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
-- 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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
That's what24 I heard.25 72 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1
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
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
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
From2 there, it will come to Philadelphia City3 Council?4
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
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
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
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
If24 you could be as brief as possible, we'd25 82 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 appreciate it.2
Thank you, City7 Council, for allowing me to speak before8 you. I appreciate this opportunity.9 Am I speaking into the mike?10
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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 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
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
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
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
Well, it's only12 been a week. It's been probably ten days13 since some people found out about it.14
Has that happened17 yet? It's happened online, it's happened18 in side conversations. Has it happened19 in one big meeting yet? No.20
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
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
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
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
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
I'd say 807 percent through the rehabilitation of the8 first and 25 percent through the second.9
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 do not25 135 3/23/11 - RULES - BILL 100610, ETC.1 have site control yet?2
So in the9 proposal you submitted, how long would it10 take for you to need permits in the11 proposal you submitted?12
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
Okay. We6 can take the long route.7 When would you be approved for8 the project?9