COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, November 17, 1998 10:30 a.m. - - - Bill No. 980750 - Amending Title of The Philadelphia Code relating to "Zoning and 10 Planning," by amending Section 14-1612 entitled "South Street/Head House Square Special Services 11 District Controls". . . 12 Bill No. 980749 - Approving the plan, estimated costs, and proposed method of charges of the City 13 Avenue Special Services District. . . 14 Bill No. 970549 - Amending the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land in the 14th Ward. . . Bill No. 960822 - Amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1603.1, entitled "Storm Water Management Controls". . . PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES I N D E X Page Bill No. 980750 Richard Lombardo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Philadelphia Planning Commission Michael Sklaroff, Esquire . . . . . . . . . . Attorney for South Street/Head House District 7 Steven Kujolic, Chairman. . . . . . . . . . . 8 South Street/Head House District Dick Ostrander, Executive Director. . . . . . 9 South Street/Head House District Gray Smith, Chairman. . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 Zoning and Code Enforcement Committee South Street Neighborhoods Association Bill No. 980749 David L. Cohen, Consultant. . . . . . . . . . City Avenue Special Services District. 15 Bill No. 970549 16 Richard Lombardo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 17 Philadelphia Planning Commission 18 Sophia Pham Director of Development . . . . . 34 Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation 19 20 Bill No. 960822 21 Richard Lombardo. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 38 Philadelphia Planning Commission 22 Gray Smith, Architect and Urban Planner . . . 41 3 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 P R O C E E D I N G S
Ladies and gentlemen, good morning. Thank you for your patience. The Council Committee on Rules is now in session. Our first bill for consideration this morning is Bill No. 980750, which is an ordinance 9 amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1612 entitled "South Street/Head House Square Special Services District Controls," under certain terms and conditions.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Richard Lombardo, Philadelphia Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on behalf of Bill No. 980750. First of all, I want to begin by saying that this bill is a bill that was prepared by us. Our normal policy on any text amendments is that when we prepare it, we go to the Law Department for a legal opinion from a legal counsel person. 4 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 But because of the time constraints of this bill, we actually were preparing it to give to Councilman DiCicco for introduction as we simultaneously sent the bill over -- sent a request to the Law Department for an opinion. So we don't have an official planning Commission Policy recommendation on the bill, but I will explain to you what the bill does. This bill amends the underlying zoning of the Head House Square District at Front Street and 11th Street and on both sides of South Street. What it does is allows buildings or properties that control more than 50 percent of a lot frontage to occupy 100 percent of the lot provided they would have certain other conditions -- one being off-street parking in the garage. The second thing this would allow is, it would allow a property to have a single curb cut. This would allow an ingress only to necessary parking provided you had 50 percent of the block and you had two streets (unintelligible) like Rodman Street, at least an ingress off of South Street. The last part it allows is that 5 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 buildings within this zone meet other conditions. Controlling over half the block would not be limited to the percent limitation on accessory 5 uses again because of requirements of structured 6 parking, assuming, you know, that the company or 7 whatever it would cost to build a parking garage. 8 By nature more than 25 percent of the area of the 9 rest of the building. If you don't have that 10 provision in the code, what happens is if it 11 exceeds the 25 percent, you wind up before the 12 Zoning Board for exceeding the 25 percent 13 accessory use. You would have to go before the 14 Zoning Board for a variance. 15 The last thing, in order to have 16 benefit of all these special things, you can also 17 handle all your loading, all your trash and 18 storage off-street within the property. 19 Obviously, you could ask, Why is all this being 20 done? It's being done because of the fact that 21 under all the underlying zoning on South Street, 22 there is no zoning classification that would 23 accommodate what we call a bigger box retail type 24 of use, a business having customer parking that 25 leaves a bigger footprint, you know, to occupy a 6 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 hundred percent of the lot like a supermarket. This whole issue was brought up in case of a supermarket that's proposed on South Street or a Borders or a Gap or any new big building. So that's basically the rationale. This bill comes about because there is a proposal for a supermarket that is supported by the vast majority of the area residents and business people and District Councilperson. But there's no way this could happen without a zoning variance.
Mr. Kujolik and Mr. Ostrander, please. Good morning. Please identify yourselves for the record. Is there anyone else here wants who to come forward to testify in support of the proposal first? (Gray Smith comes forward.)
I'm for it. (Laughter.) 7 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750
Sorry, Gray. Mr. Smith, I'm sorry. It's not often you're at the same table with these people. I thinks it's very scary. (Laughter.)
Mr. Chairman and members of the committee my name is Michael Sklaroff, I'm the attorney for the South Street/Head House District in this matter. With me on my left is Steven Kujolic, the Chairman; and to my right is Dick Ostrander, the Executive Director. We concur largely with what Mr. Lombardo has said. However, we do want to emphasize that this is not restricted to one particular block. This would have the effects of legalizing the existing Superfresh on the ten hundred block of South Street. It really addresses the future of South Street and the ability of the South Street District to accommodate the modern uses which would require 100 percent occupancy which would benefit at mid block an ingress only on South Street. It would also encourage parking beyond the 25 percent accessory use requirements in some 8 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 of the other underlying districts. Mr. Kujolic would also like to make a statement on behalf of the district.
Thank you. I know the supermarket has a big play into this, as was brought to our attention, but the problem is in the future. We have Abbott Square, which is a wide open piece of property, and we also have New Market, which is a big piece of property down there, which we understand wants to be developed. One of the other big causes for the South Street District to step in on this is that we now go to 11th Street. As far as our district goes, we know that the future on Broad Street is going to come down to South street. So from 11th to Broad, we're looking into the possibility of expanding our district so that we will probably need some -- there's more open lots in that area, so for the future of the City and the future of ourselves, this is one of the reasons that this all came about, and we feel that we need this to expand the district itself. 9 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750
I am Richard Ostrander. I am the Executive Director of the South Street/Head House Square District. There's just a couple of things I'd like to add, if I may. First of all, I want to say thank you very much for putting the zoning overlay in place. It was a benefit and is a benefit. However, after living with it for several years, you find things improve or you find things which you had overlooked. In this case, the larger use is clearly something we had overlooked, and we hope that you will give this all your consideration so that there's no such thing as too much parking in our area. And the provision arrangements will be helpful also. And, just finally, I would like to reemphasize the fact that Gray Smith obviously is sitting next to me, and I'm pleased with that. In addition to SSNA putting its stamp of approval on this particular proposal, we also have run it past the Society Hill Civic Association, which approved 10 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 it, and the Queen Village Neighborhood Association and the Washington Square Civic Association, which also approved it.
Mr. Sklaroff, you referred to a hundred percent occupancy.
In some of the lots, the underlying zone would permit only 80 percent or 90 percent occupancy of the block.
Yes. It would be kind of just open space and used, I assume, for landscaping or whatever. This bill would permit 100 percent open space provided there was parking and loading and 11 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 trash handling within the building. In other words, one of the things you could use the open space for would be trash and so forth and parking. But here, you would be able to have a hundred percent occupancy if you accommodated loading, trash removal, and parking within the structure.
My name is Gray Smith, Chairman of the Zoning and Code Enforcement Committee of the South Street Neighborhoods Association. And in our meeting of last week, our general membership meeting, we voted unanimously with one abstention to approve this bill. I just wanted to emphasize that on Friday, it was erroneously indicated that December 1st was the date of this hearing, although it previously showed today's date as the hearing date. A couple people called me, and I indicated 12 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 to them that it was December the 1st, so you may get some subsequent mail or calls from those that didn't attend this hearing because they thought it was to be on December the 1st.
Is it all right if we refer them to you for an explanation?
Well, I gave a pretty lengthy explanation to both of them and explained the date problem and that they still had a few days to get in touch you with you. But I think I convinced them that they shouldn't oppose, in any event, what are known as the "Fresh Fields Bills." For those of you who follow the Fresh Fields situation, there are actually four zoning hearings over a period of several months to primarily address the inadequacies of the underlying zoning code and overlying zoning code on the South Street corridor referred to earlier. And because of those inadequacies, there was something like 10 or 11 zoning variances that were sought in order to build the Fresh Fields property, which is very similar in 13 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 structure and layout to the Superfresh, with a garage on top, a grocery store on the first floor. Obviously, it's a more modern commercial strip type of configuration, which, we believe, because of the Fresh Field project, will stimulate the prospect of more larger-scale tenants who might want to come in, like Borders. And because of that, in order to avoid the lengthy process of going through a lot of zoning hearings and zoning variances and to add sufficient controls in the event that one of these larger facilities comes in, then this bill is necessary. That would probably mean representing the community who many times oppose projects that have too much impact on their neighborhood. Probably you want to see three or four more controls added to it right now. It's good, particularly the off-street loading requirement in the building because right now -- and correct me if I'm wrong, Michael -- but I think you don't have to have any off-street loading unless you have 40,000 square feet of commercial space.
I'm not sure whether it applies in underlying districts, maybe C4-C5. 14 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750
In any event, there's no 3 off-street loading on South Street so virtually every facility on the street -- certainly the smaller ones and larger ones are doing loading on South Street, which is a heavily-traveled area. So this will help that situation. We need to have these kind of controls, so we are supporting the bill, and we urge you to support it to.
Mr. Smith, you've been involved in this process from the beginning and with the Fresh Fields efforts, which basically brought this bill. In your opinion, as a community leader who represents the residents in your community and who is very active in that community, is it safe to say that you concur with the previous testimony that the other civic associations -- Society Hill, Washington Square West, and Queens Village -- unanimously approve of this bill? Because we're always going to get somebody who will oppose it; it's just the nature of these things. 15 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 Is it safe to say that the other groups mentioned also supported this bill?
I don't know about unanimously but, we do communicate amongst ourselves frequently. My understanding from discussions is that Washington Square West had a discussion about it and had some internal conflict but they also ultimately approved it. I should mention that the zoning overlying was invented by these guys, the business community, and they put a lot of controls in it against business. They were very uncomfortable with it in the beginning, but it's a neighborhood improvement bill that protects against onerous and unsatisfactory uses and conditions, which did not exist in the underlying zoning scheme. And when they passed it, I was frankly quite surprised but appreciative of it. In recent months, our district has become virtually almost religious about zoning overlay and enforcement. And anything that adds to the controls that are into it, such as this one, are always a benefit to the community as well as to the business environment. These guys -- let 16 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 me tell you, a lot of businesses on the street are voluntarily complying with the rules and regulations of the rules of zoning overlay. But to answer your question, yes the area civic associations support it and are obviously all aware it, were all informed on it and shared mail and so on and so forth.
I just want to make it clear for the record what I meant by "unanimous" was the associations, not necessarily the entire membership, but the associations all voted to support the bill.
Bella Vista and Hawthorne didn't participate. Hawthorne is somewhat remote.
In both cases, Hawthorne and Bella Vista, were both given the information and given the opportunity too, but they have generally been inactive. If I could just reemphasize the point on the trash. The interior care of trash is really important to the district. One of our principal founding things is clean an safe an clean is very hard to come by in a very intense 17 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 commercial area like South Street interior for trash is a super benefit because that builds up open spaces previously described just walk behind stores and find out their trash bins frequently not moved.
One point of clarification. Although the district worked in support of Fresh Fields, the district's interests as to the entire corridor is not only in legalizing Superfresh, which as been there for years, but also is concerned about the growth potential and the potential for serving the residents in the entire corridor too. The interest of the district is broad; it's not narrow. The second thing is that I understand that Councilman DiCicco is going to present an amendment to the bill; is that correct, Councilman?
Can somebody, for the record, please explain simply what is meant by 18 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 Fresh Fields?
Fresh Fields, Councilman Cohen, is a proposed development in the 900 block of South Street, which will be similar to the Fresh Fields at 20th and Hamilton. I believe it is a very desirable use in the community. It's a supermarket kind of use. It has widespread support of the community. That use has been approved already by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It has been granted three or four variances which were required. So that is moving forward. From another perspective, in treating the entire corridor, it will also make it easier for Fresh Fields, and it's something that's very much wanted in the community because it will bring services to the district residents and it will stimulate the economics of the corridor.
Thank you very much. Does anyone else have anything else to add relative to the bill in front of us? Is that the amendment? 19 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750
I will. This would basically be Section 9. And it would read: "Notwithstanding, capital S, subsection, parenthesis, 6, close parenthesis, capital S, Section, comma, the specific provisions contained in subsections (7) (8) of this Section, capital S, shall control in the event that they conflict with other more restrictive provisions of this title, capital T, end of quote. The purpose of this --
Do me a favor. Read the amended section version of that section 21 9. Do it again.
"Notwithstanding Subsection (6) of this Section, the specific provision contained in Subsection (7) and (8) of this Section shall control in the event that they 20 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 conflict with other more restrictive provisions of this Title."
The section that you refer to, is it now in this printed version of the bill?
We would delete the existing provision in the pink bill and substitute for it the language you're proposing.
Thank you very much. Anything else to add? Is there anyone else in the room to testify for or against the bill? 21 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980749
Fine. Thank you. Next is Bill No. 980749, which is an ordinance approving the plan, estimated costs, and proposed method of charges of the City Avenue Special Services District for and concerning business improvements and administrative services to portions of the City Avenue area of the City of Philadelphia and Township of Lower Merion.
Is there anyone here to testify on this bill? (David L. Cohen comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Please identify yourself and proceed. 22 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980749
Good morning. Again, my name is David Cohen. I am a consultant to the City Avenue Special Services District. Thank you for allowing me to testify today on Bill No. 6 980749, which concerns the approval of the plan, estimated costs, and proposed method of charges of the City Avenue Special Services District. I plan to give a brief background and overview in my testimony today of the City Avenue Special Services District. Let me start by stating that the City Avenue Special Services District is unique in that it is the first known Special Services District in North America out of more than 1200 districts that is bijurisdictional. The City Avenue Special Services District plan represents over ten years of vision, planning, and work by elected officials from Philadelphia and Lower Merion, including Councilman Michael Nutter, State Representative Lita Cohen, and Commissioner James Ettelson and Commissioner Joseph Manko of Lower Merion Township. It also represents the involvement, participation, and cooperation of the 18-member 23 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980749 Board of Directors representing properties, businesses, and institutions in the City Avenue Special Services District. The City Avenue Special Services District represents cooperation between the public and private sector; between for-profit and nonprofit owners; and between Philadelphia and Lower Merion Township. As indicated on Exhibit B, the City Avenue Special Services District includes 264 properties and extends from the Schuykill Expressway to 63rd Street along City Avenue. The mission of the City Avenue Special Services District is to engage property owners, business, tenants, and other stakeholders to retain and improve the economic and real estate vitality of the City Avenue area so that it can successfully compete as an attractive location in which to live, work, shop, visit, receive health-care services, and study. The City Avenue Special Services District was created under the Pennsylvania Municipality Authorities Act of 1945 (as amended) and was incorporated by the Commonwealth of 24 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980749 Pennsylvania on August 13, 1998. The Lower Merion Township Board of Commissioners Economic Development Committee approved a resolution that contains similar language to Bill No. 980749 on November 9, 1998. The budget of the City Avenue Special Services District ranges from $825,160 in 1999 to $1,057,564 in the year 2003. Now, 83 percent of the revenue will be derived from an assessment on properties within the City Avenue Special Services District. Key areas of programming include public safety, public space improvements, and marketing. The District plans to build upon existing programs and identify needs by working with the public and private sectors through the Board of Directors and local governments to develop programming that addresses unmet needs and works towards achieving goals for the City Avenue Special Services District. In closing, I would be pleased to answer any questions that the Committee members may have. Thank you. The I have with le advised Exhibit B 25 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980749 which I don't know if it's been passed up.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, I would first like to thank the members of City Council for their initial support of the City Avenue Special Services District. We passed the first of the required two bills in this matter some time ago. And, as Mr. Cohen has indicated, Lower Merion Township has now passed their required legislation for the second part, and we here in Philadelphia have this part to do. I have a letter which I'd like to read into the record from State Representative Lita Cohen, dated November 17, 1998. It is addressed to me. "Dear Councilman Nutter: I regret that I am unable to join you on this most important day. However, the legislature is in session in Harrisburg. "I'm writing to ask for your support of the proposed ordinance to approve the plan for the 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980749 City Avenue Special Services District. The plan before you is responsible and responsive, serving the needs of the community while operating under a thoughtfully prepared budget. Its approval is essential to the continued development of the District. "Public approval of the plan has been overwhelming. In fact, only 5 percent of the District' stakeholders did not approve of the plan as submitted. "I respectfully ask that you and the honorable members of the Philadelphia City Council Rules Committee support the ordinance before you today. This plan has received the support of the Lower Merion Township Board of Commissioner, and as stated before, the vast majority of the District's stakeholders. Your support of the ordinance to approve the submitted plan is critical. "Thank you in advance for your consideration and for your continued support of this initiative. "Respectfully, Respectfully, Lita Cohen, State Representative, 148th Legislative 27 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980749 District." Mr. Cohen, if I could just ask you a couple questions just so we have a complete record. As required by State statute, there was a public hearing on the plan, I believe, on September 15, 1998; is that correct?
And there was notification provided to every business, whether an owner or commercial tenant, located within the boundaries of the plan, as provided; is that correct?
That's correct. I would just add that it was to all property owners and commercial tenants, including some residential.
Right. And it's now my understanding that after the end of the open-comment period, which is 45 days, which, I believe, expired sometime at the end of October, that on the Philadelphia side, it's my understanding that only one property owner sent in a letter of objection; is that correct?
Okay. The exhibit that you handed up which, Mr. Chairman, I've at least marked, and I think you may have marked, is a revised Exhibit B, which is the map that should be amended into the bill. That revision comes as a result of our realization that there may have been some properties included in the original map, as provided, that are either being taken out or -- essentially, this is a technical change for this particular map; is that correct?
That is the only amendment, Mr. Chairman. And I believe, Mr. Chairman, that I am done.
Okay, thank you very much. Are there any questions for Mr. Cohen? 29 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980749
I just note in your statement, Mr. Cohen, that in the next to the last paragraph, you indicate what the budget is. And as I read it, there's a gap of about $232,000 that's not being provided by the owners of the property. Where does that funding come from?
That funding is projected to come from a variety of sources, including grants from foundations, fee for services, and also support from governments. Just as a brief background, so far, the District has received a variety of grants and start-up fees, including $15,000 from Lower Merion Township, $60,000 from the Pew Charitable Trusts, and $50,000 Commonwealth, with the promise of an additional $200,000 from the Commonwealth once the District starts operations. So that would be a starting point towards making up that gap in the revenue.
Thank you very much. 30 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980549 Are there any other questions? (No further questions.)
Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 970549, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land in the 14th Ward and located within an area bounded by Spring Garden Street, Eighth Street, Vine Street, and 11th Street. We'll hear from the Planning Commission first. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. Richard Lombardo, Philadelphia Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on behalf of Bill No. 970549. This bill is a bill that was prepared by our office after a series of community meetings that were held by the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation and Councilman DiCicco. This is a remapping bill. Basically, 31 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980549 it deals with the area north of Vine Street, between 11th Street and Eighth Street, off of Spring Garden Street, the area north and west of Holy Redeemer and the new Chinatown housing. This bill is, as I say, a continuation of our community zoning program. The proposed rezoning that would take place here is similar to what the city did a number of years ago with Old City and also, even before Old City, with Chinatown, below Vine Street. In both cases, what this represents is an indication by changing of zoning that this area is no longer an industrial area predominantly, but an area that is emerging as a mixed-use commercial and residential -- hopefully, a more residential community. Back when we did the other zoning for Chinatown and Old City, basically, the predominant zoning in both those areas was G-2 general industrial, which is a heavy industrial district that permits neither commercial uses nor residential uses. In both cases, we used C-3 commercial with the new zoning classification, and L-4 limited industrial. 32 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980549 C-3 is a district that allows both retail, commercial and multi-family and single-family residential. L-4 is an industrial classification that allows both industrial uses and commercial uses. So basically, what this remapping does, is it indicates that this area is now more appropriate for a mixed-use residential and commercial type of development. As I said, this is very similar to the zoning that we did in Old City prior to its changeover to a more residential community and the Chinatown before that, before its transition over to a more, I guess, mixed use commercial and residential.
Let me interrupt you for one minute, and I want to go off the record. (Discussion continues off the record.)
Back on the record. Please continue with your testimony.
Okay like I was saying, this bill is -- I explained to you what the bill 24 did. Basically, it indicates that this area is appropriate for transition to a residential and 33 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980549 mixed-use residential -- residential/commercial and light industrial. Industrial is more compatible with residents in a retail area. This bill was the subject of several meetings, the last being a community-wide meeting held at Holy Redeemer Hall. That meeting was held in May of 1997. The Councilman -- I think it was set up through the Councilman's office and through PCDC. My recollection is that there was unanimous support of the bill. There was a series of questions and answers, but the upshot of the meeting was that people seemed to come out of the meeting wanting to do it yesterday because they all saw a benefit to them as people who lived in this area, to see the area become more residential an commercial and less heavy industrial. It was actually the heavy industrial, if you're familiar with the area now, it was more like open storage and various sort of low-tech industrial. And for the record, the Planning Commission, in its meeting of September 25, 1997, recommended approval of Bill 970549.
Thank you very 34 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980549 much. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Thank you. Is there anyone else to testify on the bill? (Cecilia Yip and Sophia Pham come forward.)
Good morning please identify yourself for the record, and if you could speak into the microphone.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman, and members of the Committee on Rules. My name is Sophia Pham. I'm the Director of Development at PCDC. And to my left is Cecelia Yip, Executive Director of the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation. We are here in support of Bill No. 23 970549 today. PCDC is a nonprofit development corporation representing Chinatown. Our mission is to preserve, protect and promote Chinatown as a 35 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980549 viable ethnic residential and business community. Since our inception in 1969, PCDC has developed over 200 units of affordable housing and uses of commercial spaces. PCDC's success has 6 transformed a community whose existence was once 7 threatened by urban renewal, and now it is a 8 stable, thriving community. 9 Chinatown is a growing community, and 10 this bill is critical to its growth because it 11 will rezone approximately 44 acres of land that is 12 currently underutilized. Land which once served 13 an industrial era stands abandoned and desolate. 14 The existing industrial land use does not meet the 15 current and future demands for residential and 16 economic development in the area. 17 In order to meet the needs of our 18 community and to revitalize the area, the existing 19 zoning must be changed, and the timing of this 20 zoning is most appropriate. 21 This year, PCDC successfully completed 22 51 units of newly constructed homes north of the Vine Street Expressway. This project created a lot of excitement in the community as well as in the city because it signifies a new era for 36 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980549 Chinatown North. PCDC is planning the next phase of housing development directly across from the 51 units of new homes. It will eliminate blight of vacate lots and provide ten units of affordable housing for low- moderate-income families. And mixed-use units with commercial grounds suitable for a convenience store is a part of this project. PCDC believes that residential and economic development go hand in hand, and hopes to continue this approach in Chinatown North. Chinatown is a growing community without a public facility for recreation and social services. To fill this gap, PCDC is working on a multipurpose community center, which will also be located in Chinatown North. Along with the development met by PCDC is a search of development, both residential and economic, met by the private sector. The progress and opportunities we have here are exhilarating. We hope the members of the committee share our vision and our excitement for Chinatown North and approve Bill No. 970549. 37 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960822 Thank you.
Great, thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? Anyone. (No response.)
Thank you very much for coming in and for your patience.
Thank you. The next bill for consideration is Bill 17 No. 960822, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, titled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1603.1, entitled "Storm Water Management Controls," so that the requirements of a permit and approved storm water management control plan apply to specified development activity undertaken anywhere within the City; and by amending Section 14-1980, entitled "Criteria for Granting Variance," so that 38 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960822 the criteria for granting variances is set forth in Subsection 14-1802(2) (relating to certain environmental considerations) apply to variances with respect to property located anywhere within the City. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Richard Lombardo from the Planning Commission here to testify today on this bill. This bill was prepared at the request of the Law Department to clarify an error that occurred back in July of 1995 when the current flood plain legislation was adopted by City Council. At the time that bill was before the Rules Committee, the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources commented that they wanted us to amend the bill, and it had to do with subparagraph 3, which listed the designated watersheds that were going to be subject to the controls contained in that section of the code. And the State basically said that since we're 39 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960822 going to control every watershed in the City, there no need to have a paragraph that listed designated watersheds. So we -- I mean, the Council deleted that paragraph. Unfortunately, when they deleted that paragraph, they should have also deleted paragraph 4, which basically says that controls will apply to the watersheds listed in paragraph 3. Since there was no paragraph 3, and though more of it falls into the category of a technical amendment, I mean, you could see where someone reading the bill could say, Well, the City never listed watersheds; therefore, it doesn't apply anyplace in the City. And a practical matter, at least at the Planning Commission, through our environmental unit, ever since this bill, the current legislation was passed, we have been enforcing it on all watersheds. The enforcement usually takes place at the building permit phase of the development, not at the zoning permit normally because, when people are going for zoning permits, they may not own the ground and are resistent to spending the additional money for the engineering 40 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960822 necessary to do a storm water management plan. That leads some people to feel that it's not being enforced because they don't see it at the time someone has plans before the Zoning Board. But, in fact -- and I'm sure you can point out cases -- someone can point out cases where they have slipped through and they got a zoning permit without a plan and never filed a storm water management plan. But as a practical matter, the way we've been trying to deal with it is at the building permit stage. And it is through our environmental unit and on a more technical, like in a big subdivision or a big shopping center, it's also bounced over to the Engineering Department and the Water Department also to do more sizing calculations. A lot of times, these plans take the form of sizes of the pipes and underground storage chambers. And in those types of cases, we also rely on the engineers at the Water Department in terms of proper sizing and what have you for those types of storm water management controls, permit controls. 41 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960822 But for the record, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 6, 1995 recommended approval of this bill.
Thank you very much. Are there questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (Gray Smith comes forward.)
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Gray Smith. I'm an architect and urban planner. And a lot of my work involves working with community organizations that have some concerns about developments in their neighborhood that have adverse impacts, including, in some cases, the problems of storm water and flooding as well as erosion control. 1 of the Storm Water Management Controls of the Zoning Code has been the code for several years since 1995. But unfortunately, as good as it is written, it is meaningless unless, of course, it is enforced beyond what it says, as the City Planning Commission claims that they have been doing. This bill will correct the major defect in that section which was alluded to earlier. The current code fails to identify the eight watersheds in Philadelphia in which storm water management is actually required by the zoning code. It inadvertently leaves that section blank and it doesn't correct in another area; whereas this bill will correctly identify the whole city as a network of watersheds. Since virtually every square inch of the city is in a water shed of one of our streams or rivers, the whole city is therefore incorporated. And the map that I handed up. Which was developed by the Water Department shows you where those eight watersheds are. And the zoning code does have some protections for the Wissahickon watershed in the 43 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960822 form of the zoning overlay, which is somewhat archaic now. 1 does. There have been -- that loophole has actually been used. It has been used both by developers and, to some degree, in the Planning Commission and L&I, from my experience. And the City has been somewhat failing to comply with the Pennsylvania Clean Streams Act and the Pennsylvania Storm Water Management Act. And some development projects have slipped through the loophole, and developments have occurred that can create that problem. In working with a particular project in the last several years with the several civic associations in Roxborough, and with Councilman Nutter, who has participated heavily in that controversy, the 32-acre Hunters Point property in Roxborough, where several high-impact developments have been proposed over the years by various developers, it's a wooded and sloped site in the Shawmont area next to Shawmont Avenue, and it's on the hillside of the Schuykill River watershed, and 44 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960822 it's close to the river. Because of the defect in the code and the way that it is administered with respect to storm water management, environmentally destructive plans have actually been approved by the City, by the City Planning Commission and by the Zoning Section of the Department of Licenses and Inspections. And those approvals at the Zoning phase and at the City Planning Commission phase, because it's an R-C6 zoning classification, have never mentioned or reviewed them with respect to storm water management, although the significant information in the code regarding storm water management is there. And, in fact, legally, they don't have to because of the defect in the code. Shawmont Avenue and Umbria Street, at the bottom of the site, already flood when it rains. If you can imagine the impact of cutting down several thousand trees and moving thousands of tons of dirt on the 32-acre hillside, you can imagine what the problems would cause if there's no storm water management plan. So far, there is none for this site. 45 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960822 And it is the subject of a number of appeals to the Zoning Board, to the Common Pleas Court, and to the Board of L&I Review because of those quick approvals that were done away from the public view. Right now, because of this defect, the City Planning Commission and L&I can approve similar plans throughout the City without asking for a storm water management plan.
Now, one of the problems here is that this is clearly written in the zoning code. And in my experience as an architect who frequently applies for zoning approvals for large and small projects is that the zoning examiners are charged with the responsibility of seeing if the project complies with the zoning code. Frequently, they approve projects that have no response whatsoever to the storm water management requirements of the zoning code. They approve them, and they use the excuse that, Well, the City Planning Commission looked at it and approved it, and they're legally the one who's responsible for enforcing it, but they approved it too. 46 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960822 Using the excuse that, Well, I don't want to spend the money, I'm a developer, I'm getting ready to spend $10 million on a development but I don't want to spend $5,000 on a storm water management plan before I get zoning approval is a bad excuse. They don't do it in the suburbs. You can't walk into a planning commission or a township commissioner's hearing with a plan to develop any site in the suburbs around Philadelphia without a storm water management plan. If you don't, you get turned down immediately. " It has to be done and it's obviously -- and I believe you're going to approve this because it's a long-term defect that should have been there. Unfortunately, the Planning Commission has been enforcing it sometimes, sometimes not. It should also include with it strong language to the zoning people and the Planning Commission that at those initial review phases, subdivision review, R-C6 review, and the Planning Commission has an obligation to review it. And certainly when City Council reviews it, the R-C6 47 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 960822 proposal, which is also required in the zoning code, and when the Zoning Section of L&I reviews it, assuming there's someone in there who can understand storm water management, that storm water management plan must be included with those initial submissions, and they must meet all the criteria that's spelled out in the zoning code, and they don't get zoning approval until that happens. And that would be my testimony. And I urge you to support the bill.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, that will conclude our public hearing. - - -
We will now convene 48 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Public Meeting a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion to approve the amendment to Bill No. 980750.
It's been properly moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 12 980750 will be amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on the amended bill, 980750.
We're accepting a motion on the approval of the amended bill.
I move that this bill, as amended, be reported out of committee with a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, any? There are none opposed. Bill No. 49 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Public Meeting 980750, as amended, will be reported out of this favorably, and a request will be made for rules suspense to allow for reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion to approve the amendment to Bill No. 980749.
Mr. Chairman, I move the adoption of the amendment, which is called the "Revised Exhibit B" to Bill No. 980749, as was handed up by the witness in the second hearing. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and second. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 18 980749 will be amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on the amended bill.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980749, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit 50 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Public Meeting first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 7 980749, as amended, will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension so as to allow first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion to approve Bill No. 960822.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 960822 be reported out favorably with a recommendation for suspension of rules. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 20 980822 will be reported out of this committee favorably, and an additional request will be made to allow for first reading at our next regular session of Council. Bill No.'s 980713 and 970549 will be held to the call of the Chair. 51 11/17/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Public Meeting That concludes the business of the Rules Committee public meeting. Thank you for your attendance. (Adjourned at 11:30 a.m.) - - - 52 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, November, 1998, were 8 reported and accurately by me, and that this is a 9 correct transcript of same. 10 11 12 13 RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES 14 BILL NO.'S 960822, 970549, 980749, 980750 15 16 17 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter