Committee Hearing, January 29, 2003

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, January 29, 2003 10:20 a.m. - - - BILL 020495 - An Ordinance amending Title of The 10 Philadelphia Code... BILL 020649 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia 11 Zoning Maps... BILL 020689 - An Ordinance amending Title 14 of The 12 Philadelphia Code... BILL 020733 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia 13 Zoning Maps... BILL 020760 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 14-1600 14 of The Philadelphia Code... BILL 020811 - An Ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal... BILL 020812 - An Ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal... - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chairman COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER

COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ - - - V A R A L L O, INCORPORATED Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X BILL 020760 PAGE EDWARD CORYELL, Carpenters Union ............ WILLIAM KRAMER, Planning Commission ......... RICHARD THOM, Old City Civic Assoc. ......... GREGORY HILL, Jeffrey M. Brown Associates.... DANIEL REISMAN, Esq., Jeffrey M. Brown Assoc. 37 BILL 020689 WILLIAM KRAMER, Planning Commission ......... 51 STEVE CICERON, Hamilton Townhouses .......... 78 BRAD RUBINS, Friends of Logan Square ........ 81 ANDREA KORFF, Logan Square Neighbors Assoc... 84 ROSEANNE STAGNO ADAMS, Friends of Logan Sq. .. 90 JOVIDA HILL, Friends of Logan Square ......... 93 FRANK FEINGOLD, Friends of Logan Square ...... 94 TULLY SPEAKER, Logan Square Neighbors Assoc... 96 LORETTA WESLER, Logan Square Neighbors Assoc.. 99 MARK LIVERANT, ESQ, Forest City ............. 100 RICHARD LOMBARDO, Planning Commission ....... 108 MICHAEL FINK, Licenses and Inspections ...... 124 BILL 020812 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 133 RICHARD REDDING, Planning Commission ........ 163 NIANE CATIA O'LEARY (ph) .................... 164 HARRY T. LIPSHULTZ .......................... 165 DON TURNER .................................. 175 BILL 020811 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority ..... 183 KATHLEEN MURRAY, Staff ...................... 186 BILL 020495 OTIS HAIGLER, JR., L&I ...................... 187 BILLS 020495, 020649, 020733 WILLIAM KRAMER, Planning Commission ........ 188 3 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. Thank you for waiting. We appreciate you being here despite the weather. We have a quorum present for the Rules Committee and we'd like to begin our business taking testimony on a number of different bills. The first bill being Bill No. 020760, which is an ordinance amending Chapter 14-1600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new section prohibiting the demolition of buildings or other structures located within the area bounded on the north by the south side of Callowhill Street, on the west by the west side of Fifth Street, on the south by the north side of Walnut Street, and on the east by the Delaware River, and within the area bounded on the north by the north side of Wood Street, on the east by Fifth Street, on the south by the south side of Vine street, and on the east by the west side of Randolph Street, and providing that such prohibition shall expire after a specified period of time, all under certain terms and conditions. We have a list of six witnesses. We'd like to ask Mr. Ed Coryell to come up first because he has another engagement to give his testimony, and 4 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 we appreciate him coming here today. I want to apologize to anyone who has to sit at that table because it remind you of kindergarten. I'm sure to cooperatives could provide us with a better table.

That's fine. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Please identify yourself.

Good morning. My name is Edward Coryell, I'm the Executive Secretary Treasurer and Business Manager of the Carpenters Union. I thank you for the opportunity to address the distinguished Committee on Rules regarding Bill 16 020670. I represent 12,300 carpenters. And over 3,000 of them live in the City of Philadelphia and several specifically live in the Old City section of Philadelphia. And many members of the Carpenters Union are unemployed right now. There's been a definite slow down of construction projects, both new and renovation, particularly in the past eight months. We estimate we have between 850 and 900 carpenters unemployed. 5 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 It's important that developers be able to go forward with projects already on the books, already planned, which will create construction jobs for members that I represent. Now, at the same time, I have a great appreciation for saving historical buildings and the value that they contribute to our great City. In fact, our union hall located at 18th and Spring Garden Street is in a designated historical district. Our union has been growing in size and expending its operations in the City. We just recently purchased the old McAllister's Catering Hall building located at 1811 to 1817 Spring Garden Street. It has approximately 30,000 square feet, and we're currently in the process of renovating that building under the historical guidelines. In conclusion, I'm just asking you to approve the amendment that's being offered to Bill 20 020760 that if you have a zoning permit now in hand, don't let the bill without the amendment stop a project from going forward. And I thank you for listening.

Thank you for coming in. 6 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 Are there any questions for Mr. Coryell? (No response.)

Seeing none, I want to thank you for coming in.

There's going to be some testimony about recommendations to an amendment. There is no amendment.

I want to thank you for coming in. I know you have a number of your members here today. I want that thank you for their fine behavior, too. The next person to testify is the Planning Commissioner. Is L&I here? Will you be testifying?

I'm here, but I wasn't prepared to testify.

That's fine. I just wanted to know if you needed to testify or not. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am in the Development Planning Division of City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill 020760. Councilman DiCicco 7 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 introduced this bill on December 5th of 2002. This bill amends the zoning code by establishing a demolition moratorium for the area bounded by Callowhill Street, Fifth Street, Walnut Street, and the Delaware River and the area bounded by Wood Street, Fifth Street, Vine Street, and Randolph Street. For a period of six months no buildings in this area could be demolished unless the building is declared imminently dangerous by the Department of Licenses and Inspections. We understand that this restriction is being proposed in anticipation of the enactment of a historic for the Old City section of the City. The Planning Commission staff believes that amending the miscellaneous section of the Zoning Code is the wrong place for such a restriction. We believe that this restriction should be placed in either the Building Code or Section 14-2000 of the Philadelphia Code which deals with historic buildings. We also believe that the Zoning Board of Adjustment is not the appropriate board to hear appeals for the denial of a demolition permit. The Planning Commission is scheduled to hear this amendment to the Zoning Code at its 8 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 meeting of February 18, 2003. I will be happy to answer any questions from the committee.

Councilman Cohen.

Does the staff of the Planning Commission have any recommendations or is this a matter which is going to go directly to the Planning Commission for its first recommendation.

Our recommendation -- I'm not certain exactly what the recommendation is going to be with regard to the bill. Our only concern with it is that it's located in the wrong place within the code. It's not a principle objection to the bill itself. We just think it would be better served in another section of the code.

It's more a technical objection.

Yes, sir.

So there's no 20 position as yet by either the staff or Planning Commission as to the substance of the bill.

Not that I'm aware of.

Thank you.

Thank you very much. Anymore questions for the Planning 9 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 Commission? Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you. Good morning. Are you aware of some of the meetings that have taken place between my office and the Historic Commission and the Planning Commission to come up with a way in which we can, hopefully, make this process where we have situations that are very similar to what we're talking about, as far as this property is concerned, to make that transition a lot smoother? I apologize. My legislative assistant is correcting me. It wasn't the Historical Commission, it was the Planning Commission and L&I. Are you familiar with any of those conversations?

I was not at those meetings, but I am aware that they happened.

Are you familiar with the meeting I had sometime in -- I think it was in December subsequent to the introduction of the bill I did of December the 5th which basically put a moratorium on any new demolition permits within the Old City's soon-to-be historical designated area?

I was not. I'm here in 10 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 place of Mr. Chapman who is out ill today. I'm certain he was involved in those, but I was not.

But the testimony would have been the same?

Yes, sir. Thomas wrote the testimony for me.

Thank you.

Any other questions?

May I ask the chairman a question or Councilman DiCicco? I wanted to know is there a present rating of this building in historical terms? Has there been any description of the current problem with respect to the building or its current designation of the problem? What's the current designation of this particular property that's under dispute?

It's the whole area.

But the request is being made by an individual developer for relief?

No, it's the community. The community has requested that the area known as Old City, the boundaries have changed little bit, but basically they're asking for historical designation -- become a historical 11 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 district. Maybe your question might be, Councilman, if I may, is what's the Planning Commission's position on the building if they have any as to whether or not it has any historical significance.

Well, apparently what's indicated, they haven't taken any position on the subject. Thank you. I have no further questions of this particular witness.

Any other questions for this witness? (No response.)

Seeing none, I would ask Mr. Richard Thom please come forward.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman.

Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.

Richard Thom, Chair Developments Committee, Old City Civic Association.

Please proceed.

Good morning, Councilman.

Good morning.

I'M here today to speak in support of Bill 020760 which would serve to stem the 12 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 recent tide of demolition of historically significant properties in Old City. As Chair of the Old City Civic Associations Developments Committee, I am speaking on behalf of my civic group and its long recognized efforts to promote the redevelopment of our historic neighborhood. Since the mid-1980s, Old City has battled to maintain our stock of buildings worthy of rehabilitation and re-use. These efforts have, for the most part, been to no avail. Beginning with the McCrea houses in 1986, our historical registered district has suffered the loss of over a dozen structures with not a single redevelopment project resulting. In the past year alone we have seen the demolition of four additional buildings and the prospect for four more despite our direct involvement in court hearings and hearings before City bodies. As a result of this ongoing threat, the Old City Civic Association raised substantial dollars to retain a historical consultant to document and re-nominate Old City as a Local Historic District under the auspices of the Philadelphia Historic Commission. We are in the 13 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 midst of that process and awaiting the final determination of eligibility by the commission staff prior to consideration by the PHC nominations committee. This documentation review is anticipated to be completed in the coming weeks and notification letters sent to affected property owners in the early spring. However, in the interim, several owners of buildings not presently protected under the 1976 Old City National Register District designation have sought out demolition permits from L&I as a matter of right in order to ensure the redevelopment of their properties would in no way come under the watchful eyes of the PHC and the community. This represents a blatant attempt to circumvent the will of the Old City community and the intent of the City's preservation ordinance. We have lost four buildings to such precipitous demolition. And pressure is currently being placed on members of this very body to permit the loss of another locally nominated building despite our ongoing desire to preserve it. Our First District Councilman Frank DiCicco has stepped forward to introduce the pending 14 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 legislation that would have the effect of halting this race for demolition in advance of the official local district nomination process. L&I Commissioner Edward McLaughlin has also cooperated generously in holding applications in light of this current bill 7 making the Street administration the first City government in 18 years to actively support conservation in our National Register District. Some 27 years ago, Old City was designated as one of the first national urban historic enclaves, recognizing its significant and eclectic stock of 18th and 19th and 20th century architectural building resources. Since then, more than two dozen buildings have been lost with the overwhelming majority becoming long-term surface parking lots. Please review the attached photos of just a few representative examples of the ongoing demolition efforts. OCCA urges Council to stem the tide of this irresponsible owners seeking demolition of our building stock so that both tourists and residents alike may enjoy the unique architectural heritage. Please approve Bill 020760, as attached, 15 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 with no further amendments that would weaken the intent and serve special interests. Thank you very much. With that, I'd like to have members of my civic association who are both residents and property owners stand up in support of the bill. We're here in support of the bill. We represent owners and residents and property owners, many of whom, the great majority live in historically disinterested properties. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. And thank you for the members of the community coming in today. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco.

Thank you, Mr. Chair and good morning, Mr. Thom. In your testimony you mention that there were, I think, four buildings that have recently been demolished. Over what period of time were those buildings demolished?

About a year.

Have those buildings receive the proper demolition permits? 16 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760

Yes, they did.

Prior to the bill I introduced of December the th? 5

Correct.

Is the issue as it relates to those four buildings or any of those four buildings, is the greater concern for the fact that they were demolished and there's not been any redevelopment? Or is it in any case or all of the cases a question of demolishing buildings that the community may, in their opinion, deem to be historical?

It's the case that we believe that they were either -- in two of the cases they were already historical designated under the 76 Act. The other two cases they were both nominated as part of our new district. So in both cases they were nominated as part of our new district.

Of the district, but not necessarily -- and I'm not putting words in your mouth -- not necessarily because of historical significance other than the fact that they would be in the district?

That's correct. 17 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760

So correct me if I'm wrong, because I've had some meetings, as you know, with you and the Planning Commission and Historical Commission and L&I and I've also had meetings with the developer of the building at -- I think the correct address now is 200 North Second Street which really fronts Race Street. If there was a way of getting assurances from a developer -- let's talk about the 200 North Second Street as an example of that. A real development were to occur, not a surface parking lot, although there are probably people from the Old City Special Services District that would welcome a surface parking lot or any kind of a parking lot because we know the pressure that we are experiencing over the last several years as a result of the renewed interest in Old City and its growth. In fact, we almost the parking under the bridge until 911 happen. But that being said, I had a meeting yesterday with the developer. So there aren't any secrets here, which is not unusual. Developers come to my office all the time. And the developer had some unique things to say, and they will put their comments on the record sometime after 18 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 our discussion has ended. My point is, as it relates to this building, if there is a true development plan for this site, notwithstanding any issues that the community may have with the size and the appearance of the building and we can work through those things, would the community's position still be opposed to the demolition to this particular building? And let me add one other thing. I'm looking at your testimony here, and the first thing that jumped at me and I'm by no means an authority on historical buildings, especially having been to Italy. Everything we have is new compared to what Italy has. It's kind of interesting what we think as being old, but old is not always the issue. And I understand that. The entrance to this building was the thing that attracted my attention. And I asked the developer, not understanding because he didn't have a plan in front of me, if there was a way in which we can -- when you demolish the building, save that stone work and possibly incorporate that into the new building facade. And it's something that he was extremely amenable to. We can always work out the language how we ensure 19 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 that that happens. So again, it's the long way around -- what would the position of the community be? Again, not giving your stamp of approval today on the project itself, but the concept that some development would happen there and hopefully would meet with the approval of the community.

Given the fact that the community has never seen the project, the developer has never come to my committee --

Could I ask the witness to keep his voice up?

I think it's the mike itself.

Given the fact that the developer has never appeared before my committee, parenthetically because he obtained permits as a matter of right and didn't need to, but did appear before the Planning Commission to discuss the project. We've never seen the project. We would like to see the project. And I believe as an architect and a preservation consultant that we can in fact work out an incorporation of a facade into a new project. I don't see any reason why that can't happen. 20 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760

Not unlike the national building code, because one of the comments I had with them -- and I met privately with them -- was if there's a way of incorporating the existing facade or a portion of the existing facade into their new development, I think that the community would feel a lot more comfortable with the development. So if I hear you correctly --

It has not been our policy though, Mr. Councilman, to support what are called facade-omies or facade-ectomies in which you simply strip the facade off. However, in this case we recognize that the Historic Commission is currently reviewing the documentation on this and feels that while it's an okay example of more daring design, it's not a top-flight example.

This building has extensions. I think the original building was built in the '40s and then there was an extension built in the '60s. And, again, the age may not only -- that may not be the only criteria that we're going to use, but --

But we would like the opportunity to discuss that with the applicant. 21 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760

And it's going to be on the record, obviously, as a result of my statement and I believe that the developer will testify as well as a result of the meeting yesterday that they want to move forward. And I think you have a meeting scheduled for sometime in the March, the Civic Association or the Development Committee with the developer. I mean, if you guys want to move that up to get a meeting sooner, feel free to do it. The quicker the better. As Mr. Coryell testified to, obviously, he has an obligation to his members, as we do as elected officials to keep projects moving and to get construction going and to provide for the demand, especially in housing. And we did a lot of legislation in this Council over the last several years that encourages that and gives the incentives. So on one side I want to see this vacant building basically developed. Obviously, I'm very sensitive to the community. I do get involved, as you know, in the community issues. I would like to kind of on this particular issue, at least, since the permits I think were already issued, I don't want it to be demolished and sit there, neither does the 22 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 developer.

We would like to see the issuance of a building permit as a condition of this negotiation that if the building is torn down that there be a valid building permit obtained.

We can work that into possibly an amendment or something to the legislation today. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Any other questions?

I'm troubled by the fact that there's been no meeting between the developer and the community. Is that a fact?

That's a fact. We've had discussions on the telephone. We've never seen the project. And the reason is that there are no zoning exceptions needed from the zoning code. So they obtained as a matter of right over the counter a zoning permit for the project. And so therefore, there was no reason for them to come to us. However, many developers come to us well in advance, as the Matrix Group recently did on National Products.

Well, I want to say I 23 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 cannot understand the policy of any developer who doesn't go first to the community with the project to give the community at least the knowledge of its intentions and to give the community an opportunity to express their opinion. I question the good faith of a developer who proceeds merely as a matter of right -- believes he's proceeding as a matter of right and, therefore, ignores the community. There ought not to be any such policy by an developer in the City of Philadelphia because I think it makes the work -- (Applause.)

It just makes the work of this Committee and the Council and the City much more difficult if people are ignored. We hope these developments can go forward in a way that meet everybody's support and their needs. But if there are problems with the development, the best way to cure it is by having discussions between the people. So I applaud what the community organization is doing by insisting on having the developers respect the community because the community lives there 7 days a week, 24 hours a day. The developer may or may not be somebody from within the City or may be 24 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 outside the City and, therefore, may not be directly affected by the conditions he creates. But in interest of everyone, fair play requires full disclosure of everything and the full opportunity that enables us in City Council also to do our work more effectively. Thank you.

Thank you. I think part of the other role that we play as a committee and as elected officials is to make people who don't do the right thing initially do the right thing in the end. So I think that's part of this whole process. So hopefully, that will happen.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. Mr. Greg Hill, please.

Please identify yourself for the record.

I'm Greg Hill, the President of Jeffrey M. Brown Associates.

Do me a favor, just kind of pull the microphone close to you and speak directly into it. MR. HILL, Chairman Kenney and Members of the Rules Committee, I appreciate you hearing my 25 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 testimony today. My name is Greg Hill, I'm the President of Jeffrey Brown Associates. We're a construction and management firm building primarily commercial and residential structures in the Philadelphia region and up and down the east coast. We strive to be a leader in our industry, setting the highest standards for quality, timeliness and safety. Some of our more prominent projects in the Philadelphia region include the Target store at Snyder Plaza in South Philadelphia, the historic restoration of 1500 Chestnut Street into luxury apartments, the conversion of the Hawthorn Suites Hotel at 11th and Vine Streets, and the Borders book store that we are currently completing at Broad and chestnut Streets.

When is it opening?

About a month.

Please proceed. I'm sorry.

I have provided you with a brochure that presents some of our work both within and outside the Philadelphia region. In addition to construction management, we perform development projects on a very selective 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 basis. And having worked in the Philadelphia area for the past years, we've decided to invest our 4 development funds here in the City. In 2001 our 5 affiliate purchased 205 Race Street, which is the 6 project being discussed, which is an unoccupied 7 industrial building constructed in the '40s with an 8 addition added in the 1960s. The 205 Race Street 9 property occupies the northwest corner of the 10 intersection. And I have included some photographs 11 for reference. 12 After putting the property under 13 agreement, we studied the development options 14 permitted under the Zoning Code. And as part of our 15 due diligence, we submitted plans to the City and 16 based upon those plans we were granted a zoning and 17 use permit from Department of Licenses and 18 Inspections approving the demolition of the existing 19 vacant structure and the construction of a 7-story, 20 95,000 square foot apartment building with 21 underground parking. 22 Based upon the issuance of our original 23 zoning permit, we incurred substantial costs both in 24 purchasing the property and the moving ahead with 25 our plans for construction. 27 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020760 On December 6, 2002, we attempted to submit our application for a demolition permit at the Department of Licenses and Inspections. And that was based upon the zoning and use permit we had received in January of 2002. L&I refused to accept the application on the ground that the demolition permit applications were currently not being accepted under an informal moratorium imposed by L&I. We purchased this property in good faith and we have since incurred significant expenses relying upon the permits issued by the City of Philadelphia. We believe that our plan to demolish this abandoned and deteriorating structure to construct a new, high-quality residential apartment building will be a benefit to the City. The project can create approximately 200 job opportunities for the union trades people, will attract new residents to the City of Philadelphia. Finally, I would like to note that we are aware that the Civic Association has concerns with both the proposed demolition and the nature of the new development. While we believe that the development will result in a much better use of the 28 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 property, we're certainly very agreeable to meeting with Richard Thom and the Development Association to discuss the particulars of the project and certainly to explore ways that the historic elements of the building could be incorporated into the new development. And we have previously expressed that to Richard and we're, I guess, tentatively on the agenda for March the 4th. So in closing, we respectfully request that the legislation before you include a provision allowing for the development of a project such as ours for which a zoning and use permit has previously been issued.

Thank you very much for your testimony. It's going to be raised. I guess the question is why wasn't the contact made prior with the community? Have you done much work in Philadelphia in neighborhoods where there are active civic associations?

The majority of our projects in Philadelphia has been in the capacity of a construction manager. We've not done a tremendous amount of development work on our own in the City. And it has been somewhat of a learning experience to 29 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 recognize the sensitivity in the community. One thing I'll say is that in the development of the zoning and use plan, we do not have detailed architectural drawings that, I think, would serve as the forum for a good discussion. We're currently in the process of developing those, and I do fully plan on sitting down with Richard and his group to explore those plans and try to understand the concerns of the community.

The other thing, you brought a number of at packets of information with you. I think there's some extras. Would you mind if the Sergeant at Arms gave the packets to Mr. Thom so some of his people could get an idea of some of the work you've done in the region? Because I think as you go through the material, there's some really significant buildings that you guys have done and they're really attractive stuff so people can get an idea type of work where you've done in the past.

That would be fine.

Great. Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Mr. Chair. Good morning, Mr. Brown. I think one of the 30 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 questions has already been asked, but you mentioned that you have plans or some sort of set of plans but were not of the detail that was ready for public and, in this case, Old City Civic Association review. Where are you now with those plans and how soon do you think, if they're not ready yet, prior to March 4th may those plans be available at least to give the community -- my suggestion, having been doing this for a while and working with community groups, if you can actually give them even a preliminary idea of what the concept is, the size, the height, the depth and general idea before the March 4th meeting, I think that would be very helpful for them as well because if there's something that raises a red flag, all of you collectively will be ahead of the game because you'll know what is acceptable or isn't acceptable and maybe you can me adjustments even before that.

I think that's a good recommendation. The zoning plan that we have shows the basic geometry of the building. And I had suggested to Richard in a recent phone conversation that we would like to better understand the community's desires relative to the aesthetics of a 31 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 building in terms of the extremes of replicating historic architecture versus modern design and getting a little bit of guidance and input on that ahead of time would really help us in the development of this.

I think guidance is the key word here. It would help you. I mean I've seen developers come in with plans and eventually will go through that process, it's a completely different plan. The port side Peter DePaul's high-rise originally was a rectangular building. By the time we got done with it, it kind of looks like a ship. And now worked better even for the developer. But he had spent a lot of time and energy to build the rectangular building or at least have the plan for it and wind up getting changed with some brick work on the bottom. And if you work with the community, I think you'll have a better product, not only for the community, but also for yourself. They understand what the community needs and what is the most attractive and amenities for bringing people into the community. So I'd strongly suggest that. Maybe at the end of today's meeting or maybe at the very 32 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 least tomorrow you place a phone call and start at least doing some of that preliminary work prior to March 4th.

Yes, I will.

How long has this building been vacant? You've owned it since 2001?

Yes.

How long has it been vacant? Was it vacant when you purchased it?

It was vacant when we purchased it. It had been vacant for some time. I'm not sure of the exact period of time.

Have you incurred any problems with the building in terms of maintaining it? I see there's some gravity on -- well, that's not gravity. Philly Fringe is not gravity. I apologize for that.

We have had some problems with people breaking in and some homeless people living in there. We're able to let the Fringe Festival make use of the building for four weeks through the end of August and September so that activity, I think, helped to --

You haven't had any 33 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 fire or damage or anything like that or required City services?

No, we haven't.

Fortunately. Thank you. I don't have any further questions.

Just one second. Just for the record, so we don't make any mistakes, Philly Fringe is a terrific event.

I apologized.

It's a terrific event, great people, they bring a lot of people to the City.

You were distracted when I said I looked at what I thought was graffiti at first and I realized. And that's actually Mr. Brown's attorney will testify about some of the issues about Philly Fringe because we had a long conversation about that yesterday. They've used this building for a short period of time. They're looking for a more permanent location. There's some interesting things that we may be able to develop or incorporate into this issue.

Councilman Ortiz.

Thank you. Frank, is 34 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 this the building in question?

Yes.

What is this, an example of historical, old, ugly warehouses? I mean, sorry. I had not seen it. I thought we were dealing with some sort of really historical aspect, the property. This is an eyesore.

I'm not an expert on what constitutes a historic structure.

To me, this is an eyesore.

From a layman's perspective, we did not think that we were going to be destroying a valuable landmark in Philadelphia. To the contrary, we thought it would be an enhancement to the block.

I think if you look at it -- well, it might have a certain style, but I think it's, within styles, it's really an ugly warehouse. I'm not an architect; I'm an attorney.

I think the issue too is, so the record is clear, I don't think it's about this building, per se. I think it's kind of about the district and the issues surrounding the 35 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 district and the community's desire to kind of maintain or at least have a structure to maintain the reason they move into the neighborhood in the first place.

Well, I think that's reasonable. I agree with that concept and purpose. And I think if I were living there, and I live right up the block not too far away from here. I live on Fourth and Brown, so it's not that far up. And I would like to see buildings there that really adapt to the neighborhood and bring in some sort of much more aesthetic look other than this and bring in people into the area.

I think in the end, though, a good process creates good policy and good development. So I think we can all get where we need to be within the framework. Councilman Cohen.

Further in support of the statements made my Councilmembers Kenney and DiCicco, the time to meet with the community is long before the plans are final because the community feels that it's been there, it's had experiences over many years, it may have something to offer, and 36 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 you get a much better crack as the developer, Mr. Brown, to influence the community about the good faith rather than to create the opinion you're hiding something by staying away from a meeting. And the good thing is the ideas you get from the community, which generally are very excellent ideas, you don't even have to pay a fee for incorporating those ideas in your plans. So it's good for everybody. So I urge you, don't wait until your plans are final, because if you do, you're excluding the community from participating in the plan making. It may be that their ideas won't be worth anything, but my experience has been that most developers learn that their experiences with the community are very helpful to them as developers. And if a project fails to succeed after that kind of relationship, it's probably good reason and the community was right originally in its concerns. But communities want to be cooperative if you let them, if you understand the role that communities play in Philadelphia. So we urge you to meet with the community as soon as the community makes the request and to not feel embarrassed by the fact that you don't have the final plans. You're better off for 37 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 not quite having the final plans yet when you first meet with the community. Thank you very much.

Thank you. Any other questions? (No response.)

Thank you very much for your testimony.

Is there anyone here from the Historic Commission?

Please identify yourself for the record.

Daniel Reisman. I represent Jeffrey M. Brown Associates, and you just heard from Mr. Hill who is the President of Jeffrey M. Brown. Chairman Kenney, Members of the Rules Committee, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. I've prepared testimony, but I think we've covered a lot of ground in Mr. Hill's testimony so I really would like to summarize the proposed amendment that we're asking be adopted and the reason for it. The bill that has been introduced follows on the heels of moratorium that was imposed by L&I, both with the clear intent to stem the rush 38 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 to demolition; and we certainly have no problem with the intent of the bill. That's a problem that is constantly dealt with in land use law, which is when new ordinances are announced or new policies or designations, where's the cutoff point between who comes under the new law and who comes under the old law? The problem and what we've been trying to address is that my client has a zoning permit from the City of Philadelphia that approved the demolition back in early 2002, acted in good faith on that permit as of right under the Code duly issued by the City of Philadelphia and thereafter has incurred substantial expenditures in reliance on that permit. That was all before, certainly, we knew about the pending proposed historic designation, months before it. I don't know when the Civic Association submitted that. So the question here is, how do you deal with the people who, such as my client, already acted in good faith, followed the rules, were careful about complying with the law as it existed and cut them off and going forward apply the new law? And that's simply what the amendment would do. The law is clear, that municipalities 39 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 cannot enact legislation that essentially reaches back and in a sense divest the rights that prior property owners have from prior permits that they lawfully obtained. And the amendment that we would propose and we're asking that you consider will simply do that. It will be small carve out, it will leave the intent of the bill intact, but it will simply say it would not apply to anybody who had a demolition permit or a zoning permit approving the demolition prior to when, in this case, the legislation was introduced in December of 2002. We think with that fine tuning of the bill, it will strike the right balance between what the community obviously wants, the historic preserve desires, but also what developers such as my client, what they've relied on and the reasonable expectations that they have moving forward. Just as a side note, I have spoken with Mr. Thom. We are meeting with the Civic Association. I believe we said, "Get us on calendar as soon as possible." I believe early March was the one that they put us on, and we would like to come to an agreement with them on the proposal as we move forward. 40 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689

Thank you. Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Mr. Reisman. My question goes to Mr. Thom first. Based on some of the conversations you had with David Fitz and earlier comments, do you have any recommendations as to what we might want to do in terms of the amendment of this bill and how we can move forward? I think, again, without putting words in your mouth, correct me if I'm wrong, that you need some guarantees, you want to make sure the developer comes to you to work on the plan, the final plan, for the developing this site, how we can get this thing at least on a not a very fast track but a much quicker track than it's been on today.

Mr. DiCicco, Councilman, I'm little disconcerted that the process that we are in now, the developer does not adequate drawings to obtain a building permit. Now, that then gives an opportunity to discuss the project some more and maybe re-craft it. But I think that the community's position is that no more demolition until you have a 41 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 building permit. And I recognize, actually recognize, I want on the record that there are clearly Mr. Reisman's correct, he has legal rights to certain pieces of paper, permits from the City. But we feel that building should no be demolished unless we know that there's a reuse. It's happened to us too much.

My only concern is that if we get in -- I think we're finally getting to an understanding of each other's needs, and I think that both sides want to work together. I sense that and I think the community has a sense of that as well. I don't want that to deteriorate. I don't even know, and you may be able to answer me, Mr. Reisman, I think we had a conversation yesterday that you're not that anxious to do the demolition; is that correct?

My client is here to answer this answer this question, of course. My understanding is he certainly did not purchase this building with the intent of demolishing it and using it as a parking lot. It's part of a project. Now, I will say the normal procedure is you file for your permits as you're ready to prepare the plans. The 42 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 demolition plans are -- they were, in fact, filed back in December and we feel the permit should have been issued over-the-counter by L&I at time. We would like to continue this in stages. They're now working on the building plans. Foundation permit plans have been filed, so those are done. And the building plans are now being completed and we want to continue to file as we get it done. And, of course, we're going to be meeting with the civic in that process, too.

As you know, Rich, if it gets litigated, I think the chances are the developer wins. And we don't want it to be "they win, you loses." We want this to be a cooperative effort. So we'll discuss this with the committee and either of you have some recommendations as to some language to an amendment or something that will protect the community's interest as well as allow this project to move forward, we'll certainly entertain that.

In the next day or so, I'll commit myself to meeting with Mr. Reisman and Greg Hill and see if we can work out an understanding about a demolition time table that would also 43 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 include the application for the full permits.

Councilman Cohen.

One of the things the Committee might consider is a very short delay to see what happens in the course of the next week or two in the relationship between the community and the developer. To me, the project sounds like a good project for the neighborhood, but I can understand the neighborhood's concerns in having been left out of all of the planning and not getting the information. Once that situation can really be cleared up to the satisfaction to the community, then I think we're in the better position to make decisions. So I would like to propose that one of the matters we consider, and I raise it publicly to get the thoughts of both the developers and the community representatives here, would a short delay to see what happens in meetings between the two groups be a good idea? We can convene very quickly. We would like to see this matter not end in court because the both community and the developer would suffer from that kind of result. So it's in 44 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 everybody's interest to see whether there's a good possibility for a resolution.

Councilman, one of the things we've done in the past is with the District Councilperson's assurance that any bill 7 that gets out of this Committee that winds up on the Calendar would be held until resolutions have come. As opposed reconvening the Committee and doing the bill over again, the bill gets out. You can re-amend the bill, if needed, on the floor, but the process continues to move forward. And I think considering Councilman DiCicco's history of sensitivity to community concerns that he would, I'm sure, hold the bill as long as necessary in order to get a resolution.

Councilman Cohen, that would be acceptable to us. If we can get the bill out of committee and then amended subsequent to our meetings and discussions, I'll keep Councilman DiCicco informed. I'd rather that the process move forward.

We do have some other amendments to the bill that were just distributed to the Members of this Committee that 45 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 basically speak to the process, not necessarily the process as it relates to this particular property which we're going to take into consideration today anyway. Mr. Brown, you can just nod your head to me, what we talked about doing the bill, any amendments and holding it, does that seem to work with you?

Holding it on the Calendar.

The concern I have is there is legal significance to this bill being reported from the Rules Committee. At that point it becomes what's called a pending ordinance under the practice of the City of Philadelphia and it's treated as law and should be treated as law by L&I.

Not exactly a strong real precedent for that. I think we kind of created that little situation. It's applicable, but I think it's kind of our own --

I used that when I was trying to stop a church at Ninth and Wharton from being demolished many years ago and a rush on demolition and use changes as a result of legislation that I asked the councilperson at that 46 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 time to introduce on behalf of my civic association.

I think that Councilman DiCicco's history has been to make sure the community is happy as possible, and I think his assurance that the bill be held until he calls it up on the Calendar I think would be relatively sufficient security for both sides.

My only concern is there is no one here from the Historic Commission today. I just want to make sure that what we're saying here in good faith we, all of us collectively and are agreeing to does not get somehow overruled by the Planning Commission because I don't want anyone to leave here -- I mean, Historic Commission, excuse me. Well, they're supposed to be here.

Well, we can bring them back on.

I understand what you're saying.

The concern I have is, again, legally I feel the bill is legally deficient even in this amended form. And what's happens is if it's reported from the Rules Committee, there's now a live bill that's due deference that creates some 47 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 serious problems.

In my opinion -- and again, it's not my district, but in my opinion I think the continuation of moving this thing forward with the security of having the district councilperson call up the bill when appropriate on the Calendar, I think, is a sufficient way to go and the best way to go, unless anyone feels differently, but it seems to make most sense.

Anything you'd like to add?

Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)

Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) Then we'll move to the next bill on the Calendar which is Bill No. 020689, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 14-1626, entitled "Logan Square Special District Controls"; all under certain terms and conditions. 48 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 Planning Commission, please.

Mr. Chairman, can I ask Mr. Thom a question?

Again, I want thank the members of the carpenters union for paying attention and going through this process with us in a very nice way. Thank you. You've helped the process along.

Councilman Cohen, if I could address your concern and maybe.

Mr. Thom, I have before me -- and I don't know whose exhibit it is, maybe the Chairman can help me -- two-page proposed amendment to this No. 020760. The second page has a lot underlined parts of what's underlined says when the Philadelphia Historic Commission has pursuant to certain section Philadelphia Code sent notice to own pro historic district that includes at least 50 percent. With respect to that language, the precise word, it seems to me that that gives real cause for concern that Councilman DiCicco raised before about the role of the Historic Commission whether they would have the power to ignore us in City Council because this language, seems to me, gives the 49 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 Historic Commission a role in decision-making process greater than anybody else's role. If that's the case, how does the community feel about that because I would not want to see any other group other than the community developer and the Council in making the ultimate decision. I think Councilman DiCicco is right expressing concern what would the Historic Commission do. How would you that language.

It is not --

This amendment was worked out between my office the Planning Commission and the Historic Commission.

I would not feel comfortable in language that gives the Historic Commission the right to override the decision that this Council Committee has made. I want to preserve the good faith of the community. When you deal with us, nobody from behind can pull any special button and reverse our decision. Do you have any concern about that language particularly?

Councilman Cohen, if I could address your a concern and maybe clarify it. What this provision does is it codifies a process that's 50 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 already under way with the review of our district nomination. What it says -- it's basically saying that the Historic Commission wants it, has notified 50 percent of the affected property owners in the district, there's no longer reason for this bill to be enforced because once that happens the issuance of demolition permits is in fact frozen. I have no 9 problem with the language. In fact, it affirms this very process. This is in our favor for the community. And I don't see a problem with the Historic Commission -- there's a potential for delay, but that's not been our agreement with the staff. We understand the review of our historic district nomination is imminent in its completion and will be sent to the Nominations Committee of the Historic Commission. Once that is done, the letters go out. So this is all been discussed in the Councilman's offices. This is simply a codification of already-established procedure within the Historic Commission. I don't have a problem with it.

Okay, very good. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much. Thank you. 51 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 We're going to move to the next Bill 3 020689, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 14-1626, entitled "Logan Square Special District Controls"; all under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself and proceed.

Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am a member of the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill 020689. Councilman Clarke introduced this bill October 31 of 2002. The bill amends the zoning code by establishing a height limitation for the area bounded by Spring Garden Street, 18th Street, Callowhill Street, and 20th Street. All residentially zoned properties in this area would be subject to a 50-foot height limit. The staff of the Planning Commission has concerns about imposing a height limitation on residential properties in this area. Currently, much of the area is zoned either R15 Residential or 52 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 RC4 Residential, neither of which have a specific height limitation. Additionally, this area is located within the Franklintown Urban Renewal Area and, therefore, also subject to urban renewal controls. It is my understanding the sponsor of this bill, Councilman Clarke, introduced the bill 9 because of concern for the residents and local community as well as an interest in maintaining the character and integrity of the neighborhood. However, the Planning Commission is concerned that there may be property owners and redevelopers who have purchased land in this area having done so with a reasonable expectation of being able to develop residential buildings in accord with both the underlining zoning and the urban renewal area controls. The Planning Commission would like to work the Councilman and his staff to better understand the legal and practical impact of this change. This bill is scheduled to be considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of February 18th of this year. I will be happy to answer any questions 53 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 of the Committee.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for the Planning Commission? Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

Good morning.

You're obviously familiar with the area.

I couldn't tell you what building is where.

Could you drive there if I asked you to drive there right now?

I could, yes.

You're familiar then. Do you recall earlier in close proximity to this particular site, actually behind the Rodan Museum when there was a proposal to build a 20-story building?

Yes, I remember seeing 54 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 that. It was considered at our Commission meeting, yes.

What was the position of the Commission at the time in the earlier proposal?

That was sometime ago, and I frankly don't remember exactly what our position was. I remember -- I was not making a presentation at that time and so it was not something that's right in the back of my head. I remember that there was a lot of discussion with regard to the height of the building and its impact on the parkway. I do remember that as one of the discussions. But I don't remember what we finally determined with that.

But you do recall that at the time there was substantial opposition from the community because of the proximity to the parkway?

There was also some opposition from staff members as well.

So in this particular site that we're discussing today is approximately how far from that location?

I'd say two or three 55 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 blocks.

Two blocks?

Give or take.

So if there was opposition from the staff people at the Planning Commission at the time of the proposal of the Rodan Place Towers, why would there not be similar opposition or concern?

The concerns may have been different. With each individual plan, there may have been architectural concerns, there may have been massing problems within the plan itself. And they are somewhat individual. The simple height of the building is not necessarily the concern or was not necessarily a concern of the staff at that time. When you have a structure, any structure, that comes in and meets the requirements of the code, "like it, not like it," isn't important. It becomes then an issue it's permitted or it's not. And I think that our concerns with regard to this bill have to do not necessarily with any individual site plan, but rather with the fact that by putting a change into the code, the changes creates a second limit on heights within a 56 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 particular area. They may be better served by putting them in maybe the urban renewal area controls, which would also control this kind of a thing. But we're really establishing a change in height controls or establishing a height controls under the R15 section of the code which heretofore hadn't existed. And as we discussed yesterday, this plan had in fact come in, and I was the individual who did stamp it and send it through with -- providing due process. So I do know the site plan in question.

So when you say not necessarily opposed to the height issue on the Rodan Building, you're not saying that nobody --

I didn't say there weren't objections, but it may have been more concerned with massing. It may have had to do with the impact that that building would have had on the Parkway as opposed to necessarily having an objection to the height because it's high. Again, I don't have all the particulars in the back of my head to say, "Oh, yeah, we did this." 57 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689

So you don't know if that was in fact a concern.

I don't know that that was or that wasn't.

So it could have very easily have been a concern. I was in a lot of discussion. I know that there were some people who were concerned about the height because we talked about the view plane, the shadow line of the building at the time.

Which is something caused by height, certainly. But it's not solely because of the height. As I remember, the one behind Rodan Museum, it was much more of a massive building. And in the entire structure was a certain height. And I forget exactly what that height was. But the entire building was that. And I think some of the concerns that we had at that time was the fact that the entire structure was as high as it is. The particular site plan in question does have a significant high end to the building. And I'm not saying that it doesn't have impacts; it may. That's another -- 58 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689

Unfortunately, I'm not privy to the particular development that you approved the other day. I just not privy to that.

You haven't seen those plans yet, obviously.

Unfortunately the District Councilperson nor the community has had an opportunity to see that particular proposal. I did talk to you yesterday, and I understand the proposal in question is approximately 176 feet tall?

As I read the plan, yes, that is what I have on my desk.

Relatively tall building?

Yes, sir. Ten stories. In fairness, it is not the entire structure that is that 10 stories, but rather a portion of it is that 10 stories. Now, I'm not saying that it's good or that it's bad. All I'm saying is that it met the requirements of the code in terms of allowing my office allow it to go forward for a zoning review at the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which is what we have to do to provide due process. 59 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 There may, in fact, be other impacts, and frankly they should have taken it to the community. And when I do get people we do tell them on a routine basis that they should run these things by the different communities, whether it be through the District Councilperson or through an active civic association, whichever is easier for them.

Let me talk to you about the process. A developer comes in, it traditionally it is as right development. The Planning Commission has no language or no policy to contact the community or the Councilperson or the state rep or whoever the elected official should be prior to stamping?

No, sir. We do not as a policy -- you have to use a certain amount of discretion when you're doing this because if we sent every single plan that we saw, neither you nor your staff would have the time to do anything other than look at what we keep sending you. So when we have something that is significant, A, I make an assumption because these are people that can come in off the street, they're not coming in with appointments. We get them as they come in. And as 60 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 such, we review the plan and, okay, it's either going to meet that or it's not. And if the plan has all the indicators that we need, all the subject material, whether it's got storm water, does it show all the metes and bounds, does it meet standards? If it has all the standards, we don't have an option; we have to stamp it and give it approval. Now, I subsequently went to the area planner for that area and advised him that I've had this, and in our office procedure that's what I'm supposed to do because I'm in the end of the agency that does the due process that deals the interaction with the public if terms of the developer end of it, the people that are coming in, whether it's a citizen putting on an addition to the home or whether it's somebody that's putting up a 10-story building, they're all going to be filtered right through my unit, the 10 of us that are there. But I did make mention to the area planner that this had come in and advised him that this was such. We also -- I had made the assumption, and maybe I am wrong, but I had made the assumption that the individual bringing this in was also a 61 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 messenger. It wasn't as if I was talking to the developer. Subsequently, I also assumed that he had in fact brought it to the attention of the District Councilman or in the process would in fact be doing that. I was not aware that.

You assumed that --

I would assume that everybody's going to do that. You've got a building of this height, even if you -- and that's my advice when I do talk to people. I can't say to you that I spoke to this developer on this project, but when I do talk people as a general rule I tell them that, "You've got something this big, you'd better talk to somebody."

At the time the messenger, as you referred to the person, came in for approval from the Planning Commission, were you aware that this bill was scheduled for a hearing.

I knew that this bill had a hearing, but I was not aware -- I had not seen this bill. I knew this bill had a hearing because I was advised that I would have to be taking this bill to the Commission in the February hearing, but I had not had a chance to review the bill at all so I had 62 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 not seen it.

You didn't know it was a height control bills.

I knew that there was a Logan Special District controls bill. That's how it was handed to me. I did not know what the aspects --

You didn't know the particulars?

No, I did not know that.

But you knew this proposal that was submitted to you was in this area? Did you know that?

I hadn't reviewed it so, no, I really didn't. That was tomorrow's job, to do the fact sheets for the Commission. I would imagine that my boss knew what was in the bill because I hadn't been involved.

The reason I asked is that there's a bill scheduled and all of a sudden a developer comes in through a messenger and applies for a building permit. Wouldn't you kind of light a light bulb and say, "Maybe this guy is trying to come in and" -- 63 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689

Those are the instances when I take out my big magnifying glass and make sure that the plan has exactly everything that it needs and I'm looking for a reason to slow it down, absolutely. We're not in a vacuum, obviously. But at the same time, the plans were consistent with what I would normally require on any of the plans and subsequently didn't have a chance to slow it down. But I did give a red flag to both my division chief as well as the deputy director of the Commission and they were advised that --

So your testimony is that more than likely your supervisor was aware of the particulars of a bill, the timing of the bill, the specifics of the height controls, and they also were aware of this particular proposal that was submitted to the Planning Commission for a stamp of approval and the fact that it was in this particular location?

Correct.

And they didn't feel the need to contact the District Councilperson.

Obviously not. I can't speak for him. But obviously you were not contacted 64 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 directly, so I can't say -- it's not a policy that we would normally do that in terms of written policy, no, it's not. We generally try to.

Even if you knew that as recent as a year ago there was very detailed discussion about a proposal two blocks away where there was substantial community opposition to a 10-story building at that location, you didn't feel the need to contact the District Councilperson, thinking that there could potentially be a problem?

I normally wouldn't, no, I would not. Because many times it's not something that I would sit there and say, "Hey, remember that one we did when." No, I don't normally sit there and do that. If the plan has what it has, it's been stamped and it's approved and then I notified my bosses that it was in fact stamped and it was out of there. And if they had said, "Hey, you better call this Councilman or that one or notify so-and-so," yes, then I would have no problem calling and notifying anyone.

Who is your supervisor?

Mr. Chapman. 65 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689

Tom?

Yes, sir.

Is he around?

He's with 102 fever at home.

Is Ms. Griffin around?

I have no idea where she is at this point.

Can you do me a favor? When you're finish testifying, call and see if she can come over? There's a certain policy issue. There's the issue with respect to this particular bill and we'll deal with that. There's a policy issue and it sounds like -- it's obviously not a regulatory issue with respect to Planning Commission and their mandates. I'm just concerned that we can have a situation where there was two blocks away -- I mean, this is a 10-year battle on the Rodan Towers and it was solely about height limit issue. Some people had some other issues with respect to the design of the building, but that was the primary issue. And we now have a developer coming in after not talking to the community about 66 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 any level of details proposal for the last five years -- and I may be incorrect. I'm sure we have people to testify about the frustration associated with trying to get some clear-cut understanding of what was being proposed for the site. Coming in now after that all that time to finally ask for a particular sign off by the Planning Commission to get under this particular threshold in terms of the pending legislation issue. I think that that should have sent a signal. And if we need to change some of the policy --

Let me just say that this isn't the only time that this kind of a thing has happened. And sometimes there are plans that don't necessarily have -- don't even come through the Planning Commission. There are many instances where we've had rezoning bills where the rezoning bill was pending, and as a mater of fact, the day of the hearing in this room there were people, while we were sitting here having testimony on the bill, people were in our office getting plans stamped and submitted that day before the bill was reported out of committee. And those permits were in fact issued for sites in other areas of the City. That was the 67 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 same kind of a thing. We don't like it. But it's all part of what happens. Now, I was not aware of it to be honest with you. So I'm the one that was the guy that could have given and red flag and said, "Hey, this should have been." But I'll sit here and tell you flat out, I was not aware of it. I deal with too many other City issues. So the fact that there was a building two, three blocks away, yeah, when I sit here today and you ask me about it, I'll certainly remember it. But when I get the plan that came in on the other one, no, I don't necessarily associate one with the other. And I'll be honest I don't review them from -- the review that we're doing in terms of the Planning Commission's review of the plan, the issue of height isn't a concern. The issue of height on the building is a concern for the Planning Commission when we have to deal with it as a variance. Until it reaches that, when we're doing plan review at my level at what I'm seeing over the counter in terms of does the plan list the elevation? Yes, it has an elevation on it. Is it in conformance with zoning? I'm not the zoning examiner so I'm not doing that kind of a review. It 68 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020689 may in fact be that when the zoning examiner looks at this that it wouldn't been a matter of right. With experience I've had with the code, I believe that the plan was submitted was in conformance with R15. But I haven't sat down and actually pulled the R15 and done a zoning examination of it. That's not my job. My job is to review it to make sure that plan is consistent with the standards of a plan that's to be submitted; and it was that and I did stamp that and forward it into the system. I did advise my supervisors that I had seen it, and they were aware of it. Okay, maybe we should, in fact, have notified your office sooner. I can't answer for why we weren't told to do that.

Can you see if you can contact Ms. Griffin, please, because I'd like to talk about the policy issues associated with the City Planning Commission.

I will certainly see if she's available.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you very much. Councilman Nutter. 69 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilman Clarke has raised a number of issues that as I was listening both to the testimony as I read the bill and have conversation with the Councilman, one, he has laid out many of the concerns I would have, not only about this particular site, Councilman Clarke is obviously the District Councilperson and he is more than adequately representing the concerns of his constituents. I did, as I was listening to the question and answer session, getting a little concerned myself about process and procedure, and I'd like to get int some of those issues. But I am slightly intrigued here. Did I understand you to say that the proposed height of the proposed development was 175 feet?

176, yes.

I've had a few buildings built in my district over time, and I don't know the particulars on the plan on this one, but with an average story height of about 12 feet unless they're doing extraordinary, say, on the first floor, I know sometimes first floors can be 70 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 upwards if you're doing a retail development or something like. It seems that 175 feet gets you more than 10 stories unless they're doing extraordinarily unusual per floor heights.

I agree with you. I had 7 many of the same concerns. I was reading the number 8 off of the plan itself and not necessarily sitting 9 here evaluating it, but I have very much the same 10 concerns. If you take an average 10 foot height of 11 a floor, it would take. 12

I get about 12. 13

I agree with you. I don't 14 why it's saying 176 feet unless it has something to 15 do with grade elevations I hadn't evaluated it to 16 tell you exactly why it's that high. But the plan 17 is calling for a 10-story building. There is an 18 attic on top of it and it is to the top of the roof 19 which does has somewhat of a peaked look to it which 20 may accommodate some of the extra height. But as far as telling you exactly, I don't have the plan in front of me to be able to evaluate that.

Well, again, I mean, not saying the plan, I don't know who's involved with this. I just showed up today and this is the 71 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 bill on the Calendar and I'll deal with it as it comes. But there's no normal building standard at least that I'm familiar with that -- again, unless you're talking about some very high ceilings that gets you 176 feet and only a 10-story building. There is some very legitimate concern about the credibility of whatever that plan is. And regardless of what the plan says, I think for the average person knowing that a story is usually somewhere in the 10 to 12-foot range, you're really talking about a building that is upwards somewhere in the neighborhood possibly of 15, 16, or even 17 stories. You can make the stories however big you want to make them, but I think we need to honest with people about what the true height is and how many stories there are and what the simple math is. I mean, this is not tremendously complicated. Let me ask this question with regard to the district boundaries that are in the bill, now, your testimony says much of the area is zoned either R15 or RC4 residential, neither of which have a specific height limitation. For the area in question that's laid out in the district boundaries. Can you tell me what the average heights of the 72 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 buildings are in the boundaries of the district as laid out in Bill 020689.

No, sir, I don't know. I can't tell you what the average height of those buildings are, no. I don't know.

Do you know if any of them are 10, 12, stories? 9

I do not know. 10

Let me ask this 11 question: The rest of the testimony, and I know 12 this is not your testimony and it was probably -- 13 well, it was prepared by whomever it was prepared 14 by. "However, the Planning Commission is concerned 15 that there may be property owners and redevelopers 16 who have purchased hand in this area, have done so 17 with the reasonable expectation of being able to develop residential buildings in accord with the underlying zoning and URA controls." That's your testimony?

Yes, sir.

Well, since there are no specific height limitations, what would be their reasonable expectation?

Well, the controls of 73 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 height, if you will, are directly in the R15 based on gross floor area. So it's not directly related to height. It depends on how you lay the site out and how you're developing a particular building. So there are controls. It's just that in most sections of the code you have 3 stories, 35 foot. In these particular sections of the code, you do not. There is no specific building height limit. If you design it, you can go higher, you can have a higher tower with open area which would allow to put a gross floor area tower in that has, you know, a real needle like building. It's not necessarily the most efficacious use of the site. However, that's how the code has been written.

Well, let me ask this question: What's Planning Commission's concern with regard to the property owners who live in the neighborhood who had a reasonable expectation that they would not necessarily have a 15-story building near them when they bought their properties?

I don't know that I would characterize it as such because you have a property that's zoned R15 or RC4. I think this particular site is zoned RC4, but I may be wrong. When you 74 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 have that high of a density designation next to you, I think that the issue needs to be, is it necessarily zoned appropriately, not necessarily would that classification -- should I expect that what I have is what's going to be across the street. I'm not necessarily saying that there's not a concern, but I'm not certain if I have living across the street from a piece of land that zoned either RC4 or R15 that I have an expectation that I'm going to have a three-story building built across the street.

I understand. Again, I have testimony here. I'm trying to deal with the testimony in front of me. If you articulate a particular concern on one side of an argument, I want to know if there's any concern on the other side of the argument unless, I mean, we're kind of starting to pick and choose who we want to be concerned about, and seems to me that if someone buys a piece of property, yes, they of a right under the code to develop it in accordance with whatever they can do as a matter of right. I'm trying to understand as the planning agency for the City who, I think, has a responsibility to all citizens not 75 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 just people who are in the development community, but also to the folks who have put down their money, this is where they're living, this is where they're staying, they're not planning to do anything else, build anything else or hire anybody to add on eight stories to the house. What's the reasonable level of concern that the Planning Commission has for the other side who might be adversely affected?

I will answer that by saying the reasonable concern that the Planning Commission has is represented by the rezoning programs that we have run throughout the City where you have an ability to sit down with community groups, and I have done that many years, and have that same kind of discussion. Here's where you have a concern. Many of them are of much more -- of less density kind of issues. However, that's where the concern as an agency would show is in the fact that we do have a rezoning program that you could in fact make a petition. We would look at the entire area. Now, for many and sundry reasons they either go or don't go. But that would be a way to address that kind of a concern.

Last question for 76 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 the moment. When you talk about the concern about the property owners WHO may have purchased land in the area has done so with reasonable expectation, et cetera, et cetera, does the Planning Commission know of people who have actually done that? Are there others out there who are kind of lurking in the shadows waiting to --

I'm sorry, I didn't --

Your testimony says, "However the Planning Commission is concern that there may be property owners and redevelopers who have purchased land in this area have done so with the reasonable expectation of being able to develop residential buildings in accord with the underlying zoning and URA controls." My question is, is the Planning Commission aware of other people who have purchased land with this reasonable expectation to be able to build tall buildings.

I can't say that everyone on staff is not aware of anyone. I can say that I personally am not of aware of anyone. But there may be others on staff who are. And as you pointed out, I was not the author of the testimony so I can't say 77 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 to you, "Oh, well, I remember this one or that one," no. Am I aware of somebody lurking in the woods; no, I'm not.

I don't want to engage in an exercise somewhat similar to the pursuit of who ate the strawberries, but --

I only want to say it that because --

You know, I don't want to drag every Planning Commission person in here and ask them, "Do you know? Do you know? Do you know?" I mean, we'll be here all day.

I'll save you a lot time, that no, they probably would have the same answer that no that they don't.

Okay. I'll save the rest of my questions with regard to process and procedure for the secretary or the director.

I have been advised that Mr. Lombardo, the Deputy Director is on his way.

Wonderful. Thank you.

Any other questions for this witness? 78 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 (No response.)

Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning. My name is Steve Ciceron, and I live in the Hamilton Townhouse development of 82 single-family-type condo homes located between 19th and 20th Streets, Hamilton and Nectarine Streets. I'm also a board member of the Hamilton Townhouse Association and a member of Logan Square Neighborhood Association and also a member of the Friends of Logan Square North of the Parkway. I'd like to say that I love my neighborhood in Logan Square, but I'm concerned for it and for Philadelphia as a whole. Here in Logan Square, we are surrounding by skyscrapers, high-rise apartment buildings, garages, surface parking lots, and empty lots. So then one wonders, so what is to become of these parking lots and empty lots? More high-rise apartment buildings, I fear. Do we really need this type of housing that breeds more traffic congestions and adds to our lack of parking spaces? I think not. Philadelphia needs to encourage the construction of single-family-type homes to anchor 79 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 this neighborhood. The future of our neighborhood and our City depends upon it. Why, you ask. Because Philadelphia is losing its population. It is a shrinking City. The last census told us that households and families are moving out in major numbers. They are moving to South Jersey and our suburbs and they are taking their tax dollars with them. Studies tell us that a very big part of the problem is that young couples do not choose to settle and raise a family in Philadelphia due to the tremendous shortage of single-family-type homes, the very type that families want. If families cannot find them here in Philadelphia, then they will find them in South Jersey, Bucks County, or elsewhere. In the January 22, 2003 edition of the Philadelphia Daily News, it was stated that Mayor Street has already set a goal of moving back 75,000 people into the City by the end of decade. I applaud the Mayor for setting this goal. To meet it, though, we must encourage the new construction of family-type homes. Allow me to give you a small personal example. As a single person, I was happy to live in New York City in a New York City high-rise. But 80 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 when I started a family, I wanted live in a home, not a high-rise. I found this opportunity in Philadelphia and raised two sons who are now both in their 20s. My one son is now in law school in California and wants to return to Philadelphia to start a family but only if he can find suitable housing. Otherwise, he tells me, he will buy a home in the suburbs. My other son is also away at school in Maine and he feels the same way. In closing, let me say that we do not need more high-rise apartments here in this section 13 of Logan Square. Families do not want to move into them. We need to encourage single-family-type homes and a sense of neighborhood. Otherwise, we will fail at our goal to bring residents back into our City and Philadelphia will continue to decline. And my sons and their perspective families will, as well, choose not to return to Philadelphia. Councilman Clarke's bill is sending the right message. I support this bill.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? (No response.) 81 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812

Thank you. The next witness is Brad Rubin. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.

Brad Rubins. Good morning, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee. I guess all of us from our community here feel like we're standing a little bit naked not knowing that this or or or 17-story development has been 10 proposed, so that certainly is going to hang over 11 our heads as we're talking about this. 12 Thanks for the opportunity to testify 13 day. I've lived in the neighborhood for 15 years, 14 most recently in a home on 20th Street. I also own 15 and occupy a commercial billing at 19th and the south side of Spring Garden street which would be affected by this legislation. I certainly do not need to tell any of you about the net loss of City residents which my neighbor just spoke about. What I can tell you is those exiting residents didn't live in the Logan neighborhood recently. In my mind, it's one of the great neighborhoods in Philadelphia, true Philadelphia success story. Basically, an industrial area in years past, it is now one of the 82 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 most vibrant family neighborhoods in the City. Walk around the area and you will see families raising small children. Why? We have a fantastic mix of single-family townhomes, sufficient but not excessive accessory commercial uses, a short walking distance to the central business district, one of the country's great city parks minutes away, a 9 beautiful library, science museums, and some of the 10 world's great art galleries down the block. I've lived in Washington, Manhattan, and Seattle. Those places can only aspire to have as perfect a blend of amenities and quality-of-life factors as we have in Logan Square. Logan Square is a neighborhood whose very essence is its livability. We need Councilman Clarke's bill because this livability is endangered by allowing the neighborhood to become overcrowded, traffic congested, and blocked in by large buildings. We need the legislate to preserve our ability to walk to all of the local attractions and stores without having to wait in line all day, to view our incredible city skyline unobstructed by a 10, 15, 17, or however many story high-rise apartment building, and to be able to get into our 83 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 cars and not have to sit in gridlock for or 30 minutes. The last item is particularly important because traffic already is an issue for the neighborhood. The afternoon rush hour going up 20th Street already is a snarl of traffic. To significantly increase the density of the neighborhood could cause traffic congestion to spiral out of control. Two final points. If possible talk of relocating the Barnes Museum to the Parkway area becomes a reality, we certainly want to preserve Logan Square as a special place that tourists and visitors will take with them as a positive view of Philadelphia. I urge you to vote in favor of the bill. Don't allow this Philadelphia success story to become a disaster.

Thank you for your testimony. Any questions? (Applause.)

The next witness is Andrea Korff. Please identify yourself. 84 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812

Hi. My name is Andrea Korff. I am a resident of the Logan Square North area. I am a homeowner, I am also a LSNA board member and I am a member of Friends of Logan Square North of the Parkway. Thank you, Councilmembers, for you allowing us all to testify. Before I read my letter, I would like to read the letter of Mark Perry of the 1800 of Carlton Street. He is a police officer who has lived in the area for over 30 years, and he is unable to be here today. This letter shows the support of the entire block of 18th and Carlton Street, as witnessed by the signatures. And this is his letter. "As a resident of the 1800 block of Carlton Street for over 30 years, I have personally seen how a neighborhood could be unrooted by a developer. In this case, the Franklin Town Corporation of the late 1970s. "This corporation came into the area buying up single-family dwellings and small businesses from 16th and Spring Street to 20th and Spring Garden, raising entire City blocks that remained vacant over 25 years, destroying a 85 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 community and a viable tax base due to vacant land being assessed a much lower rate than developed land. In this year period the primary 5 development of the area has been high-rise 6 apartments such as Museum Towers at 18th and Spring 7 Garden Street, One Buttonwood Square and Korman 8 Suites 20th and Hamilton Streets, Franklin Town 9 Apartments on Franklin Town Boulevard, the Fountain 10 at One Logan Square East, and the Lofts at Logan 11 View. Other development in the an area have been 12 the Community College of Philadelphia with 13 expansions to its main campus along with a 14 gymnasium, a business center, a children's day care, 15 and parking garage. GlaxoSmithKline has added its 16 corporate headquarters and parking garage to the 17 area as well, not to mention the Fresh Fields Whole 18 Food Center at 20th and Callowhill and the new 9th 19 Police District and the Philadelphia Sports Club 20 strip mall. These are just the recent developments 21 to the area the last 10 years. 22 "We still have the Free Library of 23 Philadelphia, Family Court, Hallahan Catholic Girls 24 School, Youth Study Center, Children in Crisis 25 Center that all add up to rush hour gridlock and 86 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 congestion from 16th and Vine Street to 20th and Spring Garden Street on any given night. "I must also mention ever special event held on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway that can bring this entire area to a halt for 4 to 12 hours, depending on its size. "I ask you, along with my fellow neighbors of the 1800 block of Carlton Street who are now virtually boxed in to pass this legislation in order to put some type of control on this area that is already overly developed and congested. "In the City of Philadelphia today, there is an urgent need and demand for single-family dwellings that can only add to a failing tax base as opposed to apartment dwellers who pay no property taxes. "I would like to thank all the Members of City Council for their consideration and cooperation in this matter." That is Mark Perry you lived on Carlton Street, I think, since he was 10 years old. Now, may I quickly now read my letter?

Sure.

As a homeowner living in the 87 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 neighborhood outlined in Bill 020689, I see numerous undeveloped lots in the area. I would like to address my deep concerns over the way development proceeds here. This neighborhood sits just north of the City's most precious cultural museums and institution which line the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. While the many parades and events on the Parkway enhance our lives, we are also the residents which are most affected by enormous congestion they bring into our neighborhood. Our homes are surrounded by at least five high-rise buildings within a three-block radius. If every undeveloped lot were to develop to their maximum height allowed by the current code, we would be so densely overcrowded that neither the residents living here now nor the many Philadelphians who come to enjoy the cultural area would find this situation manageable. The potential for overdevelopment must also be addressed in order to ensure that the architectural and historical character of our city's most grand avenue, the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, be preserved. While the Parkway sits just to our 88 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 south, the beautiful victorian mansions on Spring Garden Street are immediately to our north. To allow more high-rises and strip malls to be built in the are between the two would be detrimental to everyone. As the zoning stands now, the devoted homeowners who have chosen this beautiful area to live and work could very possibly find their properties devalued and the peaceful quality of life here deteriorate. At a time when all research shows that the City lacks enough housing and especially larger single-family homes, it would be tragic to drive even more people away. You have to look no further than 19th and Fairmount to see the demand for larger townhouses. In a less desirable area than ours, those homes all sold for approximately $400,000 before they were even built. The April issue of Philadelphia Magazine on real estate spoke to the issue of baby-boomers who are looking to resettle back into the City once they no longer have small children to care for. They are faced with a very limited supply of quality housing. The comprehensive plan for this area 89 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 needs to be evaluated, and this bill does just that. This neighborhood has the potential to be one of the most revitalized and prosperous communities in our City if developed properly. We don't lack massive high-rises or littered, empty lots; but we do lack the kind of housing people are fleeing to the suburbs for. With all of the beautiful new venues along Avenue of the Arts, popular restaurants lining Market Street through Old City and world class hotels, it's time to give the people who love this City a reason to move here. Thank you. And thank you, Councilman Clarke, for introducing the legislation.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

You're welcome. I've also offered some visuals if you'd like to enter them. These are lot some of the vacate lots in the proposed legislation.

Thank you very much. Roseanne Adams, please.

My name is Roseanne Stagno Adams, I live at 1911 Hamilton. I'm a member of the 90 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 Logan Square Neighborhood Association, I'm co-chair of Friends of Logan Square North of the Parkway, and I'm a member of CPNA, Coalition of Philadelphia Neighborhood Associations. Thousands of people choose to leave the City of Philadelphia each year. In the year 2000 alone we had the second worse loss in residence in the entire nation. Why? All the numerous studies tell us the very big part of the problem is that young couples do not choose to settle and raise a family in Philadelphia. The empty-nesters may be coming in, but we are hemorrhaging young families. Barbara Kaplan as head of the Philadelphia Planning Commission spoke before CPNA, the Coalition of Philadelphia Neighborhood Associations in 1998, and she stated that among the City's neighborhoods, South Philadelphia was losing the moist families. The Planning Commission decided to do a survey. While schools and crime were also cited, a lack of larger, suitable housing was also a major part of the problem. People want larger single-family homes. Yet the City of Philadelphia has a tremendous shortage of just such homes. The Spring Garden Community Development 91 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 Corporation took a plunge and decided to build just such larger family homes at 19th and Fairmount Avenue in a blighted area just a few blocks from the special services district Councilman Clarke is proposing. Despite that less-than-desirable location, the demand for these old style stole row homes was enormous. These large three on four-bedroom row homes with a small backyard and garage all sold for about $400,000 before the drywall went up. They're now building still larger row homes three blocks away in an even less desirable location for an asking price of $600,000. That's how short we are of family homes. What Councilman Clarke's bill will do is encourage the construction of family-friendly homes over residential high-rises. We already have our fair share of high-rises in this immediate area. Young families, however, don't choose to raise their children in massive 24-story structures. They want the feel of a family home. They want the sense of a neighborhood. If we're going to stop this exodus of growing families, then we need to build neighborhoods, not just skyscrapers. Nor do we have a need for any additional residential skyscrapers in 92 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 this immediate area. I believe, therefore, that the Councilman's bill echos the sentiments of myself and the majority of all my neighbors when this bill 5 encourages the construction of family-friendly housing over high-rises within this area. I would like to support my testimony by introducing into the record the following six newspaper articles. They are: 1, Philadelphia, The Incredible Shrinking City; 2, Can the Bleeding Stop; 3, The Exit Wound; 4, It's Going on 50 Years; 5, More on Unhappy News; 6, As City Population Falls, Demand for Some House Drives up Prices. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Jovida Hill, please.

Good morning. Thank you very much for this opportunity. My name Jovida Hill and I am Co-Chair Friends of Logan Square North of the Parkway. I'm also a member of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association and I am a homeowner who resides in the proposed Logan Square Special District. I would like to especially thank Councilman Clarke and Rules Committee for this opportunity to contribute to your decision-making 93 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020812 process. I echo the sentiments of my neighbors. I have the census date just like they do; I won't repeat it in terms of what's needed. But what I am including in my testimony is a report from the Brookins Institution Center on urban and metropolitan policy and it's entitled "10 Steps to a Living Downtown." And what the study does is give 10 steps that cities can follow to make downtowns more livable. Those 10 steps are: Housing must be downtown's political and business priority. The second, downtown must be legible. That's street signs, the streetscape. Downtown must be accessible. Downtown must have new and improved regional amenities. Downtown must be clean and safe. Downtown must preserve and reuse old buildings. Downtown regulations must be streamlined and support residential growth. City resources should be devoted to housing. And the ninth thing of which I am most concerned with and which this bill addresses is that the edge of downtown should be surrounded by viable neighborhoods. My neighborhood is just that viable neighborhood. And in order to keep it viable, we 94 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020811 need to have a height restriction. So I'm not going to continue all the other things that I have. I'll submit this. But I just wanted to make sure that this report, "10 Steps to Living Downtown" will be included as part of the my testimony. And I thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your patience in waiting. Frank Feingold, please.

Good morning, Members of City Council. I want to thank you for this opportunity. I want to say that my statement is much more brief than my neighbors'. For the past five years, my family of three have lived at 20th and Hamilton streets. All of us are in favor of Bill 020689 that was introduced by Councilman Darrell Clarke. Additionally, the neighbors that I have spoken to are also in favor of this bill. We are also members of Friends of Logan Square North of the Parkway. Primarily, this bill would promote the development of residential housing which would strengthen the Logan Square neighborhood and benefit the City as well. We are all aware of the City 95 1/29/03 - RULES - BILL 020811 losing population. So it becomes important to offer opportunities where families can move into new housing in established neighborhoods. This helps the neighborhood develop a sense of community and pride and helps the City by becoming a more desirable place to live. As I have traveled around the City recently, I have noticed small pockets of new residential dwellings going up all around, most noticeably, driving south on north street from 12 Temple University. This new development will surely 13 bring new people into the City and help keep people within our borders. The spirit of new residential development should be carried over into the areas specified in Bill 020689. This bill is the right thing to do, and it is a step in the right direction. Support from Councilmembers on this bill 19 will be greatly appreciated. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Tully Speaker.

Thank you, Chairman Kenney, Members of the Rules Committee. My name is Tully Speaker, T-U-L-L-Y; Speaker, like Speaker of the House. I served as president of the Logan 96 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Square Neighborhood Association in the interval between July of 2001 and June 2002. I serve as an ex officio member of the Board of LSNA. The boundaries of that organization are Broad Street, Market Street, Schuylkill, and south edge of Spring Garden Street. I'm here because our president is in Georgia and our vice president had other commitments. As a former president, I hope to speak for the sense of the neighborhood, but I caution that I am not speaking as representing an action of the Board because the Board has not considered, in a formal agenda item, this bill. It is on the agenda for our next meeting the second Tuesday of February. I am in favor of this bill and speak most heartily in favor of it. The bill is consistent with the long-standing LSNA policy. LSNA equals Logan Square Neighborhood Association. That policy has been in existence for 40 or more years. It respects and supports the interests of the immediately involved neighbors when there is any zoning mater to be considered. Some seven to eight years ago, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association entered into an agreement regarding the development of a parcel in 97 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 the area that's under consideration. LSNA entered into that, signed the agreement and has held to that agreement. About two years ago in my presidency, a developer of one of those parcels proposed amending that agreement to allow a multi-story development; initially, a six-story development, and then perhaps with stories or more at the edges of it. At a 10 series of meetings following that proposal, the LSNA Board considered it and heard from their neighbors, groups of 20 to 50 ordinary people who lived immediately near that proposed development. The action of the Board at that time affirmed the existing agreement with a developer but did not accept, did not affirm, did not in any way support the proposed change. Frankly, we thought the matter was dead. We thought that it was going to stay as an open-air parking lot or possibly become a low rise residential area. It was clear that all of the neighbors wanted a height limit that was consistent with the current proposed legislation. Thus, LSNA tacitly agreed to this proposed height limit by affirming its existing agreement but not accepting a revision of it. We 98 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 did that because that is what would be the wishes of the people who were most closely involved, those who would be immediately affected. This is not capricious. In other instances, LSNA has given its blessing to taller structures. For example, the Relan Corporation is proposing multi-story development between the Schuylkill River and 23rd Street. That may go to six and in some instances eight stories. We heard testimony from the immediate neighbors there. They welcomed that change. And under those circumstances, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association, its Board, supported a taller set of structures than those immediately adjacent. Thus, we have been consistent in abiding with the wishes with those who are most closely affected. And so I endorse this bill personally and I expect that in its meting on 11th of February, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association will formally move to support this legislation. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Jeff Farhy, please.

Jeff was unable to attend, but I have his testimony and I will read that. My 99 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 name is Loretta Wesler. I am the vice president of the Hamilton Townhouse Association. I am on the Board of the LSNA. Here's his testimony, which I am in agreement with. Our association is in favor of Councilman Clarke's bill. It will help create a balance between both residential and commercial interests which will protect and sustain a vital neighborhood crucial to urban residents. In March of 2002, our association held a special meeting of its members to address the future development of the property at 19th and Hamilton Street. The members of our association in a near unanimous vote supported a position that future development be limited to four stories in order keep to the scale with the existing surrounding residential homes. While we have not had sufficient time to reconvene the board for an official stance on this recent bill, past position as taken by the Hamilton Townhouse Association is in keeping with the spirit and intent of the Councilman's bill. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much for your testimony. 100 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Mark Liverant, please.

Good afternoon, Councilman Kenney and Members of the Rules Committee. My name is Mark Liverant. I'm an attorney and a colleague of Bob Lane's over at Morgan Lewis. I'm here to object to Bill No. 020689 on behalf our client Forest City. As I'm sure you know, Forest City is a major property owner with residential and commercial in the City of Philadelphia. The properties owned by Forest City include the historical Drake Tower Spruce Street which was purchased a few years ago and completely refurbished and renovated. It also owns the old Bell building on Arch Street which it converted into luxury loft apartments. Forest City owns Franklin Town and Museum Towers, among other properties. Not only is Forest City a major property owner, but it is a good corporate citizen of the City of Philadelphia. It's committed to having a strong presence in the City and being an active participate and contributor in the continued growth and development of Philadelphia. Forest City is very concerned because of the material adverse impact that the proposed 101 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 ordinance would have on its future expansion. Forest City was only advised of the bill a little over a week by Tom Chapman at the City Planning Commission. Forest City has not had ample time or opportunity to evaluate the impact that such proposed ordinance would have on its future planning. In addition, it is also quite possible that such ordinance would constitute impermissible spot zoning, and more time is needed to evaluate it. Thank you very much for your time.

Thank you for your testimony. Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. Does Forest City own a parcel of land in this proposed area?

Yes, it does.

Where.

I believe the parcel is on Buttonwood Street across from the Museum Towers property. And I believe it's used for surface parking right now.

Buttonwood Street across from the Museum Towers. 102 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733

I believe it's between 18th and 19th on Buttonwood.

So you're saying just above the park?

Correct.

FROM that area to Spring Garden?

Yes.

Is it a vacant parcel?

I believe it is vacant, yes.

It is or you believe?

Well, I believe it's used for surface parking.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Councilman O'Neill.

Mr. Chairman, thank you. First of all, I'd like to commend the witnesses. I rarely heard the kind of testimony we've heard today, not just objecting to something not just supporting something else, but stating in 103 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 great detail the human reasons for it. And I would just suggest to Council, and I know there's other property owners involved, that the notes of testimony from this hearing should be shared with all the owners. If they really want to be contributors, they should sit down with these homeowners and try to work out something that's in the best interest of everyone because this is a real effort. And I deal with zoning a lot up in my district, but it's not height related and it has a lot of other issues. But I can very much sympathize and also congratulate so many people who came in, even though they gave separate testimony, it all fit together with a puzzle in terms of what this neighborhood wants and what property owners who are developers or future developers should be dealing with. Thank you.

Thank you. Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Is that Mr. Liverant?

Yes.

Now, you said that 104 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 the parcel that your client owns is presently surface parking?

That is correct.

How large is the parcel? MRL LIVERANT: I'm not sure the exact acreage. I think the whole parcel that they own is about four acres.

Four acres. And the location again was?

They own property between 18th and 19th and Buttonwood and Spring Garden. I'm not sure of the -- I guess it's Hamilton below. Between Hamilton and Spring Garden.

And what do they propose to build there?

I'm not sure of their exact plans, if any, at the present time, but the proposed ordinance would definitely have an impact on any future development that they would be able to do on the parcel.

How long have they owned the property?

I believe they purchased 105 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 it within the last five years.

And what have they done with it so far?

I think right now it's just surface parking. They bought the apartment building Museum Towers from its previous owner.

I was particularly taken by your expression of concern that you had just learned of the legislation, you said, about five days ago?

A little over a week ago.

I would hope that you would, having had that experience, would have somewhat heightened sensitivity and understanding. If you were here for the earlier testimony, I think our colleague Councilman Clarke was only recently informed himself about a developer seeking to build upwards of a, we're not sure, 10 to possibly 17-story building and only learned of that in the relatively near term. And so not in so much in the motion that two wrongs make a right, at least my mother told me that that wasn't the case, but you can certainly appreciate with lack of notice how people may react. And what is perceived by you as 106 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 adverse impact to your client is also taken as potential adverse impact to Councilman Clarke and his constituents. And so all of us, I think, need to have a greater sensitivity with regard to that issue. So you have a client that has a piece of property. You don't have a development proposal presently, but you're concerned about future impact whatever that future may be; is that your testimony?

That's correct. The property is currently zoned RC4.

Do you know if your client has any plans to develop the property in the next five years?

I do not know.

So you're just kind of generally concerned?

Yes.

Okay, I appreciate your concern. Thanks.

Thank you. Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 107 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Are you familiar with a proposal -- now that you're bringing up the fact that your client owns this parcel around maybe two years ago, it may have just been a conceptual proposal to locate a parking facility and a supermarket on that site.

I'm not aware of that proposal, no. 9

Because I think at one point there was some discussion about potentially locating a parking facility and a supermarket. And it may not have been more than four stories. As a matter of fact, I think they were asking for some support from the City, some financial incentives such as a TIF. And I don't know if the Planning Commission recalls. Mr. Lombardo, he's shaking his head yes. We'll ask him about that. It was, in fact, a proposal at least made to me early on in the process, which I appreciated the fact that your client came and sat down and talked about it, but was not ready to proceed. So, therefore, there was no need for any discussion with any of the surrounding areas. But I do recall at one point there was some discussion 108 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 about that. All right, thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

Thank you for your time.

That brings us to the end of the witness list, but I believe Mr. Lombardo and I think there's a representative from Licenses and Inspections that may want to come forward at this time for some additional questions. Rich, could you identify yourself for the record, and they the Chair will recognize Councilman Clarke for questions.

My name is Richard Lombardo, I'm Deputy Executive Director of Philadelphia City Planning Commission.

Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Lombardo. Mr. Lombardo, earlier thre were a number of questions, not only to speak of the particular development, but about the policy of the Planning Commission, as Councilman Nutter said earlier, I was made aware of the proposed development and we initiated the phone 109 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 call so it wasn't a heads-up from the Planning Commission. I expressed my concern because of that particular area, the history with that area, particularly the Rodan Towers place where you know there was a substantial amount of opposition for, at one point, a proposed 20-story condominium. Well, actually the was a hotel initially, I believe. And subsequently it ended up being a proposal for a 10-story condominium. And there are still some people who have some levels of opposition to that development. My concern that a proposal that ultimately may be of equal height, we're still trying to understand, as Councilman Nutter said earlier, how a 10-story building somehow reaches 176 feet in height, which I'll be asking the L&I representative here about. This whole issue about process and procedure, how we weren't notified. And I understand it's not required, but I would have thought that given the history of that particular hearing, the fact that we had a pending public hearing on that particular parcel, when in the 11th and a half hour a developer runs in and ask for an approval of a plan that, frankly speaking, sounds somewhat questionable at best, and somehow the 110 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Councilman is not notified of that and the community is obviously not notified. I wanted to talk to you about the policy that's currently in place and the potential of possibly changing the policy. I know that there is this issue that as of right that you are required to give approval. And I'm not sure if that's just an internal policy, if that's a policy relating to the zoning code or if there's some charter mandated policy. Can you kind of talk to me about that?

Sure, I'd be glad to. Part of that is sort of this strange dichotomy we have in Philadelphia is in a lot of places you have a planning department and they are a department just like L&I is a department. We are the Planning Commission, but we also function as a planning department. We sort of have two roles. In our role as a commission, we serve as the commission on all their charter mandated obligations, which is like today, testifying on bills that we're representing the Planning Commission. Under laws that Council passes, the state passes, the federal government passes we act as a planning department, which means we don't go back to the Planning Commission, we do 111 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 what the law says and that's all we're limited to do. And we've been advised by the Law Department on numerous occasions where there's a crossover, we really don't have any flexibility to say, "We're going to hold this plan because it goes against something we know that's in the work or something we're working on or planning study we're doing." We have to look at the law, and if the law says it's permitted me sign off and send it on it's way. We also pride ourselves for years on doing these reviews while people wait. You don't have to call for an appointment, you don't have to take a number, you don't have to wait like at the ground floor of MSB. Someone comes in, someone deals with them while they wait and we get them through our process. To that end, to some degree we almost insisted the planners that do that work don't take into account bills that are pending or things that are pending. And that's the way that works. Practically, if we know that something is coming from our office is going to need a street striking or zoning change or it's going to have to engender some other public review, we try to give Councilpeople a heads-up. We do try to call up and 112 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 say, "This just came through, they're going to see you for an ordinance to close the street, they're going to be going to the zoning board for a variance." That's the way we try to do business. In this case, it obviously was a -- it seems to be an as-of-right development and nobody notified you and no one then did the other step. It should have been the person that stamped for plan. I'm not going to put the blame on Tom since he's not here, but usually that falls upon the division director who sort of knows, has a broader picture of what's going on than the individual planners that are doing it. And I will talk to Tom and apologize that you did not get the heads up that the plan was coming through. And I understand, it just came through in the last week also, last four or five days. But, in fact, we have no leeway other than to do it, to stamp it, send him on his way to L&I and let you know -- there isn't an obligation, it's more of a working relationship. We try to work with everybody here. To inform you that this has happened, that this --

When you say you had no leeway, is that a requirement of what? 113 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733

We --

A business friendly department or is it as a result of --

Doing things when people wait ,that's a department choice to try to be friendly to everyone. Actually, it isn't business friendly. Most of the people we're seeing are homeowners that are coming in that want to do an addition on their house, put up a deck, put up a fence, put up a swimming pool. It's not just businesses coming in. I think the majority of a thousand we see a year, probably 900 of them are homeowners doing improvements to their homes, and we don't want to bog them down -- we don't want people walking out, as people talked about their quality of life, feeling that they've waisted the whole day at the Planning Commission or they had to come back three times to get their swimming pool approved. So we try to do things --

That's what I'm asking. You said it's.

It's our policy to do that.

It's basically a 114 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 policy and you want to be a user friendly agency. Is it a law that you have to do it at the time when the individual brings in --

No, it's not a law that we have to do it at the time.

So, technically, you could say --

But conversely we've been told by the Law Department on numerous occasions when lawsuits have been involved that we can't act -- we just can't act to hold something up for four or five days because we want to hold it up for four or five days if we can do our review and there's no 15 reason for us not to do it the first day or first hour. We can't just take it upon ourselves not to do it. When things become time sensitive, like obviously in the case of something being an ordinance, things become time sensitive of when they got their permit. So we can't -- because we know an ordinance may be coming, we can't hold something up in order to let the ordinance get ahead of it. We have to do what we're being asked of as an administrator.

I think the issue is, 115 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 you inform the develop. Did you have any information from the developer from Forest City Enterprises about any plans that they had that you felt compelled to --

Councilman, the proposed development was by a different developer.

Or any developer. That you felt compelled inform them of this ordinance?

No, I can't speak for Tom, I myself got a call from a law firm asking if we anything about the bill, and I referred him to Tom because I didn't know anything about the bill 15 personally. So I would assume -- I don't know who told who, but I would think that if Tom Chapman who is the Director of Development Planning talking to someone from Forest City, it was probably in response to an inquiry either directly by them or by an attorney who may have said, "Will you call my client and tell them what this bill is about?"

But I want to know whether you --

But we don't go out of our way to notify developers of a pending bill. 116 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733

At this point, I want to know if you had information, any information from any developer about the planned use of this parcel.

Not until they came through our doors for, at least I know of, to get permit approval.

And permit approval to do what?

I have never seen the plan. Let me answer that question a little more and elaborate. The letter we sent asking about a concern about the process, part of that is because this area is urban renewal area. It's a little bit more than a normal homeowner buying a property and being subject to whatever the underlying zoning is. There's deed restrictions that run with the property which basically, as you're buying that property, you're also getting -- you can look at it two ways. You're restricted but you're also getting assurances because the restrictions will say you can only build up to 50 feet or you can only build up to 250 feet. And we raise that concern only because we've been in the past when dealing with land that's subject urban renewal controls, we have been advised by the 117 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 lawyers, both sides of the lawyers, that there's going to be a process to make sure that everybody who's a redeveloper is informed controls. So that's the only reason why we raise that. We didn't go out and notify any redevelopers. We just raise that as a simple flag. Our concern about the process. I'm saying I don't want, after what was said --

Point of information.

Point of information.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Councilman Clarke, I know you're in the middle of a question. Mr. Lombardo, one, you and I have worked very well together over the years and we're maintain that relationship even through the course of this hearing. What I took the Councilman's questioning to be was not only about the larger process, and then he asked you are you prohibited by law and you started talking about, well, the Law Department tells us that we can't hold things up or we can't unnecessarily hold things up or we can't delay things by four or five days. I 118 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 didn't hear the Councilman say anything about that. I don't think he's inferring that or implying that or even necessarily requesting that. I thought what I was hearing, and even from the previous testimony or the Q and A, I think what we're asking for -- and it does sound like a policy issue, if not, kind of a general courtesy between and among all of the public servants at least. If someone could build a nuclear facility out in West Parkside as a matter of right, I'm just asking and I think what I hear the Councilman asking is, even if they have a right to do it, I'd like somebody to give me a call within a half hour, 45 minutes of when any Joe Schmoe Somebody walks in the door and says "I know the zoning allows for nuclear facility in the West Parkside Industrial Park and I want to come in and have my plans reviewed." I'd just like somebody to pick up the phone and say, "By the way, a guy stopped by today and said he'd like to build a nuclear facility in your district. Now you can do it as a matter of right and we sent him on over to L&I. I thought we'd like to let you know." I think that's what we're talking about. 119 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733

And I agree with you. And I apologize for going off in a stream of consciousness.

You know, a 10-story building in some neighborhood is a pretty big building. And if the person can't figure out of 175 feet how many stories that is, I'm really concerned about that person trying to go do whatever it is that they want to do because 175 is not 10 stories. So if a person walks in and says, "I want to do this in an area that probably doesn't have any buildings of that height or is probably surrounded by buildings that much smaller, someone should say, and you indicated at a higher level looking at the broader picture, "I think we might want to let the Councilman know that Sam Jones just walked in and would like to build a 15-story building in an area that has duplexes or townhouses or whatever it has. We'd just like to let him know. We're not holding him up, we're not stopping his planning, we're not telling him he can't do it." But at least give us the opportunity to then do something about it from the perspective of what we do for a living.

And I agree with you. 120 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 And I said I can't explain why that didn't happen and I agree it should have happened. I apologize for not answering your question directly. I went off on a stream of consciousness. I was just trying to sort of walk back of how we came to this departmental policy, and it was a result of being told we have to do things administratively. So we said, okay, then we'll do them while people wait. We'll do them as professional and quickly as we can. And that's how we got to why we do it the way we do it.

That leads me to ask you the question. What exactly what type of review does this person with this stamp do?

They are looking at and see if it needs any -- there's several different things. We have throughout the City various zoning overlays that this Council passes. We have requirements for facade review. We have environmental review. And we have a review under the subdivision code. As a fail-safe, in the best of all worlds L&I --

Let's stop there. Environmental review, what does that entail? 121 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733

The environmental review usually involves us reviewing things that involve either where you have to comply with some state storm water management procedures during construction or if it involve the disbursement of federal CBDG funds it would have to comply with some federal environmental regulations. They're the type of environmental reviews we do. If it's close to the river, it's going to be in a floodway or a flood plane. You'd have to build above a certain elevation to ensure that all the plans comply with those elevations. They're the reviews the environmental unit does. This property would not have been before us for an environmental review. The working relationship we have with L&I to make sure nobody -- because these things are scattered all over the zoning code, the building code, the code of general ordinances. They're to send everything that involves new construction to us. We see about a thousand a year. Probably on a vast majority of them we put a stamp on it that says for the practical matter "Our review is not necessary," and we stamp it with that and send people out the door. That's basically -- 122 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733

So what you're saying is that it went to L&I first, then came to you; is that what you're saying?

Well, I don't know about that because, again, attorneys who are familiar with the process know they have to come to us eventually. Some of them come to us first automatically before they go to L&I.

Wait a minute now. You said that it goes through an L&I process. This is your recent statement. It goes through an L&I process and then it comes to you and you guys basically look at an as-of-right use, so you assume that the scrutiny happened at the L&I level?

Most people walk in our door say, "I was at L&I, they told us we had to come see you." And we review it while they wait.

So in this case, the suggestion is that maybe they didn't go through the L&I scrutiny, maybe they came directly to you, as you said that happens on numerous occasions.

That's right.

So then they go to L&I. I mean, is there a policy? Should you go to 123 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 L&I first, then the Planning Commission? Or do you go to the Planning Commission, then L&I? Or do you kind of do whatever you want to do?

I'm not aware of any policy L&I may have. I mean, there are a couple instances where someone going through the L&I process have to go so place else first where they have to go to the Streets Department for curb cut approvals or -- I don't know if they have a policy that they have to come through L&I and checked in first or whether they can go directly to the Streets Department first or the Planning Commission.

I'm talking about the general policy. I'm talking about the process of development. I want to build this 10-story, 17-story, whatever this thing is. Where do I go first? Do I go to the Planning Commission first or do I go to L&I first?

May I?

Sure.

Identify yourself for the record. MR FINK: My name is Michael Fink, I'm Director of Construction Services for Licenses and 124 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 Inspections. Typically, our examiners require that an applicant for projects such as you're describing would go to the Planning Commission first to get their initial review and approval before we will take the application in and begin a full review under the Zoning Code.

So they have to go to the Planning Commission first?

Yes, sir.

All right, we've got that cleared up.

I wasn't sure. That makes sense because we're the ones that ask them to send them to us before they get too far in the process so we know what's going on.

So if you just approve the right? It's a building of whatever height, this is zoning classification allows that to happen; you don't really do much more beyond that?

We don't even look -- actually the stamp we put on this particular plan was the one I alluded to which basically says we didn't need to review it because they're not involved in anything that we are responsible for, is 125 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 the stamp we put on. So we didn't even look at it. But these people, they're the same that know zoning. That's where I got to my point if we see something and something pops out at us, this is going to need a variance or it's going to need an ordinance, we clearly right off the bat will contact the various district councilperson.

I'll move this along because I know people have been here a long time. Getting back to the earlier discussion about the process of notification, and trust me, I like the fact that you want to have a user friendly agency. We had a similar situation a couple months ago with the Streets Department where they were issuing over-the-counter permits for street closures and pedestrian footway closures. I introduced a bill. The Department came in and said it could be problematic in terms of their ability to move the process along. We got an agreement that there would be a simple document that would be fore-faxed to Councilperson. The Councilperson signs a signature, particularly when there's going to be a substantial impact. In this particular case, it was a situation where a street or a sidewalk would be closed, I 126 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 think it was beyond six months, which can obviously impact on individual's lives, particularly where there are occupied properties as it was Walnut Street, to give you an example. And we developed a process that they simply sent it over. The Councilman says, "Okay, fine, I know about it. If there's any problem with the community, I'm in the process now, I'll take the weight." Is there a possibility of having a similar type process in the Planning Commission, some kind of a process that allows the person who is ultimately going to have to take the responsibility for things for happening in neighborhood, because at the end of the day if something goes wrong, Councilmembers will get blamed for it, not the Deputy Planning Director, not L&I; Mike, not you, none of you guys are going to get blamed. It's going to be the elected official. And I'm okay with that because I begged for this job. But if I'm going to be responsible for something that ultimately happens in the community, particularly something of the magnitude, I'd like to be in that process.

Well, my answer to that 127 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 is -- and it obviously didn't work this, so I can't answer. I thought we were covering that by matter of sort of in-house procedure of having a District Council contacted when we're aware of something that's a major development in their area. I think, really, in this case it slipped through -- it did not get done that way. I'd rather take a shot of saying we'll try to make sure it doesn't happen again and reinforce to people -- it's only one unit, it's the development planning unit that when things come through there that are not -- maybe back a step up -- that's new development, it's more than somebody building a house, but a new development, a new building.

Some threshold.

That we will notify -- as part of the process, we will notify District Council office. That's what I thought we were doing now, and I will commit we'll continue to try to do that. We will do that, not try to do.

I'd like to see something a little -- like Councilman Nutter, I work with you guys --

The problem I have with 128 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 what you're suggesting is, say, the issue that there are things that all they're in our office for is for us to say, "You don't need to be here." And you're asking for us to send -- what, we'd have to go send them over to get some sign-off.

But you're giving them a stamp. You're giving them a stamp. That starts the process. I mean, you're not just simply telling the person, "No, you don't need anything." They get that stamp.

The stamp is for L&I purposes to show that they've been there.

They get that stamp and that's like "Hey, I'm rolling now. I got a stamp. I go over the L&I. You're basically grandfathered in once they start that process, right?

What the stamp says is they've been to our office and the subdivision regulations do not apply to this property. That's what the stamp says, and it's signed by one of the people at the counter who look at it, Bill or one of the other people.

I hear what you're 129 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 saying. I understand that the stamp, it allows that person to go to L&I, which I'm understanding now that this person did the same day so they can be grandfathered into the existing zoning. That's substantial, that's not just some minor little wave-off.

I understand what --

Particularly in this case where we have a pending zoning hearing about this particular issue. I mean, zoning legislation on this particular location. I mean, that's major. So I'd like to see you guys give some serious thought to some kind of process that gets up in the loop since we're going to be responsible. I mean, I trust you, I've worked with you a number of years.

I will go back and sit down with Maxine and we'll discuss it with you, how well we can do to avoid this, setting some kind of a process that satisfies your concern, Council's concern, District Councilman's concern to satisfy -- and you have to bounce it off, satisfies the other concern that we aren't acting in a way that we shouldn't be because we're being told -- I mean, I don't of L&I can do this. I don't want to put them 130 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 on the spot. What you're sort of asking is when an examiner would get a plan, this particular plan, he would say, "Wait a minute. I gotta send this over to the District Councilperson before I can review."

We may set a threshold. We may say something that's so many square feet.

We have this conversation. I commit we will do that.

Okay. I'd like to ask Mr. Fink a couple questions with respect to the process now that I understand going to L&I for some type of review. Can you tell me what's going to happen that review process, particularly given the fact that there's some uncertainty about the height of the building.

I'm not familiar with the particular project or the application. But typically an application will come in with a set of plans. Those plans meet some standard level of information. That information typically includes the height of the building, the number of floors, and the square foot of floor area associated with that building. All that information and a lot of 131 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 other information is used to determine whether or not the project meets the requirements of the zoning code and a permit can be issued. If it does not, then a refusal is issued and the person would have to seek a variance.

So if somehow this whole issue about -- and I hate to keep belaboring this point because something's just not right with this 176 feet and the 10 stories. If somehow it comes in and review this proposal that somehow the 10 stories and the 176 feet don't jive, there's extreme inconsistencies in the development plan relating to those floors, then there's a potential that you deny the permit based on the inconsistencies in the development proposal.

The numbers that were presented today do sound inconsistent to me personally, but not having seen the plan, we do not know whether or not that information is correct, whether or not that information was presented legitimately on the plan, whether that plan could indicate everything from towers to different types of grading. There's a lot of different variables that may help to explain difference of our 132 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 understanding.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. That will conclude the testimony on this bill. We will now move to Bill No. 020812, which is an Ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Logan Urban Renewal Area being the area generally bounded by Louden Street on the north; railroad right-of-way on the east; Roosevelt Boulevard and Wingohocking Street on the south; and 11th Street on the west; approving the urban renewal plan and determining that such plan and redevelopment proposal conform to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns and families who are displaced; determining the necessity for changes in and for zoning, streets, alleys, public ways, street patterns, location and relocation of public utilities; determining that the urban renewal plan and redevelopment proposal meet all non-discrimination requirements of Federal, 133 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 State and Local Laws and regulations and policies promulgated with respect thereto; declaring that certain expressly designated and provided for condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project; and declaring the redevelopment undertakings in the project to be an important part of the City's program to remove and prevent the spread of urban blight. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.

My name is Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 020182, which is the first redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan for the Logan Redevelopment Area and the Logan Urban Renewal Area. Logan triangle is bounded Louden Street on the north, 11th Street on the West, east to the railroad right-of-way behind Marshall Street and south to Wyoming Avenue. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire properties under Mayor's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative, a strategy to rebuild Philadelphia's 134 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 neighborhoods as striving communities with clean, secure streets, recreational and cultural outlets and quality housing. Among the central goals of NTI are to eliminate blight caused by dangerous buildings, debris-filled lots, and abandoned cars, litter and gravity, and promote redevelopment through large-scale land assembly. Consistent with the overall NTI goals, the Redevelopment Authority intends to acquire 11 acres encompassing 942 vacant lot, 32 vacant 12 structures, 10 occupied residential structures, and 13 2 commercial businesses for site assemblage in 14 anticipation of future development. 15 Mr. Chairman and Members the Committee, 16 I respectfully request favorable consideration of 17 Bill No. 020812 and would also ask the suspension of 18 Council Rules to allow a first reading on February 19 6, 2003. Thank you. 20

Thank you very much. 21 Mr. Wetzel, at the last hearing in December, we had several individuals testify in situations where homeowners and business owners had not idea their properties were being considered for acquisition. Some had very extensive plans for renovation and 135 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 development or sale, and yet they had never heard from the RDA. At that hearing you promised to review your notification procedures and get back to us with some reforms to provide greater community input and notification. To date, my office at least has not received any of that updated policy.

Yes. Let me tell you what we're proceeding to do on this. The two ordinances before you today actually would have been heard last session or prior to Christmas. However, we had to create and make some changes in urban renewal areas to allow for these takings to move forward. We are not coming back with any additional ordinances, and we're in the process of providing to Council a plan for the notification of business owners and occupied properties that would be condemned as a result of this. Let me just tell you that the research we did indicates that we can expand significantly the notification process. It is only the minimum requirement that we advertise in city-wide circulation newspapers. That is only the minimum requirement. And we're working on a process to do direct notification of homeowners. 136 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733

But isn't the most simplest at least effort to send a letter to the homeowner?

That's going to be part of the plan we're going to present you.

This as a real contention portion of the last December testimony and Councilmembers were uniformly concerned and upset about that. Why could we not between December and now send a letter? I don't understand what the difficulty is in sending a letter. Now, if the letter doesn't get responded to or the person doesn't live in the area, that's fine. At least we've made some minimal effort. To me, I don't know why it would take so long to develop a plan. Even though these bills should have been done in December, they're being done now and it's almost February. I don't understand what the difficult part about sending a letter to a homeowner is.

It's not difficult. What we wanted to do is do the appropriate research, understand what we could do and not do, come back with a formal written plan. One of the questions that we looked at and one of the questions that was 137 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 raised is, do we send owners -- if you look at this particular taking, we would be delivering letters to 900 vacant lots. Or do we send letters to the occupied structures and the occupied businesses?

But without the prerequisite research, theoretically or hypothetically, if you send out the 900 letters and it went to a vacant lot, I mean, the Board of Revision taxes doesn't have any problems sending don't stuff to vacant lots. (Laughter.)

But at least you could say, "Look, while we're formulating this policy, we at least sent a letter out." And guess what, the vacant lots I don't care about. It's the people living in the house are going to get the letter. Even if it's only 30 of them out of 900 get a letter, those are the live people that need the letter. Now, the vacant lot I don't care about. Let them return it to us. As a matter of fact, the post office may be doing research for us by sending us back undeliverable mail that we can then record as being undeliverable. But in the meantime, the 30 or 40 business owners and homeowners, they get some 138 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 notification that, "By the way, we're thinking about taking your house." I mean, that's kind of a really nice thing to say to somebody, "Your house is possibly being taken by us and we have a hearing about it. May be you want to come."

Like I said, we are going to institute a policy that will provide written notification to occupied businesses and occupied structures. Our concern is --

I hear what you're saying.

Let me just continue on this one. There has been numerous -- in this particular case, there's an active community organization. The Councilwoman has been active in meetings. There has been full notification of everyone in that area. There have been meetings, flyers, and discussions prior to the Councilwoman's agreement to support this. So in essence --

Councilwoman Tasco is an extremely effective Councilperson. She's going to do her homework and her job. But the point is, is that with you're talking about taking somebody's home or business, you just need to send 139 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 them at least a letter.

We have agreed and we will do that.

Do you physically have people who walk the through the community to survey the community for identification purposes, vacant lots versus vacant buildings, occupied building?

Yes.

Could you not, kind of following up on the Councilman's suggestion, have some sort of at least an initial letter that could literally be placed in someone's mailbox at the time of that walk-through, if you will. Kind of at least get it on the radar screen. Because, as you know, we all know that often times the occupant may not necessarily be the owner.

That is correct.

Where you have an occupied building. And a vacant building, it takes forever sometimes to find out who owns it, but at least in those cases where you have a building that is occupied some sort of notification just to -- and in this case, I understand there's a very active 140 1/29/03 - RULES - 020495, 020649, 020733 community group. But there are some areas where there's no one. And people don't even know to call their elected officials in those cases. As they're walking through, just put some sort of a notice in the door.

I agree with you. I think one of the things that we've learned -- I accept the criticism of the Members.