CORRECTED TRANSCRIPT COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING BEFORE THE COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 9, 2004 10:45 a.m. - - - - - - Bill Nos. 040327, 040424, 040426, 040427, 040429, 040430, 040433, 040434, 040462, 040466, 040498, 040500, 040506, 040520, 040521, 040566, 040336, 040616 PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILMAN RICHARD T. MARIANO COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN JUAN F. RAMOS COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
Good morning, everyone. I'm sorry for the delay. We did have another public hearing scheduled. This is the public hearing of the Committee of the Rules. I would like to establish a quorum. A quorum is established. Councilman Clarke, Councilman Mariano to my left; to my far right is Councilwoman Miller and Councilman Brian O'Neill. At this time I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 040506.
Bill 040506, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Sanger Street, Tacony Street, Devereaux Street and the Delaware River.
Good morning, Mr. Chapman. Do we have copies of your testimony?
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. They were sent over last week.
I believe I 3 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing was just given a copy of it. Please proceed with your testimony. Identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I'm the director of the development planning division for the City Planning Commission, and I'm here today to testify on Bill 10 No. 040506. Councilwoman Krajewski introduced this bill on May of this year. This bill would rezone 13 a number of industrial properties near the north Delaware River waterfront. This bill concerns the area bounded by Sanger Street or parts of the area bounded by Sanger Street, Tacony Street, Devereaux Street, and the Delaware River. The parties interested in this rezoning action are Newman & Company, Incorporated and Dietz & Watson. Both firms have been long-standing active members of the business community and have expressed the desire to both remain in the city and expand their operations. The properties where these businesses are located would be rezoned from partly G to general industrial, partially LR, lease 4 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing restricted, industrial and partly class recreational to a single designation of lease restricted industrial. The land where the zoning will be changed is approximately acres. Both 6 businesses -- 7
I'm sorry. 8 Would you repeat your last sentence? I think you 9 said something about 14 neighbors? 10
Yes; the land involved -- 11 the land where the actual zoning is going to change 12 is approximately 14 acres. 13
Both businesses are long-term members of the community. In fact, Newman Paper has been in business in the city for about 85 years and at their present location on Tacony Street for, I believe, over 50 years. Dietz & Watson has been at their location on Tacony Street for, again, the best of my knowledge, over 30 years. Both businesses have expanded on a number of occasions. Newman Paper, in fact, expanded within the last three years I believe. And this rezoning would facilitate future business expansion. Hundreds of people are employed by both of these companies and, 5 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing to the best of my knowledge, many of those people, if not most of those people, are residents of the City of Philadelphia. The City Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this amendment to the zoning maps on June 15, 2004, and at that time I would expect that the Commission would recommend approval. If I may, we received a late inquiry from Dietz & Watson, and I would like to offer an amendment to this bill. It changes a small part of the area that's to be rezoned, a small property along Tacony Street right near Homestead Street.
May we have a copy, please? And has this been discussed with Councilwoman Krajewski.
Yes, she is, Madam President. Yes, she is. 6 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
You will make sure that the chief clerk's office has a copy of it.
Are there any questions from members of the committee? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 040521.
An ordinance amending Section 14-201.1 of The Philadelphia Code relating to R-1-A residential district by changing the width of side yards.
Good morning once again, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. 7 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing My name is Thomas Chapman. I am the director of the development planning division for the City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 040521. This bill was introduced by Councilman O'Neill on May of this year. This bill would 7 amend the Philadelphia Zoning Code by changing the 8 side yard requirements of the R-1-A residential 9 zoning classification. 10 Currently, each side yard must be a 11 minimum of 15 feet in width, and this bill would 12 reduce that requirement to a minimum width of 10 13 feet. Once again, the Planning Commission is scheduled to consider this amendment to the zoning code at its meeting of June 15, 2004. That concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee?
I just want to comment. This allows a larger house on the same frontage, and it was actually the intent originally to have it be a 10-foot side yard, so somehow it got to be 15. Thank you. 8 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
Thank you. Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? Seeing none, I would again ask Mr. McPherson to read the title of Bill No. 040336.
An ordinance amending Section 14-305 of The Philadelphia Code relating to C-4 commercial and C-5 commercial districts by requiring that prior to the issuance of certain permits a zoning board of adjustment certificate be obtained.
Madam President and members of the Rules Committee, my testimony was read into the record on this bill at the previous hearing on May 26. I could do that again if you would like.
I don't think that's necessary. I believe that the Planning Commission voted not to recommend the approval of this bill and their staff testified to that?
They feel that the number of hearings that would be required if the 9 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing bill is enacted would hinder development in Center City. Is there any additional testimony on this bill? I think that the sponsor -- yes, please approach the witness table. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President. My name is Michael Sklaroff. I'm a lawyer with Ballard Spahr Andrews & Ingersoll, and with me is Joanne Phillips, who is my partner at Ballard Spahr. And we are here representing ourselves as people who are invested in the city as business people.
Do you mind pulling the microphone closer to you?
I'm sorry. We are here representing ourselves as people who are invested in business in the City of Philadelphia. We are here on behalf of several of our clients who are part of the development community and we are here as lawyers who practice before the Zoning Board of Adjustment and who are 10 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing involved in projects, small, medium and large, in the City of Philadelphia. Essentially, as we understand it, this bill would require solely in districts which are C-4 and C-5 all permits which were heretofore available over-the-counter; that is, all permits to which landowners would be entitled only in these districts to go all to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Now, members of Council will remember some will -- some were here and some weren't -- this bill or this ordinance, the Center City controls which apply in the C-4/C-5 district were put into law on October 31, 1991 after five years of discussions which were hosted by the Philadelphia Planning Commission. Those discussions included discussions which became part of the plan for Center City, which is one of the most recent comprehensive plans for this city, which was passed in 1988. Representatives of the community, representatives of the business community, representatives of the Bar Association, architects, planners and city officials worked for five years to present to this Council the bill which Mayor Goode signed into law on October 31, 1991. 11 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing This is the most intense commercial development, but encompasses a broad range of uses including residential, office, commercial, little stores, little shops, houses, apartment houses, hotels and major office buildings and mixed use projects. These are very rigorous requirements and they are -- probably the most rigorous and most complicated focused on making Center City vibrant and effective. Now, what this bill would do would mean that property owners that complied with all the aspects of that law and all the requirements would now be forced to go to a procedure before the Zoning Board of Adjustment. I would ask Joanne Phillips to talk a little bit about what that means practically in terms of increasing the cost of business, and then I would like to go to some of the other issues.
One of our concerns is that although it may seem simple to go to the Zoning Board, what it really entails is when you are working so hard to reduce the cost of doing business and save business people and residents tax money in the city that, in fact, it puts an additional fee 12 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing and cost that is attributed to doing business in Center City or in other areas that are zoned C4-C5. In addition to the normal fees that you would have for filing with L & I, which would be the hundred dollars for an application, and, if you wanted it expedited, to move quicker, would be another $420, which, in fact, is reasonable to get the amount of work they have to do to get these permits out. If you would have to go to the board, you need to file an appeal to the board, which is an additional $200, and if you wanted to have an expedited appeal in order to meet some kind of time frame which you may need for financing or for a lease or a purchase of a property, you are talking about an additional $500. If you are a corporation that owns a business, it could be a small business, a jewelry store or a bookstore, you now must hire an attorney to go to the board because that's one of the rules that you cannot represent yourself. You need to have an attorney. So now have you an additional cost of an attorney that has to prepare and appear at the hearing. You also have the additional costs to 13 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing actually put on your case at the board. Just to say to go to the board for a certificate, there are requirements under the code that may call for other experts, a planner, some traffic testimony, so now you have added probably several thousands of dollars of costs just to appear before the board to carry the burden of your case. This is appropriate when it is a certificate case under the code now, and there are many things that require you to go to the board, but for many uses, just to change the use of a building from a jewelry store to a book store or to get a sign that is accessory or to put an awning on, all of these types of permits actually run through L & I and you would be sending them all to the board at a great expense to the business people and residents as well. If they were doing something to their house, they will have the same issue if they are in a C-4/C-5. So we see it as something that really puts a damper on people wanting to do business. Additionally, there would be an appeal period that would be implicated by this. People that are trying to buy houses or buy properties 14 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing would have to deal with that as well in connection with their financing. So going from something that could be certain, where you could tell a client, yes, you could come in to here and you can open your store, now we would have to tell council people yes, you can come in here. You can get the permit, but we have to go through this process to get it for you. And we are talking about a fair amount of time as well. This won't be done quickly.
I would like you to elaborate on an issue that I think Council members would I guess better understand. As the law stands and it has for many years, uses that comply with the Zoning Code are as a right.
You purchase a retail store on Walnut Street and you need to comply with 15 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing some zoning overlays but say a jewelry store because I'm pretty sure that one is as a right. You would go to L & I. You would make an application for your use to change the store, a vacant store to a jewelry store.
They would look at the code and say this use complies, this sign complies. They are entitled to a permit. For the payment of a fee, they would then issue you the permit. That permit would allow you to get a building permit, and it is basically the gatekeeper to uses and construction in the city. So that would be as a right and you would be entitled to that. And that's what is considered over-the-counter or as a right.
This bill proposes to do away with the over-the-counter or as a right permit. There would be nothing as a right. Every permit would have to be reviewed by the Zoning Board of Adjustment first, and that's the rub, although many already have to do that. There are many that 16 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing already need to go to the board for special use permit or for a certificate or for a variance. They will always be going to the board, but this is all the other uses that were already permitted as a right.
And what happens, if I may add, is that before the board -- on its certificate there are issues which are very subjective, and those issues include whether the project is harmful to the public health, welfare and safety. In our city any one person has the power to delay a project, as they have for two and three years, if they are willing to take it through the courts. So this means that small projects, medium projects, and even large projects which comply with all the requirements that City Council put into this very complicated ordinance, they could be delayed up to three years before the courts finally say, you know, enough is enough. And those people can file 22 those appeals, just one of them, just by virtue of being a taxpayer. They don't even have to be a neighbor. So the result of this is it's going to 17 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing make it difficult for people to make important changes and help rebuild their properties, which all go to help rebuild the city. It is going to encourage some people not to bother trying to get permits that they are entitled to because they don't want to get into the system because they know how expensive it is. Think about it. You might have a sign that cost a thousand dollars, complies with all the requirements, and now you have to go to the Zoning Board. If you are a corporation, it could cost you $5000 to put up a thousand dollar sign. Contrarywise, if you have a major project which is going to potentially employ a lot of construction workers for a long period of time and let's assume you have an argument with the competitor, which happens, or a taxpayer or some disgruntled neighbor, even though you have a right under City Council's ordinance, you could be delayed one two or three years. Well, we need to rebuild this city. We need to get cranes back in the city and we need small jobs and medium jobs and larger jobs for our workers. And this puts all of that in jeopardy. It is also a bad sign to people from outside of the 18 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing city who want to build and create jobs in the city. So all in all this is something which sends the wrong signal, is expensive and too expensive for average people, and also it puts an incredible burden on the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It could have hundreds of cases a year, which they are not -- they really don't have the capacity to handle. So thank you for your attention. Joanne, anything else?
I was going to say it puts a big burden on L & I as well. Instead of writing up permits, they have this additional step of writing up referrals and then ultimately writing up permits. And all of this takes time, and a lot of time when businesses are coming in, there is a real time element to getting into your store and getting open.
I want to say one word about L & I. Sometimes we agree with L & I and sometimes we don't, but there is no group of people that's more dedicated, that is more overworked than they are and not entirely well compensated. They do 19 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing a great job, even though we don't always agree with them.
We agree with your last statement. The Chair recognizes Councilman Mariano.
Thank you, Madam President. For either one of you at the table, I want to open up a water ice stand. It's only good from May until October at the latest. How soon do I have to go to L & I now before this happens if it happens and not to have an expedited hearing to get a water ice stand? Are we talking two, three months?
So I have to be thinking in January for the water ice stand?
So if you start thinking about the water ice stand about May, about Memorial Day, you would never get that?
And if you had any construction in that too, you would have to build 20 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing that into it as well. Just to open an existing store, you are going to be talking January. If you were actually going to be building out something, you are even behind that.
So the guy with very low-income operations, opens a water ice stand, he's going to cross his fingers and hope he doesn't get caught, and maybe makes it to August or September.
Right, because then you could be in some type of enforcement action and you might do better under the enforcement action than you would trying to come in under your own permit.
What is the wait now without an expedited hearing? Two months?
I believe it is six to eight weeks, and actually our Zoning Board too, to their credit, when you tell people from out of town that our board meets every week, that's an impressive thing to be able to tell people. They are meeting every week several times a week, so even with that you are still talking out about six to eight weeks I believe. And with an expedited hearing, for the additional $500 you may be able to 21 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing go three to five weeks depending on their calendar.
I would ask, if you don't mind, for both of you to remain here. It is my understanding that Councilman Clarke, who is the sponsor of the bill, would like to be present for, I guess, questioning or for discussion on this bill. He should be arriving shortly. I would also ask that Mr. Chapman remain in the event that there are questions that he may be required to answer. So if you don't mind, I would ask you to remain in the chamber.
Do we have any other witnesses on this bill to testify? I would ask Mr. McPherson to read the title of Bill No. 040327.
An ordinance approving the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 45th and Sansom Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Market Street on the north, South 44th Street on the east, Walnut Street 22 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing on the south and Farragut Street on the west, including the second amendment to the urban renewal plan and the first amendment to the relocation plan which provides, inter alia, for the expansion of the northern boundary of the urban renewal area from Chestnut Street to Market Street between 44th Street and Farragut Street for the additional land acquisition of approximately properties for 10 commercial and related uses. 11
Good morning. 12 Please identify yourself for the record and proceed 13 with your testimony. 14
My name is Herbert Wetzel, executive director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia.
Madam President and members of the committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 040327, which would authorize the second amended redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan for the 45th and Sansom urban renewal area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to expand the 45th and 23 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing Sansom urban renewal area boundaries to include the blocks bounded by Chestnut Street, 44th Street, Market Street and Farragut Street. In addition, the bill would authorize or provide for the acquisition of vacant properties 7 on behalf of Orens Brothers Real Estate, Inc., which 8 plans to develop a new parking lot to serve the 9 adjacent health club at 4415 Chestnut Street. 10 Properties are located on the 4400 block 11 of Ludlow Street and on South 44th Street between 12 Chestnut Street and Market Streets. 13 Passage of this bill would help to 14 foster commercial activity in West Philadelphia by eliminating blight and providing safe and convenient parking for patrons of a new health club. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 040327 and would ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow for a first reading on June 10, 2004.
Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, did I understand you to say that the 14 properties in question are all vacant?
Yes. There is one 24 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing structure and the remaining are vacant lots.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill?
Good morning, Madam President and members of the committee. I'm Richard Redding, deputy director of community planning of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 040327. This is the second amendment of the redevelopment proposal for 45th and Sansom involving acquisition of 14 properties for commercial and related use. The Planning Commission approved it in January of '04. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, do we have anyone else to 25 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Kevin Wright, and I own 32 South 44th Street and I believe that is part of their development. You have to excuse me because I'm not used to talking in public.
I own that property and I have plans to put a two-story building there, a residential property, a residential building there, so I oppose his plans.
Mr. Wetzel, can you address this issue, or should he go in to talk to the district councilperson?
Yes; my suggestion is that he talk to Councilwoman Blackwell regarding this. Just for the record, all the properties on either side are vacant lots as well.
And the concept here is to provide these lots and the demolition of the 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing structure, one of the structures on Ludlow Street.
I'm sorry. I'm having difficulty hearing you. Is there only one structure in this entire block?
On 44th Street the properties that are being condemned, through 46, 9 are all vacant lots. 10
Well, sir, I 18 would suggest that you go in to discuss this with Councilwoman Blackwell. Her office is right down the corridor here. And perhaps she and you could come to some determination before the conclusion of this hearing.
I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 4 040424.
An ordinance approving the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 44th and Aspen Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Lancaster Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Pennsgrove Street, 42nd Street, Haverford Avenue, 44th Street, Fairmount Avenue and 47th Street including the first amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately four properties for residential and related uses.
Madam President and members of the Rules Committee, I am Herbert Wetzel, executive director of the Redevelopment Authority, and I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 040424, which is the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the first amendment urban renewal plan for the 44th Aspen urban renewal area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire four vacant lots. 28 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing The Philadelphia Housing Authority has requested the acquisition of these four vacant lots in support of the Mill Creek HOPE VI project. Under the development plans for Mill Creek HOPE VI, PHA will substantially rehabilitate and newly construct approximately 120 affordable residential units, both rental and homeownership. The properties to be acquired under this plan are within the project footprint and will be used for residential and related development. Mill Creek HOPE VI project is expected to cost approximately $102 million to complete and will leverage close to $10 million in private funds through the sale of low-income hosing tax credits. Madam President and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 040424 and would also ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow a first reading on June 10, 2004.
Good morning again. Richard Redding from the Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved this at its May meeting and it is consistent with the 44th 29 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing and Aspen redevelopment area plan. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there questions from members of the committee? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing none, I would just like to announce that Bill No. 040466 introduced by Councilman Mariano is being held at his request. Mr. McPherson, would you please read the title of Bill No. 040426?
An ordinance approving the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Frankford Creek urban renewal area, being the area generally bounded by Orthodox Street on the north, Adams Avenue on the east, Frankford Avenue on the south, East Hunting Park Avenue, O Street, Cayuga Street and Castor Avenue on the west, including the first amendment to the urban renewal plan and the first amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the establishment of a residential and related land reuse category, the additional land acquisition of approximately three properties for residential and related uses, 30 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing changing the land use for the block bounded by Wingohocking Street, Frankford Creek, Cayuga Street and Castor Avenue to residential and related.
Madam President and members of the Rules Committee, I'm Herbert Wetzel, executive director of the Redevelopment Authority, and I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 040426, the first amended redevelopment proposal and first amended urban renewal plan for the Frankford Creek redevelopment area and the Frankford Creek urban renewal area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire three occupied commercial properties, to support the Frankford Creek Town Homes residential development being undertaken by the Frankford Community Development Corporation. Most of the properties for this project were approved by Council last spring under Bill No. 030290. This bill is needed to consolidate and expand the project site. This bill will also allow for the establishment of a residential and related land use for the project area of the Frankford Creek Town 31 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing Home site, which is bounded by Wingohocking Street on the north, Frankford Creek on the east, Cayuga Street on the south and Castor Avenue on the west. Frankford CDC proposes to construct 54 new homes in the Juniata Park section of the city. The new homes are being supported with financing from the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency's Homeownership Choice Program, which provides funding for large-scale homeownership developments that contribute to the transformation of neighborhoods. Passage of this bill would promote the elimination of blight and provide for new homeownership opportunities in the City of Philadelphia. Madam President and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 040426 and would ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow first reading on June 10, 2004.
Yes. Good morning. Richard Reading from City Planning Commission. The Planning Commission approved this at 32 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing its May meeting this year and it is consistent with the Frankford Creek redevelopment area plan for purposes of residential development. Thank you.
Mr. Wetzel, for the record, your testimony indicates that this bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire three occupied commercial properties. Have there been agreements made with the owners of those properties? Are they vacant? Are they occupied?
No; these are occupied commercial properties that would be acquired. We would have to provide under the Uniform Relocation Act the benefits that businesses are entitled to to assist them in relocating.
And I can assume from your testimony that there has been ongoing discussions with the property owners?
Could you explain 33 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing to us why that is, Mr. Wetzel, the three commercial property owners? Because originally the plan was different and you expanded it, is that correct?
Yeah; the City of Philadelphia Office of Housing and the Frankford CDC have been working together on this particular project, and, as you know, they applied to the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency for this special funding source. And in their working together, they made a decision in January to expand the overall site for this particular project.
Are we adding more homes here, or are we just expanding the actual perimeters of this?
It is an expansion of the overall site itself. And I believe Steve Culbertson is here from Frankford CDC who could best define the rationale for that activity.
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee? Seeing none, do we have any witnesses to testify? Please approach the witness table. Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record. 34 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
My name is Tracy Hughes. I'm from Juniata Park Civic Association, and I'm here to represent the people of Juniata. We had one meeting on this project, and that was in September. We had approximately 77 people who were there in attendance, and the meeting became a total mess because we weren't informed properly about these homes being built. And we also had tried to have a meeting with Frankford CDC to become better informed about the project, but we had no luck there. No questions have been clearly answered to this community's satisfaction; therefore, we would like a continuance of our site proposal. Who exactly is making up the difference in the funding? Who is paying for the EPA cleanup, since this site -- due to the fact that it has been used up to the present date as a salvage yard for cars? It has also been an industrial land. Will the contractors who are bidding on the sites be open for the viewing of the people who live in the neighborhood? And who 35 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing checked the blighted certificate for the community? Does that not feel that we are blighted? We only have two homes boarded up, Madam, on Castor Avenue. One is a mortgage foreclosure and one was a fire. We are a community that needs a new school. We have been told that we will be receiving a new school at G and Hunting Park that will be -- that will hold 800-plus students. We are busing more than that out now. We have been told that the school is already filled, so we were expected to educate this new group of children coming in. At our civic meeting last night the questions have been raised by many of the neighbors concerning this development. Unfortunately, there are the people that have to work every day. Again we are asking for a postponement. What kind of structural guaranty are the people receiving due to the fact that the homes are being built on a creek bed? We do not want another Osage Avenue that would cost the City more money. We, the people who make up the tax base of this city and who have stayed despite the flight of many of our former residents, feel that our 36 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing feelings should be taken into consideration. And I also have maps and surveys here to prove that our area is not a blighted area. There is a business there with Verizon. It has a contract for two years. A towing company was leasing off of Romano's and six family members lost their job due to that.
Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
I'm unclear based on your testimony what your essential or principal unhappiness is with this proposed ordinance.
My issue is that the community wasn't informed, number one. Number two, Juniata is built on a creek, a bed creek. It is ashland. And they are only guaranteeing the homes for one year.
The homes that they want to 37 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing put up on the several sites of the maps, and these pictures that they are saying are blighted area are from Frankford, not Juniata.
You said you were not adequately informed. What does that mean?
That we were not informed by no one from the community, as our representatives did not inform us. I read in the Juniata News yesterday -- Tommy O'Donnell is also here and brought it to my attention that he wrote an article and found it in the legal notices.
Procedurally what should have happened with regard to notification.
There should have been a community meeting with our Council people and with our representatives.
Yes. That's what the residents are complaining at the Civic Association.
Point of information, Councilwoman. As Miss Hughes knows, there were a 38 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing number of meetings with the community, about three or four of them.
Excuse me. I have the floor. See, I get to talk. Then you talk. That's how it works. You talked. Now I'm going to tell you what really happened. There were meetings. You were not happy with the meetings. You were not happy with the outcome of the meetings, your civic group. What's your position in the civic group? You are the president of the civic group?
That is the difference between us. I was elected by the people in my district, just so you know. I still have the floor. I can sit here 39 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing and listen to you lie, but Steve Culbertson is here from the Frankford Community Development Corporation or whatever it is. I think Culbertson should get to testify next. There was a number of meetings, and at one of those meetings -- were you at every one of those meetings?
I was not invited because no one informed us. That was your job as a councilman to inform the residents, Mr. Mariano.
Were you at the meeting when they told Mr. Culbertson they didn't want any blacks in the neighborhood, or did you miss that one?
I was not invited to that because you did not inform our community. Are you a resident in Juniata?
Then why don't you attend our civic meetings and inform our residents? 40 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing (Applause.)
Why I don't go to your civic meetings? Because your civic meeting is nothing but a political forum.
Excuse me. I'm speaking. The rules are I get to speak and you listen and then you get to speak .
This is a good project. This is going to make everybody happy. I see two or three people here and they certainly can testify, but I'm not going to let you sit here and lie to say this is a bad plan. 41 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
You're lying. You are sitting there lying. Why don't you let the guy from Frankford Community Development Corporation speak.
It is Councilman Mariano, and I live in Juniata, and I live four blocks away from this, and I grew up across the street from this site, okay, and I'm going to tell you something: This is one of the best things that will ever happen to this neighborhood because the group that is doing it has an outstanding track record. Excuse me. I'm still speaking. You will get your chance, but when I am done. So let's be fair and not get down here and tell falsities and lies that no one here really cares about or has any way to tell what is right. Now, the Councilwoman asked you a 42 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing question. What's your main problem? You were not notified? You were notified because my chief of staff, Walter True, is in the room, and he talked to you about four or five times. There was four meetings with the elected leadership of the Juniata Park Civic Association. That's why I don't go to your meetings no more. It's a forum for you and your girlfriends to bash people. I am a busy person and I have things to do. Check out the meetings. There was one last night. Go and see. See what's true. That is what is happening here. So why don't we let Culbertson talk and he will tell you the real truth and you can go back to doing whatever your next problem is going to be. It is on something every year, Tracy. Come on.
Okay, Miss Hughes. 43 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing It's Councilman Mariano. I'll send it back to Councilwoman Brown.
My questions are answered. You haven't answered Councilwoman Brown's question.
You asked me a question and now it is my turn to answer back to you.
You interrupted her question, and I have to readdress her question.
It's a parliamentary point or order, which I'm skilled at doing, and that's what I did.
I believe that Councilwoman Brown has another question that you could respond to.
I would like to hear your question again since we were rudely interrupted. This is my first Council meeting here. Go ahead with your question. 44 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
The decision for the postponement of this action this morning, that was determined or arrived at how? Was there a vote taken amongst the membership of your organization to recommend a postponement?
Yes, that they did not -- they were not aware of this meeting today and no one could take off from work. It popped up, and we came down, who was able to come down, and just ask for a continuance so that we could have a meeting. Yes, there has been several meetings. There was one meeting back at our civic association. There was an attendance of over 77 people November 9.
I'm confused because you said there were no meetings and now you are telling me there were meetings.
There were meetings I was invited to by the Councilman Mariano had addressed to me. I attended one meeting, and that was all. Nobody in the residents of Juniata was notified about these homes.
Juniata meaning the association you represent or Juniata, the community? 45 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing
The community. We are the civic association for Juniata community, Juniata Park. We are the civic association for that community.
So you are going on the record to say at no time over the past many months the association received any mail or had any correspondence with Councilman Rick Mariano's office or his staff regarding this matter? You are going on record saying that?
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, President Verna and members of Council. I am Joe Clerkin, vice president of James J. Clerkin Incorporated, a general building contractor, one of the three properties mentioned in this proposal. The first notice we received about this 46 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing was June 2 by copy of a form letter from the Redevelopment Authority. To go back further, we had rumors of this proposal last August, August of 2003. A phone call to the Frankford Community Development, Steve Culbertson, he assured me absolutely that our property was not involved in this plan. We took him at his word, and we continued to operate. A week ago we get a notice that the Redevelopment Authority is going to take our property and turn it over to a developer to develop houses in the area with no notice whatsoever. We have been in Frankford for 86 years as a general building contractor. We build schools, city schools, churches, recreation departments, police departments. We have been at the present location for 54 years. To contradict the Frankford Community Development Corporation's own mission statement, it says one of their proposals is to develop stable businesses in the community. Well, we have been in Frankford 86 years, 54 at the same location, and now we are being run out of town on a week's notice. I would have to say we are in opposition 47 6/9/05 - Committee on Rules Public Hearing to this ordinance.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee of this witness? Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify? I'm sorry. The gentleman that just spoke, could you come back to the witness table? Councilwoman Brown has a question to ask you.
Your principal concern for having problems with this project is because of?