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
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
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
Thank24 you.25 14 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1
I'm2 sorry.3 The Chair recognizes Councilman4 Clarke.5
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 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
Do we7 have anyone else from the Administration8 to testify on this bill?9
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
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
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
Most of the10 houses they are building three stories11 are vacant lots.12
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
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
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
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
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
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
I'm asking you, are14 you talking about half a block or a whole15 block?16
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
Thank15 you.16 The Chair recognizes17 Councilman --18
Just25 46 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 a moment, please.2 The Chair recognizes Councilman3 Goode.4
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 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
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
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
The word11 "preliminary" is key. There then shall12 be a review by Council on the preliminary13 report.14
And then16 Council at some point will schedule a17 hearing to discuss the final proposal.18
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
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
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
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
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
-- 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
-- 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
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
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
Usually16 when people are concerned, they come to17 the public hearing.18