COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 15, 1998 11:40 a.m. - - - Resolution No. 980182 - Authorizing the Council Committee on Rules to review the proposed revision of the "RC-6" Residential Planned Development District Master Plan. For the former U.S. Naval Home Site, as approved by the City Planning Commission, and received by the City Council on March 16, 1998, and to recommend either to approve, disapprove, amend, or defer change on said proposal, pursuant to requirements under Section 14-226(2)(b) of The Philadelphia Code. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN ANNA CIBOTTA VERNA COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 I N D E X Mayor Edward G. Rendell. . . . . . . . . 3 Deputy Mayor Herb Vederman . . . . . . . 26 Stanley White, 30th Ward leader. . . . . 34 Jack Kmetz, Secretary. . . . . . . . . . 43 South of South Neighborhood Association Bob Gittler, Board Member. . . . . . . . 46 South of South Neighborhood Association Barbara Failer . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Neighborhood Democratic Committee Rep. Ann Lawless, Private Citizen . . . . . . 58 Marianne Anthe . . . . . . . . . . . . . 61 Democratic Committee, 30th Ward, 8th Div. Terry Gillen . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 66 Democratic Committee, 30th Ward, 8th Div. Tara Grunde-McLaughlin, Private Citizen 71 Andrew Terhune, Project Manager. . . . . 73 Toll Brothers John McGrath, Carpenters Union . . . . . 93 Harry Foy, President . . . . . . . . . . 94 Electricians Union Richard Lombardo . . . . . . . . . . . 115 Philadelphia Planning Commission 3 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Council Committee on Rules is now in session. We are here to listen to testimony today on Resolution No. 980182, which is a resolution authorizing the Council Committee on Rules to review the proposed revision of the "RC-6" Residential Planned Development District Master Plan. For the former U.S. Naval Home Site, as approved by the City Planning Commission, and received by the City Council on March 16, 1998, and to recommend either to approve, disapprove, amend, or defer change on said proposal, pursuant to requirements under Section 14-226(2)(b) of The Philadelphia Code. (Mayor Edward G. Rendell at witness table.)
Good morning, Your Honor. Would you please identify yourself for the record, and proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. I'm Edward G. Rendell, Mayor of the City of Philadelphia. 4 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 And I am here to urge Council to adopt the Planning Commission recommendations and add to it certain modifications that have been hammered out by work with the Administration, Councilwoman Ann Verna, and members of the Historic Preservation Community, and members of the neighborhood organizations. But specifically to say that two of the three conditions of approval that are, I think, in the current are being offered as amendments are not totally acceptable. And I will explain why as we go through this. Let me first start out by saying that I think I should disclose for the record, since this is a Toll Brothers project, that I have been a two-decade-long friend of Bob and Bruce Toll, the principals in Toll Brothers builders, and that Bob Toll has been a significant giver to my campaign and has been a significant money-raiser to my campaign dating back to my campaign for Governor in 1986, and including my campaigns -- for all of my campaigns for Mayor. And I want to disclose that and make it a matter of public record, although my campaign 5 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 finance reports are a matter of public record. And, as the media is always pointing out, I raise so much money that no one giver or raiser is very important to me, and we should also note that for the record. But I did want to have all of you to know that. I think Councilwoman Verna was aware of that, but I did want all of you to know that. Let me start out by saying what an incredible historic treasure the Naval Home is, not only for Philadelphia, but for the nation. In a letter sent to Councilwoman Verna, which I understand she hasn't received yet, but I got a copy of it yesterday by Brett Glass -- Brent, excuse me, B-R-E-N-T, Glass, the Director of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission. He calls the Naval Home one of Pennsylvania's and the nation's truly significant architectural treasures. And that is something which I agree with, and I think all of us agree with us. When Toll Brothers bought this property, bought the Naval Home in 1982, the greatest concern was -- in the community at large 6 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 and the Historic Preservation Community, would the historic buildings be preserved? Would any development allow the historic buildings to be maintained and preserved? The second consideration was, obviously, a consideration that affected the entire neighborhood; and that is, what would the development be, and how would it impact all of us? And the third consideration, of course, was to the City itself; what would the development be and what would it mean for the City of Philadelphia? And I think all of those questions deserve to be answered. And I'm sure with my testimony and the testimonies of others today, you will get the answers to those questions. And I want to start with the bottom line. The answers to all of those questions, in my judgment, are so clear that we must go forward with this development. We cannot risk not having this development go forward. The economic loss to the City, the loss to the City in what this development would do for us, and the loss to all of us in the fact that if 7 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 this development doesn't go forward, we are likely to see the further deterioration and perhaps collapse of these historic buildings, which we can clearly avert if this development goes forward. Those three things would be consequences that none of us would like to see happen. Specifically, let me start out, for the record, by telling you a little bit about Toll Brothers Builders. They are one of the highest-regarded home builders in the United States of America. They are a publicly-traded company that sells homes in 125 communities, in 15 states.
They build luxury homes ranging in size 16 from under 1500 square feet to 5500 square feet. In the last few years, Toll Brothers Builders have won three national awards for excellence: In 1996, they were selected as America's best builder by the National Association of Home Builders in Builder Magazine; In 1994, they received one of the first-place awards in "Build America Beautiful," sponsored by Better homes and Gardens magazine and 8 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 the Keep American Beautiful organization, in recognition of their programs to improve the handling of solid waste in construction sites. And in addition, a decade ago, they were named the Builder of the Year by the Professional Builder magazine. They build incredibly fine structures and wonderful communities. As I said, in 1982, Toll Brothers purchased this site from the federal government. In '84, they sought and received approval for a Master Plan. For the site from the Planning Commission and from this body, City Council. Before 1984 and today, there were numerous complications which prevented this site from being developed. And primary among these complications were concerns about the preservation of three historic buildings on the property: Biddle Hall, the Governor's residence, and the Surgeon General's residence. During the intervening period, from '82 till the present, the historic residence and the site in general have continued to deteriorate. But over the past three years, since this project 9 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 sort of revived, Toll Brothers, with the cooperation and help of Deputy Mayor Herb Vederman have been working with the historic community to try to reach agreement. And this agreement involved compromise because Toll Brothers want to, as all good developers, maximize their profit in the way this site was developed. They also wanted to keep many of the historic buildings because they thought it added to the marketability of the site, but they didn't want to keep all of them. The historic community had its concerns, and a process -- we undertook a process that, I would say, included six, seven, or eight meetings, two or three of which I attended personally, with members of our historic community, with people from the State Historic Commission, and people from the Federal Government the Department of Interior's Historic Commission. In this past January, after these lengthy and drawn-out discussions with the preservationist group, the outlines of an agreement were finally reached. The original Toll Brothers development 10 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 proposal for the site contemplated the demolition of the two outlying historic buildings -- there's the main building and the two outlying buildings, the Governor's residence and the Surgeon General's residence, and the use of the existing parade ground for parking. The original proposal also called for new construction on the parade ground in front of Biddle Hall. After all of these several years' worth of negotiations, with the participation of the Administration, Toll Brothers agreed to preserve both of the outlying buildings and to keep the parade ground free of new construction and to drop the grade on the parade ground so that if there was any parking, it would not be as visible, and it would not be as much of an impediment to viewing the historic buildings. Local, state, and federal historic preservation agencies have accepted the revised Toll Brothers proposal, which has been memorialized in letter agreement between the Federal Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and Toll Brothers. And if you do not have a copy of that, 11 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Mr. Chairman, I would submit that for the record now.
There is also a letter that I referred to that was sent to Councilwoman Verna yesterday by Brent Glass, and I won't read the entire letter, but just let me read, if I might a brief excerpt from it. "The developer is committed to retaining and preserving nearly all of the three landmark buildings on the Naval Home property. They have also indicated that they will follow the Secretary of the Interior's guidelines for rehabilitation when they carry out the preservation of these structures. "My staff made an on-site visit to the building last month, and we were encouraged with the efforts being made to stabilize and protect these landmark buildings. " And since Councilwoman Verna did not yet receive this, I'll also submit this, with your approval, and make that a part of the record. 12 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 And let me say, one of the important negotiations that we have had with both the preservation community and surrounding community groups is accurately reflected in number 3 of the conditions that have been suggested to modify the Planning Commission grant. " That was a concern of both the community and the historic preservationist that the preservation of the three historic buildings would wait until after the multistory building was constructed to see how that was rented, rather than it be done contemporaneous, and Toll Brothers would have no problem agreeing to modification in number 3, Councilwoman Verna and Mr. Chairman. 13 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 As you know, after securing the support of the preservation agencies, Toll Brothers submitted its plan to the Planning Commission as a modification to the 1984 Master Plan. The proposal contemplates residences for up to -- not necessarily -- but up to 2500 people, at a total cost in excess of $100 million. And that is a very conservative estimate of what would be spent here spread out over a ten-year phase construction period. It's important to note -- because I know Council is properly and appropriately concerned about this -- that the Toll Brothers proposal does not include any City or State financing incentives. It is soley financed by private funds. And that is something that I don't get the opportunity to say to you too often. There is no tiff. All the tax yield will go to the City and the School District without any diminution. We currently estimate -- the Administration currently estimates that when completed and occupied, the Naval Home development will generate in excess of $6 million annually in 14 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 additional tax revenue to the City. The construction of the development will generate additional tax revenues and employment opportunities as well. And I'd like to also remind Council -- and I don't think you need to be reminded much of this, but I'd like to remind Council that we have a problem in downtown Philadelphia. I guess we have a few problems, but we have one problem that is a very good problem to have. There are virtually no vacancies on rental units in Center City Philadelphia. Six years ago, when most of the Members of this Council and started out on this journey, the occupancy rate for rental apartments in downtown Philadelphia was 71 percent. That occupancy rate is now approaching 98 percent. " bemoaned the fact that Philadelphia was not doing as good of a job as a city -- not us, but the City itself in keeping our young people. Well, one of the problems is that young 15 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 people aren't ready to buy home, and their rental opportunities in downtown Philadelphia are now severely proscribed. We just don't have available units. This will be an enormously important development in keeping young people in the City of Philadelphia where they work and generating all of the dollars that go from having young single professionals and students and people like that downtown in our Center City area.
Now, the Planning Commission had two public meetings where community participation was urged and was heard. In addition, Councilwoman Verna has had a number of public meetings, and we have had almost endless non-public meetings, but meetings with members of the community and the Administration and my office and Mr. Vederman's office, etc. And after these public meetings, the Planning Commission approved the Toll Brothers proposal on March 5th -- very important, with four important caveats: Number -- and I could ask Mr. Vederman and John Estey to show you this because 16 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 it will be easier. Councilwoman Verna is intimately familiar with all of this. But for the rest of you who aren't, the first approval was the Planning Commission approved four curb-cuts on Bainbridge Street for the town houses that would be built outside of the wall and for people getting inside the wall itself, but directed Toll Brothers during the design phase of the project to develop alternatives to reduce the number of curb-cuts required and minimize the loss of on-street parking. Secondly, the Planning Commission agreed to defer to the Philadelphia Historical Commission and relevant state and federal agencies all issues involving historic preservation. And the Planning Commission approval of the detail plans of the development would be contingent on the necessary historical approval, which, as I've said, have been obtained. Third, the Planning Commission recommended that the enabling legislation that created the residential parking home surrounding the Naval Home be amended to exclude Naval Home 17 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 residents, with the exception of residents of those homes fronting Bainbridge Street. The rationale for this recommendation was that the Toll Brothers proposal includes at least one parking space for every residential unit. The Planning Commission fourthly required Toll Brothers, during the course of the development design, to submit for the Commission review and approval of the landscaping plan erosion and sediment-control plan, a storm water management plan, and a site plan, and building design plan. There was some community opposition to the Planning Commission's approval. And, thanks to Councilwoman, Verna she brought together members of the community with the Administration and with Toll Brothers, and there have been several changes since, which Councilwoman Verna, the Administration, and the Toll Brothers would have no problem being included in any set of amendments to the Planning Commission approval. These negotiations revolved and concluded with a request, as I said, from the 18 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 community, that a commitment from the Toll Brothers to begin historic restoration efforts on the three historic sites at the same time of site development, and Toll Brothers has agreed to do that. Secondly, the high-rise entrance on Grays Ferry Avenue. Originally, in Phase 1, there was going to be no entrance on Grays Ferry Avenue. And if -- John, if you can show Council where that is in relationship to the high-rise. And the members of the community were concerned -- and it was a concern that not only Councilwoman Verna shared with them, but I agreed with them on -- that that would force all of the traffic onto Bainbridge Street, which is far more residential than Grays Ferry. So the neighbors requested the Toll Brothers commit to maintaining an entrance to the northeast corner high-rise from Grays Ferry. And Toll Brothers has agreed to maintain that requested entrance. And that entrance will be up at the same time the high-rise is rented and operable.
Mayor, I'm sorry. 19 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Is that a vehicular entrance or a pedestrian entrance.
I'm sorry for not making that clear. The next area of concern was the number and size of curb-cuts. As I told you, the Planning Commission approved four curb-cuts -- and if you'll watch Mr. Estey -- in the following locations. And there was obviously a development reason for having the four curb-cuts, but we got involved with negotiations with community residents, again, thanks to Councilwoman Verna. And they were afraid that these curb-cuts would reduce the number of parking spaces on Bainbridge by approximately 12, and asked that the cuts be eliminated. As a compromised position, the neighbors requested that the curb-cut at the east end of the street be narrowed, and the cut at the west end of the street be moved two feet into 27th Street. That's not -- let me go back over that. 20 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Initially, the first agreement was to reduce the number of curb-cuts from four to two. We were able to persuade Toll Brothers to reduce the number of curb-cuts from four to two. Having done that, the two locations that Toll Brothers wanted -- John, if you can show them -- one that enters out into a no-parking area, so it would not be taking a parking space. And the other, which would take three parking spaces. But the neighbors were not satisfied with reducing from four to two; they wanted to change the location of one of the cuts, which would go directly onto Bainbridge, and they wanted to move that to 27th Street because they thought it would feed onto 27th Street and not onto their street, and we got Toll Brothers to agree to do that. And, by the way, every time they agree to do this, there is a monetary cost for them to do these changes, and Mr. Terhune might make you aware of what that is. But, nonetheless, we got them agree to that. In the conditions that are before you, 21 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 one of the requests is -- there are two requests: That the size of the curb-cuts be proscribed to 4 feet -- the easternmost curb-cut to 16 feet in 5 width. And the western curb-cut shall not exceed 6 34 feet in width. 7 Now, 16 feet in width is not something 8 that could be agreed to, but Mr. Terhune says that 9 24 feet in width could be agreed to there. 10
Let me --just so I 11 can orientate the panel, the map that we're 12 looking at now, the two middle curb-cuts are being 13 eliminated? 14
Okay. The furthest 16 -- the southerly curb-cut is being reduced?
Right. Well, we will have John point to the two remaining curb-cuts. One, we hope, will be 34 feet -- shall not exceed 22 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 34 feet. And the other shall not exceed 24 feet. And that's what the --
Gone, history. There is -- assuming that that is agreeable, there is another problem. The conditions ask that the curb-cuts be exit-only out of the driveway, with no right turns. I think -- and I haven't checked, but no right turn is something that can be agreed to, but exit-only cannot be agreed to. It has to be used, and there's a complicated explanation to this. Because of the grade of the parking lot, it has to be used for entrances as well as exits. But we will agree to the no-right-turn. If you look at the 27th Street cut, you could not go into the residential nature of Bainbridge. And I would submit to you that that protects -- well, obviously, we're trying to strike a balance, but that protects a lot of what the concern would e from the residents, but yet still gives Toll Brothers the right to have entrance and exit access to those cuts. 23 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 So that is an important modification to the --
Just -- I just have one question. If the community request was accommodated for exit-only, there would only be one entrance, and that would be on Grays Ferry Avenue?
If, in fact, there would be one entrance and two exits.
Okay. And what Toll Brothers is saying is that it's not practical for them.
Right. But it's crucial that people be able to enter as well as exit from those. The next area of concern would be the 24 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 height restriction. In the conditions offered today, there is a requirement that the maximum allowable height of the multistory building proposed for the corner formed by Grays Ferry, 24th Street, and Bainbridge -- again, known as "Area A-1" on the amended Master Plan -- shall not exceed 140 feet in height measured above the average ground level of the abutting streets. This has been a --
It's 14. But, understand, four of those stories have to be parking. To accommodate the high-rise, there has to be parking in the building itself, not just on the ground, but in the building itself. So that would leave ten stories for the development. That is a restriction that Toll Brothers is unwilling to make. Originally, we had -- the proposal had grew. It did grow, there's no question, as Toll Brothers got excited about the development possibilities. But at one point, we were at a 25 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 high level of 18 stories, parking and 14 floors. Toll Brothers is willing to reduce that to 16 stories, but not with the qualification of 140 feet off of grade. There are real financial reasons why that is a hardship. But they would accept a restriction to a 16-story building. And by the way, that's the maximum. And let me stress that -- that's the maximum.
All of the things we're talking about are maximums. They are not necessarily going to be. That has to be consistent with their marketing, all of the things. But they believe economically that they need the ability, if necessary, to go up and have 14 floors -- excuse me -- and have 12 floors of units.
No. Because, again, it's not only the 140 feet. The 140 feet would only accommodate a total of 14, not 16 stories.
And, secondly, the -- and again, Mr. Terhune is going to --
Yeah, but it's measured above the average ground level of the abutting streets. That is --
And if you can answer that question or elaborate on that answer.
Yeah. I believe that there is a grade problem. And when they talk about grade, it even maybe it lowers it even more.
Excuse me. So, Mr. Vederman, you're saying that it could possibly 27 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 be less than stories because of the grade? 3
It's not less than the 7 16 stories. I don't think anybody has a handle on 8 what 140 feet, you know, will mean in stories. 9
Well, if there's 10 four stories of parking and 140 feet, you're 11 talking -- 12
Yeah, but we don't know 13 what the grade level, you know, does. 14
It's the language in 15 there, the specific language that says -- 16
Yeah, which had never been in. "Shall not exceed 140 feet in height measured above the average ground level of the abutting streets." That's a problem, too.
Do their engineers -- and I guess they'll testify when they're ready -- have some idea as to what their estimate is on the average ground level? 28 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
And Andrew Terhune, from Toll Brothers, is here today, and he'll answer some of those technical questions for you.
And, basically, that concludes my testimony with -- just if I can have a one-minute chance to sum up. This is not a developer who has come in here and said, "I'm going to give this great gift to Philadelphia, so don't tell me about conditions." This is a developer, who, over the last three years, has worked very, very hard to meet the requests and considerations first of the historic community -- and all of us know how they are vigilant, as they should be, the historic preservation community is, and they have satisfied those requests with compromise after compromise. And this is a developer who didn't thumb their nose at the community. They've had a number of public community meetings. And, again, let me stress, there were many meetings that 29 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Councilwoman Verna and myself have sat in. And I think they have compromised in a very fair and responsible way. And even with the conditions that are put forward today, we're not saying -- they're not saying no to all of them. The right turn is something that they can accept, a height limitation less than stories is something that 10 they can accept, the timing of the historic 11 preservation is something that they can accept. I 12 think they have done a great job in meeting the, 13 concerns of the historic community as well as the 14 concerns of the neighborhood. 15 We can't turn our back on $6 million of 16 annual tax revenues a year. We can't turn our 17 back on the opportunity to bring upwards of 2,000 18 young people back into the City of Philadelphia. We can't turn our back on the construction jobs and the permanent jobs that this would produce. It is too important to the future of the City of Philadelphia. And, again, we have worked hard. We have not -- I'm not -- obviously, you know by the conditions that are there, we haven't satisfied 30 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 100 percent of the concerns of the neighbors. But I think both the Administration and Toll Brothers have gone a long way. If we haven't walked that final extra mile, we've walked about 29 30ths of that final extra mile, and I just believe that, consistent with conditions that I said would be acceptable to everybody, I think the Master Plan should be amended, and we should go on about developing what is a very, very exciting prospect for the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you very much for your testimony. I have one question on the tax revenue analysis. You had indicated a number of $6 million. Could you give us an idea as to what categories that $6 million would go into just in general?
It's basically real estate taxes. It doesn't talk about --
Is there any analysis that's been done as to full-capacity revenue generation from sales and those kinds of things? 31 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
That contemplates, you know, reaching the full capacity, a maximum of 2500 people.
On real estate taxes. That does not include the extra wage tax we would get from people who might be working in the City but be living outside who would move in here.
Is there a form -- does there exist a formula, you know, either in our Revenue Department or from economic development people who can --
-- give us an idea as to what the anticipated fully-occupied ancillary tax benefits are?
We will get that 32 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 analysis submitted to you.
Mr. Mayor, I want to thank you for coming in to testify today. This has certainly been a long-awaited day. I guess it's been approximately years. 12 I know I speak for myself and the 13 community, that we have been longing to see Toll 14 Brothers do something at this very historic site. And I want to thank you and Herb Vederman because without your intercession, I don't know that we would have come to this point today. You certainly have been in touch with Toll Brothers, and they have agreed to many of the concerns that the area residents have had. I think that this plan is both financially feasible and environmentally-sensitive to the needs of the area. I see that there are several area residents from Bainbridge Street here, and I 33 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 recall clearly, they said at one meeting that they were tired of the rats going through this vacant lot. And they were very, very eager to see development. As you said, Toll Brothers has an outstanding record, and I'm just hoping beyond all hope that once they do this project, they will get more involved in the City of Philadelphia rather than the suburbs.
Are there any other questions for the Mayor? (No questions.)
Mayor, would you suggest that someone from your stay or --
And if you need either myself or Mr. Estey, please don't hesitate to call 34 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 us.
Will do. Additionally, Mr. Lombardo indicates that most of what he was going to testify to, you have already done, so he is going to stay here for additional input. And then we will move to Mr. White and Mr. Williams, I think. Thank you. Mr. Wayne Williams, are you here? (Stanley White forward.)
Well, you can just take a seat to the right there, and then we'll get moving. Could you please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Stanley White. I'm a 30th Ward leader and a resident in the community. I'd like to thank Mayor Rendell before he leaves for his efforts on behalf of negotiating for the community. As Councilwoman Verna said, without his intercession, I don't believe that we would have achieved any compromises whatsoever. And it's appreciated. And I'd especially like to thank our 35 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Councilwoman Verna for her tireless leadership throughout the evolution of this process and for her support of the community position in everything that we've attempted to do not, only in this project but in others. And I'd like to thank the committee for hearing my testimony. I'd like to make very clear on behalf of, I believe, the majority, if not the entirety of the community, that we want to see this development occur. The people in this neighborhood have had to live an awful long time with a vacant and deteriorating property. They have suffered, as Councilwoman Verna said, with vermin and with trash and graffiti. And they look forward to a development that they can live with and that will be an asset to our community. But the community does have certain very small and reasonable concerns. And I don't want anyone on the committee or elsewhere to believe that the concerns that the community have right now are in any way tantamount to the concerns that were expressed 14 years ago. 36 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 The community has simply asked for smaller curb-cuts, curb-cuts that do not funnel a large volume of traffic past neighborhoods where children are playing, that do not unreasonably impact their parking. That's not to say that they will not lose any parking, but to not unreasonably impact their parking. And for a high-rise tower which does not completely dominate a lovely and wonderful community. Many of the people who reside in that community are third- and fourth-generation residents. Many people in the community -- some I believe that you will hear from -- have lived in the same houses for 40 or 50 years. They have made investments in this community and the City as well. Toll Brothers are not the only people who are making investments in the City of Philadelphia, and their concerns should be addressed. We would like to express or -- I, on behalf of the community, would like to express our support for Councilwoman Verna's amendments. We would ask that -- I would ask that those 37 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 amendments be incorporated in my testimony as part of my testimony, and urge the committee to support those amendments as well.
Before we go to questions, I would like to recognize Councilmember Longstreth for the purpose of leaving his vote. He has to leave the chamber. And if we vote before he comes back, he would like to make it clear how he would vote.
I just want to make sure while I was gone that if it came to a vote, that I am supporting this piece of legislation along with the amendments that have been offered to it, which, I understand, are acceptable to the residents, for the most part, in South Philadelphia.
Thank you very much. Thank you, Councilman. Are there any questions for Mr. White?
Councilwoman Verna. 38 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
And as far as the curb-cuts are concerned, I think that it is being suggested that the exit-only be eradicated from the amendments.
Councilwoman, I've had a chance to confer with the elected committeewoman from that division who is here and with her neighbors, Barbara Failer, who has indicated to me that --
She has indicated to me that the exit-only -- the removal of the exit-only is not acceptable, as well as the reduction simply to 34 feet in width, and that easternmost curb-cut is not acceptable as well. The concern there is that if that particular entranceway becomes -- if that particular curb-cut becomes an entranceway, that people will be driving down 26th Street and through other access streets, and that that will 39 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 negatively impact the neighbors. My understanding is that the neighbors still desire an exit-only at that particular curb-cut. And if I may also take -- clarify the Mayor's remarks. There is a second entrance to this -- another entrance to this project on Schuykill Avenue, which the Mayor perhaps inadvertently did not mention so those are not the only entrances to the project. And also, I have some concerns personally, and I'm sure others have some concerns that this project is not -- this high-rise portion of the project will now be stories in height; 15 when, as recently as yesterday, our understanding 16 was that Toll Brothers had agreed to a 14-story limitation.
Our next witness is Wayne Williams. (Wayne Williams comes forward.)
Good morning. My name is Wayne Williams. 40 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Mr. Williams, please pull the microphone closer to you so that we can hear you.
Okay. To City Council and to the Chairperson of the Rules Committee, Mr. James Kenny, and all of the City Council, I call it and consider it a great privilege and pleasure for the opportunity to make comments to this great body, which undertakes massive projects as caring of the well-being of our great city. The great endeavor you take here as an enormous impact on so many families and on the lives of so many great communities and citizens. I commend you all. My major concern here today is the development of the U.S. Naval retirement grounds located between Christian and Bainbridge Street along Grays Ferry. I lived in this community for now more than 47 years, 48 in May. I've seen many transitions take place in this community. The most recent development I have had to cope with is the phasing out of the offices of the Naval Home and Marine Corps officers retirees. 41 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 I was very sentimentally and emotionally attached to these officers, being from a single-parent home. These officers took me in and encouraged me as a kid in the neighborhood tavern at Bainbridge and Grays Ferry. Most of these officers were retired admirals and Marine Corps generals. And in status, they looked very high to me. And it was because of these gentlemen that I went on and became the good person who I think I am. And I got pretty good marks in the Marine Corps as a pretty good marine. But, as I came home from the Marine Corps, these people -- these officers were moved. And the Naval Home has been laying dormant now for a certain number of days -- or years. And it has touched me deeply that this has happened. The Toll Brothers bought this project, and they have begun to move and to develop and to see the City become much better. As I said in previous comments in the Commission meeting, Planning Commission meeting, I've been living in Atlanta for like four years. I helped start off with this project. And living 42 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 in Atlanta, we try to coordinate and get a lot of things done with President Carter and different people in that region down there, and we were successful in doing it. And I'd like to see Philadelphia become a great city -- I mean much greater. It's a great city now but could be much greater than what it is today. And I believe these kind of projects and these kind of developments will help the City. And if we don't support these projects, if we run these kind of developers out of our community, then we won't be able to develop the neighborhoods, we won't have the jobs, and we won't have the tax base to cover our housing. And then we'll be -- a shortfall will fall back onto the people like my mother and people like this. So the community, the building trade, members of Philadelphia, the unions have all sat down and decided that we're going to try to push this project through and work with each other on this project. I care very deeply about Philadelphia. I don't have any emotional feelings about the City. I understand the City very well. I've been 43 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 in politics for about 35 years now. I'd like to see this project move, I'd like to see the City move, and I thank you for your time. And if there's any questions, I'll be glad to answer any.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Thank you for coming in. Mr. Jack Kmetz, please? Is Mr. Kmetz here?
I'm Jack Kmetz. I'm the Secretary of the South of South Neighborhood Association, which is the service area in which the project is located. 44 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 For a long time, the South of South Neighborhood Association has worked hard and long to create an atmosphere in this neighborhood which would improve home ownership, and we have struggled to turn back the tide of vacancy and those properties which deteriorate the neighborhood. We have experienced a loss in population since the sixties that is beginning to change. And we feel that this sort of development should be supported wholeheartedly. We also support the concerns, that the concerns be addressed of the local and nearby neighborhoods. However, we want to wholeheartedly support the Toll Brothers development of this site, and we hope that we can all work together, negotiate the small points, and move the progress of this project forward.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there any --
You heard the Mayor's testimony. Would you have any objections 45 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 to seeing this building go up stories? 3
I think that the 4 organization has generally supported what the 5 people who are most directly affected by the 6 project feel. 7 I would say that we would probably 8 defer to the very much more local sentiments of 9 the neighbors than to make a statement on behalf 10 of the whole service area. Seeing that the 11 service area runs all the way to Broad Street, 12 those persons within most of our service area are 13 not directed affected by that. 14 So I think that those who are most 15 directly affected ought to have the consideration 16 of Council more closely than our own.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions? (No questions.)
Mr. Bob Gittler and Barbara Failer, would you both take the witness 46 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 stand -- witness table. (Bob Gittler and Barbara Failer come forward.)
I'm Bob Gittler. I'm a board member of (unintelligible) organization that Jack Kmetz just mentioned. And I'm also Chair of our Urban Planning and Economic Development Committee.
Okay. Some of the comments I had may have been obviated a little bit by the Mayor's testimony and some others', but I would like to bring up a few again. First of all -- actually, as a first statement, I'd like to say we are wholeheartedly in support of the redevelopment of this area. And nothing I should say should be construed as thinking that we're not, but I would like to see some improvements made on this deal. First of all, the preservation and restoration, they have been agreed to, naturally, as we all know. I would like to see a mechanism 47 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 in place to ensure that this does go through as agreed. Because even though it has been agreed, Toll Brothers is the entity that had to be dragged kicking and screaming basically into the preservation of these buildings, so I would like to see a mechanism put in place to be sure that it does happen up front. Secondly, the high-rise at the corner Bainbridge and Grays Ferry. This issue has been going back and forth over time. At each of the public meetings, the height of the building kept changing. I don't really see why, say, 14 or 15 stories necessarily makes a project feasible when a couple stories less, which would also necessitate less parking within the building itself could help minimize the overall impact. Sensitive architectural design should be incorporated absolutely into this site because it is at a very prominent location, and it does have a big impact on the neighborhood at this site. I would also suggest some pedestrian access from that building 'cause what we're trying 48 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 to do here, basically, is integrate this project as much as we can with the neighborhood. We don't want to see something that sits alone as a satellite, sort of isolated onto itself. I'm not going to mention the parking issue; other people have said enough about that and will say enough. But the parade ground, perhaps there's also room to mitigate the parking there. I would suggest, for all Members of the Council, to actually go out and stand in front of Biddle Hall from Grays Ferry Avenue and try to imagine what parking is going to look like in front of the Hall. The extent that that could be mitigated and moved, perhaps, behind Biddle Hall or even not necessary in the first place to be should be considered. We keep talking about automobiles. But left out of this so far in the conversation has been the concept that being in urban development, a lot of people will probably be walking to employment in Center City, in University City, at the hospital, perhaps. Also, the use of mass public 49 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 transportation has never been brought up here, and these are all things that should be put on the table as well. Neighborhood employment during construction is also a concern of ours. We realized that Toll Brothers uses subcontractors, but there should be a good-faith effort well in advance of the construction timetables to try to bring people from the trades into this project. There are a lot of people at all different skill levels in the neighborhood who could be employed. Lastly is the issue of the gated- community concept. This seems to be presented as a fait accomplis, but really, I think the -- sort of the ball was dropped back in the early eighties. That's all water under the bridge. We had the chance to create something akin to a newer Fiddler Square; obviously, we do not now. However, I would urge the consideration of the parade grounds as a semipublic space. There's a lot of precedent for this kind of thing. Hotel lobbies, college campuses, and the town homes, they all have sort of semipublic space that can be control but still open at some point 50 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 to the public. So that's the last of my concerns right here.
Okay. Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for Mr. Gittler? Councilman Cohen.
No, I didn't mention a playground. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Parade.
Oh, a parade ground, sorry, yes. That's the area in front of Biddle Hall.
And, under the plans, as you understand it, is that going to be preserved?
A section. As I understand from looking at these plans here, there is parking, however, put directly in front. And it seems to be organized -- Andy Terhune may correct me if my impression is false, but there 51 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 seems to be two ranks of parking with, a cart way in between. And that would intrude pretty far into the parade ground. And this is really the premiere view line of the whole project.
How many units are intended to be in the building, do you know?
How many actual units? We heard the Mayor say, I think, 2500 people or 2,000 people. How many are the units?
No, it's -- I'll tell you what, though, we have a representative from Toll Brothers here who can give us more specifics.
And maybe what I'll do is after Miss Failer, ask the Toll Brothers to come up and enlighten us a little bit. 52 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
My name is Barbara Failer. I'm the Democratic Committee representative that represents the division which runs along the north wall of the Naval Home.
Excuse me, Barbara. Would you speak closer to the microphone so we can hear you. Thank you.
There are really three issues that we have talked about over the last two, three years as we've met repeatedly with the developers and with others in the community: We want to see development, we'd like to see the historic character of the property preserved, and we're looking for a good neighbor. We seem to have, at this point, you know, ironed out a lot of THE issues down around 53 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 historic preservation. It's been a long, slow slog, but we seem to have gotten there, and we welcome that preserving the historic nature of the property. I think it's important that people understand we really do want to see development go forward, that when we raise concerns or issues, we're not doing that because we don't want to see development start. At almost every meeting, the question is, Can this start tomorrow, how soon will they get going? as opposed to we don't want to see something happen. On the other hand, it is very frustrating to us that every time we raise some concerns or issues that we feel will make development of the property a good neighbor as well, we keep hearing people talk about, well, if don't get what they need, they're going to take their bat and ball and go home, and they're just going to throw up their hands and do nothing and continue to let the buildings deteriorate, and on and on. It's our belief that the reality is that this current zoning plan provides for much 54 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 greater density than when Toll Brothers bought the property, that it certainly seems to us that they will be able to make an economic return without necessarily having to do it on the backs of the surrounding neighborhood. We haven't asked for great concessions from them; we've had a fairly short list. In terms of a good neighbor, you that means that you don't look for a win-lose, you look for a win-win. And the immediate neighbors, as well as the historic community are a legitimate, you know, party to this negotiation, or should be. And part of that means that we have the ability to preserve the character of a very stable, long-term multigenerational neighborhood that is right along the north wall. We have toddlers, we have senior citizens, and we have everything in between. And our reasons for asking that the curb-cuts be restricted on Bainbridge Street are to avoid running traffic along a one-lane residential street. Our other concerns about putting a huge tower at 24th and Bainbridge have, again, been to 55 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 have something that will not overwhelm the surrounding community, both in terms of density of housing and in terms of traffic flow. So in terms of curb-cuts, what we felt that we could live with is if at 27th Street, there is no right turn onto Bainbridge, so that if they are exiting at 27th Street, they can go up 27th Street. And what you don't see on that map is that it goes right up to a light at the South Street bridge, which would enable them to make a left and get on the Schuykill Expressway or a right and head in towards the City. So that gives them access to pretty much most of what they would want to do without, again, running them down a one-lane residential street, 'cause Bainbridge Street is housing once you get east of there. In terms of the easternmost curb-cut by that A-1 building, the reason that we've asked that that be restricted to 16 feet and that that be exit-only is that we really don't believe that we can live with all of the traffic for a high-rise building coming down Bainbridge Street and down a residential street to get to Bainbridge 56 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Street and funneling through there to get to their garage. The building right now, what we had hoped to cap it at, was 140 feet from street level, which would be a 14-story building. It's still a very big building relative to anything in the neighborhood.
It's probably about the height of most of the stuff on Rittenhouse Square. And we are willing to live with an exit onto Bainbridge Street there because it's going to funnel traffic out and may make it more manageable in the property, but we believe that the service roads within the community ought to be able to handle the inbound traffic and route that on either Grays Ferry or on Schuykill Avenue without dumping it down a one-lane residential street in order to get to the garage. So those were the primary reasons for our objections. We do still believe strongly that way. Until the 1st of January, this community was going to be a completely gated community, with everything inside the walls. I understand that they had to make some changes to 57 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 their plans in order to meet the historic preservation needs, which we recognize are also important, but they're not important to the exclusion, we don't believe, of the immediate neighbors. And so we would request that those -- that 27th Street would be no right turn on the exit, and that the easternmost curb-cut go down to feet and be an exit only. 11
Thank you for your 12 testimony. Councilwoman Verna. 13
I believe the 14 Mayor said that they did have no objection to the 15 no-right turn. However, there was an objection to 16 the exit-only?
27th Street was never one that we felt had to be exit-only so much. The issue, when we spoke about this earlier in the week --
-- our issue was that on the exit from 27th Street, that they have no right turn there. Our issue up at, as we get close to 58 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 24th Street, at the easternmost one, is that that be exit-only because we're trying to avoid trying to put 300 dwelling units' worth of traffic down Bainbridge Street.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Miss Failer? On second thought, I think it's better that we hear all the community concern while the representative from Toll Brothers is here so that he may respond. The Chair calls Marianne Anthe and Ann Lawless. (Marianne Anthe and Ann Lawless come forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
I'm Ann Lawless. I live at 635 South 26th Street. I've never done this before, so bear with me. I want to thank Ann Verna and her office for being so cooperative with us. We have been complaining about what Toll Brothers want to 59 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 do with the curb-cuts. We're a neighborhood of residents that have been there for years, they're family-oriented, they have children, and you know, it's just a great neighborhood to live in. And they want to put curb-cuts that going to be against our wishes because we have a lot of children in the neighborhood. There's only one lane of traffic down Bainbridge Street. They tell us that it's only going to take two parking places. Three curb-cuts will take nine parking places. I also want to complain that when they first started talking about this project, everything was supposed to be enclosed in the wall. Now they're talking about houses on Bainbridge Street outside the wall. They want them to be able to have access to get into their houses and also get into their parking places. Fine. There's -- Grays Ferry Avenue has two big gates that they can enter, which were always the gates that you went into the Naval Home. There's a big gate down on Schuylkill Avenue that is usable too, so I can't see why they need any 60 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 gates to go in off of Bainbridge Street. And, as they have said, it's the Naval Academy. It's a shame it's still not the Naval Academy because it was a beautiful place. I hope they don't overbuild. I hope they build, but they build with a lot of the neighbors in mind, and they don't take advantage of us. There's one other thing. If they build houses on Bainbridge Street and they have access to get in there, there's no marking on that side of the street -- no permit parking on that side of the street. It's all free parking, so to speak. And that is now used by people that work over in University City, the University of Penn Hospital, Children's Hospital, in town and everything. I would hate to see them lose their parking places, but I sure as heck don't want them people that are $250,000 or 200,000 for a house to be able to park on that side of the street without a permit. And I don't want them to have permits. Thank you. Thank you for your consideration and listening to me.
Thank you for 61 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 testimony. Are there any question for this witness? (No questions.)
I'm Marianne Anthe, and I'm Democratic Committeewoman, 30th Ward, 8th Division which starts on the north side of South Street. And before coming here and through all of these different meetings that we've had with Toll Brothers, I said to myself, Where are we on common ground? And the common ground that I can see that we all have, the community and Toll Brothers, is that we both want development. The second point of common ground that I see is that both sides see that development is socially and economically beneficial to our immediate community; and, therefore, to the social and economic community of the City of Philadelphia. And we all agree that Toll Brothers has a fine reputation as builders -- builders, however, in a suburb sprawling setting. And perhaps that's one of the reasons why they have a 62 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 hard time understanding where members of this community are coming from when we talk about density of building, heavy flow of traffic, the size of curb-cuts, and this kind of consideration, because these are city -- these are urban consideration, which one doesn't have when one builds sprawling suburban homes on two-acre lots. So while we have those points in common, we also have our points of contention. And while we've heard the Mayor talk about the compromises that Toll Brothers has made, I would like for you to understand that those compromises have not come easily or willingly; whereas the community, at every meeting with the developer, has been presented with yet a new drawing, with yet new aspects to it that we never heard or saw before. So at every meeting had with Toll Brothers, we have had then had to consider new things that, for the most part, were negative aspects, as far as we were concerned. The Mayor talks about not being able to turn our back on keeping young residents and on $6 million in potential tax revenues and how 63 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 there's not going to be any financial support from the City or anyone to Toll Brothers. But let's look at this: As with every new development in the City, these new residents will be getting tax abatement. Therefore, those of us who are currently paying taxes will de facto be supporting the taxes that are not being paid by the new residents. And so I think that when we're not turning our backs on people, we need not to be turning our backs on the people who have been here, whether it's 40 years or 140 years, as some of the residents, or whether it's 14 or years, 15 as those of us who are called "newcomers" in Philadelphia are considered. We need to be remembered. And I would say this: When you considering the difference between, for example, the Toll Brothers' original request of a 47-foot curb-cut on Bainbridge close to Grays Ferry, that's not a curb-cut, that's a boulevard. The street that I live on is not that wide or even half that wide. When you consider these things, I ask 64 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 you to consider that what you vote for today is going to last in our community for generations, not just for the two, three, four, five or ten or fifteen year it will take to build it. We will have to live with it and all of its effects for generations. You have not only the authority but also the responsibility to consider us and know that in your hands and in your vote is the opportunity to make a decision that will impact our little community for probably a hundred or more years. So we are asking you to -- we are asking you to be in favor of the amendments as were presented by Councilwoman Verna, which were agreed to by representatives of our neighborhoods, that, in fact, that building has no more right being 180 feet high than one would to see a sky scraper sitting next to the canals of little Renaissance Venice, Italy.
We are asking you to consider those things not as something that Toll Brothers cannot live with because they're going to be making money on approximately 1,200 rental and residential 65 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 units. That's big bucks. We want them to make big bucks, but we want to be able to live in our community with an ongoing positive impact for our generation and the generations to come. We are not unaware of the significance of this development. Who would be more aware than the people who actually live there? We want development, we want the financial benefit, we want the social and economic benefit. We just want it with some consideration for those things that are important to city living. We are not a suburb, we are a city. And we need for this developer to understand that they cannot build with suburban sensitivities in the midst of the fourth-largest city the country. Thank you.
Mr. Van Dyke and Terry Gillen, please. (Terry Gillen comes forward.)
Is Mr. Van Dyke here? 66 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Terry, identify yourself for your record, please, and proceed.
Sure. I'm Terry Gillen. Gillen, and I'm a neighbor near the Naval Home property. I'm a Democratic Committeewoman in the 30th Ward, 8th Division. I'm Marianne Anthe's partner, and so I won't repeat her testimony which said more eloquently than I could have what my neighbors and what my constituents have been feeling. I just wanted to do two things. One is to enter into the record a petition that one of my neighbors near 22nd and Bainbridge gave to me of some of her neighbors who are opposed to the high-rise nature of this proposal and to the loss of parking. As certainly Councilwoman Verna knows, we have had petitions and letters signed by literally hundreds of people in this neighborhood whom we represent today as we're testifying. So this is actually -- thank you -- strongly felt throughout the neighborhood. And I secondly just wanted to thank 67 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Councilwoman Verna for her support throughout this process. Her office has been terrific at working with the neighborhood. And I want to say that I support the compromise that she has hammered out with the neighbors and to thank her for that position and to urge her to hold firm on it. And that's the position that we have. Thank you.
I would just like to say that that was really not my proposal, but at a meeting with the Mayor, I believe that the area residents have indicated that they would prefer to see a 14-story high-rise rather than an 18. And the Mayor had indicated that he would talk to Toll Brothers. And I truly believed that -- and those who are present can verify -- weren't we at one time told that this met with Toll Brothers' approval? And it was only this morning that we heard about it now being 16 stories.
Yes, Councilwoman, that's my understanding as well. Though many of us had 68 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 hoped for or stories but were willing to settle for the 14 that was worked out earlier in the week. And it had been our understanding that that had been agreed to by Toll Brothers. And, actually, not only did we want the 14-story limit, but we were hoping to get the foot limitation as well to make sure that that 180-foot height came down correspondingly.
Mr. Vederman, I see you had your hand up. Do you want to --
Yeah. I was at that meeting, and I think what the Mayor had said was he would try to get Bob Toll to get it down four stories.
I thought that that was a second meeting that we had.
And in the first one, the Mayor had indicated that he would talk to Toll Brothers. 69 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
And in the second meeting, I thought I understood -- and if I understood, I would like to have some in attendance correct me. It was my understanding that Toll Brothers had in fact agreed to 8 stories. Did I misunderstand? 9
Again, to -- Andrew 10 Terhune is here from Toll Brothers. 11
All right. Herb, 14 just one more question before you sit down, and maybe the gentleman from Toll Brothers could answer it also. Within 140 feet, considering the unknown grade level --
All right. And can you -- (Andrew Terhune responds inaudibly 70 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 off-mike.)
We'll wait for you to come up. I mean, we -- you're talking -- also so you understand before you come up what we're interested in is how far down below the existing ground level is this project going to go within the original 140-foot agreement? (Andrew Terhune responds inaudibly off-mike.)
Well, wait, there was never a 140-foot agreement. We got a fax, I think, yesterday or the day before.
It says, "Conditions of approval imposed by City Council. . . " --
Okay, their original agreement was 180, was it not, Herb?
I don't think we ever talked about height; we talked about how many stories.
Yeah, and it was going to be 4 stories of parking and 14 stories of 71 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 floors.
And, again, there's some question whether they're going to get it from 6 floors -- from 14 to 12 or to 10. 7
So at this point 8 in time, Toll Brothers really doesn't know what 9 the height would be. 10
Well, unless Andy knows 11 what 14 or 12 stories -- it's 12 stories and 4, 12 right? That's where we are now, Andrew? 13 (Andrew Terhune responds inaudibly 14 off-mike.)
Yeah, it's 12 stories of apartments, 4 stories of parking. Now somebody has to figure out how high that becomes.
Right. Let's -- Miss McLaughlin, could you identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony, and then we'll have Mr. Terhune come up.
Okay. My name is Tara Grunde-McLaughlin. I'm a member of the community. I'm going to speak briefly, as there's nothing new that I have to say. 72 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 But I want to reiterate the position, particularly around this subject area about which we are talking right now, which is the height of the building at 24th and Bainbridge. As everybody said before, I think that the fact that the development is going forward is fantastic for the community and the City as a whole. I'm very pleased to see it coming forth. But as people have spoke to the residential aspect of this neighborhood, you've got a community of two- and three-story buildings, with a couple exceptions -- the redone warehouse, the parking garage that's now run by Graduate Hospital and so on. But on the whole, it's a very residential community, and I want to speak strongly in favor on the cap of the height of the building at 24th and Bainbridge. I think that's very important for the esthetic and the living quality of that neighborhood. And I do understand that Toll Brothers does need to get a certain number of units in to make this economically feasible, and I was wondering if was possible for them to add more 73 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 units to the rear and maintain the cap on that building on the corner. That's all. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Terhune. (Andrew Terhune comes forward.)
Would you like that displayed? (Referring to large diagram held by Mr. Terhune.)
Andrew Terhune, Project Manager for Toll Brothers, the developer. If I could, I'd just like to make a brief statement on a couple of items to bring the Members of this Council and this Committee up to speed with some of the history of this, that I know Councilwoman Verna is intimately familiar with. 74 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 First of all like, I'd to say we're very encouraged to hear everybody from the neighborhood come here today, as they have at the meetings, and say, We are in favor of this, we want this to go forward, and I think that's the best thing coming out of this, is that there seems to be unanimity from all parts, that development is the correct thing to do for this property. That may not have always been the case. It was referred to earlier by the Mayor that we had had approvals for this back in 1984, and the reason I want to bring this up is timing is extremely important with this project. At the time we had all the approvals, we could have gone forward, but due to some events that were out of our control, some litigation that was instituted by people not affiliated with the City or with any of the people here today, that held us up. And by the time that was resolved, around 1990, well, we all know what happened with the real estate at the end of the 1980s. And we were sitting there with an approved plan, and there was absolutely nothing we could do with it. 75 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 The reason we feel it's very important to go forward today is that, as the Mayor again mentioned, the rental market is extremely favorable in the City right now. The real estate market in general is very, very strong. Interest rates are very favorable, which certainly is going to help us from a development point of view as well as selling or renting out properties. And for that reason, we feel very strongly that the time is now and that it is time to, you know, to go forward and get onto the next step, which will be actually doing our design development and engineering so that we can construct new homes on the site. It is has been brought up an awful lot about feasibility for this site. What I want to add is -- it's essential -- as the Mayor, again said, we are not asking for a dime of City or State money but the fact that, you know, interest rates are good, the fact that the market is strong now does not make this an economic slam-dunk. There are an awful lot of constraints on this above and beyond the normal that make this a difficult project to develop. 76 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 First of all is those three historic buildings. Biddle Hall, everybody knows that's the large one you see from Grays Ferry Avenue. It's certainly going to be a landmark and it's certainly going to add a lot of attraction to the site. However, the location of it, and probably one of the most desirable places on the site as well is the parade ground, which, for the most part, will remain undeveloped. It limits an awful lot of the good land -- it actually puts it off limits; and, consequently, we have to put most of the development in areas that might not be quite as preferable. , it's not Rittenhouse House Square, and we can't expect to get the kind of demand and the kind of prices that you could get if you were able to put this building right on Rittenhouse Square. And, finally, I would just like to address people's concerns about, you know, what's 77 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 going to happen going forward. And there seems to be a little bit of, you know, issue about that, the historical buildings.
I want to mention that when we start going forward with this, although we will not have to come back to City Council unless we're going to request some sort of change to the zoning, we will need to go back to the Planning Commission for them to review all of our plans to make sure that they do conform with the zoning as it is approved here today; as well as to the Historical Commission and the State Historic Preservation Officer whenever we pull a permit to do absolutely anything on the site. And this is above and beyond the normal reviews that would take place for any site to be developed in the City. So I just want to assure the public here as well as the Members of the Committee that there will be plenty of opportunity for reviewing the details of this as we progress with them. If you'd allow me, I'd like to just talk a little bit about the two issues that seem to be of concern: the height of the building and 78 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 the curt-cuts on Bainbridge. If I could address myself to that.
First of all, you cannot get an appreciation for the technical and engineering reasons of why we laid it out this way. The site has always been surrounded by a 10-foot wall here, so, again, even those of you who may have driven by this, you know, your entire lives, you may not appreciate fact that there's about a 15-foot grade differential between here, where my pen is, and between the street level at Bainbridge Street.
Down, yeah. It's higher in here, and Bainbridge Street is lower. And it's pretty consistent. The differential starts around here and it builds up to about 15 feet here and continues right around 15 feet, all the way till you get here, when it drops off in the interior and flattens out again to meet down at Schuylkill Avenue. The reason we have laid it out this way 79 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 is to try and take advantages of that grade differential and -- as well as do something, which was brought up in many of the earlier meetings we had was, Hey, you're doing something, you know, that's going to be apart from the community. Why aren't you going to be making something that's going to be in the community. People had suggested even cutting the streets that were existing through -- although that was determined not to be practical. And what we've tried to do is solve that problem. But it seems that in doing so, we've caused another one that, frankly, took us totally by surprise. We had no idea that these curb-cuts would end up being such an issue. The reason they are there is our intention is that the lower level of parking in these buildings here fronting Bainbridge Street be accessed from Bainbridge Street itself. These people -- and that level -- that parking on the lower level would be for people living in the lower levels of these buildings. Now, that's really not any different than what you would expect in most buildings and 80 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 row houses that you see throughout the City. As an example, right here is a new community of homes called Dane Court that is 5 under construction right. And now from what I 6 understand, they're selling very successfully. 7 They're homes in about the 260 - $275,000 range. 8 Every single one of those has parking right on 9 South Street, right where people might have parked 10 in the past but now are not going to be able to, 11 but it's considered normal. In fact, I think it's 12 a requirement, actually, that they actually have 13 access to a garage, and they have done so. 14 We thought that we were actually being 15 a little bit better here by limiting it to just a 16 limited number of curb-cuts to access the parking; 17 while, at the same time, we're going to have people living here much as people live here on Bainbridge Street right now. There are going to be neighbors and their, you know, fellow members of the community once get in there. And the advantage of that is it's going to mean more street traffic, it's going to mean more street life here. And it's -- again, I think it's going to help integrate this community with 81 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 the rest of the neighborhood.
We're down, though, however, to basically two issues on the curb-cut.
The issue left on egress and ingress, from what I understand it --
You have to do it on the microphone, and identify yourself for the record.
Herb Vederman, Deputy Mayor of Economic Development. When Toll Brothers agreed to change 82 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 these curb-cuts, it just wasn't an easy thing to say, Well, let's put them here, let's put them there. It all had to do with parking and grades. And here is a schematic, if you're interested.
No, I think Andrew did it. (Andrew Terhune responds inaudibly off-mike.)
Instead of doing it that way, where, I assume, you could have gone from one building to the other, now you're going to have to start building ramps. (Andrew Terhune comments inaudibly off-mike.)
But it's costing a lot of money to make these changes going.
But let's get -- we want to get to get to the last couple of issues that are still in discussion. 83 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Let the record indicate -- at great expense. Thank you, Herb. The issue that I understand that is left is in addition to the width issue, but we'll get to that in a minute, is that the community would rather have the entrance or the curb-cut closer to the high-rise as exit-only.
And the curb-cut to the further end, what direction is that?
They seem to indicate they would be willing to have both an exit and entrance at that westerly part if the easterly part was limited to exit-only.
That's what I understand, yes. 84 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
And what is the problems related to that? And is that correct?
We have no problem with the two-way here; we think that's essential.
Okay. How many feet wide? Why do you have to make it wider to have it both --
Whatever would be normal in the City. I mean, we don't want anything excessive. Whatever the Streets Department would determine as normal is fine with us for a two-way.
And we would request the same thing here as well. The reason, again, being, we want to be able to take advantage of this grade and be able to access the lower level of the parking here directly off the street, and then the other level would be direct access from the inside. The people here who's parking's on the bottom level will not have the alternative of going around, as someone suggested, coming here, coming into Grays Ferry, and then going around and 85 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 getting to it. Again, as Herb said, there's a lot of economic reasons for not doing that.
The distance between the entrance on Grays Ferry Avenue and the proposed entrance-exit on Bainbridge Street east, is that a large difference of space?
Well, I'm saying as far as the way it cuts across. I mean, you're cutting -- you're cutting a corner.
There's an entrance -- it is my understanding that there's a vehicular entrance on Grays Ferry Avenue.
And then there's also another curb-cut which could be both entrance or exit on Bainbridge Street.
The people who are living in Building -- I'm sorry -- in Building B -- further east, Building B.
They could not access, in your opinion, their parking spot from one of those exits on Grays Ferry Avenue?
Because they're going to be at different levels. There are going to be two levels of parking in those buildings. And because of the difference in grade, they're going to access the upper level of the parking through the interior and the lower level of parking through here. That is the reason.
The second thing I'd like to point out too is we thought by doing this that we were actually helping the parking situation. And it's sort of puzzling to us how it's sort of gotten stood on its head here. Imagine yourself, you're a resident 87 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 here, Councilman, and you live in one of these homes here that is fronting here. Now, the fact is, being a taxpayer of Philadelphia, you have a right to park on a public street as much as anybody else does. And you come in with a bag of groceries, say, or something. Now, I think most people are going to want -- and your home's here, here, in any of these buildings. You're going to want to unload them quickly and get out and go on about your business. You're going to go here, and you're going to way, Wow, there's a parking space. And you're going to park here. Or if it's just as easy to go in here, whip right around and go right in your parking space, a secured, locked parking space, another 30 seconds, sure, you'll do that. If, instead, I'm saying, somebody's here's got to go all the way around, all the way around here, and all the way around here to get in there, they're going to say the heck with it, I'm going to park out on the street. And I think the concern we've heard expressed from the residents around here is 88 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 they're concerned about the loss of street parking. And I think the best way to address that is to make it easy and convenient for the people who are living in these homes to park in their secured parking so that they have no incentive to want to park on the streets. Because once they're there and once they're living there, we can pass all the ordinances we want. But, as citizens of Philadelphia, they're going to want the right to park on the street.
In reality, if I'm living in the middle building and there's no 15 curb-cut in the middle, I'm not going to park on the street and climb a ten-foot wall to take my groceries in.
I'll be honest, that -- we don't know what we're going to do with the middle building right now, Councilman. We had planned to have an access by -- we would rather have had the curb-cut here so it could have accessed both of these buildings. With great reluctance, we have agreed to put it over here in, you know, meeting with the neighborhood's 89 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 concerns. But I'll tell you right now, I cannot give you the answer of what we're going to do with this building. We may have to -- it may be a total redesign, it may end up being something totally different, but we are acceding to the community's desires, and we're going to live with that. And, as I said, I can't give you the answer on how we're going to solve that problem today.
All right. But an exit-only on the eastern end is unworkable?
These entrances and exits will not be accessible to the other people living in here. They will be entrances and exits accessible only to the people here on Bainbridge Street. Somebody living here, somebody living here, somebody living here is not going to be able to use those. They're going to have very, very 90 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 limited traffic, I want to emphasize, very limited traffic. (Herb Vederman comments inaudibly off-mike.)
Herb, unless you use the microphone, the stenographer can't hear you.
We anticipate these will be about 50 units each, so 150 units. We'd be talking, you know, about 200, 300 people, something like that.
Okay. Excuse me one second. (Committee Members confer off the record.)
In the meantime, how many actual buildings are there? This high-rise building whether it's 14 stories or more, is that -- now, are there other buildings as part of the development?
This is a schematic 91 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 showing what it could be. The plan that's actually being approved and is being reviewed by the Planning Commission is here. And what it shows is buildable areas, okay. Each one of these areas has its own limits in terms of square footage, height, coverage area, things like that. You know, you can look at it -- I don't know whether you'd count, you know, a whole row of town homes like this as one building or as 12 separate buildings. We've divided it up into 13 different areas, though, and each area has its own 14 limitations as to what it can be. It's -- 15
And every one of 16 these designs indicates a building in which there 17 are going to be housing units? 18
Yes, yes, that is 19 correct. And it limits the number of the square 20 footage and things like that that can be accommodated in these -- in one of these areas.
We're going take a five-minute recess and go off the record and have a side-bar discussion on this particular issue and then come back on. 92 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Okay. (Committee confers off the record.) - - - (Proceedings resume.)
The Committee has ended its recess and is back in session. Prior to Mr. Terhune continuing his testimony, what I'd like to do is ask the members of the building trades that are here to come up and give their testimony relative to this, and then we'll come back do Mr. Terhune. So all those who here representing the building trades, please present yourselves to the witness table. (Members of Building trades panel come forward.)
I'm sorry. I really appreciate your patience in waiting. You gentlemen can have a seat. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is John McGrath, I'm from the Carpenters Union. 93 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 The first thing I'd like to do is I'd like to thank the Councilmembers present for their courtesy in letting us speak here today.
I'm here with a few of the members of a few of the other trades in the Building Trades. First I'd like to announce everyone's here. From the Electricians, we have Harry Foy, Jim Fera, and Tom Nealson. From the Operating Engineers, you have Cecil Preston. From the Laborers, you have Nate Sabir. From the Carpenters Union, you have John McGrath and Len Lombardo. And from the Building Trades is Jim Little. We have many members in this neighborhood and many more members in the City of Philadelphia. Our concerns about this project are focussed around one question -- whether it's going to be a union project or not. And depending on the answer to that, that would determine how we would feel about the project. I'm happy to say that right before the 94 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 beginning of this session, Mr. Terhune, from Toll Brothers, gave me and a few other members of the Building Trades a verbal commitment that it would be a union project. On that condition that it would be a union project and that he's good to that commitment, we happily support the project.
Harry Foy, I'm the President of the Electricians Union of Philadelphia. And I appreciate the opportunity to testify in front of you here this afternoon. And first, this gives me great pleasure to actually testify on this matter because the project in question -- and as I had just got done speaking to Mrs. Lawless, I was born and raised in this neighborhood, okay? I've come up in this neighborhood. And, as Mrs. Lawless knows, on one side of that Naval Home, it's always been known as 95 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 "Schuykill." And on the other side of that Naval Home, it's always been known as the "Devil's Pocket." And being a lifelong resident, with parents of 82 years of age that live within four walking blocks of this particular project, it gives me great pleasure to see something finally happening to a very historic site that really was a landmark for the City of Philadelphia. And I'm really thrilled to see this happen. And just as in any other project that takes place in this City, as the University House was there for years and it was the quote/unquote basketball capital for Schuylkill at 26th and Lombard, it always seemed like a very drastic thing to have that removed from you. But in reality, it turned out that it provided for a lot of quality housing for Philadelphia residents that generated City wage tax, property tax, and an environment to be able to walk to Center City for their employment. This project -- this project, or this particular piece of property, even going back when I was a kid down in that area, and that's roughly 96 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 43, 42 years ago, it was vacated at that point in time, and it has sat in that vacated state for this length of time. It sits in a prime location to be able to really turn the City and turn that area into a real strong community. Along with that and the idea that we have a tremendous number of working building- trades people in that vicinity that will be put to work through these projects, and the further comment on what was stated earlier in regards to hiring neighborhood involvement in communities, which we've already proven that to be a success on this Council floor, through the Temple projects, through the University of Penns projects, I'm thrilled to be able to see this go forward, and I hope that the City supports this project in its entirety. I, as former member of that community and still having parents and having relatives in that community, support this project. And I would hope that all the little variances that need to make this thing filter out and have the community involvement satisfied, I hope we can get them resolved, and I'd like to see this moved forward. 97 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 I thank you.
Is it possible to have it put on the record or introduced as one of your amendments that it would be a union project?
If I could legally do it, I'd do it in a minute, but we are precluded from insisting and requiring that type of involvement. I would like, and I'm sure Councilman Cohen would concur that there's nothing we would like better than to insist on every project in this City is done union. However, federal law has prohibited us from doing that. What we can insist upon and what we will insist upon is prevailing wage issues and prevailing wage be paid, and I think that that has protected most of the qualified union people in this town and in the state, when prevailing wage is put in place. But we agree in spirit; we just can't legally do it. 98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
I appreciate that. And just to reiterate, we do like it on record that we have gotten a verbal commitment from Toll Brothers that it would be a union project. And on that commitment, we support the project.
I think Toll Brothers is wise to make that commitment if they want the development built right and safe. The most qualified people in the region are those people carrying union cards. Thank you very, very much.
Thank you for coming in and testifying. There's one person left on the list, Patricia Wilson Aden, from the Preservation Alliance. She had to leave. Okay, Mr. Terhune, could you come back, and we'll continue your testimony. Mr. Terhune, could you please, if possible, go through the issues relative to the height of Building A-1, I guess it is, as it relates to this project on the height issues.
Sure, I'd be happy to, 99 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Councilman. Really, what it boils down to is Councilman, as I said back earlier, we have to come up with something that is going to make this project economically doable. And one of the things that was brought up earlier that this has a lot more density than the original approval from back in 1984. That is true, but it is still within the parameters allowed by the zoning that was passed back prior to the original plan. So one thing I would like to point out is that we have said from the beginning that we were not asking for any variances and that the plan, as submitted, will conform with the zoning as passed back in the 1980s, although denser than what the original man was. The reason we need the height -- the only way to take advantage of the zoning, as it is, it allows for an overall site FAR -- floor area ratio -- of 1.5 for the entire site. Now, since it's more than one, the only way you can get that is to go up. The zoning also requires a certain 100 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 amount of open space on which the parade ground is part of that, you've got a certain amount of roads and things like that. The only way to be able to take advantage of all of the density that's allowed by the zoning board is to have some high-rises somewhere on the site. So it came down to a choice of where we put the high-rises. And we try to be very sensitive to the neighbors' concerns while, at the same time, also being sensitive to our need to make them developable. If you wouldn't mind, could I get up and address the board over there again?
Good. In looking at this, two locations immediately came to mind as -- taking into account the neighborhood issues, because we knew there would be some concerns in the neighborhood about something going high. I've never heard of a high-rise built anywhere that didn't have neighborhood concerns about it. And also the economic concerns. And they are as follows: First of all, this location was chosen 101 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 for two reasons. One, this is the location of a site that is closest right now to the existing services. If you go down here, I think I mentioned before, at 23rd and South and that whole block there, you've go the supermarket, drugstore, various restaurants, things like that, the services that people want. This is going to be an area that's desirable because you don't need to wait for service to be developed down here. You can come out of your, you know, door in the building and walk a block, and you can get all the things that Center City people like to walk to. So we feel that it's important to have a good chunk of the density here probably to sort of, you know, to help develop a critical mass on the site, to make this a destination, to make it a place where people are going to want to come. When they see a number of people living there, it's going to become a place people want to live. The other thing that was attractive this, though, is directly across the street here is a parking garage. This is the site where virtually all of the shadowing from, you know, the 102 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 height is going to fall, on the parking garage. There's an empty parking lot over here, some commercial buildings over here. The residential doesn't start till over here, and there's a tiny bit over here, but much of this is St. Anthony's Church over there. So we've picked an area that would have minimal impact on the residents of the area. And that, again, was not accidental; it was intentional. The same over here. And, again, a couple of good reasons for picking it here. One, again, you've got an abandoned industrial building over here, an empty lot over here. I don't know if you've ever seen it in the wintertime; they're always selling Christmas trees right here from across the South Street Bridge. You've got the JFK Voc Tech over here. The Schuylkill Avenue's a very industrial boulevard, you know, providing access down to the thermal energy plant down here. So, again, we thought, by locating it down here, it would have the same effect. It's also -- the other thing good about this location, 103 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 again, it's got the best access to the highways. So, again, it's another very a highly desirable location that people want to be close to because -- as opposed to being somewhere like here or here. You're going to have much quicker access in and out and you're going to be able to get to the Expressway if that's your desire. So because of the attractiveness of these locations and the fact that they also had other features which made their impact on the residential neighborhood the least, we concentrated our density in those two regions. That's really about all I can say. We want to get the maximum density here and here for those reasons.
All right. When it comes to the issues of numbers of the floors --
-- you need 4 levels of parking and 12 levels of residential use?
Roughly up or 104 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 roughly down?
Well, roughly, it's going to depend on the mix. And let me explain, Councilman. Not having, you know, gone out and actually marketed this and trying to look for the residents, I can't say. If this becomes something that's -- who knows, this could be a continuing- care community type or an elderly type facility, in which case, they're going to require a lot less parking than they would if it was something that I'm designing for people who are going to be having two cars, in which case, I'll plan a lot more parking.
See, but that example confuses me. And the reason that example confuses me is my understanding of this project, from the Mayor's testimony and everything that I've known and learned and by talking to Councilwoman Verna and by reading, is that the benefit of doing this project is to have higher-end rental units, with more productive, taxpaying citizens -- not necessarily a continuing-care facility. I mean, are we talking 105 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 about the potential of it being a continuing-care facility?
I'm saying -- I'm saying it's the potential. Listen, there are over a thousand units' potential on this site. I'm not saying that they're going to be here or here or here. And I'm not saying they wouldn't be here or here.
Parcel A-1, on that location, is there any doubt that if this is approved, is there any doubt that that's going to be a higher-end, luxury residential facility?
Well, see, that -- I'm -- you see, that's just totally confusing to me.
Councilman, I can't sit here I -- don't have a crystal ball. I can't sit here and tell you at this point in time or a year from now, when we finally get the plans ready, what is the best purpose for this. They're all residential. We will stick within the zoning, and this will be a residential use. 106 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
But that's different from -- but a residential use also falls into the category of a continuing-care facility. Here's my point. The Mayor -- and please don't misunderstand me, but somehow, by the force of the Mayor's personality, he decides to come and attend this and convince us that this is the right thing to do based on the fact that of $6 million in real estate taxes and the other ancillary multiplier benefits of spending and young people staying in the community, that's not a continuing care facility. And what you're telling me is that there's still a potential of it being something other than what the Mayor gave us the impression it was going to be?
The Mayor gave us a distinct impression of what this project is going to be, and a continuing-care facility is certainly not the impression I had.
Okay. I think, most likely, it will not be. I think, most likely, I 107 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 see rental apartments here. But within the scope of what the zoning permits, it could be another -- it could be, you know -- it could be a lot of people that want to buy studios, in which case it will be studios.
Well, we're not having a debate on what the zoning allows, you know.
And that's the concern is that if we're being asked to dedicate ourselves or to give our vote for project that's going to do what the Mayor has given us the vision of it going to be, that vision certainly is distinctly different from what you're saying there's a possibility it could be.
I'm just having great difficulty. I never recollect having sat as a member of the Rules Committee and being asked for approval of a plan so vague. I don't know what we would be approving. 108 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 You're telling us that you could do anything; you'll just stay within the zoning. You know, you won't ask for variances, though I assume that would be as subject to change as other things if, down the road, you decided you needed variances. Because we've heard that before. Folks have told us that, and then they come back with changed stories. But, really, I just never heard of anything as vague as this. If somebody were to ask me what -- if I voted for approval, what I voted to approve. I'd have to tell them I voted to approve to give Toll Brothers the right to build whatever it is they will choose to build as long as it's generally within the zoning. And I just don't see how we can do that.
Well, Councilman, it's no 19 different than approving residential zoning anyplace else. When you -- when we get an approval to put single-family homes on a community, they don't sit and tell us, Well, these have to be three-bedroom or four-bedroom or five-bedroom homes, or what is the age of people who's going to live in them. None of those 109 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 questions come up as a matter of zoning. What we're approving is that there's going to be a certain --
But we know they're going to be rental homes, we have a pretty good idea of what they're going to be. The builders tell us, you know, there may be an exception of one or two, but we know what it is we've approved, but I don't see how we know anything here.
In the last two years, working with the Mayor and (unintelligible) who owns the company, and --
Mr. Vederman, I've worked with Toll Brothers. And I'm sure Councilwoman Verna will remember, back in 1984, I spent many, many hours in the caucus room, many meetings between this fellow Zvi Barzilay, 'cause I recognize the name. We spent an awful lot of time on what was happening then. And I'm just confounded to get these vague answers.
Well, I'm confounded too, and I just want to ask, you know, one question. You know, unless Toll Brothers and you 110 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 have talked about other uses, the only use that you've talked about in the Administration has been for market rentals, period, end of sentence. Is that correct or not correct? (Mr. Terhune responds inaudibly off-mike.)
Wait, wait. Forget what you expect to happen. I mean, in the two years that we've been discussing it with you Zvi, with Bob Toll, the only thing that was ever discussed for it to be used for ever in those two years was market rentals. Is that true or not? (Mr. Terhune responds inaudibly off-mike.)
But it seems as if the gentleman is asking to have an awful lot of leeway --
-- to have us approve anything that fits the zoning. And, as 111 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 Councilman Kenney indicated, it's a broad list of groups. (Applause.)
Well, that's not true because, as I mentioned earlier, anything we do, I'm going to come back with this, it's going to have to go to the Planning Commission. When I come back with the building that is going to be here, I'm going to have to go back to the Planning Commission, I'm going to have to go back to the Historical Commission. There will be plenty of commissions, there will be plenty of public hearings, and there will be an awful lot of opportunity for the members of the public, as well as any of you all, to give input on it. It's not -- this is not --
What you're asking us to do is to exercise the one power that City Council has in this whole development. If we approve this, we're out of the picture. Just like you said, we can become a part of the general public and voice our views. And I don't -- it seems to me that in a development of this importance, City Council, 112 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 based upon what I'm hearing today, I don't know how you can ask us to exercise the one power we have over this development to protect the people of Philadelphia.
I was answering your question about parking, and that's what brought all this up, was getting back to parking. And the parking was merely saying -- your saying four levels will be enough, you know, based on it being a residential -- a typical residential use, our people tell us that four levels of parking will be just fine. Now, I'll leave it at that.
Let me just go ask one other question while we're on the subject.
A lot of commitments, a lot of work has been obviously done by Councilwoman Verna, the Mayor's office, the community people. There have been commitments, verbal commitments made that was testified to the Building Trades and others that this is going to be a union project, a high-level residential project. Is Toll Brothers committed to being the 113 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 developer of this project through the life of this facility? And the reason I ask this question is that all of the commitments that Toll Brothers is making come with Toll Brothers' credibility.
And I feel better when I hear a company like Toll tell me they're going to do X, Y, or Z. Is there any danger that this project -- or property is going to be sold to somebody and be developed by somebody other than Toll?
I suppose there's a chance, but I'll tell you that our plan is to be the developer. I've asked this question myself a hundred times, and --
But is the Toll -- on the record, for our purposes, is the Toll company and all their credibility and wherewithal committed to being into this decade of this property? Or is this some other potential that it will be sold or acquired by some other company, where all the commitments that Toll is making now, we'd have to -- we would be out of the -- for 114 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 example, theoretically -- and I'm not saying this is going to happen, but let's say, theoretically, we approve everything that you're asking for today.
And six months from now, Toll sells the property to another developer, to Joe --
Where are we legally as a council with all the commitments that have been made both in the private meetings and then now in this public session, where are those commitments then? Do we have to go back and renegotiate all these commitments with another company?
I think Mr. Lombardo is here, and that was one question I was 115 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 going to ask him. He hasn't had an opportunity to testify as yet.
I think he's more qualified to answer that question as far as. . .
The question is if, theoretically, we approve this project today, and six months from now, Toll decides to sell the property to another company --
-- what are the guarantees, the commitments that have been made to the community, to the Building Trades, to the Council and to others? Would they be required to be upheld by the new owner?
I would say all that -- well, there's two -- there's different levels. Obviously things that are part of the Council approval, like where the curb-cuts are, how wide they are, that runs with the land. To the degree the Master Plan shows that the building will only be 140, 160, that goes 116 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 with the plan. To the degree that they show that these are going to be three-story town houses. But to the degree that --
Will that also go with the historic preservation issues?
Right. And historic preservation pieces and the wall and the gate and the fences and the parade ground and what happens is that is all under their covenants with the historic people. And that would get done. To the degree that a particular type of housing would get done, unless that's in writing, no, that would not be guaranteed. Because, basically, what we've approved and what you're being asked to approve is what the zoning allows, what an RC-6 allows, all types of residential units. You've been asked and we've approved basically the flexibility that within these zones that there will be so many buildings not to exceed so many feet. To that degree, unless it's tied down more, they or any other heirs or assignees will have the flexibility to do what they can do under the zoning within those areas. 117 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 In terms of anything else that sort of side bar to the degree that it's not a written agreement -- I mean, it's like any other verbal commitment. You know, like they say, a verbal agreement is worth the paper it's written on. You know I can't -- to be honest with you, the degree that you have conditions under zoning that you could put on it, they would become enforceable and whatever the covenants for the historical people would be.
Councilwoman, do you have any questions for Mr. Lombardo??
All right. What I'd like to do is if you have additional testimony you'd like to offer on the issue of height, to do that now. And what the intention of the Committee is to recess till Tuesday, the 21st of April, at 10 a.m., in this room, to continue this discussion. So if there's something else you want to offer, please offer it now for the record. If not, we will recess to Tuesday, April 21st, at 10 a.m. We'll just a take a moment. 118 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 (Committee confers off the record.) (Proceedings resume.) - - -
The Council Committee on Rules is now resumed. We had originally announced there was going to be a recess till the 21st of April, at 9 a.m. That's not the case now. We will continue 10 on with this hearing. And what the Chair would like to do now is to recognize Mr. Lombardo from the Planning Commission to read formally into the record conditions of approval imposed by City Council to the Naval Home RC-6 Master Plan Amendment, which has been thoroughly discussed with the developer, with the community, and with all interested parties. Mr. Lombardo has consented to read that the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. Richard Lombardo, Project Planner, Philadelphia Planning Commission. Just before I get into these 119 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 amendments, I wanted to clarify, we approved this and it was recommended in our letter dated March 10, 1998 a list of amendments. That is formally Commission adopted. What I'm about to read into the record is to by at side bar to the degree that it amends or changes the Commission's recommendations, so be it. To the degree it doesn't affect any recommendation, our recommendations to you would remain the same or would be on top of these recommendations.
Okay, so just so we make it even clearer than you've made it, anything that we do today with Council approval, that changes what the Planning Commission has already approved would need to be, I assume, reapproved by the Planning Commission?
You have the final approval. Saying to you is in our letter we also recommended four conditions. To the degree that 120 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 -- I guess the only one that wasn't -- that was not part of this agreement is the issue about permit parking, which the Mayor talked about, the issue about public parking.
Right. But the key is that what we approve here today is what goes.
The other condition is that they come back to us for further approval of erosion control. We would still like that to be in your approval.
I just wanted to say that whatever amendments are approved today will be approved by the entire Council in the resolution form. And the President of City Council will then notify Barbara Kaplan of all of the amendments that are being proposed today and have them passed by Council. 121 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Now, for what was agreed to on side bar: Additional conditions upon approval. Curb-cuts for vehicular ingress and egress along Bainbridge Street frontage shall be limited as follows: No more than two curb-cuts shall be permitted along the southerly side of Bainbridge Street between 24th Street and Schuykill Avenue. The easterly-most curb-cut shall not exceed feet in width and shall be located no 14 more than 336 feet west of 24th Street extended. 15 Furthermore, this curb-cut shall be 16 restricted for the B-Building garage access and 17 egress. 18 The westerly-most curb-cuts shall not 19 exceed 34 feet in width and shall be located no 20 more than 214 feet east of Schuykill Avenue. 21 Furthermore, no right turn shall be 22 permitted -- this is not written here, but I would 23 assume you want to say -- from this curb-cut. 24 You're talking about a right turn, I guess, going east on Bainbridge Street, right? 122 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Number two, one additional curb-cut for vehicular ingress and egress along Grays Ferry Avenue shall be limited as follows: This curb-cut shall extend no more than 244 feet southwesterly from the corner of 24th and Grays Ferry Avenue. Number three, the maximum allowable height of the multistory building proposed for the corner formed by Grays Ferry Avenue, 24th Street and Bainbridge Street, known as "Area A-1" on the amended Master Plan shall not exceed 140 feet in height above the ground level of 24th Street and Grays Ferry Avenue. Number four, Toll Brothers shall include in its historic covenant with the Pennsylvania State Historic Preservation Officer language to ensure that the restoration of the exterior of all the historic buildings shall take place at the same time construction is begun on the multistory building proposed for the corner formed by Grays Ferry, 24th Street, and Bainbridge Street, parenthesis, known as "Area A-1" on the amended Master Plan, closed parenthesis. 123 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Thank you very much. Councilwoman, do you have any comments?
Thank you. I would just like Mr. Terhune to come up to make sure that we have not excluded or included something that you're not aware of. (Mr. Terhune comes forward.)
Yes. Andrew Terhune, from Toll Brothers. What Mr. Lombardo read is my understanding of what was agreed to.
Thank you very much. That should conclude the business -- or the hearing for this particular resolution. And the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion to approve the resolution -- approve the amendments that were read into the record be Mr. Lombardo.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments be adopted as read by Mr. Lombardo. (Duly seconded.) 124 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182
Aye. Let the record show that Councilmember Longstreth has left his affirmative vote for the amendments and for the resolution. There are no -- there's no one that's opposed, and they will be adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on the amended resolution.
Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I move that Resolution No. 980182, as amended, be reported out of committee, with a favorable recommendation.
Let the record reflect that Councilmember Longstreth has left his affirmative vote. There are none opposed, so Resolution No. 98012, as amended, will be reported favorably from this committee and read at our next Council session. Thank you for your attendance.
Members of the 125 COMMITTEE ON RULES - RESOLUTION NO. 980182 community, this will be considered tomorrow. It will be reported out of committee tomorrow and will be voted on by all Members of Council. I want to thank you all for your hard work and interest in this, and certainly -- Mr. Vederman, I see you don't look very happy over there, but -- is anybody happy here? With all the work that's been done, is anybody happy? Mr. Terhune, thank you. (Adjourned at 2:43 p.m.) - - - 126 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Wednesday, April 15, 1998 were reported and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES RESOLUTION NO. 980182 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, RPR