some places where it's just inappropriate where there's so little room and maybe there ought not to be a newsstand. And so we're hoping that we'll stop this charade of the Streets Department rejecting it and Council overriding it.
Thank you. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990159, an ordinance authorizing Joseph Stanfa, 1328-30 South Warfield Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19146, owner of the property 1300-04 South Warfield Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19146, to construct and maintain a canopy with support columns on and over the west footway of 36 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990159 Warfield Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, good afternoon Chairman DiCicco and members of City Council. My name is Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, representing the Streets Department in today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990159, this is not an administration ordinance but rather an ordinance by request on behalf of Joseph Stanfa, 1328-30 South Warfield Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19146, owner of the property 1300-04 South Warfield Street, Philadelphia, PA, 19146. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to construct and maintain a canopy with support columns projecting approximately a maximum of 7 feet over the west footway of Warfield Street, with a minimum vertical clearance above the footway of 8-foot-6-inches. The canopy's approximately 19 foot in length and constructed of steel and aluminum. The Department of Streets has reviewed the plan of this property and has no objection to 37 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990165 the passage of this bill.
Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990165, an ordinance granting permission to COSTAR LLC, lessee of the property located at 325 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106, to operate and maintain an open-air sidewalk cafe on the north footway of Chestnut Street, adjacent to 325 Chestnut Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of City Council. My name is Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, representing the Streets Department in today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990165, this is not an administration ordinance but rather an 38 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990165 ordinance by request on behalf of COSTAR Limited Liability Corporation, lessee of the property located at 325 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to operate and maintain an open-air sidewalk cafe encroaching approximately 8-foot-1-inch on the north footway of Chestnut Street, alleviating 8 foot of unobstructed footway for a distance of approximately 35 foot in front of the property 325 Chestnut Street. The Department of Streets has reviewed the plan for this property, and we have no 16 objection to the passage of this bill.
Any questions for this witness from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Hearing none -- We're going to ask for a suspension of the rules. Do we need to do that now or when we read the 39 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990185 bill?
Later on, okay. The clerk will read the title of the next bill. For the record, I'd like to make note that Councilmember Ortiz has now joined us.
Bill No. 990185, an ordinance authorizing Gino DeJesse, the owner of the property 1824 East Passyunk Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19147, to construct and maintain various encroachments onto and over the east footway of 13th Street and the north footway of Passyunk Avenue adjacent to the property 1824 East Passyunk Avenue, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of City Council. My name is Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, representing the Streets Department in today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990185, this is not an administration ordinance but rather an ordinance by request on behalf of Gino DeJesse, 40 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990185 owner of the property 1824 East Passyunk Avenue, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19147. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to construct and maintain the following encroachments adjacent to his property: a fenced-in area for a Dumpster encroaching 4 foot onto the east footway of 13th Street, leaving 8 foot unobstructed footway for pedestrians. The fencing is approximately 10 foot in length. An electrified vestibule encroaching 4 foot onto the north footway of Passyunk Avenue, leaving 8 foot unobstructed footway for pedestrians. The vestibule is mainly to be constructed of masonry and glass and will be 5 foot in length. The Department of Streets has reviewed the plan for this property and has no objection to the passage of this bill.
Any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Anyone else who wishes to testify? (No response.) 41 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990202
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990202, an ordinance authorizing the University of the Arts, owner of the property 211 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102, to construct and maintain an electrified marquee attached to the property 211 South Broad Street and projecting over the east footway of Broad Street, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of City Council. My name is Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, representing the Streets Department in today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990202, this is not an administration ordinance but rather an ordinance by request on behalf of the University of the Arts, owner of the property 211 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to construct and maintain an electrified marquee constructed of wood frame, structural steel, and 42 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990202 glass that projects approximately 16-feet-10-inches over the east footway of Broad Street. The marquee has a vertical clearance above the footway of 10-foot-7-inches and has approximately 21-foot-8-inches in width. The marquee will be located approximately 130 feet south of the south curb line of Walnut Street to a point approximately 151-feet-8-inches from said point. The Department of Streets has reviewed the plan of this property and has no objection to the passage of this bill.
Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Anyone else who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990203, an ordinance authorizing the University of the Arts, owner of the property 211 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102, to construct 43 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990203 and maintain various encroachments onto and over the east footway of Broad Street and the south footway of Walnut Street adjacent to the property 211 South Broad Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of City Council. My name is Mike Longshore, Chief Programs Officer, representing the Streets Department on today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990203, this is not an administration ordinance but rather an ordinance by request on behalf of the University of the Arts, owner of the property 211 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19102. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to construct and maintain various encroachments as follows: 5 rigid awnings constructed of structural steel and fabric, all of which project out from the building line 4-foot-1.5-inches, with a minimum vertical clearance above the footways of 9 foot; 2 awnings encroaching over the east footway of Broad Street and are both 44 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990203 34-foot-11-inches in length. There are three awnings that encroach over the south footway of Walnut Street that are 23-foot-3-inches, 14-foot-2-inches, and 22-foot-11-inches in length, respectively. The architectural embellishments include columns, bases, pilasters, and balustrades and encompass both frontages of the property. They are located onto and over the south east footway of Walnut Street and the east footway of Broad Street. The maximum project of all of the above will be 3 foot and 1/2 inch. The Department of Streets has reviewed the plan for this property and has no objection to the passage of this bill.
Are there any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Bill No. 990204, an ordinance granting permission to Elizabeth M. 45 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990204 Landy, owner and operator of the newsstand located on the traffic island of 13th Street, Passyunk Avenue, and Mifflin Street, to construct, use, and maintain overhead electrical and telecommunication lines from an existing utility pole on the island, over and across the public right-of-way for the purpose of supplying electrical and phone service to her newsstand, under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of City Council. My name is Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, representing the Streets Department in today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990204, this is not an administration ordinance but rather an ordinance by request on behalf of Elizabeth M. Landy, the owner and operator of the newsstand located on the traffic island at 13th Street, Passyunk Avenue, and Mifflin Street. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to construct and maintain electrical and fiber optic conduit and appurtenances to the above newsstand. 46 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990226 The purposes of these utility connections are for lottery sales which results in queues on the sidewalk, causing unsafe conditions for pedestrians and vehicular traffic as well. In light of these safety issues, the Department of Streets does not recommend passage of this bill.
Any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990226, an ordinance amending Section 2 of an ordinance (Bill 19 No. 980045) approved April 13, 1998, entitled "An ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 22 307 by striking from the City Plan and vacating Spring Street from 13th Street to Clarion Street, under certain terms and conditions" therein.
Good afternoon, Mr. 47 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990226 Chairman. My name is Paul Lonie, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill 990226. This is not an administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. P. Zaccaro (ph.), P. Zaccaro Company, Incorporated, 218 Lafayette Street, New York, New York. The purpose of this ordinance is to extend the expiration date of an ordinance approved April 13, 1998. The purpose of that ordinance was to grant the authority to strike Spring Street so that a 270-room affordable hotel serving the Pennsylvania Convention Center can be constructed. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets, and is recommended to your committee for favorable action.
Any questions for this witness from the committee? (No questions.)
Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.)
Hearing none, the 48 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990252 clerk will read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 990252, an ordinance granting permission to Thomas J. Elliot, t/a American Kitchens, 219 Quarry Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106, to construct, use, and maintain a conduit and fiber optic telecommunication cable under and across Quarry Street, east of Bread Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of City Council. My name is Mike Longshore, Chief Permits Officer, representing the Streets Department on today's testimony. In reference to Bill No. 990252, this is not an administration ordinance but rather an ordinance requested by Thomas J. Elliot, t/a as American Kitchens, 219 Quarry Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, 19106. The purpose of this ordinance is to acquire from City Council the permission to construct, use, and maintain a conduit and fiber optic telecommunication cable under and across Quarry Street. This conduit and cable will 49 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990252 connect two buildings owned by Thomas J. Elliot, being 219 Quarry Street and 135 Bread Street, and will supply communications services. The facilities are to be constructed under and across Quarry Street from the property 135 Bread Street beginning at a point approximately 75 feet east of the east curb line of Bread Street and 5-foot-9-inches south of the south curb line of Quarry Street and extending approximately feet north under the entire 12 right-of-way to the building 219 Quarry Street. 13 The plan for this project is pending 14 before the committee of Highway Supervisors, with 15 approvals expected shortly. Therefore, the 16 Department of Streets has no objection to the 17 passage of this bill. 18
Are there any 19 questions for this witness from the committee? 20 (No questions.) 21
Is there anyone 22 else here who wishes to testify? 23
If I may, Mr. Chairman, 24 I'd like to ask for a suspension of rules on all 25 the bills I testified on today to allow for first 50 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 hearing at the next meeting of Council.
Bill No. 990206 has been withdrawn at the request of the sponsor. The final bill is Bill No. 990250, an ordinance authorizing the Commissioner of the Department of Streets to take steps necessary to rehabilitate or replace a retaining wall which is located in the rear of premises 5202 through 5254 Berks Street, inclusive, and in the rear of premises 5201 through 5245 Euclid Street, inclusive; and which has been identified as being in a dangerous and hazardous condition and which constitutes an imminent threat to the health, safety, and general welfare of the public; and authorizing the assessment of the properties legally liable for the aforesaid work.
Excuse me sir, before you begin, Councilman Nutter, would you like to make a statement first or would you rather they proceed with their testimony?
Mr. Chairman I appreciate it. I'll have more to say later. Just that there are a number of 51 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 neighborhood residents who are affected by the current condition either living on Berk Street or Euclid Street. This has been a long-standing problem. I have some documents that I can hand out to members of the committee. We also have some recently-taken pictures of the conditions so that the committee members can get a full appreciation for what these neighbors are dealing with.
Thank you, sir. Please state your name for the record.
My name is Michael Moffitt. And good afternoon, Chairman DiCicco and members of Council. Thank you for allowing is this opportunity to testify regarding the retaining wall between the 5200 block of Berk Street and Euclid Street. And Bill No. 990250, which was introduced to Council by Mr. Nutter on April 22, 1999. This retaining wall urgently needs repair. This is a situation that has persisted 52 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 for over years. The large hole and broken debris poses a serious health and safety hazard to the children and residents of these two blocks. The condition of this wall continues to deteriorate affecting the saleable value of properties in this area. While the saleable value of our homes continues down because of this situation, our taxes based on the saleable value of our properties have continued to rise. Over the years there has been innumerable meetings, and we have been in touch with various City officials, including Councilman Michael Nutter to try to facilitate the repair of this retaining wall. In September 1993, a meeting held was held with Mr. Donald S. Graham, Coordinator of Highway Projects. At that meeting, Mr. Graham stated that the wall is the property of the 5200 block of Euclid Street and that they were solely responsible for initiating repair of the wall. Mr. Graham stated that the wall was condemned by the City in 1975. He also stated that while the primary cause of the collapsible wall was heavy traffic primarily from City trash trucks, and the City takes no responsibility 53 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 because trash is picked up at the invitation of the residents. Under the act of July 11, 1923, P.L. 1032, the City is required to rehabilitate or replace the said retaining wall, correct the dangerous conditions, and assess the cost therefor against the legally liable abutting property owners. This mechanism to repair this wall was clearly in place in 1975 when the wall was condemned. If these repairs were effected at that time, the estimated cost to the residents would have been approximately $11,730. However, since no action was taken to remedy this condition, the cost has soared to the most recent given us in 1993 of $198,000-plus. The actual costs at this point may be much more than this. Regarding financial assessments for the repair of this wall, it is hoped that the block grants and other financial aid will be made available to offset the cost of the repair. Mrs. Marilyn B. Wood indicated that in a letter dated 8/6/93, that in a similar situation in Logan and Roxborough specifically, State assistance and in some instances, federal assistance were made 54 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 available. She also indicated that federal block grants funds obtained through OHCD could be and have been allocated in the past for situations similar to ours. Several of the property closest to the most damaged part of the wall are PHA properties. Thus, Philadelphia has some financial responsibility regarding the repair of this wall as well. These properties were inspected by PHA prior to sale. And in my situation, a thorough itemizing inspection report was rendered prior to sale. This damage should have been repaired prior to sale of the properties. And at the very least, buyers should have been made aware that these repairs were needed prior to the sale of the property; yet this was not the case. We are hopeful that this bill receives a favorable hearing and response from the City Council and that repair of this wall finally be accomplished. Thank you.
Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to 55 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 testify? (Alfred Taylor comes forward.)
Please speak directly into the mike and state your name for the record. Thank you.
Alfred Taylor. I live at 5242 West Berk Street. I've been living at my residence for approximately 34 years. And during that time, the wall has deteriorated, true, but the specific cause of the collapse of the wall and driveway was the trash trucks. Now, they are liable, the City's liable. We own the property but they did the damage. Just like when they're picking your trash out in the front of your house and they damage your sidewalk, the City is liable, whether we invite them or not. Cars will not do damage to a driveway. That driveway has been in deplorable condition for years. If there's a fire there right now, the Fire Department cannot come up there and fight a fire from the back of the house. The dangerous situation causes fearful cause of going into the hole. And the City comes and puts up a barrier. The barrier stays there about five minutes. That 56 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 is not the answer. As the residents, we pay our taxes. The City's liable, and we want some action without it coming out of our pockets because the City is responsible for this damage they did to our yard -- our driveway. And this has been going on for years, back and forth, back and forth. And we want some action but we're not going to pay for damage that we did not do. Thank you.
I couldn't get your name. You'll have to pull the mike closer to you.
My name is Alphonso Rowley. I live in the 5200 block of Euclid Street. The wall in the back of the property, it's in bad shape. You have concrete, hanging concrete, slates of concrete. Kids play back there. The foundation of the wall from the hole, the sand and everything going into people's 57 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 drains, people's drains are clogged up. They are moving out their property. Properties are being vacant. You got rats back there, you got kids hanging out in the back back there. It's a lot of problems back there. We'd like to have all of that corrected because we have a problem. It brings the value of our properties down. We just tied up right now, we just can't do anything. We'd like to have that repaired.
Thank you. Is there anyone else who wishes to testify? The gentleman to my right, are you testifying sir? (Answers off-mike. )
Okay. Any questions from this committee? Councilmember Cohen?
Not a question but comments. The condition described very vividly and clearly is repeated all throughout the City. And I think the City's present policy has to change. We've got to be able to give relief in these situations. 58 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 The City at one time had a whole group of contractors that would bid for the contract, and they would enforce it through a lien procedure. Everybody had to share in the common area, had to share in the payment of the common area. But the City didn't give the contractors any protection. So that when a few people refused to the pay, the City said to the contractors, That's your headache. Gradually, the contractors refused to work with the City because most of the contractors are relatively small businessmen. I think there has to be a thorough review. I think this bill is excellent in that it raises this question, and I think we've got to find a way. And the whole city is interested in it because what leads to blight is this kind of condition. If somebody wants to sell a house, it's almost impossible if the new potential owner comes in and looks at driveway or a retaining wall. And very rarely is it public -- in the last 20 years that I've been in Council as a councilman at large, I know of only one case where individual residents were able to get together and 59 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 get a contractor to do the job. There were lots of headaches and it took many years before it worked. So that's clearly not an answer. We've got to find answer that's fair to the homeowners and is fair to the City and that takes care of the situation. It is a major cause of blight, it is a danger. Two witnesses who have testified to their security and to the safety, because places have to be open so that if there's emergency services needed, the City's Fire Department or police or whoever has to be able to come in. And I think this cries out for immediate attention and I'm very pleased that Councilman Nutter has raised the issue sharply by this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First let me say to my constituents, thank you very much for coming in. We've had a number of discussions, as you've testified to, over the years. This has been a particularly 60 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 perplexing problem, as you know, I've laid out in a number of the meetings. I wanted to share with you -- I had to kind of refresh my recollection on this by going through the file that I have on the Berks-Euclid Street wall. I'm not particularly known for having a lot of files, but I do actually have a file on this one. Somewhere in about March or so of 1992 -- you will recall that I came into office in January of 1992 -- I began pursuing this particular issue. There is a memo from Mr. Lorenzo Krueger, now no longer with the Streets Department, a former bridge engineer. And we did a survey in the March-April 1992 time period. And as the gentlemen testified, the estimate that was derived in 1992 was the $198,000 figure. Although I believe from previous memos as far back as 1975 or so, obviously, the costs were much lower at that time. Now, at least for the record, in 1975, I was just graduating from high school. So I wasn't directly involved in the matter at that time. But in '92 and in '93, and I also believe 61 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 in 1994, whether a series of letters to virtually every governmental entity of the City, state, and federal level or subsequent follow-up with the Streets Department, we have been somewhat perplexed as to how to solve this particular problem. Councilman Cohen is absolutely correct in what he laid out to you, and I've shared with you on a number of occasions, there are certainly some legal issues that are involved. Mr. Taylor raises the issue of possible City liability when you think about the traffic and the weight of cars which are, you know, minimally a couple tons, or maybe one ton, in comparison to the regular usage of this driveway area by heavy sanitation vehicles and the like, and what that may contribute to this particular problem. Now, I think we all know at this moment for a problem that started in the 1975 time period, and now we're in 1999, we might not ever be able to figure out who had the bulk of the responsibility -- whether it's cars owned by residents or whether its trucks owned by the City, but I do not believe we can get away from some 62 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 potential City responsibility and liability. The Streets Department is here and some other agencies. They have information that they want to share with us, and there will be a fair amount of back and forth, I would assume, between Council and the Streets Department about how we get to the point of solving this kind of problem. Because, again, as Councilman Cohen said, the previous system is such that we literally drove people away from doing this work. No one is going to take on this kind of job at 200-some-odd thousand dollars without some assurance that they're going to get paid. I mean, you know, nobody's going to do this out of the kindness of their heart. And the magnitude of this problem. Because I know off the top of my head that I probably have at least four other known locations throughout the district, there could be others. And there's an entire city that is faced with this kind of problem. And so you start developing some rather large numbers of walls and some fairly expensive numbers in terms of repair. We certainly don't mean to hold you 63 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 hostage as we try to solve that problem, but I do ask your indulgence and your sensitivity that to solve your problem, we will have to figure out what we do with the next group that comes in and the next group and the next group and the next group. And so we want to be cautious and we want to be diligent but I am firmly committed to getting a resolution to this particular problem. That is what brings us here today. This is a methodology that has been used many, many years ago.
I found a bill from 1957 where this particular process and procedure was used to fix a wall. And, you know, we're at a little bit of our wit's end, as you are, but you are experiencing much more of the problem than we ever will. And so we are committed, many of us, to trying to find a solution to this problem. I would encourage you, if you can, to stay for the dialogue back and forth between us and the Streets Department. It might help to shed some additional light on this as we try to grapple with solving this problem. But I greatly appreciate your taking the time to come in today for this very serious matter. 64 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 Thank you.
Just a couple of observations. First, this matter has been so buried by the City administration that about three years ago, shortly before the other David Cohen -- the David L. Cohen, Mayor Rendell's assistant -- was meeting with a group of Councilmembers, and I raised this issue at the meeting. He looked totally blank. It had been covered so deeply that no one had ever brought it to his attention. He did not know there was -- he went, What is this problem you're talking about driveways and retaining walls? He had said that nobody had ever -- it had never through the City administration had ever reached the top levels. This -- I can assure you, with Councilman Nutter as the watchdog, I can assure this is going to get to the highest levels. Now, I think offers -- while it's a very difficult thing for the City, it also offers a wonderful opportunity. We're looking for jobs 65 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 for people coming off welfare. We have thousands and thousands of untrained workers, you know, available for work. The unemployment rate is still very high on unskilled work. It seems to me that this would offer a great opportunity if it's necessary for the City to incorporate some kind of a local work program that would have this as a main objective. I think it would keep the costs way down and it would be a tremendous service -- not only to the people doing the work but to the whole city. And I recommend that, Councilman Nutter, for your consideration as one of the approaches that might be used.
Yeah, I identify myself with the statements of Councilman Nutter and Councilman Cohen. My thing is a question. I have in front of me testimony that says that some of these properties are owned by PHA and that there should be some sort of responsibility and that the most damaged parts are next to the PHA properties, and 66 5/10/99 STS. & SVS. - BILL 990250 the PHA bears some responsibilities along these lines. I just want to know what's the role and what is going to be asked of PHA, if any, to come into this issue.
Councilman, I think my response and my experience has been, the magnitude of this problem, and we have the pictures up here and, I mean, pictures certainly do tell some of the story; an actual site visit would tell you even more. But when we have the engineers up, I think part of their testimony is probably going to be that you really do have to repair the entire wall and you would not even be able to really spot-repair something like this. So I believe that all of the property owners will have to be involved, whether they are private citizens or other governmental agencies. There is no getting around it. I think that if we're going to try to go through this effort, you have to have complete replacement. And PHA, like everyone else, would have to step up to the place.
Mr. Chairman, I'd also mention that I'd like to have evidence in the record as if it were read, and copies have been given to the committee members. There is a memo from Raymond Havey from the Streets Department 7th Survey District to me, dated 5/4/99, with some copies of previous estimates and work that was done by the Streets Department that ascertains which blocks are responsible for either for the retaining wall or the adjacent driveway. There's a copy of a document that the Streets Department produces on alleys, driveways, retaining walls, and the like that talks about responsibility of homeowners and processes that a city like Philadelphia, a city of the first class, can take to try to deal with these issues. And I just ask that these documents be attached and become a part of this record.