COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, February 23, 2010 10:10 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILL 100003 - An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Marsden Street, Friendship Street... BILL 100014 - An ordinance amending Section 19 14-1638, entitled "Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay District"... BILL 100062 - An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 59th Street, Lancaster Avenue... - - - 2
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would like the record to reflect that we do have a quorum. To my extreme left is Councilman Goode. Next to him is Councilman Greenlee. To my extreme right is Councilwoman Miller, Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Kenney. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 100003. 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 Marsden Street, Friendship Street, Keystone Street and Tyson Avenue. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. 3 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc.
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 to testify on Bill No. 100003, which was introduced by Councilmember Krajewski January 28th, 2010. Bill No. 100003 is a rezoning bill for an area bounded by Marsden Street, Friendship Street, Keystone Street and Tyson Avenue. The purpose of the bill is to rezone commercial properties along Princeton Avenue from an existing zoning designation of "C-1" Commercial to a designation of "C-2" Commercial in order to preserve and promote Princeton Avenue as a commercial corridor. The community has expressed concern that the existing "C-1" Commercial designation would allow for a property to be converted to a residential use as a matter of right which would be 4 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. detrimental to the well-being of the Princeton Avenue commercial corridor. This bill is consistent with the provisions of Bills 080789 and 080790 concerning the same situation in the Mayfair and Wissinoming neighborhoods. Both prior bills were signed into law December 23rd, 2008. At its meeting of February 16th, 2010, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill No. 13 100003 and recommended that it be approved. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee at this time.
Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Mr. McPherson, kindly read the 5 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. title of Bill No. 100014. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 4 amending Section 14-1638, entitled "Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay District," by establishing no height limit and by making technical changes, all under certain terms and conditions.
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. 100014, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco January 28th, 2010. Bill No. 100014 amends Section 21 14-1638 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code, entitled "Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay District." The primary purpose of the bill is to extend the time allowed for the City Planning Commission to adopt 6 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. regulations regarding the approval of plans of development as required by this section of the Code. At its meeting of January 19th, 2010, the Planning Commission did consider adopting such regulations. However, owing to the comments and concerns raised by many, the item was tabled at that time in order to allow an opportunity for any interested parties to raise their concerns and comments. Bill No. 100014 will extend the time for the adoption of those regulations by 60 days. The provisions of the Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay encompass an area bounded by Allegheny Avenue, the Delaware River, Oregon Avenue and Interstate 95. The Old City Overlay District boundaries overlap these boundaries for an area bounded by Wood Street, Spring Garden Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard and Interstate 95. In this area, a height restriction of 65 feet would apply and Bill No. 100014 7 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. proposes to remove that height restriction. The removal of this height restriction serves to provide consistency throughout the Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay area. The height of buildings in the Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay would be restricted by the provisions of the underlying zoning designations for properties in this area. Additionally, Bill No. 100014 makes a technical amendment to the Central Delaware Overlay by removing some redundant language in this section of the Code. As originally drafted, the bill 17 had the unintended consequence of removing all height restrictions in the Central Delaware area. This would have included certain properties that were zoned residentially, as well as those with a zoning designation of "C-2" Commercial. Since in the industrial districts and the higher commercial districts height is not specifically 8 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. restricted but rather controlled by other means, such as limits on bulk or floor area ratio, the removal of specific height limits on the residential districts in the "C-2" Commercial district would be problematic. The staff of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission has worked with the office of Councilman DiCicco and the Law Department to correct that concern. I respectfully have submitted an amendment to Bill 13 100014 for your consideration. At its meeting of February 16th, 2010, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission considered Bill No. 17 100014 and recommended that it be approved as amended. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you. Mr. Kramer, the only technical change that I see in the bill is that it 9 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. deletes from Section 14-1638(7)(b) language proving that if the property owner does not dedicate the waterfront setback to the City or its agent, the property owner shall be responsible for maintaining the waterfront setback open to the public, constructing a recreational trail and maintaining the recreational trail. If this language is removed, who is responsible for constructing and maintaining the trail if the land is not dedicated to the City? Can we assume that it will be the responsibility of the property owner?
The assumption, as has been explained to me by the Law Department, is that responsibility would become basically the City's. It is a function where the property owner may assume that responsibility in the event that they're not dedicating the property to the City. So in the event that they're not dedicating it to the City, 10 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. they are required to put in that trail and subsequently maintain it, and that's why this language was considered redundant by the Law Department.
-- which I assume is based on our practice of making actual zoning designations for a particular parcel of ground by special ordinances and not by Code amendments?
Yes, ma'am, I am comfortable with the language. We are still obviously working out the details with regard to the plan of development, regulations and procedures. Mr. Weixler and I are scheduling a meeting for later this week to get community concerns, and I also have input from the development community that is incoming as sometime later this week as well. They'd all have to be processed and then presented to the Commission. 11 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. In general -- and I'm trying to get my brain around this whole Central Waterfront development concept, because we've been talking about it in many forms for years. This applies to private property?
Any property. I'm just going to play devil's advocate for a moment. I'm a property owner in the Central Waterfront District. It's an industrial property, maybe conducting some business on it at the present. Are you condemning that particular setback?
No, we're not. This would not apply until someone came 12 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. in with a development proposal to reutilize the property.
But then is there any discussion with the owner of the property to try to integrate it into the overall plan of the trail? Because you're going to have -- if you have publicly owned land, there's no problem, we can do whatever we want with it. If you have a plan of development, a developer wants to come in and do something and asks for permission, then we can enforce that, but what do you do with the parcels that are privately owned, are operating and that they don't want the trail? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Maybe I can answer that. Those kinds of discussions have been going on for a while, since pretty much the civic vision for the Central Delaware Waterfront was 13 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. rolled out. There are a number of entities who are existing today, Sheet Metal Workers Union Hall, the Home Depot site, stuff like that, where discussions have taken place between the Central Delaware Waterfront advocacy groups, Paul Levy creating the bike trail, the City and others. There are those who may agree to allow for that use and there are those who may not. We can't force them to. This primarily deals with, going forward, with new development as we see the Central Delaware Waterfront vision hopefully rolling out over the next decade or two for new development, which we anticipate hopefully will be a mixed use of residential, commercial, high rise development, and in that case, then they would become part of the recreational trail, their properties could become part of the recreational trail either by their choice or by advocating the property to the City and 14 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. then the City would be responsible.
And I assume that also includes the discussions relative to the movement of kind of industrial uses perhaps further south into areas that are more industrial in toto as opposed to some of the stuff we have going on now where it's industrial, commercial, but it's kind of in a residential -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's the intent, and I think that the only way that will happen, because there's not enough government money to do that relocation, is the incentive for the current property owner and businesses to want to relocate because their property is more valuable if it were used, as an example, as a 40, 50-story high rise residential unit or a commercial high rise tower or something like that.
Okay. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Is that 15 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. pretty accurate?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Mr. Kramer. Can you kind of describe what a recreational trail actually is? It's just walking or grass, open space?
As delineated in this particular section of the Code, it's requiring a waterfront setback of 50 foot, part of which -- and we're still negotiating the exact dimensions thereof. It's, at a minimum, like foot wide 19 that will be a combination 20 pedestrian/bicycle pathway, the design of which is still to be done. We're going to at this point a minimum clearance of eight foot so that you can go up and down the trail. Some of the provisions are making sure it's wide enough and high 16 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. enough in the event you needed an emergency vehicle to get there, that it be able to do that. But primarily the intent is to provide both the naturalist landscaping setting with a pedestrian/bicycle pathway through it, in its simplest terms.
Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Kramer from members of the Committee? (No response.)
I would like the record to reflect that Councilman Kelly has joined the Committee. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. 17 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. (Witness approached witness table.)
Good morning. Welcome. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Madam Chairwoman and members of the Committee. My name is Steven Weixler and I am Chairman of the Central Delaware Advocacy Group. The primary mission of our coalition of riverfront civic 13 associations and other stakeholder 14 organizations is to advocate for the 15 civic vision for the Central Delaware. 16 This is the primary set of principles for 17 a new riverfront master plan. It is also 18 our vital interest to monitor changes in 19 the current zoning environment and to 20 protect the quality of land use in the interim. For that reason, the Advocacy Group appears here today to respectfully convey its gratitude to Councilman DiCicco for originating and sustaining a 18 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. rational planning process for Philadelphia's riverfront. Through his leadership, the resource that is the Delaware shoreline will have a new and vital role in Philadelphia's future as a great city. We are also here to share with the Councilman and with members of the Committee some concerns that are apparent to us in the proposed amendments to the Central Delaware Riverfront Overlay ordinance. The Central Delaware Advocacy Group regrets that the short time between introduction of the bill and this hearing has prevented us from consulting with the Councilman in our normal process, but we ask you and Councilman DiCicco to continue in the spirit of the working partnership we have forged in the process of civic engagement with thousands of Philadelphians over more than three years. In the matter of technical changes to the language describing the 19 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. recreational trail, we fully understand that there are complex issues surrounding the creation of any transforming urban amenity. As one who participated with members of the property ownership and development community in negotiations for the original interim overlay ordinance, I can appreciate the range of concerns remaining to be addressed. The Central Delaware Advocacy Group fully expects a fair and equitable solution to be reached in the creation of this trail as the master plan is detailed. However, we wish to be on record that safe, open and usable access to Philadelphia's sustaining river is a central part of the civic vision created by Philadelphians and their families. It is a core feature of the urban planning being put to work to create new livable, exciting and productive neighborhoods. Many other cities have seen the benefit not only in livability and desirability, but in productivity and property value this 20 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. feature produces. A second feature of the bill 4 which has received thorough examination and consideration is the matter of the height regulation. Many members of the Central Delaware Advocacy Group are themselves involved in representing their own civic associations in zoning and planning matters. We have conducted a survey of the existing zoning in the overlay area, along with the accompanying height control. We are aware that the original overlay ordinance specifically does not alter any existing zoning restrictions in language or intent. We are also aware that it is necessary that height controls which have since become effective in certain parts of the overlay area must be removed. In preservation of the original intent of the ordinance as an interim until the results of the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation's Master Plan can be enacted, we have the following recommendation: 21 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. " We are confident that any argument for ambiguity in conflicting provisions of any of the included zoning classes could be averted with this change. Finally, the Central Delaware Advocacy Group thanks Councilman DiCicco for inclusion of an extension in the statutory limit for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission to promulgate guidelines for review of plans of development.
This review process should be fair, open and consistent and it is a central part of progressive planning and good government championed by the Nutter Administration. We are meeting with 22 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. Executive Director Greenberger and members of his staff to participate in the process of formulating new guidelines with the aid of this additional time. I respectfully thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you, sir. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Kramer, the recommendation on the CED being amended into this bill, I'm not sure if we could even do that. Mr. Weixler had sent me an e-mail a couple days ago. We've been going back and forth on a number of issues for over a week now. Because doesn't the CED supersede any regulations that we could or would be able to -- would like to impose? I mean, I think what's going on here is, Steve, I think we're talking 23 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. about basically possibly having a garage, parking garage, that would be higher than was originally proposed. Having the CED language would cover that.
If I might comment, Mr. Councilman, as you might expect, the CDAG, as acronyms go, we do have a number of people that are quite savvy in zoning matters and attorneys and also -- although CDAG has not been and will not be active in any particular position regarding casinos specifically, however, out of an abundance of caution, given the casino advocates' record in courts in interpreting regulations and laws, I feel that we have legal advice that casinos could conceivably successfully argue that the removal of height restriction within the overlay district would effectively say that City Council is reaching into all underlying zoning categories in the overlay district and removing specific height restrictions, which they might make the 24 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. argument that their 300-foot height restriction is included. And so for that reason, the recommendation was made that since "C-2" Commercial and the various Residential categories are virtually the only other zoning classifications in the overlay that include hard height limits, eight feet instead of in terms of limiting height through FAR, that it would be legally prudent to include the CED district in the exemption to the unlimited removal of height restriction. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Kramer, could you --
This is the first I'm considering it. I spoke with the gentleman before this meeting started. There's a lot of complexity with the CED regulations, and the SugarHouse site has already been approved as a master plan. The garage that they talk about is not zoned CED. It's actually zoned "G-2." It's adjacent to and, therefore, would come under the "G-2" classification 25 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. requirements for the particular height. Adding in a restriction or adding this in as removing it from the height restrictions, I don't think it would -- for the reasons the gentleman stated are fine. I don't have a real problem with us doing that, but I don't know off the top of my head what that would do to the state requirements. As with any height restriction, you can always come into our due process means to apply for to have a building that is higher than that if that's what you want to do. So there are due process means in place to accommodate a higher building. So it would just -- it's more a function of process than saying, no, you can't. So adding it in as a provision in this amendment would not necessarily bog the -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Accomplish what they're trying to accomplish, right?
I would think so. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's my 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. take on it too, but I appreciate -- we all know the concern. I just don't know if this mechanism or this tool is going to get us those types of protections.
That is just the consensus of my executive committee and members of the Board out of an abundance of caution. It's not that the Central Delaware Advocacy Group is opposed to, with proper oversight and plans of development, tall buildings or density along the waterfront. This particular request is not made in response to any particular parking garage or any project that has currently been proposed. It is felt that it is good protection in the interim zoning overlay ordinance to allow the master planning process the breathing room from that potential to go forward and make a rational plan around what plans of development have been forwarded to date. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
I thank the 27 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. Council for your attention. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you for your time, Steve, and thank your committee as well. I appreciate it. Thank you.
Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would like the record to reflect that Councilwoman Brown has also joined the Committee. Please approach the table, sir, identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. (Witness approached witness table.)
Thank you very much. Good morning. My name is Dan Hoffman. I'm a resident of East Mt. Airy and I'm a housing and economic development consultant. Although my work is generally not Philadelphia focused, I 28 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. do occasionally undertake projects in the City. Two projects may be recalled by some of you. One, I was briefly a consultant to you, the City Council, when some of you thought that a real plan for the Street Administration's Neighborhood Transformation Initiative was needed. At that time, my principal recommendation was to focus on parcels near City subway lines, the strategy now in vogue in many other cities as they respond to growing energy and environmental concerns. Later, I created the Home-Buy-Now Employer-Assisted Housing Program for NTI. That effort demonstrated that City employers could be engaged in a constructive conversation regarding community development and affordable housing. Today, my work continues to focus on facilitating employer-assisted housing programs, the field I invented, and the use of business improvement districts and other special improvement 29 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. assessment districts as a way of achieving various community development goals. My interest in special assessment districts goes back to my drafting of New Jersey's first tax-increment finance statute in 1984 and then drafting much of Pennsylvania's neighborhood improvement district law in 2000, which resulted in the establishment of a number of BIDs in Philadelphia and elsewhere across the state. With that as introduction, I come here today to express my concerns about the current bill before you and urge the Council not advance this legislation in its present form. While these amendments to the Central Delaware River Overlay District report to support things that we all care about, improving access to the Delaware River waterfront and supporting better development planning, in reality this bill does neither. First in regards to the 30 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. waterfront trail portion of the bill. The process for building this trail under the proposed legislation would, A, encourage and facilitate piecemeal development as developers seek to build on various parcels adjacent to the waterfront on their own schedules, and, B, undermine the goal of developing a high-quality park by leaving developers to litigate what constitutes a trail design that is, quote, "consistent with the civic vision," unquote, plan as they try to build or pay for the building of their portion of the trail as inexpensively as possible. Developers should not be in the trail design and building business, nor should they control what portions of the trail get built and when. Conversely, developers should not solely be responsible for building this amenity, for although they are a principal beneficiary of it, they are not the only beneficiary. 31 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. While I view this legislation as problematic, it does raise the very important question of who should pay for the development and maintenance of this new public access. One clear answer is that there's no City budget in the foreseeable future that will be able to support the added burden of developing and maintaining this new parkland. Even getting, quote, "free land," unquote, as this legislation anticipates, is not the same as the City being able to afford the construction and maintenance costs of the proposed trail. Absent a dedicated revenue source, this legislation is simply a vote for other budget cuts and/or tax increases in order to pay for at least the maintenance portion of the park and I would contend the development as well, since developer contributions in this bill are offset by costs passed on to end-users and the City and further diminished by the tax breaks that 32 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. end-users receive under present City development policy.
Moreover, there's no 4 relationship between the value of the land given to the City, the cost of the improvements and the value of those improvements to nearby property owners. City taxpayers and residents deserve better. To provide an alternative answer to the question of who should pay, I would first recommend the City begin by acknowledging the extensive body of planning research regarding the economic value of urban parks. One element of this research demonstrates that there is significant, measurable economic benefit that accrues to the properties that are located proximate to parks. As proposed, this legislation would give all of us new value that results from the development of the proposed trail to the developers and owners of the nearby properties for free. In the alternative, the City could end expensive and unnecessary development 33 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. subsidies it currently offers and deny the subsidies proposed in this legislation and do so in two ways. First, the City could convert the Overlay District and perhaps other adjacent areas into a tax-increment finance district and dedicate some of the new revenues generated by new development to the construction of the proposed trail. This would provide the City, the TIF district or some other entity with a revenue stream that could be used to build the trail in an orderly way that ensures a common, unified, high-quality design in which various sections of the trail work together rather than duplicating or clashing with each other as developers try to meet their obligations as cheaply as possible. A TIF district would enable the principal economic beneficiaries of this project to directly share in the cost of its development. Implicit in this suggestion is 34 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. the need to repeal the ten-year property tax abatement presently awarded to new construction, at least within the Overlay District, as this policy yields no 6 immediate tax increment. In areas such as this where there is purported to be strong development interest, it is appropriate to move from a policy of long-term tax subsidy to one where developers and property owners are required to pay taxes, albeit in a way that directly supports and benefits their investment. This is still a far better deal than simply being a taxpayer, while at the same time ending the needless subsidy of rich investors by economically stressed property owners throughout the City. Second, the maintenance of the waterfront trail should be supported by a neighborhood improvement district overlay that includes all taxable property, including residences. The NID should probably not be required to cover all 35 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. maintenance costs. After all, others outside the district will use the park, but those within the district can be expected to be primary users of the park, and these property owners will gain from the increased property values that result from this development. It is only right that those who most benefit share in the cost of maintaining this facility. Finally, in regards to this proposed -- this portion of the proposed legislation, I would urge you to create at least two overlays as quickly as possible. If you really believe that this area is poised for redevelopment, then it is best to establish the baseline values within the TIF district sooner than later so as to capture the maximum amount of tax increment. Similarly, maintaining the trail will be expensive, so one might as well begin the process of creating a BID-backed endowment. Moreover, the experience of the successful High Line 36 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. Park in New York tells us that building a park which in this case is expected to spur more than $900 million in new real estate development and then asking those who benefit most for it to pay for it after the fact is difficult.
People don't like to pay for what they already receive for free, and efforts to impose a district there have been actively opposed. We can learn by this experience by putting sound, appropriate financing in place before construction begins and get the public used to getting something for -- before the public gets used to getting something for nothing. The second part of the proposed legislation is to repeal all height restrictions on the development within the Overlay District. While I do believe that some restrictions are appropriate, my principal objection is the waiving of all height restrictions is simply another giveaway to developers while shifting development costs onto taxpayers. Good 37 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. zoning practice should establish the maximum height allowance and then give developers the opportunity to seek additional height through a transparent process in which the developers provide additional public benefit in return for extra height. Other cities routinely do this in return for additional public safety equipment that may be needed to accommodate extra tall buildings, funding for affordable housing, support for open space, and improvements to infrastructure, including street and mass transit improvements, to ensure that the greater densities being permitted do not overwhelm impacted neighborhoods. In some places, in addition to having to offset public costs, developers are also required to purchase air rights or other development rights so that the total amount of development within the planning area does not overwhelm the city-scape and infrastructure. Without these quid pro quos, one has simply 38 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. created a system for enriching developers and transferring inevitable costs onto taxpayers. However, beyond this legislation being a giveaway to developers, there's another problem. The other day I was looking at some data related to Battery Park City in New York. Although a mixed-use complex, 12,000 people live there. More than that live on Lake Shore Drive in Central Chicago. Tens of thousands live in the waterfront high rise buildings in Miami. The Central Delaware could accommodate another 50,000 people. Whether this is actually achievable in a city that has bled population for half a century, it's a question that deserves serious consideration. One would think the City's current economic development strategy makes attracting such a large number of market-rate residents an unlikely outcome, but the ordinance being 39 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. discussed is predicated upon this idea of being possible. If we believe that such growth is achievable, then the less discussed question is in need of a real answer; that is, what does the impact of focusing all this development on the waterfront have on other nearby City neighborhoods, such as Old City, Northern Liberties, neighborhoods adjacent to the Reading Viaduct, the areas adjacent to Fairmount Park, Strawberry Mansion and Mantua. All these neighborhoods are badly underpopulated. Even in the most gentrified of these neighborhoods, there are vacant and redevelopment parcels that could accommodate thousands of new residents. Neither this Council, the Administration or those busy waterfront designers have answered this question. Even if one could get an additional 50,000 people to live on the waterfront, would it be a good thing for the City, particularly if the cost of that 40 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. development was to suck all the upscale demand out of these other neighborhoods for another generation. In recent times, relatively few Philadelphians have lived on the waterfront. There is no need to create a large new neighborhood on the Central Delaware backed and driven by unaffordable tax subsidies and developer giveaways.
There's no need to create a new neighborhood and perhaps a new transit infrastructure to support it while the existing transit infrastructure in other neighborhoods remains underinvested in and underutilized. If you really believe that Philadelphia is about to attract 50,000 new market-rate residents, don't segregate them on the waterfront. Encourage them to invest in other neighborhoods that desperately need their disposable incomes and where their investment can support those who have already taken a chance on Philadelphia. In short, the waterfront park 41 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. properly funded, maybe, lots of new tax subsidized development to compete against neighborhoods already at a competitive disadvantage when seeking new investment, definitely a wrong idea. I urge Council to consider all the impacts of the proposed waterfront development and not take any action on the current proposed legislation. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? I see that our old friend Craig Schelter is here. Welcome home. (Witness approached witness table.)
I 42 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. think a lot of snow has been falling. It looks great.
My apologies. I'm a little bit stuffed up this morning. Members of the Committee, my name is Craig Schelter. I'm here representing the Development Workshop, Inc. This is the non-profit that was started approximately two and a half years ago by Michael Sklaroff and myself to make recommendations to the City as they were going forward on changes to the Zoning Code, and we particularly got involved in the Central Waterfront. I'm sorry I don't have written testimony to submit today, but this was a last-minute decision that we made to come here today and to recommend in favor of the bill that is before you, Bill 100014. We believe that that bill does two important things that we had questioned earlier on about the planning that was going forward on the Central Waterfront. One was whether it was appropriate or not 43 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. to put essentially historic controls on a portion of the Central Waterfront, as was done with the Old City overlay, and, secondly, removing some of the language about the obligations of owners if they were going to have public use across their property without any compensation. So we think that Council has been wise in moving in this direction while the master plan is going on. The second thing is is that we have wanted to be proactive and positive in the master planning effort. We have applauded the Delaware River Waterfront Corporation for the selection of consultants that they have chosen in this effort, and I have been actively participating on the working group down there to provide a developer input and have met with the consultants. And I would point out that the consultants that were picked in this case, particularly Alex Cooper, who is the lead consultant, is the person who did Battery Park City 44 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. in New York, and for me, the thing that sealed his approach to reality on the master planning was, he talked about Battery Park City, which everybody has said they wanted, and he said there were really only two differences -- or three differences between New York and Philadelphia in this regard. One is that in New York, the public owned the entire site. On the Central Waterfront, the public only owns about ten percent of the site in question. Secondly, they were provided with about $380 million from the State of New York Urban Development Corporation for Public Improvements, and to date, neither the city nor the state has been able to afford dollars for this kind of level of improvement. And, finally, he said that he's been at it for 40 years and they've managed to do 1.4 miles of the Hudson River waterfront, and we're talking about seven miles of the waterfront. So that 45 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. his recommendation, early recommendation, to the DRC Board was that you need to focus on priorities, that you're talking about a long, long time process. We also have been eager on behalf of the developers on our committee to get the standards from the Planning Commission, so that we have some sense of how they will be guided going forward, and the fact that these were not forthcoming within the first six months, I think that the amendment, which Mr. Kramer just provided me with a copy this morning, makes sense, and we would encourage the Planning Commission and offer their help in the crafting of these standards so that we can give a clear message to the development community. Thank you very much, and I'd be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the Committee? 46 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would like to announce that Bill No. 100062 is being held at the request of the sponsor. This will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 100003.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 21 100003 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council session. 47 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 100003 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended in order 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 Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 100014. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 100014 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. 48 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. Oh, I'm sorry. Thank you, Madam Chair, again. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 5 100014 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 20 100014, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next regular session of City Council. 49 2/23/10 - RULES - BILL 100014, etc. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 5 100014 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. This concludes our public meeting. Thank you very much. (Committee on Rules concluded at 10:50 a.m.) - - - 50 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 February 23, 2010, 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.)