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
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 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
I'm going2 to go through the drill. Do you have3 community support --4
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
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
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 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
Okay. I'll2 stop asking these questions at the3 moment, but I cannot guarantee that4 nobody else will ask for that EOP --5
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
Thank you.24 Thank you, Mr. Chair.25 19 11/30/11 - RULES - BILL 110275, ETC.1
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
-- 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
And it3 makes it easier for everyone to enforce4 and to make sure that people are5 following the rules?6
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
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
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
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
Are there17 representatives from the Carpenters18 District Council?19 You're going to testify? Are20 you testifying?21
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
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
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
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