COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, October 26, 1999 1:25 p.m. - - - BILL 970590 - Amending Section 12-2405 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "Removal or Immobilization of Parked Vehicles Notice". . . BILL 980048 - Amending Chapter 9-1600 of The Philadelphia Code relating to the prohibition against unlawful eviction practices. . . BILL 980274, 980275 - Held at request of sponsor. BILL 980550 - Amending the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land. . . BILL 980684 - Amending Title of The Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and 14 planning. . . BILL 990425 - Amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and planning. . . BILL 990601 - Amending the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land. . . (Full text of all bills appear in body of transcript.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN ANGEL L. ORTIZ COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 10/26/99 COMMITTEE ON RULES I N D E X Bill 990601 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . Michael Sklaroff, attorney for Amtrak . . . . 9 Bill 980550 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 11 Gina Caruso, Co-chair St. John's Leadership 15 8 Suzanne Haney, Southwark Civil War Historic District Committee. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 16 Bill 980684 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 17 Bill 990425 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 21 Bill 980048 Michael Nardone, Deputy Managing Director . . 26 Special Needs Housing 14 Marcia Berman, Deputy City Solicitor. . . . . 42 Bradley K. Moss, Counsel for Coles House. . . 60 Susan Lewis, Executive Director, Coles House 60 Michael Carroll, Community Legal Services . . 95 Dennis Pollard, Director of Development, TAG 109 Robert Meek, Atty., Disabilities Law Project 116 Bill 970590 Jeremiah J. Connors . . . . . . . . . . . . . 120 Deputy Executive Director, Philadelphia Parking Authority 3 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. This is the Council Committee on Rules. First, we have A quorum present, with Councilmembers Nutter, Cohen, Ortiz, DiCicco, and myself as chairperson, Councilman Kenney. There is one announcement. Bills No. 10 980274 and 980275 will be held at the request of the sponsor, and they will not be heard today. The first bill we will hear is Bill No. 13 990601, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area generally bounded by the Schuykill Expressway, Arch Street, 30th Street, John F. Kennedy Boulevard, certain Amtrak and SEPTA property lines and a line parallel to the center line of a certain Conrail High Line and a line parallel to and located approximately 800 feet north of Arch Street. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon, Mr. 4 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo Chief of the Planning Commission, here to speak on behalf of this bill. I'll try to be brief and just give you an overview of it. There are representatives of Amtrak who are here, who may want to address you in terms of their plans and then answer any questions that you may have. As it was stated, in the short time that this bill was -- it was proposed to rezone land basically north and west of 30th Street Station, approximately acres of land, from 14 Class G2 General Industrial to Class C5 15 Commercial. C5 Commercial is the zoning 16 classification of the business core of Center 17 City. 18 When the Planning Commission did the 19 plan for Center City, now about ten years ago, one 20 of the elements of that plan was the recommendation that as a natural extension of the business core, the zoning should be changed in the vicinity of -- changed west of the Schuylkill River to a compatible zoning classification to permit the eventual redevelopment of this area 5 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 with high-density, mixed-use development, similar to that found in Center City. When one considers the excellent highway and mass transit access to this area, it seems to be a natural -- it would be a natural extension of the business core, and especially, which we foresaw back when we did the plan for Center City, with the growth of business along the Amtrak corridor, the need to have zoning in place to permit more intense development of this area of the city. Under this proposal, this is sort of a Phase I zoning, only zoning a portion of the larger general industrial area. It would allow for initial development to take place. That development would include a parking garage, eventual commercial uses within the existing 30th Street Station that would connect back across Arch Street to the parking garage, development of surface parking, and future development of an approximately 300-room hotel. For the record, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of September 16, 1999, recommended to the Mayor and to this Council the 6 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 adoption of Bill 990601.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions for these witnesses? Councilmember Cohen?
Mr. Lombardo, could you tell us how close any residential areas are to this area.
Okay. Well, it's -- basically, what you have is -- to the west of this area, you have additional property as part of the Amtrak rail operation -- that's approximately another block of rail usage -- before you come to the high line, on the other side of a high line. You basically run into the campus of Drexel University. And to the south of that, the campus 7 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 of the University of Pennsylvania. So there are residential units, but they're residential units in terms of dormitories associated with those two universities. There is a residential community up around 32nd and Powelton, the summer-winter community. Mr. Kramer's pointing to it on the map. I would say that that is the nearest residential community, and that's probably two blocks away, but it's separated by -- there's not like immediate street access. Again, if look at the map, you'll see there's no cross-street access across the rail yards over to that neighborhood.
Based on your experience at the Planning Commission, would, as you described it, the intense development, to make it possible for intense development, would there likely be any residential impact?
I would think that in this stage of development, I would answer that no. 22 Most of the traffic and access would be using the very same streets that -- basically they're using Market Street and Kennedy Boulevard, the very same streets that all of Center City traffic uses. 8 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 That map there shows the access is being built right up against the Schuykill Expressway, so traffic access would really be either onto the expressway or east and west along Kennedy Boulevard, north and south on the Schuykill Expressway, or down through the University City. I think at the later phase, which would have to come to this Council for later discussion of rezoning, if there was later phases, that issue could come up as you got further up towards Spring Garden Street. But this proposal does not envision any access into the residential community at this time. So to answer your question -- it's a long answer to say no. 17
Are there any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Is there someone else here to testify on this bill? (Michael Sklaroff comes forward.)
Lest there are any questions, Mr. Chairman. 9 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601
I have no other questions. Identify yourself for the record, please.
I am Michael Sklaroff, attorney for Amtrak in the matter. If there any other questions, there are people here from Amtrak and the architecture firm.
May I raise with you, Mr. Sklaroff, the same question that I raised with Mr. Lombardo 'cause you've had a great deal of experience in these matters. Based upon your experience, is it likely that as a result of the zoning, we would later at sometime get residential complaints?
I would say that the short answer is no. The impact on the city and any residents would only be good.
Well, because of the jobs and the activity and the resources that that development would provide.
You don't think it would interfere with the normal residential 10 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990601 development that might occur in that location?
Normal residential development could not occur in that location because essentially we're talking about the construction of railroad tracks.
And the development that would occur on the location you're talking about that's subject to the zoning change, you don't think that would impact on existing residential, particularly in the area around 32nd -- that's around 32nd Street, which was mentioned by Mr. Lombardo?
For the very reasons Mr. Lombardo stated, there would be no detrimental impact whatsoever.
One procedural thing: we would ask for a suspension of the rules.
Thank you. So noted. Is there anyone else here to testify on 11 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980550 this bill? (No response.)
Since there are no 5 further questions on this bill, we will now move on to the next bill, which is Bill No. 980550, 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 Washington Avenue, Seventh Street, Tasker Street, and Front Street. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Richard Lombardo, from the Planning Commission. And I'm here today to speak on behalf of 980550. This is one of a series of bills that we have been working with Councilman DiCicco on over the past couple of years to basically look at the zoning within the area of -- the South Philadelphia area of his district, a portion of his district, west of -- east of Broad Street, 12 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980550 south of Washington Avenue. This particular area, which is about 175 acres, has been the subject of several previous zoning bills. We're coming back again to this particular area. The long and the short of this bill is, what this bill does is, it takes out all of the residential zoning classifications that allow for as-of-right conversion of rowhouses to multifamily units. As I said, there's been previous bills in this area that have done similar rezonings, but in both previous instances, there was multifamily zoning left in place. The problem of conversion without any community input has gotten to the point where the neighborhood and the Councilman feel that they would rather have all conversion to have to stand the test of the Zoning Board hearing.
So for the record, there's no prohibition of multifamily conversion; it's simply a requirement to pass a test.
And to show hardship and to get community approval and Zoning Board approval. 13 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980550
That's right. And I do want to point out that there was a typo made in the map, and we will be giving an amendment to the Clerk's Office and to the committee.
Yeah. The block is basically what would be the northeast corner of Second and Reed, through to Hancock Street. And what happened was, when we did that particular block, the A was left off. The difference is -- what the zoning is doing is changing it from R10 to R10-A. We have an amendment here to correct the map and make that an R10-A also, which is a single-family rowhouse district. With that amendment, for the record, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 21, 1999, recommended, through the Mayor and through this Council, the adoption of Bill No. 22 980550.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman DiCicco? 14 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980550
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just for the record, Mr. Lombardo, this is consistent with what we have done in the past, basically from a much larger area, from Washington Avenue to Oregon, from Broad Street to Columbus Boulevard, and this was just one small area that was left undone.
It was such a large area, we had to break it into a series of bills.
And this is just one of them. As I say, it was a series of bills that we got, and I think this is the last one of the series of bills that we have done.
Thank you very 15 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980550 much. Are there any more questions of these witnesses?? (No response.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? Please come forward. (Gina Caruso comes forward.)
I'm sorry, is there another witness for this bill too? Do you want to come forward too? Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Gina Caruso. I am the co-chair of the St. John's Leadership Team, and I would like to go on the record that the St. John's Leadership Team supports this bill.
It's different from the last time we were here. (Laughter.) (Suzanne Haney comes forward.) 16 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980684
Please identify yourself for the record. MS. HANEY; my name is Suzanne Haney, and I represent the Southwark Civil War Historic District Committee, and we are also in favor of this zoning change that would promote single-family homes and not subdivision of existing properties because of the historic nature of many of the properties in the area.
Terrific, great. Thank you very much. MS. HANEY; thank you.
Hearing none, we will now move to Bill No. 980684, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and planning by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by amending Section 14-1607, entitled "Special Controls for the Center City Commercial Area," by amending Section 14-1803, entitled "Criteria for Granting a Special-Use Permit," by requiring a 17 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980684 Zoning Board of Adjustment special use permit for certain users for properties fronting the north side of Market Street between Front Street and Fifth Street, under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo from the Planning Commission. I'm here to speak on Bill 980684.
As you stated, this bill 14 proposes to amend the special controls area for Center City, though the larger special controls area is, as you described, on Market Street between Front and Fifth. Currently, what we're really talking about is -- I'm sorry. What we're talking about really is just not the larger area but basically the north side of Front Street, between Front Street and Fifth Street.
Market Street, I'm sorry. 18 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980684
Okay. You don't mean the north side of Front, all right.
Yeah. On the north side of Market, between Front and Fifth, it's only the properties that front on Market Street. Basically what we have here is, we did a special controls for Old City a number of years ago. That bill basically came down to the rear property line of the properties on the north side of Market Street. In that particular area, the restaurants, any kind of entertainment of guests and patrons, public-assembly type uses are prohibited. South of that line, to Market Street, which is actually the properties fronting on Market Street, those uses could continue to be permitted. What this bill attempts to do is continue to allow them to be permitted to put some quality-of-life controls on the operation. Basically, it requires the issuance, after a public hearing by the Zoning Board, of a special-use permit for restaurants and other types of restaurant-like facilities at the public hearing. A special permit is not a variance; a 19 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980684 special permit is a situation where evidence to a particular issue is taken by the Board, and the Board evaluates whether you've met the threshold to provide that evidence. In this particular case, the evidence would deal with adequate trash and garbage storage, that the restaurant will have adequate trash and garbage storage, that there would be proper ventilation of all cooking fumes through the roof of the building rather than coming directly out onto the sidewalk and that those fumes will negatively impact neighbors. And lastly, that there will be -- where live entertainment is a part of the venue of the facility, there will be adequate noise -- with either live or electronic entertainment, that there will be adequate noise abatement to ensure that there it won't be heard outside of the premise. With that evidence being offered, the Board -- I mean, as I say, there's no variance threshold; it would just be evidence offered at that time. The Board, I would assume, would grant that the special-permit use would be allowed. 20 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980684 This bill actually is a compromise over, I think, an initial request from the civic association to extend the ban of restaurants and clubs and what have you all the way down to Market Street. After a series of meetings, it was decided to compromise with the special-use special permit process. And I know that Tom and I attended a meeting, I guess now, almost a year ago that the Councilman held out in the community. And after the issue was aired, I think there was pretty much agreement by all people there that they would support this bill.
Okay. Thank you very much. Are there any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
I'm sorry. For the record, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 21, 1999, recommended the adoption of Bill 22 980684.
Thank you. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? 21 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990425 (No response.)
Seeing none, we will move to Bill No. 990425, which is an ordinance amending Title of The Philadelphia 6 Code relating to zoning and planning by amending 7 Chapter 14-1600 entitled "Miscellaneous" by 8 amending Section 14-1697 entitled "Special 9 Controls for Center City Commercial Area," under 10 circumstances. 11 Please identify yourself for the 12 record. 13
Yeah. Good afternoon, 14 Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, and I'm here today to speak on behalf of Bill No. 990425. This bill again amends a portion of the Center City Special Controls area, which, again, is a much larger area, but these particular amendments are dealing with the Avenue of the Arts, which are basically properties along Broad Street, south of Penn Square, down to Washington Avenue. What this bill does is a series of things in refining the overlay and defining the 22 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990425 use controls. It would now allow sidewalk cafes, which would be permitted as a matter of right. Restaurants that exist along Broad Street now could come out onto the sidewalk as sidewalk cafes. Full-service restaurants, which currently require a Zoning Board hearing, now would be permitted as a matter of right. Uses currently requiring a Zoning Board certificate are drugstores, delicatessens, pet stores. Other public utility uses would no longer be permitted, and other -- two of the uses, food markets and sale of general merchandise, which is like a five-and-dime or a dollar store or a variety store, would no longer be permitted. So this bill was done in conjunction with the Avenue of the Arts and the property owners along Broad Street as a part of a concerted effort to upgrade the type of activity, the type of commercial uses on Broad Street in this area. As I said, this would be effective from Washington Avenue to City Hall to properties running on Broad Street. For the record, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of June 17, 1999, 23 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990425 recommended the adoption of Bill 990425. This bill was -- this bill was prepared in conjunction with the Avenue of the Arts organization as well as individual building owners along Broad Street.
That's right. It would only go from a point forward. If they're already there with many of these uses that I mentioned, like food markets, you would be grandfathered in. You could stay there, you could sell your property, someone else could buy it and continue the use, but that wouldn't take away that right.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd just like to read into the record a letter that was sent over by Ellen Solms, S-O-L-M-S. Ellen is the Executive Director of the Avenue of the Arts, Inc. "Avenue of the Arts, Inc. a nonprofit agency charged with overseeing the ongoing development of the Avenue of the Arts is in full 24 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 990425 support of the proposed revision of the special controls for the Center City commercial area. "Since 1993, Broad Street, from City Hall to Washington Avenue, has been transformed into the Avenue of the Arts, the city's premiere performing arts district. Linked by gleaming new streetscape, the district is home to a eleven cultural and educational institutions and seven individual performance venues. The development of the new or rehabilitated cultural facilities has stimulated significant commercial development -- new restaurants, new hotels, new retail and office and residential conversion. "With the opening of the Ritz Carlton Hotel next year and the Regional Performing Arts Center in 2001, the Avenue of the Arts will be well-positioned to continue as the engine for the city's ongoing economic development into the next century. The proposed controls will strengthen our ability to attract the kinds of businesses that will add to the Avenue's success by enabling us to protect on the over $600 million that has been invested by both the public and private sectors in the Avenue of the Arts." 25 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Thank you very much. That will be entered into the record. Are there any other questions for these witnesses? (No further questions.)
Anyone else to testify on the this bill? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Now we will move to Bill No. 980048, which is an ordinance amending Chapter 9-1600 of The Philadelphia Code relating to the prohibition against unlawful eviction practices by excepting from the definition of "landlord" a nonprofit landlord operating a boardinghouse or a lodging house. Is there anyone from the Administration to -- I'm sorry, we'll get the Administration first. You could sit right there. Mr. Nardone? (Michael Nardone comes forward.)
My name is Michael Nardone, and I'm the Deputy Managing Director for Special Needs Housing. Thank you for this opportunity to testify today on Bill No. 980048. The bill before you today would exempt nonprofit lessors operating boardinghouses from the prohibitions against self-help eviction procedures. The bill defines the term "boardinghouse" as any house containing furnished rooms or apartments kept principally for the residents or permanent guests, which are let out by the week or month, with full or limited meal service. When this legislation was originally proposed, the Administration had concerns about whether or not this legislation would impact programs currently run by City agencies, or that contract with City agencies to provide residential services, such as the Office of Emergency Shelter and Services that I oversee. After further analysis, it would appear that the legislation before you today with respect to its impact on our 27 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 programs would appear to be quite small. OESS contracts with over 40 emergency shelters that provide temporary housing, food, and other support services to more than 2200 homeless individuals. Many of these agencies may classify as nonprofit boarding homes as part of the language contained in this legislation. Clients seeking emergency housing from an OESS provider voluntarily enter into an agreement in which they agree to follow a prescribed service plan as well as abide by OESS rules and regulations, including a process for termination of service. This OESS client service agreement is critical to enforcement of an individual service plan and the individual's progress towards self-sufficiency, as well as the smooth and effective operation of the emergency shelter program. Thus, it appears that the OESS processes, as well as other programs that are within the City agency umbrellas such as the Department of Public Health, that their provisions are consistent with the provisions contained in this ordinance. Beyond the type of nonprofit 28 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 residential provider mentioned above, it would appear that the number of entities falling in the category of "nonprofit boarding home" would be narrow. Coles House, the main proponent of this legislation, is one of the few nonprofit boarding homes that I am aware of that falls outside of existing City and/or State provider systems, such as the OESS system. Although it is seeking an exemption from the prohibition against self-help, I understand that Coles House does provide its residents with certain procedural protections during the eviction process, and I believe you're going to hear more about that in testimony in a few minutes. The legislation before you today could be strengthened by adding language specifying that nonprofit boarding homes exempted from the self-help prohibition likewise must have in place an eviction process with procedural protections for the residents to ensure against any unintended consequences of this ordinance. With that, I'm going to conclude my remarks and would be happy to answer any questions 29 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 that you may have. And in following that concern that there be certain protections put into the legislation, I have drafted a proposed amendment that I could provide to the committee.
Thank you very much. We'll just need a copy of the amendment.
Is it your testimony that this legislation is instigated by only one boarding home?
So we're doing this legislation for just one boarding home? Is that it?
Yeah, we're talking about doing it but we haven't done it yet; we're just talking about doing it.
Yeah. It's just that I find it unusual that we're doing an individualized legislation like this.
Well, maybe I can 30 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 comment on that, Councilman Ortiz.
Back around 1996 or '97, I had the occasion to visit the Coles House, which is in my district, and I met Susan Lewis, who will be up shortly to testify. And as a result of that meeting, which I was brought down to look at the facility to see if we can get some funds to do some interior renovations and electrical work for the facility. As a result of that, a dialogue was created between my office and Susan Lewis. Subsequent to that Lieutenant McCarthy, who was then the lieutenant in charge of the South Street detail, had on occasion performed -- in the performance of his police duties, was summoned to the Coles House for the purposes of some disturbances between the tenant, or tenants, that were in that facility. As a result of those incidents, we began to explore the possibilities of maybe some legislation that may give the nonprofit agency and then the manager or the person in charge of the facility some input into the process of eviction. And I think when Susan 31 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 gets up to testify, she can explain to you what some of her problems and difficulties had been in the past. So when we speak to an individual piece of legislation, I guess this may apply to other boardinghouses that fall within the category of the Coles House, but this was a legislation that I put forward based on my experience with the Coles House.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions for Mr. Nardone? (No response.)
Mr. Nardone, could you please do me a favor and read into the record at least your proposed amendment on what it would accomplish.
The proposal that I have put forward would insert at the end of the definition of "landlord," where it says the following: "Except for nonprofit lessors engaged in the operation of one or more boardinghouses," and then insert: ", which lessor shall provide to 32 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 residents both notice of the impending eviction and an opportunity to cure the reason for the eviction in advance of utilizing any self-help eviction practice."
Okay. Are there any questions on the amendment? (No questions.)
Mr. Nardone, this may or may not be up your alley, but what, in your words, does the amendment accomplish or help to do or help to prevent? And, secondly, what is your understanding of the impact of the bill overall or -- I mean, what problems have you experienced that are either not covered by present law or are helped by the implementation of this particular bill?
I guess what -- this is not a bill that I was putting forward --
-- in terms of the Administration. 33 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
What I was trying to do in drafting the amendment, or crafting the amendment, was, to the best of my knowledge, the number of nonprofit boarding homes that would come under this definition are limited. In other words, nonprofit boarding homes that are not a part of, say, the OESS system or the mental health system were under some of the other City agencies that fund services. And under those circumstances, they would not, according to our analysis, be impacted by this legislation. However, there may be --
Well, just so I can understand. So in the reverse, are you saying that only systems that are associated with OESS or other City departments or agencies are subject to the bill?
No. What I'm saying is, is that there is a process in place which is somewhat consistent with the language that's concerned in this legislation that would allow those entities to terminate client services without going through the landlord-tenant 34 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 process. And so that they're relatively unaffected by the language contained in this bill. And as best as I can determine, the only nonprofits that would be impacted by this legislation are those nonprofits that would not be a part of the OESS mental health system. Coles House, apparently, is definitely one that isn't affiliated or involved in contracting with City agencies. There may be -- I am not familiar with other -- I am not personally familiar with other entities, except I -- other entities that would fall under this category. However, I can't be totally confident that that's the case. And the reason for -- and the reason for putting forward -- the reason why I, in testifying today and being asked to testify today, put forward this language was to try to ensure that the type of protections that Coles House has in place, with respect to -- which you'll hear a little bit more about today, with respect to notice, as well as procedural programs, due process, would also extend to people who might be impacted by this, that we're just not aware of at 35 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 this time.
Let me ask it this way because I am obviously missing something here. Maybe you can answer it this way. Can you tell me -- I mean, either before the bill or after the bill, there seem to be categories of these boardinghouses, even in the nonprofit world, that seem to be subject to different rules and regulations or different eviction procedures, depending on whether you are associated with OESS or a City agency or if you're standing independent; is that correct? I mean, is that the way the system is set up?
I think that what I was trying to say is, there's a different relationship.
What I was trying to refer to is that many of the boarding homes that are nonprofit boarding homes basically are 36 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 providing services under contract to either OESS or the Department of Health.
And those basically, I think you could make the argument, which we would, that those would not come under the landlord-tenant provisions contained in the existing law.
Because, A, there's a different relationship between the clients who are in the programs and the people that are providing the service. For instance, it's the City that's paying for the services that are provided under the mental health system, and the client doesn't pay anything in terms of services. So it's not the typical landlord-tenant relationship.
So in that circumstance, you're taking the position that the City has a right to stop service and put someone out --
Put in place -- there is a process, and each one of those -- 37 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
There's an internal process in place that has -- you know, which involves meeting with the case managers.
So that's what goes on with people who have a contract with OESS or some other agency or department of the government?
Right. And what I was trying to state is -- and maybe I didn't do it as eloquently as I could have -- is that, as best as I can determine, that many, if not most -- that most of the nonprofit boarding homes are somehow affiliated with that -- those systems. It was -- because I'm sitting here and I'm not -- I can't a hundred percent testify to you today that the only entity that's impacted by this legislation is Coles House, I felt that it 38 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 was important at a minimum, if this legislation was moving forward, that there be put in place some process that would at least ensure that there are protection s in place similar to the people at Coles House.
The landlord is going to put the process in place in order to evict the person? I don't think that's a level playing field.
That would be -- I mean, I would have to defer to the Law Department, but I think that the process would be subject to challenge.
I think we need to have the Law Department to look at how the procedure of due process is affected by this. I authored an eviction law in late-'87 in order to 39 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 avoid this type of self-help by the landlord, you know, which was rampant in Philadelphia. And I think this is opening up a Pandora's box right here.
So, Mr. Nardone, you have the City system and the City has its own process in place. The City takes the position that it, as a government, is not subject to the landlord-tenant provisions, I assume, of probably either the Philadelphia Code --
All right. Now, 40 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 the rest of the universe, the nonprofit people who don't have contracts with the City, they are?
Okay. And the bill 6 is trying to exempt the rest of them?
And that they would then put in place their own system somewhat similar to the way the City deals with the people we have contracted.
Right, or is similar to the way the Coles House system is in place -- that you'll hear more about after I testify. I was saying that as a minimum protection, that that would be something that we should look at, and I took the initiative to write the language.
Okay. Well, maybe I should wait until we hear from Coles House.
Your position relative to the City's contracted or State-contract operations is that the contractual relationship is what makes it unique.
And that there are protocols that, by virtue of that contract, were put into place or are in place, in the City's opinion, is a safeguard for capricious evictions without cause.
I've been joined by Marcia -- this is Marcia Berman from the Law Department.
Yeah, I just wanted to clarify -- 42 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Would you please pull your microphone closer to you and just formally identify yourself for the record, please.
Yes. Marcia Berman, Deputy City Solicitor. I just wanted to clarify for the record that the case law -- that the requirement that landlords not engage in self-help and go through the legal process is actually not in the Landlord-Tenant Act; it's been created by cases by courts. And it is unclear whether or not a boardinghouse is subject to that prohibition against self-help in State law. My research revealed a case back in 1914, which was the only case I was able to find, that suggested that a landlord-tenant relationship does not exist when a person contracts with a boardinghouse operator for room and board for any amount of time. And that case is Davis versus Hartel (ph.). And it's a 1914 Pennsylvania Superior Court decision. So it is somewhat unclear whether or not the boardinghouses are subject to that prohibition against self-help under State law. 43 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Can I ask you a hypothetical so I can try to understand what the boardinghouse operator and tenant relation or boarder -- I guess "boarder" is the appropriate word -- boarder relationship is. If I allow a person to enter my home, my private residence, to take a bedroom that's a spare room, and that person lives there with the promise that they're going to contribute to the utilities or to the food or to whatever domestic circumstance there is. And over a period of two, three months, the individual exhibits disorderly behavior -- he gets drunk and he busts up my house and does other kinds of things, and I want him out -- what is the relationship between me as the homeowner and now this boarder, which I allowed in the property? I mean, I did so voluntarily but now have changed my mind because of whatever behavior and want that person out. Does that person have landlord-tenant rights in my home? I mean, is --
We'll say the 44 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 boarder hypothetically was contributing to the food or to the utilities.
Again, there's not a lot of case law out there, but I would argue that under this case, Davis versus Hartel, which is still good law, that there would not be a landlord-tenant relationship.
Okay. Are boardinghouses viewed by the law or viewed by the courts -- I guess there's not that much -- there's not that many cases that give us that indication, that boardinghouses are more considered a private home as opposed to a commercial apartment building or a commercial operation?
I'm sorry. I didn't understand the answer. What is the distinction?
That with a boardinghouse, there is no landlord-tenant relationship because it's not the typical commercial type of enterprise that a landlord-tenant relationship means. 45 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Is the primary definition of the "landlord-tenant relationship" that there is a lease or a contract for a certain amount of time and a certain amount of rent, and maybe utilities included, maybe utilities not? I mean, taking the alternative of Councilman Kenney's example, if his example was not, I think you said, a boardinghouse relationship, then either, one, what was it? And, two, what created -- I mean, what is "a boardinghouse"?
The Philadelphia Code doesn't have any other definition for "boardinghouse." The Code, in this provision that this bill would amend, has a definition of "landlord." And it defines "landlord" as "the lessor of any residential dwelling unit." So I think, at least under this definition -- and I haven't researched this extensively. But I think that there is a requirement that there be some type of lease 46 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 arrangement.
Do the people in this particular situation for the bill that we're talking about, do they have a lease, or have they signed some sort of an agreement to come and live at a particular place for the week or the month and get some certain services that go with that?
Well, the definition in the bill says, "which are let out by the week or month." So I think that would imply some sort of arrangement where they're paying money to live there. I don't know if a technical lease, you know, as we think of it, is required.
Well, does that definition then imply that there is a landlord-tenant relationship?
I don't know. I can tell you that under the case law, there are no cases that say a boarding you house is a landlord and is subject to the self-help prohibition. 47 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048
Based on the definition on and Item number 5, what is the nature of the relationship between the people who run the boardinghouse and the people who are being let out? I mean, that the room is being let out to for the week or the month, with full or limited meal service? What is this relationship?
Didn't you say earlier that it was not landlord-tenant?
And there is very little case law. I can't tell you that there's any reasoning in that case law that makes this distinction. It doesn't; it just says it's not considered a landlord-tenant relationship. I -- I wish I could be more helpful but there's just not a lot of case law on this.
And, therefore, not 48 10/26/99 RULES COMM. - BILL 980048 subject to landlord-tenant statutes?
Well, it's -- the prohibition against self-help is not in the statute; it's developed under the case law. It's not in the Landlord-Tenant Act.
So -- fine. Let's I want to go into the boardinghouse business. Are you saying because of either case law or State statutes, I can't determine for myself what the nature of the terms and conditions of your staying in my boardinghouse are? And if you're violating them, I can't put you out?