Marshall2 Freeman. These are all names that many3 of you know. They spent their whole life4 in government and they've dedicated their5 blood, sweat and tears, taking on a lot6 of criticism, to make this project7 really, really strong for them.8 So, Grant, can you tell us --9 MR. McLOUGHLIN: Another Board10 member is Reverend Nancy Muth from First11 Presbyterian Church right there on12 Chelten Av.13
This is not19 a courtroom and you're not interrogating20 a witness.21
I know it's23 your legal training that does that, but24 you have to -- we'll ask the questions.25 82 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1
My frustration2 is, I know the reservoir of activity that3 really goes to answering the4 Councilwoman's question and Grant is a5 little bit taciturn. So in one word, he6 says yes, no, but I know there's a tidal7 wave of information he wants to share.8
My last13 question is, tell us why Trader Joe's14 could not be a part of this enterprise.15
Well, we reached16 out to Trader Joe's. I mean, what it17 comes down to as a developer here, as a18 developer hat here, because I'm usually19 on the Fresh Grocer end of my business,20 which is my main business. So as a21 developer, there's no good reason why I22 wouldn't want them there. They're a23 great tenant. They're a great24 supermarket operator throughout the25 83 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 country.2 I contacted them, because I3 need credit tenants to do this kind of4 development, quite honestly. I mean, to5 spend $14 million, even though you're6 getting $3 million from the state, I7 still have to personally guarantee $88 million of this money. So the best9 tenants I can get, I would have there.10 So if Trader Joe's, Whole Foods, if they11 want to go there, I'd put them there in a12 heartbeat. And we reached out to them.13 I have e-mails saying that they're not14 developing any more stores in15 Pennsylvania. They don't want to be in16 this particular location.17 So there's no good reason why I18 wouldn't want any of these tenants out19 there and so forth. At the same time,20 I've asked people in the community, who21 do you want, give me specific names.22 They're the only two specific names I23 received. I'll call them all. I have no24 problem with that.25 84 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 Weavers Way, I contacted them.2 I asked Glen from Weavers Way to come in3 here to put a 5,000 square foot new co-op4 in the location. I even provided that I5 would put all the money up for all his6 equipment, with no guarantee on a lease.7 If he's not successful in two years, then8 he could just walk away, no strings9 attached. He could not pull it off10 because he had restrictions within his11 own funding abilities through banks and12 so forth. So these are the tenants that13 I've been trying to bring into the14 neighborhood.15
That16 background is helpful. Thank you.17 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.18
Let the19 record reflect that Councilman Clarke is20 in attendance.21 In regards to the issue of22 Trader Joe's versus Fresh Grocer versus23 Whole Foods, what's the average income24 level of the most near residents to this25 85 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 facility? And my question speaks to, do2 the folks in the neighborhood, can they3 afford Trader Joe's and can they4 afford --5 (Audience members yelling6 "yes.")7
I'm asking8 the person who does the development when9 they do their -- let me finish, please.10 And stop the catcalls. He does this for11 a living. He figures out what the12 demographics and economics of the13 particular development are.14 I just want to know if from the15 other side of the coin, because I know I16 don't shop at Whole Foods because it's a17 little -- I'm an Acme person, nothing18 against your stuff, but I mean, that's19 kind of where I go, because I think some20 of those other stores are a little21 expensive for the same quality of food.22 What -- stop. This is like23 grade school.24 What is the economics of the25 86 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 average person that lives within the half2 mile walking distance, mile walking3 distance? Is that why Trader Joe's4 doesn't want to come there, because they5 don't think they can attract enough -- I6 mean, how does the economic decision work7 on what level of pricing?8 MR. McLOUGHLIN: It really9 comes down to -- in terms of our decision10 about what kind of business to operate11 there, it really comes down to population12 and available food dollars, and that is a13 function of median household income and14 population within the designated trading15 area. In that particular location,16 that's why the Sav-A-Lot worked for us17 but the Fresh Grocer did not.18 As for Trader Joe's, the press19 that they're putting out or the20 information that we get from them is21 they're not willing to open any more22 stores in Pennsylvania because of the23 liquor laws. It really has nothing to do24 with income in terms of development.25 87 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1
But, for2 example, in a development area which I've3 experienced personally in South4 Philadelphia, for example, on Oregon5 Avenue, there's a varied number of stores6 at different levels of pricing, and I7 know that you see a lot of folks walking8 to some of the lower -- not cheaper. I'm9 looking for a word -- more affordable10 opportunities there. And I just throw it11 out. I don't know the answer to the12 question. I just throw it out. Does a13 Whole Foods prohibit or eliminate some of14 the folks who live in that neighborhood15 from shopping in a Whole Foods?16 MR. McLOUGHLIN: Whole Foods is17 high priced. They are.18
Correct.19 MR. McLOUGHLIN: We know that20 when we compete against them.21
If you had22 a Whole Foods that wanted to come in23 there, would there be a segment of the24 community that would be priced out, so to25 88 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 speak?2
I'm trying4 to strike a balance as to what type of5 store -- you could argue about the Dollar6 Tree all you want. I'm talking right now7 about the supermarket, which seems to be8 a lot of the members' concerns about what9 type of level of supermarket there's10 going to be there. But I just threw it11 out there for argument's sake.12
Well, it's a13 good question. Let's put the 500-pound14 elephant on the table here. People said,15 Pat, why can't you do the Fresh Grocer at16 this location. You did it at LaSalle,17 which some people feel is not as strong18 as this neighborhood. Why are you giving19 us, quote, second best? This was what we20 heard continuously. And Pat answered21 that honestly, and let's hear the answer22 today.23
Our original goals,24 when I bought the property, was a Shop25 89 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 Rite in 2006, and there was an old gas2 station on the property, which3 contaminated it, which I cleaned up.4 There was an old SEPTA location on the5 property, which I bought from SEPTA.6 I'm just trying to give you a7 little quick history.8 To put a brand new 50,0009 square foot Fresh Grocer on there. So10 when I went for financing and so forth to11 get our dollars to build this store, we12 did surveys, and they're called market13 analysis, which I did three separate14 ones. And based on the $20 million it15 would cost me to build and fit out and16 equip a brand new Fresh Grocer, the17 dollars just don't work at $20 million to18 put that only development on the project.19
And why is20 this? Because of the number of people --21 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:22 Mr. Primavera.23
It's simply the24 food dollars available to that specific25 90 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 location. I mean, there's a Pathmark a2 half a block away also that should be3 noted also.4 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:5 Councilwoman Miller.6
Hi. Good7 morning to everybody. You know, I8 believe the last time there was a9 development in Germantown was right10 before I came to City Council. So that's11 about 16 years ago. 19 When I sent my letter over to20 Zoning, to the last hearing that you had,21 I meant what I said. 1 the support of the community, without2 anybody from the community saying it's a3 good thing or it's a bad thing, I put it4 in because I had my own reasons. I was5 tired of seeing the same types of stores6 coming to the Germantown and Chelten7 business district. 1 and they wanted to eliminate this2 Germantown overlay from the new Zoning3 Code. And we talked about what's good4 about the overlay and what's not so5 great, and one of the things they6 explained to me, that if a Macy's,7 because of the wording, if a Macy's or a8 Target or any of those types of stores9 wanted to come to the Germantown and10 Chelten business, according to how my11 overlay was worded, they would not be12 permitted. So we thought that the best13 way -- and we've had this discussion over14 and over and over again, and the group15 that I go to that gives me my technical16 assistance, my legal advice as a City17 Councilperson are City departments, the18 Planning Commission, our tech staff here,19 who actually wrote the overlay. And we20 moved forward with the overlay. We just21 hassled. 1 they're full time, part time, but it's2 job creation, and I knew that they were3 meeting with the community group. I saw4 the community benefit agreement. 15 I was born and raised in16 Germantown. 18 I can concur with just about everything19 people said here. I remember when I was20 a little girl, I think there were21 probably about four supermarkets that you22 could walk to from the corner of23 Germantown and Chelten. 5 I see this as an opportunity6 that I hope will help spur other7 development. We did Debary Square. 9 And, by the way, you know, you may be10 forgetting, but there is a Pathmark a11 block away from this development. So12 it's not like it's nowhere to shop. It's13 not a huge one. It's not a 50,00014 square, 55,000 square feet, but it is a15 Pathmark, and it certainly serves my16 purpose. I go there. And I used to shop17 at that derelict Shop Rite, how it was18 described, at Pulaski and Chelten, you19 know. We shopped there, too. They had20 food. And I have shopped at Fresh Grocer21 when it was there. And if there's22 problems, you tell the manager. 1 this amendment to the overlay would help2 us resolve the language issues, the3 barriers to other types of stores coming4 here, because I personally think that5 this is a good project. And we're6 talking about one store. I never heard7 of Deal$, and I was -- about a week or8 two ago, I was driving up Old York Road9 right near Washington Lane, and in that10 development right there at Jenkintown,11 they have a Deal$. I said, Oh, there's a12 Deal$. 16 There's petitions for it. There are17 petitions against. 19 By the way, where the other Dollar20 General or Family Dollar, or whatever21 it's called, that's going up at Chelten22 and Musgrave, that is not located in the23 overlay area. 1 support of that project on a lot that's2 been a headache to that community for3 many, many years. Many years as a4 Councilperson I've gotten that lot5 cleaned over and over and over again. So6 the community there is very happy that a7 legitimate, good store is going to come8 there that's going to renovate that whole9 property. 10 So I just wanted to make the11 record clear. This is not a part of pay12 to play. 16 And we're never going to satisfy17 everybody. 18 Sav-A-Lot has been in Germantown for 3019 years. Before it was at Wayne and20 Chelten, it was at Germantown and21 Tulpehocken when Penn Fruit moved. It's22 not a new store, but hopefully it will be23 a bigger store, a nicer store. I really24 don't know. 6 I live in Germantown. I would love to7 have stores close by, the same as you, no8 different. ")15
We're16 talking one store, because Sav-A-Lot was17 already there. If you live there, you18 know it.19 (Audience members talking.)20
Thank you24 very much.25 98 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 I think we've concluded with2 you guys.3 Any other questions for any of4 these witnesses?5 (No response.)6
-- thank12 you for your testimony.13 Now, let me set the ground14 rules for rebuttal, because this is not a15 courtroom proceeding. If you haven't16 spoken already, then you're certainly17 welcome to speak. If you have spoken18 already, I would confine my comments --19 or I would ask you to confine your20 comments to new material and not21 rehashing the old stuff, and I'm going to22 so at some point limit the rebuttal,23 because we know you're against it, you24 made it very clear. You want to25 99 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 elucidate us on something, that's fine,2 but at some point in time, we have to3 conclude the hearing.4 (Witnesses approached witness5 table.)6
Hello. I am9 Megan Fitzpatrick. I'm a member of the10 much-mentioned Design Review Group of11 Germantown Community Connection, and I12 have met with Pulaski Partners many13 times, along with Chris Mendel that is14 also present, and I am very much against15 there being a dollar store and I am very16 displeased with how this was handled.17 I got my degree in architecture18 through the nearby Philadelphia19 University to this site. So I have20 applied numerous times down at Zoning and21 L&I for building permits. I've been an22 applicant. And I think what's getting23 confused here, certainly when Carl24 Primavera stated that he had Jeanne25 100 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 Klinger on his side, no, no. She is a2 very transparent employee at Zoning. She3 doesn't take sides. She follows how4 applicants apply. And they had the use5 down as a grocery store. A dollar store,6 it's not a grocery store. It may sell7 grocery products, but it is not -- they8 put the use down. It was misleading.9 And another thing that has not10 been mentioned -- which I have done11 research down at Zoning with Jeanne12 Klinger, because she's transparent, she13 helps both sides, she does her job, and14 she's very diligent. And that site is15 composed of two different addresses. So16 when an applicant such as Pulaski17 Partners goes down there and they have18 their use as a grocery store, no red flag19 went up to say, Well, isn't that funny,20 this site already has a grocery store. A21 site with two grocery stores? The22 Sav-A-Lot being one on the one address23 and then the other address was a dollar24 store.25 101 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 You know, they did not properly2 apply, and I don't think the City should3 put up with people not doing their job4 and misleading the government and L&I and5 Zoning when they go down there. It6 shouldn't be we -- if you build it, you7 get a variance, because that's an abuse8 of the system.9 There is an overlay that didn't10 allow variety stores. That was known.11 Carl Primavera is like, Oh, okay, you12 know what? If we put down the word13 grocery store, we'll get through.14 And then I was there at the15 previous hearing when he said a Bergdorf16 Goodman's wouldn't be allowed. Well,17 that's not what we are asking for. We're18 just asking for Germantown Avenue not to19 be filled with the same kinds of20 retailers.21 The community of Germantown is22 a very diverse community. All different23 shades of the rainbow live there, all24 different money brackets, but, you know25 102 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 what? Chelten Avenue is not. It has the2 same thing over and over and over again,3 and we want that community to flourish.4 And that's what we're asking. We're just5 asking you to follow what was already in6 place. Please consider that.7
Thank you.8 Please identify yourself for9 the record.10
Thank you,11 Mr. Chair. 14 I'd like to do two things in my15 testimony. 1 saga. Germantown Community Connection2 had taken the position -- and it's an3 organization that's been seeking to bring4 together the various previously divided5 community groups around Germantown. We6 made the determination that once we7 discovered that this was happening -- and8 you should know that one of the reasons9 why this problem exists is that there10 were no discussions with the community11 before it happened. 13 And so we at GCC organized14 several mass meetings at the First15 Presbyterian Church. There was -- it was16 very well attended, over a hundred people17 at both meetings, and there was general18 opposition both to the character of the19 project, the design of the project and20 the fact, frankly, that nobody had21 bothered to talk to anybody in the22 community before it was -- before ground23 was broken. 5 And there were some negotiating sessions6 with Mr. Burns and his folks, but really7 the last that happened regarding that8 negotiation was a document that they9 floated to us. It's not a community10 benefit agreement. 12 It had some commitments regarding13 employment regarding the EEO concerns14 that were expressed here. Those were15 concerns that we had, and the commitments16 were very, very vague. We had questions17 that weren't answered, and what we had18 thought was that this Dollar Tree dispute19 was really the one leverage that the20 community had to actually enter into a21 community benefit agreement. 4 Really the problem here is just5 timing. I mean, on the merits, I would6 have to say that at least my mind is open7 and most of my neighbors have open minds8 about -- not only about the overlay, even9 about Dollar Tree. 15 And we -- what we ask for --16 and here I get to the suggestion -- is17 just time. Don't remove the one leverage18 we have. 23 We are open. 1 particular Germantown resident is even2 willing to consider a Dollar Tree at that3 site. But don't take away the only power4 that this community has at the moment and5 pass this now. Wait a month. Tell6 Mr. Burns, not yet, sit down with the7 community, try to make a deal, and then8 we'll take it up at the beginning of the9 next session. 10 But there is no community11 benefit agreement. We want there to be a12 community benefit agreement. 16
Thank you17 very much for your testimony.18 Please, whatever you're going19 to offer, please allow it to be new20 information, please, and not something21 that you've heard testified.22
I25 107 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 appreciate that. I think this is an2 important issue and normally we don't --3 once you testify, you've testified,4 because we could go around -- this could5 be a round robin.6
Before I start,17 there's one fact that I just learned18 about, that Councilwoman Miller sent a19 letter that we didn't receive as20 petitioners on that zoning appeal and21 that we would really very much appreciate22 receiving a copy of that letter. we filed, as well as any advocacy2 positions that we took. There are a couple things that5 I'm confused by, not only from the6 testimony but by the fact that it appears7 that the Rules Committee is acting like a8 zoning board. I asked you before to look9 at this as a legal issue. I'm sorry to10 repeat that. 20 That's spot zoning. 8 I want to be clear on the9 record about a practice that we have seen10 with developers in applying for zoning11 permits. We have seen developers who12 cannot get a variance and cannot get13 community support come to the City14 Council, especially our City15 Councilperson, to get spot zoning, and I16 think that has to be addressed. 1 requires. The Zoning Code is very clear,2 that you cannot get a building permit3 without a zoning permit that states the4 actual intended use. 8 I have another case where the9 same thing is happening, and when you10 talk to the people in L&I, they say,11 Well, we have to rely upon what's12 presented to us in the permit. 2 At the bottom of the3 application for every zoning application,4 it says you will tell the truth, and an5 attorney applying for that application is6 bound to tell the truth. And so even7 though we as attorneys may represent our8 clients as well as we can, these are9 cases that are getting through and the10 only time the truth is known is when they11 go for the certificate of occupancy, and12 they don't go back to the zoning unit for13 the certificate of occupancy. They go to14 the building unit. The building unit15 looks at the record and says, Oh, there's16 a zoning permit here, so I'll give you17 the certificate of occupancy. And I18 wonder, ladies and gentlemen, how19 frequently this happens. )24
Thank you25 112 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 for your testimony.2 Please identify yourself with3 any new information you have.4
Jim Foster.5 Two points that I'd like to6 make that were not made in my original7 presentation, one of them brought up by8 the Councilmembers at this hearing, and9 this is the cloudy aspect of this entire10 process.11 You should be aware that before12 anyone is going to qualify for the13 several million dollars in public money14 for the grocery store, the application15 has to be made to the community and16 meetings have to be held. A written17 agreement from the community in their18 agreement as to what the end product is19 has to be submitted before you qualify20 for the money. None of that was ever21 done at the state level, and the state22 employees and the officials up there will23 tell you that. The community never found24 out about this project until two weeks25 113 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 before the old store closed when a2 shopper asked a clerk to refill the3 shelves and he said, Why should we refill4 the shelves since this store is being5 closed and they're building something new6 here? That was when the community first7 found out about this project, and that8 was almost a year after the money had9 been arranged and committed by those who10 arranged it, and they were elected11 officials and Mr. Burns. I think that12 had that process been followed, the13 community would have been dialed in nine14 or ten months before the closing of the15 store and all of this ground would have16 been covered. And you folks are raising17 those questions right now when you ask18 about these aspects that how come we're19 only learning about them now, how come20 Burns and his people are doing clean-up21 work to fulfill what they should have22 done in the beginning.23 Second point --24
Let me just25 114 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 make it clear for the record. Your2 argument or complaint in this particular3 regard has nothing to do with City4 Council. It has to do with the state5 authorizing something that they6 authorized. I mean, this may be a forum7 for you to express your disdain for that,8 but we couldn't control that process, nor9 can we reverse it.10
I know, but had it11 been followed, this would have been12 hashed out at the community level long13 before and this wouldn't have had to take14 place.15
If there20 was a foul committed, we didn't commit21 the foul.22
But you folks23 recognized it. Right here this morning24 I've heard the various Councilmembers ask25 115 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 these questions that should have been2 asked long before the project was3 approved.4 Second point, the so-called5 studies of the community's level to6 justify a mid-class grocery store that7 Mr. Burns and his people are presenting8 are bogus. Let me -- for those of you9 who don't know Germantown, this is on the10 west end of Germantown close to the Alden11 Park Manor and Wissahickon Avenue. The12 adjacent communities to this and within13 the radius that the study supposedly took14 place includes some pretty mid-level and15 upscale communities, such as East Falls,16 Blue Bell Hill and other parts of17 Germantown, where the economic levels are18 very diverse. The point that Mr. Burns'19 people made to us in community meetings20 was, they did this one mile study, a mile21 radius around the store, and claimed the22 neighborhood was too poor to qualify for23 even his own Fresh Grocer. That's why24 we're getting a Sav-A-Lot.25 116 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 Well, guess what? I got in my2 car and I drove one mile from the parking3 lot of the proposed store. Guess whose4 house is 1.0 miles from that store?5 Chaka Fattah. And guess whose house is6 less than one mile from that store? That7 would be former Mayor and former Governor8 Ed Rendell.9 This community is diverse at10 all levels. The idea that this community11 can only qualify for low-end stores is a12 bogus statement. Mr. Burns and his13 people presented fallacious arguments.14
Please15 identify yourself for the record.16 (Applause.)17
And,18 please, could you identify yourself and19 give new information.20
I will stick to21 the new information. I'm Connie Winters22 and I am a smaller developer in23 Germantown.24 The market study -- Jim covered25 117 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 the points I was going to make, but I'd2 like to add to it that we were never3 allowed to see the market study.4 So I've been involved. I have5 a planning background and I've been6 involved in those kinds of studies. We7 don't really know that the study he's8 saying he conducted is accurate and we've9 never had a chance to examine it.10 As far as the community11 participation requirements, they are12 still not fulfilled in the RCAP13 application.14 I was part of a group that15 stood on the corner collecting signatures16 on petitions, and you have to be there to17 really understand the diversity of18 Germantown and the uniformity of19 opposition to another low-end grocery20 store. Virtually everyone that stopped21 to sign our petitions from every economic22 level and at least three races said that23 they shopped outside of Germantown24 because the existing grocery stores were25 118 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 so bad.2 The other thing I'd just like3 to add is, I want to really thank4 Councilwoman Reynolds Brown and5 Councilman Goode for their insightful6 questions and for really paying attention7 to the testimony. I'm so encouraged by8 the fact that you cared enough to look9 into this. And with regard to your10 questions about employment, as a small11 developer over the last ten years, I'm12 sure I have put in probably $2 million in13 private equity in my neighborhood, and14 out of that $2 million, I've created -- I15 just sat here and calculated it -- at16 least 50 jobs that have to do with the17 ten commercial spaces that I have in18 Germantown.19 So when we're talking about how20 we spend public dollars and whether or21 not they're well spent and whether or not22 there's accountability for those public23 dollars, there is no accountability for24 the jobs that Pat Burns says he is25 119 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 creating. I haven't seen any methodology2 for follow-through. When he gives you a3 number and doesn't even give you at this4 late date of the project very specific5 figures for the jobs he's creating,6 there's no accountability if it's not7 true.8 So with my very meager9 investment, which didn't ask for any10 public money, I've created -- and I could11 verify -- 50 jobs. So are we spending12 our public dollars wisely to build a13 community or are we just bringing another14 developer with low expectations for my15 community into Germantown?16 Thank you.17
My name is Laura23 Richlin. I am a 20-year resident of24 Germantown. I have lots of roles in my25 120 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 community, but today I'm speaking as a2 mom who has tried to feed my children.3 When Fresh Grocer -- first of4 all, we're all in agreement that5 development is good for Germantown. I6 love Germantown. I live there by choice.7 We could probably live anywhere we8 wanted, most of us, and we live in9 Germantown because it's gorgeous and10 wonderful.11 When Fresh Grocer first went12 in, a lot of us jumped for joy. We were13 so excited, because we thought it would14 be something like the one in West15 Philadelphia that I had gone to many16 times, and unfortunately it wasn't. And17 I went back every few months just to see18 maybe it's going to get better, maybe19 it's going to get better. It was pretty20 disgusting. It was not serving our21 community. So it's no surprise that it22 ended. Whatever happened, whatever23 Mr. Burns said about it not being24 profitable, it's not a surprise, because25 121 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 it really didn't serve us. It was2 under-stocked, it was dirty, there were3 problems.4 In one of the previous -- I've5 attended as many of these meetings that6 we've had in our neighborhood as7 possible. One of the previous meetings8 Mr. Burns said that his son or son-in-law9 or somebody is going to be managing this10 new Sav-A-Lot and it was going to be at11 the caliber of the ones in West Philly at12 56th and Chestnut and 52nd and Baltimore,13 some of those properties. So a bunch of14 us went and visited those properties. I15 wouldn't want that in my neighborhood.16 They were disgusting. They were dirty.17 There was dirty floors, dirty shelves,18 wilted produce, not the kind of place you19 want to take your money to go and20 purchase -- use your hard-earned money to21 purchase food for your family.22 I think that's part of what's23 going on here, is that we don't have a24 sense that Mr. Burns is listening to our25 122 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 needs for good food, clean environment2 for our kids and our families.3 That's all I wanted to say.4 Thank you.5
Thank you6 for your testimony.7 Please identify yourself.8 (Applause.)9
I'm Jeff Smith. I10 testified earlier, and I regret being the11 last person to testify.12
That's13 fine. We have another bill yet, so don't14 worry, you're not the last.15
I had a couple of16 comments. Germantown Community17 Connection has been cited several times18 here. The first time that the community19 met Pat Burns and representatives of the20 Dollar Tree Corporation was at a May21 meeting of the Germantown Community22 Connection where, as was previously23 cited, over a hundred people attended.24 It was at that time that Mr. Burns25 123 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 announced that he, with his demographic2 survey, could not identify the proper3 demographic to support his Fresh Grocer4 concept, because there was not really the5 income point. Although the testimony has6 already been presented to that in this7 rebuttal, I'd like to point out that Post8 Brothers, who are residential apartment9 developers, testified at that hearing.10 They just put $13 million into the Delmar11 Morris Apartment buildings, which is on12 the other side of the tracks from this13 proposed site, and they're putting $2114 million into the former Park Drive15 Manor/Empirian Apartment complex at the16 top of Rittenhouse at Morris. They17 testified that how can you say there's18 not people who are on a upper scale19 housing when we're right across the20 tracks and around the corner?21 I agree with the previous22 testimony that you have within a mile,23 you have Park Heights, Hathaway House,24 Alden Park Manor, School Lane House,25 124 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 which is like about 5,000 residential2 units, and they are not3 government-supported housing. They're4 quality apartment buildings, charging5 decent rent.6 Regarding the development7 itself, we are arguing -- this is an8 issue simply to let it go back to Zoning9 and to defeat this overlay. However,10 there's been a remark about employment.11 When the store closed, when the Fresh12 Grocer store closed, there was a net loss13 of employment in the neighborhood. So14 we're not really creating jobs here.15 We're recreating jobs, putting jobs back16 into the site.17 What we're doing -- I think the18 intent of the RCAP and the intent of19 commercial development in Philadelphia is20 to encourage local businesses, not to21 encourage franchise stores. Take the22 site. That area needs a bank. It's a23 good idea that Citibank is coming there.24 The Wired Beans Cafe that Mr. Burns25 125 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 cited, I visited the Wired Beans Cafe. I2 know Robert Wheeler. He is a wonderful3 guy. He's got a small store, maybe 7004 square feet, on Germantown Avenue. If he5 can manage the size of a cafe, it would6 be terrific.7 Do we need another franchise8 pizza store in that area? No. There's9 two family -- two locally owned stores10 within a block.11 My point is that the focus here12 was on a developer who was finding things13 that worked.14
Let me15 just, so it's clear, we're not here16 debating whether or not we need a17 franchise pizza store or not. What we're18 here debating is whether or not it's19 appropriate to amend the overlay to allow20 for the dollar store, so --21
But the23 issue is, we as a Council cannot get into24 every economic decision that the25 126 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 developer makes to invest their money and2 other money into projects because it's a3 pizza shop.4
I'm just7 saying, we're talking about -- again,8 this is not the overall development9 approval. This is the --10
I understand. And11 I'll go back to Ms. Haskins' first12 testimony, that this Committee should let13 L&I do its job.14 Ms. Klinger -- I attended that15 hearing. Ms. Klinger admitted that she16 actually didn't know the standards for17 what they were approving. This is new18 information that Yvonne did not say. She19 could not -- she could not identify the20 current marketing codes for grocery21 stores and variety stores and department22 stores. She agreed that a variety store23 by its definition would not be permitted24 at that site. She agreed that a25 127 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 department store by its definition would2 be and a grocery store would be.3
So we're going back5 to Zoning -- let it go back to L&I6 rather.7
There's a8 debate whether or not a large department9 store would be allowed there.10
Ms. Klinger20 admitted during the hearing, which is why21 it's going back to L&I and she is22 reexamining it, she admitted that she23 could not locate the book that they used24 or should use to identify appropriate25 128 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 uses of national standard. She found the2 book on a shelf while she was doing3 preparation for the hearing, the appeal4 hearing. That's her testimony. We're5 back at Licenses and Inspections. Let it6 stay there. Let the action -- do not7 approve this overlay.8
Thank you.9 Thank you for your testimony.10 Councilman Goode, do you have a11 question?12
Thank you16 for the update on the EOP. What's17 unclear is the community benefits18 agreement. Would the appropriate parties19 come back to the table.20
What I was21 going to suggest, at the request of the22 sponsor, is to recess this bill to our23 scheduled hearing for tomorrow at 11:00,24 taking into consideration that we may25 129 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 have a complicated Law and Government2 Committee meeting at 10:00, so we might3 not start exactly at 11:00, if you know4 what I mean.5
So if we7 recess the bill tomorrow to 11:00 with8 our stated Rules Committee hearing and9 attempt to find the EOP, attach it to10 this document and have everyone sign off11 on it, we'll decide what to do with the12 bill at that time. But the purpose of13 the delay for tomorrow is to locate and14 understand the EOP. And then if there's15 anything you need to add --16
Patrick Burns, the21 developer for Pulaski Partners.22 It is true we closed the store23 back in March. GCC by Betty Turner24 reached out for me. We had a hearing --25 130 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 I mean, a meeting with the community for2 GCC. At that meeting I spoke to Betty3 Turner, Malik Boyd, Marshall, Irv4 Ackelsberg. We all agreed to get5 together as one voice to try to work this6 out. At that point, there's different7 fractions within the community that8 really weren't working along with GCC,9 but I can't as a developer work with10 seven different organizations. We chose11 GCC. They reached out to us and so12 forth.13 We sat down in very extensive14 meetings and so forth. Irv Ackelsberg15 said to me, Pat, why don't you try to get16 some local guys, Weavers Way, Wired17 Beans, because I told him I needed a18 Dollar Tree. I needed a signed lease.19 I'm sorry I didn't come to you before,20 but I needed to get the financing. If I21 don't have that, this project cannot22 work.23 So I did everything I can24 within the community trying to reach out25 131 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 to Weavers Way. I went after Wired2 Beans, which he was trying to go in the3 community from one of the other -- the4 people that testified today, in one of5 their places. He didn't want to go. He6 went in our new development.7 At the same time, Mr. Foster8 actually said that it was a low-income9 area, why would you give us low-income10 stores. Well, I think that's pretty11 offensive to Wired Beans saying that's a12 low-end store and a Citibank in that13 store.14 As far as RACP process, I know15 it's state and I know I'm speaking out of16 my boundaries, but apparently people17 don't want to hear the facts in the room18 behind me. RACP is extremely delicate,19 sensitive, well-managed process. I've20 done everything to the letter of the law21 up and to this date. It's an independent22 council that looks into it. All --23 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:24 Mr. Primavera --25 132 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1
No, no.4 From my perspective, I don't care about5 RACP. That's a state issue. It's not my6 issue. We're talking about the zoning7 overlay at this point.8
And as far as the9 market survey -- I want to bring up one10 more thing. The market survey is a11 confidential piece. We did not want to12 let it out to the community. So we did,13 we had our market analyst go to14 NewsWorks, which is the community's15 voice, and explain everything how we came16 up with the market analysis. It has17 nothing to do with being poor. It has to18 do with food dollars and the amount19 people in the area.20
The one25 133 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 question was --2
The GCC, I believe7 Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller has a copy8 of it. I think I sent it to her and so9 forth.10
The GCC --12 community benefits agreement I was13 sending to GCC.14
Yes, I will. This21 is what we negotiated. I didn't get it22 signed back from them yet. They've had23 it.24
We will see25 134 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 you tomorrow at 11 o'clock or later.2 The next bill for consideration3 is Bill No. 110672, an ordinance4 repealing an ordinance (Bill No. 110185),5 entitled "An ordinance amending the6 Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the7 zoning designations of certain areas of8 land located within an area bounded by9 Richmond Street, Cumberland Street, Beach10 Street, and Schirra Drive; and amending11 Section 14-506 of The Philadelphia Code,12 entitled 'L-4 Limited Industrial13 District,' all under certain terms and14 conditions."15 (Witness approached witness16 table.)17 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:18 Mr. Gregorski.19
Good morning,20 members of the Rules Committee. I'm21 Martin Gregorski, Senior Planner in the22 Development Division of the City Planning23 Commission. I'm here to testify on Bill24 No. 110672, which was introduced into25 135 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 Council on October 6th of this year.2 Bill No. 110672 will amend the3 Philadelphia Zoning Maps by rezoning the4 area bounded by Richmond Street,5 Cumberland, Beach Street, Schirra Drive6 from the existing zoning designation of7 "L-4" Limited Industrial to a proposed8 zoning designation of "G-2" General9 Industrial. Bill No. 110672 repeals the10 action of Bill No. 110185.11 The City Planning Commission12 has not considered Bill 110672.13 This concludes my testimony.14 I'll be happy to answer any questions you15 may have.16
Thank you17 very much.18 Any questions for this witness?19 (No response.)20
Thank you21 very much.22 Mr. Sklaroff, please.23 (Witnesses approached witness24 table.)25 136 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1
Please2 identify yourself for the record and3 proceed.4
Hold it,7 please.8 Could we please have a little9 quiet. Thank you.10 Please identify yourself for11 the record.12
Thank you. Good13 morning. My name is Neil Sklaroff. I'm14 an attorney and I represent Columbus15 Boulevard Associates. I'll keep my16 comments short. One o'clock we'll end?17 Just kidding.18 It didn't go over, did it?19 Columbus Boulevard Associates20 is the current owner of 2055 Richmond21 Street, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. This22 property is one of only four properties23 that is the subject of Bill No. 11067224 introduced to repeal Bill No. 110185,25 137 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 which was enacted by City Council on June2 16th, 2011 and signed by Mayor Michael3 Nutter on July 5th, 2011. Columbus4 Boulevard strongly opposes the current5 effort to repeal the earlier bill.6 As you may recall, Bill No.7 110185 changed the zoning classification8 of the block bordered by Richmond Street,9 Cumberland Street, Beach Street and10 Schirra Drive from "G-2" General11 Industrial to "L-4" Limited Industrial.12 Columbus and its related companies own13 several properties located in the Beach14 Street and Richmond Street area. This15 particular bill not only introduced "L-4"16 Limited Industrial uses that include17 retail and wholesale operations, but also18 proposed to allow dance halls and19 nightclubs. At the time of the20 enactment, Columbus, represented by21 counsel and a planner, opposed the22 remapping of the area because of the23 adverse effects of a nightclub or dance24 hall would have on the neighboring25 138 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 properties and the Columbus and related2 properties. We were not successful. We3 did not persuade City Council, and the4 matter was enacted.5 Since that time, Columbus6 Boulevard purchased 2055 Richmond Street,7 that property having been subject to a8 prior option and that option having9 expired. It was offered to Columbus.10 Columbus purchased the property.11 In making a decision to12 purchase the property, Columbus engaged13 the advice of a noted real estate14 appraiser. His opinion was that the15 value of the property was significantly16 increased and enhanced by the "L-4"17 zoning designation. The decision to buy18 the property was substantially based on19 that opinion of added value. What is20 proposed today would destroy that added21 value and perhaps make clear that22 Philadelphia is really isn't open to23 business.24 I'd like to point out that25 139 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 changing -- and I don't have to tell you,2 the Rules Committee or members of City3 Council, that there is just no planning4 principle which can justify the zoning5 and unzoning of a few parcels within five6 months. I understand no principle of7 planning that could justify that.8 Whether that would be9 ultimately called spot zoning or special10 zoning, passing this bill just can't be11 reconciled under the rules that you all12 wish to follow. Whatever principles of13 planning persuaded City Council to enact14 the bill in June have not now evaporated.15 We ask the Rules Committee to reject this16 bill and decline to send it on to City17 Council.18 I'd like to go off script. I19 have -- most of those comments --20
I just have21 to -- I feel compelled to ask this22 question. Are you telling me you were23 against this bill before you were for it,24 so to speak?25 140 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1
We were against2 this bill because it would hurt our3 properties.4
We were against8 the June bill and we are against your9 appeal.10
Because we21 purchased property based on the enhanced22 value that was created by "L-4" uses.23 Not just the nightclub and the dance hall24 uses. "L-4" is a wonderful zoning25 141 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 district that allows commercial and2 wholesale uses, which are not commonly3 found elsewhere in the City. You'll find4 that "G-2" does not allow wholesale sales5 even though it will maybe under the new6 code.7 So there's a lot of value that8 was brought to this. Take away the9 nightclub or the dance hall uses. That's10 not the basis upon which we paid added11 value for this, in the millions of12 dollars. And we're telling you that this13 will hurt us. It will discourage14 development in the City. It will mean15 that developers cannot rely on the16 actions of City Council but for a few17 months.18 Let me also point out that your19 action today will make this a pending20 ordinance, which means that nobody on21 this block will be able to go and make an22 application being able to take advantage23 of the "L-4."24
Pending25 142 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 Ordinance Doctrine was something that was2 created by Bennett Levin back in the3 Rendell Administration. I don't believe4 that there is a code section of Pending5 Ordinance Doctrine. It was something6 that he did, which I thought at the time7 made a lot of sense to expedite things8 moving forward since there was unanimity9 and support on the committee and in the10 Council prior to waiting the two weeks or11 whatever. But there is no principle12 pending ordinance that --13
Not in L&I.16 I've asked them actually -- as a matter17 of fact, when we had the fight about the18 fruit stand and the crab stand, I asked19 them to impose the Pending Ordinance20 Doctrine, and they kept those people21 closed for three and a half months22 because it was the summertime. So I23 don't think that they abide by it24 anymore.25 143 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1
If I may, the2 Pending Ordinance Doctrine was very much3 in play in the hundred-foot height limit4 that was proposed and finally enacted by5 Councilman Clarke some years ago with6 regard to the Parkway properties.7
That was a8 number -- not in this Administration,9 though, because I tried to get a fruit10 stand and a crab guy open so they didn't11 go out of business for three and a half12 months, and L&I wouldn't adhere to the13 Pending Ordinance Doctrine.14
-- I believe the18 Law Department has an opinion on the19 Pending Ordinance Doctrine, and L&I is20 obliged by City Charter to follow the21 opinions of the Law Department. Also, in22 my experience and in speaking with the23 folks who are the zoning examiners and24 the supervisor of zoning examiners that25 144 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 when they're made aware of an ordinance2 that has come out of the Rules Committee,3 they may use that to deny an application4 and --5
No. They can't8 use it to approve. They can only use it9 to deny an application. It is a10 court-created doctrine throughout the11 rest of the Commonwealth. And if that12 doctrine was imposed in Philadelphia any13 time a bill would be introduced, it would14 then become pending. The Law15 Department's review --16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of17 order, Mr. Chairman. I can maybe wrap18 this up.19 I have every intention before I20 leave here on December 15th of either --21 I'm going to ask this Committee vote this22 bill out today. I'm going to go on the23 record as saying I will not call the bill24 up for second and final reading until25 145 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 December 15th. I will take action on2 this one way or the other.3 As you know, your client, who4 now has purchased a property, was5 vehemently against the original zoning6 classification being changed from "G-2"7 to "L-4" because at the time, he8 indicated to me through numerous9 emissaries that visited my office that10 this was going to destroy his11 development, of which we still don't know12 what that development is. He's purchased13 it. The "L-4" has added value to all the14 properties along that strip, which are15 four or five of them. I understand that.16 The intent was to provide a developer an17 opportunity to create an entertainment18 venue. That deal has not yet been19 finalized, and it may not be. The20 intention of -- my intentions were to go21 back to "G-2" so I didn't leave it22 open-ended so that anyone could come in,23 use the "L-4" as an opportunity to create24 an entertainment venue that did not meet25 146 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 the standards that I had in place and2 agreed to with the current developer who3 is looking to develop an entertainment4 venue.5 So I'm kind of caught in the6 middle. I didn't want to harm the7 community who was against the8 reclassification, as was your client, but9 I'm going to have two bills out there.10 One of them, if not both of them, will11 either be voted out or one will be voted12 out and one will not be between now and13 the last day of the City Council session.14 So the pending legislation thing won't15 take effect. It won't be out there for16 more than 29 days. And I backed that out17 from the day I'm out of here on December18 30th and I get the 29 days.19
Let me point out20 that I appreciate Councilman DiCicco.21 His door has been open. I have had a22 meeting with Councilman DiCicco and have23 discussed this matter with him, and we24 have no dispute over the actions of the25 147 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 Councilman. We do dispute the substance2 of this bill. If it is -- we certainly3 would prefer that the bill not get voted4 out. If the bill were to be voted out,5 we would ask that it would be voted out6 with an amendment that the Committee --7 it's the Committee's understanding that a8 Pending Ordinance Doctrine, as understood9 in Philadelphia, will not apply to this10 ordinance.11 The key of the Pending12 Ordinance Doctrine is the direction of13 the legislative body. So if the14 legislative body makes clear that it does15 not want that to be applied, in my view,16 the zoning examiner should follow that17 direction.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We will19 have time to do that amendment or the20 other amendment that you and I spoke to21 sidebar earlier that may want to remove22 some of the dance hall as a matter of23 right under this legislation or the "L-4"24 classification. So we will talk about25 148 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 that. I'm open to doing some amendments.2 I just want to get this bill out there,3 because I do only have a very short4 window of opportunity to make those5 decisions. I'll certainly entertain that6 conversation with you.7
We would8 appreciate having some input on the9 language of that. We appreciate the10 Councilpersons giving us the time this11 afternoon. We know you've been through a12 long morning.13 When this comes -- should this14 come before the Council, we want to15 reiterate that we will be there. Should16 there not be a change, again, we have an17 obligation to protect our properties and18 our investors who have based this on the19 "L-4" uses and not necessarily the "L-4"20 uses that we're willing to see go by.21 Thank you.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They would23 have made my life a lot easier had they24 supported the original legislation, but25 149 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 that's neither here nor there.2
My life3 easier too, because I had to chair the4 thing.5
We could go back6 and forth and I think it would be7 unnecessary and I have too much respect8 for the Councilman.9
Thank you10 very much for your testimony.11 There are no other witnesses on12 this bill.13 We will now start our public14 meeting, and the Chair recognizes15 Councilmember Greenlee for a motion to16 approve the amendment to Bill No. 110756.17 The amendment is technical in nature. It18 changes the title of "expediter" to19 "agent." Must make it sound better.20
Sounds21 good. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move22 the adoption of the amendment to Bill No.23 110756.24 (Duly seconded.)25 150 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1
There are6 none opposed. Bill No. 110756 will be7 amended accordingly.8 The Chair recognizes9 Councilmember Greenlee on the amended10 bill.11
Thank12 you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No.13 110756, as amended, be reported out of14 this Committee with a favorable15 recommendation and that the rules of16 Council be suspended to allow for first17 reading at our next session of Council.18 (Duly seconded.)19
There are24 none opposed. Bill No. 110756, as25 151 11/15/11 - RULES - BILL 110756, ETC.1 amended, will report out of this2 Committee favorably and a request made3 for rules suspension to allow first4 reading at our next Council session.5 Bill No. 110662 will be6 recessed until tomorrow at 11 o'clock at7 our scheduled Rules Committee hearing.8 The Chair recognizes9 Councilmember DiCicco on a motion for10 Bill No. 110672.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,12 Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No.13 110672 be reported out of this Committee14 with a favorable recommendation.15 (Duly seconded.)16
There's no17 request for a suspension. It's been18 moved and seconded.19 All in favor?20 (Aye.)21
There are22 none opposed. Bill No. 110672 will23 report out of this Committee with a24 favorable recommendation.25 152 1 Thank you for your attendance.2 (Committee on Rules concluded3 at 12:30 p.m.)4 - - -5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 153 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on November 15, 2011, and7 that this is a true and correct transcript of8 same.9 --------------------14 MICHELE L. MURPHY15 RPR-Notary Public16 (The foregoing certification of this20 transcript does not apply to any reproduction21 of the same by any means, unless under the22 direct control and/or supervision of the23 certifying reporter.)24