COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON STREETS AND SERVICES3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, October 20, 20107 2:50 p.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO, CHAIR10 COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE11 COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER12 COUNCILWOMAN MARIA D. QUINONES-SANCHEZ BILLS 100545, 100546, 100551, 100636, 100652 and 10065315 - - -17 2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good2 afternoon, everyone. The Committee on3 Streets and Services is now in session.4 The Committee of Streets and Services5 public hearing is now in session. We do6 have a quorum. Walking across the room7 in front of me is Councilman Green.8 Walking across the room coming towards me9 is Councilwoman Miller, and to my10 immediate left is Councilman Greenlee.11 We have six bills to be heard12 today. We're going to take them in a13 different order than is on the Calendar,14 because we understand actually the first15 bill listed on the Calendar, Bill No.16 100546, will have some testimony, and17 we'll save that to the end. We'll get18 the other five out of the way as quickly19 as we can. They're non-controversial20 bills.21 So with that, I would ask22 Mr. McMonagle to read the title of the23 first bill to be heard.24
Bill No. 100545, an25 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 ordinance authorizing Francisco Hernandez2 to construct, own and maintain an3 enclosed set of stairs attached to 6574 East Allegheny Avenue, Philadelphia,5 Pennsylvania, that will encroach upon the6 sidewalk of "F" Street, under certain7 terms and conditions.8 (Witness approached witness9 table.)10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good11 afternoon. Please identify yourself for12 the record and proceed with your13 testimony.14
Good afternoon,15 Chairman DiCicco and members of the16 Streets and Services Committee. My name17 is Michelle Brisbon and I'm a staff18 engineer with the Department of Streets.19 I'm here to offer testimony on Bill No.20 100545.21 This bill authorizes Francisco22 Hernandez to construct, own and maintain23 an encroachment in the form of an24 enclosed set of stairs attached to 65725 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 East Allegheny Avenue. The enclosed2 staircase encroaches approximately four3 feet, two inches onto the west sidewalk4 of "F" Street, leaving approximately5 eight feet, ten inches of clear,6 unobstructed footway.7 The Streets Department has8 reviewed the plans for this project and9 supports the passage of the bill.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.11 I just have one question, and this is12 because I've been working on another13 encroachment issue for several months,14 not in my district but for a friend of15 mine in Darrell Clarke's district.16 Is there any compensation being17 required or requested of the owner?18
No, there isn't.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's all20 I need to know. Thank you.21 Any questions for this witness?22 (No response.)23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone24 here to testify for or against this bill?25 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 (No response.)2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing3 none, Mr. McMonagle, please read the4 title of the next bill.5
Bill No. 100551, an6 ordinance authorizing the Veteran Boxers7 Association to construct, own and8 maintain a pedestal with a sculpture of9 Joey Giardello on the traffic median10 created by the intersection of Passyunk11 Avenue, Mifflin Street and Thirteenth12 Street, under certain terms and13 conditions.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Please15 proceed.16
This bill17 authorizes the Veteran Boxers Association18 to construct, own and maintain an19 encroachment in the form of a pedestal20 with the sculpture of Joey Giardello in21 the public right-of-way on the traffic22 median created by the intersection of23 Passyunk Avenue, Mifflin Street and24 Thirteenth Street.25 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 The Streets Department has2 reviewed the plans for this project and3 supports the passage of this bill.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.5 Let the record also reflect6 that Councilwoman Maria Quinones-Sanchez,7 who is a member of this Committee, is now8 in attendance.9 Any questions?10 (No response.)11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:12 Mr. Druding, any testimony?13
No.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:15 Councilwoman Miller.16 And I think we're going to need17 you to answer. I have a lot of answers18 to this question, but I think you're more19 of the historian to this question.20 Councilwoman Miller.21
Thank22 you.23 My question is, who is Joey24 Giardello?25 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Who was2 Joey Giardello.3
Okay, who4 was.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7
Joey Giardello8 was --9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just10 identify yourself for the record, please.11
Fred Druding,12 Jr., and I'm a member of the Joey13 Giardello Statue Committee.14 Joey Giardello was a15 middleweight world champion from the16 1960s who resided in Philadelphia. We17 started this project about two years ago.18 It's a joint effort with the Veteran19 Boxers Association, Harrowgate Boxing20 Club and the website21 Phillyboxinghistory.com. And as boxers,22 we love the Rocky statue, but we decided23 it was time to honor a real-life boxer in24 Philadelphia because of the history that25 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 boxers have brought to Philadelphia. So2 we started with Joey Giardello. We hope3 it's the first of many.4 The reason why we're doing it5 on Passyunk and Mifflin in Councilman6 DiCicco's district, Joey was from the7 area, and besides being a boxer, he was8 just a tremendous not only a neighborhood9 legend because of his boxing career, just10 a neighborhood person who was always11 there to help people. There's an amount12 of history there. Right down the street13 from where the statue is going to be, the14 gym is no longer there, but it's actually15 the gym that he actually trained out of,16 helped youth. And we're just very17 excited to move forward with this18 project, and Councilman DiCicco has been19 a tremendous help with that.20
Okay.21 Thank you.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just23 quickly, his record, do you remember? It24 was 30-some -- all professional fights,25 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 never had an amateur fight.2
All professional3 fights, and it goes to show you in his4 era how different it was. He had over5 100 wins. Most professional fighters6 today, they don't even have fights.7 He had over 100 wins. And, like I said,8 he was a champion in and out of the ring,9 not just what he did in the boxing ring10 but what he did in the neighborhood as11 well.12 So we just think it's a great13 thing for the City of Philadelphia to14 honor him. Every local community group15 is behind this project, in addition to16 Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Kenney,17 who is also from South Philadelphia and18 lives a few blocks away from the statue,19 is supportive. Senator Larry Farnese,20 whose district it is as well, has a21 sponsor for a state grant to help22 maintain the statue. So we're just very23 excited and looking forward to moving24 forward with this project, and it starts25 10 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 today.2
Okay.3 Great. Thank you. Congratulations.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,5 Mr. Druding.6 Any other person who wishes to7 testify on this bill?8 (No response.)9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other10 questions from the Committee?11 (No response.)12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you13 both.14 Please read the title of the15 next bill.16
Bill No. 100636, an17 ordinance authorizing Thomas and Arlene18 Leschak, owners of Epicure Cafe, to19 construct, own and maintain an open-air20 sidewalk cafe at 3479 Bowman Street, aka21 3401 Conrad Street, under certain terms22 and conditions.23
Good afternoon,24 Chairman DiCicco and members of the25 11 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 Streets and Services Committee. My name2 is Michelle Brisbon and I'm a staff3 engineer with the Department of Streets4 and I'm here to offer testimony to Bill5 No. 100636.6 This bill authorizes Thomas and7 Arlene Leschak, owners of Epicure Cafe,8 to construct, own and maintain an9 encroachment in the form of an open-air10 cafe on the sidewalk located at 347911 Bowman Street.12 The sidewalk cafe consists of13 seven tables and 14 chairs encroaching14 approximately four feet onto the east15 sidewalk of Conrad Street. This16 encroachment leaves approximately five17 feet of clear, unobstructed footway for18 pedestrian traffic.19 The Streets Department has20 reviewed the plans and has no objection21 to the passage of this bill.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.23 Let the record also reflect24 that Councilman Jones, who is a member of25 12 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 this Committee, is also present.2 Are there any questions for3 this witness from the Committee?4 (No response.)5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone6 else here who wishes to testify for or7 against this bill?8 (No response.)9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing10 none, please read the title of the next11 bill.12
Bill No. 100652, an13 ordinance authorizing the Federal Reserve14 Bank of Philadelphia, located at Ten15 Independence Mall West, to construct, own16 and maintain various encroachments in the17 right-of-way adjacent to the Federal18 Reserve Bank building on the 6th Street19 Entry, under certain terms and20 conditions.21
This bill22 authorizes the Federal Reserve Bank of23 Philadelphia to construct, own and24 maintain various encroachments in the25 13 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 form of bollards in the public2 right-of-way adjacent to the Federal3 Research Bank building on the 6th Street4 Entry.5 The Streets Department has6 reviewed the plans for this project and7 supports the passage of this bill.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.9 Any questions for this witness10 from the Committee?11 (No response.)12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone13 else who wishes to testify for or against14 this bill?15 (No response.)16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing17 none, please read the title of the next18 bill.19
Bill No. 100653, an20 ordinance authorizing Ashwin Patel, owner21 and operator of the newsstand located on22 the southwest corner of Chestnut Street23 and Tenth Street, to construct, use and24 maintain conduits in, under and across25 14 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 the southwest corner of Chestnut Street2 and Tenth Street for the purpose of3 supplying electrical service and4 telephone service to the newsstand, under5 certain terms and conditions.6
This bill7 authorizes Ashwin Patel, owner and8 operator of the newsstand located on the9 southwest corner of Chestnut Street and10 Tenth Street, to construct, use and11 maintain conduits in, under and across12 the southwest corner of Chestnut Street13 and Tenth Street for the purpose of14 supplying electrical service and15 telephone service to the newsstand.16 The Streets Department has17 reviewed the plans for this project and18 supports the passage of this bill.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.20 Any questions for this witness21 from the Committee?22 (No response.)23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone24 else here who wishes to testify for or25 15 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 against this bill?2 (No response.)3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing4 none, Mr. McMonagle, please read the5 title of the next bill.6
Bill No. 100546, an7 ordinance repealing Bill No. 090741,8 entitled "An ordinance authorizing the9 revision of lines and grades on a portion10 of City Plan No. 296, in the area laying11 northwest of Shawmont Avenue and12 southwest of Eva Street, by striking from13 the City Plan and abandoning a portion of14 a right-of-way for sewers and placing on15 the City Plan, in an alternate location16 within the same area, a right-of-way for17 drainage purposes and for water main18 purposes and authorizing acceptance of19 the grant to the City of the said20 right-of-way being placed, under certain21 terms and conditions."22 (Witnesses approached witness23 table.)24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good25 16 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 afternoon.2
Good afternoon,3 Mr. Chairman and members of the4 Committee. My name is Frank Morelli,5 Survey Bureau Manager for the Department6 of Streets, and the Department of Streets7 would like to offer the following8 testimony on Bill No. 100546.9 This is a councilmanic10 ordinance introduced by Councilman Curtis11 Jones, Jr. The purpose of this ordinance12 is to repeal an ordinance, Bill No.13 090741, approved January 13, 2010. Bill14 No. 090741 authorized the striking from15 the City Plan and abandoning of a portion16 of a right-of-way for sewers and placing17 on the City Plan a right-of-way for18 drainage purposes and water main purposes19 in an alternate location within the same20 area. The purpose of this proposed21 action is to clear land area and allow22 extension of a public sewer and water23 services, thereby facilitating the24 construction of a proposed development25 17 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 consisting of eight market-rate2 townhomes. If approved, Bill No. 1005463 will repeal the authorization contained4 in Bill No. 090741. Bill No. 090741 was5 forwarded for introduction by the Streets6 Department at the request of a private7 party. The proposed repeal of Bill No.8 090741 would have no harm to the Streets9 Department with respect to the City Plan.10 Therefore, the Streets Department has no11 opinion regarding Bill No. 100546 and12 takes no position regarding its passage.13
Good afternoon,14 Chairman DiCicco and members of the15 Streets and Service Committee. I am16 William Erickson, a City Planner with the17 Development Planning Division of the18 Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I19 am here to testify on Bill No. 100546,20 which was introduced by Councilman Jones21 on September 16th, 2010.22 This bill repeals Bill No.23 090741, which was passed by City Council24 on December 17th, 2009. That bill25 18 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 authorized the revisions, moving, of an2 existing right-of-way for drainage and3 water main purposes in the Blair Meadows4 development located at 186 Shawmont5 Avenue. The purpose of Bill No. 1005466 is to stop the relocation of the drainage7 right-of-way.8 Bill No. 090741 allowed for the9 completion of the Blair Meadows Phase II,10 which contains eight single-family11 dwelling units. The development was12 originally approved in 1987 and later13 amended in 1990.14 The Planning Commission15 reviewed this action at its meeting on16 October 19th, 2010 and recommends17 disapproval of this bill because this18 action is not consistent with the19 approved RC-6 Master Plan for Blair20 Meadows, thus we do not support this21 bill.22 This concludes my testimony. I23 appreciate the opportunity to appear24 before you.25 19 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,2 gentlemen.3 Any questions for these two4 witnesses from the Committee?5 Councilman Jones.6
Thank you,7 Streets Department, for not having an8 opinion about a district that I care9 deeply about.10 Planning Commission, thank you11 for doing your due diligence, as you see12 it. But let me clearly say that I had an13 opportunity to go into that area. I had14 an opportunity to visit with the15 residents. I had the misfortune over the16 last couple of weeks of seeing 12 feet of17 water, 12 feet of water come down a18 pathway into people's homes in that area,19 to have to be evacuated from that area to20 live for a time in Roxborough High21 School.22 So I understand clearly what23 the implications of this decision is on24 my district. So, respectfully, we25 20 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 disagree.2
Thank you,3 Councilman.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other5 questions?6 Councilman Green.7 (Applause.)8
For the9 Streets Department, did you do an10 analysis of whether or not the runoff11 will be different under either scenario,12 and is there any plan to do any actual13 streets work with respect to the14 right-of-way in its current location or,15 if the bill is repealed, its old16 location?17
Councilman, the18 role of the Streets Department in placing19 rights-of-way on the City Plan is -- it's20 the Water Department right-of-way, and21 they do the analysis. If they're in22 favor of it, it's supported by the23 Department of Streets to place those24 lines on the City Plan. The role of the25 21 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 City Plan process is to show where the2 location of rights-of-way are and put3 people on public notice as to its4 location. We don't do any analysis of5 that. It's up to the department that's6 requesting it. In this case, it would be7 the Water Department.8
And so what9 is the Water Department's position?10 Obviously they approve the move. Have11 they taken a position on moving it back?12
I spoke with the13 Water Department this week, and they said14 they require a 50-foot right-of-way.15 They had no opinion to the location, if16 it was moved in either direction. All17 they wanted is to retain the 50-foot-wide18 right-of-way through that area.19
And with20 respect to avoiding runoff, is 50 feet21 sufficient no matter where it is?22
The Water25 22 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 Department feels that no matter where2 this right-of-way is, it's sufficient,3 but so I also understand, permits have4 been issued for a retainage pond on the5 property through the Streets Department?6
Not through the7 Streets Department. That would be8 through the Water Department.9
Okay. So if10 the Water Department can avoid runoff11 either way and we are moving the12 property -- moving the right-of-way from13 one side to the other, aren't we really14 just taking private property and15 preventing a useful development of the16 land? And has the Law Department or the17 City formed an opinion about whether or18 not this would be a taking that would19 cost the City hundreds of thousands of20 dollars as a result of this change?21
It wouldn't be a22 taking. The owner of the property would23 have to give a grant to the City granting24 the rights for an easement for those25 23 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 purposes.2
But there's3 regulatory takings, which basically means4 that if we pass a regulation that5 prevents an economic use of the property,6 that we then have to pay the property7 owner.8
I think the Law9 Department would have to answer that10 question.11
With respect16 to the Planning Commission, can you17 explain a little more of the rationale of18 your disapproval?19
Well, the20 rationale for our disapproval is that21 originally this was -- in 1987 there was22 a rezoning to RC-6, which is a master23 plan development, and that was approved24 at our Commission. And at the time, it25 24 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 was controversial, a 4-3 decision, to2 approve this master plan. And as part of3 that development proposal, this drainage4 right-of-way was to be relocated as part5 of this master plan. So it was clearly6 identified as to be relocated.7 Later on, in 1990, it came back8 for revision. This revised the driveway,9 but the master plan shows the eight10 units, shows four of the units in the11 right-of-way, and for then to build it,12 they had to relocate it.13 The Planning Commission's14 position was is that the developer15 originally had approval in '87 showing16 all the -- all 14 units. This was always17 part of the plan, and that we just18 couldn't see enough to sit there and say,19 No, we'll go with the repeal and you20 cannot if we -- if the repeal goes21 through, he wouldn't be able to build22 four of the units because they're located23 within the right-of-way.24
So it's a25 25 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 regulatory taking, essentially.2
Well, that would3 be the Law Department would have to4 answer that question, but the Planning5 Commission felt that because of the6 previous approvals, that's the reason why7 we went with the --8
So is this9 about preventing -- I mean, is there a10 plan for the Streets Department to work11 on runoff no matter where the12 right-of-way is? Is this about13 preventing runoff or about preventing14 development? That's what I'm trying to15 understand.16
The issue of17 runoff is an issue that was clearly18 presented by the neighbors that came to19 the meeting. They have some serious20 issues there. They've indicated to us21 that they have serious issues there. But22 the issue there is, is that they're23 worried that this new development will24 exacerbate the problem, create a bigger25 26 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 problem by putting additional impervious2 coverage there. However, since the 19873 plan was approved, the Water Department4 has a lot more stringent regulations in5 effect and that this relocation would6 have to go through the Water Department's7 review for all the new standards that are8 out there. There's a lot stricter9 standards now for storm water runoff10 because of problems like storm water11 runoff in uncontrolled development.12
Okay. I13 understand better. Thank you.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman15 Jones.16
To your17 knowledge, since '87 how many change of18 ownerships have there been?19
All right.24 I'll save that further question if25 27 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 there's further testimony. But to my2 understanding, there's been several3 changes of ownership, and as a result of4 that, we also know now, which we did not5 know in '87, about the wildlife6 considerations and the fact that that is7 a pathway for migration of birds and that8 this development changes that in a way.9 And then also we did not know then some10 of the problems that these kinds of11 developments do cause by way of extreme12 rainwater runoff. Of course, you've13 adjusted to deal with that, but the14 original decision did not have those15 kinds of considerations in mind. And16 I've walked down there, and I've seen17 what people have to go through. I've18 seen what that rising water does to19 foundations of homes, and we're very20 concerned about it.21 This body today took an22 unprecedented step right adjacent to that23 area, which is Manatawna Farms, to24 preserve that area in its natural habitat25 28 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 and its existing condition. This is2 consistent with that, in my opinion. If3 we're going to take care of an area, we4 need to take care of it, and we've5 determined and the residents determined6 and even individuals who live in that7 development have determined that this is8 a bad thing.9 Thank you.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think I11 have some questions, but I'll wait for12 the attorneys representing the developer.13 Any other questions for these14 witnesses?15 (No response.)16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Gentlemen,17 would you mind staying around. Thank18 you.19 Is the next panel Carl and the20 developer, I believe.21 (Witnesses approached witness22 table.)23
Good afternoon,24 Mr. Chairman, members of the board. 1 Primavera. With me immediately to my2 right is Paul Cantinella, who, along with3 Michael Karp, is the owner of the4 property. Darwin Beauvais from my office5 is making sure everybody has our exhibit6 packages. We have extras for those who7 don't have them. 13 And just so you know, this is private14 property. that's the most stringent that you can2 be. What happened was, the first5 six homes were built back then and sold,6 and over the years, as the Councilman7 suggested, there have been a series of8 developers who have not completed Phase9 II. 16 My client, Mr. Cantinella and17 Mr. Karp, foreclosed on a defaulted18 developer, brought in Mr. Williams to19 develop the property, and we went through20 the process and we said what do we need21 to do here. Well, they said even though22 you have zoning permits that go back to23 1987, we're going to make you meet the24 standards of 2010. 10 But what they said was this: The current11 right-of-way, just so you know, is not12 infrastructure. It's lines on a piece of13 paper. It was reserved by the Water14 Department in the event they were ever15 going to put it in, but there's nothing16 there. 20 Now, what we are going to do21 for the first time, we are going to do22 the infrastructure that is so woefully23 lacking on this property. 1 site plan that we've presented, the water2 comes down and apparently comes down in3 sheets and it goes downstream. There's4 no City infrastructure there. There's no5 water, there's nothing, nothing to detain6 it, because back when these were7 developed, these infrastructure8 requirements were non-existent. 13 Brian Mohl, at the Councilman's14 suggestion, and Al Spivey, went to a15 meeting with the community. 5 This has been environmentally6 scrutinized, and unfortunately -- I would7 have been the type of person that would8 have agreed when they said the world is9 flat, because when I look out, I just see10 it flat. 11 So when people see that they have a water12 problem, they think that development can13 only make it worse, but what the Water14 Department and the Planning Commission15 and the engineers have been begging16 people to realize, we're going to make it17 better, because we're going to spend a18 fortune for eight homes. Nobody has put19 the infrastructure in. The City doesn't20 have the budget to do it. Not only that,21 it's private property. 1 approved the first ordinance and it was2 signed by the Mayor just a year ago and3 we relied upon it and spent hundreds of4 thousands of dollars to do this5 engineering -- this reminds me of Ron6 Donatucci when he says, I'll give you a7 marriage license in invisible ink. 10 Here we've relied, we've spent11 hundreds of thousands of dollars, we've12 worked with every City agency, and now I13 didn't get notice from the Councilman's14 office. 17 I think you did the right thing18 when you approved the first ordinance. I19 think that your City agencies did the20 right thing when they approved it. 6 Mr. Cantinella and Mr. 16 What other things are up the sleeve? Are17 you going to buy a property for $1018 million and they're going to rezone it19 the next day? Are they going to put a20 street on, take a street off? 1 respectfully, is to continue to meet with2 the neighbors. We understand they don't3 want new homes. 19 So this development should be20 embraced. 23 The 12 feet of water, I'm sure24 that was downstream. 1 here. The people who have problems with2 flooding, we are sorry for them, but your3 Water Department, your commissioners and4 your Planning Commission have made sure5 that this development will improve the6 situation. So really, the faster we get7 this done, the less water is going to be8 coming down their property. So if we can9 work together, we can avoid a situation10 where it's old school, switching the11 rules, when we've already followed the12 rules, and for what? So that they can13 have continual rain dumping on their14 property? 3
And we have the4 engineer who can walk you through at the5 right time the entire infrastructure.6 For the benefit of the neighbors, they7 had an explanation, and then yesterday at8 the Planning Commission, we went through9 a very elaborate discussion. You would10 be amazed at what these requirements are11 for eight homes. I mean, in the old days12 we would do 200 units with very little.13 Today, eight homes, it's like building14 the Eiffel Tower.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sure16 that when we get to that part of the17 testimony, we'll all certainly be aware18 of what is being suggested and how this19 will be made better. I don't know how we20 ever can get the folks who live there now21 and have experienced some of the22 conditions that Councilman Jones spoke23 to, convince them that it's going to get24 better. I mean, it's just one of those25 39 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 things, there's the fear of the unknown,2 regardless of all the expertise that goes3 into these things. No one really can4 control Mother Nature, as best we try,5 but we can't control that. So I'm6 sensitive to that.7 The common area, you mentioned8 there's a common area. Is that area that9 has not yet been developed? Is there a10 cost involved to the six houses that are11 already there, the homeowners?12
The way this13 was developed, it was a homeowners14 association. The first six homes are15 there and there's what we call a large16 common area. The common area is17 everything except where the homes will be18 built. So even when we build the eight19 homes, there's going to be a large open20 area. It also includes the driveway.21 The open area is how many22 acres?23 About two acres.24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That will25 40 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 remain, assuming the eight get built?2
That will3 remain. Open space.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And is5 there a maintenance fee as the homeowners6 association?7
Well, that's8 been the problem. The homeowners9 association has been struggling because10 the developers have been through11 bankruptcy, foreclosure. So what we said12 was, since there are back taxes on your13 property -- I don't know if they have14 insurance. I hope to God they do.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me16 stop you. When you say "back taxes on17 your property," meaning the property that18 is being proposed to be developed on?19
No; the whole20 common area that the people currently are21 responsible for. They filed an appeal22 with the City. It didn't work. My23 client said, Look, as a way to help ease24 the pain, we'll take care of the taxes.25 41 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 I think it's $17,000. We'll write the2 check. Because why end up fighting in3 court? Why not make this nice? We're4 going to take care of the storm water5 problem. We're going to take care of6 your back taxes.7 Right now if you go to sell8 your property, the six people, they have9 this open area that's not been provided10 for with taxes, they have this kind of11 situation with the storm water, and12 people are going to say what about Phase13 II. They're going to say, Well, it can't14 be built. We're going to say it can be.15 Why not finish the job? It16 should have been done in the '80s, I17 agree. The passage of time has only18 allowed people to get comfortable with19 the status quo. But here's what it has20 done: If these additional eight units21 had been built in the '80s, they would22 not have about $300,000 of23 infrastructure, not the homes, just all24 this detention basin and piping to help25 42 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 the situation. So the passage of time2 has allowed the legal requirements for3 storm water to get to the level that we4 have now. And you'll see in the reports,5 the Army Corps of Engineer had to come6 out, the Department of Environmental7 Protection from the state, the Water8 Department. So clearly this is9 beneficial.10 We have a right to develop11 private property. If it was like12 Manatawna Farm, I would understand, if it13 was private with the City. But this is a14 property that has always been scheduled15 for redevelopment, and we've paid a lot16 of money and time to get it ready, and17 we're doing all the right things. We're18 following the rules. The rules have to19 mean something, whether it's storm water20 or planning or zoning.21 We have a zoning permit in our22 package. We're ready to get our final23 water permits. We're ready to get24 everything we need to start, and that's25 43 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 why this bill was introduced, because2 they realized that we have reached the3 level of performance that we could4 satisfy every city, state and federal5 agency, so the only way to knock us out6 of the box was to kind of go back on the7 ordinance that was given. And that, to8 me, is changing the rules when you've9 already played the game, and it sends the10 message that I talked about, that you11 elect people to be fair and responsible12 and then all of a sudden something like13 this -- I know we want to protect14 constituents and I know we want to do the15 right thing, but sometimes doing the16 right thing is telling the constituent we17 have technical people in our City18 government and we have rules and19 regulations, and if you follow those20 rules and regulations, we all are going21 to move ahead. But if I do something22 that's sneaky or underhanded or23 circumventing the rules, that's going to24 look bad on everybody. That doesn't make25 44 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 us feel good about our government.2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just3 want to go back on the tax issue again,4 the 17,000 that you spoke in back taxes.5 Is that assessed against the homeowners6 association or is it against the7 individual --8
It's against9 the open space, which is part of the10 association.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But if any12 of the six homeowners were to sell their13 homes, would that come up as a lien14 against those properties?15
I'm Paul18 Cantinella.19 We currently own the eight lots20 there that are similar to their six lots,21 and we're paying the taxes, by the way,22 on a current basis like they are, but the23 open space of about two acres, plus or24 minus, is in tax arrears, because the 1425 45 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 lot owners haven't come together to pay2 them.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, so4 then it's part of -- the six are also5 responsible for that area as well. My6 point is, would not a lien be placed --7 would they be able to sell their property8 without having satisfied that lien?9
Those tax10 delinquencies are not part of the11 property as far as a lien currently,12 Councilman. They're on the open space.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm a14 little confused on that, because if15 you're saying that it's part of the16 association and it's part of the 14 --17
It's something18 that the City BRT is trying to work19 through right now, because it's very --20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Therein21 lies the answer to my question. All22 right. I got it now. Now I know why I'm23 confused.24
But here's25 46 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 what's not confusing is, we are paying2 taxes on eight lots that we have the3 right to build on.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That I5 understood. I just was curious about the6 17.7
And here's8 another issue. We explained this to the9 Planning Commission. If you look at the10 plan, it shows eight new homes. Four of11 them are not in the right-of-way. So we12 would say why don't you build the four13 and call it a day. The problem is, to14 build the infrastructure that you're15 going to hear about, we have to put the16 cost across all the eight. If we build17 the four without this infrastructure,18 there would be a problem. The City19 wouldn't let us build it without the20 infrastructure. So it's cost21 prohibitive. So all we're saying and22 what was done is taking this paper23 right-of-way with no improvement in it24 and moving it out of the way. It will25 47 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 remain there in case the City ever wants2 to put in infrastructure. They doubt3 they ever will, because if you look at4 what it's like, it's like Fairmount Park.5 So it's a technical issue that6 was agreed to back in the '80s by all the7 City agencies, and now, right when we're8 ready to start construction, we9 understand that we could go backwards10 instead of forward. We just want to make11 peace with everybody.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I get that13 part of it and I'll come back to that in14 a few minutes. One final just comment.15 You mentioned you could build four houses16 on that piece that's left and still not17 touch the right-of-way. Maybe another18 way to skin a cat. Is there any19 discussion with the current six owners20 and figuring a way in which you would21 only build four more as opposed eight but22 get compensated for your investment by23 not building the eight and only building24 four?25 48 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1
I mean, we're2 willing to look at anything.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But it4 would obviously be a cost to them, but it5 also could be, in their minds, maybe an6 investment in that community as well.7
Right. There's8 a term called "intifada," which I think9 they use in the Middle East, and I think10 that because certain people have been11 successful since 1980 in preventing these12 neighbors from coming onto their13 property, they developed a taste for the14 fight, taste for the blood, as they say.15 So convincing them to do anything has16 been difficult. The pressure on the17 Councilman must be excruciating, and I18 think that's where we are today.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is that20 where those gray hairs are coming from.21 Councilman Jones.22
Thank you23 very much.24 I'm so very glad that your law25 49 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 firm is here to help the City of2 Philadelphia and very happy to know3 you're here really to help the citizens4 that live in that area, because that's5 your sole concern, not money, not profit,6 none of those things, but concerned about7 our environment, correct?8
Yes. We want9 to follow the law. That's what we want10 to do. We're all about the law.11
That's what12 you said. And you also used words like13 "sneaky" and "transparent." Have you14 ever given me money? No.15
We attended a18 fundraiser. We raised a lot of money for19 you.20
And I stand24 against you at this point.25 50 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1
I know. So it2 shows that you are willing to go on3 principle.4
I want to go9 on law, too, and I have the right to10 introduce a bill to change the law.11
But what18 is -- here's what's right. Here's what's19 right.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Gentlemen,21 let's be nice.22
When I walk23 down that gully and when I walk into that24 community and I see how they have to live25 51 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 after a storm, that's not right, and2 that's the principle I stand on. And3 whether it offends you or surprises you,4 you shouldn't have been surprised when in5 June we introduced this bill.6
And you said7 you weren't going to run it. You said8 you were --9
I said that10 to you? I told you that?11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me.12 Gentlemen?13
I told you15 that?16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me.17 Councilman?18
I see your19 representation all the time.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:21 Councilman?22
And we said23 we were going to introduce it, and when24 he told me about it and confronted me25 52 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 about it, I said unfortunately this is2 our position. And I don't care who you3 give to, and matter of fact, let's find4 out how much you gave me. You can have5 it back, because I'm going to move this6 bill.7
All right. I8 appreciate that. We're just wanting to9 act on facts, and that's why there's been10 so much misinformation. We're not here11 to act as the City, but we're here to12 follow the City's rules. We have done13 everything. We have gone over and beyond14 the call of duty to create storm water15 management in the highest levels of16 performance, because we want to do the17 right thing and because we want to build18 in the City of Philadelphia, so you have19 to do the right thing.20 We thought that when the21 original ordinance went through, signed22 by the Mayor, came out of this, sponsored23 by you, it had been on the books to be24 done for 30 years and we finally were25 53 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 doing it, that it was a good piece of2 investment and redevelopment. When all3 the City agencies said it was good and it4 was the right thing, we expended the5 money, the time and the energy, and I6 think that because people are7 resisting -- sometimes leaders need to8 teach, and I think we need to teach9 people that that's why we have these new10 storm water requirements.11 We have private property. We12 want to develop it, and I know it's13 hurtful to people in the neighborhood,14 because they say it's another piece of15 development, it's more progress, we live16 in a green space area, but these are only17 eight townhouses.18
One person's19 progress is another person's flood.20 Okay. I've been in that --21 (Applause.)22
--23 development. I see how a fire engine24 would have to travel to get to the back25 54 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 portion of your area. It's not feasible.2 They couldn't turn around. They couldn't3 do those kinds of safety things for the4 people who live in that area.5 So for you to insinuate that6 somehow this is like a surprise to you,7 then -- your people have been here.8 They've been in discussion with us. We9 said -- the first thing we advised you to10 do was talk to the community. And we11 listened to them. We've heard their12 concerns, and we are taking appropriate13 action.14
We met, at your15 suggestion, many times with the community16 at this development. We brought all the17 City people that told them repeatedly18 this is the right thing by the City, the19 right thing by development.20 You sponsored the ordinance.21 You were the one that made this happen,22 because you believed in your heart it was23 the right thing.24
You're only now2 doing this because you're getting3 pressure. I feel for you, but you have4 to lead.5
You don't6 have to feel for me. Here's what the7 leadership is: When you listen to8 people, you keep an open mind, and when9 you get different information, you adjust10 to that. And I heard those people loud11 and clear. I went into their backyards,12 saw their floods. I saw what happens to13 their homes, and I'm going to do14 something about it.15
Did you talk to16 the Water Department, the engineers? You17 pay a lot of money to the City for18 expertise and instead -- you're not an19 engineer, Councilman, and the City has20 laws and regulations, the state, the21 federal government. If every22 Councilperson decided that they're going23 to become the best determinant of a24 regulatory scheme, you're going to say,25 56 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 Oh, well, this neighbor says the building2 is too tall, forget the Planning3 Commission. This neighbor says we don't4 need a sewer. Forget the sewer.5 The Water Department here has6 jurisdiction. They've said that this is7 the right thing to do.8
What we have9 jurisdiction over is to introduce a bill10 that changes things. Now, you do have a11 right to hire an engineer, which you have12 in your employ, but he is not a Water13 Department employee, and don't try to14 convince this body that he is. He works15 for you.16
But you have a17 thousand engineers -- you have hundreds18 of engineers in the Water Department.19 Talk to them. Have them testify. Have20 them come in and talk to you. Have Brian21 Mohl talk to you. They will tell you22 that this is -- the same thing that they23 told the neighbors. The neighbors booed24 them out.25 57 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 They had the unlikely2 opportunity to meet with the neighbors3 and say this is going to help. These new4 environmental controls are expensive and5 very productive. This is what you've6 been waiting for to happen, and they7 booed them out. And I'm just saying that8 let the people who have the expertise.9 You can -- like I said, you can10 look and say the world is flat because it11 looks flat. You could go and see where12 there's been flooding. You don't know13 unless you're an engineer whether or14 not --15
Here's what16 I do know without being an engineer, you17 mentioned upstream and downstream, that18 what happens upstream affects downstream.19 It doesn't take an engineer to know and20 see that after a rain event. And I know21 you don't live in that area. You won't22 have to --23
You won't25 58 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 have to live on that complex. You won't2 live downstream. You won't be impacted3 by this. And these people will. And so4 if I have to err on the side of5 judgment -- it won't be an engineer that6 lives in the high ground. It will be7 those people who have to deal with it8 every day.9
If you don't10 trust the City's regulatory agencies,11 where are you?12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I have a13 question about that. Has the Water14 Department -- and there's no one from the15 Water Department here, I guess, who could16 answer it. Have they made a17 determination to do anything to mitigate18 the existing problems as relates to19 flooding?20
Yes. What21 they've done is, they've said --22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Aside from23 the development, if there was no24 development.25 59 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1
No. They have2 nothing to say or do. So if we go away,3 it's going to be left the way it is.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If there's5 no development, the situation as it6 exists today will continue?7
Yes.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They have9 no reason to do anything to mitigate the10 flooding.11
They won't12 spend two cents. It's only a few homes.13 The other thing is, this14 condition, although problematic, exists15 in a lot of places. So if we're going to16 have development and we need development,17 we need the jobs, we need the taxes, then18 it has to be sustainable development.19 That's what this is all about. We can't20 stop development, but we can make21 development right. We can take care of22 the problems of the past.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I hear24 you. I mean, we've made adjustments to25 60 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 building standards where you now have to2 have retention basins and other things3 when the building is over so many square4 feet. We've come a long way in that5 area. I guess for me, my only concern6 is -- and I certainly want to respect the7 desire of the District Councilman -- is8 that there's been, as you said, an9 extreme amount of expenses on behalf of10 your client, and I expect it will11 continue to be costly to your client. Is12 the --13
And we're14 paying the taxes, we're paying --15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is the16 City going to be exposed as a result of17 the actions we have taken in the past?18 That's my only big concern.19
I have two20 positions on that.21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Which22 leads me to suggest -- and we can talk a23 little bit more about it -- maybe we24 don't vote on this bill, but we get all25 61 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 the testimony, continue to talk about2 that. But I'll leave that up to the3 sponsor of the bill.4
What I would5 do -- and I suggest this -- one, if you6 want to hear from the engineer, and, two,7 more importantly, because it seems like8 there's some skepticism, the City has, I9 think, very competent people in your10 employ, in the engineering and Water11 Department, the head of the Planning12 Commission. Let's get this right. Let's13 not guess. Because I agree with the14 Councilman, we don't want to flip a coin.15 We think we've already done Herculean16 tasks to do this and to get everybody on17 board, but why not talk to them.18 We have permits. We could sue19 to say you have to give us the permits or20 we could sue for a condemnation. I don't21 want to sue. We want to build. We want22 to make this situation into something23 good. I don't want the City of24 Philadelphia to be in a situation where25 62 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 we invest time, money and find out that2 the rules change. I mean, this is not3 public property. This is property that4 my client has a mortgage on, he's paying5 taxes, he's paying insurance. He6 shouldn't build on it, Councilman, ever?7 He can't build --8
Is that a13 question to me? Let me say this to you:14 You are doing a great job of zealously15 representing your client. I'm going to16 do a great job of zealously representing17 mine. And we differ and we disagree, and18 I'll tell you what, I won't say bad19 things about your law firm and who you20 support and your motivations for21 representing them, but don't give22 indications that I don't care about what23 happens to those people, because I do.24 What I want you to understand,25 63 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 what I want you to understand is that I2 listened to them and I paid attention to3 their concerns, and we changed a4 direction.5 Do I want you to sue the City6 of Philadelphia? No. As a responsible7 steward, I don't want you to do that.8 But I'm not going to make a public policy9 decision based on whether or not you will10 sue.11 Everyone at this table has12 taken a principle position at some time13 to do what is right, irrespective of what14 the risk by way of suits were, based on15 representing their people, and I choose16 to do that today.17
You're20 listening to the neighbors, but they21 don't have the facts.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me.23 Identify yourself for the record.24
I'm Paul25 64 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 Cantinella, the owner of the property.2 And we've been paying the real estate3 taxes on these eight lots for a number of4 years, even the back taxes when we had to5 foreclose on the property. And I6 appreciate where you're coming from. If7 you go out there and just look at it,8 physically you could see the drainage9 situations that are out there, but the10 part that we're not really dealing with11 here is the fact that we're improving the12 situation. And they're taking the13 position because they don't want any14 construction, nails and hammers and15 neighbors, that the storm water is going16 to destroy the neighborhood. That's just17 not true. That's not true. Whether we18 build or not, we are not going to19 increase the flow of water. We're going20 to improve it. And the Army Corps of21 Engineers, DEP and the Philadelphia Water22 Department has made us go through a lot23 of hoops to prove that to them, and we24 have.25 65 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 So after we had the ordinance2 signed and we have all the permits3 basically in place to move forward, then4 we say that we don't believe you. I5 don't -- how can we do financing in the6 City of Philadelphia? I have a thousand7 units under construction in the City.8
And I don't9 want you to leave the City. I want you10 to take care of the thousand. You can do11 without the eight.12 (Applause.)13 COUNCILMAN GREEN:14 Mr. Chairman?15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman16 Green.17
Thank you,18 Mr. Chairman.19 I just have a simple question,20 because I'm about to be forced to leave21 this meeting because I have an22 appointment at 4:00 that I have to get23 to, and so I'm going to have to ask the24 Chairman to go into a public meeting, out25 66 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 of the hearing, allow me to vote right2 now against this so that I can leave and3 my vote will be recorded.4 So my question is, is there a5 way -- have you sat down with the6 neighbors? Is there any hope of working7 out something that will satisfy the8 people who will be the neighbors of9 people who would move into four or eight10 townhomes?11
Are you13 willing to sit down again? Are you14 willing to meet them on their site? Have15 you met them on their site?16
Yes, all of the17 above. When we first spoke to the18 Councilman, he said, We want you to meet19 with the neighbors, hear them, educate20 them and address their concerns. We21 spent two years doing that, various22 meetings at the property. We brought23 City officials. They have taken the24 position first we don't want people25 67 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 coming down our street, the new2 neighbors, then we don't want new3 development, then the water. The water4 came late in the day, and that's where5 they got some traction, I guess. So it's6 been every excuse in the world.7 But we're willing to sit down.8 We're willing to pay the back taxes.9 We're willing to help them moving10 forward. This is their development.11 It's a homeowners association. We're12 willing to meet and do anything.13 We don't want to confront the14 Councilman. We don't want to confront15 the neighbors. We have other business in16 this city. We're willing to sit down and17 do everything humanly possible, but what18 we can't do is what we're being suggested19 to do, which is walk away and have20 private property. Is the City going to21 make us pay taxes for the next 20 years22 on property that we can't build?23 So we would love to meet. We24 would love to sit -- I would like to25 68 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 think that maybe somebody can be a2 mediator, because we've had an attempt3 before to reach resolution. Maybe4 there's somebody who the parties can have5 to mediate this, because I believe that6 there's got to be a difference between7 where we are now and where we should be,8 which is where we should be is a9 community that was developed in the '80s,10 completed, and everybody moves forward11 following the rule of law.12 COUNCILMAN GREEN:13 Mr. Chairman?14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.15
I don't want16 to take a vote, frankly, without having17 heard from the community, and I'm not18 going to be able to stay for that. And19 this is obviously a very highly charged20 issue on both sides. You know, I guess I21 liked your suggestion of a cooling off22 period while we look at this. So I'm23 not -- that's all I have to say.24 Unfortunately, I have to go, and I hope25 69 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 that this can be worked out in some way.2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. But3 as concerns the suggestion I made earlier4 about a continuance, that would have to5 come obviously from the sponsor, but I6 think what we would need to do is get all7 this testimony for the record. I guess8 for me the only concern is that at the9 end of the day, whether the bill passes10 or not, but assuming it doesn't pass and11 there is litigation, it's going to be12 very expensive for a lot of parties and a13 lot of people, and I don't know what the14 end result of that will be. I went15 through that with casinos, 18 cases in16 front of the Supreme Court and lost every17 one of them.18
The other19 thing, Mr. Chairman, if there is20 litigation, unfortunately we'll have to21 involve the homeowners, and that would be22 so expensive for them. And, again, I23 don't want them to spend their good24 money --25 70 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Carl,2 that's where I was going. That's going3 to be --4
That is hurtful5 to them, because --6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We have a7 fiduciary responsibility. We're stewards8 of the taxpayers' money. As Councilman9 Jones says, he doesn't want to see the10 City have to pay for litigation, and I11 certainly don't want the homeowners to12 have to do that. It's painful enough.13 There's still that fear of the unknown, I14 think, which is really what is driving15 this concern, that it won't get better,16 it's going to get worse, and I don't know17 if any charts or any engineers,18 discussions and talk about retention and19 how we're going to make it better is20 going to satisfy that question in their21 mind. I don't know if we ever get to22 that point.23 COUNCILMAN GREEN:24 Mr. Chairman, I'm going to have to excuse25 71 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 myself. I would like to explain to the2 neighbors that it is my policy and has3 been my position that I vote with the4 Planning Commission, because I believe5 that they are the experts and I am not.6 But I will not -- I will reserve7 judgment. If this comes out, I'll be8 happy to meet with them and talk with9 them prior to a vote on the floor and10 also sit down with the developer.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.12
Thank you.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are we14 ready to go on or do you have something15 else you want to add?16
I just want17 to hear from people that have to leave.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.19 If you're ready to testify,20 please come to the witness table,21 identify yourself for the record and then22 proceed with your testimony. You decide23 who wants to go first.24 (Witnesses approached witness25 72 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 table.)2
My name is David3 Cellini.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just bring5 the microphone -- speak into the6 microphone, please.7
My name is David8 Cellini. I have lived on Shawmont Avenue9 for 25 years. I'm also President of a10 local civic group in the area.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you12 live in one of the six homes,13 Mr. Cellini?14
Shawmont.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You live16 in the six homes?17
No, no, no. I18 live down the road. I'm sorry.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right.20 I'm sorry.21
My name is Lisa22 Baron and I do live in one of the homes23 in Phase I, the first one. I was --24 myself and my husband were the original25 73 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 first buyers of Phase I, 190 Shawmont2 Avenue. I'm also the Treasurer of the3 Blair Meadows Homeowners Association.4
My name is Jamie5 Wyper. I'm a resident in Roxborough and6 I am the President of the Roxborough7 Conservancy, which is an organization8 that watches over this area with great9 keenness.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again,11 whoever is going to testify, you decide12 among yourself who wants to begin. And,13 again, identify yourself for the record.14
Again, my name is15 David Cellini and I'd like to start off16 by thanking the Councilmembers and for17 the time to listen to us and hear our18 concerns on what is occurring here. 1 right-of-way a year ago was -- first of2 all, we were never advised of it being3 moved. 20 One of our neighbors has had to replace21 her foundation walls. 22 PECO has had to replace two of their23 bridges in the last five years because of24 flooding from this stream. 1 thing we want to see happen is more2 development next to a stream, which, by3 the way, according to the current Zoning4 Code Reform Commission's recommendations,5 would not be allowed, because this6 development is right on the stream. 9 I also want to bring your10 attention to the fact that they have a11 very good engineer. Mr. Leapson is12 probably one of the better engineers in13 the City, the developer, and I have to14 thank him for his efforts to do15 everything possible to resolve this16 flooding. But we've also seen some of17 the best engineers in the City address18 the flooding issues at Green Tree Run, at19 Hunters Point, and these developments20 occurred within the last year or two and21 they flood our area constantly. 10 It's one of the most pristine streams in11 Philadelphia. And by "first order," I12 mean its headwaters originate in the13 watershed above us. It's got plenty of14 good indicator species in it. There's15 fish in it, there's crayfish in it,16 there's fresh water shrimp in it. 21 Also, I guess most of the22 systems that are being developed today23 are up to a hundred-year storms. 1 incidences of storms that have been2 over -- that have dumped over a 100-year3 amount of water in our valley. 10 So it cost me thousands of11 dollars to repair my property. In the12 last five years, I have had to do it13 three times and take a lot of time,14 personal time, and a lot of money, in the15 thousands of dollars, to repair the16 damage. My neighbor up the street has a17 $35,000 bill to repair her bridge from18 this flooding, and no one is stepping up19 to that, and no one is threatening to sue20 anybody for that. We just don't want21 more aggravation from this. 23 We're not being asked to sign24 off on this right-of-way. 1 asked to move the right-of-way. 7 I have to say to you, to drive8 up Shawmont Avenue and watch during a9 storm the amount of water that's coming10 down from Hunters Point, Shawmont Glen11 and Green Tree Run, which were all zoned12 RC-6 and were built -- maybe not all of13 them, but they were built with those14 requirements in mind. So we weren't15 relieved from flooding at that point, nor16 were the current regulations protecting17 us at this point. We're still getting18 property damage. We still have a problem19 driving up our street during heavy rains,20 because there's not enough storm water21 regulation in our neighborhood. 13 I think one of the things I do14 want to point out to you is that Jim15 Thorne from Natural Lands Trust, who is16 doing some work along the Schuylkill17 River, has pointed out that Green Tree18 Run Stream is a rare stream, it's a rare19 gem for an urban area. Because it's a20 first-order stream, it has a high base21 flow. This is something that makes the22 Water Department proud. 3 I think that's all I really4 have to say. 7 Next witness. 9
Jamie Wyper. I'm a10 35-year resident of Philadelphia. I live11 in Roxborough. I'm an architect. I have12 a firm in Center City of 25 people, and I13 am the President of the Roxborough14 Conservancy, which is a 501(c)(3)15 organization formed to protect the16 character of our area.17 Do you all have this set of18 maps?19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.20
Tree Run is. This area is the last remnant5 of rural Philadelphia, and it is largely6 untouched since the consolidation of the7 City and the County in 1854. It is an8 area distinguished by beautiful farmland,9 over 90 historic structures, country10 roads, small streams and valleys, and a11 very rich and diverse habitat. 15 Another thing that16 distinguishes this area is the17 topography. I have attached the City's18 steep slope map, which shows, by and19 large, all of these steep slopes occur in20 Manayunk and Roxborough and along the21 Wissahickon Creek. 1 meets a different geologic formation in2 Philadelphia. The first hint of this3 formation we see at the rocky outcrop on4 which the Art Museum sits. 9 The Piedmont section is a10 remnant of a significant mountain range11 that existed here 450 million years ago,12 eventually to be eroded down to the more13 general topography we see now in14 Roxborough. 18 Over time rivers and creeks work their19 way through this formation, creating the20 ridges and valleys and large and small21 watersheds. 1 Schuylkill on the other. 3 For 60 to 70 million years,4 these small perennial creeks carved out5 the distinctive valleys of Roxborough,6 but in the last hundred years, we have7 lost most of them to encapsulation and8 development. There are three left on the9 Schuylkill side of Roxborough. Of these10 three, Green Tree Run is the most11 natural. This small stream, which is12 four to six feet wide most of the way13 down to the Schuylkill, is spring fed and14 flows all year long. It has quietly15 flowed this way in its pristine valley16 for millions of years. 19 There are two branches, one20 that runs along Shawmont Avenue and the21 other more significant one, the west22 branch, that runs deep and isolated23 through Shawmont Valley. Along the west24 branch, there is no development. 1 beautiful and undisturbed space, enclosed2 by a native forest that is hundreds of3 years old itself. 8 This right-of-way is now enabling this9 project and certainly others in the10 future. When there are so many11 development opportunities in12 Philadelphia, we don't want to ruin one13 of the last exquisite pieces of our14 native past and evidence of our geologic15 history millions of years in the making16 for the sake of a few more houses. 18 The project in question is a19 small project, but it portends poorly for20 our community. It is the first21 development along the west branch, and it22 is being built within a few feet of the23 stream bed. 4 The community -- and by that I5 mean every civic association in the 21st6 Ward, and it's not just the six7 homeowners -- would like to see this8 project go away. 11 We are at an impasse, brought12 by two different perspectives on the13 valley of this land. On one hand we have14 Mr. Cantinella, who by all accounts is a15 reputable businessman and who seems to16 have done everything by the book in17 pursuing this project. He is pursuing a18 business interest. For him, the land is19 an opportunity to make money. It is an20 entry into the ledger book. It has no21 history. It has no story. Once the deal22 is made and the houses are built, he will23 never think about it again. We will24 never see him again. 4 On the other hand, the Upper5 Roxborough community have fought for6 decades to preserve this story. It is a7 beloved and irreplaceable asset. We are8 its stewards. Yes, we are landowners in9 the area, but in the longer view, we are10 just the temporary occupants and stewards11 of what we own. We raise our families,12 restore the land for 30 to 40 years and13 then pass it on to the next generation of14 Philadelphians to protect. 18 We are here today to help --19 ask you to help us out. 6 Is there a solution that can satisfy7 Mr. Cantinella's economic interests while8 at the same time preserving Green Tree9 Run and its valley in perpetuity? I was10 wondering if the possibility exists to11 bring the community, Mr.
Cantinella and12 the City together to work out a way to13 take Mr. Cantinella out of the project14 and for the City to work to incorporate15 the valley into the park system, an idea16 already in place in the City's Greenworks17 plan. And if you look at the fourth map18 in the handout, the opportunities map,19 you'll see that the Green Tree Run Valley20 has already been identified as a21 potential parkland. 2 100546. 7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'll get8 your testimony, because I want to come9 back to your closing remarks. 16
Thank you,17 Chairman, Councilman DiCicco. I just18 wanted to speak -- since Jamie and Dave I19 believe really spoke to you quite20 eloquently about the fragile21 environmental impact that this22 development will have, I don't need to23 speak to that anymore. 1 items that Mr. 5 He mentioned without ever -- I6 don't know -- speaking to us about it,7 that for some reason we wanted to use the8 land for ourselves. That's totally9 untrue. I have lived there for over 2010 years. I love the development. I knew11 full well, and they will say to you that12 I've known full well, when we bought into13 Phase I that there was a Phase II that14 was to be built. It was to be built 2015 years ago. The developer number one,16 John Flaity (ph) and Mr. Gagliardi, were17 the two original developers. Mr. Flaity18 practically lived on the site. He lived19 at 220 Shawmont Avenue, just above where20 we are. We saw him every day. Built the21 homes, built Phase I. Couldn't build22 Phase II. This man dedicated his life to23 Blair Meadows. He drove a truck that24 said "Blair Meadows" on it. We waited and waited. We 20 years ago as new buyers6 came in assuming this was a completely7 approved plan. As we know now today, it8 wasn't. Phase II had permits that needed9 to be put in place, ROWs that needed to10 be moved. We did not know this. It was11 never done. 13 We, of course, have insured the14 property. We have made the property15 beautiful. I wish that you could come16 and see it. 24 Mr. 1 about the world being flat at one time2 and everyone believed it. Well, as time3 went on, you realize, no, it's round. As4 time has gone on, we realize this is not5 a good plan. It's a terrible plan. 9 Now, here we are today. There10 is a tax bill that was mentioned. That11 tax bill was paid for years by developer12 number one's -- Mr. Gagliardi passed13 away. His wife used to pay it. It was a14 300-and-some dollar bill. 17 2005 when Mr. Flaity and18 Mrs. Gagliardi sold the premises to19 Mr. 20 At that time the land was dedicated, not21 known to us, to Blair Meadows Homeowners22 Association and thus a tax bill was23 created. 1 sent to his address in Lafayette Hill,2 Pennsylvania. 7 We immediately contacted -- what's going8 on with these eight? We don't know. We9 heard they might have been foreclosed10 upon. Oh, they were by Mr. 12 We contacted him. We sent him13 a letter. We said, Mr. Cantinella, we14 must pay this tax bill. You own eight,15 we own six. We think it's a combined16 bill. We don't know. That's the first17 correspondence we ever had with18 Mr. Cantinella, the first. I have yet to19 this day to even meet the man. I know20 his attorney. 21 He didn't pay his portion, so22 we filed for a review with the Tax Review23 Board, which was just last month. We24 appeared before the Tax Review Board. 1 said, Listen, help us out here. 4 We don't need him to pay our portion. 6 TRW said, We see what's going7 on here, you need to go to the BRT. 15 So that is the history on the16 tax portion. As far as this Phase II17 being done, please remember that in 198718 a storm water retention basin was not a19 requirement of the plan. Retaining walls20 were not requirements of the plan. 1 come on will hopefully understand the2 cost. We don't know what those costs are3 going to be. We have asked -- yes, we've4 had numerous meetings. 6 What is it going to cost to ensure this7 bridge now? What is it going to cost to8 maintain the storm water retention9 system? As Jamie said, these homes are10 going to build them, they're going to11 pack up as fast as they can, sell them as12 fast as they can, go back to Montgomery13 County, and we are going to be left14 enduring the cost of something that we15 had nothing to do with. 16 We're not making any money on17 this. Mr. Cantinella obviously is. 19 So I ask you to please -- our20 Councilman has listened to us and has21 helped us. 23 There are only six homes. 1 Councilman, and I commend him so much for2 helping us.
4 I'm not against the5 development. 8 Thank you. I have a couple comments. 12 I kind of like to think of13 myself as a compromise person. 17
20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You had21 mentioned in your closing remarks about22 maybe a little bit of time, maybe there's23 some opportunity for some compromises24 here. 1 know that there's a certain cost2 obviously involved in development. 9 Maybe there's a compromise here10 as it relates to doing less than eight11 units. Certainly the developer will not12 make as much unless he is able to market13 a lesser number of homes, using four as14 an example as opposed to eight, because15 they could be maybe larger houses. Is16 there a market for that? 17 The developer knows that. 1 but we can preserve that, and does that2 add value to the entire development,3 including the six homes that already4 exist, by maintaining more open green5 space? 14 To the lady's point, no one15 wants to see anyone go through any16 litigation, except maybe the lawyers, on17 either side. But having said that -- and18 I said this earlier -- I don't want to19 see that cost have to be borne by the20 people who live there, who want to21 protect your quality of life, and you22 have every reason to. 1 sounds good on paper, it looks good on2 paper, but who knows. Maybe it works,3 maybe it doesn't. Worst-case scenario,4 it doesn't. 7 So what I would suggest, with8 the approval of the sponsor of the bill,9 is that we would vote this bill out10 today. 21 And there's some people who will never22 move off that point. They just maybe23 don't want any development. But we have24 a developer who came in. 1 leave after it's developed, unless he2 decides to live there, but that's not3 wrong. That's what developers do. 8 So we have to balance that. 20 So I will make that -- I am21 making that recommendation to the22 sponsor, and I will yield to his23 decision, that we vote this bill out24 today without a suspension. 1 that means, folks, it won't be put on a2 fast track. It can sit there for as long3 as the sponsor of the bill does not call4 the bill up for a final vote. At some5 point if we're at an impasse and no other6 ideas, recommendations, suggestions are7 acceptable to all parties, I suspect that8 the sponsor will call the bill up for a9 vote. 15 So, again, that is my16 recommendation to the sponsor and --17
Could I comment on18 your --19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, sir.20
Thank you,21 Mr. DiCicco, for your conciliatory ways.22 I think that's beneficial. But I think23 that subtext from the community here is24 that they don't want to see any25 101 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 development. I think that's pretty clear2 for a lot of reasons. And if we could3 draw a line around the historic district,4 the national historic district there,5 we'd like to keep it the way it is. But6 having said that, let me suggest another7 approach here.8 This development project is not9 without risk. I mean, we know that10 there's going to be significant11 infrastructure investment that's got to12 be spread out over only eight units.13 There's the risk of lawsuits, legal14 bills, both for the developer and the15 community and possibly the City. We also16 know that Fairmount Park is somewhat17 committed to incorporating another 50018 acres into the park system. They've19 already taken approximately 47 acres in20 the historic district. The Upper21 Roxborough reservoirs are now part of the22 park system or will be soon.23 Our goal as a conservancy is to24 see this entire Green Tree Valley brought25 102 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 into the park system. Maybe -- I don't2 know. I know the City has no money.3 Maybe Mr. Cantinella could donate this4 land to the conservancy and get tax5 benefits, and for a little more6 consideration, maybe he could leave the7 project. Again, this is a project that8 is not without a significant risk to him.9 It's a horrible real estate market.10 We see -- we'd like to pursue11 that avenue as a solution here.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well,13 again, I appreciate your comments and14 recommendations, but those are the kinds15 of discussions I think need to be had16 with the developer, the neighbors and17 your District Councilperson, and that's18 why I'm suggesting that we can vote the19 bill out, but not suspend the rules, and20 give you some time to explore those21 options. At the end of the day, we may22 find ourselves right back where we are23 today, but I think given the fact that it24 has taken all these years to get finally25 103 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 what appears to be a developer who2 actually is ready to develop -- developer3 one, developer two, that is all history.4 He finally looks like he's ready to5 develop, has pulled permits. I think6 another couple more weeks might be7 beneficial to all parties to have that8 conversation.9
Agreed.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:11 Councilman, do you have any --12
I think -- I13 want to just say this is the first time14 I've been in this Chambers where I was15 actually mad. And so I'd like to vote16 this out with a favorable recommendation17 without a suspension of rules so that18 people have time to get together --19 calmer heads prevail -- and see what we20 can come up with.21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are there22 any other comments from members of this23 Committee before we adjourn this and get24 into the public meeting?25 104 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 (No response.)2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Anyone3 else who wishes to testify on this bill4 for matters that we have not already5 discussed or heard about?6 (No response.)7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Seeing8 none, this concludes the public hearing.9 We will now go into the public meeting on10 the Committee of Streets and Services.11 Thank you. We're now in the12 public meeting of the Committee of13 Streets and Services.14
Thank15 you, Chair. I move that Bill 100551,16 Bill 100636, Bill 100652, Bill 100653,17 Bill 100545 be moved out of Committee18 with a favorable recommendation and the19 rules of Council be suspended to allow20 first hearing at our next public session.21 (Duly seconded.)22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's been23 properly moved and seconded that the24 bills that have just been read into the25 105 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 record be reported out of this Committee2 with a favorable recommendation and also3 that the rules of Council be suspended.4 All those in favor?5 (Aye.)6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those7 opposed?8 (No response.)9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bills10 pass.11 Councilwoman Quinones-Sanchez.12
I move13 that Bill 100546 be moved out of14 Committee with a favorable15 recommendation.16 (Duly seconded.)17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It has18 been properly moved and seconded that19 Bill No. 100546 be reported out of this20 Committee with a favorable21 recommendation.22 All in favor?23 (Aye.)24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those25 106 10/20/10 - STREETS - BILL 100545, ETC.1 opposed?2 (No response.)3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bill4 passes.5 This concludes the public6 meeting on the Committee of Streets and7 Services.8 Thank you all for your9 attendance. Thank you.10 (Committee on Streets and11 Services adjourned at 4:20 p.m.)12 - - -13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 107 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on October 20, 2010, and that7 this is a true and correct transcript of same.8 9 10 11 12 --------------------13 MICHELE L. MURPHY14 RPR-Notary Public15 16 17 18 19 (The foregoing certification of this20 transcript does not apply to any reproduction21 of the same by any means, unless under the22 direct control and/or supervision of the23 certifying reporter.)24 25