COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, November 17, 2008 10:15 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER BILLS 080724, 080751, 080754, 080756, 080789 and 080790 - - - 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 morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 080724. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 8 amending Section 14-305 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "'C-4' Commercial and 'C-5' Commercial Districts," by negating any setback over 65 feet in height for lots designated "C-5" in the area bounded by 15th Street and Arch Street, Cherry Street and 16th Street and by increasing the permitted floor area for such lots building floor plate reduction. And our first witness is Jeffrey Rotwitt, an attorney for Family Court. (Witnesses approached witness table.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President. My name is Jeff Rotwitt. I'm here on behalf of the First Judicial District and the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania. A little background for the Committee. I was retained by the Supreme Court about three years ago on behalf of the First Judicial District to find a way to consolidate the existing locations that are now split on the Parkway, 1801 Parkway, the Juvenile branch, and the Domestic Relations branch, which is on 11th Street. The Court sits in very outmoded, inefficient space, and the goal was to provide a consolidated court for the convenience of the users right now that really require public transportation to get there. So there were two assignments here. One was to find a 4 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. location that could house a consolidated court, and the second was a way to pay for it. Starting with the first, the Court looked at multiple sites in Philadelphia to meet the needs of the court system and the convenience factor and the proximity to public transportation. Since all development efforts really in Philadelphia begin with Council, I convened a meeting of Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Clarke, since much of Center City falls within their two districts, and we looked at about a half a dozen to eight sites. And this was done in the summer of '07, where we looked at the pluses and minuses from many factors with respect to the optimal location of the Court, and both Councilmen both centered on the site that we've selected, which is 15th and Arch Street across from Love Park, the empty parking lot right now. The below conditions are owned by the Parking 5 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. Authority and there's a surface lot there today. So we went back to the Court, and the Court agreed that this was in fact the ideal location. The organized Bar feels that way, the judiciary. All the social service organizations that deal with all of the members of the public that need the court system services agree that this is an ideal location. The Domestic Division of the Bar, the DA's Office, all of the various constituents who use the services of the Court have united behind this location. The only problem was trying to find a way to pay for it. The Court asked me to make a trip to Harrisburg and find a way to bring together all three branches of the State government. And it was a tall task to get a lot of different views on the subject consolidated behind one idea, and that was -- the State was going to subsidize it. 6 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. The challenge was that in the history of Pennsylvania, the State has never subsidized a county courthouse, and given the cost of construction, we knew this would be at least a $200 million project. Senator Fumo, in whose district the site is, was kind enough to introduce and put into the capital budget a $200 million line item, and we worked with the House, with Representative Dwight Evans and John Perzel. So we have bipartisan work there. We had a little bit of heavy lifting to do with the Senate republicans, who were not quite as enthusiastic about this, but ultimately we got Senator Pileggi on board on that, and sure enough, the capital budget was passed. And there were many attempts by lobbyists and others to delete the line item or to modify it, but the capital budget passed in June with a $200 million line item, and the Governor has told us that he will select the project. 7 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. We are now in the early stages of design, and in the package that you've all received, you'll see some of the design efforts that have been done in a conceptual basis. The other element of this was to get the City Administration behind it, and had the task of having to do it not once with Mayor Street but also with Mayor Nutter.
I think the assignment to consolidate the three branches of State government and two different City Administrations may have been as challenging as really the Palestinian negotiations, but -- nearly as much anyway. And you'll see in your packet there is a letter that came from Mayor Street, who was enthusiastically supportive of this, and that letter you see was written last year to then Justice, now Chief Justice Castille, in which he expressed his support and acknowledges that the meeting had taken 8 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. place with Councilmembers DiCicco and Clarke. I met with Mayor Nutter, and Mayor Nutter is very supportive of it, too. So we have everyone on the same page and we actually have an allocation of 200 million, which is, we believe, sufficient, but the imperative is that we must start soon, because, unfortunately, with construction costs escalating, notwithstanding the recession we're in, the cost to build still continues to go up. So we're working within that precious 200 million that we have from the State. And it's a one-time opportunity really for the City, because the City is the beneficiary of what will undoubtedly be the only time the State has subsidized a county courthouse. The proposed ordinance seeks two elements of relief. One is as to the floor area ratio, which is the ability to build a building envelope large enough to house the Court. The Court currently 9 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. occupies about 250,000 square feet on Vine Street and roughly 266,000 on 11th Street. So the current Court, if nothing was changed, occupies about 513,000. What we're seeking is an increase in the FAR, a slight increase, only from to 15, to permit the Court 9 to be housed and to have about a five 10 percent growth factor over time. 11 If you go back 70 years, before 12 all our times, the Court was housed on Vine Street and, of course, has outgrown it, and we're trying to build a slight expansion factor over the coming years. Now, to do so, we can accommodate the square footage either by working with current zoning, which provides for a wedding cake setback. The setback, I believe, is 100 percent ground coverage from the ground to 65 feet. Between 65 feet and 300 feet, it's 75 percent, and above 300 feet it's 50 percent. Given the fact that we're 10 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. working within a finite budget that I have not one chance in heck to go back to Harrisburg to get increased, we're concerned, because if we were able to get the relief from Council and this were to pass, along with a companion bill that's going before the Streets Committee in the first week of December, and get passed before Council recesses, then we'll begin what is a year's process of designing the building, which will cost many millions of dollars in architectural and engineering, with the goal to break ground in basically the first quarter of 2010, and then we're looking at a 30-month construction period, so that we're really well into 2012 before the Court could move. At that point in time, it does free up the 1801 Vine property for a use perhaps more compatible with our Champs-Elysees of the Parkway and the crown jewel location that it currently occupies. The thought would be that it would be turned over to private 11 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. enterprise and put that on the tax rolls so we start to get real estate taxes on that site and all the other taxes associated with productive use of it. The wedding cake setback requirement built under the Code does not require us to set back at any particular point in the property. It could be on the north side, it could be on the east side, west or south side. The reason why we are seeking relief on the setback is that were we to go up on the north side, we'd be setting back from Love Park, and it doesn't really accomplish anything. I would say very pragmatically, however, it's a question of the budget.
As I said, Senator Fumo was kind enough to put the 200 million in our line item for us, and it is a finite amount that will be still 200 million when we start building in 2010. If we had a given amount of square footage, say, 530,000 square feet, it's much cheaper to build that on fewer 12 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. floors. You'll see in your packet we've gone through the various building envelopes -- I'm sorry. I'm remiss in introducing Chuck Retlavich (ph), our architect, and my companion here, Bill 7 Schwartz, my partner. If we do not get relief from the setback, we'll have to build this four stories higher for the same amount of square footage, and, unfortunately, for any given amount of the square footage, it's more expensive to build more stories. So it really is a question of the practical reality of the finite budget we have. And we believe that it does no injury, if you will, to sound planning principles given where this is. One of the reasons why I think Councilmen Clarke and DiCicco picked this is, it creates essentially a governmental area. We have One Parkway immediately to our west and then on the southeast, we have Municipal Services Building. In addition to height that we 13 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. would build it, were we to get the setback relief, would be essentially making the building roughly as tall as the Municipal Services Building and the One Parkway building, and we wouldn't have to go above it. So we think there's many reasons to support both the setback relief and the FAR relief. In addition, the companion bill 11 that we have before the Streets Committee will cause a widening of 15th Street. The Court will donate a 20-foot strip. If you recall, if you're traveling southbound on 15th Street, when you pass Arch Street between Municipal Services and Love Park, the street widens. We are going to widen 15th Street to permit an area for cars to pull over, and that alone under existing zoning would give us rights to bonuses to additional square footage. We think that the two bills read together present a great project for a parcel that has been undeveloped for 14 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. many, many years, the so-called Acme site that I think you actually, Council, passed the streets widening bill about three years ago in anticipation of CBS moving into this site, and the bill 7 expired because it had a two-year time limit and that's what is being reintroduced before the Streets Committee. I think with that, we're done our testimony and we'll take any questions, if you have any.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Will this be a Pennsylvania Department of General Services project or a private development project?
At the end of the day before the 200 million from the State, the DGS will own it. 15 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc.
Is it a design build or is it going to be a DGS-supervised project?
Well, there's still some debate with DGS on that subject. The way that Senator Fumo cleverly put the language into the capital budget was to streamline the process to avoid the time-consuming Procurement and Separations Act issues, so that the thought would be that it would mirror the same format that was used for One Parkway, where it was built by the private sector, to economize and to make it quicker, and at the end of the day, the building will be turned over to DGS.
We're going to spend almost every nickel of the 200 million.
So the project in total is 200 million? 16 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc.
No. No. The Court has some money as its resources that can accommodate some technology issues within the building, but basically that's a turnkey for 200 million.
And where would that be located and how many parking spaces?
The Parking Authority controls the site and what 17 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. was -- I left out as part of the Israeli-Palestinian negotiations the Parking Authority, as if the project was too simple without having another entity involved. But after tortured negotiations with the Parking Authority, essentially the ground cost to build the air rights plane, in which the Court will be built, will be building a four-level underground garage. It's very expensive. It will probably be $65,000 to $70,000 a spot, but it will create over 250 spots there. We still have to do the engineering to determine how many more than 250, but it will be at least 250. So in the world of green construction, the location of the building helps because we will have access to public transportation and we will also be creating a lot of parking for those who will have to use cars to get there and can't use public transportation.
Thank you. 18 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. I know you said if this setback -- if you did not get this waiver, you would see four additional stories you would have to build?
And I know you said you don't have any additional money anyway, but has there been any estimate of cost to how much more that will be to build? I know you said there was a certain percentage. Just rough idea what we're talking about here.
We haven't completed that analysis, but it's certainly more expensive obviously to build four more floors than it is if you 19 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. have a larger floor plate. It's definitely into millions.
Okay. And to repeat what Councilman Kenney's question is, no other money from the State or anybody coming with --
Yeah. Republicans are like that. I'm sorry. I didn't say that.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just want to know, what's the timeframe in here? When do you plan on starting construction? When do you plan 20 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. on completing it?
If we're fortunate enough to have Council pass the two ordinances that are pending, then we would be segueing from the programming work that's been done for the last three months to begin a full-court press to design the building, which is a multi-million dollar effort. Many times Planning likes you to design the building, but in this case, we're really talking about one arm of government and another arm of government. We really wouldn't want to design a building until we knew what the building envelope is, which is why we're coming and seeking the ordinances we do now. But it will take at least a year to design the building. We will begin in earnest probably in this time next year in going after the marketplace to price it, with a goal to break ground in the first quarter of 2010. And then it would be about a 30-month construction 21 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. period. So about two and a half years to build it.
Well, yes. We can't control union contract negotiations with the building trades. We can't control what the Chinese pay for steel and concrete, but, yes, we believe we can build it, perhaps by not a wide margin, but we believe that there is sufficient cushion in there continuously to cover that.
Yes, but not with a wide latitude, which is why there's some urgency that we get through Council and we begin the process, so we can really get a shovel in the ground in the first quarter, which hopefully our 22 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. national woes and recession will be behind us, but it will be great to have a $200 million project underway in town in the first quarter. I guarantee it will be the only one, I think, in the first quarter of 2010.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Just one thing that I think we omitted to having any specific conversations about during the course of the debate about the facility and the location, and I understand that this probably will be under the jurisdiction of the Department of General Services in terms of oversight 23 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. of construction. What we do normally in Council, particularly if it's a private developer and even if it's a City developer or public development entity, we usually require that an Equal Opportunity Plan be attached. By that I mean reference to goals as it relates to participation on professional services and construction side. And I know you'll be getting in the professional services relatively soon when we pass the bill. We're going to ask you to forward that to us prior to the passage of the bill. I know you're not prepared to submit it for the record today, but before we -- if we have final passage of the bill, I'd like for you to forward that to the Chair to see a draft of an Equal Opportunity Plan to talk about the goals. And if it reflects what the State traditionally does, that's fine. It is what it is, but we would like to see something in writing so we can have that as a part of the process. 24 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc.
We'll be happy to forward that to you prior to the Council vote in December.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm still a little confused on the method of development. When will you know if it's going to be a DGS project or not?
Well, since the Governor hasn't formally yet selected it out of the capital budget --
Formally selected it. He's given us his verbal assurance that he will do so.
You mean 25 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. authorizing the money?
The money has been authorized and passed by the Legislature and the bill has been signed by the Governor, but he has the ability to pick and choose which of the capital projects he selects.
Actually move forward for DGS. He has given his assurance to Chief Justice Castille and me that he will do so, but he has not yet done so. So as a result, DGS hasn't yet been officially engaged. We've talked to Secretary Creedon about the process going forward and about what structure it may take. It will be a somewhat complicated structure, but we hope to emulate essentially the structure that was used at the One Parkway building when the Bell Telephone building was converted to City use.
And what 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. was that process?
The process was that to save money for the City, because that was a City project entirely, the City turned to a private developer, Donald Pulver, and Pulver is the one who built it and basically turned it over for a dollar to the City at the end of the day.
Now, if DGS is involved in administrating the project or managing the project, will they make the selection on who builds it or will they make the selection on who develops it?
Well, the site is controlled by Donald Pulver, so Donald will be the one. The same one who did One Parkway will do it.
How does 27 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. the Parking Authority fit into this?
The Parking Authority owned the parcel, and then it created an air rights plane above it and it sold that to Pulver, and the quid pro quo of the sale was that any development that would be done had to necessarily integrate the garage with the structure above it in terms of the engineering of the site, in terms of access and where the columns were and vertical transportation stairways. So essentially the development has to build the four-level underground garage. That's, if you will, the consideration for the price to buy, if you will, the parcel.
Because he owns the site, yes. 28 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc.
And you envision the possibility that DGS will be involved in the administration or in the management of the project or not?
Well, if it's $200 million in State money, I would think that they'd want to have at least some -- they're not going to hand over $200 million to a private developer and say just do what you want.
No. Almost certainly they'll be approving the plans and specifications. The Court will really be determining the specifications and will be managing within the $200 million budget. DGS doesn't care so much whether the bathroom is on the north side or the east side, but they'll have some macro controls. But that's still, Councilman, still unfolding.
What is the timetable on that unfolding? 29 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc.
Well, we're beginning a dialogue with them, but my guess is, given the way the State -- let me rephrase that. The fact that it could take time, it will take undoubtedly a number of months.
Thank you. Any further questions? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Good morning.
My question is, will this building consolidate all of the Family Court locations that are presently like at 34 South 11th and I think a part of them moved somewhere else? They just seem to be scattered. 30 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc.
Yes. The goal is to have a complete unification of the Family Court.
You're welcome. Any further questions? (No response.)
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080724, which was introduced into City Council September 25, 2008. 31 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. Bill No. 080724 amends Section 3 14-305 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code by changing the provisions for an open space requirement above the 65-foot height level and allowing the base floor area ratio to be raised from 1200 percent to 1500 percent, all for an area bounded by 15th Street, Arch Street, Cherry Street and 16th Street. The purpose of these amendments would be to permit a building to be constructed that would be the new home of Family Court in Philadelphia. The plans for the building are in the conceptual phase at this time and have just recently been presented to the Planning Commission staff for review. Bill No. 080724 was considered by the Planning Commission at its meeting of October 21, 2008 and because no plans had been submitted at that time, the Commission requested an additional 45 days for its consideration under Chapter 24 2-307 of the Philadelphia City Charter. Since that time, the 32 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. representatives for the development have met with Planning staff on this project. Initial review indicates that while we have no issue with the granting of the requested additional floor area ratio in this instance, we do believe that having the additional open space above the 65-foot height of the building will be beneficial to both the building and the fabric of the City. It will allow for a recognition of the scale of the existing building on the north side of Cherry Street and, based on plans submitted, would also allow for more square footage to the proposed building. As a result, the proposed building would be marginally higher. The City Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Bill No. 080724 at a future meeting. At that meeting, the staff recommendation will be that the bill be amended to remove the provision eliminating the reduced open space outlined in the bill. 33 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions of the Committee at this time.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, Mr. Kramer.
You heard the testimony before of the additional cost that it would involve if this open space was not waived. Is that something that the Planning Commission considers, and have they considered it in this case; do you know?
The Planning Commission itself has not considered this particular bill. At the time that we took it in October, we had no plans and actually had not had discussion with the developer's attorneys at that point. That discussion happened just last week. So our discussions are actually very 34 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. preliminary. We do understand that the cost would certainly be a part of the consideration, and the case made by the attorneys today would certainly be a consideration made by my Commission. At this point, based on the fact that I've only had a week of looking at these plans, I'm sort of bound by what my Director has given me as a directive. He, unfortunately, is in New England as we speak and I cannot contact him at this point to get additional authorization. However, I can assure you that our Commission would certainly -- the attorneys themselves would be presenting that information to them. As to exactly how it would sway them, that I can't answer right now.
I just want it to be clear that is something you consider --
-- the 35 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. additional cost and the fact apparently there's no other money to pay for that additional cost?
It would be, but our staff is usually comprised of architects and urban designers here looking more at building form rather than at the cost.
I understand. I just didn't know if that factored in at all at some point. You said it did. I understand.
You're welcome. Mr. Kramer, your written testimony provided that the Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Bill 24 No. 080751 and --
Yes, ma'am. That 36 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. was a typo on my part. I am sorry.
Okay. Are there any other questions of Mr. Kramer? (No response.)
Okay. Seeing none, do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I would then ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 080751. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 15 amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1619, entitled "Frankford Avenue Special District Controls." And our first witness is Mr. Kramer.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the 37 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080751, which was introduced into City Council October 16, 2008. This bill will amend the Philadelphia Zoning Code by adding additional prohibited uses in the Frankford Avenue Special District Controls. These controls apply to all commercially zoned properties with frontage on Frankford Avenue between Harbison Avenue and Solly Avenue, as well as all commercially zoned properties with frontage on Cottman Avenue between Leon Street and Erdick Street. This bill will add to the list of prohibited uses to include barber and/or beauty shops; bars, pubs and taverns; consignment shops; restaurants; retail sales of beauty products and/or wigs; retail sales of telecommunications equipment as a main use, including, but not limited to, retail sales of cellular 38 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. phones and pagers. This is in addition to continuing the prohibited use of employment agencies. This bill is intended to preserve and elevate the types of businesses along Frankford Avenue. However, the types of businesses that this bill will prohibit represent approximately 27 percent of the businesses in the Special Control District. It is the concern of the staff of the Planning Commission that by regulating these uses, the effect will be more and longer periods of vacancy in this business district. The City Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Bill No. 080751 at its meeting of November 18, 2008. At that meeting, the staff recommendation will be disapproval. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions of the Committee at this time.
Thank 39 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode.
Has the Planning Commission done any analysis of why the vacancy rate exists as it exists right now?
We did not do an analysis of the vacancy rate. What we have done is an analysis of the types of uses that exist along Frankford Avenue in this particular district, and what we found was that out of approximately 300 uses along this section of Frankford Avenue, 87 of these would then become non-conforming based on this proposal. Frankford Avenue does have quite a few bars and restaurants along it. It also has quite a few beauty salons and nail salons.
My 40 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. understanding is that this was applied to new businesses that would require a variance for new businesses?
It would, but it would also then if you went to relocate along Frankford Avenue and filed for a new application, that application for these types of uses would send you to the Board, yes.
But the Planning Commission has done no analysis of vacancy rate or commercial development along that specific corridor?
Did the Planning Commission look at the fact that it might be retail mix that's creating a problem in terms of vacancy?
It is possible that that's the case. We were looking at what is existing there and trying to not so much preserve the character of what's existing there, but from our analysis of 41 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. what's there and the types of uses that have been coming in, we were concerned that by eliminating the stuff that's there or prohibiting it, we would exacerbate a worse problem. I understand what you're saying, though. I don't know that that's accurate and I don't have the science to back that up one way or the other.
So it does not prohibit any existing businesses from their current uses?
But instead it tends to improve the retail mix in the future, and if the problem there is in fact retail mix and variety of stores there, will the Planning Commission's recommendation be different?
If that could be proven, I would imagine the staff recommendation would be, yes, sir.
Well, do you know of anyone who is actively engaged in 42 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. economic development in that area?
We've had meetings with the CDC in that area. I would assume they are.
Well, the CDC was the proponent of drafting this ordinance 10 and they are the people that requested that we do so.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Probably on the same lines as Councilman Goode's questions, why isn't the Commerce Department engaged in this? It would 43 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. seem to me that between the CDC, who has experience there from a business standpoint, and the Commerce Department, whose mission it is to improve and to monitor these business strips, why would it be the Planning Commission's basically unquantified position or non-quantified position that this should be disapproved when the people who are on the Avenue doing business are the ones who are proponents of it and that the Commerce Department, whose mission it is to do this kind of stuff, is not engaged?
I can only answer this way, in that when I was brought into this project, it was because the CDC was specifically asking for zoning legislation, which was our interest. At the same time, because of our concerns with it, I did recommend and I did put the CDC in touch with the Commerce Department. I, frankly, don't know what the Commerce Department has done or hasn't done in regard to this, but I did 44 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. in fact try to facilitate that communication, and I have not heard back from them as to other means. Actually, to be perfectly honest, I did not think that the zoning method was the way to deal with the problem and I do think that the mix of uses is something that needs to be addressed and concerned, and I just was under the impression that the Commerce Department had a better, shall we say, mix of tools to be able to address that problem. Unfortunately, I have not heard back from the Commerce Department as to exactly what they would do or not do with regard to this, although I am led to believe from Commerce representatives that they have been in touch with the CDC, but I was not at those meetings and can't tell you what was said or not.
So would it be appropriate for you guys to withhold your decision until Commerce has weighed in? 45 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc.
Thank you. Any further questions of Mr. Kramer? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
Yes. As a follow-up to Councilman Kenney and Councilman Goode's comments, my question too was how does the Commerce Department fit into this, because, quite frankly, I don't think that there's any coordination of departments working together along with the CDCs for recommendations, recruitments. I don't know who goes to the retail fairs and goes back to their desk to say, Hey, guys, this group is looking to move here or there. And I would agree with Councilman Kenney that you not make a decision until you see. 46 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. What is it that you find the problem? Is the problem the vacancy, vacancy rate, on Frankford Avenue?
Our definition of what the problem would be would be the creation of non-conforming uses. So that what it would do is take the existing mix and make quite a few of them no longer -- you wouldn't be able to have any more, you wouldn't be able to move from one store to another. That may be in fact what the community is looking to do, and that may not necessarily be a bad thing. But from our point of view, the concern would be that any new uses coming in would be eliminated from locating here on Frankford Avenue, and that was our concern. Now, we will speak with the Commerce Department. I will do that once we are finished with this hearing.
Right. Because we have the same problem along various business corridors in the 8th 47 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. Council District, and I agree with Councilman Goode, I would think that the old businesses would be grandfathered in some way, even if it has to do with expansion. However, when you go out into the business districts, these stores are not making money, and ultimately they're closing or passing it on to someone else in their family. If you have stores 11 along a strip, along a corridor that's 12 selling the same thing, they are not 13 making money. 14 So I understand the CDC's 15 request to have some controls, because 16 you're either going to have vacancy or 17 you're going to have a store that's just 18 not making any money, whether we're in 19 recession or not, because they all sell 20 the same thing. So I would think, too, that there would be more coordination from Commerce, Planning and the CDC to see what they can do to help get new businesses attracted to that particular 48 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. corridor, because I know you guys -- I know Commerce goes to retail fairs, but I never hear who is interested in coming to Philadelphia other than Center City. But we do have these neighborhood strips that have to survive, and this is the way the CDC thinks that they can survive, because we're going to do the same thing in Germantown. We have to do some controls. We have to. Thank you.
Thank you. Any further questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else that would like -- MR. McPHERSON: Yes. The next witness is Brian King. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for 49 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Brian Patrick King. I'm the Executive Director of the Mayfair Community Development Corporation. I represent not just the CDC but other organizations, such as the Mayfair Business Association and the Mayfair Civic Association. I'm here to testify in favor of Bill 080751. One of the major goals of the Mayfair Community Development Corporation, in partnership with other like-minded groups, is the revitalization of the Frankford Avenue commercial corridor. To that end, the Mayfair CDC successfully completed, is executing and/or is in the process of completion of several projects or programs that directly impact the commercial corridor and other projects that support the community that in turn support the commercial corridor. Before I tell you about those 50 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. projects, I want to share some of the facts about the Mayfair community that you may not be aware of. Mayfair is a solid middle-class working neighborhood with a little over 26,000 residents. The majority of the housing stock is row homes, but they are some of the largest row homes in the City. Over 80 percent of our housing stock is owner occupied, and 47 percent of the households are married couples versus 32 percent citywide. With our tree-lined streets, garages, full basements and easy access to I-95, the Roosevelt Boulevard and area bridges, we consider ourselves a suburb in the City. We are pleased that our senior population is percent, the 20 largest in the City. 21 The goals of the Mayfair CDC as it relates to the commercial corridor is as follows: The improvement of the environment for business investment; improve the mix of retail businesses; 51 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. transform the image of the Avenue in order to attract customers and new businesses and to make a better hometown shopping area for the community; have a shopping area that fully serves the needs of the community; and make parking and walking both comfortable and safe. One of our projects, the Manor Medical Building and Community Service Building: This building is located at 6810 Frankford Avenue and for several decades was a bar. In the mid '90s, this bar was closed and fell into disrepair as a vacant property. It was vandalized and set on fire several times over the years. The CDC purchased the building, renovated it and made it the offices of the Mayfair CDC. The major tenant in the building is a doctor who services dozens of Mayfair seniors and is on the first floor and just signed a multi second year lease. The Mayfair CDC sold the building in September of 2008 to a local businessperson, who will continue to 52 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. utilize this as his office space. For the CDC, this was about a $400,000 investment. The Memorial Park on the Avenue: This property is located at 7216-18 Frankford Avenue. This was, again, another vacant building that at one time was a bridal shop and, again, the victim of a fire. This building had been vacant for over ten years. In partnership with the City of Philadelphia through the NTI program and the Philadelphia Horticultural Society, the Mayfair CDC gained site control of the property and, in 2006, turned the site into a two-time award-winning sitting park where we have honored four deceased residents who have served the Mayfair community. This park is utilized every day by local residents shopping on the Avenue and has become a green oasis in a dense urban area. This, again, was about a $50,000 investment, not counting the donation of the property through the 53 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. City. The Clean Sweep Program: This program has been in place for over four years. In a nutshell, the program consists of six cleaning machines and operators, over 100 trash cans, banners, lighting, holiday decorations, benches, et cetera, all along the commercial corridor.
This program has been a huge success, making the Avenue cleaner, safer and more pleasing to the eye and, to a degree, more attractive for shopping. Our Streetscape Program: This program is being funded by both the City and the federal government to the tune of $2 million. This project will provide improvements along the commercial corridor from Harbison Avenue to Cottman Avenue. These improvements include, but not limited to, lighting, tree planting, traffic median development, greening, street imprinting, pedestrian signals. Our partnership with the Parking Authority: The Mayfair CDC 54 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. teamed with the Parking Authority to clean up and upgrade the parking lot on Frankford Avenue so that it would be cleaner, safer and more appealing to residents for parking. Our major project right now, the Devon Theatre: This project will be a 400-seat boutique live performing arts theatre on Frankford Avenue. This venue will be very flexible and will be utilized for live theatre performances, ballet, community functions, dance, comedy shows, corporate functions, workshops for children, movies, book signings, et cetera. This theatre will be one of a kind and will be a destination not just for Mayfair residents but for all residents of the region. This will be a $5 million investment on behalf of the CDC. The Community Center: A study commissioned by the OHCD identified a need for a community center in Mayfair, considering that there was no Class 55 1 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. recreation center in a community this size. In partnership with the City, School District, Rec Department, Councilwoman Krajewski and our State Representative John Perzel, we were able to broker an agreement for the site and funding. We are the proud operators of a $3 million community center that serves hundreds of seniors and school-age children every week. Hopefully you will agree that the CDC and its partners have put a significant amount of effort and capital into the Mayfair community and Frankford Avenue commercial corridor. The Mayfair CDC is committed to see all projects through, and we are not going anywhere. The City can count on us to be a stable and passionate partner. Unfortunately, the commercial activities on the Avenue have evolved over recent years to include a variety of retail, office and institutional uses that do not serve the real needs of the 56 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. nearby community. The addition of several used car dealerships, an abundance of nail salons, telecommunication service stores, pawnshops masquerading as gold for sale and eBay stores, hair salons and non-retail office space has reduced the overall vitality and appeal of the commercial corridor. This legislation will allow the people closest to the community who are doing the heavy lifting to have a larger say of what happens on the commercial corridor. The Mayfair CDC has a long history of working with businesses, and this would not change with this legislation. The Mayfair CDC and its partners feel strongly about this bill 20 and will be another tool in our bag in efforts to revitalize the Frankford Avenue commercial corridor. The community, both the businesses and the neighbors, are confident that the public improvements to the physical environment, 57 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. along with this legislation, will create an environment for greater private retail investment. I urge you to give positive consideration to this bill and allow the people who are invested in the community to continue to have a leadership role in the community. Thank you for your time and consideration on this issue. At this point, I'd be glad to answer any questions anybody has.
Thank you. Are there any questions of this witness? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to know about that Devon project. When is that going to be completed?
Actually, today I have my last walk-through with 58 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. construction management and we are hoping to have by December 14th the main portion of the construction completed, at which phase it will be another six weeks just for technical fit-out for sound and lighting, and we're hoping to have the building open by February.
And you have the funding, you have ample funding to open it?
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. You obviously have done a lot of work on this issue over the years. You heard the Planning Commission's concern about the vacancy rate.
Is it my understanding you feel if these restrictions were put in, you could get other businesses in there so that vacancy would not be a problem? Is that a short way of putting it?
Yes. As part of a segue into our Devon project, we had met with other developers, other business owners from other sections of the City. One of our development teams had gone out and met with different groups in or about the City. One of the things was, they just did not find the Avenue attractive for someone to come and invest that kind of money. For instance, we met with representatives from Starbucks. The people from Starbucks just laughed. They said, You got a nail salon, a pizza shop. There's nothing there that would attract people to want to come to the Avenue, come to our Starbucks, come to a store that we're looking to invest top dollar to be a part of. 60 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc.
And following up on what Councilwoman Miller said to the Planning Commission, given that there seems to be a lot of these kind of businesses, do they stay there long? Is there a lot of turnover?
Some of them are turnovers. Some of them just turn over and change a name, but the use stays the same. It was a nail salon that was Golden Nails and the next year it's Sally's Nails. You know, it changes, and, again, it's just not positive. Somebody else just moves further down the Avenue and opens another one.
I got you. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank 61 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. you very much.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, thank you. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 080754. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by "B" Street, Erie Street, "G" Street and Tioga. Our first witness is Mr. Kramer.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080754, 62 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. which was introduced into City Council October 16, 2008. Bill No. 080754 will amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps for an area bounded by B Street, Erie Street, G Street and Tioga Street changing the zoning designation on one parcel from the existing G-2 Industrial classification to a zoning designation of L-4 Limited Industrial. This property is an existing industrial site bordered by residential row homes on both the south and the west sides. This zoning change will preserve the industrial use at the location while allowing for commercial uses at this location. The change to the L-4 Limited Industrial designation is one that is used in areas where the industrial land is in close proximity to residential land uses that would benefit from commercial uses being permitted. This site was a former vacated parking garage that has 63 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. now been renovated to provide a more adequate mix of uses to the community. The City Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Bill No. 080754 at its meeting of November 18, 2008. The staff recommendation will be that Bill 8 No. 080754 be approved. It is my understanding that there is an amendment to this bill that was to be introduced, the gentleman from Councilwoman Sanchez's office. There was a technical problem with the maps, and I believe that that has been submitted previously. And that would conclude my testimony. If there's any questions, I'd be happy to answer them at this time.
Thank you. Any questions from members of 64 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. the Committee? (No response.)
I just have one. What are the differences in uses that are allowed in G-2 zoning that are not allowed in L-4 designated areas?
In a G-2 General Industrial classification, you do the very heavy industrial uses. You could have outdoor storage of materials. As a matter of fact, outdoor processing. You could actually manufacture things outside. That's the largest difference between the Industrial and the Limited Industrial. Limited Industrial is more of a classification for warehousing, distribution, as well as putting together parts that you would get from another location. So you would get Part A from here, Part B from there and put them together; whereas, in G-2 in General, you can actually start from raw materials. And, in essence, that's the difference 65 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. between the two.
Mr. Kramer, what are the existing uses in this site that is to be rezoned since, according to your testimony, it is no 7 longer a vacated parking garage?
I did not visit this site, so I am not personally aware of exactly what the sites are. There are a number of -- as I understand it, my staff has told me that the building has been renovated to allow for commercial uses to come in, but those commercial uses themselves have not been actually brought in at this time. Mr. DiBerardinis, do you have more information? You may know more than I do.
You can go up to the witness table. MR. DiBERARDINIS: We have an additional witness coming up.
Okay. Fine. 66 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. Any questions of Mr. Kramer on this bill? (No response.)
Do we have anyone to testify on this bill? (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. MR. DePETRIS: Good morning, Councilwoman.
Please identify yourself for the record. MR. DePETRIS: My name is Steven --
You can pull the microphone closer. MR. DePETRIS: My name is Steven DePetris. I'm a principal of Legend Properties. We're a commercial real estate company, and we were hired as agents to market the retail space. This was a redevelopment. There's a storage facility behind, and the owners developed 67 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. about seven stores. They range in size from 800 to 1,300 square feet. We can combine some of those stores. In this legislation, my understanding is that right now every time we would have a retail use, we would have to come and get a zoning variance. This gives a broader leeway for us to have approved retail uses. We're in the process of marketing the property. We don't specifically have a lease in hand yet, but we have a number of prospects that we're working with.
Thank you. Any questions or comments? (No response.)
My name is Jeffrey Stutter (ph). I was asked to be 68 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. here as a representative of Centurion Family Trust, which is the owner of the property. And I can just tell you that right now it is being used as a storage and parking, and that's what we're looking for basically, is a little bit of leeway in the use of it. We do have, I believe, two letter of intents at this point.
Thank you very much. Thank you, gentlemen. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of 080756. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 20 amending the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Roberts Avenue, Wissahickon Avenue, Hunting Park Avenue and Fox Street. 69 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. And our first witness is Mr. Kramer.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080756, which was introduced into City Council on September 18, 2008. This bill will amend the Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of the parcel bounded by Roberts Avenue, Wissahickon Avenue, Hunting Park Avenue and Fox Street. This bill will, in effect, fix an error made in the preparation of a previous ordinance. Bill No. 060288 changed the zoning of the area specified from L-2 General Industrial to G-2 General Industrial and C-3 Commercial and was signed into law June 15, 2006. In the preparation of the bill, an error was 70 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. made with a dimension being incorrectly transposed. This condition is at odds with the original intent of Bill No. 060288, and Bill No. 080756 will correct this error. The correction will allow for the issuance of permits for the construction of a new Salvation Army building on this parcel. The City Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Bill No. 080756 at its meeting of November 18, 2008. This item will be presented with a staff recommendation of approval. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions of the Committee at this time.
Thank you very much. In addition to a new Salvation Army building, are there any other proposed uses, new uses?
Not that I have been made aware of at this time, no. 71 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. This bill changes the dimensions by feet to incorporate the entire property of the Salvation Army.
Thank 6 you. 7 And this is to correct the 8 dimensions? 9
Any 11 questions from members of the Committee? 12 (No response.) 13
Thank 14 you very much. 15 Do we have anyone to testify on 16 this bill? 17 (No response.) 18
19 Mr. Kramer, it is my understanding that 20 Bill No. 080789 and 080790 should be considered together?
All right. Mr. McPherson, would you read the 72 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. two bills, please. MR. McPHERSON: Yes. 080789, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Ditman Street, Levick Street, Hegerman Street, Robbins Avenue, Keystone Street, Devereaux Street, Hegerman Street, Tulip Street and Harbison Avenue. Bill No. 080790, an ordinance 13 to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Ditman Street, Cottman Avenue, Keystone Street and Hellerman Street.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Division of the Philadelphia 73 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 080789 and 080790, which were introduced into City Council October 23, 2008. Both Bill No. 080789 and Bill 7 No. 080790 reflect a zoning remapping for adjacent areas. Bill No. 080789 will amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing certain zoning parcels bounded by Ditman Street, Levick Street, Hegerman Street, Robbins Avenue, Keystone Street, Devereaux Street and Hegerman Street, Tulip Street and Harbison Avenue. Bill No. 080790 will effect zoning parcels in the area bounded by Ditman Street, Cottman Avenue, Keystone Street and Hellerman Street. Both bills are the result of addressing concerns brought to the staff of the Commission and Councilperson Krajewski's office. These concerns were based on the desire to maintain certain areas of the community as commercial corridors. Both bills will change the 74 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. zoning designation of properties zoned C-1 Commercial to C-2 Commercial along Torresdale and Longshore Avenues. This will eliminate the ability of a commercial property owner to convert the property from a commercial use to a solely residential one, as is permitted under the C-1 Commercial designation. The City Planning Commission is scheduled to consider both Bills No. 12 080789 and 080790 at its meeting of November 18, 2008. Both bills will be presented with a staff recommendation of approval. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on these 75 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. bills? (No response.)
We do have one technical amendment that was brought to my attention by the Law Department this morning. There was a small error on one of the maps. There was a zoning classification that inadvertently was left off, so we had to incorporate that. So we would ask that the bill be amended to put the correct map in place.
We have no one to testify on these bills? (No response.)
That will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke for a motion on Bill No. 080724.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill 080724 be reported out of the Committee with a 76 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. favorable recommendation and a request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Mr. Kramer, a request has been made for a rules suspension. Is there any objection to that since I know originally, I think in October, it was asked that --
We did request the additional 45 days, and that will run out on December 8th. I'm not certain what that does in terms of the suspension of rules, but that's the date that the 45-day clock runs out. I have no 17 objection, but that doesn't mean...
Madam President, I actually talked to the Director of the Planning Commission yesterday -- or the day before, Friday, and we've had some discussions about the issues with respect to the FAR.
For the 45 days? 77 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc.
And they understood that there was some timing issues on it. He said he did not have a problem with it being moved out of Committee today.
We also believe, based on what he said, they will come to some conclusion in a timely way, but if not, I'm prepared to hold it until the 18th.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 21 080724 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. 78 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 080751.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 13 080751 be reported out of this committee favorably and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 20 080751 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. 79 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 10 080754.
Thank you, Madam President. I first move the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 14 080754. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment submitted to us during the course of the hearing be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The 80 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Mr. Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 7 080754, as amended, be reported out of the Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 080754 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The 81 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. ayes have it and the motion carries. We will now consider Bill No. 4 080756. Mr. Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 8 080756 be reported out of this committee favorably and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 080756 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The 82 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. ayes have it and the motion carries. We will now consider each bill 4 separately, I guess. Councilman Kenney, 080789.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that the amendment circulated requested by the Planning Commission to Bill No. 080789 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 23 080789, as amended, be reported out of this committee favorably and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for 83 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 7 080789 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended; further that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The final bill to be considered, 080790.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 23 080790 be reported out of this committee favorably and a request made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at 84 11/17/08 - RULES - BILL 080724, etc. our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 080790 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, the motion carries, and this concludes our public meeting. Thank you. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 12:20 p.m.) - - - 85 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on November 17, 2008, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)