Committee Hearing, November 30, 2011

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON RULES3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, November 30, 20117 10:20 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, CHAIR10 COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO11 COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE12 COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN13 BILLS 110275, 110681, 110762, 110763, 110768,15 110781, 110826 and 110761 - - -17 2

Ladies and2 gentlemen, can we please have your3 attention. The Committee on Rules would4 like to get started.5 Good morning. The Committee on6 Rules now has a quorum with the members7 Clarke, DiCicco, Greenlee, Councilman8 Goode and myself, Councilman Kenney,9 chairing the hearing.10 The first bill for11 consideration today is Bill No. 110781,12 which is an ordinance amending Chapter13 14-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled14 "Food Distribution Center District," by15 revising the height restrictions, all16 under certain terms and conditions.17 Mr. Kramer, please identify18 yourself.19

Good morning,20 Councilmember Kenney and members of the21 Rules Committee. I'm William Kramer,22 Division Director of the Development23 Planning Division of the Philadelphia24 City Planning Commission. I'm here to25 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 testify on Bill No. 110781, which was2 introduced into Council November 3rd,3 2011.4 Bill No. 110781 amends Section5 14-600 of The Philadelphia Zoning Code,6 entitled "Food Distribution Center7 District," by increasing the permitted8 height in the Food Distribution Center9 from its current limit of 60 feet to 14010 feet.11 The height increase will allow12 for the development of a new automated13 warehouse for the Pennsylvania Liquor14 Control Board as the sole distributor for15 alcohol in the State of Pennsylvania.16 The proposal is to be developed by XTL,17 Incorporated, on a property located18 within the block bounded by Pattison19 Avenue, Packer Avenue, South 3rd Street20 and South Lawrence Street, with a 300,00021 square foot footprint and a height of up22 to 135 feet. The height is required in23 order to accommodate the robotic storage24 and retrieval system contemplated for25 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 this operation.2 The Philadelphia City Planning3 Commission will review Bill No. 110781 at4 their next regularly scheduled meeting on5 December 13th, 2011. It will be6 presented with a staff recommendation of7 approval.8 This concludes my testimony. I9 appreciate the opportunity to appear and10 will answer any questions you may have.11

Thank you,12 Mr. Kramer.13 Any questions for Mr. Kramer?14 (No response.)15

Seeing16 none, is there anyone else to testify?17 PIDC.18 (Witness approached witness19 table.)20

You are not21 Mr. Grady.22

I am not Mr. Grady.23

Please24 identify yourself for the record.25 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

I'm a little bit2 shorter.3 Good morning, Chairman and4 members of the Committee. My name is Tom5 Dalfo. I'm here to represent PIDC. I'm6 here to testify in support of Bill No.7 110781.8 PIDC's affiliate, the Food9 Distribution Center, owns the property in10 question that Mr. Kramer had referenced11 for the project. This bill would change12 the height limit for projects developed13 in the Food Distribution Center zoning14 from 60 feet to 140 feet.15 Over the past few years, the16 heights of single-story warehouses in the17 U.S. has increased dramatically.18 Virtually unheard of in the U.S. a decade19 ago, warehouses with heights of 80, 90 or20 more than 100 feet are increasingly21 common. This is due to advances in22 technology that provide for automation of23 the retrieval of products stored in these24 warehouses. This trend is a benefit to25 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 the City of Philadelphia and may help in2 part make the City even more competitive3 compared to surrounding communities when4 companies are looking to site warehouses.5 Due to our historic development6 patterns, Philadelphia has a critical7 shortage of large-scale sites, which we8 would define as acres and larger, to9 support large-scale distribution10 facilities. The emergence of taller11 warehouses allows the City to compete12 more effectively in this market, since13 these structures have the storage volume14 of traditional height warehouses, but15 with a much smaller footprint. An 80 to16 100 foot warehouse with a 100,000 square17 foot footprint could fit on an 8- to18 15-acre site, depending upon the amount19 of truck storage that's required. If the20 same facility had a more traditional21 warehouse height in the 32- to 36-foot22 range, it would require a site two to23 three times as large to accommodate.24 These taller warehouses represent an25 7 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 opportunity to attract private industrial2 investment into the City, thereby3 creating new job opportunities for4 Philadelphians that would otherwise end5 up on larger sites in surrounding6 communities.7 However, unlike surrounding8 communities, Philadelphia has a history9 of tall industrial facilities. Prior to10 the post war era of suburban sprawl,11 industrial facilities in the City were12 multi-story and sited so as to be13 convenient to the people who worked in14 them. Our neighborhoods are full of15 examples of multi-story industrial16 buildings that are six or eight or even17 ten stories high. While the activity is18 different today -- talking about19 warehousing versus manufacturing -- the20 building form is very similar to21 Philadelphia's prominent industrial22 heritage. So this proposed change is23 really more of a return to Philadelphia's24 industrial history than it is something25 8 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 new.2 Changing the FDC zoning to3 allow tall buildings will help to support4 the strong competitive advantage the City5 already has in the distribution of food6 goods. This will occur with no impact on7 residents, as the closest residentially8 zoned sites are more than a quarter mile9 away from this FDC-zoned site.10 Finally, this more intensive11 development of sites will also have a12 positive impact on stormwater runoff by13 reducing the amount of pervious area that14 needs to be developed.15 I would ask that the Committee16 consider this bill favorably. Thank you17 for the opportunity to testify. I'm more18 than happy to answer any questions.19

Thank you20 very much for your testimony.21 Please let the record indicate22 that Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown23 is also in attendance.24 Are there any questions for25 9 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 these witnesses?2 (No response.)3

Seeing4 none, thank you very much for your5 testimony.6 Anyone else to testify on this7 bill?8 (No response.)9

Seeing10 none, we will now move to Bill No.11 110826. Bill 110826, an ordinance12 amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia13 Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses,14 Trades and Professions," by amending15 Section 9-1004, entitled "Contractors,"16 by requiring that certain information be17 reported to the Department of Licenses18 and Inspections for certain construction19 projects and providing for the posting of20 certain information at the construction21 site, providing for penalties for22 violations, and making certain technical23 changes, all under certain terms and24 conditions.25 10 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Is there anyone here from the2 Administration?3 (No response.)4

Why don't5 we then move to -- we'll do one of the6 quicker ones. While we're waiting for a7 witness, we will move to Bill No. 110768,8 which is an ordinance to amend the9 Institutional Development District Master10 Plan of Temple University, located on the11 block bounded by 11th Street, Berks12 Street, 12th Street, and Norris Street,13 by allowing for the construction of a new14 building addition for use as the Science15 Education and Research Building, and16 amending the Institutional Development17 District Master Plan for the block18 bounded by Montgomery Avenue, 11th19 Street, Berks Street, Warnock Street, by20 allowing for the construction of a new21 building for use as a mixed-use parking22 garage.23 Mr. Kramer, please identify24 yourself.25 11 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Good morning,2 Councilmember Kenney and members of the3 Rules Committee. I am William Kramer,4 Division Director of the Development5 Division of the Philadelphia City6 Planning Commission. I am here to7 testify on Bill No. 110768, which was8 introduced into Council on October 27th,9 2011.10 Bill No. 110768 amends the11 Master Plan for the Temple University12 Institutional Development District in two13 significant ways. First, Bill 11076814 would permit the construction of a new15 Science Education Research Building,16 SERB, that will be located on the block17 bounded by Berks Street, 12th Street,18 Norris Street and 11th Street. The19 building will include high-tech classroom20 spaces, lecture halls and collaboration21 spaces. The upper lab floors will be22 developed as a combination of wet and23 high-tech dry labs, which will permit24 flexibility for emerging research over25 12 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 the next 50 years.2 Secondly, Bill No. 110768 would3 permit the construction of a mixed-use4 parking garage located on the block5 bounded by Montgomery Avenue, 11th6 Street, Berks Street and Warnock Street.7 This mixed-use garage will contain8 approximately 1,100 spaces on four9 levels, approximately 150 feet high,10 including mechanicals, with 13,500 square11 feet of University flex space on the12 first floor and approximately 4,00013 square feet of retail space along Berks14 Street. There will also be landscaped15 plazas along Berks Street and Montgomery16 Avenue.17 The Philadelphia City Planning18 Commission at its meetings of May 17th19 and June 14th, 2011, respectively,20 recommended approval for these amendments21 to the Temple University Institutional22 Development District Master Plan, and23 Bill No. 110768 is considered an item in24 accord with previous policy based on25 13 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 those approvals.2 If there's any questions, I'd3 be happy to answer for you.4

Thank you5 very much.6 Councilman Clarke.7

Thank you,8 Mr. Chairman.9 Mr. Chairman, can I have10 Mr. Ken Lawrence from Temple University11 come up? I want to ask him a couple12 specific questions about the project.13 (Witness approached witness14 table.)15 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:16 Mr. Lawrence, please identify yourself17 for the record.18

Ken Lawrence,19 Senior Vice-President for Government,20 Community and Public Affairs at Temple21 University.22

Good23 morning.24

Good morning.25 14 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

I'm going2 to go through the drill. Do you have3 community support --4

Yes.5

-- for this6 project?7

Yes, I do.8

I9 understand you have a number of letters?10

We have letters11 from Jefferson Manor Homeowners12 Association and also Norris Homes, which13 is directly contingent to the property.14

And Senator15 Kitchen, who is not only the Senator but16 also the Ward Leader, who pays close17 attention to that --18

Absolutely.19

-- is20 Senator Kitchen supportive of this?21

We presented the22 project to Senator Kitchen and actually23 made some revisions based on some of her24 feedback from that, to add some retail on25 15 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 the other side.2

Now, the3 retail, I understand, is going to be on4 two sides of the development?5

Two sides.6

One side7 facing the community, I guess?8

Right.9

And the10 other side facing the 9th Street?11

That's correct.12

The 9th13 Street, Berks Street rail.14 My understanding throughout15 some of those conversations, there were16 some concerns that the retail --17 significant portion of the retail be18 targeted towards community use and not19 simply student use, because that was some20 of the issues that came up in the21 conversations, that you were simply22 targeting the student residential23 properties on 10th Street and not being24 in a position to --25 16 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Right. And on2 the one side targeting the commuters3 coming up from the train station. But,4 yeah, based on the feedback, we've added5 some on the other side, which will be6 more community focused.7

Okay. And8 the issues as it relates to the9 construction -- I'm asking you the10 question because I want it on the record.11 As it relates to participation goals, it12 will be comparable to, if not exceed,13 what we're doing currently on the14 residential hall at Broad and Cecil B.15 Moore?16

Absolutely. And17 GPUAC will be the monitor for that to18 monitor our minority participation.19

All right.20 Normally we request that an EOP plan be21 attached. Do we have that?22

I'm not --23

I thought24 I'd ask that question before Councilman25 17 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Goode asked it.2

If we do not3 have it attached, we will certainly4 develop it and get it.5

All right.6 How do you anticipate we resolve that7 issue? Because we do not pass8 ordinances, particularly over a certain9 threshold as it relates to the costs10 associated with that.11

We will get the12 EOP developed as soon as possible and get13 it in. If we have to hold because of14 that, that's fine. I'm just not aware.15 I have not seen the complete package if16 it was attached or not, but I know we17 have done that for previous projects and18 we would have no problem with doing that19 at all for this one.20

That's why21 I'm a little surprised that you don't22 have it, because, as I said, you know the23 drill.24

Right.25 18 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Okay. I'll2 stop asking these questions at the3 moment, but I cannot guarantee that4 nobody else will ask for that EOP --5

Okay.6

-- at this7 particular hearing.8

I see him9 watching me. So that's fine.10

I'm going11 to hit his button right now.12

Good13 morning, Mr. Lawrence.14

Good morning,15 Councilman.16

We have a17 Rules Committee hearing scheduled for18 December 6th, so there should be no19 problem having a plan developed by then.20 Is that true?21

Absolutely not.22 Yeah.23

Thank you.24 Thank you, Mr. Chair.25 19 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Councilman2 Clarke.3

No.4

So my5 assumption is we're going to be waiting6 for the 6th?7

We will get the8 EOP plan developed and we'll get it in9 for the hearing on the 6th.10

Okay.11 Anyone else?12 (No response.)13

Anyone else14 to testify on the bill?15 (No response.)16

Seeing17 none, we will now move to Bill No.18 110681, which is an ordinance amending19 Section 14-1629 of The Philadelphia Code,20 entitled "Yorktown Special District21 Controls," by specifically amending22 Section 14-1629(3), entitled "District23 Boundaries"; all under certain terms and24 conditions.25 20 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Mr. Kramer, please identify2 yourself.3

Good morning,4 Councilman Kenney and members of the5 Rules Committee. I am William Kramer,6 Division Director of the Development7 Division of the Philadelphia City8 Planning Commission. I am here to9 testify on Bill No. 110681, which was10 introduced into City Council October 6th,11 2011.12 Bill No. 110681 amends Section13 14-1629 of the Zoning Code, entitled14 "North Central Philadelphia Community15 Special District Controls," by adding a16 new area covered under the provisions of17 the Section. The area bounded by Girard18 Avenue, Watts Street, Parish Street, Park19 Avenue, Brown Street, and 12th Street,20 will now be covered under the Yorktown21 Controls.22 Within the area described,23 residentially zoned properties (R-9A,24 R-10, R-13 and R-20) are prohibited from25 21 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 the following uses: Multiple-family2 dwellings, apartment houses, tenement3 houses, student housing not4 owner-occupied, and fraternity/sorority5 houses. Bill No. 110681 attempts to curb6 student nuisance behavior by limiting7 housing opportunities for the students8 within the area prescribed.9 While the Philadelphia City10 Planning Commission understands the11 frustration of the community in dealing12 with unruly students, Bill No. 11068113 prohibits any apartment uses or14 multiple-family opportunities for any15 persons in the area. Additionally, the16 Commission believes that many of the17 student problems that the residents face18 are enforcement related (noise, trash,19 property maintenance), thus will not be20 solved by this Zoning Code amendment.21 For these reasons, the22 Philadelphia City Planning Commission at23 its meeting of October 18th, 201124 recommended disapproval for Bill No.25 22 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 110681.2 I'll be happy to answer any3 questions you may have.4

Thank you5 very much.6 Any questions for Mr. Kramer?7 (No response.)8

Seeing9 none, I would ask Muriel Reviere and10 Nehemiah Homes come forward.11 (Witness approached witness12 table.)13

Good14 morning. Please identify yourself for15 the record, and if you could, pull that16 microphone close to you. Thank you.17

18 Thank you, Mr. Chairman and distinguished19 members of the Committee, for allowing me20 to testify today. My name is Muriel21 Reviere Taylor. I am the Chairwoman of22 the Carrie Turner Nehemiah Homeowners23 Association Board of Directors. 1 community that she loved so much become2 one of the most blighted, crime-ridden,3 property-stricken communities in the City4 of Philadelphia. 9 Unfortunately, Ms. Turner didn't live to10 see her vision come to fruition. 13 The Nehemiah Homes are located14 south of Girard Avenue, north of Brown15 Street, west of 12th and east of Broad16 Street. The 160 twin homes were built in17 1996 and marketed to low- to18 moderate-income families. The homeowners19 are responsible for paying assessments to20 maintain the common areas located within21 the development. We have tried over the22 last 14 years, with a lot of hard work,23 to preserve this family-oriented24 community. 1 block parties. Several of the blocks2 have been judged in the Philadelphia More3 Beautiful contest. Several of our young4 people have grown up and gone on to5 college. Many of them served as junior6 block captains. We also have an annual7 summer cookout that's well-attended by8 the community. We have a very diverse9 community here and we get along quite10 well. There are several seniors who live11 here and who feel safe and12 well-respected. 14 Several years ago, we started15 to notice a few properties within our16 community go up for sale and then17 purchased right away by investors, who18 then started to rent rooms to Temple19 students. We also noticed that this20 practice began to happen right around the21 time when Yorktown started to fight the22 illegal renting of property to Temple23 students. 2 Also we noticed that the rental3 or leasing of properties is a violation4 of our deed restrictions. With the5 owners of these properties being off site6 and out of sight, we are constantly faced7 with maintaining unkept lawns, picking up8 trash, communicating with students about9 the upkeep of the properties, asking10 students to put up window treatments and11 informing them of the importance of not12 leaving valuables outside on the porches13 because it attracts crime. 21 Parking is at a premium, even22 though all the properties in the23 development have space for two-car24 parking. 11 The constant conversion of12 single-family houses into rooming houses13 rented to several unrelated persons14 certainly works against the15 family-oriented character of the Nehemiah16 Homes. We believe that this works to17 destabilize the community by taking on18 the transient character from which the19 residents of the rooming houses have no20 concern in the overall quality of life21 here in Nehemiah. 6

Thank you7 for your testimony.8 Councilman Greenlee.9

Thank10 you, Mr. Chairman.11 Good morning, Ms. Reviere. Am12 I right to assume since a lot of these --13 since these owners are, as you say, off14 site and might be out of state, that15 you've had little or no availability to16 talk to them and communicate your17 problems to them?18

You're right. In19 fact, on the block that I live on, the20 house across the street is occupied by21 Temple students, and I've never seen the22 owners, the actual owners of the23 property. And most times they leave.24 I'm not sure in their rental and leasing25 28 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 to the students if they even mention that2 they'll come back and maintain the3 property.4 We've approached several5 students and just asked them to cut the6 grass. Now, you have students living in7 a property for one or two semesters.8 When they come, they don't bring9 lawnmowers or anything to maintain the10 property. So if we don't do it, most11 times then it goes undone.12

Sure.13 And I assume there's no property manager,14 local property manager for this?15

No.16

On the17 other issue that you raised about the18 sort of overuse, you said sometimes four,19 five, obviously that's a zoning20 violation. Has there been contact with21 L&I and has there been any resolution?22

No.23

Have you24 complained to L&I? Have you put in25 29 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 complaints that you know of?2

As far as I know,3 the neighbor who lives -- we live -- the4 properties there are twins, so the5 adjacent neighbor -- and he's not here6 today -- said he has complained to L&I.7 I can't verify this, because he just said8 he did.9

Okay.10 And I know in fairness to L&I, sometimes11 that's a tough one, because when they go12 to inspect, it's sometimes tough to see13 how many people actually live there at14 one given time, but I know that is a15 constant problem with students. Even in16 my area in Fairmount, we have that17 problem and also have the problem of the18 owners being, you know, anywhere,19 Massachusetts or something. So I20 certainly relate to what you're saying.21 Thank you. Thank you.22

You're welcome.23

Thank you24 very much.25 30 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 I just want to say as a former2 college student who lived with four3 unrelated other college students, I4 didn't know then but I know now what5 you're going through. So I hear you.6 Councilman Clarke.7

Thank you,8 Mr. Chair.9 Good morning.10

Good morning.11

Councilman12 Greenlee, I actually just want to respond13 to one of the questions. This particular14 bill is a bill that's actually an15 extension of an already existing overlay.16 A couple of years ago we had extensive17 conversations with residents of the18 Yorktown community, because it was also19 one of the first single-family new20 construction in the North Philadelphia21 community. The characteristics of it22 were targeted solely for single-family23 units, and as people moved on, people24 unfortunately passed on and the children25 31 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 of those individuals didn't want to move2 in and they basically started renting3 those properties out to students, again,4 unsupervised. And 20-year-old kids do5 what 20-year-old kids do. They realize6 they don't have to go to bed at night, so7 they stay up all night, and they realize8 they can actually drink despite the fact9 that they're not 21, and they drink.10 They do what they do.11 So the ordinance was created12 for the Yorktown community and13 subsequently amended to include People's14 Village, which is north of that.15 Similarly, in the community at16 Nehemiah Carrie Turner Homes, this was a17 development that was funded in part by18 the City of Philadelphia and there was a19 restriction as it relates to the funding20 that you must stay in the property for 1521 years before you can sell it. That22 15-year period is expiring on the first23 phase of those houses. So what's24 happening, a lot of people are cashing25 32 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 out. And this is America. This is a2 wonderful thing that people can do, but3 the problem is, they sell them to these4 people.5 So that's a long response to a6 short question. I just wanted to give7 you the background.8 So once we instituted the9 Yorktown Special Controls District, it10 ignited License and Inspection to11 aggressively enforce the unrelated12 portion of the Code, and it actually13 started enforcing the no student housing14 unless it was owner-occupied. So we15 anticipate with the inclusion of the16 Carrie Turner Homes in this particular17 overlay, L&I enforcement will be enhanced18 significantly, because they've already19 started that process.20

Thank21 you.22

Thank you23 very much.24 Anyone else to testify on this25 33 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 bill?2 (No response.)3

Seeing4 none, we're going to go a little bit out5 of turn here. Ms. Priscilla Woods got6 here a little late on Bill No. 110768 and7 we'd ask her to come forward and give her8 testimony even though it's out of9 sequence.10 (Witness approached witness11 table.)12

Good13 morning. Please identify yourself for14 the record and proceed.15

Good morning, and I16 thank you, Councilman Kenney, for17 allowing me this opportunity. I18 apologize for thinking that I would kind19 of be at the end of this hearing.20 I'm Priscilla Woods from the21 Yorktown Community Development22 Corporation. Good morning, Mr. Vice23 Chairman and members of the Council on24 Rules. I am here today to request that25 34 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 you defer consideration of Bill 110768 to2 amend the Institutional Development3 District Master Plan of Temple4 University, located on the block bounded5 by Montgomery Avenue, 11th Street, Berks6 Street and Warnock Street, by allowing7 the construction of a new building for8 use as a mixed parking garage --9 mixed-use parking garage.10 Our concern is that this11 building will be yet another Temple12 University parking facility functioning13 at less than 60 percent capacity on a14 consistent basis -- these are our15 estimates; we have no data that has been16 provided to us -- while the Yorktown17 community continues to be inundated with18 University-related vehicles.19 We are requesting this20 postponement for a minimum of 60 days to21 allow time for Yorktown and the22 University to complete our dialogue23 towards a collaborative benefits24 agreement. A copy of the draft document25 35 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 is attached for your review.2 We have had several meetings3 where we agreed on a number of items on4 our original list of Yorktown resident5 concerns. However, there are items6 pending, which include the development of7 a student parking plan to persuade8 University drivers to utilize University9 surface lots and parking garages.10 We want to be clear, we are not11 here in opposition to this development.12 If that were the case, we would have made13 a presentation to you on the traffic and14 parking nightmare in Yorktown and asked15 residents to testify. We are only16 requesting that you postpone this matter17 to allow us the time to work in18 partnership with the University to get19 this longstanding matter right,20 particularly in view of the impact the21 new Science and Research Building at 12th22 and Norris Streets and the new 1,750-bed23 residence tower at Broad and Cecil B.24 Moore will have on traffic and parking in25 36 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 the Yorktown community.2 With the University's current3 parking facilities grossly underutilized,4 the sometimes volatile confrontations5 between students and property owners6 around parking spaces, and the public7 safety issues produced by tactless8 parking in cul-de-sacs, it is imperative9 that you give the University and Yorktown10 the opportunity to move towards a11 mutually beneficial agreement, which we12 expect will be memorialized in the City13 of Philadelphia's redevelopment agreement14 for this project.15 Thank you.16

Thank you17 very much for your testimony. Thank you.18

Thank you, sir.19 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:20 Councilwoman Brown.21

Thank you22 for your testimony. I'm struck by the23 provisions of the agreement. In your24 testimony, you say that the collaborative25 37 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 benefits agreement, an opportunity to2 complete it.3

That's a draft.4 That is a draft of what we're going5 through. It's a process that we've been6 going through over the course of the last7 couple of months, and we've made some8 great strides there, but we haven't9 completed to the point that we have an10 agreement, and, most particularly, we11 don't have a defined parking plan and12 traffic pattern, traffic flow plan. We13 have the same streets, the same traffic14 flow that we've had for the past 5015 years, but the expansion of the16 University with the Tyler Arts and the17 Fox Business School online, it's brought18 a tremendous addition in traffic to the19 area.20

Now,21 unless I'm missing it, I don't see22 anything in here that speaks to parking23 in this draft. Am I missing it?24

I don't think you25 38 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 are. Planning.2

That3 speaks to parking.4

Yes.5

Are there6 any provisions here that they have agreed7 to? I'm specifically interested in the8 one around educational opportunities for9 students.10

Yes. Yes. The11 University has agreed to scholarships for12 freshmen students in the community13 at-large. They've also agreed to14 access -- one of the resident concerns15 was that they have access to the16 libraries. The elders also would like to17 have the opportunity to audit some18 classes. So that's a point that we19 haven't clarified as far as the education20 piece is concerned at this point.21

And when22 do you anticipate sealing this agreement?23

We really hope to24 have it done by the end of December.25 39 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Okay. So2 the end of December would be -- as it3 relates to when the sponsor of this4 measure wants to see it pass out of5 Council, it sounds like to me your date6 would not be aligned with the end of7 Council session, which would be the 16th.8 Would you agree?9

I agree.10

And so do11 you see a way by which you can finalize12 this document before we move this out of13 Council?14

Mr. Lawrence is15 here. We will go back to the University16 and ask if we can meet and kind of17 fast-forward it. I'm sure that they18 would be willing to, as they have been19 very cooperative in meeting and going20 through. We just had a whole list of21 items and concerns from the community.22

So are you23 optimistic? Where are you in your24 thinking?25 40 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

I am definitely2 optimistic. It's -- you know, there's3 some major issues here that we -- and the4 University really doesn't have a clue at5 the moment on what this parking plan6 should be. As of our last meeting, I7 should say. They didn't have a plan that8 they could -- we could say that it made9 sense and it was a process that could10 definitely work and be of benefit to the11 community.12

Okay,13 then. Thank you for your testimony.14

Thank you15 very much. Thanks for coming in.16

Thank you, sir.17 Thank you, Councilman Clarke.18

You're19 welcome.20

We will now21 move to Bill No. 110826, an ordinance22 amending Title 9 of The Philadelphia23 Code, entitled "Regulation of Businesses,24 Trades and Professions," by amending25 41 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Section 9-1004, entitled "Contractors,"2 by requiring that certain information be3 reported to the Department of Licenses4 and Inspections for certain construction5 projects and providing for the posting of6 certain information at the construction7 site, providing for penalties for8 violations, and making certain technical9 changes, all under certain terms and10 conditions.11 I would like to ask the City12 Controller, Alan Butkovitz, to please13 come forward.14 Is there anyone here from15 License and Inspections to testify?16 (No response.)17

Please18 identify yourself for the record.19

Good morning.20 I'm City Controller Alan Butkovitz.21

Please22 proceed.23

I would like to24 express our support of the proposed25 42 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 ordinance that will require both2 contractors and subcontractors to provide3 certification to the City that all of4 their people on site, all contractors and5 subcontractors, have the appropriate6 licenses, including business privilege7 licenses.8 The problem with the9 underground economy has been a major10 issue that we have been devoting11 resources in our office to for several12 years now. We issued a report back in13 2009 that included a study of the14 underground economy as it relates to the15 construction industry in Philadelphia,16 which was based in part on original17 research and in part on extrapolations of18 studies done in other jurisdictions,19 principally New York City, and on the20 basis of that, determined that there was21 between $2 and $7 million a year in lost22 wage tax revenues because of construction23 companies incorrectly classifying people24 who should be employees as independent25 43 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 contractors and because of people evading2 filing requirements.3 So this is -- as you know, the4 half billion dollar unpaid tax problem in5 Philadelphia is a major problem in terms6 of the City getting its financial house7 right. We applaud all of these efforts8 to close these loopholes and gaps and --9

I know10 you've been out in the field with some of11 your folks going to work sites and12 looking at what's going on and how the13 work site is being operated. Could you14 give me some -- give the record some15 indication of what you found and what16 some of the practices are and these folks17 trying to get around.18

I called Mike19 McKee, who is our Anti-Fraud Director,20 and asked, because he's been the hands-on21 person on that.22

I mean,23 this bill came about as a result of the24 fact that we had realized and been25 44 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 anecdotally told that people were pulling2 permits at L&I as a general contractor3 and then hiring subcontractors, who would4 come on the work site, basically hire5 people, paying them with a 1099 as an6 independent contractor or cash in an7 envelope, and not only beating the City8 out of its wage taxes but not workmen's9 compensation benefits, not paying10 unemployment compensation benefits and11 all the other things that our legitimate12 contracting community needs to do and13 does readily. And, again, this14 underground economy is not only15 undercutting our legitimate longstanding16 contractors, but robbing our employees of17 the City and the region of opportunities18 for work and basically just not playing19 by any rules. And this is an effort to20 simply create a method for disclosure as21 to who was on a particular work site, and22 that's that.23

Right.24

As a25 45 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 complaint-driven enforcement, I don't2 think it puts any burden at all on3 License and Inspections or on Revenue.4 As a matter of fact, if anything, Revenue5 should be happy that we are making them6 self-disclose their business privilege7 license number and the permit number and8 the site that they're working on as9 opposed to having to send people out and10 catch them in the act.11

Not only12 doesn't it put a burden on them, but it's13 much easier. As I say, we invest14 substantial resources every year on15 undercover investigations of these16 activities. If the burden is on the17 employer to file paperwork --18

It's not19 even paperwork. In this bill it will be20 done electronically from their desktop --21

Correct.22

-- to a23 City website that would simply list the24 contractor, the business privilege25 46 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 number, the permit number and where2 they're working.3

And the4 enforcement is easier, because all you5 have to do is prove that there is a6 failure to file information on people on7 site rather than the heavier burden of8 proving whether or not they in fact9 should be employees or subcontractors.10 Mike McKee is here from our11 office. He could provide further detail.12

Mike, could13 you please identify yourself for the14 record and proceed.15 MR. McKEE: My name is Michael16 McKee. I'm the Director of Fraud and17 Special Investigations for the Office of18 City Controller in Philadelphia.19

Please20 proceed. Would you put the microphone21 close to you.22 MR. McKEE: Yes, sir. Thank23 you.24 I believe you captured the25 47 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 situation as I've seen it out in the2 field. What I've noticed is, I've gone3 to locations where prime contractors have4 subs and in cases subs of subcontractors,5 and we have evidence that they will pay6 them 1099's, and then when we go back to7 the prime contractor and ask them to8 identify everybody on the job, they9 either stall or do not give us the10 information. And we would need some11 teeth to essentially make them register12 these folks, so we can see if they're13 actually paying their taxes. And on the14 job sites, that's what we're running15 into. We've pulled the permits. We look16 at the contractor that's purportedly on17 the job and then we go out and we18 identify in some occasions three or four19 subcontractors that do not have a20 business privilege license with the City.21

I assume22 there also are safety issues relative to23 OSHA and to other agencies that monitor24 this type of work, that if folks are on25 48 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 site that we don't know what their2 qualifications are to be on site, what3 their training and skills are, that it4 creates a public safety issue too in5 addition to --6 MR. McKEE: That is correct,7 sir. Primarily they're not paying the8 taxes, so we can -- we know that in that,9 there's no workers' compensation benefits10 if these folks get hurt on the job, and11 the skill level itself, we wouldn't -- my12 own concern just on an observation is13 that I'm worried that these structures14 may collapse, and then who will be liable15 at that point, and the City would be16 burdened with trying to exhaust our legal17 resources to determine who was actually18 responsible.19

Okay. I20 assume, Mr. Controller, you would agree21 that the more transparency and openness,22 the better; that no one is ever really23 harmed by having more information as24 opposed to less?25 49 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Yes.2

And it3 makes it easier for everyone to enforce4 and to make sure that people are5 following the rules?6

Absolutely.7

All right.8 Any questions for these9 witnesses?10 (No response.)11

Thank you12 very much for coming in on short notice.13 I appreciate it.14 MR. McKEE: Thank you.15

Dave16 Perlman and Walter Palmer, please.17 (Witnesses approached witness18 table.)19

Please20 identify yourself for the record.21

David Perlman22 couldn't be here. My name is Jim23 Sherman. I'm the Vice-President of the24 Building Industry Association.25 50 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 We understand the reasoning2 behind this legislation, and we want to3 support Council and the City in enforcing4 licensing and taxing laws, but candidly,5 we can't support this bill for two6 reasons. One is because it allows a7 public disclosure, which we don't think8 is warranted, and another is because it9 allows for work stoppages, which we don't10 think is warranted either. So we can't11 recommend this bill.12

But we have13 had discussions on potential changes14 relative to posting and fines versus work15 stoppages. So there's ongoing16 discussion.17

Yes.18

But can you19 elaborate a little more on why the20 disclosure of a subcontractor at a job21 site is onerous.22

Well, as far as23 that goes, we don't support it. One is24 it just creates an unnecessary25 51 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 bureaucracy. Again, we also think2 because it's kind of a rough-neck3 industry, it might create harassment of4 the subcontractors that are listed on --5 the contractors that are listed.6 Also, we don't know of any7 other business that's restricted like8 this. That is to say, the construction9 industry is being pinpointed as one which10 has to disclose its subcontractors and11 suppliers, whereas we don't know of any12 other industry that does.13 It also sort of -- it betrays14 the confidentiality with which we do15 business as an industry. Our subs are16 somebody who is almost part of our17 family. And, again, we are very much for18 seeing the subs and the GCs paying the19 licensing fees and the taxes. That's20 very warranted. But otherwise, we can't21 support it because of the disclosure.22

Well, one23 of the initial approaches to this was to24 require the GC to be responsible for any25 52 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 nefarious activities that the subs were2 conducting and have them be responsible3 for paying the taxes that they were4 beating us out of, and we changed that at5 the request of the industry so that the6 subs themselves are responsible and not7 the general contractor.8 So, I mean, if these folks are9 members of your family, aren't you10 concerned that they're violating the law11 by not paying taxes and by paying people12 cash in envelopes and those kind of13 things?14

Yes, and we15 appreciate the fact that that was taken16 off the table, but we still -- the public17 disclosure is still a deal-breaker.18

Well, we're19 still going to be working on this over20 the next week for preparation for the21 December 6th hearing, so --22

We look forward23 to that, Councilman.24

Thank you.25 53 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Mr. Palmer, please identify2 yourself.3

Good morning,4 Councilman Kenney and members of the5 Committee on Rules. I am Walter Palmer,6 President of the General Building7 Contractors Association. I'm here to8 testify on Bill 110826, which would9 require that certain contractor10 information be reported to the Department11 of Licenses and Inspections and be posted12 on construction sites throughout the13 City.14 By their nature, construction15 projects are extremely complex and16 involve multiple layers of contractors,17 subcontractors, suppliers and18 tradespeople. We understand that the19 goal of this legislation is to ensure20 that all parties meet their tax21 responsibilities. However, we remain22 concerned regarding the logistics of how23 the collection and dissemination of the24 information requested will be carried25 54 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 out.2 As a construction trade3 association speaking for over 600 firms4 throughout the Philadelphia region, we5 seek to find solutions that make6 construction better. We have long7 considered Councilman Kenney a partner in8 our effort to allow good contractors to9 build while trying to weed out10 unscrupulous contractors who skirt the11 rules and regulations to be the cheapest12 and fastest. We expect that Bill No.13 110826, once it is finished, will be a14 large step in that direction.15 As the bill stands now, the16 GBCA has two areas that would request --17 we would request the Committee to18 consider before moving the legislation.19 The first is that we believe the listing20 of contractor information via the L&I21 website is sufficient notice. The22 maintenance of a physical posting of the23 hundreds of firms involved in24 construction projects in three places is25 55 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 redundant and unnecessary and an2 administrative burden.3 Second, the GBCA does not4 support the shut down of any job site,5 especially if it may result in a possible6 clerical oversight. While we recognize7 the idea that a stiff penalty encourages8 compliance, every hour not spent building9 results in major rescheduling, escalating10 costs and missed deadlines. The possible11 punitive damages incurred by the general12 contractor and other subcontractors who13 were not directly involved with another14 contractor's misdeeds is not fair to the15 good guys who have done what has been16 asked of them.17 We applaud Councilman Kenney18 for his efforts to share with the GBCA19 the intent and the details of this20 legislation. We are encouraged by the21 conversations that we have had with the22 Councilman and look forward to continue23 to work together to put in place24 legislation that is fair and equitable25 56 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 and rewards the honest contractors trying2 to do a good job for the City of3 Philadelphia and that appropriately4 punishes those who are not.5 That concludes my testimony,6 and I'll be more than happy to take7 questions.8

Thank you9 very much for your testimony.10 Any questions for this witness?11 (No response.)12

Thank you13 very much for coming in.14

Thank you.15

Thank you.16

Are there17 representatives from the Carpenters18 District Council?19 You're going to testify? Are20 you testifying?21

Yes, sir.22

Thanks.23 (Witness approached witness24 table.)25 57 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Please2 identify yourself for the record, and3 pull the mike close to you, please.4

5 Good morning, Chairman Kenney,6 fellow Committee members. I thank you7 for the opportunity to voice my support8 to the amendment of Section 9-1004 of The9 Philadelphia Code. My name is Guy10 Piacelli. I'm a lifelong Philadelphia11 resident and have been a working12 carpenter for over 45 years. For the13 past 26 years, I have served as the14 Business Representative with the15 Metropolitan Regional Council of16 Carpenters. 21 I deliberately use the word22 "accountability" because that is23 precisely what this bill is about. 1 street on construction sites have shown2 me that unfortunately accountability is3 severely lacking in the process as it4 currently exists. 5 Throughout the years, I have6 personally encountered countless7 situations, in the hundreds, where the8 information on the building permit bore9 absolutely no relation to the ultimate10 work being performed. 16 The contractors or17 subcontractors who may ultimately perform18 the work are entirely invisible, unknown19 to L&I or any other City agency. 23 The result is obvious, as it is24 inevitable. 1 work do not obtain the required City2 license. This is problematic on two3 fronts. 17 Putting safety aside for a18 moment, the second inevitable consequence19 of failing to require that every20 contractor or subcontractor be officially21 recognized as working on the site is the22 one that has brought about the most23 discussion here this morning, the City's24 loss of valuable revenue. 12 The licensing system as it13 currently exists and, more specifically,14 the reporting requirement for building15 permits practically invites cheaters to16 continue their dishonest ways with17 basically no repercussions. The $50 or18 $75 penalties in place for various19 violations of the Code are laughably20 antiquated. 9 Instant accountability would10 result the day this legislation was11 enacted. 15 I had to scratch my head when I16 was told that there were parties who17 oppose the passage of this bill. The18 only question that comes to my mind is19 why. I literally cannot think one reason20 why any person or entity who has good21 intentions, that has no desire to cheat22 the citizens of Philadelphia out of what23 they are rightfully owed would voice any24 opposition. 7 I offer this testimony not as a8 theoretical exercise, but as somebody who9 has worked on construction sites in the10 City for over half my life. I have seen11 firsthand the corners that are cut when12 property owners, contractors and13 subcontractors are left unchecked. 19

Thank you20 very much for your testimony.21 Any questions for this witness?22 (No response.)23

Seeing24 none, I would like to call now25 63 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 representatives of the Department of2 License and Inspections.3 (Witnesses approached witness4 table.)5

8 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Fran9 Burns, Commissioner of the Department of10 Licenses and Inspections. 15 My name is Fran Burns, Commissioner of16 the Department of Licenses and17 Inspections. I am here to present18 testimony on Bill No. 1 Inspections against contractors that are2 working without proper licenses. The3 Department supports the provisions of the4 bill that increase the penalty for Code5 violations for unlicensed contractors,6 the provision to issue stop work orders7 when unlicensed contractors are8 identified, and the ability to order the9 contractor to provide the Department with10 a list of subcontractors. 12 We agree that contractors13 should be licensed and believe this14 ordinance can supplement and support15 current departmental operations. Today,16 the Department requires that licensed17 contractors be named before we issue18 permits. We do not issue permits to19 unlicensed contractors. Permits are only20 issued to licensed contractors. There is21 a posting requirement for permits at the22 construction site. 1 upon complaint to verify all companies2 are properly licensed. The Department3 ensures contractors are licensed through4 the issuance of building, fire5 suppression, mechanical, plumbing and6 electrical permits. We perform 35,0007 license checks each year. We also post a8 list of all licensed contractors on our9 website. 13 We take enforcement efforts14 seriously. The Department also received15 80 complaints during calendar year 201016 for unlicensed construction activity. We17 inspected all of the complaints and18 issued 16 violations. 1 that we hope you will consider as2 possible amendments. 5 We suggest implementing changes proposed6 in this legislation in the Administrative7 Code rather than Section 9-1004 of The8 Philadelphia Code. By placing under9 Section 9-1004 of The Philadelphia Code,10 the measures you are suggesting will only11 apply to general contractors. They will12 not apply to fire suppression, plumbers13 and electricians. 19 We ask that you remove the20 requirement that the Department provide a21 written certification by striking Section22 7b. 1 the site. 14 To elaborate on this point, the15 Department issues an estimated 12,00016 non-residential building permits17 annually. Each permit can then have18 several subcontractors involved. 5 We share the goal to have all6 L&I information available for the public7 through technology enhancements and the8 L&I website. We want to provide our data9 in ways that the public, community and10 stakeholders can utilize. While we work11 to this end, we ask that you remove the12 requirements of 7c to post information13 received from contractors on the L&I14 website, or at least to make the15 applicability of such a requirement16 contingent on a certification from L&I17 that we have the technological capability18 to carry out the requirement. Our goal19 is to provide a solution that will allow20 contractors to self-certify their21 subcontractors and ultimately get that22 information posted on the website. "11 I want to reiterate that we are12 in agreement that contractors should be13 licensed. We support the major14 provisions of this ordinance and we feel15 the spirit of the measures in this16 ordinance. We ask your consideration on17 the few points where we diverge. 2

Thank you3 for your testimony. We will take the4 issues raised in your testimony into5 consideration over the next week. The6 question I have, however, is -- and I7 know that the Department does not issue8 permits, building permits, to mechanical9 contractors unless they are licensed by10 the City, but that includes, I think,11 plumbing, electrical and fire12 suppression. But in the areas of13 carpentry, cement masons and general14 laborers, there is no permit requirement;15 is that correct?16 If I have a carpentry17 subcontractor or a cement18 foundation-laying subcontractor, do they19 need a building permit to do the work?20 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK: Good21 morning, Councilman Kenney, members of22 the Committee. My name is Michael Fink.23 I'm Deputy Commissioner of License and24 Inspections.25 71 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 The work that you're describing2 typically falls under the building3 permit, and on that permit we have4 recently instituted a requirement for all5 commercial building permits that the6 general contractor, the person -- the7 entity doing the majority of the work, is8 named on that permit as the one that's9 responsible to make sure that any10 subcontractors, if employed, are11 licensed.12

What13 happens if a general contractor employs a14 subcontractor in those areas of15 construction that are not licensed? What16 is the penalty?17 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK:18 Those areas that you describe would19 require a general contractor license20 under 9-1004.21

But, for22 example, from a practical standpoint, if23 I am a general contractor on the permit24 and I am licensed and I'm up to date with25 72 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 my taxes and I'm playing by the rules and2 I hire a cement contractor, who is3 unlicensed and is paying their folks4 1099's, how does he or she maintain that5 responsibility? How do we even know6 they're there?7 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK: The8 general contractor has the responsibility9 to check all of the entities to make sure10 that they are properly licensed in the11 area that they're required to. That's12 already in 9-1004. And they run the risk13 of penalties, including license14 suspension, if they hire unlicensed15 entities.16

Considering17 the technological concerns, let's wipe18 that aside for a moment and say we could19 get there, doesn't that broaden your20 enforcement opportunities tremendously as21 a result of the public knowing who is on22 these job sites within three days of the23 commencement of work?24 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yeah. I25 73 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 think -- again, just to reiterate our2 testimony, technology, where we are and3 where we could be, aside, it's public4 information. I believe that what the5 permits that L&I issues, the licenses6 that we issue, the violations that we7 issue are all public information and8 should be shared with the public, and9 this is one instance of that.10

But what I11 envision in the end result of this is12 that a subcontractor would self-report13 through a website application that would14 allow them to access the site, put in15 their license number, put in their permit16 number and then be in the public domain,17 as opposed to the Department reissuing18 paper -- I hate to use Councilman Green's19 issue of paperless government, but in20 this particular case, it would seem to me21 to be that's less of a burden on the22 paperwork in that office and more of an23 opportunity to enforce what's going on24 out there in this underground economy.25 74 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 COMMISSIONER BURNS: We agree2 with that suggestion.3

And it4 would seem to me also that -- and you5 can't make this decision -- but an6 investment, a modest investment, to get7 you there technologically could reap a8 windfall of revenue for the City going9 forward.10 COMMISSIONER BURNS: We agree11 that technology, particularly in this12 instance, and agree that it could be13 extremely helpful in gaining actually a14 lot for the Department, and this is one15 instance that I think in terms of your16 issues that you rightly bring up about17 transparency, it absolutely could and it18 would. We want to be able to use19 technology not only to publish these sort20 of things, but if the contractor changes21 their address or their location, they can22 go online and change that automatically23 online.24 So we see technology as a tool25 75 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 that really can broaden the Department's2 service to the public, and I think this3 is one of those ways.4

What is the5 burden or the obstacle to the6 technological improvement?7 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, I8 think we have -- right now we're working9 on an upgrade to our software as a10 project that would be approved and11 funded, and we think that if we do get12 that, that this would be one of the areas13 where we could improve our web-enabled14 services, and this would be one of them.15

When would16 you know the results of that proposal to17 upgrade that software?18 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Probably19 end of January, February.20

So you21 anticipate --22 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Knowing a23 decision.24

Without25 76 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 guaranteeing it, sometime in calendar2 year 2012 you will reach that goal?3 COMMISSIONER BURNS: We'd like4 to start beginning to undertake the5 project.6

So from a7 practical technological standpoint,8 self-reporting of a subcontractor to an9 L&I website is not that much of a reach10 at some point?11 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK:12 Councilman, we actually believe that that13 provides a service to the contractors14 that we want to assist, those that look15 to comply with the Code. We like to make16 changes that don't place burdens on17 contractors who do comply on a regular18 basis. So providing an online service19 where they can automatically check the20 license of any subcontractor without21 individually, as they currently have to22 do now, search by name and the status of23 each one of the licenses, to be able to24 just put that information into their25 77 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 permit and check the current license2 status I think is a benefit to3 contractors. I have not reached out to4 them, but I would assume that they would5 like that.6

And the7 converse would be that if I get hired as8 a subcontractor on a commercial property9 and I'm within three days in the job,10 there should be on my desktop the ability11 for me to access the site we're talking12 about and inform the Department that ABC13 Electric or ABC Construction is now a14 subcontractor on this job, and I'm15 following the proposed rules here by16 reporting that electronically. Is that a17 fair --18 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK: We19 would like that service. We are looking20 for software that provides that service.21

Okay. So22 we're not that far apart.23 COMMISSIONER BURNS: No.24

Okay.25 78 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Any questions? Councilwoman2 Brown.3

Good4 morning. Thank you.5 I want to seize the moment6 since I have you here this morning on an7 unrelated but related question around8 certified lead abatement contractors.9 You state in your testimony that you10 perform 35 license checks each year,11 correct?12 COMMISSIONER BURNS:13 Thirty-five thousand license checks.14 COUNCILWOMAN BROWN:15 Thirty-five thousand. What's the16 universe of contractors that you have on17 your system? What's that number?18 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK: The19 number of contractors? I believe we have20 approximately 3,000 general contractors21 under 9-1004. I think we have -- and I'm22 estimating here.23

Sure.24 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK: --25 79 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 (continued) approximately 800 fire2 suppression companies that are licensed3 under what we hope to move to 9-1006. We4 have about 800 electrical contractors and5 maybe 900 plumbing contractors. Those6 are the contractors that typically pull7 construction permits from our department.8

I see.9 And might you be able to go into your10 system and ID the number of certified11 lead abatement contractors, those who12 actually conduct lead abatement13 procedures?14 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK: I'm15 not familiar with the requirements of a16 license for lead abatement. I believe if17 there is one, that's probably18 administered through the Health19 Department.20

Do you21 believe that to be so, Commissioner?22 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Yes. In23 fact, we actually just met with the Chief24 of Staff of the Health Department on25 80 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Monday to talk about lead and licensing.2 I wasn't part of that meeting myself, but3 I know our two staffs are working4 together. But --5

When you6 say "staffs" --7 COMMISSIONER BURNS: The staff8 of the Health Department and L&I, who9 recently met on Monday specifically to10 talk about lead abatement and licensing11 requirements, and it's my understanding12 that it's currently enforced through the13 Health Department, but at the same time,14 I know the Health Department has some15 suggestions that bleed over into the16 different licensing suggestions that17 we're discussing.18

And so19 when do you anticipate yielding some20 level of understanding about who is going21 to do what around lead?22 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Well, I23 think we have an understanding. I24 just -- the Health Department right now25 81 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 is taking the lead on it and we're just2 talking about what the different roles3 are. So I don't have specifics. I do4 know that we're working together and that5 it was at the request and proactive6 initiative of the Health Department to7 reach out to us.8

Okay,9 then. Thank you very much.10

Thank you11 very much for your testimony. We'll be12 looking forward to working through the13 next week to tighten this up a little14 bit.15 COMMISSIONER BURNS: Thank you.16 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER FINK:17 Thank you.18

There is no19 one else to testify on this bill. We20 will now move to Bill No. 110275, which21 is an ordinance amending Section 14-140222 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled23 "Parking in Residential Districts," and24 Section 14-1607 of The Philadelphia Code,25 82 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 entitled "Special Controls for the Center2 City Commercial Area," by adding to both3 Sections special provisions relating to4 the area bounded by Walnut Street, 12th5 Street, 13th Street, Sansom Street, all6 under certain terms and conditions.7 Mr. Kramer, please identify8 yourself.9

Good morning,10 Councilman Kenney and members of the11 Rules Committee. I am William Kramer,12 Division Director of the Development13 Planning Division of the Philadelphia14 City Planning Commission. I am here to15 testify on Bill No. 110275, which was16 introduced into Council April 14th, 2011.17 Bill No. 110275 amends two18 sections of The Philadelphia Code in19 order to allow for the development of a20 30-story structure containing 152 hotel21 rooms and 299 dwelling units that will22 include 11,000 square feet of ground23 floor retail space. The proposal is24 located in the block bounded by Walnut25 83 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Street, 12th Street, 13th Street and2 Sansom Street. This proposal is3 considered a creative solution for4 mixed-use development in a relatively5 small Center City site.6 Bill No. 110275 will allow this7 development to proceed by providing8 zoning relief from Sections 14-1402 of9 the Code, entitled "Parking in10 Residential Districts," and Section11 14-1607, entitled "Special Controls for12 the Center City Commercial Area."13 Section 14-1402 will be amended so that14 in the area of this proposal, no on-site15 parking will be required on lots with16 multiple dwellings or hotels provided17 that the owner maintains an agreement18 with one or more parking lots or garages19 confirming the availability of parking at20 a ratio of a minimum of three spaces per21 ten units. Section 14-1607 will be22 amended to allow for frontage of 110 feet23 for buildings, which provide a through24 block passageway with pedestrian access.25 84 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 It further reduces the size of a second2 loading space to be 10 by 14 feet and3 provides for bonus floor area for green4 buildings and for providing public art.5 The bonus amounts will be limited to a6 total of 400 percent of the area of the7 lot above the base allowable floor area8 ratio.9 The Philadelphia City Planning10 Commission at their meeting of June 9th,11 2009 considered this proposal as an12 application to the Zoning Board of13 Adjustment and recommended approval. The14 zoning relief provided in Bill No. 11027515 is consistent with the zoning relief16 requested of the Zoning Board in 200917 and, therefore, this is considered an18 item in accord with previous policy.19 This matter had been heard by the Zoning20 Board of Adjustment in July and then in21 September of 2009, at which time the22 Board granted a variance in this matter.23 The matter was then appealed to the24 courts. Bill No. 110275 has been25 85 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 reviewed by the City's Law Department and2 they have recommended an amendment to the3 bill for clarity and technical4 considerations. I respectfully submit5 the amendment for your consideration.6 This concludes my testimony. I7 appreciate the opportunity to appear and8 will answer whatever questions you may9 have.10

Thank you.11

Mr. Kramer,12 who did you give the amendment to?13

It was submitted14 through Stephanie Marsh of the Mayor's15 Office.16

We can17 offer it in the -- we'll approve it in18 the meeting, and we'll try to find it in19 the meantime.20 Mr. Gundlach and Carrie Nase.21 (Witness approached witness22 table.)23

Mr. some time. Mr. Singer is an owner of an4 adjacent property located at 1214 Sansom5 Street referred to as Fergie's Pub. It's6 a long-time pub. It's been at that7 location since the 1920's or '30s, and8 Mr. Singer has owned that property for9 over 40 years. That property will be10 adversely impacted by this proposed11 ordinance, and that's why I'm here today12 on behalf of Mr. 16 Mr. 17 Hopefully you've received copies of that18 report. If not, I have additional copies19 I can give to you. 22 First, Mr. Kramer did23 acknowledge that this bill is only24 applicable to one City block. 1 block between Walnut, 12th, Sansom and2 13th. It's zoned C-5. It's not3 applicable to all the other properties in4 Center City that are zoned C-5 or C-4,5 just this one block. And I'd submit to6 you that there's nothing special about7 this block, other than one landowner8 wants to propose a project, a 30-story9 high-rise project, that is larger than is10 what otherwise is allowed in the C-511 zoning district. It exceeds the FAR12 requirements by some 400 percent. It13 provides for no parking, zero parking,14 for 152 rooms and 293 apartments. 20 That applicant went to the21 Zoning Board of Adjustment. Mr. Kramer22 touched on it, but he didn't tell you the23 whole story. 1 Zoning Board of Adjustment. It went to2 the Court of Common Pleas. It went all3 the way up to the Pennsylvania4 Commonwealth Court. 16 They didn't go back and adjust17 their project, which they could. They18 could have reduced the scope and size of19 that project to comply with the current20 regulations and we wouldn't be here21 today. They didn't do that. 23 I would submit to you that this24 ordinance is bad land planning. Mr. 1 set forth the reasons in his report why2 he felt it was bad land planning. 14 I'd also submit to you, as15 Mr. Amey points out, that it's16 inconsistent with many provisions of the17 new Zoning Code. A lot of people in this18 City have spent a lot of time formulating19 this new Zoning Code. 22 That is, the Zoning Code in its proposed23 form does not grant the relief that this24 applicant is looking for here today. 10 Let's see if the new Code is adopted11 later this month. 16 I'd submit to you, as set forth17 in Mr. Amey's report, that this is a18 classic spot zoning case. 1 going to cause problems in the2 neighborhood. It's going to cause3 problems to Mr. Singer. It's going to4 cause parking and traffic gridlock. The5 parking provision, for instance, it's not6 well thought out. It simply says if you7 don't have any parking, go get an8 agreement for monthly parking in another9 lot. Get an agreement for how long? One10 month? You sign an agreement for one11 month, you build your project, that12 parking lot gets torn down. You're not13 tearing down this 400-unit project. It's14 going to sit there without parking until15 a landowner tries to get replacement16 parking. 18 Then what happens? It doesn't talk to19 that. It doesn't talk about a permanent20 easement being in place to satisfy the21 off-site parking requirement. 1 development in accordance with the Zoning2 Code. Build this building. You can3 build a large building, a good project on4 this piece of ground. This applicant5 wants more. Mr. Singer will support if6 he stays within the current zoning or,7 better yet, let's wait for the new Zoning8 Code. 9 It's been recommended. It's before10 Council. If it gets passed this month as11 it's proposed to do, let's see -- let's12 give this applicant an opportunity to13 come back and design a project in14 accordance with the new Code. If he can15 do that, Mr. 17 I'd ask you in light of that,18 in light of the testimony, in light of19 Mr. Amey's report, in light of the20 problems with this ordinance, don't rush21 it through. Let's postpone it. Let's22 look at it. Let's talk about it some23 more. Let's see how it impacts with the24 new Code.

1 then let's work with the applicant to2 come up with a project that does comply3 with the current regulations of the4 Zoning Code and not adopt special5 legislation to force through one6 particular project. 12

Thank you13 for your testimony. For the record, are14 you aware that what you term "spot15 zoning" is permitted by the Charter as it16 relates to individual Councilmembers and17 their districts? Do you deny that the18 power exists by virtue of the Charter?19

I would submit20 to you that it does run contrary to21 caselaw that we have cited in the Amey22 report.23

But it's24 Charter permitted.25 94 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

There is a2 provision that's set in your Charter as3 you're referencing. Whether or not that4 would withstand and whether this5 legislation specifically would withstand6 a challenge would be the subject of7 litigation. And if it did go forward, I8 suspect that there will be more9 litigation and more costs, and we're10 suggesting don't rush this one through.11 Let's look under the new Code and all12 work together to come up with something.13

Litigation14 and cost is not my question. My question15 is, does the Charter permit this action16 by this Council?17

I would say to18 you no.19

Despite20 what the Charter says?21

Despite what the22 Charter says, in light of the current23 appellate caselaw.24

Are you25 95 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 aware of any civic association or2 business group that's opposed to this3 project, either the Center City District4 or the Washington Square West Neighbors5 Association?6

Washington West7 did participate early on in the Zoning8 Hearing Board proceedings. I'm not aware9 of their position. I'm not here on10 behalf of any community association.11

I was12 asking you if you're aware of their13 opposition.14

I'm not aware of15 their opposition. I'm here on behalf of16 my client.17

Or the18 Center City District?19

I'm not aware of20 their position.21

So the only22 one that seems to be opposed to this is23 Mr. Singer.24

I can't speak if25 96 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 he's the only one. He's the client I'm2 representing here today opposing this3 proposed ordinance.4

All right.5 Thank you very much.6

Thank you.7

Anyone else8 to testify on -- Ms. Nase? Is there a9 Carrie Nase?10

No,11 Mr. Chairman. She's with my office as12 well.13

Oh, thank14 you.15 Please, if you're on this bill,16 please come forward.17 (Witnesses approached witness18 table.)19

Please20 identify yourself for the record.21

Good morning. My22 name is Omar Blake and my counsel here is23 Tony Forte. I'm the General Partner of24 the ownership group that controls 121325 97 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Walnut Street, a mid block, undeveloped2 property, currently used for surface3 parking. Formerly I was a Senior4 Vice-President at the University of5 Pennsylvania responsible for the planning6 and redevelopment of West Philadelphia7 from 1997 to 2006. During this time, we8 have strengthened the University9 relationship with the community, created10 jobs in West Philadelphia through an11 innovative apprenticeship program with12 Councilwoman Blackwell and helped make13 West Philadelphia one of the most14 desirable neighborhoods in the City.15 After I left Penn back in 2006,16 I have invested in the district that we17 are talking about in which the ordinance18 is being considered, because I saw19 similar potential to revitalize key20 blocks of East of Broad Street and around21 the University -- Thomas Jefferson22 University.23 From experience, we know that24 this type of revitalization can be25 98 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 implemented and sustained by following2 sound planning principles involving the3 community, creating a dynamic pedestrian4 experience and introducing mixes of uses5 that attract residents and visitors 24/7.6 For three years, we have worked with the7 Wash West Civic Association, Midtown8 Village Business Association, the Center9 Business District, City Planning10 Commission and staff, Councilman11 DiCicco's office and ultimately the12 Zoning Board of Adjustment to develop a13 plan for the type of dense, vibrant,14 mixed-use project that would contribute15 to East Broad revitalization and the16 City's economic development goals for17 this area. Unfortunately our antiquated18 Zoning Code doesn't permit "as of right"19 the type of pragmatic, progressive plan20 that we have developed with key21 stakeholders for the site, and as a22 result, our side and much of the rest of23 the block has been underdeveloped for24 decades.25 99 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 After receiving unanimous2 approval from the ZBA and the Planning3 Commission, our variances were appealed4 by an adjacent property owner. Only5 after having the appeal upheld by the6 Court of Common Pleas and overturned by a7 Court of Appeals have we reached a8 conclusion that a zoning ordinance is9 necessary to provide greater zoning10 flexibility in the district.11 We fully support the Zoning12 Code reform under consideration now and13 believe that the ordinance meets the14 spirit of that new Code, but, more15 importantly, it will unlock the full16 development potential of this block17 immediately and allow property owners in18 the district to move forward quickly with19 development plans that will create jobs20 in Philadelphia and revitalize this part21 of the City.22 Thank you.23

Thank you.24 Please identify yourself for25 100 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 the record.2

I'm Tony Forte with3 the law firm of Saul Ewing here today as4 counsel to the owner of 1213 Walnut.5 I would just like to address6 this issue of spot zoning that was7 raised. Because this ordinance does8 not -- it's not a project-specific9 ordinance. It doesn't affect just one10 parcel. It affects an entire City block,11 which is many properties and many12 property owners. It's true that my13 client, which owns 1213 Walnut, did14 propose a mixed-use development, and that15 proposal came about after literally two16 years of extensive consultation with all17 of the responsible key stakeholders in18 the area, not only the Councilperson for19 the district, but the Center City20 District, the Wash West Civic21 Association, the Planning Commission,22 Thomas Jefferson University. All of23 these folks participated in coming up24 with a plan for what this area needed.25 101 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 It's a block that has been underdeveloped2 for decades, and came up with a project,3 but it was a project which our outdated4 Zoning Code doesn't allow "as of right."5 Right now we're hopefully updating the6 Zoning Code, and I believe the new Zoning7 Code would permit something very similar8 to this type of a project. But that's9 not going to take effect, even if it10 passes, for another year or so. And so11 the purpose of this ordinance was looking12 at that project. And the fact that our13 Code doesn't allow a wonderful project14 like that, which all of the responsible15 key stakeholders feel should happen in16 this area, if the Code doesn't allow17 that, then let's try to relieve the18 zoning restrictions, make things a little19 bit more flexible between now and when we20 get a new Zoning Code to allow for this21 type of development, and my client would22 like to be one of the first to take23 advantage of it, but really it applies to24 the entire City block.25 102 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Thank you2 very much. I doubt that this Committee3 is interested in delaying a project that4 everyone agrees, with the exception of5 one property adjacent, to potentially let6 the financing walk away and not have it7 happen. So we understand that there's8 this transition period between the9 adoption of the new Zoning Code, if it10 happens -- and we hope it does -- and its11 implementation. So we understand your12 point of view.13 Councilman, do you have14 anything?15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No.16

Thank you17 very much for your testimony.18

Thank you.19

Anyone else20 to testify on this bill?21 (No response.)22

Seeing23 none, we will now move to Bill No.24 110761. Bill No. 110761, an ordinance to25 103 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by2 changing the zoning designations of3 certain areas of land known and numbered4 as 1925-33 West Venango Street thru to5 Pacific Street located within an area6 bounded by Broad Street, Lehigh Avenue,7 24th Street, Fox Street, Hunting Park8 Avenue and Erie Avenue.9 Mr. Kramer.10

Good morning,11 Councilman Kenney and members of the12 Rules Committee. I am William Kramer,13 Division Director of the Development14 Planning Division of the Philadelphia15 City Planning Commission. I am here to16 testify on Bill No. 110761, which was17 introduced by Councilmember Miller18 October 27th, 2011.19 Bill No. 110761 amends the20 Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the21 zoning designations for certain areas of22 land known and numbered as 1925 to 3323 West Venango Street thru to Pacific24 Street located within an area bounded by25 104 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Broad Street, Lehigh Avenue, 24th Street,2 Fox Street, Hunting Park Avenue and Erie3 Avenue.4 The purpose of this bill is to5 rezone the properties at 1925 to 33 West6 Venango Street thru to Pacific Street7 from the existing zoning designation of8 "C-2" Commercial to a designation of9 "R-9A" Residential in order to match the10 seven single-family row houses that11 currently exist on the properties. These12 homes were constructed after the Zoning13 Board of Adjustment approved an14 application in 2008. This approval was15 appealed in the courts, where the16 approval was overturned.17 As originally introduced, this18 bill introduced maps with a significantly19 larger scope than necessary, which would,20 in effect, negate a large portion of a21 rezoning effort in the Tioga22 neighborhood, the subject of Bill No.23 060088 signed into law May 18th, 2006.24 After discussion with the District25 105 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Councilperson, the staff of the Planning2 Commission has drafted maps which would3 be consistent with the objectives of the4 legislation and respectfully submit them5 for your consideration, along with a text6 change for clarity's purposes as7 suggested by the Philadelphia Law8 Department.9 The Philadelphia City Planning10 Commission considered Bill No. 110761 at11 their meeting of November 15th, 2011.12 After consideration, the Commission13 recommended that Bill No. 110761 be14 tabled.15 This concludes my testimony. I16 appreciate the opportunity to appear17 before you and would be happy to answer18 any questions you may have.19

Thank you20 very much for your testimony.21 Mr. Archie, please.22

There's no23 testimony.24

Fine.25 106 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Thank you.2 Anyone else to testify on this3 bill?4 (No response.)5

Seeing6 none, we will now move to Bills -- we're7 going to take them together -- Bill Nos.8 110762 and 110763. 110762 is an9 ordinance to amend the Philadelphia10 Zoning Maps by changing the zoning11 designations of certain areas of land12 located within an area bounded by13 Germantown Avenue, Hartwell Lane, Shawnee14 Street, and Southampton Avenue; and15 Bill No. 110763, which is an16 ordinance amending Title 14 of The17 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and18 Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600,19 entitled "Miscellaneous," by amending20 Section 14-1613, entitled the "Germantown21 Avenue Special District Controls," by22 providing certain exceptions and controls23 for eligible mixed-use projects, all24 under certain terms and conditions.25 107 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Mr. Kramer, please.2

Good morning,3 Councilman Kenney and members of the4 Rules Committee. I am William Kramer,5 Division Director of the Development6 Planning Division of the Philadelphia7 City Planning Commission. I am here8 today to testify on Bill Nos. 110762 and9 110763, which were introduced by10 Councilmember Miller October 27th, 2011.11 Bill No. 110762 amends the12 Philadelphia Zoning Maps within an area13 bounded by Germantown Avenue, Hartwell14 Lane, Shawnee Street and Southampton15 Avenue by changing the zoning16 designations of a two-acre property from17 "C-7" Commercial and "R-5" Residential to18 "C-2" Commercial and "R-10B" Residential.19 Bowman Properties plans to use the former20 Magarity Ford site to construct a21 mixed-use development containing 26,00022 square feet of commercial space, 1723 condominium units, eight single-family24 homes and 135 parking spaces.25 108 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Bill No. 110763 amends Section2 14-1613 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code,3 entitled "Germantown Avenue Special4 District Controls," by adding new5 controls and exceptions to this section6 for eligible mixed-use projects. To be7 eligible for the Code exceptions, the lot8 requirements for a mixed-use development9 would need to be over 1.5 acres in area,10 have 200 feet of frontage on Germantown11 Avenue between Evergreen and Willow Grove12 Avenues, and not be listed on any13 historic places or historic registers.14 Further, the project would need to be a15 mixed-use building, have a minimum of 1016 dwelling units and 4,000 square feet of17 gross floor area.18 For projects meeting these19 requirements, there would be no required20 rear yard. A gross floor area of 15021 percent of the lot would be permitted.22 Building height regulations would allow23 for a height of 45 feet that can increase24 to a max of 70 feet by setting the25 109 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 building back, but must occur within the2 first 100 feet of the building from3 Germantown Avenue. In such qualified4 areas, private accessory parking lots are5 allowed to deviate from required6 screening if approved by the Philadelphia7 City Planning Commission staff in8 writing. Additionally, the sale of food9 and beverages that are prepared on10 premises and an eat-in area that are11 otherwise available for purchase for12 consumption off premises shall not be13 considered to be a delicatessen or a14 restaurant, provided that the food and15 beverage shall be for sale only during16 the hours that the main use is open for17 business.18 Bowman Properties plans to use19 the Magarity Ford site to construct a20 mixed-use development. It will have21 26,000 square feet of commercial, 1722 condominium units, eight single-family23 homes and 135 parking spaces.24 Upon review by the City's Law25 110 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Department, they have requested some2 technical amendments to this bill in3 order to clarify language. It is my4 understanding that they have been working5 with the attorney representing this6 application and that these amendments7 will be submitted to the District8 Councilman for introduction at her9 leisure.10 At its meeting of November11 15th, 2011, the Philadelphia City12 Planning Commission considered Bill Nos.13 110762 and 110763 and tabled them until14 their December 13th, 2011 meeting, and15 also requested that City Council hold16 their vote until their December 15th,17 2011 meeting in order to allow for the18 developer and community to attempt to19 come to an agreement on the project.20 This concludes my testimony.21 I'd be happy to answer any questions you22 may have.23

Councilman24 Goode.25 111 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Thank you,2 Mr. Chairman.3 Mr. Kramer, why is the4 Commission recommending that we vote on5 December 15th rather than December 8th?6

They wanted to7 allow as much opportunity as possible for8 the community and the developer to come9 to an agreement. I think the date was10 specifically listed because it is the11 last day of Council and the Commission12 meets on the 13th of December.13

It is my14 understanding that either way, whether we15 vote on the 8th or the 15th, that it's16 available to the Mayor for a pocket veto,17 which means if he does not sign the bill,18 it does not become law.19

That would be20 correct. Yes, sir.21

So it22 doesn't make a difference whether we --23

If the Council24 wishes to take it on the 8th, that is25 112 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 their prerogative. Absolutely.2

Thank you.3

Thank you4 very much.5 Please offer your testimony for6 763. Did you do that already?7

It was all in the8 one. Thank you.9

Thank you10 very much.11 Mr. McClure, Seth Shapiro,12 Richard Gelber.13 (Witnesses approached witness14 table.)15

18 MR. McCLURE: Good morning,19 Chairman Kenney, members of the Rules20 Committee. My name is Matt McClure. I'm21 with the law firm of Ballard Spahr. I'm22 here on behalf of Bowman Properties here23 to offer testimony in support of Bill24 Nos. 110762 and 110763. 6 I handed out some packets just7 momentarily that have exhibits. 17 At a little over two acres, the18 site is by far the largest development19 parcel along the Chestnut Hill Business20 District. 5 Notwithstanding the fact that6 the site has been used as a single parcel7 for decades, it has two very distinct8 zoning designations today. 14 Found in Tab of your packet15 is a letter from L&I Deputy Commissioner16 Michael Fink. Michael Fink's letter17 explains in detail the unique effect of18 the split zoning when it comes to the19 redevelopment of the site. Because more20 than percent of the site is zoned R-521 Residential, therefore pursuant to the22 Zoning Code, the most restrictive23 requirements apply. But what are the24 most restrictive requirements? 2 Conversely, C-7 does not permit R-53 residential uses. 17 The site is also subject to the18 Germantown Avenue Special Controls, the19 overlay. The overlay was required for --20 was created for small properties. This21 is a much different property. It's a22 two-acre site. The overlay requires,23 among other things, that buildings be24 only 30 feet wide. 2 Also, no building can be more than 4,0003 square feet in area when it comes to4 commercial rental space. 15 Faced with what Bowman believes16 is an unreasonable application of the17 zoning laws to this property, Bowman has18 two possible avenues of redress. One,19 you can seek judicial remedy or you can20 come to Council and seek a legislative21 remedy. 2 Bill No. 11 Bill No. 15 Found at Tab 2 of your packet16 is Bill No. 110763, which modifies the17 overlay to permit a mixed-use project of18 a certain size of a large development19 site like the Magarity site. 1 the overlay in this fashion. To our2 knowledge, since 1995 there has not been3 a single project constructed in4 conformity with the 4,000 square foot5 requirement and the 30 foot wide6 requirement. 11 The recent exodus of national and12 regional credit tenants and the absence13 of shoppers along the lower and mid-mid14 Hill have really demonstrated a need for15 a significant mixed-use project with a16 serious credit tenant. Bowman has signed17 a lease with the Fresh Market, one of the18 hottest groceries in the country. This19 will be the Fresh Market's first store in20 a northeast city. This is a real coo for21 the City of Philadelphia. It's a real22 coo for Chestnut Hill. 12

Please13 identify yourself for the record and14 bring the microphone closer to you.15 Thank you.16

Good morning. My17 name is --18

Good19 afternoon.20

21 My name is Richard K. Gelber. 2 I hope the Committee will bear3 with me. I will keep my remarks very4 brief. 6 There are a series of very7 important mixed-use planning principles8 and design principles which are brought9 to bear in the project for 820010 Germantown Avenue. 20 This project brings a very21 significant number of residential units,22 17 on the upper stories above the small23 shops at the Avenue, with the entry from24 Hartwell Lane to Germantown Avenue. 4 Certainly true in Center City. 13 The condominiums along the14 Avenue have their entry at the corner of15 Germantown Avenue and Hartwell Lane. The16 small shops along the Avenue have front17 doors entering directly from Germantown18 Avenue. 3 Urban design principles are4 certainly brought to bear. 9 There are a series of bays and10 projections which are created in the11 architecture. 20 Is there density in this21 project? Yes, of course there is. It is22 a dense project. 4 One of the other key5 characteristics of this project which you6 can see again from the site plan overlay7 and from the colored site plan, which8 will be put up momentarily and which is9 included in your packet, is that most, if10 not all, of the parking is shielded from11 direct view from Germantown Avenue from12 Hartwell Lane. The parking for the Fresh13 Grocer Market, for the retail shops,14 which includes 85 parking spaces, is a15 setback of approximately 35 feet from16 Germantown Avenue. Part of that setback17 is planted. two large green areas. Its access is from Hartwell Lane, and it5 is completely separated from any of the6 retail parking. 16 Finally, there are a series of17 additional design elements which support18 this project which try in their19 conception and design to mitigate the20 impact of the project in the surrounding21 area. First, there is very dense22 landscaping proposed in the entire23 project. 1 Hartwell Lane and Shawnee Street. 6 Second, the larger roof areas7 of this project have green stormwater8 retention facilities which are planned to9 be built into them. 19 Third, because of the nature of20 a market use, there are, of course, some21 rooftop pieces of mechanical equipment,22 rooftop exhaust fans above food23 preparation and sales areas of the market24 itself. 17 Thank you for permitting to18 testify. 20

Thank you21 for your testimony.22 Councilman Greenlee.23

Thank24 you, Mr. Chairman.25 128 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Good afternoon, everybody.2 First of all, I just want to note for the3 record -- Mr. McClure, you may have said4 this. I was distracted. There certainly5 have been a lot of meetings with the6 community and parts of communities and7 all that.8 MR. McCLURE: There's been a9 tremendous amount of meetings with the10 community. As you know, Chestnut Hill11 and the Chestnut Hill Community12 Association has a very robust schedule13 when it comes to development review. We14 approached them first almost a year ago15 and started meetings in earnest with16 their Development Review Committee and a17 specially formed subcommittee, which18 involves many near neighbors, starting in19 April, then really beginning really heavy20 in the summertime. There's going to be a21 final meeting on the 12th of December22 where the CHCA Board of Directors is23 going to vote. A list of the existing24 meetings and the future community25 129 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 meetings are on Tab 7.2 Additionally, we have ten days3 ago handed the CHCA subcommittee a4 memorandum of understanding or a5 community development agreement, which we6 are now negotiating with them, which will7 govern the redevelopment of this property8 under this legislation, to the extent9 that Council does pass the requested10 legislation.11 So there has been a tremendous12 amount of outreach. There's going to13 continue to be outreach. Bowman has a14 lot at stake here and not working with15 CHCA is not part of the equation.16

I think17 you'd have problems up there if you18 didn't.19 Just one thing specifically. I20 know we've all heard -- some concerns21 have been raised about this before the22 hearing. The height issue I know we hear23 from some people. Can you address that?24 I mean, I'm assuming -- like I know25 130 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 you've heard from people that they think2 at least part of this is too high, is3 intimidating, that kind of thing. Can4 you address that a little bit about why5 you felt that that was the concern?6 Because I have to tell you, the design7 generally, it looks good to me, but I'm8 just trying to address that particular9 concern that I heard from people.10 MR. McCLURE: Well, as11 currently shown on the plans, we show a12 six-story scheme, which is 67 feet. I13 will tell you that we've had a lot of14 progress with the negotiating group in15 the last couple of weeks, and we're very16 close to going forward with a five-story17 scheme, and a five-story scheme would be18 55 feet, which is very much -- would be19 in scale with the Chestnut Hill Hotel20 across the street. Again, this is the21 biggest site anywhere on Germantown22 Avenue. It can take it. It's treated23 differently. This is not a 40 foot wide24 side.25 131 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

No. I2 understand, but I just wanted to address3 that. So there's still a possibility it4 could even come down some a little bit?5 MR. McCLURE: Well, the6 discussion right now, it's coming down7 from six stories to five stories, which8 would be a dramatic reduction.9

Okay.10 Thank you.11 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.12

Thank you.13 Any other questions for these14 witnesses?15 (No response.)16

Seeing17 none, thank you very much.18 MR. McCLURE: Thank you.19

Jane Poldr,20 John Gibbons, Jennifer Zoga.21 (Witnesses approached witness22 table.)23

Thank you.24

Good25 132 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 afternoon.2

Good3 afternoon. Please identify yourself.4

Mr. Chairman,5 honorable members of the Council, thank6 you for giving me this opportunity to7 speak. My name is Jane Piotrowski and I8 am in addition to being a near neighbor9 that our property --10

I'm sorry.11 Hold on. Is the name misspelled here?12 It's P-O-L-D-R?13 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: It's14 misspelled.15

Oh, okay.16 Fine. I'm sorry. Please proceed.17

No problem.18 It's a tough one.19

It's just20 five letters. They left off the rest.21 I'm sorry.22

I'd like to23 just leave off the rest.24 Anyway, our property actually25 133 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 does abut up to the proposed development.2 I am also the President of the Chestnut3 Hill Community Association. I'm here4 today to address the involvement of the5 Chestnut Hill community in the approval6 process for this proposed development.7 I have read and heard and will8 probably hear again today that Bowman9 Properties has somehow subverted,10 avoided, ignored or otherwise11 circumvented the neighborhood and our12 development review process by coming to13 you with this legislation. I'm here to14 tell you that the allegation could not be15 further from the truth. The CHCA first16 saw this project roughly eight months17 ago. Since that time, the developer has18 presented at no less than seven public19 meetings and our various committees, as20 well as over a dozen meetings of the21 special convened negotiating committee.22 This subcommittee consists of three near23 neighbors and members of the Land Use,24 Planning and Zoning; the Design Review25 134 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Committee; the Traffic, Transportation2 and Parking Committee; and the Historic3 Advisory Committee. They are working4 countless hours negotiating and working5 with Bowman Properties to be assured of a6 project that will benefit our entire7 community.8 We have four more public9 meetings scheduled between now and your10 Council session scheduled for December11 15th. Neither the CHCA nor Bowman12 Properties is ignoring the concerns of13 this community on the required processes,14 and anyone who claims otherwise is15 clearly uninformed or likely has a16 different agenda.17 While our process has not yet18 been concluded, we are confident that we19 will be able to reach a mutual beneficial20 understanding with the developer.21 I thank you very much for22 letting me --23

Thank you24 for your testimony.25 135 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Please identify yourself for2 the record.3

My name is Jennifer4 Zoga. I am a resident of Chestnut Hill.5 I'm here today because I received an6 e-mail on Monday from Glenn Bergman, the7 General Manager of Weavers Way, and it8 told me as a member of Weavers Way, I9 should be alarmed by the building10 proposal of Bowman to create a new11 grocery store in my neighborhood. It12 said as a member of Weavers Way, I should13 join the near neighbors in their fight14 against the proposed market.15 Well, I am not a member of16 Weavers Way, but I am alarmed that Glenn17 Bergman, who does not live in Chestnut18 Hill, is using his authority over19 hundreds of members that are owners of20 Weavers Way to block a business on the21 basis of its threat to his business.22 I am a near neighbor in the23 fact that I live a half a mile away. I24 will walk to this new store and welcome25 136 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 it, and I often use the streets that will2 be affected by this zoning to drive to3 and from my home.4 I am in favor of this market5 and the proposed development. It will be6 good for our community of neighbors, our7 employment, our tax revenue and our other8 businesses in Chestnut Hill.9 In closing, I would like to10 request, even though it's not my11 authority to do so, that perhaps every12 time that someone comes to testify, you13 may ask them if they live in Chestnut14 Hill, which is zip code 19118, and also15 ask if they are a member, and thus an16 owner, of the competitor, Weavers Way. I17 think then you will find a true audience18 of near neighbors and their true wishes.19 Thank you.20

Thank you.21 Have you ever testified before22 Council before?23

No.24

You should25 137 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 market that model and send it out to2 future witnesses, because it's short,3 concise and you're on your way. Thanks.4

Shaking5 uncontrollably.6

You knocked7 it out of the park on the first time. So8 thank you.9

Thank you.10

Thank you.11 Any questions for these12 witnesses?13 (No response.)14

No. Thank15 you very much.16

Thank you very17 much.18

Greg19 Walsh -- I'm sorry. Mr. Gibbons and then20 Mr. Walsh.21 (Witnesses approached witness22 table.)23

Please24 identify yourself for the record.25 138 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Good morning. My2 name is John Gibbons. I'm a near3 resident and an urban planner.4 I submitted written testimony5 and some recommendations, some minor6 changes to the bill. So I'm not going to7 elaborate in a great amount of detail.8 Our premise is that ordinances9 and zoning changes that support a10 specific development are fine, as long as11 they're consistent with overall12 neighborhood planning goals, and this is13 in many ways a very positive development,14 but there also is some problems that need15 to be addressed.16 On 110762, the proposed change17 from C-7 to C-2 is excellent. It's18 what's needed to encourage mixed-use19 developments. On the other hand, the20 proposed change on the residential site21 on Shawnee Street from R-5 to R-10B is22 not appropriate. R-5 is a consistent23 zoning catch grade along that section of24 Shawnee Street. R-10B was a catch grade25 139 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 specifically developed for stacked2 townhouses in Center City, and the only3 reason it's being proposed is because it4 allows a 45 height limit as of right,5 which is really something that should go6 through a variance.7 On 110763, I think the key8 concern there is a 70 foot height limit9 that originally the project was proposed10 as a five-story building. I think a11 five-story building with appropriate12 setback should be fine. And I proposed13 in the recommended changes that that14 height limit gets reduced from 70 feet to15 55 feet, which would permit that16 five-story building.17 I think we recommend a couple18 of other changes that would require a19 zoning variance on some of the20 landscaping adjacent to residential21 properties.22 Thank you.23

Thank you24 very much.25 140 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Please identify yourself for2 the record.3

My name is Gregory4 Welsh, W-E-L-S-H, although many like to5 adopt me as Irish and call me Walsh.6

We're all7 Irish in some ways.8

Especially when the9 sun goes down. Thank you.10 I am the past President and11 current Co-President of the Chestnut Hill12 Business Association, and I'm here to13 report that the Chestnut Hill Business14 Association, which was started in the15 1950's, currently has about 130 merchant16 members, another 100 associate members,17 and they would be professionals working18 out of offices, and about 200 supportive19 members, and this organization has voted20 twice in the past year and a half to21 support the Bowman project on the22 Magarity site.23 I'd like to say with due24 respect to my friend, State Rep Dwight25 141 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Evans, and the Ogontz Avenue2 Revitalization Corporation, Chestnut Hill3 is the gateway to the northwest. And we4 really look forward to this quality5 project and feel it will be an absolute6 positive to our commercial corridor. And7 I'm here available to answer any8 questions you may have.9

Thank you10 very much for your testimony.11 Any questions?12 (No response.)13

Seeing14 none, thank you.15 Terry Halbert, John Beckman.16 (Witnesses approached witness17 table.)18

Please19 identify yourself for the record.20

Good afternoon,21 Councilman Kenney and the Committee on22 Rules. My name is Terry Halbert and I'd23 like to speak to you on behalf of myself,24 a near neighbor of the project. Our25 142 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 house abuts this project. It's right2 behind the site and right next to Jane3 you just heard from and the more than4 1,700 people who have signed a petition5 in the last few weeks opposed to these6 ordinances.7 We are not opposed to mixed-use8 development of 8200 Germantown Avenue.9 We oppose the ordinances because we see10 Bowman Properties' plan as11 over-development. And with your12 permission, I just wonder if I could show13 you on this --14

The only15 thing you're going to have to do is16 figure out a way to get the microphone17 with you. Why don't you get it, bring it18 back to your spot so you can -- I don't19 know how far that reaches.20

Are we good here?21

You're22 fine.23

I just want to24 contextualize this a little bit for now.25 143 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 This drawing shows the Germantown Avenue,2 which is of course the main commercial3 strip of Chestnut Hill, and that street4 is actually quite a bit busier and wider5 and commercial.6 This is Hartwell Lane. This is7 literally a lane. It's a really narrow8 street. Houses along Hartwell Lane are9 row houses and very small twins, I10 believe. Then on our street, which is11 over here, it's Southampton Avenue. It's12 also a small one-way street. Both of13 these are one-way. The houses on our14 street are small, too. They're small15 singles, very modest singles or twins.16 And then this is the back of this17 stretch, this acreage, Shawnee, which is18 I think officially called a country lane19 in the deeds. And as was explained,20 there's a bird sanctuary on the other21 side of it.22 So what my point here is that23 this is not a sort of affluent space in24 Chestnut Hill. It was described as25 144 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 semi-industrial here, but actually it's2 largely residential and small in scale3 all around this site.4 So we're very, very concerned5 with the design we see, six stories on6 the Avenue. Even five, which as we've7 understood it brings it down just four8 feet, is still going to tower over the9 structures on the commercial strip of the10 Avenue. They are two or three stories11 high typically.12 It's calling for a 20,00013 square foot supermarket in the middle,14 and then the back of that is going to15 present a 25 foot wall. Although it is16 articulated, it's still a wall right17 across the street from these tiny houses18 on Hartwell Lane. And then in the back,19 there's going to be, again, effectively a20 line of townhouses 50 feet high directly21 abutting this park right across and22 facing this beautiful park.23 So we're concerned about also24 the traffic study that Bowman has done,25 145 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 which in part explains that we'll have2 4,000 more trips on a typical Saturday to3 this site. So we feel that this design4 is too high, too dense and really5 completely out of scale with Chestnut6 Hill. We really want to see vitality and7 development, but we just think this is a8 mistaken way to go for it.9 Now, I want to talk about10 community concerns, how they've been11 expressed and whether or not they've been12 addressed. We feel that they really have13 not been. We feel that the community is14 bigger than its representation on the15 Community Association, much bigger, and16 that the concerns of the community have17 really not been allowed to be heard,18 because Bowman has said from the very19 beginning what they were going to do, and20 they're doing it now. They said we're21 going to go to City Council and we're22 going to get these ordinances and we're23 going to rezone this plot. So that24 really to me didn't feel like a25 146 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 negotiating position. We had no choice,2 but we were sort of looking at this as a3 fait accompli.4 We understand how councilmanic5 privilege works, and it was just a sense6 of there being no chance for us to really7 get our needs met, our concerns heard.8 This process through City9 Council has been described to us by10 Bowman as a slam dunk. Now, to the more11 than 1,700 people who have signed our12 petition, this is really pretty13 outrageous. And if it's okay, I'd just14 like to ask those of us that are here in15 the room today that are here to oppose16 this ordinance, if you would stand,17 people who took time out to come.18 (Audience members standing.)19

So we're20 concerned and upset -- you may be seated.21 We're upset because we feel22 like this process, you, is being used to23 do the bidding of the developer without24 real community input. And I say without25 147 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 real community input because just -- and2 I think my colleague, John, who has been3 on the subcommittee can explain to you4 more what it's like, but I heard one5 example after no progress all summer,6 which felt like a lot of stalling, we7 finally get a suggestion that will bring8 down the height from six to five stories,9 but then we're going to have more condos,10 and it's just -- you just have a feeling11 that there's really -- we're moving the12 chairs around on the Titanic. We're not13 actually making progress.14 At this point, as I understand15 it, there are no setbacks. There are no16 really meaningful height reductions on17 this thing, and also there's no CDA, no18 community development agreement, that's19 been hammered out as yet. It doesn't20 feel good to know that this is sort of21 out of our hands now, it's going to22 happen, without these assurances.23 A couple more things to say.24 The developer has made a lot of25 148 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 grand assertions, and we have learned2 that we can't trust them. He told us he3 wouldn't go to City Council until the4 community process had run its course.5 Now, as I understand it, it has not.6 We're still waiting. We haven't got the7 agreements or the major issues heard, and8 we are worried about what will happen if9 these ordinances are approved.10 About the petition, I want to11 tell you that we started the petition12 because we thought we would have time,13 and then we heard that, Councilwoman14 Miller, you had gone ahead to introduce15 this bill. So it was just about a month16 ago when that happened, and we put the17 petition online. We also went around on18 foot, even though most of us work, we19 didn't have much time, working on20 Saturdays when we could, Sundays. But21 even with that sort of limited ability to22 garner whatever reaction there might be23 in our community, by Monday night when I24 was writing this statement, I saw that we25 149 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 had more than a thousand who had signed.2 Now, of that thousand on Monday night,3 405 were from Chestnut Hill zip code4 19118. That was 38 percent. And another5 416 were from the 19119 zip code, which6 is of course Mount Airy. Eighty-eight7 percent of all those that had come in by8 Monday night were from the 8th District.9 So it was a pretty strong outpouring.10 And I'd like to enter into the record11 sometime -- I'll show you this. This is12 just Chestnut Hill. It's a Google map,13 and it shows the 400 or so no's to the14 project. You can see they're sort of15 clustered around the actual site, but16 they're all over the Chestnut Hill zip17 code.18

Can I ask19 you a question just in general about20 that, because as an at-large member --21 and Councilmen Greenlee and Goode are22 also at-large members and Reynolds Brown.23 I'm sorry. I didn't see you come back.24 When we're faced with these25 150 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 things relative to petitions, what is2 your view as to how far away or how close3 you should be to have a say in a4 particular project? Because, again, of5 the 1,700 signatures, you admit that 4006 or so are from the immediate area, but7 others are from Mount Airy. I'm8 wondering at what geographic location9 where you live does it kind of disqualify10 you from an opinion?11

That's a really12 great question, and we were asking13 ourselves when we drew this up who should14 we let sign, should it just be15 Philadelphia, should it be Wyndmoor.16 First of all, I have to say, as I was17 collecting signatures, I noticed people18 from places outside of Philadelphia who19 wanted to sign we couldn't let, because20 people come to Chestnut Hill to shop, to21 enjoy the real beautiful walkability of22 the Avenue, from everywhere. We were23 talking to people from Trevose, from the24 Northeast, from Center City, from out of25 151 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 state.2 But if you're talking about who3 should have an actual say here, I really4 think it's not a bad idea to think of the5 8th District as one animal. I think that6 strip is more and more needing to7 understand itself as interactive and8 interdependent.9

And I do10 understand your position and I do take11 your concerns relative to being such a12 near neighbor relative to height and13 light and things of that nature, but when14 I get further away, I start wondering at15 what point should I stop listening to16 that voice relative to a project that17 doesn't necessarily impact them at all.18 I mean, it's a hard -- we deal with it19 all the time.20 And the other question I guess21 is, do you reject the fact that the civic22 association is a legitimate entity that23 was either elected, I guess, and serves24 the community? I mean, if there's a25 152 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 representative body, how do we discount2 their position?3

Well, maybe I'll4 address that first, because there's a lot5 in my head right now.6 First of all, I do think that7 the Chestnut Hill Community Association8 is full of a lot of wonderful people.9 Jane is my next-door neighbor, and we're10 friends. I think we're still friends.11 But I just feel like what's12 going on here, from my perspective, is,13 I'm eight years in Chestnut Hill. What I14 observe is that Chestnut Hill, in a sense15 it's undergoing some of the changes that16 every community in an urban area is17 undergoing. There's a different kind of18 diversity coming to Chestnut Hill, and I19 think it's possible to say without20 injuring too many feelings that in this21 instance, we have a developer who owns a22 lot of property, who has a lot of23 influence in the Historical Association,24 in the Business Association and also I25 153 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 would say in the Community Association.2 And so while we saw that, we wanted to3 work with the community association, and4 we are, but we also feel that we need to5 reach out to a bigger context of6 individuals. And there are so many, I7 can tell you, who really care about the8 beauty, the aesthetics and the scale of9 that Avenue in that place of the City.10 It's unique.11

And I12 appreciate your point of view and I just13 wanted to have that colloquy with you14 relative to just the whole concept of15 what neighborhood planning, civic16 association representation, a district, I17 mean, all these things we grapple with18 all the time. So I do appreciate your19 response. Thank you.20

Okay. Well, just21 to continue on -- I'm almost done -- the22 petition signatures really beefed up this23 week. We have now almost 1,800, and we24 do -- I wanted to enter into the record25 154 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 this other -- we have 44 pages of2 comments that people wrote. So people3 didn't just sign up, but they troubled4 themselves to say something in5 opposition, and these comments are really6 interesting to read. So I'd like to hand7 them over at some point.8

Okay.9

And, last, I just10 want to say the Inquirer published11 something on Monday about this project,12 and there was a statement that went13 unchallenged that I think we would like14 to correct as best we can. The statement15 was that 95 percent of the properties on16 Germantown Avenue owned by Bowman are17 either occupied or under lease to be18 occupied. Now, the developer is well19 known to us, and we've watched what we20 perceive as a buy-and-hold strategy that21 he has made use of for many years. There22 are so many properties in Chestnut Hill23 on the Avenue which he owns which he is,24 for whatever reason, letting be vacant.25 155 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 So on Monday afternoon, another neighbor2 and I went out and just did a count.3 Now, we were working with publicly4 available data that we've collected about5 what he owns and we were trying to make6 sure we only looked at commercial spots7 on the Avenue in Chestnut Hill. We8 counted 24. We counted 12 vacancies. So9 that's not a 95.4 occupancy rate.10 There's something wrong there. And we11 are concerned about what that might mean12 for the future of this really very major13 project in the middle of our community.14 So in closing, I want to say we15 really don't know if this project is16 going to be a success. We do know,17 though, if it fails, the zoning changes18 that are proposed here today will make19 the property a lot more valuable, and we20 know that the surrounding community will21 bear the brunt of any negative impacts.22 We feel this is a one-sided process and23 it is unfair. We're simply asking for24 more time and a fair process so that we25 156 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 can reach an agreement that we can all2 support.3 Thank you.4

Thank you5 for your testimony.6 Sir, please identify yourself7 for the record.8

My name is John9 Beckman. Councilman Kenney and Committee10 members, thank you for letting me11 testify. I represent the Land Use12 Planning and Zoning Committee, known as13 LUPZ, of the Chestnut Hill Community14 Association. The LUPZ created a15 subcommittee this summer to negotiate16 with Bowman Properties regarding the17 development proposed at 8200 Germantown18 Avenue. This subcommittee contains19 representatives of all the committees of20 the Community Association as well as21 three elected near neighbor22 representatives, of which I am one. 2 It's the committee's3 responsibility to make recommendations to4 the Community Association regarding this5 proposal, and it's the Board that will6 make the final statement of the7 Association's position. However, we are8 still in the negotiation process. 13 The owner started work on his14 plan about two and a half years ago. On15 July 25th of this year, a little over two16 years later, the subcommittee first met17 with the developer and his team. 19 From the beginning, the20 subcommittee has supported a mixture of21 residential and commercial uses on the22 property. 1 community. The requested rezoning would2 significantly increase the land value for3 the owner. 6 At our very first meeting in7 July, the subcommittee presented a list8 of major concerns regarding the plan and9 particularly the proposed zoning changes,10 because that's really what we're11 addressing here. After four months of12 discussion, these concerns remain. 1 change for homeowners adjacent and across2 the narrow street from the site. 6 Furthermore, the proposed residential7 zoning change also eliminates the8 building setback requirements currently9 enforced along Hartwell Lane. This is a10 narrow one-lane street, mostly two-story11 row houses and some singles across from12 the proposed building, which will be 22513 feet long with a minimum height of 2814 feet. 15 Number two, out of scale mass,16 bulk and height on Shawnee Street due to17 changing R-5 to R10B. 2 A couple key differences3 between the current R-5 zone, which is in4 force in much of that area in the5 proposal. Current zoning minimum lot6 area, 2,250 feet; proposed R-10B, 1,4407 feet. R-5 current minimum open area of8 50 percent; 20 percent in R-10B. Maximum9 building height R-5, 35 feet; 50 feet in10 R-10B. Maximum stories R-5, three; five11 stories in R-10B. There's simply no12 precedent for five-story houses in13 Chestnut Hill. 15 Number three, out of scale16 mass, bulk and height on Germantown17 Avenue. When the owner presented the18 project in July to the subcommittee at19 our first meeting, the building was five20 stories. Now you heard Richard Gelber21 testify today that it's six. It may or22 may not come down. 1 The subcommittee suggested four2 stories as a height that is consistent3 with the surrounding residential and4 commercial area, which consists primarily5 of two- and three-story buildings. 5. This8 district with the Germantown Avenue9 Special District Controls would permit a10 maximum height of 45 feet. So the11 proposed zoning which the developer is12 asking for has to be modified even more13 from C-2 to allow the 70 feet. This gets14 awfully complicated. 17 Number four, minimal or no18 setbacks or buffers. The setbacks in19 existing zoning would disappear under20 this proposal with the change in21 residential zoning, which you've heard22 from the developer's team as well. 4 The proposed plan shows and the proposed5 zoning supports minimal landscaping on6 the project. This is very different from7 street trees. 17 We've requested and the owners agreed to18 address the physical and environmental19 impacts to the development in a community20 development agreement. However, we have21 not reached an agreement on its22 substance. 2 Ultimately, all of us, many3 residents, all of the members of the4 subcommittee share the goal of having5 8200 Germantown be in productive use with6 a mixture of commercial and residential7 uses.

This is a complex changing8 proposal. The committee heard on Monday9 new ideas that are not reflected in the10 zoning. 19 In summary, there's been modest20 progress on some issues. The major21 issues that I outlined remain. 3

Thank you.4 One question. Did you say initially in5 your testimony that you were a member of6 the committee that was --7

The subcommittee,8 yes.9

Did the10 subcommittee vote?11

The12 subcommittee -- the procedure is, the13 Land Use Planning and Zoning Committee14 established a subcommittee for15 negotiation, which is the typical way of16 operating. That subcommittee is charged17 to make a recommendation, which then goes18 up to the Land Use Planning and Zoning19 development review, and the20 recommendation is made to the Board.21 It's the Board that makes the final22 official position of the Community23 Association.24

But the25 165 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 President of the -- it's the same civic2 association, correct?3

Correct.4

So the5 President of the civic association6 portrayed to us that the civic7 association is in favor of it. Are you8 saying that there wasn't a vote of the9 subcommittee and Land Use Committee?10

That's correct,11 there's not been a vote.12

Look, I13 like to take civic associations seriously14 and wanted to hear what they have to say15 in their positions, but do you believe16 that that's the position of the President17 herself or was there a process?18

I can't answer19 for that.20

I really21 would like to know.22

Can I come23 back?24

Yes,25 166 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 please.2 If there's a process that you3 were going through --4

We still are.5

It's not6 complete.7

Re-identify8 yourself.9

We still are.10 I'm Jane Piotrowski, the President of the11 Chestnut Hill Community Association. Who12 you just heard from was Greg Welsh from13 the Business Association. We have not14 voted yet. We are still working in15 committee. It has not gotten -- we have16 a special meeting on December 12th.17

I18 misunderstood your testimony. I thought19 you were --20

No, no, no.21

So you were22 not testifying in favor of it?23

I'm just24 letting you know that we are still in the25 167 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 process, the Community Association, when2 others were saying that we weren't.3

All right.4 Okay.5 Any questions for these6 witnesses?7 (No response.)8

Seeing9 none, thank you very much.10 Councilman DiCicco.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me.12 I'm sorry.13

Just before14 we get started, I want to make sure --15 we're backing up into another hearing and16 we have about five or six witnesses left17 in this hearing, and we have, as you can18 see, a room starting to fill up for the19 next hearing. So if you're coming up to20 testify, you're certainly welcome.21 Please try to plow new ground, if22 possible, or condense what you have to23 say in your opposition or support.24 Councilman DiCicco.25 168 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,2 Mr. Chairman.3 My question is for Ms. Halbert.4 In your oral testimony, I don't see it in5 your written testimony, you did mention6 something about, and I'm paraphrasing, to7 the effect that there has not yet been a8 finalization of a community benefits9 agreement.10

Community11 development agreement I think is what12 it's called, CDA, which has to do with13 hours of operation and how the --14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry.15 I misunderstood. I thought you said16 community benefits agreement. I'm sorry.17 That's it. Thank you.18

Thank you.19 Thank you for your testimony.20 Glenn Bergman, Michael Gonzalez21 and Pamela Rogow, please.22 (Witnesses approached witness23 table.)24

Please25 169 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 identify yourself for the record.2

Thank you. Glenn3 Bergman from Weavers Way Co-Op. I live4 in Mount Airy.5 My name is Glenn Bergman. I am6 the General Manager of Weavers Way Co-Op,7 a not-for-profit, community-owned8 cooperative market with two stores in9 Philadelphia, both in Mount Airy and10 Philadelphia, with over 130 employees,11 five acres of urban farms at Saul School12 and Awbury Arboretum, producing over13 $140,000 a year of locally grown produce14 and a non-profit arm that conducts15 education nutrition programs both in16 schools and on our farms. We follow a17 "triple bottom line" business philosophy,18 meaning we are concerned about our19 community, our people and also running a20 sustainable business.21 We have a mission to carry22 local product. We also use local23 products for services like banking,24 insurance, architects, legal support in25 170 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 our store.2 Since Weavers Way owners are3 our 5,000-member households representing4 over 10,000 community members, we are5 owned and operated by and invested in6 this community 100 percent, so that with7 the multiplier effect of every dollar8 spent in our store is worth many more9 dollars in our local community.10 Our full-time employees earn a11 livable wage starting at $10 an hour.12 They are offered health and dental13 insurance and employer-matched 401(k)14 program, sick pay and other benefits.15 I would like -- I ask that you16 reject this bill now pending before you17 for several reasons. The request by18 Bowman Properties to have a zoning change19 is not needed because a redesign project20 could be built without such a change.21 The proposed change will create bad22 precedent, and the proposed project23 beyond the zoning changes will damage the24 local economy and neighborhood of25 171 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Chestnut Hill based on both the fact that2 the 90 or 100 jobs that they have3 proposed be closer scrutinized by City4 Council.5 If the proposed market achieves6 the level of sales necessary to be7 profitable, it would divert substantial8 revenue from other employers in the area9 and, therefore, also cut jobs.10 I provided full testimony. Let11 me just also just say that one point12 about this is that there are already, as13 mentioned prior to my testimony -- that I14 asked City Council to look at the number15 of vacancies that are on the Avenue16 presently owned by the same property17 owner and ask the question, why build18 another 30,000 square feet of retail19 stores when already the stores that are20 there are vacant?21 I thank you for your time and22 I'm happy to answer any questions.23

Thank you24 for your testimony.25 172 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Please identify yourself for2 the record, whoever is next. Please pull3 that microphone close to you.4

My name is Pamela5 Rogow. I live in Chestnut Hill. I own6 property in Chestnut Hill that is part of7 the cultural mix of the area, the entire8 area. People come to us, Moving Arts9 Studio and the Green on Green Building,10 from Chestnut Hill and vice versa. I11 also lived on Springfield Avenue for12 several years in Chestnut Hill, walking13 distance to Germantown Avenue. My bank14 is in Chestnut Hill. Every time I go to15 Chestnut Hill, I see my neighbors. I16 feel that we're a very integrated17 community, in response to what came up18 earlier.19 Historically, I am essentially20 a producer of cultural projects around21 the country and occasionally overseas,22 and I've also been a travel editor. I23 recall that the New York Times gave a24 whole page to Chestnut Hill as a25 173 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 destination. I cannot imagine that2 having a very large grocery store in the3 middle of Chestnut Hill will add to its4 appeal for people to come and shop and5 visit and make it a destination for the6 City. Quite the contrary. The intimacy7 and the scale of the intimacy is very,8 very important to its success.9 Sitting at the top of the Hill10 right now is Borders Bookstore store11 empty for years now. It is the largest12 emptiest testament to the fact that this13 community cannot absorb this kind of14 multi-use facility.15 There's a book called The16 Poetics of Space, which is one of my most17 favorite books of all time, and it talks18 about how important it is that the19 space -- what the space conveys in making20 meaning in people's experience. This21 space here says majesty. It says22 authority. It says scale. It says23 decisions are going to happen.24 This scale here says something25 174 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 very, very different, and it's going to2 say to the people who go by, this doesn't3 belong to you anymore.4 That's my comment. Thank you.5

Thank you6 for your testimony.7 Please identify yourself for8 the record.9

Good afternoon,10 Councilman Kenney and Committee members.11 It is a privilege and honor to give you12 30 seconds. My name is Michael Gonzalez13 and I live on Southampton Avenue, which14 is right next to the proposed15 development, and I can just say this,16 that by and large, most, if not everyone17 in Chestnut Hill, particularly those that18 are on the unit blocks and closest to19 Germantown Avenue, look forward to this20 property being developed and developed as21 a mixed-use property. The issue, as I22 see it and as many of us see it, is the23 process by which the zoning gets done.24 Right now the local community association25 175 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 and their subcommittees are negotiating2 with Bowman Properties, and we have this3 bill which gives Bowman Properties4 everything they want and basically5 eviscerates the negotiation process.6 This is a negotiation process7 in good faith, where near neighbors have8 elected their own members to sit on the9 Community Association committee with10 professionals and people that are not11 arguing with the owner on what kind of12 business he can put there. This is not13 about whether you should have a grocery14 store there or not. This is about the15 actual issues that concern us as the16 nearest neighbors of the property. And17 they're working to make a zoning formula18 that will work for the mixed use, for the19 grocery store and for the developer and20 for the nearest neighbors who are the21 closest stakeholders.22 I want to ask that the Council23 consider putting off the voting of these24 bills so that it is not hanging over the25 176 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 heads of the negotiations, so that the2 dedicated near neighbors and the robust3 and well-established Community4 Association can sit at the table and work5 in good faith with the developer to work6 it out. I think it would get worked out,7 and I think that what City Council would8 have is a zoning bill before it that came9 cleanly and with community support, and I10 think that that makes sense. It makes11 sense to not have to push negotiations12 with this hanging over their heads over13 the next couple weeks, and I ask that you14 consider tabling it or rescheduling it15 sometime into the next year.16

Councilman17 Greenlee.18

Thank you19 very much. My question is really for20 Mr. Bergman. And let me preface it by21 saying my wife shops at the Weavers Way22 of Mount Airy. She's there every23 weekend. But I have to say -- and I24 understand near neighbors certainly have25 177 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 their opinion on what's good there and2 what should be there. I guess I have a3 little trouble with opposition based on4 competition, you know. I mean, with all5 due respect -- and I think Weavers Way6 does a good job, but, I mean, isn't that7 sort of the American way?8

Well, I should9 have finished by saying and my testimony10 is that we would prefer that this would11 go through the City -- through the12 Chestnut Hill Community Association13 review and let the community work it out14 with the developer. I would hold that --15 and if they can work that out, then we16 are fine with it. But the reason we got17 involved -- in the last two paragraphs of18 my testimony, the reason we got involved19 was when it was submitted here to City20 Council.21

Okay.22 But it sounded like your statement was23 against it because you're saying it would24 hurt your business, which --25 178 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Well, I was just2 letting the Council know how we operate3 and that the businesses coming here or4 the business that they picked to rent to5 we know does not follow a living wage6 philosophy, doesn't have a mission to buy7 local, and I wanted the City8 Councilmembers to know that the9 multiplier effect of buying local, we all10 know what that does for our local11 economy, and just that you should be12 aware of that.13

I14 understand. That's obviously up to the15 customer to decide.16

I have no problem17 with them coming. I have a problem with18 the process that's underway correctly.19

That's a20 little different than what you said, but21 okay. Thank you.22

Councilman23 Goode.24

Thank you,25 179 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Mr. Chairman. I'll be brief.2 I just wanted to clarify3 something for the record about the4 legislative process. It is very5 different at the end of a term than it is6 normally. City Council, in and of7 itself, cannot enact legislation. We can8 approve it in committee. We can then9 approve it on final passage. After that,10 there are few ways that it can become law11 under normal circumstances. The Mayor12 can sign it. The Mayor can send it back13 without his signature and it becomes law14 within ten days or two weeks, and the15 Mayor can veto and that veto can be16 overridden.17 At the end of the term, that is18 not the process. The point we're in the19 process right now, there's only one way20 that this bill becomes law. That's if21 the Mayor signs it, because it's the end22 of a term. If the Mayor does not sign23 the bill or if the Mayor takes as long as24 he wants to sign the bill, that controls25 180 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 what happens in terms of community2 process.3 We need to move through our4 legislative process one way or the other.5 But this bill does not become law without6 the Mayor signing it, and the timing7 factor is related to when the Mayor signs8 it, if he signs it.9 Thank you, Mr. Chair.10

Thank you11 very much.12 Thank you for your testimony.13 Elizabeth Bales, Melanie14 Brundle and Dan McElhatton, please.15 That is the end of our list.16 Is there anyone else here to testify on17 this bill?18 (No response.)19

Thank you.20 (Witnesses approached witness21 table.)22

Please23 identify yourself for the record.24

Hello. I'm25 181 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 Melanie Brundle and I have lived in2 Chestnut Hill for three years. I live3 one mile from the development.4 Please excuse my nerves.5 I'm here today to say that I6 want to be sure that the voice of the7 Chestnut Hill community doesn't get lost8 in all of the noise that is being9 generated by the Weavers Way Co-Op. I10 shop at Weavers Way regularly, and most11 of the communications that I have seen12 from them have been against this project13 and encouraging me to take action against14 it. And, in fact, on their Facebook15 site, I was encouraged today to come16 along and stand up and make my voice17 heard. I did come along and stand up,18 but maybe not in the way that they had19 hoped.20 I am very excited by this21 project. I love my neighborhood. I22 chose my neighborhood specifically for23 what it offers. I believe that this will24 bring vitality to an area that is frankly25 182 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 quite ugly and neglected at the moment.2 And the site looks stunning.3 I also believe that competition4 in this high street will be great for me,5 the shopper, and other shoppers, because6 it will increase the quality and the7 reduce the price of the groceries that8 are offered to us.9 The last thing I want to say is10 I'm a little concerned about people who11 offer up the opinion of the majority. I12 haven't been canvassed for my opinion.13 Most of my neighbors haven't been14 canvassed for their opinions, and we all15 believe that this is a good thing for16 Chestnut Hill.17 Thank you very much.18

Thank you19 for your testimony.20 Mr. McElhatton, please.21 MR. McELHATTON: Good22 afternoon, Mr. Chair, members of the23 Rules Committee. My name is Daniel24 McElhatton from the law firm of25 183 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 McElhatton Lynch and I appear today here2 as counsel for a number of the near3 neighbors.4 Most of those neighbors who5 have testified have articulated much6 better than I could their concerns about7 the density and bulk. What I would like8 to do is add something new, and, that is,9 some context.10 Mr. McClure in his exhibit book11 referred you to Tab 5, and I would submit12 that you should look at Tab 5, and it has13 the letter from Mr. Fink, the Deputy14 Commissioner, in which the Deputy15 Commissioner lays out what is, in effect,16 a hardship for this property. No dispute17 as to that. But what Mr. McClure did not18 mention is the final admonition by19 Michael Fink, and, that is, that if you20 wish to obtain a formal permit refusal21 for appeal to the Zoning Board of22 Adjustment, please let me know. And that23 is dated November 16th, 2011.24 The essence of the complaints25 184 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 for the process by the community folks2 have been as exactly as Mr. McClure said,3 they made a choice, "they" being the4 development team. The choice was to not5 seek a variance and not seek review by6 the Zoning Board of Adjustment with all7 of the restrictions that the Zoning Board8 could put in and the requirement that the9 Zoning Board look at the minimum10 variance. If this property cannot be11 used for anything else, then it can be12 used for some mixed use, the Zoning Board13 would permit that.14 This developer purchased this15 site with full knowledge of these16 restrictions, and by making the choice to17 go legislatively and not through the18 Zoning Board, they have disregarded the19 ability of the community to give20 significant input on those things that21 the Zoning Board would take into22 consideration and the considerations that23 the courts would look at on an appeal as24 to whether or not it is too dense, it is25 185 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 too high, whether it should be 50 feet or2 35 feet. Those are the things that I3 think most affect the community and their4 concerns about the process.5 I also happen to believe,6 Mr. Chair, that this is spot zoning.7 This is picking out one particular parcel8 for the benefit of one party, Bowman9 Properties, to the exclusion of the10 community. And it targets this property11 in both pieces of legislation, changing12 the two pieces of the Zoning Code to what13 fits this developer's proposal and also14 changing the overlay to match exactly15 what is needed on that parcel for this16 developer. If that isn't spot zoning,17 nothing is.18 I heard the earlier19 conversation between you and other20 Council. There is permissible spot21 zoning and there is impermissible. This22 is impermissible.23 Thank you, Mr. Chair.24 (Applause.)25 186 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

Thank you2 very much.3 Are there any questions for4 these witnesses?5 (No response.)6

Seeing7 none, thank you very much for your8 testimony.9 MR. McELHATTON: Thank you.10

That will11 conclude our witness list for this bill12 and it will also conclude the public13 hearing of the Committee on Rules. We14 now will convene a public meeting to vote15 on various pieces of legislation.16 The Chair recognizes17 Councilmember DiCicco for a motion to18 approve the amendment to Bill No. 110275.19 Excuse me. I know there's20 going to be a lot of physical movement in21 here and I know that comes with noise.22 So if you could just try to keep it as23 slow as possible.24 Councilman DiCicco.25 187 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,2 Mr. Chairman. I move for the adoption of3 the amendment to Bill No. 110275.4 (Duly seconded.)5

It's been6 moved and seconded.7 All in favor?8 (Aye.)9

There are10 none opposed. The amendment is adopted.11 The Chair recognizes12 Councilmember DiCicco on the amended13 bill.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,15 Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No.16 110275, as amended, be reported out of17 this Committee with a favorable18 recommendation and that the rules of19 Council be suspended so as to permit20 first reading at our next session of City21 Council.22 (Duly seconded.)23

Moved and24 seconded.25 188 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 All in favor?2 (Aye.)3

There are4 none opposed. Bill No. 110275 reported5 out of this Committee, as amended, with a6 favorable recommendation and a request7 made for rules suspension to allow for8 first reading at our next Council9 session.10 The Chair recognizes11 Councilmember Greenlee for a motion on12 Bill No. 110681.13

Thank14 you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No.15 110681 be reported out of this Committee16 with a favorable recommendation, that the17 rules of Council be suspended to allow18 for first reading at our next session of19 Council.20

Right now21 there's a motion on the floor to approve22 Bill No. 110681 with a suspension.23 (Duly seconded.)24

Moved and25 189 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 seconded.2 All in favor?3 (Aye.)4

There are5 none opposed. Bill No. 110681 reported6 out of this Committee favorably and a7 request made for rules suspension to8 allow first reading at our next Council9 session.10 The Chair recognizes11 Councilmember Miller on a motion for Bill12 No. 110762.13

Thank14 you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No.15 110762 be reported out of this Committee16 with a favorable recommendation.17 (Duly seconded.)18

Moved and19 seconded.20 All in favor?21 (Aye.)22

There's23 none opposed. Bill No. 110762 reported24 out of this Committee favorably, without25 190 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 a rules suspension.2 The Chair recognizes3 Councilmember Miller on Bill No. 110763.4

Thank5 you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No.6 110763 be reported out of this Committee7 with a favorable recommendation.8 (Duly seconded.)9

Moved and10 seconded.11 All in favor?12 (Aye.)13

There are14 none opposed. Bill No. 110763 reported15 out of this Committee favorably. There16 will be no request for rules suspension.17 The Chair recognizes18 Councilmember Goode on a motion to amend19 Bill No. 110768.20

Thank you,21 Mr. Chairman. The economic opportunity22 plan has been submitted for the Temple23 project. I move that it be adopted as an24 amendment to Bill No. 110768.25 191 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 (Duly seconded.)2

Moved and3 seconded.4 All in favor?5 (Aye.)6

The bill7 will be amended accordingly with the EOP8 plan.9 The Chair recognizes10 Councilmember Clarke for a motion on the11 amended bill. Councilman Clarke, would12 you rather defer to Councilman Goode?13

Thank you,14 Mr. Chair. I move for a motion on Bill15 No. 110768, as amended, be reported out16 of Committee with a favorable17 recommendation, with rules suspension as18 to allow reading at the next session of19 Council.20 (Duly seconded.)21

Moved and22 seconded.23 All in favor?24 (Aye.)25 192 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1

There are2 none opposed. Bill No. 110768, as3 amended, reported out of this Committee4 favorably and a request made for rules5 suspension to allow first reading at our6 next Council session.7 The Chair recognizes8 Councilmember Greenlee for a motion on9 Bill No. 110781.10

Thank11 you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No.12 110781 be reported out of this Committee13 with a favorable recommendation and that14 the rules of Council be suspended to15 allow for first reading at our next16 session of Council.17 (Duly seconded.)18

Moved and19 seconded.20 All in favor?21 (Aye.)22

There are23 none opposed. Bill No. 110781 will24 report out of this Committee favorably25 193 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 and a request made for rules suspension2 to allow first reading at our next3 Council session.4 The Chair recognizes5 Councilmember Clarke on a motion for Bill6 No. 110 -- the Chair recognizes7 Councilmember Miller for a motion to8 amend Bill No. 110761.9

Thank10 you, Mr. Chair. I move that the11 amendment for Bill No. 110761 be12 approved.13 (Duly seconded.)14

Moved and15 seconded.16 All in favor?17 (Aye.)18

There are19 none opposed. Bill No. 110761 will be20 amended accordingly.21 The Chair recognizes22 Councilmember Miller on the amended bill.23

Thank24 you, Mr. Chair. I move that Bill No.25 194 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1 110761 be approved, as amended. No rules2 suspension.3 (Duly seconded.)4

Moved and5 seconded.6 All in favor?7 (Aye.)8

There are9 none opposed. Bill No. 110761, as10 amended, will report out of this11 Committee favorably, without a rules12 suspension.13 Bill No. 110826 will be held14 until 10 o'clock December 6th at a15 currently scheduled Rules Committee16 hearing.17 Thank you for your attendance.18 (Committee on Rules concluded19 at 1:10 p.m.)20 - - -21 195 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on November 30, 2011, and7 that this is a true and correct transcript of8 same.9 --------------------14 MICHELE L. MURPHY15 RPR-Notary Public16 (The foregoing certification of this20 transcript does not apply to any reproduction21 of the same by any means, unless under the22 direct control and/or supervision of the23 certifying reporter.)24