Committee Hearing, November 1, 2011

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON RULES3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, November 1, 20117 10:10 a.m. PRESENT:9 COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE10 COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR.11 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER12 COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR.13 BILL 110341 - An ordinance amending Chapter 9-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled15 "Service and Other Businesses," by adding a new Section regulating an employer's treatment16 of gratuities left by patrons for employees... BILL 110563 - An ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and18 Planning," by amending Section 14-1604, entitled "Outdoor Advertising and19 Non-Accessory Advertising Controls"... 20 BILL 110670 - An ordinance amending the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the21 zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Rodman22 Street, Juniper Street, South Street and Broad Street...23 - - -24 25 2 1

Can we have2 your attention, ladies and gentlemen. We3 now have a quorum so we can begin the4 Rules Committee hearing.5 Please take a seat and refrain6 from your conversation.7 We have a quorum today for the8 Rules Committee with Councilmembers9 Rizzo, Greenlee, Goode, Councilwoman10 Miller and Councilman DiCicco.11 The first bill for today is12 Bill No. 110341, an ordinance amending13 Chapter 9-600 of The Philadelphia Code,14 entitled "Service and Other Businesses,"15 by adding a new Section regulating an16 employer's treatment of gratuities left17 by patrons for employees, including, but18 not limited to, a requirement that all19 gratuities be paid over to employees20 without deduction, including, in the case21 of a gratuity paid by credit card, any22 deduction for credit card processing23 fees; providing penalties for violations;24 and providing for a private right of25 3 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 action for employees aggrieved by2 violations of the Section; all under3 certain terms and conditions.4 Kevin Dow, please.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7

Good8 morning. Please identify yourself for9 the record.10

Good morning,11 Councilman Kenney, members of the Rules12 Committee. Thank you for the opportunity13 to testify today. My name is Kevin Dow14 and I am the Chief Operating Officer for15 the City of Philadelphia's Commerce16 Department. I am here to testify -- to17 provide testimony in support of Bill No.18 110341, which was introduced by19 Councilman Kenney and amends Chapter20 9-600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled21 "Service and Other Businesses."22 The proposed legislation would23 prohibit any employer from passing on24 fees and/or costs associated with credit25 4 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 card transactions to employees. Without2 this protection, fees charged by credit3 card companies for any transaction can be4 passed along to employees. For example,5 customers who include gratuities for good6 service on a credit card desire those7 gratuities to go to the employee who8 rendered the service. They do not9 anticipate that part of that gratuity10 will go to the credit card fee that the11 employer pays. While I do not believe12 this is a widespread practice, permitting13 such a pass-through could have14 significant implications to the employees15 of restaurants; in particular, their16 service staff, who rely on gratuities as17 an important part of their compensation.18 Although the Administration19 supports this bill and Councilman20 Kenney's efforts to protect employees,21 particularly waiters and waitresses, from22 employers trying to pass along the cost23 of doing business, we must recognize that24 these businesses are the engine for25 5 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Philadelphia's economic and cultural2 vitality which have provided career3 opportunities for many Philadelphia4 residents. Over the past decade, the5 hospitality industry has proven to be a6 critical economic engine for7 Philadelphia, creating thousands of new8 hotel and restaurant jobs. We need to9 continue to support and enhance the10 City's ability to remain a place of11 choice for this key industry. While we12 applaud these businesses for their13 commitment in doing business in14 Philadelphia, we must also protect the15 workforce that has helped to drive16 Philadelphia's success, a diverse group17 of dedicated employees who work day in18 and day out in service positions that19 impact everyone's daily lives. In most20 cases, the typical employee in this type21 of employment may hold multiple part-time22 jobs, could have limited health benefits,23 could be just entering the workforce as a24 student and is simply trying to make ends25 6 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 meet.2 For the foregoing reasons, we3 support the passage of this legislation.4 Thank you again for the5 opportunity to testify today. I'm happy6 to answer any questions you may have.7

Thank you8 for your testimony, and thank you for9 your support for the bill. I think it's10 important for the record to reflect that11 there is a way around this for an12 employer. Under federal law, you can13 deduct credit card fees from tips if you14 pay the federal minimum wage. You can't15 pay somebody 2.87 an hour and then take16 their tips, too. If you want to pay them17 the federal minimum wage and then do the18 deduction of the tips, the federal law19 allows that to happen, but having it both20 ways seems to be a bit unfair. But I do21 appreciate the Administration's support22 of the bill.23 Councilman Goode.24

Good25 7 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 morning, Mr. Dow. I just wanted to say2 that was excellent testimony. I want to3 congratulate the Administration on its4 balanced approach to economic growth.5

Thank you.6

Thank you7 very much.8 Any other questions for9 Mr. Dow?10 (No response.)11

Let the12 record reflect the presence of13 Councilmember Clarke on the Committee.14 Thank you very much for your15 testimony.16

Thank you.17

Fabricio18 Rodriguez, Andrea Lemoins and Morgan19 Malachi.20 (Witnesses approached witness21 table.)22

Whoever23 would like to start, please identify24 yourself for the record and proceed.25 8 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

Thank you for2 your time, Council. My name is Fabricio3 Rodriguez and I am the Co-Coordinator for4 the Restaurant Opportunities Center.5 There are tens of thousands of6 workers in our city that rely on tips to7 make a living. The tip minimum wage, as8 Councilman Kenney pointed out, is $2.839 an hour in the State of Pennsylvania.10 The Bureau of Labor Statistics reports11 that servers in our city make only12 $14,000 a year. These workers need their13 tips. It's simply unethical and unfair14 for an employer to take any portion of a15 tip intended for a worker and use it to16 cover business expenses. It's no17 different than someone walking into a18 restaurant, taking a tip, stealing a tip19 off someone else's table and using it to20 pay for a portion of their meal. The tip21 was intended for the worker. They need22 those wages. It's nothing short of wage23 theft to have those wages go to anyone24 other than those workers.25 9 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 So we really hope that you will2 support Councilman Kenney's bill. This3 comes along at a really important time4 for our city's workforce. Please support5 it and vote it out of Committee.6 Thank you.7

Thank you8 for your testimony.9 Please, whoever is next,10 identify yourself for the record.11

Good morning,12 Committee.13

Good14 morning.15

My name is Andrea16 Lemoins. I'm the Co-Coordinator of the17 Restaurant Opportunities Center. I work18 with Fabricio. We are a non-profit19 organization focused on creating a20 sustainable and profitable restaurant21 industry. I am here to testify in22 support of the tip protection bill23 initiated by Councilman Kenney.24 I'd first like to say that our25 10 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 organization takes a holistic approach to2 improving working conditions in the3 restaurant industry. We work with owners4 and workers in order to create and5 maintain equitable and professional6 business models. Philly ROC currently7 partners with the owners of Fergie's Pub8 and the General Manager of El Fuego. We9 strive to provide restaurant owners with10 resources and trainings that help them11 succeed in the industry. Philly ROC has12 built relationships with OSHA, the13 Enterprise Center and has reached out to14 the City of Philadelphia's Office of15 Business Services to help us provide16 resources for business owners. We also17 provide free professional development18 training for restaurant workers. We19 currently offer a Front of the House20 course that teaches fine dining service21 skills and English as a Second Language22 course to help immigrant workers23 communicate better on the job.24 As all of you know, the food25 11 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 service industry has grown during the2 recession. However, most of these3 low-wage jobs -- most of these jobs are4 low wages with little or no benefits.5 Even though our state has a tip credit6 law which requires an employer to ensure7 that workers are paid at or within 508 cents of minimum wage, they do not9 receive an adequate amount in tips. Most10 of the restaurant workers have never even11 heard of this and many are never paid the12 difference. According to a recent13 summary compiled by the Bureau of Labor14 Statistics, food preparation and service15 jobs represent half of the lowest paid16 jobs in our country. With all this said,17 wage theft is one of the biggest problems18 faced by restaurant workers nationwide.19 In 2007, the Responsible20 Restaurant Act was passed in New York21 City. This bill was in response to22 industrywide trends that showed that23 restaurants were cutting costs by24 violating basic employment laws, that25 12 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 many paid less than minimum wage and did2 not pay their workers overtime. Do not3 doubt that these same issues are also4 prevalent in Philadelphia.5 We estimate that 25 to 306 percent of Philadelphia restaurant owners7 take credit card fees out of workers'8 tips. Many of our members stated that9 they were not aware of the practice at10 their job until they had worked there for11 about a month or so. They stated that12 their fellow co-workers were aware of13 what was going on, but they were scared14 to talk about it for fear of being fired15 or reprimanded. About half of the16 restaurants that practice this type of17 wage theft are small mom-and-pop places18 that want to provide these services of19 using credit cards, but do not want to20 pay the fees themselves. The other half21 belong to one of the most powerful22 restaurant owners in Philadelphia. If23 the most powerful restaurant owner in24 Philadelphia can steal their wages and25 13 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 get away with it, what's to stop this2 practice from becoming more widespread?3 And that's basically what most restaurant4 workers/servers are scared of, that it's5 become a more widespread practice.6 This bill will not impact the7 majority of restaurant owners in our8 city. If anything, it will create a fair9 playing field for those who respect their10 workers and their rights to fair pay.11 Councilman Goode said a few weeks ago12 that we should not have to choose between13 being pro worker and being pro business.14 It's a false choice. I agree, and I hope15 that your Committee members agree as16 well.17 Thank you.18

Thank you19 for your testimony.20 Please identify yourself for21 the record and proceed.22

Hello. 1 industry. I have been a chef in2 Philadelphia's restaurants since I was 183 years old. 7 In my years in the industry, I8 have been a victim of many discriminatory9 and formidable circumstances. I quickly10 discovered one never becomes a chef in11 hopes of becoming rich, but rather12 struggles for secure employment. Even in13 the best restaurants of the City, they14 often offer paltry wages with no benefits15 or long-term job security. 19 Job security in the restaurant20 industry is non-existent unless you work21 for a hospital or hotel. The competition22 for these positions is immense, making23 them difficult to obtain. 6 Due to the At-Will Employment7 legislation, they have the ability to8 arbitrarily fire workers and discriminate9 against them with impunity. The10 employers have no vested interest in11 treating their employees with fairness12 and dignity. 16 This past year I was a line17 cook at Cantina Feliz in Fort Washington,18 PA. Where I was employed, I discovered19 that my Mexican immigrant co-workers were20 being cheated out of their overtime21 wages. 1 Little Treehouse in Chestnut Hill for2 five months as a kitchen manager. 5 While attempting to get insurance6 information from the Little Treehouse to7 settle the hospital bill, I was fired on8 the phone by the General Manager of the9 Treehouse. An hour later I was rehired10 by the owner. Regardless of the injury11 to my arm, I returned to work dutifully12 to work in order to do whatever light13 duty I was able to do. I received no14 extra assistance from my employer, even15 after making them aware of my16 limitations. 21 I remained at work, though,22 throughout the stresses it placed on me23 both physically and mentally. 1 fired by the Little Treehouse. The2 management stated that I was being fired3 for failing to prepare cookies, which4 would have been impossible due to my5 injury. They also stated that I was not6 a good fit. 9 I was and still am alarmed by10 the discriminatory nature of their11 comments. These incidents have left me12 in a position where I cannot seek new13 employment due to my injury. 21 This is why I am here today. 1 wayside. 52 million people work in the food service3 industry, with profits to the economy4 totalling in the trillions. Restaurant5 workers deserve to have their profession6 protected by the government that is7 elected to represent them. 10 I believe that this tip11 protection bill will ensure that12 restaurant workers who toil for long and13 hard hours are given 100 percent of their14 tips. 2

Thank you3 very much for your testimony.4 I want to give you a little5 history of how we got here. I worked6 halfway through high school and all the7 way through college in the restaurant8 industry and worked as a dishwasher and a9 busboy and a waiter and finally tended10 bar. Those folks that I worked with --11 first of all, the houses that I worked in12 tipped us out that night, even on the13 credit cards. The people that I worked14 for as a busboy at the time were some of15 the most generous people, hard-working16 and generous people that I ever worked17 for. I worked at the Stadium Club18 Restaurant and a little restaurant called19 Luigi's right around South Street. They20 were all hard-working folks, but they21 were very generous in the way they22 treated the people who worked for them,23 which is what I did as a busboy.24 The other thing I learned is25 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 that when I learned about this 3 percent,2 to percent withholding, I also3 learned that some of these restaurants4 will hold the tips for an entire month;5 therefore, having their bank account get6 the interest on it as opposed to in that7 person's hand.8 So that's part of this bill9 also, is that they have to pay the tips10 out no later than the next payday. I11 would like they would do it that night12 would be nice, but if they don't do it13 that night, at least by the next payday.14 And, again, the reason why this is so15 outrageous is, you can't pay somebody16 under $3 an hour and then take their tip17 money or a portion of it to pay your18 bills. So, again, if they paid the19 federal minimum wage, we wouldn't be20 sitting here talking about this. They21 could take whatever they want.22 So I'd just like to ask if23 anyone here has any questions for these24 witnesses.25 21 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Councilman Rizzo.2

I just want3 to ask, are debit cards exempt from this?4 There's no issue with a debit card?5

Anything6 that's paid in plastic and tipped in7 plastic is theirs.8

If you use a9 debit card instead of a credit card,10 would it --11

Yes. The12 same thing would apply. I don't think13 there is a charge in debit card.14

I don't15 know.16

I don't17 think a debit card charges. But any cost18 of doing the transaction is borne by the19 employer, not the employee in any type of20 plastic.21

So if a22 debit card would do what a credit card23 does, it's in there?24

Correct.25 22 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Thank you very much for your2 testimony.3 Councilwoman Brown.4

I didn't5 know for sure that there's some debit6 cards where when you use your debit card,7 the consumer is charged.8

Right.9 Correct. And if you use your debit card10 in a bank that's not your bank, they11 charge you $2, $3, whatever.12

That's13 right.14

Thank you.15 Tekle Gebrenednil and PathWays16 PA. Is someone from PathWays? Please17 come forward.18 (Witnesses approached witness19 table.)20

Good21 morning, sir. Please identify yourself.22

Yes. Good morning.23 My name is Ronald Brant. I'm with the24 Taxi Workers Alliance of Pennsylvania.25 23 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 I'm here for one of the taxi drivers,2 Tekle Gebrenednil. I'm here just to give3 witness of how this also affects taxicab4 drivers in the City.5 As you know, taxi drivers in6 the City are working 12 to 16 hours a7 day, six to seven days a week. A Parking8 Authority survey said that the taxi9 drivers are making $4.27 per hour. So10 with the implementation of credit cards11 in the taxicabs, taxi drivers also are12 losing their tips and their toll money13 for this, and we think that this bill14 would also benefit the 6,000 drivers15 within the City.16

Thank you.17 Is that -- I mean, you can't speak for18 every taxi driver. Is that one of the19 reasons why taxi drivers are so reluctant20 to let people use credit cards, because21 they realize they're going to --22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Machines23 aren't working.24

Machines25 24 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 aren't working? Oh, that one.2 No. Honestly --3

Honestly, yes.4 That's exactly the reason why taxi5 drivers are paying -- like you're talking6 about maybe or percent. Taxi drivers7 are paying between and percent for8 these credit card transactions. And then9 also, like you said, they take out -- to10 take this money out of their tip is11 really deplorable.12

Oh, I agree13 with you, but I'm wondering if this were14 applied to the taxi industry to15 straighten that problem out, would taxi16 drivers be more accepting of people using17 credit cards because they're not losing18 any money?19

Right. Yes, they20 would be more willing to do it.21

Thank you.22 Please identify yourself for23 the record.24

My name is25 25 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Marianne Bellesorte. I am the Senior2 Director of Policy at PathWays PA.3 Just getting back to the point4 that you just made, Councilman Kenney. I5 know that I've been going to an6 establishment that has stopped accepting7 any tips on credit cards, and that made8 me have to actually go out to an ATM the9 first time that happened to get a tip for10 them. So I know that would make a big11 difference in my patronizing them12 further.13 PathWays PA would like to14 commend the Committee on Rules for15 holding this hearing to prevent deducting16 credit card fees from tips given to17 workers. We are perhaps best known to18 you for publishing the self-sufficiency19 standard of Pennsylvania. This standard20 uses verifiable government data to create21 a bare-bones budget for families in every22 county in the state.23 In the latest edition of The24 Standard, which was released on May 20th25 26 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 of 2010, we show that a single adult in2 Philadelphia needs to earn $10.13 per3 hour, or $21,392, in order to make ends4 meet. If that adult is supporting even5 one child, earnings need to increase by6 between $3 and $9 per hour, or between7 $7,000 and $20,000 in one year, in order8 to support that family.9 We've already heard some of the10 numbers around the wages that tipped11 workers are earning in Philadelphia, but12 let me just add that many of the workers13 who will be affected by this bill are14 already earning below the15 self-sufficiency standard. According to16 the BLS, waiters and waitresses in17 Philadelphia are earning a median wage of18 $9.54 per hour, which is about 59 cents19 less than the standard for a single adult20 and more than $3 less for what a family21 of one adult and one teenage child needs22 to make ends meet. Bartenders earn a23 median of $10.58 per hour, which, again,24 is much less than what someone would need25 27 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 to support a family. I've also listed a2 number of other tip positions that are3 below the standard in one way or another.4 Even before this recession, one5 in every five households in Pennsylvania6 and one in every four households in7 Philadelphia were struggling to reach the8 standard. Families with householders in9 food preparation/serving industries were10 the third most likely statewide to live11 below self-sufficiency. As you all know,12 any loss of income can bring dire13 consequences to a family, as they can14 result in the loss of healthcare,15 electricity, heat, access to good food16 and housing.17 When making decisions about18 this bill, we hope you'll take into19 account the incomes that families need to20 make ends meet and the fact that any21 deduction of that income, no matter how22 small, could be the difference between23 purchasing food, medication or other24 basic needs to sustain the family and our25 28 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 economy.2 Thank you.3

Thank you4 for your testimony.5 Any questions for these6 witnesses?7 (No response.)8

Seeing9 none, we thank you for your attendance10 today.11 Is there anyone else to testify12 on this bill?13 (No response.)14

Seeing15 none, we will now move to Bill No.16 110670, which is an ordinance amending17 the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing18 the zoning designations of certain areas19 of land located within an area bounded by20 Rodman Street, Juniper Street, South21 Street, Broad Street; and amending Title22 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled23 "Zoning and Planning," by amending24 various provisions exclusively with25 29 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 regard to the area bounded by Rodman2 Street, Juniper Street, South Street and3 Broad Street, in particular, Section4 14-305, entitled "C-4" Commercial and5 "C-5" Commercial District, Section6 14-1402, regarding Parking in Residential7 Districts, and Section 14-1607, regarding8 Special Controls for the Center City9 Commercial Area; all under certain terms10 and conditions.11 (Witnesses approached witness12 table.)13

Whoever14 would like to start, please identify15 yourself for the record.16

Good morning,17 Councilman Kenney and members of the18 Rules Committee. I am William Kramer,19 Division Director of the Development20 Planning Division of the Philadelphia21 City Planning Commission. I am here to22 testify on Bill No. 110670, which was23 introduced by Councilmember DiCicco24 October 6, 2011.25 30 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Bill No. 110670 amends the2 Philadelphia Zoning Maps and certain3 sections of the Philadelphia Zoning Code4 in order to facilitate a development5 located within an area bounded by Rodman6 Street, Juniper Street, South Street and7 Broad Street. It proposes to rezone the8 entire development site to a single9 zoning designation of "C-4" Commercial10 from the existing partly "C-4" Commercial11 and partly "R-10" Residential12 designations. The bill will also amend13 Section 14-305, entitled "C-4" Commercial14 and "C-5" Commercial District, to allow15 for the construction of an accessory16 below-grade garage, also providing relief17 from horizontal distance requirements in18 any rear, side yards or open courts, to19 allow for a base floor area ratio of 57520 percent of the area of the lot and also21 allowing for a reduction in the size of22 required loading spaces to a minimum size23 of 15 feet by 30 feet. Bill No. 11067024 will also adjust the amount of parking25 31 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 required for this proposal to a ratio of2 three spaces for every ten units.3 Lastly, this bill will amend Section4 14-1607 of The Philadelphia Code,5 regarding special controls for the Center6 City Commercial Area, to allow for a7 number of different uses for this8 development, including restaurants,9 cafes, coffee shops and other similar10 establishments such as retail sale of11 groceries, delicatessen goods and for the12 retail sale and/or preparation of bakery13 items.14 The conditions of this15 legislation also require the Philadelphia16 City Planning Commission to approve a17 plan of development for this site and18 further provides a Sunset Provision under19 which the provisions of this bill will20 lapse on December 15th, 2016 unless21 certain approvals are obtained.22 The project developer is Carl23 Dranoff, and he proposes to construct a24 seven-story mixed-use building facing25 32 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 both Broad Street and South Streets.2 Retail commercial space will be provided3 along Broad Street, and underground4 parking will be provided for the5 residential units.6 The Philadelphia City Planning7 Commission has reviewed this project8 proposal as an information-only item at9 their meeting of October 18th, 2011 and10 will review this bill at their upcoming11 November meeting. It is expected that at12 the meeting that the requested approval13 of the proposed plan of development will14 be considered, both of which will most15 likely have a staff recommendation of16 approval.17 This concludes my testimony. I18 appreciate the opportunity to appear and19 would be happy to answer any questions20 you may have. With me is Deputy Mayor21 Greenberger, who also has been present at22 many of the meetings, to help answer any23 questions you may have.24

Please25 33 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 identify yourself for the record. You2 have no testimony?3 DEPUTY

I4 don't have prepared testimony.5

Is anyone6 else at the table offering testimony?7 Mr. Kelsen, please.8 Mr. Kramer, could you9 relinquish that chair for the next10 witness.11

Absolutely.12

Thank you.13 Please identify yourself for14 the record.15

Good morning,16 Councilman Kenney. Peter Kelsen on17 behalf of Dranoff Properties. 19 110670. With me is Carl Dranoff, the20 developer, and Mr. 22 Let me give a little23 background, if I could, members of the24 Committee. 1 today is supportive of a Philadelphia2 Industrial Development Corporation3 sponsored project. 5 It was issued by PIDC in November of6 2010. That RFP called for development of7 the property to include a mixture of8 uses, including residential, retail and9 parking. 13 In terms of location and14 context, the subject property is located15 on the block bounded by Broad Street,16 Rodman Street to the north, Juniper17 Street on the east and South Street on18 the south. 20 Adjacent to the property along21 Rodman and Juniper are a number of22 three-story homes. Directly across South23 Street at the corner of Broad Street is24 the Arts Bank. 6 The Philadelphia Senior Center7 is located directly across Rodman Street8 from this property, fronts on Broad9 Street. On the west side of Broad Street10 is a church, charter school and a City11 health center. 17 Let me give another little bit18 of background. The original concept19 proposed a six-story rectangular building20 with a small pocket park on Broad and21 Rodman. That was what the RFP rewarded,22 if you will. 1 Commission, as well as a design review2 committee put together by PIDC -- and3 there must have been at least six4 meetings of this group -- we revised that5 plan, and we revised it in a way that6 you're seeing this morning, members of7 the Committee, by lowering the height of8 the building to six -- seven stories9 along Broad Street and then reducing the10 height of the building meaningfully as it11 proceeds along South Street. 17 The subject property, as18 Mr. 19 It's "C-4" on Broad and "R-10" along the20 southerly portion -- or the westerly21 portion of the site. 3 We have configured the plan in4 terms of the total height along Rodman5 Street or along South Street to be6 reflective of the new Zoning Code7 provisions. That would be 48 feet, 108 inches. Originally it was 52 feet, and9 that was after we changed it10 substantially. As the Board -- as the11 Commission may know, we're talking12 about -- we were originally talking about13 52. 15 The plan also proposes to16 provide about 10,000 square feet of17 retail commercial space to enliven Broad18 and South. 21 The building has been set back22 9 feet from Rodman Street to reflect the23 concerns, as well as to be sensitive to24 the single-family homes on Rodman. 1 setback in that district of "R-10" is 92 feet. And then what we have done most3 recently based on further discussions is4 to set back the upper floor of the5 four-story building as it spans South6 Street one more foot and change the7 texture of the fourth floor. You'll see8 that in the plans -- and Mr. 12 A fundamental change as well13 occurs in our loading and access to the14 parking garage. Originally access to15 loading was going to be on Rodman Street16 directly across from the loading area17 that the Senior Center has. Department. 6 The parking numbers, the RFP7 supports a reduction in the number of8 required parking. 3 for this type of11 development. We are a transit stop. We12 are basically a TOD. And we believe that13 by maintaining a ratio of three for ten,14 it's in line with the new Code, but also15 reflects the fact that this is an urban16 site, very well served by public17 transportation and that we don't need to18 add more parking and, therefore, more19 traffic to the mix. 1 thing in terms of parking. 4 One of the highlights of this5 plan is, as you will see, is an6 energizing of the subway stop at Broad7 and South. Right now that subway stop is8 open. We're working closely with SEPTA9 to create a marquee or covering over10 that. We will energize that corner with11 signage and lighting, and we think that's12 an exciting aspect of this plan.

16 It is important for the17 Committee to know that because the site18 is zoned split, "C-4" and "R-10," all19 that we can do here under current zoning20 is residential use and residential21 bulking area. The rezoning is necessary22 in order to achieve this level of23 development. 1 would have to be developed no more than2 three stories under the current Code and3 uses would only be residential. 9 It will allow all the parking to be10 located below grade. There will be no11 surface parking whatsoever, approximately12 30 cars, accessed again off of Rodman13 Street. It allows this development as a14 plan of development. 17 It allows a revision of the18 Code to allow a bit more floor area to19 allow for this configuration, required as20 a result of the discussions with the21 community by downsizing, if you will, the22 rear portion of the site. 4 We don't need semis coming in here. 22 The legislation also has a23 sunset provision. 1 December 15th, 2016. Again, addressing2 concern that this not be allowed to3 remain out there and not achieve4 development. 7 I also think most meaningfully8 this ordinance as well as the transaction9 entered into with PIDC requires an equal10 opportunity plan, but this one is a11 little bit different than other plans12 that I've offered through Council. 16 MBE ranges 25 to 30, WBE 15 to 20. But17 here's where it's different. 8 I'd be happy to answer any9 further questions. Mr. Roller is here if10 you would like us to go through the plan11 of development briefly. Mr. Dranoff is12 here. 15 I just want to add one more16 thing. We are committed to continue to17 work with the immediate neighbors to18 achieve hopefully a satisfactory approach19 in their mind to this development. We've20 made meaningful changes over the course21 of many meetings. 2

Thank you3 very much for your comprehensive4 testimony, and I just want to mention5 that I mentioned to Councilman Goode when6 you were handing out the EOP that we've7 come a long way from the days of people8 not knowing what it is, people forgetting9 to put it in their legislation, and now10 we get it hand-delivered to us. So11 there's a number of members of this12 Committee and Council, including13 especially Councilman Goode, that has14 pressed this and pressed this the length15 of time I've been here until we get to16 the point where it's comprehensive and17 meaningful and given to us in advance.18 So thank you.19

Councilman Goode20 taught me very well.21

Councilman22 Greenlee.23

Thank24 you, Mr. Chairman.25 46 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Good morning, everyone.2 Mr. Kelsen, we don't have a copy of your3 testimony, so I want to make sure I heard4 you right. Obviously one of the issues5 that I'm sure we'll hear in a few minutes6 is about the height. Now, I thought I7 heard you say that I know this is 488 feet. You said you can go to 42 feet9 right now? Is that what you said? I10 might have misheard you.11

Councilman12 Greenlee, the new Zoning Code, as you13 know, proposes that in the residential14 districts, the height would be increased15 from currently 35 to 42.16

I got17 you.18

We were originally19 at 52 after we revised it downward.20 We've made a further revision down to 48,21 10 to the back portion of the site, and22 yet another revision most recently to23 pull back the fourth story one foot as it24 faces Rodman Street.25 47 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

So that2 42 feet you're referring to would be the3 new Zoning Code requirement?4

Right. That's5 right. And this is about, let's call it,6 6 feet off of what the Zoning Code7 requires. And, again, the 42 feet is8 required in residential zones. This9 zone, I believe, is really a commercial10 zone and should be remapped to the "C-4,"11 which has no height limit.12

Okay.13 Thank you, Councilman.14

Thank you.15 Councilmember Clarke.16

Thank you,17 Mr. Chairman.18 Good morning.19

Good morning.20

I actually21 was going to ask the same question as22 Councilman Greenlee on the new Zoning23 Code Commission, because we are quickly24 approaching that timeline. We have to25 48 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 enact something. So thank you for that2 response.3 Additionally, I want to say4 that, like Councilman Kenney, I was just5 talking to Councilwoman Brown. We were6 talking about -- I said, They finally get7 it on the equal opportunity plan, and,8 again, thanks to Councilman Goode for9 continuing to be aggressive on that10 matter.11 With the change as it relates12 to apprentices -- and I like the fact13 that you have installed that in this14 particular bill -- what entity within the15 building trades are you working with?16 Because that has been a challenge,17 particularly given the nature of the18 current unemployment rate within the19 building trades, and I'm wondering if20 you're having ongoing conversations or21 anticipated having conversations with22 some of the apprenticeship programs that23 are respected and interact with the24 existing building trades.25 49 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

Well, Councilman2 Clarke, I can tell you -- and I gave a3 copy of the plan -- we have not entered4 into any discussions, "we" being the5 developer, with our building trades yet,6 but the plan and practically we will7 reach out to the building trades,8 explain -- and through our contractor,9 explain what the parameters are10 associated with this project in terms of11 participation at the apprentice and12 journeyman level and indicate to them13 that these are ratios that must be14 achieved.15 Number two, if you look at the16 document, there is an oversight committee17 that is called for being created, and18 that would include representatives from19 PAID, Dranoff Properties, representative20 of the building trades, construction21 manager, the City, and we'll also22 include -- may include the District23 Councilperson, OEO and appropriate24 community organizations. So it's a full25 50 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 panoply of people being involved in this2 committee that understand the issue and3 are on the ground, so to speak. The4 construction manager and the construction5 companies that Dranoff Properties uses6 are highly reputable. They've been doing7 business in the City for many, many years8 and they understand through other9 projects the need to involve a full10 panoply of individuals in the project,11 and we are fully confident that they will12 do that.13

Okay. I14 just want to recommend that early on in15 the process you reach out, and I'm sure a16 number of members of Council can assist17 you in identifying those particular18 programs and apprenticeship programs that19 have this ongoing relationship with the20 building trades, and I think that they21 will probably be more acceptable in22 achieving these goals if you utilize the23 people that they work with on a24 consistent basis.25 51 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

Councilman Clarke,2 we would welcome that opportunity. This3 is really a template, and if we look at4 this -- I've come before you before with5 sort of pioneering things. This is6 pioneering, and we want it to work and we7 hope it works across the board. So we'll8 take up your offer to help us do it9 right.10

Great.11 Thank you. Thank you so much.12

Thank you.13 Councilmember Reynolds Brown.14

Thank you,15 Mr. Chairman.16 I join the chorus of17 Councilmembers here who care deeply about18 this issue led by our drum leader,19 Councilman Goode, and this is a first in20 the years that I've been here, and21 Councilman Clarke asked the very question22 I had. Because it is a first, what23 provisions, what strategies do you have24 in place to help you achieve what you've25 52 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 outlined here? So we'll look forward to2 how that rolls out.3 My question is, what remaining4 sticking points do you have with the5 community at large? Because too often6 what I have observed in the debate around7 this issue is folks from the immediate8 community are locked out of the9 opportunity to be a part of a development10 like this and too often there are11 craftsmen right where development sits12 who have the skill set, but are not given13 the opportunity or a bridge to walk over14 to be a part of this kind of enterprise.15

Well,16 Councilwoman, in terms of inclusion of17 individuals who live in the area to be18 part of the workforce, I think it's fair19 to say, if I can speak for Mr. Dranoff20 and for our construction folks, we will21 do outreach to make sure that the trades22 sweep the area appropriately to bring23 them in.24 In terms of -- and maybe I25 53 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 misunderstood your question, but in terms2 of additional issues that the immediate3 residents may have about the plan of4 development, I'm certain that they will5 speak for themselves, but I think it6 comes down to, if I could characterize7 it, the height of the back portion of the8 building. And I'll be very blunt. They9 want it to be 35 feet, which is what the10 current Zoning Code calls for, three11 stories, and we're now at 48 feet.12 I will tell you in good13 conscience we've been laboring over this14 now for months, months, and we have15 dropped the height of the building as far16 as we can in recognition of the fact that17 we want and need and the RFP calls for18 meaningful retail along South Street, and19 in order to accommodate that, you can't20 drop it any further.21 So I think you're going to hear22 in a few minutes that the issue is scale23 in terms of the neighbors' perception. I24 would say to you that this has been a25 54 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 vacant development site owned by the2 City --3

Since 2000.4

-- since 2000, and5 that's 11 years of vacancy. It's time to6 move on. We want to be good neighbors,7 but there comes a point where we may have8 to disagree. But as I said a few moments9 ago, we're not giving up our dialogue.10 It will continue all throughout this11 process, and hopefully we can reach some12 accommodation.13 We think we've done a great14 deal from the beginning of the project to15 now. We'll continue to work, but I don't16 want to set unrealistic expectations that17 this can be a three-story single-family18 row home development. That's not what it19 was contemplated by the RFP, that's not20 what we bid on, and that's not what was21 accepted by the City and the Planning22 Commission.23

Okay.24 Thank you again, and thank you for this25 55 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 template, and you can trust if we see2 that it works, we'll be requiring others3 who come to this table to emulate what4 you've pioneered here.5

Thank you very6 much.7

Thank you.8

Councilman9 DiCicco.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,11 Mr. Chairman.12 Good morning. I'm somewhat13 familiar with the prior uses at this14 location. I just can't in my mind15 remember the scale and/or size of the16 buildings. I know at the corner there17 was a bar for many years known as the18 Tippin Inn. I used to tip in there on19 New Year's Day.20

I didn't want to21 go there.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But that's23 why I went there for you.24 It was the bar at the corner,25 56 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 and I don't remember what was on the2 South Street side. Could someone refresh3 my memory?4 Laurie, I'm asking the panel.5 Does anyone remember on the6 panel? No? I'll wait for Laurie to come7 up. I'm just trying to get a history of8 what was there. And with a lot of great9 effort from the residents, it was10 transformed into a community garden with11 a lot of effort, but it was difficult to12 keep up. And, again, I just want -- I'm13 trying to remember what the size and14 scale of the buildings that were15 previously on that site represented, but16 thank you.17

Councilman, if18 this helps a bit, the Broad Street19 portion, which extends back about 8020 feet, the "C-4" portion, was always21 intended to be consistent with the scale22 of the Broad Street buildings, which are23 right now about seven to eight stories as24 you run along Broad in that immediate25 57 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 vicinity.2 The original plan called for3 approximately a 75-foot building all the4 way through, and obviously we've reduced5 that down. But we want to keep embracing6 Broad Street as a gateway and we don't7 want to minimize that scale. We also8 can't make it bigger on -- taller on9 Broad Street, because you're building10 over the subway and you begin to get into11 extraordinarily high costs for a needle12 building that won't be efficient in terms13 of usability.14

Councilman15 Greenlee.16

Just very17 quickly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.18 You kind of answered what I was19 going to ask. The scale as you go20 particularly further south of South, if21 you will, those buildings you're saying22 are also like roughly how large are they23 along Broad Street there?24

I would say25 58 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 they're approximately the same height,2 maybe a little taller, as the building3 that we're --4

You're5 proposing?6

Yes.7

I know8 the Arts Bank, yeah.9

777, that's10 about the same height.11 DEPUTY

77712 is five stories with a retail floor on13 the bottom, four residential --14

It's within15 the scale.16 DEPUTY

I17 would have to say -- Alan Greenberger for18 the Planning Commission.19 If we could get that kind of20 scale, something, 777, up to that on21 Broad Street, marching down and filling22 all those gaps at least to Washington23 Avenue, we would be thrilled.24

Just one25 59 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 other comment too, and I know this is an2 issue near and dear to Councilman3 Greenlee's heart. When you described in4 your testimony, this is like a perfect5 transit-oriented development, I would6 think, and maybe Deputy Mayor Greenberger7 could elaborate a little bit, I mean,8 this is what we're looking for when we're9 putting residential near public transit.10 DEPUTY

This11 is exactly what we want. In this12 particular instance, the subway entrance13 is literally four feet from the property14 line. So it couldn't be closer. We want15 to get as much residential and commercial16 development as we can realistically get17 next to our major transit nodes,18 particularly the subway lines or the19 surface trolley lines.20

Any other21 questions for this panel?22 (No response.)23

Seeing24 none, thank you very much.25 60 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

Thank you very2 much.3

Steven4 Tiger, Nancy Tiger and Laurie5 Fitzpatrick, please.6 (Witness approached witness7 table.)8

Good9 morning. Please identify yourself for10 the record, whoever would like to start.11 Please, if you could, pull that12 microphone close to you, because it's13 old.14

My name is15 Laurie Fitzpatrick and I'm a resident16 1334 Rodman Street. I actually moved to17 Rodman Street back in 1988, and I've been18 living there since. I bought my house in19 1992, and as of today, I'm the longest20 residing person, homeowner, on those21 little blocks. And actually I remember22 what was behind the houses along Rodman23 Street. I actually lived on Rodman24 Street at 1334 at the time, and they were25 61 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 small three-story row homes with2 backyards, exactly mirroring what's there3 now on Rodman. They were torn down, I4 believe, in 1991, '92 to make way for --5 Rendell used that as sort of a loading6 area when he was -- he had a lot of7 trucks and vehicles and whatnot on that8 site, and they used that to load9 materials in and out when they were doing10 new repair work on Avenue of the Arts,11 put in the new pavements. I believe12 that's what that was used for.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of14 order, if I may.15

Please.16 Councilman DiCICCO: My17 question was what was along South Street.18

Along South19 Street, that's what -- three-story homes.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh,21 three-story homes? I thought they were22 commercial.23

Yeah, with24 little backyards. Yeah.25 62 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.2

3 Today I represent the homeowners of the4 1300 block of Rodman Street and the 5005 block of Juniper Street as I bring to you6 two concerns about conditions that are7 not currently addressed in Bill 110670,8 and they are preventing an increase in9 truck and automotive traffic on Rodman10 and Juniper Streets and compensation to11 the community for the loss of the 1,80012 square foot green space, formerly known13 as the Garden of the Arts, which we14 maintained there for the past 11 years at15 Broad and South. that building. During an August meeting of the5 Washington Square West Civic's Zoning6 Committee, we learned that Carl Dranoff's7 proposed building planned to locate its8 truck loading and trash removal garage on9 Rodman Street. This ugly surprise was10 staunchly opposed by the residential11 homeowners of Rodman Street. I want to take a moment to read8 into this public record key parts of the9 petition letter I submitted to Mr. 6 In addition to altering the7 character of our historic residential8 block, Dranoff's proposed truck/service9 garage and car garage will drive down our10 property values. 14 Today, trucks on our tiny streets shake15 our homes, enlarge potholes, damage16 trees, create noise and fumes, block car17 and pedestrian traffic, and impose18 difficulty for residents who want to park19 briefly in front of their homes and20 unload things from their cars. 15 Please move the truck garage to South16 Street, combine it with the car garage17 and keep all of his building traffic on18 the commercial corridor, South Street,19 which is engineered to handle this20 traffic load, not only in terms of width21 to take that kind of flow of traffic, but22 also in terms of just substructure can23 handle that constant pounding load. We24 had a huge pothole open up. 1 swallow a car this past spring, and it2 took three months to get it fixed on3 Rodman Street. 5 Okay. 21 Cars come in on South, go out and back on22 Rodman. 1 Another thought here is,2 there's a nice median strip out on Broad3 Street that prevents cars from coming in4 on Rodman Street, southbound cars on5 Broad Street, blocks them from coming in6 down on South Street. We want that to be7 maintained so that only cars that are8 going northbound on Broad Street can turn9 onto Rodman. 12 Now I wish to introduce into the public13 record some specific details about what14 the community wants to see written into15 this special ordinance in terms of16 compensation for the loss of green space17 at Broad and South, what was formerly18 known as the Garden of the Arts. We19 really loved this little green space. We20 were grateful to be able to maintain it21 for 11 years, and we were able to build a22 really wonderful community as a result of23 being able to work together in this24 place. 4 Specifically, the community5 wants to see five large, high-quality6 street trees planted in ground, in tree7 pits and not in planters, along Broad8 Street from the corner of Rodman Street9 to Broad and South. 1 To conclude, I want to make the2 point that although we welcome this3 development into our neighborhood, I'm4 pointing out to you today that the5 residents you see before you for the past6 three decades have been spending hundreds7 and thousands of dollars and many hours8 of their time fighting unfortunate urban9 conditions such as drug selling and drug10 use, graffiti, irresponsible renters and11 noisy trash trucks to transform these12 blocks into lovely streets of half13 million dollar homes. 16 Mr. Dranoff's company prides17 itself on transforming neighborhoods. In18 the case of our little neighborhood, East19 Rodman Street, we have already done this20 heavy lifting for Mr. Dranoff, who is set21 to come in and reap wonderful benefits22 from our hard work of the past three23 decades. 1 In defense of little Rodman and2 Juniper Streets, the residential3 homeowners of these blocks seek to ensure4 that Mr. 11

We thank12 you for your testimony. We'd like13 everybody to testify and then we'll open14 it up for questions.15 Please identify yourself for16 the record.17

My name is Nancy18 Tiger and I've been a homeowner of 133419 Rodman Street for about seven years, not20 quite.21 My husband and I and our22 neighbors have made significant23 investments in terms of money, time,24 emotion and energy into rehabilitating25 72 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 and restoring our properties. In2 addition, with help from the Police, the3 Washington Square West Civic Association4 and Councilman DiCicco's office, we5 worked hard to clean up our block,6 putting an end to the rowdy parties with7 drinking and loud music that used to8 spill out of rentals, the rock bands with9 their amplifiers that would blast the10 street during their practice sessions,11 the groups of kids who would use our12 street as a skateboard park, and the drug13 dealing.14 In short, we have created a15 wonderful neighborhood, and this is what16 will be lost if our homes are suddenly in17 the shadow of a large construction that18 looms over us close behind our back19 fences, with our street used to exit from20 a parking garage.21 There are many developments22 along the north side of South Street that23 were built in accordance with residential24 zoning. For example, 801 South Street25 73 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 incorporates the back of old homes like2 ours to create a beautiful development of3 newer homes that fit in seamlessly with4 the overall character of South Street.5 In contrast, the proposed project for6 Broad and South Streets would jarringly7 change the character of our section of8 Rodman Street as well as that of South9 Street.10 I don't know if it was through11 ignorance or arrogance that Philadelphia12 Industrial Development Corporation issued13 a request for proposal for a mixed-use14 commercial and residential development,15 which entailed the assumption that the16 zoning would simply be changed, as if17 that were a mere technicality. To pass18 this ordinance overriding current zoning19 laws is tantamount to saying that PIDC20 and large-scale developers are above the21 law.22 Philadelphia is known as a city23 of neighborhoods, each with its own24 unique and special character. To pass25 74 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 this ordinance would not only destroy all2 that we have worked for on our block, but3 would also set a precedent that would4 encourage the cavalier assumption that5 zoning laws don't really matter, and that6 would destroy the fabric of this city of7 neighborhoods.8

Thank you9 for your testimony. Please pass the10 microphone down and identify yourself for11 the record and proceed with yours.12

Thank you. My name13 is Steven Tiger. I'm a homeowner at 133414 Rodman Street just east of Broad. I have15 lived at that location for almost seven16 years.17 The proposed construction at18 South Street and Broad Street seems19 inappropriate, unnecessary and unfair.20 As Mr. Dranoff's attorney correctly21 testified, the RFP that went out from22 PIDC did call for a mixed-use facility23 that assumed the zoning would simply be24 changed, and therein is exactly where25 75 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 this entire problem came about. In a2 sense, Dranoff Properties and anyone else3 who responded to the RFP, they did so in4 good faith, but the problem was the RFP5 was a misbegotten idea from the start, to6 which the neighborhood, we homeowners,7 had no input.8 The proposed construction would9 rezone the South Street location from10 residential to commercial use to11 accommodate a four-story building that12 would loom over our homes very close to13 the edge of our backyard areas, which14 would inevitably lower the value of our15 homes and the quality of our lives.16 Now, given the number of vacant17 residential and retail spaces that are18 already in the neighborhood, it should be19 self-evident that there is no pressing20 need for a large construction offering21 additional residential office and retail22 space at this location. And without any23 pressing community need, there's no24 justification for this proposed rezoning.25 76 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 We are not opposed to2 developing the site. We merely ask that3 the development be in compliance with the4 established Zoning Codes, whether that be5 the current Zoning Codes or the proposed6 revisions that we understand are7 forthcoming. It is unfair to burden the8 homeowners on Rodman Street with the9 detrimental impact of a construction that10 fulfills no pressing need and yet would11 require rezoning the location on South12 Street.13 When we purchased our homes, it14 was with the understanding that the South15 Street portion of the proposed16 development site is zoned for residential17 use. The very purpose of that zoning was18 to prevent commercial development that19 would have detrimental effects on20 residents' day-to-day lives.21 So to repeat, we're not opposed22 to developing this site. We support23 development, but we ask that development24 be planned and executed within the25 77 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 specifications of the established zoning.2 There is no justification for3 changing that zoning now, and the attempt4 to achieve it through what amounts to a5 spot-zoning ordinance submitted to the6 City Council looks very much like a way7 to bypass the Zoning Board, which would8 probably reject the request.9 I, therefore, request that this10 Committee recommend to the City Council11 that the proposed ordinance be rejected12 and allow the Zoning Board to do its job.13 Thank you.14

Thank you15 for your testimony.16 Are there any questions for17 these witnesses?18 Councilman Greenlee.19

Just one20 question. Just to Mr. Tiger21 particularly, I guess I'm not clear. How22 would you envision this land? Just being23 residential? Is that what you're saying?24 I just wasn't clear on what --25 78 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

Right now the2 zoning is for residential use on South3 Street, and we see no pressing community4 need for the type of facility that was5 called for in the RFP in the first place.6 We are not angry that Dranoff Properties7 has submitted a design for a mixed-use8 facility. That's what the RFP asked for.9 We're saying, though, that there is no10 need for that.11

So you12 would not -- you'd rather see no mixed13 use on this site; is that what you think?14

Ideally, yes.15 However, as has been stated, we are16 absolutely willing and anxious, eager to17 continue discussing with the developers18 some means of reaching a resolution that19 everyone can live with. Right now the20 changes that have been offered by Dranoff21 Properties are certainly in the right22 direction. We still believe that the23 height is quite excessive along South24 Street. We are absolutely willing to25 79 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 continue to talk about ways that that can2 be resolved.3

And I4 think Mr. Kelsen did say that he would be5 willing to continue conversation. You6 might never reach a total agreement, but7 often times you don't in these kind of8 things.9 Yes, ma'am. I'm sorry.10

I want to address11 what you just said. If you walk along12 South Street, the north side, you go 1313 to 12, 12 to 11, 11 to 10. 801 is my14 favorite, but small developers have built15 housing that just flow into South Street.16 South Street loses its character. Our17 homes will lose their value.18

I mean,19 in all due respect, isn't it a little20 different? We're talking about the21 corner of Broad Street now. Isn't that a22 little different?23

Can I24 interject?25 80 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

We're2 talking Broad Street now.3

Could I4 clarify something?5

Yeah.6

I think in7 terms of anything happening on Broad8 Street at the corner of Broad and South,9 commercial, do it. But what they're10 questioning is the inclusion of11 commercial activity on the first floor of12 these residential houses just on South13 Street, just on the properties that14 mirror their properties on Rodman Street.15

Broad is fine.16

So,17 again, you're saying -- what your choice18 would be is no commercial at all on South19 Street; is what you're saying?20

That's correct,21 and that's how it's zoned.22

I know23 it's zoned that way. I understand that.24

And, again, the25 81 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 main point is that if there's no pressing2 community need for such a facility, then3 I cannot see the justification for4 altering the zoning, particularly through5 what amounts to a spot-zoning ordinance6 that tries to bypass the Zoning Board7 process.8

And I'd like9 to clarify that, if I could. There's a10 very optimistic view out there, which is11 if you build it, they will come, and what12 he's referring to is commercial space,13 and we already have vacant commercial14 space across the street at 1352 Loft.15 Sure, you can blame that on poor design,16 but, I mean, even if you look around the17 entire corner, there's vacancies18 everywhere up and down, commercial19 vacancies, up and down South Street. So20 that's what -- I believe that's what you21 mean by pressing community need, is there22 really a need for this additional23 commercial space if what you're24 sacrificing is quality of life for the25 82 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 people who live in the properties along2 Rodman Street.3

Thank4 you.5

Councilman6 DiCicco.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,8 Mr. Chairman.9 Ms. Fitzpatrick, I'm a little10 confused. On October 11th in the11 testimony that you submitted, you submit12 a petition that was signed by, it looks13 like, 11 homeowners, 15 individuals who14 reside on Rodman Street and there are a15 couple who live on -- one or two who live16 on Juniper, and your petition really just17 speaks to the issue of traffic. We are18 opposed or we are respectfully19 petitioning Mr. Dranoff to revisit the20 issue of the parking/loading garage on21 Rodman.22 Now, since that has been23 addressed, do you have any more recent24 opinions from the folks? Are they now in25 83 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 support of the project since that issue2 as relates to your petition -- and that's3 the only issue I see on the petition.4

Do you5 mean -- yeah, that's just my issue. My6 issue is the increase of car traffic.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But those8 15 individuals and 11 homeowners who9 signed before that change has been made,10 are they still now opposed to the project11 as it's being presented?12

Yes.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Even14 though the parking garage has been15 relocated?16

Yes. They17 don't want to see an increase in car18 traffic.19

If I may,20 there's --21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The22 petition speaks to the --23

Car and24 truck.25 84 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- the2 truck traffic --3

And car4 traffic.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- and6 loading dock on Rodman Street.7

But it also8 generally addresses automotive traffic as9 well, an increase in all types of10 traffic. We asked that --11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The only12 traffic you're going to get into that13 building on Rodman are the people who14 live in that facility, in that building,15 who may have cars.16

Correct.17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We're18 assuming that all 30 of them are going to19 have a car, which I don't think is going20 to be accurate, but for all intents and21 purposes, 30 people will have cars.22

And I'm23 representing the majority of people on24 this list who are still thinking that25 85 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 they don't want this additional car2 traffic on Rodman Street.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Car4 traffic.5

Well, in the6 letter we talk about car -- take all the7 car and truck traffic and locate it to8 South Street. This letter implies --9 perhaps I could have been more10 specific -- zero traffic, zero car11 traffic, zero truck traffic from12 Dranoff's building. And what I'm talking13 about today, which is something I14 discussed with people, is, Well, what if15 we had cars come in on Rodman Street and16 go out on South Street. That way, you17 keep all those extra cars on South18 Street. Because our concern is, we get19 people come -- we get crazy people,20 especially on the weekend, they come21 tearing down that road, and we've got22 people with children.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But24 they're not the tenants of this building.25 86 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Those people are going to continue to2 come up that street, no matter what, if3 they use it as an alternative route to4 get back on to Broad Street coming off of5 13th. I mean, those aren't people who6 live in this apartment building, because7 it's not been built yet.8

Well, no.9 They would come in on --10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That may11 happen anyway.12

They would13 come in on Broad Street and they would be14 able to park their cars, and then when15 they go out, they go out on South Street.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I17 understand that. I guess that's18 something -- I don't know if that's19 feasibly doable. I mean --20

We're putting21 it on the table.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My point23 is, would you agree that from the outset24 when this project was being designed,25 87 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 that there's been significant changes to2 it that reflect the concerns of the3 community? The way I look at this and --4

I think the5 word is "significant." Changes have been6 made.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: From what8 I see now that the big issue when we all9 met in my office a couple weeks ago10 about -- in addition to the height, was11 the loading zone, which has been removed,12 the truck traffic coming in off of13 Rodman, which has been relocated to South14 Street. I view this as about 90 percent15 of what the community had been looking16 for as having been agreed to by the17 developer.18

No, sir. No, sir.19

Which20 community? This is the community. These21 are the people who live in the shadow of22 the building and these are the people --23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But for24 the height, I don't see that much left on25 88 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 the table, but --2

All I need to3 say is, in this letter we're addressing4 both the car and the truck traffic, and5 as of this letter, we were talking about6 putting both car and truck traffic on7 South Street.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I get9 that, but the way I read it was just --10

It could have11 been worded more clearly, I understand.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I13 recognize this being truck traffic, and14 that's a moot point now because they're15 not going to park --16

Well, car17 traffic wasn't an issue at this point18 because it was coming in and out on South19 Street, and that's why I was trying to be20 inclusive and say no car and truck21 traffic in and out on Rodman. It does22 say that in the letter.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's why24 I asked the question. When that petition25 89 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 was circulated, it was back on October2 11th.3

And we were4 talking about no traffic, no traffic on5 Rodman Street.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right.7 Thank you.8

Just one9 hypothetical. Is the neighborhood a10 permit parking district? Is it a permit11 parking district?12

No. We have13 no parking on our street.14

Oh, you15 have no parking on your street at all?16

Absolutely.17 Parking is illegal on Rodman Street and18 Juniper Street.19

So20 hypothetically, if there wasn't a parking21 garage at all, how would that affect your22 opinion? If no one could park in the23 underground garage and didn't have to24 enter from Rodman Street, would that --25 90 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 I'm not suggesting that's going to2 happen. I'm just trying to get an idea3 as your concern over vehicular traffic,4 not truck traffic but regular traffic.5 If there were no parking garage in the6 building at all --7

I'd like to8 see some parking, because residents come9 in and they have their cars and they like10 to travel on the weekends and go to Ikea11 and things like that.12

Where do13 they park?14

Where would15 they park?16

Where do17 the residents of Rodman Street and the18 vicinity park now?19

Oh, we park20 around the neighborhood.21

In spots22 that are available?23

Yeah; 13th24 Street, South Street, Lombard Street. We25 91 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 have our little Zone 4 stickers and2 that's where we park, and some people pay3 to park.4

So it is5 permit parking? You have Zone 4.6

But not on7 Rodman and not on Juniper Streets.8

Okay. So9 if there were no parking availability in10 the building, you would not be happy with11 that because --12

We'd love13 people to be able to park.14

No. I'm15 saying you would have 30 more residents16 that are looking for the same parking17 spot on the street that you're looking18 for.19

Oh, yeah,20 pressure.21

So on one22 hand, even though the traffic may be an23 issue, you're happy to have private24 parking there because you would be25 92 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 competing with potentially 30 new cars.2

I don't view3 it as competition, because we compete4 with people coming in from New Jersey and5 the suburbs all the time, especially on6 the weekends. There's never enough7 parking. There's never enough parking.8

No. I9 understand that, but 30 additional10 residential folks with cars would make it11 that much worse.12 Could you stipulate at least13 the fact that it's pretty clear that 3014 new cars would make it worse? And I'm15 not suggesting that we're even able to do16 this, but what I'm saying is, on one17 hand, having the parking relieves another18 problem, which is unavailability of curb19 parking in the neighborhood.20

I view it as21 an amenity --22

That's why23 the Zoning Code requires it, because it24 takes the pressure off the street.25 93 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

I view it as2 an amenity for the residents. It's3 plumb. It's a nice thing to have a nice4 parking space. That's wonderful. And it5 does --6

But they're7 not parking in the spot that you're8 competing for.9

Right.10 They're parking under the building, but11 also --12

No. All13 I'm trying to get is for you to say to14 me, yes, there is some advantage of15 having off-street parking at any type of16 residential facility because they're not17 competing with you coming back from Ikea.18

Yes.19

Okay.20 Councilman Greenlee.21

Thank22 you, Mr. Chairman.23 I don't want to belabor the24 point of the garage. I think we've been25 94 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 through it. But you and I last week2 walked around the area, and the one thing3 I think you definitely certainly4 convinced me that that truck loading5 should not be -- and Councilman DiCicco6 and I had a conversation about that -- on7 Rodman Street. While we were there, I8 think there was a trash truck pulling out9 of the Senior Center there, and that's10 very difficult.11 So I guess -- I don't want to12 get into terms here. We used the word13 "significant" before, but there is a14 major change in taking that truck traffic15 off of Rodman Street, isn't it?16

Absolutely.17

And18 potentially Juniper Street too, right?19 So, I mean, that is, in fairness, a big20 change off the plan, right? And I guess21 we didn't -- I remember when you and I22 talked, we didn't really talk about car23 traffic. I guess now you're explaining24 now that you didn't think it would be on25 95 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 there, but having cars on there is2 certainly a lot less injurious to the3 block than having the trucks, right?4

Well, let me5 just say this: I can have my opinion6 about that, but we would have -- I don't7 know that I could represent that opinion8 as the majority of -- the opinion of the9 majority of the people who live on10 Rodman.11

Well, no.12 I'm saying trucks -- if you're going to13 have the two, having passenger cars are14 better than having trucks, correct?15

Not16 necessarily, because people --17

Really?18

Yeah. People19 drive like crazy people. No. Having no20 traffic is the best.21

I know22 that's what you would prefer, but I'm23 saying, they made a change. They made an24 adjustment. I'm not here just to defend25 96 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 them. I'm saying that was the main thing2 that you got through to me, that that3 truck traffic just wasn't going to work4 on Rodman Street.5

Correct.6

It is a7 narrow street. You can't even park on8 it. I'm with you there.9

Right.10

They11 changed that. So I think you have to at12 least say that's better, right?13

I have a14 great ambivalence towards that, because I15 see how people drive up and down our16 block. I've seen kids almost hit. I've17 seen me dogs almost hit.18

But19 they're there now.20

I've seen21 cats get run over by cars. I'm just22 trying to minimize --23

No. I24 understand. It just seems there has been25 97 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 a change that I thought was to the2 benefit of that block, because to me that3 was the most significant problem that you4 explained.5

It's a change6 and it's a good change, but it's not a7 hundred percent.8

Do we9 ever get a hundred percent, Laurie, of10 anything?11

Well, 5012 percent?13

Well,14 then we start getting into degrees.15

Sir, may I just say16 one single sentence?17

Yes.18

This discussion19 ongoing about the garages is very20 entertaining, so, A, for the record, is21 it better to have the car garage than the22 truck access on Rodman Street? Of course23 it is. However, that being said, I would24 hope that this Committee would pay25 98 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 attention to the much more fundamental2 issue of what is the justification for3 the proposed rezoning, what community4 need is served by this proposed spot5 rezoning.6

Okay. I7 hear you, except I was addressing what8 Ms. Fitzpatrick, what she brought up. So9 thank you.10

Any other11 questions?12 Councilwoman Reynolds Brown.13

Point of14 information, Mr. Chairman, to the sponsor15 of the bill. The proposed site --16

Excuse me.17 Hold on one second.18 Councilman DiCicco,19 Councilwoman Reynolds Brown has a20 question for you.21

Just22 clarification around this parking issue.23 The proposed development calls for how24 many apartments?25 99 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thirty.2

Seventy.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thirty4 parking spaces. What was the number --5

It's not been6 fine-tuned, but approximately 75 or so.7

Residents?8

Residential units,9 with about 30 parking spaces.10

Okay.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the12 parking spaces are only for the tenants,13 not public parking. So it wasn't like14 the tenants may have to go look for a15 space in the neighborhood. It's16 dedicated to the development.17

That's18 what I needed to know. Okay. Thank you.19

Thank you20 very much for your testimony. Thank you.21 David Fante, Angela Fante. Is22 Stanley Krakower here?23 I see him. I see you.24 (Witnesses approached witness25 100 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 table.)2

Whoever3 would like to start, please identify4 yourself for the record and proceed.5

Good morning.6

Good7 morning.8

My name is David9 Fante. 11 I'm a homeowner of 1332 Rodman12 Street, directly behind the proposed13 development. I am a licensed architect,14 a member of the American Institute of15 Architects, and I work for a large16 architectural and engineering firm in17 Center City. I am a member of the18 Washington Square West Civic Association19 and serve on the Board of Directors and20 the Zoning and Governmental Affairs21 Committee. 16 We have seen this proposal17 transform from the original six-story18 scheme to the seven-four split scheme,19 but it does not go far enough to maintain20 the scale and historic character of our21 neighborhood. 1 asked that the South Street portion of2 the building be reduced from four stories3 to three stories. To make up for the4 loss on South Street, we have suggested5 building taller on Broad Street. The6 only reason given thus far as to why the7 South Street portion of this building8 cannot go lower than four stories is the9 financial hardship for the developer to10 build taller on Broad Street. 15 In addition, how can anyone16 claim financial hardship when the17 ordinance they themselves drafted for18 City Council increases the building area19 of the lot from the allowed 500 percent20 to 575 percent? 4 And who benefits? We certainly5 do not. The City does not benefit from6 four stories on South Street. PIDC, the7 Planning Commission and the Commerce8 Department do not benefit from four9 stories on South Street. 13 My neighbors and I are not opposed to14 development. However, we are prepared to15 pursue whatever means necessary to16 protect our well-being, our investments,17 our quality of life and our rights under18 the zoning laws of this city. We support19 smart development which conforms to20 current zoning and is mutually beneficial21 to all parties. 7

Thank you8 for your testimony.9 Whoever is next, please10 identify yourself.11

Angela Fante,12 homeowner of 1332 Rodman Street and a13 structural engineer here in town.14 We, the residents of the 130015 block of Rodman Street, urge that City16 Council oppose this ordinance. We ask17 nothing more than for City Council to18 maintain current zoning on the lot behind19 our properties, 35 foot high20 residential-only development along South21 Street with 9 foot setbacks between our22 properties and "C-4" zoning along Broad23 Street.24 This ordinance would not only25 106 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 permit development directly behind our2 properties over 14 feet higher than our3 homes, but would change the function and4 density of these spaces from the intended5 residential zoning to a commercial usage.6 While a 9 foot setback is proposed, this7 space would be occupied by an enclosed8 shed-like structure for a loading zone9 corridor and not the open or green space,10 individual patio spaces intended by the11 current Zoning Code.12 The bottom line is that the13 rezoning contained in this ordinance is14 harmful to us, the homeowners of Rodman15 Street, and the canyon effect that would16 be created in our backyards by this17 building looming over our homes would18 have a significant negative impact on our19 sense of space, quality of life and20 property values and would also negatively21 impact our well-being due to diminished22 sunlight and air. It is simply unfair to23 impose this change in zoning on us, the24 neighbors, all in the name of25 107 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 guaranteeing a developer's financial2 gain. We will be punished physically and3 financially while he reaps the benefits.4 What sense does it make to injure a5 neighborhood in the name of developer6 profit?7 My neighbors and I have been8 involved in this process for several9 months. We have testified before the10 Planning Commission, we have attended11 several presentations to the Wash West12 Civic Association, and we have discussed13 this project with Councilman DiCicco.14 The question we keep asking amongst15 ourselves is, why must we fight so hard16 just to have the law be upheld?17 The Zoning Code was written to18 protect us against this exact situation,19 and we ask that City Council seriously20 consider the adverse effects that the21 changes this ordinance would impose on22 our neighborhood would have and to simply23 uphold the law.24 We are unyielding in resisting25 108 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 development higher than 35 feet behind2 our homes, and although it is not our3 preference, we are united as a block in4 our commitment to taking this to the5 highest levels necessary to maintain the6 well-being and character of our7 neighborhood. We are, of course, willing8 to negotiate with the developer, but as9 of yet, have not been formally invited to10 do so.11 Thank you for your time and12 attention. We do appreciate the13 thoughtful consideration you will give14 towards the implications this ordinance15 would have on our community.16

Thank you17 for your testimony.18 Mr. Krakower, please identify19 yourself for the record. Please pull the20 microphone close to you.21

Thank you very22 much, Councilman Kenney, members of the23 Rules Committee. My name is Stanley24 Krakower. I'm a land use and zoning25 109 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 lawyer, and I'm representing these2 residents on Rodman Street, some of which3 could not be here today, and I wonder if4 the Committee would just permit me to ask5 the people who are here from Rodman6 Street who support this position and7 opposition to this bill would just stand8 up.9

Please.10

So they could be11 observed.12 Those of you stand up.13 (Some audience members14 standing.)15

As you can see,16 there are almost a dozen, maybe seven or17 eight people. 2 First thing I want to say is,3 as all of them have indicated to you,4 there is certainly a willingness to5 continue discussions and negotiations6 with the developer and his counsel, and7 that we look forward to an opportunity to8 do that. However, it must be recognized9 that the primary issue, the most10 difficult issue, is the one of the11 height, the size, the density of the uses12 on South Street, because this ordinance13 would do two things. First of all, it14 would change the use from an "R-10"15 residential use to allowing commercial16 uses. It would also significantly17 increase the size. We're not talking18 about a size addition of five or six19 feet. We're talking about, as it stands20 now with the recent reduction, of a size21 addition increase of something like 1422 feet, from 35 feet up to 49 feet. 1 allow. 5 We're talking about a total6 area of zoning change of approximately7 10,000 square feet. 14 It's a little less. That's about the15 size of a baseball infield, a baseball16 infield, 90 feet by 90 feet, 8,100 square17 feet. 21 This really should have been22 brought to the Zoning Board of Adjustment23 on the basis for a variance. 1 hardship and need, of minimum variance2 requirements, that were they satisfied or3 not, that could have been presented. 19 The other question that's20 involved is the question of who is the21 community. We know that the developers22 have been talking to members of the23 Zoning Committee of the Wash West Civic24 Association. 1 really the relevant community. The2 people who are affected are these people,3 the dozen people that you saw stand up4 here and the people sitting next to me,5 who live right on Rodman Street, whose6 properties actually are contiguous to and7 touch the South Street properties that8 would be rezoned. And in going through9 to the Washington Square West Civic10 Association, no member of the Zoning11 Committee of the Washington Square West12 Civic Association lives on Rodman Street,13 except, except for Mr. 2 Now, there have been3 modifications and we've heard about4 those, particularly the truck versus car5 modifications, but the problem is, that6 alone, though it's important, is not what7 the neighbors, at least the ones I've8 talked to and the ones who are here9 today, have indicated is the most10 substantial. 13 The density is important too,14 because what you're going to have there15 are instead of "R-10," which would allow16 approximately 10 or 11 houses, row17 houses, you're going to have 75 to 8018 apartments. That is a tremendous19 difference in density. And, again, I'm20 not talking about the car parking. 23 Now you also have the height --24

Can I just25 115 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 ask a question just from a generic2 perspective? I understand their3 testimony relative to the density of the4 building and the height of the building,5 but why having 75 units occupied as6 opposed to 10 row houses occupied, why is7 that a detriment to the community? Why8 is more people living in the neighborhood9 a detriment?10

More people11 living there brings the added noise,12 size, trash, all of the things that go on13 in that block. You're also going to14 have --15

This is an16 urban setting. I'm not arguing their17 point. The two witnesses made the point18 about cavern and air and light, and I19 understand that, but you can't -- I20 reject the argument that we want less21 people living in Center City. I mean, I22 don't understand that part of the23 argument. I mean, whether they're living24 in a structure that these folks are25 116 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 willing to accept or not, but the mere2 fact of having more people living3 downtown, where's the problem?4

Let me respond,5 if I can, Councilman. The Zoning Code6 itself -- by the way, this is also true7 in the new proposed Zoning Code -- often8 relates with density to the number of9 people who live in a given area, in a10 given block, in terms of the services11 that those people require and the12 services that those people generate in13 terms of just having that many more14 people there. The code in every city, by15 the way --16

But that17 doesn't seem to have a big problem in New18 York. I mean, the density in New York is19 vibrant and phenomenal. I mean, I would20 love to see a similar human density, not21 necessarily structural density, but a22 human density on South Broad Street in a23 residential setting. I think that's what24 makes a city terrific. I mean, I will25 117 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 reject or disagree with your assertion2 that we don't want more people living3 downtown. I mean, that's --4

It's not a5 question of downtown. It's within one6 small block, a block that -- the area7 that's been changed is the size of a8 baseball infield. Remember that. That's9 what we're talking about.10

All right.11

That's the size12 of the area that's involved here.13

I hear you.14

Again, we're not15 necessarily saying that it has to be only16 the 11. We're asking, isn't there some17 number -- even the 75 or 80, the question18 then becomes because you want 80 people19 in there, you're building the places up20 higher. You now have 59 feet of height21 instead of 35 feet. That creates a22 difference in light, air, ambient light23 and the whole --24

How high25 118 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 did you say it was?2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's 48.3

I understand4 from Mr. Kelsen's testimony it's 59 feet.5 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:6 Forty-eight.7

Oh, 48 feet.8 I'm sorry. Yes. I had the wrong number,9 48 feet. So from 35 to 48, that's 1310 feet. I was thinking 14. I thought it11 was 59.12

I just want13 to make sure the record is clear.14

But, again, even15 at 48 feet -- and this, we are told, is a16 great concession, when it was originally17 produced in development I think then18 called for 50-something feet. So the 4819 feet or the 38 feet is a concession, and20 we'll acknowledge that it's a concession,21 but the question is, is it nearly enough?22 Because the other problem you have is the23 distance between the backs of those24 properties and the backs of these folks'25 119 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 properties, they're going to be cheek to2 cheek. They're going right up against3 each other. There's supposed to be a 94 foot setback, but that 9 foot setback is5 going to be covered and used for some6 sort of transformation of goods or7 properties or something. It's going to8 be utilized. It's not going to be like a9 garden like these people have now. They10 have gardens for 9 feet. This is going11 to be used for partially to assist the12 commercial uses, as I understand it.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No.14

I'm sorry.15 As you make assertions, Councilman wants16 the record to be clear that there may be17 some misunderstanding on your part what's18 going on on Rodman Street.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I20 would ask, Mr. Chairman, maybe Mr. Kelsen21 could respond to that use of that setback22 area. If you don't mind, why doesn't23 Mr. Kelsen come up.24

Yeah.25 120 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Sir, could you please take that2 seat there so we can --3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If I can,4 Mr. Chairman, I just want to --5

You're not6 going to have a microphone.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What we're8 talking about residential development on9 South Street, are we talking about on the10 intersection or is he talking about this11 area?12

The "R-10" area.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just14 want to make sure.15

And Mr. Roller is16 coming up as well.17 As a result of the relocation18 of the loading from Rodman to South19 Street, it is necessary to have a20 corridor created so that the goods and21 trash can be moved to that area and from22 that area, and in recognition of the fact23 that the neighbors are behind it, we've24 enclosed that area. So there is a 9 foot25 121 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 privacy wall. It's actually lower and2 it's right up against -- exactly.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This one4 here.5

Mr. Roller can6 show it in a little bit more detail.7 So what we've done is, we have8 created a corridor that allows us to move9 the trash and goods through the building10 without being disruptive of the11 community. The wall that has been12 proposed that abuts the Rodman Street13 side of the property, members of Council,14 is a masonry wall that will be greened15 like we've done at 24th and Locust with a16 living wall. It's actually been17 redesigned to step down in slope so that18 it is lower as it's up against the19 property line on Rodman. I think it's,20 Jerry, and a half feet and then slopes21 up to feet and is roofed over.22 I have to correct my good23 friend Mr. Krakower's concept. We've24 designed this in recognition of the25 122 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 potential new Zoning Code, which allows2 for "R-10" structures to be 42 feet, as I3 mentioned earlier. We're at 48 feet4 approximately, 48, 10. I'll stipulate5 that it's 48, 10.6 In recognition of the Code, I7 would also point out that "R-10"8 currently allows for multi-family use if9 you meet the bulking area. So this is10 not a single-family residential zone11 along this portion of the property.12 "R-10" does allow multi-family and could13 allow a density that's fairly14 significant.15

Let me just16 ask another -- can I just ask another17 question for my illumination. How many18 houses are on Rodman Street?19

Are on Rodman20 Street?21

Yes.22

Eight directly.23

This would24 be on the north side of Rodman facing the25 123 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 proposed development?2

Well, their rear3 yards face the proposed development.4 They front on Rodman.5

So it's the6 south side properties that get the most7 impact?8

Right.9

Of the10 south side properties, if you look -- and11 try to follow me. If you look down South12 Street and you go -- Mr. Roller, could13 you just go down South Street to where14 the lower structure starts, the roof of15 the lower structure. How many houses,16 how many yards are impacted from the17 corner of South Street -- Broad Street18 going down South to where the building19 then lowers?20

There are six lots21 and I believe one of them is vacant.22

I'm trying23 to determine how many properties are24 impacted by the lower-rise structure as25 124 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 compared to the higher-rise structure.2 That's what I'm trying to find out.3

None are affected4 by the high-rise structure behind us. We5 are specifically talking about the "R-10"6 area.7

So I8 mentally get an idea of what the impact9 is, you're telling me that the10 seven-story structure does not abut any11 of the properties on Rodman Street?12

Correct.13

And the14 only impact from a height issue is the15 lower-rise structure going east?16

That's right.17

Because,18 honestly, I'm thinking your yard is right19 up against the seven-story building.20

No.21

I mean, for22 me, that's a totally different view of23 what --24

Councilman Kenney,25 125 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 this is the plan that shows there are2 seven properties which abut the3 four-story piece, plus one vacant lot.4 Four of those are fairly short properties5 which have a substantial yard and three6 of them are longer properties that have7 smaller yards. They go down to the 98 foot required, but the four properties9 have a yard that's about 18 feet.10

And how11 high are the lower-rise structure12 properties proposed, how high are they?13

48, 10.14

They're 48,15 10? And what's the current code?16

Thirty-five.17 Current code is 35 maximum height in18 "R-10."19

All right.20 I'm just trying to get my head around the21 whole thing. All right. Thank you.22

Thank you very23 much.24 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:25 126 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Mr. Krakower, you need to take the2 microphone.3

Talking about4 multi-family dwellings on the "R-10,"5 Peter, wasn't it true that would only be6 available depending on the yard lot7 space? You'd need 144 square feet, plus8 100 feet for each family use. So if you9 were going to have two families in there,10 you'd need 244 square feet of yard space.11

Under the current12 code.13

Under the14 current code.15

But I don't think16 they want us to do a colloquy.17

We can't18 have a colloquy without the microphone.19

Anyway, I'll20 wrap up, because I think the point and21 the issues have been made relatively22 clear by all sides. Our request candidly23 is that this Rules Committee at this24 point table for further consideration and25 127 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 discussion a number of the matters that2 have been presented. Both sides have3 indicated a willingness to conduct4 further talks. And on our side, we only5 ask that the talks be conducted with the6 people who are involved, the Rodman7 Street residents, the some seven or eight8 families that are involved, rather than9 with Washington Square West. We would10 ask that we engage in those conversations11 without necessarily having a time12 pressure of a Rules Committee vote and13 then full Council vote coming up on us in14 a hurry. We would rather do this. It's15 an important project. It's a project16 that we all know has been sitting for ten17 years since the PIDC got involved. We18 would like the vote of the Rules19 Committee at this point to be tabled for20 some future date that the Rules Committee21 can select. We would think maybe a22 couple more weeks. And then we can get23 back to you and see, without any24 additional pressure, if we can come up25 128 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 with something that everybody can live2 with.3

Thank you.4 Just one final question. In some5 testimony of this panel, someone said6 that a financial hardship is not a reason7 for a variance. Isn't it? Isn't that8 one of the reasons given when you go to9 the Zoning Board?10

It is if it's a11 dimensional variance. It is not for a12 use variance. In this case, you have13 both. You have a use variance for14 commercial and a dimensional variance for15 the size of the building.16

But,17 hypothetically, if the developer had to18 go to the Zoning Board for a variance,19 one of the arguments they would make20 would be a financial hardship.21

And they would22 have to show it. They can't just claim23 it.24

My point25 129 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 is, that is one of the reasons that they2 grant one.3

If they can show4 it.5

Councilman6 Clarke.7

Mr. Chair,8 my question may actually be for members9 of the Administration, not these10 gentlemen, these individuals here. So it11 can wait. I can wait if they come back12 up.13

You want14 them now or no?15

It can16 wait.17

Are you18 finished your testimony?19

Yes, I am.20

I think we21 have two more witnesses, residential22 witnesses, and then --23

If the Council24 wishes, we'll leave and give the table25 130 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 back to Mr. Greenberger or anybody else.2

Not yet.3

Councilman Kenney,4 may I just add one thing, please.5

Yes.6

To clarify the7 setback that is part of this development8 here, whether it was covered or not, it9 was always presented as a service alley10 to service the spaces on the ground11 floor. Just for clarity.12

Thank you.13

Thank you.14

Alexandra15 Fazio and Brian Morris, please. They're16 the last two I think are going to17 testify, and then we'll bring back the18 Administration.19 (Witnesses approached witness20 table.)21

Good morning.22

Good23 morning. Please identify yourself for24 the record.25 131 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

My name is Brian2 Morris. I'm a homeowner at 1315 South3 Street.4 I'm here today to voice my5 concern about the proposed development6 for the northeast corner of Broad and7 South. Having been to the Wash West8 Zoning Committee meetings regarding9 proposed development, it's clear to me10 that the concerns of the adjacent11 property owners are, for the most part,12 being disregarded in the development13 plan.14 While I myself am not directly15 affected, as I live a half block east on16 South Street, as a concerned citizen I17 strongly believe that certain morals18 should be upheld. Longtime neighborhood19 residents who have strived to improve the20 quality of the community, and21 specifically the adjacent property22 owners, should not have to endure a23 change to the current zoning which would24 benefit the developer at their expense,25 132 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 especially in regard to the proposed2 building height.3 I would hope that the Committee4 here today would take into consideration5 what I believe is basic human fairness6 and concern for your fellow woman and man7 when making any decision.8 Thank you.9

Please10 identify yourself for the record.11

Good morning. My12 name is Alexandra Fazio. I'm a resident13 of Washington Square West, current member14 and previous Co-Chair of the Washington15 Square West Zoning Committee. 21 I'd like to thank the Rules22 Committee for allowing us time to speak23 today. 1 Properties and JK Roller Architects for2 working with our community towards a3 resolution to this development. 20 Design changes and negotiations21 are still in progress involving our22 community group and the developer,23 Dranoff Properties. 8 But most notably, the decrease in height9 from six to four stories on the South10 Street parcel now standing at 48 foot,11 10. 16 Setbacks from the side --17 excuse me; north side neighbors are18 included in the design. All trash and19 loading access has been relocated to20 South Street. 23 And I just wanted to clarify as24 well. 6 The low north setback wall7 along Rodman Street properties will8 decrease in height to six foot, eight9 foot -- excuse me; six foot, eight inches10 maximum, a sloped roof of standing seam11 metal or approved alternate will cover12 the trash and loading rear corridor. 15 Modifications to the South16 Street parcels' main north wall will be17 made in order to decrease the perceived18 scale of the overall building. One19 current suggestion under review by the20 Washington Square West Civic Association21 and the developer is to change the facade22 material at the fourth floor to glass in23 lieu of brick and to step that portion of24 the facade back. I believe Mr. 8 The installation and9 maintenance of street trees along all10 three property lines, the overall use of11 high-quality, aesthetically pleasing12 materials. Currently the proposal13 includes brick in two colors, metal14 panels, stone and glass. 18 Restrictions to the retail19 uses, sensitivity to neighbors regarding20 cleanliness of site, noise and staging21 logistics both before and during22 construction. 8

Thank you9 for your testimony. Just personally, I10 think Dryvit ought to be banned. I hate11 Dryvit.12 Thank you. Any questions for13 these witnesses?14 (No response.)15

Seeing16 none, thank you for your testimony.17 Mr. Greenberger, callback.18 DEPUTY

Yes,19 sir.20

Just21 re-identify yourself for the record.22 DEPUTY

Alan23 Greenberger, Deputy Mayor for Economic24 Development.25 138 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

Councilman2 Clarke.3

Thank you,4 Mr. Chairman.5 This is actually not related to6 this project specific, but more in terms7 of process. Mr. Greenberger, you may or8 may not know the answer to this question.9 In terms of RFPs, is there any10 consistency in the various government11 entities in terms of RFPs, the language,12 the timing, the notification from a13 public perspective? And the reason I ask14 you this question is that, having been15 here for it feels like a hundred years16 right now --17 MR. DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:18 Me, too.19

-- every20 now and then we have these -- you, too,21 right? You've only been here for two22 years. Imagine how I feel.23 You have these developments24 that basically we go through our process25 139 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 and Council, we authorize PIDC to dispose2 of property. They do what they do, and3 traditionally do a pretty good job, but4 they don't really come back to us. And5 then a project developer is selected and6 we find out about it in this particular7 case in a public hearing.8 What's the public notification9 beyond, I guess, something on the10 Internet or what's the process? Can you11 just tell me, just generally.12 DEPUTY

To13 answer that question, why don't I have14 Tom Dalfo from PIDC --15

Well, I was16 asking --17 DEPUTY

The18 first question is, while there's not a19 single template that all agencies use to20 put a property up for RFP, there's a21 great deal of overlap and consistency in22 the language, but it's not to the letter.23 And different agencies have somewhat24 different rules depending on what the25 140 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 property is and what kind of property it2 is, industrial versus commercial,3 residential.4

Right.5

Good afternoon.6 I'm Tom Dalfo with PIDC.7 Councilman, to try to answer8 your question specifically on this site,9 let me give you a little bit of10 background on the level of engagement11 that PIDC --12

No; just13 generally.14

I understand. The15 level of engagement that PIDC conducted16 as part of this particular project.17 As was noted earlier, the RFP18 was issued in November of last year to19 solicit development proposals for this as20 a mixed-use site, taking advantage of its21 location on South Broad Street, its22 proximity to the Broad Street subway23 line. And as part of that process, we24 generated the RFP working in conjunction25 141 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 with the Planning Commission and the2 Commerce Department. We did a series of3 sort of informal outreach efforts, one of4 which was to the --5

To the6 community?7

Partly. To the8 Councilman's office, and at their9 direction and the recommendation, we10 reached out to the Washington West Civic11 Association, some members of the12 Washington Square Civic Association, and13 had a draft of the RFP reviewed at that14 time. So before it went out to the15 market, we got some level of feedback and16 input as to this is where we were17 thinking in terms of the type of18 development that would occur on the site.19 Once we then --20

Let me jump21 in there. Sorry to interrupt you. So at22 the time, what's the -- is there public23 notification of the actual RFP beyond --24 I'm assuming the developers, they look at25 142 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 this on a frequent basis, but how would a2 person in the community, just Josephine3 Blow, know that there's this particular4 parcel?5

For this RFP and6 what PIDC will do for our traditional7 development RFPs, we do two things. We8 issue a legal advertisement in both the9 Inquirer and the Tribune, as required.10 We also post it on our website to make11 available and let people know about it.12 We also then have an extensive list of13 development companies and people who work14 with developers we've assembled over the15 years and we'll send out what we16 essentially call a blast e-mail to let17 people know this opportunity exists.18 So that's what we did last19 November. So it was publicly advertised20 on our website and within the newspapers21 of record in the City of Philadelphia.22

But if I'm23 not a developer or have no development24 interest, I wouldn't look at any of that25 143 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 realistically.2 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:3 Well, I can't answer it on this specific4 instance. I'd have to go back and ask5 within the Planning Commission, but our6 community planners in Planning will also7 reach out to community groups and8 development groups that are within their9 planning responsibility to let them know10 of significant events.11

Point of12 information.13

Councilman14 Goode.15

Thank you,16 Mr. Chairman.17 Mr. Greenberger, I think18 Councilman Clarke's original question was19 whether there are different processes for20 RFPs.21 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:22 Right.23

And there is24 a different process between governmental25 144 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 RFPs and quasi-governmental RFPs. In2 terms of City RFPs, the whole process is3 posted online; is that correct?4 DEPUTY

I'm5 not sure what you mean by the "whole6 process." Could you just explain a7 little further.8

There is a9 contracts online portion on phila.gov and10 the whole process from beginning to end11 you can track.12 DEPUTY

I13 think that's correct.14

But that is15 not true for this process?16 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:17 Well, that's probably right.18

Thank you.19

Councilman20 Clarke.21 DEPUTY

It22 does vary.23

Thank you,24 Councilman.25 145 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 You were -- let me cut to the2 chase. I'm not going to take you through3 this. You know I'm a4 development-friendly Councilperson. You5 walk in my office, you see the shovels,6 the whole nine yards.7 DEPUTY

I've8 seen the shovels.9

And this10 came up in different iterations before11 about public notification for a12 particular parcel. Would there be an13 issue -- and that's why I asked about the14 consistency in all the different15 agencies, because everybody has their16 own.17 If there was a parcel, 50,000,18 significantly sized, so -- you don't want19 to nickel and dime the process -- that a20 property is going to be sold or there's21 an RFP issued, to post it on the site22 say, for instance, similar to a zoning23 notice. Once there's a zoning -- the24 development is going to be done in terms25 146 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 of variance. So the person who lives in2 the neighborhood is not going to access3 all these various developer-interest4 websites and other activities, would know5 that this parcel is going to be sold,6 these are the parameters of the RFP and,7 at a minimum, they would know what8 potentially is happening in the9 neighborhood.10 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:11 Yeah, I would support that.12

You can13 support something like that?14 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:15 Absolutely. I don't think there's any16 harm in putting that kind of information17 out there in addition to all the other18 pieces that we do. Absolutely.19

Okay. I'm20 just saying, because a lot of times21 people -- we're sitting here and some22 people, they probably knew about it, and23 I know Councilman DiCicco does a great24 job with the community meetings. We25 147 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 probably have more community people in2 the public hearings relating to things in3 the district than any other Council4 district. So it's clear that he does5 significant outreach. But I was thinking6 of early on in the process if there's7 some way that we can let people know --8 DEPUTY

I'd9 be happy to discuss that further with10 you, but I think that's something we11 could just effect. That's a reasonable12 request.13

All right.14 Thank you.15

Thank you16 very much.17

If I could just18 sort of note the additional outreach we19 did, because I think at some level,20 Councilman, we did that.21

I don't --22 don't feel defensive. I'm just trying to23 figure out a way to improve a process.24

No, and I25 148 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 appreciate that, and I think that we're2 always looking for ways to improve the3 process as well, but I think just for the4 Committee's sort of own information, I5 think it's worthwhile to note the amount6 of engagement that we attempted to do as7 part of this process. And I noted before8 we issued the RFP, drafts were reviewed9 by members of the community.10 Secondly, when we solicited11 proposals and we got to the interview12 stage, members of the Washington West13 Civic Association were present at part of14 that interview process. Subsequently, we15 formed a Design Review Advisory16 Committee. Once again, members of the17 Washington West Civic Association were18 members of that committee, some of which19 were present here today, for at least20 three of the meetings that we've had.21 And related to that, the developer has22 had at least three communications and23 presentations before the Washington West24 either the Zoning Committee or the25 149 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 general membership committee.2 So this is a project that we3 tried to let people know about ahead of4 time. We want to make sure people are5 engaged. We want to make sure that6 they're not surprised by significant7 development of any scale in their8 community.9 My point here is, there was a10 request for a continuance and further11 discussion. I'm not sure what that's12 going to yield at this point. There's13 been extensive amount of discussion on14 there. We would ask that the Committee15 consider the bill, consider it favorably.16 And I think the developer has made17 significant concessions to the community,18 and obviously that's somewhat of some19 debate from some members of the20 community, but I'm not sure at this point21 what additional engagement and22 communication and talk is really going to23 yield.24 Thank you for your time.25 150 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

Thank you.2

Thank you.3 Councilman DiCicco.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Just a5 point of information. In this particular6 case and other matters where I had7 dealings with PIDC, once PIDC -- and8 correct me if I'm wrong, Mr. Dalfo -- has9 done its due diligence on a particular10 parcel, they contacted my office to let11 me know that this is something that they12 were thinking of doing, would I have any13 support or objection to this type of14 proposed development occurring at this15 site, and I basically would sign off on16 that, with the understanding that they17 begin that process of meeting with the18 community groups. So it starts at my19 level, a district Council level, way20 before it gets to this, and then a21 developer is selected and then the rest22 of the process, which we are facilitating23 today.24

I25 151 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 understand that, but that's why I asked2 the initial question about consistency in3 the RFP process. Where PIDC might do4 that, another agency may not. Some5 people just simply post it online. I've6 gotten people come to me -- and I'm not7 going to say the agency -- said, Well, I8 gave a deposit on a parcel of X agency to9 buy it. And then I'm forced to have to10 either deny introducing the ordinance to11 dispose of it or accept it without having12 appropriate community intervention. So13 that's why I'm just trying to get some14 kind of consistency in some way, shape or15 form; that's all.16

Thank you17 very much.18 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:19 Mr. Chairman, if I could add one comment.20

Yes.21 DEPUTY

Just22 one.23

Always quit24 when you're ahead.25 152 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 I'm just kidding. Please.2 DEPUTY

I3 just want to further Mr. Dalfo's point.4 I think it's more than just no purpose5 served by delaying this. I don't know6 what's in the developer's head in terms7 of their own timing, but delaying has a8 huge negative impact on development in9 the City. For private sector, time is10 money, and it's important to move on with11 this. A lot of concessions have been12 made, and I think this is a very strong13 project.14

Okay.15 Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.16 That should conclude -- we've17 had -- we could go on obviously forever18 if we wanted to go back and forth, so19 we're going to have to end it at some20 point.21 Anybody who hasn't testified22 would like to testify on this bill?23 (No response.)24

Seeing25 153 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 none, we will now move to Bill No.2 110563, an ordinance amending Title 14 of3 The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning4 and Planning," by amending Section5 14-1604, entitled "Outdoor Advertising6 and Non-Accessory Advertising Controls,"7 by permitting certain non-accessory8 outdoor advertising signs within the area9 bounded by 7th Street, Spring Garden10 Street, 6th Street, and Willow Street,11 under certain terms and conditions.12 Mr. Greenberger, please13 identify yourself for the record.14 DEPUTY

Alan15 Greenberger, Deputy Mayor for Economic16 Development and Chairman of the17 Philadelphia City Planning Commission.18 Good morning, Mr. -- or good afternoon --19

Good20 afternoon.21 DEPUTY

--22 Mr. Chairman. Got it right.23 I'm here to testify on Bill No.24 110563, which was introduced into City25 154 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Council on September 8th, 2011.2 This bill amends Section3 14-1604 of a section called "Outdoor4 Advertising and Non-Accessory Advertising5 Controls." The bill would permit one6 static or digital mesh wall wrap7 non-accessory outdoor advertising sign8 per building in an area bounded by 7th9 Street, Spring Garden Street, 6th Street10 and Willow Street. The conditions of the11 bill require the sign face to contain an12 area no less than 7,000 square feet and13 no more than 10,000 square feet.14 Additionally, the bottom of the sign15 shall be at least 30 feet above grade and16 the top of the sign no more than 110 feet17 above grade. The bill also proposes the18 building on which the sign would be19 placed would need to be at least 70 feet20 in height, with a minimum floor area of21 100,000 square feet, as well as a minimum22 public street frontage of 150 feet.23 Additionally, the building may not be in24 an historic building listed as such on25 155 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 the National Register of Historic Places2 or on the Philadelphia Register of3 Historic Places. Lastly, the building4 may not be a parking garage or a building5 where more than 50 percent of the floor6 area of its above-ground structure is a7 parking garage.8 The Planning Commission at its9 meeting of October 18th, 2011 recommended10 that this bill not be approved. The11 Commission expressed several reasons for12 their recommendation. Among them, unlike13 the granting of large format signs for14 Market Street East for which developers15 are required to make a substantial16 investment in the public character of a17 property, this entitlement requires18 nothing of a property owner. The19 Commission believes that the use of large20 format signs or building wraps in any21 area of the City should be strategic and22 always tied to larger development goals.23 Secondly, an excessive number24 of outdoor non-accessory signs in the25 156 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 City, without careful regulation, can2 contribute to the appearance of3 deterioration of commercial and4 industrial areas, negatively impacting5 the economic viability of these areas.6 And, third, by allowing7 buildings to become sign platforms8 without other development requirements,9 property owners will lose incentive to10 appropriately reuse, develop or maintain11 their structures.12 Furthermore, application to the13 Zoning Board of Adjustment for a wall14 wrap that had existed for some time at15 this location was rejected by the Board16 and their decision was subsequently17 affirmed by both the Common Pleas and18 Commonwealth Courts.19 Lastly, speaking as Deputy20 Mayor on behalf of the Administration, we21 feel strongly that large format signs or22 building wraps should only be considered23 in conjunction with broader development24 goals and should not be granted to25 157 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 building owners on a case-by-case basis2 absent those development goals.3 That's the conclusion of my4 testimony. I'd be happy to answer5 questions.6

Thank you.7 Councilman DiCicco.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,9 Mr. Chairman.10 Good afternoon,11 Mr. Greenberger. I was looking for your12 testimony. I don't see it. You13 reference the recent sign legislation we14 did for Market Street.15 DEPUTY

Yes.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And there17 was some obviously requirement from those18 building owners to reinvest. Do you --19 and if you don't have the answer, it's20 not a leading question. It's a21 straight-out question.22 The area where this wall wrap23 is being proposed, number of vacant24 former industrial buildings, factories,25 158 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 could you envision a similar model for2 this area that we did on Market Street3 where building owners would be required4 to do some reinvestment in their5 properties and/or the community in which6 they're located?7 DEPUTY

I8 think there's probably a number of areas9 in the City where the model could be10 considered. Right now I don't have a11 strong feeling that this is one of them.12 When the Market Street sign bill came up,13 I think, Councilman Clarke, you asked me14 a similar question about North Broad15 Street, and I think we'd want to look at16 this on a very case-by-case basis in17 terms of an area and measure the value of18 the tool against the likely results and19 kind of redevelopment that we're looking20 for.21 So should it be on the table as22 a tool? Yes, I think so, but I think you23 want to look at it area by area and24 understand what you get for that.25 159 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you2 have not looked at it as that type of an3 area?4 DEPUTY

No.5 We've certainly not looked at this area,6 no.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So you8 could be for it; you could be against it9 even after you looked at it, correct?10 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:11 Right. But we haven't looked at this.12 It never came up as a consideration.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.14 No further questions.15

Thank you.16 Any more questions for17 Mr. Greenberger?18 (No response.)19

Thank you20 very much.21 DEPUTY MAYOR GREENBERGER:22 Thank you.23

Mike24 Berman, Terry Graboyes, Steve Christini25 160 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 and Mike Lemon.2 (Witnesses approached witness3 table.)4

Whoever5 would like to begin, please identify6 yourself for the record.7

Good morning.8

Good9 morning -- it's afternoon.10

My name is Myron,11 known as "Mike," Berman and I am the12 Managing Partner of Callowhill Center13 Associates. 16 I have with me today Terry17 Graboyes, Graboyes Commercial Window18 Company, who has been a tenant in the19 building that we own from prior to the20 sign going up many years ago, and Mike21 Lemon with Mike Lemon Casting, who22 likewise has been a tenant in the23 building and was a tenant at the time the24 sign was up. 2 I am a native Philadelphian, a3 graduate of Kirkbride School, Furness4 Junior High, Southern High and Temple. I5 organize real estate investments. 11 The subject legislation12 concerns the block between 6th Street and13 7th Street and Willow Street and Spring14 Garden Streets. My partnership acquired15 what is the largest property on this16 block in 1986. The building had been the17 School District warehouse. 19 The building systems were not20 operational. The Vine Street Expressway21 was still a dream. Many surrounding22 buildings were in a similar state of23 blight. 1 Following the redevelopment of2 our building, other buildings in the area3 were renovated. 17 This legislation will allow the18 placement of a wall wrap sign in this19 entertainment district. Such larger20 signs are appropriate and frequently21 found in large urban centers. They22 complement the vibrancy and activity in23 these districts. 1 allow for buildings to be renovated,2 maintain underperforming buildings. 7 The sign came down, was removed8 after a prolonged battle with SCRUB, who9 sought to reverse and successfully10 reverse a ZBA variance that had been11 obtained. A second application to the12 ZBA was filed, was denied and denied by13 the appellate courts. During the five14 years that the sign was up, there was15 never an allegation that it caused any16 traffic accidents or endangered the17 public in any way. 19 A little bit about myself and20 my partnerships in the communities. My21 affiliates and I have supported many22 community organizations with four- and23 five-figure donations totalling more than24 $200,000. 1 classroom libraries to the School2 District of Philadelphia. Through the3 Children's Literacy Initiative, we4 donated over 1,600 books to the Fell5 Elementary School. 15 If this legislation is passed,16 Callowhill Center intends to put up a17 wall wrap non-accessory advertising sign18 and contribute 20 percent of the revenue19 to the City of Philadelphia Recreation20 Advisory Council earmarked for the21 program for teen camps. That is what we22 suggest. 4 Currently, there is only one5 rec center that has a teen camp and there6 is a need for 11 more. The cost of7 creating teen camps is $9,000 each per8 year. The projected cash revenue of a9 hundred thousand dollars can support 1110 more teen camps. Teen camps enroll 4011 teenagers each. 20 I would like to note that in21 2005 we were the first corporate22 contributor to the Vare Recreation23 Center. Our contributions were used to24 sponsor night basketball. 1 the longest and one of the largest2 contributors to Vare. The program had3 220 participants this year, and over the4 course of the program has benefited 6505 young people. 9 A sign pursuant to this10 legislation would have revenue of11 $500,000 a year, which would generate12 City sales taxes and also would enhance13 the value of the property for real estate14 tax assessment. 18

Thank you,19 Mr. Chairman.20 Mr. Berman, thank you for your21 philanthropic interest in the City of22 Philadelphia. Did you receive any tax23 benefits for your charitable donations?24

You do receive tax25 167 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 benefits, yes, sir.2

Thank you.3

Councilman4 Greenlee.5 COUNCILMAN GREENLEE:6 Mr. Berman, real quickly, do you plan on7 having any kind of lighting or digital,8 or what's your plan, other than how it9 looks now?10

We will do what is11 commercially viable at the time. At this12 time, what's viable is the static sign,13 but if there's a time when the electronic14 becomes viable, that has many advantages.15

Okay.16 All right. Thank you.17

Councilman18 DiCicco.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good20 afternoon, Mr. Berman. You mention the21 revenue stream of a hundred thousand22 dollars, but when we met, did we not talk23 about a 20 percent of whatever the24 revenue was as that contribution?25 168 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

Yes, sir,2 Councilman, and that's what it would be.3 But we estimate it to be initially about4 a hundred thousand dollars.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But it6 could be --7

Certainly if8 digital became viable, that could9 increase it dramatically.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if it11 was a million dollars a year of revenue,12 it would be 20 percent of the million?13

That's correct.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.15

Thank you.16 Anyone else at the table like17 to offer anything, or no? You don't have18 to. If you want to. You have to pull19 the microphone and identify yourself.20

You know I don't21 need a microphone.22

Well, you23 have to identify yourself for the record.24

But I am one --25 169 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

Terry, you2 have to formally identify yourself for3 the record.4

I'm Terry5 Graboyes. I own Graboyes Commercial6 Window Company, and we have been in the7 Callowhill Center for just about 208 years, and I think we've got another 1209 on our lease. But it's clearly our home10 and we love the building. We love the11 location, and, quite frankly, the wall12 wrap was fun. We loved it. We thought13 it added to the excitement in the area14 and that it not took away from the fabric15 of the funky neighborhood that we're in,16 but it actually added to it. And I think17 I speak for all of the tenants that --18 none of the tenants had any objections to19 it. I mean, it does cover some of my20 beautiful windows, but, you know, you got21 to have a give and take.22 But truly, I just can't even23 imagine anybody being opposed to it. The24 advertising was never shlocky. It was25 170 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 always professional. It wasn't, you2 know, magic marker kind of take to the3 Phillies kind of sign. And I think4 speaking for the tenants and the folks in5 that area and now with McGillicuddy's in6 there and a lot of activity at night,7 it's a much safer neighborhood. I8 certainly feel safer working at night in9 that building than I ever did before, and10 I think the wall wrap just adds to the11 excitement of both the building and the12 neighborhood.13

Thank you.14 Councilwoman Brown.15

Good16 morning. Are there any vacancies17 currently in your building?18

Yes, there are.19 We have -- we, frankly, always had a20 significant vacancy. Vacancy is about 3021 percent. And we cater to businesses,22 small businesses. I guess we could have23 converted to condos, but businesses need24 a place to operate, too, and we provide a25 171 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 good home to businesses. We continually2 try to keep the occupancy higher, but3 that's about what we have now.4

What I was5 struck by is the -- I don't know what the6 percentage is, but the number of emerging7 and/or small arts and cultural8 organizations. And what I know was9 discussed ad nauseam under the former10 Administration was talking with11 interested developers who would -- this12 is something that's in practice in13 Atlanta, where there is a confluence of14 arts and cultural organizations, both15 performers and those who provide16 services, and they actually operate much17 like the Enterprise Center in West18 Philadelphia where you share the admin19 costs and you have them all hubbed in one20 place and they get a chance to feed off21 of each other. So I raise that purely as22 an idea that was explored during the last23 Administration, but we couldn't get24 anchored to it.25 172 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

Well, let me2 respond, Councilwoman. In a sense, we3 have a critical mass of arts and cultural4 people in the building, and that happened5 just in the natural course of things.6 First the Electric Factory, and Mike7 Lemon goes way back in that, and we've8 had acting schools. We have a theatre9 group, 1812. Those organizations that I10 named are mostly in our building. And I11 think when Mike Lemon testifies, he would12 have something to say about bringing13 together, because that's something that14 he does, brings together various people15 as kind of an incubator.16

That's the17 word I was searching for, incubator. And18 so let me suggest, purely as a19 suggestion, to reach to the Greater20 Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, which is21 looking for a developer or an interested22 party who gets it in terms of what that23 kind of critical mass means for a24 community and explore with them that25 173 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 possibility, especially or at least2 acknowledging that there are vacancies.3

We will do that,4 Councilwoman.5

Lastly,6 how did those X number of civic7 organizations get so lucky to be8 considered for your hit list?9

We're out there10 every day talking to people, meeting11 people. And in the Grays Ferry area, we12 have a major property there. That's the13 Campus Park and Ride and the Pennsy Flea14 Market, but I have ties to lots of15 neighborhoods. I was born and raised at16 7th and Morris. The property in Grays17 Ferry, Morris Street goes right through18 it, and this property is on 7th Street.19 So I'm connected.20

Got it.21 Okay. Thank you for your testimony.22 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.23

You're24 welcome.25 174 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 Councilmember Goode.2

Thank you,3 Mr. Chairman.4 Just very briefly, Mr. Berman.5 Following up on Councilman DiCicco's6 question about whether it is in fact 207 percent or a hundred thousand dollars a8 year, I understand the projected revenue9 is $500,000. That's why you used a10 hundred thousand dollar figure. I guess11 my question really is, how is the 2012 percent memorialized with respect to this13 legislation?14

Well, I don't15 believe it's in the -- I don't think it16 was appropriate -- I was told it was not17 appropriate to put directly in the18 legislation, but we will memorialize it19 any way that you would wish. We have a20 long track record, so it's something we21 want to do, and we're happy to22 memorialize it in any way that's23 appropriate, if that's what the Council24 wishes.25 175 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1

I guess the2 second question is, when will the 203 percent be memorialized?4

We're prepared to5 do it immediately, if that's an6 acceptable use.7

Thank you.8

We don't want to9 dictate the use.10

Thank you,11 Mr. Chairman.12 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:13 Councilmember Greenlee.14

Very15 quickly. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.16 Ms. Graboyes mentioned the17 tenants or residents of the building18 certainly had no complaint with the wall19 wrap. If you're aware, during this time,20 obviously SCRUB was opposing and there21 was entities right outside the immediate22 area opposing it. Were there any -- did23 you receive complaints from property24 owners in the immediate area while the25 176 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 wall wrap was up? Did you have any2 opposition from immediate residents, that3 you're aware of?4

No.5

Okay.6 All right. Thank you.7

Just let me8 just say for the record, I mean, I really9 am appreciative of your charitable giving10 and I think it's important that corporate11 and commercial people do charitably give.12 If I'm voting one way or the13 other on this bill, I'm not voting on it14 based on that representation. If this15 wall wrap is a help in maintaining a16 vibrant business at that location, if the17 wall wrap is helpful in bringing energy18 and vibrance to a cultural and commercial19 strip that needs some continued life20 pushed into it, that's why I'll be voting21 that way.22 I do appreciate you raising23 your involvement in the community. I24 think it's important that businesspeople25 177 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 do that, but it will have nothing2 whatsoever to do with how I vote on this3 particular bill. And I'm speaking for4 myself, and I suspect that a large number5 of us here, if not all of us here, feel6 the same way, and they could express7 themselves either way, but I don't want8 to get to the point where we're trading9 that way. It's either good for the10 building, good for the community and good11 for the strip, and that we'll vote yes or12 no. And, again, I applaud you for your13 charitable work, but it will have nothing14 whatsoever to do with the passage of this15 bill.16 Councilman Goode.17

I totally18 concur with the Chairman's remarks. I19 was voting against the bill anyway, so I20 just wanted to address that part of your21 testimony.22

Did I see23 any other lights on?24 Mr. Lemon, do you just want to25 178 11/1/11 - RULES - BILL 110341, ETC.1 add a few.2

Yeah. I'll throw3 in my two cents. Mike Lemon from Mike4 Lemon Casting.5 First of all, I want to commend6 you. I didn't know what City Council did7 until today.8

Neither do9 we.10

It's been --11