Committee on Rules, October 21, 2025

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, October 21, 2025 10:25 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN CINDY BASS, CHAIR COUNCILMAN MARK SQUILLA, VICE-CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN JAMIE GAUTHIER COUNCILWOMAN KATHERINE GILMORE RICHARDSON COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR.

250534, 250572, 250577, 250648, 250767, 250800, 250802, 250803, 250804, 250808, 250810, 250811 - - -

Good morning. This is the Committee on Rules. Members and guests will please take their seats and the meeting or the hearing is now called to order. Will the Clerk please take the roll.

Chair member Bass.

Present.

Vice-Chair member Squilla.

Present. I was early.

Member Gilmore Richardson.

Present.

Member Gauthier.

Present.

Member Jones.

Present.

Member O'Neill. (No response.)

And, Member Thomas. (No response.)

Thank you. A quorum of the Committee is present, and the Clerk will know now please read the titles of the bills.

Bill No. 18 240063 is being held today. Bill No. , a Pennsylvania non-profit corporation, as the neighborhood improvement district management association for the District; approving a plan for and report concerning the District; authorizing the Director of Commerce, on behalf of the City, to execute an agreement with the Mayfair Business Improvement District, Inc. relating to the District; and reauthorizing the Mayfair Business Improvement District, Inc. to assess property owners within the District a special property assessment fee to be used in accordance with the approved plan; all in accordance with the provisions of the Community and Economic Improvement Act, and under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250572, an ordinance An Ordinance amending Section 2-112 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "City Commissioners," by removing the powers and duties of the Department of Licenses and Inspections over matters relating to weights and measures; amending Title 9, entitled "Regulation of Businesses, Trades and Professions," by removing provisions relating to amusement devices, and weights and measures and making related technical changes; and amending Title 19, entitled "Finance, Taxes and Collections," by eliminating provisions related to amusement licenses and weights and measures registration; all under certain conditions. Bill No. 250577, an ordinance repealing in its entirety the following Ordinance, approved December 23, 2024: Bill No. 15 240964-A02 (authorizing the City of Philadelphia to organize an authority to be known as The Arena Services District Authority, pursuant to the terms of the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act, all under certain terms and conditions). Bill No. 250648, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by North Street, Broad Street, Wallace Street and 15th Street. Bill No. 250767, an ordinance repealing in its entirety Bill No. 240415 (approved July 19, 2024), entitled "An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing, changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Island Avenue, the Delaware Expressway and Bartram Avenue. Bill No. 250800, an ordinance amending Title 14-602, entitled "Use Tables," by prohibiting drug paraphernalia sales in certain industrial districts, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250802, an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning" by revising and clarifying certain provisions and making technical changes to text that has expired, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250803, an ordinance amending Section 14-524 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "/FDO, Fourth District Overlay District" by clarifying allowed uses, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250804, an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning" by amending certain provisions of Chapter 14-500, entitled "Overlay Zoning Districts," by creating the "/UCO, University-Community Overlay District," and by making related changes, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250808, an ordinance amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning" by revising and clarifying certain provisions and making technical changes to text that has expired, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 250810, an ordinance amending Title of The 11 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning 12 and Planning" by clarifying certain 13 provisions related to mixed income 14 housing, revising the quality standards for affordable units within mixed income developments and making related technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No.

250811, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area founded by Ardleigh Street, East Sedgwick Street, the SEPTA Chestnut Hill East Line and East Gorgas Lane. There are no other bills under consideration today.

Thank you, Madam Clerk. And I do want to recognize the presence of Councilman Isaiah Thomas, who has joined us. We will now have the Clerk call the first panel to testify on Bill No. 250534.

Phillip Green, Senior Manager of Business Advocacy at the Commerce Department. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning.

Phillip Green on behalf of the Commerce Department. Good morning, Chair Bass and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Phillip Green and I am Senior Manager of Business Advocacy within the Department of Commerce. I'm testifying in support of Bill No. 7 250534, to reauthorize the Mayfair Business Improvement District for an additional years. 10 Like many other Philadelphia commercial corridors, during the 1970s, '80s and '90s, Frankford Avenue had lost some of its former glory. Litter scattered the sidewalks, notable storefronts fell into disrepair, and Frankford and Cottman was more of a place to get through than a place in and of itself. In 2015, property owners in the Mayfair business community came together to establish a BID to reinvigorate the corridor. The BID established sidewalk cleaning services and help numerous businesses renovate their facades through Commerce's Storefront Improvement program. They also partnered with the city to plant dozens of trees and decorative tree beds installed by the BID and large planters now line broad sections of the corridor. When the Eagles won the Super Bowl in 2018 and again in 2025, the intersection of Frankford and Cottman erupted into joyous celebration, renewing the district's reputation as the place to be. In both instances, the BID's Executive Director, sitting behind me, Donnie, worked closely with the city departments to coordinate street closures, ensure crowd safety and assist with cleanup. I would like to point out that Mayfair Super Bowl celebrations are indicative of something much larger, that the hidden work of adequately-funded and well-managed BIDs like Mayfair BID are part of what has earned Philadelphia the 2026 FIFA World Cup, MLB All-Star Game, NCAA March Madness and other events of global and national significance happening next year. Mayfair BID and others like it are crucial partners and in no small part responsible for Philadelphia's rebound since the '90s back into the spotlight. Mayfair BID was reauthorized in 2020 with large support from corridor businesses. Now, they seek a 10-year authorization term to continue their mission of representing and supporting the business interests of the district. This 10-year term would allow them the funding stability and longevity to think long-term and implement projects with even greater impact. For these reasons and many more I, on behalf of the Philadelphia Department of Commerce, support the reauthorization of the Mayfair BID and I'm happy to take questions at this time.

Any questions from the panel at this time? (No response.)

Okay. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, if we can have you call the next witness to testify on Bill No. 18 250572.

For Bill No. 20 250572, will Karen Fegely, Acting Commerce Director, please approach the witness table. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning.

Hi. Good morning, everyone.

Please state your name for the record and proceed.

Karen Fegely, Acting Commerce Director. Good morning, Chairperson Bass and members of the Rules Committee. I'm here to testify in support of Bill No. 250572, which removes the scales and scanners license as well as the amusement and amusement devices license while still retaining the amusement tax. This is in support of Mayor Parker's Open for Business Executive Order. The Administration sought to identify sections of The Philadelphia Code that were ideal for simplification and code cleanup. In short, departments have deemed that these licenses are redundant, unnecessary and/or no longer in effect. And so, this legislation we're asking for simply removes any mention of these three licenses from all sections of the code. I'll explain a little more. Currently, the amusement license is required for any business that has to pay an amusement tax on admissions, such as carnivals, concerts and movies. The amusement device license is required for any coin-operated or mechanical machine. However, neither of these licenses are required for the actual tax collection. Removing them removes an unnecessary step, because relevant businesses are still subject to amusement taxes and they're still subject to the special assembly occupancy license. The scales and scanners license, separate category, has also been found to be unnecessary. The Pennsylvania Department of Agriculture's Division of Weights and Measures already bears the responsibility of regulating and inspecting scales and scanners. Therefore, the city does not need to administer a duplicative license. Removing this license in totality was originally proposed in 2017 in the Regulatory Reform Report, so this legislation is just finishing some work we had started back then. The mission of the PHL Open for Business Initiative is to make Philadelphia more business- friendly and streamline city processes wherever possible. So we want to thank the Department of Licenses and Inspections for identifying this opportunity to clean our code and improve the ease of doing business. And we thank City Council for all of your support. Happy to answer any questions on this.

Thank you for your testimony. I know my colleague, Councilmember Squilla, Vice-Chair, has some questions, but I have one quick question on the scales and scanners, which it sounds like we're leaving up to the Commonwealth to actually provide those services or do those checks with businesses. And I guess my question is do they have the capability and are they regularly checking scales, scanners, you know, these sorts of things? Because I know that when we've tried to get them to do enforcement and to do inspection, you know, on a number of other things, they haven't had the capacity to do so. So are they up-to-date, do you know, regarding enforcement action?

I do believe so. We did some pretty deep dives. I mean, we didn't come to you with this just like off the top of our heads. We've done some research and ensured, checked, you know, all the different ways this could come into place.

Sure.

Yeah. And the Department of Agriculture already -- this isn't a new thing we're asking them to do which is what you're saying, right. They've already been doing it, regulating and inspecting the scales and scanners. They also require registration for those who sell, install or repair devices, including scales. So their program is actually much more involved than anything we were trying to do anyway, which was just a simple registration. We didn't have an inspection program. So the state actually has a registration and an inspection program.

Okay. Not necessary for this particular hearing, but if you could or someone from your department could get to the committee just some information as to the question if the state is able to --

Yeah, just like how many, how often, that kind of thing?

Correct. If you could just get us that information, that would be helpful -

You got it.

-- before final passage. Thank you. Chair recognizes Councilmember Squilla.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Karen, yes, I agree. I think the coordination with L&I and Health, because usually when somebody has an issue or concern, they don't know who's enforcing it, right, so usually we have to figure that out. But L&I and Health have worked with some of our state agencies on other things, so hopefully that'll work smoothly still if there is a concern for enforcement. But were there fees associated with these permits or licenses previously?

I believe so. I'm sorry. I'm trying to scour my notes, but let me bring up -- come on up. They'll introduce themselves, Justine and Betsy. Betsy from L&I and Justine, my colleague.

Yeah. Just state your name for the record, I'm sorry and proceed.

Good morning. My name is Justine Bolkus, Senior Director for Business Advocacy at the Department of Commerce. There was a $50 fee. There is a $50 fee for the amusement license, $50 fee for the amusement device and a $50 fee for the scales and scanners.

So that'll be less of an issue. Not that it's a big charge, but it's also about knowing what you need, what licenses you need. And every time there's a business starting up and we hit them later on down the road, oh, you don't have this license or you don't have this permit, right. So when will this go into effect if it passes City Council?

When would it go into effect -- I think -- I don't know that answer. I apologize.

You can send us that answer.

We don't think it's going to require a lot of education or anything. This is really just taking away something that a lot of businesses don't know they need anyway.

But at some point, people are doing it now. So if there's a business that's open like by a certain date, they would have had to apply for it. Then once this is gone --

They just won't get that notice that they would, right, need to do it.

They don't have to renew it in the future. Thank you very much.

It would take a little bit of time. As far as when it goes into effect, we would have to -- like L&I would have to remove it -- we would have to remove all instances where it comes up in eCLIPSE or --

Because it's on eCLIPSE -- excuse me. I'm sorry. Don't mean to interrupt. It's on eCLIPSE right now that you need it when you apply for certain businesses, right. So at some point when they do apply, it's no longer going to be there, correct, and --

Correct.

Right now is that renewed every year?

Yes.

It is. So every year they would renew their amusement license, they would renew their scales. So starting whenever this date is, they no 7 longer would need to do that. I know it's savings of maybe $150 a year, which is not a big deal, but there's a lot of businesses that are in compliance and all of a sudden forget to renew one license or another, we go in and then we end up violating them and it ends up costing them more.

You're kind of hitting it, Councilman. It's not so much about the total amount of money. It's just like one more thing, right, and we hear this from businesses. I know that you all hear this from businesses, right. This sort of death by a thousand cuts kind of thing, right. So this is just cleaning up some stuff that's -- and it's, you know, in our permit navigator tool that we created with L&I and other departments where it tells you all the permits you need, you know, all the steps you have to take to open a business. It's just like, you know, one less thing that's really unnecessary and gets -- and it allows us also to focus on the things we really do care, you know, that we really can enforce and get to the point of what we want. Yeah.

And then that tool that will be gone.

It will be gone.

Right. All right. Thank you.

Chair recognizes Councilmember Jones and then Councilmember Kathy Gilmore Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And thank you, Karen, for what you preemptively do for commercial corridors, going out and giving them a heads-up along with L&I about how they can better comply with the city's rules and regs. So thank you for that. On the issue of gambling machines, we don't currently license, regulate any of that. We don't even know how many there are out on the street and I don't want them exempt from anything.

Agree.

Agree?

Unfortunately, these laws don't affect any of those so those folks weren't -- none of those -- these amusement device licenses didn't apply to those anyway.

So they don't --

And again, I just feel like it helps us focus, Councilman. I mean, that's what we're kind of advocating for, let's focus on those things that we care about, right, rather than confuse matters with some of these other things.

Because Katherine Gilmore Richardson has been laser-focused on trying to rein in some of our bad actors making sure that they comply. So I don't want this to fly in the face of her good works. You can say on a record that it does not?

No, it does not fly in the face of that. And we do appreciate all the work you're doing in this area. As the Commerce Department which supports businesses, we recognize that to support our business community we need to have ways to enforce and act against folks that are not, you know, good business neighbors.

Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilman. Chair recognizes Councilmember Kathy Gilmore Richardson.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And thank you to my District colleague, Councilmember Jones, and to all of our colleagues who have been laser-focused on ensuring that we are working on this issue of stores that are selling drug paraphernalia and other items that may not have been approved for local community use. I wanted to go back to the legislation regarding removing the scales and scanners license. I understand that this is a code cleanup and that there's more code cleanup to come, which I think is important. However, it stated that the initial transfer of duties took place in 2009. So I wanted to notate for the record that the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania via the Department of Agriculture has now taken on all of the enforcement for this matter; is that correct? I just want to state that for the record. And I only ask that because we had a great opportunity to meet with Governor Shapiro over the summer with Council President and very many colleagues here in Council. And I notated at that time that we do have a significant challenge with enforcement from the state, whether it's coordination with PLCB for stores that are illegally selling, you know, liquor-by-the-shot and may not have a grocery or convenience store attached. Same thing with some of the challenges that we face. Even in our Educational Housing District, relative to coordination with the City, PPD, L&I and PLCB, and I brought that up at the meeting on June 30th, and I know you remember that Councilman Jones. And I wanted to just notate for the record if we could get something in writing prior to the final passage of the legislation from the PA Department of Agriculture stating that they indeed do the enforcement for this regulation that would no 23 longer be in our city code so that we have a level of assurance and something in writing as a body regarding the work that they are slated to do, particularly here in Philadelphia. And then relative to the amusement license, I just wanted to ask a question relative to sort of types of events. And I get it, it's a difference between the amusement license and the amusement tax, right. And I think that education piece is important, and I appreciate you all notating that in the fact sheet that we received, because we wouldn't want businesses to think that suddenly they don't have to pay the amusement tax, because even though it's one of our smaller revenue generators, it still is significant for the General Fund. And so, with the removal of the amusement license can you just notate what type of potential activities would not need to get the license so that we understand that for the record, particularly leading up to 2026?

So my understanding is the way the system is set up right now, anyone that's applying for a special assembly occupancy license has to first get an amusement license, even though they don't -- it's not an actual like exact match. This would just remove that step, that first step. These businesses that do, you know, carnivals still get a separate carnival license. That's any type of an entertainment venue still has to get a special assembly occupancy license. So this truly was sort of just a duplicate extra step in the process. There's no one that's just getting an amusement license and not getting any other type of special license. Does that make sense?

Received. So basically because of the types of events, there is also an additional corresponding license that the organization, individual company would need to receive. So the amusement license was sort of on par with a commercial activity license, so to speak, but just for amusement purposes?

Yeah.

As a natural first step. You know, everybody has to have a commercial activity license no matter what.

Right. So it's like a pre-qualifier, yeah.

Received. Okay. So let me use this as an example because I'm sure this is on everyone's mind. With BG, Brandon Graham, resigning with the Eagles today, I'm just thinking of this example. Eagles, what would they have to do?

What would the Eagles have to do?

Mm-hmm. I'm just thinking of that off the top of my head as an example.

How quick are you with that?

They would still need the special assembly and occupancy license.

Okay. But they wouldn't need to receive the amusement license, as I will say, the second pre-qualifier because the commercial activity license would be the first, right?

Right.

Okay. Received. All right. Thank you very, very much. And I think that communication from the Commonwealth Department of Agriculture would be important for us to --

That's a great idea.

-- have a relative assurance regarding their intention around enforcement.

Yeah.

Okay. Thank you.

Great point. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Okay. Any additional questions from the panel? (No response.)

Seeing none, thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 250572 whose name we have not called? (No response.)

Okay. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the next witness to testify on Bill No. 250577.

Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning.

Good morning, Councilperson Chair -- sorry. I have to put my glasses on. I thought I was going to be able to do it without. Good morning, Chairperson Bass and members of the Rules Committee. I am Paulo Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 250577, introduced into City Council on May 29, 2025 by Councilmember Squilla. Bill No. 250577 would repeal in its entirety the following ordinance approved December 23, 2024, Bill No. 14 240964-A02, which authorizes the City of Philadelphia to organize an authority to be known as the Arena Services District Authority pursuant to the terms of the Pennsylvania Municipality. Authorities Act, all under certain terms and conditions. We support this legislation and thank you for the opportunity to testify.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions from the panel? (No response.)

Seeing none, is there anyone else here to testify for Bill No. 250577 whose name has not been called? (No response.)

Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony today. Madam Clerk, please call the testifier for Bill No. 250648.

Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.

Good morning. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

I am Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 250648, introduced into City Council on June 12, 2025 by Councilmember Young. Bill No. 250648 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of land located by North Broad, Wallace and 15th Streets in the Spring Garden neighborhood of the Central Planning District. The proposal is to change the current ICM-X, Industrial Commercial Mixed- Use, the zoning, of the property at 642 North Broad Street to CMX for Commercial Mixed-Use. The headquarters for the Philadelphia Corporation for Aging is located in this historic building facing Broad Street. The zoning change will enable PCA to convert the 79,000 square foot former factory at the rear of the property into 66 units of affordable housing for senior citizens along with a senior center open to the public. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill 8 No. 250648 at its public meeting on July 17, 2025, and recommended the bill for approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions from the members of the committee? (No response.)

And seeing none, thank you very much. Is there anyone here to testify on Bill No. 250648 whose name has not been called? (No response.)

Okay. Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. And, Madam Clerk, please call the next witness to testify on Bill No. 250767.

Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.

Thank you. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

I am Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 250767, introduced into City Council on September 18, 2025 by Councilmember Gilmore Richardson for Council President Johnson. Bill No. 250767 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by repealing in its entirety Bill No. 2 240415 (approved July 19, 2024) to change the zoning for an area bounded by Island Avenue, the Delaware Expressway and Bartram Avenue in the Eastwick neighborhood of the Southwest Planning District. This bill repeals Bill 9 No. 240415, which changed the zoning designation of the property at 8800 Tinicum Boulevard to I-2 Medium Industrial. Bill No. 250767 returns the zoning designation to CMX-3, Commercial Mixed-Use, consistent with the zoning recommendations of the Philadelphia 2035 Comprehensive Plan. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill 20 No. 250767 at its public meeting on October 16, 2025 and recommended the bill for approval. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)

And seeing none, is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 250767? (No response.)

Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Madam Clerk, please call the next witness to testify on Bill 15 No. 250800.

Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.

Thank you for being here. State your name for the record. Proceed with your testimony.

I am Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 250800, introduced into City Council on September 25, 2025 by Councilmember Phillips. Bill No. 250800 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code by prohibiting drug paraphernalia sales in certain industrial districts throughout the city. Drug paraphernalia sales are allowed in the I-3 Heavy Industrial District and require a special exception in the ICM-X, Industrial Commercial Mixed-Use, and I-2 Medium Industrial zoning districts. This bill will remove the special exceptions and leave I-3 as the only zoning district in the city where drug paraphernalia sales are allowed as a primary use. Drug paraphernalia sales will continue to be allowed as an accessory use in all Pennsylvania licensed medical marijuana dispensaries, of which there are 5 located in Philadelphia. The 6 Philadelphia City Planning 7 Commission considered Bill No. 8 250800 at its public meeting on 9 October 16, 2025 and recommended 10 the bill for approval. I'll be 11 happy to answer any questions at 12 this time. 13

14 Thank you very much. 15 Any questions from 16 members of the Committee? 17 (No response.) 18

19 Seeing none, is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 250800? (No response.)

Okay. And seeing that there's none, Madam Clerk, can you please call the next panel we have to testify on Bill No. 800 -- I'm sorry. Question from Councilmember Majority Leader Kathy Gilmore Richardson.

Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Thank you so much, Paula, for your testimony and for the recommendation. I just wanted to put on the record that I am thankful and grateful for the continued work of Councilmember Phillips and also Councilmember Bass and myself on this issue around these drug paraphernalia stores, grocery convenience stores, and just wanted to uplift the work of Councilmember Phillips. Thank you very much.

Okay. All right. Any other questions from the panel now? (No response.)

Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony on Bill No. 5 250800. Is there anyone else here who would like to speak on Bill No. 250800? (No response.)

And again, seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call up the next person to testify on 250802.

Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.

Thank you. Good morning. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

Good morning. I'm Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 250802, introduced into City Council on September 25, 2025 by Councilmember Jones. Bill No. 250802 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code by making technical changes to certain provisions of the FDO, Fourth District Overlay, in the Wissahickon neighborhood of the Lower Northwest Planning District. The bill removes a demolition moratorium from the zoning code enacted in December 2023. That purpose was to give the Historical Commission staff and the neighbors time to create a historic district in the Wissahickon neighborhood. The moratorium has expired and the bill 22 requires the removal of the moratorium from the zoning code. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill 2 No. 250802 at its public meeting on October 16, 2025 and recommended the bill for approval. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions from the Committee? (No response.)

And seeing none --

So I never want to stop the Planning Commission when they actually agree with us, so I'm not going to ask a question. I'm going to let it go. Thank you so much, Director.

You're welcome.

Thank you. Any other questions from the Committee? (No response.)

Okay. All right. Well, thank you so much for your testimony on Bill 7 No. 250802. Is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 250802? (No response.)

And seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call forward the next witness to testify on Bill No. 250803.

Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.

Thank you for being here. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

I am Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 250803, introduced into City Council on September 25, 2025 by councilmember Jones. Bill No. 250803 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code by amending Section 14-524, the FDO, Fourth District Overlay District, by clarifying allowed uses. This bill will amend the FDO, Fourth District Overlay District, by clarifying allowed uses within the commercial review areas that regulate commercial uses. Licenses and Inspections requested this change to provide more clarity to code users and examiners in issuing permits. The Commercial Review Areas Code Section currently requires special exception approval for specific uses. The legislation will add the term "retail sales" to the beginning of consumer goods and food, beverages and groceries. This addition to the text is intended to clarify that the section regulates only the sale of such goods, not their repair or production for these use types. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill 11 No. 250803 at its public meeting on October 16, 2025 and recommended the bill for approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions from the Committee? (No response.)

And seeing none, is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 250803? (No response.)

And seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. Madam Clerk, please call the next witness to testify for Bill No. 250804 -- oh, pause on that. Please call forward the next bill, 250808. We're going to come back to 804. There's a lot of testimony on that one so we're just going to run through the quick ones for now and come back to that. So please call forward the next witness to testify on 250808.

Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.

Thank you for your time today. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

I am Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 250808, introduced into City Council on September 25, 2025 by Councilmember Squilla. Bill No. 250808 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code by making technical changes to certain provisions of the CTR, Center City Overlay District, in the Wash West neighborhood of the Center City Planning District. The bill 16 removes two code sections from the CTR, Center City Overlay District. Councilmember Squilla introduced these sections in February 2016 to enable a project along Broad Street. That project does not move forward and these code sections have expired. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill 2 No. 250808 at its public meeting on October 16, 2025 and recommended the bill for approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions from the Committee? (No response.)

And seeing none, is there anyone else here to testify on Bill No. 250808? (No response.)

Okay. And seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the next witness to testify on Bill No. 250810.

Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.

Good morning. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

I am Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 250810, introduced into City Council on September 25, 2025 by Councilmember Bass for Council President Johnson. Bill No. 250810 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code by clarifying provisions related to the mixed-income housing bonus and will apply citywide. The bill 17 revises the quality standards for affordable units and mixed-income developments and provides further clarity on how the amount of payment-in-lieu calculation is determined. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill No. 250810 at its public meeting on October 16, 2025 and recommended the bill for approval. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

7 Thank you for your testimony. 8 Any questions from the 9 Committee? 10 (No response.) 11

12 Seeing none, is there anyone else 13 here to testify on Bill No. 250810? 14 (No response.) 15

16 Okay. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, 17 please call the testifier for Bill 18 No. 250811. 19

Paula 20 Brumbelow Burns, Director of 21 Legislation for the Philadelphia 22 City Planning Commission. 23

Good 24 morning. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

I am Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 250811, introduced into City Council on September 25, 2025 by Councilmember Bass. Bill No. 250811 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of land located in an area bounded by Ardleigh Street, Sedgwick Street, SEPTA Chestnut Hill East Line and Gorgas Lane located in the East Mount Airy neighborhood of the Upper Northwest Planning District. This bill will change the zoning from RM-1, Residential Multi-family, to RTA-2, Residential Two-family, to reflect the existing two-family use on the majority of the affected properties in the RM-1 zoning district. The allowable number of residential units is based on lot size and this permits between and units per parcel 5 within this bounded area. 6 The dimensional 7 standards for RTA-2, which permit 8 two-family use in attached 9 structure rowhomes, would create 10 nonconformities for the existing 11 structures on the affected block. 12 The Planning Commission recommends 13 changing the proposed zoning 14 designation to RTA-1 to fit the 15 existing use and form of the 16 structures. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill 19 No. 250811 at its public meeting on October 16, 2025 and recommended the bill for approval with a proviso. I'll be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions from the panel? (No response.)

Okay. And seeing none from the committee, is there anyone here who would like to make a statement on or testify on Bill No. 250811? (No response.)

And I do want to recognize the presence of Council President Kenyatta Johnson. Okay. Seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the next panel for Bill No. 250804 -- and before we do that, Chair would like to recognize Councilmember Jamie Gauthier.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And good morning, everyone. I am grateful to Chairwoman Bass and the rest of the Rules Committee for the opportunity to hear Bill 250804, which creates a new zoning overlay in my Council District. This overlay proposes more community engagement and government review for a scenario that is becoming increasingly common in Philly and across the nation, universities selling or decommissioning properties adjacent to residential properties. It is an indisputable fact that college campuses significantly impact the communities that surround them. As higher education undergoes its most significant change in our lifetime, we must ensure that land use decisions are made with their communities in mind, and recent actions by multiple universities prove this will not happen without legislative action. That's why I introduced this overlay and why I'm asking that the Committee vote it favorably today. I know there is misinformation out there about this bill so let me be super clear. My overlay does three things: It mandates an RCO meeting, a Planning Commission review, and bans preemptive building demolition without building permits for new construction. That's it. This bill doesn't cripple anyone's property values. It doesn't change any zoning maps. It doesn't change permit reviews for existing campus uses or when a college wants to build a new building, it doesn't restrict anyone's use or density rights. It adds more eyes and more transparency to land use decisions for major properties that change entire neighborhoods. The idea that this could ever be wrong is simply preposterous. Today I'm offering amendments to my bill that clarify its intent and address concerns raised by the city's Law Department. The main trigger in this overlay is now when permits are filed on campus properties for uses that are not campus-related. We've also streamlined and clarified the role of the Planning Commission in this overlay, which I think is very important because they are our lone city agency tasked with taking a holistic view of our community's long-term growth, and one for which there is ample precedent in the code already. The bill also has safeguards when it comes to the review timeline and offers the ability to combine RCO meetings if the applicant already triggered a requirement through ZBA or ZDR. I am confident that this Committee will see my overlay as a straightforward process that promises stability, equity and shared prosperity. I'm hopeful that with the help of this overlay, institutional transitions in West Philadelphia can create opportunities that strengthen neighborhoods, support economic development and foster a healthier, more resilient future. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. Any additional comments from the Committee? (No response.)

Okay. All right. And seeing none, please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

I'm Paula Brumbelow Burns, Director of Legislation for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 250804, introduced into City Council on September 25, 2025 by Councilmember Gauthier. Bill No. -- and this is as the bill was introduced. Bill 12 No. 250804 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code by creating a new overlay in the University Southwest Planning District. This bill 16 establishes the University Community Overlay District in the University Southwest Planning District to regulate the transfer development or demolition of college and university-affiliated properties. It aims to ensure community input in alignment with city planning goals when institutional land of 5000 square feet or more changes ownership or use. The bill also mandates Planning Commission Review neighborhood engagement and restrictions on demolitions to prevent vacant lots and preserve the character and the ability of campus areas. In reviewing the bill as introduced, we have significant concerns regarding this bill. The legislation creates a new review process that is not based on the zoning district or an additional geography alone, but on who owns the property which raises legal issues. It also raises questions on how the properties will be identified within the permit application process to determine if it is required to follow the additional layer of reviews. Lastly, it creates a new type of review for the Planning Commission public meeting by adding additional temporary members, which again raises legal issues. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill 8 No. 250804 at its public meeting on October 16, 2025 and recommended that the bill be held for an additional 45 days for further review and potential amendments. Because we want to thoroughly review the amendments offered today, we respectfully request that this bill be held in Committee today, given the City Council cannot vote on this bill until after the next Planning Commission meeting in November. I will be happy to answer any questions at this time.

Thank you for your testimony. Councilmember Gauthier.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to let the members of the Committee know that we've worked on amendments that we feel adequately address all of the Planning Commission's concerns as well as Law, and I sent that out in a memo to the Committee.

Thank you very much. Councilmember Jones.

In a case like this, you mentioned legal questions. Can you elaborate?

On the legal questions with zoning, zoning runs with the land of the property. It doesn't necessarily become dependent upon the owner of the land. And so, if Councilwoman Bass owned a property today and it was a bookstore and she sold it to you and you decided you wanted to continue the bookstore or you said I don't want a bookstore, I would like an art supply store, as long as it's in the same use classification it doesn't have to necessarily go back because there's a new owner of the property. And so, what the concern that the Law Department had told us was we can't necessarily base zoning on who owned the property or who owns the property. It's on how the applications for the use permits come in. And so, that was where our biggest question on the issues was.

In any way, and I don't know if you're able to answer this, in any way could this devalue the properties in question?

I am not a real estate expert.

I know you're not. I gave you an out.

But I think it's the purpose, I believe as the Councilwoman stated, was to add a layer of review, and the review for the Planning Commission to make sure that it's in the spirit of our Comprehensive Plan, and I believe harmony was the word used, but in harmony with the Comprehensive Plan. And so, our Comprehensive Plan and zoning should be relatively aligned, especially since we have done large remappings in this area in the past.

Do we do that now?

What?

Is your role to do that now?

Yes, that area is relatively -- since we did the district plan, most of that area has been addressed in zoning updates, zoning map updates.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you, Councilman. Chair recognizes Councilwoman Gauthier.

Just wanted to respond to my colleague. The bill is no longer based on a change in ownership. The bill is based on the land use and a definition called university campus, so it's based on land use, not ownership.

Any additional questions from the panel? (No response.)

And seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the next panel to testify on Bill No. 250804.

And thank you.

Panel 2, Pamela Andrews West, Powelton Saunders Park RCO; Jacqueline Owens, Committee person for the 27th Ward; Renee Howard, 48th and Woodland Advisory Council; and Deborah McCarty, Powelton Village Civic Association.

(Inaudible).

Yes, absolutely. Chair recognizes Council President Kenyatta Johnson.

I just want to take a moment as a moment of personal privilege to welcome back former Commissioner Deborah McCarty, who's always an advocate of all things great, not only in the City of Philadelphia, but most importantly in our neighborhoods. And so, I just want to thank you for your presence and just wanted to acknowledge you for all your hard work you have done on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, and it's great to see you. Thank you. MS. McCARTY: Thank you.

Thank you for being here. Thank you all for being here.

Good morning.

Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

My name is Pamela Andrews and I am here on behalf of West Powelton Saunders Park RCO to testify in support of Bill No. 250804. First of all, I want to thank you for allowing me the opportunity to share a few thoughts with Council about the importance of Councilmember Gauthier's proposed bill. I will be brief. The bill is very important and greatly appreciated by residents who live within its boundaries. We feel what's important to remember is that academic campuses are inherently connected to the residential communities adjacent to them, so it makes sense that there be a special process in place for when these campuses change, given how much that seems to be happening of late. In this unique situation when campus properties are decommissioned, it is important that communities have a seat at the table because our futures are interconnected. This is not about one university nor will it change any of the day-to-day real estate operations. Developments that are staying part of the campus will still have the same process they've already always had. In requiring community engagement and Planning Commission review, Councilmember Gauthier's bill ensures that there is a clear process in place that promotes stability, equity and shared prosperity. Thank you so much.

And thank you for your testimony. Can we have you state your name, ma'am, for the record and proceed with your testimony,

Yes. Good morning. My name is Renee Howard. I would like to thank you, especially Councilperson Gauthier for the opportunity to speak today. I'm here to present a cautionary tale of woe how a stable community can disappear without anyone realizing it happened. What happened to my neighborhood and its seven, eight generations of residents should never happen to another community in the city of Philadelphia. My neighborhood is located in the southernmost part of Southwest Philadelphia. We're along Woodland Avenue. We're backed against the railroad tracks and the Grays Ferry Bridge. Another boundary at one time was Sealtest Breyers. Yes, I grew up with all the ice cream I could eat. But the pride of my neighborhood stood proudly at the corner of 46th and Woodland Avenue. Its rich history goes back to the late 1800s with the last building erected in 1957, Alexander Wilson School. Some of its famous alumni include world-renowned landscape artist and first Black full professor at Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts, Louis B. Sloan, Mrs. Joan Myers Brown, we call her Auntie Joan, founder of Philadanco, and also the late great Senator Hardy Williams all grew up in my area and attended Wilson School. But I'm here to tell you today, more importantly, the school was always the focal point of my neighborhood. Wilson was our neighborhood polling place. It was where all the parent and community meetings were held. It was also the city-designated neighborhood emergency shelter. However -- oh, excuse me. Also, the schoolyard was where all the neighborhood kids played. The guys played on the courts. Girls played hopscotch, jump rope, whatever. Kids ran around the yard. Some of the more adventurous kids would climb the gate and get on the roof and jump off and it was also home to the Dreaded Green Lady. So you knew at night there was a certain time you had to be out of that schoolyard. But the gym was also open at night as a safe haven for neighborhood kids to play. Now, we'll start with the timeline. 1998, University of Sciences, which used to be College of Pharmacy purchased Breyers Seal -- excuse me, Sealtest Breyer's property. And it stood there for a minute, nothing happened and they began building on it. It didn't affect my community too much because it was on a border that we rarely crossed much anyway. But eventually around 2012, my community started hearing whisperings that University of Sciences was expanding and wanted to purchase the property that Alexander Wilson School was located on for expansion. We as a community were reassured more than once by the university and every area politician in office at the time that they had no interest in the school. In 2012, parents and community were notified that Alexander Wilson was closing, not because of low test scores, city or statewide test scores, not because of the building conditions, not because of the safety of the school. We were told it was low enrollment. It was never substantiated. And if anyone looked at the time, the school board was suffering from low enrollment all the way around the board, the entire city. The community, my community, we fought valiantly but it was to no avail. No one knocked -- no one came when we knocked. And Alexander Wilson school closed in 2013. Now, here comes -- this is the part where my neighborhood really starts to go downhill. It was determined by the Board of Education that the kids that attended Wilson School would now attend Lee School. Wilson is at 46th and Woodland. 2 miles away. It wasn't a bad school, so most of the community members thought, okay, maybe it won't be so bad. 5 miles, which meant no child in my neighborhood was eligible for bus service, which meant any child from Wilson from preschool to 7th grade would have to manage at least seven major highways or long streets to get to school. What started happening was most of the parents decided we can't do this.

The school that was the next school in our area was already overcrowded, so that wasn't a viable choice. So what happened is most of the parents or the families with children started moving out the neighborhood. Then what happened. We got an increase in developers who were interested in the single family homes so they started purchasing up everything, every piece of dirt in my neighborhood and building on it. Now, we're here, 2014. The University of Sciences announced that they would be purchasing the property that Wilson School stood on. This is the same entity that told us less than two years ago they had no interest at all in this property. So here we go again. They said the supposed use was for student housing and mixed-use. So now we're sitting here with an empty school building, no families, scattered senior citizens and people who just probably couldn't afford to move out the neighborhood. So in 2016 after much grumbling from the neighborhood, the university finally shared their plans. They met with the community and shared their plans for the now abandoned, weed-strawn Alexander Wilson School. The next few years in my community and my small neighborhood was traffic, construction, dust, noise, large machinery wreaking havoc in my neighborhood. Next, during this time the university began a community engagement group. We met regularly. We were bamboozled into thinking we were being kept abreast of the university's upcoming plans for my community and its campus. So you can imagine in 2022 we were surprised and dumbfounded when we realized -- when we found out that the university would be merging with St. Joseph. Then a year later in '23 we were surprised and dumbfounded again when we watched all the University of Science signs come down in St. Joe's scope. The community engagement group continued to meet with St. Joseph, who promised they would be nothing like University of Sciences. They said they would include the community on all their decisions and planning-making. Well, after much engagement and many now empty promises we are here in 2025. Our present day in my community is St. Joe's has sold out an entire community while looking us right in the eye. Unchecked university policies and weak zoning laws destroyed my community, leaving nothing but unkept promises and so much uncertainty. I just pray that you make the necessary changes so that the City of Philadelphia, which is the City of Neighborhoods, doesn't become the city of universities that do whatever they want to communities. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony. Good morning. Please state your name for the record and proceed.

My name is Jacqueline Owens. I'm the Committee person in 27th Ward, 15th Division, which a lot of this is occurring. I'm a homeowner. I've been in the community for more than 40 years and we can't do nothing about what's gone. But what I'm praying and hoping is that all the work that our Councilperson did to put this bill through to fight for us, because she listened to our cries, she listened to our fights and we fought and we fought, and I think the bill is worth being passed because we are tax-paying citizens, we are hard-working citizens and we should not be allowed to be sold down the river. We enjoy the campus. Amen. We enjoy the students, okay. We are a diverse community. But hear our cry this morning. We're here because we have worked, we have went to meetings, we have been involved. We are voters. We always work and we want them to please pass this bill today because we deserve that as citizens, as voters and as taxpayers. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Good morning --

Can I --

Chair recognizes --

I don't want them to go anywhere. I want to ask --

Ma'am, Ms. Owens?

Yes.

They were asking you --

Do you have a minute?

Yes, I do.

All right. After they testify can I --

All right. The Councilman would like to ask a question.

Do it now, Madam Chair?

I'm just excited and I believe in the --

You got me excited. Don't leave now.

Chair recognizes Councilmember Jones.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Tell me what -- so I do hear that you said there was an engagement process.

Yes.

You said that there were promises made that weren't kept.

Right.

What were those promises?

They told us that they were St. Joseph and that they have a wonderful reputation to uphold and that they will keep us abreast of the situations of things that were going on so we wouldn't be caught by surprise. But every meeting we went to, okay, every time we went and we did about three or four or five different examples of what the community would love to see in their community. Okay. So they took all of these examples and they were supposed to put it in the file, and then they were supposed to give it to whoever was purchasing the property and then they will work with us as the community to help put some things in the community that would enrich us.

Can you share with the Committee what those recommendations were?

One of the projects wanted to see a community college. Another part of the project wanted to see parking. Another part of the project wanted to see maybe a health center where you could go and do exercise or, you know, all of these things could be a part of the community. But we haven't known anything. And I thank our Councilperson for her hard work because they really worked with us. And she stood flat-footed and spoke up for the people who she represents.

So I'm going to be honest. I'm going to vote for this. However, I do not -- I need to hear what this bill will empower you to do that you can't do or have not done now?

What it would empower me to do?

Yes, ma'am.

Well, it will help us with the parking situation in our neighborhood. It will help maybe the seniors to be able to go and exercise and do different things like that, you know. But we just want to be kept abreast and be a part of the community because we don't plan on going anywhere.

So if I understood what you said to me, what matters most to you is communication?

Yes.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. And Chair recognizes Councilmember Gauthier.

I just wanted to piggyback on what Ms. Jackie said and offer to my colleague the bill would demand an extra RCO meeting, additional planning review and it would stop demolition if there's not a building permit, so demolition for demolition sake. So really we're asking for more community involvement on large parcels that impact residential neighborhoods greatly, more transparency and to have our city partners at the Planning Commission also provide an extra level of review. That's it.

Those aren't unreasonable. I just want to put on the record what it will do, what it cannot do, what would be done anyway. That's important. Because if -- I'll hold that. I'm voting for it.

Can I -

Certainly. Chair recognizes Councilmember Kathy Gilmore Richardson.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I just wanted to get on the record I will have the same question for St. Joe's. Can you detail for members of the Committee the level of community engagement? How long were the meetings? Sort of the cadence of the meetings, when they took place and what generally was discussed? And I will have the same question, the exact same question for St. Joe's.

Okay. We would meet by Zoom sometimes. We would meet in person sometimes. When we did the four projects to find out what the community wanted to see, we were in person. They would provide pizza for us. They even ordered somebody to do drawings and do different things to show them exactly what we were looking for as a community, and we always asked them, well, can you tell us who the buyer is going to be and are they going to keep it the same way it is. But they could never tell us who the buyer was going to be or what they were going to do, but they said that they promised that whoever came would be good neighbors because they are an upstanding university.

Thank you. And then when did you find out about the proposed sale that's currently taking place or in the works?

Was it about a month or two ago we learned that they was selling it to some Belmont Group Committee people we don't even know and we found that out on a Zoom meeting.

And how? You said on a Zoom meeting?

Yes.

With St. Joe's?

Yes. We had a great number of people from all over where it would affect us and we all met together on Zoom, a lot of us in person and everybody put their input. So we thought that we were really working and doing some great things, but they were very secretive and never told us the plain old truth. All we want is the truth so we could know where to move from here.

Thank you. Thank you very much.

Can I speak again?

Absolutely.

-- quickly on this subject. Basically we found out the same day everybody else did. We had been earnestly engaged with meetings with the university month after month, day after day. They call us on the phone, they do all this. We found out -- my daughter works for Belmont Charter. She knew before I knew because it was announced in their school newsletter. So this thing about community engagement we feel as though it was false. It was just something to keep the community quiet while they did exactly what they wanted to do. There's no 22 other picture. We sat along, the community -- yes, they fed them a little pizza and some bottles of water and called us on the campus and then had us thinking that we meant something by having us make these illustrations that Jackie talked about, what would you like to see in your community, would you like this. They had us in our minds thinking that we were a part of this. That's what really hurts the community. And we're going back telling all the other community members, look, don't worry about St. Joe's, they have our back, you know, blah, blah, blah. And then they turn around and they do this to us. And it's not the first time. This is the third time our community is sitting here empty looking stupid, because we've allowed them to do this to us three times. Not once, not twice, but three times. And now, we're still in that state of flux. We have no idea what this new person that purchased the property, what his plans are. But we know of him, we've heard of him and we've heard what he's capable of doing and we've also heard that he could care less about a community. So that's why now we're in a state of flux. We're fearful. We have no idea and the only word that we have to rely on was the word of St. Joe's.

Understood.

I just wanted to clarify things about what they promised us. Basically they promised us the truth and transparency and neither one of those happened.

Understood. Thank you very much for your testimony. MS. McCARTY: Good morning.

Good morning. Please state your name and proceed. MS. McCARTY: My name is Debra McCarty and I'm here on behalf of the Powelton Village Civic Association. As background, I have lived in my neighborhood for over 43 years. A few of the things that attracted me to the neighborhood were its diversity, beautiful tree-lined streets, homes with incredible interest and character and possibly, naively, the students that reside in our midst. My neighbors and I are very invested in making our community a wonderful place to live and work. By necessity, it requires working with our largest immediate neighbor, Drexel University. Living with a university as one's neighbor has its pros and its cons. What is often forgotten is that we live here and the majority of those who work at and make decisions on university issues don't. They can forget that the transient nature of students and changes to their campus can have a negative impact to surrounding communities. We care about the quality of life in our neighborhoods. Universities certainly contribute to that through access to services, amenities such as the Athletic Center, public spaces, jobs, et cetera. They are an integrated part of our neighborhood. So in our minds it is only logical that we would want to have input into any change in use of university property. In recent history, Powelton Village Civic Association has been fortunate to have a good working relationship with our immediate neighbor, Drexel University. This has not always been the case. During those dark days in the past, it felt like we were the enemy and provided no 9 value to the university. Why should we have to depend upon the goodwill of university leadership to be allowed a voice on land use changes? If not for the care and stability homeowners and long-term residents provide to the neighborhood, the university would be much less desirable to potential and current students as well as employees. Though the University of Pennsylvania is a little further south, what happens on that campus also impacts our neighborhood. We don't want to control sales or university development. However, good neighbors work with each other when one is making substantial changes to their property. One example of how this legislation could work is the development of the University City High School site, Mantua, West Powelton Saunders Park, Powelton village and other partners have been and continue to be part of the development process. Our voices were heard and input considered. This legislation merely memorializes such a relationship. We all benefit when the universities and our neighborhoods succeed. This legislation lets us be part of that success. For these reasons, we urge its passage and I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the Committee? (No response.)

No, okay. Seeing none, thank you very much for your testimony. MS. McCARTY: Thank you. Good to see you all.

Good to see you. Madam Clerk, can we please have you call the next panel, Panel 3.

Keyana Johnson from Mt. Vernon Manor CDC and Lorraine Gomez from Viola Street Residents Association. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning. Good morning. Thank you so much for having me today. First of all, I'm going to represent Viola Street Residents Association. My name is Lorraine Gomez. I am the President of Viola Street Resident Association and we support Bill 250804. We have learned what happens in the adjacent community always overflow into the next communities. I have a statement here. Ms. Keyana Johnson from Mt. Vernon Manor. She could not make it today. I'm twice blessed. I live on Viola Street and I also work for Mt. Vernon Manor. This is from Ms. Keyana Johnson: My name is Keyana Johnson and I serve as the Community Development Coordinator for Mt. Vernon Manor Community Development Corporation, a community-based nonprofit that has served the Mantua community for over 40 years. I am here today to express Mt. Vernon Manor's strong support for Bill No. 250804, which established the University Community Overlay District. This legislation, registration is an important step toward ensuring transparency and accountability when university- owned properties in our neighborhoods change use and are no 9 longer part of an active campus. In Mantua, we've seen the significant influence that nearby universities have when our housing market, land use and sense of community. When large institution sites transitions to private or non-campus use without meaningful neighborhood input, the ripple effect can be profound, impacting affordability, traffic patterns and the overall fabric of the community and neighborhood. This bill recognizes that those transition deserves public oversight, by requiring Planning Commission overview and neighborhood engagement. When a property use shifts away from its educational purpose, the overlay creates a more balanced and transparent process, one that centers both institutional goals and community well-being. We know development will continue in and around Mantua. The question is how to ensure that it happens equitably and in alignment with the neighborhood's long-term visions. This overlay provides a clear mechanism for the early communication and thoughtful planning which ultimately benefits residents, institutions and the city alike. On behalf of Mt. Vernon Manor CDC, I want to thank Councilmember Gauthier for her leadership and urge Council to adopt this bill. It's a proactive, commonsense tool that ensures the community has a voice in shaping on how major properties are involved with our neighborhoods. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Any questions from the Committee? (No response.)

Thank you for your testimony. Chair recognizes Councilmember Gauthier.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I don't have questions. I just wanted to sincerely thank everyone from my community that came and spoke on this bill today. It was really important to hear your stories and about how we need this bill to make sure that community members are at the table. Thank you so much. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. And, Madam Clerk, can we have you call Panel 4 please.

Joseph P. Kender, Jr., Senior Vice-President for St. Joseph's University; Wadell Ridley, Jr., Assistant Vice- President of Government and Community Relations for St. Joseph's University; Matt McClure from Ballard Spahr; and Crystal Morris, President of the Wynnefield Residents Association. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning. How are you? MR. McCLURE: Members of the Committee, a pleasure to see you all.

Please state your name for the record and proceed. MR. McCLURE: My name is Matt McClure. I'm a partner at the law firm of Ballard Spahr and head of our development practice. And although I've been a member of the bar for a long time and testified many times in front of this Committee, I was thinking about it this morning, this is the first time I've ever testified in opposition of a bill in years as 13 practicing before City Council and 14 Philadelphia's Zoning Board and 15 related things. I'm a zoning 16 lawyer. 17 So I'm here on behalf of 18 St. Joe's University to testify in 19 opposition to Bill No. 250804. We 20 did receive the amendments. I 21 reviewed them this morning. I will 22 say the bill has been improved. 23 Thank you. We still believe the 24 bill does illegally regulate based on the ownership of land. The bill defines a college campus as something under common control ownership and it sets up a new regulatory approval. And it isn't regulatory approval when land is no longer part of a college or university campus use, which means it is no longer in common control with the college campus. So it is clearly regulating the ownership of land. We think that is problematic for the same reasons we believe the Law Department has advised it is problematic. Has the bill been improved? Yes. We still think it is a problem. And we think it is a problem to have a discretionary regulatory approval on new uses that are not defined in the zoning code. I have read the sections on the approval process several times. I still don't know it means. I know there's a discretional approval and it is an approval by Philadelphia City Planning Commission of a plan and uses, for which I'm not quite sure they're based in the actual zoning code itself. So it is an open door. It's not just a public meeting. It is an actual approval. So it is not correct to say it just requires community engagement. It requires an actual approval. To answer the questions raised by the Chair as well as Councilman Jones as well as Councilwoman Gilmore Richardson, as well as just to rebut the factual matters, to talk about the process was specifically with St. Joseph University and the University of Sciences we have with us Joseph Kender and Wadell Ridley. So rather than hearing a lawyer talk, I'd like to give it over to our client who kind of addressed some of the factual matters please.

Thank you, Matt. And good morning everybody and thanks for this opportunity. My name is Joe Kender. I'm Senior Vice-President at St. Joseph's University now in my 13th year at the institution. And what we'd like to do is offer the university's point of view on the timeline and what occurred. We've entered our testimony in writing. It's pretty extensive. Hopefully everybody's had a chance to read it, but I'd like to bring it to life, if I could. I want to start with the fact that St. Joe's next year will be celebrating our 175th anniversary, all within the city of Philadelphia. We are a city institution. We attract students from across the country, but the overwhelming majority come from the Delaware Valley. And these students stay. You'll find them in City Hall. You'll find them on the police force. They're teachers. They lead and achieve throughout this region in particular. So we do care very much about the communities we serve, particularly those in Overbrook, Wynnefield, University City, Lower Marion Township and now Lancaster as well. In 2022, as has been already stated, we merged the University of Sciences into St. Joseph's University. And I want to state for the record that's not insignificant. We saved an institution. I mean, this could have been another U of Arts situation. Great academic programs, U of Science had terrific academic programs, but financially they were failing, and it was a proverbial win-win. On one hand, we were able to add significant programs in the health sciences and at the same time, we were able to save jobs, faculty jobs, staff jobs and provide a home for those students. As soon as we merged and we started the fall semester, we realized how small the undergraduate population was at that institution and undergraduates in particular, learned best in one community. So we made a decision, an important academic decision, to move all of our undergraduate students who are over at U City to what we call the Hawk Hill campus on City Avenue. There they would be mixed with other thousands of other undergraduate students and have a much more vibrant experience. Now, as soon as we made that decision you can imagine we then realized that we'd only be operating in about a third of the campus. We preserved that for graduate and professional programs. Immediately we met with Councilmember Gauthier. She had concerns. Understandably so, because this creates uncertainty. Together she recommended, and it was a great suggestion, that we engage a third party. We landed with U3 Associates, a very reputable city planning firm based out of U City, to engage the community in a series of meetings where we would learn what they wanted to see, what they didn't want to see. And my colleague Wadell Ridley will go into detail about that exercise. In all, it took three years to get to this point of an agreement of sale. And during that time, the real estate market softened. We were clear though that we had three main criteria when looking for somebody we were going to sell the property to. One was a preference. We had a preference to sell to one buyer, one institution. The second was it had to mesh with St. Joe's mission. And third, obviously it had to also mesh with the guiding principles coming out of the community engagement document, which we did submit to JLL who was repping the property. Everybody who took a look at that property, every developer received those guiding principles upfront. We followed through with that. During that time we met with the community many times. We kept an open-door policy with Councilmember Gauthier's office. I remember many exchanges with Andrew Goodman in particular where I would end by saying, look, if you're hearing something you're not sure what it is, you question something, please call me because you know how it is with the rumor mill, right. Ultimately though, we were pressed for more information than we were comfortable providing in a normal situation.

But ultimately, the Councilmember, her staff and two community members signed an NDA, which gave us then permission to share high-level information in terms of the number of developers who were coming through and any legitimate bids that were being offered. We had a lot of developers coming through but we weren't receiving any bids, right, and we were getting pressed for more information, information we frankly just didn't have. However, in late June this year we received one bid for a portion of the campus and we're on the verge of receiving what we thought was going to be the ultimate bid, and we had a meeting with the Councilmember and her team. We shared that information upfront. We then shared that with the two community members. And then when the agreement or the letter of inquiry came through, we again informed them that we're now in exclusive negotiation with the Belmont Neighborhood Educational Alliance owned by Michael Karp, and that same time we shared that with the two community members as well. The point that I also want to underscore here is that the Belmont Educational Neighborhood Association is preserving the campus for educational use. Let's not lose sight of that, there's no 2 drastic change, with plans to create a teacher's college on that property, right. And I understand -- and please, you know, the comments from our neighbors, we've gotten to know these, these folks very well. But what I'm puzzled by is if we were selling this and these are some kind of nuisance properties or getting out of town, I could understand it. But this is going to be zoned educational. It's seamless. right. Now, the last thing I want to state before I turn it over to my colleague Wadell Ridley is, look, we acknowledge the tension. There's always going to be natural tension between what organizations, institutions in our case can provide to neighbors, especially during a complicated and consequential transaction like this. But we believe that we went above and beyond what we typically -- we know we did, what we typically do in being as transparent as we could be. We're never going to be able to provide as much information as our neighbors would like because at the same time, we have to potentially protect the confidentiality of those that are bidding on the process. So I'll stop there and I'll turn to Wadell.

Good morning. My name is Wadell Ridley, Assistant Vice-President for Government and Community Relations at St. Joe's University, Philadelphia's Jesuit University, and today I'm here to provide you with a description of the university's effort to engage our neighbors in the community surrounding our University City campus, formerly known as University of the Sciences. And when we informed Councilmember Gauthier regarding the sale of the U City campus, she suggested, as you know, my colleague mentioned early, that we hire a consultant. We hired U3 Associates to lead a thorough exercise to engage neighbors so that the university could hear what the neighbors wanted and, more importantly, what they didn't want from the future purchaser of the property. We held a total of 13 meetings with the neighborhood or association leaders over a year period and 11 of those meetings were attended by either or both my colleague and myself. Two of the meetings were workshops we did not attend, and that was to give the neighbors the opportunity to speak without us being present so they can say things the way they wanted to say them . And out of that is where the community engagement document was created, which I believe everyone has. Hopefully, you had an opportunity to peruse it. And it also outlines six guiding principles. We in turn ensured that these principles would become part of the marketing package that was sent to all prospective buyers of the property. I'm going to move to another portion of this, but any questions that you might have in regarding that process, please feel free to ask me. I would add that that merger with the University of Sciences and also our merger with the Pennsylvania College of Health Sciences, the scope of community engagement through the university has changed significantly. For years, St. Joe's has made strong presence in the community, including close partnerships with elected officials, civic organizations, groups of faith, public and private schools in Wynnefield, Overbrook neighborhoods and beyond. So St. Joe's University is now present in the areas of West Philly throughout -- I mean, through the clinical experience of pharmacy, occupational therapy, physician's assistant and physical therapy programs through the legacy of University of the Science program, our recent economic and community impact report found that the school provides approximately $575 million in annual economic benefit to the region, combined with 44.5 million in grant aid awarded to students from Pennsylvania and million of 2 vendor business to minority and women-owned businesses. The university also coordinates the delivery over 8700 hours of community service per year. So I'll stop there. You received a list of things that we've worked on over the year in the community. And I'll be glad to give you any specifics that you need. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. And please state your name for the record and proceed.

Absolutely. My name is Crystal Morris and I'm here in my capacity as President of Wynnefield Residents Association. Since 1957 we have advocated on behalf of our neighbors. And much of that time has been in collaboration with St. Joseph's University, with whom we share space. As a registered community organization, we've worked together on several large scale construction projects. We've had years of summer camps from which many of our residents hold fond memories. There's the Wynnefield Overbrook Community Grant Program, which provides funding to previously marginalized community members who may not have been funded through traditional means, the Wynnefield Overbrook Revitalization Corporation, working to improve our lived environment. And there's countless other community work projects, many of which we just never hear of because they're done seamlessly and go unrecognized. The common thread in all these endeavors is a demonstrated willingness to partner with the community to ensure that our voices are represented in the decision- making process. A voice does not always translate into a vote, but where we don't have rights, we are still being given the opportunity to provide input. Perhaps we may not need more laws, but better relationships. As residents, we remain grateful for strong relationships with our community partners. Quality relationships take work, work that begins with humility and mutual respect. We don't always agree, but we understand the power of partnership. We each bring something of value to the table and we are stronger together, focused on the common goal of community health. That is where the work begins. I thank you for the opportunity to share our perspective.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

You're welcome.

Chair recognizes Councilwoman Gauthier and then Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr.

Thank you so much, Madam Chair. I do think there are some key details that are being omitted. And if the Committee members would like, I'm happy to share information about the engagement that happened in the community. But that is the past and that's not what this bill is about. And if there is a permit that's being grandfathered in, this bill would not impact that. What this bill does is relate to the areas of the campus that we have no clear plans for, no 3 clear information for. It was stated what Michael Karp would like to do, but that's the extent of any information that we have. And so, what this bill does is put a structure in place in an area where there's no information about the future of the parcels to ensure that community members will be at the table and also puts a structure in place in case this happens in other parts of the 3rd District. Thank you so much.

Thank you, Council Lady. And, Councilman Curtis Jones, Jr.

Thank you, Madam Chair. And I understand my colleague and support my colleague's fight for her constituents. But I also want to claim St. Joe's as my constituent and what happens downstream in this case, impacts upstream. Meaning, when you guys purchased the properties in the 3rd District, you also purchased, what was it Holy --

The Sisters of the Visitation property, are you speaking about?

Right.

On City Avenue.

So my thinking is -- my questions, let me start there. The general thought for many people is that universities have unlimited resources, unending streams of cash. Give me a brief description of the state of higher ed in Philly.

Thanks, Councilman. Like every industry, higher education is going through an enormous period of change. And as I like to say, our institutions, this is a strength, aren't necessarily built for rapid change. And that change is being driven by really three major forces, demographic shifts, particularly if you're a university in the Northeast, this is the most competitive area in the country. And what I mean by demographic shifts, there are fewer college- aged students than there were 5 years, 10 years. We call it the demographic cliff. We're in it right now. So as you might imagine, the competition for students is extremely severe. At the same time too, there are just too many colleges and universities to satisfy those students. And so, universities most -- and let's take the Ivy League institutions out of it -- we're not endowed with billions of dollars. I think that's a misnomer. And at the same time too, we hear a lot in the press these days about the affordability of a college education. At St. Joe's, we offer the majority of our students financial aid and the average student who graduates from the university graduates with about $25,000 worth of debt. That's relatively low and I think a lot lower than what people think. And that's because we have our ability and really our commitment as a Catholic and Jesuit institution to provide access --

So --

If I may, just one second. And what concerns us about this legislation is that it could and probably would devalue our real estate holdings, which in turn would then devalue our balance sheet, which would then restrict our ability to offer financial aid. It would restrict our ability to start new construction projects. It would restrict our ability to offer new academic programs, community service exercises, because that's the world in which we live.

So my point in being concerned about this legislation is that I don't want what happens downstream to affect upstream. How many acres of campus do you have in the 4th District roughly?

In the 4th District, it's about 20 acres --

20 acres.

Yes.

Right.

What would you say, a little higher, 30? MR. McCLURE: (Inaudible).

Yeah. Okay. I'll defer to Matt.

And in the case of the 4th District, your process of engagement, when you did, for example, a land management, you met with the community, WIRA, you met with Overbrook Civic, you met with --

Yes, like a campus master plan.

The master plan. You met with everybody, right? Correct?

Sorry?

You met with --

Yes. I have a hard time hearing.

That's all right. I have a hard time being heard. But in this case, you met with them and in the case of Southwest you met with the community similarly.

Yes.

And it all wasn't perfect on the north side, was it, no. I answered that for you, but it got worked out. I remember town-and-gown issues that impacted not only my district, but my block, and I was able -- Wadell, can you talk about the time we went riding for (inaudible) in Wynnefield?

Well, I would first say that we created a strategy to try to deal with off-campus housing issues. And at that period of time, I thought it really helped. However, what we did one evening we took a tour and the Councilman was very interested in riding with our van at o'clock, o'clock at night. 5 And there's one particular property 6 that was a nuisance property in 7 Wynnefield community at the time 8 and we were approaching it and 9 quite honestly, I will tell you 10 that the Councilman jumped out of 11 the van before it stopped and ran 12 across Wynnefield Avenue, ran into this house --

I didn't get a cup of beer either for the record.

-- ran into this house and I'm running behind him and one of our facility managers was running behind me. And by the time we got there, he had maybe eight students in the kitchen talking to them about their problem, what they were creating in the university area. And the rest of the students were running from every --

They were running out the backdoor. The point I'm making here is that even with a crazy Councilman, they've been engaging to deal with real town-and-gown issues. Out of that, you guys have community benefits agreement with the folk in the neighborhood. You described that.

Absolutely. And really credit goes to the Councilman, it goes to Morgan Cephas, State Representative Cephas and Senator Vince Hughes, who three years ago now really sat down with us to carve out important areas where St. Joe's could lean into the community in a way that would be meaningful. And that was so important because it then created certainty. And I really want to pause in this for a second because our approach to community relations in particular is very much jesuitical in its nature. We're not a hammer looking for a nail. That's not how we approach things. We don't believe we can come into some community we don't know and tell people what they need to do. It's just the opposite. We sit down, we listen to neighbors and through the Councilmember's guidance and that of Morgan and Vince, we came up with a three-pronged approach where we're supporting the Wynnefield Revitalization Corporation, which is providing direct assistance to businesses in the community. We support a Community Investment Fund, again another way to provide direct support to businesses in the community. We just met on Monday to award seven more grants. And then we also have a partnership with the Gompers Elementary School. I don't share that to say, you know, we deserve a huge pat on the back. It's really what we should be doing. And I also want to underscore the point, like we understand the neighbors' concerns in University City. We listen to them. We believe -- we not only heard them, but we listen to them by putting the guiding principles into our marketing documents. And at the end of the day, I think the use from the Belmont Neighborhood Alliance is seamless. As I mentioned before, it's educational with the Teachers College. And now that the sale is closed, I know that they will be interested in having a meeting with the community as soon as possible. They certainly made that statement to us.

Just briefly on that, so one of the properties is sold?

Several -- so two different sort of plots, if you will, Councilman. Early on last summer, last fall we decided to sell what we call the outlier properties. These are properties that sit off the campus, outside the campus, small one-off properties. We decided to market those separately. We sold all of those. Okay. And then now today or yesterday, we closed on the major part of the campus, which is everything south of Woodland. And I just want to make one point in relation to that. We're going to be leasing back three buildings in that parcel because we're not going anywhere for the foreseeable future and we retain ownership of the properties north of Woodland, which Griffith Hall is the iconic building. So we still have a stake in that community.

So my whole diatribe here is that the best predictor of future performance is past performance. You've been a good neighbor to us and this legislation wants and encourages whoever buys those properties from you be a good neighbor like you were. I want to make the distinction on the record that you are not other universities that build walls as opposed to bridges. When the DEI hearing came up, St. Joe's showed up, testified in person and continued along the path of inclusion of the city and the community in which they reside. So I wanted that on the record. I am supporting the bill. But for the record, I don't want them to be portrayed as the bad guys. Thank you, Madam Chair.

Chair recognizes Kathy Gilmore Richardson.

Thank you. Thank you very much, Madam Chair. And I wanted to ensure that we heard from my colleague and the bill's sponsor and District Councilperson first and then my District Councilperson second and then me last, as the At-large member. By way of full disclosure, I have to say all of these things so people understand the background. And so, I don't remember the exact year that the dormitories were built at 54th and City Avenue. I think it was last the Popeyes. And before that, it was an abandoned supermarket and that was the early '90s. I don't recall which year, but growing up in the 5200 block of Church Road where I now own a property where I share a property line with St. Joseph's University. I have a very longstanding 30-plus year relationship with the university as a result of that. And I have to put that on the record for full disclosure. In addition to that, I attended Gompers Elementary School where my big sister was Gretchen. She's a graduate of St. Joe's University and I've looked for her for years because she was just so instrumental in my life. Now, that my parents are deceased, as I stated owned the property that I grew up in, where I share the property line with St. Joe's. And I wanted to start by thanking Mr. Kender, but mostly I have to thank Wadell, because we call on Wadell at all times of the day and the night regarding any issues or concerns regarding the University. And I want to thank Crystal Morris, who's President of Wynnefield Residents Association, of which I was a longtime member and came off of the Board of Directors once I became a member of Philadelphia City Council. But Wadell has just been tremendous in his support of our community and his coordination of our concerns. And I have to put that on the record for Wynnefield. Okay. This bill is primarily regarding the University City property, the property that you all acquired, but I have to put on the record for the Wynnefield neighbors. I am a lifelong Wynnefield resident and have to put these things on the record and then ask a few additional questions. And as our District Councilmember stated, we never want what happens either upstream or downstream to impact what happens surrounding the Hawk Hill Campus. And I have to put this on the record and we talked about this at the meeting. This year has been one of the worst years we've ever had since the closure of the University City Campus relative to the influx of students that we've received in off-campus housing, not just on Church Road but on 51st and Wynnefield, and Wadell has already given us the update there and thank you for your continued work with that particular home. But within the community, I personally had to go into a home where they slammed the door on my face at 12:15 at night, where they had over 120 college students. I have everything on video in one property. Their behavior this year has been worse than any other year we've had in a very long time. We've done community engagement with you all for years. And as a result of that, we haven't had these issues. But I think once the students were moved from the one campus and I guess they came to the Hawk Hill area, it has just been terrible. So I just wanted to notate that, but also state that I appreciate Wadell answering at 12:15 at night and helping us to call the captain and PPD to address the issues. But the upstream decision did impact us downstream at Hawk Hill, and I just had to say that for the neighbors who, if they watch this hearing, they will say you were being disingenuous if you didn't bring it up. Urinating on our lawns, on our cars, toilet paper on the lawns, using the alleyway as a passage from Rexford Road to come up to Church Road. But we're going to continue to have the meetings and get the students under control for this year and help them understand that they have to be a good neighbor. You can't park in front of the fire hydrant.

I don't know what community they come from where it's acceptable to park in front of a fire hydrant for three days and think that it's okay. So I had to put that on the record because that's something we've been fighting. And I told Jones about that. I shared the video with all of you where I was chasing the students out the house at 12:15 less than a month ago and telling them that the party was over, okay, on a residential block where the music was ungodly at all types of hours. And at the point where PPD did arrive, I already shut down the party myself. Okay. So I just had to say that. But as it relates to this particular legislation and like I said, I go back, the meetings were held at our house for the dorms and we had then Councilman Michael Nutter so that's how far back we go. But relative to this, I appreciate the timeline. And I think really what I'm hearing is that two things can be true at once. You all could be a wonderful, great neighbor to us at Hawk Hill and the community in University City can still have concerns about the future and the trajectory of the property in their surrounding neighborhood and community. And I will ask the same question. Because I asked the question of the neighbors that I would ask of you all, and you did answer it primarily in your testimony relative to the timeline of community engagement when I did see one portion around the 13 meetings with the community and bifurcating the two that was just the community only. That was held over a one-year period. Was that 2024 to 2025, because we keep hearing the three year versus 13-meeting one year?

End of '23 into '24.

So the end of '23 to the end of '24 was the -

Into '24 but we went to --

You got to speak into the mic. She's not going to be able to hear you.

I'm sorry. We started let's say '23. We went into '24 and then we had maybe the very last what we refer to as the Community Advisory Committee in March of 2025.

Okay. So --

And just you know, for the difference, so March 11, 2025 we had our meeting with you three. That was like our last meeting, right. And then in August we've had the Zoom meeting in which we talked to the Community Advisory Council about the buyer. So that was our meeting with the community group to say we actually have a buyer, we're under a license exclusive agreement, and that would probably -- we had to wait till September 5th or something, some time in September. And then it was a real thing and was really going forward, but we had shared that information. So, yes.

Well, I have to say that I thank you for the community meetings and for engaging the community in person, via Zoom, doing as much as you could I guess within the confines of the process. I think all the community is asking for is more input in the process. And from what I heard today, and I listened to everybody's testimony, is that they're appreciative of the community input but they just felt as though they were not heard. And I think what my colleague is trying to get to -- and I'm not speaking for you, colleague, okay -- but from what I'm ascertaining about what has taken place is that it feels as though while the community engagement happened, because of the agreement and I guess what was discussed versus what the community wanted, they felt as though the ultimate agreement that you all entered into was not centered in what the community stated they wanted. And I think from what I'm hearing the concern is that the community has reservation regarding how the sale has moved forward and does not feel as though they have assurances around the use, even though it's an intended use. And I know that you all say that you put it in the agreement of sale. I think because what they're saying is I guess the background of whatever the company or individual, that they are concerned about I guess them sticking to that part of the agreement. Because you all wouldn't own it or don't own it anymore, you really wouldn't have a say even though they met with you all for three years.

And if I just may on that point, that's why we felt it was important to embed the intended uses in the agreement of sale. But the other point that I just want to make sure is not lost is that we're going to be there too, right. So we have stakes, real stakes in this as well. And so, what happens educationally on that campus impacts us as well as the community. So it's not as if we're leaving. So I would argue we're an added assurance received.

Received. And then, Mr. McClure, if you could speak to how the University embedded the intended use into the agreement of sale and legally what that means? Would the potential buyer or buyer that they closed with within the last week or two, I think I heard you say within the last week or so, would that buyer have to as it relates to a use perspective continue with whatever was stated around intended use that was embedded in the agreement, the point of sale agreement? MR. McCLURE: Good question. Councilwoman, the agreement of sale clearly stated what the intended use was. But with any transaction, with any sale of any property, you're subject to the existing uses, existing permits, existing loss. There's not a deed restriction. But this property is subject to several variances and other restrictions that relate to universal use. It would be very difficult to change the use of this property without going through a public process that's already required under the Philadelphia Zoning Code. So as a fact, I think that the use is going to stay as a regulatory matter because that is the way the property is currently approved. So any time a property changes hands for anything, you have to go through a zoning process. There's not a deed restriction that goes on properties when it gets conveyed. That would be illegal to impose such a requirement. But there are normal zoning requirements. And in this instance, the applicant would have to, most likely have to seek if they were going to do some sort of project other than what's allowed by zoning or the existing variances, they would have to apply for new permits and go through the public process and the like. I don't think anyone's objecting to that. But this is a new approval process that is much more amorphous.

Right. And I think really my question is -- because I heard you all say that you embedded the intended use in the agreement of sale; is that correct? MR. McCLURE: The intended use is in the agreement itself, correct.

Right. So I just wanted to know sort of the legality of that relative to is in the agreement of sale, what if they want to use it for something else and could it be an additional assurance for the community? MR. McCLURE: It certainly is embedded in the agreement of sale, which was legal, for purposes of explaining the University's intent and the buyer's intent. Could the property be changed, change use in the future? Subject to compliance of law, yes, but that's with any property but you have to comply with law. But there's no deed restriction, no. 14 Did I answer the question?

Okay. That was my question. Because I think what we're seeking to do is ensure that the trust is there. The other issue that's outside of all the documents, you know, all the meetings, how we may feel about St. Joe's and Wynnefield surrounding the Hawk Hill Campus versus how the University City neighbors may feel because of their experience is the loss of community trust. And that's not something that you can put in a document, per se. That is something that is ascertained over time. And then when something like this occurs, you negate all that happened, all that you all did, every meeting you've had when they -- I'm trying to figure out a way to bridge the gap relative to community trust. That was more so the thinking. MR. McCLURE: Understood. Let me give you another way of looking at this, if I may. Any property like this, especially one that's not completely subject to a SP-INS, and this has a small SP-INS District, master plan district, is an assemblage of approvals that was occurred over time -- I live in East Falls. For years, our neighborhood, Philadelphia University which is now at Jefferson, was not part of a SP-INS. It was a combination of variances. Penn Charter is like that. There's a lot of campuses like that. You can't move your big toe or little toe without hitting a variance because it's all restricted in different ways. And the good thing here is the University sold it to one buyer who wants to use it for one use. That makes it much more likely that it's going to be a consistent use that's going to have to work at this consistent (inaudible) and it certainly is the intent that it works as a campus. And I think the end result here by St. Joseph's University merging with the University of Sciences is we were able to keep that. Whereas if it went the way of the University Arts, where a bankruptcy trustee was deciding who was going to sell each piece for, for the highest rate for the debtors, well, that would have been a much different situation. So I understand that this is not ideal, but it is better than it could have been.

Thank you, and thank you very, very much. And thank you all again for your work. And, Wadell, kudos to you for everything you do for us every day. Okay. Thank you.

I have a piece of information for you. The building that you were talking about was 2003 when that building was built. And I was working for Councilman Nutter at the time, but we brokered an agreement with the University at the time to offer permit parking for Church Road for the 2400 block of 52nd Street and Rexford Road. Two blocks took it. One block did not. And you know what block that was, which is the party, they're crazy on that block, just for the facts.

Thank you all so much for your testimony. Madam Clerk, is there anyone else here to testify on Bill 15 No. 250804?

There are no 17 further names on that list.

Is there anyone else here whose name has not been called on Bill No. 21 250804? (No response.)

And seeing none, Madam Clerk, please call the witnesses to testify for public comment.

Dana Russikoff and Donnie Smith, please approach the witness table. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good afternoon. And you're testifying on Bill No. 250534, the Mayfair BID, correct?

Yes.

Okay. Please state your name for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Thank you. Good afternoon, Chairwoman Bass, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Dana Russikoff. I'm a proud member of the Mayfair Business Improvement District representing the Mayfair Community Development Corporation. I've been a Board member of the Mayfair CDC for about eight years. I grew up in Oxford Circle and lived in Mayfair for over years. 5 And although I no longer 6 live in the Mayfair neighborhood, I 7 remain active in Mayfair and 8 Northeast Philadelphia. In 9 addition to being on the Mayfair 10 CDC Board, I am also an Executive 11 Board member of Riverfront North 12 Partnership, the founder of One 13 River Alliance and the July 4th 14 Freedom Fest event at Pleasant Hill 15 Park and the founder of One River 16 Development, which is in the 17 process of developing One River 18 Marina on the Delaware River in 19 Tacony. 20 I'm thrilled to have this opportunity today to voice my unwavering support for the reauthorization of the Mayfair Business Improvement District. Mayfair is not only a historic Philadelphia neighborhood, but its business corridor is literally America's first highway, King's Highway. For decades, Frankford Avenue has been a major, bustling and vibrant commercial artery serving neighborhood residents with a variety of shops, services and restaurants. Mayfair is also home to one of the most iconic intersections in the city, Frankford and Cottman Avenues, which serves not only as a gateway to Northeast Philadelphia from I-95 but also a prominent focal point for community gatherings and of course sports celebrations. Since its inception 10 years ago in 2015, the Mayfair BID has evolved from an intriguing but unproven concept to a strong and effective entity focused on ensuring that Frankford Avenue remains consistently clean, safe, inviting and engaging for both businesses and residents. Over the years, significant investments have been made along the corridor in cleaning services, environmental infrastructure, signage, communications and programming. While most of the work takes place seamlessly behind the scenes, its impact is immediate and meaningful. Events such as Third Thursday Night Markets, the Christmas Village and Tree Lighting, decorating contests, the Mayfair Holmesburg Thanksgiving Day Parade, the Annual Seward Johnson statue exhibits, and most recently, the unveiling of the celebration statue commemorating where Northeast Philadelphia comes to celebrate help, instill a sense of unity and civic pride. These successful projects and initiatives would not be possible without the strong leadership and fiscal responsibility of Executive Director Donnie Smith and fellow Board members who represent the businesses along the corridor. The BID is also grateful for the ongoing assistance provided by Councilman Mike Driscoll and his staff. Thank you very much for taking the time to hear my testimony, and I respectfully request that you join us in our unwavering support for the reauthorization of the Mayfair Business Improvement District. Thank you.

Thank you very much for your testimony. Please state your name for the record, sir, and proceed.

Donnie Smith, Mayfair Business Improvement District. Good morn -- well, good afternoon --

Good afternoon.

-- Chairwoman Bass and members of the Rules community. My name is Donnie Smith and I'm truly blessed to have been chosen to serve as the Executive Director of the Mayfair Business Improvement District since March of 2020. I say that I'm blessed because I have lived in Mayfair my entire life, and to be chosen to work with an amazing board of directors and team of elected officials towards the betterment of Mayfair is in fact a blessing. The Mayfair BID runs from Harbison Avenue, from Sheffield, includes small portions of Cottman Avenue, Ryan Avenue as well as Sackett and Levick streets. The Mayfair BID was formed in 2015 from a desire to maintain what Mayfair currently had in place and to make it an even better place to live. Since the inception of the BID, we now host several events in Mayfair including, but not limited to, the Seward Johnson Art Exhibit, Mayfair Third Thursday Night Markets, the Mayfair Holmesburg Thanksgiving Day Parade, the Mayfair Tree Lighting Christmas Village and our Annual Christmas Decoration Contest. The Mayfair BID has also installed several Mayfair wayfinding signs along our corridors. We have recently installed over 60 decorative curbs and fences around our trees. Most recently, we unveiled our brand new celebration statue right at Cottman and Frankford, which is our very own Times Square of sorts. Cleanliness cannot be overlooked as the Mayfair BID cleans the corridors of Mayfair five days each week. Working with the Commerce Department and the TCB program, we've expanded our cleaning boundaries in the neighborhood of Holmesburg and we're now cleaning all the way to Solly Avenue. The Mayfair Business Improvement District is made up of over 300 diverse businesses perfectly serving the needs of a newly diverse community. A recent Pew study reported that Mayfair is now made up of a 27.3% population that is foreign-born, which is currently the highest in the city of Philadelphia, and our current mix of businesses certainly does reflect that trend. In 2025, the Mayfair BID projected an annual income in the amount of $349,000 and it is the Board's intention to raise the annual assessments by no more than 3% each year. Assessments are used to fund our staff, clean up, marketing and beautification efforts in Mayfair that were mentioned earlier. I'm extremely hopeful you will continue to see the value of what the Mayfair Business Improvement has done for our community, and I sincerely appreciate the efforts of Councilman Driscoll and his team in assisting and supporting the Mayfair business endeavors. Please review the letters of support submitted from several property owners and business owners alike. Our Board remains dedicated and I look forward to continuing with my work to make Mayfair a great place to visit and an awesome place to live. I just want to point out that I did have two other people here to testify as well. However, they had to leave due to time constraints. I thank you for your support.

Thank you so much for your patience and for your testimony today.

Thank you.

Any questions from the committee? (No response.)

No? Okay. Thank you for being here. And is there anyone else here to testify or to offer public comment on any of the bills today? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will now proceed with taking public -- no, we already did that. This now concludes the public hearing. We'll now go into a public meeting to consider the action to be taken on the bills before the committee today. Okay. Thank you for your patience. We'll now ask the Clerk to please call the roll.

Chair member Bass.

Present.

Vice-Chair member Squilla.

Present.

Member Jones.

Present.

Member Gilmore Richardson.

Present.

Member Gauthier.

Present.

Member Thomas. (No response.)

And, Member O'Neill. (No response.)

Thank you. I note for the record that a quorum of the committee is present. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 22 250767.

Madam Chair, I offer an amendment to Bill No. 250767. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 5 250767 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)

Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 250767 be adopted. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Anyone opposed? (No response.)

Okay. The ayes have it, the motion carries and the amendment to Bill 22 No. 250767 has been adopted. The Chair now recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 2 250804.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I offer -- I'm offering an amendment to Bill 6 No. 250804. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 10 250804 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)

Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 250804 be adopted. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Anyone opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it. The motion carries. The amendment to Bill No. 250804 has been adopted. Chair now recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 7 250808.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I offer an amendment to Bill No. 250808. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 15 250808 be adopted.

Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 250808 be adopted. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Any opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it, the motion carries and the amendment to Bill No. 7 250808 has been adopted. Chair now recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 11 250811.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that the amendment be offered to Bill No. 16 250811. A copy of the amendment has been circulated to all members of the committee. And I move that the amendment to Bill No. 250811 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)

Thank you. It's been moved and properly seconded that the amendment to Bill No. 250811 be adopted. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Anyone opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it. The motion carries. And the amendment to Bill No. 13 250811 has been adopted. Chair now recognizes Councilmember Squilla for a motion on Bill Nos. 250534, 250572, 250577, 250648, 250767 as amended, 250800, 250802, 250803, 250804 as amended, 250808 as amended, 250810 and 250811 as amended.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill Nos. 250534, 250572, 250577, 250648, 250767 as amended, 250800, 250802, 250803, 250804 as amended, 250808 as amended, and 250810, and 250811 as amended be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move the rules of Council be suspended at the first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

It's been moved and properly seconded that Bill Nos. 250534, 250572, 250577, 250648, 250767 as amended, 250800, 250802, 250803, 250804 as amended, 250808 as amended, 250810, and 250811 as amended be reported from this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended to permit first reading of this bill at the next session of Council. All those in favor of the motion will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Is there anyone opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. And unless there are no 11 additional remarks from the committee or our guests, this concludes the business of the Committee on Rules for today. Thank you all very much for your attendance. (Committee on Rules concluded at 12:45 p.m.) C E R T I F I C A T I O N I, hereby certify that the proceedings and evidence noted are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me in the foregoing matter, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. __________________________________ TANEHA CARROLL