COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, December 1, 2003 1:20 p.m. - - - - BILLS 030645, 030670, 030709, 030721, 030730, 030740. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 030740 PAGE TOM WITT, ESQ., Wolfson Verecchia Group.. MARK CAPLAN, ESQ., Wolfson Verecchia..... ALAN KESSLER, ESQ., Wolfson Verecchia... 17 6 JOE DESANTIS, McMahon Assoc............. 22 JENNIFER RICHARDS....................... 56 PATTY KOZLOWSKI, PRO PAC................ 61 THERESA COSTELLO, PRCG.................. 80 STATE REPRESENTATIVE JOHN TAYLOR........ 88 CHIP MARSHALL, Temple University Health System.............................. 95 JERRY COGLAN, Carpenters Union......... 108 HENRY NICHOLAS, Hospital Workers Union. 111 CAROLYN MURAWSKI....................... 115 KAREN SCANNELL......................... 117 DENNIS GUEST, Northeastern Hospital.... 121 ROBERT VIDRA........................... 124 MARY ANN TROMBETTA..................... 127 MARK HANKIN, Arsenal Association...... 129 PATRICK HURRAN, Legend Properties...... 134 LAURA LANZA............................ 137 ALBERT FREDERICO, Pennoni Associates... 148 THOMAS WITT............................ 262 BILL 030645 WENDELL YOUNG, IV, UFCW Local 1776..... 152 PAT EIDING, AFL-CIO.................... 167 IRWIN ARONSON, ESQ., UFCW Local 1776... 171 JOHN MCGRATH, Local 1823............... 179 MICHAEL SKLAROFF, ESQ.................. 183 STEVEN POLLACK, Bar Association........ 189 JASON TODD, Pa. Realtors Association... 192 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning ......... 201 BILL 030730 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning.......... 208 GREG SPEARMAN.......................... 212 ELDER PAMELA K. WILLIAMS............... 218 TRACY GORDON........................... 220 BILL 030670 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning.......... 222 RICHARD MULCAHEY, ESQ.................. 223 SISTER BARBARA ANN WINNELLS............ 225 3 I N D E X (con't) BILL 030709 PAGE HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority 228 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning......... 229 MR. PECATRORE, CATCH, Inc.............. 230 KATHLEEN MURRAY........................ 231 BILL 030721 HERBERT WETZEL, Redevelopment Authority 232 RICHARD REDDING, City Planning......... 234 JOANNA KING............................ 234 JEREMY NEWBERG, Jefferson CDC.......... 239 JOSEPH GETKA........................... 240 DAMON GETKA............................ 243 MELVIN HAMPTON......................... 257 4 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen, the Council Committee on Rules is now in session. Let me make one brief request. This room is not supposed to be used for Council Chambers. It is a temporary room since we've had the flood. Any extraneous conversation just blows us away; We can't hear anything. So if you need to talk, you've got to go out in the hallway. We will allow everybody to be heard. We'd like to conduct this in a very civil way. So, hopefully, everybody will abide by the rules and we'll get through this. We have a very long witness list, so we'd like to try to get moving on it. Thank you very much for your attendance today. The first Bill on the calendar is Bill No. 030740, which is an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia zoning maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Allegheny Avenue, Collins Street, Westmoreland Street and Tulip Street. Representatives of the Planning 5 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Commission, please. Is Mr. Chapman here? We'd like the representatives of the proposed developer, whoever is going to testify. Mr. Kessler is on the list, and I see a number of people with him, so whoever is going to lead the testimony. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, Mr. Kenney. I'm Tom Witt of Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen. We're counsel to the Wolfson Verecchia Group, which is the proposed developer of the proposed Wal-Mart store at this location. With me are my partner, Alan Kessler, of Wolf Block. Also our co-counsel, Mark Caplan is with us. Steve Wolfson of Wolfson Verecchia Group, and Joe DeSantis of McMahon Associates, who will address traffic and related issues. There are, among the various appeals for support of this project, two that we wanted to bring to your special attention. They're each in the form of a letter to 6 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Councilman DiCicco in October of this year, the 45th Ward Executive Committee; and earlier than that, in June of this year, from the Port Richmond Industrial Development Enterprise. You will find other community support as the proceedings proceed. I would like to give you to Mr. Caplan, who will present the witnesses in the project.
My name is Mark Caplan, Caplan, Stewart. I'm co-counsel with Mr. Kessler and Mr. Witt for Wolfson Verecchia Group, Inc., the developer of the proposed project. I know you have a lot on your agenda today, and we would like to describe the existing conditions of the property, a brief outline of the proposal, a brief outline of the architectural plans which have been discussed, and then a brief discussion by Joe DeSantis, our traffic engineer from McMahon and Associates, discussing traffic access to the site, pedestrian access, and how delivery 7 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 trucks will get there. I have put on the board in front of you a plan prepared by Bowler Engineering, and that plan shows what is essentially a City block. It is a vacant former industrial facility. In fact, it's two former vacant industrial facilities; the G.B. Goldman Paper Company property and the Wild Dye House property. This property, which contains roughly 400,000 square feet of vacant space, covers an entire City block from Allegheny on the south to Westmoreland on the north, from Tulip on the east to the railroad tracks on the west. And when Mr. DeSantis gets up here, he'll take you through the details. I just wanted you to understand the relative size of the property. As has been testified in these Chambers before, there have been a number of other potential developers -- or maybe I should say redevelopers -- who have attempted to take this vacant property and to reuse it, to redevelop it and reuse it. And our information is that all of those, save Mr. 8 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Wolfson, have been unable to bring about a viable project. Maybe that's because of what is involved in the existing property. As I said, it's over 400,000 square feet. It's got to be demolished. It is contaminated with a series of substances. The interior has asbestos. There are some PCBs that need to be removed. There's more than one underground tank. There was a series of spills on this property, I believe in the '80s and in the '90s. And as part of our proposal to redevelop this property, we have proposed to the Department of Environmental Protection, a comprehensive remediation plan that would be a brown field solution to a property like this, and that plan has been approved by DEP. And we believe that that's been a significant impediment, that and the large cost of removing and getting rid of contaminated property. That's a brief overview of the existing conditions. I'd like to move on to the second part, and that's our proposal. As I said, we will completely demolish the existing 9 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 buildings. As depicted on the drawing in front of you, the tan area is a 139,000 square foot Wal-Mart general merchandise store. This store is not a super center. It is not intended to contain a large food operation that is the subject of other matters that you have before you.
Mr. Chairman, thank you. Mr. Caplan, I'm sorry for interrupting your testimony, but could you be a little bit more specific as to the latter part of your statement, the percentage of space that we agreed to through negotiations over the last several months?
Yes. You had a colloquy when the big box ordinance was before this Committee about two weeks ago. The limitation is 10 percent; therefore, you would have a maximum of food component in the entire building of approximately 13,900 square feet, which is what you normally see in a general merchandise store. And I believe that you have been given a letter from the developer or 10 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 from Mr. Witt regarding the details of the restriction that would be incorporated into the lease between Mr. Wolfson's entity and Wal-Mart to prohibit a super center here, in essence.
We have another bill in front of us today, Bill No. 030645, that would limit the amount of space in the big box, if you will, future stores that would come to Philadelphia. How does that compare to the bill that we're speaking of here regarding the Wal-Mart? If it falls within those guidelines, the Wal-Mart proposal for Allegheny Avenue would not exceed?
No, it would not exceed that. When I was last here and I listened to the testimony, there were some confusing items about what could be built and what couldn't be. Using the logical interpretation of that bill, we would only have 10 percent of the space in this building would be food.
So is it correct to say if the bill that you're testifying on concerning the -- whoever wants 11 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 to answer can answer this -- the bill that's being testified on for the proposed Wal-Mart on Allegheny Avenue if it were built, even if the other bill, 030645, were to pass, the Wal-Mart on Allegheny Avenue would be within compliance? It would not exceed that bill?
Tom Witt of Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen. The other bill combines food, pharmaceuticals and toiletries and limits the combination of those three categories to 10 percent of any store. We would not meet that requirement. We will meet a requirement of no 15 more than 10 percent for food.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Could I get some specific language with respect to the restrictions? Is this in the lease restriction or is it a deed restriction for the site?
Well, we've got to work 12 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 that through with Councilman DiCicco. But at a minimum there will be a restriction on the Wal-Mart lease that will prohibit Wal-Mart from having more than percent. 6 We have also said that there will be 7 a recorded declaration of what you're broadly 8 calling a deed restriction. There will be a 9 document that will be recorded that will be in 10 the chain of title that will set forth that restriction.
Upon any termination of lease with Wal-Mart, any similar entity coming in operating a similar type of store, they would be restricted under the caveat of that original agreement?
It's just between Wal-Mart and Wolfson Verecchia. That's what's been requested of us, as far as I know, to this point, to really make sure that this is not a Wal-Mart super center, which seems to be the target of the other bill.
Thank you very much. 13 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Please proceed.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. If it's okay, this is just a follow-up to Councilman Clarke's question. I thought the Councilman's question was regarding something that we generally refer to as this deed restriction, which I don't want to argue with you as a lawyer, but I thought generally when you had a deed restriction, it usually ran with the land, regardless of who the user was. I think that was the Councilman's question.
I understand that, Councilman Nutter. My understanding of the discussions to this point have been that there was an objection -- and we heard it here a couple weeks ago -- by Mr. Young and 1776 specifically aimed at Wal-Mart, and that's what we have concentrated on. And that restriction, which will be in their lease, will also be recorded. 14 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
The lease is going to be recorded, a memorandum of the lease will be recorded and the restriction will be recorded. They'll be recorded in the Department of Records just like any other deed restriction.
I just wanted to have it understood for the record where it was recorded and the significance of such a recording. Thank you.
To the right side of the plan that you're looking at is Allegheny Avenue. To the top, I believe it is Tulip Street, and to the bottom is the railroad. Behind that is Westmoreland Street. As you can see, the entire Goldman and Wild Dye House properties will be removed. We will have 652 parking spaces, landscaping, lighting, three pedestrian accesses that Mr. DeSantis will refer to, all of which will be in compliance with the zoning district that we're asking this property to be changed to. I'm sure you are aware that to the top of the drawing is Tulip Street, where 15 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Northeastern Hospital is located. This plan that you see is about the fourth version of the plan. When we originally started months ago, the truck loading dock, which is in the lower left-hand corner, was completely flipped. This was on the other side. We had truck loading there. We had access from Tulip Street. This configuration was objected to by the hospital in discussions that Mr. Wolfson had with representatives of the hospital. And the bottom line is that we have completely sealed off the Tulip Street side of our property from vehicular access or truck access to absolutely minimize any conflict with the hospital. There is, as you will see -- and maybe I'm stealing Joe's thunder -- but there are only three accesses to this property. On Allegheny, where there will be a new light that Mr. DeSantis will talk about; one on the lower rear where the truck loading and truck access is up against the railroad, and then a small access near Tulip and Westmoreland for traffic that wants to exit and use 16 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Westmoreland Street. I think it's fair to say that --
Would you give me again who the parties to the agreement are?
The parties to the agreement are Wolfson Verecchia Group, Inc., who will be the owner of the property, and the Wal-Mart stores or the Wal-Mart business trust that will be the long-term lessee of the property, Mr. Cohen.
I'm not asking what the intention is. I'm asking whether under the terms of the agreement -- as you know as a lawyer, two parties in agreement can always get together and change the agreement. I'm asking, is that possible here? 17 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Because we will put in whatever necessary language and make a third party a beneficiary of this restriction so that it can be enforced. We are not here trying to put a sham over on Council.
Well, that we don't know. We're weighting the evidence to see whether that's true or not. We're certainly not going to take it in good faith because that's not our job. Our job is to see that laws are passed and that the laws mean what they say.
Mr. Kessler may have other points of view with respect to that, but then we disagree with lots of things.
Councilman Cohen, this may be something we don't disagree with. This 18 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 is Alan Kessler of the Wolf, Block firm. Councilman Cohen, we negotiated this with Councilman DiCicco's office in good faith. I can assure you we will agree to whatever language is being requested. The percent 7 limitation is a good faith restriction and 8 limitation. If it's the will of this Body 9 that it be deed restriction, we will do what 10 we have to do to accomplish that.
We all have great confidence in Councilman DiCicco, but this is a 17-person Body. And a 17-person Body has to, as an organization, be of one mind on this issue, or at least the majority have to be. That's our responsibility.
Well, Councilman Cohen, as I said, the offer I just made wasn't to Councilman DiCicco. It was to the entire Council. We will negotiate -- not negotiate -- we'll agree --
Well, we'd like to have that negotiation take place here so we can see it. I've made mistakes in my lifetime. I'm sure Councilman DiCicco would 19 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 agree that on occasions he's made a mistake. And I think that would go for every member of this 17-member Body.
Councilman Cohen, we'll negotiate wherever this Body -- if it's in this room or if it's in a Councilman's office or a Councilwoman's office, we'll do those negotiations.
We would like to know what everything is that's being negotiated because the Councilman is now asking, as the district Councilman involved, he's asking for the approbation of the entire Body, and therefore each of us, each of the 16 members -- or 16 currently in office -- have a 17 responsibility. And we want to be able to answer to all the people in the City what that responsibility is and how it will be carried out.
Can I make one suggestion, respectfully? I would like to get through this panel's testimony and then we can start asking them questions. If we get 20 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 sidetracked with side questions, we'll never get through the list. So if I could ask for everyone's agreement, that we would allow this panel to finish and hold your questions until they're through.
Thank you, Mr. Kenney. At Councilman DiCicco's urging, Mr. Wolfson and his consultants, the architects from Tulsa, Oklahoma who are Wal-Mart's architects, a company called BSW, met with a number of civic organizations, business associations to discuss all of the aspects of this project. We talked about traffic. We talked about location of entrance. We talked about location of loading docks. We talked about how trucks will get to and from the distribution center. As a result of those meetings -- and Mr. Kessler will address this in a minute -- over many months we have made many changes to the plan. As I said, we flipped the loading dock. As I said, Wal-Mart architects from Tulsa, Oklahoma came to the community, went through the community, got a feel for the 21 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 architecture of the community. And in discussions with neighborhood groups, came up with a theme for all sides of the property, which is a basic brick theme because it was thought to be consistent with the architecture of the neighborhood. That drawing in front of you shows all sides of the property being clad with the brick material. Joe DeSantis is our traffic engineer. Joe is a member of the firm of McMahon and Associates, and as he will tell you in a minute, he grew up across the street from this property and he knows much more about the traffic than I do. And using the boards, Joe is going to tell you about access from a vehicle point of view, pedestrian point of view, and very important, how the trucks are going to get there. Joe, if you could come up.
You're going to have to take one of those microphones out if you're going to do it from there. Please identify yourself for the record. 22 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Good afternoon. My name is Joe DeSantis. I'm a principal at McMahon Associates. We are a traffic and transportation engineering firm based in Fort Washington. We have offices in three states and we've done traffic engineering work for numerous large retailers, as well as Wal-Mart, throughout the country.
Joe, I think you know enough about this property and the accesses and the neighborhood to explain how this is going to work, and I'm not going interrupt you, or I'm going to try not to.
What I'll do is, I'll take you through, again, as Mark said, three categories of access and circulation; vehicular access, pedestrian and then truck deliveries. Orienting the board again, we have Tulip Street on the east side; Allegheny Avenue along the southern side of the property. The parking field is in front of the building on the south side. There's three 23 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 curb cuts to the property; two on Westmoreland Street. One is primarily for truck access and the second is a rear access for vehicular traffic. The primary access, however, will be on Allegheny Avenue. We've designed it with two lanes coming out of the driveway, and a traffic signal will be located at that access point. We've coordinated the design of the traffic signal with the City's traffic engineering division, and that signal will be coordinated along with the rest of the signals that are currently on Allegheny Avenue, which are a part of the close system right now. The access originally located opposite Janney Street, which is one way towards the site, through discussions with the neighbors, there was some concern how that may draw traffic through the neighborhood. With that request, and working with the City's traffic group, we relocated the signal to Woody Street, which is actually one way away from the site. And Woody Street is a non-residential street. So it was felt that that was a better location for this site. It 24 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 also gave us better spacing between the traffic signals. So that's how the vehicular access will work. Pedestrian access, there's three pathways to the front of the store; along the railroad coming from the west, in the middle of the site from Allegheny, opposite Janney, and then walking along Tulip, there will be a connection through on Tulip Street. There's a bus stop on Allegheny Avenue at Janney Street. Westbound buses will stop at Janney Street and pedestrians can exit the bus and walk right up the pathway to the front of the store and then get back on the bus to continue westbound. Eastbound bus stop at Janney Street, the traffic signal at Woody will have pedestrian traffic signals as part of the design. So pedestrians can walk to the Woody Street signal, push the button and cross the street to access the site. Truck driving was a third concern of the residents. What we've done is coordinated with Wal-Mart's distribution center to identify how they would direct their trucks to 25 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 and from the site. Real quickly I'll run through it. We have two boards. One shows how truck traffic would come from the north and south, particularly on I-95. This board is oriented. It shows a large area of the Port Richmond area. 95 is to the bottom of the board. Aramingo Avenue is right here. And this is Allegheny, and here is the site. Truck traffic will be directed to exit I-95 coming from the north to the Aramingo interchange at Adams Avenue and travel south on Aramingo Avenue, turn right onto Westmoreland and come into the rear of the site. To travel back north, they will be required to come out onto Westmoreland, again turn left, travel Aramingo to the interchange and head north. Aramingo being a four-lane highway with left-turn lanes is a better route for the trucks. To and from the south, the trucks are directed to pass by the Allegheny interchange, continue up to the Adams Avenue, Aramingo Avenue interchange, travel back down 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Aramingo Avenue to the site. And then the reverse flow, travel back to Aramingo to the interchange and then travel south on I-95. So that's the truck route.
Are there any other fact witnesses as far as in your panel?
Yes. Mr. Kessler has been very much involved in a lot of the negotiations, and would like to address certain other concerns and events that have taken place.
Thank you, Mark. My name again is Alan Kessler of Wolf, Block, and I want to be brief. I just want to talk a little bit about two things. One, the process -- and obviously the substance is far more important than process -- but the process, and about the applicant here, the developer. I'm not talking about Wal-Mart. I'm talking about Wolfson Verecchia. Steve Wolfson, who is to my right, came to us over a year ago with this project. And the timetable was, not surprisingly, more than ambitious. 27 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 We had an early sit-down and made it clear that there were a number of steps that we had to undertake here, and at the end the day, that we had to make sure that we satisfy each and every segment that's involved in this process, to the extent we could. That started with the district Councilman involved, because through him the project is introduced. I think we met with Councilman DiCicco over a year ago in my office to introduce the project, to talk to him informally about what we would have to do here and what we were intended to do. We didn't ask Councilman DiCicco at that time for anything. We just asked him to please keep an open mind and to help us maneuver and navigate and made sure we were talking to all of the civic representatives in the area that we should be talking to, that we should be doing everything that we could to address the obvious issues of traffic and parking and safety. And we have had, at my count, somewhere between six or seven or eight meetings, some convened by Councilman DiCicco with area political and 28 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 community leaders. Some directly with community leaders. Some with the hospital. We have turned ourselves inside out during this process. And Mr. Wolfson has seen what he had hoped for, and that is a bill to be introduced sometime in March or April, turn into May, turn into July, turn into October, now fortunately, early December. Mr. Wolfson understands the nature of the area that he's come into. One of the things that I take great pride in trying to do with Mr. Wolfson, because this is his first developmental project like this in the City of Philadelphia, is to let him know some of the things that I hope the Council is interested in, some of the things I'm certainly interested in, and that is attempting to meet and address the community in which he is going to proceed in more ways than just his development. What I mean by that is contributions that Wolfson Verecchia needs to make to the community as a good corporate citizen. It has made a proposal, assuming this project goes, that that proposal is not 29 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 etched in stone. It's a very generous proposal to some of the area parishes. But the intent is a clear one, and that is to become a citizen of this area, not only in this business, but also, as I said, as a good corporate citizen.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Mr. Kessler, and thank all of the members of your panel. I want to go back to the question -- and I forget the gentleman who did a great job of doing the traffic patterns -- has there been any discussion on signage? We talked about the truck route. How will the truckers know? I know the Wal-Mart truckers may get a map, if you will, for deliveries from the main distribution center. Aside from that, were there any discussions with the Streets Department about signage that would restrict truck traffic on the streets that are mainly 30 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 concerning folks on Westmoreland and Allegheny Avenue?
At this point, there have not been direct conversations on that matter.
I think we're going to need to do something quickly with that as well. As for the investments that Mr. Kessler just spoke about with the parishes, to be more direct, as of today, the developer has agreed over a five-year period to make a contribution to three of the parishes, St. Adalbert's, Our Lady Help of Christians and the BVM, I believe it was. Right?
And that would be $5,000 a year to each parish over the next five years, which is right now a $75,000 community reinvestment.
And we still have not, as you said, put that in stone because there may be some additional 31 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 investments that we were looking at, within reason.
That's correct. And let me say, Councilman, that even though that is a contribution by the developer, Wolfson Verecchia, I would like the record to just reflect -- again, this is Alan Kessler -- that Wal-Mart has made over $170,000 of similar community contributions over the last few years with respect to three of its facilities.
We haven't even addressed the Wal-Mart contributions; is that correct? Is that what you're saying?
That's right. There was a $60,000 contribution last year made by Wal-Mart to the community around the Columbus Avenue store. I believe that there was a $40,000 contribution made to the community with regard, I believe, to the store on the Boulevard. And Franklin Mills -- maybe it was the Sam's Club at Franklin Mills and the Wal-Mart store at Franklin Mills made a similar $60,000 contribution. This is Wal-Mart's standard operating procedure. It 32 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 just doesn't get very much publicity.
Thank you. I have no further question for this panel at this time.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, can I ask that the site plan be put up again? I had a couple questions with respect to that.
No. The actual site plan itself. If you can, can you just point out the proximity of the residential community, the hospital and any other commercial properties or residential properties?
Looking at the plan, the hospital is across Tulip Street in this area.
Directly across the 33 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 street.
Councilman Clarke, the hospital runs from Allegheny Avenue back to Westmoreland, so the entire east side of Tulip Street is hospital.
Okay. Are there any vehicular entrances on Tulip Street to the hospital?
Is there any entrances to the hospital on Tulip Street?
There are entrances on Tulip from the hospital, but none from the development?
Any residential property? Just give me a run down on all of the perimeter.
Starting on the 34 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Westmoreland side, this is all industrial warehousing. Some mixed residential in this area, but again manufacturing and industrial. This is the hospital through this block. The residential is actually mostly on Allegheny heading south and goes to about Janney Street. On the other side of Janney through to the railroad is warehousing and parking fields.
This is a railroad that kind of dissects the area. And the other side immediately is more industrial and the residential really picks up by Amber Street, which is a couple blocks away.
Right. Most of the residential is towards the southeast portion.
A portion of the south side of Allegheny Avenue. If you can show him from Tulip to -- approximately 40 percent -- I'll go as high as 50 percent of the south side of Allegheny Avenue is 35 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 residential. I think it's actually a little bit less, but 50 percent max.
Mr. Kessler, what brought about the contributions to the community?
What brought about the contributions made to the community?
Councilman Cohen, as Mr. Caplan and I both said, this is something that Wal-Mart and its developers do as a matter of course. It's just something they don't get a whole lot of publicity for.
Well, that could be one side. How did the community accept the proposal originally? Were the contributions given to the community in order to win its approval, or were they given in grateful 36 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 response to the acceptance by the community of the proposal?
Councilman, if you don't mind, maybe I can respond to that.
Well, I would rather you did not respond to that, Councilman. I'd rather have Mr. Kessler respond to it because he's responded in other ways.
I made the request of the developers, as I do with most major projects in my district. I have done that over the years. We just did a large community reinvestment with the Ikea folks, as you recall, about this time last year. Whenever a large developer proposes to build a facility in my district -- I assume it happens in the other districts as well -- part of my negotiations always deals with, if your project gets approval, will there been any consideration for community reinvestment. The parishes that I mentioned that would receive 37 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 the community reinvestment dollars, should this bill pass, was not at their request. In fact, the pastors did not even know about this until Wednesday or Friday of last week, that I announced to them that I had in writing a tentative agreement on the value of the community reinvestment dollars from the developer. We didn't even get into the discussion about Wal-Mart yet. So again, Mr. Kessler is really responding to a request that I made of him as the attorney who represents the developer and Wal-Mart to some degree.
Councilman, I don't wish to engage you in any questioning about your motivation. I know you too well, so I know about your motivation, and it's always a good one. But I am concerned Mr. Kessler who, in another matter before us involving the Philadelphia Housing Authority, sent the letter, a copy of which was circulated to every Member of Council, reminding the Councilmembers of his efforts to collect money on behalf of their reelection campaigns. That's what 38 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 concerns me. Because obviously Mr. Kessler, when he found a Committee that was not as amenable to him as he thought it ought to be, apparently decided to remind us that he helps us collect funds. And since my name is apparently not among his contributors, he reminded me -- and sent copies to every Member of the Council -- reminding me of the fact that he's collected money from my colleagues. Now, that may or may not be a good thing to do from the point of view of campaign finance, but certainly Mr. Kessler has defied the City Council. He has informed his clients that they're under no obligation to come and testify before City Council, yet he's here today in response to a Wal-Mart proposal. And so I am very concerned about how he looks at these contributions, and why in some events he offers them, in other events he doesn't. So that's the reason I'm raising it, Councilman. It has nothing to do with your request. It has to do with the intent of Mr. Kessler in making those available or recommending them to his client. 39 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
I appreciate that, sir. I don't think -- and I know you weren't directing your comments to me -- but I don't believe Mr. Kessler has made any political contributions to me. In fact, when I get back to my office I'm going to check to make sure, and then I'm going to ask why or why not.
Mr. Chairman, if I can. I have no idea what this has to do with this hearing, and I'm not going to get into it, quite frankly. But since there is a record, I'm just going to say I completely object to the characterization by Councilman Cohen to that letter. That letter will speak, or other letters will speak for themselves, as well as comments made by Mr. Cohen to certain third parties. But again, the last thing we want to see is this hearing get diverted by something that is completely irrelevant. I appreciate Councilman DiCicco explaining the nature of the community reinvestment that this developer has agreed to. 40 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
If I may, I'd like to cut this off, but I have a response that I think will be of interest to Councilman Cohen. There are over a thousand signatures of support. We didn't include in our presentation, our witnesses, the people who have spent a great deal of time with my client who are here. They will be able to express their own rationale for why they support this project.
Well, I'm very concerned because I don't know what you know perhaps, or maybe I know more than you know. I don't know. But I would like, Mr. Chairman, to have read into the record a paragraph of a letter Mr. Kessler sent to me as Chairman of the Law and Government Committee, which he circulated to all Members of City Council, with respect to his idea of his political contributions and what the Committee ought to be doing.
Councilman, I certainly can't stop any Member from speaking, 41 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 nor would I try to. I just don't know whether or not that's particularly relevant. This would be my opinion that that particular paragraph probably isn't relative to the issue we're discussing, but if you insist. I've known you long enough to know that I'm not going to stop you even if I tackle you in the hallway. That's just my opinion, that I don't think it's germane, but that's your decision to make.
Well, I would like to ask Mr. Jason Mayland to read in a paragraph from the letter sent to me by Mr. Kessler earlier this year.
If you want to read it, you can read it. Can you read it yourself.
I would like to ask Mr. Mayland of my staff to read that one paragraph.
Councilman Kenney, can I just interrupt and ask, if that's going to be the case, that entire letter be made part of the record. 42 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Again, I'm sorry that this issue is becoming the focal point of this hearing.
Well, I think, though, in fairness to Mr. Kessler, maybe the whole letter ought to be read, and not just excerpts from it.
I have no 12 objection to it, but I am requesting that that particular paragraph which relates to the subject under discussion be read into the record.
Would you consent to having your staff member reading the entire letter.
Yes. I have no 20 objection to it at all. It's much longer.
Please identify yourself for the record. Take a seat right here and use that microphone.
My name is Jason Mayland, M-A-Y-L-A-N-D. I'm Councilman 43 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Cohen's legislative assistant. This letter is on Wolf, Block letterhead, dated April 18th, 2003, via hand delivery to the Honorable Councilman David Cohen, City of Philadelphia, City Hall, Room 7 588, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107. Copies were circulated to all Members of Council and to Carl Greene, the Executive Director of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. Regarding City Council's subpoena issued to Carl Greene, Executive Director of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. "Dear Councilman Cohen, I am writing to you as legal counsel to the Philadelphia Housing Authority, PHA, concerning City Council Resolution Nos. 030117 and 030227, the public hearing notice for the hearing scheduled for April 22nd, 2003 and the subpoena seeking to compel Carl Greene, PHA's executive director, to testify at that hearing. "After reading the resolutions, the notice, the subpoena and most recently the media account of these matters in the Philadelphia Inquirer, I am compelled to 44 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 respond, both as counsel to PHA and on a personal level. It is regrettable that these issues have advanced to the point that any Member of City Council believes a subpoena to compel testimony is necessary. PHA already has voluntarily provided to City Council, without waiving its objections or any of its rights, all of the documents you requested concerning PHA's labor contracts. On more than one occasion, we have asked you to identify the information you seek from Mr. Greene so that we would be able to consider whether PHA could produce the information, without jeopardizing PHA's interest in the current labor negotiations. We have received no response to our request. "Moreover, Mr. Greene has scheduled a meeting with you and Councilwoman Blackwell on April 21st to discuss this matter. We remain hopeful that the meeting will adequately address your concerns and alleviate your desires to have Mr. Greene provide any testimony at a public hearing about matters 45 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 that are the subject of PHA's labor negotiations. You should be aware that as PHA's counsel, I have recommended to Mr. Greene that he not testify at the hearing scheduled for April 22nd, 2003. If Mr. Greene were to testify at the hearing, he would be in a position where he might be asked to divulge sensitive and confidential information about PHA's labor negotiations, including potentially privileged legal issues. This hearing threatens to intrude upon PHA's deliberative process and may jeopardize PHA's legal and financial interests. "PHA must be permitted to negotiate with its labor unions according to the rules established and enforced by the Pennsylvania Labor Relations Board. As an authority created under the laws of the Commonwealth, PHA must respect the oversight structure created by the Pennsylvania legislature, which provides local control over PHA through five appointed commissioners, and which does not provide an oversight role to City Council. 46 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 "Moreover, as you know, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court is now considering issues regarding the status of PHA as a Commonwealth agency. It would be unfortunate and a mistake for you or any of your colleagues to interpret a decision by Mr. Greene not to testify about PHA's labor negotiations in response to a subpoena as a reflection of a lack of respect for City Council and its Members. Nothing could be further from the truth. "On a personal level, I must say that, like you, I have spent many years in public service working for the betterment of Philadelphia and its institutions. I have served as a Chair of the Board of Building Standards and the Board of Licenses and Inspection Review and as a member of the City Planning Commission, and currently as a member of the Board of Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation.
I also have many years of service to our party, including as the finance vice chair of the Democratic National Committee, and with my recent appointment by 47 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Governor Rendell, as the state finance chair of the party. I have always responded generously to the requests of many of your colleagues for various forms of support, political, financial and otherwise. "I would certainly hope that you and your fellow members of City Council would not call into question my own deep respect for City Council, or my motives for advising Mr. Greene that he should decline to appear and to testify concerning PHA's labor negotiations. As for Mr. Green's motives, I personally represent to you that they are based firmly upon protecting the interests of PHA as an independent entity. "Finally, on a related matter, I wish to address how we might work together to improve the quality of public disclosure about these issues. In a recent Inquirer article, Councilman Ortiz is quoted as having referred to Mr. Greene as a transient, presumably because he is not Philadelphia born. Knowing Councilman Ortiz as I do, I truly believe that he did not intend to inflame the current debate. 48 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 "I have a close professional and personal relationship with Carl Greene. I consider him to be a true public servant, in the best sense of that term. You may recall that Mr. Greene arrived in Philadelphia five years ago at the urging of then Mayor Rendell to run PHA. During the past five years, Mr. Greene has developed strong roots in Philadelphia. Moreover, he has made enormous contributions to the revitalization of Philadelphia's neighborhoods and improvements in the quantity and quality of low income housing. He is not unlike tens of thousands of others who have moved to Philadelphia, including new immigrants and other public servants, who have made enormous contributions to the fabric of our City. "Indeed, the issues we are now addressing have nothing to do with the length of Mr. Green's tenure at PHA. PHA executive directors, like City Council Members, do not serve indefinitely, but the institutions themselves, PHA and City Council, are permanent. Both will continue to function and 49 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 pursue their interests for the betterment of Philadelphia, regardless of current leadership or membership. "Carl Greene and I are committed to working with you to ensure that City Council is provided adequate information, while at the same time preserving PHA's legal and financial interests in the ongoing labor negotiations. To that end, we look forward to our meeting on Monday. "Respectfully, Alan C. "
Mr. Kessler, did you make any efforts to make any contributions to the Mayor during the recent campaign?
Mr. Kenney, I may be out of order, but I'm only here on the behalf of the developer.
Could I just 50 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 have a moment?
Well, I'd like to know if you reminded the Mayor of your contributions?
I just wondered, Mr. Kessler, whether you had reminded the Mayor that you had been a frequent contributor of his in connection with this program.
Not at all? Did you make any contributions to the Mayor's recent election campaign.
I'm not Mr. Kessler's counsel, but I am his co-counsel, and I would suggest that we not answer this and that we 51 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 move on. We have a lot of people here.
I understand. I understand the problem, but you have to understand my situation. I have a Member of this Committee who is not going to back off. We've had a conversation, a private conversation -- (Applause.)
We have to get through the testimony. Everybody who has come here, who has sat here, who stood in the hallway has a right to be heard. I don't want to have to drag this out until 9:00 tonight to have people missing dinner and missing picking up their kids and everything else. We can dance around this all day. But we still need to get through the testimony. You have a right to refuse to answer the question. I made a request. I can't stop it. I don't know what else to say.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to refuse to answer. But one question leads to another question, which leads to another question. I'm not a principal in this 52 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 matter. If I say yes, I'll answer that question, there will be another question. If I answer that question, there will be another question. Then we are diverted from what we're here for.
I totally empathize with you, but I cannot physically shut it down. I agree with you, but I don't know how to physically stop someone from asking questions as a Member of this Committee. I would rather move on myself, but that's not the direction we're going in. So you can use your judgment as attorneys to answer or not answer as you see fit.
Mr. Chairman, I will answer one more question, and then I'll refuse to answer any other questions.
I will not tolerate that witness deciding how many questions he will answer or not. You are here before the Committee. The Committee asks the question and you answer. You are not in a position to decide how many 53 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 questions you're going to answer.
The answer to that question is, yes, I contributed to Mayor Street.
All right. Mr. Chairman, out of respect to you and other members of the Committee and to the people that are here, I will withhold any further questions at this point.
Thank you very much. Councilman Clarke, your finger is on the button.
Mr. Chairman, I don't want to belabor the point, and I think that people here in this room need to understand that developers contribute to numerous Members of Council, not just simply the Mayor and other elected officials. And the tone of the questioning suggests somehow that the Mayor is the only one who receives campaign contributions from this developer or any other developer that has come before us in the recent weeks since the election. I want to, for the 54 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 record, indicate that it is the practice of not only developers, but lawyers and other entities contributing to not just the Mayor, but to all members, all elected officials, both state and local and on the federal level. So I just wanted to say that for the record.
Thank you very much, Councilman, for that. We appreciate it. Are there any more questions for this beleaguered panel.
It's not what we expected, but thank you. We're done our factual presentation, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. If you guys -- you're going to be here, I'm sure, for the rest of the hearing -- could hammer out something concerning the deed restriction, lease restriction, what have you, that would be helpful. I'd like to have that before the end of this hearing today. And I'd like to share that with my colleagues on this 55 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 panel.
Thank you very much. I'd like to bring up witnesses in twos and threes if possible. The next people on my list are Jenn Richards and Patty from Pro Pac. If they're in the room, could you please come forward. Next will be Mr. Coglan.
Just identify yourself. Just as a word of advice, if possible, I don't require you to say anything or not say anything. But as the three of you are panelized -- I assume the three of you are on the same side of this issue?
No, you're not. Okay. Well, those that are on the same side of the issue, if you can refrain from repeating from what the other person just said, but add something new, it will make the hearing more interesting and save us some time. So you're not restricted. You can 56 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 speak as long as you like. Someone who wants to start first, please identify yourself for the record.
I have to pick my kid up, so I want to go first. My name is Jennifer Richards. I live on the 3200 block of Memphis Street. First, I'd like to thank everyone that attended, regardless of their stand on the proposal that has been brought to you today. As you can tell from the turn out, we have many residents that care about our Port Richmond community, and this just shows the pride we have for where we live. I live one block from the proposed building of the Wal-Mart by Wolfson Verecchia Group at the now abandoned Goldman Paper Company. The paper company has been abandoned for the last several years. In the last three years, there has considerable decline on that property and in the immediate area in which I and others live. Not only has Goldman Paper been an eye sore, but the surrounding houses in the neighborhood have had many problems, such 57 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 as rodent and insect infestation. Homeless people living around the property and set numerous fires just to keep warm. And one gentleman actually set himself on fire the other day. I myself have gone out and collected over a thousand signatures from the immediate neighborhood. I stopped at Aramingo Avenue. I went from Frankford Avenue to the east side of Aramingo. I've heard negative comments directed by the opposition, and I would like to make these statements. One of only the few complaints that I have heard is about truck traffic. The opposition states there is already too much truck traffic in Port Richmond. Goldman Paper used to have 10 trucks and two trains a day going in and out of that property, whereas Wal-Mart has already stated at a public meeting in the Port Richmond community that there would be no more than four trucks a day going there during their busiest season. That doesn't include FedEx, UPS, stuff like that, and an average of two truck a day on their normal times. 58 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Another complaint is traffic congestion. The opposition states that Port Richmond is already too congested on Allegheny and Aramingo Avenue, which I say to you, return the avenue to the four-lane arterial highway it was just three months ago, and that problem would alleviate almost immediately. I've heard complaints from Temple and Northeastern Hospital that there should not be a Wal-Mart across the street from the hospital, which is funny for me to hear since Wal-Mart has worked with the hospital and rearranging the plan so the hospital will benefit by designating some of their area for the hospital and staff parking. I think this is more than generous, since the hospital owns two unfinished parking lots. I think the hospital ought not throw parking stones where other parking lots may be built. I know there is one positive to the proposal: 300 additional jobs in my community. What are the negatives to that? None. I think it makes Port Richmond a better place to live and welcome any company to this community that 59 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 can give me that. I would like to say in closing that this nuisance problem with Goldman Paper should be torn out immediately and a responsible owner build on that site. Wolfson Verecchia Group has kept in constant contact with the neighborhood, and they know our concerns. They know what we as a community need, what we as a community want, and we know what we want as a community to expect from them. And I personally will make sure that what is promised by them will be kept to the community that I have lived in for all my life. I ask you to vote yes on the zoning issues that are brought before you today. I'd like to thank you for hearing me as the representative of the 1,000 signatures for a better, richer Port Richmond community. Thank you. (Applause.)
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 60 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 And thank you, Mrs. Richards. Thank you for all the work you've done, as I will thank everyone else, even the opposition.
Can I say one thing, though? I got a letter from my church way before I knew you were giving anybody any money. I got one from Sister Mary Ripp (ph) from Our Lady of Help months ago.
By the way, I'm not giving anyone any money, personally anyway. I've negotiated some community reinvestment dollars. Where do you live in proximity to the proposed site.
It's Tulip Street, the hospital, Memphis Street. I'm a block and a half.
So you're about a block, block and a half east of the Tulip Street side of the proposed Wal-Mart. So you're a neighbor, a close neighbor.
Thank you very 61 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 much. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Patty Kozlowski, K-O-Z-L-O-W-S-K-I. I'm the director of the Port Richmond on Patrol and Business Association. I want to explain to you how the Port Richmond on Patrol and Business Association -- it's shortened to PRO PAC -- and the Port Richmond Community Group, we're two civic associations in Port Richmond, how we came to the conclusion that the Port Richmond community does not want this Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny. In late February of 2003 a community meeting was called at the Nativity BVM parish, approximately five blocks east of the Tulip and Allegheny site, to update the Port Richmond community on a proposed Wal-Mart coming to the Goldman Paper site. At this meeting, over 300 people attended and were presented a very short presentation from Steven Wolfson of the Wolfson Verecchia Group that would be developing the site. John 62 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Myerson, a Union 1776 representative also spoke about the negative effect a Wal-Mart would have on the community. Also, John McGrath of Union Local 1823, the building trades, spoke in support of the Wal-Mart, saying it would give his union members the work to build the store. State Representative John Taylor attended this meeting, as did City Councilman Frank DiCicco. After the guest speakers, we opened the floor to residents' questions and concerns, and the two major topics were, one, traffic congestion and, two, the site being so close to our community hospital, Northeastern Hospital. At this time we asked the audience to give us a feel of how they felt about Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny. Half the room wanted it and half the room did not. We have 300 people in this church hall. We asked for a show of hands, who wants Wal-Mart, who doesn't. Literally, half the room raised for yes, half the room raised for no. 24 On a personal note, Port Richmond is a neighborhood where if you're born and raised 63 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 there, like myself, if you don't know everyone's name, you at least know their faces. And I looked out to those 300 people in Nativity Hall, and I did not know their faces. Checking the sign-in sheet, we found out why. There were union members from both sides that attended the meeting. They did not live in Port Richmond, but they have the audacity to raise their hands and try to pad a community decision for their own good. Guys were signing their names and writing their addresses from South Philly, Marlton, New Jersey and Villanova, PA. One guy actually tried to sign in as a resident of Port Richmond by writing that he lived on Allegheny Street. Not only is Allegheny Avenue not a street, but an avenue. But buddy, you don't spell Allegheny with three I's. So needless to say, this meeting was not an honest make-up of Port Richmond residents, and we could not get an honest read of what the community really wanted. Together, PRO PAC and PRCG got together and we published an article in the community newspaper, the Port Richmond Star, 64 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 outlining both the pros and cons of having a Wal-Mart built at Tulip and Allegheny Avenues. I'd like to submit the article to the board. This article was published on March 26th, 2003. At the end of the article, we asked residents of Port Richmond to fill out a survey and tell us if they wanted Wal-Mart to build at Tulip and Allegheny Avenue. This survey was published on the front page of the Port Richmond Star, and we gave the community three weeks to get it back to us. This edition of the newspaper reached 12,000 door steps and over 50 bulk drop locations throughout the Port Richmond area. We also accepted photocopies of the survey from residents. The reason we chose this medium to find out what Port Richmond wanted is because we felt we could not validate a door-to-door petition. We could not verify if someone was signing more than once or if they even lived in the area.
Once you read the article and the survey, you'll see that we asked for a name, address and phone number of the resident, and then we took a random sampling of surveys to 65 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 verify. At the end of this three-week period, a group of PRO PAC and PRCG members counted and recounted the surveys. In the end, the number was 171 Port Richmond residents wanted Wal-Mart and 548 Port Richmond residents did not want Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny Avenue. We published the results in the community newspaper and forwarded the information to all interested parties. To the two civic groups of Port Richmond, our community had spoken, and they had said no to Wal-Mart at Tulip and Allegheny. This survey procedure was full of dirty tricks. But from both sides. We asked the survey to be mailed in to where we meet at, which is the Samuel Recreation Center. There was a locked ballot box there, a locked survey box that the rec leaders didn't have a key to or anything. On the day the survey was due, April 9th, someone showed up and said they were my lawyer and wanted to pick up the surveys. I don't have a lawyer. I'm years old. I 25 still live with my mom and dad. I don't have a 66 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 lawyer. Before I conclude my testimony, I want to give you a brief look at our community of Port Richmond. We are not anti-Wal-Mart or anti-development. We just don't feel that a seven-acre commercial development with a big box retail store is the best idea for that Allegheny Avenue location. An avenue that has three of our churches and our schools, a playground, a rec center, our beloved Campbell Square, where the community holds Halloween parties, Christmas tree lightings and summer evening concerts. An avenue that has over 50 medical offices where the patients still walk to their appointments. An avenue where when one of the five funeral homes has a viewing, we don't use a hearse. Instead, the pall bearers simply lead the procession across Allegheny Avenue into one of our churches. You don't see that anymore, but it's still in Port Richmond. This is a place where every June the graduating nurses from the Northeastern Hospital School of Nursing don their black and red cap and gowns and participate in the traditional strut east 67 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 on Allegheny into the Nativity BVM to graduate and become RNs. This is the place where the biggest event in early May isn't election day, but it's the day when our parishes have their May processions, and hundreds of school children dressed in white dresses and suits walk along Allegheny Avenue to crown the Blessed Mother. m. And finally, this is the place where after the strut on Broad Street on New Year's Day, our own Polish American string band comes home and serenades Port Richmond on Allegheny Avenue. They start right at Tulip and Allegheny and serenade for the sick patients at Northeast Hospital, and then they serenade the crowds of thousands in front of every church to wish them a happy and healthy new year. And you want to put a Wal-Mart in the middle of this. Even a guy that spells Allegheny with three I's knows that this doesn't fit. Thank you. ) 68 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you, Patty for your testimony and all of the work that you've put into this issue. The random sampling that you refer to, the random sampling as a result of the polling, how many households did you sample?
I'm going to say about 250 to 270 people we called out of the 700. That was because we had some votes that we thought were fraudulent or void and we found some that we had to take out.
Did you also ask when you did the random sampling of those individuals whether they supported or not; was that part of your testimony.
What we did is, the random sampling, we would get a name and it would say, Patty Kozlowski, 3619 Thompson Street, with the phone number. We would call 69 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 and ask for that person, identify ourselves, ask what they wrote on the survey, and that's how we verified it.
Of the group that you surveyed, did you have any folks that did not live -- were there any false --
I have all the surveys here. Maybe about 30 of the votes were fraudulent or they did not live in the Port Richmond area.
So 15 percent approximately of the 200 that you called were not accurate.
The numbers I gave you, 171 for and 548 against, everything was valid with them. I also have votes that we called that they either lived in Fishtown or 70 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 Bridesburg or Jersey.
That's what I was trying to get at. How many of that 700 or 800 fell into that category?
All right. I needed to know that. Thank you. You are familiar with the Goldman Printing, and Ms. Richards testified before you about the truck traffic; is that an accurate statement.
Was it accurate what she referred to as the amount of truck traffic that Goldman Printing Company would produce on a daily basis.
I can't answer that. I don't know. I don't live in the close proximity that Ms. Richards does. 71 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740
But you're familiar with when the printing company was up and running.
I know. But they only closed three years ago after a desperate attempt on my behalf and others to try to keep them there. We worked with the Commerce Department, and we also worked with PRIDE, the Port Richmond Industrial Development Enterprise Zone, to try to keep them there. But despite our best efforts and a guarantee of tax credits and tax abatements from the City, it was just not feasible for a number of reasons, but primarily because the building is in such dire need of repairs that the cost renovating or retrofitting that building were astronomical, which left the owners of that company -- they had to get out. There was just no way they could stay. So now we have a vacant building there. I was at that meeting, by the way, 72 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 BVM, I think. I even asked a question -- or you asked it -- I was standing next to you -- how many people actually live here. And I think, if I'm not mistaken, we probably had about 50 to 75 out of that 500, 600 that actually lived in the Port Richmond community.
That is correct. And that is why we felt we were forced to do the survey because we felt any big community meeting that we did like that, we would have unions from both sides trying to pad the vote.
A little bit further west over the last few years there have been some other big boxes, if you will. I think it's a Walgreen's up near Frankford Avenue.
I think there may have been some opposition to those for a whole host of reasons at that time. It's not 73 12/1/03 - RULES - BILL 030740 your neighborhood, but it's not far away. Have you noticed any negative impact from those developments?
Well, it's Allegheny Avenue they're using, right? Any additional traffic that would interfere with some of the events that take place.