COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, February 28, 2007 10:30 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, CHAIR COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN RAMOS BILLS 060898, 060899, 060900, 070016, 070050, 070074, 070078 and 070046 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good morning. I'm sorry for the delay. We do have a quorum. To my left is the Council President, who by virtue of her title is a standing member of all committees. To my immediate right is the Vice-Chair of this Committee, and to his right, Councilman Ramos' right, is Councilman Clarke. So we do have a quorum, and at the request of the Council President, we will hear the bill concerning the South Street Bridge first.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: She does have another appointment and we'd like to get on with that hearing first.
Bill No. 060893, an ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan by placing on the City Plan South Street from its current terminus northwest of the northwesterly Pierhead and Bulkhead Line of the Schuylkill River 3 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. to the northwesterly Pierhead and Bulkhead Line of the Schuylkill River, widening South Street by eight feet on the northeasterly side from 32nd Street to the northwesterly Pierhead and Bulkhead Line of the Schuylkill River, widening South Street on the southwesterly side by eight feet from Convention Avenue to the northwesterly Pierhead and Bulkhead Line of the Schuylkill River, placing a certain triangular portion on the westerly corner of Convention Avenue and South Street, placing a certain triangular portion at the intersection of the southwesterly side of South Street and the southeasterly side of the CSX Railroad Right-of-Way line, and by widening the northeasterly side of South Street by a variable width from the southeasterly Pierhead and Bulkhead Line of the Schuylkill River to a point approximately 254 feet west of the westerly side of 27th Street. 4 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Syrtain, would you -- Syrnick. I'm listening to the Council President. I apologize.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. My name is Joseph Syrnick and I am the President and CEO of the Schuylkill River Development Corporation, SRDC. I've provided copies of my testimony, so perhaps you have it in front of you and I hope the court stenographer has it also. As I hope you know, SRDC is a non-profit corporation seeking to redevelop and, therefore, revitalize the lower Schuylkill River. I come here today to testify in support of Bill 21 070046 and, in a more general sense, in support of the expeditious reconstruction of the South Street Bridge. In the spirit of full disclosure, I mention for the record that 5 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. I was a City employee for 34 years working out of the Department of Streets, the last years as the City's Chief 5 Engineer and Surveyor where I had 6 significant responsibility and 7 involvement with the South Street Bridge 8 project. 9 Members of the Committee, this 10 bridge reconstruction is sorely needed 11 and it is needed as soon as possible. 12 The existing bridge is old and 13 deteriorating. It will continue to 14 deteriorate until it is replaced. 15 The project has been in design 16 for 11 years. The design is close to 17 being completed and the project is 18 scheduled for bid in the summer. It would not be in the public interest to delay it. Having said that, I understand that recently there have been some concerns raised by different people about different issues. While everyone has a right to his or her opinion, I'd like to 6 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. provide my thoughts on this project for your consideration. Concern No. 1: There has been little or no public involvement on this project. That's the concern. In fact, there have been public meetings on this project. April 17, 1996, Meyerson Hall, University of Pennsylvania; March 29, 1999, the Alumni Hall in the Faculty Club at 36th and Walnut Street. There were actually two sessions of this meeting, one at 3:00 and one at 7:00, to accommodate the schedules of those who wanted to attend. August 6, 2001, South Street West Civic Association, held at Greater St. Matthews Church on Grays Ferry Avenue; September 30, 2003, a meeting for the South Street folks that was held in the offices of Odunde on Grays Ferry Avenue. At all these meetings the status of the project was discussed, issues were raised, questions were answered as best they could be, and all 7 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. concerns were considered by the design team subsequent to the meetings. Not every concern or suggestion was able to be accommodated. In fact, many were contradictory. But many suggestions were incorporated into the design. For example, a ramp and stairway to the Schuylkill Trail, not originally part of the project, were included as part in the project. Overlooks were added to allow pedestrians to stop and view the river and the skyline. Following these meetings, in late 2003, the Streets Department completed the preliminary design phase, the phase where you work out the concept for the facility, and then they moved on to final design, the phase where you take the selected concept and develop contract or bid documents. Recently, on January 8, 2007, a public meeting was held at Greater St. Matthews Church. It is my understanding that the Streets Department scheduled 8 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. this meeting at the request of the community to inform them of the status of the project, the design portion of which is near completion. It was not, as I understand it, an invitation to completely abandon the work that has been done to date and start over from scratch. Concern No. 2: The City has made no effort to consider the architecture and aesthetics of this bridge. Again, not correct. From the inception of the design, the City has been acutely aware of and sensitive to the history, architecture, aesthetics and the operation of the bridge.
The design team includes H2L2 Architects, a highly regarded architectural firm that, in the not so distant past, won accolades for its work on the Germantown Avenue Bridge over Wissahickon Creek, another controversial project that turned out really well. H2L2 traces its heritage to Paul Cret, generally regarded as one of 9 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Philadelphia's most accomplished architects, who did a fair amount of bridge work in the 1920's, including the Benjamin Franklin Bridge over the Delaware River and the 34th Street Bridge over the Schuylkill just down river from South Street. H2L2 has developed a scheme currently being proposed which has been approved by the Philadelphia Art Commission, the Philadelphia Historical Commission and the University of Pennsylvania. Architecture is like art. What some folks like others do not. M. Pei's glass pyramid at the entrance of the Louvre was widely panned when first built. Now it is an icon for the building. There is a similar story with the Eiffel Tower. It, too, was initially rejected by the Parisian public, with many calling it an eyesore. Now, 200 million visitors later, it is hard to visualize the City of Lights without it. 10 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. The design for the South Street Bridge is unique and daring. The City knew that it would generate a wide range of opinions. SRDC believes it will be a striking signature gateway whether viewed from above or below. Others may disagree. That's their right. But it is not correct to say that no attention was paid to how the bridge will look. Concern No. 3: The construction will cause traffic problems in the area and the City has done nothing about it. The reconstruction of this bridge will necessitate closing it for 16 months, possibly longer. This will cause 17 traffic problems, as the bridge and the 18 interchange traffic is diverted to other routes. My experience is that this congestion will be most severe during the period right after the closure. After a week, maybe two, traffic will begin to sort itself out by finding the best alternate route. But this is an important roadway, one of a limited 11 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. number of crossings of the river. It carries 21,000 vehicles a day. At best, the detour will be a major inconvenience. But it won't last forever, and once the bridge opens, traffic will be back to normal, maybe better than normal. But knowing all this, the Department of Streets wisely applied for a transportation grant to improve traffic signals at 42 intersections along detour routes. This project will cost $4 million and will be funded primarily with federal funds. This work will optimize traffic flow at these intersections. It won't be perfect but rather a good-faith effort made by the Department to make it tolerable. Concern No. 4: Pedestrians are being ignored; the sidewalks are too narrow. The sidewalks are narrower than I would prefer. The Department evaluated alternatives that would have resulted in a wider off-roadway area accommodating bikes and pedestrians together. This 12 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. plan had its own issues and the Department could not get the support from the very interest groups who were the intended beneficiaries of this concept. But accommodations have been made. The street lighting fixtures have been placed behind the parapet walls, thus not taking up any sidewalk space. Overlooks have been constructed at the bridge towers for those who want to linger. A widened collection area is proposed at the expressway ped crossings to provide a safer refuge for pedestrians who queue during the red interval. Again, maybe everyone doesn't like everything, but it is not fair to say that no consideration was given to these issues. Mr. Chairman, this bridge has been in design for 11 years. It's time to move forward. The existing bridge is on its last legs.
We need to move the project to construction before the City closes the existing bridge for safety 13 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. reasons. That would introduce all the traffic disruptions but without any solution in sight. If this bridge were to be delayed, other projects that need additional funding will look to borrow money from South Street. That's the way the system works. If you need additional funding for a project, identify one that isn't moving and borrow some of its funding. This bridge is a vital link between Center City and University City. It is close to and used by vehicles heading to the Children's Hospital and the Hospital of the University of Pennsylvania. There is no guarantee that a delay or a redesign would change anything. You still have the expressway to contend with. You still have CSX, Amtrak, SEPTA and the freight railroad highline. You still have the proposed ramp to the Schuylkill Trail. We live in a world of 14 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. alternatives. We can stop or we can move ahead. I vote we move ahead. Members of the Committee, these are my thoughts. I appreciate you allowing me to express them. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
I did also give you some photographs of the proposed there, which I'm sure you've seen before, but, again, it seems like a nice-looking bridge to me. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Syrnick, for your very informative testimony. Council President Verna.
Thank you very much, Mr. Syrnick. I truly appreciate your coming in this morning to testify, and I think you have outlined the number of community meetings there were and the input of the concerns of the area residents. I thank you for that.
Thank you. 15 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Syrnick, if I can, in your previous life when you worked for the Streets Department in your capacity as Chief Engineer, what is your assessment of the condition of the bridge today in terms of the issue of public safety?
Again -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Putting the design issues aside, because you're right, you're never going to get a unanimous opinion on whether the structure is -- because beauty is in the eye of the beholder, as they say. What I may like someone else may not, but I'm more concerned and I think this Committee is more concerned with the issue of public safety. And in your professional view as a former Chief of Survey and Engineering for the Streets Department, could you give us an assessment of that?
The bridge is old. It's clearly deteriorating. As you know, there have been some problems on it 16 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. with punch-throughs. The Streets Department has been monitoring this bridge weekly for several years. It is safe to drive over today. If it were not, they would close the bridge. But we are -- it's a situation where you are always holding your breath that you won't have another punch-through. It's a pain in the neck to go fix these things when it happens, but keep an eye on it all the time. If we were to delay this new bridge for any significant length of time, my guess is at some point someone would say this bridge is no longer safe to travel on and recommend closing it. The Department would always err on the side of safety, as they should, and I think that's what would happen. So right today it's okay, but it is on its last legs. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's certainly safe to say that its conditions aren't getting any better; they're just 17 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. going to continue to get worse and that the more punch-throughs, the more deterioration, the more likelihood is that the condition of the bridge will just worsen and at some point -- and I'm not putting words in your mouth. I'm asking the question -- at some point it's your determination that the bridge would have to be closed anyway?
That's my position, yes. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Council President.
No. 16 That's it. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
Good morning. For the record, my name is Rina Cutler. I'm the Deputy Secretary for Administration for Pennsylvania Department of Transportation. To my right is Chuck 18 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Davies. He is the Assistant District Executive in Region for PennDOT and the 4 former Chief Bridge Engineer for PennDOT. 5 I'd like to just say a few 6 things. I was not here for the first part of this hearing, although I do understand that my comments were read into the record, so I will not read them again unless you need me to. I would like to just say a couple of things. PennDOT has been working very closely with the City for 11 years as it relates to trying to replace this bridge. It has recently, probably 30 to 60 days, has been posted with weight restrictions in order to try to keep from having to close it altogether. We expect that to help, but the condition of this bridge is such that we consider it to be a serious public safety issue. We agree with Joe Syrnick that we think it is safe at the moment. The fact that it's been monitored weekly for some number of years should give you some 19 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. indication of our concern. And we believe that if we do not get this project out to bid this year, which requires you to pass the piece that is in front of Council, that it is entirely likely that the deterioration will continue and continue quickly. We do concede there will be traffic problems once the bridge is closed for construction. It is certainly our very strong desire to not have to close it and not go into construction. It will be closed anyway for some 15 months, probably a little longer to 16 complete the problem. We do not want to 17 tell the City to close this bridge 18 because we don't think it's safe anymore. So from a public safety perspective, it is crucial that we get the bridge out to bid this calendar year. That requires certain pieces to occur before we are able to put it out for letting, in our language. And it is a very tight schedule 20 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. right now. There were several pieces that were in danger of moving that schedule off its current track. The problem with moving it off its current track is, we've got it scheduled at the moment not only for this year's letting in terms of securing the funding but also because we recognize that it's going to cause traffic problems, we do not want to have to go an extra construction season. As you are aware, we do not get to do construction normally 12 months of the year. If we get it to letting in December, we are able to give a notice to proceed to the contractor so that they are ready to begin in the spring. That allows us to get the most number of months in for construction and to try to get it open in the next cycle. If this slips, we will end up not being able to start early enough in the spring and are likely to need to keep it closed for an additional construction season. We will need those extra months. 21 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. So for me, this has a number of issues here and I am here to strongly support the passage of the legislation, which will allow us to go to letting this year, allow the City to go to letting this year. Eleven years of design has increased the cost of this structure somewhere -- the original price we looked at for reconstruction of this bridge was $40 million. Eleven years now later we are now up to $52 million. It has been very difficult to try to secure the additional funding to get us to that $52 million level, and so we are concerned that any increase in time and design will start to add dollars to that. Any dollars that get added to the South Street Bridge get taken off other City projects, as there is only a specific amount of money available each year. So for the purposes of PennDOT, first and foremost for us, this is a public safety issue. We believe the 22 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC.
bridge will continue to deteriorate and in its current condition will start to deteriorate more quickly. Secondly, the notion of a redesign is going to add time and cost to an already very expensive project that has increased in cost somewhere around $12 million during its 11-year design schedule. Thirdly, we recognize there will be traffic problems when we close this bridge, at least until folks who know their way around figure out the best way to move around. We would prefer not to have to keep it closed for additional time in order to make the construction schedule. So it is my firm hope that Council will move this forward as quickly as possible and that we can begin the project on schedule and on time. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. In your testimony you mention about we've 23 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. already put restrictions on weight, which means obviously trucks or whatever that are in excess of a certain amount of tonnage are no longer permitted. Can anyone speak to what the percentage of vehicles that speaks to, the number of vehicles that are now already being diverted?
Mr. Chairman, the posting on the bridge presently is six tons, as indicated by its condition and by a standardized bridge inspection. The typical weight capacity of a new bridge should be in excess of 40 tons. The six-ton posting eliminates all heavy vehicles, trucks, local deliveries, buses, heavy vehicles of all kinds. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So six tons is the maximum you're allowing now?
Six tons is -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: As opposed to what would be the normal 40 tons?
That's correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is it safe 24 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. to say as the condition of the bridge continues to deteriorate, that it's very likely that the tonnage will get even lower, causing more traffic or other vehicles to have to be diverted away from the bridge?
In fact, I'm not sure, Councilman, that there is lower. If the deterioration were to continue, we believe we would be required to shut the bridge altogether. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. That's important to know. Thank you. Madam President.
Thank you. Ms. Cutler, in your opinion, what is the drop-dead date that you think this Committee would have to report this bill out?
Oh, last month. That's what I thought. I know that we have enough on the record, but I just want to make something very, very clear. I'm not going to play chicken with the Broad Street Bridge, because I know that -- South Street Bridge, because I know if I do, there's one of my colleagues sitting at this table who will be jumping in to try to get that money to have a bridge in his district reconstructed. I know that for a fact. I'm not going to sit by and allow upwards of $10 million in state funding to go to another location. And it really disturbs me that we have a few architects that don't like the design of the bridge. I'm concerned about one thing: safety, safety for the motor vehicles, safety for the pedestrians and safety for the people who really love to use their bicycles over the bridge. Negotiations require two sides that are willing to sit down and talk. 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Without putting this bill out of Committee, there is no reason for people opposed to the bridge to come to the table. Therefore, I am going to ask this Committee to please report the bill out of Committee today without a suspension of the rules. I am amenable to not holding a vote on this bill for a period of time to allow the negotiations on this issue. I think 11 years has been a long time to negotiate. I think as Mr. Syrnick said, there have been meeting upon meeting, and, as I said, I'm not an architect, but this looks absolutely beautiful to me. I think that we have to move forward. Thank you very much, and I do appreciate your coming in from Harrisburg to testify.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. And for the record, it 27 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. was earlier reported that the bill number for this particular bill was 060893. That needs to be corrected. The bill 5 number is 070046, for the record. Any questions for these witnesses from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify today? We don't have a witness list, so if you want to testify, I would ask people who are either affiliated with PennDOT and/or the City if they're testifying to come forward first. If not, the general public is welcome to come to the witness table as well. (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The new number is 070046. Seeing none, I will ask Mr. Abernathy to read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 070016, an ordinance amending Title 11 of The 28 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Philadelphia Code, entitled "Streets," by prohibiting the construction or establishment of curb cuts for vehicular access to certain shopping areas, under certain terms and conditions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good morning, Councilman.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman. This is not an Administration ordinance. It's an ordinance on behalf of the residents particularly in close proximity to the Leo Mall on Bustleton Avenue just below Byberry, and four of them are here this morning and one of them will speak for the neighbors, but I just wanted to give you some background. The Leo Mall has been there longer than I've been in City Council, which is quite a while, and fronts on Bustleton Avenue. It's a signalized intersection, very wide. The street is very wide there. It widens right -- I don't know if you've ever been to 29 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Michelangelo's Bacci Courts, but they're right above that entrance. Historically, the shops and the stores at the Leo Mall all faced north. The back of them ran along Hendrix Street, which is the side street that cuts into Bustleton Avenue just south of the Leo Mall. The closest northern street is Byberry Road up a bit above the mall. There were service entrances to the back of some of those stores off of -- but they weren't entrances to the shopping center. There was a series of different big-box stores in one of the locations backing up to Hendrix. The last was a K-Mart. K-Mart went under, left for whatever reason, and Home Depot announced they were coming in, but they were going to shift their store. They were going to take down the K-Mart store, shift their store to face Bustleton Avenue. It sounded like a nice idea. It had more visibility to the main street. And they 30 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. indicated at one community meeting because they had zoning -- it was an Area Shopping Center zoning -- that the truck traffic would come in off the Bustleton Avenue intersection. And at the Somerton Civic Association, people were pretty happy with the new store coming in and Home Depot being fairly close to where they lived. As construction ensued, it became clear that Hendrix Street was no 12 longer a little service entrance to the back of stores. They had a 30-plus-foot-wide driveway on Hendrix Street right across from twin homes and a little side street that comes off called Hendrix Terrace right across from this driveway that will be a major entrance and exit for people who want to avoid Bustleton Avenue, which is just about everybody. And I put this bill in, but I tried to have a meeting last week with Home Depot and the neighbors to see if there was any accommodation that could be 31 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. made. Home Depot basically said, Well, all of our trucks that come to the contractors' entrance at the north end of our mall -- this will be the closest to Byberry, but probably half a mile from Byberry. There's woods and other things above it. Well, the contractors' deliveries will come there and they'll just turn back out and go to Bustleton Avenue, but our lumber deliveries that are going to the garden center on the south side just adjacent to Hendrix Street, we want them to come in off of Hendrix -- and it's one to two tractor-trailers a day -- come in off of Hendrix, drop the lumber off, go behind the building and then go out Bustleton. So all of this is apparently for one to two truck deliveries a day that otherwise would have to go off of Bustleton, turn in front of the store and then make their route behind. And the Home Depot representative said, I ain't closing that driveway. 32 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. This bill had been planned in anticipation that nothing could work, and basically what it does, it prohibits the driveway where there's an Area Shopping Center and it's within 60 feet of homes, of a residential property. And it seems like something we didn't anticipate would happen. I have a lot of Area Shopping Centers in my district. None of them have this situation. The streets are wider or there aren't homes across the way. There's usually a divider.
Like Franklin Mills Mall is an Area Shopping Center, Knights and Woodhaven; Morrell Shopping Center and others. Either the street is very wide and very commercial -- by the way, state highways are not included in this legislation. And there's an exception for any access that's needed on any driveway for Water Department right-of-way, which happens to occur on another driveway here, and if the Fire Department or Police Department needed it for evacuation purposes or 33 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. whatever. But to protect the neighbors, the purpose of the bill is to not have it be a regular ingress and egress, unless -- and there's an exception -- if it's the only entrance. If there's an Area Shopping Center and it's the only entrance, obviously we're not going to shut the shopping center down. The Planning Commission has been doing a scan of Area Shopping Centers. Most of them are in my district. There are others. And to the extent if this bill were waiting to be passed and another one came up, I would discuss it with the District Councilman and either amend the bill to accommodate that or the District Councilman might be very happy that a particular driveway was being closed that heretofore had been open. But I will not impact another district with this without the agreement of the District Councilman. The neighbors are here. And this new Home Depot is scheduled to open 34 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. the end of March, beginning of April, to give you a time frame. The neighbors are here. One of them is speaking for the others, and several who couldn't make it that came to the meeting last week have sent their best wishes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. And for the record, Councilman, I do have a letter that was sent to us for this Committee's review. It's signed by about 60 or so residents who live on either Hendrix Street or, I guess, Centennial Square, which is --
I applaud them, because I just told them if they couldn't come, to contact the members of the Committee and the Chairman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, they're here and they'll be made part of the record.
Okay. The meeting was just a week ago. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. 35 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Sir, would you care to testify?
Councilman, I just want to ask the Councilman a question. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry. Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilman, a question with respect to the size of the Area Shopping Center. I know up in your area you have a number of substantial --
Good question. One of the questions is -- first of all, a lot of shopping centers are not Area Shopping -- they're not zoned Area Shopping Center. There's very few that are actually zoned, because it's got to be usually pretty big. A lot of them are done by a zoning variance. 36 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. But 80,000 square feet is the smallest that is eligible for Area Shopping Center. This shopping center is several hundred thousand square feet. If there is an impact on something -- for instance, say, Broad and Oxford just happens to be something that's been in front of us for a while.
I don't think we'll see Area Shopping Center in that area, but if it were, a contemplated amendment that I would discuss with the District Councilman before this would pass would be to raise it above that and below Leo Mall. That was brought up by the Streets Department. I'm still waiting for the Planning Commission response identifying not only the Area Shopping Centers but whether a side entrance is close to a residential, whether if it is close to a residential it has -- it's on a state highway. 37 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Because a lot of our numbered streets in the City, particularly going through North Philly, South Philly, as I've always heard, they're really state highways. They're designated state highways, even though they may not look like highways. They carry traffic and have been designated for years as state highways. In fact, I have some streets in my district that no one thinks of as a state highway, but when you come to funding and who pays for the repairs of the street when they're repaved and things, it's a state highway. So those issues I've tried to think of. I did not think of the -- until Mr. Denny at the meeting, Charlie Denny, mentioned the size within the Area Shopping Center did I think of it, and the Planning Commission has not gotten back to me yet as of this morning with all the details on the other Area Shopping Centers, but most of the shopping centers in my district are not 38 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Area Shopping Center, just the very large ones, and so it will be interesting to see how it is. But, again, I reiterate, I would never bring somebody into something that they didn't want to be -- a District Councilman wouldn't want to be in.
I understand that. We're actually looking at -- we're in the very early stages of trying to place a shopping center, and I don't know if that's the correct definition, but it's a relatively mid-size shopping facility and it's across from some new homes that we built, and I'm not sure if the 60-feet requirement fits in that particular case, but I'd be concerned, because the North Philadelphia part of my district, actually further south in Center City and Fairmount, there are some small, I guess, like shopping strips, strip malls, and they are like on a residential block, right in the middle of the residential 39 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. block.
Right. The difference is, Area Shopping Center is usually very large. I can only anticipate -- I may be wrong, but if someone were living across a regular 34-foot-wide or narrower street from a major shopping center and they had traffic ingress and egress on a regular basis, they'd be very happy to close off that shopping center exit, assuming that there's a major exit on a major street around the corner. And so it would give a lot of relief. It actually makes sense, although it's being brought up by a specific construction project that was -- that's a change in what's been there for 30-some years. It makes sense not to have these major ingress and egress driveways across from homes.
Okay. Thank you, Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Councilman. 40 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Sir, would you please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Larry Tevelson, T-E-V-E-L-S-O-N. I live at 815 Barlow Street. I thank you for letting me testify today. The situation with the Home Depot is going to greatly affect our community as a whole, basically on a couple issues. One will be noise and one will be safety. The increased traffic, the way the Home Depot is situated now, it's going to be their main entrance and exit, because it's right in front of their property. That's going to make all of their contractors, all of their regular customers go in and out of that street, dumping right off onto Hendrix. As it is right now, there's only one traffic light at Bustleton Avenue. The City has put in some stop signs, but if you go to that 41 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. neighborhood, you'll see that the people disregard the stop signs on a regular basis as it is now. The increased traffic there is just going to be a safety hazard. Right down the block from where this Home Depot is the City put in a park-type thing. It's a City block that has trees. The Councilman has put in a paved bike path around it. It's nearly at certain times of the day impossible to walk across there. People ride their bikes there, walk their dogs. Their kids go there to play and ride their bikes. And I go there every day. At times of the day it's impossible now to cross the street there. With the increased traffic from Home Depot on Hendrix, I guarantee there will be accidents and it will just make the quality of life very difficult. And that's the safety aspect. The other aspect is the noise with the increased traffic. We have houses and people living literally across 42 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. the street, almost within reaching distance of this Home Depot. The noise from their trucks -- Home Depot says it's going to be one or two delivery trucks a day. I worked at Home Depot for nine years previously. That's probably a very small estimate of how many trucks will be there. Once they realize how bad Bustleton Avenue is traffic-wise, they're going to look -- the truckers, who get paid by their time, are going to look for a quicker, easier way to get into that Home Depot, which is going to be Hendrix Street. As it is now, because the traffic on Bustleton and Byberry gets so congested, people use our area as a through-way to get through. I just don't think that because this Home Depot is there that the people's lives in our neighborhood should be adversely affected by the commercial traffic that is now going to be placed on Hendrix Street. It's one thing for having 43 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. people's cars and UPS trucks and whatnot, but just last night one of my neighbors has said that they had an 18-wheeler sitting out there running all night long. Now, I know there's idling laws. I'm a police officer. I know that there's tickets to be done, but that doesn't help for when you're woken up in the middle of the night to an 18-wheeler sitting across from your house. And I just think that -- Home Depot has every right to be there, okay, and it's good for the community as a whole, but this driveway and their entrance and exit literally across from our homes -- we had no choice in the matter, so we're stuck. So this is -- if you're trying to get across the street or trying to get out, I mean, there's a firehouse right next to where we live and at the community meeting, the firemen were having a problem even with their vehicles. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It is 44 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. affecting your quality of life for you and your neighbors. It's obvious.
Greatly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Certainly. Any questions for this witness?
Councilman, Mr. Chair, I do have an amendment that was brought up that -- and I mentioned it in my testimony -- that police, fire emergency vehicles, any government vehicles that need to get access to the property would be excepted, and I think you have a copy of the amendment. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, we do. Thank you. Thank you, Councilman. Mr. Denny.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Charles Denny. I am the Acting Chief Traffic Engineer for the Department of Streets and I'm here to offer testimony on Bill 45 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. No. 070016. The Streets Department cannot support this bill. We are unsure of the ramifications of the bill. We understand the desire to control access from large centers on residential streets. However, The Philadelphia Code, Section 14-309(1) defines the minimum Area Shopping Center District as 80,000 square feet. This would be a lot size of 200 feet by 400 feet. The Leo Mall Center is 750 feet by 890 feet, or 666,500 square feet. This would be eight times the minimum size. We are unsure of the effect of this bill 16 on small shopping centers in older sections of the City with narrow streets as well as well-defined grid patterns. A small shopping center located on a half of a City block measuring 250 by 500 feet totals 125,000 square feet and could be bordered by four one-way streets, and restricting access to a single street could place unfair burden on that street. Our second concern with a 46 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. redeveloped parcel, a developer could choose to keep existing poorly located driveways instead of consolidating driveways to avoid the intention of this bill. The Streets Department would like additional time to review this bill with the Planning Commission to determine the proper size requirement and restrictions. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today and I would be happy to answer any questions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Councilman O'Neill.
Yes. Actually, I think I thanked Mr. Denny in my testimony indirectly when I was speaking to Councilman Clarke for pointing out the potential small size of an Area Shopping Center-zoned district. I have not found one yet, and I thank the gentleman to the extent that I do. Usually they're zoned C-7 or Neighborhood Shopping Center. We'll deal with that. There can be another amendment on first 47 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. or second reading to increase the size. Generally, my experience has been and the Planning Commission has indicated to me that they're pretty large centers that they recommend being zoned Area Shopping Center for different reasons, parking, whatever the requirements are that go into that. Generally, what we would think as neighborhood commercial strips or shopping centers are the ones that Mr. Denny described that have small streets sometimes on both sides of them, that that is a different kind of zoning. But to the extent that I find them -- and there's a very finite number of these, and the Planning Commission is doing the research -- I will make the corrections, if needed. In many cases, we may be correcting a wrong of many years -- and the District Councilmember may agree -- in an area where people have just put up with it because they didn't think there was any relief, where they have a large 48 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. street as the main entrance and they're the shortcut out the side. So I appreciate that. And in terms of future situations where developers may want to somehow take this and make it worse, make their center's entrance and exit a worse situation that would otherwise exist, I can't imagine it, but I do know that when a center is put in for the first time, there is a ton of input through the District Councilmember's office, the local community group and the immediate neighbors, and I'm sure that will be taken into consideration. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Councilman.
But I think as a common-sense thing, this is something we really shouldn't have in the City. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I agree. Thank you. Anyone else here to testify on 49 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. this bill, for or against it? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 070078, an ordinance regulating the direction of movement of traffic on Oxford Street between Broad Street and 13th Street.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. My name is Mark Washington and I'm a District Traffic Engineer with the Department of Streets. I'm here today to offer testimony on Bill No. 070078, a bill 19 regulating the direction of movement of traffic to two-way on Oxford Street between Broad Street and 13th Street. The Streets Department supports the proposed traffic pattern change. The proposed traffic pattern change supports the proposed development at Progress 50 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Plaza. We expect traffic sign and pavement marking work to be completed within three weeks. Thank you for the opportunity to appear before you today. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have at this time. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any questions for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against this bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, I will ask Mr. Abernathy to read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 070074, an ordinance granting permission to Krishna Krupa, LLC, owner and operator of the newsstand located on the northwest corner of Broad and Locust Streets, to construct, use and maintain conduits for fiberoptic facilities in, under and 51 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. across the northwest corner of Broad and Locust Streets for the purpose of supplying electrical service and telephone service to said newsstand. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good morning.
Good morning, Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is William Mautz and I'm a Construction Engineer with the Streets Department. I'm here to offer the following testimony for Bill No. 070074. This bill grants permission to Krishna Krupa, LLC, owner and operator of the newsstand at the northwest corner of Broad and Locust Street, to construct, use and maintain an electrical conduit with electrical service line and a telecommunications conduit with a telephone service line in and under the public rights-of-way for the purpose of supplying electrical and telephone service to the newsstand. The Streets Department has 52 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. reviewed the construction plans for this project and has no objection to the passage of the bill. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness from the Committee? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'd ask Mr. Abernathy to read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 060898, an ordinance authorizing and directing the placing upon City Plan No. 350 of a certain 50-foot-wide and a certain 60-foot-wide right-of-way for water main purposes and drainage purposes in the area northeast of Susquehanna Road and northwest of Verree Road, under certain terms and conditions. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good 53 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. morning again.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill 9 060898. This is not an Administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. Timothy Boles, P.E. of Boles, Smyth Associates, Incorporated, 2400 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, PA 19103. The purpose of this ordinance 16 is to place a right-of-way for water main purposes and drainage purposes so private cost sewer and water lines can be constructed. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions? 54 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify for or against the bill? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, please read the title of the next bill.
Bill No. 060899, an ordinance authorizing and directing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of City Plan No. 359 by placing on the City Plan St. Thomas Drive, on the northeasterly side of Tomlinson Road, at a distance of approximately 158 feet northwest of Hoff and two 25-feet rights-of-way for water main purposes and emergency access purposes at the cul-de-sac of proposed St. Thomas Drive, the first leading in a generally southeasterly direction and the second leading in a generally northwesterly direction, under certain terms and conditions, including the dedication to 55 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. the City, free and clear of all encumbrances, of the bed of St. Thomas Drive.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 11 060899. This is not an Administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. Brett Feldman, Esquire of Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg and Ellers, LLP, 260 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. The purpose of this ordinance 19 is to place St. Thomas Drive on the City Plan to facilitate the construction of 42 single-family homes on approximately a 9.7-acre property. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for 56 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Good morning.
Good morning, Chairman and members of the Streets and Services Committee. My name is Martin Soffer. I am the Director of the Development Planning Division. I am here today to testify on behalf of the City Planning Commission. The purpose of this ordinance 13 is to allow for the placement of a new street; namely, St. Dennis (sic) Drive, and two rights-of-way to allow for emergency access and the construction of 42 new detached dwellings. The Planning Commission approved a preliminary plat of subdivision for this development at its meeting on September 19, 2006. Therefore, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 060899 be approved. Thank you. 57 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, title of the next bill.
Bill No. 060900, an ordinance authorizing the paving of St. Thomas Drive, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. My name is Frank Morelli, Survey Bureau Manager of the Department of Streets, and the Department of Streets would like to offer the following testimony on Bill No. 22 060900. This is not an Administrative ordinance, but an ordinance requested by Mr. Brett Feldman, Esquire of Klehr, 58 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg and Ellers, LLP, 260 South Broad Street, Philadelphia, PA 19102. The purpose this ordinance is to authorize the paving of St. Thomas Drive to facilitate the construction of 42 single-family homes on approximately a 9.7-acre property. This ordinance is supported by the Department of Streets and is recommended to your Committee for favorable action. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone else here who wishes to testify? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing none, Mr. Abernathy, title of the next bill.
That's it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That was it? 59 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. This concludes the public hearing on the Committee of Streets and Services. We will now move into the public meeting. However, we will have to delay that meeting for a few minutes, waiting for the other members of this Committee to return. Thank you. (Pause.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We will reconvene now with the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. The Council President has appointed Councilmember O'Neill to this Committee for the purpose of establishing a quorum. The Chair recognizes Councilman Ramos.
I move that 070046 be reported out of Committee. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been recommended that Bill No. 070046 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. All those in favor signify by 60 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 8 is approved. Councilman Ramos.
I move that Bill No. 060898 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council meeting. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 20 060898 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) 61 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 6 is approved. Councilman Ramos.
I move that Bill No. 060899 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council meeting. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 18 060899 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? 62 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 4 is approved. Councilman Ramos.
I move that Bill No. 060900 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council meeting. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 060900 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) 63 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 3 is approved. The Chair asks for a reading on the amendment to Bill No. 070016.
I move that the amendment as previously described regarding Bill No. 070016 be adopted. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 070016 be approved. All those in favor of the amendment being approved signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The amendment is approved. Councilman Ramos.
I move that Bill No. 070016, as amended, be reported out of Committee with a favorable 64 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council meeting. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 070016, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 20 is approved. Councilman Ramos.
I move that Bill No. 060900 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of 65 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council meeting. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We already did that one.
I'm sorry. I move that Bill No. 070074 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council meeting. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 070074 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? 66 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill 4 is approved. Councilman Ramos.
I move that Bill No. 070078 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at our next Council meeting. (Duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been properly moved and seconded that Bill No. 16 070078 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. All those in favor signify by saying aye. (Aye.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those opposed? (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Bill No. 67 2/28/07 - STREETS - BILL 060898, ETC. 070050 is being held at the request of the sponsor. This concludes the public meeting on the Committee of Streets and Services. Thank you all for attending. (Committee on Streets and Services adjourned at 11:40 a.m.) - - - 68 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on February 28, 2007, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)