COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING - COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, April 25, 2005, 10:25 a.m. - - - 050189 - An Ordinance amending Bill No. 040369, which became law June 21, 2004, entitled "An Ordinance amending Chapter 14-1600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new section 8 prohibiting the demolition of buildings or other structures located within the area bounded on the north by the south side of Locust Street, on the west by the east side of Fifth Street, on the south by the north side of Washington Street, and on the east by the Delaware River, and providing that such prohibition shall expire after a specified period of time, all under certain terms and conditions," by extending the expiration date of the ordinance. 050215 - An Ordinance approving the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 44th and Aspen Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Lancaster Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Pennsgrove Street, Forty-second Street, Haverford Avenue, Forty-fourth Street, Fairmount Avenue and Forty-seventh Street, including the second amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately six (6) properties for residential and related uses; the - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. 050229 - An Ordinance approving the twelfth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of Fortieth Street and Spring Garden Street, including the ninth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, as amended, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately forty-three (43) properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL 3 Rules - 4/25/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
Good morning, everyone. This is a public meeting of the Committee of Rules. I would note that a quorum is present. To my extreme left is Councilwoman Brown, Councilman Clarke, Councilwoman Blackwell; and to my right is Councilwoman Miller. I would ask Mr. Erickson to please read the title of Bill Number 050189. CLERK: An Ordinance amending Bill 16 No. 040369, which became law June 21, 2004, entitled "An Ordinance amending Chapter 18 14-1600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new section 20 prohibiting the demolition of buildings or other structures located within the area bounded on the north by the south side of Locust Street, on the west by the east side of Fifth Street, on the south by the north side of Washington Street, and on the east by 4 Rules - 4/25/05 the Delaware River, and providing that such prohibition shall expire after a specified period of time, all under certain terms and conditions," by extending the expiration date of the ordinance.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I am the Director of the Development Planning Division for the City Planning Commission. And I'm here today to testify on Bill Number 050189. Councilman DiCicco introduced this bill on March 3rd of this year. This bill 18 amends Chapter 14-1600 of The Philadelphia Code, by extending the demolition moratorium for buildings located within the area bounded by Locust Street, 5th Street, Washington Avenue and the Delaware River until December 31th of this year. Demolitions in this area would be prohibited unless it is necessary to abate an 5 Rules - 4/25/05 imminently dangerous condition. Bill number 040369 had established a moratorium for this area when it became law on June 21, 2004. This bill had been introduced in anticipation of the enactment of a neighborhood conservation district for the Queen Village section of the City. Once that bill has been enacted into law, this neighborhood would be the first neighborhood conservation district. The Planning Commission staff has had a number of meetings and discussions with representatives of the Queen Village Neighborhood Association. However, the additional time provided in today's ordinance will allow us to complete our work. That concludes my testimony, and I'd be happy to answer my questions.
Thank you. Mr. Chapman, what is the purpose of the extension? Do you know?
Well, Madam President, we haven't completed the drafting of the 6 Rules - 4/25/05 conservation district. So, giving us...
I'm sorry. I was distracted. Do you mind repeating?
No, not at all. Madam President, as I said, we had been working with representatives of the Queen Village Neighborhood Association, but we have not completed the draft of the neighborhood conservation district yet. Without this extension, we would run out of time, and demolitions would once again be permitted in this area. This has been a concern of the community group, and to the best of my knowledge Councilman DiCicco. And that's why we need this extension. I would anticipate that the extension to the end of this year is more than enough time for us to complete our work.
Fine. And no one would be adversely affected by it.
You may get some property owners in the area that might dispute that, but...
Well, I 7 Rules - 4/25/05 think it still gives you time to try to work things out with members of the community.
Yes. And by giving us this extension, that doesn't mean that it has to take until December 31st for us to complete the work in the district.
Understood. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Chapman or Councilman DiCicco, can you explain to me what a neighborhood conservation district is, other than a demolition moratorium? What are the things? What are the factors? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. I think it was a year or so ago that the bill was... about this time last year a hearing may have been held. I think it might have been the Rules Committee. I'm not absolutely certain. It's a mechanism that helps 8 Rules - 4/25/05 communities protect the... pretty much the esthetical value of the community. It is not as stringent as historical district.
Right. That's what I was... COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But it gives a little more -- a lot more, I should say, than the typical zoning process would be. Queen Village, Strawberry Mansion comes to mind. They're very unique facades, those properties. And oftentime developers come in who, but for -- the only reason is for profit, which is not a bad thing, but not without any regard for the esthetical value and the characteristic of the community; basically changed the entire look of a block by doing one or two properties different than the rest of the block. So... And there's nothing to prevent that from happening unless it is an historical district. So, this will give community groups, bona fide community groups, an opportunity to set certain standards on materials and the look and feel that they 9 Rules - 4/25/05 want to maintain for a particular neighborhood, again, without having to go through the time and expense of creating an historical district. It gives them a much greater say in that process.
Okay. I think I do recall that there was a building that was renovated in your district that I think... I was in that hearing. I think it was gray... COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just a simple... There are a couple of people from Queen Village here. If you've never been to Queen Village, it's a very colonial look, for the most part, very old buildings. No one wants to see this historical building or this building that is a brick facade being covered by vinyl siding, as an example, and the rest of the block has that colonial characteristic. That's an extreme case, but it's not unusual. Councilwoman Verna and I share South Broad Street as a common -- as the barrier between our districts. 10 Rules - 4/25/05 And what prompted me to do this bill 3 a number of years ago was on the 1800 block, I believe, of South Broad Street, on the west side, which is Council President Verna's district, a developer came in, took about four or five brownstones and covered the facades with this texture 111 which is like a sheet of plywood kind of material. And then eventually across the street on the district that I represent, prior to my coming here, a couple of those brownstones were covered with vinyl siding or aluminum siding, actually. And it just... I think it was sinful as to what took place in changing, again, the characteristic of those blocks. So, we came up with this. We've had a number of hearings and meetings over the last three or four years with various community groups. And we came up with the conservation district. Originally I think it had a different title, but we changed it to be conservation district. 11 Rules - 4/25/05
Thank you. Are there any other questions? I would also like the record to reflect that Council members O'Neill and Councilman Kenney have joined us. Did you want to be recognized? The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Mr. Chapman, I assume that in addition to a developer who thinks -- is not making as much profit, there's the person on the block or the people on the block or next door when this kind of disaster happens, where their values are going down.
And then also the whole neighborhood is feeling it because it just doesn't look as good. So, there is another side to this when someone goes in and changes the character of a building or several buildings in a neighborhood like 12 Rules - 4/25/05 this. So I would assume you also be wanting a rules suspension on this because of your time...
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'd like to just follow up on that. And it's a very good observation, Councilman. I think sometimes developers come in. And it's not too often, fortunately, but there are times when they come in without any sense of really what the community is, but to understand that they're going to build something, they're going to sell it and make a profit. We think it's really to their advantage to adhere to the characteristic because that's one of the reasons people who have stayed there or people who have moved there is because they want that feel and that look. 13 Rules - 4/25/05 And this is not mandatory. It's for any community group, any viable 501 C-3 non-profit, that chooses to become a conservation district. So, it's not City-wide. It's on an individual community by community basis.
Okay. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table, if you will. Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. David O'Donnell. I'm president of Queen Village Neighbors Association. Just to refresh our history, Queen Village was originally founded in 1643 by the Swedes, 50 years before William Penn landed. It is a very historic area. 14 Rules - 4/25/05 However, we at this point have not raised the money or had the time to become a historic district. So, a tremendous amount of our buildings, all beautiful old buildings, are not protected. And developers can come in at this point and do pretty much whatever they want to them. As you can see by our photo here, this is one of our charming little streets as of today. And this is what we're trying to protect. We are asking for an extension of the demolition moratorium because we are running out of time to create a conservation district that would help us protect our community. And with me is Rick Cole, the chairman of the neighborhood conservation district.
Good morning. I'm Rick Cole. I'm chairman of the neighborhood conservation district, Queen Village; and I'm 15 Rules - 4/25/05 chairman of the zoning committee at Queen Village. We've had a number of meetings with neighbors and committee members of the neighborhood conservation district. Starting off looking at what's important, what important characteristics are of Queen Village, the first photograph is the 100 block of Fitzwater Street. It shows a pedestrian scale, windows and doors on the street, trees. But we're finding more and more developers are coming in, taking down older buildings, not necessarily -- These are probably historic -- protected by historic, but older buildings and putting up buildings with blank first floors, big garage doors, no 19 eyes and ears on the streets; scale, you know, is out of character with the rest of the houses. Fortunately this one -- First one was, you know, red brick which is in character. The code doesn't even require brick. I mean, they could put up, you know, 16 Rules - 4/25/05 vinyl siding; they could put up stucco. This -- This is this big house with the two-car garage door is the end of the same block of the first photograph. The next photograph is another big blank, brown brick, no windows on the street on the first floor, no neighbor, you know, contact, big gates. And everybody's... You know, these new developments... It's not the same neighborhood any more. And that's what we're trying to protect.
They don't look very large. How many bedrooms do they have? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Those? Maybe two.
Two-and-a-half? Any questions or comments from members of the committee? (No response.)
Gentlemen, thank you very much. Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on 17 Rules - 4/25/05 this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, may I suggest, Tom, that you read bill 6 number 050215. CLERK: An Ordinance approving the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 44th and Aspen Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Lancaster Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Pennsgrove Street, Forty-second Street, Haverford Avenue, Forty-fourth Street, Fairmount Avenue and Forty-seventh Street, including the second amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately six properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill Number 050215, which is the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the second amendment of the urban renewal plan for the 44th and Aspen Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire six vacant lots. The Philadelphia Housing Authority has requested the acquisition of these vacant lots in support of the Mill Creek Hope Six Project. Under the development plans for the Mill Creek Hope Six, P.H.A. will substantially rehabilitate and newly 19 Rules - 4/25/05 construct approximately 120 affordable residential units, both home ownership and rental. The properties to be acquired under this plan are within the project footprint and will be used for residential and related development. The Mill Creek Hope Six Project is expected to cost $102 million to complete and will leverage 10 million in private dollars through the sale of low income housing tax credits. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill Number 050215, and would ask the suspension of Council rules to allow a first reading on April 28, 2005.
Thank you very much. I would like the record to reflect that Councilman Cohen has certainly joined the committee. Mr. Wetzel, are N.T.I. funds being utilized for this redevelopment proposal? 20 Rules - 4/25/05 And if so, can you tell us what amount?
Yes, N.T.I. funds are being used. And I don't have the number at the moment. But let me check with staff and see if we can get it for you.
Can you tell us what are the sources of funding for the Mill Creek Hope Six Project? I believe you indicated the projected amount is approximately $102 million.
Yes. Mill Creek Hope Six -- and I would ask P.H.A. to be more definitive active than I can be, though -- is substantially funded through the Hope Six Program and the use of low income housing tax credits. The home ownership phase of this will also include income from the sale of those properties, so that those would be the three primary sources of income. Federal funds under the Hope Six Program, equity raised through the sale of low income tax credits, and income from the sale of the home ownership units. 21 Rules - 4/25/05
In your testimony you indicate that there will be newly constructed affordable rental units or residential... both rental and home ownership, approximately 120. How many of those will be for rental? How many will be for home ownership?
Madam Chairperson, I don't have the answer now, but I will get it for you. I was anticipating that P.H.A. would be here today to answer those questions.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee?
I believe 22 Rules - 4/25/05 we're talking about housing issues?
Let me say that we had a question from a homeowner with regard to a property in that bill. And I'm sure Mr. Wetzel will assure us that it is not the property. It is in the rear of that property and the lot in question. And we just wanted to put on the record that we'll make sure that the gentleman is satisfied that there's no 15 question with regard to his property.
Is the gentleman here? Do you want to approach the witness table, identify yourself.
Good morning. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Good morning to everyone. I own the property at 4635 Ogden Street. And I did receive this letter in the 23 Rules - 4/25/05 mail. I'm not exactly sure, and it hasn't been illustrated to me that this is not a part of my property. It's 4635, the rear of my property. And it hasn't been illustrated to me that that's not a part of my property.
It's a rear lot. It's not her property. And frankly, Madam President, my understanding is that she probably should not have been notified. It's the property to the rear of hers. So -- UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: I have received letters in the mail before -- this was my grandmother's property -- in reference to this same land or part of the property.
May I ask who sent you the letter? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: The letter came from the Redevelopment Authority.
The answer to the question is, a lot of times there are rear parcels that are attached or sometimes not attached. 24 Rules - 4/25/05 In this case we're looking for the rear parcel, not the main parcel itself. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: My problem is that I'm not exactly sure, and it hasn't been illustrated to me, that this is not a part of my property, if I can get some clarification.
Madam President, it is part of her property, but it's the rear part, but not the main part with the building on it.
Well, we're not absolutely sure whether it's deeded in her name or not. It's very possible that it is. And if that's the case we would like to illustrate that to her, you know, on the base maps.
Can't you just do a survey of the property and determine what the lot lines are and what the deeds 25 Rules - 4/25/05 are? I mean, be the simplest way to have a civil engineer go out or whoever does that for the R.D.A. UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Apparently somebody has a question also or else I would not have received a letter.
I mean, just do the survey and you'll know what the lot lines are and whose deeds are what. I mean, it's like you're guessing; she's guessing. We'll get a definitive answer, for everybody's sake.
Yes. We indicated to the Councilwoman that we would not... that we would take direction from her regarding this in terms of getting the details to the individuals sitting here today and not move forward unless those assurances are made. Am I correct?
Madam President, certainly we would like to... We agree it's better to be clear so that we don't have a problem with this legislation with regard to this property, and also with Rules - 4/25/05 regard to their questions about 711 North 40th Street. Those are the two requests, two questions that people have come to me about this morning. I regret taking the committee's time with these two individual properties, but the homeowners just came in as I was leaving the chambers, so I could not have -- I didn't know there was a problem in advance. So but we're happy to hold up on those instances and make sure that everyone is protected before we move forward.
Wouldn't you just rather report it out and not have it voted on?
Yes; absolutely. It's only that particular -- that specific -- I'm only concerned about 4635 rear of Ogden --
Right, but they're under the umbrella of the whole bill. 27 Rules - 4/25/05
Oh, no, no, no. Only those two properties in my district and 711 North 40th Street.
If you report the bill out, the Redevelopment Authority has the ability to delete those two bills from the ultimate taking; am I correct, Mr. Wetzel?
As a matter of fact, if the ordinance is passed and signed by the Mayor, we do not have to act on that. And we've always deferred to Council persons after the bill's been passed, in the event that there's some error or there's a desire on the part of the Council person not to have that property acquired through eminent domain, we do not proceed with eminent domain action.
But the assumption is that we can clarify this issue before the bill actually gets passed by this 28 Rules - 4/25/05 Council. Assuming in two weeks we should be able to rectify this.
And then at any point in time you can simply delete that from your procedure to acquire the property.
Understand that, ma'am? UNIDENTIFIED WOMAN: Yes, I do.
You're welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. Mary -- Eugene and Mary Armstead. We're the owners of 711 North 40th Street.
Okay. We have put in for -- I know the property was behind in the taxes. We had worked it out where we could pay the back taxes because we were already living in another property. The problem where we came through the area half -- 711 on 40th Street is a three-story building. When we went to check it out, half of the third floor was gone. They was working down to the second floor. We asked them by what authority -- who gave them the permission to tear the property down. It went from the Redevelopment Authority to the City of Philadelphia. Nobody knew who owned it. We have the deed for the property. Okay. The property is now demolished. It's a lot. Okay. The property is gone. They still didn't tell us who gave the authority to tear it down. And they're still pushing from one to the other.
Yes, the property was 30 Rules - 4/25/05 vacant, but we had board it up.
It may have been declared eminently dangerous. I mean, I don't know.
No, it wasn't. I have a picture of the property. I have a picture -- We have pictures of the property. It wasn't declared dangerous.
Madam President, this is the other one that we just heard about. So, we can only ask that these two properties be deleted from action today, and that the committee press on forward with the other and try to figure out... I'll step back and talk to the individuals involved in both instances and see what we need to do to try to get it straightened out.
Councilwoman, I think procedurally if we move the whole bill, 31 Rules - 4/25/05 because there's no individual properties listed in the bill, it's easier for you just to work it without Mr. Wetzel and the neighbors, and it can be done; bill can move forward.
And I would suggest that we not suspend the rules today so it would give --
-- give you and the Redevelopment Authority and also the neighbors more time.
Thank you. That will be fine. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Does anyone else want to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no 22 one, I would ask you to please read the title of Bill Number 050229. CLERK: An Ordinance approving the twelfth amendment of the redevelopment 32 Rules - 4/25/05 proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of Fortieth Street and Spring Garden Street, including the ninth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, as amended, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately forty-three properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project.
Good morning, Madam Chairperson and members of the committee. I am here to speak in support of Bill Number 050229 which is the 12th amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the 9th amendment of the urban renewal plan for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 43 properties. These properties consist of 5 33 Rules - 4/25/05 occupied residential structures, 10 vacant structures and 28 vacant lots. The home ownerships piece that would be supported from this is sponsored by Home Ownership Developers, L.P. and they're requested the acquisition of 28 properties. Five properties are occupied and will require row location assistance. Ten are vacant structures, and the remaining 11 are vacant lots. 12 These properties will be combined 13 with other properties in City ownership for what will be called the Union Hill Project which is supported by the City's Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation. And it will be funded partially by the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency's Home Ownership Choice Program. As a result, a certain percent of the units in this project will be affordable housing units. The total development cost is expected to be around $11.2 million. For future development we are acquiring 15 vacant lots as part of the Mantua Acquisition Zone. 34 Rules - 4/25/05 These vacant lots will be used for future development. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request a favorable consideration of Bill Number 050229, and would ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow first reading on April 28, 2005.
Thank you very much. Mr. Wetzel, the bill's title describes the Mantua Urban Renewal Area as an area beginning at the intersection of 40th Street and Spring Garden Street. Would you please elaborate on that description?
Madam Chairperson, I believe we may have a map. I believe over here to the side is the Mantua Urban Renewal Area. Does that help Councilwoman? It's --
Can someone point it out to us? 35 Rules - 4/25/05
Yes. Which tells me nothing. Can somebody come up and make some type of description as to what we're talking about?
Yes. Tracy Pinson, who's the project manager of the Redevelopment Authority, will point this out to you, Madam Chairperson.
The record will also reflect that Councilman Mariano has joined the committee.
Well, let's start at Mantua. All right. So we're going to start at 31st and Hamilton, up to Mantua Avenue. Mantua Avenue to Parish Street, to 36th and Parish. 36th and Parish to Sloan Street, Sloan to Ogden. Ogden Street to 40th Street, 40th Street, back to Hamilton, the place of beginning. So, that's the boundaries. 36 Rules - 4/25/05
Of the 28 vacant lots that you are to acquire, your testimony is that are to be used for the 8 union hall, consisting of a proposal for the 9 new construction of 50 market rate townhomes 10 with a total cost of $11.2 million. What are 11 the sources of funding for this project? 12
This project is going 13 to apply for funding from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency. And that funding is called the Home Ownership Choice Program. And it will also -- It's my understanding from the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, that there will be some additional City funding in this project, and then there will be the proceeds from the sale. Every one of these is a for sale unit. And I do want to clarify my testimony. I did it verbally. This will be a mixed income project, that a portion of the houses 37 Rules - 4/25/05 are going to be affordable, and a portion of those will be market rate. That's the criteria for the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency's Home Ownership Choice, that it must be a mixed income development.
Your testimony is that the remaining vacant 10 lots are to be part of the Mantua Acquisition 11 Zone Project and are to be held for future 12 development. Is there any developer who has 13 shown interest in these properties? 14
You also state that five of the properties are occupied and will require relocation assistance. While Section 6 of the bill states that condemnation is not imminent, do you anticipate that any properties will be condemned?
Will these properties be condemned? That language is in every 38 Rules - 4/25/05 ordinance that is presented, and that is because it's only imminent if our board acts upon this. The legislation that you are approving and that the Mayor would sign only authorizes the Redevelopment Authority to act. It doesn't -- It doesn't compel the authority to act. Under the law, we send out offer letters in advance of... We send out offer letters in advance of any eminent domain action. And there are times where people will accept the offer and it doesn't require an eminent domain action at that point in time.
Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, what would be the average selling price anticipated for each of those houses?
Council person, I don't know at this point in time. We invited the developer to be here today. I was 39 Rules - 4/25/05 anticipating... I don't believe -- Let me check.
Nobody showed up but you. No housing authority no developer.
They're the ones who were asking for this, and I would expect them to be able to come here and present their particular program.
The other question I guess you wouldn't have an answer to is what the average cost is of construction of these houses.
Thank you, Madam President. I have a couple other properties in question. And again, we would like those who are here to know -- One is the owner of Shewel's Gym, Percy Custis, whose grandmother owns one. And another is a property -- another property on the Aspen Street. And we 40 Rules - 4/25/05 would like to request the committee again and let them know that we're requesting for the same situation, that we have the ability to work with them, to make sure that they are protected, and then have the legislation move forward so that we can make sure... Now I have four property owners here who are questioning this issue. I apologize. I did not know, Madam President and members of the committee, that these issues existed.
Who's the developer that didn't come today that's going to build all these townhouses?
Well, we have some properties. Some of them are part of the Lucien E. Blackwell Mill Creek Area, and then some are not. So, I've got to really... I have no idea how this problem occurred. I just don't know. So...
This is Union Hill Development, not a part of the Hope Six. 41 Rules - 4/25/05
The developer is... Our understanding the developer is Home Ownership Developers, L.P. Let me see if we know who the principals of that might be.
I know Fred Felder. Is he the developer or is he joint venturing with --
I believe he's the 42 Rules - 4/25/05 lead. Councilwoman, is it your understanding he's the lead developer in this?
I don't know. Union Hill. Fred Felder is the main develop in Union Hill.
Again, I apologize because I didn't know there was any issue about people coming or any issue about properties. I don't operate this way. I don't believe in legislation --
Madam President, I don't think this particular line of questioning... Councilwoman Blackwell's apologizing for the wrong thing. Our questions have very little to do with the homeowners. They have to do with the developer and the cost of the houses, how much they're putting in, how much the City is putting in. I mean, I don't think that's your responsibility to let us know. I think 43 Rules - 4/25/05 it's theirs.
Relocation doesn't occur with the blink of the eye.
I just wanted to follow up on an earlier question with respects to the process and as it relates to the condemnation. You know, the authorization that you're requesting today from the Council panel, even subsequent to that you will still have to come back to this Council for disposition to the development entities, right?
Yes. City Council plays two roles in the Redevelopment Authority process in this stage. One is that it requires the approval of the local legislative body in order to 44 Rules - 4/25/05 acquire, and it requires the approved -- through ordinance, and it requires the approval of the local legislative body for disposition through redeveloper's agreement. So, in this case, City Council has to act twice on a parcel of land, once to authorize the acquisition, and then in the future to authorize the disposition.
The Chair recognizes Councilman -- I'm sorry. Were you finished, Councilman?
Just real quick. And I guess you may not know the answer to this either. With a quick calculation, it's $11.6 million?
Right. That's about $200,000 in development costs, little over $200,000 per home, about 220. 45 Rules - 4/25/05
I'm -- I'm making the assumption -- I'm making the assumption that the affordable units are going to sell for less than $200,000.
And the other ones are going to sell for that or more?
It's possible. I'm not sure. But I can tell you that $200,000 would not be an affordable unit.
Shouldn't we know all this before we agree to -- I mean, we don't know how much -- From the testimony today, we don't know how much City funds are in it. We don't know how much developers are putting in. We don't know, you know, the average cost, you know, the guess cost of what the house is going to be to build. And we don't know how much we're going to settle for, and how many are going to be affordable, and how many are going to be... I mean, it seems that we don't have really much information at all. 46 Rules - 4/25/05
Councilman, I -- I -- I -- I would agree partially with what you're saying. In many cases these projects are nothing until we put the land together. They're just -- just the idea and the combination of potential funding. This project is going to have to apply for the funding from the state housing Finance Agency. It can't do so unless there's site control. I mean, this is the sort of the chicken and egg problem. If we don't have site control, we can't apply for funds. And so, in many cases these are in their preliminary stages, and --
Not that you guys would do this, but theoretically if you have site control this project could go away and now you have control of the property to do what you want, not obviously in conjunction with the District Council person's input. But in reality, once we approve this, this project may not go forward 47 Rules - 4/25/05 theoretically or hypothetically. You still have control of the property. No?
We would have ownership but not control because we can't dispose of it without this body's approval.
The Board can select a redeveloper, and this body can reject the redeveloper and it's back to square one.
Under state statutes, the redevelopment agreement which is the method by which the property is conveyed out, must be approved by resolution of Council.
But in the past I recall having hearings like this, where we have a lot more information than we have today. Is that fair?
My understanding -- We usually have the developers here, willing to and prepared to speak on the development themselves. And again, I will start sending certified letters to the developers now, 48 Rules - 4/25/05 rather than just informing them by phone and by mail.
Well, if the developer knew about the hearing -- he's not here -- I wouldn't have any more discussion on it. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you, Madam President. In light of all of these questions, we're requesting that it be held, and then we will come back to you to schedule again, when everything is prepared and together.
Thanks, Madam Chair. I did have one question, with respects to the time line. You indicated that the developers apply for Home Ownership 49 Rules - 4/25/05 Choice through P.H.F.A. Is there a time line, as it relates to the developer's ability to submit such an acquisition with site control?
But what we're trying to do is get all the site control issues out of the way for their application.
Thank you. Councilman Cohen, did you have a question?
I think the question's been answered. I understand you're not going to move forward on this at 50 Rules - 4/25/05 this time.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments? (No response.)
Mr. Wetzel, do we have anyone else in the audience that would like to testify? Please approach the witness table, sir. Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Earl Robinson, and my wife owns the property at 4635. And I just wanted to make a comment regarding.
Excuse me. Point of information. Two things. You can pull the microphone closer so we can hear you. I just want to make sure this testimony is going on the right bill. Is this the bill 25 or is this a previous bill on the taking? 51 Rules - 4/25/05
I just wanted to make sure the record wasn't -- Because we were going --
That was the previous bill that we heard. However, go ahead.
Well, it was regarding moving forward, you know, with those properties that they have now. I was going to just mention that they're starting to build on the northwest corner of 46th and Westminster. But this isn't a bill that you were on. I thought you were still on the same bill. And if it was going to be held up, I just wanted to make mention they were already 52 Rules - 4/25/05 starting to build.
I don't believe we're holding the bill that you're referring to. It will be reported out of committee, and we are giving the Redevelopment Authority enough time to work out any of the concerns that the area residents may have, along with the District Council person.
Right. I realize that. I was mistaken about the bill that you were on.
So they will... I'm sure they will be meeting on this as expeditiously as possible. Thank you. Anyone else to testify? Please approach the witness table. Good morning. Kindly state your name.
Good morning. My 53 Rules - 4/25/05 name is Donna Montague Williams, and I'm a resident of Mantua. And I have a property at 3900 Aspen Street. I'm here -- And I'd like -- I prepared a statement. I'd like to be part of your record. I didn't -- I didn't receive notice regarding my property. I saw it in the paper for 3900 Aspen Street as part of condemnation. So, I just want to take the opportunity to introduce myself, and along with my husband, whose name is James Williams -- we're legal owners of the property at 3900 Aspen Street, and we're sole principals of Family Circle Incorporation which is a minority-owned profit Pennsylvania corporation. And we're organized for the purpose of developing residential and commercial real estate in the City of Philadelphia. And I prepared this letter and statement to appear before you today to object to the proposal by the Redevelopment 54 Rules - 4/25/05 Authority of the City of Philadelphia to consider the condemnation of 3900 Aspen Street, as part of the Mantua Urban Improvement Plan. We are lifelong residents of the community. We've been in Mantua for over 30 years, and we've been involved in the ownership and operation of various parcels of real estate and business enterprises in Mantua and other West Philadelphia neighborhoods. And during the past 30 years we've seen some good times in Mantua and also some bad times, but we've remained strong believers that the vision... that the best times in Mantua are yet to come. It's my understanding that the Mantua Urban Improvement Plan seeks to eliminate the urban blight of vacant and abandoned buildings by way of eminent domain or promoting opportunities for real urban revitalization, providing opportunities for residents of Mantua to live in and own new affordable quality housing. 55 Rules - 4/25/05 No one can oppose this grand vision for Mantua, but I would respectfully disagree with the preliminary proposal obtaining by the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia that 3900 Aspen needs to be condemned to accomplish that goal. To uninformed people, 3900 Aspen may look like another vacant and unoccupied building which would be an excellent candidate to be included in the proposed condemnation process, but nothing can be further from the truth. 3900 Aspen Street was an important part of the history of Mantua. And early on in the 1930s, 1940s, 1950s, it was owned by a Bill Walker, Sr. He was a black entrepreneur. He was successful, and a lot of the politicians came to the business. He had a storefront and two apartments upstairs. And I'd like to maintain that storefront and the two apartments. We've been working on it, my husband and myself. It's been part of our 56 Rules - 4/25/05 corporation. And I have site plans here, and I have pictures, if you'd like to see for the record what it looks like.
I think that your issue... It is my understanding that this is the bill that we're holding...
...for consideration today. So I suggest that you meet with Councilwoman Blackwell who will also be, I'm sure, having a meeting conducted with the Redevelopment Authority.
Do we have anyone else to testify in this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, this will conclude our public hearing. 57 Rules - 4/25/05 (Public hearing concluded at 11:16 a.m.) 58 Rules - 4/25/05 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on April 25, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.) 59 Rules - 4/25/05 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING - COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, April 25, 2005, 11:16 a.m. - - - 050189 - An Ordinance amending Bill No. 040369, which became law June 21, 2004, entitled "An Ordinance amending Chapter 14-1600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new section 8 prohibiting the demolition of buildings or other structures located within the area bounded on the north by the south side of Locust Street, on the west by the east side of Fifth Street, on the south by the north side of Washington Street, and on the east by the Delaware River, and providing that such prohibition shall expire after a specified period of time, all under certain terms and conditions," by extending the expiration date of the ordinance. 050215 - An Ordinance approving the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 44th and Aspen Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Lancaster Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Pennsgrove Street, Forty-second Street, Haverford Avenue, Forty-fourth Street, Fairmount Avenue and Forty-seventh Street, including the second amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately six (6) properties for residential and related uses; the - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 60 Rules - 4/25/05 provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. 050229 - An Ordinance approving the twelfth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of Fortieth Street and Spring Garden Street, including the ninth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, as amended, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately forty-three (43) properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL 61 Rules - 4/25/05 - - - P R O C E E D I N G S - - -
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill Number 050189.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that Bill Number 050189 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for rule suspension as to permit reading at the next session of Council. UNIDENTIFIED COUNCIL PERSON: Second.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill Number 050189 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; also, a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will indicate by saying 62 Rules - 4/25/05 aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it, and the motion carries. Councilwoman Blackwell, is it your request to also suspends the rules on Bill 11 Number 215 or do you just want to report it out in order to be able to work everything out before we finalize it?
I understand that... Maybe I... If we don't hurt our plans for the Redevelopment Authority, I'd rather hold things until I'm clear on everything. Is that all right?
So Bill 24 Number 050215 and 050229 are being held at the request of the sponsor. 63 Rules - 4/25/05 That concludes our public meeting. Thank you very much. (Public meeting concluded at 11:17 p.m.) 64 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings and evidence are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the public hearing of The Philadelphia City Council, taken on April 25, 2005, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ DAVID A. DEIK, RPR and Commissioner of Deeds (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)