COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON PARKS, RECREATION3 AND CULTURAL AFFAIRS4 5 6 Room 400, City Hall7 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, March 9, 20118 2:00 p.m. 9 10 PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN, CHAIR11 COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO12 COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. 13 14 BILL 110002 - An Ordinance amending Chapter 15-100 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled15 "Parks," by prohibiting the transfer or conversion of outdoor public park and16 recreation land in the City to other uses or to third parties unless certain procedures and17 requirements are met. 18 - - -19 20 21 22 23 24 25 2 1
Good2 afternoon. Good afternoon, everyone. We3 now have a quorum for the Council4 Committee on Parks, Recreation and5 Cultural Affairs, and we now will move6 into a public hearing to hear testimony7 on Bill No. 110002.8 With us this afternoon is9 Vice-Chair of the Committee, Councilman10 Curtis Jones, and Councilmembers Darrell11 Clarke and Frank DiCicco.12 I will now ask the Clerk to13 read the title of Bill No. 110002.14
An Ordinance15 amending Chapter 15-100 of The16 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Parks," by17 prohibiting the transfer or conversion of18 outdoor public park and recreation land19 in the City to other uses or to third20 parties unless certain procedures and21 requirements are met.22
Ginny23 Doerr, known to be a public policy wonk,24 stated, and I quote, I think it could be25 3 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 argued that during the most challenging2 moments, people with ideas and a3 willingness to work together and give of4 themselves cannot only meet but rise5 above and succeed brilliantly. We are at6 such a moment.7 So I want to say that and say8 thank you, open with a thank-you to9 everyone that has been a part of this10 continuing, ongoing dialogue to make our11 parks more incredible than what they are.12 I would be remiss also not to13 again acknowledge and celebrate in my own14 way Councilman Darrell Clarke, two mayors15 and countless stakeholders who have been16 on all sides of the Parks and Recreation17 Commission. Regardless of which opinions18 and ideas were being advocated for,19 argued for or debated, it was clear that20 the common thread in this debate was a21 mutual love of our city's diverse park22 system.23 To all the stakeholders here24 this afternoon to provide testimony on25 4 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 the Open Parks Land Ordinance, including2 the Administration, Commissioners from3 Parks and Recreation and the Philadelphia4 Parks Alliance, you are here due to the5 unique assets each of you as stakeholders6 bring to this dialogue around our7 Philadelphia Fairmount Park. So I feel8 confident that along with all of you, we9 will continue to work together to further10 broaden and create an even more dynamic11 park system for all of the residents, not12 only of Philadelphia but of this region.13 And let me say as well that we14 have overcome a number of bumps in the15 road, and we know that in reaching a16 mountain is not a smooth trek. So as we17 move now to consider and act on the18 provisions of this bill, we must be19 mindful to keep the dialogue open.20 With that, I will call up the21 testifiers to testify on the bill as22 panels. With every testifier who comes23 up, we need you to state your name for24 the record, and when that panel is done,25 5 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 we will pose questions.2 There are four panels -- three3 panels, and we will start with members of4 the Commission and the Administration.5 Please approach the witness6 table, Nancy Goldenberg, Chairman, and7 Deborah Wolf Goldstein, Commissioner on8 Parks and Recreation, and Mark Focht, the9 Executive Director for the Department of10 Parks and Recreation.11 (Witnesses approached witness12 table.)13
Good14 afternoon. You may proceed with your15 testimony.16
Good17 afternoon, Councilwoman and members of18 the Committee. My name is Nancy19 Goldenberg and I am honored to serve as20 Chair of the City's Commission on Parks21 and Recreation. Joining me is my22 colleague Commissioner, Deborah Wolf23 Goldstein, who, as Chair of our Land Use24 Committee, took the lead in crafting this25 6 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 important piece of legislation. 5 In 2004, a very ambitious6 strategic plan was completed for7 Fairmount Park, a plan that proposed8 broad changes in order to transform and9 revitalize our park system. 16 This plan was among the17 catalysts, along with the tireless18 leadership of Councilwoman Blondell19 Reynolds Brown and Councilman Darrell20 Clarke, who paved the way in 2008 to the21 historic adoption of a Charter change22 that created a single Department of Parks23 and Recreation and created the Commission24 on Parks and Recreation. 4 Under the Charter, the5 Commission's role is to adopt standards6 and guidelines concerning park and7 recreation land and facilities, including8 those relating to land use, preservation9 of green space, watershed management,10 sustainability, and the conveyance and11 acquisition of park and recreation land12 or facilities, including the assessment13 and evaluation of proposed conveyances14 and acquisitions. 5 In brief, this bill proposes6 that no land under the jurisdiction of7 the Department of Parks and Recreation8 can be transferred or converted to9 another use without a review by the10 Commission and City Council of an11 alternative analysis. 16 Once the Commission reviews the analysis,17 it provides its recommendations to City18 Council and to the Mayor. 23 This ordinance was developed in24 a highly collaborative and methodical25 9 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 manner. We assessed current policies and2 directives. We examined procedures3 guiding past park and rec land4 transactions. We reviewed best practices5 from other municipalities and consulted6 with the City Law Department and City7 Council legal staff. 9 We held a briefing for all of City10 Council and their staffs. We attended11 public meetings called by the Parks12 Alliance and encouraged the public to ask13 questions, review our drafts and make14 recommendations. We heard from people15 via e-mail, through our blog, at our16 public meetings and by phone, and we17 responded to every single question that18 was asked of us. 24 The legislation before you sets25 10 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 a goal of no net loss of park and2 recreation land. It establishes a3 predictable, transparent process and4 clear assessment criteria. The citizens5 of this city can argue about a lot of6 things, but the one thing everyone agrees7 with is that park and recreation lands8 are uniquely valued and need to be9 protected. 14 Thank you for your15 consideration. 18
Okay. We19 will hear from other members of the20 panel, then we'll open it up for21 questions.22 Please.23
I have no24 additional testimony. I'm here to25 11 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 support the Chairperson's testimony.2
So that we3 know that you're here, just state your4 name for our record here.5
You did say6 that. I'm sorry. Debra Wolf Goldstein.7 I am the Chair of the Land Use Committee8 on the Park and Recreation Commission.9
Good afternoon,13 Chairwoman Reynolds Brown and members of14 the Committee. My name is Mark Focht.15 I'm the Executive Director of the16 Fairmount Park system in the Philadelphia17 Department of Parks and Recreation. I18 also bring greetings and regrets from19 Deputy Mayor and Parks and Recreation20 Commissioner Michael DiBerardinis, who is21 unable to join us today.22 I'm here to testify on behalf23 of the Commissioner and the entire24 Department in support of Bill No. 110002,25 12 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 which was introduced by Councilpersons2 Reynolds Brown and O'Neill on January3 27th, 2011.4 I would like to thank the Parks5 and Recreation Commission for their hard6 work on this important issue.7 Specifically, we as a staff and8 department would like to acknowledge the9 leadership of Nancy Goldenberg as the10 Commission's Chair and Deborah Wolf11 Goldstein as the Chair of the Committee12 on Land Use in their roles in providing13 valuable leadership and guidance in14 drafting and advancing this ordinance.15 The Parks and Recreation Commission16 undertook a thorough and thoughtful17 process to develop this ordinance, which18 included assessment of current policies19 and directives, a review of past20 procedures and best practices from other21 municipalities and, as Nancy has22 indicated, extensive feedback from23 engaged citizens. This Commission worked24 collaboratively with the Law Department,25 13 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 the Parks Alliance, numerous partners and2 friends, as well as Parks and Recreation3 staff who provided valuable work,4 thought, feedback and support throughout5 this process.6 The Department of Parks and7 Recreation feels that this ordinance8 could serve as a valuable tool to help9 protect and support the parks and10 recreation system, which, as we all know,11 is a community asset used daily by12 everyone from pre-school-aged citizens to13 senior citizens in each and every14 neighborhood in our city. Therefore, for15 these reasons, we at Parks and Recreation16 support Bill No. 110002, and I17 respectfully request this Committee's18 favorable review and approval of this19 legislation.20 Thank you.21
Thank you22 for your testimony.23 Vice-Chair Councilman Curtis24 Jones, question.25 14 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021
Good2 afternoon. Just for the record and for3 people that might be listening and4 clarity for us all, define park use and5 non-park use, examples.6
Park use is7 defined -- and Debra can correct me if8 I'm wrong -- by the state regulations and9 laws. So that's where we took the10 definition that the state uses to be11 consistent. So things like museums, for12 example, are considered a park use,13 according to state, but it's everything14 from baseball and softball and trails and15 walking and running, picnicking.16 A non-park use might be17 condominiums, housing, things like that.18
I just want19 to -- common sense is something that20 often is a matter of interpretation, and21 a good attorney often makes that line22 blur, and what I would like for this23 Chair and its Committee, an acceptable24 commonly known set of uses so that, along25 15 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 with our Zoning Code and other things, we2 can have predictability. And so that3 some, decades from now, some clever4 attorney comes in and says, This is a5 park use. Because I've heard all kinds6 of uses for the park that include auto7 racing and things like that, at a point8 could be defined recreational, and I9 really want a clearer picture of what10 that is so that we can all agree on it11 and move forward.12 So that would be my question,13 Madam Chair.14
Councilman15 Jones, if I might add to your excellent16 comment, that we do also have, as Nancy17 said, guidance from our court system.18 There are a line of cases from the19 Pennsylvania Supreme Court interpreting20 what is acceptable park use and what is21 not acceptable park use. So I think we22 have that to back up our position about23 what is and is not acceptable.24
I just want4 to for the record -- and I'm glad it is5 found in caselaw, because there's a host6 of people that would gladly, for whatever7 reason, challenge it. So that we have a8 clear defining set of uses that we can9 just look down the list and say, Well,10 obviously -- and even with those lists,11 there's going to be interpretation of is12 this a tomato or is this a tomato, you13 know. But I really want us, as close as14 we can, to give those defining uses so15 that there's no ambiguity.16 All right. Thank you, Madam17 Chair.18
That's19 critically important, and it's a great20 segue to a question I would have, and I21 don't know yet if it's a concern. But22 what we know is that there are a lot of23 arts and cultural institutions in our24 city that have parkland, like the Art25 17 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 Museum of Philadelphia, the Rodin Museum,2 Please Touch Museum and others. How3 would this measure impact those4 institutions who may want to do, expand,5 have capital projects that then require6 expanding onto parkland?7
Assuming that8 what one of those institutions wants to9 do is park use and if it's a museum or10 other cultural institution, I think the11 caselaw is clear that that is considered12 a park use. Then what they would be13 required to do under this ordinance is14 submit an alternatives analysis, which15 basically justifies why they need the16 land, what do they plan to do, and has a17 transparent process for submitting the18 information, which we would then post on19 our website so the public can see what20 their plans are.21
What would22 be the case for those institutions if23 this was not in place? What is the24 standard operating procedure now for25 18 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 those institutions when they want to2 expand, have capital projects? So what's3 the practice or protocol?4 For example, the Art Museum had5 this terrific expansion in a green way,6 and so what did they have to go through7 that will be different than what they8 might have to go through from this point9 forward, presuming this bill is enacted?10
Previously11 they would have gone to the Fairmount12 Park Commission, and that would have been13 a public process. With the elimination14 of the Park Commission with the merger,15 in that case they would go to the16 Department, and there would be a thorough17 review by Department staff.18 What we are doing is adding19 back in, if you will, that level of20 transparency, that level of public21 knowledge of what they're doing that the22 Park Commission had had formerly.23
I see. So24 this process then is designed to enhance25 19 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 and open up that potential transaction,2 if you will? Is that a fair assessment?3
Thank you,9 Madam Chair.10 Good afternoon. I, like11 Councilwoman Brown, would like to again12 commend you all for your steadfast13 commitment to the park system, to this14 process and your continued commitment as15 we see you here today, having worked on16 your first piece of legislation. One of17 the things that we requested early on in18 the process when we established a new19 Parks and Rec Commission, we said that it20 should not just be an advisory21 commission; it should be an active,22 working body that comes up with23 significant recommendations that will24 ultimately end up being either25 20 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 legislation or change in regulations. So2 I want to say that you have done that,3 and I want to congratulate you and thank4 you so much for your continued5 commitment.6 There is one issue that I7 wanted to get a little clarity on, and8 this may actually need the Law9 Department. In the bill, No. 5 where it10 establishes, quote/unquote, criteria or11 standards as it relates to the City's12 ability to convey parkland, particularly13 the section that talks about the14 conditions, let me read -- summarize the15 language.16 The continuation of the17 original use is no longer practical or18 possible and has ceased to serve the19 public interest. The proposal transfer20 is necessary for the public interest and21 there is no reasonable and practical22 alternative.23 The question is, I guess, is,24 who makes the determination as to whether25 21 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 or not it is practical? Who makes a2 determination as to whether or not there3 is no alternative use, particularly given4 the fact that it must be included in the5 ordinance that Council authorizes? It's6 like most things, it depends on an7 individual's perspective on whatever the8 issue is.9 So I'm just -- I need to get a10 little clarity on who decides whether or11 not it's no longer a practical use or no12 longer in the best interest of the13 public.14
Thank you. I15 think that's an excellent question. When16 that comes before the Commission -- and17 that kind of finding only needs to happen18 if it's a proposed change from a park use19 to a non-park use. That high standard,20 that hurdle does not have to be met if21 it's one park use changing to another22 park use or in the example that23 Councilwoman Reynolds Brown had with an24 expansion of an existing cultural25 22 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 organization, doesn't have to meet that2 standard. But if it were a proposal for3 a change from a park use to a non-park4 use, it would have to meet this standard.5 The Commission would review the6 alternatives analysis that was submitted7 to them, in which the applicant makes the8 argument as to why the continuation of9 the original use is no longer10 practicable, and the Commission makes a11 recommendation one way or the other about12 that. And when it comes before Council,13 the Council can decide to follow the14 recommendation or make its own15 determination, giving substantial weight16 to the Commission's recommendation, but17 it's not required to follow the18 recommendation of the Commission. So the19 City Council members get the opportunity20 to make that decision on their own.21
Okay. I22 hear you. I'm just -- and we were23 begging people to provide the appropriate24 standards.25 23 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021
I'll just2 say parenthetically, remember, he has the3 benefit of speaking as a former4 Commissioner. So he comes with a dual5 perspective, if you will, which I think6 is of great value.7
Thank you.8 Thank you, Councilwoman.9 I just want -- I guess I just10 want to know, are you basically saying11 that those standards shall be determined12 by the Commission? Because first you13 said that the applicant has the14 responsibility of telling why this would15 no longer be viable park use or no longer16 in the public interest. I'm just trying17 to find out who determines that.18
I should have19 prefaced my remarks by saying the20 language of this particular standard is21 from caselaw, from the Erie case that was22 handed down by the Pennsylvania Supreme23 Court, in which it said that this is24 what -- for the kind of cases that fall25 24 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 within the Erie case, to change from park2 use to non-park use, the use had to meet3 this standard. So where this language4 came from is directly from caselaw in5 which a court said that change has to6 meet this standard.7 Now, as to your question who8 gets to determine it --9
Somebody13 has to decide what the standard is and14 whether or not it's an appropriate15 standard. That's all I'm trying...16
The Commission17 would make the determination and issue a18 recommendation, and then City Council19 would determine whether to follow the20 recommendation or not.21 COUNCILMAN CLARKE:22 Mr. Copeland, could we have you up there,23 please. You're our lawyer. I just need24 to get an interpretation.25 25 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 (Witness approached witness2 table.)3 (Off-the-record discussion.)4
Good afternoon.9 My name is Larry Copeland. I'm a senior10 attorney in the City of Philadelphia Law11 Department.12 As I understood the13 Councilmember's original question and the14 provision that he cited, under that15 particular provision, City Council would16 make the determination. To try to17 clarify what my clients were saying, is18 that the applicant surely would try to19 make the argument that they have20 satisfied these conditions, and then the21 Commission would consider that and decide22 whether it agrees or disagrees.23 Assuming the Commission agreed24 and then sent a recommendation forward in25 26 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 that vein, City Council would have the2 opportunity to review that as well and,3 as Ms. Goldstein said, agree or disagree,4 which would, in effect, be making that5 determination under the provision you6 cited.7 Does that help?8
You know,20 trust me, this is not an adversarial21 conversation, because we're all together22 on this.23 You prefaced your statements by24 saying your client. So you're not25 27 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 working in a capacity -- and I understand2 you have this dual role, because we have3 the Commission, which is a part of4 government, and you have Council as a5 part of government. So if I'm asking you6 for clarity on a bill, is your response7 based on the client that you sit beside8 at this point or the client -- and I'm9 not your client today.10
All right.13 Because you said, well, you're responding14 to your client.15 This is the issue --16
I think19 everybody is comfortable -- and I'm20 speaking for myself. I'm very21 comfortable, because I ask people to make22 sure that this would be one of the23 priorities as it related to developing24 standards for park disposition.25 28 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 The question is, one, who those2 standards -- how those standards are3 developed and who determines what those4 standards are, and then at the end of the5 day, who has the authority to adopt the6 standards or reject the standards or7 determine what the ultimate standards are8 as it relates to being able to pass the9 bill. You get that?10
You12 understand? You understand what I'm13 saying? And it's okay to say no. A lot14 of people don't understand what I'm15 saying.16
Let me try to17 restate it. You wanted to be clear about18 who develops the standards and who makes19 the decisions in applying the standards.20
The22 Commission -- this ordinance doesn't23 change the Commission's stature under the24 Home Rule Charter. It is boiled down to25 29 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 an advisory commission. So it would make2 a decision about a recommendation, but it3 would be a recommendation.4
The decision6 would still come before City Council to7 review the Commission's recommendation8 and make a decision for itself.9
Okay. So10 my original question was, basically the11 Commission would develop the standards.12 I mean, that's what it sounds like to me.13 And it would then come to Council for14 their review. Those standards would be15 the recommendations based on the16 Commission's review?17
Okay. I'm21 okay with that. I just want to get22 clarity on who determines what those23 standards are and then are they binding24 as it relates to our ability to do25 30 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 whatever. But if we decided to reject2 the recommendation, it would be based on3 the understanding that this information4 was put before us and under the Charter,5 we have the ability to reject or adopt.6 I just want to get clarity on that.7
But that9 Commission's recommendation must be10 included in the bill?11
The Commission's12 recommendation would be presented to City13 Council and to the Mayor.14
At the15 hearing? It would not have to be16 included in the bill?17
No. City21 Council's findings, whatever City Council22 ultimately decided, would be in the bill.23 The ordinance that authorizes the24 transfer includes findings, and those25 31 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 findings would be City Council's2 findings.3
So we have4 to determine what the findings are at the5 time of the introduction of the bill?6
Yes. City7 Council has to decide whether it agrees8 that continuation of the original use is9 no longer practical or possible or has10 ceased to serve the public's interest.11 The Commission would make a12 recommendation saying it believes that is13 the case or that is not the case.14
The15 ordinance of the transfer includes16 findings, the conversion includes17 findings, that's a requirement. So those18 findings will be whose findings?19
City21 Council's findings. So we look at the22 recommendations and then we base our23 findings on the actual recommendation24 from whomever, the developer or the --25 32 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 I'm just trying to find out whose2 findings they are.3
It's City4 Council's findings, Councilman. When you5 say "base City Council's findings on a6 recommendation," it doesn't have to be7 based on our recommendation. You could8 consider -- review our recommendations9 but then reject it and come up with10 different findings.11
So the12 bottom line is that whatever we do as it13 relates to the conveyance of land, we14 have to explain it in the bill?15
My18 follow-up to that would be -- let me put19 a qualifier in here. I'm not a lawyer,20 but I've learned in being here that21 language does matter, and I'm trying to22 find where it says in the bill, it says23 Council's ordinance "must" include24 findings versus "shall" include findings.25 33 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 So "must" becomes a trigger or a red2 flag, because it suggests that a new idea3 or a new enterprise or a new park use4 must fit these criteria.5 So if you would, go to of the ordinance, if you will, and where7 I am unclear is language in the bill that8 assures that Council as a body and9 Councilmembers individually, that they10 indeed do have the option to reject, if11 you will, a recommendation offered by the12 Commission. And when you look at ,13 15-102, it says "no land," which may14 signal some concern, and then the last15 sentence there, it says "unless each of16 the following conditions are satisfied."17 So is that a conflict in18 language? You're offering Council the19 recommendation to give them the option to20 approve or disapprove. Yet, this21 language here suggests that you really22 don't have the option, Council, because23 we've already decided on our end in our24 proceedings that these conditions must be25 34 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 met prior to us sending it to you, City2 Council.3
Councilwoman, if4 City Council received a recommendation to5 approve a transaction, let's say, and6 City Council looked at that and decided7 under Subsection (5) of the provision you8 were citing that the land could continue9 to be used as parkland, so it rejected10 the Commission's recommendation, then11 that condition would not be satisfied and12 the land could not be transferred. So it13 very much would be in Council's domain to14 make that decision. If it agrees that15 the land can no longer be used as outdoor16 public land and the other elements of17 Subsection (5), then it would satisfy18 that condition and, assuming all the19 other conditions are satisfied, then the20 transaction could go forward. And the21 land that is referred to in 15-102 is22 land that is held for outdoor park or23 recreation purposes, not all land but24 just that outdoor land.25 35 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021
Madam Chair,5 you may not be a lawyer, but you are a6 lawmaker, and you are meticulous in your7 due diligence here.8 Scenario: It's 111 years ago.9 We're talking about the Centennial10 District, a group of wide-eyed11 visionaries decide they want to do a12 Centennial celebration in Parkside.13 Let's assume this law was there. How14 would this scenario go? They put -- how15 many was it, Mark, over 100 structures?16
Two hundred19 and seventy structures up on parkland and20 brought one million people in to visit --21
Ten million2 people into that section of the park to3 learn about everything from the banana to4 hashish, as I recall. How would that5 kind of activity be reviewed by this new6 law? Would we -- I mean, let's go with7 that scenario.8
I think every9 situation is going to be analyzed10 differently, but in the scenario that you11 raised, it strikes me that it would be a12 permissible use of parkland, just looking13 at caselaw that we talked about earlier,14 which allows art galleries, museums,15 exhibit space, that kind of thing. So16 there wouldn't be a requirement for17 substitute land, but there would be an18 alternatives analysis requirement, which19 is basically saying here's why we want to20 use the parkland, in that case largely21 temporary basis, and here's what we want22 to do, and the other requirements of the23 alternatives analysis would need to be24 filed with the Commission.25 37 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021
So under2 your strict scrutiny of this proposal,3 which was the celebration of the 1004 years of our city, that would have made5 the grade if it was temporary? And it6 was, but it lasted a year.7 So if they requested to8 transfer that land, then it would be a9 little more stringent? Because they put10 a small city in a mile area. So I'm11 trying to understand and put my arms12 around it.13
In that14 scenario, let's say it's something that15 is considered a permissible park use, but16 the Commission might make a17 recommendation to City Council saying, We18 think the scope of it is too big. We19 think that it should be approved only if20 it were taken down in one year, and21 here's what the footprint should be.22 So our recommendation might23 give you some guidance as to what kind of24 approval might be best for the park use.25 38 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021
Okay. That2 would be an exaggerated circumstance, we3 had them once every hundred years or so.4 So okay.5 What I would understand too6 that is important for me, if they were7 trying to temporarily do it, that might8 be okay, but if we were trying to do it9 permanently, you'd meet it a little10 differently? Because that's like11 creating a neighborhood.12
No. There's13 no distinction in this ordinance. I14 think the alternatives analysis would15 look at things like traffic. Maybe not16 110 years ago did they have as much as17 they do now, but they would look at18 traffic, they would like at environmental19 impact. All those kinds of things is20 part of the alternative analysis that21 would come before the Commission for us22 to make our recommendations to you. So23 we might say it is a park use, it will24 remain a park use, but we recommend that25 39 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 this area of the district be -- is more2 sensitive, so you might want to consider3 this when you consider the bill.4
Finally, a5 lease versus transfer of payment. Leases6 are also reviewed, and so it doesn't7 matter the term of the lease?8 (Witnesses shaking head in the9 negative.)10
So every use11 will be examined that way.12 Well, I actually -- and this is13 the commentary part. It gives me some14 comfort that, A, the District15 Councilperson still maintains some input,16 Councilman Clarke, but also it gives me17 comfort that people who spend a lot more18 time than I ever will safeguarding this19 park get a chance to review it and make20 recommendations to us as to the best use21 or your view of the world.22 So I'm comfortable with that,23 Madam Chair. Thank you.24
Thank you25 40 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 very much, Councilman Jones.2 Councilman Clarke.3
Thank you.4 This is my personal view.5 Personally, I have an issue with the6 language that requires that we basically7 explain why we're doing the conveyance.8 My thought was, when we had this9 conversation about the process, that the10 recommendation that would come from the11 Commission would actually be the12 recommendation that we as Council13 reviewed. I did not anticipate that then14 we would be required to review that15 recommendation and then explain our16 position on the recommendation. I17 actually personally -- and some18 Councilmembers may not feel comfortable19 with this -- would not have a problem20 with the Commission's recommendation,21 because I agree, like Councilman Jones,22 that you all spend a lot more time and23 are a lot more committed to parkland in24 this particular issue than we are,25 41 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 because we're doing other things, as I2 know you are also, because you're not3 getting paid to do this.4 I personally wouldn't have a5 problem with having the recommendations6 as an exhibit or an appendix to the bill7 so it's within the language, because I8 understand that you want to have some9 documentation as it relates to what the10 Commission's work was, but I'm not sure11 that Councilmembers or myself thought12 that we would then have to list our own13 basis for why we would be moving14 parkland. I thought it was our15 responsibility to review the16 recommendations of the Commission, the17 staff, and based on that, we would then18 take an action, but not adding another19 step where we now have to come up with20 a --21
It would be22 possible, Councilman, if City Council23 were in agreement with the24 recommendations of the Commission to,25 42 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 counsel has told me, to simply adopt the2 Commission's recommendation, and that3 would serve to be the findings of4 Council. It wouldn't have to go through5 the whole process itself.6
Suppose we10 don't agree, which is probably not going11 to happen frequently or rarely at all,12 but, I mean, if we didn't agree, you're13 basically saying that then we have to, I14 guess, basically come up with our reason15 as to why we don't agree and why we're16 taking the action. I don't know if17 that's -- I'm being very honest, as you18 know, as I've always been with all of19 you. That's a step beyond what we kind20 of got Councilmembers to kind of go along21 with as it relates to the formulation of22 this process to establish criteria.23
I might24 add, regretfully, sometimes we have to25 43 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 sit here and look in a crystal ball for2 the next 10, 20 years. There's something3 called unintended consequences. So to4 the extent that it's humanly possible to5 anticipate those type of rare occasions,6 we need to anticipate as much as possible7 and put in place safeguards, if you will,8 for a possible circumstance like that,9 which is why now is the time for the10 discussion.11
A part of the12 thinking in having the Section 5 that13 you're referencing, Councilman, is, in a14 sense, a safeguard for Council, because15 if this were -- if a decision of Council16 to go forward with a conversion from park17 use to non-park use were to end up in the18 court system, this is the standard that a19 court would likely use in reviewing20 whether it was a legal conversion from21 park use to non-park use. So by having22 this in the record as to why or the23 finding that the original use was no24 longer practicable or that it's necessary25 44 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 for the public interest -- or "and" I2 should have said -- and there's no3 alternative, that helps bolster the4 evidentiary case for the City in case it5 were ever brought into court, somebody6 challenging what the City was doing.7
I got to8 tell you, if we did our business around9 here as it relates to speculating as to10 whether or not we were going to11 ultimately be challenged, we wouldn't get12 a lot done around here. I mean, to craft13 legislation -- I mean, we do a lot of14 legislation. So if every time we thought15 we were going to do something, we said,16 Well, you know, this could possibly be17 challenged somewhere in court down the18 line on a speculative process, a19 speculative transaction, you know, that's20 not what we do. I mean, we do it based21 on advice of counsel, based on our22 internal staff review.23 So that particular aspect of24 it, I think it's a stretch, frankly25 45 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 speaking. I'm just personally concerned2 about having the ability to be a3 Councilperson, to some degree, altered.4 I mean, at the end of the day, people5 decided that we should be here to make a6 decision. If it was a bad decision, then7 ultimately it will come back on us,8 probably in about two months.9 So I'm a little concerned about10 the scope of this proposal going a little11 beyond what I thought we had agreed on12 when we talked about the recommendation13 of the body. I mean, I'm real14 comfortable, as I say, with having that15 recommendation as a part of the bill;16 i.e., an exhibit or an addendum to the17 bill so the record reflects what the18 recommendation of the Commission was.19 But beyond that, I think it may require a20 little further conversation, because I21 know a couple of members of Council, I22 know them, because I know them very well,23 would have a little concern about24 including that in there.25 46 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021
Councilman,2 maybe I can give you a little bit of3 comfort. It seems there's only a few4 possible scenarios here. The first would5 be an ordinance comes to Council and the6 Commission has gone through this analysis7 and recommended for various reasons that8 it satisfies -- the use of the land is no9 longer practical, possible, et cetera,10 and City Council can agree and simply11 adopt those recommendations. If City12 Council disagreed, then presumably they13 wouldn't pass the ordinance to authorize14 the deal to go forward.15
Suppose16 they disagree and they want to pass the17 ordinance. Suppose they disagree with18 the recommendations. The recommendations19 say you shouldn't convey this bill, this20 parcel, and then they say, Well, we think21 for the greater good in our minds that we22 should do this.23
Well, Council24 could include a statement as simple as a25 47 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 finding that the continuation of the2 original use of the land as open park or3 recreation land is no longer practical or4 possible, and leave it at that. It could5 be as simple as that. If you're thinking6 that it has to be a lengthy analysis, it7 doesn't necessarily have to be.8
I just9 think that it's all based on10 interpretation of that individual, and11 that's why I'm a little unclear about12 whether or not we should go that other13 step. And I may ultimately get there.14 At this point as we sit here today, I'm a15 little uncomfortable about it. And, like16 I say, I can't speak for Councilmembers,17 but I do know of a couple of18 Councilmembers who would have a little19 concern about having to insert a20 provision that requires that there's an21 explanation as it relates to the passage22 of the bill beyond the public hearing and23 beyond ultimately their vote and their24 testimony.25 48 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 So that's pretty much it. I2 don't mean to get heavy-handed as it3 relates to this, because, as you know, I4 begged you all to do, to a degree, to do5 this and come up with standards.6 So I'm actually done.7
So we will8 push the pause button on that particular9 issue and continue with testimony so that10 we can actually get through this portion11 of the hearing.12 Thank you for your testimony13 and for the dialogue.14
The next17 panel up, if we could please invite up18 Lauren Bornfriend, Executive Director of19 the Philadelphia Parks Alliance; Laura20 Shell, Interim Executive Director of the21 Fairmount Park Conservancy. Please22 proceed to the witness table. And then23 after that will be Panel No. 3, Brian24 Glass and Robert Vance.25 49 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 (Witnesses approached witness2 table.)3
Welcome.4 State your name for the record and5 proceed with your testimony.6
Good7 afternoon. I am Lauren Bornfriend, the8 Executive Director of the Philadelphia9 Parks Alliance, and I would like to begin10 by thanking Councilwoman Reynolds Brown11 and Councilman O'Neill for introducing12 Bill No. 110002.13 The Parks Alliance has long14 advocated for the creation of guidelines15 concerning parkland protection and use.16 After considerable review and discussion,17 it is our pleasure to be here today in18 support of this bill as it was introduced19 on January 27th.20 The leadership of21 Councilmembers Reynolds Brown and Clarke,22 along with that of Mayor Nutter, has laid23 the groundwork for the creation and24 introduction of this legislation. This25 50 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 bill is the outgrowth of a broad-based2 reform initiative that has included3 robust dialogue between City Council, the4 Administration, the Commission on Parks5 and Recreation, Department staff,6 advocates and the people of Philadelphia.7 All have worked together8 through considerable challenges, as you9 well know, with a shared goal: maximize10 opportunities to improve parks and11 recreation for every citizen in every12 neighborhood of our city, while13 protecting the extraordinary legacy of14 our children.15 The Parks Alliance thanks the16 members of the Commission on Parks and17 Recreation for their dedication to18 protecting and improving Philadelphia's19 parks. Specifically, Deborah Wolf20 Goldstein and Nancy Goldenberg have put21 an enormous amount of time and effort22 into creating an ordinance that protects23 not only best practices but balances the24 input, experience and concerns of25 51 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 citizens, government officials, the2 City's Law Department, key stakeholders3 and citizens.4 The Parks Alliance urges the5 Committee on Parks and Recreation and6 Cultural Affairs to refer this bill to7 the Committee of the Whole, and we ask8 Council to support its timely passage.9 Thank you.10
Thank you11 very, very much for your testimony. And12 it is important to at any time celebrate13 where we've come from, and I do14 appreciate the fact that you and I15 started at -- that was, what, 2002, 2003,16 and there were many who believed that we17 would never, ever, ever, ever get to the18 point of a merger, but we did work19 through a lot of bumps and skinned knees20 and thoughts and ideas and debate over21 many, many, many, many meetings that most22 of the world would never know about. But23 I thank you for hanging in there with us,24 because we really did work through -- I25 52 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 mean, we dissected language in that bill2 even after we got it on paper, and the3 yield of that is that we're here today4 now looking forward.5 So thank you very, very much6 for your leadership on that as well,7 because that was important, too.8
You're10 welcome.11 Okay. This is your first time12 to these proceedings?13
Thank you. It's a18 pleasure to be here. The Fairmount Park19 Conservancy -- again, sorry, my name is20 Laura Shell, Interim Executive Director21 of the Fairmount Park Conservancy for22 about two more weeks and then our new23 permanent Executive Director begins.24 The Fairmount Park Conservancy25 53 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 wishes to express its support for this2 important Ordinance No. 110002. The3 ordinance's goal of no net loss of park4 and recreation land is clearly aligned5 with William Penn's original vision that6 Philadelphia be planned as a "green7 country towne." The Conservancy, founded8 in 2001 to support and enhance Fairmount9 Park, believes that the ordinance will10 protect our treasured park for the11 enjoyment of future generations. The12 ordinance demonstrates Philadelphia's13 commitment to protecting its open space,14 which provides critical and beloved15 recreational opportunities for our16 citizens, as well as important17 environmental benefits to the City.18 The alternatives analysis,19 public review and environmental impacts20 analysis mandated by the ordinance21 establishes an open, thoughtful process22 before any transfer of parkland may be23 considered. Furthermore, the substitute24 land requirement will ensure that the25 54 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 public's interest is protected and that2 the park will not diminish in size over3 time.4 We applaud the steadfast5 efforts of the Commission on Parks and6 Recreation in crafting this legislation7 and your leadership in its introduction.8 Thank you so much.9
We thank10 you very, very much.11 Councilman Jones, any questions12 for this witness or for these witnesses?13
Thank you,14 Madam Chair. I don't know if it's for15 these witnesses, but this particular16 provision calls for substitute land even17 when -- if at some point we decided18 collectively, jointly to allow a non-park19 use to happen and we would lose land,20 let's say -- I don't want to use the21 example of the cancer treatment center in22 O'Neill's district.23
But that's a good24 example.25 55 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021
I'll use it,2 then. But we would have had to find3 acreage somewhere else to put back into4 the parkland?5
So is adding7 the parkland also going to be8 scrutinized? Because there's probably9 some land we might not want in the system10 that may have some environmental11 challenges. Somebody wants to get rid of12 a couple of acres that they used to have13 something on, and that we wind up stuck14 with it and the clean-up bill.15 Are we going to look at that16 process and scrutinize that process as17 well?18
That's an19 excellent question, and actually the20 Commissioners are going to go back to the21 table once an ordinance is passed, this22 piece is passed, to create guidelines for23 acquisition of parkland so they're not24 stuck with things that they don't need or25 56 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 want.2
You know, I3 don't know if this is councilmanically4 correct, but I'm a freshman, so write it5 off to that. But, I mean, we would have6 to look long and hard if we were going to7 include the sinking homes in --8
-- Logan as11 a consideration for parkland because of12 some of the liability. And in my13 district, I have a street called Daggett14 Street and there were some problems15 because that was built on ash and some of16 the homes sunk. We'd have to -- that's17 in the Carroll Park area.18 We'd have to look at whether or19 not it is worth it to us as a20 municipality to take on certain21 liability. So I would hope that's the22 kind of thing that we consider.23
I think absolutely.24 I think part of it too, the City would25 57 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 want to make sure that the land that was2 the substitute land serves the3 appropriate park purpose. Perhaps it4 would be substituted for an environmental5 benefit if it had a significant woodland6 on it or stream on it, something like7 that. I think that's all part of the8 process.9
I think the10 guidelines will address all of this.11 I see the Commissioners have12 left.13 Yeah. And that was part of the14 Charter change, the Charter referendum,15 called for the creation of guidelines16 addressing acquisition. So it will be17 done.18
Just by21 way of context, Councilman Jones, that22 was one of the persistent, if you will,23 ongoing concerns raised throughout the24 entire process, I believe legitimate25 58 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 concern, raised throughout the entire2 discussion and dialogue over those many3 years around the merger. So to hear that4 that has not been -- it's not sitting on5 a shelf, but up for the look-see is6 encouraging.7 Councilman Clarke, anything8 else for these witnesses?9 COUNCILMAN CLARKE:10 Unfortunately, I did not hear the11 testimony. I was in the hall for a12 discussion with the earlier witnesses,13 but I just want to thank you all for your14 commitment, continued commitment. We15 will move this process.16
We'll end19 up in a common place at the end of the20 day.21
Ms. Shell,22 I wish you best wishes in your leadership23 there at the Conservancy.24
Thank you so much.25 59 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 We look forward to our new Executive2 Director working with you.3
If we7 could please invite to the witness table8 Brian Glass, Citizens for Pennsylvania's9 Future and Philadelphia Parks Alliance;10 Robert Vance, Friends of the Wissahickon;11 Linde Lauff, Friends of Pennypack Park;12 Frank Chance, Clark Park; and at some13 point when a seat empties out, Doris14 Gwaltney -- please correct me when you15 get to the witness table -- of Carroll16 Park Neighbors.17 (Witnesses approached witness18 table.)19
Welcome,20 all of you, to these proceedings. And21 Mr. Brian Glass, we'll start with you.22
Thank you. Good23 afternoon. My name is Brian Glass and24 I'm a senior attorney at PennFuture, a25 60 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 statewide public interest membership2 organization that works to create a just3 future where nature, communities and the4 economy thrive. At the request of and5 together with our partner, the6 Philadelphia Parks Alliance, PennFuture7 reviewed and commented on earlier8 iterations of the proposed ordinance9 that's before you today back when it was10 under consideration by the Commission on11 Parks and Recreation. PennFuture is12 pleased to support the bill that is under13 consideration by the Committee this14 afternoon.15 PennFuture believes that16 Philadelphia's outdoor park and17 recreation space has provided a number of18 economic, public health and environmental19 benefits to the City and its residents.20 For that reason, PennFuture believes that21 the City should aggressively safeguard22 these holdings.23 At the same time, PennFuture24 appreciates that strategic periodic25 61 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 conveyances of some of its holdings can2 result in an overall net benefit to the3 City, its residents and the park and4 recreational system as a whole. For that5 reason, PennFuture does not categorically6 oppose the conveyance of outdoor park and7 recreation spaces, provided it's done in8 a thoughtful and transparent manner.9 PennFuture believes that the proposed10 ordinance before you today will result in11 future conveyances that can meet this12 standard.13 The ordinance communicates a14 strong preference for protection by15 setting forth, as a general rule, that no16 land that the City owns or holds now or17 in the future as outdoor park or18 recreation land may be transferred or19 converted unless certain conditions are20 met. Those conditions, in turn, ensure21 that various impacts and alternatives are22 considered, that the public has an23 opportunity to be heard, that there is no24 net loss of outdoor park or recreation25 62 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 land and that there is full compliance2 with state laws governing the disposition3 of land entrusted to the public before4 outdoor park and recreation land can be5 conveyed.6 PennFuture believes that the7 proposed ordinance before you today8 strikes the right balance between9 protection and flexibility, and we urge10 you to move the bill out of Committee for11 consideration by the Council as a whole.12 Thank you.13
Please14 tell me, how old is Pennsylvania Future?15 Just give me some --16
We celebrated our17 tenth anniversary about a year and a half18 ago. So we're about 11 years old.19
We are statewide,22 but we have a Philadelphia office on23 Walnut Street.24
Good afternoon. My6 name is Robert Vance and I'm the7 President of the Board of Directors of8 the Friends of the Wissahickon. The9 Friends of the Wissahickon, which is also10 known as FOW, is the oldest and largest11 of the non-profit volunteer groups active12 in the Fairmount Park system. For over13 85 years, the Friends have been stewards14 of Wissahickon Valley Park, which is the15 beautiful northern stretch of Fairmount16 Park that should be familiar to most of17 you. Our members maintain and preserve18 trails and historic structures, care for19 native plant and animal species and20 protect the watershed.21 I am here today to add the22 voice of the FOW to the chorus of23 individuals and organizations calling for24 the passage of Bill No. 110002, the25 64 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 so-called Open Lands Ordinance. This2 legislation is long overdue. Fairmount3 Park is a diamond among the many gems4 that comprise Philadelphia, and it is5 worthy of the protection called for in6 this legislation.7 All Philadelphians deserve8 safe, clean, green and adequate park and9 recreation areas. This legislation10 furthers that goal by ensuring that the11 transfer or conversion of open space is12 the exception rather than the rule. It13 also makes clear that public14 participation is paramount by ensuring15 that the public has a meaningful16 opportunity to be heard on any proposed17 transfer or conversion of parkland. And18 the FOW is particularly pleased that the19 legislation requires a proposed20 transferee of parkland to provide to the21 Commission on Parks and Recreation and to22 City Council a written alternatives23 analysis containing a description of the24 environmental impact of the proposed25 65 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 transfer on storm water management,2 natural habitat, canopy preservation and3 noise, light and water pollution.4 The FOW has a long history of5 work in these areas, and this legislation6 will ensure that the work of FOW and7 other organizations and individuals in8 these areas and the care, maintenance and9 preservation of parkland has not been and10 will not be in vain.11 So the Friends of the12 Wissahickon would like to thank the13 Philadelphia Parks Alliance for their14 leadership on this issue, Councilwoman15 Reynolds Brown and Councilman O'Neill for16 introducing the legislation, all of the17 members of the Committee on Parks,18 Recreation and Cultural Affairs for their19 leadership in crafting this legislation.20 We urge Council to pass Bill No. 11000221 as introduced.22 Thank you.23
Thank you24 very much for your testimony.25 66 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 Congratulations on your leadership there.2 Let me seize the moment and ask3 you, might you have any comment or4 perspective on the view, concern raised5 by Councilman Clarke? I'm interested6 purely because you're a lawyer and7 because of your rich involvement with8 Friends of the Wissahickon.9
If you're talking10 about the issue of the findings, whether11 Council makes findings, yeah, I think the12 Solicitor pretty much addressed that by13 stating that you have options. If you14 agree with the recommendation from the15 Commission, then the Council can just16 adopt the findings of the Commission. If17 you disagree with the recommendation of18 the Commission, then you can reject them19 and not pass the ordinance, and if you20 disagree with the recommendation, for21 example, that the property not be sold22 but Council still wants to go ahead and23 sell the property, it's not a complicated24 process to make legislative findings,25 67 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 which can be as simple as if the2 Fairmount Park -- if the Commission says3 A, but Council believes B, then that's4 your finding, that it's B rather than A.5 So I understand the6 Councilman's concern about standards and7 what City Council members are going to be8 doing and voting on these ordinances as9 they come up, but I think it's an issue10 that can be resolved relatively simply.11
I think in14 the history of my tenure here, which is15 very brief, I've never disagreed with my16 colleague ever, and so this is like a17 first for me, but I kind of get -- I18 actually do -- the counterbalance of what19 this legislation intends to do. Speaking20 on behalf of the 4th District, which has21 the most parkland of any district in it,22 I'm keenly aware of what the consequences23 could be in places like Wissahickon and24 want to make sure that two sets of eyes,25 68 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 four sets of eyes, ten sets of eyes2 review what we do, because we act in3 haste, we will repent in our leisure, as4 one great Councilperson said.5 So I don't mind -- if I have a6 position, I don't mind making it public7 and saying why I think this is a higher8 and best use, and I don't mind arguing9 from time to time with others who may10 have a contrary view. But I think it's11 very important for us to have that open12 dialogue so that people justify their13 positions or change their minds in some14 cases. So, I mean, that's just where I'm15 at.16
I agree. I think17 the history of this legislation and the18 meetings and the back and forth certainly19 demonstrate to Council that the issue of20 transferring parkland is very important21 to all of the citizens of Philadelphia22 and it's important that you have a public23 dialogue about those issues as they come24 up. I think that's very important. So I25 69 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 agree with Councilman Jones 100 percent.2
I need to3 say that in front of my colleague,4 because -- I said this is the first time,5 Councilman, that I had a contrary view6 possibly between you and -- I've been7 here a short amount of time, but this is8 like the first, but it's not -- it's just9 in the philosophy and view of how that10 particular aspect of this legislation11 goes. And I was saying that I felt12 comfortable with justifying my position,13 even if it's in contradiction to the14 Commission, because you guys spend a lot15 of time on it, I spend a lot of time in16 my district, and sometimes those things17 may be in conflict. But it is good to18 have the dialogue, because if we act too19 quickly -- I swear I remember when I was20 at the Commerce Department, they wanted21 to put a high Indianapolis-style race in22 the park. I remember that. I remember23 the proposal. I remember what it was24 going to bring in to the City. And we25 70 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 were cash-strapped then. We're2 cash-trapped now, and we'll probably3 sometime in the future be cash-strapped4 again and somebody will come up with some5 cockamamy idea to sell, lease to some6 enterprise, and I think that dialogue7 right then should be encouraged and at8 least memorialized in a way so that at9 the end of the day, when something -- and10 as it often does -- goes wrong, we can11 say, Well, what was your thought process12 on this. And I just feel comfortable13 with it.14 Thank you, Madam Chair.15
Thank you,18 Madam Chair.19 Thank you, Councilman.20 Let me be clear. The issue21 that is before us today as it relates to22 what Council must or shall insert in an23 ordinance is a broader issue, and I24 probably didn't make it clear when I had25 71 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 the earlier conversation, because we were2 talking about a particular issue as it3 relates to park conveyance.4 Council has its set of rules in5 terms of the way we do things. We have a6 certain requirement for the passage of7 bills and you have a requirement for8 super majority. So there are a number of9 things we do as a Council. If you now10 say -- and this is actually a change in11 process, Council change in process, which12 is being recommended in terms of13 inserting language that explains14 legislation. It goes way beyond just15 simply doing this for this particular16 proposal. Every property that Council17 disposes of beyond park, there will then18 be a request to explain that. Every19 contract that Council does as it relates20 to a lease or a sale of land beyond21 parkland will then have to -- people will22 say you should have an explanation in23 that.24 And I'm not necessarily opposed25 72 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 to that, but what I'm saying to you2 today, that something of that magnitude3 when you are now changing the rules of4 Council, which is essentially what this5 would do in terms of how you pass6 legislation, require explanations for the7 actions of City Council, will require a8 broader discussion among Councilmembers.9 That's my concern, because you're setting10 a precedent when you're establishing11 legislation that requires that Council12 insert an explanation as to why they have13 taken legislative action. That's the14 issue. And I didn't get into that15 earlier, because I wasn't sure that that16 was the intent of the people who were17 involved in this particular process, but18 I got to tell you that it's a little19 broader than simply a conveyance of20 parkland, because you're setting a21 precedent that will then require every22 action that Council takes, the23 explanation be inserted in legislation.24 And I just think that that has to be a25 73 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 much broader discussion among2 Councilmembers. So that's my issue.3
Thank you,4 Councilman Clarke. And that simply again5 speaks to you're a seasoned Councilmember6 in that way and as a former Commissioner.7 So the backdrop and the big picture is8 extremely instructive. Thank you very9 much.10 Okay. Please proceed.11
Good afternoon.12 I'm Linde Lauff and as President, I13 represent approximately 2,000 members of14 the Friends of Pennypack Park in15 Northeast Philadelphia. I'm here to ask16 the Committee on Parks, Recreation and17 Cultural Affairs to approve Bill No.18 110002 concerning parks and outdoor19 spaces.20 Our parks are valued assets to21 Northeast residents. They're our22 baseball and soccer fields, bicycle and23 horse trails, picnic areas and24 educational facilities. This is where we25 74 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 walk our pets, meet our friends, bring2 our visitors and often establish new3 friendships. Our parks are where local4 residents spend countless hours of5 leisure time. Our members support the6 vision of preserving these spaces for the7 next generation and for many more to8 come.9 We would like to thank10 Councilmembers Reynolds Brown and O'Neill11 for introducing this legislation and the12 work of the new Commission on Parks and13 Recreation, as well as staff, friends14 groups and many other park supporters to15 create legislation that will help protect16 our parks as demonstrated -- excuse me;17 has demonstrated that we can work18 together. We look forward towards the19 next phase of protecting our open spaces.20 In closing, the Friends of21 Pennypack Park support this legislation22 and urge that the Committee of Parks,23 Recreation and Cultural Affairs approve24 this passage.25 75 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 Thank you.2
Thank you3 for your testimony.4 We thank all of you for your5 testimony, and we would now like to6 invite up Frank Chance of Clark Park and7 Doris Gwaltney of Carroll Park Neighbors.8 (Witnesses approached witness9 table.)10
Good11 afternoon. Welcome to these proceedings.12 Mr. Chance, proceed with your13 testimony.14
Good afternoon.15 My name is Frank Chance. I'm a resident16 of West Philadelphia and former President17 of the Friends of Clark Park. Thank you18 for offering me the opportunity to speak19 on behalf of the Parks and Open Lands20 Protection Ordinance.21 I've been a resident of the22 University City section of West23 Philadelphia for more than 20 years,24 during which time I have come to greatly25 76 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 value and appreciate the parks and open2 spaces of our city. As a volunteer, I3 have helped with maintenance and4 administration of parks and park5 facilities in the former Fairmount Park6 system, as well as in the Recreation7 Department parks, particularly in Clark8 Park near my home.9 One of the first actions of the10 newly united Parks and Recreation11 Commission has been to propose the Parks12 and Open Land Protection Ordinance, Bill13 No. 110002. This ordinance has been14 carefully prepared, and the Commission15 has allowed significant public input16 during the preparation process, resulting17 in a strong ordinance that outlines a18 public process for the transfer of land19 into or out of the park system. This20 process will protect our parks by making21 such transfers exceptional rather than22 routine and will preserve the land for23 future generations of park users.24 The Friends of Clark Park25 77 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 strongly support the ordinance. We also2 wish to recognize the efforts of the3 Philadelphia Parks Alliance during the4 process of preparing this ordinance and5 also commend the Parks and Recreation6 Commission for their work in preparing7 it.8 Thank you.9
Thank you10 very, very much, Mr. Chance.11 Good afternoon.12
Good afternoon.13 Thank you, Madam Chair, members of14 Council. I am Doris Gwaltney. I'm the15 President of the Carroll Park Neighbors16 and I'm also a Board member of the17 Philadelphia Parks Alliance.18 The Carroll Park Neighbors19 Advisory Council supports Bill No. 11000220 as it was introduced.21 Sufficient time and discussion22 has been given to this issue of park and23 recreation land protection, and we24 believe that this bill, as introduced by25 78 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 Councilmembers Reynolds Brown and2 O'Neill, will suffice.3 Thank you.4
Thank you5 for your testimony.6 The City Council Committee on7 Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs8 will recess for five minutes.9 (Short recess.)10
That11 concludes testimony on Bill No. 110002.12 This concludes our public hearing. We13 will now move into a public meeting.14 And I would like to call on15 Councilman Jones to make a motion to16 adopt the amendment.17
Thank you,18 Madam Chair. I make a motion to adopt19 the amendment to Bill No. 110002.20 (Duly seconded.)21
All25 79 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 opposed?2 (No response.)3
I will now4 ask Councilman Jones to make a motion to5 adopt the bill, as amended.6
Thank you,7 Madam Chair. I make a motion to adopt,8 as amended, Bill No. 110002 with a9 favorable recommendation, thus allowing10 the first reading at our next scheduled11 meeting.12 (Duly seconded.)13
None.20 Therefore, Bill No. 110002, as amended,21 will be reported out of this Committee22 with a favorable recommendation and23 further recommended that the rules of24 Council be suspended so as to permit25 80 3/9/11 - PARKS - BILL 1100021 first reading at our next scheduled2 session of City Council.3 This concludes the meeting of4 the Committee on Parks, Recreation and5 Cultural Affairs. We will want to thank6 all of you for your good work and we7 thank you for your attendance. Thank you8 very much.9 (Applause.)10 (Committee on Parks, Recreation11 and Cultural Affairs concluded at 3:2012 p.m.)13 - - -14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 81 1 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 March 9, 2011, and that7 this is a true and correct transcript of same.8 9 10 11 12 --------------------13 MICHELE L. MURPHY14 RPR-Notary Public15 16 17 18 (The foregoing certification of this19 transcript does not apply to any reproduction20 of the same by any means, unless under the21 direct control and/or supervision of the22 certifying reporter.)23 24 25