Committee Hearing, June 8, 2010

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, June 8, 2010 10:25 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 100199, 100200, 100222, 100287, 100311, 100367 and 100377 - - - 2

Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. The Council Committee on Rules is now in session with a quorum, including Councilmember Miller, Goode, Greenlee, Clarke, and Vice-Chairman, myself, Councilman Kenney. The Clerk will read the Bill 10 No. 100287.

100287, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Lindbergh Boulevard, 58th Street, Eastwick Avenue (extended), and 61st Street. (Witness approached witness table.)

Thank you very much. Mr. Kramer, please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, 3 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Chairman Kenney, members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill 7 No. 100287, which was introduced into City Council April 29th, 2010. Bill No. 100287 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Maps for an area bounded by Lindbergh Boulevard, 58th Street, Eastwick Avenue, and 61st Street by changing the zoning designation from the existing classification of "G-2" General Industrial to a classification of "C-2" Commercial. The change is being requested in order to allow for the development of the site as a new church facility for the Open Door True Light Church. The proposal is for the construction of a new church facility housing a sanctuary, a family life center and providing for 350 parking spaces. The church will have a seating capacity of 1,500 members, as well as a 4 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. multi-purpose room with a commercial kitchen for church and community use. Anticipated in a Phase 2 aspect of the development is the creation of a family life center, which will provide a daycare center, job training and recreation facilities. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of May 18th, 2010 recommended that Bill No. 100287 be approved. This is the conclusion of my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kramer. I also recognize the presence of Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown as part of the Committee. Any questions for Mr. Kramer? (No response.)

Seeing none, thank you very much. Bishop Maureen Davis, please. 5 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning, Mr. Chairman. My name is Darwin Beauvais. I represent Open Door True Light Church. I do have here to my left Bishop Maureen Davis and to your right, I have Elder George Davis. Before she gives her testimony, I just want to give some background as to the project. In 2008, the church, which currently sits at 52nd and Parrish, is now looking to move to 58th and Lindbergh. They purchased a nine-acre site that was formerly the Kempf Supply Company, which is the genesis of why we're here before you now, in order to convert the property from industrial to a more usable site. With that, yes, we're looking to do a 1,500-seat church, having areas for catering, for performances, and probably the jewel of the church will be our Phase 2, this family life center, 6 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. which will be in full partnership with the community. Now, in your package I did put together a rendering of the church, as well as a community letter, a support letter from the community. And with that, I'll just turn to Ms. Davis and she can read her testimony.

Bishop, before you start, could you please identify yourself for the record. State your name for the record.

Bishop Maureen Davis.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. Again, I am Bishop Maureen Davis, the Pastor of the Open Door Mission True Light Church. Open Door began as a small Sunday school mission founded in 1966 by my parents, the late Reverend James 7 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Ballard and Deaconess Lena Ballard. For four years, every Sunday and missing only one, my parents traveled from Washington, DC to the heart of North Philadelphia to 11th and Susquehanna to tend to the needs of a few children in that neighborhood. Not only did they tend to their spiritual needs of these children, but they addressed their physical needs by feeding, clothing, tutoring and counseling them. They taught them how to handle money, how to conduct themselves in public by taking them to restaurants and other public venues. As they got older, they paid their school tuitions, furnished their apartments, took them into their homes if they needed refuge and helped them obtain their business licenses, apply for jobs, and I could go on and on. Mind you, they did all of this for other people's children while having two children of their own. All of this was done with the money my parents earned from their federal government 8 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. jobs. Many of these children are productive, solid members of the communities you represent. They are pastors, lay people serving in ministry, business professionals and teachers. They have advanced degrees with good jobs and are raising families of their own. My parents are examples of true philanthropists, and it is their spirit that lives on in the mission of Open Door today. Their spirit of mission is what compels us as a church to do even more, because we see how the devastation of our communities and the destruction of our families adversely affect our children and our adults. From these few children, the congregation grew, causing us to move in 1993 to our current location in West Philadelphia, where we now have approximately 1,000 members. Our young people range in age from six months to 19 years old. All of our youth programs are 9 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. free and are administered under the Outreach to Youth program. We host a summer camp, vacation Bible school, Saturday empowerment class, junior leadership program, abstinence program, after-school tutoring/mentoring program, and Youth Stepping Up to Make a Difference. These youth programs, along with other adult and youth educational, enrichment and social activities, have caused us to outgrow our current facility. After a five-year search, we found our new location in Southwest Philadelphia located at 5800 Lindbergh Boulevard. We purchased this former industrial land with the intention of expanding our mission and to continue to serve the surrounding communities as well as all of Philadelphia. Today, Open Door Mission True Light Church seeks your approval of Bill 24 No. 100287 so that we may build on our 44-year history of serving the citizens 10 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. of the City of Philadelphia and fulfill the mission established by my parents to build up our people, our families and our communities. Our request stems from us proudly being able to finance and construct a building during these economic times, and we thank you and all the members of the Committee for listening to us today. Thank you very much for your time, and we'll be happy to take your questions.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you for your investment in our city and your continued support and service to the citizens of the City. It's going to be a pleasure to vote this out of the Committee for you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.)

Thank you very much.

Just one final thing. I just want to acknowledge 11 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. several of the parishioners that just came in, if everyone could stand. (Parishioners standing.)

Good morning to everyone. (Good morning.)

Thank you very much.

Thank you. And we just ask that the rules can be suspended on this.

Anything you want. Be my pleasure.

Come on, let's go, let's go.

Thank you. The next bill for consideration is Bill No. 100199.

An ordinance 21 amending Section 14-908 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District," by deleting the provision which provided for the expiration of 12 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Section 14-908 one year after it became law, thereby reestablishing on a permanent basis the Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District, under certain terms and conditions.

Mr. Kramer, please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, Chairman Kenney 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. 100199, which was introduced into City Council March 25th, 2010. Bill No. 100199 affects the properties bounded by the north side of Washington Avenue, the properties on the north side of Bainbridge Street (inclusive), the east side of 6th Street and the west side of Front Street, with the exception of any property subject to the South Street/Headhouse Square Special Services District. This area is known as 13 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. the Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District. The purpose of Bill No. 100199 is to reestablish the Neighborhood Conservation District for Queen Village which had expired on July 15, 2009. Bill 8 No. 080080-A, which established the Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District, was approved July 15, 2008. It had a one-year expiration date. Bill No. 12 100199 was drafted in an effort to reestablish the district and remove any expiration date, making this district permanent. Additionally, Bill No. 100199 also removes the long and expensive procedures that are required when creating a new NCD, allowing this district to become effective immediately upon enactment. The removal of these procedures will only affect this reestablishment, and subsequent changes to the Queen Village Neighborhood Conservation District or the creation of 14 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. any new NCDs will require that the procedures to be followed according to the enabling legislation. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of April 20th, 2010 recommended that Bill No. 100199 be approved. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I will happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Any questions for Mr. Kramer? (No response.)

Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, I ask the Clerk to please read Bill 22 No. 100200.

An ordinance 24 amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by 15 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. amending Section 14-231, entitled "Residential District Rules and Exceptions," by providing for restrictions on placement, installation and maintenance of certain satellite dishes and antennas, under certain terms and conditions.

Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, Chairman Kenney 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. 100200, which was introduced into City Council on March 25th, 2010. Bill No. 100200 amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code by amending Section 14-231, entitled "Residential Rules and Exceptions." The purpose of the bill is to establish parameters on the placement, installation and maintenance of satellite dishes and 16 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. antennas. The bill specifies that if an alternative location is available, without causing a significant cost to the building owner or tenant and without a reduction in service, satellite dishes and antennas are prohibited from being installed on a building front facade. Bill 100200 further provides that in instances where a satellite dish or antenna must be placed on a building facade, the equipment provider or installer must notify the Department of License and Inspections that an alternative location cannot be used. Additionally, the bill requires any antenna or satellite dish currently existing on the facade of a building must also be registered with the Department of License and Inspections and removed when no longer in service. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of May 18th, 2010 recommended that Bill No. 100200 be approved in concept. While the 17 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Commission supports the goals of the bill, the Department of License and Inspections had some concerns regarding the notification and registration requirements. It is my understanding that within the last hours or so, 9 amendments to this bill have been worked 10 out between the Councilman's office and 11 the Department of License and 12 Inspections. All of the specifics I'll 13 defer to Mr. Haigler for. However, the 14 Planning Commission strongly supports 15 that and wants to go on record as saying 16 they are supportive of this bill and are 17 supportive of the concept that the 18 satellite dishes are a blighting 19 influence when placed on the front of 20 buildings. 21 Thank you. 22

23 Mr. Haigler, please identify yourself. 24

Good morning, Chairman Kenney and members of the 18 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Committee. I'm Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill 100200, which, if enacted, will prohibit the placement of satellite dishes on the front facades of buildings unless the owner or tenant of the building has a certification from the satellite provider that the front facade is the only viable location in order to receive optimal reception and service. The Department supports enactment of this bill with amendments that will be offered by Councilman Clarke on behalf of the Administration. Thank you for the opportunity to provide the testimony on the bill, and I could go through the amendments, if you like.

Do we have them?

Yes.

We have 19 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. them. That's fine. Is there anything other than technical in nature?

There's nothing really anything other than the technical portions of the bill. The registration part has been now eliminated so that we can effectively deal with this just through the certification being maintained on the premises, and if our inspectors are there for any reason whatsoever, we would cite the property owner if they couldn't produce the certification.

Thank you. Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)

Seeing none, is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, I will ask the Clerk to please read Bill No. 100311. 20 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

An ordinance 3 amending Bill No. 090296 (approved by Council on May 21, 2009 and signed by the Mayor on June 3, 2009), entitled "An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Front Street, Lombard Street, 2nd Street, and Pine Street, under certain terms and conditions," by extending the expiration date of the Ordinance, under certain terms and conditions.

Please identify yourself.

Good morning, Chairman Kenney 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. 100311, which was introduced into City Council on May 6th, 2010. Bill No. 100311 extends the 21 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. expiration date of Bill No. 090296 from June 30th, 2010 until June 30th, 2011. The original bill rezoned the block bounded by Front Street, Lombard Street, 2nd Street, and Pine Street from a zoning designation of "C-2" Commercial to a designation of partly "C-4" Commercial, partly "C-2" Commercial and partly "R-10A" Residential in order to facilitate a development known as Stamper Square. There was an expiration date placed on the original legislation which the development team has asked to be extended in order to further attempt to attain the required financing for the project. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of May 18th, 2010 recommended that Bill No. 100311 be approved. That as the conclusion of my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you 22 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. very much. Any questions for Mr. Kramer? (No response.)

Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, I'd ask the Clerk to read Bill No. 10 100377.

Bill 100377, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Norris Street, 9th Street, Berks Street, and 10th Street, by amending Section 14-304 of The Zoning Code, entitled "C-3" Commercial District, by amending Section 20 14-1402 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parking in Residential Districts"; and by amending Section 23 14-1405 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Off-Street Loading," under certain terms and conditions. 23 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Please identify yourself for the record.

Alan Greenberger, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development. Good morning, Councilman Kenney and members of the Rules Committee. I am here to testify on Bill 11 100377, which was introduced into City Council on May 20th, 2010. Bill No. 100377 will rezone an area bounded by Norris, 9th, Berks, and 10th Street from the existing zoning designation of "G-2" General Industrial to a mix of "G-2" General Industrial and "C-3" Commercial. The line of demarcation between the two classifications is a railroad right-of-way. The industrial zoning will remain on the west side of that railroad. The commercial zoning will be created on the east side. Additionally, certain 24 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. exemptions from the Zoning Code will be given to this newly rezoned commercial parcel. The genesis of this project was in July of 2009 when the City of Philadelphia issued a request for proposals for the parking lot that is adjacent to the Temple Rail Station and currently used for Philadelphia Gas Works vehicles. The City selected APM and Jonathan Rose Companies to be the developers of the property. This team was chosen because, combined, they bring both decades of experience working with the City in this specific neighborhood and a strong reputation in the green building industry. This project will be a significant investment in the neighborhood, with total project costs of just under $50 million, with more than half of that being provided by private lenders and investors. The developers, the APM and Rose Companies, are proposing a 25 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. mixed-use, mixed-income, transit-oriented development for the 9th and Berks site. The program includes retail and community computer training uses on the ground floor, with rental apartments above, approximately 164 units, 44 of which will be affordable to people earning 80 percent of AMI, and 75 parking spaces in a grade-level garage that is not visible from any of the adjacent streets. The site is immediately adjacent to the Temple University Station on the SEPTA Regional Rail system, the fourth busiest station in the City. The design of this building and the site location are consistent with the principles of transit-oriented development, sometimes referred to as TOD. The building will contain one, two and three-bedroom units and include tenant amenities like community and fitness room. The apartments will open onto a series of landscaped terraces that will provide both passive recreation 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. space as well as provide green roofs. The building will also include such measures as sunshades to mitigate solar gain, a green roof, photovoltaic solar panels, rainwater collection and the use of local recyclable and renewable material. LEED certification will be sought. A comprehensive storm water management plan will include at-grade filtration, detention planters and cisterns for retention and potential rainwater reuse. Besides the change in zoning designation for this property, certain technical changes need to be made to the "C-3" Commercial district in order to facilitate this proposed development. Such changes include an increase in the amount of lot area that the building may occupy, reductions in the spacing of legally required windows and courts, and changes in the parking ratios and loading requirements. Significantly, the parking ratio for this site will be reduced from 27 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. one space per dwelling unit to four spaces per ten dwelling units. Such technical changes are justified by the proximity of this site to the Temple University Rail Station and by the numerous green elements incorporated into the design. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission will review Bill No. 100377 at its meeting of June 8th, today, this afternoon, with a staff recommendation of approval. That's the conclusion of my testimony. I'll be happy to answer any questions of the Committee at this time.

The Chair recognizes Councilmember Goode.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Greenberger, good morning.

Good morning, Councilman.

This is a $50 million project? 28 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

Mm-hmm.

Is there an economic opportunity plan?

Yes. And if I may, would you like to -- if I may defer to Peter Kelsen, who is representing APM, to describe that to you.

Thank you.

Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, members of the Committee. Peter Kelsen on behalf of the APM/Jonathan Rose Company group. Councilman Goode, to answer your question, an economic opportunity plan has been submitted. It was submitted prior to today's hearing, and that plan, if you would like, we can go through the ratios very quickly. Bear with me one moment. Participation ranges and goals: Demolition and construction employment 29 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. opportunities -- I won't read everything, but I'll just give you the highlights, if that's okay -- work hour goals of 30 percent. This is, as I said, indicating full MBE, WBE, disabled. Contract opportunities: Construction management, at least 35 percent participation, with percent by 10 MBE, eight percent participation WBE and 11 two percent DSBE. 12 Architectural engineering and 13 other professional services: 25 percent 14 MBE, not less than eight percent 15 participation by WBE, not less than two 16 percent participation by DSBEs. 17 Demolition and construction: 18 25 percent MBE, eight percent WBE and two 19 percent DSBE. 20 Those are the highlights of 21 the -- 22

Thank you. 23 Do you have copies available for the 24 Committee? 25

I believe we have 30 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. extra copies, yes.

Thank you very much. Thank you, Mr. Greenberger.

Thank you, Councilman. Who else is testifying?

I would like to give a very brief overview and then we have Nilda Ruiz, we have our architect and we have Paul Freitag. As the Deputy Mayor has said, the goal of this is to establish a transit-oriented development project. I won't go through the specifics of it because you've heard it, but what it will do is strengthen this community base at a very important intersection of the City. This is a very active transit stop, and what we will do is by creating a project containing approximately 200,000 square feet of space, we will make it a gateway to this neighborhood, strengthen this neighborhood and allow it to continue to 31 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. grow in the way that we want it to be. The programming that is included will be community-based programming as well as community-based retail, an essential component to strengthening the community. The level of occupancy in terms of our residential component is targeted to income levels that will be supported by the rents. They will be 30 percent of the units devoted to 60 percent of AMI. The balance of the units, workforce housing, 80 percent. I would tell you that this can serve as a template for further development in the transit areas. We hope it will. We expect it to. And we expect this to be a model for green and sustainable development throughout the City. That concludes my testimony. If we have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

Thank you 32 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. very much. Just one issue relative to the green roof. I assume that the developers are aware of the business privilege tax credit of up to $100,000 for the installation of the roofs?

We are aware.

Okay. Good. Thank you.

We appreciate that.

Please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Nilda Ruiz and I am the President and CEO of APM. APM has been in this community since 1970. This year we're celebrating 40 years, and it started out as -- APM stands for the Association of Puerto Ricans on the March. So it was a group of advocate Puerto Ricans at that time that felt that the neighborhood was ignored, dismissed, marginalized. And they started out with social services helping the community. Twenty years 33 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. later we realize that there weren't affordable options, so we started 4 years ago in community development, and 5 since then, we have been leading the way 6 in this community. 7 Today, we have built over 400 8 units of affordable housing, have 9 literally taken families from 10 homelessness to homeownership and always 11 responding to the community needs. And 12 we also have the Bolincan (ph) Plaza 13 where we have built a supermarket in the 14 area that provides cultural food for the 15 mixed income. 16 The neighborhood has evolved. 17 It's a very diverse, mixed neighborhood, 18 and today we have -- we continue to 19 respond to that. 20 We have a financial -- one of the things that we believe is in economic mobility. We brought TruMark last year, which is a financial institution, and this transit-oriented development, it's part of our whole mission of improving 34 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. the quality of life, and our mission today is to help families reach their highest potential. So this transit village that we're looking to do is part of our whole goal of creating green, sustainable communities and it's right in line with what we've been planning. Many studies have shown that when you improve the area around a transit, you also improve the ridership of that, and that, in turn, some low-income families pay more for their automobiles than they do for the actual homes. So this allows our families to have more disposable income and, again, to our mission of improving the economic mobility portion of it. So we're really excited to bring this project. We have a great partner that we brought from New York that embraces the same vision and values that we do in Jonathan Rose. I'm going to let them give more of the specifics of the project and the greening elements of 35 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. that. So with that, Paul from Jonathan Rose. Oh, unless you have some questions. I'm sorry.

Please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Paul Freitag. I'm the Director of Real Estate Development for Jonathan Rose Companies. Jonathan Rose Companies is a mission-based for-profit real estate planning, development, owners representative, and investment firm. We are a leading green urban solutions provider, and we're currently managing over $1.5 billion worth of work, almost all of it in close collaboration with not-for-profits, universities, towns, cities and local housing authorities. The mission of Jonathan Rose Companies is to repair the fabric of communities by focusing on dense, diverse, green development around transportation nodes. We believe that this model is not only 36 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. equitable but also more cost effective to communities. Jonathan Rose Companies began conversations with APM almost three years ago around the potential to develop a green, mixed-income, mixed-use, transit-oriented development. We are so excited to be moving closer to realizing the development, which we believe will serve as a model for transit-oriented development not only for Philadelphia but across the country. That concludes my testimony.

Thank you very much. Any other witnesses?

We have our project architect available, but unless there are questions of the Committee, I think you've heard the presentation.

Councilmember Miller.

Hi. Good morning. 37 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

Good morning, Councilwoman.

I have three questions. One is in regards to the development. You have down here that you're going to have -- that you reduced the parking spaces to one space per four units -- per ten units. So what are the other alternatives to parking? I mean, suppose people that live there have cars.

Councilwoman, we've thought this out and we have three or four solutions to having one-for-one parking. One, because we are literally right against the transit stop, a tremendous number of our residents and those who visit will be taking public transportation to the site. In addition, we will facilitate car-share services within the garage and within the project so that people will have access to a car on site, but will not have the burden of ownership, as Nilda has indicated. In addition, when we've looked 38 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. at the demographic as well as the fact that the urban populations and the need for parking, we have found that it's tremendously reduced from what the Zoning Code originally contemplated, that being one for one, and, therefore, we believe that the ratio that we're proposing for this development, because of its location and because of the other alternatives we're providing, will be more than sufficient in terms of parking.

And these are one, two and three bedroom units for families or are these for student housing?

The majority will be for families.

And where is this station? Is it 9th and Columbia?

It's 9th and Berks.

Okay. I know I've gotten off there in the past years ago.

It's literally 39 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. behind, if you will, the project that you're hearing today. The station is literally there.

I have a couple more questions, and I guess Mr. Greenberger can answer these. The Temple U Station is the fourth busiest station in the City. What are the first and second? Is it Center City?

The Center City stations, Market East, Suburban, 30th Street.

And are there any other transit-oriented development projects that have happened in the City of Philadelphia other than this one?

Well, I was going to say you could argue that almost every project in Center City at some level is a transit-oriented development.

In neighborhoods. 40 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

No. This is, as far as we know, this is the first major one that has declared itself to be that and has adjusted its goals to be consistent with transit-oriented development; for instance, the things that Mr. Kelsen was just describing.

At one point years ago they did a study to do transit-oriented development in my district on Allegheny Avenue at 22nd. So maybe we'd like to talk about that again.

Yeah. And there is also in your district a proposal from Mount Airy USA to do a transit-oriented development at the Washington Lane Station.

I'm very familiar with that.

Something that we are very excited about. Obviously they have to work out financing.

Financing 41 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. is the big problem for that particular site. Okay. But hopefully this will spur neighborhood TODs.

We are believing that having a living example of what this can do in the City will encourage other people to do similar things at other major transit nodes, and we are working, as you know, through changes in the Zoning Code that we intend to have reflect these kind of both incentives and opportunities.

So 50 percent of the financing is private?

That's correct.

And the other 50 percent of the 50 million is coming from?

I guess the unique financing available for this project is, there are now funds available specifically for TOD development that are coming from -- we were just given an 42 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. earmark yesterday from Senator Casey around the fact that the project is TOD based.

All right. Thank you. Thank you.

Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning.

Good morning.

Couple of quick questions/statements, one to follow up on Councilwoman Miller's question with respect to parking. I got to tell you, as an obvious strong supporter of the project from its inception, I am a little concerned about the ratio as it relates to parking, but contrary to today's statements, I actually think that there are probably going to be more student housing in the development than you're letting on today, because I don't know 43 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. how you, frankly speaking, prohibit students from going in that. As you know, we're suffering with some challenges around the perimeter of the Temple campus. So I think that in itself will probably not create as much demand for parking in the area, because I think it's going to be a lot of student housing. And, Nilda, as the person who obviously runs the organization, that's going to be essentially in your lap since you're a partner. So when the community starts complaining about some of the, quote/unquote, unruly students, I'm going to send them to your office. With respect to that surrounding community, I do want to say the fortunate thing and what normally happens -- let me take a step back. When we have these developments where there are parking challenges, it's usually the adjacent neighbors who don't have the ability to park, because of all these 44 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. folks either coming in or visiting, whatever. But in the case of this particular development, with the exception, I think, on a few properties on 8th Street, most of the development that APM has actually sponsored, you're getting up close to 200 units of housing, have off-street parking. So those people who live in that community essentially have their own parking opportunities on the site, on their own site. So it won't be as much of a challenge. So I want to say that's one thing that will benefit that opportunity. As it relates -- I don't know if this came up, because I was across the hall in a meeting. The construction side of this, has that been discussed at all?

Related to?

The development.

But what's the question? I'm sorry. What's the --

The 45 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. construction side of the development, has that been discussed? I'm sorry, because --

Not really.

No. Not here, no. 7 What would you like to know about it? Timing?

Yeah, timing.

No, that hasn't been discussed.

And you submitted an EOP?

Yes. That was discussed and described in some detail.

That's kind of construction. Are we at a point where we have a sense of who the construction entity might be?

No, not yet.

You're going to do an RFP? And they will be 46 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. fully engaged and adhering to the goals of the EOP? Because I know you guys are from out of town. I'm assuming you have certain requirements up in other areas where you develop. We're very, very serious about that.

And we've done actually a great deal of working with housing authorities, and with them we also have very strict Section 3 requirements, and we absolutely comply with them.

Okay. Great. That's pretty much it, Mr. Chair. Thank you.

Councilmember Brown.

Yes. Councilman Clarke actually addressed my issue and you shook your head yes, so we didn't hear yes on the record. So my question was, the back story on EOPs, because every EOP arrives 47 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. at its destination differently. And shall we presume that you had a conversation with the District Councilperson regarding this EOP?

Have we?

No, not yet.

I think you walked in late. We did submit an EOP plan, a copy of which I think was given --

Yeah. I have it right here in front of me.

You have a copy? Okay.

My question is, every EOP becomes what it is differently. Each one has its own back story. So I want to know what the back story is on the development of this final document.

Well, this was created, Councilwoman, in conjunction with other similar plans that have been submitted to Council recently, with 48 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. consultation with the District Councilman's office. And having said that, APM has a marvelous track record with regard to equal opportunity plan participation in their developments, and as Councilman Clarke has indicated, they've developed well over 200 units of affordable housing in the immediate area, with full commitment to MBE, WBE participation.

I have no 13 question at all about APM. I know of their rich track record and strong history. I don't know the developer. So my question was really to the developer and his history and experience with regards to EOPs.

And in this context, we have APM and the Rose are the developers. They are joined in a venture. The Rose Company, as was indicated, has a wealth of history in terms of development of projects very similar to this throughout the country 49 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. and full commitment to EOP participation within those developments on behalf of housing authorities, not-for-profits and other governmental agencies. I can assure you, there will be meaningful and significant efforts in the area as laid out in our EOP plan that we've submitted. This is what we do, and this is our give-back, if you will, to the community that we build these projects for, both on behalf of APM and behalf of the Jonathan Rose Companies.

Okay, then. Thank you very much for your testimony.

Thank you very much. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)

Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

I would just ask 50 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. for a suspension of rules.

It's like a blanket request all the time.

I figured so. I just wanted to make sure.

Unless we need to hold something for further consideration, it's a blanket request.

No ambiguity. Thank you.

Thank you very much. That's it, then. Thank you very much.

Thank you for your time and consideration. We appreciate it.

The Clerk will now read Bill 100222.

An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Hunting Park Avenue, Henry Avenue, Roberts Avenue, and Fox 51 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Street; and amending Sections 14-304 and 14-309 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled, respectively, "Area Shopping Center District" and "'C-3' Commercial," by providing for additional permitted uses; all under certain terms and conditions.

Identify yourself for the record, please.

Alan Greenberger, Deputy Mayor for Economic Development. Good morning, Councilman Kenney, members of the Rules Committee. I am here to testify on Bill No. 100222, which was introduced by Councilman Jones on April 8th, 2010. The ordinance will amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of land bounded by Hunting Park Avenue, Henry Avenue, Roberts Avenue, and Fox Street. This ordinance also amends Sections 14-304 and 14-309 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled, respectively, "Area Shopping 52 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Center" and "'C-3' Commercial," by providing for additional permitted uses; all under certain terms and conditions. The purpose of this bill is to allow the redevelopment of historically industrial lands for commercial and mixed-use purposes in accordance with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission's Hunting Park West Industrial Area Study. The proposed zoning changes from a mix of "G-2" General Industrial and "C-3" Commercial to Area Shopping Center and "C-3" Commercial zoning districts positions nearly 60 acres of vacant and underutilized land, including the former Tasty Baking Factory and distribution buildings and portions of the Budd Company site, for commercial redevelopment. The amendments to Area Shopping Center District and "C-3" Commercial with the zoning remapping boundaries of Hunting Park Avenue, Henry Avenue, Roberts Avenue, and Fox Street allows for 53 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. commercial development in keeping with regional shopping centers while maintaining the urban walkable character of the City by limiting the number of drive-through uses. These parcels lie within the 4th Councilmanic District in an area greatly underserved by commercial development, particularly supermarkets. The communities such as East Falls and Allegheny West typically go outside their neighborhoods to find basic goods. The adoption of this ordinance will help fill the community's vision set forth in the Hunting Park West Industrial Area Study and Councilman Jones' pursuit for a commercial developer and supermarket tenant for his constituents. The City Planning Commission recommended approval of Bill No. 100222 at its meeting of May 18th, 2010. This concludes my testimony. I'm happy to answer any questions.

Any 54 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. questions for Mr. Greenberger? (No response.)

Anyone else to testify on this bill? Please come forward. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning. My name is Marjorie Greenfield. I am First Vice-President of East Falls Community Council and I am here today to speak on behalf of the Multi-Community Alliance, which is an alliance of more than 15 neighborhood organizations. We met with the proposed developer and we have talked to our Councilman about it, and we have proposed and our Councilman has supported amendments which, by and large, track what Mr. Greenberger stated, but I would like to hand up the amendments. 55 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. They are as follows: With regard to the proposal to limit the restaurants to four drive-throughs, the community feels that that limitation should be as originally drafted, limited to four take-outs, because you could have take-out restaurants and four of which 9 were drive-throughs, and we think it's 10 preferable to say that there is a limit 11 to four take-out restaurants. 12 The community specifically 13 wanted the additional amendments that 14 there shall be no outdoor advertising on 15 the site and no billboards, no -- any 16 hotel on the site shall be full service, 17 including an interior corridor with 18 access to guest rooms. No guest rooms 19 should be accessed from the street 20 parking lot or other outside area. In other words, we do not want motels. Having been very concerned about the Youth Study Center in our neighborhood, we want to make it clear there shall be no penal institution, 56 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. holding facility or a facility to which any person may be sent by a court as a result of a criminal charge or because the person, adult or juvenile, may pose a danger to himself or the community. This prohibition shall include juvenile facilities to which persons considered juveniles under the Pennsylvania law are sent or committed, such as, but not limited to, the Philadelphia Youth Study Center. And, finally, we ask that the amendment include no casinos, whether or not attached, as part of any other use. We have been told that the state might override this, but we believe it is very important that this be included in the bill as a statement of the community's very strong concerns and desires. With these amendments, the Multi-Community Alliance is happy to support our Councilman's bill, and I would just ask if there are any questions. That concludes my testimony. 57 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

Based on the issues you raised in the amendments, I see a sheet here that's preliminarily complete which addresses the issues that you've raised. I think there's some technical amendment that needs to be -- technicalities that need to be changed within the amendment, but each of the amendments covers the areas that you spoke about.

Yes.

Do you know who the supermarket operator is going to be?

We have been told that it will be Brown Shop Rite.

Okay. Good.

And as was said earlier, the community is really, really happy about a proposal to have a supermarket there and is very delighted to know that it will be Brown's. There is a real dearth of supermarkets in the 58 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. area. City Planning study said it could support four supermarkets. This is number one. So that will be terrific.

It's one of the better operators, too.

Yes. That's our understanding.

I should add, Councilmember, that the developer is in sort of a due diligence phase here, so we're trying to get this thing to a state of financeability and closing, but we're not there yet. But this will help finance the project by having clarity on the zoning.

Are there any questions for these witnesses? Councilmember Brown.

Not on this matter, Mr. Chairman.

Councilmember Miller.

I don't have a question. I want to make a 59 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. statement.

Sure.

Hi. Thank you. I know that this area has desperately wanted a supermarket for many, many years, and this is not my Council district, but we're right up the street, across the street. Many of the residents that will use this shopping center live in the 8th Councilmanic District. So I'm just happy that we're finally at a place where we can actually really talk about a development, stores coming to that particular area, and I just wanted to make sure that I made that statement.

Thank you.

Because we strongly support the development. And I've been to some of the meetings with the planning group and my staff has been to most of those meetings. So I just want to stay that I support this. 60 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

If I could also, if you would indulge us, Councilwoman, just put on the record that -- I may not be getting the name right, but the allied community groups that have been involved in this plan and Tasty Baking have been extraordinarily cooperative in sort of taking advantage of an opportunity that came up in the midst of our planning process, so we're very happy about that.

Thank you very much. Anything else for these witnesses? (No response.)

Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, the Clerk will please read Bill No. 24 100367.

100367, an 61 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. ordinance to amend the Institutional Development District Master Plan of Saint Joseph's University, by allowing for the construction of a new student residence hall at the corner of City and Cardinal Avenues.

Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, Chairman Kenney 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. 100367, which was introduced into City Council on May 20th, 2010. The purpose of this bill is to approve an amendment to the Institutional Development District Master Plan for Saint Joseph's University. This same Master Plan amendment was considered and approved by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission on May 18th, 2010. Bill No. 100367 amends the 62 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Institutional Development District Master Plan for Saint Joseph's University in order to permit the construction of an approximately five- to six-story, 115,000 square foot structure to be used as a new student residence hall on what is now a guest lawn. The new residence hall will house approximately 413 beds, designed for freshmen students and will contain amenities such as central common areas, study lounges, a fitness center, offices and guest suites. Additionally, the project will include a gateway plaza with seating and an open green space with landscaping. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of June 8th, 2010 will recommend approval of Bill No. 20 100367 as an item in accord with previous policy. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you 63 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. very much. Any questions for Mr. Kramer? (No response.)

Anyone else to testify on this bill? Mr. Kramer, you may want to get over there. Thanks. I'm sorry. Mr. Kramer, Councilwoman Brown has a question for you.

Good morning. Just as a matter of record, what is the involvement of your office when it comes to the construction, development and/or discussion around EOPs?

There generally is not a discussion at my office with regard to that. We are involved with the site planning and aspects of that nature.

Okay. I simply wanted that for the record. Thank you very much.

Thank you 64 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. very much. Whoever is going to begin testimony, please identify yourself for the record and proceed.

Good morning. My name is Christopher Cummings, an attorney representing Saint Joseph's University and its development manager, Campus Apartments. With me to my left is Waddell Ridley, Vice-President of Saint Joseph's University. I'm promoting you.

That's funny, Waddell.

I just want to make a couple of quick points. First of all, that this project addresses a critical need of the University, and, that is, to provide more on-campus supervised housing for its students. We believe that need also benefits the community by getting students out of unsupervised community-based housing. The second point I want to make 65 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. is that the University, in consultation, coordination with Councilman Jones' office, has for the last two months been meeting with the civic associations, including the Wynnefield Residents Association and the Overbrook Farms Club. Those discussions have resulted in a letter of support, which should be in your package, from the Wynnefield Residents Association, and we are very close to reaching agreement with the Overbrook Farms Club on a number of the points that they've raised with us. In addition to Mr. Ridley, I also have Kevin Robinson on his left from Saint Joseph's University, as well as pretty much everyone else on the University and Campus Apartments project team in case the Committee members have any questions.

Councilmember Brown, your light was on first. Are you ready?

Yes. 66 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Good morning. First tell me the composition of your Board of Trustees.

The Board of Trustees --

You're going to have to pull the microphone close and identify yourself formally for the record.

This is Kevin Robinson, Vice-President for Administrative Services at Saint Joseph's University. I'll certainly try my best. There is approximately 32 trustees. Several Jesuits make up the Board.

How many women?

Women? I'll say about five women. I can't be exactly sure.

How many persons of color?

Persons of 67 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. color? One person of color -- two people of color. Sorry.

How long have they been on the Board?

I know one has been on the Board for at least a year and a half now, and the other a year.

How many are Philadelphia residents?

I don't know that answer. We can certainly supply that to you.

Okay. That's question number one. You say that you are very close to reaching an agreement with the Overbrook Farms Club. What does that mean?

There have been, I believe, four meetings with the Overbrook Farms Club, either community meetings or with the executive association. There have been drafts that have been exchanges of letter agreements 68 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. and memorandums of understanding. There's about ten issues all together that the parties are discussing, and I think we've reached agreement on those ten, but until the words are on paper and everyone agrees with the exact verbiage, I can't say for sure. But certainly a huge amount of progress has been made in the two months that they've been discussing and meeting.

Are you familiar with the Rexford Road Association?

Yes.

Have they been a part of this landscape or discussions going down this road?

Please identify yourself.

Not directly.

Waddell, please identify yourself for the record.

Waddell Ridley, Assistant Vice-President of Government 69 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. and Community Relations, Saint Joe's University. We have been working with the Wynnefield Residents Association and their body. We had not worked with, on this particular project, Rexford Road separately, although we have had communications with Peter Rescorl from the Rexford Road as well.

I'll leave that there for now. Let's go to this equal opportunity plan.

Point of information.

Surely.

Before we go there. So you have not reached an agreement with Overbrook Farms?

That is correct. Actually, there were 13 points on the table and we reached agreements on at least ten out of the 13, and we are still working through the top three. 70 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

Do you believe we should move forward before you reach agreement with Overbrook Farms?

I do. I believe that the issues that have been raised are issues that are longstanding and require a lot of work in order to get those things done.

You know I have a particular interest in Overbrook Farms.

Could you rephrase that for me?

You know I have a particular interest in Overbrook Farms.

We have a lot of interest in Overbrook Farms.

I said I have a particular interest.

Oh, you. Yes, I understand that.

Do you know why? 71 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

Of course I do.

My parents live there, and I wanted to know which issues within that agreement are still outstanding.

Okay. The first issue is the issue of 5920 City Avenue. At 5920 City Avenue is a property that the University purchased through Sheriff's sale ten years, years. 12

About ten years 13 ago. 14

About ten years 15 ago. Initially the thought was to expand the Overbrook townhomes, and we were met with opposition. We took that off the table. We've met with the Overbrook Farms Club to discuss the different types of uses for that property, and we had not come to any solution with that. In addition, when we purchased the property, the property was in disarray, and what the Overbrook Farms Club would like to see us do is renovate 72 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. that property to, I guess, its former glory. One of the limits that we face is that there has been a petition filed, but it has not met its resolution for historical designation. This has been in limbo probably for about three or four years and kind of limits the type of things that you can actually do. So what we proposed to do immediately is to encapsulate the building, which would be to repair the roof, downspouts, remove the boards from windows and secure those windows from the interior of the property and improve the outward appearance, but we have to do that in conjunction with the Historical Commission, because although there hasn't been a ruling on that petition, we are still under their purview. So that's one. And then as a second part to that, to come up with a plan to renovate and utilize that property, we would still have to meet and get consensus with the community as well. We've had a couple of other 73 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. ideas on the table. One was to use it for administrative offices and possibly kind of like to curate some of our museum-quality artifacts, but that's still a discussion that we're waiting to have in total. A part of that discussion we have to do in conjunction with that property's most nearest neighbor, which is the State Representative Louise Bishop Williams.

So which project-related issues have been resolved?

There was a request that we be in compliance with the Educational Housing District bill. We believe we have met that and will continue to meet that. But they ask that once we do, that we provide an e-mail certificate or some sort of statement saying that we do. We agree that we will do that. To increase our security and areas that have had more impact with 74 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. student behavior, and we have done that and we've done that in the Wynnefield section at 52nd and Church Road, and we also will add an additional security force, including a police team on the 200 block -- 2000 of North 63rd Street. We were asked to grant permission to allow the Overbrook Farms Club to provide a corner -- a sign on the corner at 63rd and City Avenue. We agreed to do that. We were asked to assist with the traffic study, and we will agree to cooperate and assist with that traffic study, acknowledging that previously when the study started, we were not involved in it, but we have designated at least two people to be a part of that study. We were asked to support the Overbrook Farms Club if they decide to create a neighborhood improvement district. We agree that we would do that and not oppose that in any way. Part of that discussion was that they're looking 75 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. to find funding for their facade treatments and lighting, streetscape and things of that nature, and all those things will benefit the University as well. Additional lighting is going to provide safety, and we've been actually working on an extended lighting plan, which we haven't had an opportunity to disclose due to we haven't identified full funding for the project. We were asked to -- well, there were three things that -- maybe four things that kind of grouped together that are kind of along the lines of economic development, in which the University is glad to be a stakeholder in economic development in the community. However, we are stakeholders in the Wynnefield Overbrook Revitalization Corporation. It is not a part of or a department of the University, but we actually have funded it probably for the last five years, and in the last two years, we have supplied the salary for the Executive Director, 76 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. and we feel that through that vehicle, we will be able to help to do more extensive economic development by being a major partner and stakeholder. We were asked -- well, I could -- we were asked to hang the Overbrook Farms banners. They have a number of historical banners throughout the community, and we actually had been doing that for years. Maybe the last two years we had not, but we were asked -- we recently took the banners down for them, and we will every year put those banners up as they request. Going back to kind of development, they ask that we help to develop the corner property, the Pacifical building at 63rd and Woodbine, and that's something that we feel that would happen through our involvement with the Wynnefield Overbrook Revitalization Corporation. We were asked to replace a damaged magnolia tree. That tree has 77 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. been replaced and it's there. I would say that the outstanding issues that they asked, other than the property at 5920, were to create an off-campus parking lot. And Wynnefield and Overbrook, those communities, including Lower Merion if you want to add it into the mix, are extremely landlocked and we don't have that land to be able to designate an area to build a parking lot. However, we are dedicated to working with the community and finding these sources to create additional parking to improve the parking situation, although we've added parking over the years with the building of our parking lot.

With regard to parking specifically, even with this proposed building built, the University will have a surplus of over 800 -- 843 to be precise -- spaces per the Zoning Code. So there will be a parking surplus. We're also taking acknowledgement of the 78 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. community's concern about student parking off campus, so we are going to be reemphasizing with the new student class and continuing to reemphasize and work with the local police department to make sure that freshmen and sophomores do not bring cars not only to campus but to near campus to park off campus.

And just to add to that, our Vice-President of Student Life, Cary Anderson, is actually here and would be able to speak to some concepts around improving the present parking regulations that we have for our students. And then, finally, we were asked to agree to allow the installation of a playground in a lot that's adjacent to green space next to our Wynnewood Hall facility, and at this particular time, we find that we are more willing to identify additional recreation sources and facilities. We had an idea that we heard that we support in that quite possibly we could look at Morris Park, which is maybe 79 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. two blocks away from the site, maybe three blocks away from the site, and have discussions with the City of Philadelphia and Parks and Recreation to see if there could be a playground or a tot lot built at that location. But that's just one idea. We're willing to have a number of discussions and continue having discussions. Quite simply, Saint Joe's University has been a community partner for a very long time. We've worked with Overbrook Farms Club, sometimes extremely well, sometimes not as well as one might like, but we definitely want to be a partner and do a better job than what we've done in the past, and look forward to working with them in the future. So these discussions, some of these discussions are discussions that will be ongoing discussions.

Thank you. Since we did not have an executed agreement, I just wanted to make sure 80 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. that we got all of that on the record. So thank you.

Thank you.

Councilmember Kelly.

It was a point of information.

I'm sorry.

Thank you, Councilman Goode. So you've mentioned a number of additional questions I was going to raise, so let me back up, put the EOP plan on the shelf for the moment. What penalties are given for students, freshmen, who continue to violate parking rules in neighborhoods? I hear that you give orientation and you emphasize, but we know with incoming freshmen, there are challenges. So what procedural, programmatic steps are in place to make it plain to incoming students that Saint Joseph wants to be a good neighbor and we need your help to 81 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. make that happen?

Good morning. My name is Cary Anderson and I serve as the Vice-President for Student Life, and that enforcement, if you will, falls under my area. And to be quite honest, until recent -- and I'm relatively new to the University -- the challenge was that the message that students got was that you shouldn't bring cars to campus, and what we're doing now is, we're saying you should not bring cars with you to the university. And there's a difference in that.

There's a huge difference in that.

Correct. So that's the first piece. So that message is being conveyed to the students and to the students' parents in the summer as well as the parents throughout the year through our newsletter. Now, once we know that that information is there, the other thing 82 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. that we have added to our rules and regulations, if you will, is a fine system for people that bring their cars into the community and park in the community. That has not been the case yet. So what will happen is, it will be a sliding scale based on the number of incidents in that particular situation, with the goal of getting the car, first of all, out of the community. So the car will be moved onto our campus and there will be, quote/unquote, a storage fee until that car can get home. The issue --

Just a point of information. How do you identify the car?

Well, that's going to be the issue. If someone is parked blocking a driveway or something along those lines, we pick up that. When it comes to us in that information --

One of the suggestions I would make -- and similar 83 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. to what's happened in South Philly at the sports complex -- there was a system implemented outside of the normal permit parking process which provided stickers for the folks who live in the special service district boundaries of the stadium complex. Those stickers will allow police to identify who can come in and out of the neighborhood during events. I'm wondering whether or not, at a much more inexpensive way, Saint Joe's could provide stickers to Wynnefield, Overbrook Park residents, and then when you see a car without the sticker, you can yank it right away.

Yes. And one of the challenges of that is that there are students that live in the areas as well, that legitimately live there and can have a car, and they also have guests and they have visitors. And we don't have a limited period of time like a game or something along those times, but we need 84 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. to think --

At least if you use the permit parking process without the permit parking fee, because everybody freaks out about paying the $35, I mean if you have legitimate residents in the community and they had permit parking there, they would be eligible for a sticker. But if you provide a process for the neighbors to apply and you provide the sticker, you can identify the offending cars quite quickly and tow them off the street. I mean, I would --

Yes. I mean --

What I would suggest doing is getting a hold of the Executive Director of the sports complex special service district. We can provide the name -- I forget the guy's name -- and number and maybe you could talk to them and see what they did, because they followed similar to what the permit parking process for the Parking 85 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Authority is, but they didn't implement it exactly. They came up with their own little sticker, which the University could print up at relatively inexpensive cost and be able to identify those cars much quicker than you do now.

All right. Thank you.

I would urge you to do that, because in the interest of full disclosure, I'm a neighbor in that community and inasmuch as the presence of Patty Martin, Joan Chrestay and Waddell has made a huge difference, we still have a long way to go. So on -- there's still enormous parking issues in that community, so I would urge you to take up Councilman Jim Kenney's recommendation. And welcome aboard, because the history is not a pretty picture, to the head of Student Services. You've talked about the kind of orientation given to incoming freshmen. 86 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. What type of penalties, enforcement measures do you put in place for owners of property who buy property precisely and only to rent to students in the neighborhood? And when you're notified that that's the case, what does the University do in matters like that? What is your internal administrative procedure to deal with owners of property who rent to students and you've been fully notified of that?

I guess I don't quite understand the question. I apologize.

It's not a problem.

And this is why I'm having difficulty, and maybe you could -- it's not -- it's my understanding that it's not illegal for people to own a home and rent to a student. So as long I guess I wouldn't -- I'm not sure what --

That's our 87 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. understanding as well, but we have too many instances where that's the case. And then I know of a very specific instance where the University has been notified and neighboring homeowners actually filed a lawsuit and went to court because there was, some might argue, dissatisfaction with the role of the University. And so the question becomes, does the University have a role? Do you believe you have a role in instances where you know students are occupying single homes?

Oh, yes. Right. I misunderstood the question. I thought the question was what we do with the homeowner, meaning the landlord, versus what we do with the students. Is the question about students?

Yes.

Okay. Yes, we do address students in those particular situations. It was made mention of earlier that we have -- we employ 88 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. off-duty Philadelphia police officers to help patrol the area. And so when we get a call -- and one of the things that we do is, we try to work with the neighbors to know that they should be calling our public safety so that we can dispatch these officers that have jurisdiction there to gather the names of the individuals who are living in the home that are causing the disruption. So most of the time we'll have that information, but sometimes we may not and we may not know which students are at that home at that moment. Once we have those names, then what we do is, we have those students come in and meet with our Office of Community Standards, which is a judicial affairs, if you will, disciplinary body, and they deal with those particular students. And it ranges, depending on the particular circumstances, anywhere from some type of a warning or service or a fine to educational programs. We have 89 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. someone on staff now that will meet with students that have a party, for example, and one of the things that we do is, this individual speaks to them about their responsibility as a host and liabilities and all of those types of things so that they understand that piece as well. So there's an educational piece and then there's a punitive piece as well. And so that's what we're doing now. And what we try to do is monitor repeat situations. The problem being that you have a group of students, they'll have an issue, then we won't have any more issues and then the next year a new group of students move into the exact same house, they have it and it seems like the University is not doing anything.

Just to add to that, one, for the point of clarification, the off-duty police officers are actually police officers. They drive a police car, they're dressed in police uniforms and they have complete 90 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. police responsibilities. So it's not an off-duty officer that we just happen to employ that comes and works for us for a couple of hours. This is a person who has police -- has total police responsibility. They can arrest a person. They can do everything that the police officers -- they are. Also, sometimes if there is an emergency, they have to answer that call and leave a site. Secondly, the other thing that we do in these circumstances and we seek to do more of and feel really good about it, we've been working very closely with Councilman Jones' office in trying to come up with different ways for us to increase our contact with the community and with students and with residents at different times. So in the beginning of the year, when students return, where they're probably at a friskier time, we plan to have our public safety team, police department, as well as L&I 91 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. officials out there so that we can send a message quick and very fast. And in the past, we might not have done it that way, but we also plan to increase those type of touches. So where maybe that happened once or twice before a year, it will probably happen five or six times. And that message is going to be sent that unruly behavior is not going to be tolerated, and it should not be.

Okay, then. I thank you for that. Point of information.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just want to follow up on something you just said. Are these officers of yours, are they Philadelphia police officers?

Yes.

They are?

Yes, they are. 92 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

So they have every power --

Every power that they do, yes.

-- that any Philadelphia policeman would have?

Yes.

I have a few of questions, if you're --

I'm not finished the EOP. Thank you for that. I want to go back to the centerpiece of this discussion, and that's the EOP plan. Do you have a professional on board at the University who will be responsible for the compliance with the EOP plan? Let me ask it differently. Who in the University is going to stay on top of the EOP plan and ensure that what's put in writing actually ultimately happens?

My office, 93 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. Administrative Services, who is responsible for construction on campus, will be responsible for that, with the developer, who is Campus Apartments, and whoever -- if it's a contractor or a construction manager will also play a major role in compliance with this.

Is this a new function of your office?

I've done this in the past on other projects. An example would be when we built the residence halls at 54th and City Avenue. We did have an EOP plan and we worked with the contractor and with the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition to make sure we were complying with what the University said and for contracts and minority participation on the job.

Well, what grade would you have given you on that project?

I'm sorry?

What grade 94 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. would you have given the University on that project?

I would say a B. Our goals were percent contracts and 6 28 percent minority participation, and we 7 got pretty close to both of those 8 percentages. 9

Okay, 10 then. On Page -- it might be the document, you mention that you'll be 12 reaching out to -- what you don't mention 13 are local churches, the Wynnefield 14 Residents Association the Overbrook Farms 15 Club and even the Rexford Road 16 Association for meeting these criteria 17 under Item C. You mention a number of 18 items under letter C. So my sense is 19 that it's too general, and the ask would 20 be that you make that more specific. 21 You also mention in here has 22 there been any -- you mention job fairs. 23 So give me a back story on how you 24 envision that happening. 25

Well, at this 95 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. point already, I wouldn't call it a job fair, but just towards the end of March, we had a meet and greet with minority contractors. As far as job fairs, working with Campus Apartments and the contractor, putting together what I'll call a community outreach program, setting up, I'll say -- I would say several outreach meetings, in the beginning talking about contract opportunities, employment and training opportunities. And this is just not in the beginning, but even during the progress of the project.

Is this a new relationship with Campus Apartments?

Yes, it is.

We're very much aware of their track record and commitment in this area. Just a few lasting questions. You mention on the last page -- next to the last page of this document -- third from the last, a number of organizations, 96 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. including OIC, Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, Lucien Blackwell Apprenticeship Program. You do not mention the American Cities Foundation, which is another non-profit that sits right in Wynnefield's backyard that, if made aware of these type of efforts, could assist with your employment benchmarks and outreach. So I would ask that you begin to include them in your outreach efforts, knowing that they can help you meet your goals. With regard to the oversight committee, you do offer specifics about remedies and penalties. What are the reporting procedures for the oversight committee? Because it's good to meet and have the meetings, but what type of reporting will be a part of this EOP activity? Are you reporting back to the District Councilperson? Are you reporting back to the head of the Rules Committee? Where does the reporting happen for other stakeholders that are 97 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. not a part of the oversight committee?

Well, there'll be a monthly report, and at this time, my understanding is that we would report back to the District Councilperson's office.

Okay. I believe that might be it, Mr. Chairman. Let me close by where I started. When you consider the fact that Wynnefield has a population of 47,000 and at least 90 percent, or 36,000, is African American, why does it matter to have a Board of Trustees and/or administration that looks like the community where it sits?

I can tell you from what I know the makeup of the Board. A certain percentage of that Board have to be Jesuits in the order, some other who are alums. We've certainly in the past so many years been making a concerted effort to get more -- have more women on the Board, and I think we've 98 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. been -- got successful there. Persons of color, we continue -- as we said, we have two. I know one of Philadelphia residents, being Bruce Crawley. And it's an ongoing process that every year is reviewed with a committee of the Board, when people do come off the Board and their terms are up, who the next Board member should be, and that is all taken into consideration.

I can add just one other thing is from the issues of diversity, I'm thinking maybe it was about five years ago, about four or five years ago, the University thought enough of the issue of diversity to add a Diversity Director, who has been working with the University and working through these type things. So it's not something that has fallen on deaf ears. It's something the University takes very seriously.

We thank you all for your testimony. Know that -- 99 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

Thank you very much -- I'm sorry.

-- there are many of us who continue to pay attention to the progress of the relationship between the University and the neighbors. Thank you very much.

Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning. It is morning, isn't it? Yeah, just barely. I just want to get an overview of the area in question. Could you tell me what the property consists of today? Is it mostly, the property that you plan to redevelop, is it mostly residential homes on it or is it a mixture of commercial, residential?

It's part of our campus.

It's part of 100 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. the campus?

Yes, it is. It's part of our campus on the corner of City Avenue and Cardinal Avenue.

So there's nothing on it today?

No. No. 9

So you're just building from the ground up?

Yes. Yes.

That's what I was just getting confused with. What is this property at 5920?

I'll say it's a house.

Why would that be involved in this?

It's involved because the University purchased it so many years ago, with intention to do something and to renovate it, and it hasn't happened to date.

But this has nothing to do with the project that you 101 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. want to put up today, right?

Not physically, but Overbrook Farms Club and others are concerned going forward what the University does with the property.

Okay. All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. I think the land you're talking about on Cardinal Avenue is a field that Mayor Nutter and I used to practice football on at the Prep back in 1972 to '76. Is that the field there?

Yes, it is.

You're going to build on it now. Anyway, any other questions for these witnesses? Councilman Goode.

Just a couple more questions regarding the economic opportunity plan. First and foremost, you talked about one project 102 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. that required a plan. Were there other projects that required an EOP?

We did not have other EOPs with some of our other projects, but what we have in our contracts, whether again it's a CM or a GC, part of our contract states those goals and the 28 and the percent. 10

So was the 11 EOP consistent with previous contract 12 language or was that EOP the most 13 ambitious? 14

I would say 15 previously to the residence halls on City 16 Avenue we didn't have an EOP plan. 17 That's when we started. And since then, 18 we've put language in our contracts 19 consistent with -- 20

That EOP? 21

That EOP. 22

So are these 23 goals comparable or more aggressive than 24 that project? 25

The goals in 103 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. this project will be more aggressive.

So how do you plan to meet these goals if you didn't meet the previous goals?

More -- working harder at it and working with Campus Apartments, who have a track record, and what we've learned --

Was Campus Apartments involved in the other project?

No, they were not.

Okay.

No, they were not. And what we've learned since that project and over the years of opportunity plans and providing the opportunities for participation in contracts over the years, we've learned a lot in the University of getting better at it each time.

Okay. More specifically, there are goals set within here in terms of workforce to pull from 104 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. the zip codes 19131 and 19151. How serious are you about that and what have you done so far to specifically try to meet those goals?

For this project?

Yes.

Well, we haven't done an outreach yet, but we intend to do an outreach in those zip codes.

But you are aware that the economic opportunity plan asks that you target those zip codes in terms of employment opportunities?

Yes, we are. Yes, we are.

So how do you plan to do that?

Well, again, through outreach and trying to find out -- and I say "trying to find out" -- I would say residents who are union members, are in the unions who reside in those zips. 105 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

Okay. Well, in addition to that, we're going to be working very closely with the Councilman's office, our District Councilperson. I can tell you that we know and can identify other community organizations, churches and groups in the 31 and 51 areas. We also, I think -- we're working right now with the Mayor's Office of Community Services. We're looking to do a job fair in August that we will host with them on our campus, and we'll probably use that same mechanism, in addition to the other mechanisms of having job fairs with other organizations and tying in with the WIB, OIC, et cetera. Whoever we need to work with to try to meet those goals, we're going to work with those. And quite honestly, if we find that we need more assistance, probably knock on your door.

Okay. Because there's also a goal set for apprentices, too. So they need not be 106 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. union members yet per se.

Right.

So we should be mindful of that goal as well.

Very.

Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)

Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this bill? (Witness approached witness table.)

Please identify yourself for the record.

Hello. My name is Stephanie Kindt. I'm a resident of Overbrook Farms. Thanks so much for hearing my testimony today. There are a few points that I'd like to make, but first I'd just overall 107 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. like to say that it feels like there's a disconnect between the University and their Plan 2020 and Plan 2010 and the vision and the mission that's in the public domain in terms of their strategy for the future and their day-to-day actions. It feels as if they say the right things, but when it comes down to it, things aren't followed through. And it also feels as though Overbrook Farms and Wynnefield are definitely a periphery. The University sits in a circle that's drawn, and inside it's perfect and beautiful and I enjoy it. I run on the track and my kids swim at the Hawk Hill program. But outside of it, there's no trickle effect. Except for 5920, it's not in the circle for some reason. So 5920, although it's a University property, it sits at the historic Overbrook Farms dwelling that's been decaying for the past ten years. The plan was to demolish it, I imagine for new dorms, but the community opposed 108 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. that, so that's -- and the University has not worked with us. I've not seen any proposals in the past ten years that I've lived there for redevelopment of that structure. So I think that we definitely have the same goals on paper, but when it comes to actually working it out, we have some kind of a disconnect. So I'm here to urge you to give us more time, give us more time to work on the agreement, that they have met with us four times in the past two months, which is fabulous. We're finally engaging. Give us more time to negotiate. Saint Joe's at this point will not agree to any formal contract. It all needs to be in a memorandum of understanding, which really isn't binding per se. So it's problematic for us, especially in the past when things haven't been followed through. So we would really like to get to something 109 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. that would be binding.

Can I just ask you a question relative to the recommendation for delay?

Yeah.

While I'm well aware over my time of being here of lots of issues relative to community and university, whether it's Temple, Penn, Saint Joe's, LaSalle, there's always that tension, and sometimes it's good tension, sometimes it's not. Do you believe the delay in the building of the dorms for freshmen would exacerbate the problem? Because if they're not available for next year's class or whenever they're ready, wouldn't that more than likely create a situation where there would be more kids living in the neighborhood as opposed to living on campus?

It's my understanding that given the numbers when they play out, it's not going to 110 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. significantly impact the number of students that are living in the residence at all. It more closely fits Saint Joe's plans to expand to add more students, 50 per year, with the flexibility of increasing that number each year.

Their initial testimony was that one of the purposes obviously is to improve the attractiveness of kids coming to the school, because that's how they survive.

Right. And I completely agree, but in terms of engaging with community and planning for impact of how additional students and additional buildings and additional students who aren't allowed to bring cars but do -- and I love that sticker idea. That is an awesome idea.

I have Mr. Jalosinski's number for the special services district I'll give to them before they leave.

That's fantastic. 111 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

That may help.

Yeah. So the struggle has been for the past year and a half to get a handle on all these issues. And to have no 8 facts and data, no traffic planning studies, not even a call back from Saint Joe's, it's frustrating. And I understand that it's a large organization, so it's a lot of moving parts, people don't communicate, but if you have a project of this nature and it's this important, I would think that you would engage the community much earlier on, especially when you are aware that there are traffic and parking studies happening. So I think -- is it possible that we could work things out quickly? I'm not sure. I don't know, but if it comes out of Committee, I feel like Overbrook Farms loses leverage, so does Wynnefield, so does Curtis Jones, Councilman Jones. 112 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. So that's my feeling right now.

Councilman Greenlee.

Ma'am, just on the issue of leverage, I mean, even if it comes out of Committee, it's still up to the District Councilperson whether he wants to call it up for a final vote. And I'm sure, knowing Councilman Jones, he's going to make sure the community is continuously being engaged. So, I mean, just coming out of Committee today doesn't end the issue. I'm sure -- he has three staff members here, so I'm sure they're listening, and I'm sure Councilman Jones will do his best to make sure you guys are engaged.

And I think it's more been about that. Thank you so much.

Councilman Goode.

Just very quickly, while it might be possible that 113 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. you were trying to negotiate a memorandum of understanding and if not educated, you might think someone could just throw that in the trash, but that's not really possible now, because the point to that memorandum of understanding were just put into the record. So this is a formal record with Saint Joe's on the record saying which issues were supposed to be resolved and what they were going to do about it.

Okay. Yeah. Thanks. That's important.

Councilmember Brown.

I share your concerns. I've been where you are, but as Councilman Goode just stipulated, it is because of the memorandum of understanding that I am supporting it moving out of Committee, period.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you 114 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. very much. Any more questions for this witness? (No response.)

Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Seeing none, that will conclude our public hearing. We will now convene a public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco for a motion on Bill No. 100199. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 17 100199 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are 115 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. none opposed. Bill No. 100199 reported out of this Committee favorably, with a request for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Goode for a motion to approve the amendments to Bill No. 10 100200.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the amendment to Bill No. 100200 be approved. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill 100200 will be amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode on a motion for the amended bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 100200, 116 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. as amended, be reported out of the Committee with a favorable recommendation, the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill 100200, as amended, reported out of this Committee favorably and a request made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Greenlee on a motion for Bill 100287.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 23 100287 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow 117 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No. 100287 reported out of this Committee favorably and a request made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember DiCicco on Bill No. 100311. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 100311 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? 118 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No. 100311 will be reported out of this Committee favorably and a request made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Reynolds Brown on a motion to amend Bill 100377.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 100377 be amended. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No. 100377 will be amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Reynolds Brown for a motion on the amended bill. 119 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 100377, as amended, be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No. 100377, as amended, reported out of this Committee favorably and a request made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Greenlee for a motion to amend Bill No. 100222.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 100222. (Duly seconded.) 120 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc.

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No. 100222 will be amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Greenlee for a motion on the amended bill.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 14 100222, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No. 100222, as 121 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. amended, reported out of this Committee favorably and a request made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Goode on a motion to amend Bill 100367.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move the amendment to Bill No. 100367 be approved. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No. 100367 will be amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Goode.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 24 100367, as amended, be reported out of the Committee with a favorable 122 6/8/10 - RULES - BILL 100199, etc. recommendation and the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)

Moved and seconded. All in favor? (Aye.)

There are none opposed. Bill No. 100367, as amended, reported out of this Committee favorably and a request made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee. Thank you for your time and attention. (Committee on Rules concluded at 12:05 p.m.) - - - 123 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 8, 2010, 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.)