COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 11, 2008 10:10 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 080080, 080251, 080376, 080249, 080250, 080381, 080437, 080469, 080491 and 080527 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Rules Committee. The record will reflect that a quorum is present. To my immediate left is Councilman Greenlee. To my extreme right is Councilman DiCicco, Councilman Goode, and I am appointing Councilman Jones to be on the Committee today. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 080080. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 14 amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by adding a new Section 14-908, entitled "Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District." (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning, Mr. Kramer. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, 3 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Chairman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080080, which was introduced into Council January 31, 2008. The purpose of this bill is to establish the first Neighborhood Conservation District, NCD, in the City. Such a district is created in an effort to create design guidelines for new construction or alterations so that the character of the neighborhood is preserved. The zoning overlay district sets forth certain provisions in order for a developer to obtain a building permit for new construction, alteration or demolition of a property within the district's boundaries. These regulations will take into account pre-existing conditions of the properties and will only come into play if a building permit 4 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. is sought. The boundaries of the new district will be the area generally bounded by the north side of Washington Avenue, the properties on the north side of Bainbridge Street, the east side of 6th Street and the west side of Front Street. I digress because an amendment is being proposed which would also exclude properties covered under the South Street Headhouse District. That amendment is forthcoming. The regulations include restrictions on building setbacks, heights, fenestration requirements, parking, decks, building materials for residential properties, and parking and material guidelines for commercial and industrial properties. These regulations are those suggested by the local community group in conjunction with the Councilman's office and the staff of the Philadelphia City 5 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Planning Commission. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of February 19, 2008 recommended that Bill No. 080080 be approved. In the process of negotiation with the various stakeholders, it has been found that some amendments were necessary in an effort to further refine the bill. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission, in conjunction with Councilman DiCicco's office and the Queen Village Neighborhood Association, has prepared such amendments and will deliver them at this time. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions of the Committee at this time.
Mr. Kramer, can you summarize the type of controls that would be placed upon a property owner within the district?
Yes, ma'am. There are -- in the bill there are height 6 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. regulations, which are dictated by the width of the street. So the smaller the street, the shorter the height. There is a recession on a plane, a 45 degree, so that you can't build straight up the street line, but rather recede back the further up you go. You are also having design guidelines requiring a percentage of fenestration, which is windows, openings in the walls. There are -- you have to have the door at least a foot above the sidewalk. Utility meters need to be hidden from street frontage. Fence walls and fences have to be in compliance with 14-2314 of the Code, which means they can't be of opaque material. The minimum aggregate width of the windows shall be at least 33 percent of the total linear frontage. Those are the types of directives in this particular bill. Roof decks have to be set back eight feet from the property line so that they're not visible from the street line. 7 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Those are the types of things that are directed as part of this legislation.
Also, I know you didn't mention about the garages. If garages are essentially prohibited for certain sized properties, does the Zoning Code provide for adjacent or off-street parking for new residential construction?
The Zoning Code on the issue of parking is a rather confusing issue. There are some areas of the City where new construction would not necessarily require parking. For the most part, as a general rule reading the Code, you would have to have one parking spot per new unit of construction. There are areas where that ratio is less and there are at least three areas of the City that are fairly broad wherein unless you are providing a substantial development, in which case your parking has to be provided by rear garage, there 8 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. is no parking required for in-fill development. So if you put up -- and these are primarily directed at existing structures that would not allow you to change the character of the existing community as opposed to new construction meeting a new standard. This would prohibit somebody that had a storefront window from taking the storefront window and turning it into a garage, is really what this is aimed at.
Thank you. Mr. Kramer, Subsection 8 of Section 14-908, "shall expire one year after the ordinance becomes law," why is this?
Partly because this is a brand new type of regulation and to be frank about it, the City Planning Commission isn't sure exactly how we're going to handle all this. We don't know how many permit applications we're going to be seeing, how we're 9 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. actually going to physically be able to handle everything, and we wanted to be able to revisit it in a year to get an experience and see how this would actually function. If I'm misspeaking, Councilman, correct me, but my colleague has usually been the front man on this and, unfortunately, he's out of the office today, so I'm covering that. But that's the way I understood it.
Very well. Thank you very much. Are there any questions of Mr. Kramer on this bill? (No response.)
Mr. Kramer, we haven't received anything from the Historic Commission. Do you know what their disposition is on this?
I was at the Historic Commission meeting when this was presented to them and there was some discussion. I believe that some of the 10 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. comments that I saw and heard indicated that they had a concern about some of the boundaries included a street that had a historic designation already incorporated. It was my understanding that the amendments that you see change some of the boundaries to take those historically certified districts out of this bill, and that's what I understood their comment to be.
Thank you very much. I would like the record to reflect that we have two Councilmembers joining us: Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Miller. At this time, I would ask Mr. McPherson to -- MR. McPHERSON: We have some more witnesses.
Oh, do we have anyone to testify on this bill? MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Cole and a 11 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Mr. Hauptmann. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Michael Hauptmann. I'm on the Board of the Queen Village Neighbors Association. I am a Co-Chair of the Queen Village Zoning Committee and the Neighborhood Conservation District Committee. I am also an architect and a 30-year resident of Queen Village. The architecture of Queen Village touches five centuries, from Old Swedes Church built in 1699 to a 21st century row house currently under construction. This remarkable mix of architectural styles, perhaps more diverse than any other neighborhood in Philadelphia, has produced a uniquely textured environment in which to live and 12 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. work. Remarkably, it has very little protection. We are not like Society Hill, our neighbor to the north, an historic district. And although we have some of the oldest houses in the City, many of these properties are not even on the Historic Commission's list of historic properties. With the enormous increase in property values over the last decade, Queen Village has been left vulnerable to developers who have found it cost effective to tear down old houses and replace them with larger homes, with garage doors facing the street and unreviewed designs. These alterations are slowly fraying the architectural fabric that makes Queen Village so livable and attractive. The guidelines that we have developed as part of the NCD legislation give us, on a very local level, a means by which we can begin to control the future development of the neighborhood. 13 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. They attempt to identify the essential qualities of the neighborhood and provide the means to preserve them. These include issues of massing, materials, setbacks and parking. They help ensure that the streetscape includes stoops, windows on the street and the proper scale of buildings for our smallest, narrowest streets, all characteristics that are not covered by the current Zoning Code. These guidelines do not in any way regulate style or period. We encourage eclecticism and quirkiness. We are not trying to turn Queen Village into Colonial Williamsburg or Disneyland. Nor do they affect existing buildings or minor renovation projects. We have vetted these guidelines over the past four years before several general membership meetings and they have been published in our local newsletter and on our website. Those present at these meetings were overwhelmingly 14 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. supportive. We have incorporated suggestions and deleted items that were unpopular, and we have the full support of the Queen Village Neighbors Association. We ask for your support and to pass this legislation to make Queen Village Philadelphia's first Neighborhood Conservation District. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. I'm Rick Cole. I'm also Co-Chair of the Queen Village Zoning Committee and the Neighborhood Conservation District and I'm also a 30-year resident. Mr. Hauptmann has actually made testimony for both of us, so I'm here to answer any questions if you have questions. 15 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee of the two witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, I thank you for coming in to testify. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Tim Krug. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Tim Krug. I'm a resident of Queen Village. I have copies of testimony if you guys would like them. Good morning. I'd like to thank you for having me here. I apologize for the length of my comments, but I find so much of this bill to be 16 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. objectionable that I can't be any briefer than this. My first objection is to the legislation on the process of creating the Neighborhood Conservation District. As I understand it, the legislation states that unless 51 percent of all residents oppose this legislation in writing --
I'm sorry, sir. Can you speak into the microphone, please.
Sure. As I understand it, the legislation states that unless 51 percent of all residents oppose this in writing, that it will be passed. First of all, the idea that a majority of residents would have to oppose a bill in writing is outrageous, as it is essentially impossible to get that kind of response. When something as important as a presidential election can only be decided with a voter turnout of 65 percent, I 17 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. can't believe that legislation requiring 51 percent of the total population of the area to oppose it even exists. Furthermore, it is clear to me that many residents never received this mailing. I personally wrote QVNA asking for a copy since I never received the original and wanted to know how to oppose it. Not surprisingly, I never received a second mailing either. I was only sent a copy of the letter and the legislation when I requested it directly from Councilman DiCicco's office. I know I am not alone in this, and it is not a case of a few exceptions. Putting aside the fact that many property owners, myself included, did not receive this notice from Council, the actual legislation was never printed in the Queen Village Crier and was never distributed. People without computers or without some comfort level on the Internet never saw the proposed legislation. Furthermore, different 18 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. versions of this bill are circulating, making it even more confusing. Secondly, Queen Village residents were not given an opportunity to vote for or against any aspect of this proposal. Sure, the basic plans for the NCD were presented by committee members in various forms in meetings and were mentioned a few times in the Queen Village Crier. However, the plans were developed by a select group of people and forwarded to Councilman DiCicco without broad neighborhood consensus. Before City Council votes on it, Queen Village should vote on it. With regard to the actual consent of the legislation, I have numerous objections. First of all, it appears that the primary objective to this legislation is to stop the development of garage-front homes. While I understand the desire to prevent the building of more of these homes, I also recognize that this is a problem that was 19 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. originally created by the City and has since been addressed by Councilman DiCicco. If I am not mistaken -- and someone could correct me -- anyone requesting a curb cut on a street where fewer than 30 percent of the houses already have them would be required to obtain a variance already. Furthermore, any future issues with regard to this matter could and should be handled through the rewriting of our Zoning Code. In addition, I think it is wise to avoid creating redundant legislation, as it only serves to add confusion as to which law applies. The last thing this process needs is more gray areas. Secondly, the idea that a small group of residents have the right to determine what they like and dislike and determine architectural styles and guidelines for an entire neighborhood is outrageous. I find it particularly offensive that many neighbors could dictate the style and design of my home. 20 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. I have no problem with requiring owners of historic properties to maintain those properties in accordance with certain guidelines. However, trying to dictate what property owners do with the facades of their own homes in some attempt to create faux historic character is unacceptable. Had I wanted to live someplace where my neighbors could tell me what my house had to look like, I would have purchased a home in a suburban cookie-cutter development. One of the great things about Philadelphia is the variety of architectural styles and material choices you can see on just one single block. One City block may contain ten different styles of housing.
Trying to make our neighborhood homogenous by requiring all of these houses to mimic colonial styles would be a step in the wrong direction. The entire section on materials and design should be stripped out of this bill. No one should have the right to 21 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. dictate the materials that can be used on another person's private property. I don't like vinyl siding either, but if someone wants to use it, so be it. Banning stucco, cement board, et cetera, is a veiled attempt to require that all houses be constructed of brick. There are numerous examples all over the City of facades made of stucco and other materials that are quite tasteful in their design. Though clearly not everyone's taste is the same. Trying to require the rear of someone's house to match the front facade in certain areas is also ridiculous, if not vaguely written in the legislation, as is dictating materials for the surface of a parking lot. We live in a free market, and that free market will no doubt take care of what our current society deems unappealing houses in a wonderful neighborhood such as Queen Village. We don't need legislation to dictate the 22 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. quality of finishes in our homes. The market does that nicely. There is a reason you don't see much, if any, vinyl siding in Queen Village. People don't like it. People won't pay for that which they don't like. Builders aren't going to put vinyl siding on a home in Queen Village, because they know that brick or stone will get them more money. A rehabber looks at it the same way, so does a homeowner. Society and the free market in particular will dictate style and taste and do so far more effectively than any legislation ever could. This bill is so vague and lacking in detail in some cases that it is hard to even argue against it. While we have been told that the Planning Commission review would occur only if permits are pulled, that is not set forth in the bill. There is no definition in the bill of alterations. In fact, the bill itself does not even reference the Planning Commission or any approval 23 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. process. Things such as "visible from the street" are left wide open to interpretation. " These gray areas will end up causing us the most trouble. Contrary to what a few proponents of this bill may believe, passing this bill would be a detriment to the neighborhood. There is no 12 grandfathering of existing properties. Despite the claims that legislation is designed to protect our neighborhood from someone coming in and building an undesirable home, very few buildable lots actually exist in Queen Village today. That leaves only our existing homes that would be subject to the legislation that is supposed to be protecting us. In reality, that means if I seek to change the style and placement of my current windows, nothing in the legislation allows me to do so in an existing, non-conforming location. The bill 24 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. instead imposes financial hardship on residents who must go through the Planning Commission for an approval that may take months or force them to take on expensive upgrades that they may not be able to afford. If my brick facade is in poor condition and cannot be repaired, I could be forced to spend in excess of $10,000 to replace it rather than have a tastefully done modern stucco facade applied for less than half that cost. Despite personal assurances that have been made at the meeting on 5/15 that special circumstances would be met with leniency and understanding, that's simply not what the law states. Even if those special circumstances were granted variances, the process of getting such an approval would still require the services of an attorney, as well as several months of time to make it through the process. There are numerous scenarios that would burden residents financially simply to comply with the 25 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
individual tastes of a few. Furthermore, the idea that the establishment of a Conservation District would somehow help maintain or increase property values is absurd. As a real estate professional and someone who works with builders, developers and investors, I can assure you that the contrary is true. Putting restrictions on properties and adding additional steps to the building permit process only makes a neighborhood less desirable to builders, developers, investors and residents alike. Why would anyone choose to build or renovate in Queen Village and meet the ridiculous requirements set forth by the NCD and spend several extra months carrying the cost of their property while they wait for these approvals? Why would a current resident choose to update their property if they know that applying for a permit could trigger the requirements of the NCD and force them to spend thousands more dollars to modify their home to meet 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the standards set forth by a few neighbors? This legislation will stifle the growth that has helped make Queen Village what it is today and will instead result in the stagnation of our housing stock and leave many of our once beautiful homes in a state of disrepair. Finally, the sunset clause, which many are trumpeting as our escape should this not work out, is, in my opinion, the biggest threat of all. Why? Because once this legislation is passed, it will have to be revisited within a year. It will not be allowed to expire. When it is revisited, I know what the NCD proponents from QVNA are going to say: It's working well, but we want to add this, that and the other restriction to it. And if you think an addendum to this bill 11 months down the road is going to be broadcast, distributed and put out for public comment or vote, I would like to offer you all a deal on the Ben Franklin 27 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Bridge. The revised version, much like the original, will be authored by certain Board members of QVNA, quietly passed on to Councilman DiCicco's office with assurances that the neighborhood is behind it 100 percent, and once introduced, it will be supported by Council. Please do not pass this legislation. People hear the word "conservation" and assume it is a good thing. In this case, it is the worst thing that could happen to our neighborhood, save for someone building a casino here, that is. Thank you for your time.
Thank you. Good morning. Are you going to testify, sir?
Please identify yourself. 28 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
I came up because of affiliation. My name is Noah Webster. I'm the Secretary to the South Street Headhouse District, as well as a resident in Queen Village and a business owner. I guess I'm here for both sides of the fence. I'm here to thank Councilman DiCicco and Queen Village for excluding the South Street Headhouse District in this legislation. As a district, we certainly appreciate and hope that it will help us grow so that we can meet the demands of our customers and residents alike. As a resident, I have to respectfully disagree with this legislation and the way it was brought before us. Each time I've gone to one of these meetings -- and I've attended each one of the meetings, public meetings, for this legislation and for the amendment -- I constantly think about what it was like before I moved to Philadelphia and when I 29 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. first moved here, and I think a lot of us inside the system tend to forget that most of the people out there don't know that we exist as neighborhood groups, as legislators, as organizers of many of the things that go on. Now, each time that I've been to one of these meetings, okay, I've asked very simple questions, because I'm a very simple person. I've asked, how is this vote going to come down? How are the land owners going to be able to effectuate change to make sure this doesn't happen? Well, quite simply, if they do nothing, their vote counts as a yes. Fifty-one percent of people, of land owners, have to oppose this law so that it doesn't become enacted? This is just strange. So then the legislation plainly reads that every homeowner, every land owner, must be notified about this hearing, this hearing going on right now. So I asked the simple question, how many 30 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. mailers were put out? Queen Village in their meetings tell me 2,000. There's some minutes to those meetings that now say 3,000. So I go back and ask Queen Village, how many mailers were put out? Two thousand. At the point of those mailers being put out, there were 3,904 land owners within those boundaries. So I don't really care if it was 2,000 or 3,000. The simple fact is not every land owner was notified. Therefore, that negates the entire auspice of this law, because the law plainly says that every land owner must be notified. Now we go into asking. I'm on the South Street Headhouse District. Like I said, we approve this law. However, I must use the knowledge that I have from that, and each member that -- Tim is on the South Street Headhouse District. He's a resident. He did not get a mailer. I did not get one. John Foy, our President, did not get one. The 31 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. owner of Jim's Steaks didn't get one, on and on. A majority of our businessmen all are residents within the district. We didn't get mailers, plain and simple. We didn't get mailers. Therefore, not every land owner was notified. We go into the businesses, like Triad Realty owns a great amount of our South Street Headhouse District. They were not notified. They were not given a mailer. You cannot selectively send out mailers. Even if you don't have enough time, it's not my fault. Simple fact is, not everyone was notified. Now, besides that issue, when this was originally created, the originating law says that 70 percent of the area must be residential. The original boundaries of the law that were in the original law, it was only 51 percent residential. Why? Because it included the riverfront and it included the South Street Headhouse District. And 32 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. you could say, Well, they changed it and this and that. Well, this goes into Tim's point that this law has been changed so many times and the community at large does not know about the changes. Even if they are knowledgeable, even if they are one of the insiders in Philadelphia, they don't know about the changes and the boundary changes that have happened that exist today.
They don't know about it. They weren't posted on the Queen Village website, this and that. Thirdly, you want to talk about notification. They say that people were properly notified through e-mail. Well, the Sunshine Act doesn't say that people can properly be notified through e-mail. Furthermore, he admits that they only have a few hundred e-mail addresses for QVNA. So only a few hundred people were notified that way. He says they were notified through the Queen Village Crier. Well, 33 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. if half the residents are like my wife, they complain that they're all over the steps and they throw them away before they're even read. Meanwhile, I'm yelling at her saying, Keep it, I want to know what's going on. So right there you got a 50/50 split in our community. And then if you take the simple -- like this is a public policy and, therefore, it should have been dealt with under the Sunshine Act. It should have been in a circulated paper, a properly circulated paper such as the Inquirer or something like that where proper notification was given. That didn't happen. Next, if you look into what is the actual makeup of our district, some people say it's this, some people say it's that. There's really no opinion here. We've got a very large Section 8 community that has setbacks, and the simple fact is, come 10, 15 years, they're going to want to renovate that 34 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. entire area. Are they going to have to get rid of their setback lines and everything? I'm talking about between 4th, 5th, Christian and Washington. Are they going to have to get rid of their setback lines? Are they going to have to become a historic-looking area? The simple fact is that that area is pretty nice now, and there is a lot less crime, there's a lot less violence because of the way that the City of Philadelphia has made that place look. They've cut down the population in half, got rid of two of the problematic buildings that were there, and, quite frankly, they couldn't exist. They couldn't exist under this law. You take a recent coffee shop that opened on 2nd and Christian. Took out what was a dilapidated, condemned building. Used to be an old photo copier guy who didn't care about anything. Turned into a beautiful coffee shop. The way that those renovations are, well, 35 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. since she renovated, her step is higher than a foot. She would have had to do something about that. Her loading zone is in the front. It's not in the back or anything. She would have -- basically she wouldn't have opened up there because of the problems, the problems that would happen if you don't know how to be a part of the inside. And the way the wording reads, even the simplest alteration -- I kindly respectfully disagree with Tim. There is a definition for "alteration" that's in the original law, not this amendment, but the original Neighborhood Conservation District law that occurred a couple years ago. The "alteration" definition states any change that requires a permit by the City of Philadelphia. Well, guess what that could mean? If I want a washer vent for my -- or for my dryer, if I want a dryer vent, I'm going to have to go to the Planning Commission. Why? Because I need a permit to pierce my facade under a 36 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. definition of Philadelphia. That requires a permit. So now I got to go to a Planning Commission just to put in a dryer vent. And they can say, Oh, we won't do that to you. Well, let me tell you something, the Board changes every couple of years. Employees change in the City. People can get very, very nasty in this city, and you know it as well as I do. What could be friendly today doesn't mean it's going to be friendly tomorrow. Finally, simple thing is that the law says that you cannot have any Neighborhood Conservation District that overlays any historic district. Quite frankly, half of this covers a historic district.
In 1979 part of this area became part of the Southwark Historic District. Now, they're going to try to confuse you and say that's a federal thing, yadda, yadda, yadda. This is not true. The Southwark Historic District became a federal district in 1972. Okay? In 1972, it became a federal historic 37 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. district. In 1979, it became a Philadelphia historic district. It is part of our legislation. It is part of our zoning legislation. It was made part of our zoning legislation because us neighbors were afraid that signs were going to pop up everywhere in Queen Village to go for sale for 95. So there are already historic zoning implementations through a Philadelphia historic district, not a national historic district, and, therefore, that negates this entire law. And, lastly, us as a neighborhood, we are so confused right now with boundaries, divisions. When businesses move in, they don't know who to go to for approval. When residents come in, they don't know who to go to for approval. We have no less -- at any given moment there's several overlays that we've got to listen to, different neighborhoods, and the Planning Commission has divided us up even more 38 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. into more neighborhoods. They've divided Queen Village up into Washington Square East and Lombard East and Queen Village. Now from south to Lombard is Lombard East it's called. It's the new trek name. Also Washington East. I'm sure neighborhood groups are going to pop up on those. So as a resident, I'm going to have to now go to Queen Village Neighborhood Association, Lombard East Association, Washington East Association, and then now the Queen Village neighborhood overlay, whatever, Neighborhood Conservation District, and I got to go to Planning to put in a vent to my house or to change the storefront.
Thank you. Just a moment, please. I would like the record to also indicate that Councilmembers Kelly and 39 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Brown are joining us, and at this time, I would like to recognize Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning to both of you. Mr. Krug, just on one thing. Obviously you have a lot of concerns and a lot of opposition to this, I understand, but I have to admit, your last point I really don't follow in your testimony where you talk about the sunset provision being the biggest threat of all. You say in here it will not be allowed to expire. I'm not clear on what you mean by that.
Well, basically what I'm saying is the people that created this district or are attempting to create this district aren't going to simply let it expire. They're going to fight for its existence and they're going to fight for modifications. That's my belief.
But isn't 40 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the other argument -- and other legislation has sunset provisions in it over the years -- that right now you're assuming -- I'm not saying you're right, wrong or indifferent in this -- that there's going to be problems with this. Well, in a year, if that's true, you would have concrete examples of where the problems were. Like somebody applied for permits, couldn't get it, they should have been able to get it, it limited sales, it brought down values. Whatever the case may be, you would have concrete arguments. So I don't see -- and, again, I'm not even going to get into your other arguments where you're right or wrong. You live there. I don't. But I just don't see your argument on the sunset thing. I would think at the very least if we pass this, then at least you can come back in a year, you or maybe some people who support it now can come back in a year and say, Geez, you know what, 41 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. after looking at it, after further review, as they say in the NFL, this doesn't work. So without getting into the other stuff, I don't follow that argument.
I understand where you're coming from, but my fear is that come 10, months from now, the same 10 people that proposed this legislation are 11 going to come back, and I don't feel like this amended version or this secondary review ten months down the line is going to be publicized any better, if not less publicized than the original legislation was. So my fear is that the people that created this proposal are simply going to come back nine, ten months from now and try to make it even more restrictive, being even less public about what they're doing. That's what I'm fearing.
Okay. All right. I hear you. 42 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President, and good morning, gentlemen. I think Councilman Greenlee touched on primarily one of my concerns as it relates to your testimony, Mr. Krug, and you keep implying that there's some sort of a secret agenda here, that in 10 months or 11 months, the revised version would, much like the original, will be authored by certain Board members of QVNA, passed quietly on to Councilman DiCicco. I have been representing Queen Village for over 13 years, almost 13 years now, and I don't know of any time 43 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. that I or any of the Board members, either the present Board members or past Board members, have ever done anything in a quiet fashion. To suggest that a couple of people made up their mind that they want certain things to happen and they want Queen Village to look a certain way and feel a certain way and we're going to go to the Councilman, kind of like the State legislators did two years ago at 2 o'clock in the morning and get some legislation passed, I don't operate that way.
Well, I don't -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I think you were at the last meeting that I attended. I believe you were there. There have been, as Mr. Webster has pointed out, meetings that have been ongoing, many of which he has attended, and as I said at that community meeting, notices are put out by QVNA about a public meeting that they have on a monthly basis. Sometimes people choose 44 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. not to go to meetings, and that's their right to decide whether they want to go or not. But to sit here and suggest that over the last four years that there's not been any public notification or discussion or meetings held regarding this is simply not true, and I just want to put that on the record. We may have our differences on whether we agree with this legislation or not, but this was not done quietly. And I will give you the benefit of the doubt, Mr. Webster and others, that it may not have been -- the notifications that were mailed out maybe could have been done better, but they relied on the Board of Revision of Taxes' information as to who the property owners were. It wasn't mailed out to renters, which is not an unusual way we do things in this manner as property owners. I can tell you that of all the notices that were sent out -- and there's some disagreement somewhere between two 45 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. and four thousand -- I don't know the exact number -- only 200, only 200 people have contacted my office in opposition. So even if you're accurate and the 4,000 notices that should have been sent out were not sent out or not delivered for whatever reason -- and I don't think the QVNA Board sat down and said, Let's not send it to DiCicco or let's not send it to Wilson Goode because we know they're going to be against it, let's send it out to only those folks that we believe would be supportive of it, it didn't happen that way, I can -- let me just finish this point. So even if we use your 2,000 as the number of property owners that were notified, 200 people out of 2,000 have objected to this or sent us any information to the contrary. Excuse me. Thank you. My legislative aide just corrected me. Only 200 envelopes were returned as not having been 46 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. deliverable and only 30 people, 30 people, have objected out of the 2,000. And, again, I'm using your number, not the number that we're being told by QVNA. So that's a significant number of people who either are supportive of this bill or maybe didn't take the time to read it. We can't do it any other way. It's impossible -- and I think I pointed that out -- to physically go around and distribute 4,000 of these letters, unless people from the community want to decide to do that. That's their right. But the Clerk's Office is where those letters were mailed out to the people in Queen Village. That's where they came from. And I know you have a few comments, but, Madam President, what I'd like to do after Mr. Webster is complete is bring the other two witnesses back up from QVNA, because I think they can speak a lot more accurately to the number of mailings that were sent out and the process by which that occurred. 47 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Respectfully, sir, I am not and I would never suggest that anything nefarious occurred between -- that you did anything wrong. I would certainly never suggest that QVNA did anything wrong. And that's the one thing that I think people forget, is that I am a resident too and Queen Village does represent my needs as a resident. So I am certainly not talking down upon them. I'm not talking down upon the people who wish to further this. I just personally don't believe in it and I'm citing reasons why it shouldn't exist. As far as -- the things that concern me was not that some people didn't get things. I know that the BRT is slow in transferring names and everything. The simple fact is that some of the people that I've mentioned quite simply have been residents for over 30 years. They've had the same address for nearly 15, 20 years. And I've looked at their information on the BRT. That's 48 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. where I've got all my facts and figures. And the number of mailings that went out I got from the same exact place you did, from QVNA meetings. That's where I got my information. So whenever someone asks how many mailers were out, I have to rely on what QVNA told me, and that was 2,000 they've told me on a couple different meetings. The meetings in their minutes on their website, one of them says 3,000. So I've got exactly the same information as you, sir, and I certainly would never accuse you of anything. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again, I was just referencing Mr. Krug's comments about somehow this legislation in ten months will be quietly passed on to Councilman DiCicco's office with assurances that the neighborhood is behind it 100 percent, and once introduced, it will be unanimously supported by this Council.
If I may approach 49 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the word "quiet," from dealing with -- you know what I do with the South Street District and whatnot. I firmly believe that we get around any nuance or sake of what's in the shadows and what's out and open by utilizing the Sunshine Act and making sure that meetings and notices are published within 30 days in the newspaper. The simple fact is that these meetings were not published in a circulated newspaper. They were placed in QVNA and a couple hundred e-mails. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I don't know of any civic associations or community associations that do any notification outside of a newsletter, if they happen to have it. There are a number of organizations that I know I represent probably throughout the City that don't even have the ability to put out a newsletter. They rely on volunteers to either put circulars in someone's door or by word of mouth or posters in neighborhood stores. They do 50 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. try their best. I mean, QVNA is one of those civic associations that's fortunate that they have the resources to put out a newsletter, and I don't -- I get a copy of one every month mailed to my office. I don't live in Queen Village. So I have to assume -- and it may be wrong to assume -- that the majority of the people in Queen Village are receiving the Crier, and in the Crier notification of meetings, whether it's for this legislation or any other thing that's happening, in my past experience has been publicized.
But no matter who created this legislation and no matter who is in charge of this legislation, the simple fact is the onus comes down on the City. This becomes a City legislation, and the onus comes on the City, and any legislation that's significant should abide by the Sunshine Act and it should be notified 30 days in advance of a public hearing through a circulated 51 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. paper. This is affecting land owners.
May I address here? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My understanding from my legislative assistant is that the notice was in the Inquirer 60 days prior to.
I was going to say that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And, again, not everybody reads the -- excuse me. Not everyone reads the Inquirer or the Daily News. I guess that's the difficulty in a lot of these things. Some people take the time to read the entire newspaper. I don't. I just read certain portions of a newspaper, and a lot of times I miss things because I don't read the newspaper in its entirety. But there's not much more I think we can do. The process is going through it. You may disagree that the process was not as complete as you would like it to have been. I accept your comments. I disagree with them, but I 52 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. accept those respectfully, and this is that process we're going through. That's why we're here today. And as far as I know, if I remember correctly, the 51 percent was a state statute. I mean, we have to abide by that. We didn't just kind of make that up in Council. To the best of my knowledge, it was a state statute requires when you do these kind of legislation, that 51 percent -- you need 51 percent in opposition. I'm not passing the buck, but it is what it is.
May I comment on your concerns? I didn't mean to imply that any wrongdoing was taking place in your office. Perhaps my use of the term "quietly" brought up some suspicious thoughts. Personally, I'm not a conspiracy theorist or anything like that, but it did strike me as odd that so very many of my neighbors who I asked about this mailing didn't receive it and it just struck me as odd, that's all. 53 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. And with regard to quietly being passed along, while the process was publicized at QVNA meetings and through the Crier, the actual legislation was not. It was talked about. It was mentioned, different tenets of it were. But I don't believe the legislation was published. And I believe that even at the last -- at that 5/15 meeting, different variations of the legislation were being passed around. The version on Queen Village's website was not the current version. So unless somebody was Internet savvy and knew where to look for and read the legislation, they didn't receive the notification, let alone the actual legislation.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, if I may just point out one more thing. Enabling legislation took place somewhere -- and I was trying to 54 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. get it from Brian -- somewhere between three or four years ago.
Four years ago. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And it was in this Chambers that the enabling legislation was passed. And there were folks from QVNA who were here to talk about it and there was a slide presentation that I believe some of my colleagues -- Councilwoman Reynolds Brown was commenting on some of the homes in Queen Village and I was kind of giving her what I thought those homes were selling for, and she kept -- she was amazed by the sale prices of those homes. So this public process has been going on for at least four years and it began in this very Chambers where we are today. And I didn't take that personal, by the way, but I wanted to establish the record that that's not the way I do business. I think my colleagues understand that. And I won't do that 55 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. going forward. It will be a very public -- as public as I can possibly make it. There's just limitations of what I can do. The rest is left up to the community. And civic associations and people who are involved directly as Board members, my hat goes off to them. It is a very difficult job. It is a thankless job in most cases, and it requires a lot of time and work. And I said this at the last meeting, that maybe more people -- I'm not being disrespectful -- should be attending these meetings, whether it's for this or any other issue, and be more involved, because that's what makes a neighborhood strong. And this legislation came about because people who live in that community care enough about it, and there may be a disagreement, a difference of opinion, on what needs to be done to preserve the integrity of that community, but at least people have taken the time to go out and try to figure out how do we make this 56 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. neighborhood -- preserve what we have and continue to make it a better place going forward. And we may have that -- and that's life, we all disagree on -- some people like vanilla, some people like chocolate, but that's what has taken place here on why we're here today. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Councilman, do you still want the previous witnesses? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, please. I think I need it for the record on how the mailings were --
Gentlemen, thank you very much. We appreciate your coming in to testify. May we have the previous witnesses approach the witness table, please. (Witness approached witness table.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Gentlemen, 57 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. I asked you to come back to the table because you did hear the witnesses, their testimony specifically about the notification, whether it was in the Crier or not, the number of mailings. Could you guys at least for the record tell us what you did and how you did it.
We received the list of property owners from the Tax Bureau. We were assured that that was as accurate a list that we could get our hands on. The City Council, they provided the letter. Queen Village stuffed the envelopes, and I believe that the number was 3,000. They went back to -- and we took the addresses which were printed on labels, put them on the envelopes and sent them back to the Clerk's Office, who actually mailed them. We did find out fairly quickly that a block of -- two blocks of Moyamensing Avenue were missed, and then I personally hand-delivered notices to 58 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. every house along Moyamensing Avenue myself. We heard very little else from anywhere else in Queen Village that there were addresses missed. I'd also like to say that the notification, putting everything in the Queen Village Crier, even though it was published in the Inquirer 60 days earlier, to me we know that every residential property in Queen Village receives a Crier. Whether people read it or throw it out, I can't tell you. But for us -- and, by the way, I want to correct that we have several thousand e-mail addresses that go out. That's our best way of covering the neighborhood. We know that everybody gets a Crier and we know that increasingly everybody gets an e-mail. Not so much, but we do both. I also want to emphasize as strongly as I can that there is nothing in this bill that says what the style of your house has to be. It's not covered at all. We encourage diversity in 59 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. architecture in Queen Village. There's nothing that says it has to be colonial or Georgian or anything. There are some material limitations and that's it. And I also -- I think I need to dispute Mr. Webster's contention that Queen Village is a local historic district. It is not a local historic district. Believe me, if it were, we certainly wouldn't have gone through four years of this. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Cole, do you have anything to add?
I just want to add that this was really initiated over four years ago by the Queen Village Neighbors Association Board of Directors, and throughout this process, the whole Board -- we have 12 elected members. They have been in favor of this 100 percent. They've been behind it. It's not a selected group. We and several other members of the community were asked to chair this -- to put this committee 60 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. together to come up with these regulations, but it's been -- it was initiated by the Board, and it's had the support of the neighborhood during this period. The regulations have actually been on our website. Initially what we received from Planning Commission were the draft regulations. Once we received the final regulations, those were also put on our website. So it's been several months now that those have been available on the website.
And I also want to say as far as the Crier goes, I personally wrote at least four articles over the last four years regarding this legislation, and at least once a year there's been an article of why we've been working on this, bringing the neighborhood up to date on it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What list do you use when you mail the Crier? How was that list established? 61 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Well, it's actually distributed by hand by volunteers and block people who pick up the Criers from the main office and then basically put them through every mail slot in the neighborhood. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. So on the letter that was sent out that was returned -- well, actually it was given to the City to mail out through the Chief Clerk's Office. That was First Class mail, right?
As far as I know. You guys mailed it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's why we got the return. I don't have any further questions. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.) 62 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Gentlemen, thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
My name is Suzanne Schiller. I'm a resident of Queen Village. Most of what I had to say has been said by the other speakers. I'm opposed to this bill. But the one point that I wanted to make is that it was just represented to this Committee that at every Queen Village meeting that was held, the attendees at that meeting were in support of this bill. I personally attended a meeting. Councilman DiCicco was there, other people were here, a few months -- maybe a month ago, and the 63 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. overwhelming view of the people there was not to support the bill. So I just didn't want that misrepresentation to be made in front of this Council. When there have been meetings, it has not been universally supported by the community.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the titles of Bill Nos. 080249 and 080250. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 19 080249, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by County Line, a Railroad right-of-way, Shawmont Avenue and the Schuylkill River, and approving a Master Plan of 64 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Development. Bill No. 080250, an ordinance 4 amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adopting a new Section 14-1635, entitled "River Road District Controls," under certain terms and conditions.
Mr. Kramer, do these Zoning Maps pertain to the same geographic area --
They do? Thank you. Please proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Chairman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, the Division Director of the Development 65 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill Nos. 080249 and 080250, which were introduced into City Council on March 6, 2008. These bills are part of the City's Act 537 Plan for the River Road area. Under Pennsylvania State law, whenever a change is to occur in the handling of sanitary waste, an Act 537 Plan must be filed. This area of River Road does not currently have a sewer in place. Legislation for the placing of the sewer and modification of the street right-of-way have been considered and approved by City Council. Bill No. 18 080249 and Bill No. 080250 represent the last pieces of the legislative package for that plan and deal with the zoning component. The placing of a new sewer in River Road represents a major investment by the City in new infrastructure. The area is currently zoned R-5 Residential, 66 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. and with the placing of a new sewer and no change in the zoning designation, the concern is that new development would overwhelm the proposed new system and require additional investment by the City. Additionally, the development of this area consistent with the R-5 Residential classification would change the very nature of the community that exists here. These two bills will both protect the investment in this infrastructure and serve to protect the existing community along River Road. The first, Bill No. 080249, will change the zoning designation of River Road to a zoning designation of RC-6 Residential. The RC-6 zoning classification establishes the zoning requirements for an area based upon the adoption of a Master Plan for that area. The Master Plan has been drafted by the staff of the Planning Commission in coordination with the Water Department, the Managing Director's Office, the 67 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. District Councilperson's office and the community. In developing the Master Plan, it became apparent that some residents wanted to be allowed to have some development of their properties permitted. To accomplish this, policies were developed to serve as a guide for such proposals. Because the area is in the 100 year Flood Plain and provides a beautiful setting for this area of the Schuylkill River, the policies have been that no new development would be permitted on the river side of River Road. The only exception to this would be instances where the lot only existed on the river side and no other option was viable. In instances where a parcel existed on both sides of the River Road, any new construction would be required to be located on the land side of the property. The Master Plan was presented to the community and approved in December 2007. 68 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Since the bill was introduced, a homeowner has come forward and presented plans for a new home, which required an amendment to the Master Plan. That plan is here and was considered and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of April 15, 2008. On behalf of the City Planning Commission, I respectfully request that Bill 080249 be amended to change the exhibit from a map identified as Rev 7 to one identified as Rev 8. Bill No. 080250 establishes a new special controls district section of the Philadelphia Zoning Code. This bill 17 prohibits certain uses in this Master Plan that otherwise would be permitted. These are restaurants and multi-family dwellings. Bill No. 080250 establishes a height limit for the area of 35 feet or three stories measured above the grade of the 100 year Flood Plain. It also establishes the criteria by which the Master Plan can be amended in the future. 69 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
This includes requirements for a topographic study, a hydrological study, a soil study and a requirement to replace trees lost as a result of the development and approvals from both the Department of Public Health and the Philadelphia Water Department. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of April 15, 2008 considered and approved the Act 537 Plan for River Road, a portion of which is the subject of Bill No. 080249 and Bill No. 080250. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Can you explain for the record the differences of what uses are allowed in R-5 Residential and RC-6 Residential?
The R-5 Residential classification in the Zoning 70 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Code primarily permits only single-family dwellings. It also permits certain non-residential uses such as churches, schools, fire stations, police stations, that sort of non-residential use. The RC-6 classification is intended to preserve development or cluster development around certain areas to preserve an environmental or historic site. In this particular instance, we were using it to establish the existing conditions as the baseline. The uses normally permitted would also include multi-family dwellings, would include certain commercial uses would be permitted in RC-6, which have been specifically excluded under the overlay controls of Bill No. 080250.
Thank you. Exhibit A to Section 2 of the bill is impossible to read.
Can you explain what is provided for in the Master Plan so that we are being asked to vote on something that we really --
If I may, that's why the bill also indicates that the plan would be maintained by the Clerk's Office. Owing to the size of the paper -- and this is the Master Plan for River Road as we want to amend it. You see from the size when you try to shoot this down, computer-wise I can make it any size I want, but you can't read it when it gets that low. The Law Department agrees with you, and as long as there is a copy on file in the Clerk's Office, then that is sufficient. This can be examined, and this is the scale at which it was presented to the community, and you're welcome to examine it at this time or whatever is your pleasure.
Anybody want to see it now? Anyone want to see it now? 72 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. (No response.)
We can view it in the Chief Clerk's Office. Is it this exhibit that you reference in your testimony and request that a map be changed from one identified as Rev 7 to Rev 8?
From the map it looks like all of the structures are located on the northeast side of the Schuylkill River. Is the southeast side of the river within Philadelphia? If so, how is it zoned? If not, what are the allowable uses on that side of the river?
The other side of the river is in Montgomery County and I don't know what their Zoning Code allows or does not allow over that side of the river.
Okay. Are all 40 of the existing residential structures within the district going to 73 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. be connected to the new sewer system?
Are there any non-residential structures in the proposed district?
Will existing zoning or the provisions of this bill prevent the construction of any new non-residential uses?
Yes, ma'am. It would require an amendment to the Master Plan to allow that. So it's not a carte blanche denial of anything, but you would have to go through a procedure or policy through the Planning Commission and then through City Council in order for that to happen.
Not 74 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. seeing the Master Plan, it's hard to -- the Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
Thank you, Madam Chair, members of the Committee. I want to first acknowledge the hard work done by your department in preparing this. This is not a new endeavor, but one that has transcended years and also administrations.
Just to add some kind of overview, that this area is a phenomena in my district that has grown from almost a non-permitted use to now finally being a part of the infrastructure of the City of Philadelphia, and we were compelled in some instances to do this work because of environmental issues that would not comply with State laws by way of use of septic tanks and others that pose an environmental hazard to not only the residents in that area but to a great number of citizens down river of River 75 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Road. This $4 million infrastructure investment is something that the State wants us to do and I think as a municipality, we should do. Only one amendment, and this is a part of what this hearing and discussion is, that I have another rendition of that Master Plan that would for reasons include several other parcels on the western side of River Road. Am I saying that correctly?
That should, in my opinion, be grandfathered in because they were structures that were there for at least arguably five years and possibly as long as ten years, and these structures -- if you'll bring that up, I want to show this Committee. There are several residents that would like to maintain their right to, based on certain conditions, to use what are existing trailers that have been 76 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. there arguably between a half a decade and a decade to be able to build on the eastern side of River Road, as you can see there. The issue becomes whether or not as you see some of the other buildings on that side that are also being grandfathered in. They went through a permitted process and are allowed to be there under L&I specs. These two parcels that I'm asking for the exception just kind of grandfathered their way in to the process, and the reason that I'm going for this is that this has been -- River Road has been an unconventional planning process and it's probably a case study for urban environmental planning in the future. But I offer that to members of the Committee as the only exception to the plan. Otherwise, I agree with the plan presented by the Department.
If I may, the 77 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. planning question is grandfathering in two buildings which were erected or placed on site without the benefit of permits. For a variety of reasons, that's why they were not included in the original consideration or revision that the Planning Commission considered. If the bill is amended to do that, I am directed to take the matter back up to the Commission for their consideration for the amended Master Plan and it would be going there with a staff recommendation of disapproval, owing in large part because of the policies that we dictated with other development that was proposed for the River Road area. There are representatives here from the community that may be able to address that better than I, but as a procedural matter, I would have to -- because it has not been considered by the Commission, I would have to take that back to their meeting and have them consider that, and it would go back with 78 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. a recommendation from the staff of disapproval.
Mr. Kramer, did you indicate that you had an amendment?
I'm sorry. Thank you. And that will go to the Chief Clerk's Office?
Thank you, Madam President. Acknowledging the fact that this does transcend two administrations, could you provide for the record briefly what the interface with the community has 79 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. been.
This started two years ago in June on a very, very hot day in a very non-air conditioned auditorium. The Councilman at that time, Councilman Nutter, set up the meeting. There were, at my recollection, somewhere about 200 folks that came out to understand and learn what we were trying to do. And it was a presentation by a myriad of agencies, the Health Department, Water Department, Streets, myself, all dealing with how to put a new sewer in to River Road, and the basic premise for the whole thing was the water table is high, as you might imagine given the proximity of the river, and it was making it difficult for the septic systems to function well, and the State was concerned that pollution was running into the river and wanted the City to do something. This was what was done. I have a part in that, and the part that I have was trying to develop 80 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. zoning controls that would then be utilized. We met with the community then. We met with them several times thereafter. I don't have the exact dates. There was a small working group that we met with a couple times to go over the ideas and get questions and feedback, but there have been no less than three different public meetings over the last two years where we have presented the Master Plan to the community in its entirety and asked for feedback and comment from them.
Okay. And the feedback and comment has been in writing or how? Through future meetings or how?
Well, I was there to accept comments and take written notes on plans that are all sitting in this file so that the comments that we would get from people, we would sit after -- we would do an explanation of what we did and then sit at a table with whoever 81 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. wanted to discuss whatever component of the Master Plan and made notes on it as to what changes needed to be made or reflected in the Master Plan, and that's why you have eight revisions to this plan.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? MR. McPHERSON: Yeah. Mr. Tom Landsman is the next witness.
Who 82 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. is that, Mr. McPherson? MR. McPHERSON: Tom Landsman.
Please approach the witness table, sir. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning. My name is Tom Landsman. I'm not used to speaking in the microphone. I'm here to testify on the history of the process. I'm not going to comment on Rev 7, Rev 8 or Rev 9, because the Planning Commission, or whoever, created them. In June of 2006, I was the Civic President. At that time, we had Michael Nutter as our Councilman. James Donaghy was working with the Managing Director, and Bill Kramer was and still is City Planner. 83 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. As Bill said, we met in a school on a warm day, and the City had a problem. They had to comply with the 537 Act and enact a sewer system, and they wanted a sewer system that would -- they'd only have to build once. They wanted to retain the nature of the community, so they thought outside of the box and they said RC-6, create a Master Plan based on primarily what's there, with some development. The City was concerned. They had Health and Safety there about removal of residents during times of flood. If you're on the river side of the road, the only way to get somebody out is by boat, and one thing that I have seen a few times and it ain't pretty is a fireman in a boat. They're much better in a big red truck. Basically, so they want to limit the development along the river's edge for safety reasons. They wanted to retain the nature of the community. But 84 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. they also said, What do you want? The community will create a Master Plan. So at that time, as I said, I was responsible for the Civic. Me and our Board created a survey basically of what does the community want. Some of the highlights of the survey were no 9 subdivisions, no commercial development, no restaurants, of course, exclusively single-family dwellings, no duplexes, no 12 semi-detached single-family dwellings. There was heights and setbacks and other things. Anything that any community person, whether it was relevant to the survey or not, put down in this survey, we listed and we forwarded it to the Planning Commission, and then the Planning Commission started their process of planning, and that was pretty much the end of the Civic's portion of the planning. From that point on, it was the residents of the community individually 85 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. contacting the Planning Commission or the Council office. We've had Michael Nutter, then Carol Campbell and now Curtis, Mr. Jones, with their individual requests. There's been a number of meetings over the years to amend the process. We're up to a Rev 8 or 9 or whatever. So each Rev came out of a meeting or interaction. I personally was not present for most of the meetings. I travel to earn my living. But it didn't really matter. It's a community input. The Civic's involvement was not to steer the Master Plan. It was basically to inform the community. I will speak on behalf of Rev 8 because I'm very familiar with it. It was, I believe, the City Planning said no 21 new development on the river side of the land. If you have the land and you have land on the road side or the railroad side, your new dwelling had to be on that side. If you didn't have land on the 86 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. road side, you get a new development or a new dwelling on the river side, because you have a piece of dirt and you want to develop it. They've been fair to all. As the Civic liaison, I was to inform the community. I received at least a half a dozen rejection letters sent out to the community residents basically saying it doesn't comply, no new development on the river side. I personally own subdivided lots on the river side of the street that are not -- under this Rev 8 at least can't be developed.
If Rev 8 is enacted, I have spoken to the Preservation Alliance about this open space, the private residents creating open space easements on their now vacant land, and if I'm successful with that, which I would like to be, I would like to come back and revisit the Council Chamber sometime in the future with open space easements to sustain a 87 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. riparian buffer along the river's edge, which is quite a pretty place actually. I live there. I like it. And for doing that, I would ask, since I receive separate tax bills for my river side land and many of my residents do, some property tax relief. I think it would better the community. It would make the City more livable as a whole with some green space. It would make it safer for firemen. Like I said, it's not pretty seeing the fire guys in a boat. And it would retain the character of the street, which is in compliance with the original survey, which was produced back in September of '06 and submitted to City Planning. That's basically it, I think.
Thank you very much. Any comments or questions from the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones. 88 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you for your testimony, and I'm glad to have been down there and been educated as to the beauty of that area. I understand the strong need, strong need to preserve what you have. There is a knee-jerk reaction whenever you have a beautiful view like that to develop on it and to make it commercial and to change its character, and I understand the strong resistance from the community, not only there, but your neighbors up the hill, to remain as you are and have the open space character that you have. It is a different type of community and requires a special kind of treatment, and I'm honored that you guys took me back there to share that with me. So I just want to say that on the record. Thank you very much, and we're going to work real hard to keep it that way.
I appreciate 89 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. that. One of the things that you have to remember is the people that don't have -- are landlocked want to sustain their view. Some of the people who have open space on the opposite side and considerably more open space on the opposite side on the river side of the road saw the Master Plan as a taking basically, because here I got 75 percent or 80 percent of my land that I should be able to develop under R-5, that the Master Plan is going to create another step. However, by limiting development, the City has met its goal, safety, sustaining the character of the neighborhood and the original goal or the original survey response goals were also met, sustaining the character of the neighborhood. Not everybody is happy. There was, like I said, a half a dozen people who got formalized letters from Planning Commission that said unh-unh, and then there's a few more that have probably 90 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. taken it a whole other step. I'm not here to create an opinion on that. I'm just here to tell you that as far as the Planning Commission, James Dunaghy, the Councilman Nutter when it started, the intentions were pure. They thought outside of the box, and the Council -- the Planning Commission has been very fair. It's either black or white. You're either compliant or you're not. And in fairness to the people that got rejected, when they see they got rejected but their neighbor got rejected for the exact same thing, they all feel fair, and that's all we want, is a fair bill.
Do we have anyone else to testify on the bills before us? (Witness approached witness table.) 91 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
We as members of the Committee are willing to sit here as long as it takes. We do have any number of bills that are scheduled and we would like to hear everybody that's here. So I would just ask if people could be brief in their testimony, it would give us an opportunity to hear everyone that has been here since 10 o'clock this morning. Hello. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Robert Small. I'm a resident of River Road, and I will keep my comments very brief. I basically agree with Mr. Landsman's testimony. This process, as Mr. Kramer has said, has been going on for two years. I feel it's been a fair and open process. As Mr. Landsman had said, the residents were given opportunities to give feedback to the City, especially the Planning Commission, and I have spoke with Mr. Kramer on 92 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. several occasions specifically regarding my property. Property owners were given an opportunity to give feedback on the future development of their individual properties to the City, and in that vein, I submitted a proposal to the Planning Commission, and my proposal was to develop the parcel of property that I own between the river and River Road, and that proposal I made was turned down by the Planning Commission. I had conversations with Mr. Kramer about that, and my concern was that if that was the City's position, that their position be fair and that all residents be treated the same, and if I wasn't going to be given the opportunity to develop my property, that the same applied to the other residents that had property on the river side of River Road. And Mr. Kramer assured me that that was the case, that that was the Planning Commission's position. Under those circumstances, I could accept the decision of the Planning 93 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Commission and the City. I want to maintain what we have in our area on River Road. I don't want to see -- I personally don't want to see overdevelopment. I like the way our community is with single-family dwellings. And I feel that as a result of the process with the Planning Commission, their Revision 8 reflects what Mr. Kramer had told me and the City's position, and I feel that it treats all the community members fairly. My concern with Rev 9 is that if that is adopted, that that would be a problem concerning the fairness issue. So I am in support of the Planning Commission's Rev 8 on this project. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we 94 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. have anyone else to testify on these bills? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 8 080251. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 10 establishing a neighborhood improvement district in an area that generally includes the east and west sides of Aramingo Avenue starting at 2700 Aramingo Avenue to 3995 Aramingo Avenue and the following blocks of streets: 2345 to 2363 East Allegheny Avenue; 3300 to 3700 Gaul Street; 3300 to 3700 East Side Tulip Street; 3300 to 3400 Memphis Street; 2201 to 2270 East Butler Street; 2230 to 2701 Castor Avenue; 2500 East Ontario Street; 3701 to 3801 Sepviva Street; 3740 East Thompson Street; 2400 to 2627 East Tioga Street; 2335 to 2501 East Westmoreland Street; 2415 to 2651 Wheatsheaf Lane; to be known as the Aramingo Avenue Shopping 95 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. District. And the individual that I have to testify on this is Randy Hofer, the Aramingo Business Improvement District. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
-- members of Council. We're just here to take any questions, as we had testimony on April 30th of 2008.
Well, we did have previous testimony on this. If you'll just give me a minute, please. Now, there have been meetings with the affected property owners?
Since the last meeting April 30th, we've had one Business Association Board meeting, and it is part of the minutes and has been discussed currently with everyone. As 96 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. you're aware, the second mailing with the final plan has been mailed out, and we're in the position now, I guess, after final plan for 45 days of review by the land owners, tenants.
No. We're here for the final plan review in front of Committee. (Off-the-record discussion between Councilmembers.)
We just wanted to make certain that we were doing the right thing here. I understand that the bill will be reported out of Committee, but it would have to lay over for 45 days. So this would probably be voted on then in September. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Final passage. For all intents and purposes, 97 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. we could pass it today.
Right. Okay. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Mr. McPherson, would you please read the title of Bill No. 080376. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 18 establishing a neighborhood improvement district in an area that generally includes Cheltenham Avenue with boundaries of Wadsworth Avenue on the west, Broad Street on the east, Ogontz Avenue with boundaries of Cheltenham Avenue on the north, 67th Avenue on the south and Wadsworth Avenue with 98 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. boundaries of Cheltenham Avenue on the northeast and Michener Avenue on the southwest; to be known as the Greater Cheltenham Avenue Business Improvement District. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of City Council. My name is Andrew Frishkoff and I'm the Director of Neighborhood Economic Development for the City of Philadelphia's Commerce Department. I am here today to provide testimony in support of Bill No. 080376. The bill 19 would allow for the approval of the establishment of the Greater Cheltenham Avenue Business Improvement District. The creation of business improvement districts is consistent with the City's Strategic Plan, especially with the core service areas of Jobs and 99 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Economic Development and Healthy and Sustainable Communities. BIDs are also consistent with the goals of the Commerce Department's neighborhood economic development strategies to help re-establish neighborhood commercial corridors as central places to work, shop and meet neighbors. BIDs strengthen local business communities through cleaning, beautification, public safety and marketing activities. The proposed Greater Cheltenham Avenue Business Improvement District is a bi-municipal BID covering areas in Philadelphia and Cheltenham Township. My understanding is that it has the full support of Cheltenham Township. For Philadelphia, using the Board of Revision of Taxes' assessment from 2007, the district's assessment fee will be calculated as 6.3394 percent of the real estate taxes due on Philadelphia commercial properties and 3.1697 percent of real estate taxes due on residential 100 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. properties that contain five or more residential units. The estimated first year budget for the Philadelphia BID area will be $38,000. The proposed revenue and expenditures on the Cheltenham side will be approximately $400,000. The proposed first year services include area cleaning, security ambassadors, and marketing. These activities are consistent with those of other BIDs in the City. The Commerce Department is supportive of these proposed services as long as they have the backing of the affected businesses. The only concern that the Commerce Department has with the proposed Greater Cheltenham Avenue BID is that the annual revenue and expenditures for the Philadelphia portion are lower than those of most successful BIDs in the City. This may necessitate supplemental fundraising on the part of the local business community in order to ensure provision of adequate cleaning and safety 101 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. services. The local business community has a track record of such fundraising and it should be able to supplement the new BID revenues. Several organizers and supporters of the proposed BID are here today to testify on behalf of the bill. While I will be happy to answer any questions you may have, they are the local experts who can best present the vision and the particulars about the proposed BID. Thank you for your time and your consideration.
Thank you. Exhibit A states, as you have indicated, that the proposed budget for the district is $38,033.96 in the first year, with adjustments upwards at the rate of four percent per year. Would the projected budgets contained in Paragraph 5 of the exhibit be consistent or vary in accordance with changes in assessed 102 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. values?
The projections would be that as far as anybody can anticipate, that they would go up with changes in the assessed values. The one universal statement that I will share from the Commerce Department perspective is that the prospect of changes in possible full valuation in future years for real estate taxes make it a little bit difficult for BIDs to project forward what the actual changes would be. But I think I can speak for the proponents that this is the best estimate that we have at this point for the future.
Exhibit A-3 provides for a proposed budget as described in Exhibit A, but also makes reference to a $400,000 budget. What does this amount refer to? Is the remainder of approximately $360,000 per year to come from property owners in Cheltenham?
Yes. The 103 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. answer is yes.
Are there additional sources of funding, to your knowledge?
Additional sources other than the Philadelphia assessed fees and the Cheltenham fees?
I will just add one piece. This is more on the capital improvement, which is the City is looking to make capital improvements to the ReStore Corridors bond proceeds to parts of Cheltenham and Ogontz Avenue on the Philadelphia side. While that will not directly tie the BID services, those improvements should make it easier to clean and maintain public safety in those areas. 104 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Fine. Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Council President Verna, other members of the Rules Committee and members of City Council. My name is Denise Holloway from the Office of State Representative Dwight Evans. I am here today to testify on behalf of Bill No. 080376, which establishes a neighborhood improvement district known as the Greater Cheltenham Avenue Business Improvement District, BID. This district focuses on 105 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. revitalization of portions of the economic corridors of Cheltenham Avenue, Ogontz Avenue and Wadsworth Avenue. With me today is Tyrone Holland, Director of Economic Development for the Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation, OARC, a participating member with this BID. Tyrone will give testimony that represents a broader look into other economic development activities within Northwest Philadelphia that will complement this BID. The Greater Cheltenham Avenue Business Improvement District is the second phase of a larger plan, the Cheltenham/Northwest Philadelphia Inter-municipal Cooperative Planning Initiative. In the past, the commercial areas of Cheltenham, Ogontz and Wadsworth Avenues were vibrant, bustling strips catering to the many needs of those it served. However, in most recent years, these same corridors have been slow to attract high-quality merchants and are 106 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. perceived to be unclean and unsafe. The BID is looking to reverse this trend. Through cooperation with Cheltenham Township, some of the benefits of the BID are: Commercial enterprises within Northwest Philadelphia and the region will increase their market share; BIDs have worked successfully in over a thousand communities, including several in the Philadelphia region and a bi-municipal BID in City Avenue; BIDs keep costs low because all the owners share the cost of security, cleaning and marketing. On average, this BID will cost each property owner approximately $224 per year or about 61 cents per day; BIDs are planned and run by businesspeople, those being assessed; BIDs increase property values for merchants and those in the surrounding residential area; BIDs promote neighborhood beautification; 107 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. BIDs enhance public safety; BIDs improve customer experience; and BIDs improve quality of life. Tyrone Holland, OARC's Director of Economic Development, will now present a broader view of the economic activities in the West Oak Lane area. We will be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you for the opportunity to testify this day. I also want to include that I do have some proposed amendments after Mr. Holland's testimony.
Mr. Holland, just identify yourself for the record and proceed, please.
Yes. My name is Tyrone Holland, Director of Economic Development at the Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation. Council President Verna, members of the Rules Committee and 108 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. members of City Council, good morning. Ogontz Avenue Revitalization Corporation, or OARC as we're commonly known as, is a non-profit community development corporation whose mission is to create and stimulate economic development and improve the quality of life for the residents of West Oak Lane and other neighborhoods in Northwest Philadelphia. Our approach to community revitalization is based on what we term our five pillars: housing and economic development, business development, education and community relations, cleaning and greening, and arts and culture. In terms of economic development, some of our ongoing initiatives include the ReStore Philadelphia Corridors Program. In May of this year, OARC was awarded a $100,000 contract with the City's Department of Commerce to fund direct grants of up to $10,000 to businesses along Ogontz Avenue 109 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. between Washington Lane and Cheltenham Avenue for facade improvements, including new security gates, awnings, windows, doors and stucco and painting. Under the program, OARC will fund 90 percent of the cost of the improvements, along with a ten percent match from the eligible businesses. These businesses must have been in operation for at least the past months 12 and must be properly licensed. With these grants, we will improve the physical appearance of as many as eight businesses along Ogontz Avenue, which will positively impact the aesthetic value of the commercial corridor. Customers naturally tend to shop at businesses that are appealing to the eye, patronizing establishments that are neat, clean and structurally sound. The goal here, of course, is to increase commercial activity in this target area. OARC recently completed construction of the West Oak Lane Office 110 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Center, near the intersection of Ogontz and Tulpehocken Avenues. The Center houses six office spaces ideally suited for any small business owner. The Center also has a common area conference room. Four of the six spaces have already been leased to a general contractor, a social service agency and an affiliate community-based organization. Just around the corner on the 7300 block to Ogontz Avenue are five newly renovated storefront properties OARC now has available for rent, a total of 5,900 square feet. Since 2004, a total of 14 new businesses have opened along the Ogontz Avenue commercial corridor. The West Oak Lane Business Association, a trade group of close to 50 members, is made up of these and other local business owners, non-profit organizations and churches. The Association's goal is to keep West Oak Lane and Northwest Philadelphia a strong business community through 111 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. marketing, networking and other activities. As the owner of close to 300,000 square feet of commercial space, OARC takes an innovative approach to economic development in West Oak Lane. In the past, we've employed a number of incentives to attract promising entrepreneurs to the area, including using economic development grants to fit out commercial space and even allowing select businesses just getting off the ground to operate rent free for a limited period of time. West Oak Lane, Mount Airy and Chestnut Hill, like other neighborhoods in Philadelphia, are fast becoming communities of choice, where people want to live and raise a family, where people come to simply relax and unwind, where businesses want to set up shop. For anyone interested in starting a business, we encourage you to consider doing so in our part of town. The ethnic and the 112 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. economic diversity of these neighborhoods runs deep, such that anyone who truly wants to start a business should be able to do so.
OARC stands ready to assist them any way we can. Economic development can be described as building an infrastructure to bring resources and capital into the community and recycling those resources where they will do the most good. OARC is working together with other community organizations, with local and state government and with the private sector to bring those resources and that capital to Northwest Philadelphia. We want to create a climate that nurtures entrepreneurship and ultimately that strengthens our economy. In the end, our success will be measured by the degree to which we are able to withstand these changing economic times. In closing, I'd like to take a moment to mention the West Oak Lane Jazz and Arts Festival. This internationally 113 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. known event taking place in a little more than a week will draw more than 400,000 people to Northwest Philadelphia. While the Festival features a world-class lineup of entertainment, it also draws attention to the mix of businesses in the area. On a daily basis, these businesses provide neighborhood residents with a safe place to buy goods and services. During the Festival, these same businesses open their doors to the thousands attending the three-day event, allowing the visitors to the area a chance to take part in the local economy as well. We urge everyone here today to come out and join us as we welcome in the summer of 2008 at the West Oak Lane Jazz and Arts Festival. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. By the way, for the record, you have a lot of fans of the Oak Lane Jazz Festival on Council. 114 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Are there any questions from members of the Committee? Councilwoman Miller.
Good morning. Welcome to City Council. I don't see you guys down here often. I'm just actually -- you know I'm supporting the bill, because these are things that we've talked about in our meetings, but I need information, because people keep calling me. Would you happen to have a schedule with you on the Jazz Festival on who is coming on what day?
Because I keep getting those calls and I don't know. And that is my only question.
I did bring a number of schedules with me, at least ten or 15. I will give them to you gladly.
Okay. Great. Thank you. It will really help. 115 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Thanks.
I do have a few proposed amendments that I would like to give for the BID ordinance, if that's okay. Exhibit A in the heading should change "preliminary" to "final" to indicate that the plan, as amended, will be the final plan for the business improvement district. Exhibit A-1, a color map is to replace the black and white map as Exhibit A-1 of the ordinance.
Excuse me. I'm sorry. Can we have copies of the amendment? One should be given to the stenographer and also one will have to go to the Chief Clerk's Office.
There no 22 boundary changes on this map, though. Exhibit A-3, the proposed budget, add projected revenue from assessments for years two through five. 116 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. And Exhibit A-4 on the next-to-last will change the address of the incorporator, John Ungar. Also, the most recent change that we just received today, due to a residential property that was included incorrectly in the ordinance, Exhibit A-2, Exhibit A-3 must be amended. For the record, this property is 7208 North Broad Street.
Thank you very much. Any questions? (No response.)
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. 117 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Good afternoon. My name is Lee Tabas. I represent a group that owns property on Wadsworth Avenue. Certainly something that beautifies and improves the area without too much cost is a good thing. My understanding is that there would be an assessment on commercial properties, which amounts to a six percent increase of your taxes, and there would be a residential assessment as well. I believe that non-profit organizations should be included in those that pay for this improvement district. Non-profits are growing disproportionally faster to the economy as a whole and are assuming a larger share of the overall economy, says Kirsten Gronbjerg of the Center of Philanthropy at Indiana University. The Pennsylvania Association of Non-Profit Organizations commissioned a study of employment and found over the past eight years, non-profit employment grew by 25 percent, more than three times 118 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the seven percent growth rate achieved by the for-profit sector. And the report states that seven percent -- excuse me. The report states that percent of the 6 salaries in Pennsylvania are paid by 7 non-profits. 8 Some non-profits compete 9 directly with profit-making ventures. We 10 all know Blue Cross, which competes 11 directly with Aetna and United Healthcare. In response to non-profit proliferation, many local governments have become more aggressive in asking for PILOT payments, which is short for payment in lieu of taxes, for non-profit-owned real estate, and I believe there's a good argument that non-profits should pay to support City services and other services. I believe that non-profits should be included in those that pay for the Greater Cheltenham Business Improvement District.
Thank 119 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. you very much. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you again. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 14 080381. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Delaware Avenue, Fairmount Avenue, Front Street and Poplar Street. (Witness approached witness table.)
Mr. Kramer. 120 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Good afternoon, Chairman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080381, which was introduced into City Council April 10, 2008. This bill will amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning of a five and one half acre parcel of land bounded by Delaware Avenue, Fairmount Avenue, Front Street and Poplar Street, this land being known as 700 North Delaware Avenue. The zoning will change from the existing designation of C-4 Commercial to a new zoning designation of C-2 Commercial. The zoning change is intended to limit the potential development of this site. This site was the subject of a proposed development that after lengthy negotiations with the community had attained community support. It was the 121 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. subject of Bill No. 050418, which changed the zoning designation of this site from G-2 General Industrial to its current classification of C-4 Commercial. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of May 20, 2008 considered Bill No. 080381 and recommended that it not be approved. The Commission staff is working in connection with the District Councilman's office to develop legislation that will address the community's concerns over the development of the central waterfront area. It is intended to coordinate the efforts of the Planning Commission and others to examine existing and proposed patterns of development in the waterfront area and develop legislation that will be consistent with recent planning efforts. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Kramer, for the record, can you tell 122 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. us what would be allowed under a C-4 designation?
A C-4 designation is an FAR designation, or a floor area ratio. It allows pretty much all commercial uses on site as well as residential, hotels, office -- mixed-use commercial development. The floor area ratio has a base of five FAR, or 500 percent of the area of this site. If you design it, you may be eligible for an additional eight FAR of bonuses, taking you to a total of 13 FAR on the site.
To your knowledge, is there a developer for this site?
And would off-street parking be required to accommodate any development at this site?
It would depend upon the use. Under the Code, the commercial uses under C-4, C-5 do not 123 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. require parking. However, if you were to use a residential use, it would in this area be a one-to-one parking ratio that would be required.
Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, maybe I can answer your question about is there a developer. There was a developer, which caused us to do the original change from G-2 to C-4 two, three years ago. I forget how long it's been. But there was an agreement at the time with that developer and the neighborhood association and that Mr. Ruben is here from Northern Liberties who will testify that if in fact the developer either failed to go forward with his project or another developer who wanted to take over for that developer wanted to change the size and scope and shape of what we all agreed to, "we" meaning the neighborhood association and Planning Commission, if there was any 124 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. change in that, we would revert back to G-2. So basically that's what we're doing today.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon, Madam President. Madam President, members of the Committee, my name is Matt Ruben, M-A-T-T, R-U-B-E-N. I am President of the Northern Liberties Neighbors 125 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Association, and I also was President of the Association at the time the original bill referred to in Mr. Kramer's testimony was introduced, and I come here today on behalf of the community to testify strongly in favor of an amended version of this bill, which I understand the Councilman is amending, will be amending, to rezone this property from the current C-4 back to its original G-2 Industrial. The Northern Liberties Neighbors Association is not in favor of spot zoning and we are very happy that the Planning Commission, the Councilman, the Administration, the community, everyone is on board with moving forward with remapping and otherwise providing solutions for our neighborhood on the waterfront in general to ensure a more effective and more efficient and better planned riverfront as we move forward. We are in favor of this particular bill, however, for one very 126 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. simple reason, which is that we agreed to the rezoning of this from G-2 to C-4 back in '05 because there was a very particular plan of development in hand. We spent five months hammering out a three-part agreement totalling more than 30 pages that included a development agreement and a restrictive covenant on the land that would prevent someone from developing free and clear C-4, which, as I'm sure you're aware, can allow all manner of large buildings and extremely impactful development, and we have residents nearby we have to be mindful of. The current owner of the property refused to record the deed restriction and the developer could not record the deed restriction until they settled and became the owner. So we were stuck, and the way that we dealt with that problem of not being able to have free and clear C-4 zoning out there was that if the development fell through, 127 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. then Councilman DiCicco would put through the rezoning bill that's before you today. So for us, this is not spot zoning. This is just the falling of the other shoe. This is returning things back to a clean slate so that we can be sure that while we embark this summer on a remapping with the help of the Planning Commission, that during that time, the property does not get sold to another developer, who would then be able to do anything that C-4 allowed, which would include very tall buildings right next to the residential row houses, would include all kinds of problematic parking situations for non-residential uses and generally could create serious problems for the community. So we are simply asking for this bill to be agreed to so that we may be confident while we embark on a better solution for the future that nothing that would be incredibly negatively impactful 128 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. can happen in the meantime. And I believe everyone is on board with that process, and the Planning Commissioners themselves at their last hearing indicated that they understood the urgency and the need to get this back to G-2 if necessary for the time being until we can get the remapping in place.
Thank you very much. You've been extremely patient. We do thank you for coming in to testify. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Mr. McPherson will please read the title of Bill No. 080437. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 129 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. approving the thirty-seventh amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the northwest corner of Front Street and Spring Garden Street, including the twenty-ninth amendment to the urban renewal plan and the twenty-seventh amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 11 properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law, and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project. And our first two witnesses are Michael Koonce and Deborah McColloch. (Witness approached witness table.) MS. McCOLLOCH: Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record. 130 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. MS. McCOLLOCH: I'm Deborah McColloch, Acting Director of Housing. I have copies of my testimony.
I think it has already been distributed. MS. McCOLLOCH: Fine. I wasn't sure. Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Deborah McColloch and I'm Acting Director of the Office of Housing and Community Development. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080437, which was introduced by Councilmember Clarke on May 1, 2008 and would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 11 properties in Strawberry Mansion. Since January, as part of the Fiscal Year '09 budget and preparation of the NTI Program Statement and Budget, this Administration has sought a full accounting of the NTI program expenditures. In the process, we have discovered program oversight, project 131 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. management and accounting deficiencies. While at this time we are not prepared to support Bill 080437, we look forward to collaborating with the Council as we work through the process of a preliminary audit and financial reconciliation of NTI acquisition funds. Until the Redevelopment Authority completes this preliminary audit, any additional acquisitions further increase the City's potential financial liability. We look forward to resolving this issue as quickly as possible so as to continue our support for this and other critical redevelopment projects. Thank you for allowing me to testify today. I'm happy to answer any questions.
So your request is? MS. McCOLLOCH: We are not supporting the bill moving forward.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee. 132 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Thank you, Madam President. Ms. McColloch, on these particular properties, are you aware of any problem at all? I mean, I know your general statement, but I assume these things have been worked on for a while. Are you aware of any particular problem with these properties, this particular acquisition -- MS. McCOLLOCH: No. 13
-- in and of itself? MS. McCOLLOCH: It and of itself, there are no particular issues with this acquisition or this development. It's that continuing to acquire properties before we've completed the financial reconciliation would only further deepen the City's potential liability.
All right. I appreciate that, but I just want to get on record there's nothing 133 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. wrong with this particular acquisition, in and of itself. MS. McCOLLOCH: Not that we know of, because the audit has not been conducted yet.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Ms. McColloch. MS. McCOLLOCH: Good morning, Councilman.
Let's talk about the two projects in question. One project, the one at 10th Street, which is known as the Apollo housing -- part of the Apollo housing project? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
It's my understanding -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that the development, the actual building of the structures, the money for 134 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. that development will come from money that was gotten as a result of the Apollo development agreement where Temple University contributed money in an agreement that was reached with then-Councilman Street in the community to provide funding to build affordable housing? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes. The development funds for the proposed development would be supported by the Temple-Apollo money.
So that's not City money? MS. McCOLLOCH: That's not City money. Well, it's City money now because it's now been turned over to the City, but its source was the Temple-Apollo agreement.
So would you say that the ability to acquire these sites would allow us to leverage a million and a half dollars of private money -- 135 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
And that traditionally doesn't happen. We normally depend on essentially all government funding. MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
Right? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes. I mean, the private funding we normally have is private mortgages for homeowners.
That's the individuals. That's not our money. MS. McCOLLOCH: Correct.
So this is an abnormal deal where we actually have an outside source contributing to affordable housing? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
And that's a good thing? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes. 136 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
All right. Okay. Have you had any conversations with representatives from the local community development corporation or the consultant and State Senator Shirley Kitchen on this project? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
And what was your -- MS. McCOLLOCH: I've had many conversations with them. I've been working with them to develop a development plan that would create some commercial space, some market-rate units and some affordable housing units.
And at that meeting -- and I wasn't actually in that meeting, but at the conclusion of that meeting, was it understood that Senator Kitchen was going to get some dollars outside of the City's -- I'm sorry. I'm 137 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. wrong. There were some dollars outside of the 5th District acquisition funding, then some City Significant dollars that were going into the project. MS. McCOLLOCH: I'm not sure -- I'm trying to understand your question, but the NTI bond proceeds that were to be committed to this acquisition that -- we're not withdrawing that -- were City Significant funding, City Significant.
And a portion, 300,000, of 5th District dollars, right? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes; a piece of 5th District, a piece of City Significant.
And at the conclusion of that meeting, was it understood and was it told to Senator Kitchen and the participants in that meeting that that's something that we will be proceeding on? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
Okay. The 138 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. other project, 31st Street, which is in Strawberry Mansion? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
There is a developer, the Friends Rehab, to develop -- MS. McCOLLOCH: Friends Rehab Program, yes.
-- affordable housing in Strawberry Mansion. Has the City committed funding to that particular development? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
And the City sent letters to PHFA or did whatever we do when we support a development to PHFA as one of the priority projects in the past? MS. McCOLLOCH: The City sent letters indicating the commitment of funds to the development. There are HOME funds committed and Housing Trust funds committed. This is simply to request that this be postponed until the audit 139 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. could be completed.
I understand what you're requesting. Did we walk that site, actually myself included, two, three times, along with PHFA staff? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
To your knowledge, have we had community meetings, any of which you've attended and staff members, in support of the Strawberry Mansion housing plan which this was a part of? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
All right. So you would -- MS. McCOLLOCH: Some of which I attended, yes.
So you would say that this was something that we, the City, was interested in and got a sense that the community was very supportive of this? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes. 140 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
The developer has, to my understanding, submitted at least twice for funding from PHFA? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
And they are prepared to submit this round for NRI dollars, which is a variation of Homeownership Choice? MS. McCOLLOCH: Yes.
And if they cannot show site control for this particular development, will it decrease the chances of them receiving funding? MS. McCOLLOCH: I believe so.
So if we do not move this forward today, would they not be able to submit their application, show any levels of site control for the properties that are in this bill? MS. McCOLLOCH: The City will not be able to demonstrate site control for the application that's due in July, that is correct. 141 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Thank you. Thank you, Ms. McColloch. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you. Any further questions or comments? (No response.)
Thank you very much, Ms. McColloch. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
My name is Myong Duck Yoon. I'm at the 2010 North 10th 142 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Street on the property. MR. McCONEGHY: Good morning, Madam Chairman. Good morning, members. I'm Gerald McConeghy. I represent Mrs. Yoon. I'm her personal counsel, and she has asked me to address Council as to her issues and concerns. On the bill before you there's two sets of properties, as Councilman Clarke mentioned. One of these sets of properties is on North 10th Street. Mrs. Yoon owns all of those properties. They're contiguous and there's one sort of continuous structure on those properties. She operates an ongoing and vibrant retail food market in the property at 2010-2018 North 10th Street and she's operated that for 14 years, and before that there was another person that owned the store and operated a grocery store. Mrs. Yoon has been approached by various groups over the last couple 143 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. years asking about development and redevelopment and so on. She herself has been quite interested in trying to develop the area and improve the appearance of the area. Three of her four buildings are not put to good use at this point. There is a laundromat that went out of business and it's closed. There is a garage that's used for storage and there was another empty building. So she's quite anxious to do something. In November and December of 2006, she worked with an architectural firm to try to set up a plan for building multiple housing on the site, and we got the plans and we received estimates. Since that time, we have been trying to work with the southern neighbors, the southern property owners; that is, the property owner that owns the property on 10th Street and Norris, which is just south of ours, and also with the property owner to the north of us that owns the properties up to Diamond Street. We have 144 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. not been able to reach any type of an agreement as to a global redevelopment, but it's not for lack of trying on our part. Mrs. Yoon has access to private funds, but she's reluctant to get involved with redevelopment if the other areas contiguous to her, and including the properties in the back on Alder Street, are not going to be redeveloped. Here before the Council is a proposal to take just one piece of land, this piece in the middle that belongs to Mrs. Yoon, and give that to the Redevelopment Authority. What about all the other land on the whole block? How can you redevelop an area and take just one little piece in the middle? Hence, we believe that the ordinance at this point and the proposal is premature. We're very willing to work with the Redevelopment Authority and try to work with those other parties that have properties contiguous to us and to try to 145 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. work out a plan for redevelopment that meets the goals of the City and the Redevelopment Authority. And we would request that Council defeat this ordinance at this time and we will work with the Redevelopment Authority, as I said, to try to accomplish the goals that Councilman Clarke has set. I have nothing further. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. MR. McCONEGHY: Good morning, sir.
Can you give me the dates again? You said you had selected an architect to -- MR. McCONEGHY: That was November and December of 2006. 146 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
The building in question or the potential building that, if things worked out correctly, you would have built, are they zoned residential or are they parcels? MR. McCONEGHY: The whole area is zoned G-2 at this time.
So any development of a residential nature would have required zoning? MR. McCONEGHY: Definitely, sir.
Had you reached out to any of the local community groups or local residents to talk about your proposal since it would have required zoning; therefore, required some level of community support? MR. McCONEGHY: We talked with 147 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the local community group about redeveloping, and the plan that they had proposed was that Mrs. Yoon --
The plan that Mrs. Yoon proposed, you talked to them, to the community, about that proposal, the 2006? MR. McCONEGHY: We talked to our southern neighbors and our northern neighbors. We did not talk to the community groups.
Well, who are your southern neighbors? MR. McCONEGHY: Community Outreach is the name of the group that owns the property to our south.
Does somebody live there? MR. McCONEGHY: No. It's vacant land, sir.
So there's nobody there physically? MR. McCONEGHY: Correct.
The way 148 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. your testimony is giving the impression that you're actually talking to people who live in that community. What you did, you talked to the property owners of vacant land? MR. McCONEGHY: Yes. The property owners do happen to live in the community and they're patrons of her store and they talk frequently, and we have met with them. They are interested, they say, they have told us, in setting up either a church or a school on that property.
And the name of the group again is Community? MR. McCONEGHY: Community Outreach.
The properties in question, to your knowledge, how long have they been vacant? 149 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. MR. McCONEGHY: I'm sorry, sir?
The properties in question, how long have they been vacant? MR. McCONEGHY: How long have they been what?
Vacant. MR. McCONEGHY: The grocery store has been vacant probably for about four or five years. It was -- I'm sorry. I meant the laundromat has been vacant for about four or five years. At the local housing, they had set up their own laundry facilities or something, so the business just died and it was closed up. So that's been vacant about four or five years. The garage has always been in use, but it's only in use for storage. And then there's another building in the middle that's been vacant for as long as she's owned it, and she uses it for storage of some stuff from her store.
As long as 150 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. how long? MR. McCONEGHY: That would be about years it's not been used. 5
Fourteen 6 years it's been vacant? 7 MR. McCONEGHY: Yes, sir. 8
And the 9 vacant lots on both sides of the 10 property, Mrs. Yoon's property, have been 11 vacant for approximately how long? 12 MR. McCONEGHY: I can't answer 13 that. I don't know. 14
You don't know? MR. McCONEGHY: Before my time anyway. More than seven years.
So those properties, you say a minimum four years ago, five, six maybe, best case, have been vacant for at least more than four or five, six years and the adjacent properties have probably been vacant for double-digit years, ten years or more, and one you said has been vacant for 14 151 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. years? MR. McCONEGHY: To my knowledge, yes.
That particular community has over the last few years experienced significant development, would you say? MR. McCONEGHY: Yes, sir, definitely.
So, therefore, wouldn't you think that if someone -- I don't want to imply that you're not attempting to. Wouldn't you say that there was a stronger possibility of developing that land than in other parts of North Philadelphia where there's not necessarily as much development? If somebody aggressively sought to develop that site, that probably could have happened? MR. McCONEGHY: Yes, that's true. That's why she's been trying to develop it.
But she 152 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. wasn't able to do it. Okay. MR. McCONEGHY: The neighbor to the north, sir, has had their property for sale for a long time and they've been trying to sell it and they've also been discussing with us about developing the property.
Okay. We're going to actually have some residents who live a block away that will be talking to the condition of that, because I'm very familiar with this site and I don't recall, first of all, a "for sale" sign on the northern part. I do recall a sale sign on the southern part that came up shortly after the Redevelopment sent notice that we're interested in the property, but all right. MR. McCONEGHY: I've never seen a sale sign on the southern part, sir. They tell me it's not for sale, but on the northern part, there has been long --
I'm sorry. 153 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. You're right. It is the northern part. I'm sorry. My fault. You're right. I'm a little turned around. Okay. But you have not met with any of the local residents who actually live there on any potential development since 2006, knowing that you -- MR. McCONEGHY: Well, we met with the group that has been working with Shirley Kitchen, and we discussed some things with them, but the proposals that they had working through their -- I believe he was an architect, was that Mrs. Yoon surrender her property and then they go into some type of community ownership with Mrs. Yoon of a strip that's on Diamond Street. We were not agreeable to surrendering our property. We wanted to develop our property.
My question is, have you talked to the local community about what you propose since 2006? 154 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. MR. McCONEGHY: No, sir, not other than the property owners that I mentioned.
Okay. All right. Thank you. MR. McCONEGHY: Any further questions?
I beg your pardon? MR. McCONEGHY: Any further questions of me?
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? 155 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Whoever is testifying, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam President and to members of the Rules Committee. My name is Lamar Wilson and I'm the principal of Wilson Associates. I'm a local development consultant with a practice in community development, with a focus on affordable housing and neighborhood revitalization. First of all, I'm here in support of the ordinance. In 2005, I was retained by Metamorphosis Community Development Corporation, a three-year-old neighborhood-based, non-profit organization serving the North Philadelphia community, bounded generally by Broad, 10th, Norris and York Streets, to assist them in completing pre-development activities for the 156 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. eventual redevelopment of this largely vacant block in North Philadelphia bounded by Diamond, 10th, Norris and Alder Streets. In sponsoring this project at 10th and Diamond, Metamorphosis proposes residential uses as the predominant use. Current plans call for approximately 35 mixed-income homeownership units, with a possibility of small-scale neighborhood convenience retail uses. Preliminary site and unit design plans, which have been completed, Metamorphosis is presently in early discussions with potential developers experienced in this type of development, the joint venture, given that Metamorphosis does not have any real estate development experience. We, in conjunction with a developer that we will select through a competitive RFQ, request for qualifications, initially and then subsequently a request for proposals process, we're going to look into the 157 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. possibilities of, in addition to the Temple-Apollo funds that have been committed to this site, other resources through the local Housing Trust Fund, through PHFA's NRI program, which is a component, as you know, of the Homeownership Choice Program. One of the goals of this single-family sales housing project is to encourage young families who have grown up in this area and moved away to pursue educational and/or career opportunities to move back to the community. That's one of Metamorphosis' primary goals here. Metamorphosis believes that the ability to attract this market of potential home buyers is a function of having high-quality, affordable, modern homes on a site, with access to a broader area by way of the seven regional rail lines that service the Temple University Station one block away at 9th and Berks. In addition, the project is part of a parallel process to identify 158 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. transit-oriented development opportunities around the Temple Regional Rail Station. On both the development project and on the transit-oriented development project, we've been working very closely with City Councilman Clarke's office, with State Senator Shirley Kitchen's office and with the surrounding community. I'd like to just say in terms of the previous testimony, the owners of the site that's in question here, I personally met with them on at least two occasions and before I got involved in this project, there was at least an understanding or at least a possibility that the existing owners of the convenience store might participate in the development of this overall development. So initially when the Redevelopment Authority responded to the request of the community to acquire all the other sites but for the convenience 159 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. store site and the adjacent properties, there was a clear, at least a hope, that there might be a possibility of the existing owner and the neighborhood organization coordinating their activities together. We've engaged a professional architect. We've got a market analysis.
And the focus was to sort of redo effectively as we plan new housing on that site, townhouses and condos, that we would focus on the northern portion of the site, the portion of the site that fronts on Diamond, as perhaps a more realistic site for a convenience store, grocery, sit-down, family-oriented restaurant in a much higher quality product to that community, integrated with not only the housing development on this particular site but also the surrounding community. And I know this is not the forum for kind of a debate in terms of what that meeting was about, but what I can tell you is that we reached 160 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. out as Metamorphosis and my representative -- being a representative of Metamorphosis, we reached out to figure out if there's an opportunity for the owners of that site to work with us, and they essentially indicated, as I think they indicated here, that they were going to pursue some of their own plans, they were going to bring in their own architect and essentially try to develop their site within the existing site or existing footprint versus a notion of trying to relocate the retail to a portion of the site that seemed to make much more sense from a land use standpoint. So there are representatives of Metamorphosis here, but I just wanted to mention that, again, my role here is to sort of work with the organization. I've been working with the RDA, with OHCD and the Planning Commission over a period of two or three years to, again, move this project forward to sort of position it to 161 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. acquire the necessary resources, starting with the land and then moving forward with the resource side. One other point and then I'm going to turn it over to my client. One of the important reasons for having site control, overall site control for this site, we've conducted a Phase 1 environmental analysis about a year and a half ago. As you know, a Phase 1 is a very early analysis. You look at records and figure out whether there are any particular potential environmental hazards based on previous uses and based on the records review of all the uses over time. It was discovered that there's potential for asbestos, lead in soil, lead paint, and other environmental hazards. In order for us to sort of refine our cost estimates on the development site, we need to do a Phase 2 analysis and really figure out what is happening much more subsurface through testing. We're not authorized, and our 162 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. conversation with the RDA, we understand the legal limits. We are not authorized to go on the site and perform the environmental Phase 2 with our environmental engineer until and unless we have site control of the entire site. I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee of this witness? (No response.)
Good morning, Madam Chairman, Councilmembers. My name is Sam Dowling. I'm President of Metamorphosis Community Development Corporation. Normally my voice is a lot more boomery than this and you can hear me 163 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. easier. As we said, what Metamorphosis is trying to do in a sector of North Philadelphia is impacted by certain elements that are hurting the community. We're trying to bring empowerment to the community through our organization for education and commercial use, as well as bringing senior citizens into the 21st century. We have done certain things in our short time. We have developed a computer school, which we have after-school programs. We have adult searching, computers for job search and what-have-you. I say this to say that in looking to be ongoing in our organization, the 10th Street project was looked at a while ago. As Mr. Wilson said, we tried to include the only person that was there, who was a store. In our endeavor to include them, we shared with them some of the blueprints. They seemed 164 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. acceptable at first. Then, as you said, in '06 all of the sudden they decided to go their separate ways. We would truly appreciate the Council consideration on this project of ours and this bill. And I'm not going to say too much more. I can answer any questions you have.
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Dowling, I know that you've been a resident in that area a block or so away. 165 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
And I didn't ask you to give your age, but to your knowledge, the vacant land, how long has that land been vacant, both on the north and the south side of the building, the current building?
The land that we're speaking of has been vacant for 12 years. 13
Thirty 18 years. And on numerous occasions I think 19 that you probably called my office -- I 20 can actually remember you calling me telling me that somebody has short dumped on the lot, can I please send somebody out from the City to pick up the debris and cut the weeds that were on the lot.
The lot 166 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. basically -- the only exterior, outside of the store, the only exterior improvements to that ground has been simply blacktopping a portion of the properties.
There's been no 9 rush out there. The City has cut the grass in most cases.
Other than that, there's been just shudas (ph), as we call the youth. She has blacktopped a portion of the property she acquired. There's been no endeavor to improve that property at no time.
Madam President, I'm a member of Metamorphosis. My name is Ronald Armour. And certainly with all the 167 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. development that has taken place in North Central Philadelphia, we're very fortunate. You heard the numbers that was given out, 30 years of vacancy. We certainly -- we're going to co-exist, and we certainly are going to co-exist. At the early stages of this idea bringing it into a reality of stages, we extended the invitation to the businessperson. That person attended the meeting there. And Metamorphosis is all about bringing the transition, because it means transition. We included the owner of the business to come to our meetings. She came to one meeting. And even saying that, even with all development and her plan, it still can be worked out. And Metamorphosis' organization is about bringing the businesspeople, the community itself together to make sure that this initiative comes into existence. There's no problem, there's no 25 situation in the community in the years 168 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. that we're in now and the development that's taking place in our wonderful City of Philadelphia, we can resolve this. So the only thing what we're saying to the businessperson, once again, attend our meetings. And there's something else that was said here in this Chambers today that is a key point. It is our job, Metamorphosis' job, to make sure that everyone in that community is informed with the flyers and things so they can be a part of it, so now you have a community development. And I would say to the businessperson behind me, once again, we are going to co-exist. We are not -- I'm certainly not suggesting or Metamorphosis has never suggested to just take someone's property, because we've been there a long time. But we are saying, now is the time, let us come together, put all the resources available and this thing can be a wonderful project. Not only will the community benefit by it, 169 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. but the City itself will benefit by it, too. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions or comments for this group? (No response.)
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Alfred Laurie, Jr. I'm also a member of Metamorphosis organization. I also lived in that community for 32 years, and in 32 years in that area, which I seen a lot of 170 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. development, the community is starting to grow. Outside there's still just one eyesore in the community, which I'm talking about the 10th Street. I've been there 32 years. I seen change. At one time it used to be a candy store at one time. Then it transferred over, grocery store, laundromat, but still there's no 10 improvement in that area. I also served in Vietnam, come back to the states side. I'm tired of seeing slum in the community. Community need to grow, just like the people in the community need to grow to expand, to achieve. This is what I'm looking for. That's all I have to say.
Thank you. Thank you. Any questions or comments? (No response.)
Thank you very much, sir. We appreciate your coming in to testify.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 8 080469. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by State Road, Poquessing Creek, the Delaware River and Grant Avenue. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good afternoon, Chairman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify 172 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. on Bill No. 080469, which was introduced into City Council May 8, 2008. This bill will amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning of certain areas of land bounded by State Road, Poquessing Creek, the Delaware River and Grant Avenue, this land also being known as the Glen Foerd estate. The zoning will change from the existing designation of R-2 Residential to a new zoning designation of REC Recreational. The zoning change will reflect the fact that Fairmount Park is the trustee of Glen Foerd. The City Planning Commission will consider Bill No. 080469 at its meeting of June 17, 2008 and our recommendation will be delivered shortly thereafter. The Planning Commission staff is recommending approval for this zoning change to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. This is the conclusion of my testimony. I will be happy to answer any 173 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. questions of the Committee.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna. Mark Focht, Executive Director of Fairmount Park. Members of the Committee, I am pleased to appear before you today on behalf of Fairmount Park in support of Council Bill No. 080469 to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of a parcel of land located at the confluence of the Delaware River and the Poquessing Creek, commonly referred to as Glen Foerd, from R-2 Residential to REC Recreational. Before I describe the purpose of the bill, it's important to provide you with a brief history of the property. 174 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Glen Foerd was a private residential estate until 1971 when the property was conveyed to the Lutheran Church and America's trustee. In 1984, the City of Philadelphia Fairmount Park Commission was appointed as substitute trustee of Glen Foerd by the Orphans Court. In 1985, City Council authorized acceptance of the property by the City in the name of the Fairmount Park Commission. Since 1985, the property has been successfully managed and maintained through a lease with the Glen Foerd Conservation Corporation, whose members are made up of representatives of the East Torresdale Civic Association and the community surrounding the property. Glen Foerd is host to special events that offset the cost of maintaining and preserving this historic structure and grounds. The historic mansion and museum is available for scheduled tours and community events, and the grounds are open and used by the 175 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. community for passive recreation. Glen Foerd has remained zoned R-2 Residential and is the only property within the Fairmount Park system and under the jurisdiction of Fairmount Park that is not zoned Recreational. This mismatch of zoning and use has resulted in the need for the Conservation Corporation to expend precious resources to go through the inefficient process of acquiring a series of permits and variances for things such as signage, parking and other uses which are in accordance with our mission and are needed to operate and maintain the estate. Rezoning the property from R-2 Residential to Recreational will make the zoning designation at Glen Foerd, number one, consistent with the zoning for the rest of the Fairmount Park system; two, appropriate for the use of property; and, three, more efficient and effective, enable the Glen Foerd Conservation Corporation to preserve and maintain both 176 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the structures and grounds at Glen Foerd for passive recreation, cultural and educational program, and to host events at this historic property. Fairmount Park's ten-year strategic plan completed in June 2004 requires the Park to develop and implement a property management plan to improve past management approach for our historic assets. The Fairmount Park staff takes its charge very seriously and in accordance with the strategic plan, we are striving to perform our mission more appropriately and efficiently. We believe that this zoning change will advance the goal of addressing a recommendation of the strategic plan, help the Conversation Corporation ensure the future well-being of Glen Foerd for Torresdale and Philadelphia and do so in accordance with the legal responsibility as substitute trustee. I appear before you today to support the pledge of Fairmount Park for 177 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. this legislation and respectfully ask this Committee's favorable recommendation of Bill No. 080469. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from the Committee? (No response.)
I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 080491. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 080491 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 Harbison Avenue, Tulip Street, Harbison Avenue, Eadom Street and Bridge Street. (Witness approached witness table. 178 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Good afternoon, Chairman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080491, which was introduced into City Council on May 15, 2008. This bill will amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Harbison Avenue, Tulip Street, former Harbison Avenue, Eadom Street and Bridge Street. The zoning will change the north portion of the existing designation of C-7 Commercial to a new zoning designation of G-2 General Industrial. The purpose of the change to G-2 General Industrial zoning is consistent with the existing use of the property and will allow the current operators to continue 179 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. operations here without the need to constantly apply for zoning variances. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission will consider Bill No. 080491 at its meeting of June 17th and the recommendation will be delivered to Council shortly thereafter. The Planning Commission staff will be recommending approval of this bill to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you. Mr. Kramer, what is the current use of this property?
It's a manufacturing and processing of dairy products. Primarily they take milk and turn it into cream cheese at this location. And this was anticipated that Harbison Avenue here would go commercial, which is why it was changed to C-7, and 180 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. this manufacturing facility remained in existence and has stayed there and has put up with being zoned C-7. So they came to us and said, Can you change us back to G-2, which is really the history of where this came from.
Great. Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Our final bill, I hope. Mr. McPherson, kindly read the title of Bill No. 080527. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 19 amending Section 14-2007 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Historic Buildings, Structures, Sites, Objects and Districts," to permit the historic designation of the public interior portion of buildings, and making technical changes, all under certain 181 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. terms and conditions. Our first panel of witnesses are John Farnham, Sam Sherman, Lewis Rosman, Gary Jastrzab and Sharon Pinkenson. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am Jonathan Farnham, the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. With me is Sam Sherman, the Chair of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080527, which was introduced into City Council on May 22, 2008. This bill would amend the City's historic preservation ordinance, Section 14-2007 of The Philadelphia Code. 182 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Currently, the historic preservation ordinance authorizes the Historical Commission to ensure the preservation of historically significant buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts. The Historical Commission identifies and designates buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts as historic, listing them on the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places. It regulates their preservation through the City's building and other permitting processes. Under the current ordinance, the Historical Commission regulates the exterior envelopes of buildings and structures, as well as their sites and appurtenances. This bill would expand the Historical Commission's purview, additionally authorizing it to designate and regulate interior portions of buildings and structures that are or were designed to be customarily open or accessible to the public by invitation or otherwise. 183 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. More than any other American city, Philadelphia is endowed --
Excuse me. Could you please slow down just a little bit so that we can take this all in.
Certainly. More than any other American city, Philadelphia is endowed with a wealth of irreplaceable historic treasures. As the Historical Commission preserves Philadelphia's past and safeguards its unique heritage and treasures, it fosters civic pride, provides educational opportunities, promotes healthy and sustainable communities, enhances property values and attracts new residents, businesses and tourists. Philadelphia's historic treasures not only document its past, but also propel its 21st century economy. Like the historic buildings, structures, sites, objects and districts that the Historical Commission already protects, the public has a vested 184 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. interest in the preservation of historically significant publicly accessible interior spaces, which have great value as both reminders of our past and as economic engines for our future. Preservation agencies in many large American cities, including New York, Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco and Washington, DC, have exercised similar authorities over interiors, in some cases for decades, and have successfully protected both the public's interest in historic resources and the rights of private property owners. The Chair, Mr. Sherman, and I appreciate this effort to enhance the Commission's ability to protect historic resources and we support Bill 080427 in principle. However, the Chair and I cannot speak for the Historical Commission itself, the 14-member body, which has not had an opportunity to assess the bill and issue an official position on it. The Historical 185 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Commission was unaware of the bill's impending introduction when it last met on May 9th, and moreover, neither the final text of the bill nor a thorough analysis of it was available for distribution to the Historical Commission for its upcoming meeting on June 13th, this Friday. Nonetheless, the Historical Commission will discuss the bill in executive session at that meeting on June 13th. Significant questions about the bill remain open, especially those regarding developing appropriate designation and regulation procedures and re-allocating the Commission's resources. The Historical Commission will review this bill and may or may not take an official position on it at its June 13th meeting this Friday. If it delays making a final decision on this bill to collect additional information, undertake additional analyses or hold public discussions, it would not have another opportunity to take an official position 186 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. until July 11th, its next monthly meeting. Of course, the Historical Commission will promptly report on its deliberations to this Committee. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and we would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
I'm sorry. When did you say that the Commission would be meeting?
It will discuss this bill in executive session at that meeting, but the meeting materials went out to the Commission members, were sent to the Commission members last week before we had the final version or the proposed changes to the language available, and we have been sending those electronically to the Commission members 187 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. and will continue to do so if it continues to change. So the Commission members will have some material before them to review prior to the meeting, albeit they'll only have a few days to review it. They will hold a discussion, but they won't have the advantage of a comprehensive analysis from the staff of the Historical Commission and others at that meeting. It's just too short a time for us to prepare that for them.
So your consideration will be made in August? The vote will be taken by the Commission in August?
Well, I think the Commission itself will decide how it wants to deliberate on this issue. It will have an opportunity to come to a conclusion this Friday, June 13th, but as I say, I don't know that they have all the information they need to reach a conclusion that soon. Their next opportunity would be Friday, July 11th, 188 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. will be the next monthly meeting of the Commission.
Mr. Farnham, although I realize that the Historic Commission has not yet met to consider this bill and make any recommendations, your testimony seems somewhat questionable. Although you support it in principle, you state you have significant questions about the bill. Have you had a chance, because I certainly have not, had a chance to review the amendments that Councilman Green intends to offer today, and if so, do you have any comments on those amendments?
Well, I have not seen those amendments in writing, but they have been conveyed --
Dr. Farnham, 189 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. I'd just like to clarify something about your testimony. Isn't it true that since this bill was introduced three weeks ago, members of my staff have been communicating with you on almost a daily basis? They have had numerous meetings with you and the Law Department to discuss the amendments. I just want to be clear for the record that the amended version of the bill represents the collaborative efforts between my office, the Historical Commission staff and the Law Department.
Okay. Thank you for the point of information, Madam President.
Councilman Green, maybe it would be a nice gesture to offer a copy of the amendments --
He has them, Madam President. 190 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Well, I have the amendments as of Monday. I understood there was --
Yes, then I do have what's the latest version. Yes, I have that before me.
Well, I'm sure you've had a chance to review the amendments. Do you have any comments about the amendments as being proposed today?
Yes. The amendments that are proposed and have been proposed since the bill was introduced do address the concerns that the staff of the Historical Commission raised and also the attorney in the Law Department who represents the Historical Commission raised. I have not discussed one particular section with my attorney. 191 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. I didn't have a chance to in the last day, but -- and I'm not here to comment on the legality of it. I'm not an attorney, but from an Historical Commission process perspective, I think that they do address the primary concerns raised by the staff of the Commission.
Thank you, Madam President. Actually, the question -- because we're talking on your question about the time and when it might be considered. I don't know if Mr. Sherman is going to give separate testimony, because I was going to ask him as the Chair, maybe you could talk about the time frame a little better than --
I can address that. My name is Sam Sherman. I'm the Chairman of the Philadelphia Historical Commission. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak, Madam President and Councilmembers. 192 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Yes. I was made aware of this legislation approximately three weeks ago and it was relayed to me via e-mail from John Farnham, from his office. At that time, I downloaded it and printed it and reviewed it. And I believe that was on or about May 22nd. I think that was about the day that I received it. And subsequent to that, there were either one or two amendments that had come through, or possibly just one, that I did have a chance to look at and review. My main concern is the fact that this information has been held primarily between Mr. Farnham and myself and Councilman Green and his staff and members of City Council. Although I am the Chairman of the Commission, it is, by no means, a dictatorship and I am uncomfortable with the fact that we have not as a group had a discussion about the intent and content of this legislation, as we are going to be the body that implements its rules and regulations. I 193 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. feel it necessary to have an open dialogue with members of the Commission in order to have everybody understand the implications and how it's going to impact not only our public meetings and the potential for cases coming before the Commission, but also the potential work that's going to have to be performed by the staff at the Commission itself. That being said, after reading the legislation and meeting with Councilman Green last Friday, I too do not oppose this bill in its principle, but I will not offer support of the bill 16 at this time based on the fact that I have not had the opportunity to have a discussion of the bill with the rest of the Commission members. Not to say that I will not support the bill once that vetting process has been completed, but there will be potentially unintended consequences that come out of any legislation that's passed by this body. We all know that. And what I offered to 194 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Councilman Green was a compromise, that we take the version of the bill that he is going to present for passage and he gives the Commission the summer to take a case study, preferably a publicly held building, that what's good enough for a private property owner should be good enough for the City government, in my opinion. We take a public building and we take the bill and we apply it to a specific test case so that the staff can work through the mechanics of the bill, understand how it's to be administered and rise to the surface or bring to the surface any potential issues that may arise, because I understand that it's important to protect our interiors, but I also understand that if the issues come up after final passage of the bill, then we're coming back and we're doing amendments to the bill. I would rather have people directly affected by the implementation of the bill work it through and take a case study, and I 195 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. would hope that that will be acceptable to both Councilman Green and this Committee.
So I'm clear, Mr. Sherman, you're suggesting that when you say "take a case study," of one particular property; is that what you mean?
Well, my suggestion -- and I spoke to John Farnham about this -- is that we identify a building that would be an obvious candidate for interior designation.
How about the Boyd, just throw it off the top of my head?
But that suggestion was made, that the Boyd could be a test case, but because that's 196 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. privately owned, I didn't want to have any kind of insinuation that what we were doing as a test case could then be extrapolated into putting some restriction on the new owner. And I understand that that is the flash point of this issue right now, believe me. We move to designate the historic facade of the building. And I appreciate the intent of Councilman Green, and I'm not here arguing the nature of the bill. What I'm really arguing is the mechanical implementation of the bill as it moves forward. That's what I'm arguing.
Just for the record, Mr. Sherman used to be a committeeman in the 15th Ward and he confused me at a few meetings, too. So this isn't the first time.
Oh, 197 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. okay. Just kidding. Just kidding, sir.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I think Mr. Sherman probably answered all of the questions that I would have asked. And as a member of this Committee and as someone who has been the recipient of the Preservation Alliance award a couple years ago and whose district probably has the majority of historic buildings in the City of Philadelphia, I certainly appreciate the intent of this bill as well. My only concern was the collaboration between Mr. Farnham and staff and Councilman Green's office. Not that there's anything wrong in that collaboration, but I was not a party to that, nor was any 198 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. member of my staff. And this is an opportunity, I think, to do something that is right for the City and our historical buildings and I think it's important that when we do it, we get it right and not have to continue to come back to try to tweak it. So I would offer the suggestion to the sponsors of the bill that we should take the summer to look this bill over, and either test cases or some further discussion I think needs to be had. Unless someone could demonstrate to me that there is, aside from the Boyd, that there is some other property or building that is in imminent danger of somehow being destroyed between now and the time we get back, I'd like to know what building that might be, if there's something we can do to prevent that, but absent that, I would also suggest that we just take the summer to figure this all out. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank 199 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Good morning -- or good afternoon. Just for my own knowledge base here, having heard the testimony that the Commission members have not had a chance yet to look-see, deliberate, et cetera, I'm just curious to know of those in the audience here, how many are Commission members? (Commission member raising hand.)
Very well. What's the composition of your Board in terms of skill set?
The Historical Commission has six ex officio members, City officials, who bring skills from Department of Public Property, Licenses and Inspections, City Planning and other 200 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. offices that have direct interest, Commerce Department, and eight appointed members. Of those eight members, six are required to have specific skills or represent specific constituencies. There is an historian, an architectural historian, an architect, a developer, a representative of a community organization and a representative of a community development corporation.
Okay. What is the standard operating procedure with regards to District Councilmembers having a say in deliberations that involve historic buildings in their councilmanic district?
Well, the Historical Commission endeavors to notify the public and Councilmembers about its agenda items so that Councilpeople who have specific interest in applications appearing before the Commission certainly have an opportunity to weigh in on those, and especially regarding designations and 201 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. especially district designations, the Commission looks to involve the Councilpeople, the District Councilpeople, before those designations move forward.
And that is a standard operating procedure where at all times District Councilmembers are alerted and informed of potential action around a building in their district?
Well, yes. By e-mail to staff members, I believe that that does happen through our interested parties list. We try to have Councilpeople's staff members on that list. When we're discussing historic districts, which have greater implications, we inform the Councilpeople directly in writing. We certainly could implement a system where we do that with individual designations as well. The Commission is designating very few properties at this point, so 202 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. it's not a circumstance that we find ourselves in all that often, two or three times a year, and we'd be happy to extend the district notification procedure to the individual designations and notify you and other Councilpeople directly in writing.
Again for my own knowledge base, in the time that you've served in leadership, you and/or the Chairman, have there been any instances where the view, the perspective, the opinion, the wish of the District Councilperson takes precedent over actions of the Commission?
I can only speak to my term, which started in February, and as far as I know, that has not occurred in my tenure so far.
I've been 203 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. employed at the Historical Commission since 2002 and was Acting Director since 2005, and I know no instance in which that has occurred.
So is it safe to assume then that the good news is that actions rendered by the Commission have been acceptable to District Councilmembers? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not always.
For the most part since 2002? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Not always.
I wouldn't be comfortable saying that it would be acceptable, but if lack of complaint or lack of phone call is any indication, I would assume that we've been doing what we're supposed to be doing.
Okay. With regards to this particular bill -- or in your mission statement someplace, 204 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. you're very clear about -- you get into the historic building structure, object of land, period. Any considerations ever given to size of a historic piece as a factor when seeking to take action on anything?
No. The Philadelphia Historical Commission within the historic preservation ordinance 11 determines whether or not a property is historically significant and worthy of designation using ten criteria that are laid out explicitly in the ordinance.
And the property or anything to be designated, building, structure, site, object or district, must meet at least one of those criteria before it can be designated. And the Historical Commission holds at least two public meetings -- in the case of districts, usually many more than two -- to discuss precisely that, whether or not the structure or site proposed for 205 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. designation in fact meets one or more of those designation criteria, and it's advised by an expert committee as well.
Okay. All right, then. Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
First of all, thank you, Madam Chairman, for appointing me to this Committee one day and one day only. When it sunsets, I will respectfully not do this again. But while I'm here, I'm going to say something. Is it not -- and good afternoon. Is it not true that at the, I want to say, Conversational Hall in this building in City Hall was at one point covered over and split into office space with low-hanging ceilings and kind of art 206 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. deco design to increase the amount of office space --
-- at one point, and then we discovered its beauty and decided to revert it back to its original character?
Because I go through that hall and as I bring people here to this building, I always take a tour down there. And that is an example of interior misuse, if I would, and we had an opportunity to correct it. I will never ever, ever, ever argue against District Council prerogative, being a District Councilperson, with no 22 disrespect to my at-large colleagues, but District Council prerogative is important to me. But I would also argue that sometimes every now and then that the 207 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. at-large perspective should be considered because they're responsible for keeping us not so parochial in our view that we forget the best interest of the City. In regard to Center City, I believe that absolutely pound for pound square inch per acre there is more historical buildings down here, but also in the neighborhoods. We have been the victims of misuse of both exterior and interior alterations to what are beautiful historic properties, whether we talk about the mansions of Germantown, whether we talk about the beautiful facades that can be found in East Falls, whether you talk about in low-income neighborhoods where renovators came in to communities telling senior citizens that they would replace their windows with energy-efficient windows, only to remove, recycle and resell stained-glass windows that were ten times the value of the replacement glass that they were giving away, and these victims didn't know what 208 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. they were giving away. There are companies that are in Philadelphia today that make a living off of North Philadelphia homes that take away their cerebrations and the unique craftsmanship of the moulding and then resells them to Main Line firms that do construction outside of the City. So this bill is important by way of our long-term preservation of the character of not only the buildings that are commercial buildings downtown, but some of the neighborhoods that make Philadelphia unique. So I know we need to get it right, but we do need to get it, because I've had an opportunity to knock on a lot of doors in my district and I look at a beautiful exterior building, only to come in and find popcorn ceilings that were dropped down because it was a fad to put sparkles in the ceilings, and it's such a travesty to the rich character of our neighborhoods. And I just wanted to put that on the 209 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. record. Having said it, you know, thank you for the opportunity.
You're welcome. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I forgot what I was going to ask, so I'll hold off for a while, but thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. I have a series of questions that involve both these people who are testifying and the people I thought would be on this panel, which are the Law Department and the Planning Commission all together. Would it be possible to have them to testify also and then I can ask the group a question rather than doing it to two separate panels?
If the Committee has no objection. As a 210 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. matter of fact, I believe they all had been called to approach the witness table.
Four people can sit at the witness table. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon. I am Gary Jastrzab. I'm the Acting Executive Director of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to express the City Planning Commission's staff support for Bill 080527, as amended, which was introduced by Councilmembers Green, Greenlee and Reynolds Brown on May 22nd. The City Planning Commission itself has not yet had an opportunity to review this bill, but will do so at its next meeting on Tuesday, June 17th. And 211 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. I understand that the Historical Commission, as we heard, will be discussing this bill in executive session later this week. This bill would authorize the Historical Commission to designate for preservation the interiors of buildings that are or were designed to be customarily open or accessible to the citizens of the City of Philadelphia. The interiors that are referenced in the bill are public in nature and we know them generally as banks, stores, theatres, train stations or lobbies of office buildings. The bill does not apply to the interior of private residences, whether these buildings are historically certified or not. In addition to its power to designate historic structures in the City, the Historical Commission has had regulatory powers over modifications to the exteriors of historically certified structures since its inception in 1955. 212 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. In the more than 50 years that have passed since the Historical Commission was created, preservation policy has matured, and it is now recognized that outstanding examples of interior architecture that is both familiar to and much loved by the public should have protection similar to that which historic designation affords. Peer cities have designated interiors of buildings as historic for the education, pleasure and welfare of the city. Philadelphia, with its wealth of structures that feature magnificently designed interiors, should join their ranks. Philadelphia's Historical Commission, the first of its kind in the nation, has played a significant role in maintaining the excellence of the built environment that defines the unique character of our city. We have learned that economic development and investment goes hand in hand with successful preservation planning. This bill gives 213 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the Historical Commission yet another tool to accomplish its charge. That concludes my testimony and I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair. I'm Lewis Rosman. I'm a senior attorney with the Law Department. I don't have any prepared testimony, but I'm available for any questions that any members may have.
Thank you. I'm kind of curious, do you have any estimate of the number of properties that would be affected by these proposals?
John Farnham, Executive Director of the Historical Commission. I asked my staff to prepare a list of what they thought would be the interiors that would fit the criteria for designation, and that list has 214 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. approximately 80 properties on it.
Approximately 80 interiors was the estimate that my staff developed. That's within the ball park. I would not imagine more than 100, 150 over the course of many, many years of considering nominations.
I think we would all appreciate it if we could have a copy of that list.
Thank you. Do you know of any other jurisdictions that in fact have an ordinance such as we are proposing?
Yes. There are several in the United States. The ordinance as proposed is based on New York City's ordinance -- the section of New York City's ordinance that allows for the designations of interiors. The 215 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. language is very similar. In addition to that, in my testimony I noted Los Angeles, Chicago, Boston, San Francisco, Washington, DC. We're also aware of many smaller cities such as Pasadena, California have ordinances that are in many ways very similar to what is proposed here.
Good afternoon. I'm confused about a couple of things. Has your testimony been that you have not had a chance to fully review the legislation?
Well, I think I personally have. I think my testimony is that the Historical Commission as a body has not had a chance to review it and discuss it as a group.
I think I just heard two things in your latest 216 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. comments in response to questions. One, that it's very similar in nature to legislation in other cities and that, two, you've already concluded how many properties may fall under this legislation. That seems like a lot of due diligence that has already gone into this that sort of shows that although maybe the Historical Commission has not reviewed it yet, that there was due diligence done not only on the part of you and your staff, but Councilman Green and his staff. So essentially I'm not sure what we're waiting for. Are we supposed to be waiting for someone else to approve it before we do?
My point is, why wouldn't we consider it today? If your own testimony and comments suggest that this is based upon legislation that is found in other cities, one, and, two, you've already done enough due diligence 217 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. that shows that you actually know the impact of how many buildings this will affect, are you suggesting that we should go through your process before we go through ours?
I'm, by no means, suggesting that this Council should be guided by the Historical Commission. I would like to have it vetted through the Historical Commission. I think the Chair agrees with me. Because the Historical Commission members come from many different -- they have different perspectives. They represent different constituencies, and I'm sure that they will raise questions, perhaps concerns that my staff and I, along with the Chair, have not yet even considered.
You have questions and concerns that will not be vetted through this legislative process?
Well, I think the hope is that if there are concerns, that those would be conveyed to you 218 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. immediately after Friday's meeting.
Thank you. I think you answered what I needed to know very succinctly. Thank you.
Right. Thank you, Madam Chair. It seems to me and I have the impression that most people testifying -- there are quite a few -- have some questions about the ramifications of this bill and they've requested more time. I know Councilman DiCicco has recommended maybe we allow the summer for people to digest this bill in its present form. I'm just wondering from the sponsor maybe, is there any reason why we have to vote this bill out of Committee today? Are there any buildings that are being designated as being torn down today or whatever? I just want to find out how important it is that we act on this today 219 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. and not give the people who have requested more time to digest this bill.
Thank you, Madam President. Well, this bill came to fruition as we were looking at the Boyd Theatre matter. In fact, I think it will help explain if I just read the statement I was going to read at the beginning of this, and, that is, all of Philadelphia's peer cities have similar provisions in their laws and regulations, but Philadelphia, a city of significant architectural landmarks, has lagged behind and only permits the designation of exteriors and historic districts. We are not heading into unchartered territory with this bill. Boston, San Francisco, Chicago, New York City each have designated public interior 220 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. spaces for decades. This legislation is modeled after the language in New York City's longstanding ordinance, 35 years, which simply permits the designation of historically significant interiors that are customarily designed to be open and accessible to the public. In practice, this would permit building lobbies or other public spaces to be designated as historic. The designation would not and could not be applied to customarily private spaces inside private buildings, nor would it affect homes. The Boyd Theatre has recently rekindled the historic preservation issue and drawn our attention to the need for following the best practices of other major cities such as New York. The State Supreme Court ruled 15 years ago that the Historical Commission does not have any legal authority to designate and preserve the interior of the Boyd or any other 221 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. significant building because our ordinances did not give them the specific authority to do so. This legislation will finally give the Commission the ability to do so, not that they necessarily will, unless they reach their own finding of historical significance. Philadelphia's existing historically significant interiors such as the Wanamaker Building, the Academy of Music and the Ben Franklin House have remained intact by the benevolence of their owners. There is currently no 15 legal means to prevent any current or future owner from gutting any of these magnificent spaces or altering them beyond recognition. The attempted sale and removal of the Dream Garden mosaic in the Curtis Building has shown how unexpectedly one of our famous interiors can be permanently altered. Even if the Boyd Theatre's current application for designation is approved, it would only 222 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. protect the facade of the building and leave the Theatre's unique art deco interior vulnerable to destruction. With the Boyd up for sale once again and the future treatment of our other treasured spaces uncertain, I think we need to move on this legislation, even if we do so without a suspension of the rules to give the Historical Commission more time to respond. However, I think if I go through a bunch of questions that I had for these witnesses, I can answer many of those questions more specifically. Thank you.
The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I'll probably hold off on some of my other questions, but the one question I have, is there an effective date? I don't see it in the bill, nor in the amendment. 223 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
It would be effective upon signing by the Mayor. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So technically if it was voted out and we passed it on the 19th, the Mayor has, what, ten days -- we still wouldn't get it to the fall, right? This wouldn't come -- because we're going on recess on the 19th, this bill would not become effective until the fall when we return anyway; is that --
The Mayor can sign it any time after the 19th. Upon its delivery to the Mayor from Council, the Mayor could sign it any time and it would become -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The earliest we can deliver it is the 19th, the day we recess.
That's right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If we're in recess, because the Mayor signed it, does it become law immediately?
Yes, it does. 224 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So it's effective --
If he signs it on the 19th. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I know there's been some back and forth discussion on the peer cities and, again, I guess my question goes back to if staff from the Planning Commission and staff from the Historical Commission have reviewed this but the Boards of those two agencies have not had an opportunity to comment, I guess it kind of goes to Councilman Goode's question, is -- maybe this wasn't his question. It's my question. We normally would wait until the Boards come back with a decision. In many cases we may not concur with those decisions, but we do rely on that testimony. So there is a number of questions that no one knows what may come about from the Historical Commission and the Planning Commission Board over the 225 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. next couple of weeks or whenever they're meeting again. Wouldn't it make more sense, I guess, to the sponsors of the bill, again, that we take that -- let that opportunity -- allow for that opportunity to vet itself and see where we are? And I don't know if -- Councilman Green says he has some answers to some of the questions. Are there any other buildings beside the Boyd that are in jeopardy of being demolished or renovated in such a manner that alter the integrity of those interiors between now and the fall? And I know that Councilman Clarke has been working on the Boyd Theatre issue for a number of years. Is there any resolution 19 to that from the Administration? Could the Historical Commission, where are we with the Boyd?
John Farnham of the Historical Commission. The Preservation Alliance, the preservation advocacy non-profit, has 226 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. submitted a nomination for the designation under the current ordinance 4 of the Boyd that will be heard by the Historical Commission's Committee on Historic Designation on July 16th and by the full Commission at its meeting in early August. The notice letter has been sent to the property owner, Live Nation, announcing the consideration of the two public meetings. As of the date of that notice letter, which I believe was May 29th, the property is under the jurisdiction of the Historical Commission until it votes otherwise. Any building permit applications for the property must be referred from the Department of Licenses and Inspections to the Historical Commission for review for those to be approved. That said, the property is for sale and it's my understanding that bids were recently accepted by Live Nation, but I personally have not had any contact with Live Nation and don't know the 227 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. outcome of that bidding process. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me know if I understand this correctly. So if the Commission accepts and approves the recommendation for the Boyd, the alterations or any alterations would not be able to proceed?
The Historical Commission would have to review, just as it does for designated buildings now -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Review proposals for alterations.
Proposals for alterations. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So, in essence, someone just can't walk into the Boyd if it's approved by the Historical Commission and just do any interior renovations or demolition without having to go through that process?
All permit applications would be required to go through the Historical Commission's process, but it's important to point out 228 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. that currently the Historical Commission does not have jurisdiction over interiors. So any work to the interior that did not impact the exterior of the building or the structure of the building would be automatically approved by the Historical Commission. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Bill, are you chairing this?
Thank you, Councilman. Councilman Green, you wanted the floor?
Yes. Thank you. This question goes to the Law Department. The way this legislation is drafted, what would be the process for then the Historical Commission to create rules and regulations for governing designation of interior spaces?
It would be the same process for any department to adopt regulations. They would meet. They 229 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. would presumably start with staff, discussing with the Law Department some initial drafts. They would share the drafts in some form with the Commission in some sort of preview respect, and then once it was in sufficient form to bring to the full Commission, the Commission would vote on the regulations and publish the regulations, as all departments do, through the Records Department. There would be a comment period, 30-day comment period, during which the public could request a hearing on the regulations, and then if the hearing was requested, there's additional process. It would be the same process under the Charter for any department to adopt regulations.
Is the approval of the Historical Commission required to have this ordinance be effective in any way or --
No. I mean, to implement the ordinance if it's adopted -- 230 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
They would have to adopt rules and regulations, but their approval, is that required?
The Planning Commission, is their approval required for this?
No. I mean, the Planning Commission, sometimes it's required that they make recommendations in connection with legislation. I don't think that applies in this case. But there are no bills where Planning Commission approval is required.
Have you ever seen City Council pass a Streets ordinance or something like that and then have the Planning Commission approve it at their next meeting based upon the recommendation of the staff of the 231 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Planning Commission in Council testimony?
You're saying after the Council hearing or after the bill is --
Gary is here. Has the Planning Commission ever testified before City Council prior to the entire Commission meeting and had us, based upon the staff's recommendation, pass out a bill that was then approved by the Commission at a later Planning Commission hearing?
Not all the time. A lot of it is dependent upon schedules. This time of year is particularly difficult because the City Planning Commission has monthly meetings and there are many bills to be considered. But the answer to the 232 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. question is, yes, we have done that in the past.
Most Streets hearings I'm on we end up doing that, but okay. Very good. I just wanted to point out that this would not be at all an unusual process for City Council to have done its work, work closely with the staff, produce good legislation and then have the relevant agency approve it afterwards. But in those cases where we normally do that, I point out that Planning Commission approval is actually needed prior to our passage of this legislation. According to the Law Department's testimony, it is not required for this ordinance. So my personal opinion is, we should not concern ourselves with that. So can you tell me, somebody either from the Planning Commission or the Law Department, when the first historical ordinance was passed, were the 233 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. rules and regulations governing how it was going to work written by the staff prior to or after the ordinance was passed?
Well, I don't know for a fact. I've never researched it, but if the Historical Commission didn't exist, presumably there was nobody to adopt regulations.
But generally when you pass legislation, when are the rules and regulations written? Before or after you pass the legislation?
Right. So I just want to make that point. So does the Historical Commission have the authority to make amendments to its rules and regulations to address new issues that arise over time, getting to Mr. Sherman's concern?
Yes, they do. Okay. 234 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Has the Historical Commission ever revised its rules and regulations in the past?
Thank you. If given the authority to designate interiors under this legislation, do you anticipate the Historical Commission will revise its rules and regulations to set forth specific guidelines and processes for implementing that new authority?
Are you aware of the rules and regulations for the New York City Landmarks Commission, which has had the authority to designate interiors for over three decades and which our ordinance is based upon?
Yes, I am aware of them. I certainly don't know them chapter and verse, but I'm aware of them.
To your knowledge, are those rules and 235 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. regulations working well?
Did I ask you to call the New York Planning Commission and talk to them about their rules and regulations before testimony?
In preparing revised rules and regulations to address the designation of historical interiors, could the Commission use rules and regulations employed by its sister commissions in other cities as a model?
I don't believe -- of course, we can learn something from them, but I don't believe that the New York rules are really applicable to Philadelphia. Their rules are based on building typology, which is 236 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. very different from our current rules and would be difficult to adapt, and I would advocate that we didn't adapt a set of rules based on typology.
So how would you see the process going if we were to pass this ordinance?
I would imagine that the Commission would establish a committee, an ad hoc committee, to draft a set of rules that would include staff members, perhaps a few members of the Committee, perhaps a few from outside the Commission and would prepare -- and the Commission would hold a series of public discussions on those rules and regulations during its regular monthly meetings, and when the Commission was convinced that they were the appropriate rules, would go through the process that my colleague has stated.
Right. So if we pass this legislation, the Historical Commission will go through 237 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. exactly the process that Mr. Sherman testified that he'd like the Historical Commission to go through in terms of having each Commission member's input, they would have their input on how exactly the rules would be written, how specific, specific criteria are for designation, et cetera?
Yes. The Commission would go through a process similar to that that Mr. Sherman was suggesting, but if I may, I believe that Mr. Sherman was suggesting that we undertake that exercise not to establish a set of rules and regulations but to better understand --
With respect, I don't know how you can designate an interior unless you know the specific criteria that apply because you have rules and regulations written. In other words, you can say this is a pretty room, but until you have rules and regulations, you can't go through the 238 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. process of sort of picking a case room 3 criteria. Now, you can do that as you -- use that as a model to help you write better rules and regulations when you do that, but they would be at least coterminous activities; would they not?
-- Mr. Sherman was suggesting that we go through that exercise, not necessarily to --
I didn't ask what Mr. Sherman -- I didn't ask you to repeat what Mr. Sherman said. I said the question, Dr. Farnham, is, isn't that exactly what the Commission will do once we pass this ordinance? And if you want to do that in a process of picking a room 22 at a time to help you write the rules and regulations, you can do that. Is that a yes? I'd like a yes or a no answer to that. 239 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
The Historical Commission, would it go through -- by picking an example room, wouldn't it have to almost write the rules and regulations at the same time that would apply to creating what the characteristics or aspects of that room 11 that have to be preserved are and essentially there's no reason for us to delay for you to go through that process? You're going to go through that process, and until you do go through that process, you won't have the ability to accept applications for the historical designations of interiors, so that the Historical Commission will have its full input prior to any rules and regulations, including all the expertise on it and the ability to do a practice room if you choose to do so as a Historical Commission as you're writing the rules and regulations. Isn't that correct? 240 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
I think I ought to defer to Mr. Sherman to answer that question. My testimony was that I thought that the Commission ought to at its June 13th meeting have an opportunity to discuss this and present --
And you would have that opportunity before final passage to present your findings to us --
I would defer your earlier question or your question to Mr. Sherman to answer, because I didn't make that statement.
In reference to that earlier question, as I understand it -- and it was brought up in the 241 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. discussion on Friday at our meeting that we had at the Historical Commission offices -- that this legislation has been in the process since January or February of this year.
Okay. Really I think the point that I'm trying to drive home here is that the City of Philadelphia has an up and functioning Historical Commission, and every Councilman has their prerogative to introduce whatever legislation they want to introduce.
But the point that I'm really trying to make is that this is an important issue and we have a highly trained staff at Historic Commission that, in my opinion, I would like to engage more fully and not -- I'm not saying rewrite the bill or offer amendments, but to tap that expertise 242 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. that we've got at that Commission and vet this bill and put it through its paces. That's all I'm suggesting.
But my point, Mr. Sherman, is the bill -- and the Law Department can testify to this -- doesn't have to go through any paces. All of the rules and regulations governing the interior spaces will be written by your Commission. The bill 12 itself has no impact on that. So the process you are talking about is essentially a rule-making process. The legislation gives you broad discretion. You will be able to write the rules and regulations the way you want, going through exactly the process you're talking about.
The 243 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Mr. Rosman, let me try to guide you in some of those comments. In developing the administrative regulations, it's simply true that the administrative regulations cannot conflict with the ordinance; is that true?
But the administrative regulations can go beyond the ordinance?
They can develop what's in the ordinance and provide additional guidance, additional rules under the ordinance, but they can't conflict.
And that is essentially where the technical expertise comes into play. I don't think Councilmembers are expected to be experts on every subject that comes before them, although we do our independent research, 244 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. whether we pull in the agencies and commissions, whether we pull in independent consultants. However we develop the legislation that we developed, it is understood as the government of design that we are here to legislate, and that is not to be dictated to by the administrative branch or vice versa necessarily. Even after we do what we do in terms of legislating, essentially you still have the ability to create administrative regulations that further develop the implementation. So my question really is to the Historical Commission staff that has obviously studied this already with their technical expertise, is there absolutely anything you're going to come up with that's going to conflict with the ordinance as currently drafted or the amendments?
I don't know the answer to that question until I've had an opportunity to discuss it with the 245 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Commission.
No. You will be making recommendations to the Commission. You won't just be discussing with them. My question is, based upon your review of the current legislation and even the amendments that might be offered, right now do you know of anything that you would recommend or can you conceive of anything you would recommend that can't just be put into the administrative regulations in a way that's not going to conflict with this ordinance?
Thank you. I have no more questions for this panel. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the 246 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Committee? (No response.)
Gentlemen, thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: The next two witnesses are John Gallery and Lori Salganicoff. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good afternoon. Nice seeing you. Please identify yourself.
My name is John Gallery. I'm the Executive Director of the Preservation Alliance for Greater Philadelphia. I appreciate the opportunity to be here and to testify on this bill. You were given a copy of a written testimony that I prepared before 247 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. I had seen the latest amendments and before the discussion that's occurred today, so I'm going to not read my testimony, but I'm going to address some of the issues in it, but also address some of the questions that have come up in this recent discussion. First of all, let me say the Preservation Alliance is in favor of adding the designation of interiors to the Philadelphia ordinance. We think this is something that should be done and we think it is appropriate for us to do it in Philadelphia. As has already been testified, the provision to designate interiors is common in ordinances of many other cities. In 2006, the Preservation Alliance undertook a research study to look at ordinances in other cities to see in fact how they handle the designation of interiors. Again, it's been mentioned we looked at the ordinances in Boston, Washington, New York, San Francisco, 248 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Portland, Oregon and many smaller cities, and what we discovered were a number of things. First, many, many, many, many, many more cities than we realized do include interior designation in their ordinances. Secondly, the nature of the designations varies considerably. If you lived in Pasadena, California, your entire living room, kitchen, dining room, bedroom of your private single-family home could be designated as a historic interior if it was a house designed by the famous California architects Greene and Greene. If you lived in Oak Park, Illinois, your living and bedroom could be designated as historic if you lived in a house designed by Frank Lloyd Wright. However, what we did discover in that research was that the majority, the vast majority, of historic interior ordinances focus on interiors that are accessible to the public in the normal 249 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. course of the use of that building. That is the norm, that is the predominant approach, and that is what is suggested in this ordinance. We also discovered that many of these ordinances allowed you to designate an individual feature, not an entire room. We think that is useful and it is also encompassed in this ordinance. I think it is worth pointing out that in these other cities, the use of interior designations is rather small. I'll give you what I think is, in a certain sense, the worst case example, and that is Chicago. Chicago has, we believe, designated about 120 interiors of buildings, of historic buildings, far more than we discovered in most other cities, but Chicago has 6,500 buildings which are designated as historic. So the percentage of interiors, even though the number may seem large, is very small in relation to the number of historic buildings that are designated in the city 250 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. as a whole. I think that is likely to be the case in Philadelphia, that we have presently 12,000, 10,000 approximately buildings listed on the Register. I think the number of historic interiors that will be added would be rather small and would be quite selective. There are several issues that have been brought up in this discussion which I would just like to comment on first. Mr. Sherman has mentioned the fact that the Historical Commission intends to discuss this bill in executive session on June 13th. I would simply point out that if the Commission intends to take any formal action on the bill, it needs to do it in a public session, in a session in which the public could comment on it. An executive session on June 13th would not fulfill that requirement. Therefore, the Commission could not really take any action on this bill until 251 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. July. Secondly, is there a reason to approve this bill now?
No, there is not. There is nothing that is threatened that this bill will help us with at the moment, not even the Boyd Theatre. Is there a reason not to pass this bill now? No, there is not a reason not to pass this bill now either. Councilman Green I think is correct in saying that the Commission can proceed with the rules and regulations under the general auspices of this bill. It is my own concern that once you do that, we will discover things that have not been addressed and we will perhaps come back in the fall to retweak this bill. And I'm thinking ahead here in terms of, for example, what is the distinction between the alteration of a historic interior and the demolition of a historic interior? How much of an interior must be demolished for it to be a demolition as an alteration? This is not clearly 252 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. identified in the ordinance. It's already a problem with buildings. It will be a problem, I think, when it comes to interiors that may or may not lead to changes that should be made in the ordinance. We don't know that. We can find those things out by writing the rules and regulations, and if we find that there are no further changes necessary, that's fine. And if we find out there are some, we can come back to City Council for further refinement of this bill. So I would say on the issue of do it now or not do it now, either case can be made. There is no reason not to and there is no reason -- whatever the opposite of that is. You can do it or you can't do and it makes no difference. There are a few parts of this bill I'd like to just draw your attention to that I think are important. The latest amendment includes, in describing the features of an interior, the volume 253 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. of the space. If you think of this room, if we came in here and built a two-story new room sitting in this space that didn't touch any of the walls, we would have destroyed this interior, even though we would not have touched the walls, because we would have lost this volume of space. That is an important part of this bill. I am concerned about the section of this bill that allows interiors that are no longer accessible to the public to be designated. The wording has been changed to try to refine it, but I think it is still a difficult part of what is being proposed and a part that I fear is subject to fairly easy legal appeal. If public accessibility is the test and an interior has not been accessible to the public for eight of ten years, even if it hasn't been physically changed, what are our grounds for designating it? I'm not sure whether it 254 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. should be included in the bill or not. I am cautious about it, but I definitely feel that if that broad authority is in the bill, the Historical Commission has to look at some very explicit reasons as to why an interior that is no longer accessible to the public, even in its unchanged state, should be designated. And I think there is an issue there that requires a lot more careful thought. Lastly, I do support what has been said about the need for a clear set of rules and regulations before any designations occur. If that were not the case, I think we would be subject to legal challenges purely for procedural grounds. In closing, I have one further remark, and you'll forgive me for taking the opportunity of making this remark again. The Historical Commission has an excellent staff in John Farnham and has an excellent Executive Director. It 255 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. is insufficiently staffed for its present workload. I have appeared before City Council for the last three years of the budget hearings asking for an increase in the budget and staffing of the Historical Commission. The Commission can barely do its current work.
There are five historic districts that have been sitting in the Commission's office for four to seven years waiting for action, in which the Commission has been unable to do anything because it does not have the staff. There are, I think, two districts in Councilman Curtis Jones' councilmanic district. These are districts that the community organizations have wanted to have protected by the City. The Commission does not have the staff to implement it. This bill adds a new function, which the Commission does not have the staff to implement. And for the Commission now to be running around writing the rules and regulations to go 256 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. with this ordinance and continuing to ignore the districts which have been sitting there for five years I think is a serious problem. Therefore, I am challenging you if you vote for adding additional responsibility for the Commission, then in the 2009 fiscal budget find $300,000 to give them the staff needed to implement what we need to do in Philadelphia. Thank you.
Just for the record, we want to recognize your long history in the City, and I had an opportunity to meet you up close and -- I was an intern when you were head of OHCD. And I look forward to working with you. And for the record, what part of town do you live in?
Okay. I was 257 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. trying to get you in the 4th, but that's okay. I look forward to working with you and I appreciate your input.
Thank you very much. Thank you for reminding me of my age. And I would like to take the opportunity just to point out that when you mentioned Conversation Hall, Conversation Hall was my office when I was the Director of OHCD and I discovered the room hidden above the plywood of my office, and I'm happy to say that was part of the process that started its restoration.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, Mr. Gallery, for all your hard work and for your testimony today. I'm not trying to put words in your mouth, but I heard you say on a 258 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. number of occasions in your testimony where you did have concerns with some portions of the bill and you have a greater concern that even if it were passed -- and, again, I'm not trying to put words in your mouth -- that staff at the Historical Commission would not be able to even deal with these issues. So again I go back to my original comments earlier, and I think your comments and statements support why I think a couple of months, 90 days I guess it would be from now until the time we return, to go over some of these issues and even talk to the Administration about possibly adding additional funding to the Historical Commission and working with you and other people who are familiar with these issues on creating the bill, without gutting it obviously, but adding things to the bill 23 that might give protections to those areas that you have already raised concern about. 259 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. I mean, I want to see something happen, so everyone understands and the sponsors of the bill understand. I think this is important, but I'm hearing conflicting statements even from those who are in support of the bill, who have had a lot more time than I have and I would assume my colleagues have had to have a discussion on this issue.
I'd like to be able to give you a definitive answer, but I've tried to suggest to you that there isn't a definitive answer. First of all, let me just say that Councilman Green's staff has done a very conscientious job of reaching out not only to the Commission but to myself, to others who are concerned with this, and the reason this bill has been amended several times since it was introduced is through an effort on their part to build into the bill issues about which we have been concerned. I think the bill is 260 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. considerably improved from the version in which it was introduced and I'm not -- I would not be uncomfortable if this bill 5 were passed. The choices that you have are pass the bill, develop the rules and regulations. You may find at the end of that process that there's no 9 inconsistency between the rules and regulations and the bill and the bill is fine. You may find at the end of that process that there are some inconsistencies that actually need changes in the ordinance. We do not know that because this bill has happened so fast that none of us have really had the opportunity to trace through the whole ordinance, but what I'm saying to you -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could I interrupt you just for a second? I need to interrupt. That goes to the heart of this issue with me. And I can't speak for my colleagues. And I admire the work that's been done. I am certain, because I have staff and I know how hard -- staff 261 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. works very hard on bills that I would like to have introduced and ultimately introduce. But I hear about three weeks or four weeks since the bill has been introduced, there's been some interaction with the Preservation Alliance, with the Planning Commission, with the Historical Commission, but three weeks is not a lot of time and there are those issues that are still outstanding. And I hear you, John. You're kind of saying -- I know you're anxious to get something done, and I can respect and appreciate that, but for all intents and purposes, the time that we're asking that we be allowed to continue to work on it collectively -- again, I can speak only for myself. I don't believe my staff has had any interaction on this legislation and I'm not -- I'm only one of 17, so I can't speak for the rest of the folks, but I have a district, as you know, that has probably -- I don't know where the 150 or so properties has come from. Probably a 262 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. vast majority of those are in my district. Maybe some of those properties are already being looked at for development. I don't want to come up with something that may add another layer of bureaucracy to potential development, and at the same token, I don't want just development to happen without any regard for the property. So that's why I'm looking for some time here. If someone can show me the list of those properties, at least as it relates to my district, and if I can identify any of those properties that are already being considered for development, I'd like to engage the developer at least in that part of the conversation to let him or her know what may be expected of them. I mean, there's a lot of stuff in the pipeline in this city, and that doesn't necessarily mean that we should just, well, because of that, we got to go back, stop the -- put the brakes on, no 263 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. more development until we get this done. I'm not being that radical, but I think that common courtesy should be allowed with those developers among the parties, the interested parties, to develop, as best we can, a bill that addresses the majority of those properties. We always know that as time passes, we'll figure out things and say, Oh, you know what, this isn't working as well as we thought it would, we need to come back and revisit it.
But three weeks on a bill of this importance and it has such a broad impact, could have the potential for very broad impact, asking for 90 days, I don't think we're asking for too much.
I think you're correct in saying that a broader public discussion could make the bill stronger and have support in the future, and as I said before, I know of no instance at the present time, including the Boyd Theatre, in which a delay of this bill would have any effect. 264 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments of Mr. Gallery?
Thank you. I'd like to ask Lewis Rosman to join you. Lewis, Mr. Gallery testified that he had concerns about demolition, alteration, et cetera, and some other concerns. Are those not things that are addressed in the rules and regulations by the Historical Commission itself?
It's in the 265 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. ordinance.
I'm sorry. I was out of the room during the beginning of Mr. Gallery's testimony. I'm not quite sure I understand what the issue is.
Mr. Gallery, your objection to those definitions applies to exterior facades in the way the ordinance currently works; isn't that correct? I mean, there's lots of ambiguities about those terms that apply to exterior facades, and I think what you're saying --
And we don't know what their application will be with respect to interiors.
Right. And the definitions are in the ordinance. And so if we felt that what constitutes an alteration to suit an interior needed to be more carefully defined, that section 266 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. of the ordinance, not the rules and regulations, the ordinance needs to be changed. And that's the concern that I have, is that once --
But will we know if those definitions need changing until we're putting this into practice with rules and regulations?
Well, yeah. Of course, we could know that. We could sit down right now and say suppose this were passed, how would the definition of "alteration" work. We could determine that it wouldn't work and we could decide how we should revise the ordinance.
And the concern that I have is that -- I mean, I think if I went to the issue of delay, the 267 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. argument would be if we had more time, we would know that and we would pass one ordinance. If we pass the current ordinance and we go through it and we find that it doesn't work, that would be perhaps a second argument. And you could do either one.
Just so you understand, Mr. Gallery, if we pass this out of Committee today, that does not pass the full Council.
And what I've talked to the Historical Commission and the Planning Commission about is that they will meet and get back to me, and if they agree with your concern after Friday, the 13th --
I'd like to just go on the record here that Friday, the 13th, an executive session --
They are not meeting to determine whether or not they 268 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. have to support this bill. In fact, their approval is not required.
I understand that, but they have no authority to make any comment on this bill. It's not on their agenda. They have no authority --
I don't want to turn this into a debate about open records law, because that's nothing that you and I are going to solve here today as to how they're going to conduct their meeting on Friday. So my point is, they're the experts that work for the City of Philadelphia. If they come back and have your concern about those definitions, then we'll hold the bill and we'll work through the summer. But it's my intention to get this bill out of Committee today and then work with yourself, the Historical Commission and others to write rules and regulations over the summer that we can all agree with, and if -- and I don't think it's going to happen, Mr. Gallery, but if some 269 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. changes need to be made to the ordinance 3 as a result of having gone through that process, then I think that we would make them. And what I'd like to know is, you must not have been aware of that, that that was the process that we were talking about.
I mean, first of all, it's the process I suggested to your staff, so I'm aware of it. Secondly, I've tried to be clear -- and it's hard to be clear here -- there are two choices. The choice you're recommending --
-- and the choice that Mr. DiCicco is suggesting, and both choices are equally possible. One is not preferable over the other.
Well, I think Councilman DiCicco and I are basically saying the same thing, although we don't understand it. But it's my intention to move this bill out of 270 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Committee and then work with the Historical Commission and others to put these things in place so that we can pass it the first session of Council coming back in the fall if everything is in order.
Excuse me. That was not -- I don't think that has ever been said to anyone except what you said right now. It certainly has never been said to me. I don't think it was --
That plan would allow the bill, approved by this Committee, to be further amended before it goes to City Council.
That procedure would be fine. 271 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Are you going to testify? Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Lori Salganicoff. I'm actually representing myself. I'm an historic preservation consultant and did the work that led to the report for the Preservation Alliance, and the Councilman asked that I be here to answer any questions that he might have about the report that was done about the 20-some cities that also have preservation ordinances to protect interiors. I do not have testimony.
Thank you. Councilman Green, do you have any questions for the witness?
No. It's a 272 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. great report that you wrote, and if it's okay with the Preservation Alliance, I'd love to pass it on to the people in City Council. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you for your patience. You've been waiting all day, I know. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call the next witnesses. MR. McPHERSON: The next panel is Sharon Pinkenson, John Nivala, Craig Schelter, Howard Haas. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Welcome, Sharon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. My name is Sharon Pinkenson and I'm from the Greater Philadelphia Film Office. Council President Verna, 273 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Councilman Green and all of my City Council friends and colleagues, I thank you very much today for the opportunity to address this most respected City Council so that I may testify in support of Bill No. 080527. I have served as the Executive Director of the Greater Philadelphia Film Office for the past and a half years. 11 As an economic development office, GPFO 12 is responsible for attracting production 13 to the entire Philadelphia area, 14 including all five counties, and 15 expanding the City's facilities and 16 incentives for the purpose of growing the region's film, television and video industry. " I'm 274 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. pleased to be here today to give testimony in support of Bill No. 080527 amending Section 14-2007 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Historic Buildings, Structures, Sites, Objects and Districts," to permit the historic designation of the public interior portion of buildings, and making technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions. Since 1992, the work of the Greater Philadelphia Film Office has stimulated well over $2 billion of economic impact to our region through film, television and video production. It is apparent that the film industry in Philadelphia is growing, that production has doubled since last year, that the productions are filling our hotel rooms and restaurants, hiring our local crew and actors, paying state and local taxes, and creating excitement for all of our citizens. It is broadly accepted that the film industry is indeed good business 275 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. for Philadelphia. When filmmakers make decisions about where to shoot their films, many factors are considered. Because film is a business, one driving force in decision-making is always financial. S. state and city are competing for this very lucrative filming activity by creating tax incentives and providing free services to lure the business. The other reason production companies, however, leave Hollywood surrounds creative considerations. Like other businesses, it's about location, location, location. In Philadelphia, we are uniquely fortunate because we are blessed with magnificent, intact historic locations to offer filmmakers, as well as a brilliant new skyline filled with some of the finest examples of modern architecture. But any city can build new skyscrapers. What makes Philadelphia 276 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. truly unique is the ambience of our city that comes from the wealth of our beautiful, intact locations, exterior and interior. We must preserve them or we will suffer the demise of cities that have nothing unique to offer and we will lose our attraction to filmmakers. Imagine what would have happened if in 1992 when I received a call from Jonathan Demme, the Director who was then renowned for "The Silence of the Lambs," when he told me that he needed a city with a wonderful courthouse, a magnificent courtroom for several weeks so he could film a movie about a lawyer fired from his law firm because he had contracted the AIDS virus. " Imagine what would have happened if in 1995 when Terry Gilliam came to scout and there hadn't been still 277 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the great Train hall, which served as an airport terminal, or if there hadn't been a classic department store like Wanamakers or if there were no longer the grand old interiors of the Richmond and Delaware Power Plants to portray the underworld prison, or the Met, the sad old Metropolitan Opera House on North Broad Street, or the magnificence of the domed Memorial Hall serving as a lecture hall. There would have never been a movie named "12 Monkeys" in Philadelphia.
Imagine "Witness" without 30th Street Station and the power of the scene where the young Amish boy standing in that magnificent hall looks up to be transfixed by the angel statue and then is witness to a horrific murder. Imagine the film "Annapolis" without the final boxing scene shot in The Legendary Blue Horizon. I cannot. Can you imagine a restaurant scene with Bruce Willis and Robert Wright Penn created in the Curtis Center in 278 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. front of the Tiffany mural anywhere else? " From the time that the Pennsylvania Convention Center was built and the Philadelphia Civic Center was left vacant until it was demolished just a few years ago, we made movies and TV shows in that historic 40,000 square foot arena, like "The Sixth Sense," "Unbreakable," "Beloved" with Oprah Winfrey and Danny Glover, and the TV series "Hack," and then it was demolished. Even though long before there were movies there, the Civic Center's hollowed arena allowed Philadelphia to place host to the Sixers, the Flyers, three national political conventions, Frank Sinatra and the Beatles and much more. But now it is lost forever. 279 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. If we lose these important interior treasures of our great city, it will be like losing our collective hearts, for it is the grandeur of the rooms that imbue our lasting memories and serve our economy, and we cannot live as fully without them. Sure, we can and will build sound stages so that movies can create settings in our city, but they won't choose to use the sound stages in Philadelphia if we do not have real spaces to lure them. I cringe at the idea of losing the Divine Lorraine Hotel, and I know that Philadelphia Director Lee Daniels, who shot "Shadowboxer" there with Cuba Gooding, Jr. and Helen Mirren just a couple years ago, would be devastated to know its interiors will soon be lost forever. The DreamWorks movie "Transformers 2" is in town and soon will be transforming City Hall Courtyard into a Paris cafe. Without locations like 280 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. these, we might as well be Cincinnati or Houston. And, finally, last night I attended the world premiere of M. " Here is my ticket. The premiere was held at the Ziegfeld Theatre in New York City, but it is clear that the premiere of the movie by Philadelphia's most prestigious and successful filmmaker would have been held at the historic Boyd Theatre were it preserved and restored. I will never forget the night that the movie "Philadelphia" had its world premiere at the then-Sam Eric/Boyd Theatre, nor will I forget seeing "South Pacific" there with my parents when I was a little girl. Ladies and gentlemen of City Council, it is not too late. Please act now and save the Boyd Theatre and protect other great interior landmarks. They are our heart and you have the power to keep 281 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. it beating. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Questions or comments? (No response.)
Thank you. Mr. Schelter, if you have testimony that's prepared, we will give a copy to the stenographer and perhaps you can abbreviate your comments, and your testimony will be transcribed in full.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the Rules Committee, good afternoon.
My name is Craig Schelter. , 1735 Market Street, 51st Floor, Philadelphia. The Development Workshop, Inc. 282 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. is a Pennsylvania not-for-profit trade organization organized in accordance with Section 501(c)(6) of the Internal Revenue Code dedicated to promoting real estate development in Philadelphia and to help the City realize its full potential, create construction and permanent jobs, increase the tax base and support development in the context of vibrant, safe neighborhoods. The Workshop monitors the activities of local government that bear on planning, zoning and development; advocates for sensible planning and development decisions; and will make its views known through an active government and community relations effort. While the Development Workshop applauds the intent and efforts of the bill sponsors, Bill Green, William Greenlee and Blondell Reynolds Brown, to protect the interiors of Philadelphia's historic building interiors, we believe that action by the Rules Committee is 283 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. premature at this time. Members of the Development Workshop have direct experience taking the sometimes enormous risk that ultimately lead to the appropriate conversion of historic properties. I come to this conclusion after having been involved in making historic preservation actually happen on numerous complicated transactions over 34 years in the public sector at the City Planning Commission and at the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation and in advocating for compatible conversions of historic properties as a private consultant since 2002. Participating firsthand in the rebirth of 700 to 714 Spruce Street by Pennsylvania Hospital, the conversion of Lits to Mellon Bank Center, the creation of the Philadelphia Historic Preservation Corporation, the redevelopment of the Reading Headhouse as a Marriott Hotel, the preservation of the Reading Trainshed 284 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. as a showpiece of Pennsylvania Convention Center, the conversion of PSFS into the Loews Hotel, the conversion of the City Hall Annex into a Marriott Courtyard by Brickstone Realty, the conversion of the Naval Hospital by Toll Brothers, the conversion of the Girard Bank, Mellon, into the Ritz Hotel, the reuse of the numerous properties at the Philadelphia Naval Business Center have taught me and the development community many lessons learned the hard way. The mixed-use conversion of Wanamaker's department store, Strawbridge & Clothier, the St. James on Washington Square and the Suburban Station Office Building are also instructive. In each of these instances certain commonalities existed. One, each project required an extraordinary commitment of public dollars and/or financial incentives. Two, each had a redeveloper committed to a quality product, hiring 285 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. well-qualified professional design, engineering and construction and legal services. Three, each had a developer that shunned historic certification of the projects' interiors. This is not to say that they did not work actively with the Historic Commission or the Planning Commission locally or the State Historic and Museum Commission in Harrisburg. Four, each was concerned with the impact that the certification would have on third-party lenders and those who might purchase the property on completion. Five, and most importantly, each was concerned about the impact that interior certification would have on opponents of a redeveloper and what that would mean in terms of time, consultant, construction and market risk. In the bill before you today, there are insufficient specific guidelines for what might be construed an 286 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. historic interior, nor a specific process for consideration before the Historical Commission. What about lobbies for train stations, college buildings for assembly, library lobbies, places of religious assembly?
In an effort to assist City Council in its deliberations on this bill, the Developer Workshop would like to bring some of its developer members to talk firsthand about what transactional elements made their project a go or a no 14 go, such as the role of federal tax credits, TIF financing, development bonuses. This could be achieved over the summer. We believe it would show that no 18 two transactions are alike and that each involved trusting relationships between City government and developers, coordination among planning and development agencies, a willingness to be flexible with regard to interiors and leadership from the top. Again, we would recommend that 287 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. the Rules Committee table this bill for further consideration also given that we were unable to ascertain that the Historical Commission and the City Planning Commission have had ample opportunity to weigh in on the questions raised, as we want to present our views directly to them as well. Thank you for this opportunity to testify before you today. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have.
I certainly want to thank you for abbreviating your remarks. We really appreciate it. Good afternoon, Doctor.
Good afternoon. My name is John Nivala. I'm a Professor of Law at Widener Law School. Among the subjects that I teach are administrative law and property, and I have written articles on historic preservation, including one which my editor said went 288 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. into paralytic detail about the Dream Garden designation incident in Philadelphia. I'm going to summarize my testimony also. I was asked to explore caselaw involving interior designation. It was a very limited search. It turned up very few cases, three from New York and one from DC. As far as I can tell, there's never been a case that has overturned a historic preservation ordinance dealing with interiors, nor accepted any constitutional challenge, either state or federal, to the application of those ordinances to an interior. The key is, do you have a clearly articulated public purpose, do you have clearly articulated standards by which that purpose is to be applied, and do you have clearly articulated procedures by which those standards will be implemented. Those seem to be the key, I 289 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. think, between the proposal, which I favor, and the rules and regulations which have been developed by the Historical Commission. I believe that this proposal would withstand certainly a facial challenge. We would have to see about it as applied, but I think there's enough precedent that we have learned how to apply these to interiors. Geez, for an academic, that's short.
Thank you so much. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. Hello. 290 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. My name is Howard Haas. I am a Center City resident, attorney and President of Friends of the Boyd. That's the non-profit organization of volunteers devoted to ensuring the survival, restoration and reopening of Center City's last movie palace, the Boyd Theatre at 19th and Chestnut. The Boyd closed in 2002, then known as the Sam Eric. Exactly six years ago today, on June 11, 2002, we organized our group because the then-owner of the Boyd Theatre was seeking to demolish it. The designation of historic theatres in Philadelphia began with the designation of the Boyd Theatre in 1988. The court battles that followed resulted in the loss of interior preservation law, but the State Supreme Court suggested that the ordinance could be amended to protect interiors. Twenty years later now we are here today discussing that possibility. The Boyd has recently been 291 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. renominated, as you were told, for the Philadelphia Register of Historic Places, but as you were told, without passage of this bill, there is no legal protection of the Boyd's interior, which is Philadelphia's most significant art deco interior. Movie palace historians and art deco authorities have proclaimed the Boyd's interior an art deco masterpiece and a national treasure. Everybody who visits the Boyd is awestruck by how gorgeous it is. Much of Philadelphia's appeal is in its 300 years of history. If you travel anywhere in the world to another large city and pick up a Frommer or Fodor or another travel guidebook, you will find a paragraph in a chapter on theatres. The paragraph reads something like this: 1920s former movie palace saved from destruction by preservation activists and beautifully restored to its original elegance, with grand lobbies and a huge ornate auditorium. The theatre 292 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. presents musicals, concerts and an occasional film festival. That paragraph is missing from Philadelphia guidebooks, and the interior of the Boyd Theatre is still in danger of being gutted. And I will say this: A new owner could be selected this week and at any time, as you heard today, they could apply for and receive a permit to completely demolish the interior of the Boyd Theatre as long as it doesn't affect the exterior. That's the state of the law. Boston, New York City, Chicago, Washington, DC, San Francisco and Los Angeles have laws that protect historic interiors, including many movie palaces. Now is the opportunity to restore Philadelphia's interior preservation law. There are many Philadelphia landmarks whose interiors have no legal protection, such as the Forrest Theatre, the former Benjamin Franklin Hotel, the main floor in Corinthian Room of Strawbridge & 293 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Clothiers and on South Broad Street, Wachovia Bank's grand hall, Fidelity. Buildings do not only have pretty faces they present to the public. Some buildings also have extremely impressive and important interiors that are open to the public, and those too should be legally protected. Please pass the legislation proposed by Councilman Green so Philadelphia's most wonderful historic interiors can be protected for future generations. Thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. We thank you all for your patience. Thank you for waiting. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our 294 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 080080. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I'm offering an amendment that has been circulated to the members of this Committee. So I move for the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 10 080080. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as submitted earlier be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, 295 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. Madam President. I move that Bill No. 3 080080, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 11 080080 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Jones regarding Bill No. 080249. 296 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
I move for the adoption of 080249, adoption of the amendment to 080249. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. Councilman Jones, we're on Bill 17 No. 080249.
I move for the adoption, as amended, of Bill 080249, as amended. I want a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 25 080249 be reported out of Committee with 297 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. a favorable recommendation, as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Jones.
I move for the adoption of Bill 080250 and a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 25 080250 be reported out of Committee with 298 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Bill No. 080251.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 080251 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 25 080251 be reported out of Committee with 299 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, this is the one that has to lay for 45 days, so we can't suspend the rules.
Well, we're on 51. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This is the business improvement district that has to lay for 45, so you can't suspend the rules. Just move for the approval without suspension.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 080251 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 25 080251 be reported out of Committee with 300 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. a favorable recommendation. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President.
-- regarding Bill No. 080376. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. On behalf of the sponsor, Councilwoman Tasco, I offer the following technical amendments to Bill No. 080376: Further, these amendments eliminate residential property No. 7208 North Broad Street from this business improvement district, and subsequent budget changes reflect the elimination of this property. (Duly seconded.) 301 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The amendment is adopted, and this bill will be held until September 23rd at 10:00 a.m. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 080381. And we do not need a suspension of the rules on that, but there is an amendment.
It was offered, I believe. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: On 381? No, it wasn't. We haven't done that yet.
Oh, okay. Do you want to offer the 302 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. amendment. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I would offer, Madam President, the amendment that has been circulated to this Committee on Bill No. 080381 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 21 080381, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended -- no suspension?
No. 303 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No 3 suspension. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 7 080381 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 080437.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill 080437 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It 304 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 3 080437 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown regarding Bill No. 17 080469.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 20 080469 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading. (Duly seconded.)
It 305 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 3 080469 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Kelly regarding Bill No. 17 080491.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 080491 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move for the suspension of rules in order that this bill may be heard at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.) 306 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc.
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 080491 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee regarding Bill No. 080527.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill 21 080527 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation.
I'm 307 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. sorry. Yeah. Madam President, I move the adoption of the amendment to Bill 080527. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be approved. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Madam President, I move that Bill 080527, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It 308 6/11/08 - RULES - BILL 080080, etc. has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 3 080527 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. Amen. This concludes the public meeting. Thank you. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 2:45 p.m.) - - - 309 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on June 11, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)