A call center could be like the Vanguard Center where I call in to ask about my 401K. Right now it could be out on the 202 corridor. That could be in the City. That is not a telemarketer. There are lots of others who are back office uses.
I would rather have as much of a net of protection as possible. And then the other ones that are isolated areas won't have a complaint. And the other ones that are, they won't be able to stop it, but at least they're going to know about it. What is the problem with having neighborhood people know about what's going in their neighborhood? Because they don't know otherwise. They won't know without this process.
Mr. Chairman, it's not unlike when someone even wants to put a high 103 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 rise residential building in a community. We get into the issue of density, parking or lack much parking. I'm one for trying to streamline. I think you know my record about economic development, but tied in with my pro-economic development position is always been the process. We went through that even at Penns Landing. Most people were offended when I even presented the Penn's Landing project down there, but we went through a five-year process. It never got built, but at least the community had a say and understood what was being proposed there. So whether it's take-out delis, whether it's a bar restaurant, whether it's a condominium or an apartment building or a medical institution, these are processes that people go through all the time. This is a new phenomenon, if you will, with telemarketing. And we've learned from experiences, at least in Old City, that we may -- no 20 fault of you or us or anyone -- we may not have really been paying attention to this the way we should have been. And we have these businesses in Old City today. And like Old City's overlay that was put in place years ago to restrict the number of take-out restaurants, bars, clubs, what have you, 104 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 this is just one more piece of that puzzle that we want to have some control over. We want the community to have a say in that process.
I know you guys are just doing your job and I really do not enjoy beating you guys up.
My concern in Old City is that if we put 1,000 tele-type operators, you know, sending cables out in one location, they all go break together onto little streets, it's got nothing to do with telemarketing.
It's more prevalent in this telemarketing business. We haven't gotten complaints about any tele-type companies.
And had the answer from the representative of the telemarketing company when the question was asked by -- it may have been Cynthia or Heather -- do you intend to expand, he said, no. And then when I followed-up and said, what about if we could maybe find the place to consolidate because it's very congested, there is a 105 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 density problem, maybe some of your problems we can help you resolve. The answer was, no, if we expand, we're getting out of the City. I don't know if he meant that as a threat to say, well, if you continue to do this to us, we're leaving. I was somewhat offended. I personally don't trust the answer no, because everything we've put on the table for the last two years they have rejected. So I have a responsibility, I believe, to protect the businesses and the residents that are there today from any further disruption to their quality of life. And I don't want to bring you guys into our fight, but there's no other way in which I can accomplish it. I mean, I walked out of that meeting and I didn't inform the folks that are here today until a day or two later of my intentions. This was not at their suggestion. It was my instincts telling me that I need to get some control over what this business and other businesses may cause to this community.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 106 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 I wasn't privy to all of the debate, but I think I kind of picked up on the issue somewhat. First of all, I want to ask the question with respects to the legislative process, and I do recall on a zoning issue relating to day care and child care, certain Councilmembers excluded their districts from the Bill. There was some question as to whether or not that can happen, but I think we did it anyway. I guess I would ask Mr. Chapman, if I was interested in excluding the 5th Councilmatic District from this particular Bill, could I, in fact, do that?
My opinion, Councilman, as you said, it's been done in the past. It was done with the day care Bill. The 6th and 10th Councilmatic Districts have different requirements than the rest of the City does, so based on that experience, I would say that you can do that.
I think I would probably would like to offer an amendment because I'm not clear if this issue has more to do with the operation specific to telemarketing or the occupancy of a particular facility and the subsequent operations on the exterior of the facility. And I 107 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 would be concerned about putting an additional burden on a business if that business in a particular location wasn't problematic. And as we all know, any time you add an additional burden as it relates to being able to start a business, people figure out a reason to say that this is not a business friendly City. So I'm a little concerned about putting another barrier in front of a business to locate in my district. And one of the other concerns, Councilman Nutter, you had raised the issue about the burden of proof, certificate versus variance. I agree with you 100 percent by the letter of the law. But I think the reality is, is that our illustrious Zoning Board, there's sometimes a hundred residents coming versus one applicant intent to sway the reality of the whole hardship clause. I'm just a little concerned about that aspect of it also. So I'm a little concerned about the Bill and its implications on a Citywide basis, so I may ask the sponsor to have an opportunity to amend.
We're preparing that amendment now. Anything else? Councilman Nutter. 108 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024
Mr. Chairman, I didn't hear all of the beginning of the hearing on this particular Bill, but I certainly have a good sense of what the conversation has been. Councilman DiCicco has mentioned on a number of occasions a current situation, I don't know where it is and I don't need to know at the moment. But I will have to take it that, as with any other legislation, especially of a zoning nature, this particular provision or requirement would be on a going forward basis. And what, in your opinion, would be the effect on any current business that's functioning and operating?
No effect at all, Councilman. It would only effect businesses in the future. New businesses or a business that's in a building that wants to put an addition on to the building. It would effect businesses like that. I think maybe Councilman Kenney or Councilman DiCicco might have even mentioned that themselves.
Okay. Because I had the same experience when someone decided that they wanted to open in what was formerly a night club, they decided to turn it into a go-go place up on 109 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 City Avenue, and we changed the prohibited use section to encompass the creative way in which they decided to address the participants. But unfortunately, we could not take direct action legislatively against that particular business other than to continue to protest their activities. So I just wanted to make it clear that the legislation is of a prospective nature and does not take any direction action against an operating business.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Cohen.
How long has this telemarketing business been operating in its present location?
Well, I'd like to suggest -- I think the hearing raised very important issues. I would like to suggest that the recommendation of the Planning Commission be accepted for a temporary delay, since it's clear 110 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 that the legislation cannot directly effect the problem as it exists and we need a way of dealing with that too. I think we ought to invest the time to find out what we really can do to help existing conditions, because it seems clear to me that a business this size does not belong in a small, crowded Old City area. This legislation can't help them specifically right now, but from the discussions of the Planning Commission may come very sound approaches that can help us deal with the current situation, as well as the future avoidance of that kind of situation.
Well, I think the problem, Councilman, with that request is that once this cat's out of the bag and there's some anticipation there's going to be restrictions, I think you're going to have a rush to get under the wire, which may create even more problems for us. Because if they think that restrictive legislation is going to be passed, anybody who is anticipating opening one of these will open them quickly. And then we'll have more grandfathered operations in. Councilman DiCicco, I think, has other 111 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 issues relative to his Bill, but from my perspective, I would be concerned that there would be a rush to establish these businesses as quickly as possible given a three, four week delay, even longer maybe, because by the time we get a hearing scheduled during the budget. The issue is, frankly -- and I don't mean any offense to anybody sitting at that table -- I get the impression from the testimony that the Administration's mind is made up on this already, and I don't anticipate much cooperation based on the testimony I've heard today. I think that the Administration testimony is bending over nine ways to Sunday to try to keep this from happening. And I don't anticipate a much conducive attitude to discussion on this issue or other issues that we've had in the past.
I lives in hopes sanity and reason will prevail in this, as well as in many other situations. It may be a hopeless venture, but I've got to believe that sooner or later we all come to our senses. I appreciate those possible problems, but it seems difficult for me to imagine many 112 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 thousands or more employment companies being able to create locations and jobs that quickly. So I don't think it's a realistic danger in this case. I would just like to have more time. I'd like to get more involved with the community problem. The community certainly deserves relief from its existing conditions. Life ought not to be as difficult as it is for them. We may have to consider a number of things. I don't know what a pawn shop is doing in that area. I don't think people who live in Old City are the kind of folks that use pawn shops or check cashing places. So all the business for that must come from other people, and that's not the nature of this kind of community, residential, commercial development. I think what you've done in Old City is great and I want to see it strengthen in every way possible.
Well, from my perspective, I just have concern based on how busy we're going to be with this budget and the lack of availability for scheduling time for hearings. I would be willing to get the Bill out of Committee and hold it at the request of the Administration for continued discussion. But I find that unless the 113 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 Bill is on the calendar, you're not going to get much cooperation until it's ready to be voted on and then we have time for discussion. I do not have a lot of faith in having kind of ongoing discussions while the Bill 7 languishes in the Committee. I would like to get the Bill on the calendar and would be willing, until you're confident and comfortable, in holding the Bill for final vote until that happens. I just think the pressure, in my experience in the last three years, the pressure of the Bill on the calendar brings more discussion than kind of, we'll talk about it.
And I would be willing to have a conversation with you once the Planning Commission makes a decision, once you have had time to coordinate and to get information, I'd be willing to hold it until then. But I think the leverage and the pressure --
Will you include Councilman Nutter and Clarke and Ortiz and the other Members that are here in that understanding? I 114 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 would say yes.
Look, I'd like to get it passed, so I'm not going to be in a position to try to ram it through because --
Thank you very much. Is there anyone to testify on these Bills? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 020826, which is an Ordinance 13 amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, entitled 14 "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-200, entitled, "Residential Districts by amending use regulations in "R-6" Residential District, and by making certain technical amendments, under certain terms and conditions. Mr. Chapman, please identify yourself.
Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, my name is Tom Chapman. I am testifying on behalf of the Planning Commission. This Bill amends Section 14-207 of the Zoning Code by changing the requirements of the R-6 residential district. It provides that attached dwellings can 115 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 be in groups of no more than four and not less than feet in width. The Code presently allows the 4 dwellings to be in groups of 10 and not more than 18 5 feet in width. 6 R-6 is a district that is not mapped 7 extensively in the City. In fact, our records 8 indicate that it's only located in the 10th 9 Councilmatic District, and there are only a few 10 sites within the 10th District zoned R-6 where the 11 land has not been developed. 12 The Planning Commission is scheduled to 13 consider this amendment at its meeting of March 14 18th, 2003. 15
Any questions for 16 this witness? 17 (No response.) 18
Any other persons to 19 testify on this Bill? 20 (No response.)
Seeing none, we will move to Bill No. 030024, which is an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 48th Street, Brown Street, 116 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 44th Street and Fairmount Avenue. Please identify yourself for the record.
Once again for the record, good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, and Members of the Committee. My name is Tom Chapman. I'm here to testify on Bill No. 030024. This Bill was introduced by Councilmember Blackwell on January 28th of this year. It amends the zoning maps for acres of 11 land bounded by 48th Street, Brown Street, 44th Street and Fairmount Avenue. This area is being rezoned to accommodate the development plan of the Philadelphia Housing Authority to build 120 residential units, an administrative office with a community park, and as well as a possible future community center. The Planning Commission considered and approved the 44th and Aspen Redevelopment Area Plan for this site at its meeting of November 19th, 2002. The purpose of this Bill is consistent with the action taken by the Planning Commission at that time, as well as the aims of the 21st Century Neighborhood's proposal as announced by the Mayor. Accordingly, the Planning Commission 117 3/6/03 - RULES - BILL 030024 supports the passage of Bill No. 030024.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for this witness on this Bill? (No response.)
Seeing none,that will conclude the Rules Committee hearing. - - - 118 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Thursday, March 6, 2003 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 020683, 030113, 030114, 030017, 030024, 030081, 030099. RESOLUTION 030033. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, CHAIRMAN COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ - - - 119 3/6/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now convene the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 030081 with a rules suspension.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 030081 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly Seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030081 is reported out of this Committee favorably. The request made for rules suspension will allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognize Councilmember DiCicco on a motion on Bill No. 030099.
Thank you, Mr. 120 3/6/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Chair. I move that Bill No. 030099 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030099 is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. Request made for rules suspension will allow first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco on a motion on Bill No. 030114.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 030114 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.) 121 3/6/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030114 is reported out of this Committee favorably. The request be made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke to approve a motion approving the amendments to Bill No. 030113. Those amendments include an addition to paragraph one of 14-1605, which now reads, "At any location where the operation of a telemarketing business is otherwise permitted by this Code, no 18 person shall establish, maintain or operate a telemarketing business as that term is defined in Section 2 of the Telemarketing Registration Act of December 4, 1996, PL911, No. 147, without first obtaining a Zoning Board of Adjustment Certificate." The additional amendment will be a new Section D which will state, "Any location within the 5th Councilmatic District," so this Bill will not 122 3/6/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING apply to the 5th Councilmatic District. First of all, I'd like to ask for a motion to approve those amendments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I ask for a motion to approve the amendments as read into the record. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. The amendments as read into the record will be approved. I now ask Councilmember Clarke if he would be so kind as to make a motion to report this Bill out of Committee favorably and not requesting a rules suspension.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill No. 030113 be reported out of Committee as amended, be reported 123 3/6/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING out favorably out of Committee. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030113 as amended is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 020826 with a rules suspension.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 020826 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 first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
The Bill has been moved and seconded. All in favor? 124 3/6/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING (Aye.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 020826 is reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. A request will be made for rules suspension will allow first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 030024 with a suspension.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 030024 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 first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030024 is reported out of this 125 3/6/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Committee with a favorable recommendation and request will be made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion to amend Bill No. 030017.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, on of the Bill at the top is entitled, "Exhibit A," where presently reads, "Preliminary plan," Mr. Chairman, I need to delete "preliminary" and now insert the word "final" and I move the adoption of that amendment. (Duly seconded.)
Seconded. All in favor to the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 030017, say aye. (Aye.)
There are none opposed. The Bill is amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 126 3/6/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Now with that amendment I need to move the adoption of the final plan as listed in Exhibit A of Bill 030017. (Duly seconded.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. This Bill will remain in Committee until the next hearing, which I mentioned during the course of this hearing.
Thank you very much. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee -- we're not done yet?
The Chair recognizes 127 3/6/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Councilmember Nutter for a motion to approve Resolution 030033.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the approval of Resolution No. 7 030033. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Resolution No. 030033 has been approved by the Committee.
Now I think we're done. Thank you for your attendance. (Council adjourned at 4:25 p.m.) - - - 128 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of March 6, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public