Following Councilmember-at-large Rue Landau’s call to review Philadelphia’s outdoor dining regulations, a hearing was held at City Hall last Friday, with testimonies from restaurant owners, industry advocates, and city officials on the approval and licensing of streeteries.
Popularized during the pandemic, streeteries provided restaurants a lifeline against restrictions on indoor dining, with curbside structures erected by approximately 800 businesses across the city during the height of COVID-19.
That number has since been decimated by new regulations introduced through the city’s Outdoor Dining Program, which restaurant operators have said are inequitable and prohibitively expensive. They’ve also described the updated licensing process, requiring approvals from various city departments, as needlessly disjointed.
Presiding over Friday’s hearing were Councilmembers Landau, Kendra Brooks, Jim Harrity, and Jeffery Young, Jr., with a brief appearance by Mark Squilla. Among those testifying were Ben Fileccia of the Pennsylvania Restaurant and Lodging Association, who had collected written statements from several restaurateurs, and Mike Carroll, deputy managing director for Transportation and Infrastructure.
“We recognize that there’s room for improvement and we’re committed to making those improvements, as long as we keep safety as the number one priority,” Carroll said of the city’s regulations on outdoor dining. “We’re always open to continue the discussion on how to make this program better.”
Here’s some of the main points discussed during the hearing.
Approvals vs active licenses
Responding to a question from Councilmember Landau as to why so few of the businesses approved for streeteries by the Streets Department had been granted licenses, Carroll clarified that each of the involved departments has its own criteria for approval — a business might have met the Street Department’s requirements before being held up in obtaining a building permit from L & I or a sign-off from the city’s Art Commission, for example.
“Ultimately,” Carroll said, “it’s the responsibility of the business itself to get that license.”
He added there was a tendency by some business owners to not complete the licensing process, either based on an incorrect assumption that a Streets Department approval was sufficient to move ahead, or due to a lack of ability, or willingness, to pay the licensing fee.
A convoluted application process
Businesses seeking approvals for streeteries or sidewalk cafes are directed by the city to use the Streets Department’s Formstack application as well as L & I’s online platform, eCLIPSE. A dual process that has been criticized as unnecessarily convoluted and hard to track by restaurant operators and councilmembers attending Friday’s hearing.
“People open up restaurants because they like food and can cook, not necessarily [because they’re] business savvy and techy,” noted Councilmember Kendra Brooks, with Landau asking if there were considerations for simplifying the process.
“I’m open to suggestions on that,” Carroll replied, later adding, “when we get the specific issue where people are stuck, we can work with that…but we’re not hearing specific issues, we’re hearing general frustration, and there’s a difference in what we can do with that.”
A visual guide on licensing and acceptable structures, available online and linked in the Street Department’s application form, has also been described by license-seekers as confusing.
“The roads weren’t built with the idea that people were going to build little buildings in them,” Carroll explained. “So, there’s a reason for all that complexity.”
Requirements are costly, and time consuming
Licensing fees are $1,750; streetery construction can cost tens of thousands of dollars. Co-owner of New Wave Café in Queen Village Nate Ross told the councilmembers he’d invested $25,000 in his outdoor structure, while William Reed, co-owner of Johnny Brenda’s, Standard Tap, and the International said “we basically had architects on retainer.”
Speaking on the review process, Carroll said 14 days are given to look over professionally designed proposals, and 30 for hand-drawn sketches.
“We can’t just give comments back and walk away, we need to see another submission,” he said. “So, that starts a new clock.”
The protracted back-and-forth between various departments, the business owners said, results in additional lost revenue.
During his testimony, bar and restaurant consultant Jason Evans offered to show council a 32-message email chain between him and the city, spanning the course of a year, over the completion of a single sidewalk café.
“The process seems to be decentralized, and it can be quite challenging for those who do not have experience in navigating multiple city departments all at once,” Evans said.
Streamlining communication
Asked by Councilmember Jeffery Young, Jr. how the city could best streamline the process, Ben Fileccia of the PRLA suggested a liaison to serve as a single point of contact for business owners seeking licenses, and to provide onsite assessments that can be addressed immediately “instead of going back and forth for six months to a year.”
While agreeing that a single point of contact makes sense, Carroll pointed out budgetary constraints would need to be considered. “We had the expectation that this program was going to pay for itself…and that hasn’t panned out, frankly,” due in part to a lower number of applicants completing the process than anticipated, he said.
“There is a calculation that we need to make on how much we invest, and how much we put on the table,” he suggested.
Safety and public nuisance concerns
Safety remains the city’s priority regarding outdoor dining, Carroll stressed throughout the hearing, emphasizing the need to maintain right of way for emergency and maintenance services while adhering to state and federal regulations.
When Young mentioned that New York City streeteries aren’t required to have crash barriers, Carroll explained Philadelphia follows a “different setup,” and that planters are an acceptable substitute if deemed crash-worthy by a professional engineer. He added that there had been fatalities in incidents of vehicles crashing into NYC streeteries.
Young asked where the blame would lie should a similar incident occur in Philadelphia, Carroll answered it would depend on the situation, “but we cannot, as a city, assume we wouldn’t be held liable,” should a plaintiff argue the accident was the result of approved yet flawed streetery design.
Carroll cited additional concerns of streeteries being used after business hours for illegal activities like encampments, drug use, and prostitution.
Lighting and heating
A challenge brought up by restaurant operators was the prohibition against enclosed propane heaters and electric extensions between storefront and streetery, which the city says constitute fire and tripping hazards.
“We know how to do this according to code, and safely,” argued Johnny Brenda’s co-owner Reed, before agreeing with New Wave Cafe’s Nate Ross’ claim that well-lit, populated streeteries make for “the safest corners in the city.”
In his closing statement, Carroll explained the expectation was for business owners to use portable power sources. “Power packs for lighting [are] perfectly acceptable.”
Corner distance
Streeteries must maintain a distance of 30 feet from any corner, which several business owners have argued is unfeasible (the city is estimated to have 70-80,000 corners). The mandate, Carroll explained, is set by the Pennsylvania Vehicle Code.
“I can appreciate what’s frustrating for the average citizen, or especially a restaurant, is that if you go around the city, you will see parked cars in that space,” he said, “which is illegal.”
In response, Young proposed efforts be made towards flexibility, either in state laws or building requirements to allow for lowered streetery roofs and clearer sightlines. Later in the hearing, Nate Hommel, director of planning and design at University City District, suggested mirror attachments to the structures for increased visibility.
Expansion into adjacent lots
Restaurant operators are also prohibited from expanding their outdoor structures across adjacent lots, even with the permission of the neighboring property owner; a restriction Young questioned.
“It came down to disputes we were seeing,” Carroll said, where “the city was being put in the role of adjudicating between neighbors, between landlords and tenants.” Problems arose, he said, with property owners agreeing to conditions their tenants would then take issue with. “We were getting drawn into trying to sort that out, and we weren’t set up to do that.”
Accessibility
Streeteries and sidewalk cafes offer more dining opportunities for those with accessibility needs, restaurant owners argued during the hearing, with Councilmember Landau referring to her own experiences with her wheelchair-bound father and the frustrations faced at indoor establishments where “it was just too cumbersome to get him in.”
The only member of the public to testify, Graduate Hospital resident Paul Lipton made a case for his wife, who suffers from hyperacusis and finds indoor dining too loud to enjoy.
“I can’t see, economically, I can’t see in terms of our quality of life of citizens, why we aren’t leaning into [outdoor dining] more,” Lipton said.
Zoning
Currently, streeteries and sidewalk cafes are only allowed in certain neighborhoods. Any business situated outside the permissible zone — located mostly in Center City — needs an additional ordinance from city council before pursuing an outdoor dining license.
It’s a setup that’s “inherently inequitable,” Cassidy Martin, executive director of the Northern Liberties Business Improvement District, said since the permissible zones had been largely advocated for by their respective business improvement districts, which some neighborhoods lack.
Carroll explained the logic behind the zoning was partially to allow councilmembers of more outlying or residential districts the chance to weigh in before being “blindsided” by outdoor structures and potential conflict.
Simplified set ups, parklets, and standardized models
The Streets Department, Carroll said, strongly advises business owners to “set up only tables and chairs, with crash barriers,” rather than erect structures — an arrangement requiring neither an L & I building permit nor Art Commission approval, while eliminating some of the city’s concerns surrounding safety and illegal activity.
“Our streets aren’t level,” Young pointed out, asking if business owners would be permitted to construct platforms for their set-ups. Carroll responded that while the city offers templates for parklets — public seating platforms with protective barriers — they are often expanded into illegal structures.
Citing the intricate planning and costly construction of streeteries and parklets, UCD’s Nate Hommel proposed the adoption of pre-approved standardized modular options to hasten the process, alleviate the financial burden on owners, and enforce equity among restaurants.
Design Advocacy Group chair Eli Storch pitched a similar suggestion during his testimony, proposing the consideration of resilient, lightweight construction material for streeteries, like aluminum or fiberglass.
Moving forward
Speaking with Billy Penn after the hearing, Landau said the next step would be a review of the day’s testimonies along with the written submissions her office has received.
“I think there was consensus amongst the restaurateurs that the process is complicated and burdensome and needs to be streamlined,” she said. “They don’t want to get caught or cited for anything; they want to make sure that they’re doing it right. So, let’s make it easy for them.”
