Committee Hearing, March 23, 2011

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON RULES3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 23, 20117 10:05 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA10 COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO11 COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE12 COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY13 COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN14 BILLS 100610, 100611, 110181, 110083, 11013316 and 110134 - - - 2

Good2 morning, everyone. Can we have your3 attention, please. Thank you.4 This is a public hearing of the5 Rules Committee.6 I would ask the Clerk to please7 read the title of Bill No. 110133.8

Bill No. 110133, an9 Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia10 Zoning Maps by changing the zoning11 designations of certain areas of land12 located within an area bounded by13 Warfield Street, the Schuylkill14 Expressway, Reed Street, a Railroad15 R.O.W., and Moore Street.16

Thank17 you.18 This bill is going to be19 continued until the call of the Chair.20 The Clerk will please read the21 title of Bill No. 110134.22

Bill No. 110134, an23 Ordinance amending Title 14 of The24 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and25 3 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Planning," by adding a new Section2 prohibiting the issuance of any permit3 for the construction of buildings,4 additions or roof decks, exceeding a5 certain height, on certain properties6 within the Point Breeze area of the City7 and providing that such prohibition shall8 expire after a specified period of time,9 all under certain terms and conditions.10

Thank11 you.12 Mr. Greenberger.13 (Witness approached witness14 table.)15

Good16 morning.17

Good morning.18 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:19 Please identify yourself for the record20 and proceed with your testimony.21

Alan22 Greenberger, Deputy Mayor for Economic23 Development. Good morning, President24 Verna and Councilmembers. 1 the opportunity to present testimony on2 Bill No. 110134, which was introduced by3 Councilwoman Tasco on behalf of the4 Council President. Bill No. 1101345 proposes the imposition of a one-year6 moratorium on the issuance of any permit7 for the construction of buildings,8 additions or roof decks, exceeding two9 stories in height, in the area bounded by10 Washington Avenue, Broad Street, Moore11 Street and 25th Street. 18 The primary concern with this19 legislation is the extreme negative20 effect that the proposed moratorium will21 have on property values in the Point22 Breeze neighborhood and adjacent23 communities. 9 The goal of NSP2 is the10 stabilization of property values in11 selected neighborhoods through investment12 in affordable homeownership, housing13 rehabilitation, foreclosure prevention14 and weatherization programs. With the15 aid of federal dollars, the City has16 targeted the Point Breeze neighborhood to17 receive significant investment in the18 next two years. timeline to prove that property values2 have stabilized or increased. Department of Housing and Urban4 Development, HUD, requires that 505 percent of NSP2 funds be spent by6 February 2012 and the balance by February7 2013. 14 For example, a three-story development15 has been proposed for 17th and Federal16 Streets as part of NSP2. This17 development consists of 11 units of18 affordable homeownership row houses. The19 developers, Community Ventures with South20 Philadelphia HOMES, was chosen through a21 competitive City-issued RFP process. 2 I would also note that the City3 currently owns over 200 surplus4 properties in the area covered by this5 bill, ten of which are currently for sale6 under the Public Property pre-approved7 sale program. 14 Another major concern with the15 legislation is the wide breadth of the16 bill, both geographically and17 contextually. The legislative text18 states that the purpose of the moratorium19 is to preserve the uniformity of the20 streetscape in portions of the Point21 Breeze neighborhood. 1 thousands of properties. Moreover, the2 stated goal of the legislation is3 preservation of a purportedly4 characteristically two-story residential5 neighborhood. 21 The Philadelphia Zoning Code22 Commission has heard concerns regarding23 contextual design of new construction and24 renovation in neighborhoods. 5 Proponents of this measure have been6 active participants in the Zoning Code7 reform process and have repeatedly urged8 the codification of the prohibition of9 three-story buildings or additions to the10 Zoning Code. 14 Since the proposed measure was15 introduced, City Planning Commission16 staff has received a significant amount17 of community feedback on the bill. 1 concerns that this bill attempts to2 address, the harmful effects of this3 overly restrictive proposal far outweigh4 the notional benefit. 13 Thank you for the opportunity14 to testify. 16

Thank17 you, Mr. Greenberger.18 I believe you testified that19 there are over 200 properties in the area20 that are surplus properties owned by the21 City.22

Correct.23

And24 that ten of them currently are for sale.25 11 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Does the City have plans to sell the2 remaining 190 properties in the near3 future, and, if so, can you tell us when?4

I don't know5 the answer to the "when" part, but the6 City is very interested in selling7 surplus properties. So the answer is8 yes. We're trying to organize a uniform9 system that would enable us to sell these10 properties efficiently.11

Thank12 you.13 You also mention that the14 proposed new Zoning Code addresses the15 matter of three-story construction on16 two-story block faces. Could you explain17 that further to the Committee, please.18

Yeah. In19 fact, you might -- I don't know whether20 you'll see them today. You might see21 some photographs of some developments22 where the middle of a two-story block23 somebody has bought the property and24 added a third floor right on the street25 12 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 face, and I have to say, the images that2 I've seen are not very convincing. If I3 were a neighbor of that development, I4 would be upset, that it felt like a5 pretty significant imposition on the6 character of the block. So in response7 to that, rather than wanting to shut down8 that opportunity for redevelopment of9 relatively small houses, we suggested10 that any third-story addition on such a11 block or the creation of a new12 three-story building on such a block have13 a setback at that second floor cornice14 line of at least eight feet, so that the15 face of the third floor is pushed back16 from the street a noticeable dimension,17 which would render it not invisible18 certainly, but it would render it19 significantly less visible.20

Does21 the new Zoning Code address roof decks as22 well?23

The new24 Zoning Code does address roof decks. It25 13 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 generally does allow them, but under2 restrictions of height and location,3 again, relative to front building faces.4

Thank5 you.6 The Chair recognizes Councilman7 Greenlee.8

Thank9 you, Madam President.10 Mr. Greenberger, just one11 question. You talk about that many of12 the blocks included in the moratorium13 have historically been three-story14 blocks. So as this bill reads now, if15 there are new construction on these16 blocks, they could only be two-story?17

That's our18 reading of the bill, yes.19

Okay.20

Thank21 you.22 The Chair --23

Thank24 you.25 14 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

I'm2 sorry.3 The Chair recognizes Councilman4 Clarke.5

Thank you,6 Madam President.7 Good morning.8

Good morning.9

With10 respect to the third floor setback -- and11 I agree, because it's happened in my12 district in instances where that13 setback --14

Probably15 happened in a number of places in the16 City.17

Exactly.18 But would there be any prohibitions on19 decks being put on that area?20

Yes. Yeah.21 I think, again, the deck restrictions22 are -- it would apply, I believe, to the23 deck restrictions as well and, again,24 certain limitations about heights of25 15 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 railings and so on.2

I'm talking3 about decks on that portion that's now4 two stories.5

Yeah. I6 don't believe that we would allow that to7 happen, because you would have to then8 have a railing, and, again, then that9 would create a wall on the street.10

Exactly.11 It would defeat the purpose. And that12 would be within the Code, but what13 happens if the individual goes to the14 Zoning Board and gets a variance?15

It's16 possible, but I think the idea of having17 a new rule is that the rule has been18 thought through carefully, and we19 certainly would encourage the Zoning20 Board not to permit such variances. And,21 truthfully, I mean, especially for a22 deck, it would be pretty hard to argue23 that there was a hardship.24

Well, I25 16 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 hear you.2

I know.3

I had a4 recent case over in Fairmount, Councilman5 Greenlee's area, over near Broad Street6 where --7

It's very8 clear that people like decks, but I think9 the particular concern is on these blocks10 that are consistently two-story blocks,11 and I think legitimately we have to be12 really careful about it. People can put13 decks on the back.14

All right.15 Okay. Thank you.16 Thank you.17

You're18 welcome.19

The20 Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.21

Thank you,22 Madam Chair.23 Mr. Greenberger, you just24 mentioned that you would encourage the25 17 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Zoning Board. How does the2 Administration encourage the Zoning3 Board?4

A member of5 the Planning staff is at all of the6 Zoning Board meetings and the Zoning7 Board does ask Planning's point of view8 on these things.9

But are10 they part of the record?11

Yes.12

Okay.13 Fine. Thank you.14

Thank15 you.16 The Chair recognizes17 Councilwoman Miller.18

Hi. Good19 morning. Good morning, Mr. Greenberger.20 Just for clarity, does this21 bill just refer to new construction?22

New or23 renovated. So that if you have an24 existing -- well, "renovated" meaning25 18 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 you're doing an addition, a third-story2 addition on a two-story house.3

But if4 you have an existing third story on a5 home that needs renovating --6

No, it would7 not apply to that, unless you were adding8 to it. But if you were doing an internal9 renovation, it would not apply to it.10

Okay.11 Thank you.12 Thank you, Madam Chair.13

Thank14 you.15 The Chair recognizes16 Councilwoman Brown.17

Thank you,18 Madam President.19 Follow-up to Councilman20 Kenney's question regarding the Planning21 Department urging the Zoning Board, has22 it been standard operating procedure that23 professionals of the Planning Commission24 sit --25 19 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

Correct.2

-- at3 zoning hearings?4

Correct.5

Prior to6 this Administration?7

Yes, I8 believe so.9

Thank you10 very much.11

The12 Chair again recognizes Councilman Kenney.13

Thank you.14 Relative to staff15 encouragement, we had a situation in, I16 think, Councilman Clarke's district17 relative to the X-rated movie theatre and18 the go-go bar, for want of a better word.19

Is it on20 Market Street?21

Yeah. What22 was the Planning staff's encouragement or23 lack thereof then?24

The25 20 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 encouragement was that there was an2 opportunity to actually lose one -- to3 get rid of one of the two operations on4 two blocks, one on the 2200 block, one on5 the 2100 block, and since the -- there6 was an opportunity to get rid of one of7 them, and we thought that that was a8 decent solution given that both of them9 are legal or grandfathered.10

But their11 request was for an expansion of the12 operation.13

Their request14 was to expand a second floor on the15 theatre one and they had offered to get16 rid of the other one and basically undo17 the zoning that allowed that to exist.18

What's the19 current status of that now?20

It's in the21 courts, I believe.22

Thank you.23

Any24 other questions from members of the25 21 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Committee?2 (No response.)3 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:4 Mr. Greenberger, thank you very much.5

Thank you.6

Do we7 have anyone else from the Administration8 to testify on this bill?9

I don't10 believe so.11

Thank12 you.13 Very well. Our first witness14 will be Betty Beaufort.15 Please approach the witness16 table, identify yourself and proceed with17 your testimony.18 (Witness approached witness19 table.)20

Good21 morning.22

Good morning.23 My name is Betty Beaufort and I'm24 President of Concerned Citizens of Point25 22 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Breeze. I'm here today to tell why we2 need this moratorium.3 This moratorium is for the4 people that lives in Point Breeze. Point5 Breeze needs the help -- Point Breeze6 needs help before the people become7 homeless. What I mean by that, they8 won't be able to live. They won't be9 able to afford to live --10

I'm11 sorry. You're going to have to pull the12 microphone closer to you.13

I said Point14 Breeze needs help, because before we know15 it, they won't be able to afford to live16 in Point Breeze because they will be17 taxed out and the luxury homes will push18 us out of Point Breeze. That's our19 concern for the people today. We're here20 for the people, because Point Breeze --21 people makes up Point Breeze.22 So how we got started with23 this, we had a campaign, Save Point24 Breeze, canvassing the neighborhoods, and25 23 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 the people began to ask us about the2 three-story houses. So we said, What3 about them? So they said, first of all,4 they don't like the way they look.5 They're too big. They don't fit the6 community, because we are a two-story7 neighborhood and we are looking to keep8 Point Breeze as a two-story neighborhood.9 They said they're going to tax10 us out, a rent increase. They block our11 sky view. They block the -- we have a12 view of Center City. It blocks our13 Center City view.14 So we want to know -- they want15 to know what could we do for them. So we16 began to see that -- we began to see17 their support, and we started doing18 petitions. After that, we met with19 Council President Verna. In a meeting we20 asked for a moratorium, and Council21 President Verna said she will look in to22 see what could be done. They said it23 could be done.24 How would this moratorium help25 24 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 the community? As stated in the2 ordinance, the residents in this3 characteristically two-story residential4 neighborhood, to give Council the5 opportunity to explore ways to preserve6 the uniformity of the streetscape and the7 current scape and density of the area.8 The way it is now is, people9 are being pushed out that can no longer10 afford to live in Point Breeze. The11 three-story houses are eyesores, look12 like dominos, one in the middle of the13 block, one in the middle of the block,14 one in the middle of the block. It just15 looks terrible, so -- and this is causing16 gentrification, and people began to17 stress and worry if they will be able to18 live in the community where they have19 lived all their lives.20 So just imagine yourself, if21 you live in the community all your life,22 and you see no way out. All these big23 luxury houses come in around you and you24 have nowhere to go. You would be25 25 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 stressed out and worried, and plus you2 have a family, and plus you know your3 salary. You know your salary will not4 meet up to the income that these houses5 are being priced at. Yeah,6 gentrification. Yes, indeed.7 Due to high stress, worrying8 brings about increased strokes and heart9 attacks and other health issues.10 This is about the people, and11 they have the right to say what comes12 into their community. This is a profit13 over people. Where is the human in this?14 I am asking the City Council15 members to pass this moratorium and16 really take time out to look at how this17 housing policy is having a negative18 effect on our community. And believe me,19 it is about the people and it's about the20 human that's in this situation.21 So I want you to think twice22 about how -- what you will be doing to23 the people that live in Point Breeze,24 because we need to.25 26 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

Thank2 you very much.3 Are there any questions or4 comments?5 The Chair recognizes Councilman6 Greenlee.7

Just one8 question, Madam President. Thank you.9 Ma'am, I know similar to the10 question I asked of Mr. Greenberger, he11 said that many of the blocks that are12 encompassed in this bill are three13 stories. Do you agree with that, and how14 would you address that if there's new15 renovations or construction? Would you16 think they should not be three-story?17

Councilman,18 believe me, we had a designated area for19 three-story houses before in Point20 Breeze. Mary McNichols, God rest her21 soul. There was always a designated22 place for three-story houses in Point23 Breeze, but, no, these three-story houses24 just plopping up anywhere, anywhere,25 27 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 anywhere, anywhere.2

So this3 proposed area, does it have three-story4 houses on its blocks, in the proposed5 moratorium area?6

We're talking7 about Point Breeze, the area of Point8 Breeze.9

Yes.10

Well, the11 area in the bill.12

Yes.13

It does14 have three-story blocks?15

Some places have16 three stories, but they was designated17 areas back in the day. I don't know18 when.19

But as I20 understand the bill, if there's any21 construction on those blocks, they could22 only be two-story, correct?23

Yes. That's24 what we asking for, yes.25 28 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

So even2 on three-story blocks, if they renovate3 properties, you want them to only be4 two-story?5

Most of the6 houses on three-story blocks, they7 already houses are there.8

Okay.9

Most of the10 houses they are building three stories11 are vacant lots.12

There are13 no vacant lots, you said?14

No. I said most15 of the houses they're building16 three-story houses on now are vacant17 lots.18

But19 that's my question. But on those blocks,20 aren't there also houses that are21 three-story? There might be vacant lots,22 but is the whole block vacant?23

No. What I'm24 saying, you have a block -- this is a25 29 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 block. This particular is a lot. When2 they come now, they build three stories3 in this two-story.4

And what5 else is on the block now?6

Two-story7 houses.8

They're9 all two stories?10

Two stories,11 basically. Two-story community.12

All13 right. I'm not going to go back and14 forth. All right. Thank you.15

Thank16 you.17 Our next witness, Tiffany18 Green.19 (Witness approached witness20 table.)21

Good22 morning.23

1 of Council, the Rules Committee. , and I was thinking8 about what Martin Luther King would say9 about three-story luxury homes being10 built in low-income, minority11 communities. 17 I want to take a look at those18 pictures of those three-story houses19 being built in two-story communities,20 because that's the reality of what we're21 dealing with from this whole new22 development. 1 We have rode around other2 areas, non-minority areas, like down3 Second and Mifflin, 12th and Girard -- I4 mean, 12th and Oregon, and they're not5 being targeted with these three-story6 houses and decks in the middle of7 two-story communities. It seems like the8 only communities really being targeted9 are low-income and distressed10 communities. And we're saying respect11 us. 12 Now, like Ms. Betty said, we13 started going around canvassing, and the14 people -- and we asked the people how15 they feel about their community, and they16 started coming up with these three-story17 houses. They didn't like them in their18 two-story community. 22 These structures do not conform to23 traditional two-story neighborhoods. 2 A setback is still a3 three-story. We saw a setback on the4 2200 block of Montrose. What did they5 do? They set back the building and then6 put a little white gate around it and did7 a sliding door and then still did a deck8 on the front. So the setbacks are still9 three stories. 10 Construction damage: We have11 quite a few residents who had12 construction damages. 17 They're hiring these construction18 companies. 1 getting all kinds of cracks in their2 buildings and that type of thing, and3 they don't know where to go. There's4 nothing set up. Many of them are low5 income. 6 Water damage and roof erosion:7 When you build three-story houses in8 two-story blocks, the water runs down and9 pops down onto their roof more, and that10 creates roof erosion. 14 Privacy issue: You can look15 down from a third-story house into a16 second story. They can't even open up17 their blinds. You need to take a look at18 this. 21 When you have these three-story houses22 being built on small blocks, it is23 blocking the whole skyline. 3 Also, their sunlight is being4 blocked. The sunlight is being blocked,5 because you're used to having two6 stories. 10 Potential burglary: These11 people -- we're not saying that everybody12 moving in is on the up-and-up. They can13 jump down onto the second story and go14 down into chimneys or whatever, or go15 through their window. 18 Noise nuisance: These decks,19 the people are up there having parties on20 the decks and everything and all times of21 the night. They call the police. The22 police can't do anything because they up23 on the deck. 1 smoking on the deck, if they're smoking2 on the deck and somebody don't put the3 cigarette all the way, the fumes can fly4 off to the side to the other roofs and5 then you have two or three roofs catching6 on fire. Well, who is going to be7 responsible for that? 11 So we talked about the fire12 hazard. It's changing the fabric of our13 community. Other communities we ride14 down, you know, in South Philadelphia and15 they look very nice and they're not being16 messed with. 21 Also, they feel that it's22 intentional targeting. They feel it's23 intentional targeting of distressed24 communities. 1 It's increasing our property2 taxes and rents, because what happens is,3 you have these landlords who might have4 been given out to Section 8 -- and let's5 talk about this. There were three6 projects closed down even though some was7 rebuilt. You have Passyunk Homes, you8 have Wilson Park -- I mean, you have9 Tasker and you have 13th and -- around10 13th and Fitzwater. They all were closed11 down, and these people migrated into12 Point Breeze. 17 Okay. 2 They're going for three or four hundred3 thousand dollars in our low-income4 community. And then what happens is, it5 inspires other landlords to start selling6 out.

So now you have families who have7 to move because they want to sell their8 house and get out of this particular type9 of industry. So you have families moving10 that can't really find -- they don't want11 to move to West Philly. They're moving12 to Darby and Chester. 14 The increased rents, the rents15 are going up to $1,500 to $2,000. 20 And when I was little, I used21 to go to Odunde. All those blocks were22 really mainly working-class communities23 and some low income. A lot of them have24 been moved out. anymore. They all moved out. And we consider this a health4 concern. The CDC has a report out that5 says that when people start seeing6 buildings like this and they start7 thinking about it's gentrification, they8 start to get worried. 9 It brings on increased heart attacks and10 also strokes. 13 We're saying you're bringing14 undue stress on our community. We're15 asking that you put this moratorium in16 and take a deep look at what is happening17 to the community. Yes, it started out18 great, Councilman DiCicco, with the19 ten-year tax abatement. 1 are having an effect on the ground2 troops. We are being attacked. It's3 starting to hurt us. And so we're asking4 you to take -- to pass through this5 moratorium and take a deeper look at your6 policies and respect our community. We7 want to stay two-story, two-story. 13 In conclusion, I just want to14 say this real quick, and then I'm going15 to go. Part of the other reason is with16 the new residents moving in, a lot of the17 residents felt disrespected. Okay? 1 who is going to handle zoning. 4 There's a lot of confliction5 going on in these communities. This is6 not just little Point Breeze. We're7 getting calls from people in West8 Philadelphia. 14 It's starting to be seen around. People15 are waking up. And we're asking you to16 make it a level playing field. Put the17 moratorium through. Let's take a look at18 it. 22

Thank23 you.24

Any questions?25 41 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

Yes.2 The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.3

Actually, I4 don't. I may not necessarily have a5 question for you, but is Mr. Greenberger6 still here? Is there anyone representing7 the Planning Commission that I can8 address this to?9

While you're doing10 it, can I answer his question he posed to11 Ms. Betty, because I think Ms. Betty was12 confused in terms of his question.13 We're talking about two-story14 communities. Okay? Right now currently15 there were no real three-story in South16 Philadelphia, Point Breeze. If it was17 built to three-story, then they did it18 level. They did houses all on19 three-story. But in two-story20 communities, we have mainly two-story21 communities in Point Breeze, from22 Washington Avenue down to -- all the way23 down to like Passyunk Avenue, mainly two24 stories.25 42 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 Councilman Greenlee.3

Just real4 quickly, ma'am, on that. So in this5 area -- this is what I'm trying to get6 at. In this area where the moratorium7 would be, are there blocks that are8 three-story?9

They're not blocks10 that are three-story. You have -- if11 there was a block of three-story, they12 were already built together. They're all13 together. But mainly all the blocks in14 Point Breeze are two-story.15

I16 understand that. I understand, but the17 blocks that are three-story, are there --18

There's not that19 many.20

There's21 no vacant lots in these blocks?22

There's some vacant23 lots.24

Okay.25 43 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 That's what I was trying to get at.2 Those blocks that have vacant lots, under3 the way the bill reads now, as I4 understand, you could only build5 two-story houses on those lots.6

We're saying that7 if it's a two-story community on that8 lot, we're asking to build a two-story9 house, to keep it consistent.10

Right, to11 keep it consistent. On those blocks --12 and you said there's not that many.13 Okay.14

No.15

But the16 ones that are three-story where there's17 vacant lots, the three-story blocks in18 this --19

There's not that20 many three-story blocks. You're trying21 to ask me is there, yes or no. I'm22 saying to you, to your answer is yes, but23 it's not that many. Majority are24 two-story communities.25 44 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

Okay.2 But the blocks that have three-story, if3 there's new construction on there, on4 those lots on those three-story blocks,5 they could only be two-story under this6 bill. That's all I'm trying to get at.7

When you say8 three-story blocks, are you talking about9 half a block or are you talking about a10 whole block?11

Well, I12 don't --13

I'm asking you, are14 you talking about half a block or a whole15 block?16

I mean, I17 don't know.18

Well, if you don't19 know, then I can't answer, because if20 you're saying like a half block -- like21 if you look at the 2100 block of Wharton22 Street, one-half is all three-story. It23 was built like that back in the '50s.24 But the whole block is three-story. So25 45 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 if there's a lot, then we would assume2 that they will build to the three-story3 to keep it even, to keep it conformed.4

But what5 I'm saying, ma'am, under this bill as it6 reads now, you could not do that. That's7 the only thing I'm trying to point out.8 Under this bill, you could not do what9 you just said.10

What that bill11 reads is what we're asking for.12

Okay.13 Thank you.14

Thank15 you.16 The Chair recognizes17 Councilman --18

Okay. But we19 have --20

Just21 a moment, please.22

We're going by what23 the lawyer had said to us.24

Just25 46 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 a moment, please.2 The Chair recognizes Councilman3 Goode.4

Very5 quickly, Madam Chair. Thank you.6 Good morning.7

Good morning.8

The bill9 calls for a temporary moratorium, and10 your testimony is in support of the bill11 for a temporary moratorium, but your12 testimony seems to also call for a13 permanent moratorium. So just for14 clarity of the record, are you really15 asking this Committee and this Council to16 do a permanent moratorium?17

We would like to18 have a moratorium at this particular19 point to look at it, and if it calls for20 that, to do a permanent moratorium.21 We're asking what the people want, and22 this is what the people want. They want23 it to --24

I was just25 47 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 asking whether the people actually want a2 permanent moratorium or a temporary3 moratorium. That was the question.4

Good question. We5 would prefer a permanent moratorium at6 this particular point. I can't define7 what a permanent moratorium is. Can you8 define it for me?9

It has no10 time limit to it. And this bill has a11 time limit to it.12

Do you think that13 within the one year that we can work14 something out to see what could best suit15 the residents?16

I think --17

Do you think one18 year is long enough?19

I think the20 pictures that you offered tell the story.21 I think you told the story that you22 wanted to tell. I think it was an23 effective story, whether people agree or24 disagree. I think what you're really25 48 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 asking for in the end is a permanent2 moratorium. So if that's what you're3 really asking for, I'm just saying for4 clarity of record --5

Yes. We would like6 to work towards having two-story houses7 built in two-story communities. That's8 what we're asking for, a permanent. Yes.9

Thank you.10 Thank you, Madam Chair.11

Thank12 you.13 The Chair recognizes Councilman14 Clarke.15

Thank you,16 Madam President.17 I was actually just planning on18 asking some of the same questions as19 Councilman Goode, but the whole issue of20 the Zoning Code Commission, because I21 know the Planning Commission essentially22 wants us to not do any overlays or any23 aggressive Council-mandated legislation24 relating to planning, height limits and25 49 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 all the other things until that's2 finished. Can you tell me when the3 Zoning Code Commission will be finished4 and ready to be implemented?5

I'm Gary6 Jastrzab. I'm the Executive Director of7 the City Planning Commission.8 The Zoning Code Commission9 earlier this month voted to issue a10 preliminary draft report based on the11 rewritten Zoning Code, and the Zoning12 Code Commission is now allowing the13 public, interested stakeholders14 additional time to review the rewritten15 Code, is taking comments on that and16 expects to issue a final report -- I17 should say a preliminary report -- to18 City Council by the end of June. So19 that's the current timeline.20

And Council21 will probably be in recess.22

Well, the object23 is to issue the preliminary report to24 Council before you go in recess. So25 50 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 then --2

I'm just3 trying to get a timeline. You don't have4 to be very detailed in terms of what5 actually has to happen.6 All right. Let me try to do it7 for you. There's going to be a8 preliminary report issued to Council.9

Correct.10

The word11 "preliminary" is key. There then shall12 be a review by Council on the preliminary13 report.14

Correct.15

And then16 Council at some point will schedule a17 hearing to discuss the final proposal.18

Yes.19

Council's20 process may take some time, as we're on21 Bill No. 1 for the last hour. So you can22 see, we do deliberate. So there's a23 strong possibility that this may not24 even -- the Zoning Code Commission report25 51 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 may not actually become legislation until2 the end of the year. So if the3 suggestion is -- and we're still in4 March. If the suggestion is that we5 impose a moratorium of a year for an6 area, the Zoning Code Commission's7 recommendations may not even become law8 until next year.9 So in terms of the timing, I10 don't see why that should be a problem.11 It's almost concurrent in terms of the12 timeframe. So while you all do your13 work, there could be a moratorium on any14 additional three-story units built within15 this targeted area, because as Mr.16 Greenberger said, his recommendations in17 terms of coming up with a compromise or18 some sort of solution and having setbacks19 or other prohibitions with decks may be20 the answer, but that's not going to be21 the law probably until the end of the22 year.23

Until Council24 passes it and the Mayor signs it.25 52 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

Exactly.2 So I don't see why that issue in terms of3 timing should be a problem if we impose4 this moratorium until you all with the5 Zoning Code -- I'm sorry; Ms. Gladstein6 does their work with the Zoning Code7 Commission.8 Secondly, this whole notion9 about overlays, I understand that City10 Planning doesn't like them, and I do them11 whenever I get a chance, when I think I12 need to do them.13

Yes.14

I did the15 Parkway overlay. It started very small16 and it grew, because that community up17 there wanted that overlay, and in that18 particular case, there was an opportunity19 to build the buildings a whole lot taller20 than three stories. As a matter of fact,21 it was in an area that it didn't affect22 residents directly until we expanded23 that, but at the end of the day, the24 residents in the Spring Garden and the25 53 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Logan Square community thought it gave2 them an opportunity, at a minimum, to3 require developers to come to the4 community, and sometimes the community5 felt comfortable, most recently with the6 temple being built by the Latter-Day7 Saints.8 I don't see why in this9 particular case if -- and ultimately the10 sponsor of the bill will determine what11 strategy and process they will take. If12 there's a moratorium imposed in terms of13 height limit in that particular area, if14 there is a developer who comes in and can15 convince the local community that they16 should be able to build a three-story17 property within that targeted area and18 the community is comfortable with it,19 then they can always go to the Zoning20 Board and get a variance, right?21

Well, as I22 understand the bill, the bill imposes a23 one-year moratorium on the issuance of24 permits for any structure that would be25 54 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 taller than a two-story residential.2

So they3 wouldn't be able to get the permit. All4 right.5

Yes.6

I just want7 to get clarity on that.8

So the9 moratorium is not on necessarily the10 right to build, but it's the issuance of11 permits, which provide the authorization12 to do the construction.13

Okay. All14 right. Well, as they say, a picture says15 a thousand words, or whatever the saying16 is. I can't remember exactly what it is.17 When I saw this picture here -- because18 I'm a pro-development guy. In my19 district we do a lot of development, but20 I see this picture here on this21 particular property stuck in the middle22 of this two-story block, I think that23 there needs to be some provision that24 prohibits this generally, not just for25 55 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Point Breeze or anywhere, because this is2 not something that would be allowed to be3 done in a lot of parts of the City. I4 mean, we argue about a lot of things.5 Some people don't want buildings to have6 signs on them. You know what I mean?7

No. I would8 agree with that. From a design point of9 view, from an urban fabric point of view,10 that's something that we're not11 particularly in favor of either, and we12 think that some of the provisions of the13 newly rewritten Zoning Code will address14 those issues.15

All right.16 But that's not -- again, that probably17 won't be done until --18

Correct.19

-- sometime20 in the end of the year.21

Until Council22 passes the bill.23

And I know24 myself, because I have a lot of25 56 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 organizations in my district that are2 paying close attention to this Zoning3 Code Commission's report, and there are a4 lot of things in there that they don't,5 frankly speaking, like.6 So I personally, this7 Councilperson, who does not represent8 Point Breeze, I don't see a problem with9 imposing a moratorium. Maybe it10 shouldn't be a year or whatever, but I11 think that until the Zoning Code12 Commission, which was referenced by13 Mr. Greenberger as the solution to this14 problem, is put in place, I don't know15 why we shouldn't be in a position to put16 a moratorium on permits issued in this17 area.18

Well, our19 feeling -- the staff of the City Planning20 Commission and the Commission members21 themselves I think feel that a moratorium22 in this broadly defined area is also not23 a particularly good solution for dealing24 with the problem. Staff did a survey of25 57 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 the neighborhood, a sampling of blocks2 throughout the neighborhood, and the3 physical form of Point Breeze is very4 much varied. The blocks closer to Broad5 Street between Broad and 17th, 18th6 Street, the majority of those blocks are7 three-story blocks. I think as you move8 west, there is very much a mix. So --9

Let me ask10 you this, not to cut you off, are there11 areas where there are blocks that in its12 entirety are two-story blocks?13

There probably14 are completely two-story blocks, yes.15

So at a16 minimum, would it be reasonable to say17 that those blocks should have a18 moratorium on the issuance or some sort19 of provision that prohibits the20 construction of three stories on those21 blocks so you will maintain some22 consistency where there are no three23 stories on the block?24

That might be25 58 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 one possibility, but the bill as2 currently defined defines Point Breeze so3 broadly --4

I5 understand.6

-- and we think7 would have a chilling effect on new8 building, on renovations in the9 neighborhood in a way that would just10 have a negative effect not only on the11 neighborhood but on the City overall in12 terms of potential tax revenues for the13 future and attracting new residents.14

The first15 order of -- level of interest as it16 relates to us representing people should17 be the people that live there. I mean,18 if the people that live there think that19 this is good for them, I think that they20 should rank pretty high on the totem pole21 as it relates to --22

I wouldn't23 disagree.24

-- the25 59 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 priorities established in terms of what2 we do. So if the people in that3 neighborhood who have lived on these4 blocks and have these blocks that are5 three-story -- I'm sorry; two-story6 properties in its entirety or relatively7 close to three-story, if they say that we8 should maintain the character -- because9 I represent Center City and I represent10 the Art Museum area, and I always hear11 this "keeping within the character of the12 neighborhood," and you all usually13 support that.14

Yes.15

Sometimes16 recommend that. So in this particular17 case, I guess the request is that they18 want to maintain the character that19 relates to that particular neighborhood20 where we have these blocks that have21 two-story homes, and I don't understand22 why you all wouldn't take the same23 position on those particular blocks.24 Because the reality is, if I took that25 60 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 height limit off of the Parkway at 125,2 there probably would be a lot of people3 coming in wanting to build like that4 44-story building that was proposed at5 20th and Pennsylvania, and the neighbors6 were livid. A former Senator actually7 helped fund the opposition.8 So on these blocks -- and I9 don't know Point Breeze enough to have a10 real sense of -- but if you got blocks11 that are two-story blocks, I don't12 understand why we shouldn't be able to13 impose some sort of moratorium on it.14

I guess my15 response would be that we were evaluating16 the bill as written, and it's very --17

So would18 you be amenable to --19

The area is very20 broadly defined.21

Can you22 reevaluate based on this hearing?23

I mean, that's24 certainly a possibility, yes. But there25 61 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 are portions of the neighborhood that I2 think have serious concerns about the way3 the bill is currently written.4 Businesses along Washington Avenue, I'm5 told, have serious concerns because of6 the nature of those properties, the7 height of those properties would be8 prohibited from making additions or from9 being granted permits for anything that10 would allow --11

Are they12 here today?13

I don't know if14 they're here today. We've been --15

Usually16 when people are concerned, they come to17 the public hearing.18

Sure.19 (Audience member raising hand.)20

Are you21 here? Okay.22

Can I say23 something?24

Sure.25 62 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

It's having a2 chilling effect on us, and the Planning3 Commission at this particular point, if4 you read the Zoning Code -- first of all,5 the Zoning Code has been rewritten three6 times, and we've asked them to give the7 communities a chance to look at it three8 times. You can't get a copy. If you9 download it, it will mess up your10 computer.11 So I started to say, they have12 raised it from 35 feet to 38 feet, and13 we've had e-mail conversation with Eva14 saying, What is your reason for raising15 it from 35 feet to 38 feet? And in one16 of the reasons that was given to us was17 because there was too many people going18 to the ZBA for variances. This would cut19 back on paperwork.20 I mean, cut back on paperwork?21 You raise it to 38 feet. We're saying22 that at this particular point, we have23 support in 1700, 1600 blocks of -- 16th24 Street, 17th Street and 15th Street,25 63 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 little blocks that are two-story. We2 have that support, and they too don't3 want it.4 I just want to say thank you to5 Ms. Verna. I want to say thank you,6 Councilwoman Verna. It took a lot of7 courage -- not courage, but I want to say8 thank you for listening to us and9 understanding, you know, what your10 particular constituency was going11 through.12

And I13 will tell you that I did listen to your14 group and I did introduce this bill.15 However, never in my wildest dream did I16 think that there would be so much17 opposition. You know me long enough to18 know that in the past whenever we had an19 issue in the community, I always asked20 for a petition. Well, this area was so21 broad that it would be impossible to have22 received petitions from every area in the23 Point Breeze area.24 I know that you spoke about25 64 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 this for at least a year, a year and a2 half, but, as I said, when this became3 known to an awful lot of people, the4 opposition just kept growing every day.5 And while you're up there,6 Tiffany, let me just ask a question.7 Mr. Greenberger advised that the8 moratorium would interfere with9 investment in the neighborhood throughout10 the Neighborhood Stabilization Program11 administered by the Redevelopment12 Authority and could result in the13 Redevelopment Authority having to return14 federal funds. If the goals of the15 result in the RDA have not been achieved,16 the Neighborhood Stabilization Program is17 designed to stabilize property values in18 targeted areas such as Point Breeze19 through investment in homeownership,20 housing rehabilitation, foreclosure21 prevention and weatherization programs,22 all of which are beneficial to residents23 in the area.24 Now, I know how you feel about25 65 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 the community, and I feel equally as2 strongly. I don't know how we can afford3 to turn money back for all of these4 programs. If ever an area needed more5 funding, it's the Point Breeze area. So6 why would we jeopardize losing that7 money?8 Further, Mr. Greenberger also9 noted that the moratorium could also10 interfere with the City's surplus11 property program. There are over 20012 City-owned surplus properties in Point13 Breeze which are currently for sale by14 the Department of Public Property. This15 legislation, if passed, could prevent any16 sale of those properties and, as a17 result, prevent their return to the18 City's tax rolls.19 Are you willing to jeopardize20 all that --21

Can I answer that?22

-- at23 this point in time when we can wait until24 the next Code comes out? And I know,25 66 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Councilman, you said it would be --2 Councilman Clarke?3

Yes, ma'am.4

I5 think you said you indicated it would6 take a year before --7

I said it8 could conceivably take a year, but, Madam9 President -- and I know I shouldn't be10 mucking around in your district, because11 I know --12

Your13 turn is coming.14

I should15 quit while I'm ahead.16 But, Madam President, I do have17 a concern about some of the testimony as18 it relates to Mr. Greenberger in19 discussing NSP, because, one, the reason20 why the funding of some of these stimulus21 dollars are in jeopardy is not because of22 Point Breeze, because there was a23 document sent by HUD that referenced all24 of the stimulus money, not Point Breeze,25 67 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 because of the process that was going on2 within the City has slowed down the3 ability for us to get that money in the4 pipeline, in addition to which if you5 look at -- if Mr. Greenberger was here,6 he can tell you the number of NSP7 properties are minimal, at best, that8 have been implemented, and I suspect that9 within the Point Breeze area, there's10 probably no more than two or three11 properties that have been selected for12 NSP, maybe a little more.13 I think that his testimony is a14 little overblown, in addition to which15 there are 200 City-owned plots in Point16 Breeze, but all of them are not for sale.17 I think the numbers are more around 20.18 And the question is, of that 20, how many19 people actually wanted to build three20 stories. So the testimony, I think,21 frankly speaking, is kind of --22

I23 think we have further testimony.24

Yeah, we do have25 68 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 further testimony.2 And, Ms. Verna, I just want to3 say to you real quick, you know I would4 not come here unless we had the community5 support. We are not focusing on6 organizations who, one, have received7 funds from developers or who are in the8 developing business. We have dealt with9 the residents. You know we have the10 support, and we don't have -- we would11 not come down here without the support of12 the people in terms of petitions.13 So the thing about it is, is14 that people have spoken, and we're asking15 you to respect their request.16 Thank you very much. Thank you17 very much.18 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:19 Tiffany, as I said, I've worked with you20 a long time. I have received countless,21 countless e-mails, telephone calls,22 letters of people who are opposed to23 this. Now --24

Well, we brought a25 69 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 bus down. We have the people sitting up2 there. We brought a bus down.3

Well,4 that's great.5

And more could6 come, but we couldn't afford more buses.7 So at this particular point, we do have8 the support.9 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:10 Tiffany, I -- I'm sorry you had to wait11 so long, Councilman.12

No problem.13

Let me let some of14 the other residents come down to speak.15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 Councilman Goode.17

I actually18 have a question for Mr. Jastrzab.19 You said in your comments20 earlier -- and I heard you clearly,21 because it's my job to hear you22 clearly -- that this is not a23 particularly good solution to this24 particular problem. Do you recall saying25 70 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 that?2

Yes.3

What do you4 identify the problem as being?5

In terms of the6 physical nature of two-story blocks being7 impacted by property owners who may want8 to build a taller structure, a9 three-story structure, on a vacant lot or10 perhaps there may be situations where an11 existing three-story structure wants to12 build an addition, owner of a three-story13 property wants to build an addition onto14 the back.15

That's what16 you identify as a problem?17

I'm sorry?18

That is what19 you identify as a problem?20

Yes.21

So what is22 the solution?23

Well, we think24 one solution is some of the provision in25 71 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 the new Zoning Code. That is a solution2 that is kind of on the table currently.3 We do not believe that a moratorium on4 all new construction is.5

What is the6 solution?7

Passage of the8 new Zoning Code.9

But that's10 very ambiguous, just like your comment11 was earlier about this is not a12 particularly good solution to this13 particular problem. Let me tell you what14 I heard, and you can correct me if I'm15 wrong.16 She identifies the problem as17 there being too many three-story18 buildings presently and in the future,19 and I think you identified the problem as20 being there being too many two-story21 buildings now and in the future.22

No.23

That's what24 I heard.25 72 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

No. That's not2 what I meant.3

Then tell me4 what you meant.5

What I meant was6 that on blocks that are consistently7 two-story, maintaining that consistent8 physical fabric of the City I think is9 something that we at City Planning10 Commission would also generally agree11 with.12

Is this13 wrong?14 (Councilman Goode holding up15 picture.)16

It is not17 something that would be --18

Is it wrong?19

-- preferred20 from a design point of view.21

Is it wrong?22

I don't know23 that I can say that it's wrong. It's not24 something that's preferred.25 73 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

Then I don't2 think you have a solution to the problem.3 Thank you, Madam Chair.4 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:5 You're welcome.6 The Chair recognizes7 Councilwoman Brown.8

Thank you9 very much, Madam Chair.10 My concern also is that I'm11 deeply troubled about process or lack12 thereof, because I did hear you mention13 that as a result of the release of the14 preliminary report, that it would then15 come to Philadelphia City Council,16 correct?17

It will.18

And you19 also indicated that you'd be asking20 for -- let me back up.21 You will be asking for22 community input prior to the release of23 the preliminary report?24

Correct.25 74 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

From2 there, it will come to Philadelphia City3 Council?4

Correct.5

At what6 point in that process is there some7 feedback to the community on the points,8 concerns, issues, suggestions,9 recommendations raised as it relates to10 the report?11

Well, I think12 that during the whole process, the Zoning13 Code Commission's process, that there's14 been an attempt to make the process open15 and transparent and to conduct -- to16 allow for continuing dialogue between the17 Zoning Code Commissioners and staff and18 other stakeholders in the City who are19 involved in development, community20 associations, neighborhood residents. So21 that process has continued throughout the22 life of the Zoning Code Commission.23

I don't24 doubt that. The step I'm missing is the25 75 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 follow-through and the feedback to those2 stakeholders to find out where their3 concern has been registered in this4 preliminary report.5

I'm going to6 ask --7 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:8 Ms. Gladstein, if there's information you9 can give us to enlighten us, please feel10 free to go to the microphone.11 (Witness approached witness12 table.)13

Thank you. Eva14 Gladstein, Executive Director of the15 Zoning Code Commission.16 In addition to 43 public17 meetings and 36 community-based meetings,18 we had two meetings in February, on the19 18th and 28th, specifically to get20 feedback about what comments and input we21 had received from stakeholders and how22 the Zoning Code Commission had disposed23 of those, what positions the Zoning Code24 Commission had taken and the reasoning25 76 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 behind that.2

Okay.3

And then in4 addition to that, we're holding seven,5 what we're calling, stakeholder exchanges6 this month and next month going issue by7 issue having that conversation.8 And then, lastly, as Ms. Green9 said, I've had e-mail and personal10 conversations about this issue. I think11 we've just disagreed, but we've had a12 number of conversations about it.13

That is14 helpful, and that is what I was not15 hearing in terms of process.16 Please, you wanted to comment?17

Councilwoman18 Blondell Reynolds, the reason why they're19 having this, because what happened was,20 they had three rewrites of the Zoning21 Code since December, three rewrites, and22 they were not really being distributed23 out to the community, and we spoke to24 some community groups in our community.25 77 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 They didn't even know that there were2 three rewrites. And then when you ask3 for a copy, they didn't give out copies4 of it because it was so thick.5 So when we were -- so I decided6 to go down to the Zoning Code Commission7 and let them know our position about the8 three-story houses in our community. At9 that point when I let them know,10 according to the City statistics, 90,00011 kids do not have Internet access. So12 that means that their parents don't have13 Internet access. So how are they14 supposed to access zoningmatters.org?15 So then they come back with,16 oh, now they're going to have these17 community meetings for the community18 regarding -- explaining to them, but19 they're at 5 o'clock. A lot of parents20 are getting off at 5 o'clock, picking up21 kids. The Zoning meeting is at 8 o'clock22 in the morning. It was very hard for me23 to get there 8 o'clock in the morning.24 After three rewrites, you have25 78 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 changed what you went around and said to2 the community last year. That's not the3 same Zoning Code that they presented4 last -- back in Christmastime. You have5 three rewrites. So the community really6 don't know what has been put into the new7 Zoning Code.8

So given9 those revelations, Ms. Gladstein, what10 accommodations are being made for11 community members who indeed should12 have -- you've given them a say, but the13 process is not completed until the actual14 preliminary document, draft document, is15 shared with them in a way that meets16 where they are, and if there's no17 Internet access, then what accommodation18 is made?19

When asked, I20 have provided copies of the 400-page21 document. It has changed over time.22 It's changed because we are23 consistently --24

It's a25 79 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 fluid working document.2

And we're3 continuing to hear comments and react to4 them and make those changes as many5 groups have asked for.6 So when requested, we've7 provided copies. We've added these8 meetings. And when asked, I've gone out9 to speak to many community meetings. I10 was in a meeting that the Council11 President's office asked the Planning12 Commission to hold in the last maybe13 three weeks with residents of Point14 Breeze as well. That was held in the15 evening.16

That is17 helpful.18 My second and final question19 is, it appears from where I'm sitting and20 from what I've heard that there's a21 disconnect with L&I. Where is L&I in22 this process?23

L&I has advised24 our staff, the City Planning Commission25 80 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 staff, regarding this bill, but, I mean,2 I'm not sure that they're necessarily3 involved to the same extent. The4 moratorium would just prevent them from5 issuing any permits for structures over6 two stories in this neighborhood. I7 mean, they review the plans and the8 building permit applications for this,9 but, I mean, they're issuing the permit10 only. The bill would just prevent them11 from doing that.12

Starting13 at some designated date?14

Yes. I assume15 upon passage and when this would become16 law, if it would.17

Thank you18 all for your testimony.19 Thank you, Madam Chair.20

Thank21 you.22

Thank you very23 much.24

I25 81 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 would like to make an announcement. We2 did have a Capital Budget hearing3 scheduled for 11 o'clock this morning.4 For some reason we thought we would be5 able to do that. It's quite obvious that6 we're not going to. Therefore, we are7 going to continue the Capital Budget8 hearing until 1 o'clock today. So anyone9 in here who is going to be testifying on10 the Capital Budget, I would suggest you11 go out and have yourself breakfast and12 come back at 1 o'clock. Thank you.13 Madeline Shikomba.14 (Witness approached witness15 table.)16

Good17 morning. Please identify yourself for18 the record.19 Madeline, I think you just20 heard me say that we do have a Capital21 Budget hearing.22

I will be brief.23

If24 you could be as brief as possible, we'd25 82 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 appreciate it.2

I'll try to be3 as brief as possible.4

Thank5 you.6

Thank you, City7 Council, for allowing me to speak before8 you. I appreciate this opportunity.9 Am I speaking into the mike?10

No,11 you're not.12

I'm not?13 Am I speaking into it now?14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:15 That's fine.16

Thank you very17 much. Again, I thank you for letting me18 speak before you. I'm here about the19 three-story buildings. You've already20 seen the pictures and how blight they21 become to our neighborhood. 4 Also, as pointed out by5 Ms. Green, this impacts upon low-income6 people. You build these three-story7 houses, $400,000 for them. Who are they8 building them for? 10 Ms. 14 These buildings are a blight to15 the neighborhood. They have bay windows,16 some of them. They throw the whole17 neighborhood out of sync. 19 I live next to a building20 that's three-story -- that is taller than21 my house. 1 necessary repairs. So now I got to take2 them back to court again. 5 Also, you talking about6 building three-story houses. You're not7 building them for affordable people or8 low-income people. You building them for9 high end. So what you talking about when10 you talking about these vacant lots you11 have and everything? You not going to12 sell them for people who are going to13 build low-income housing. You know that14 as well as I do. You going to sell them15 to high-end folk. So they going to come16 in the neighborhoods, drive your people17 out of here. And Philadelphia is already18 losing a lot of people, okay, in terms of19 population, and all we got to do, have20 our representation go down because we21 losing people. not the high-enders. Okay? Secondly, your low-income4 people, they're the stabilizer of your5 neighborhood. They stabilized it. I6 live in a block, fortunately for me it's7 a historical block. A couple years ago,8 empty lot was bought. The man wanted to9 come in and build a three-story house on10 a two-story block. Fortunately for us,11 the Historical Society sided with us. He12 had to build a two-story house. But that13 was fortunate for us. 18 They got the RCOs, registered community19 organizations. They done rewritten this20 thing three times. Right now the current21 way it is written, RCOs are deleted. 1 us, shut us down, close our mouths. 10 We have talked to Eva about11 this. She has given us her answers and12 eliminated many of the suggestions that13 we have made. Some of them she has14 added. I'm not saying she eliminated all15 of them. Some of them she added. 2 We're asking you, again, to3 please allow this moratorium. It's only4 in Point Breeze. It's not hitting the5 whole City. You're seeing the pictures6 on how ugly these things look. 13

Thank14 you, Madeline.15 We will now hear from Claudia16 Sherrod and Universal Companies, if they17 could both approach the witness table.18 (Witnesses approached witness19 table.)20

Good21 morning. Please identify yourself for22 the record and proceed with your23 testimony.24

Say that again.25 88 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 Identify yourself for the record and3 proceed with your testimony.4

Okay. My name is5 Claudia Smith Sherrod. I'm the Executive6 Director of South Philadelphia HOMES and7 the President of the Point Breeze8 Community Development Coalition.9

Good morning.10 My name is Mook Manislam (ph) and I'm a11 counsel for Universal Companies.12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:13 Claudia, would you proceed with your14 testimony.15

I'd like to say16 good morning to everyone, starting with17 you, Council President Anna Verna, and I18 am here to briefly state what many have19 called me to ask to repeal, this Bill No.20 110134. This bill does not represent the21 Point Breeze communities' support. It22 may have helped residents to realize we23 need each other more than ever than what24 we thought, and I thank you for that,25 89 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 because a lot of people have knocked on2 my doors and called me on the phone, just3 like you have.4 To the contrary to what you5 were trying to do, this bill would hurt6 the development and growth for affordable7 housing and market-rate housing, even the8 houses that we're planning to do would9 cease to be.10 We are a designated NSP211 funding area. We would lose this.12 Please let the area grow. With this13 bill, we would lose all we've tried to14 accomplish. Let the community, block by15 block, deal with the three-story issue as16 they deem necessary. This issue is not a17 legislative issue. It is personal and18 must be dealt with as individuals have19 concerns. And they do.20 There are blocks that have two-21 and three-story buildings, which is22 common in the Breeze. The small23 two-story blocks that are also a common24 site in the Breeze are the problems that25 90 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 draw disputes. These disputes are best2 handled by the residents that live within3 the blocks that are having an issue. The4 community will deal with the negative5 confrontations that periodically occur.6 The Zoning Commission has7 suggested a setback of third-floor units,8 8 or 9 feet, I'm not sure, from the view9 on two-story building blocks. Perhaps10 that will help. I really don't know. I11 don't have the answer.12 There is nothing more serious13 than having a community that cannot work14 together for the good of their area. The15 impact of this bill would be devastating16 to our community.17 That's all I really have to18 say, because I'm speaking on the bill19 only, not the issue.20 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:21 Claudia, how would this -- I believe you22 have indicated to me that in a short23 period of time, it is anticipated that24 they will start construction on Federal25 91 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Street.2

Yes; 16th and3 Federal.4

And5 they offer three-story buildings?6

Yes.7

So8 this would certainly affect --9

Yes.10

--11 that development.12

Yes, it would.13

Thank14 you.15

Good morning,16 Madam President and members of City17 Council. 21 I am testifying today in22 opposition to Bill No. 110134, which was23 introduced at the March 3rd Council24 meeting. 1 moratorium for the issuance of any2 construction permit for buildings,3 additions to, or roof decks which will4 exceed two stories in height. The5 proposed boundaries are Washington Avenue6 to Moore Street and Broad Street to 25th7 Street. 16 Instituting such a moratorium is sure to17 have a chilling effect on the property18 values. At such a critical economic19 juncture where the values of residential20 property have reached record lows, this21 moratorium is sure to compound upon this22 pre-existing problem. 1 investment within the proposed area may2 be drastically affected. 11 Under the Promise Neighborhood Grant,12 Universal was awarded 500,000 by the13 Department of Education to revitalize the14 Point Breeze and Grays Ferry15 neighborhoods. 19 Coupled with an additional $250,00020 through the private sector, we are21 currently planning to address specific22 educational emphasis included on23 workforce development, economic24 development and housing blight. 8 Phase 2 of that grant is --9 will be awarded additional funding for10 implementation of that planning. 13 The implementation of a moratorium on14 building permits within the proposed area15 may severely affect Universal's ability16 to qualify for Phase 2 under the second17 phase of the grant. 1 corridors, improving housing conditions,2 implementing social programs and many3 other positive community enforcement4 programs. 10 Lastly, Universal has concerns11 in regards to the implementation of the12 bill as contrary to a significant portion13 of the housing stock in the proposed14 area. 17 However, properties from Broad Street to18 approximately 18th to 19th Street are19 comprised of a significant number of20 three-story structures. As testified by21 City Planning Commission earlier, this is22 not necessarily aesthetic to the entire23 location in the proposed area. 5 Included with the6 above-referenced concerns is the concern7 that such moratorium does not propose8 proper planning, studies or research9 throughout the duration of the10 moratorium. What is the need for such a11 halt in development? What specific work12 will be done? Without a mandate of such13 proportion, merely prohibiting14 construction of such building is likely15 to have greater negative effects than any16 possible marginal benefit. 1 Administration in its opposition to the2 approval of the bill. The implementation3 of such a moratorium is likely to cause a4 significant community backlash by its5 adoption with minimal community6 involvement. 14

Any15 questions for these witnesses?16 The Chair recognizes Councilman17 Goode.18

Thank you,19 Madam Chair.20 Just a simple question. What21 do you believe the bill was trying to22 address? What problem do you think23 exists or doesn't exist that the bill was24 trying to address?25 98 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

In my opinion, it2 was taking the voice away from the3 people.4

My question5 is, what do you think the bill was trying6 to resolve?7

Revolve8 three-story buildings being built on9 two-story blocks.10

And is there11 a solution to that problem?12

At our zoning13 meetings when a three-story building goes14 onto a three-story block, if enough of15 the residents come out in opposition, we16 shoot it down before it get an17 opportunity to be built. So it's18 resolved. But I think the19 over-the-counter, you know, license or20 permits really hurt us rather than help21 us. This bill cannot really help our22 community.23

So if the24 resolution -- I understand your25 99 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 opposition to the bill. You don't have2 to keep stating it.3

Okay.4

I'm really5 just trying to figure out how we can6 resolve as much of that here. You said7 that the solution is to have it handled8 in the zoning committee by the community?9

Yes.10

Do you11 believe that's going to be able to be12 done after the Zoning Code goes into13 effect?14

Well, if the15 Zoning Code impedes the community's say,16 voice, it would be a problem. I don't17 know. I have to see what they have --18

So your19 solution to the problem is not going to20 last much longer than their solution to21 the problem.22

Possibility. I23 really don't know what the Zoning24 Commission have in store for the25 100 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 community. I know they're trying to do2 some things to update their files, but if3 they try to take our voice, it won't4 work.5

So if a6 temporary moratorium doesn't work for7 them and a temporary voice until the8 Zoning Code goes into effect for you,9 then you still have a problem. We still10 have a problem.11

I hear what12 you're saying, but we have not had a13 problem in the past. We've had some14 people who are really aggravated and15 upset because of the three-story16 buildings. Matter of fact, let me speak17 to my block. I live in the 2100 block of18 Federal Street. There are eight or nine19 three-story houses. I reside in one. On20 the opposite side, it's all two stories.21 Last year, a three-story building came22 up. I asked my neighbor did he have a23 problem with it. He said no. That was24 the end, case closed. It was no issue.25 101 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 I feel that it should be2 resolved between the blocks. It is an3 issue -- if a person don't have a problem4 in that block, why should anyone outside5 of that block have a problem? They don't6 live in that block.7

I don't8 disagree with that. My only point is9 that if that is the resolution to this10 problem, that resolution is temporary as11 well.12

Well, the13 resolution would stop development in14 Point Breeze and it would stop South15 Philadelphia HOMES from making affordable16 houses available for the residents.17

I get that.18 But if we don't do a moratorium, let's19 say we don't do a moratorium, the problem20 still exists on both sides. One, those21 people who want development not to go22 above two stories probably can't block it23 necessarily in the Zoning Code, and those24 people who might want it in some places,25 102 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 development to go above two stories,2 might not have it happen either. So the3 issue of it being resolved through4 neighbors working it out or neighbors5 being organized and neighbors having6 their own zoning committees is not7 necessarily a permanent solution. So I'm8 looking for how it's going to be worked9 out permanently.10

I think one11 way -- and Ms. Sherrod has mentioned12 this -- is block by block. The current13 proposed area is too expansive. You're14 talking about from Broad Street to 25th15 Street. You're talking about from16 Washington to Moore. I think there's a17 hundred -- I'm not sure. Mr. Greenberger18 testified to how large those properties19 are, but there's a lot of properties that20 are not two-story in nature. I think one21 idea could be possibly is if you minimize22 the bill to have a block that has 7523 percent two-story maybe, a block that has24 majority two-story. Maybe if you25 103 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 minimize the area of the bill.2

So a3 solution might be an amendment?4

It could be, but5 our concern is the expansiveness of it.6 And the second concern, more7 importantly, is, what is the call for the8 study. If you want a study today or9 tomorrow to go into effect, I think that10 will be a better solution to say, Hey,11 let's determine what blocks are affected12 by this issue and let's then address it13 that way. But just to initially propose14 a moratorium, it affects the property15 values and it affects a significant issue16 with economic viability for a struggling17 area.18

My last19 question is real simple. Are the two20 sides having conversation right now on21 this issue?22

What two sides?23

Two sides24 within the community.25 104 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

The community as2 a whole was not abreast to this act even3 being put into place. They were -- they4 didn't know anything about it. So when5 we got it, I just got calls all over the6 place, and I will be discussing it when7 we have our next community meeting. But8 we knew nothing about it. So how could9 you have a discussion when you don't know10 anything about something?11

And I would12 concur with that.13

Thank you.14 Thank you, Madam Chair.15

Thank16 you.17 Thank you both very much.18 Our next two witnesses,19 Bernardino Allegretti and Amy Henson.20 Is Mr. Allegretti here?21 (No response.)22

Amy23 Henson?24

I'm coming25 105 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 down.2

Thank3 you.4 While they're coming down, if5 Jonathan King and Barbara Capozzi are on6 this level, if they would please approach7 the witness table.8 (Witnesses approached witness9 table.)10

Good11 afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for12 the record.13

Good afternoon.14 Thank you for allowing me to speak. My15 name is Jonathan King and I'm a homeowner16 in the 2100 block of Tasker Street.17 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:18 Please proceed.19

As an initial20 matter, Councilwoman, you mentioned the21 opposition that has been coming in to22 this bill. 1 mentioned, it was kind of the last2 minute. We put up a website on Saturday3 night where neighbors could sign a4 petition, and in just three days, we have5 104 signatures on our online petition6 opposing this bill. 8 In addition to that, I would9 like to -- one second. 12 My wife and I moved to Point13 Breeze in 2008 after I was laid off from14 my job. What seemed like unfortunate15 circumstances turned out to be the best16 financial decision of our lives. 4 To explain, Councilman5 Greenlee, you were asking specific6 questions about this bill. I live on a7 block with a three-story building on the8 end of the block, a church, which is9 obviously more than three stories with10 the steeple, and a four-story community11 center. If this bill passes, my wife and12 I will not be able to build a three-story13 building even though on our block there14 is a three-story building. And if you go15 through Point Breeze, there are one or16 two at least three-story buildings on17 most blocks, including on the east side18 where it's -- three-story buildings are19 quite common. 1 specifically checked the Zoning Code to2 make sure that we could build a third3 story if we could ever afford to do it,4 and by passing this legislation, you are5 taking that right away from us after the6 fact. Now, I know we're only7 contemplating a one-year ban here, but we8 all know this is an election year and the9 future is anything but certain. So my10 fear is that -- and I think a lot of11 people's fear here -- is that this12 one-year ban could easily be made13 permanent. 16 My wife and I are not real17 estate speculators trying to make a quick18 buck. We want to stay in our homes for19 the rest of our lives. Banning20 three-story homes will take away our21 ability to expand our home to meet our22 family needs. It will also cause our23 home -- and this is where it gets me24 upset. 1 immediately lose value, and like a lot of2 people these days, our home is our only3 asset. It will also place restrictions4 on our neighborhood that do not exist5 anywhere else in the City. 9 Now, I understand that some of10 our neighbors, including -- I remember11 Ms. Beaufort said this. Some of our12 neighbors are worried that they will be13 forced to move. I don't want to see14 anyone forced to leave their home. I15 don't think anybody does. But16 three-story buildings don't force anyone17 to move. 19 And now I don't -- I don't know20 if there's been any property tax21 increases in Point Breeze, but if there22 is, then that is the problem that needs23 to be addressed. 1 they will be allowed, our neighborhood2 will be allowed to grow, and everyone3 will be able to stay and enjoy it. There4 is plenty of room in Point Breeze for5 everyone. 6 We have abandoned lots. We could have7 new residents. We can have long-time8 residents stay. 10 There are very few issues in11 government where one solution benefits12 everyone. 20

We21 appreciate your coming in to testify.22 Thank you so much.23 Barbara.24

My name is25 111 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 Barbara Capozzi and I have in the last2 two months become more and more familiar3 with the wonderful people in Point4 Breeze, and they asked me to get involved5 with this issue.6 The people that I have been7 speaking with did not know about this8 bill until last week. There had been9 rumors, but they did not know about it10 until after it was introduced. But I11 also want to say that there was some12 confusion yesterday between the Mayor's13 Office and City Council's office, and14 many, many people thought the bill was15 being continued. So I don't see as many16 people here as originally we expected.17 You will be able to -- I will urge them18 to write letters, et cetera.19 One thing that really upset me20 was that the first people that testified21 thought that they were being targeted and22 their neighborhood. Certainly, certainly23 not true. You can go to any neighborhood24 in the City and see three-story homes25 112 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 popping up. My own neighborhood -- and I2 want to say how it was addressed in my3 neighborhood. People came to us and4 complained, but the people that were5 right near them did not mind that a6 two-story became a three-story. It7 represents a family that wants to stay.8 They've outgrown their two-story home or9 they've had a baby or they've had to take10 in a mother or a father and their11 alternative was either to sell their home12 or to build that third story. So that's13 a family that wants to stay. And if I14 had a choice between even the15 worst-looking third story or a sale sign,16 even as a realtor, I'd rather see that17 third story go up, because that's a18 family that wants to stay, and every19 community needs more people that want to20 stay and less that want to go.21 The best thing about this22 bill -- and I thank you for introducing23 it -- is that it has brought long-term24 residents together with the newer people25 113 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 that have moved in. Could you ask for2 anything better than someone like3 Jonathan that moved here with his family,4 wants to stay here, welcomes the fact5 that the older people want to stay here,6 wants to work through solutions? I mean,7 that's what this city needs more and more8 and more of. But we also definitely want9 the long-term residents to stay and feel10 comfortable.11 So this bill has actually12 brought some people together, and13 anything that we can do in the next14 couple of months with meetings to bring15 more people together would be fine. The16 problem with the moratorium is, it's17 going to stop all that discussion,18 because then the lines are drawn again19 and everybody comes apart. But right now20 they're together. They're talking21 together, and we hope to bring more and22 more people into the fold to work out23 solutions.24 The Zoning Code will never,25 114 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 ever, ever take away block-by-block2 discussion. Never was it meant to do.3 Never will it do that. The immediate4 neighbors always have the primary say,5 and if they can work it out, then that's6 what every neighborhood wants, people7 talking.8

You9 know, in the last couple of years, I've10 been very proud of the fact that all of11 the community groups have been working12 together.13

And that's not14 easy.15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 Believe me, that was a hard, hard17 achievement. And I'm just very disturbed18 that this one issue now has divided the19 community to such a point that it's20 utterly ridiculous. I want to see the21 community working together to resolve22 this issue. If it means that we get City23 Planning and whoever else and the24 Administration to come to the meetings,25 115 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 that's what we'll do, but I am not going2 to sit here and allow the community to be3 divided on an issue that hopefully can be4 addressed.5 The Chair recognizes Councilman6 Kenney.7

Thank you,8 Madam President.9 When I first got involved in10 government in 1978, '79, the issue was11 Queen Village and the gentrification in12 Queen Village and the displacement of13 African-Americans, Polish-Americans,14 Ukrainian-Americans, I mean all15 hyphenated Americans who lived in that16 neighborhood for a hundred years, and it17 was a terrible situation then, and it18 kind of in some way worked itself out,19 but most of the people who lived in that20 neighborhood then are either passed on or21 were forced out.22 This issue is another classic23 example of the gentrification of24 neighborhoods, which is not a pejorative25 116 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 term, it's not a negative term, but it2 makes people afraid, because the thing3 that they own the most, the thing that4 there's the most value to them is their5 home. If they see them or they feel that6 they're being encroached upon, if they7 feel that their property values,8 therefore their taxes, are going up, they9 are fearful. I've seen the stress. I've10 seen the concern from the folks in Queen11 Village back in the late '70s and '80s,12 and I hear it in the voices and the13 concerns of the people now.14 This seems to me to be an issue15 that could take a full day of hearings,16 and the one thing that I've heard in17 testimony is that people don't feel like18 the Zoning Code Commission has listened19 to them. Perhaps a three- or four-hour20 hearing just on this will give people the21 opportunity to be heard by the -- and22 we'll bring the Zoning Code Commission in23 and let them sit here and listen to this,24 but I don't think, in my opinion -- and I25 117 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 don't know it until I've seen the final2 product -- that they've taken that into3 consideration.4 Councilman Goode is right, this5 looks terrible and someone should have6 protected those folks either at City7 Planning or at L&I from this happening.8 But --9 (Applause.)10

But the11 nuclear button of this bill is not going12 to fix that problem. The issue is, I13 think that we need to have a full day of14 hearings, whether it's the Rules15 Committee or Legislative Oversight or16 whatever it is, L&I or a combination17 thereof, Zoning Code Commission, people18 who live in this neighborhood or any19 other neighborhood that's going through20 it and the appropriate officials to21 listen to what people have to say.22 I don't want to see young folks23 like this upset and concerned and afraid24 about their investment. I don't want to25 118 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 see the folks that have been living there2 for 50, 60, 70 years concerned about3 their investment. The government should4 be here to protect them and try to5 balance both sides of good.6 So I think -- we're having this7 hearing today, but I would recommend to8 the Chair that we look at a resolution to9 authorize hearings which would go on for10 as long as it needs to be until everyone11 has their say and we can craft some12 protection for all these folks, both new13 residents and long-term residents.14

The general issue15 of gentrification should definitely be16 addressed. That way, it's just not Point17 Breeze's problem.18

I said19 anywhere in the City.20

I know that we21 can learn from what other neighborhoods22 have done, because other neighborhoods23 have not needed a moratorium to work out24 their issues.25 119 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

Point2 Breeze is Queen Village of --3

Twenty years ago.4

More than5 that. Thirty-five years.6

We're getting7 old.8

And I think9 it warrants an entire day of hearings or10 entire -- a lengthier hearing than we can11 fit in here today. So that would be my12 suggestion.13

It's a good idea.14

Thank15 you.16 Any other comments?17 Councilman DiCicco.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,19 Madam Chair, and good morning.20 The issue of Queen Village,21 I'll use that as an example. Many years22 ago, in the City's effort to try to23 create housing that would be24 accommodating newer generations of folks,25 120 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 in particular neighborhoods like South2 Philadelphia where parking was always3 difficult, it became part of the Code, if4 I'm not mistaken, part of the Code that5 when more than, I think, four or five6 houses were built on a unit block, those7 homes were required to be built with8 garages at the ground floor level, and it9 probably at the time sounded like a great10 thing. It was a good amenity to11 encourage people to move into the City,12 you have a place to park, you don't have13 to drive to South Jersey to get a home14 with a garage.15 But over time, we recognized16 that that has actually caused some17 problems in those neighborhoods, because18 now we have eliminated that many more19 on-street parking spaces, which added to20 the parking congestion and parking21 availability problems that were there for22 many, many years.23 I did a bill a couple years ago24 which kind of reversed that requirement.25 121 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 The bill, if I have it right, now says if2 80 percent of the block face of the3 properties on a block do not have4 garages, you then need to go to the5 Zoning Board of Adjustment to get a6 variance to build a home with a garage.7 So you just don't get to do it as a8 matter of right.9 So a suggestion in the short10 term, because we know that the Zoning11 Commission won't be ready for six months12 to a year, there is -- as you said, Madam13 President, there's extreme division and14 anxiety in the community on both sides.15 Maybe there's a shorter term solution16 that deals with the issue of the height17 of houses similar to what we did with18 garages. So if you have, as an example,19 80 percent of the block face homes on a20 block are two-story, you just could not21 come in as a matter of right, which is22 probably what happened in this case, and23 build a three-story home. You would then24 need to go to the Zoning Board for a25 122 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 variance in order to build that, and then2 the community, both sides, pro and con,3 have an opportunity to be heard and a4 decision could be made.5 So it's just a suggestion --6

A possible7 solution.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- that9 might require obviously a new piece of10 legislation, which may not just11 necessarily have to pertain to Point12 Breeze, but in this case -- because I13 live in South Philadelphia, I live at14 11th and Federal, several blocks away15 from the 16th and Federal housing16 development that is being proposed. It's17 a hodgepodge of everything down there.18 There's two-story homes, three-story19 homes, but there are some blocks that are20 unit blocks that are traditionally all21 two-story, especially the tertiary22 blocks.23 So what you need to do, I24 think, is find a way which you can25 123 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 protect those, without putting a2 moratorium in place that says no more3 development anywhere within this 20, 304 square block area. That doesn't serve5 anyone's needs.6 So just a suggestion, Madam7 Chair, that maybe you can get somebody to8 look into that.9

Thank10 you.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.12

Good13 afternoon. Please identify yourself for14 the record and proceed with your15 testimony.16 I'm so sorry. I didn't look.17 The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.18

Thank you,19 Madam Chair. Just two quick questions.20 Ms. Capozzi, very simple21 questions. You made two statements I22 don't believe to be true. I wanted to23 know if you want to clarify them.24 One, I believe you said that25 124 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 all the community is working together.2

No. I said that3 this bill has been the impetus to bring4 more different factions in the5 neighborhood together.6

That has not7 happened yet.8

Pardon me?9

That has not10 happened yet, you would agree?11

Well, it's only12 been a week. It's been probably ten days13 since some people found out about it.14

So that has15 not happened yet.16

Has that happened17 yet? It's happened online, it's happened18 in side conversations. Has it happened19 in one big meeting yet? No.20

So that has21 not happened yet.22

Not in -- it's23 just -- no.24

Second25 125 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 question is, you made a statement that2 the Zoning Code can't be changed to take3 away residents' power or community4 organizations' power. That is not true5 either?6

I don't think the7 Zoning Code ever intends to take away --8

The Zoning9 Code can be changed to take away10 residents' and community organizations'11 power. It can be. It should not be, but12 it can be. You made a statement that --13

Oh, it can be?14 Yes, but I don't believe that it has been15 and I don't believe that it will be.16

But you made17 a statement that it can't be.18

Perhaps I wasn't19 clear. It should not be. And I don't20 believe that it has been. I don't think21 that you're ever going to take away22 neighbors from being able to discuss23 things with their neighbors, and that's24 the most important thing.25 126 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

But you can2 take away their powers in the process,3 which we should not do.4

Of course not.5

Thank you.6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 Please proceed.8

My name is9 Bernardino Allegretti and I manage10 neighborhood redevelopment projects for11 Innova Services Corporation and its12 subsidiary, Innova Redevelopment.13 Innova employs 15 people and14 has been located at 16th and Tasker in15 Point Breeze for more than 15 years.16 Innova's focus is affordable housing17 development in transitional18 neighborhoods. We have been an active19 partner with the City of Philadelphia and20 the Redevelopment Authority in the21 Neighborhood Stabilization Program, and22 we were previously active in the City's23 Homeownership Rehabilitation Program.24 In the past two years, we have25 127 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 redeveloped 13 formerly vacant properties2 and sold them to low- and moderate-income3 buyers. Eight of these homes are in or4 adjacent to Point Breeze. We are5 currently in the process of completing6 three additional NSP properties for7 affordable sale in Point Breeze, and with8 our community development partner,9 Diversified Community Services, we have10 proposed to build ten new homes on vacant11 parcels in Point Breeze for sale to low12 and --13 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:14 Where?15

Excuse me?16 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:17 Where?18

It's scattered19 sites between Federal and Morris. So20 none of them are contiguous. 22 All of Innova's redevelopment23 work to date has focused on preserving24 existing housing. 4 As with daily witness of new5 development going on in Point Breeze, we6 fully understand City Council's concern7 about the proliferation of new8 construction that is architecturally9 incentive to the surrounding parcels in10 the neighborhood. 20 The motivation for creating21 three-story homes where two-story homes22 previously existed is twofold. 1 back side yard that most older homes2 used, because new building codes require3 setbacks that often preclude this. My4 written testimony shows a typical5 L-shaped second floor and a plan of a6 second floor home where the piano key7 L-shaped setback is not possible. 13 Homes developed using federal14 money, like NSP, are often required to15 make homes visitable for persons in a16 wheelchair. This means that the front17 entrance must have -- must be at grade18 instead of being located three feet or19 more above the sidewalk grade, as a20 traditional row home stoop is. 1 another aesthetic concern. More2 important than that is, there could be no3 basement. 12 Even if the adjacent owners would agree13 to allow this to be done, it would be14 financially impractical to do so. 7 However, in the process of devising the8 plans for Innova's proposed three-story9 homes on two-story blocks in Point10 Breeze, we worked to find a way that11 would not -- not to avoid the use of a12 three-story facade on a two-story block13 and came up with a design that we believe14 eloquently solves the space problems as15 well as the aesthetic ones. Because most16 existing three-story houses in17 Philadelphia are actually two stories18 with a third -- short third story that is19 set back from the rear of the house, we20 propose to construct a third story that21 is set back from the street facade on22 those two-story blocks. This is similar23 to what Mr. 1 With a third story set back2 from the street, the two-story facade can3 be extended up to meet those of its4 neighbors with a suitable cornice to5 carry the style across and to offer a6 partial screen of the third floor that7 has been set back from the street. 2

Thank3 you.4 Any questions from members of5 the Committee?6 The Chair recognizes Councilman7 Goode.8

Thank you,9 Madam Chair.10 Good afternoon. Thank you for11 your thoughtful testimony. You mentioned12 in the beginning of your testimony that13 you currently have a project?14

Excuse me?15

You16 mentioned in the beginning of your17 testimony that you currently have a18 project?19

We are -- I20 have just finished one. It's a little21 south of Point Breeze. We're currently22 working on two projects within Point23 Breeze.24

By working25 134 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 on two projects, what does that mean?2

They're3 rehabilitation of existing row homes.4

So at what5 point in the process are you?6

I'd say 807 percent through the rehabilitation of the8 first and 25 percent through the second.9

So you10 already have your permits?11

That's12 correct.13

So you don't14 have any projects that you need permits15 for?16

We have17 responded to an RFP from the18 Redevelopment Authority to develop ten19 new affordable units.20

You have not21 been approved in that process?22

We have not23 been approved in that process, no.24

You do not25 135 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 have site control yet?2

That's3 correct.4

You do not5 have private financing yet?6

That's7 correct.8

So in the9 proposal you submitted, how long would it10 take for you to need permits in the11 proposal you submitted?12

I'm told the13 decision to fund will be May.14

I didn't ask15 you that. I asked you, in the proposal16 that you submitted, how long would it17 take for you to need permits?18

We would need19 permits immediately upon financing. We20 would need to start within 15 --21

You didn't22 answer my question again. I'm going to23 ask you one more time. I'm just going to24 pull your proposal.25 136 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 In your proposal, how long2 would it take for you to need permits?3

I'm not sure4 of the answer to that question.5

Okay. We6 can take the long route.7 When would you be approved for8 the project?9

May.10

And would11 you have private financing at that time?12

That would be13 the source of the financing, NSP. So,14 yes.15

And then you16 would begin site control?17

The parcels18 are City-owned properties, so depending19 on how quickly we can move through them20 through the City. That would be the21 limiting factor.22

So the City23 is giving you all the money and all the24 land?25 137 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1

They're giving2 us the land and lending us the money.3

So the City4 has total control of the process?5

That's6 correct.7

So the City8 can tell you when you need permits?9

That's10 correct.11

The answer12 is yes.13 Thank you.14

Any15 other questions from members of the16 Committee?17 (No response.)18