COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 4, 2007 1:30 p.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL BILLS 070913, 070934, 070936, 070943, 070944, 070946, 070948, 070957 and 070998 - - - 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 2
Good afternoon, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Rules Committee. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 070998. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 8 approving the plan, estimated costs and proposed method of assessment and charges of the Center City District for and concerning business improvements and administrative services to the central business district of the City of Philadelphia for 2008 through 2012; and approving estimated costs for debt service through 2025; all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Who is testifying on this bill? Mr. Levy. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Hi. I am Nick 3 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Malley. I'm Special Counsel to the Center City District.
And I'm Paul Levy, President of the Center City District. I have copies of my testimony here. I will give you an abbreviated version of my testimony out of respect for the busy schedule you've had and then defer to questions.
Thank you very much. So I'll skim through this testimony, but we are here today to request --
Excuse me, Mr. Levy. We will give a copy to the stenographer and it will be transcribed in full.
Thank you very much. I'm here to request your support for Council Bill No. 070998, which is the ordinance approving a new plan and budget for the Center City District. This Council approved the 4 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. District in 1990 and has approved subsequent renewals and expansions of the District. We're here today to ask for your approval for a new budget that is taking into account the substantial new development that's happening within the boundaries of the Center City District, both office, condo and other development, which is placing new demands on us for service, and by approving this budget, we can continue to have a gradual increase at the cost of living to all property owners, but improve the quality of services to all owners within the boundaries of the District. The process we followed is under the Municipality Authority's Act of 1945 under which we were created and authorized by this Council. So first our Board approved a new plan and budget. We then were obligated to mail that to all 3,596 District property owners and approximately 14,000 commercial tenants, which provided the new plan and budget, 5 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. as well as an estimated charge for every one of those 3,500 property owners. Again, following the Act, we held our own public hearing in July, at which 6 individuals testified in favor. Their 7 names are on . No one appeared to 8 testify against the plan and budget. 9 Skipping over to , we 10 then had to go through the process of 11 waiting for property owners who might 12 object to indicate their objections both 13 to the CCD as well as to the Clerk of 14 City Council. When we went through the 15 whole process at the end of that 45-day 16 common period, we had two valid objection 17 letters out of 3,596 property owners. There were two additional letters that were received outside the window, but just even if we counted them, what we have is four objections out of 3,596 property owners. Those owners represent 0.1 percent or one-tenth of one percent of District property owners and 0.2 or two-hundredth of one percent of the total 6 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. assessed value of the District. In short, we had very strong support from all the owners, objections legally from two, two others that came outside the window. And so based on that voting process and the approval by our Board, we are requesting your support for this new plan and budget, which will enable us to begin to operate January 1st under this new budget, which will enable us to provide more services. Again, we will continue our process of providing job opportunities to disadvantaged workers, individuals making the transition from welfare to work, as well as continuing to help other districts throughout Philadelphia as they plan and organize similar efforts. I'm open to any questions that you have at this point.
Thank you very much. Mr. Levy, what is the highest and the lowest assessment or can you give 7 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. us an average assessment?
Sure. The highest assessed value of the District is about $300,000 a year. The lowest is $1.96 for a storage unit on North Broad Street. But, again, that 300,000 is then passed through in the office buildings to the commercial tenants. So our charge for a typical office tenant in Center City is about cents a square foot on top of a 12 rent of about $27 a square foot. So it 13 is di minimus, which is why the owners 14 have been supportive. 15 I should also just add that 16 attached to my testimony is a formal 17 audit we had done by Asher and Company 18 going through all the votes we received 19 and Council received that was done 20 independent of us simply to verify that 21 count, and that's attached to my 22 testimony. 23
Thank 24 you. 25 Can you tell us in what amount 8 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. were the total value of the bonds issued and what is the total or projected repayment costs of these bonds?
When we issued bonds with Council's support in 1995, they were for $21 million, and that enabled us, with money that was then matched by the City and then subsequently by foundations, to carry out all the new street lighting, the trees, the directional signs. When we came back to Council to reauthorize the District in 2004, we lowered our debt service payments, which you enabled us to do. So we are going to be paying level debt service on those bonds through 2025. And in the plan and budget which you have, you'll see that that debt service is about $1.2 million a year out of what will be a $17 million budget.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? 9 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 13 070913. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 15 amending Section 14-1605 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulated Uses," by adding Take-out Restaurants and Small Retail Food Establishments to the list of designated regulated uses, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, 10 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Chairman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, the Acting Division Director of the Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 070913, which was introduced into City Council on October 25, 2007. Bill No. 070913 will redefine "take-out restaurants" and define "small retail food establishments," then add these uses to the list of regulated uses. The new definition of take-out restaurant will read, "An establishment engaged in the preparation and retail sale of food and beverages which serves food and/or beverages in disposable packaging and/or containers for consumption by patrons on or off the premises, including but not limited to delicatessens and/or restaurant with 30 or less seats." This definition is substantially the same as the existing 11 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. definition, except for the last clause "and/or restaurant with 30 or less seats." This differs from the existing definition which includes the clause "and/or restaurant with 29 or less seats." The existing definition is not proposed to be removed. In addition to redefining take-out restaurants, this bill also creates a new definition for small retail food establishments. This new definition will read, "An establishment having less than 5,000 square feet of floor area, including, but not limited to, candy stores and drugstores without soda fountains, grocery, meat markets and other food stores." This bill then adds these uses to the list of regulated uses found in Section 14-1605 of the Zoning Code. This list includes such uses as adult bookstores and cabarets, amusement arcades, and tattoo and body piercing establishments. 12 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. There are special spacing restrictions put on regulated uses. No 4 regulated use is permitted within 1,000 feet of any other existing regulated use, nor within 500 feet of any residentially zoned district, institutional development district, religious institution, residential use, school, public playground or public library. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission has a number of serious concerns regarding the effects of this bill. First, the bill attempts to insert a second definition for "take-out restaurants" that conflicts with the existing definition without proposing the removal of the existing definition. We believe that this discrepancy will cause confusion in determining whether this definition applies or not. Secondly, the definition for "small retail food establishment" reads in such a manner as to include every 13 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. establishment having less than 5,000 square feet of floor area. This would include every small locally owned retail and service stores running the gamut from professional offices to tailor shops. Third, this bill would effectively prohibit the placing of a new take-out restaurant within the City. Given the spacing requirements for regulated uses, an applicant would be hard pressed to find an area of the City where a take-out restaurant or small retail food establishment could be permitted. This may not be sustainable in the courts. Additionally, the original list of regulated uses was created based on a study that found that the concentration of these uses could lead to blight. The addition of these uses is unsupported by legislative findings of fact. The Planning Commission at its meeting of November 21, 2007 voted for disapproval of this bill based on these 14 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. concerns. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee on this bill? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
I know you're the messenger. This is a bill 19 that essentially came about as a result of, I guess, years of frustration in some respects about our inability to adequately deal with some of the existing regs on some of the stop-and-go's and some of the liquor-related types of establishments and other types of 15 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. take-out establishments that essentially didn't give us the ability to amend or require certain types of prohibitions and limitations on some of those existing facilities. When we talked to the Department of License and Inspection, both the enforcement -- Deputy Verdi, who is in charge of enforcement -- and the regulatory officer, they recommended that this particular statute be put in place, thereby creating a new category and, therefore, we could impose certain limitations and regulations associated with that category. Subsequently, the Law Department, upon review, has requested some minimal changes to make sure that it passed legal muster. My question to you is, do you gentlemen and ladies at the Planning Commission have any interaction with the Law Department and the department who's actually responsible for the enforcement and the oversight of these particular 16 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. establishments?
Or do you simply get the bill as referenced to you and make your own conclusions?
This bill 8 originally came to our attention after its introduction. As a result of its introduction, I did speak with Deputy Commissioner Evans from the Department of License and Inspections, as well as Mrs. Klinger from the Zoning -- not Enforcement Unit, but the Zoning Unit downstairs at the Department. Our normal operation does not necessarily require that we speak with the Law Department, but I was in touch with the Law Department on other bills and I know that they had some concerns about this as well. I have also contacted your staff prior to our Commission meeting and advised them that we were going to consider this bill and did indicate to -- 17 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC.
What was the response from the Department of License and Inspection when you spoke to them?
That they agreed with some of our concerns, that the way the bill was originally written and with the definition of a small retail food establishment. When you have a regulated use and a regulated use is not permitted within 500 feet of a residentially zoned district, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, just taking a zoning map and putting a buffer of 500 feet around each of the residential districts, putting a percentage on it, it eliminates as a permitted location for any small retail establishments, it eliminates approximately 85 to 90 percent of the area of the City, and the portions of the City that would be allowed as a matter of right just based on the 500-foot spacing from residential districts would primarily be down near the Navy Yard and 18 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. along Passyunk Avenue, are the two largest, along with some areas along the riverfront, but the bulk of the City is, it becomes a big red mass that you would not be permitted as a matter of right.
Seventy-five percent. So it's actually a little more than that.
So in order for an establishment as referenced to open, they would have to do what?
For such -- once -- if this bill were to pass the way it's written, if you were to go in and make an application to open up a mom-and-pop grocery store or whatever, it would be considered a regulated use and would then have a variance and would wind up in front of the Zoning Board. Many of 19 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. the types of uses these things represent, for a variety of different reasons, wind up in front of the Zoning Board as a certificated use under C-2. For example, a take-out restaurant is a certificated use under the existing code, so that any take-out restaurant in the City winds up in front of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. And what this would do is send them there as a variance as opposed to a certificated use.
So that would give an opportunity for the existing residents to have some say-so as to whether or not there should be a take-out establishment in that particular neighborhood, that particular residential community?
From a legal to point of view, it does that, but it raises the legal bar for those take-out and small retail establishments to establish that there's a hardship to the property in order for them to legally be 20 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. granted a variance to operate that way.
Okay. So when you have a facility in a neighborhood under the existing regulations, that they do not sell beer or any other alcoholic beverages, but they are essentially, by virtue of the take-out status, a place that has a level of activity in and out of the store, the loitering, both internally and externally, you don't think we should have the wherewithal to be able to impose certain regulations on that establishment?
No, sir, I'm not saying that we shouldn't. What I'm saying is that they already have to get approval from the Zoning Board of Adjustment and that that is something that is already being considered and being approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
What do you mean they have to get it from the Zoning 21 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Board of adjustment?
If you were a take-out restaurant -- now, not every use has to go to the Zoning Board, understand, but if you are a take-out restaurant and you're in a property that is zoned C-2 Commercial, you're going to be issued a referral, which then sends you to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, so that the Zoning Board has to hold a hearing. You have to do the same posting. You go to the Zoning Board and say, Yes, I want to have a take-out restaurant, here's what I'm going to be doing, I'm making sandwiches, and it's a take-out restaurant. The Zoning Board is going to ask you whatever questions they're going to ask you, usually about your operation hours, days, et cetera. The community is certainly advised that that hearing is existing and has every opportunity to go in and do a presentation to the Zoning Board in opposition or support, whichever they 22 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. feel is appropriate.
In other words, a take-out restaurant is already an item going to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Zoning Board has the right --
I used it as a reference, but any type of -- it may not be a restaurant, but it could be one of these little things that -- maybe you're not familiar with them.
I've been to the Zoning Board and have sat at the Zoning Board for better than ten years and I have seen firsthand some of the items that they've been considering. Now, there are a number of different components in each of these. Sometimes the base zoning on the corner properties is actually residential, in which case it's still a variance because the residential zoning would not permit the use. In some instance, it's C-1 23 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Commercial, which permits certain uses but not others.
But that's if the facility is not zoned under, say, C-2, as an example. And C-2 is quite broad.
It would allow a lot of retail centers. So a grocery store in C-2 would be permitted.
The concern is that under the existing zoning classifications throughout these neighborhoods based on prior use, that individuals are allowed to come in and operate these establishments based on the very broad, as we agreed, C-2 nature and not have to go to the Zoning Board.
That's our concern, because, as you know, the C-2 was in a substantial amount of the neighborhoods throughout the City and at the time, there were different types of operators and operations. Currently now 24 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. there are people looking for those C-2 classifications in an attempt to not to have to go through the community to talk about the issues associated with their operations. And by raising the bar, what we're simply trying to do is to establish a new category to then ask for those individuals in order to get these take-out permits for these retail establishments to have to go through the community process because of the broad nature of the C-2 classifications throughout the City of Philadelphia.
Well, the nature of the C-2 classification is to allow for retail sales, allow for commercial activities. In some places, it may be inappropriately zoned, that the time has come that the nature of the beast or the nature of the neighborhood has changed so that to allow a corner property to be rezoned C-2 is maybe inappropriate. It would depend on each individual block, each individual neighborhood, and I can't 25 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. with a broad brush say across the board C-2 should be eliminated. It is possible that maybe we should revisit what the C-2 classification allows to relook at that, and I would posit that some of this is material that is being considered under the auspices of the Zoning Code Commission. Of course, at this time, I can't sit here and say to you that they have a proposal pending or any of that. I can't say that. But certainly these are the kinds of revisions and the kinds of amendments and things that should be considered by the Zoning Code Commission as part of an addressing of the concerns and the impacts that these uses have on the existing communities and neighborhoods.
So are you suggesting that we wait until that process is completed before we address this problem?
I would -- this 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. particular bill, I believe that to approach it to make them all a regulated use, it will do what you're asking it to do, but I think that what it does is, it is a broad brush that includes a lot more than what I think was originally intended. And while I agree with trying to minimize the impacts of these institutions and establishments on the neighborhood, I would like to see that happen, I don't know that this is the way that we should in fact do this. And so, therefore, maybe it's legislation that we need to work further on to make it more palatable in the Code. Maybe it's a different section of the Code we have to amend. However, in terms of if I have to say that, then, yes, it is something that I think that the Zoning Code Commission should do that, but as an instant problem, it's not going to be something that's going to happen overnight. 27 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC.
This is my concern: The agency who has the responsibility -- we have two disparate views. We have the Planning Commission that reviews it and, as far as I'm concerned, in a vacuum, because the Planning Commission doesn't really physically go out and look at those locations based on the set of circumstances that come to us, the community, the concerned community. You look at more of it from a planning perspective. Then we have the agency who is responsible for the enforcement and the implementation of this various legislation. This department over here says this is the way to go. Your department talks about the planning process and a Zoning Code reform process and conceivably looking at it on an individual basis as the current C-2 classification, which I'm assuming you would admit could take a substantial period of time? 28 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC.
My concern is that this is a problem that has been ongoing for a long time and we continue to run into many roadblocks in terms of being able to effect these stores for one reason or another, be it some as it relates to the alcohol-related stores that are very similar that we have concerns about or the ones that aren't related to alcohol who have already had C-2 classification and they can open up without any community process. Personally, I would like to opt to do something now, and if it creates an additional burden for anyone who wants to open up a store between now and the time that you guys would finish up and -- I should say we, because we're all in this together -- finish up the Zoning Code Reform Commission's report -- and I'm not even sure if they're looking at this particular issue -- then I will personally opt to do something now. And 29 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. if in fact the Zoning Code Commission decides that they want to enact something within their report that deals with this particular issue, then there's always an opportunity to change it, but I'm just concerned that we just keep inundating -- this is all over the City with these people opening up these stores of all nature, all types, based on classifications that you have admitted don't make any sense in today's world and having this type of activity that is just not conducive to the types of neighborhoods we want to have. So if it calls for that person having to get a zoning variance, then so be it, from my perspective personally. I'm just one vote. So that's kind of the position I take with respect to your testimony today. Now, between now and then and the time on the final passage, I'm going to ask that it be voted out of Committee -- I see my good friend is 30 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. here, Mr. Haigler, who has sat in on that meeting, that suggested that we go this route -- there can be some dialogue between the Planning Commission and the enforcement arm of the government to possibly make some additional recommendations, then I'd be more than willing to do that.
I would certainly welcome those discussions. I would add that I in speaking with -- as a practical matter, one of the things that I should put on the record, you will be increasing the number of applications that will have to be reviewed as a regulated use.
As such, that requires a field visit by members of Mr. Haigler's department. And just again right now, it was told to me that they take somewhere between three to four weeks to get such a report back.
So are you now concerned -- 31 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC.
Are you concerned about the budget of the Department of License and Inspections?
Oh, it's not a matter of budget. It's a matter of time. It will increase the due process time in order for the folks in L&I to be able to do their job.
I assume that License and Inspection understood that when they made these various recommendations on this legislation.
Well, Mr. Haigler is here and he can speak for the department.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 32 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Just from a philosophical standpoint -- I mean, I understand the debate, but why isn't it a good thing that every neighborhood has a chance to know what's going into their neighborhood, on the corner or around the block? I mean, I understand some of the delay. I understand it's more of a burden, but if I have a store opening up at the corner of my street, why shouldn't that be posted and I should know what it is? It seems to me that if you live in the neighborhood and you take ownership of it, you have some issues that you may be concerned about or want to talk to the owner about prior to their already opening up as a matter of right. I mean, I don't see as an at-large member -- it affects every neighborhood in the City and if there's -- across the street from my 33 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. house there's an empty corner store. I would like to know if somebody is going to put a business in there and what they're going to do with it and what they're going to sell and what their hours are going to be.
I think it's something that's natural. So why would I want to be in a position where anybody could plop something in that corner and I don't know about it until it's there, and then after it's there, it's a matter of right and I got to extricate them with explosives?
Understood. I think that the answer to your question is the nature of what zoning is and of itself. The zoning maps are indications of -- or the application of different zoning designations for each and every property within the City. Many of -- and at times, as neighborhoods change and as communities change, the Planning 34 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Commission has gone in and done zoning remappings, in a sense, or largely to do two things: To reflect the changes that have occurred in those neighborhoods and to afford those neighborhoods the opportunity to have just the input and impact that you're requesting. Now, what happens is, you have a corner store at the end of the block that's been a corner store for 30 years. If my office looks at it, we may make a recommendation that the base zoning change for that particular property -- the base zoning of that property is what determines what should or what would be appropriate for a use for that property. So there's two ways that the community can interact with it. One would be to change the map of the particular property and change it to a different classification, which if then someone wanted to use it over and above what was permitted; for example, the corner store across the street from you, 35 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. if it was zoned residential, in other words, swept at the entire block was R whatever --
Then that's the second part that would change, is you look at what C-2 is and what it would allow as a matter of right.
So why not err on the side of caution and add a couple weeks or add another hurdle until, as Councilman Clarke said, until the Zoning Code Commission finishes its work and makes recommendations? There's nothing worse than having a nuisance business that got there as a matter of right and got their permit across the counter that sets up shop and now you got to go fight for years to get 36 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. whether it's a take-out beer deli or whether it's just a pain-in-the-rear-end store, you have to fight for years to get them out of there. And what it does, it frustrates neighbors, it spends a lot of money, it wastes a lot of money, people move out, people don't want to move in. I mean, if you try to set up a retail outlet in some New Jersey community, you're going to have to stand on your head in many cases to convince them that they're going to allow you to do it. And I agree with Councilman Clarke, that some of the neighborhoods in our City that are experiencing most of the problems are C-2 related, and I think I'd rather err on the side of caution than make people suffer more than they have already. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? 37 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. (No response.)
I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I just received a call to appear and I'm here.
And may I ask what your professional opinion is --
-- as it is written and possibly amendments that will be introduced?
Just to give you some background, the bill precipitated 38 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. from another bill that Councilman Clarke had introduced in Council related to responsible business practice agreements. This was a bill that would require -- well, not necessarily require, but it would make voluntary upon businesses, community groups, people within a certain proximity to a business if they wanted to enter into an agreement with that particular business, they could do so, but once the agreement was entered into, that placed a mandatory requirement on the Department of Licenses and Inspections to enforce those agreements. Those agreements were private agreements between businesses and the community groups and individuals, and the Department's practice has always been not to necessarily enforce private agreements, because most of those agreements generally aren't based on Code requirements, which we do enforce. We had no way of doing that, and they were tied to the business privilege licenses 39 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. of the business establishments. Well, we have over 100,000 business privilege licenses and we really had no way of knowing which businesses were in proximity to which community group or which businesses might have been in proximity to some other type of business. That universe we just really didn't have no way of putting a handle on it. So we thought that that particular bill was pretty much going to be problematic for us to try to even understand or enforce. We had a meeting. We asked Councilman Clarke to have a meeting with us, and he did agree to that. Deputy Commissioner Verdi and myself, we met with Councilman Clarke and we discussed that particular bill initially, and I believe, as I recall from the meeting, discussions started to center around what will be some alternatives that could possibly be done in place of that particular bill, and I think some thoughts was on maybe some recent 40 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. legislation that was passed in Council related to regulated uses for gun shops and possibly if we could do this for a regulated use for gun shops, why can't a regulated use be made for take-out restaurants or something similar to that. So that's where that kind of was kicked around, in that discussion, and there were some other discussions about possibly even instituting license requirements for take-out restaurants and possibly putting in certain conditions for the licensing. I believe there is a bill on that right now also that's coming up for a hearing this week. So that's basically what that centered around. And Deputy Commissioner Verdi and myself, we basically -- I guess we just said that we didn't think that there was an issue with a take-out restaurant regulated use, because we're not the zoning aspect, but we just basically said as long as it did not affect our operation significantly, it 41 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. would more or less put the burden so much more so on the businesses to have to go to the Board, we didn't think anything too much of that and we figured it would be more research done before the bill was crafted and submitted. I have to defer really to the zoning experts, and the zoning experts as I know it is our Planning Commission and we do have some zoning experts in our department, our Deputy Commissioner Evans, who is my immediate boss, and Ms. Klinger, who is the Director of our zoning section. And after the bill was drafted and after the bill was introduced, they saw some concerns with the bill, and they've discussed those concerns with myself and they've discussed those concerns with the Planning Commission.
Thank you, Madam President. 42 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Good afternoon, sir.
My recollection was that your response to the idea of doing the regulated use was a little more positive than just simply saying, Oh, this is okay. I thought we --
We kind of thought we came up with an alternative solution that works, but that's all based on my interpretation of your response.
And my concern is that if there was an issue raised by other members in your department that had more relationship to zoning, then why wasn't that issue brought to us?
We did. I think we had tried to communicate that with your legislative aide, Mr. Carter, for a 43 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. few weeks now, and we've talked more or less -- I've communicated with Mr. Carter several times within the last couple of weeks about this bill and the other bill.
No, I didn't make any recommendations on amendments, but I did express the concerns that were brought to my attention related to the bill.
See, this is my concern: We depend on you guys, who are the, quote/unquote, the experts, both Planning and Department of L&I. We're what we like to call the front line because we are elected officials that are very visible to members of the community. So if we come to you -- and we propose a lot of things, half of which you all say, Oh, my God, the sky is falling. We depend on you guys to come up with some reasonable recommendations on alleviating a potential problem. So if we have a 44 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. meeting and we believe in good faith that we've come to a solution and then you have some internal discussions within your departments and you don't come back with some recommendations; i.e., amendments, then I don't think that's fair to us. You can't simply say, Well, it may be a problem. Okay. Figure out a way to fix it.
I agree, Councilman, and maybe, like I said, there may have been some miscommunication on both of our parts. We are able and we are willing to work with you to try to craft a bill that will work for all of us. We understand the problems that these take-out restaurants cause. One of our handicaps is that, again, some of these issues are related to the liquor issue that we are preempted from enforcing.
But that's why we went this direction where we wanted to incorporate legislation that 45 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. dealt with all take-outs regardless of whether or not there was liquor involved, because we knew we were limited in terms of our ability to have any levels of jurisdiction on that particular issue. And during the course of the discussion, we said we create a regulated use for take-out, period. And my memory is coming back as I speak about this. So, therefore, we can impose certain standards relating to take-outs, period, that would happen to also impact on some of the take-out establishments that also sold liquor.
Now, let me clarify one thing. From my understanding of the Code as it is now, the Zoning Code, take-out restaurants are already prohibited in residential districts because --
I'm sorry. I shouldn't just say take-out. Take-out/retail establishments, because the bill talks about all of that. 46 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC.
Well, I was under the impression at our meeting we were mostly talking about the take-out restaurants.
Yes, sir. I was under the impression at our meeting that we discussed we were mostly focused on take-out restaurants. We didn't really get too much into the retail establishment thing. We were mostly on the take-out restaurant, because that's where it seems to be all the problems were centered on with these. And I'll use the vernacular, but the delis that sell beer or malt liquor beverage, but we call them stop-and-go's, I think that's what most of this was centered on, how can we tighten up on our regulations of these types of establishments.
But then it 47 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. went in a different direction because we knew of our limitations as it related to those type of establishments. We said we do regulated uses generally on take-out restaurants.
To establish certain criteria for that. That's how we got to where we are.
So my point is that I'm now hearing that you had some internal issues relating to that. I thought that you guys gave us the way to go, and now you tell me internally there were some concerns, there were some discussions between the two departments, and then we don't receive a recommended amendment. I don't like --
Again, from an 48 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. L&I standpoint, the businesses that would be affected by this, they would have to get a variance or certificated use, as it would be. They would have to come in and they would make their application, and we would just give them a refusal. We understand, though, that there's a process even as we give refusals that we have to inspect all these businesses after the refusal is given to make sure that they're in compliance with some of the requirements related to the posting requirements and some of the other requirements of the Zoning Code after the refusal is given before it ends up in the Board.
And I think that's something that community members would relish, because there is a significant belief that these establishments aren't inspected nearly as much as they should be, just generally. So I think that's a welcomed addition to the process if L&I inspectors are now 49 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. forced to actually go out and see.
But they're not inspecting for total Code compliance. Let me just make that clear now.
They're only inspecting for the requirements of the Zoning Code related to posting related to the hearing that would have to come up.
It's not total enforcement. So I don't want that to be confusing to the community folks.
I understand. But are you telling me that if an L&I inspector goes out to a building and they're limited to the scope of that specific inspection, if that L&I inspector sees a very visible violation, then that L&I inspector cannot --
Well, I don't want to split all kind of hairs here, but 50 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. we have different types of inspectors in L&I. We have inspectors that are commercial industrial fire inspectors. There are inspectors that are specifically trained to inspect for fire hazards, fire code enforcement, sprinkler systems, alarm systems. And we have business inspectors, zoning inspectors. And our business regulatory inspectors, they inspected mostly for licenses. They haven't been trained at all to recognize or even identify hazards, because that's not part of their duties. Their duties are not as complicated as our fire inspectors. Our fire inspectors are certified. These people are certified in their profession.
So there's a difference. I don't want to give the impression to the community that if one inspector of L&I shows up, then they can pick up on whatever the problem is, 51 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. because we have building inspectors that inspect for building construction.
And their jobs are specific to building construction. They're certified in that area. So it's a matter of what the zoning inspectors that go out to inspect, they would only inspect to determine whether or not the signs are in place for the zoning hearing.
Councilman Greenlee was saying if somebody sees something that's not right, don't they refer it back to the department?
That's why I said a very visible violation. If you're looking to see if a sign is posted adequately and you see a crack in the front facade, I'll assume that that person goes back and says, hey --
Somebody once 52 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. told me that sometimes you can see something, you don't necessarily know by training or knowledge that something may be wrong, but just looking at it, you know that it is wrong.
I don't want to belabor that point. The bigger issue I have is that you're now sitting here telling me that you had some reservations. I don't feel that we should be in the position that we're at a hearing now based on a lot of conversations and we don't have a solution that can deal with in a timely manner this issue about -- Mr. Kramer said that the concern would be that you guys now have to have more inspectors, and then, Mr. Kramer, I hear you talk about your process of remapping a neighborhood. The last time I dealt with 53 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. the Planning Commission, you guys don't have enough planners to do that in a timely way, because you're working at a couple places in my district where it's taking you time to do a remapping of a neighborhood. So I don't know who gets to it quicker, the L&I inspector or the City planner. And I'm going to ask for support on this. What I said to Mr. Kramer earlier, what I'd like to do is to pass this out of Committee, and that might expedite the discussion between the two departments and some recommendations for an amendment before final passage. And if it's something that doesn't work, then it doesn't work, but what I don't want to do is walk out of here today and not do anything, because I believe with Councilman Kenney, it is a philosophical issue at the end of the day regardless of the issues you brought up. I think that a person on that block should have the right to know 54 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. what's going in that store, because C-2, we all agree, it's too broad, and there's a substantial amount of these neighborhoods that have these very broad designations that allow essentially anything to go into a neighborhood. So I don't think it's a bad thing for somebody who wants to move into a store to have to be involved in the process to let the local neighbors know what's going to go in there. All right?
That's fine. And we'd be glad to work with you as well. If you would like to have Mr. Carter sit in on those meetings to work together, we have no problem with that.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. 55 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Just quickly. Councilman Clarke covered pretty much what I was going to say, and I agree with him. I think we have to move this bill now and talk about any amendments in the future. But just, Mr. Haigler, on the question that we got into briefly on the inspections, are inspectors either told to or encouraged to if they see something that doesn't directly cover their expertise or their ability to write a violation, are they told that they're supposed to go back and inform the proper -- because I'm looking at a head shake over here, and I know she's going to testify.
Well, sir, I can speak from experience, because I have a very long, varied career in City government. I started out as a housing inspector. Many years -- and I've been with the City 27 years now. I've been a housing inspector, a planning examiner, head of our Commercial/Industrial Fire 56 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Inspections Unit, planning code development, writing the codes, and now I'm dealing with legislative issues. So I go through that whole gamut. And I say all that to say this, that from my knowledge and experience as an inspector, it has always been, though, our practice for referrals, what we call referrals, we make referrals internally. We make referrals externally. We make referrals to the other divisions of our department for things that we observe. Like I said, we don't necessarily have to have specific training in that or knowledge in that, but if you see it and you know --
-- something seems to be wrong with that, you can refer it -- first of all, you go back to talk to your supervisor about it, and your supervisor may have a little bit more knowledge than you have and they can basically guide you and direct you in 57 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. that you need to make that referral to whatever division of the department you need to make that referral to. Sometimes we make referrals to the Health Department because there are issues that come up with food, and we don't inspect for life safety of food licenses. Sometimes we make referrals to the Streets Department for matters that relate to streets and that are covered under the Streets Code. So we do that.
I just want to get on record there is that policy that that's --
-- supposed to be done, that it's just not my little world and I'm not looking at anything else.
Okay. Just one more question, if I could, and it's a bit of a general question on this issue. As far as you know, does the 58 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Department receive a lot of complaints regarding these kind of establishments that we're now trying to regulate?
To my knowledge, yes. I mean, it's been pretty much up in the air in the forefront for a number of years.
Well, wouldn't that indicate then that we need to do something?
Okay. And going back to what Councilman Clarke said, it sounded like at least originally when you and Deputy Commissioner Verdi were involved, this was, lack of a better term, the best you could come up with, right?
And I'm sorry, but still, again, following up on Councilman Clarke, you don't have another suggestion yet, except Mr. Kramer 59 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. suggested waiting for the Zoning Commission, which in the mean time will have a lot of these violations keep coming in, right?
We do respond to complaints, though. Unfortunately, we're not -- we can't be as proactive, because, again, resources don't dictate that we can get out there, do a lot of programmatic inspections on a programmatic basis. But we do respond to any complaints that come in to go out and investigate those complaints, and we cite the violations. The track from L&I, though, we go through our regulatory process to cite the violations. And from there, if the violations have not been complied with, we have to go the other track of enforcement, which means that they have to go into the court system, 60 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. and that's a system that really is not within L&I's control.
And takes a long time. So maybe the better answer is to regulate it before it gets to that problem, I guess is maybe one of the thoughts here. So okay. All right. I appreciate it. Thank you, sir.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes. I'd like to -- I was listening upstairs, and when I heard 100,000 business privilege licenses, I understand the depth of the burden, but I wanted to just mention -- because I totally agree with the comments I've heard from Councilmen Clarke and Kenney and Councilman Greenlee -- that trying to get the agreement with the community enforced is -- I mean, you were 61 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. talking about enforcement the other day, how hard it is on minority agreements where we got a developer, distinct developer, involved and everything. In the last year, I have tried something in the alternative, and this is an alternative to the infamous provisos, or provisos as my one Italian friend in Somerton has changed the pronunciation. You ask a developer or a business -- in this case it's been businesses -- to agree to certain things, lights out at a certain time, no cars on the sidewalk in a car dealer case, no advertising if you're going to have something that's not supposed to be advertised. One is a car dealer, one is an auto body shop and the other is a -- what do you call it where you bring -- scrap metal. So they're tough cases, all have agreements. And I said, I'm not going for the provisos anymore, because L&I cannot be enforcing -- I mean, the reality of it is, we all feel good when we leave the 62 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Zoning Board, but they can't enforce -- we have buildings falling down. They're not going to be staffed to enforce agreements. So I set about to try an alternative structure, and, that is, have what would be the provisos and are the provisos, because we haven't stopped doing that, but incorporating them into a voluntary deed restriction with agreed-upon penalties, very similar to when you go to buy a house and the buyer and seller agree to liquidated damages. We're not going to argue over what it costs. If you walk away from the table, it's ten percent. That's the general deposit that the buyer leaves on the table. Nobody argues about anything else. They've already determined that if there's a breach and it's the buyer's fault, it's ten percent. On this case, what we've done is a thousand dollars per day per violation. And every time, the owner's 63 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. first reaction is, That's an awful lot of money. And you say, No, you don't understand. You're never going to violate this agreement, are you? I mean, aren't you fully intended? And it has worked, I believe, in each case, because it is clear that the community association has action and anyone within 500 feet, if the community association doesn't act, can enforce the agreement. And it's taking it, I think, a step further where we need to be in that case. And I say it both boasting a little bit, because it only took me 28 years to figure this out, but also as a model, because it really puts that person making those promises in a position where that person or the person they eventually sell to, if they leave, have their money where their mouth is. And I think it will be better in those cases than anything L&I could do in terms of enforcing a private agreement. 64 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. I know it's a separate issue from whether we have regulated uses. More people ask me questions about what's going into that store, and your answer is, Well, there's a whole lot of things that could go in there, some of which you might like and some of which you might not like. It is an area that really needs to be improved. So I'll be supporting this and hope you guys can tweak it by Thursday, if you can.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee of the two witnesses at the table? (No response.)
Gentlemen, thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach.
Madam 65 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. President, I'm sorry. Just for the record, we will be offering an amendment on this particular bill, on 913.
Okay. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Bonita Cummings. To the Committee on Rules, I am the Director of Strawberry Mansion Community Concern. I'm an elected committeewoman for the 28th Ward, 13th Division. I would like to pass up by way of the Sergeant-At-Arms just these pictures loose. It just gives you a better ability to move through them. Before I read my testimony, I also want to show on the easel the types of conditions from these take-out family business restaurants so we could see the type of conditions that we are trained in our communities to accept. And I think that's one of the bigger pictures we're missing here, that you've trained up a 66 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. whole generation of black children, minority residents in their communities to live under these atrocities. You can say whatever you will, but it's what you do that counts. To not tell the truth and take an appropriate action to that truth is to be a participant in your own demise. I would like to call your attention to the exhibits attached to this testimony, of which you will see recent photographs of restaurant cooking oil discarded on the City streets into our City sewers; restaurants with padlocked bathrooms with no door handles; boarded up windows; chained down seating as if we're still slaves; splintered wood for chairs; tattered, unkept facades and illegal phone booths outside take-out restaurants. Five testimonies or more later by Strawberry Mansion Community Concern regarding this same issue and still in 2007 take-out restaurants, particularly malt and brewed beverage 67 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. restaurant businesses and small retail food establishments in Philadelphia neighborhoods, North Philadelphia, West Philadelphia, West Oak Lane, Germantown, South and Southwest Philadelphia, are notorious death traps, filthy and blatant violators of The Philadelphia Code, as the photographs show you. I am not sure whom the historian of record will be that will write the history of the annihilation of the Americanized Africans from the above-mentioned neighborhoods from mere contact with these restaurants and the conduct of their demon-like owners, but my testimony today is to help that record speak the truth. I refer to Americanized Africans and not African-Americans because unlike the Jew, Gentile, Dominican, Arab, Indian, Asian, whether Chinese, Korean, Japanese or any other non-African groups, constitutionally they believe we have no rights which they are 68 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. bound to respect. Therefore, they have deemed us ineligible to the constitutional right to freedom, peace, liberty, justice and the pursuit of happiness or to clean, safe, good quality take-out restaurants or small retail food businesses in our neighborhoods. We Africans are just Americanized. We are not living the American dream of respect and freedom as others, despite the fact as Mother Mary Bethune stated, We have helped to build America with our non-compensated labor, strengthen it with our faith and enriched it with our song. For the record, when the children and people of these neighborhoods come to this record to research what happened and how and why they were annihilated, I want them to know that there were concerned activists who took actions against notorious nuisance take-out and small retail food establishments by way of protests, correspondence to the Mayor April 29, 69 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. 2002 and testimony of the worst conditions on the people from these businesses before this Council and State on Bill Nos. 050865, 070367, Resolution 6 No. 060593 and House Bill No. 1637. We did so much more, but just to name a few and to leave a point of reference for the record. I don't want anyone to believe that they have gotten away with anything. Our neighborhoods and its people are very aware of the harm that is caused and who caused it. As a unified consciousness, we may not have been able to stop you, but we are aware. Bill No.
070913 gives the illusion that it will address our present-day conditions of these nuisance take-out restaurants, especially stop-and-go's selling only malt liquor, crack in a bottle, but it will not and nor was it intended to. In Title 14-1605 of The Philadelphia Code, it clearly states, In order to prevent the further deterioration of communities and 70 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. neighborhoods in the City of Philadelphia and to provide for the orderly, planned future development of the City, that in addition to existing zoning regulations, certain additional special regulations are necessary to ensure that these adverse effects will not continue to contribute to the blighting or the downgrading of surrounding neighborhoods. Who are they talking about here? Of course, this bill comes well after the transference of our wealth, stripping away our homes by way of bulldozer and leaving you $25,000 in debt. Remember, major contribution to the neighborhood blight came and come from the nuisance businesses. What Bill No. 070913 is intended to do is to make sure that once the Americanized African is extinct from their respective urban neighborhoods, that the new neighbor won't have to be bothered with the proliferation of barbarity of the nuisance take-out 71 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. restaurant and small family businesses or the owners that wiped us out. Also, for the record, you should know for the last 30 years that the barbarity of nuisance take-out and small family food businesses in Americanized African urban neighborhoods was sanctioned by the commissioners and deputy commissioners of enforcement of the Department of Licenses and Inspections and Health, the Law Department, the judicial system and the judges when these nuisance businesses came before them. Of course, we can't leave out the great oppressor, the Board of Revision of Taxes. That's one heck of a concoction. Suppressed black folks' real estate, throw in some crack, put in some nuisance, malt liquor, drug and gun dealing restaurants and small retail food businesses, go before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, the great proliferator of nuisance businesses, and sprinkle NTI on top and, boom, extinction. 72 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. The great tragedy is that the so-called good American people watched us be sacrificed and uttered not one word and, therefore, are responsible and held accountable for the destruction of the Americanized African neighborhoods and particularly of some of our most beautiful and enlightened, happy, spirited children. " You can't have a next great city where one group annihilate the other group, set up bad restaurant businesses, run your neighborhoods down and take your assets or property without fair and equitable compensation. We should not be so foolish as to believe that Philadelphia is in a housing boom. Philadelphia is in a housing correction. One should be very clear to know the difference. A renaissance could have happened at any time in any year, but first they have to drive down our property and the people suppress their 73 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. worth and then come in for the kill under the pretense that it's for the best interest of the City. And then developers with their pompous arrogance defy, bite off the hands of City Council when you merely suggest that from the gift you gave them of tax abatement, they should bear responsibility of sharing the stolen profits being sure to include some poor people as they continue to do their development projects. What a mockery. So if Bill 070913 is to serve the Americanized African with any humanity and justice, you also have to have City Council by amendment or the Administration by Executive Order declare state of emergency today on the proliferation of pre-existing take-out restaurants and small food establishments which have and continue to destroy the very life force of a people, their neighborhoods, wealth and pursuit of happiness.
Declare a state of emergency until such time as the nuisance 74 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. businesses come into compliance with City regulations and The Philadelphia Code as in enforcement, such as appropriate patron floor space, 350 square feet; removing illegal signage in violations of feet to daycares and churches; adhering to law regulated closing time; cleanliness; proper grease collection; hot and cold running water; properly labeled food; accessible and working bathrooms, et cetera. If the Law Department, Zoning Board of Adjustment, Health Department and Licenses and Inspections would do enforcement in Americanized African neighborhoods with the speed that many will call to get enforcement done about me because I speak the truth, we could regain our humanity and save our children from further extinction. Also I want to say for the record if in conjunction with the above-mentioned law and enforcing agencies we could have had our media, 75 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. journalists, our Philadelphia Tribune paper or neighborhood weekly papers caring and concerned enough, consistent enough to communicate our suffering, then just maybe we could have avoided such atrocity from nuisance take-out restaurants and small retail food establishments in our neighborhoods and saved a lot of properties and lives. And if anyone has a remote question or remotely has a question, I'd be willing to answer it.
Any questions of this witness by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? Just one on behalf of everyone? Okay. Thank you.
E. and also I'm the President of the Cecil B. Moore and Ridge Avenue Business Association. So I will be providing testimony for both organizations this afternoon. E. is a multi-cultural service agency providing street outreach, supportive housing, comprehensive services, affordable housing, and community and economic development. I come before you today to offer testimony concerning the regulated use bill which will require any new take-out beer establishment to appear before the Zoning Board. E. supports Councilman Clarke's legislation to increase regulations of nuisance 77 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. stop-and-go's. The bill is important to our work in the community because a number of stop-and-go's severely attributes to the decline of the quality of life within the neighborhood. E. addresses issues of crime and safety within the community. Stop-and-go's continue to pose a problem in the area of crime and safety by allowing their patrons to loiter outside of their establishments, causing an influx of nuisance crimes within the vicinity of the businesses. At the heart of the commercial corridor, the intersection of 23rd and Ridge, where our work is concentrated, there are three stop-and-go establishments within a one-block radius. These types of businesses are detrimental to our efforts of improving the vacancy rate on the commercial corridor, which currently is at 41 percent, because 78 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. prospective business owners are concerned about the perception of crime associated with the loitering on the commercial corridor in front of these establishments. A decrease in vacancy will help strengthen past investments and will help secure the long-term viability of Ridge Avenue. Additionally, it will help strengthen future investments, which include our current projects along the corridor, our lighting and sidewalk repair project and the community kiosk project, which will be complete in the spring of 2008 with funding from NTI CCSP. E. believes that this legislation will help in our economic development efforts to strive to make our community and our commercial corridor a cleaner, safer place to live, work and shop and, therefore, supports this legislation and recommends that Bill 24 No. 070913 be passed. Thank you for the opportunity 79 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. to testify on Bill No. 070913 that would make stop-and-go establishments a regulated use, thereby requiring any new stores that attempt to open to go before the Zoning Board. The Cecil B. Moore and Ridge Avenue Business Association, which represents the commercial corridors of Ridge Avenue, Cecil B. Moore Avenues between 21st and 29th, supports Councilman Clarke's legislation to increase regulation of nuisance stop-and-go's. The type of legislation that is being proposed will allow as a means to combat these types of nuisance businesses within the community. This is a vital step in resolving the issue of these nuisance establishments which continue to pose a problem in the area of crime and safety in the neighborhood and particularly along the commercial corridor. These businesses allow their patrons to loiter, which poses a negative effect on the surrounding businesses by 80 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. decreasing the safety of customers and safety of those waiting for public transportation along the corridor. E. , the community partnership school and area churches to provide testimony at a zoning hearing for one of these establishments. With the collective testimony and efforts of these groups, the Zoning Board made a decision to not renew the license for take-out beverages. As a result of this new legislation, the community will be able to do the following: Prevent new stop-and-go's from coming into the community and decreasing the quality of 81 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. ; prevent new stop-and-go's because there are already too many in the neighborhood.
There are approximately 12 within a three-block radius of the commercial corridor, three of which are within the same block. Additionally, we are very much 82 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. in support of this legislation because it will help set a standard for new stop-and-go owners to become responsible business owners in the communities in which they reside and will help in our efforts to revitalize the commercial corridor in the neighborhood. We sincerely hope that you will see the wisdom in passing this piece of legislation that will greatly assist in the improvement in the quality of life on our commercial corridor and in our neighborhood. I thank you for this opportunity to submit these testimonies.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments of this witness by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I would like the record to reflect that Bill No. 070934 is being held at the request of the sponsor, and at this time, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 070936. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 12 approving the fourteenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of 40th Street and Spring Garden Street, including the eleventh amendment to the urban renewal plan and the relocation plan, as amended, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately eight properties for residential and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law; and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect 84 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. to the Project.
Whoever is going to testify, please identify yourself for the record and go forward.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee. I am Michael Koonce, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority, and I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 070936, the fourteenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the eleventh amendment of the urban renewal plan for the Mantua Urban Renewal area. This bill will authorize the Authority to acquire eight properties for a mixed-use commercial and residential project and related uses for the following proposed development project. The Philadelphia Housing 85 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. Authority has requested this acquisition of eight properties, which consists of seven occupied homes and one vacant shell. The site is located in the Mantua neighborhood and bounded by Fairmount Avenue on the north, North 35th Street on the east, Wallace Street on the south and North 36th Street on the west. The site currently contains the PHA-owned Mantua Hall 18-story high rise. Under the development plans, PHA will demolish the high rise and acquire the remaining privately and publicly owned properties to allow for the revitalization of the entire block. The development will create approximately 100 units of affordable rental housing with a mixture of one, two and three-bedroom units. The design calls for the development of multiple three-story buildings arranged around an internal parking area with green space. The Fairmount Avenue site of the development will have a number of 86 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. commercial spaces for neighborhood-oriented retail tenants and an on-site management office. The PHA Mantua Hall project is estimated to cost $35 million to complete. That includes the acquisition, demolition of the existing Mantua Hall and other buildings, site work, construction and soft costs. The properties to be acquired under this plan amendment are within the project footprint and will be used for commercial and residential-related development. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of this bill and would also ask suspension of Council rules to allow first reading on December 6, 2007.
Good 87 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. afternoon.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding. I'm Director of Community Planning at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission testifying today in support of Bill No. 11 070936 authorizing the acquisition of eight properties in the vicinity of Mantua Hall public housing. The staff of the Plan Commission approved this amended redevelopment proposal on October 16th of 2007. Thank you.
The title of the bill, as has often been the case in the past, doesn't really give a clear description of where this property is. The Redevelopment Authority's testimony clarifies where the property is located. Shouldn't that be in the title of the bill? 88 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC.
We are trying to work that out with Richie Feder from the Law Department. He has to approve all ordinances before they're submitted to City Council.
I'm sorry. Do you mind repeating your last statement?
Our general counsel is trying to work this out with Richie Feder of the City's Law Department, who has to approve all ordinances before they're sent over for introduction. They're having discussions now.
I don't know how we even consider this if the title doesn't clarify where the property is located. Now, what is Mr. Feder saying about that?
Well, currently Mr. Feder is saying that due to the number of ordinances that he has to deal with right now, they haven't had a chance 89 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. to discuss it, but we're trying to work it out with him or we anticipate working it out at least for the next Council term.
Mr. Koonce, your testimony is that the properties to be acquired will be used for the Philadelphia Housing Authority's Mantua Hall project, which will consist of 100 units of affordable rental housing, with a total estimated project cost of $35.4 million. What are the sources of financing for this project?
I don't know the sources of financing, but we do have a representative from the Philadelphia Housing Authority who could answer that.
That would be fine. Also, Mr. Koonce, your testimony is that the property which is to be acquired consists of seven occupied homes and one vacant shell. The fact sheet you have supplied provides the 90 12/4/07 - RULES - BILL 070913, ETC. acquisition is for five occupied structures, one vacant structure and two occupied lots. Which is correct?