NYC Council Transportation Committee Hearing on Lighting, Notifications, Sidewalk Cafes – June 25, 2026

On Thursday, June 25, 2026, the New York City Council's Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, chaired by Councilmember Shaun Abreu, held a hearing to examine five pieces of legislation. The bills addressed lighting under elevated train lines (Int 0845), notification signs for disruptive construction work (Int 0866), seasonal enclosures for sidewalk cafes (Int 0894), sanitation and cleanliness requirements for outdoor cafes (Int 0917), and quarterly installment payments for revocable consent fees (Int 0918). All five introductions received hearings and were laid over by the committee; no votes were taken.

Public Comments & Testimony

• Andrew Rigie (Executive Director, NYC Hospitality Alliance): Expressed support for Int 0894 (seasonal enclosures), stating restaurants pay year-round for sidewalk cafe licenses but cannot fully use them in cold months, and that enclosures would protect jobs and revenue. Supported Int 0918 (quarterly fee payments) as a small-business-friendly option, noting the past DCWP program used quarterly payments. On Int 0917 (cleanliness), requested that first-time violations carry a warning or cure period before monetary penalties, advocating for education over fines.
• Vinny Don (student, Queens High School for the Sciences): Testified in support of Int 0845 and Int 0866, emphasizing that students travel citywide at early and late hours and that dark, unsafe streets and uncertain transportation deter participation in extracurriculars and pose safety risks, especially for students with disabilities.
• Blake Walker (Brooklyn resident): Spoke about a non-agenda issue—proposing a signed bike loop connecting Prospect Park, Coney Island, and Bay Ridge to boost bicycle tourism, noting existing infrastructure but missing signage.

Discussion Items

Int 0845-2026 (Lighting Under Elevated Train Lines) – Sponsored by Councilmember Thomas Henry

• Sponsor’s Position: Councilmember Thomas Henry stated that residents in her district (under the 7 train on Roosevelt Avenue) have long raised safety concerns about dark underpasses linked to illicit activity. The bill would require DOT to assess and install lighting under elevated infrastructure within a defined timeframe, creating accountability and reporting.
• DOT Testimony: Deputy Commissioner Monty Dean said DOT maintains nearly 400,000 streetlights and enhanced lighting at nearly 2,500 locations citywide in 2025, but lighting under elevated trains is uniquely challenging due to shadows, vibration, structural limits, and coordination with utilities and MTA. DOT expressed concern that the bill’s requirement for “distinctive” lighting could slow implementation and increase costs, and preferred to continue addressing requests on a complaint basis. DOT noted they would need separate surveys to assess additional fixture needs beyond LED replacements.
• Q&A: Councilmember Thomas Henry asked about current practices—DOT confirmed lighting upgrades are complaint-driven. Councilmember Justin Sanchez asked about attaching lights to elevated rail structures; DOT cited vibration and power issues but agreed to explore possibilities. Councilmember Phil Wong raised concerns about trestles (e.g., CSX, LIRR) and long repair times; DOT acknowledged delays and committed to faster responses.

Int 0866-2026 (Notification Signs for Disruptive Work) – Sponsored by Councilmember Epstein

• Sponsor’s Position: Councilmember Epstein’s written remarks (read by Chair Abreu) said the bill would require posted signs within 500 feet of planned disruptive work at least 48 hours in advance, including contact info, to increase transparency and accessibility. She noted ongoing discussions with DOT to amend the bill to require the permit holder (not DOT) to post signs.
• DOT Testimony: Jeffrey Malamy (Director of Street Improvement Projects) said DOT already uses multiple notification tools (flyers, street ambassadors, variable message signs, community board outreach) and believes existing practices meet the bill’s goals. He expressed concern that additional signage requirements could slow construction and raise costs, and that the bill’s definition of “disruptive work” is overly broad. DOT is open to further conversations to refine triggers for notice.
• Q&A: Councilmember Thomas Henry asked about current notice for work lasting seven days; DOT described its suite of outreach methods. DOT acknowledged no standard definition of “disruptive work” but said outreach is tailored to project scope. DOT estimated that additional signage would require printing, installation, and removal resources, potentially diverting staff from other engagement.

Int 0894-2026 (Seasonal Enclosures for Sidewalk Cafes) – Sponsored by Councilmember Brewer

• Sponsor’s Position: Councilmember Brewer said the bill, suggested by the Hospitality Alliance, would allow restaurants to install high-quality winter vestibules (removable vertical screenings and overhead coverings) from October 1 to March 31, providing clear guidance for businesses currently unsure of what is allowed.
• DOT Testimony: DOT expressed support for the bill’s goals and noted that sidewalk cafes are already permitted to use overhead coverings under existing rules. However, DOT suggested modifying the timeline to align with broader winterization discussions for roadway cafes, and recommended treating sidewalk and roadway requirements consistently to avoid confusion. DOT anticipated no significant implementation costs.
• Q&A: Councilmember Christopher Marte asked about replicating sidewalk winterization on the roadway; DOT said early discussions are exploring temporary siding for wind and snow protection, with matching dates and materials. On enforcement of SLA agreements or community board stipulations, DOT clarified that state SLA requirements are outside its jurisdiction and that it cannot enforce hours-of-operation conditions that conflict with city rules.

Int 0917-2026 (Cleanliness Standards for Outdoor Cafes) – Sponsored by Councilmember Justin Sanchez

• Sponsor’s Position: Councilmember Sanchez said the bill codifies existing DOT cleanliness rules and raises maximum civil penalties to $300 for first violations and $600 for subsequent violations at the same business, aiming to improve cleanliness as the outdoor dining program expands.
• DOT Testimony: DOT noted that the existing permanent outdoor dining program has generated very few cleanliness complaints (unlike the emergency program), and that its inspectors currently enforce for waste, debris, graffiti, and food scraps. DOT stated that the bill would not change enforcement substantially because the rules are already in place, and anticipated no additional implementation costs. On fines, DOT preferred uniform violation amounts across all program requirements and expressed openness to working with the council on appropriate levels.
• Q&A: DOT confirmed that a 1.5-foot radius around setups is enforced by the Department of Sanitation, while DOT enforces interior cleanliness. The most common complaint is garbage or debris dumped outside the cafe area.

Int 0918-2026 (Quarterly Payment of Revocable Consent Fees) – Sponsored by Councilmember Thomas Henry

• Sponsor’s Position: Councilmember Thomas Henry argued that quarterly installments would ease financial burdens on small businesses, especially amid an affordability crisis. She noted that during tours, restaurants expressed frustration with upfront fees and that some had paid fees without receiving their license. The bill would allow the option to pay the annual revocable consent fee in four quarterly installments.
• DOT Testimony: DOT opposed the bill, raising concerns that quarterly payments would increase administrative burdens and lead to collection difficulties after businesses commence operations. DOT said the annual fee is already the final step before licensing, and that few restaurants have requested quarterly payments. DOT noted that automated billing would require portal changes and could slow application approvals due to limited staff. Annual fees range from a few hundred dollars to several thousand dollars (e.g., in sector four). DOT also stated that if an application does not go through, the fee is not paid, contrary to some anecdotal reports.
• Q&A: Councilmember Thomas Henry questioned DOT about the concern over non-payment after licensing, noting that businesses already make quarterly payments to landlords. DOT clarified that the revocable consent fee is paid after all reviews are complete, so there is no risk of paying without receiving a license. DOT acknowledged that other city programs (e.g., DCWP) used quarterly payments but argued DOT’s lower fees make quarterly installments less relevant.

Key Outcomes

• All five introductions (Int 0845, 0866, 0894, 0917, 0918) received hearings and were laid over by the committee—no votes were taken.
• DOT indicated willingness to continue discussions with the council on several bills, including amending Int 0866 to shift sign-posting responsibility to permit holders, aligning Int 0894’s timeline with roadway cafe winterization, and refining fine amounts for Int 0917.
• Committee members committed to follow-up with DOT on specific data (e.g., number of lighting upgrades under elevated trains in 2025, repair timelines, and street ambassador deployment in districts).
• The public hearing portion included testimony from three individuals; written testimony may be submitted within 72 hours.