COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE OF THE WHOLE3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, September 14, 20117 10:25 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA10 COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE11 COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR.12 COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE13 COUNCILMAN CURTIS JONES, JR. COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY14 COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL15 COUNCILWOMAN MARIA D. QUINONES-SANCHEZ COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN16 COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO, JR. COUNCILWOMAN MARIAN B. TASCO17 RESOLUTION 110459 - Resolution authorizing the Committee of the Whole to hold public hearings19 to review the Zoning Code Proposals of the Zoning Code Commission.20 - - -22 2
Good2 morning, everyone. This is a public3 hearing on Resolution No. 110459.4 I would ask Mr. McPherson to5 please read the title of the resolution.6 MR. McPHERSON: Resolution7 authorizing the Committee of the Whole to8 hold public hearings to review the Zoning9 Code Proposals of the Zoning Code10 Commission.11
Thank12 you.13 We have more than 40 witnesses14 to testify, and I'm sure as the day goes15 on, we're going to have a lot more. So16 what I would like to do is at least try17 to have a limited period for testimony so18 that we can hear everybody that is19 present. My suggestion is that we will20 give each person testifying three minutes21 to do so.22 We do have a timer up here, so23 when you hear a bell, you know that your24 time is up, and at that point in time, I25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 would ask you please to try to abbreviate2 and conclude your remarks.3 Thank you very much.4 MR. McPHERSON: Our first panel5 consists of Alan Greenberger, Eva6 Gladstein and Don Elliot.7 (Witnesses approached witness8 table.)9
Thank you,12 Madam President. It won't be much more.13 Good morning.14
Good15 morning. Do we have copies of your16 testimony?17
Before I4 start, if I could just ask members of the5 Zoning Code Commission to stand for a6 moment, I'd like to recognize them.7 Thank you all for being here.8 (Applause.)9
11 I'm Alan Greenberger, Deputy12 Mayor for Economic Development, and for13 the last several years, I've had the14 honor of chairing the Zoning Code15 Commission. 24 Last week we had the25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 opportunity to brief members of City2 Council for the fourth time, and that3 briefing was very helpful in providing us4 with a greater understanding of your5 concerns. 14 Before I discuss these issues,15 I would like to focus briefly on the16 reason that we as a city have endeavored17 to reform the Zoning Code. The current18 Zoning Code is so broken that none of us19 trust it to provide predictable and20 appropriate development. All of us -21 residents, developers, elected officials22 and administrators - are used to23 workarounds. These workarounds are24 sometimes in the form of use variances or25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 drastic dimensional variances or2 negotiated agreements with community3 organizations or targeted text changes to4 the Zoning Code. 9 The Zoning Board of Adjustment10 is burdened by approximately 1,700 cases11 a year, far more than any city of our12 size. For example, a review of Zoning13 Board cases in 2009 found that Chicago14 had approximately 700 cases, a city15 almost twice our size, and New York City16 had less than 1,000 cases, a city five17 times our size. The current Code often18 pits homeowners against developers in19 piecemeal battles that are costly and20 time consuming. The Code is so out of21 date that it lists where a milliner can22 do business or where tanneries can23 operate, but does not recognize a24 computer store or a community garden. We25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 believe that the document transmitted to2 Council is a tremendous start in fixing3 the Code and will go a long way in4 providing predictable and appropriate5 development. 20 One of the concerns Council has21 expressed is that a small number of22 permitted uses will change citywide when23 the new text is adopted and that certain24 of these uses would have negative impacts25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 Example of such uses as identified in3 Councilman Green's proposal include4 schools, libraries and cultural exhibits,5 bed and breakfasts, religious assembly6 and active recreation. The proposals7 also recommend regulating home-based8 businesses based on whether the9 client/customer is served remotely or the10 service is provided in person. 16 We've heard concerns that17 certain changes in permitted uses in18 commercial areas could have a negative19 impact in some areas. Examples of such20 uses as identified by Councilman Green's21 proposals include assembly and22 entertainment, nightclubs, including23 sit-down restaurants, variety stores and24 hotels. At the same time, Councilwoman25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 19 All told, we're committed to20 working through these specific proposals21 with Councilmembers beginning22 immediately. We're confident that we'll23 be able to have a constructive24 conversation about these uses while25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 considering the impact on neighborhoods2 as well as the ability to enforce and3 legally defend these regulations. Our4 goal will be to improve upon the current5 Zoning Code Proposals to produce revised6 text that can be applied citywide and7 reduce the number of neighborhood8 specific overlays. 15 After I close, Eva Gladstein,16 our Executive Director of the Zoning Code17 Commission, will discuss several18 additional issues that have come up in19 conversations with City Council, as well20 as our timeline. 25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 I was pleased to hear from2 Councilmembers at our briefing last week3 that we share the goals of being able to4 complete the process so that we can all5 celebrate the approval of a new Zoning6 Code hopefully before this Council7 session is over. 11
15 My name is Eva Gladstein. 19 I understand that20 Councilmembers are interested in new Code21 provisions relating to Registered22 Community Organizations and how community23 input will be provided where there are no24 organized groups. The Zoning Code25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Commission has been working for over two2 years to clarify the role of citizens,3 not just Registered Community4 Organizations, in the zoning process. 10 First, I would like to focus on11 how the new Code will improve the ability12 for individuals to participate in future13 zoning approvals. The new Code requires14 earlier notice and better notice to15 citizens of Zoning Board of Adjustment16 cases, or ZBA cases. The period of time17 for posting a notice has been increased18 from the current 12-day requirement to a19 21-day requirement. 24 The contents of the posted sign25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 11 For ZBA hearings, new language12 clarifies the right of any member of the13 public to appear before the ZBA to14 testify and for that person to be15 represented by an attorney, translator or16 family member. An individual citizen17 will have the same right as a member of a18 Registered Community Organization to19 present testimony. 23 As you know, the new Code also24 creates additional opportunities for25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 public input. Currently, a large project2 can proceed without any community3 involvement if it is by right. The new4 Code creates a Civic Design Review5 process to consider the impact of large6 projects on the public realm, even those7 that are by right. When a project8 affects a lower-density residential9 district such as a single-family or10 two-family district, the triggers for11 Civic Design Review are lower. The Civic12 Design Review Committee will be required13 to hold regularly scheduled meetings for14 which agendas are posted online before15 its meetings. 20 The ZCC also understood early21 in its work that community organizations22 in Philly play a uniquely active role in23 the zoning process. The new Code24 proposes that Registered Community25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Organization system to preserve and2 create a set of ground rules for3 organized community participation. 14 The Philadelphia City Planning15 Commission, which will administer the16 registration of community organizations,17 is drafting regulations that will be18 posted shortly. 19 Those regulations -- they'll be in draft20 form and be available for comment. They21 will require RCOs to meet regularly, to22 publicize their meetings and open their23 meetings to the public. Similar to24 Councilman Green's proposal, the25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4 Councilmembers have asked what5 will happen when there is a project in6 the neighborhood that does not fall7 within the boundaries of an RCO. 14 Before I close, I would like to15 share with you some of the time16 constraints that we are under. 21 I have spoken with many members22 of Council who share our goal of passage23 of a new Zoning Code prior to the end of24 this Council session. The goal is25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 5 For example, the Home Rule6 Charter gives Council 30 days after the7 close of hearings to issue a resolution8 with its recommendations. 12 The Charter gives the ZCC 6013 days after the close of the hearings to14 provide a final report to Council. 18 We've already scheduled ZCC meetings on19 October 12th and November 9th, and we20 will schedule special meetings if21 necessary. We are fully committed to22 ensuring that Council has the23 opportunity, if it so chooses, to adopt24 the proposals prior to the end of25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4 I would like to offer a draft5 timeline that would enable us to meet6 this goal.
10 The timeline would have Council11 closing the hearings on the Zoning Code12 Proposals September 26th or earlier;13 Council sending a resolution with final14 recommendations to the ZCC by October15 20th; the ZCC sending its final report to16 City Council with an ordinance to be17 introduced that day, that Council18 session, on November 17th. 25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 7 Again, I want to emphasize this8 is a draft, but I wanted to give you a9 sense of our time constraints. Thank you10 for the opportunity to testify today. 16
Hello. 24 In the summer of 2008, the Zoning Code25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Commission selected our firm to lead a2 highly qualified team to assist the City3 in preparation of a new Zoning Code. ; Wallace8 Roberts & Todd; Portfolio Associates;9 Claflen Associates; CHPlanning; Dyett &10 Bhatia; Hurley-Franks Associates; and the11 VIC Group. S. and Canada,18 and Duncan Associates has also completed19 80 or more. 25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 From 2008 until the present2 time, I have served as Clarion3 Associate's Project Manager for the new4 Zoning Code project. 18 Focus: Almost all large cities19 that engage in zoning reform want the new20 code to be simpler and clearer than the21 old one. Nobody wants a more complex22 code. This was true in Philadelphia,23 where the need to simplify the menu of24 zone districts, overlay districts and25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 12 The work on preliminary drafts was done13 in three installments between the fall of14 2009 and the spring of 2010. For the15 consolidated draft, the consultant16 combined all of the pieces, integrating17 as many public and stakeholder comments18 as possible. It is never possible to19 include all of the requested changes,20 because some of the comments are21 inconsistent with others, because some22 cannot be administered by the City with23 its available staffing or budget, or24 because they would reinsert some of the25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 uncertainty and complexity that the2 Commission intended to remove from the3 Code. Philadelphia's consolidated draft4 was issued in the fall of 2009. Many5 large city zoning efforts, including6 Denver, Miami, Detroit and Winnipeg,7 produced additional drafts of the new8 code before it was adopted to better9 integrate public, stakeholder and10 administrative comments. 17 Conversion to the new code:18 Most large cities decide to revise and19 improve the text and usability of the20 zoning code without trying to revise the21 zoning map at the same time. This is22 because combining the two steps can shift23 the focus from policy-level discussions24 about what is best for the city as a25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 whole to micro-level discussions about a2 specific property or block. 9 Instead of combining texts and10 mapping changes, most cities develop a11 conversion zoning map that shows both the12 old and new names for zone districts, but13 does not shift zoning boundary lines14 gratuitously. 518 district in this case, their boundaries19 need to be added, but the goal is to20 create a map that will apply the revised21 code to the existing city, without22 getting bogged down over redrawing23 individual district lines. Most cities24 intend to follow up a zoning code reform25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 effort with the remapping effort that2 revisits whether some areas are properly3 zoned, but they do that while the new4 code is in effect, so the vast majority5 of properties that do not need or want to6 be rezoned get the benefit of the clarity7 and predictability of the new code from8 day one. 12 Over the past year, both Denver and Miami13 finished radical revisions of the current14 codes into form-based codes. The role15 and structure of zone districts in16 form-based codes is so different from17 traditional codes that citywide efforts18 usually replace every district and a new19 map is needed to reflect that new20 district vocabulary. 24 Now the differences. While the25 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 basic structure of the Philadelphia2 Zoning Code work has been very similar to3 other large cities, there have been4 differences, and they include the5 following:6 Public involvement: The level7 of effort Philadelphia has invested in8 public and stakeholder input has been9 greater than that used in many large10 cities.
The public input process11 conducted by our subcontractor, Portfolio12 Associates, was more extensive, which13 means more meetings and open houses, more14 online surveys and more analysis of the15 results than any other large city in16 which I have worked. 23 Based on early public comments, it became24 clear that many frustrations with the old25 27 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Zoning Code centered on zoning procedures2 and administration. Philadelphia3 residents and builders were both confused4 and very unhappy about how zoning5 decisions were made, procedures for6 citizen involvement and very heavy use of7 the Zoning Board of Adjustment hearings8 on matters that do not require hearings9 in other large cities. In fact,10 Philadelphia's ZBA is more involved in11 what should be routine zoning matters12 than any other large city where the13 consulting team has worked. 19 Specific permitted uses:20 Decisions about which land uses should be21 permitted or conditional or prohibited in22 specific zone districts were based on23 detailed discussions by the Zoning Code24 Commission Work Plan Committee, then25 28 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 presented for discussion by the full2 Commission. 14 Specific dimensional standards:15 When it comes to which land uses should16 be allowed in which zoning district and17 how wide and tall and long buildings can18 be in each district, every city is19 different. Philadelphia has lots of row20 houses, while Chicago has fewer and21 Denver has almost none. Philadelphia's22 row house patterns differ from those in23 Baltimore and Washington. In24 Philadelphia, various working groups25 29 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 spent hours poring over the details of2 required heights, setbacks, yards and3 courts to remove regulations that were4 difficult or impossible to administer5 while still protecting neighborhood6 character. We included the changes they7 recommended. S. 13 Throughout this process, the14 Zoning Code Commission has revised drafts15 and incorporated new provisions to better16 reflect stakeholder and public input, and17 I hope you will do the same. While18 continued changes to the draft Code can19 and will occur not only now but in the20 formal adoption process, it's important21 to keep the process moving. If you have22 specific changes to any aspect of the23 draft, I hope you will express them24 clearly to the ZCC, but I also urge you25 30 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 to do that promptly so that the2 Commission can consider them, make3 changes to the Code and begin the formal4 adoption process. I urge you to focus on5 the big picture, which is that you have6 in your hands a much shorter, clearer,7 more efficient, more predictable and more8 user-friendly document that reflects four9 years of work by 31 individuals chosen to10 reflect and balance their best judgments11 about how to fix Philadelphia's zoning12 system. 15
Thank16 you very much.17 Are there any questions from18 members of the Committee?19 The Chair recognizes20 Councilwoman Tasco.21
Thank you22 very much.23 Thank you all for your24 testimony. Mr. Green -- no. This is25 31 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Eva. You talk about the RCOs, Registered2 Community Organizations, and I understand3 that developers have to meet with the4 Registered Community Organization if5 they're proposing something in a6 community. And we talked about this the7 other day in terms of where you may have8 a community that does not have a9 Registered Community Organization. Is it10 the responsibility of the developer to11 seek community input or is it up to the12 community to respond to the developer13 once they see the orange sign go up?14
We have not --15 this is an area where I think we need16 improvement based upon our conversations.17 What we state right now are the18 requirements that -- enhanced19 requirements for notice of ZBA hearing,20 the same way we have today with the21 orange posters, but we have not put in a22 requirement for a developer to notify the23 community in general beyond that posting24 if there's not a Registered Community25 32 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Organization.2 I think the conversation we had3 at the Council briefing with regard to4 potentially the District Councilperson5 being able to step in and play that role6 is a notion that we want to consider with7 you. But if you look at the current8 provisions, they relate to posting of9 notices that everybody in the community10 will see, but the specific targeted11 notice and requirement of a meeting right12 now relates only where there's a13 Registered Community Organization. So I14 think that's a gap that we need to fill.15
Outside of I16 think our natural instinct, in the17 absence of a Registered Community18 Organization, would be to turn to the19 District Councilperson to seek some20 guidance, but I think as Councilman21 Green's proposal suggests, that ought to22 be formalized in the language, and we23 support that.24
Because as25 33 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 we talk about all of this, we talk2 about -- I was reading the paper where it3 said New York has fewer variances than we4 have in Philadelphia, but Philadelphia is5 basically a row house neighborhood6 community and New York is mostly7 brownstones. The houses are pretty much8 uniform, and some of the issues they may9 experience, we don't experience here. We10 have different issues. And certainly my11 district is residential and the issues we12 face are basically conversions from13 single-family properties to multi-family14 properties. And so you may not have a15 zoning committee because we're not doing16 development. Really there is very little17 development in the district, but18 certainly these issues of the conversions19 or some other issue that just may be20 related to a neighborhood community21 doesn't -- would need -- the voters, the22 residents, need to have a vehicle where23 they have to be heard and that whoever is24 doing it has to listen to that community.25 34 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Let me see if I had another2 question. I think that was my issue on3 this issue on your testimony.4
Thank6 you.7 The Chair recognizes Councilman8 DiCicco.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,10 Madam President.11 Good morning. And let me again12 thank you and the Commissioners for the13 work and time that you've put into this14 process. It's approximately four years,15 and I think it's important for everyone16 to know that the folks who are sitting on17 this Commission were in many cases18 appointees of members of City Council and19 others were appointed by the20 Administration, all of whom have worked21 very hard over the last four years, with22 no compensation. They were all in it to23 help make the City of Philadelphia a24 better place to do business, and that was25 35 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 obviously the motivation behind the2 original resolution that we passed four3 years ago, which ultimately was voted on4 unanimously by some 80 percent or some5 high number favorably by the citizens of6 Philadelphia. So thank you again to you7 and all of the Commissioners.8 My question is -- and we've9 discussed this a little bit earlier this10 morning -- in my district, the 1st11 Councilmanic District, there's been a12 flurry, if you will, of e-mails and13 letters over the last few days related to14 the issue of the overlay or removing15 overlays and the protections that those16 overlays have given to those communities.17 And I've been, as you know, for 16 years18 grappling with that issue. Every time a19 developer comes that wanted to do20 something in those overlay districts that21 was not permitted, we went through a long22 arduous public process, and ultimately23 the decision was my decision as the24 Councilperson whether to move legislation25 36 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that would permit that development from2 happening even though it was not3 permitted in the overlay.4 So could you just explain, as5 briefly as you can, what is in the new6 Code preliminary recommendations and how7 we can give those protections in areas8 where there is currently an overlay. And9 the reason I'm asking you now is the10 extensive witness list, many people in11 this room, I suspect, will not be here12 towards the end of the day who are very13 interested in that one particular issue14 in my district. Thank you.15
I think I'm16 going to tackle this to start. But I'd17 like to start by saying what we did for18 areas that do not currently have19 overlays, because there were a number of20 communities with and without overlays21 that have a concern about restaurants22 turning into nightclubs or private clubs23 when they can go to the state, not the24 City, and get a liquor license, and we25 37 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 worked closely with not just the2 Commission but L&I and our city Law3 Department, because we are preempted from4 regulating alcohol sales, because that's5 the state's business.6 What we did is to create a7 system that says that once an8 establishment meets the criteria and has9 to obtain a special assembly occupancy10 license, because it's cleared away the11 floor, it has music, it's doing dancing,12 it's a club, it will be defined as a13 nightclub. So it will no longer be14 defined under the Zoning Code as a15 sit-down restaurant, and that means that16 that institution would be out of17 compliance, because it has a use permit18 for a sit-down restaurant and not a use19 permit for nightclub. So that L&I and20 our Law Department could take enforcement21 actions around that use. So that would22 apply citywide and it's in the23 definitions. You'll find that in the24 definitions for nightclub in the new Code25 38 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 in Chapter 600. So that is what we did2 with regard to that.3 Then, secondly, with regard to4 areas that currently have overlays5 prohibiting restaurants or nightclubs,6 there are several areas that have7 existing overlays, and those overlays8 have been maintained. And that is in9 particular in the Old City area, which10 has -- I'll let somebody from Old City11 testify as to this, but a very, very high12 percentage of existing liquor licenses in13 that area.14 So there were some existing15 overlays where we left those use controls16 in place, and either those uses are17 prohibited or in one or two cases might18 be a special exception depending upon the19 location of the use.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.21 I appreciate that. Thank you.22
Can I25 39 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 follow up with that?2 What impact would that have --3 how would that impact the neighborhood's4 business strip relative to the same5 issues, a club coming into a6 neighborhood, if we don't have an7 overlay?8
Clubs are9 prohibited in many of the commercial10 districts. I'm just looking for our11 chart to see, and I'll get to it in one12 second. And I will tell you that13 nightclubs are prohibited in C-1, which14 is neighborhood commercial, like a corner15 grocery. They're a special exception in16 C-2, so it would require a trip to the17 Zoning Board of Adjustment. They're18 prohibited in this new district we19 created for neighborhood commercial areas20 called CMX-2.5. They are permitted by21 right in the higher density commercial22 district, C-3, C-4 and C-5. C-3 you23 might find on Market or Broad. C-4 and24 C-5 are pretty much Center City. And25 40 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 they would be permitted in auto-oriented2 kind of shopping strips, but they would3 not be permitted C-1. They would be a4 special exception in C-2 and it would be5 prohibited in CMX-2.5.6
Thank you,11 Madam Chair. Is this my point of order12 or am I next on the list?13
Okay.16 With respect to my point of17 order, the recommendations sent over to18 City Council that are presently before us19 do not include maintaining some of the20 overlays that you just discussed; is that21 not correct? And after the Majority22 Report and Minority Report, which you23 have not testified about, came over to24 City Council, there have then been25 41 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 requests by neighborhoods for overlays2 that are not currently recommended to3 City Council; is that correct?4
The overlay5 that I just discussed in terms of Old6 City with prohibitions of restaurants and7 nightclubs is carried over. It's in the8 Center City District overlay. It's on9 -27.10
But there11 are other overlays that the Work Plan12 group and others have suggested be added13 that are not part of the current14 recommendations. In other words, certain15 neighborhoods have said, Wait a minute,16 we don't want CMX-3 to allow nightclubs17 of right in our neighborhood, and have18 spoken up since the initial19 recommendations.20
And you've23 heard this from more than one24 neighborhood?25 42 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
We heard it2 from a number of neighborhoods early on,3 which is why they're prohibited in4 CMX-2.5.5
But CMX-2.5,6 where is that going to happen by7 automatic conversion?8
Our draft9 legislation that we sent to City Council10 in May would convert areas that currently11 have overlays for neighborhood commercial12 areas, would convert the C-2 properties13 in those areas to CMX-2.5. So by14 example, that would include East Falls,15 it would include Chestnut Hill, it would16 include Germantown, it would include17 Ridge Avenue in Roxborough, a number of18 neighborhoods that already --19 neighborhoods that have commercial area20 overlays.21
So is there22 CMX-3 on Germantown Avenue, for example?23
I think there24 are two spots where there are. I don't25 43 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 know the exact boundaries, but I think2 that one of them is the intersection of3 Chelten and Germantown and I think4 there's one other spot.5
Yeah. It11 would be at the corner of Chelten and12 Germantown. So it's on both streets.13
But then up14 and down Germantown Avenue beyond that15 also --16
It's not.19 And then what about, say,20 Castor Avenue?21
That's all24 C-2; there's no CMX-3 there?25 44 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
There's C-32 on -- tends to be more C-3 on Broad3 Street at key intersections, along Market4 Street at key intersections. I'm not5 saying there's not other C-3. I know Old6 City has C-3. But that's where it tends7 to be.8
Yeah. I13 don't know it well enough either. I14 suspect --15
I suspect18 there's some C-3, but I have a feeling19 it's mostly G-2 Industrial still.20
Okay. So in21 other words, since the Majority Report,22 people have been objecting to some of the23 use things that would happen of right24 automatically, and the response sometimes25 45 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 has been to agree at least at the Work2 Group level with those communities.3
There's one --4 I know that there are groups who will5 testify today that they want further6 changes. There's one group where we7 discussed an overlay that is in8 existence, was removed and then the group9 asked us if part of it could be10 reinstated, and the Work Plan Committee11 agreed to recommend that to the full12 Commission, but the Commission hasn't13 taken it up.14
Right. But15 a lot of -- you'd also agree that a lot16 of neighborhoods have not paid attention17 to the application of this on the ground18 in their particular neighborhoods?19
Okay. I22 have a question -- I'm sorry. That was23 my point of order. I don't know if I'm24 next.25 46 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 You're going to have to wait. Thank you.3
Can5 you tell me how are the reentry6 facilities addressed in the new Code?7
We did -- this8 had come up in several Council briefings.9 We did create a new use category for10 reentry facilities so they are defined,11 and then we have them in the use chart I12 believe as a permitted use only in --13 I'll have to look, but I believe it's14 only in industrial areas as a by-right15 use, but they are separated out now so16 that they are a distinct use from a17 prison or correctional facility.18
I'm19 sorry. Did you say in a commercial20 district they would be --21
No. I said22 that I believe they're only permitted by23 right in industrial districts. And I'll24 confirm that in one second as I get to25 47 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that map, that chart.2
If I could3 add both on this topic and, Councilman,4 on the topic that you brought up a moment5 ago, I think our sense here -- and this6 came somewhat, I think, from your7 proposal -- is that if there's a body of8 uses that are particularly troublesome --9 and there are, they're the ones that come10 up again and again -- our instinct is to11 recommend that we be more restrictive12 across the board, across the board if we13 have to rather than try to figure out14 exactly where an individual thing is okay15 or an individual neighborhood where it16 might be okay, which is going to be very17 hard to get consensus on as well as18 manage. Our feeling is, let's just make19 them more restrictive if we have to and20 let's see how -- that will force things21 into ZBA and let's see how that goes, and22 if we don't like how it's going; i.e.,23 it's too much burden, then we come back24 and revisit it. But that would be our25 48 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 instinct, to keep this thing at a fairly2 simple plane and be able to move ahead.3
With regard to4 reentry facilities, they are only5 permitted by right in basically what's6 least restricted now and in the new Code7 would be called I-3. It's heavy8 industry. They are prohibited in the new9 district we're creating to help10 neighborhoods that are transitioning from11 a manufacturing base, the IRMX we're12 calling it, industrial/residential/mixed13 use. They are special exceptions in the14 other industrial districts. So a special15 exception is similar to the current16 certificated use and would require a ZBA17 hearing, but it's not the same standard18 as a variance.19
Thank20 you.21 The Chair recognizes Councilman22 Clarke.23
Thank you,24 Madam President.25 49 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Good morning.2
I got a4 couple, maybe actually more than a5 couple. I'll try to spread them out over6 two sessions.7 Let me start here. This is8 probably a little premature in terms of9 the analysis, but in your recommendation10 it looks like there may be additional11 regulatory processes that will change in12 terms of signage, in terms of some of the13 other things and monitoring.14 Have you determined if there15 will be an additional cost to the City or16 there is an additional cost in terms of17 the government monitoring some of these18 activities? Could it conceivably be19 offset by the lower amount of Zoning20 Board hearings? And I say this21 premature. If you don't have that22 answer, I understand that, but if not --23
We haven't24 conducted an analysis that's convincing25 50 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 one way or the other about it. Obviously2 our hope is that we've tried to unburden3 the system and we've tried to be fairly4 careful, and this is -- I think you're5 bringing up an interesting point where6 we've often made judgment calls about7 some particular decision trying to weigh8 in the enforceability of it and the9 burden on agencies to do it versus the10 need to do it.11
Right. I12 understand, it's really early in the13 process.14 RCOs, and it's an interesting15 concept. In the Council district I16 represent, along with Councilman17 Greenlee, we're co-Councilpeople for the18 5th District, we have an interesting19 environment. It's a pretty diverse20 district. So as a result of that, we'll21 have sections where you'll have as much22 as ten community organizations in a23 four-block area, because a lot of people24 think if there's more than one person,25 51 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 sometimes even one person, they start2 their community group. Then we have3 other areas as referenced where they4 don't have a community or recognized5 community organization.6 How will we determine who is7 going to be that RCO recognized by the8 government in this particular process?9
This is10 something we've struggled with. We11 decided that we were not in a position to12 anoint one group or another group.13
No.16 Absolutely. We also were smart enough17 not to do that.18
We decided that21 groups would register with their22 boundaries, and there would be situations23 where there would be overlapping24 boundaries, and so multiple groups would25 52 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 coordinate in a decision on a project2 where their boundaries overlapped.3 What we did do, though, which4 you'll see as we post the draft5 regulations, is try to make sure that6 these were groups that advertise their7 membership, advertise their meeting. It8 wasn't one person sitting in their own9 living room, that they articulated their10 boundaries in some document so that the11 boundaries were known and they didn't12 change every day. So we did want to make13 sure that they were a group that would be14 accountable back to the community and the15 residents, but we did not try to limit it16 to one group per area, because we did not17 think we could do that.18
But to the19 extent that there are, let's say,20 multiple groups that have overlapping21 coverage -- and there are several22 neighborhoods in the City where that's23 true -- what we would do is invest -- and24 this will probably be through the25 53 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Community Planning group in the Planning2 Commission. We would invest the time to3 try to get them all to organize the4 required meeting together so that we're5 not subjecting people to three and four6 different ones of these on slightly7 different timeframes.8
All right.9 Who is going to oversee the10 implementation of that process? Because11 I hear you, but the reality is, there's12 probably a reason why there are like six,13 seven groups, because they can't get14 along, so they form their own group. So15 it's suggested now they're going to --16
Eva, you18 worked out -- you know. You know what19 it's like.20
I know. We put21 a lot of effort into this and we're going22 to learn a lot by doing it. What's in23 the regulations right now has the24 registration being managed by the25 54 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Planning Commission. So they would be2 intaking applications for registration,3 reviewing them, looking to see if the4 kinds of requirements that I mentioned5 previously were adhered to. The6 community planners work closely in the7 communities and know a lot of the groups,8 and, frankly, we've also established the9 Citizens Planning Institute in the last10 year to help neighborhoods that have not11 been well represented to help leadership12 in neighborhoods organize and organize13 better as well. So that's coming out of14 the Planning Commission. So that's our15 goal and that's how the regulations read16 now.17
Okay. With18 respect to the change in the Zoning Code,19 correct me if I'm wrong, is it likely20 that in short order we'll have to do a21 remapping of the entire City to actually22 make this work? Because the reality23 is -- as an example, we talked about --24 and I know this conversation started25 55 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 actually, Alan, before you got here, when2 we did the Parkway overlay and it was a3 height overlay and basically was as4 concern of a building that was proposed5 and then it grew to a relatively large6 size. And there was a conversation and7 there continues to be, Councilman, once8 we do the Zoning Code Commission changes9 and once we talk about remapping, will10 you withdraw the overlay? And I've11 always said that makes sense, but how12 quickly will we look at remapping as it13 relates to something like that, which the14 Code, to a large degree, won't15 necessarily affect because it's a height16 overlay?17
Right. So18 let me start out with the piece about the19 timing. What we have proposed through20 the Planning Commission is what we've21 defined as we think a five-year process22 to do district planning throughout the23 City, 18 different districts that we've24 divided the City up into that are sort of25 56 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 multi neighborhoods at a time as opposed2 to one small neighborhood at a time; a3 replanning process to identify the4 places, land uses within those districts5 that need to change, because that's at6 the essence of remapping, is a district7 needs to change its land use, identify8 those districts; get as much consensus as9 we can around those changes and then10 engage in a process of remapping, which11 is, as you know, the actual writing of12 ordinances to do that. We have a plan13 that basically does these -- is it two14 a --15
It's four a16 year, except for Center City, which will17 be one.18
Do these at19 four a year. And our general approach to20 this is to try to take on the districts21 that have been subject to the most change22 and pressure first. An example that came23 up earlier as a result of Councilman24 Green's question about Northern25 57 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Liberties, great example of an area that2 was heavily industrial at a moment in3 time, an immense amount of industrial4 zoning sprinkled around that's not5 industrial anymore. And some of that6 actually is in your district as well.7
Those are the9 kind of places where there's more urgency10 about the remapping, because it's just11 wrong. Other places are probably not12 going to be subject to much remapping and13 the conversion map itself will cover any14 new regulatory issues.15
The two plans17 that are underway right now are Lower18 South around the Navy Yard and the port19 and what we're calling West Park,20 Overbrook and parts of West Philadelphia21 in the 4th Council District. The plans22 that are scheduled to start in January23 would include Center City and would24 include Lower North, both of which are25 58 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 areas of great change.2
Yeah -- no, no.5 Let me restate that. Lower North Philly6 is the next one. Lower Northeast. So7 Center City and Lower Northeast would8 start in January and about six months9 later Lower North Philly.10
Okay. Let11 me ask one more question. I know a12 number of members have questions.13 Another challenging issue in at14 least my district, probably some place in15 West Philly, student housing. As you16 know, we have one ordinance near Temple,17 one pending and one possible NID pending.18 The issue is small residential homes get19 turned into student housing. There's20 these challenges between the long-term21 residents and the students, because one22 of the groups wants to stay up to 3:00 in23 the morning, the other group has to go to24 work in the morning. So you know the25 59 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 story.2 Is there a possibility to3 create some sort of a category for4 student housing that puts us in a better5 position to regulate that? Because we6 did in the Yorktown overlay, we imposed a7 prohibition on student housing unless8 it's owner occupied. The challenge9 becomes how can you enforce it. As you10 know, we're in court now.11 So if there was a way both to12 support that and if we end up doing the13 NID, if there was a way to create a14 category that dealt with student housing15 that would allow us to be more diligent16 and probably within the bounds of the law17 as it relates to enforcing some of these18 challenging problems we're having out in19 these neighborhoods.20
I'm not sure we21 have a perfect answer to this. We looked22 at it. The overlay for the Yorktown area23 is in our proposals that we sent to you,24 and we're waiting to see how the25 60 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 litigation results to see if there are2 going to be any legal issues with having3 such a regulation identifying students4 per se.5 We did identify and define6 students in the new Code, because it7 wasn't identified in that overlay, and we8 did look to an existing -- and I'm going9 to get the name wrong, but there's an10 existing part of, I think it's, Title 1011 that's in the 8th and 4th Councilmanic12 Districts, and I think Councilman Jones13 just recently introduced legislation to14 revise around educational housing15 districts. And so we did define students16 in the Zoning Code and make that17 definition consistent with the definition18 for students in educational housing19 districts.20 The problem we encountered is21 that a lot of the problem is really22 having too many people in the unit, and23 it's more building code than a zoning24 code issue. What the Zoning Code can do25 61 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 is to say this is a one-family district2 and, therefore, that's it, you can't do a3 conversion, and then you can look to the4 building code to say there are too many5 unrelated adults living there.6 Having said all of that, we did7 try to think it through, and if you have8 other suggestions, we'd be happy to hear9 them.10
That's a11 significant challenge, and obviously12 around Temple and I suspect LaSalle and13 Saint Joe and some of the other14 universities, out in University of15 Pennsylvania.16
And I just want17 to add that I don't know how well the18 educational housing district formulation19 is working, because that was originally20 created around Saint Joe's primarily,21 because it's in the 4th and the 8th22 Districts. I don't think -- if it's23 working well, it may be that another24 opportunity would be to see if it could25 62 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 be expanded to other districts.2
My3 understanding is the issue has to do with4 the ability for the City to enforce.5
The educational9 housing district put more of a burden on10 the university or institution.11
Okay.15 Thank you.16 Thank you, Madam President.17 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:18 You're welcome.19 The Chair recognizes20 Councilwoman Tasco.21
Are there22 any special requirements for automobile23 sales lots in residential areas?24
They're not a25 63 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 permitted use.2
Beg your3 pardon? Okay. Well, what about Broad4 Street?5
Depending on6 the zoning, because Broad Street has7 different zoning, let me just tell you8 where they would be permitted in the9 commercial district. Would that be10 helpful?11 The sale and rental of12 commercial vehicles is not permitted,13 except when you get to what we called14 CA-1, which is the automobile-oriented15 commercial; in other words, like a16 shopping district or a strip shopping17 mall or a shopping center. So it's18 prohibited. Broad Street is probably19 mostly C-2 and C-3. It's prohibited20 there.21 With regard to personal --22
It's not the4 current Code. Are you asking about the5 current Code? I'm not an expert on that.6 We can look it up, though. We have it7 with us.8 Should I go through the new9 Code or do you just want to understand10 about the current Code?11
Repair vehicles13 is -- an automobile repair shop that you14 would bring your car to would be15 permitted in C-2, not in C-1 and not in16 CMX-2.5. It would be permitted in most17 commercial districts, but outlawed in18 C-1, which is more neighborhood based,19 and outlawed in neighborhood commercial20 areas or prohibited. And you would be21 able to sell cars or car supplies in the22 current C-3, C-4 and in the Shopping23 Center. You'd be able to have gas24 stations and be able to sell supplies,25 65 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 but, again, all of those would be2 prohibited in C-1 and in the CMX-2.5.3 But it would not be permitted in any4 residentially zoned district.5
One of the6 other issues that I raised is that --7 well, one is the delay in the8 conversions, multi-family dwellings,9 until you do the remapping. It seems10 that if we pass this zoning change, that11 residential areas until they're remapped,12 individuals by right would have the13 ability to convert single-family to14 multi-family homes.15
That's not16 correct. At one point in an earlier17 draft there was one current single-family18 district, R5-A, which would have been19 able to be converted to multi-family.20 That's actually single and two-family21 district. We've changed that in the22 version that we gave you. So every23 district that's now a single-family24 residential district in the new Code25 66 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 would be single-family residential.2 Every district that now permits single3 and two-family would permit only single4 and two-family. Every district that's5 now multi-family would be multi-family in6 the new Code and in some cases would be7 somewhat more restricted, because the8 number of units that would be permitted9 would be limited by the lot size.10 But there's no district that's11 now single-family that in the new Code12 would permit two-family or multi-family.13 You're correct that an earlier version14 would have permitted that, but the15 version that we gave you in May does not16 permit that.17
Does not.20 And could I raise one other21 related question that you had asked22 about? We also have a use in here called23 accessory dwelling units, which it's a24 mother-in-law suite or a mother-in-law25 67 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 apartment. At one point earlier we were2 permitting those in certain housing types3 irregardless of what zoning district it4 was. They're now defined as a use in the5 Code, but they are not permitted by right6 any place. And so the only way that an7 accessory dwelling unit would be8 permitted is if there was a City Council9 ordinance explicitly saying for that area10 they would be a permitted by-right use.11 So they're defined in here so that we12 have the notion that they could be a use,13 but they're not mapped any place now, and14 require an ordinance to map them. So I15 felt like we weren't clear about that16 last week and I wanted to be clear about17 that today. Thank you.18
Okay. Let19 me just get all of my questions out of20 here and then I'll be done.21 The day care in the shopping22 centers, I support day care, but I've23 gotten some pushback from some community24 residents about too many of them in one25 68 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 commercial area. Is there anything there2 to sort of provide some control in terms3 of not having the entire business strip4 be day cares?5
We do not have6 limits on the number or spacing of day7 care centers or --8
In a business11 strip. So we don't have spacing12 requirements in the Code in general,13 because that's one of those issues that14 becomes very difficult to enforce and15 so -- and in some cases can raise issues16 around -- some legal issues. So if it's17 permitted by right, any number are18 permitted. If it's not permitted, it's19 not permitted.20
So we have not23 addressed that.24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:25 69 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Excuse me. The Chair recognizes2 Councilwoman Sanchez for a point of3 information.4
Thank5 you.6 Is there anything in this7 process that prohibits a Councilperson8 from limiting or creating an overlay9 where we've seen those situations?10
Only related11 to federally protected uses. Otherwise,12 no, there's nothing that stops further13 amendment.14
And the17 other question in terms of bed and18 breakfasts, I notice that you are going19 to allow some of those. Will there be20 any effort to try to limit the number in21 a specific neighborhood or could you end22 up with a whole neighborhood with bed and23 breakfasts?24
The same25 70 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 answer, in that we have not put in2 spacing requirements for any uses.3 Again, it could be subject to an overlay.4 What we have done is put in standards.5 So in certain districts, you could only6 have up to four rooms. In other7 districts, up to eight rooms. And I8 think most cases they require a hearing9 at the Zoning Board of Adjustment.10 They're not by right. And I'll look that11 up in one second for you.12
But I do13 think there is an example -- and there14 are several more, but this is an example15 of what I was referring to before, that16 as we've tried to strike what we thought17 were reasonable balances here about where18 certain things are not permitted, where19 they're permitted by special exception or20 where they are permitted. And typically21 without spacing requirements, if you feel22 that we've gone too far, we want to hear23 that, and our instinct is to be further24 restrictive of them across the board25 71 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 rather than try to say it's not so2 restrictive over here and it is3 restrictive over there, which is going to4 create -- we worry about sort of layers5 of complexity that will be extremely hard6 to enforce and ultimately will probably7 get out of control. We just would rather8 be more restrictive about the whole thing9 and say that if all these things have to10 go to Zoning Board, then so be it.11
And with regard12 to B&Bs, they are special exceptions of13 the current certificated use until you14 get to what's current R-11, R11-A, R-12,15 R-13. So it's basically higher density,16 multi-family residential districts and17 residential mixed-use districts where18 they would be permitted by right, but R-119 through R-10 and some others, it would20 require a trip to the Zoning Board of21 Adjustment for a B&B.22
Okay.23 Thank you.24 Thank you, Madam President.25 72 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Thank2 you.3 The Chair recognizes Councilman4 Green.5
Thank you,6 Madam Chair.7 During this discussion, people8 have talked about, Well, it's not9 permitted in residential areas, but it's10 permitted in C-2. It's not permitted in11 residential areas, but it's permitted in12 industrial. Could you just -- I mean, in13 a city like Philadelphia, as I think was14 mentioned with respect to certain15 neighborhoods, industrial can be zoning16 right in the middle of two residential17 districts. Industrial can be on a block18 that is next to the row homes.19
So 2.0, for21 example, in the new Code, CMX-2.0, is22 often right on a larger street that is23 surrounded by row homes in a very24 residential area. So I just want to -- I25 73 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 don't want that lost on people. When2 somebody says that's not permitted in3 residential areas, well, it is. It's4 right around your corner. And I just5 wanted to clarify that for the record.6
Yeah. I7 think there's -- it's obviously not true8 everywhere in the City, but there are9 neighborhoods, particularly the ones that10 came from a more sort of 19th century11 industrial base, where you see that.12
The ones in18 question, I mean, places like Lower19 Kensington, Northern Liberties, parts of20 Germantown --21
Yeah.24 Particularly going up the rivers is where25 74 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 you see it most clearly.2
So what3 percentage of the City in industrial like4 that could you have an adult use?5
Yeah. I guess8 I just want to distinguish there's9 industrial and industrial, and a lot of10 the industrial or most of the industrial11 that you see mixed in neighborhoods is12 currently G-2, which is the predominant13 industrial zoning. I don't have the14 percentages, but we can pull it out15 before the end of --16
The LR tends to23 be in the Council President's district,24 as you know, and Councilman DiCicco's25 75 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 along the rivers. South Philly tends --2 the LR tends not to be in neighborhoods,3 which is not to say there are not a few4 spots where this is.5
Right. And6 so where they are in neighborhoods, would7 it make sense to restrict that up front,8 either through what Mr. Greenberger is9 suggesting, which is just restricted10 everywhere and then allow it later11 through ZBA, or -- in other words, aren't12 we creating a situation where an adult13 use can go into a neighborhood that we14 cannot later remove without a taking as a15 result of automatic conversion?16
I actually17 don't think that -- I'm not believing18 that that's a huge problem out there,19 because where these regulated -- first of20 all, there's tremendous limitations on21 regulated uses, like adult bookstores.22
I didn't say23 it's a huge problem, but it's a problem24 if it's your neighborhood.25 76 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
There is a2 spacing requirement for regulated uses,3 that they have to be spaced from4 residentially zoned areas and they also5 have to be spaced from each other. I6 just do want to point out we are not7 making that any more possible under the8 new Code than it is under the current9 Code. We haven't changed the ability to10 locate one of those uses near11 residential. We have kept those12 standards in place.13
Don, could14 you describe the zoning reform effort15 that happened in Chicago and where they16 applied sort of their new zoning and17 where they didn't apply their new zoning?18
Well, we were on19 the team in Chicago, but our consulting20 colleague here, Kirk Bishop, was the21 Project Manager, so I did not do that22 project and --23
But you're24 generally familiar with it?25 77 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Generally familiar2 with it. But I know people have been3 calling Chicago and other cities to4 compare this process, so please feel free5 to add to what I say or correct me.6 My understanding is that7 Chicago, under the leadership of Duncan8 Associates, came up with a set of zoning9 recommendations, got them applied, and it10 did apply citywide when the new text was11 adopted, but that they carved out some12 particular areas that they needed to look13 at more carefully. And I can't tell you14 if that was 2 percent or 10 percent of15 the city. When I've asked Kirk about16 this, Kirk's answer was, No, Don, it was17 like the other projects you and I do, we18 drafted a code, it was adopted, there was19 a conversion map and it went into date on20 X date.21 But they had, as many cities22 do, a follow-on process to look at this23 area or this area or this area to try to24 see what's needed.25 78 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Now, if I've misspoken and you2 know better, please correct me.3
I thought it4 generally applied around the core and did5 not apply in the outer areas of Chicago.6
Okay. So in9 Miami, how long did it take them to do10 the mapping process?11
In Miami and12 Denver, as I mentioned in my testimony,13 were different because they were --14
Each city took17 five years and they started the mapping18 discussion at the same time they started19 the text discussion.20
So from the21 time the text passed, how long did it22 take Miami to map the city?23
Well, no. Both24 Denver and Miami did a different process.25 79 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 The same time that they hired a2 consultant as we were to redraft the3 text, they said you redraft the maps at4 the same time. And it took five years5 from the time that process started to the6 date they adopted the map and the text7 together. When they adopted the map and8 the text together, it was in effect that9 day.10
The14 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Sanchez for15 a point of information.16
In light17 of what Councilman Green has just pointed18 out -- and this is one of those areas19 we've talked a little bit about, can we20 create a shelf where there's some things21 that are unresolved -- would the22 Administration be willing on a23 Council-by-Council district look at24 carving out some of those exceptions and25 80 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 saying this has to be worked out? Has2 that happened in the past, in light of3 the fact that we know there are certain4 areas, and particularly the ones in5 transition, where we may want to hold up6 on some of this stuff? Has that been7 done, and how would you suggest we do8 that?9
Sort of10 without knowing the details, it's a bit11 hard to answer, but I would say are we12 open to the conversation? Of course13 we're open to the conversation. It14 depends on the amount of carve-out and15 the nature of the carve-out we're talking16 about, because this then gets into the17 question of what are we ultimately trying18 to administer here. And this is why I19 said -- and I apologize for repeating20 myself -- in general we'd rather be more21 restrictive and not have to deal with22 this sort of bit by bit. But I think if23 there are specific ideas, we'd rather24 they be put on the table and we can25 81 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 respond to them specifically.2
If I could add to5 that. What most cities conclude along6 the way is that what you do not want to7 have is two maps and two codes in use at8 the same time. So if you create a hole9 in the doughnut, you've got a new map,10 but this is a hole in the doughnut. The11 legal question is what law applies on12 that hole in the doughnut. And what you13 really don't want to have is to have the14 City attorneys have to go back and the15 citizens have to know two codes. They16 have to know this code for the City and17 they have to remember that code for the18 hole in the doughnut.19 So I would endorse what Alan20 has said. In general, cities try to aim21 for having a new map, which is a22 conversion map, a new text, and if you've23 got areas you want to look at more24 carefully, adopt the new code so that25 82 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 you're not concerned about what's going2 to happen in the interim and put them on3 the agenda of things to revisit as you go4 along rather than saying we have a land5 here where the old law still applies,6 which I think most citizens and City7 attorneys would say is not where you want8 to be administratively. It's really9 confusing to the citizens to have two10 sets of laws.11
But12 wouldn't that be a scenario where we may13 want to say we're going to hold that for14 remapping because of the complexities of15 some of those things? I'm not suggesting16 that we do 100 of those, but we want to17 get through this, and if there's one or18 two of these, it may be Mantua Farms in19 the 4th Councilmanic District or some20 other stuff that we're going to hear some21 testimony about, I just think -- I don't22 want to be in a situation where we're23 held at bat, because some of this stuff24 needs to be flushed out and it should be25 83 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 okay to put on a burner. This is a new2 process for us in the City of3 Philadelphia and one that we could4 establish new processes nationally by5 saying some of this stuff has to go on6 the shelf.7
Number of8 such districts, size of such districts,9 complexity of such districts are very10 germane to this conversation. A couple11 of them may not be such a big problem and12 particularly if they're not very big.13 Lots of them, I think to Don's point,14 will be a problem, and that's where we15 would opt to be more restrictive more16 generally.17
That's okay.20 Thank you. Don, when we began21 the Zoning Code Commission process, we22 really were very focused at the beginning23 and had a lot of sessions on form-based24 codes and not the text of our Code, which25 84 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 is what Miami and Denver opted to do, go2 with form-based.3 Have you ever seen a city --4 and I'm not suggesting this. I'm just5 really curious based on the discussion we6 had about neighborhoods where -- and I've7 received a number of comments, I think8 from East Falls, I think from Manayunk9 Development Corporation and other people,10 that basically say it's not a particular11 use that harms value in a neighborhood or12 converts a neighborhood. It is the13 aggregation of that use that destroys the14 quality of life in a neighborhood,15 whether it be ten group homes on the same16 block shut out the rest of the17 neighborhood and eliminate the18 neighborhood feel or it be a bar on every19 single corner for a ten-block radius, or20 whatever it is. It's that sort of21 aggregation.22 Have you seen a city rather23 than do overlays, which this Code24 proposes and which creates the doughnut25 85 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 hole problem you're talking about, each2 overlay is its own rules and is separate3 from the Zoning Code and you have to go4 to that and look at it, have you ever5 seen a city combine a textural code like6 we have but with some form-based general7 guidelines that say -- and we do it sort8 of in -- restricted uses can't be within9 so many feet of each other, but I mean10 like you have to get a variance if there11 are more than two bars on that block or12 some more general form-based things that13 could be applicable on a citywide basis14 on things that we agree on that even15 apply to a textural code based on what's16 on the ground?17
Well, the issue18 comes up in a lot of cities. It's really19 unrelated to whether it's a form-based20 code or not. It really -- yes, a number21 of cities have a list of uses that they22 space either from residential or from23 each other. Detroit came up with a24 little elaborate table of this can't be25 86 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 too close to another one of it and it2 can't be too close to a different type of3 thing.4
But that's5 not really what -- and I may be6 misremembering this because it was three7 years ago, what I think of as form-based,8 it was, Okay, within this area, there can9 be 25 percent commercial. Once that 2510 percent commercial is filled up, there11 can't be more, because that's all the12 commercial that the residents in this13 area can support, and that's kind of what14 I'm talking about, more of that kind of15 approach.16
The short answer17 is no, and neither Denver nor Miami's18 form-based code do that. They define the19 types of buildings very specifically, the20 types of uses flexibly, but they don't21 have a kind of when it's full, it's full22 scenario. Most cities have a hard time23 with that, because it makes it a first24 come, first served basis, and they are25 87 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 not comfortable telling the third guy in2 that he can't do what his neighbor could3 be. They try to figure out, get a plan4 and get a zone that allows some of it,5 but not --6
The thing9 that sort of comes up inevitably in that10 kind of discussion is what about -- just11 use your example for a second. So if12 there was a restriction, for instance, on13 the amount of commercial, but people are14 unhappy with the commercial, we have15 places where we get a lot of pushback16 over the type of commercial that goes in,17 and suddenly the limits hit and the next18 one that wants to come is actually19 something people would really like to20 have, then we just get into another set21 of problems.22
Okay. So23 what percentage -- I know Eva did a study24 on this or the Administration did a study25 88 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that Eva has shared. What percentage of2 the cases that come before the ZBA for3 variances are residential and related to4 non-conforming uses?5
Actually, I6 think that information came maybe from7 Councilman O'Neill --8
Details from11 Green. Okay. So I'm pointing right back12 to you.13 We have not studied that14 recently. We looked at the number of15 cases that are not granted by right, and16 I think in the last few years it was 3517 percent of cases -- permit requests18 cannot be granted by right and require a19 trip to the ZBA. We've known informally20 that the number of cases that the ZBA,21 half or more than half are around use22 variances rather than dimensional23 variances, but I don't know the24 residential split. I'm sorry.25 89 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
I have a2 number in my head that it's like 903 percent.4
Just for15 everybody else's sake or at least for my16 sake, I just want to be clear. The 8017 percent -- Stacy, the 80 percent18 represents what again?19
Right. So24 use variances in residential districts.25 90 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Is that what it means?2
It's the4 total of number cases that go before the5 ZBA, 80 percent deal with residential6 non-conformity. So what I wanted to get7 to was some of my specific proposals,8 proposals by Councilwoman Brown and9 Councilman O'Neill's concerns about10 commercial in neighborhoods. It seems to11 me that we'll still achieve our goal of12 eliminating a lot of the cases at the ZBA13 even if the ZCC majority or the14 Administration were to agree with all of15 the proposals so far that you've heard16 from Council. Would you agree with that?17
You're saying18 that if we would agree, let's just use,19 all the proposals, that this would20 significantly cut into the ZBA caseload?21
Well, how24 many of what we propose would affect25 91 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 residential non-conformity?2
Okay. So we12 will have achieved that major -- even13 excepting everything we've done, we will14 have achieved that major goal of the15 reform of the Zoning Code?16
I believe so,17 but I just want to emphasize that the18 technique to do it is very important to19 us, and that's probably where we ought to20 have the more discussion. And this21 relates to this business of be more22 generally restrictive or try to do this23 on a sort of area-by-area basis.24
Well, with25 92 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 respect to being more restrictive, it's2 our understanding from the Law3 Department, because we've looked at how4 actually to apply this in our5 recommendations back to the ZCC as we are6 trying to think about the best way to do7 that, and they tell us we can't be more8 restrictive for a longer period than two9 years because we can't, say, prohibit a10 use or make it hard to get a use citywide11 for, say, adult uses, for example, that12 we may want to map in or group homes, for13 example, that we may want to map in, but14 the maximum period that we can actually15 restrict any use in a zoning code reform16 effort is two years under state law.17 So the problem with what you're18 proposing is, you have to combine a more19 restrictive approach with eventually20 allowing certain uses somewhere in order21 to comply with state law.22
I think we have23 to say everything with the caveat that24 certain uses are constitutionally25 93 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 protected and so they have to be2 permitted some place in the City by right3 where there are actual sites where they4 can go. So even if we are more5 restrictive, we have to -- and it's not6 every regulated use, but it's some of the7 regulated uses and it's some other uses.8 So as we have this9 conversation, we have to take that into10 consideration. I think our goal would be11 to see if in this period of time we can12 actually come up with restrictions that13 are legally defensible but still achieve14 this goal.15
So if I16 understand your vision of how you would17 like us to proceed, it is you would like18 us to close the hearings today, in19 private meetings negotiate changes to the20 Code that Council would then, what, pass21 by resolution and then -- I mean, it22 seems to me that whatever we agree on,23 there ought to be an opportunity for24 public comment to us.25 94 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Before it3 goes back to the ZCC. So if we close the4 hearings, we forestall that.5
No. What we6 propose is try to close the hearings7 today, if we can get through everybody,8 have a working group to look at the9 proposals that you and several other10 Councilmembers have made so that we can11 figure out -- because we have a couple of12 questions too about -- we just need13 clarification on to make sure we14 understand what problem we're trying to15 solve, and see if we can then work out16 something, basically a set of17 understandings that would be communicated18 to us, I guess, formally in a Council19 response to these hearings. They would20 be incorporated into the final Code.21 They would come back before Council22 basically as a zoning23 ordinance/resolution, which would be24 subject to the normal rules of Council,25 95 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 including public hearing probably, I2 guess, at the Rules Committee probably3 and then again final adoption. And then4 we also want to propose -- and I don't5 know that this needs to be -- it can be6 in the formal resolution or not.7 Something we want to do, whether it's8 formal or not, is I would like to see us9 commit, both the Administration and10 Council, commit to a one-year period11 after -- I'm making up a number here, but12 something like a one-year period after13 which we would just go back and formally14 meet and say what's working, what's not15 working in a kind of more systematic way,16 because if we see a pattern of things17 that are not working or could be working18 better, I propose that we amend.19
Well, that22 may be true. But at least in this first23 go-around when we've got a new document24 on our hand, obviously the document is25 96 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 theory and then it has to be used.2
Well, I want6 to ask you this publicly because it's7 been asked privately for, I think, over8 two and a half weeks. Rick Auerbach on9 behalf of City Council and Richie Feder10 on behalf of City Council have asked for11 a Word copy of the proposal so that we12 may make our own amendments, and my13 understanding is that to date, whoever is14 in charge of that Word document -- and I15 understand it's Mr. Greenberger -- has16 been refusing to provide us with a Word17 copy, which I respectfully request it be18 provided to us by the end of the day19 today.20
It's been21 provided both to Richard Feder and the22 Law Department and to the City Council23 technical staff.24
Two or three7 days ago. I don't know. Rosalie might8 be able to --9
I'm sorry.10 I was told this morning that that has not11 yet been provided.12
No, and we had13 even -- it's a tough document to manage14 and we had to help work through some15 technical issues, but I believe it's16 working well for both parties now.17
Because I18 understand document control, but we'll19 redline. We're not going to try to hide20 anything from you.21
Thank you24 very much.25 98 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Thank2 you.3 The Chair recognizes4 Councilwoman Sanchez.5
Thank6 you.7 I got in on a point of order on8 most of my questions, but I had one more,9 some concerns around the auto repair. I10 have a lot of these in some of my G-2's11 that are in the middle of the blocks and12 some of the areas where I had a lot of13 industry, and I was concerned about the14 by-right uses, again, because in the15 G-2's. What does the new Code do to help16 us control that a little bit?17
We will go21 through the chart with you. Vehicle22 equipment and supplies, sales and rental23 is not permitted in the current G-2 in24 our proposals, but that doesn't mean that25 99 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 would not -- other uses that are similar2 would not be permitted. So we should3 discuss that with you.4
And obviously5 then to the extent that it doesn't permit6 something that is legal now, obviously it7 turns that into a non-conforming use, but8 it doesn't make it go away.9
And10 that's a complicated enforcement issue.11 We don't have the resources. I kind of12 understand that. I'm just wondering13 where we were going with that.14 I just wanted to clarify. We15 had talked a little bit about the16 overlays and kind of this process and17 wanted for Eva and Mr. Greenberger to18 restate the fact that we can pass this19 tomorrow and do an amendment the20 following day.21
All24 right. But I'm just glad to hear that25 100 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 creating a formal way for us to update2 and revise this as we go, just because I3 think it's important that we formalize4 it. I don't want to get into a5 situation, as Councilman DiCicco points6 out, we have a 650-page document because7 we keep doing these overlays as opposed8 to standardizing them. So I look forward9 to that.10 I think most of my questions11 were answered. Usage, recovery house,12 multi-family. I'm fine.13 Thank you, President.14
Thank15 you.16 The Chair recognizes17 Councilwoman Brown.18
Let me go23 on the record also to express my24 admiration for the work you've done thus25 101 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 far and for the work product that has2 been put forth, though tentative and3 draft form, for us to react to.4 My issue and my interest is5 very narrow, and you know that I reduced6 it to writing so as to be clear about how7 we're going to continue to look at child8 care going forward. And so Councilwoman9 Tasco raised the issue, but I need to10 hear where you are for the record around11 the issue of group day care, which is 1212 and under, 12 children and under, and13 center day care, which is 13 or more14 children, where you are in the thinking15 of that, because I've heard a couple of16 times the term "more restrictive."17
Thank you for18 your recommendations. We appreciated19 getting them. We've scheduled this and20 several other items for review at our21 Work Plan Committee meeting that's22 actually this week, Friday, two days from23 now. The Committee will review it and24 they'll make a recommendation to the full25 102 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 ZCC on it.2
Will make a5 recommendation to the full Zoning Code6 Commission. And I think there are7 members of the -- very informative,8 because we have not had a committee9 meeting. There are members of at least10 the Work Plan Committee, all of whom have11 received your document already, who I12 think are interested in pursuing this.13
Okay. I14 raise it because as you well know, we15 were successful in getting a couple of16 ordinances passed around child care and17 different -- here is where I think the18 beauty of District Councilpeople should19 have a say and sometimes their way, in20 that what is attractive or acceptable in21 certain sections of the City around group22 child care and child care for legitimate23 reasons don't sit well with other24 sections of the City, and that fact25 103 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 should be factored in when looking at2 small businesses like child cares or3 group child cares as an option for small4 businesspeople.5
Agree. And6 we recognize that there are probably a7 handful of those kind of issues that8 exist, and the solution, for instance,9 that's been crafted on child care may in10 the end simply be the right one and11 that's just the way it is. I mean, if we12 could simplify it, we'd love to.13
But if we15 can't for totally legitimate reasons,16 then we can't and we move ahead.17
Very well.18 Thank you very much.19 Thank you, Madam President.20 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:21 You're welcome.22 The Chair recognizes23 Councilwoman Miller.24
Thank25 104 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 you, Madam Chair.2 I have questions regarding the3 G-2 use again. I didn't hear your4 answer.5
I'm sorry,6 Councilwoman. You had questions7 regarding? I missed what you said.8
As you12 know, in my district we have a13 slaughterhouse that we had nothing to say14 about. They could open up as a matter of15 right, and they're actually in the middle16 of a residential community. And then we17 have one -- we have another one that18 someone is actually trying to open up19 again in a residential community.20 I'm not saying a slaughterhouse21 doesn't serve some type of purpose, but22 it should be restricted. I mean, it23 should not be in the middle of a24 neighborhood. So I just think that when25 105 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 we're dealing with G-2, we should have2 restrictions over where that type of3 industrial use can open and operate.4
And7 slaughterhouses and other uses that may8 be permitted in G-2 we've classified as9 heavy industrial and they would no longer10 be permitted in G-2. They would only be11 permitted in what we're calling I-3,12 which is current least restricted,13 because we have to permit them some14 place, but we did take them out of G-2.15
Point of16 order. I believe slaughterhouses have17 always been in LR. Some of them pre-date18 zoning. They've never been in G-2. G-219 was created much later than when the20 slaughterhouses were around to recognize.21
So those that22 are going to be grandfathered in are23 non-conforming uses, but would not be24 permitted going forward.25 106 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
So the2 one that's actually trying to open now,3 it's been like months that they've4 been -- the community has been fighting5 them back and forth.6
If you would,7 after the hearing, make us aware of that8 particular case and we'll look at that.9
Okay.10 Will do that.11 Let me just be clear on12 overlay, on the position that this new13 Code will impact the zoning overlays.14 Most zoning overlays, when I did mine, I15 did it for a particular reason. I didn't16 just do it just to do it. In fact, we17 worked with the Planning Commission,18 because they had an idea. I delayed19 putting an ordinance in until the20 Planning Commission did their assessment,21 and when they came back to me, they22 agreed. They saw no other way to manage23 what we were trying to manage other than24 an overlay. This is in a commercial25 107 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 strip.2 So what is the position of this3 new Code? I'm still a little bit4 confused about the overlay situation.5
In very10 general terms, and then I'll get into the11 specifics, in very general terms, what we12 have tried to do is build standards and13 restrictions into base zoning rather than14 in overlays, and this is where this15 district CMX-2.5 came from, because it16 applies to so many of these commercial17 strips that currently have overlays.18 We've actually built in a lot of19 restrictions into the base zoning and20 then have said, let's now apply that to21 all these places with overlays, and22 that's simply to reduce the confusion.23 We've also tried to make them24 uniform, because we see the same issues25 108 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 coming up again and again.2 There is a piece in the3 Germantown overlay related to variety4 stores that you and I know about that has5 not been carried forward. It's a source6 of controversy. We understand that. And7 it may be -- it's just one of those8 things we're going to have to work on a9 little harder with you, because at the10 same time that it is restricting11 something that people don't want, it is12 also not allowing a lot of things that13 would be wanted. And so example just14 to -- and I know you'll know what I'm15 talking about. A store like C.A. Rowell,16 which used to exist at Chelten and17 Germantown, could not come back to18 Germantown under this law as well. So19 we're trying to balance a lot of issues20 here.21
All22 right. So then we do need to have a23 discussion.24
If I may just add,7 all of the discussions -- I think there's8 a lot of nervousness about overlays and9 how they've been treated in general.10 There are many places in the Code where11 you may find that the City generalized,12 as Alan said, the concern and tried to13 deal with it. So from my perspective, it14 would be most helpful instead of people15 saying, I just want my overlay back, to16 say, I want to make sure this doesn't17 happen, I want to make sure that doesn't18 happen. Because we may have taken care19 of it in a definition, in a condition, in20 a citywide language that applies so that21 someone reading it would say, I don't see22 my old language. Well, it's not there,23 but we took care of it in a different24 way.25 110 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
All2 right. Good.3 One other thing that I need. I4 know last week we had our briefing and5 you gave us that nice PowerPoint. I6 think for me what would be helpful, if we7 had a glossary, just a list of what it8 was and now what it's called, because you9 just called G-2 something, something,10 something with an X. I'm like what in11 the world is he talking about.12
Thank19 you.20 Thank you, Madam President.21 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:22 You're welcome.23 I believe you testified that24 nightclubs would require a special25 111 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 exception in C-2 neighborhoods. However,2 in row house neighborhoods, some C-23 properties are on the end of a4 residential block. Shouldn't a variance5 be required for nightclubs in these6 cases?7
Yes. They8 are permitted right now in C-2. They are9 not permitted in C-1. Sorry. So in C-1,10 which is not necessarily going to be true11 every time, but it's typically the corner12 retail in most row house blocks, not13 permitted. In C-2, which is generally14 the more generalized commercial15 corridors, it's only permitted by special16 exception in this Code. So it would have17 to go back to the Zoning Board.18
C-1 and25 112 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 C-2 basically are before off-street2 parking in front of commercial in3 neighborhoods was your two corner4 properties, but one allows -- in the more5 prevalent, as you would call, corner6 store is the C-1 that allows a residence7 upstairs, and the reason a lot of the8 commercial strips, they don't have the9 residential uses upstairs. Uses were10 tended to be the same, with slightly more11 uses allowed in C-2. I add, because I12 have brought it up, C-7 over the years13 with off-street parking, corner stores in14 neighborhoods basically has the C-1 uses.15 They're now going into a much bigger area16 shopping center use. In fact, nightclubs17 are allowed, was stated here today, both18 in C-2 and in C-7. C-7 does not allow19 them now. C-7 allows the Rite Aid, the20 dry cleaner, the Wawa, those type of21 things that were normally corner stores22 with no off-street parking, and they're23 in every neighborhood in the City now.24 That's a correction that I believe has to25 113 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 be made, and there has to be a new2 designation for neighborhood auto use, or3 however the nomenclature turns out,4 separate from your big area shopping5 centers. Neighborhood Shopping Center6 doesn't -- NSC is hardly mapped anywhere7 in the City. Generally go either C-7 or8 Area Shopping Center for the big ones,9 C-7 for the neighborhood stuff. And10 Neighborhood Shopping Center can be11 pretty large, but there just aren't12 enough of them to matter that much. C-713 is all over. And you're going to find as14 much with C-1 as C-7 if changes are made,15 enough of a problem.16 So I do think that there's a17 focus on it. It's also why I think we18 need another hearing. And if there's a19 possibility that the Commission, which I20 serve on, could amend the preliminary21 report before another hearing where22 there's things like this that are agreed23 upon but are just being talked about, we24 can get to those last phases much more25 114 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 quickly and much more easily. I think2 there's a path to that that is3 understood, but I do think that using the4 October 20th date as what we really have5 to -- where we really have to be on6 October 20th is really the key, and how7 we get there is -- I just think having8 something in writing where that Word9 document would then have the new language10 that's less permissive, goes back to a11 lot of the restrictions in the current12 Code that are not causing a problem and13 are actually welcomed in neighborhoods14 that have the kind of zoning in those15 residential areas is where we have to16 get, and this will be an accomplished17 process at the end of the year. I mean,18 there will be something that we can all19 be proud of. I think we're getting close20 to it in conversation, but we've got to21 start seeing it on paper.22
You're25 115 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 welcome.2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:3 Councilman O'Neill, thank you for that4 clarification, and I believe I was about5 to recognize you.6
Thank you.7 Well, my first question is not8 can the Commission amend the preliminary9 report, because I'd rather be voting for10 an amended preliminary report than still11 having voted for a Minority Report and12 not any of the Majority. So to make13 progress, I'd like to see if we can move14 the minority members on to something that15 is good and is in print and we can all16 move from.17 Is there any reason why it18 can't be amended at a future meeting in19 October or November?20
I mean, I21 think the answer is no, there's no22 reason, but I'm going --23
You don't24 have to agree with why I think it would25 116 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 be helpful, but believe me, I think it2 would be helpful.3
And I want5 to get this done. I don't want to have6 wasted four years.7
Now, I10 just think it would be a step in the11 right direction, that's all, and I don't12 think there's a problem with it.13 The three items at the bottom14 of -- this is for the whole panel. The15 three items at the bottom of of16 Alan's testimony, which is really what we17 talked about at the briefing the other18 day, and the only one I would add and I19 asked the other day be added was the20 light and medium industrial, because21 these uses that are in place I don't22 believe should be any more permissive23 than they are now. Where you have a G-224 as part of an industrial park, it impacts25 117 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 on both other industrial and on the2 adjoining residential neighborhood.3 Where you have it in the middle of the4 block, obviously it covers that.5 If we had thought and6 communities had thought there were more7 uses that should be allowed in those8 areas, we would be getting calls about it9 and somebody would have at least10 attempted to expand those uses. I think11 if we can take those two back just in12 terms of level playing field, what needed13 a variance still needs a variance, and if14 there's strong arguments for something15 and medium, I think we can all have a16 good conversation about it. That's the17 only one that's not here.18 But in the first one -- this is19 the first bullet at the bottom of of your testimonial, Alan. "The21 potential impact of conversion to the new22 Code with regard to treatment of uses."23 I mean, if I weren't involved in this, it24 would be very hard for me to figure out25 118 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 what you were saying. In residential2 areas that are the de-stable, you used3 the doughnut -- and it's really the first4 description I heard in this process, and5 it still fits to a large degree -- we6 have to make sure. Just as Councilman7 DiCicco and Councilman Green said, people8 are concerned that their protections9 still exist that are in the overlays, and10 everybody understands that, I think.11 Well, the people in neighborhoods have to12 understand -- have to be able to know13 that their protections that are in the14 current Code are still in there. There's15 absolutely no reason in a stable16 neighborhood that has zoning cases, maybe17 more use variances than there should be,18 because we're the only city doing it and19 51 percent of our cases are use20 variances, that if anything, there's21 going to be fewer of those, not over the22 counter or special exception. And I23 think just about everybody in the room24 knows that special exception -- people in25 119 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 communities would rather have a variance2 or permitted, because special exception,3 communities go to the Zoning Board and4 find out that it's deemed legal, no5 burden on the applicant at all. The6 community is there to prove something7 that is very subjective, that it's8 harmful to the health, welfare and safety9 of the community. And everyone's10 interpretation is different on that,11 there's no objective criteria, and they12 usually find they're wasting their time.13 When you move from a variance14 to that, back in the '60s here in City15 Council, I was told by Planning16 Commission staff when I first came that17 most of the special exceptions were being18 done for people that were out there19 asking not to go through the community20 and not have -- make it look like you21 were, but not have the variance burden22 where the applicant has to prove23 hardship.24 So I hope we can get from here25 120 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 to there. I think that all we have to do2 is identify what was a variance before,3 be able to tell people whether it's an4 overlay or whether it's zoning in their5 neighborhood, that these uses are still6 requiring a variance. But that's what I7 see that language as meaning.8
And the11 auto-oriented commercial district, I12 think we're on the same page on that.13
24 Everybody should still be able to have --25 121 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 9 One of the things I wanted --10 Don, this is on your , focus on11 procedures. Routine zoning matters are12 mentioned and that you don't want them to13 go any more to the Zoning Board, because14 routine sounds like something that15 shouldn't go to the Zoning Board. 19 Could we get a list of the20 routine stuff? If it's routine,21 everybody will kind of agree. It's not22 something that -- but if we can't agree,23 there's oftentimes a reason that people24 just see something differently when it's25 122 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 not on their block. 5 And, Don, in your testimony --6 in fact, in all three presentations,7 there was no mention of the 51 percent8 use variances that only Philadelphia has,9 where people wake up and they think they10 can rely on what City Council passed and11 put on the map, that that's a12 single-family residential across the13 street. 14 You can't do it in other cities. You can15 only do it in that fraction of one16 percent of a case, and they make it very17 clear and we can -- New York is the one18 that became the easiest for me to19 understand why they generally -- if you20 want a use variance change, if you want a21 change of use, you go to the legislative22 body and you get it done. There's full23 input. People have to run for reelection24 after they do it. Because that's why you25 123 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 remap. 4 I asked for the New York5 language compared to what's in here, and6 right now we got like one line in our7 Code. 8 It just puts the burden on the Zoning9 Board that is so great. If they're going10 to grant a use variance that clearly11 doesn't warrant it, they have to do so12 much work to show why this is that13 one-tenth of one percent exception, that14 you're protected. It's not routine on15 their part, to use that word in a16 different context. And I think we have17 to still focus on not having Philadelphia18 be in the dark ages. 20 We're doing a great job with it, but you21 can't be in the dark ages on 51 percent22 of the cases going to the Zoning Board23 that are harmful to communities, use24 variance changes that don't exist in25 124 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 We are an island. Whether it's3 big cities or small cities, we're an4 island. We've got to toughen that up,5 and toughen it up to -- I don't want to6 have to be doing this separate in City7 Council as a result of learning about it8 at the Commission. It really is9 something that should be part of this10 document. 12 And, lastly, Alan, you said13 several times today, we want to be more14 restrictive citywide rather than less,15 and I think that's just generally where16 we're all trying to be, not be more17 permissive, and particularly in stable18 areas where we're not dealing with areas19 that have tanneries and the other things20 still in the Code in their zoning21 designations. 25 125 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2
Thank you,6 Mr. Chair.7 First of all, let me commend8 you for the man hours, person hours, time9 commitment to this process to try to10 codify our laws, and it is important for11 us to be predictable and understandable12 to those who are interested in investing13 in our neighborhoods. And I think my14 appointee to the Commission has done a15 yeoperson's job. Councilman Green was my16 appointee, and if he could just give me17 an update every now and then, I'd be18 happy with that. He's moving so fast19 into the future.20 I have a couple of small21 questions. And, one, we spent in the22 last Council session a great deal of time23 to try to preserve a part of my district24 which is pristine, called Manatawna Farms25 126 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 and, in so doing, to try to create an2 overlay that would protect that farmland3 from commercial farming and development.4 In this process, I want to know its5 future and will it be protected. And6 that's an important question for me.7
It hasn't8 been addressed in the current Code, and9 we will address that.10
I want to14 get that on the record that we are -- we15 fought a long time to protect it and want16 to keep it. We don't want the baby17 thrown out with the proverbial bath18 water.19 The second thing that I have is20 a follow-up question on student housing.21 Many of my colleagues, whether you talk22 about Councilwoman Miller or Councilman23 Clarke, we have town and gown issues that24 whether it's East Falls, whether it's25 127 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Overbrook Farms, whether it's Wynnefield,2 all of us want to have a good neighbor3 policy with institutions that mean so4 much. We benefit from their intellectual5 property. We benefit from the employment6 that they generate. We benefit from7 future residents that decide to be8 educated and stay. So we like them to9 that degree.10 To the other degree, just like11 other neighbors, we have to kind of12 regulate how we co-exist with people that13 their largest investment was their homes,14 and now they find themselves with a15 25-year-old who for the first time in16 their life is experiencing city living,17 and as many of us here who have18 experienced that part of our life,19 because I see your smile on your face,20 sometimes we tend to overdo it a little21 bit.22 So how do we do an enforceable23 Zoning Code overlay that addresses24 student housing and that town and gown25 128 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 issue in particular?2
With great3 difficulty. We took this issue up. We4 recognize that there's another section of5 the Code on educational housing districts6 which is not a zoning provision but which7 seems to be able to do more than zoning8 can do, because it's actually trying to9 put some burden on the university in10 terms of monitoring the impact of the11 students on the community.12 Other than -- if a property is13 zoned single family and you have multiple14 students, more than three unrelated15 adults, you have hit a building code16 issue actually and then there's an17 enforcement, and then enforcement has to18 take place. So obviously the building19 code is one thing, and it already would20 restrict more than three unrelated adults21 if it's a single-family district.22 In Councilman Clarke's23 district, there was an overlay created24 around student housing per se. That's25 129 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 being litigated in the court. We kept2 that in until we can see whether the3 courts say that that's legally defensible4 in terms of regulating students as kind5 of a separate class within zoning. So we6 don't know the answer to that yet.7 What I said just a few minutes8 earlier to Councilman Clarke, who raised9 a similar question, is that it may be10 that that overlay may be able to be11 expanded once we know that it will be12 upheld by the courts. It may be that the13 educational housing districts, which are14 not in the Zoning Code, could be expanded15 to other districts. And I know you've16 recently worked on improving it, and17 maybe further improvements.18 The bottom line is, we did look19 at this. We found it hard to get a20 zoning angle on it, and the zoning angle21 is the overlay that exists in Yorktown,22 and we're not sure if that will stick or23 not. If it sticks, then that's a24 possibility.25 130 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
And I2 appreciate you paying attention to our3 good neighbor bill, which calls for any4 L&I issues, three strikes, you are out5 for three years by way of your ability to6 rent. This is an equally important7 question for parts of my district that8 are impacted by renting. And so the9 issue is not whether it's student renting10 or absentee landlord renting, but the11 violation aspect of it.12 Is there a way to include in13 the Code a tipping point, a tipping point14 in a community where you go from15 homeownership to rental and that would16 kick in certain kinds of restrictions?17 Meaning, in East Falls or in the 4th Ward18 near Market Street, some of my divisions19 have upwards of 60 percent rental.20 There's a different kind of mentality,21 activity and cost to the City by way of22 multiple structures, trash pickup, things23 like that that occur. And is there a way24 to kind of futuristically plan for the25 131 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 orderly transition of neighborhoods?2 Some neighborhoods probably can go to3 rental; others probably should be4 prevented from becoming rental. I can5 tell you that in Overbrook Farms, that6 would be met with pitch forks and hostile7 resistance.8 So is there a way to create a9 mathematical tipping point that we then10 automatically start to go into a closer11 scrutiny as to the wellbeing of a12 neighborhood and preserving that? Is13 that something that can be considered?14
I don't15 know -- there's a legal answer to this16 one and I don't know what it is. I doubt17 that it's legally possible. So that's a18 separate question that we'll be happy to19 ask.20 Monitoring and enforcing is21 probably also a pretty big issue. That's22 less a legal issue and more of how do23 you -- if you could do it, how would you24 monitor and enforce this. That's25 132 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 probably very tough.2
For example,3 the number of rental licenses began to4 pop up and draw a question.5 I don't know how we deal with6 this. I'd like you to consider --7
-- the10 legality of it, but whether it's a new11 law that we may have to pass, I'm very12 concerned as we look at the economic13 downturn that once upon a time14 neighborhoods that were proud15 homeownership neighborhoods are now16 becoming rental communities, and a lot of17 times the -- not to say that you can't be18 a good neighbor as a renter, but the19 homeowner doesn't have the same vested20 interest that maybe a property owner has,21 and I want to take a look at that.22
We'll be23 happy to ask the question. I just don't24 know the legal answer to it.25 133 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Then finally2 an issue that is near and dear to many3 people in this audience, particularly4 Ms. Gordon, when we start to look at5 stop-and-go's and we start to look at6 entertainment venues, sometimes as a7 local legislator, I almost feel helpless8 as the bar that we protested becomes9 legal and opens or as in one case -- and10 I won't name it -- an owner told me, I'm11 going to, Councilman, open up a12 family-related restaurant, and then when13 I took the tour of the facility, it had14 the largest bar I've ever seen in my15 life. And then after that, it becomes a16 nightclub and then it becomes a strip17 club. And I'm just concerned that we18 don't take those things -- if we are so19 general in our descriptions that under20 the radar certain nuisance businesses21 begin to slip in.22 So how do we prevent that?23
Unfortunately,24 for everybody in this room probably, the25 134 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 state regulates alcohol licenses. But we2 have taken a significant step, which is3 that we changed the definition of4 nightclub so that a restaurant that tries5 to morph into a nightclub or private6 club, its use would automatically be7 defined as a nightclub or a private club,8 and if that use was not permitted, they'd9 be in violation, and then L&I and our Law10 Department could enforce against them.11 And we have -- there will be additional12 enforcement mechanisms in place, because13 we're saying that anything that would14 require a special assembly occupancy15 license is defined as a nightclub.16 So we think that will really17 push down the instances of something18 calling itself a restaurant and then19 becoming something else. We felt that20 that is what we could do in the Code,21 without trying to preempt the state's22 ability to actually grant the licenses.23
What has24 been incredible to me in this process,25 135 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 whether you -- and I've met with everyone2 from Main Street to Market Street, and3 they have similar concerns about how a4 restaurant truly becomes a bar and how a5 bar becomes a nuisance in a neighborhood.6 So in this codification of7 code, these kinds of everyday problems8 that residents, taxpayers face, we have9 to have some assurance. And I know that10 end game is predictability. The end game11 is not to have these District12 Councilpeople be lords of the realm, but13 also the flip side of that is protectors14 of the innocent and the taxpayer, because15 the difference between where an entrance16 is or where a floodlight is is the17 difference between quiet enjoyment of a18 property and being besieged by a bunch of19 problems.20 So these subtleties, even21 though we want to have predictability,22 every business, every block is unique,23 and we have to somehow fit that in in24 this process.25 136 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
I think2 you're raising a whole bunch of very good3 and very difficult points, because as you4 know, we hear it too. An applicant comes5 to us and says, I want to do a -- usually6 says family-oriented, fill in the blank,7 restaurant, bar, and things change, and8 that's why you have to have systematic9 solutions, and frequently the solutions,10 particularly the problems you're talking11 about, Councilman, need to exist at12 multiple levels of enforcement. So the13 Zoning Code can do certain things. What14 it generally can't do is control15 behavior. So a perfectly legal use that16 morphs because of bad behavior has to be17 regulated and controlled elsewhere.18
Or we simply20 say the type is banned entirely, and that21 presents its own problems.22
I agree with23 you, because we probably have some really24 good laws on the books. Enforcement,25 137 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 L&I, other kinds of issues have to be2 addressed, and what I'm going to urge my3 colleagues is to remember that as we4 start to approach the budget season again5 so that we kind of -- I'm not going to --6
We're going9 to look at that too so that we have10 enough enforcement so that the laws are11 relevant, that they are impactful at the12 day-to-day level of the citizen. All13 right?14
Thank you,16 Mr. Chair.17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.18 Councilman Green.19
Thank you.20 It has escaped me what my question was.21 So thank you.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Any other23 Councilmembers have questions for this24 panel?25 138 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Just real2 quick, Mr. Chairman.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Point of4 order.5
I need my6 colleague to remember --7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You two8 guys ought to get together. It's obvious9 that your comment earlier about he not10 speaking to you, it's very obvious --11
I know.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It becomes13 more obvious as the questions go on.14 We'll move to the next panel.15 MR. McPHERSON: The next panel16 consists of David Perlman, Carl17 Primavera, Jerry Sweeney and John18 Gattuso.19 (Witnesses approached witness20 table.)21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Good22 afternoon, gentlemen. As was said at the23 outset by the Council President, we would24 ask if your testimony could be limited to25 139 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 three minutes. Obviously as the last2 panel left, their testimony was very3 short. It was the questions that allowed4 us to get into about two hours on the5 first panel.6 Among yourselves decide who7 will be the first person to offer8 testimony. Mr. Gattuso.9
Good morning,10 Councilman DiCicco, members of the11 Committee of the Whole. My name is John12 Gattuso. I'm Senior Vice-President and13 Regional Director for Liberty Property14 Trust, and I am before you today to state15 our support for the creation of a clear,16 transparent and predictable zoning17 entitlement process in the City of18 Philadelphia. 25 140 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Liberty owns over 800 properties in 202 domestic markets and the UK, encompassing3 over 77 million square feet of commercial4 real estate, approximately half of which5 we have developed. This experience with6 developing commercial real estate around7 the country has provided us the8 opportunity to see a variety of9 approaches to zoning and its10 administration. 14 In Philadelphia over the past15 25 years, we have enjoyed a good working16 relationship with the city we consider17 our hometown. 5 billion in19 development projects within the City. We20 have developed the Liberty Place and21 Three Franklin Plaza office buildings in22 Center City, the million square foot TJX23 Distribution Center in Northeast24 Philadelphia and the PNC Bank operation25 141 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 center at the Airport. Most recently, we2 developed the 975 foot tall Comcast3 Center and have completed or currently4 have under construction ten buildings at5 the Navy Yard, including the new6 Tastykake Bakery and new state-of-the-art7 office buildings for GlaxoSmithKline and8 Iroko Pharmaceuticals. In fact, at9 present, the Navy Yard represents our10 most active location for development in11 the nation. Significantly, these current12 Navy Yard projects are being developed on13 an as-of-right basis. Furthermore, it is14 also important to note that the $50015 million Comcast Center was essentially16 developed as an as-of-right project under17 the existing Code. 23 I point this out not to make24 the case that the existing Code does not25 142 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 9 In the same manner, we believe10 that constructive citizen and community11 input is a basic foundation of a12 well-conceived progressive zoning and13 planning code. 23 At this time, we have not fully24 vetted every aspect of the proposed new25 143 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 14 Far from discouraging new investment and15 development, encouraging sustainable16 building practices by, for example,17 offering density bonuses for LEED Gold or18 Platinum buildings and for19 transit-oriented development, encouraging20 green building roofs and requiring21 landscaping in parking lots, just to name22 a few concepts, will ultimately result in23 a more livable and vibrant city, which in24 turn will encourage additional new25 144 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 7 Liberty Property Trust offers our support8 to this effort. 14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,15 Mr. 16
17 Actually, it's -- well, still morning,18 right? Actually, it's afternoon. 20 My name is Jerry Sweeney and I'm21 President of CEO of Brandywine Realty22 Trust. Brandywine is a publicly traded23 real estate investment trust that owns,24 leases, manages and develops Class A25 145 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 office in suburban product. 83 million square feet of Class A office4 space in Center City and University City,5 including One, Two and Three Logan6 Square, the development site at 19197 Market where the current pop-up garden is8 located, the Cira Centre, the IRS9 facility at 30th Street, as well as10 interest in One and Two Commerce Square11 at 20th and Market. 21 Also, as a businessperson, I believe22 Philadelphia should take every advantage23 of an opportunity to send a clear and24 consistent message that Philadelphia is25 146 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 open for business, that it is a2 transparent, responsive, efficient place3 in which to conduct that business and it4 is focused on creating jobs and overall5 economic prosperity. 19 No zoning code will address every20 sensitivity or nuance in the development21 process, but we firmly believe that the22 efforts currently embodied in the23 proposed Code are a major step in the24 right direction. As such, we applaud the25 147 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 effort of those involved and remain2 enthusiastic about its adoption. 23 One, on remapping we support an24 accelerated remapping effort that25 148 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 8 On civic design, we agree with9 the Zoning Code Commission's desire to10 include design review in the zoning11 process. 20 The challenge in crafting and21 enforcing the modified Code is to ensure22 that this process is not permitted to be23 used as simply a dilatory tactic to24 achieve the objective of having no25 149 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3 We agree that community4 organizations are a key stakeholder in5 the zoning process. 9 Given the breadth of that experience and10 our philosophy, we believe that11 development is an iterative process and,12 as a consequence, strong community13 engagement is an essential ingredient to14 ensuring that high-quality development15 occurs. 20 In conclusion, our objective in21 testifying today is to reinforce the22 Council that we believe the message23 coming from the City in this economic24 time to the development and business25 150 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 community is incredibly important. 11
My name is David12 Perlman. I am the President of the13 Building Industry Association, which14 represents the regional residential home15 builders, residential contractors and16 suppliers. I want to thank Council17 President Verna and all the members of18 City Council for allowing me to speak19 today on Resolution 110459.20 On behalf of the BIA, I21 strongly urge the adoption of the Zoning22 Code Commission's report. In 2004, the23 BIA issued a report entitled "If We Fix24 It, They Will Come," calling for25 151 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 modernization of Philadelphia's Zoning2 Code. Two years later, the BIA worked3 with Councilman DiCicco to draft the4 Charter change amendment that created the5 Zoning Code Commission.6 The need for change is clear to7 anyone who attempts to read the Zoning8 Code. The 624-page Code is difficult to9 understand, often requiring lawyer's10 translations to understand what can be11 built on a site. Suffice it to say, in12 Philadelphia's current system, no one13 ever wins, because there is no certainty.14 The Administration, Councilmembers,15 developers and community groups are all16 frustrated because the process is broken,17 unpredictable and a detriment to the18 progress of Philadelphia.19 Modernizing Philadelphia's20 Zoning Code will help set predictable,21 consistent rules for development that22 will serve to attract new residents, jobs23 and investment while preserving the24 unique character of our neighborhoods.25 152 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 While a new Zoning Code in and of itself2 may not necessarily drive demand, it is a3 vital proactive step needed to ensure the4 City is responsive to the demand as it is5 generated. Chicago, Milwaukee,6 Pittsburgh and Detroit have all7 overhauled their codes in the last decade8 to clarify the rules so every resident9 can understand what can be built on and10 around their property. If Philadelphia11 is to be attractive to national and local12 developers alike, we must reform our13 Zoning Code.14 The BIA would like to thank15 Councilman DiCicco for his leadership on16 the zoning reform. We would also like to17 thank all of the City Councilmembers who18 have met with the BIA, Next Great City19 and many other members of the Fix It20 Philly Coalition. While the BIA agrees21 the Code as drafted is not perfect, we22 strongly believe it represents tremendous23 progress and addresses in a fair manner24 the compromises necessary to achieve25 153 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 zoning reform in Philadelphia.2 For all these reasons, the3 members of the Building Industry4 Association strongly urge City Council do5 all they can to approve the report sent6 to them by the Zoning Code Commission and7 push for final passage in this Council8 session.9 Thank you for your10 consideration.11
Carl Primavera14 from Klehr Harrison.15 Very briefly, I think that it's16 been a great process that will hopefully17 move this to the goal line for zoning18 reform. The BIA, which I've been19 involved with for many years, as has many20 people in City Council, has done a great21 job of creating some interest. Then the22 Zoning Commission came along and created23 really a citywide initiative. And I love24 what I heard today from Councilman Green.25 154 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Maybe every year there should be an2 agenda on seeing what we can do on a3 yearly basis to make the Code work4 better.5 So, again, I'm not afraid of6 what it means to my practice. People7 kept saying only lawyers can figure out8 the old Code, it works to our advantage.9 You've heard today from capital and from10 investors. The more that that capital11 moves to Philadelphia because of the12 predictability, the better for all law13 firms, accounting firms, manufacturers14 and employees. So this is really not15 only about good planning, about good16 business. So we thank you for your17 leadership.18
Thank19 you very much.20 Are there any questions from21 members of the Committee?22 The Chair recognizes Councilman23 Green.24
Thank you,25 155 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Madam Chair. I will be brief.2 First of all, I want to thank3 all of you for your testimony, especially4 for your willingness, as three developers5 who do a lot of business in Philadelphia,6 your willingness to give up your7 competitive advantages, the only people8 who can understand possibly how to get a9 project done in the City of Philadelphia.10 So I'm glad you're welcoming competition.11 I wanted to make a point that I12 think most of you will agree with, and13 that really is that we need to change the14 Zoning Code. I'm committed to try to do15 it by the end of the year, with some16 suggestions that I have. But changing17 the Zoning Code is not the panacea. It18 will not bring in national and19 international investors who want to20 develop in the City of Philadelphia,21 because it is, in the first instance, not22 the Zoning Code that prevents people from23 coming in here, it is demand, and we do24 not have the demand for the office space25 156 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that we have that provide increased rents2 that make it possible to even pencil new3 buildings. And isn't it really after4 we -- and I'm committed to accomplishing5 this, but after we accomplish this, don't6 we need to do things to change the7 business environment in Philadelphia,8 whether it's taxation or other policies,9 that are going to increase demand that10 will really have the City take off?11
Councilman, I'll12 take the first shot at that. I think13 that's an unassailable point. There's no14 question that in many respects, the City15 of Philadelphia has more competitors than16 either Liberty Property Trust or17 Brandywine. You're competing in a world18 marketplace with other jurisdictions that19 are very aggressive in trying to court20 growth and business. So to the extent21 that the City can continue to increase22 its competitive position, that is only23 better really for everyone here.24 I would point out that in at25 157 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 least two projects, Comcast Center and2 with our new development for Glaxo down3 at the Navy Yard and, frankly, for really4 all the development down at the Navy5 Yard, the ability to move quickly -- and6 I don't mean carelessly, but quickly with7 a code that was very clear I think was8 fundamental in making those transactions9 occur. I think in the case of Glaxo,10 you're talking about a transaction that11 happened in about a 45-day period. The12 alternative to being able to move fast13 would have been likely to see that14 requirement move out of the City.15 So while there's no question16 that good business policy to attract17 businesses needs to happen, needs to18 continue to happen, having clarity and19 transparency and predictability in the20 Zoning Code does facilitate investment21 and job retention, certainly maybe even22 job attraction.23
As long as24 there's demand for a building like there25 158 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 was in the case of Glaxo --2
-- moving4 quickly gets it. There's not a whole lot5 of demand, though.6
You will not7 probably get either of us sitting here8 saying that there is not a need on the9 part of the City to increase demand10 through a continual improvement of11 business tax environment, so forth.12 Absolutely we agree with that.13
So if I could14 just add on to that. It's why I mention15 in my testimony that the Zoning Code is a16 tactic that has to be viewed as part of a17 broader strategy for the City. I'm older18 than I used to be, but I'm not that old,19 and since I took my first job in20 Philadelphia out of school, college,21 Philadelphia has lost one in four jobs.22 There is no demand driver in the City,23 and one of the primary reasons for that24 is the cost of doing business.25 159 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 As we evaluate the cost of2 doing business and creating investment3 value in the City of Philadelphia,4 simplifying the Zoning Code is a good5 step to reduce the cost of the regulatory6 environment. It does not address; in7 fact, it doesn't come close to8 addressing, the underlying root cause of9 Philadelphia's inability to generate10 sustainable job growth.11 So the reason we're here today12 and certainly the reason you'll here from13 other folks later today is that it's an14 incremental process. Philadelphia did15 not get into this position overnight. It16 took generations to develop this type of17 tax structure. But we're hopeful that18 the City, recognizing the limitations we19 have on growing our job base, is a20 catalyst for creating a positive result21 on reducing the overall burden, both22 directly and indirectly economically to23 companies to both stay here and certainly24 to be attracted here. The fundamental25 160 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 challenge with development in the City is2 almost any piece of development of3 substance has some level of public4 subsidy. That may be a prescription for5 development commencement. It is not a6 prescription for creating investment7 value.8
Right.9 Which was certainly the case in Comcast10 Center, which I think received 40 million11 in state funds, et cetera. That's not a12 good long-term strategy.13
Certainly the14 developments we've had underway in15 University City are part of the Keystone16 Opportunity Zone, which provides tax17 abatements.18
As well as19 the Navy Yard where there are tax20 abatements.21
So we support22 broad-level tax reform. Zoning Code is a23 good starting point.24
That's25 161 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 great.2 So Mr. Primavera, I just have a3 quick question for you on the record4 about a specific legal question that is5 in the Zoning Code. There is a way that6 the new Zoning Code deals with the7 category of special exceptions. I guess8 it's been the view of some of us on9 Council that that is inconsistent with10 the current law under Bray and that we11 need to change that to be consistent with12 the current law and the way things need13 to happen.14 Do you agree with that or15 disagree, and why?16
Well, I believe17 that what Bray says is that special18 exceptions or, in Philadelphia19 nomenclature, certificates are permitted20 uses. They are presumed to be21 appropriate, but because the nature of22 those uses in certain situations may have23 some potential adverse impact, they're24 compelled to go to the Zoning Board for25 162 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 public input, community input, community2 dialogue. But the starting point is that3 that use is to be presumed to be4 appropriate. That then obligates the5 community not just to say, I don't like6 it, I don't want it, but they have to7 have specific and precise reasons for8 saying why that use, which is otherwise9 presumed to be appropriate, is now deemed10 to be inappropriate because of direct11 objective factors.12 So I think that really is the13 debate. I think Councilman O'Neill says,14 Well, gee, you know, once you go to the15 Zoning Board and you have community16 input, maybe there should be a17 one-size-fits-all standard, and I think18 the Zoning Board somehow sees it that19 way, but as lawyers, variances are20 presumed to be inappropriate despite the21 fact that there's such a high percentage22 of approval, which really reflects the23 fact of outdated Zoning Code, need to24 remap, whereas instead of the variances,25 163 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 the certificates are presumed to be2 appropriate.3 If you go to the Zoning Board4 as a community person and object to a5 use, you probably don't know the6 difference between a variance and the7 certificate, and you probably are not8 going to be happy if it's approved by the9 Zoning Board, even though we as lawyers10 say, Well, that's not an irrational11 result, because you're lucky we even had12 a public discussion on this point.13 So it's kind of a longwinded14 way of saying that in the law, we're15 trying to establish different levels of16 review. The good thing I would say for17 the community is, wouldn't you rather be18 in the game and have a discussion and a19 negotiation with the developer and have20 it vetted publicly as an exception or as21 a certificate rather than just to remove22 that and make it as of right, in which23 case you don't have any debate? I think24 the concept that perhaps others might25 164 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 have to say, Well, let's get rid of that2 special exception or certificate and make3 it a variance, well, if we're truly going4 into the new world and we're truly going5 to be very protective and not look to be6 granting a lot of use variances, if we7 put all of these uses in the use variance8 category, now we're in the Catch 22.9 So I think there is a place for10 special exceptions. I think the reality11 is that the burden really at the end of12 the day is on the community to say why it13 shouldn't happen. Bray, which is the14 caselaw, as you know, Councilman, says15 that the developer goes in, makes kind of16 a prima facie case to show that the use17 is a special exception and that there is18 nothing immediately obvious about the19 situation that would make the use20 inappropriate, but then the burden does21 switch to the protestants to say why a22 use, which is presumed to be appropriate,23 is not inappropriate in that case, and it24 can't be just on the fact that we don't25 165 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 like it.2
So you're3 not going to hurt my feelings one way or4 another, I promise. The specific5 recommendation I had in a sort of list of6 ideas that I put out there for people to7 comment on, do you agree with that or8 disagree with that?9
I think Bray is10 fine. If you want to make Bray the11 standard, which it should be for special12 exceptions, I think that that's fine. I13 think that -- and I think special14 exceptions may be a way to bridge the gap15 between the obligations of Councilpeople16 to protect communities but also the need17 for the Zoning Code to allow things to18 happen that are supposed to happen. I19 just think that the public needs to20 understand what they're doing when21 they're going to the Zoning Board. If22 they're there to fight a use variance,23 the law is basically on their side from24 the get-go. If they're coming in to25 166 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 discuss a special use permit or a special2 exception, they have to realize that3 there's a strong likelihood that despite4 their objection, that use may be5 approved. Now, the benefit is, the use6 may be approved with controls, with7 restrictions from the Zoning Board, with8 provisos, with agreements that the9 parties may come up with. So it's a10 useful process to go to the Zoning Board,11 but I keep hearing from neighbors saying,12 Well, if we go to the Zoning Board, the13 largest number of people should win the14 day, or if we go to the Zoning Board and15 we don't want it, how dare the Zoning16 Board approve a use that we don't want.17 There's still a lot of law in18 the zoning process, which is a good19 thing, because not everything can be20 popularity driven. But I would agree21 with you that Bray and the special22 exceptions and the conditional uses are a23 good way to bridge the gap between pure24 as-of-right where there's very little25 167 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 civic engagement and the variances where,2 quite frankly, the applicant goes in and3 should have a very heavy burden to show4 why the property needs a variance.5 Hopefully with this new code, those6 situations will be few and far between.7
Okay. And8 also, Mr. Primavera, I know you practice9 around the country, not just here in the10 City of Philadelphia. There was a11 discussion about variances and how 5112 percent are really related to different13 uses. You've worked in other cities.14 From the developer's perspective, which I15 guess is mostly who you represent as an16 attorney, would you have any objection to17 us using language like New York City or18 other cities that would, once we have the19 new code in place, just let everybody in20 the world know you're not going to get a21 use variance, don't waste your time or22 our time?23
The answer is24 yes, if all the other pieces come25 168 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 together, and that means the remapping2 and the definitions. I'll give you an3 example inside baseball. In4 Philadelphia, if a good quality5 development is proposed and we look at6 the area and we say like Northern7 Liberties, it's zoned industrial, but8 everyone would agree that that zoning is9 completely outdated, I would tell the10 client, in all likelihood with a good11 project and the right community support,12 working with the Councilpeople and the13 Planning Commission, you should be14 entitled to a variance. If there is a15 small rump group of people for whatever16 reason, anti-competition, they don't like17 growth, they're mad at the developer,18 file an appeal to the courts, now we're19 dealing with the Commonwealth Court,20 which is much more like other21 jurisdictions, where they are from22 Altoona and Shamokin and they're saying,23 why did the Philadelphia Zoning Board24 grant a use variance? The whole area is25 169 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 zoned industrial.2 So it doesn't help us3 representing developers to be able to say4 we can get variances at the Zoning Board5 because they're freely granted for the6 right reasons if in fact there is the7 potential that upon further appeal, the8 less liberal view of the court is going9 to take that away. We'd rather know up10 front that this is a rare instance in11 which we can not only get a variance at12 the Zoning Board, but also have it13 approved on appeal.14 But, again, Councilman Green,15 that requires the remapping, the rezoning16 and all the bells and whistles, because17 otherwise, if it wasn't for variances18 over the past 30 years, the City of19 Philadelphia would become a tenth rate20 city, because it was only through21 variances that we did hotels, that we did22 Northern Liberties, that we did various23 shopping centers, because that was the24 only way to take completely outdated25 170 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 codes and outdated zoning maps and allow2 the City to grow.3
That's true,4 although the argument that you've heard5 some Councilpeople make is in most other6 cities, all of that happens, it's just7 that the body that makes the decision8 about the, quote/unquote, variance is not9 a ZBA, an elected body, but city council10 itself.11
And that's13 the appropriate place for use changes to14 happen is here, not at the ZBA.15
That's a whole16 other discussion, because now what you're17 doing is, you're taking all those many18 cases at the Zoning Board --19
I'm assuming20 there's a new map, the new Code is in21 place. We're saying this is what it is,22 and if you want to change it, it's City23 Council, not the ZBA you have to go to.24
Let me give you25 171 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 an example why I can agree with you on2 some of what you said.3 Despite the efforts of the Code4 and the Commission and everything, which5 I think are fabulous and need to be6 approved, at the end of the day, as human7 beings we're fairly limited in our8 vision. As soon as the new Code and the9 new mapping is done, some developer,10 maybe in this room, will come up with a11 great idea that we never anticipated for12 something that will really be tremendous.13 My suspicion is that the first thing I14 would do is go to the Commission, the15 Planning Commission, and go to the16 Councilperson and say, I need help, I17 probably need a special type of -- I18 don't want to call it overlay, but some19 type of legislative relief which will20 allow us to have this wonderful21 development that was not envisioned when22 we spent the time on the new Code. So in23 that regard, that action would take place24 in Council, because what I don't want to25 172 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 do is go to the Zoning Board and, in2 effect, make the Zoning Board now the3 place where planning and special4 legislation happens. Basically they5 should be there to address very specific6 items of relief.7 So I don't think City Council8 will ever be out of the game. I think9 that there are certain places where City10 Council needs to be. I saw earlier11 Councilwoman Blackwell. I know how12 helpful she was in some of the things we13 did at 30th Street.14 So I think you'll always have15 that, but I don't think a rule of thumb16 that says every use variance should come17 to Council would work. I think that's18 going to be overly burdensome.19
Isn't that20 your experience in most other cities now?21
Well, what they22 have is options. In some places you can23 either go to the Zoning Board or go to24 the governing body, and that gets you25 173 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 into some more arcane issues. But I2 would agree the general rule of thumb is3 that use variances are to be very rarely4 granted, because they fly in the face of5 general good planning. Now, if you6 haven't had good planning over the years7 because your code is outdated, then I8 think that justifies what we see in9 Philadelphia, but now that we're getting10 to the new level, there should be fewer11 use variances. I wouldn't agree that all12 of them should come to City Council. I13 think the reality is --14
But isn't15 the danger, though, that the current16 language in the Code with respect to17 granting a use variance by the ZBA will18 drive everybody to the ZBA, no matter19 what we do with enacting a new code and20 remapping, because it's still in the Code21 easy to get with a majority of the ZBA?22 And we have to change that, if this is23 really going to have any teeth, because24 you're going to get, not this Mayor but25 174 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 some day another Mayor and some day after2 that another Mayor, et cetera, who is3 going to appoint a ZBA who just may get4 us back into the position we're in today5 where you're driven to the ZBA and you6 can get it at the ZBA.7 So there's no public debate8 about -- I would argue one of the reasons9 that we haven't adopted our Code is10 because we said, Oh, the ZBA is handling11 it.12
Well, that's13 true. They've been doing the heavy14 lifting. The Code itself even today15 under the old Code has the very16 restrictive language for use variances.17 The applicant under the letter of the law18 has the same burden that other19 jurisdictions have. It's been more20 liberally granted by the Zoning Board21 because, quite frankly, the City has had22 no other vehicle to allow development.23 So I would say that what should change24 with the new Code, the Zoning Board25 175 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 should be more restrictive in granting2 variances, because the excuses that we3 now use, the property is outdated with4 the zoning, the Code doesn't recognize a5 use that was created after the Code.6 So I think that at the end of7 the day, the process can work. If the8 Zoning Board is still willy-nilly9 granting variances inconsistent with good10 planning, which I don't think it would11 ever do, I think that it would -- I think12 it's going to be happy to be relieved of13 a lot of the decision-making that it's14 been forced to make because there was no15 other place to do it, but I think there's16 ways to address that. They are mayoral17 appointments and City Council has a big18 role, but I still think just as a general19 rule, if we have to come here for use20 variances given the fact it's the fifth21 largest city in the United States and22 it's not the Board Commissioners in Lower23 Merion, not to demean them, but their24 workload is not the same as your25 176 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 workload, I don't think that that's a2 one-size-fits-all answer.3 You may want to -- and I know4 you've kicked this around. There may be5 certain uses that Council may want to6 reserve for itself given the nature of7 those uses. Now, in doing that, you take8 the pressure off the Zoning Board,9 because they are so inflammatory, and you10 create a place where that can be11 addressed. But in many of those uses, I12 think as Alan Greenberger mentioned13 earlier, you're going to also be guided14 by federal law, whether it's the ADA or15 whether it's fair housing. And I think16 Councilman Jones talked about some of17 those issues. Many luckily for us and18 for this group, there are, in addition to19 zoning, overriding federal civil rights20 laws that don't allow zoning boards and21 city councils to do what they want to do.22 So to some extent, maybe if there are23 some hot-button issues, you carve them24 out and reserve them for yourselves as a25 177 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 place to go to address those issues, but2 now that you've done that, you have to3 recognize that you're going to take the4 heat for them, because by nature and5 definition, they're unpopular, and then6 also what you do as a legislative body is7 going to be in many ways restricted by8 federal laws over which you have no9 control.10 So I don't know if there is an11 easy way out on a lot of these things.12
Well, I13 appreciate your thoughts on that. There14 have been characterizations about it. I15 just wanted your opinion.16
My final18 question -- and you may or may not be19 able to answer this -- is, there are two20 specific Code provisions, new Code21 provisions, that I'm wondering if the22 developers have any comment on. The23 first is the 90 foot height limit24 restriction between 16th and 13th and25 178 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Chestnut and Arch in the City and whether2 those restrictions -- what do you think3 of a restriction like that. And the4 other is any comments on the sky plane5 and how or if Comcast or other buildings6 would have been able to be developed7 under the new sky plane proposed limits8 as compared to what's in the existing9 Code, which most people say has worked10 well with respect to sky plane. So11 that's it.12 Thank you, Madam President.13
Councilman, I14 would respond maybe starting with the sky15 plane concept. We have a current project16 that is going through the pre-development17 process on Walnut Street where we worked18 with the Planning Commission to sort of19 test it against the sky plane process,20 and I think those approaches can work. I21 think the importance of them are that22 they exist and they're understood and23 they're sort of notorious. They're out24 there so when you start to do your25 179 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 planning, you do it in knowledge of those2 guidelines, if you will.3 If they had been in existence4 when we did Comcast Center, to my5 understanding, we couldn't have built the6 building that we built, but we would have7 built something that would have been8 hopefully a terrific project. It would9 have just been in response to that10 particular planning nuance.11 So I think the issue gets back12 to the point I was trying to make in my13 testimony, which is as long as the14 guidelines are out there and they're15 understood, we can react to them and16 drive quality projects that are in17 response to that new planning code. In18 fact, that's what Comcast Center actually19 is, is a specific response to the Code20 that existed at the time we did the21 project.22 So the sky plane I don't see as23 a problem. Some people look at it as24 complicated, but I think there's a25 180 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 rationale for it and we understand it, we2 could work with it.3 As to the limitation between4 13th and 16th Streets, Chestnut and Arch,5 just offering an opinion, it's not an6 area that we currently have something in7 planning, but I do think there are areas8 of the City where you do want to preserve9 some vistas and, again, to the extent10 those are in place and you know that11 they're there and you can respond12 accordingly to them.13 I think there is a problem --14 this is not the question you asked, but I15 do think there is a problem with the16 overlay on top of the Market Street West17 office district, because what that18 basically says is you're not going to do19 anything there. You're always going to20 have to go through a process, and there21 is a high risk, because you don't really22 know how that process is going to23 materialize. So we would support24 ultimately with a new code the removal of25 181 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that particular overlay.2
I would echo a3 lot of what John mentioned, Councilman.4 I think from our standpoint, as long as5 the rules are well understood, clear,6 articulated and uniformly applied, I7 think you can design around a lot of the8 sky plane issues. From a pure visceral9 standpoint is probably a restriction we10 would not support, but I think in the11 context of what we viewed in this Code,12 it seems to be fine.13 I think the key issue is making14 sure that whatever height restrictions15 are in place are certainly respectful of16 important view corridors in the City and17 certainly recognize neighborhood18 concerns, but I would say that -- or dare19 say that those concerns may not be20 relevant to what the City identifies as21 key commercial zones, where density by22 definition given the land area is only23 achievable through height.24 So I think we're much more25 182 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 prone to a good planning process that2 delivers a quality product that doesn't3 have an unnatural restriction on it in4 terms of its height limitations.5
Thank you.6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 You're welcome.8 Gentlemen, thank you all very9 much. We appreciate your interest.10 MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel11 consists of Kevin Gillen, Julie Hoffman,12 Bryan Collins and David Feldman.13 (Witnesses approached witness14 table.)15
Good16 afternoon. Thank you for your patience.17 Please identify yourself for the record18 and proceed with your testimony, whoever19 is first. Ladies first.20
All right. Good21 afternoon, President Verna, Chairman22 DiCicco and esteemed members of City23 Council. My name is Julie Hoffman. I am24 the current President of the Philadelphia25 183 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Chapter of the American Institute of2 Architects, a 1,700-member professional3 organization representing architects and4 affiliated professionals who practice in5 the City of Philadelphia and surrounding6 counties. 7 We ask you to support the8 passage and timely implementation of the9 proposed new Zoning Code. The proposed10 Code has been crafted with great skill11 and care over the past four years by our12 Zoning Code and City Planning13 Commissions. 18 We believe the timely passage19 and implementation of the proposed new20 code is critical for the following three21 reasons:22 One, the economic and cultural23 future of our city depends upon a modern,24 equitable and easily understandable25 184 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 zoning code that will aid architects,2 developers, property owners, community3 groups and individual citizens in making4 the right decisions needed to nurture and5 support our vibrant city and their own6 good fortunes. 12 Two, as architects and13 planners, we know that the magic14 ingredient needed to create extraordinary15 design and planning is passionate client16 involvement in and passionate community17 support of the design and development18 process. 25 185 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Three, our city deserves a2 zoning code that mandates a transparent3 approval process in line with modern city4 government and urban planning principles5 and that will define our city's6 reputation as a great place to live, work7 and do business. We deserve a code that8 encourages homeowners, businessowners,9 developers and their architects from both10 inside and outside of the City to invest11 their money and their vision in12 Philadelphia, confident that they13 understand the process that's required14 for approval of their projects. 18 All of us in this room treasure19 the utopian "green country towne" so20 brilliantly envisioned by William Penn21 over 300 years ago, and each of us in our22 own way works daily to support every23 effort to continue to improve her into24 the future. Because of the success of25 186 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 14 Philadelphia is rich in15 architects and urban planners. Many of16 them were active participants in the17 development of the proposed new Zoning18 Code before you. As daily interpreters19 of codes and key participants in the20 creation of the built environment, we ask21 you to continue to use architects and22 planners as a resource as you review and23 study the impacts of the proposed new24 Zoning Code and the upcoming use district25 187 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 7
Good afternoon,10 Madam President, Chairman DiCicco,11 members of Council. Thank you for this12 opportunity to testify on behalf of the13 Design Advocacy Group, known as DAG, on14 City Council Resolution 110459. I am15 David Feldman, President of Right-Sized16 Homes and a member of DAG. I am here17 this afternoon to present testimony for18 the Design Advocacy Group.19 The Design Advocacy Group20 represents over 1,200 members who wish to21 improve the design of our city. DAG has22 consistently supported zoning reform over23 the past several years. The combination24 of the new Zoning Code, comprehensive25 188 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 plan and remapping of the City presents2 an historic opportunity to profoundly3 change the way by which Philadelphia is4 developed.5 With the support of City6 Council, these efforts will allow our7 city to leave behind the reactive,8 parcel-by-parcel approach to development9 review. Instead, we will be able to10 proactively shape the City's growth based11 on sound planning principles that take12 into account the future of our13 neighborhoods, businesses and public14 facilities. This change cannot happen15 soon enough.16 The Zoning Code Proposal that17 has been forwarded to City Council18 represents a culmination of three and a19 half years' effort by the Zoning Code20 Commission with participation of21 community groups, professional advocacy22 groups and members of the public. This23 process has been an unusually broad and24 inclusive one, involving hundreds of25 189 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Philadelphians volunteering thousands of2 hours of their time in the belief that a3 new Code is essential to our collective4 wellbeing. The results are a significant5 improvement over our current Code. It is6 now City Council's turn to consider the7 issue.8 It is imperative that Council9 provide the Zoning Code Proposals the10 attention they deserve now. DAG11 respectfully requests that Council move12 forward as expeditiously as possible with13 the careful review and eventual passage14 of our city's new Zoning Code.15 Thank you.16
Good afternoon.19 My name is Bryan Collins. I'm the20 Philadelphia Outreach Coordinator for21 Citizens for Pennsylvania's Future, also22 known as PennFuture. Briefly, we're a23 statewide public interest membership24 organization which advances policies to25 190 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 protect and improve the state's2 environment and economy.3 Locally here in Philadelphia,4 we manage a project called Next Great5 City. That's essentially an agenda of6 what we like to think are commonsense,7 cost-effective ideas for enhancing8 environmental quality, improving9 neighborhoods, increasing economic10 competitiveness, all things that we've11 been discussing today.12 Our agenda, the Next Great City13 agenda, is supported by a diverse group14 of over 120 organizations, civic groups,15 environmental associations,16 congregations, labor unions and many17 others. One of the original action items18 listed on our agenda was a call for19 Philadelphia adopting a modern zoning20 code. What we are -- the Code that has21 been put forth by the Zoning Code22 Commission definitely is in line with our23 recommendation.24 You know, we've basically been25 191 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 sitting on our current Code for 50 years,2 and I can't stress to you enough that3 today and over the next couple of weeks4 and months, you really are looking at5 probably a decision that will affect the6 next 50 years of our city. I'd really7 like to just point that out. I think8 sometimes that can get lost in the9 minutia of all these very important but10 very finite details that we're talking11 about.12 What happened with Next Great13 City was that in 2007, it really got14 behind the idea of promoting the creation15 of the ZCC, and we really helped to spur16 the effort to get the original vote, and17 that resulted in 80 percent approval by18 Philadelphians for forming the Zoning19 Code Commission and starting this20 process. Since then, dozens of community21 groups, urban planners, development22 experts, many of the people in this room23 have been a part of this process, and we24 feel that it's really reflecting the25 192 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 modern urban realities and just makes a2 lot more sense to take in all of this3 work that's been going on for several4 years now and put it into play.5 I'd also like to point out that6 we've continued to support the Code, and7 by the way that we decided to do that8 was, we spent the summer contacting as9 many people as we could and asking them10 to sign a petition of support, and we've11 actually been able to gather a thousand12 signatures. Many of them I received by13 email, and I hope you're impressed by14 this stack, because as an15 environmentalist, I was a bit conflicted16 at printing them all out for you, but I17 did so anyway.18 I'll read the statement. It's19 very sort and very clear. "Dear City20 Council, I urge you to vote for better21 neighborhoods, smarter development and22 more businesses by voting for the updated23 Zoning Code. Almost 80 percent of24 Philadelphians voted for a change in our25 193 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 50-year-old Zoning Code because we wanted2 to see a zoning code that would make more3 sense, would be clear and fair to4 everyone and help us make better5 decisions about how the City will grow.6 A new code is key to building a great7 city. I hope I can count on your8 support. Sincerely," 1,0009 Philadelphians.10
And just one last13 thing I do want to mention is that at14 PennFuture and Next Great City really our15 wheelhouse is environmentalism, and16 because of its age, our current Code is17 really just silent on the many, many18 important urban sustainability issues19 that we need to consider. I think most20 people in this room realize that moving21 forward when we think about land22 allocation and building projects, we23 immediately need to be considering24 protecting air, water, increasing green25 194 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 space, not reducing it, increasing the2 availability of alternative forms of3 transportation, biking, bike lanes. And4 also we're really excited that the new5 Zoning Code would make alternative energy6 production like solar panels and wind7 projects standard and a part of good8 design, not something that has to be9 specially considered each and every time10 we'd like to see these advances move11 forward. And I'll leave it at that.12 Thank you very much for your13 consideration.14
Members of17 Council, good afternoon. My name is18 Kevin Gillen and I'm an economist with19 Econsult Corporation and a research20 fellow at the University of21 Pennsylvania's Institute for Urban22 Research. I've been asked to testify23 today in support of the ZCC's proposed24 reforms, particularly with respect to25 195 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 11 To begin with, consider that12 Philadelphia's current Zoning Code was13 created for a city and an economy which14 are very different today than when that15 Zoning Code was originally created16 decades ago. Back then, 50 years ago,17 Philadelphia's population was18 significantly larger by approximately19 half a million people. 23 Today, Philadelphia's24 population is significantly smaller. Our25 196 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6 But some positive changes have7 also occurred since the last time zoning8 was implemented. Many office towers have9 risen in Center City via variances. The10 City has experienced its greatest housing11 construction boom since the immediate12 post-war era, adding about 12,000 new13 units in just ten years. 20 These economic and demographic21 shifts have manifested themselves in the22 behavior of Philadelphia's real estate23 market. In particular, recent research24 by my own firm has found significant25 197 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 5 During previous downturns,6 house price declines in the City were7 usually of a significantly greater8 magnitude than house price declines in9 the suburbs. For example, during the10 last downturn of the early '90s, house11 prices in the suburbs fell an average of12 15 percent, while house prices in the13 City fell an average of nearly 2014 percent. 19 Today, that trend has been20 exactly reversed. To date, house prices21 in Philadelphia suburbs have fallen22 nearly 20 percent from their peak of a23 few years ago, while house prices in the24 City have fallen an average of nearly 1525 198 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 percent from that same peak. 16 However, despite all these17 structural changes in its economy,18 demographics and real estate markets, the19 Zoning Code that governs the form, use20 and density of Philadelphia's largest21 asset, its real estate, has not been22 updated to reflect these important and23 far-reaching changes. The reforms24 suggested by the ZCC make significant25 199 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 20 Additionally, by my firm's studies on the21 economic impact of the City's two largest22 TOD projects, the Comcast Tower and Cira23 Centre, found a substantial economic24 impact on these projects, including the25 200 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3 Second, the proposed Code will4 include new provisions for urban5 agriculture as a new category of land6 usage. 50 a square foot, and hence were not15 well-positioned for new development. But16 the combination of their location and17 value indicated that the interim use of18 these parcels as community gardens would19 not only provide an economic use that20 exceeded the non-use of leaving them21 vacant, but could also provide a low-cost22 food source to the low-income23 neighborhoods in which they were located,24 while at the same time promoting the25 201 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 creation of social capital in these2 neighborhoods. 5 Third, the proposed Code will6 also include incentives for green space7 preservation and tree plantings. A8 recent study that we completed for the9 Delaware Valley Regional Planning10 Commission found that not only did homes11 with proximity to preserved green space12 have higher values than comparable homes13 further away, but that the effect was14 actually higher for city homes than for15 suburban homes. Specifically, homes in16 Philadelphia within walking distance to a17 park, community garden or other protected18 green space were worth on average $2,50019 more than homes that did not enjoy20 proximity to green space. In specific21 cases, the effect could be substantially22 larger.
For example, we estimated that23 the value of a home's proximity to Clark24 Park in West Philadelphia to be nearly25 202 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 $46,000. 21 Since development here is not22 by right, regardless of what zoning is23 applied, and is often subject to local24 political conditions in its respective25 203 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 16 If I acquire land and contractors bids, I17 can secure financing and a building18 permit in New York with much greater19 certainty than I can in Philadelphia. As20 such, the success of my projects in New21 York depends much more upon the22 underlying economic fundamentals of the23 proposed project rather than upon the24 political relationships I need to25 204 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 Members of Council, there are a3 number of sound economic reasons to adopt4 the proposed Code from the ZCC. 11 I thank you for your time. 17
Thank18 you. And very informative. Thank you so19 much.20 Are there any questions of this21 Council?22 The Chair recognizes Councilman23 Green.24
Thank you.25 205 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Mr. Gillen, I just wanted --2 you began your testimony in general,3 which I agree with wholeheartedly in the4 fact that we need a new Code, and it will5 help, as you heard the previous6 testimony, incrementally and at the7 margins people do business in8 Philadelphia, but you said, I was asked9 to come here and testify today. Who10 asked you to come testify?11
Thank20 you. Again, thank you so much. We21 appreciate your patience.22 MR. McPHERSON: The next panel23 consists of Tim Kerner, Sam Little, Ed24 Panek, Steve Huntington.25 206 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 (Witnesses approached witness2 table.)3
Good4 afternoon. Please identify yourself for5 the record and proceed with your6 testimony.7
Councilwoman8 Verna, I'm Steve Huntington. I'm one of9 the coordinators of the Crosstown10 Coalition. That is a group of 1311 neighborhood associations which banded12 together a couple of years ago to address13 zoning reform. 22 I'd like to go through them -- I'd like23 to go through eight points briefly that24 are discussed in more detail in the white25 207 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4 At the outset, I'd like to5 state the obvious, which is I think we6 were all younger when this process7 started. As I have aged during the ZCC8 process, I think each one of us in the9 Coalition has been astounded by the10 energy and diligence of the Commission11 and its staff, which created the draft12 sent to Council in May of this year. The13 current draft is much improved. 18 Many of our individual member19 associations will be contacting20 Councilpeople to discuss their individual21 neighborhood concerns about the ZCC, but22 this morning I'm going to talk on behalf23 of all 13 associations, because we have24 the following thoughts which cut across25 208 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 all of our varied communities. 14 The first of the eight topics15 is overlays. Basically we are in favor16 of overlays. Overlays customize a17 one-size-fits-all citywide zoning code to18 the peculiar needs of our individual19 neighborhoods. For the most part, the20 current draft respects the overlays in21 our neighborhoods. 24 My second point is controls for25 209 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 high rise massing. There appears to be a2 major hole in the present draft. 12 This is not just a Center City13 concern. It affects neighborhoods14 throughout the City, as the map in Tab 215 of our handout illustrates. 21 These districts can have serious impacts22 on adjacent neighborhoods. The peculiar23 safeguards for each institutional24 development district depends upon the25 210 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 institution involved and its2 neighborhood. But two changes on a macro3 level are needed. 5 Consequently, a single residential6 property or two adjacent properties can7 become an institutional development8 district in the midst of an otherwise9 purely residential neighborhood. 12 Second, the Planning Commission13 controls approval of these IDDs so that14 the community safeguards found in the15 variance process such as community16 meetings, the participation of Registered17 Community Organizations and Civic Design18 Review are not available. These19 procedural safeguards should be inserted20 in the IDD process to ensure community21 input on issues such as traffic, parking,22 signage, buffering and open space. 25 211 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 9 This liberalization of uses occurs in10 both residential and mixed-use districts11 so that it has the potential to seriously12 impact the makeup of all of the City's13 neighborhoods. Various participants this14 morning have identified a concern of15 ours, which is it's not so much that one16 use be permitted in a particular area,17 but that by repeated exceptions, a18 neighborhood can be transformed by a19 concentration of multiple special20 exception uses. While there may be legal21 issues, the ideal code would regulate the22 concentration of special exception uses23 so that a residential neighborhood's24 character couldn't be changed25 212 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3 So when we turn from these4 general thoughts to more particular use5 topics, the third rail in uses seems to6 boil down to the following categories:7 group community homes, single-room8 residencies, multi-family housing,9 educational facilities, religious10 assemblies, active recreation and11 communication antennas. 15 Our fifth point is community16 input. 22 The current Code requires that23 appeals from over-the-counter L&I24 determinations be made within a25 213 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 reasonable period of time.
This2 provision creates time to appeal for3 neighbors who first become aware of this4 use only after the over-the-counter5 permit is activated on the street; for6 example, when a sign is erected or a new7 use is instituted. The proposed Code8 contains a 30-day appeal period as to any9 L&I determination. 18 The second community input19 topic we'd like to deal with this morning20 has to -- pertains to the description of21 the permanent member in the Civic Design22 Review Committee who feels the seat set23 aside for, quote, one person with civic24 association review experience. No25 214 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 disrespect, but Mr. Primavera, who is2 quite competent, could qualify to sit as3 the civic association representative on4 this committee. 9 The new Code contains a10 provision for two-step zoning in the11 permit process which is designed to make12 development less expensive and project13 review more predictable. We are14 suggesting that when the two-step process15 be utilized, there should be two16 occasions for Civic Design Review to17 occur. 25 215 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Signage: We've been told2 frequently by the ZCC that it will3 reserve the chapters on non-accessory4 signage until further work can be done,5 but the present draft sent to Council in6 May contains major changes that would7 have a dramatic and immediate effect on8 neighborhoods and on Philadelphia's9 skyline. 17 Finally, our eighth point, last18 point, we, the Coalition, testified last19 spring at Council's budget hearings20 requesting that funds be allocated to the21 Planning Commission so that the22 Commission has the staff to do a timely23 and thorough job in the important24 district planning process that's about to25 216 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 7
Thank8 you.9 Good afternoon. Please10 identify yourself for the record.11
12 My name is Tim Kerner and I've been13 actively engaged in the zoning reform14 process for the past five years on behalf15 of the Center City Residents Association,16 the Design Advocacy Group and the17 Crosstown Coalition. 20 I would like to offer three21 controversial opinions that stem from my22 experiences as a zoning committee chair,23 an architect, a planner and a property24 owner. These opinions are in the form of25 217 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4 So myth number one: Zoning5 variances are bad. It has been stated at6 Zoning Code Commission meetings that we7 should work towards the elimination of8 the need for zoning variances. 10 However, in the name of variance11 reduction, the new Code liberalizes the12 review requirements for several uses that13 can have significant impacts on their14 surroundings. 19 It is my sense that the20 liberalization has gone too far. That is21 not to say that these uses do not belong22 in residential neighborhoods, but their23 neighborhood impacts need to be24 considered on a case-by-case basis. That25 218 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 is why we have community zoning2 committees and the Zoning Board of3 Adjustment. 9 And that's not a bad thing. In10 fact, the variance review process is a11 good thing, because it allows for the12 assessment of specific impacts on13 particular places. 18 Myth number two: Community19 review hurts development. Community20 review of large development projects is21 not a problem. 22 Members of community zoning committees23 hold essential and intimate knowledge24 about their surroundings. The exchange25 219 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6 So what's the problem? 14 These problems can be answered with a15 registration process for community groups16 that assigns geographic boundaries and17 clear and fair procedural guidelines for18 community review. These have not yet19 been fully developed, probably because it20 is a controversial topic. 23 The knowledge is there. 25 220 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Myth number three: Phased2 implementation will be easier. It has3 been suggested that it will be easier to4 digest the new Zoning Code if we have5 some transition period. One to five6 years have been mentioned, during which7 two zoning codes will be in force. 11 There's nothing simple about either of12 these proposals. 15 Ask an L&I examiner if it's16 easy to figure out code compliance with17 one code in place, and now add another18 code for their consideration. Would19 community reviews be easier? Would land20 value assessments be easier? Certainly21 not. So let's not handicap ourselves22 with a complicated solution born from23 timidity. Let's be brave, set a date and24 bite the bullet. Any zoning applications25 221 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 received prior to that date will be2 reviewed in accordance with the existing3 Code, and any applications received after4 that date will follow the new Code. 6 So to recap, don't over7 liberalize the Code simply in the name of8 variance reduction. Currently we do rely9 too much on the system, but it's10 important to remember that the variance11 review process is not a bad thing. 15 Second, don't shortchange the16 community review process. 22 Lastly, there are remaining23 issues to be resolved. Councilman24 Green's recent amendment addresses25 222 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 several of these, but the new Code is a2 significant improvement over the old3 Code. So after correcting the remaining4 issues, City Council should be courageous5 and pass the new Code with a specific6 date for a clean transfer. 9
Thank10 you.11 Good afternoon. Please12 identify yourself for the record.13
Madam President,14 my name is Sam Little. 18 We've had more than two years19 of working with the Zoning Code20 Commission, and we certainly would attest21 to both really quite a remarkable, their22 ambition to make a fundamentally new and23 different code, the amount they talked to24 us and others about how to make it work,25 223 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 11 The second one Councilman Green12 mentioned of sky plane. 20 I think it was already21 mentioned by Steve, we do have a problem22 that in many tall buildings there is no23 regulation of how they are massed, and in24 our neighborhood, which is right north of25 224 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 the central business district, this means2 that if there is not good design and lax3 design review, that we could have a solid4 wall of high rise buildings right next to5 two- and three-story buildings. 16 Logan Square is a great place17 to live. We have attractive housing18 within walking distance of the central19 office area, parks, rivers and all the20 Parkway institutions. This is a great21 attribute, but it also brings the22 challenge of a good deal of development23 pressure. And we've been lucky to have a24 balance of things, which is first a25 225 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 5 We have a height limiting overlay, which6 triggers community developer dialogue,7 which is crucial. We've had some8 experience in working with developers and9 I think they have with us. 14 This balance of input between15 Council, the City, developer and16 community, we've been largely successful17 in win-win solutions, which provide18 growth for the City while retaining the19 character where we live. 24 Finally, I would just like to25 226 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 say that we hope that Council will look2 to this balance of conditions that we3 have in Logan Square for other4 neighborhoods as well. Everybody at this5 table, we are from affluent communities6 who are probably a little bit more7 conversant in planning and zoning than8 others, and we urge that Council look to9 giving the benefits that we have had10 across a broader basis of the communities11 in the metropolitan area. 25 227 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3
Good afternoon,4 Council President Verna, members of City5 Council. My name is Ed Panek. I am the6 Chairman of the Zoning Committee for the7 Logan Square Neighborhood Association.8 First let me start out by9 saying that I want to congratulate the10 members of the Zoning Code Commission for11 their many, many hours of very hard work.12 We've been with them most of the way, but13 they've really done an enormous amount of14 work, and I think it's been very15 constructive work.16 Secondly, I want to thank them17 for not only listening, but being18 responsive to our concerns.19 Number three, I'm here as a20 member not only of Logan Square21 Neighborhood Association, but as a member22 of the Crosstown Coalition. You heard23 testimony just a few moments ago from my24 colleague Steve Huntington. I fully25 228 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 endorse what he had to say. You also2 heard testimony from the President of the3 Logan Square Neighborhood Association,4 Sam Little. I fully endorse what he had5 to say. And not to be left out, Tim6 Kerner, I also endorse your testimony as7 well.8 I think it's important for us9 to take a step back and say how did this10 particular pending legislation affect11 Logan Square Neighborhood Association. I12 think it's probably fair to say it13 affects different neighborhood14 associations in different ways, but we15 have been blessed for a number of16 reasons, because as Mr. Little has said,17 we have a neighborhood plan in place18 which has been largely supported and19 adopted by the City Planning Commission20 and by City Council, and that plan was21 respected during the course of the22 dialogue that we had with members of the23 Zoning Code Commission.24 Number two, because through the25 229 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 good auspices of Councilman Clarke, we2 have a height overlay of 125 feet, the3 net result of which has caused developers4 to meet with us on an ongoing, regular5 basis where they would require a variance6 to go above 125 feet. This has resulted7 in good and meaningful dialogue. It has8 made better projects, and I think that9 the developers will agree to that and I10 think their attorneys, many of whom are11 either here in the room today or were12 here earlier, would also say the same13 thing if asked.14 And, number three, the new15 provisions of the proposed Code contain a16 provision that would require, under17 certain circumstances for projects of a18 certain size, that the developer meet and19 discuss with the Registered Community20 Organization -- in our area that's21 obviously Logan Square Neighborhood22 Association -- even on projects that23 would otherwise be built as of right. I24 think that's also very important. I25 230 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 don't think that any developer should be2 afraid of having an open dialogue and3 discussion about their project with us.4 We have always tried to go, as Mr. Little5 said, get to a win-win type of solution.6 So I think these three overriding reasons7 are why we have a very good result in8 this proposed Code.9 Two other things I should10 mention. Just because you have this11 legislation pending before you now12 doesn't mean that this whole process is13 complete. There are the district plans14 that have to be developed. Some of them15 are already underway. The district plan16 for Center City begins in January.17 That's going to be very important,18 because it dovetails with the provisions19 of the new Code. And then at some point,20 maybe five years down the road, there's21 going to be a remapping, and I would urge22 our Councilman and the rest of City23 Council to not necessarily lift the 12524 foot overlay restriction, which has been25 231 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 so beneficial as a planning tool from us,2 even when you get to the point of3 remapping.4 So thank you very much. I'll5 be happy to entertain any questions.6
Thank7 you.8 The Chair recognizes Councilman9 Green.10
Thank you,11 Madam Chair.12 I want to thank you all for13 your testimony.14 Mr. Kerner, I called you last15 night. I'm sorry we weren't able to16 connect this morning. I appreciate what17 you had to say. I think there's an18 inherent tension between much of what19 you're requesting, which is community20 input and a date certain, and in fact, in21 the Code that was sent over to the City22 and the Majority Report to City Council,23 there's a six-month period where you can24 choose either code. And so, of course,25 232 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that -- there is six months under the2 current recommendation where that's the3 case.4 I appreciate Mr. Little's5 acknowledgment that Logan Square is being6 treated differently than most other7 neighborhoods in the City, in that8 anybody who -- basically anybody who9 wants to do a development that because of10 the value of land will require them to go11 over 125 feet, which is most of the stuff12 that's going to happen in your area13 that's of any significance that would14 impact your neighborhood, they're15 required to come to you, and that is not16 being taken away from you. That is17 certainly not the case in most18 neighborhoods in the City where stuff19 will become of right and those20 communities have not had the input21 because they haven't been engaged in this22 process that you have had and other23 organized groups and neighborhoods have24 had, and I think that's the tension that25 233 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 you see being struggled with in City2 Council. Some neighborhoods paying3 attention are being treated specially and4 differently; other neighborhoods are not,5 and it creates a problem for us in terms6 of viewing this process as an equitable7 one for all citizens of Philadelphia, not8 just those who are currently paying9 attention. And so I think by restricting10 a few uses or making them different, we11 can take away most of the problems that12 will exist in stabler neighborhoods or13 transitioning neighborhoods and hopefully14 make it a more equitable process.15 Anyway, I just wanted to thank16 you all for your testimony and input.17 Thanks.18 Thank you, Madam President.19
Thank20 you very much, gentlemen. Thank you.21 MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel,22 Rich Lombardo, Neil Sklaroff, Tom Witt,23 Craig Schelter.24
I'm25 234 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 afraid that we're losing a lot of our2 witnesses, so I'm going to ask anybody3 that's going to be testifying to please4 try to be as brief as possible.5 The stenographer is requesting6 a five-minute recess.7 (Short recess.)8
We're9 now ready to go back into session.10 So nice seeing the three of11 you. Who is going to testify first?12
I'm going to do13 the majority of the testimony, and both14 Mr. Lombardo and Mr. Sklaroff are here15 assuming you're going to have some16 questions.17
Okay.18 Fine.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So you get20 nine minutes?21
If I could have22 nine minutes, that would be great. That23 would be great.24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:25 235 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Please identify yourself, Craig, for the2 record.3
7 I appear before you today in my capacity8 as Executive Director of the Development9 Workshop, along with Richard Lombardo,10 long-time zoning expert and former11 Executive Director of the City Planning12 Commission, and Neil Sklaroff, noted13 zoning attorney in Philadelphia. 19 And so in the audience previously and20 some still are people from Ballard Spahr,21 Brandywine Realty Trust, Jerry Sweeney22 from whom you heard earlier, Tony Rimikis23 of his staff is still here, Econsult24 Corporation, the James J. Anderson25 236 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 24 Given the added complexity of25 237 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 the proposed zoning process, the length2 and total rewrite of the current Code3 comes at a time of enormous uncertainty4 in the economy in general and the real5 estate and investment industries in6 particular. With small exceptions, as7 Mr. Gattuso and Mr. Sweeney indicated8 today, we are aware of our city's lack of9 competitiveness in the marketplace due to10 high costs and low rents. We are also11 aware of the neighborhood concerns12 expressed by Councilman Green and O'Neill13 which led to the adoption of the Minority14 Report by the Zoning Code Commission. We15 share their view that certain16 well-intentioned additions to the17 allowable uses in the residential18 districts and the commercial strips that19 abut them in fact create fear, legitimate20 concerns and uncertainty in these mature21 neighborhoods. And from direct22 experience, I know how long the remapping23 of neighborhoods will take beyond any24 City Council action on this proposed Code25 238 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 We wish to commend Councilman3 Green on his ten-point amendment4 proposal. 10 How to make the new Code work11 for Philadelphia: The members of the12 Development Workshop have worked through13 various drafts and modules, met with14 representatives of the Zoning Code15 Commission and consulted with Workshop16 members to understand how the new17 provisions would impact development in18 the City. We have tried to identify19 major issues that need to be resolved in20 the draft. A favorable resolution of21 these issues would not adversely impact22 any of the goals in the draft. Once23 these issues are resolved, the Workshop24 will be in a position to support the25 239 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 One, assuring an as-of-right3 code: Land owners, investors, tenants4 need to know up front what can be built5 without exorbitant costs. A, the design6 standards in Section 703 and subsequent7 are requirements that impose inordinate8 investment in design that burden the9 developers seeking an as-of-right permit10 and invite unnecessary trips to the11 Zoning Board for relief from what are12 essentially aesthetic values. I give you13 two examples here in that two properties14 that Liberty Property developed, both the15 Comcast Tower and their new SmithKline16 building at the Navy Yard. In both those17 instances, if this code had been adopted,18 those projects would not have been a19 matter of right. 23 The costs associated with the24 basic application for the initial permit25 240 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 are prohibitive, a show-stopper, with the2 Section 700 requirements and sky plane3 computations. The advantage of the4 current as-of-right code is that land5 owners, investors, lenders and tenants6 know what can be built. 10 Changes in design resolving11 from the Civic Design Review or the12 normal process of development could13 trigger a need for zoning relief from14 Section 700, placing them before the15 Zoning Board again for essentially16 aesthetic concerns. 23 This was done at the last minute without24 any dialogue, which leaves the25 241 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 development community at a loss to the2 thinking behind this change. As a3 solution, we have stated many times4 before that design standards are5 something that we support, but those6 should be placed in a manual that informs7 the civic design process.
10 Two, accepted plans: An11 accepted plan is not an amendment to the12 comprehensive plan. The new Code should13 not authorize the Planning Commission or14 any other agency to give weight to plans15 not adopted by the Commission, nor should16 such a plan be a policy guidance17 document. 22 Third, clarity: In order to23 preserve the clarity of one of the24 initial drafts, we recommended that25 242 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 dimensions should follow substantive2 provisions in the use charts, and3 definitions and use categories should be4 contained in the same sections. 24 Four, Delaware River25 243 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Conservation Overlay District: The2 Delaware River Conservation Overlay3 District, the North Delaware from4 Allegheny Avenue to the County Line has5 been revised from the existing zoning6 code to remove City Council from the use7 approval process. Taking Council out of8 the process will no longer assure owners9 and operators of existing industrial10 facilities along this portion of the11 riverfront a thorough and comprehensive12 review of their proposal. 14 Five, the Central Delaware15 Waterfront Overlay District: Without the16 completion of the master plan currently17 underway by the Delaware River Waterfront18 Corporation, the DRWC, and no draft of a19 proposed new zoning ordinance, land20 owners have no clear idea of what to21 expect, nor do land owners and the public22 have a clear idea of the level of public23 infrastructure that will be provided to24 support investment. The current zoning25 244 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 8 And the reason that this is critical here9 is, this is, as we see it, a major10 initiative on the part of the City to11 move forward pushing water development to12 the Central Delaware waterfront, an13 anticipated $771 million project. 20 What you have in this proposed21 Code is a one-line overlay, with no22 description whatsoever, and that if in23 fact this is going to become the priority24 with the Mayor and with City Council, for25 245 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 7 Center City Overlay: The 1258 foot height limitation in portions of9 Center City West of necessity drives10 otherwise compliant projects to City11 Council for special legislative relief or12 the Zoning Board for dimensional relief,13 which is a barrier to outside investment14 in the City. 19 And an example here, we support20 the notion of what the Commission has21 done in terms of suggesting higher22 density near transit nodes. However,23 within one block of the Market Street24 East Station, there are limits which25 246 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 exclude the Girard Estate properties from2 benefiting in this extra density. 13 Sky plane: The proposed sky14 plane regulations are difficult to15 administer, appear arbitrary and16 confusing and would have precluded some17 of the best mid and high rise towers18 built in Center City over the last 4019 years. I would include here the Comcast20 Tower, which would have required a21 variance, the Bell Atlantic building,22 which would have required a variance, the23 entire 1600 block of Walnut Street, which24 would have required a variance. And we25 247 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 13 Point 8, Historical Commission:14 The Historical Commission is the15 authoritative, legislative and16 administrative agency to enforce the17 Historic Preservation Ordinance, which is18 part of the Zoning Code. We have long19 advocated making the Commission an agency20 of record, with sworn testimony, a21 transcript of the proceedings and formal22 decisions. Appeals would go to the Court23 of Common Pleas rather than the Board of24 License and Inspection Review, but we25 248 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 15
Thank16 you.17 Are there any questions?18 The Chair recognizes Councilman19 Green.20
Thank you.21 Mr. Sklaroff, just very22 quickly, did you hear my question to23 Mr. Primavera about special exceptions24 and Bray? Have you read my suggestion,25 249 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 and do you think that the way we2 described the changes that need to be3 made to the way special exception is4 described in the new Code is appropriate5 or not?6
As I understand7 your suggestion is that the Code should8 reflect the law that follows Bray as to9 what the relative burdens in proving or10 disproving the need for a special11 exception, and I would support that. I12 was pleased to be part of the Bar13 Association committee that met in14 dialogue with the Zoning Code Commission15 and the Law Department, and in the three16 meetings we had, at each time we brought17 up the revisions that were made to not18 only the special exception criteria, but19 also the variance criteria and attempted20 to have it revised to reflect Bray.21 Obviously each revision did not22 accomplish what we had hoped and we23 brought it up again. We think the24 current iteration of what they believe25 250 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 the standard to be to still be off mark,2 and rather than putting all of the cited3 burdens that had been previously in our4 Code upon the protestants or objectors,5 that it should be shared as it was6 articulated by the appellate courts in7 Bray.8
Thank you.9 Could one of you please10 describe the sort of problem with the11 existing Central Delaware overlay? The12 Code -- the new Code is intended to13 promote development and certainty, and it14 seems to me you have identified two15 overlays that create a problem for16 certainty or knowing how to develop17 dollars or getting investment into the18 City of Philadelphia, and it doesn't19 appear that there's a clear timeline to20 end that uncertainty.21 So would your recommendation be22 then to have automatic conversion apply23 in those areas also and then whatever is24 of right is of right until there's a25 251 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 remapping that has a thoughtful planning2 process associated with it?3
Yes, we would.4 That we think would be the best solution,5 but we're also in the process of giving6 detailed comments to the Delaware River7 Waterfront Corporation in terms of,8 again, a way that we can incorporate some9 of the planning goals that they have, but10 to try and make them more realistic and11 practical as opposed to aspirational.12 And they have stated in their plan13 that -- which, again, we have supported,14 that they want to put focused15 infrastructure improvements, $65 million16 I believe is the figure, as soon as17 possible to prime the pump to have18 development take place in certain places.19 We've asked them, can you tell us what20 those projects are so that adjacent land21 owners can see what the focus is going to22 be and then to assess how realistic it is23 that those funds in fact will be24 recommended by the Planning Commission in25 252 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 their capital budget and program,2 supported by City Council in their budget3 actions, so you can assess what is4 realistic versus what is unrealistic.5 There are portions of that plan6 that talk about an area to be developed7 25 years hence and zoning mechanisms that8 will deal with an area when it gets9 developed 25 years hence. If you're a10 land owner, you don't want to know what11 you can do 25 years from now. You want12 to know what you can do now, and that's13 what we don't know right now.14 The response that we have15 gotten from them is that they're16 interested in opening a dialogue with at17 least one land owner and the --18
But that's a19 negotiated, behind-the-scenes,20 who-you-know process that we're trying to21 avoid, isn't it?22
This is in23 response to the master plan which their24 Board is going to consider approving I25 253 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 believe on the 28th of October, and we're2 trying to simply get them input so that3 they know what a large stakeholder's4 opinion would be.5
And does6 that master plan create a zoning map or7 zoning designations?8
No. It has not9 yet, and that's what we're saying. They10 have said we're making general comments11 about zoning, but that zoning has not yet12 happened yet.13
So it's all14 in theory and none of it will be applied15 in the ground and they don't want to16 apply it on the ground until there's 6517 million approved by City Council in the18 capital planning process, which means19 that money won't be spent for at least20 three or four years. And so you're21 talking about restricting development and22 land owners' use of their property for23 three or four years. Do we have a24 regulatory taking problem here?25 254 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Yes. What we2 don't know right now -- and this3 corporation can approve whatever plan4 they want to approve, but what will5 happen is that the plan will then be sent6 to the City Planning Commission for7 adoption, and when that plan goes for8 adoption, it becomes part of the9 comprehensive plan and --10
That's correct,13 but it provides an underlying basis on14 which to then do the zoning. And if you15 look in the draft Zoning Code that you16 have before you, it's one line. It just17 says Central Delaware District Overlay.18 That's it. That's it today.19
Thank22 you.23 Do we have any other questions24 from members of the Committee?25 255 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 (No response.)2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:3 Gentlemen, thank you very much.4 (Thank you.)5 MR. McPHERSON: Our next6 committee is James White, Gina Snyder,7 Shanta Schacter and John Chin.8 (Witnesses approached witness9 table.)10
Good afternoon and11 thank you for the opportunity to testify.12 My name is James White and I am the13 Policy Coordinator of the Philadelphia14 Association of Community Development15 Corporations. PACDC is a citywide16 association of more than 90 community17 development corporations and other18 organizations that have extensive19 experience developing property and20 improving the quality of life of their21 neighborhoods.22 PACDC appreciates the Zoning23 Code Commission developing a thoughtful24 plan to bring Philadelphia's current25 256 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Zoning Code into the 21st century. PACDC2 also applauds City Council's engagement3 in this process and the opportunity for4 dialogue around a variety of specific5 issues that have been identified.6 PACDC encourages City Council7 to work with the Zoning Code Commission8 to quickly resolve these issues so that a9 new Zoning Code can be approved this10 calendar year.11 Our members look forward to the12 opportunity to proactively help shape the13 future of their neighborhoods and future14 development through the related district15 planning process.16 In order for Philadelphia to17 succeed and healthy and vibrant18 neighborhoods to flourish, we need19 implementation of the new Zoning Code in20 the near future that will facilitate new21 restaurants and other small businesses to22 open on our neighborhood commercial23 corridors, homeowners fixing up their24 homes, developers building on vacant land25 257 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 and to attract new businesses to2 Philadelphia.3 PACDC looks forward to the4 opportunity to continuing to work with5 the City to advance the new Zoning Code6 that will address resident and community7 needs and result in stronger8 neighborhoods throughout Philadelphia.9
Hi. My name is12 Shanta Schacter. I'm the Deputy Director13 of the New Kensington CDC. Thank you for14 giving us the opportunity to testify.15 New Kensington CDC is a non-profit16 organization dedicated to revitalizing17 the Kensington, Fishtown and Port18 Richmond neighborhoods of Philadelphia.19 Our mission is to strengthen the20 physical, social and economic fabric of21 the community by being a catalyst for22 sustainable development and community23 building.24 Since our inception in 1985, we25 258 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 have been working with various members of2 the community on zoning-related issues.3 In areas where there's representation by4 civic organizations, we work side by side5 with them, including the Fishtown6 Neighbors Association, East Kensington7 Neighbors Association and the Old8 Richmond Civic Association. Our9 territory of concern is largely the 1912510 and 34 zip codes.11 I'll be brief, since I know12 that you would prefer that we be brief,13 but we've written more extensive14 testimony.15 We would also like to see this16 plan pass in this calendar year. We feel17 like there's been extensive community18 engagement and opportunity to provide19 input by members of our community.20 We've also developed a very21 strong relationship with the Planning22 Commission and have full confidence that23 we'll be able to work through any service24 gaps between the passing of this Code and25 259 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 any remapping that's needed.2 It's critical that we have this3 in place, because we have an antiquated4 zoning in the neighborhood, and this has5 prevented small businesses from opening6 up. It's put a lot of the burden of7 going through zoning on community members8 and, in particular, volunteer community9 members.10 One particular example is that11 Frankford Avenue, which is our primary12 commercial corridor, is zoned13 residential. We feel like this Zoning14 Code will start to alleviate some of15 those issues.16 Thank you.17
Thank18 you. And you said you have further19 testimony?20
If22 you give a copy of the testimony, we will23 give it to the stenographer.24
Madam President, I25 260 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 believe we gave it to the2 Sergeant-At-Arms.3 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:4 Great. So your testimony will be5 transcribed in full. Thank you.6
Good8 afternoon. Please identify yourself for9 the record.10
My name is Xin Ge and11 I'm giving the testimony of John Chin,12 who regretfully could not be here in13 person to testify.14 Dear Madam President and15 members of City Council, good afternoon16 and thank you for the opportunity to17 testify today. My name is John Chin and18 I am the Executive Director of the19 Philadelphia Chinatown Development20 Corporation, PCDC. PCDC is a21 community-based organization which22 represents Chinatown in matters of zoning23 and planning. In addition, we provide24 much support to the residents and small25 261 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 businesses through our development of2 affordable and market-rate housing,3 retail development and commercial4 corridor services.5 We look forward to the passing6 of the new Zoning Code and the subsequent7 remapping of our neighborhood, Chinatown.8 Philadelphia needs a new Zoning9 Code. Presently one can find instances10 in which regulated uses are outdated and11 not relevant. The Code can be daunting12 for the businessperson or homeowner. The13 lack of clear rules deters small14 businesses from opening on our15 neighborhood commercial corridors and16 homeowners from fixing up their houses.17 The lack of clarity also increases costs.18 These are the problems that we see when19 people seek help.20 The new Code tells every21 developer or homeowner making an22 improvement to his or her property23 exactly what is allowed and what is24 prohibited. Having clear rules,25 262 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 developed ahead of time with community2 input, is a far more effective way of3 ensuring good development than efforts to4 stop or change development after it has5 been approved.6 The new Code defines a formal7 role for community in the development8 process. For the first time, there is a9 mandate that developers must notify and10 meet with community groups about large11 development projects planned in or12 adjacent to residential areas and13 projects that do not comply with the14 Zoning Code.15 For these reasons, we support16 the passing of the Zoning Code.17 Thank you.18
Thank19 you very much.20 Are there any questions from21 members of the Committee?22 (No response.)23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:24 Seeing none, again I thank you.25 263 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Our next panel.2 MR. McPHERSON: Penelope Giles,3 Christine Knapp and Joe Schiavo.4 (Witness approached witness5 table.)6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 You've been very patient and I thank you.8
Thank you.9 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:10 Please identify yourself for the record11 and proceed with your testimony.12
My name is Joe13 Shiavo and I'm here on behalf of the Old14 City Civic Association. Thank you for15 the opportunity.16 I understand that Christine17 Knapp, who is to be part of this panel,18 is running a little bit late and maybe19 she'll arrive before I finish. But I20 will make it brief.21 My first point is a small,22 fine-grained point, and OCCA has sent a23 letter to members of Council, and I have24 a copy of that letter here for25 264 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 distribution. And in our letter we're2 requesting that use table included in the3 proposed new Code, Use Table 14-502(2) be4 left intact. Supporting OCCA's expressed5 position, several Old City residents and6 businessowners have also written Council7 making the same request.8 Use Table 14-502(2) as it9 appears in the new Code includes certain10 provisions of the existing Old City11 overlay and it continues those particular12 provisions that we think remain vitally13 important to appropriate and positive14 development in Old City. So we ask that15 you, the Council, leave that particular16 use table as it applies to the Old City17 residential districts unchanged.18 Second, on behalf of the Old19 City Civic Association, I wish to express20 our support of Councilman Green's21 memorandum of September 7th wherein22 Councilman Green outlines and details his23 ten-point proposal of recommendations and24 amendments to the preliminary draft Code.25 265 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 We acknowledge that each point of2 Councilman Green's memo is offered as3 subject to improvement by additional4 input from Council, the Administration,5 the ZCC and hopefully the public, and we6 support the principles and points of7 Councilman Green's proposal.8 And my last point is regarding9 special exceptions. Special exception10 uses in the new Code, replacing the11 certificate use category of the current12 Code, is a lower regulatory standard when13 compared with variance uses, and it14 presents unintended consequences by15 unlimited concentration of uses, normally16 innocuous uses made noxious by17 unrestricted concentration. Ideally, our18 new Code would include some form of19 citywide, across-the-board aggregation or20 distancing standards to control the21 concentration of any one or all of these22 such uses. All of these uses are assumed23 to carry some detrimental impact on the24 host community. Otherwise, they would be25 266 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 permitted by right. And most2 communities - residential, mixed-use3 residential and commercial - may find4 such uses perfectly acceptable, but would5 they find any one of these uses or all of6 these uses in concentrations of 10 or 207 acceptable or appropriate to the8 developmental direction of that9 particular community? I think not.10 There is no control of the11 concentration of these uses in a12 community. And, for instance, in the13 example of a residential community that14 is mixed use to the degree that allows15 any commercial uses by special exception,16 the community can change, one parcel17 after another. That residential18 community could become overly19 commercialized, because there are no20 aggregation controls.21 So I strongly recommend that22 Council accept the recommendations for23 distancing and aggregation that are24 included within the Crosstown Coalition's25 267 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 paper submitted to Council earlier today.2 Thank you.3
Thank4 you.5 Are there any questions from6 members of the Committee?7 (No response.)8
By your lead, Madam11 Chair, I just wanted to say that we had12 one of our members of our panel, Gina13 Snyder, had to leave because of other14 business, but she did submit written15 testimony just for the record. Thank16 you.17
Fine.18 Did the stenographer get a copy of that?19
I gave it to the20 Sergeant-At-Arms. I believe she did.21 Thank you.22
Thank23 you very much.24 MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel25 268 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 consists of Janet Milkman, Leanne2 Kruger-Braneky and Lauren Bornfriend.3 (No response.)4
Are5 they here?6 (No response.)7 MR. McPHERSON: Marion Brown,8 Leslie Benoliel, Christie Balka and Alan9 Rubin.10 (Witnesses approached witness11 table.)12
Good afternoon.15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 Please identify yourself for the record17 and proceed with your testimony.18
Thank you. My name19 is Marion Brown. I speak on behalf of20 the child care community of the21 Neighborhood Interfaith Movement, a22 one-stop shop for child care licensing23 information in Philadelphia, and of the24 Southeast Pennsylvania Early Childhood25 269 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Coalition, also known as SEPECC. Thank2 you, Chairwoman Council Verna and other3 Councilmembers, for this opportunity to4 speak today.5 I speak in support of moving6 forward with the proposed new Zoning Code7 at this time. When the existing Code was8 written in the 1930s and again when it9 was revised in the 1960s, child care and10 many programs for young children as we11 know them today were not happening. We12 are pleased that the proposed new Zoning13 Code fully incorporates child day care14 and also distinguishes it from adult day15 care. We appreciate that the proposed16 new Code is aligned for consistency and17 definitions with the state regulations.18 It also clarifies child care as a matter19 of right in recreation centers, schools,20 houses of worship, and we appreciate this21 fact.22 We do have issues with the lack23 of uniformity on child care in schools,24 recreation centers, et cetera. Still, we25 270 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 urge you to move forward with the Code at2 this time. There are some additional3 areas of concern for the child care4 community which we encourage you to also5 address in the process of moving the Code6 forward.7 We support the amendment or the8 suggestions made by Councilwoman Brown9 that would change child care from an "N,"10 not prohibited use in many districts to11 an "S," special exception use. We12 support this variation which fully13 incorporates into the future Code14 neighborhood and councilmanic input into15 any request for variances for special16 exceptions in these districts.17 In the C-1 districts, child18 care is limited to 12 children. In the19 interest of cutting down on unnecessary20 ZBA appeals, we urge that this number21 limit be dropped, because state22 regulations already limit the number of23 children based on square footage. This24 provides a built-in protection for the25 271 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 community in the state regulations, which2 should be sufficient. The time of the3 ZBA is too valuable to require4 unnecessary appeals.5 We support uniformity in the6 Code and believe uniformity would7 simplify and improve the readability of8 the Code, as stated in the original goals9 of the Zoning Code Commission. I refer10 specifically to the four-to-six carve-out11 issue covered in Area Maps and 2, as12 noted on Pages 630 through 633. We13 believe the use of wards and portions of14 wards and divisions to determine how many15 children a person can care for in her own16 home is an administrative nightmare, a17 major headache for L&I and an18 impenetrable complication for providers.19 It fails to accomplish one of the initial20 ZCC, Zoning Code Commission, goals, to21 make the Code consistent and easy to22 understand. We hope you will work to23 create more uniformity within the Code24 and eliminate the need for Area Maps 125 272 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 and 2.2 All of this being noted, I3 continue to urge City Council to move4 forward with the Code at this time,5 preferably with these modifications being6 suggested.7 Thank you for your time.8
Good afternoon. 15 As you know, for more than a16 quarter century, PCCY has been worked to17 improved the lives and life chances of18 Philadelphia's youngest residents, and19 before I begin my formal remarks, I just20 want to thank you for fitting this topic21 in to your busy fall agenda. 24 PCCY takes a strong interest in25 273 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 the proposed Zoning Code, because2 children need safe, well-designed places3 to play and learn before, during and4 after school. 8 They need playgrounds and recreation9 centers, after-school programs and other10 safe places to go while their parents are11 at work. 15 The Zoning Code ensures that we16 have an adequate supply of these and also17 that they're located in areas that are18 accessible to the families that need19 them. Moreover, compliance with the20 Zoning Code is a first step that21 child-serving organizations need to take22 in order to begin to meet basic health23 and safety requirements. Without zoning24 approval, these organizations can't begin25 274 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 Unlicensed child care is a big3 problem in Philadelphia. Thousands of4 kids spend their day in places that are5 never inspected to make sure they don't6 have exposed wires, leaky pipes and7 leaking roofs. 11 Some unlicensed child care programs don't12 have working fire extinguishers or smoke13 alarms. 23 Through research on reasons for24 this city's unlicensed child care, PCCY25 275 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 learned a number of years ago that2 Philadelphia's Zoning Code is difficult3 and confusing for child care providers to4 understand and is often interpreted in5 arbitrary fashion. Being turned down by6 the Zoning Board doesn't discourage them7 from opening. 9 The proposed revisions are a10 major step in the right direction. They11 respond to the needs of today's families12 and the reality that three-quarters of13 Philadelphia's children now have what the14 census terms "all parents" in the15 workforce. The revisions recognize that16 different families have different child17 care needs and preferences. They also18 recognize that the School District relies19 on partnerships with over 9020 community-based organizations to provide21 pre-K and after-school programs to22 thousands of children each day. Far from23 making it easier to open a child care24 program, as Councilwoman Tasco worried25 276 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4 The proposed revisions will5 serve Philadelphia well as we enter a6 period of transition caused by the School7 District selling 50 schools and the need8 to relocate the child care programs that9 are in them. 16 Having said this, the Code17 contains exceptions to the definition of18 family child care in Council Districts 619 and 10. 23 The proposed carve-outs perpetuate the24 shortage and harm children. PCCY urges25 277 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4 Young families revitalize5 cities. Parents decide where to live6 based on opportunities for their7 children, and employers decide where to8 locate based on their ability to attract9 and retain employees. 19 Change is never easy, but we believe20 we've had plenty of time as a city to21 consider this and it's time to take the22 next step. PCCY urges you to resist the23 temptation to create special carve-outs24 for any district and to approve the25 278 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3
My name is Alan11 Rubin and I am Chairman of the Zoning12 Committee of the Spring Garden Civic13 Association, a position I've held for 4414 years. I'm also President this year once15 again.16 I'm here to speak of one thing.17 We are a historic district and have been18 for some time, and we've developed areas19 from 24th Street down just about to Broad20 Street, and Broad Street is now being21 developed from Spring Garden to22 Fairmount. Within that area, there are23 approximately 20 vacant in-fill lots that24 have been empty for some time. The25 279 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 zoning proposal incorporates the existing2 Historic Preservation Ordinance.3 Unfortunately, the present ordinance --4 if a lot has been in existence for a5 period of time preceding the historic6 designation, which was about 15 years7 ago, the Historic Commission really has8 no say in what the building looks like9 that goes in there. And these are all10 house fronts. PHA owns lots they've11 owned for many years. They're apparently12 going to sell those. We have no idea13 without controls what will go in there.14 There are blocks that are 42 feet high,15 the buildings are 42 feet high. There's16 no regulation presently that would17 provide mandatory building of a building18 so the roof lines would be level19 throughout the block. So if there's a20 vacant lot in that block, someone can21 build a two-story building. They could22 build a three-story building. They could23 have the windows in different proportions24 to what's there. Just imagine a25 280 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 hypothetical, the 1800 block of Delancey2 Street, it had a vacant lot for 50 years.3 Someone could go in there and build a4 two-story building. It would destroy the5 looks of that block. And we have 15 or6 so empty lots in historic blocks. And I7 believe that the Historic Commission8 should have control over what goes in9 there in terms of its appearance, in10 terms of its contextual nature and it11 should look like it belongs there.12 Under the present ordinance,13 they only have basically advice, but they14 have no control. There's basically a15 30-day delay and they will get the permit16 to build a two-story house or to build a17 PermaStone front or to build anything18 they choose. And right now we're19 getting -- we're under a lot of pressure20 from developers and there are some lots21 that are owned by speculators, and this22 is an imminent danger to us.23 Thank you very much for your24 attention. I appreciate it. Thank you.25 281 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Good afternoon,4 Council President Verna and members of5 City Council. My name was added to the6 list late. My name is Rasheedah Phillips7 and I'm an attorney at Community Legal8 Services in the Community Economic9 Development Unit working on the Child10 Care Law Project. 21 My colleagues and I have attended nearly22 all of the ZCC meetings, have provided23 input at community meetings and have made24 extensive recommendations to the ZCC that25 282 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6 Throughout the reformation process, the7 ZCC has recognized the use of fair land8 use regulations to the establishment of9 quality child care programs, has heard10 our concerns and has taken the vital step11 of including child care into the Code in12 a meaningful way. The new Code inclusion13 of child care makes sense at a time of14 decreased funding for education and15 economic development. 19 The draft Code, in its present20 form, includes clear definitions of child21 care that are more consistent with state22 regulations; recognition of child care23 programs as public, civic and24 institutional uses that provide unique25 283 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 services that are of benefit to the2 community as a whole; and clarifies the3 use of recreation centers, schools,4 religious institutions and other5 facilities for child care use. Many of6 the barriers that once stood in the way7 of creating child care programs bound by8 zoning regulations have largely been9 eliminated, and the Code is now much more10 accessible and user friendly for11 providers who rely on zoning to increase12 the economic resources in their13 neighborhoods and provide child care to14 families. 16 However, despite the17 significant progress that the Code has18 made with child care issues, there19 remains some inconsistencies in lingering20 areas of concern. 22 We urge you to make group and23 center day care a special exception use24 in all zoning districts, similar to the25 284 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 special exception use status granted to2 religious institutions, schools and3 libraries. Just to be clear, we are not4 asking for expanded uses, and day cares5 do not typically threaten health, safety6 or welfare of communities. 9 We are asking that you10 eliminate the up to 12 children11 limitation for C-1 properties. Many12 properties in Philadelphia are large13 enough to accommodate child care for 1314 or more children. 24 Often families living in apartment25 285 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3 Restricting child care as a use within4 multi-family dwellings deny these5 families the opportunity to use local,6 familiar, community-based child care. 23 All of these suggestions would24 help to cut back on unnecessary appeals25 286 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 25 287 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Thank2 you.3 Are there any questions of4 these witnesses?5 (No response.)6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 Seeing none, I thank you very much.8 Thank you.9 Before our next witness is10 called, before I forget, I know that we11 have a letter here from the Committee of12 Seventy, which will be made part of the13 record.14 Our next panel.15 MR. McPHERSON: Christine16 Knapp, Janet Milkman, Leanne17 Kruger-Braneky or Lauren Bornfriend.18 (Witnesses approached witness19 table.)20
Good21 afternoon. Please identify yourself for22 the record.23
24 I'm Christine Knapp. I'm the President25 288 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 of the Board of Passyunk Square Civic2 Association. Passyunk Square serves the3 area from Washington Avenue to Tasker4 Street between 6th and Broad Streets in5 South Philadelphia. 12 PSC has many active committees13 and projects. Among them are14 Beautification, Communications, Town15 Watch, Planning, Fundraising, Education16 and Zoning. Of those committees, the17 Zoning Committee carries out one of the18 most important functions of our civic19 association in helping us to meet our20 mission. The Zoning Committee holds21 monthly meetings to review, monitor and22 effect positive change to proposed zoning23 applications made in our stated24 boundaries. The Zoning Committee25 289 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4 In 2005, we signed on as a5 supporter of the Next Great City agenda,6 which included a recommendation that the7 City's Zoning Code be modernized and8 updated. 16 After following the work of the17 Zoning Code Commission over the past few18 years, we would like to commend and thank19 the hard-working members of the ZCC, as20 well as others who have helped advance21 this important effort. 25 290 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 First, the proposed Code2 formalizes the role that community groups3 like ours should play in reviewing and4 approving development in our5 neighborhood. The new Code requires6 developers to notify registered community7 groups about the project and to meet with8 them. Until now, the onus was on our9 group to seek out development projects in10 our neighborhood. This process should11 help our Zoning Committee and ensure good12 communications with developers. 19 The updated draft provides clear rules on20 building height and setback and also21 establishes a Civic Design Review22 Committee to ensure that major projects23 are developed in a way that enhances24 rather than harms quality of life in the25 291 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 neighborhood. Passyunk Square has seen2 several such projects proposed in our3 neighborhood where a clear process to4 engage the developers, community members5 and design professionals would have been6 helpful. 12 Next, we support the updates13 that have been included to help modernize14 and simplify the Code so that it is a15 more useful, understandable and relevant16 tool for us to use. The new Code defines17 new types of uses, such as community18 gardens, that didn't exist in the 1950s19 so that they may be appropriately20 recognized and regulated. With two21 community gardens in our boundaries and22 plans to bring on more in the future,23 this is one clear example of how this new24 Code can help make things easier for our25 292 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 The new Code is also simpler3 and easier to read so that members of our4 Zoning Committee, our Board and any other5 concerned citizen would be able to read6 and understand it and apply it to our7 community. 10 Lastly, we are glad to see that11 the updated Code supports additional but12 appropriate growth. While our13 neighborhood has seen a tremendous14 rebirth over the past few decades with15 two booming commercial corridors,16 affordable and steady home sales and a17 diversity of residents, there are still18 many abandoned homes and empty lots in19 our community. In the majority of cases,20 the best use for these lots is for them21 to be developed. 24 The new Code provides clear rules and25 293 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4 In addition, there are a few5 additional suggestions we would like to6 make. While an updated Code will go a7 long way, changes should also be made to8 the Zoning Board of Adjustment's process9 and procedures to make it more10 transparent and easier for community11 groups to engage. 16 These meetings are also held during17 regular work hours, putting a burden on18 community members who want to attend and19 preventing many others from20 participating.
After decisions are made,21 there's no easy and clear method by which22 the decisions are communicated back to23 the community so that they can easily24 track these results. In this day and25 294 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 5 The Civic Association Zoning6 Committee has experienced several7 problems where our letters stating either8 our opposition or non-opposition have not9 shown up at the ZBA hearing. We send our10 letters to the ZBA, to the attorney of11 the developer, to the Planning12 Commission, to our District Councilman13 and others, and we confirm receipt. 25 295 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Thank2 you.3 Good afternoon. Please4 identify yourself for the record.5
Good6 afternoon. Leanne Kruger-Braneky,7 Executive Director of the Sustainable8 Business Network of Greater Philadelphia.9 I'm pleased to submit this10 testimony in support of the Zoning Code11 Commission preliminary report to City12 Council presented in May 2011. I speak13 on behalf of the Sustainable Business14 Network of Greater Philadelphia, a15 500-member non-profit business16 organization that brings together local17 businessowners who want to grow18 successful companies that are socially19 and environmentally responsible. I urge20 City Council to adopt the recommendations21 of the Zoning Code Commission as22 presented originally in May. The Zoning23 Code Commission is to be applauded for24 its intensive three-year process to draft25 296 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 an updated, sensible and fair Zoning2 Code, which pays special attention to the3 places where the current 50-year-old4 Zoning Code is having a negative effect5 on our businesses and residents.6 At the Sustainable Business7 Network, there are two main reasons why8 we support the recommendations in the9 preliminary report. First, they will10 make it easier for the City to realize11 its goal of becoming the greenest city in12 the country. The revised Code makes it13 easier for neighborhoods, residents and14 businesses to put sustainable practices15 in place. For example, in Kensington and16 Mount Airy, Germantown and West17 Philadelphia, urban farms have become18 true treasures in their neighborhoods.19 These farms are creating new jobs,20 educating youth and providing healthy,21 affordable food for their communities.22 Under the current Zoning Code, however,23 there's no zoning for urban agriculture.24 Without being zoned as farms, these25 297 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 properties are vulnerable.2 In another example,3 Philadelphia has recognized the value of4 alternative energy as a way to create new5 jobs, protect the environment and to save6 money. But the current Zoning Code7 limits energy production to industrial8 districts alone, making it harder to9 place solar panels and wind turbines in10 other areas of the City.11 The second reason why the12 Sustainable Business Network supports the13 Zoning Code is that it will make it14 easier for small businesses to do15 business in the City of Philadelphia.16 Through recent interviews and surveys17 with over 100 small businessowners, we've18 discovered that they are overwhelmed and19 often derailed by the difficulty of doing20 business in the City. The current Code21 contributes to this challenge. The22 existence of 36 different zoning overlays23 makes it virtually impossible for a24 business to know where it can locate.25 298 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Businesses often need to spend the money2 to hire a lawyer to interpret conflicting3 and confusing provisions, and4 Philadelphia's sign requirements are so5 complex and inconsistent that it often6 takes weeks and hundreds of dollars in7 fees just for a business to get approval8 to hang a sign.9 Furthermore, 52 percent of10 small businesses in Philadelphia are11 currently home based, yet under the12 current Code these businesses are13 technically illegal, but they are14 providing essential income to a large15 portion of our population.16 It's essential that City17 Council pass this new Code to improve the18 viability of small businesses by creating19 a more predictable business environment.20 Small businesses may seem small, but they21 actually contribute over half of all new22 jobs in Philadelphia. If we want to see23 more jobs, a healthy environment and more24 economic opportunity for all25 299 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Philadelphians, we need to do everything2 possible to help these businesses3 succeed. Authorizing a reformed zoning4 code that provides clear, universal5 guidelines for doing business in the City6 of Philadelphia is an important first7 step and one that Council must take soon.8 Thank you.9
Thank10 you.11 Are there any questions from12 members of the Committee?13 (No response.)14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:15 Seeing none, I thank you. Thank you very16 much. You were very patient.17 MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel18 is Tiffany Green, Marjorie Greenfield,19 Barnaby Wittles, Yvonne Haskins and20 Tracey Gordon.21 (Witnesses approached witness22 table.)23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:24 Again, I'm going to ask if you could be25 300 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 as brief as possible, please. We're2 losing an awful lot of our witnesses3 because of the time. Thank you.4 Please identify yourself for5 the record.6
My name is7 Marjorie Greenfield. I am First8 Vice-President of East Falls Community9 Council. I chair its Zoning and Land Use10 Committee, and I appreciate the time to11 testify before you again today. 21 We do endorse the22 recommendations of the various members of23 the Crosstown Coalition, who have24 previously testified, and I also want to25 301 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 give special notice to the memorandum2 from Councilman Green. 4 East Falls Community Council is5 a 501(c)(3) organization. It's resident6 based, transparent. Our members come to7 Zoning Committee meetings at which they8 express their opinions. They come to9 monthly community meetings at which they10 voice their opinions. 12 We have some significant13 concerns, some of which were expressed in14 detail in the piece on special15 institutional districts, which you've16 already received from the Crosstown17 Coalition. 20 We are concerned about the21 improved but not yet adequate22 participation by community organizations23 with respect -- especially with respect24 to institutional development districts,25 302 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3 I reiterate what I've said4 before. This city is a city of5 neighborhoods. They each have a slightly6 different character, and one size does7 not fit all. 18 These districts or the19 potential for these districts exist in20 every single councilmanic district,21 because they may include schools,22 hospitals, governmental facilities and,23 most importantly, commercially related24 facilities which might support those25 303 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 other institutions. "3 It needs to be defined. 20 The best way I can bring the21 problems home to you is to tell you a22 little about what we're doing in East23 Falls. Supported by our Planning24 Commission District Plan, we're working25 304 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 with Philadelphia University, Drexel2 University Medical School and the William3 Penn Charter School to develop long-range4 land use plans for each school. 7 They share many of our goals for8 preservation of neighborhood character,9 including open green space. 17 At our last meeting, after18 discussion and an attempt to summarize19 where we have been up to that point in20 the series of meetings we've held about21 what buildings will go where on a part of22 the campus and what should remain open23 space and what kind of buffers we need,24 he said, I'm very reluctant to make any25 305 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 5 Money speaks. 12 The Multi-Community Alliance13 has sought for years to have a commitment14 from the City and the State to have that15 site cleared so it be ripe for16 development, and we can't get it because17 of money. But in the case of the18 institution which said, Well, we agree19 with you on this and we agree with you on20 that and we agree with you on the other21 thing, but we can't make a commitment22 because someone might want to give us23 some money and not want to do what we all24 want to do, the problem is we don't have25 306 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 7 This is why, most importantly, we need a8 strong built-in process for community9 participation in the creation of10 institutional plans. 24 Our detailed proposals are25 307 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 attached to my testimony. 6 However, there's no excuse for omitting7 altogether the items we have listed. We8 do not want to be dependent on the9 goodwill of either the entity planning10 the use or, with all due respect, the11 Planning Commission. 15 Lastly, I'd like to address16 Councilman Green's memo very briefly. He17 mentioned a couple of items, including18 industrial-zoned districts, and there was19 some discussion this morning. Well,20 we're talking a lot of the ones that21 people seem to be concerned about are22 zoned G whatever. We have a number of23 industrial-zoned districts, some along24 Ridge Avenue in the heart of our25 308 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES.
1104591 commercial district and across from the2 brand new Dobson Mills Apartment Complex3 which is zoned L, and as it now stands4 and under the new Code, they would be5 subject to halfway houses and other kinds6 of uses, which are totally inappropriate7 in that context. We have another one on8 Indian Queen Lane, which was the subject9 of -- which is right across the street10 from a playground and residential homes,11 single-family homes, which was recently12 the subject of an attempt to put the SVU13 unit there. 17 And, finally, we share --18
Thank19 you. I would really appreciate it if you20 could summarize.21
One more.22 We would appreciate his23 suggestion with regard to methadone24 centers being extended to include25 309 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 outpatient treatment centers for any kind2 of abuse. They all carry the same3 problems for residential areas.4 We appreciate your time, and we5 welcome questions.6
Thank7 you so much.8 Good afternoon. Please9 identify yourself for the record and10 proceed with your testimony.11
Good12 afternoon. My name is Lauren Bornfriend13 and I'm the Executive Director of the14 Philadelphia Parks Alliance. I was15 originally scheduled to be on Panel 8.16
Thank you for18 the opportunity to testify here today.19 The Philadelphia Parks Alliance20 mission is to champion the public's21 interest in outstanding parks, recreation22 and open space, which we feel are key to23 making Philadelphia a healthy, vibrant24 and sustainable city for all25 310 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Philadelphians.2 In 2007, 80 percent of3 Philadelphia's voters cast their ballots4 in favor of zoning reform by establishing5 the Zoning Code Commission. Now almost6 four years later, the Philadelphia Parks7 Alliance asks City Council to pass the8 draft Zoning Code into law during the9 next three months.10 A new Zoning Code will impact11 the quality of life for Philadelphians12 and our parks in several ways. It will13 explicitly offer a parks and open space14 zoning classification, which can be15 applied to publicly owned parkland or16 privately owned land with the owner's17 consent. This will allow developers to18 dedicate green space for parks to be open19 to the public on their privately held20 land.21 Parks always benefit from22 thriving, active neighborhoods. Clear23 rules for development will help to24 revitalize blighted vacant land and will25 311 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 attract residents and businesses to2 support and enjoy our city's parks.3 The new Zoning Code will4 promote the greening of Philadelphia's5 public areas.6 Finally, I would like to thank7 City Council for passing the Parkland8 Protection Ordinance in April 2011 after9 a comprehensive, open and public process.10 Through this law, we have achieved a11 positive balance between parks and12 ancillary uses. That work is done and13 the Zoning Code does not need to revisit14 these issues.15 Thank you very much for your16 time.17
Good afternoon,20 President Verna, Councilmembers. My name21 is Barnaby Wittles. 25 312 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 I first want to applaud, as I2 think many others have, the hard work and3 extensive research that's gone into this4 Zoning Code. 11 The problem with that -- and it's a12 problem of longstanding -- is that13 Philadelphia is a city of neighborhoods,14 each one of which is unique, each one of15 which is precious. This tension really16 goes back before zoning was created to17 the City-County Consolidation Act of 185218 when the outlying entities and townships19 and boroughs all wanted to preserve their20 own nature. 24 I want to talk next25 313 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 specifically about East Falls. 4 First, I'll hand up when I'm done a5 letter from Sharon B. 8 One of the problems given the9 way that East Falls is constructed is10 that when restaurants vent, the odors go11 into close proximity to where there are12 residences. East Falls Community Council13 did not vote to have scrubbers as a14 requirement. We felt that it might be15 financially onerous. But Ms. 19 At a minimum, we believe that20 venting should be through the roof. It's21 only fair to the adjacent neighbors, who22 don't need to smell all what they think23 are not wonderful smells and some other24 people may think are. Maybe there will25 314 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 5, which omits6 taking into it the ordinance passed in7 1999 for the Philadelphia East Falls8 Special District Controls. I won't9 enumerate them because they're in the10 statute. And we strongly feel that these11 should be ported into any Zoning Code12 that's adopted. 15 They help to preserve the unique16 character of that neighborhood, which the17 Zoning Code doesn't do. 21 One other remark by way of22 illustration of although there's been a23 great deal of progress with this Zoning24 Code, it needs further work, is in CMX-3,25 315 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 for example. Wireless service facilities2 are permitted as a building or3 tower-mounted antenna. Well, I can't4 tell you how outraged people get when5 anybody even tries to put that. 11 The second thing that's12 permitted, for example, is a multi-level13 structure such as a garage. 23 MR. McPHERSON: The next panel24 consists of Stephanie Kindt, David25 316 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6
Good afternoon,7 Councilman DiCicco.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: John,9 excuse me. Ladies first.10
Good afternoon,12 esteemed members of City Council. My13 name is Stephanie Kindt. I'm the staff14 attorney for SCRUB, the Public Voice for15 Public Space. I'm also on the Board of16 Overbrook Farms Club. I'm here today17 testifying on behalf of SCRUB. I'll be18 very brief. Thank you so much for19 hearing my testimony.20 With regards to the preliminary21 draft report, it's completely understood22 that the signage section is being put off23 and work is occurring now in finalizing24 those chapters. However, there are some25 317 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 subtle changes that have been made from2 the prior Code that could have dramatic3 and drastic impact on certain sections of4 the City. It's to those points that I5 speak today.6 The first is the Food7 Distribution Center -- the former Food8 Distribution Center, which has not been9 reclassified or redesignated. There are10 current plans in the works, but it's not11 been designated for any future12 development. The new preliminary draft13 report allows signage, billboards, as a14 matter of right in that district. We15 would like to, as part of the working16 group proposed by Councilman Green,17 discuss that specific area and put a18 moratorium on any changes to signage19 regulation in that area.20 With regards to -- there's also21 some issues with distancing requirements22 in commercial districts that would abut23 residential districts. There are some24 subtle changes from 500 -- it's currently25 318 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 1,000, and in the preliminary draft2 report it goes to 500 feet.3 So there are just a few subtle4 changes that we really would like to5 highlight and have those addressed in any6 further working groups that would7 continue on the Code.8 That concludes my testimony.9 Thank you so much.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.11 Thank you for your testimony and thank12 you for being brief.13 John, you're on.14
My name is John15 Gallery. I'm the Executive Director of16 the Preservation Alliance. I've handed17 in a copy of my full testimony and I18 won't read it. 20 The testimony addresses two21 issues. One is the issue of the22 institutional development districts and23 the size and the controls in them, which24 has been addressed in detail by the25 319 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Crosstown Coalition, so I'm not going to2 speak to that, except to say that we3 support the changes which the Crosstown4 Coalition is recommending. 6 However, the primary change7 that we would like Council to recommend8 to the Zoning Code Commission has to do9 with the issue that Alan Rubin spoke to10 earlier about Spring Garden Street, and,11 that is, the lack of full review by the12 Historical Commission over new13 construction in historic districts in14 certain instances. The last page of my15 testimony includes an illustration, which16 you probably are familiar with,17 Councilman DiCicco, which was a high rise18 tower proposed in the Old City District19 exceeding the height of the Christ's20 Church steeple, but this proposal, even21 though it had a dramatic impact on Old22 City District, did not come under the23 jurisdiction of the Historical Commission24 to review because it was built on a25 320 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 11 This would require simply12 changing Section 14-1005, Section 4 and13 deleting that section. 17 There would be no additional burden on18 the Commission since they already have to19 review these items. And it would apply20 in a limited number of cases. It really21 would only apply to historic districts,22 of which there are 12, and even within23 those 12, it really is only relevant for24 those that are in or near Center City,25 321 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 which are experiencing these larger type2 development projects. However, in those3 neighborhoods, it would have a tremendous4 benefit and ensure the issues that5 Mr. 9 That is the end of my10 testimony. I would like to just add a11 note, however. Councilman Green asked me12 earlier what my view was on the Developer13 Workshop's recommendation that the14 Historical Commission make a complete15 stenographic record similar to the Zoning16 Board of Adjustment. 20 Right now all appeals go to the21 Board of L&I, and the only reason they go22 to the Board of L&I is to create a23 written record since the Historical24 Commission does not create a written25 322 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6 But on the other hand, you would7 considerably lengthen the time period8 necessary for the Historical Commission9 action. Right now if the Historical10 Commission doesn't act within a 45- to11 60-day time period, the application is12 considered approved. That time13 constraint makes certain that decisions14 happen quickly. If you had to do a15 stenographic record, cross-examination by16 attorneys, the procedure would be much17 lengthier. 23 There are relatively few cases24 that go to the L&I Review Board for25 323 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 So I'd have to say on balance, I don't3 think the additional time that would be4 enforced on everybody -- the Historical5 Commission would probably have to meet6 more than once a month to be able to do7 this -- would be longer for all8 applicants. I'm not sure there are9 benefits to that. 13
Good afternoon.14 My name is David O'Neill. I'm from15 Roxborough, and I'm representing the16 Friends of Manatawna Farm.17 We were here less than a year18 ago when City Council unanimously19 supported the enactment of the Roxborough20 Environmental Control District, and the21 new Zoning Code would -- we sort of fall22 through the cracks with that. We have23 not been -- the overlay was not moved24 along into the proposed Zoning Code, and25 324 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 we request that Chapter 14-500 of the new2 Zoning Code include a section entitled3 Open Space Conservation, that4 environmental control districts be5 included in this section and that the6 Roxborough Environmental Control District7 be listed under this category and the Fox8 Chase Farm, which received similar9 consideration and support from you, could10 also be put in there.11 We certainly are not going to12 revisit the testimony that we gave to13 you, and I hope that you remember, but we14 would like to just touch on a few points,15 and I'd like to introduce Emilio Garcia,16 a recent graduate -- he just graduated17 from the Saul High School. He was the18 President of the Student Council of Saul19 and he was also the President of the20 consolidated Student Councils for all of21 the School District of Philadelphia.22
25 325 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Again, as he said, my name is Emilio2 Garcia. 20 As you may or may not know,21 Saul High School of Agricultural Sciences22 is the largest agricultural high school23 in the nation, and while at that school,24 the school provides over 15 fields of25 326 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 agriculture for the students to major in,2 especially in terms of the large animal3 science production, wildlife and4 environmental sciences. These particular5 courses have direct connections with the6 Manatawna Farm. 11 The land works hand in hand12 with the high school's Farm to Table13 program with Manatawna Farm, and further,14 the productivity of the land is15 absolutely remarkable and is bringing16 added attention even by the State17 Secretary of Agriculture. An example of18 this is one farmer who lives on the land19 who has worked diligently over the course20 of 12 years in completely reforming the21 farm that's there. He's improved the22 soil quality, the hay quality and has23 even made it a goal to set at a certain24 part of the year migratory birds that25 327 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 come through the City. It just happens2 that that particular land spot is exactly3 where they land and where they nest. B. Saul High14 School's Even Greener campaign, in15 particular with respect to Manatawna16 Farm. As per their many conversations,17 we are undertaking the following and18 effective immediately: Consistent with19 the best practices for restoring20 grassland habitats, we will delay mowing21 until after the primary nesting season22 for migratory grassland birds. Mowing23 will not commence until fledged birds24 have been observed by our students with25 328 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 21 Again, I'd like to thank the22 Councilman and Councilman Jones, who23 unfortunately isn't here at this time,24 and a deep thanks to all Councilmembers25 329 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6
Thank7 you.8 Good afternoon. Please9 identify yourself for the record.10
Good afternoon,11 members of City Council. Thank you for12 allowing me to speak this afternoon. My13 name is Paul Boni. I'm a Philadelphia14 resident, practicing land use attorney15 and a member of the group Stop Predatory16 Gambling, which is a national advocacy17 group whose mission is, among other18 things, to get government out of the19 predatory gambling business. I'm here to20 testify today about the SP-ENT section of21 the draft Zoning Code, which is what we22 used to call or currently call the23 Commercial Entertainment District, the24 CED; in other words, the part of the25 330 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. I submitted my written comments3 for the record. Some background. In my6 opinion, these convenience casinos are7 predatory, and their business model8 relies on addiction. 12 I don't raise this as a13 religious or moral issue. I raise it as14 a purely economic issue. 17 Three facts and three quotes18 from executives of area casinos. Last19 year, the President of Parx Casino stated20 that a majority of the people in his21 database visit Parx Casino 200 times a22 year. 23 Earlier this year, Wendy24 Hamilton of SugarHouse Casino, the25 331 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6 times a week. 6 times a week. 15 So to me, these numbers are16 astonishing. 23 So let's cut to the chase about24 the Zoning Code. Right now Foxwoods does25 332 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 not have its license. 3 We don't know if they're going to get it4 back. If they don't get it back, whether5 it's going to be reissued to some other6 company. 13 I would say that a good place14 to start is Councilman DiCicco's bill15 from a couple years ago now that imposed16 a few different requirements on the17 ability to comply with zoning. 24 And, like I said, now is the time to do25 333 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6 I would note that Mayor7 Nutter's Administration spoke very8 favorably of that bill a few years ago,9 and I would also note that, in my10 opinion, the Supreme Court rulings are of11 limited applicability to the current12 situation. 25 334 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Thank2 you.3 Are there any questions from4 members of the Committee?5 (No response.)6
Thank7 you.8 MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel9 is Cheryl Gaston, Joseph Beller, Steve10 Pollock.11 (Witnesses approached witness12 table.)13
Good14 afternoon. Please identify yourself for15 the record.16
My name is Cheryl17 Gaston. I am Chair of the Real Property18 Section of the Philadelphia Bar19 Association. 23 Good afternoon. I served as24 counsel to the Zoning Board of Adjustment25 335 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 for 17 years and was a member of the Law2 Department of the City for 19 years3 specializing in zoning. 9 The Real Property Section of10 the Philadelphia Bar Association shares11 with the Zoning Code Commission the12 desire to provide all Philadelphians with13 a simple, transparent and effective14 Zoning Code with which to guide15 development. In that spirit, the Real16 Property Section appointed a liaison to17 the ZCC charged with attending their18 meetings and reporting ongoing19 developments at the Real Property20 Section's monthly meetings. Key members21 of the Section's Zoning, Land Use and22 Code Enforcement Subcommittee volunteer23 to review and provide written comments24 with respect to the respective ZCC Zoning25 336 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 The Real Property Section3 members evaluating this preliminary draft4 are a diverse group representing5 community groups, developers and6 municipalities. They work in solo, small7 and large firms and are, without8 question, among the best zoning lawyers9 in the City. 15 As you might expect with such a16 diverse group, there are many divergent17 opinions and views. We certainly did not18 agree on every issue, but we decided to19 focus our review and efforts on Chapters20 14-100 and 14-300 for the most part and21 improving Zoning Code processes and22 procedures by minimizing uncertainty and23 eliminating ambiguity in the proposed24 Code, an area where we all could agree25 337 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 21 To that end, we spent countless22 hours intensively reviewing the Zoning23 Code Commission Modules 1, 2 and 3, the24 Consolidated Draft and Redline, Blueline25 338 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 and Greenline Drafts of the proposed2 Code, a task that became daunting as the3 Commission produced successive drafts and4 embarked upon a continual Code revision5 process, which we understand may be6 ongoing even now. We commend the ZCC and7 its staffers' impressive work producing8 this draft. 14 While we spent hundreds of15 hours reviewing each draft and preparing16 and submitting extensive written17 comments, we met numerous times with18 representatives of the ZCC to review our19 written comments and attended ZCC20 sessions with others, including21 representatives of community groups in22 what were deemed to be productive23 meetings in an effort to improve the24 drafts. The process of review and25 339 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 comment has resulted in a better2 document. 6 The preliminary draft before7 you does not yet achieve the intended8 result, a shorter, clearer and easy to9 use Code. 17 Number one, the proposed Code18 is deficient in the method of defining19 terms and the absent -- and is absent20 many defined terms. The proposed Code21 uses terms without definition, a practice22 that creates confusion and ambiguity. A23 glaring example, the term "variance" is24 not defined in this draft. It is defined25 340 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 The definition section is3 inadequate. Many terms are redundant or4 repetitive, and in far too many5 instances, users are directed to other6 Code sections, which defeats the purpose7 of a definition section. For example,8 the terms "abut" and "adjacent" are9 virtually identical. The Planning10 Commission is defined in three different11 sections of the definition section. 22 The proposed Code attempts to23 paraphrase legal standards and/or24 annotate or change longstanding settled25 341 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 9 This is a move that will create10 uncertainty and confusion. 23 There is no procedure in this24 draft to apply for a zoning or use25 342 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 registration permit. Users are directed2 to a city website to find out what3 application materials are required.
This4 is not the transparent process promised5 by this Code. 8 For example, the powers of the Zoning9 Board are enumerated in Section 14-180110 of the current Code. In the proposed11 draft, to find the same information users12 must consult three other sections of the13 Code. And Mr. Pollock will speak a14 little bit more on that. 21 The process for appealing to22 the courts omits procedures for filing of23 the appeal, transmission of the documents24 necessary to prosecute the appeal, which25 343 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 12 The proposed Code allows L&I to13 make code interpretations and, in effect,14 amend the Zoning Code to conform to their15 interpretation. 17 The proposed Code gives the18 Zoning Board the power to conduct19 investigations and seek agency opinions,20 an empowerment not within the scope of21 the Home Rule Charter or allowed, for the22 most part, by caselaw by quasi-judicial23 agencies such as the ZBA. 25 344 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6 We offer our input to City7 Council in the hope that we can make a8 substantial contribution to City9 Council's response to the preliminary10 draft. 19
Thank you for the22 opportunity to testify.23 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:24 Mr. Pollock.25 345 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Council President2 Verna, Member DiCicco, Member Bill Green,3 and I guess Councilmember Kenney has sort4 of left the room, I take it. My name is5 Steve Pollock. 7 I guess what we're trying to8 say is that the task that the voters gave9 everybody was like the old Daily News10 commercial, make it easy to hold and fun11 to read, and the task was to try and make12 it so it could be understood. And there13 was a time when we couldn't get a zoning14 code published and Peter Kelsen and I,15 along with Tom Chapman when he was with16 the City Planning Commission, were able17 to produce something called the Blue18 Book, which was sort of like the19 unofficial guide to -- was our Zoning20 Code, but we didn't get it published21 through the public. And it became very22 clear that other people, not just the23 people that have been here testifying24 today who live the process, who are all25 346 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 9 So what Cheryl said is just the10 very simple thing of what are the cases11 that can be heard by the Zoning Board,12 what are their powers. You have to go to13 about for different sections right now,14 whereas today I could go to 14-1801 and I15 know what kinds of cases they hear16 appeals from. 21 303(4)(a) and (4)(b) which talks about22 final -- the Zoning Board has final23 action over appeals for variances,24 special exceptions, but it doesn't really25 347 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 say that they have -- it refers to2 another section when it gets to a3 neighborhood taking an appeal against the4 determination by L&I that they're not5 happy with. 23 So the question isn't so24 much -- we're not saying -- we're saying25 348 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 9 I'm not still part of that school that10 will type in a key word and let the11 computer sort of look for me. 22 Now, from, I guess, some of the23 legal inside -- we'll call it inside24 baseball kind of talk, one of the things25 349 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that concerns us is, there's this2 innocuous little paragraph at 14-303(4)3 that says consultations. And what it4 says is, we're okay with L&I and the5 Planning Commission, but it says the6 Zoning Board may consult with any other7 department or agency of the City, State8 or federal government to seek advice on9 any aspect of an application that is10 under jurisdiction of that department or11 agency of the City, State or federal12 government. And then it goes on in13 another section to say that the Zoning14 Board, as part of the variance criteria,15 can look at reports of other City16 agencies made as a result of an inquiry17 by the Zoning Board, may be considered by18 the Zoning Board. 22 But, finally, in Section 14(k)23 of 14-303, it gives us the current way24 it's framed in the Zoning Code, which we25 350 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 10 This is a quasi-judicial hearing. 21 So all we're asking for is that22 we think those -- as a specific23 recommendation, those provisions other24 than 14(k) should be stricken so that --25 351 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 or in the alternative, allow that if2 there is that inquiry, that it's going to3 be -- you'll have to give notice to both4 sides, to all sides, all interested5 parties, and give them an opportunity to6 have that witness brought in for7 cross-examination. 17 Also with what I know has18 become sort of like a four-letter word in19 this discussion, the Bray test, there is20 a case that came subsequent to the Bray21 test, and I'll leave it either with the22 Chairman or Council President or if23 Councilman Green wants it. It was a24 later case, the Reformed Seventh Day25 352 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Aventist Church versus the Philadelphia2 Zoning Board, where the applicant was a3 church that wanted to have a rooming4 house, and back then they had the very5 powerful Charles Bowser representing6 them, but they still lost on a7 certificate case because they didn't meet8 the standards.
But this case lays out9 what Councilman Green has said in his10 memorandum, that we've probably perverted11 or twisted the burdens under Bray for a12 special exception. 22 So we would suggest that you23 look at the languages in this Seventh Day24 Aventist, because in Seventh Day Aventist25 353 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 they say, Well, here's what we said in2 Bray. 5 So I just -- I don't want to6 talk about that, other than to say that7 one of the criteria that has been added8 into Bray into the special exception9 section as it stands right now is also10 another technical thing, but this is a11 recommendation that we'll bring to the12 Council. As I said, we wanted to be sort13 of more technical and hard-nosed as14 opposed to giving you some policy15 discussions, is that -- it also says16 about injuring permanently confirming and17 adjacent properties. 22 So the decision as to whether23 it has already injured has been taken out24 of the equation, and that's why it was25 354 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3 Also, we have -- and we are4 grateful that the Zoning Code Commission5 has gone to something that maybe you're6 also tired of hearing. You've heard7 about the four-letter word Bray, but8 you've also heard about the three-letter9 acronym, the MPC. With MPC, we now have10 basically the five-pronged test that the11 rest of the state so when a court will12 look at it, they won't try and say we're13 going to impose what we do in the rest of14 the state on Philadelphia. We've at15 least -- with the variance standards,16 we've caught up, but for one criteria,17 which tries to address the dimensional18 requirements, which I have a hard time --19 I know I've scratched my head. Joe20 Beller, who can't be here right now, has21 scratched their head, and it's regarding22 that a viable economic -- it's (d) in23 14-303(8)(1)(d) -- that a viable economic24 use of the property cannot be permitted25 355 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 by granting a variance from dimensional2 standards or conditions. 8 And we know we've raised this with Peter9 Kelsen and Eva, and they're going to10 check into it, and we want to check into11 it a little bit more. We're not sure,12 but right now since the quorum has been13 changed to only needing three, however14 the Zoning Code now says that -- and also15 in this Code, it says that you need to16 have all three members concur before you17 can have a vote. 20 We are mindful that if the21 referendum passed by the public said that22 that was what was to be, that will be23 what will have to happen, because that's24 a public thing, but when I checked 3/9/1125 356 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6 So we would ask that we would7 catch up and reinstate what used to be8 the law and is the law of Pennsylvania,9 unless the Legislature goes otherwise,10 that if there were three members -- if we11 had to go to a hearing with three12 members, we would hope that a13 three-nothing vote would not be what14 would be required, that we could at least15 have a two-to-one vote. And that could16 work both ways. If you're a community17 group and you've appealed against a18 determination and one member decides to19 go the other way, then you have not been20 able to reach your burden. So it plays21 both ways. 23 So with those kinds of things,24 I wish I could end with a joke like Joe25 357 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 4
Madam President,7 Neil Sklaroff. I'm a practicing attorney8 in Philadelphia. My practice is mostly9 land use. Knowing that I could never be10 as entertaining as Joe, I will be very11 brief.12 In what we think was a very13 good-faith attempt to try to rewrite14 standard, understood concepts that have15 been well settled in the law, we think16 there has been some confusion added to17 the Section 300 series of provisions in18 the proposed Code. We believe there is19 time left for us to continue our dialogue20 with the Zoning Code Commissioners and21 the Law Department to try to revisit some22 of these issues in order to avoid23 unnecessary litigation in the future.24 We have had settle principles25 358 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that nobody was contesting as to what2 made a variance, what made a special3 exception, formerly a certificate, who4 was a party or what the Zoning Board5 could or could not do. And we urge the6 Commission to engage us again in the7 dialogue and that we think we can cure8 these and, in fact, advance the Code to9 one which we can fully embrace.10 Thank you.11
Thank12 you. Thank you very much.13 Any questions?14 (No response.)15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 Seeing none, thank you very much.17
Does anybody want18 a copy of that Seventh Day Aventist case?19 (Copy of case given to Stacy20 Graham.)21
Our22 next panel is Lorna Katz, Roseanne23 Loesch, Anthony Jones.24 (Witnesses approached witness25 359 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 table.)2
Good3 afternoon. Please identify yourself for4 the record and proceed with your5 testimony.6
I am Lorna7 Katz-Lawson from Society Hill Civic8 Association. I'm the Zoning and9 Preservation Committee Chair.10 Society Hill Civic Society has11 been an active member of the 13-member12 civic association group called Crosstown13 Coalition. We participated in the14 preparation of the comments that Stephen15 Huntington made to you today, as well as16 helping prepare some of the supporting17 white papers. So my additional comments18 right now purely have to do with our19 identity and issues that have to do with20 being a historic district.21 The most important of these is22 how new development is handled in23 historic districts, and John Gallery24 preempted me in this point, but we would25 360 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 also, going along with his idea, that it2 would help our community tremendously if3 the Historic Commission review was moved4 from advisory to statutory. And as he5 pointed out, the work involved for the6 applicant is no different, and the work7 for them would be not very much different8 either.9 The other issue that is very10 important for us has to do with uses in11 residential districts. The proposed Code12 places an additional burden on historic13 districts. The wildly expanded use of14 residential properties as sites for15 commercial activities is excessive and16 will promote overuse of the buildings17 themselves. The increased rate of wear18 and tear on the structures is19 counterproductive to preservation of20 original fabric. The commensurate higher21 maintenance costs also might act as a22 deterrent to properly maintaining these23 properties in the future. The proposed24 Code is blind to the particular physical25 361 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 realities of antique structures.2 So we support Councilman3 Green's suggestion to separate home4 office from home business, because we5 feel that it would help protect the6 structures in our community.7 The other point I would like to8 make today is, we feel that some of the9 Civic Design Review triggers may be too10 high for a close-knit row house community11 and that it should possibly be considered12 to be -- the threshold should be lowered13 before Civic Design Review kicks in in14 communities such as ours and other15 historic districts.16
Good afternoon,22 Madam President and members of Council.23 My name is Dr. Anthony Jones. I am a24 member of the Oak Lane Community25 362 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Association Board, as well as the2 Chairman of Zoning and Crime and Safety,3 and today I would like to just read a4 little statement here about the zoning5 laws and things that go on within6 communities.7 The current zoning laws are not8 finite in working with community and9 businesses. To state specifically the10 zoning for commercial building, the way11 the current zoning laws are written,12 investors, businesses can bring a six13 million plus dollar project into a14 neighborhood that is unwanted, even15 against the community wishes, which has16 been expressed over time. If the17 community does not have any say in how18 some of the zoning laws should be19 established, viewed and implemented, then20 we are always at the mercy of business21 and politics.22 Here's an example: A23 residential facility that will house24 chronic substance abusers and disorders25 363 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 is labeled as low-income housing. The2 community is then placed in a position of3 opposing low-income housing when the4 opposition is actually to the facility's5 specification of occupants and their6 impact on the neighborhood that is7 already saturated with rehab facilities8 and halfway housing.9 There is a need for the zoning10 laws to be specific on housing usage11 sensitive to the community concerning12 change in neighborhoods and its negative13 impact.14 Thank you.15
Hi. Good19 afternoon. My name is Leslie Benoliel.20 I was supposed to be in a previous panel21 and I arrived late. So I apologize.22
I'm the25 364 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Executive Director of Entrepreneur Works,2 which is a Philadelphia-based non-profit3 that provides capital in the form of4 micro loans and business support services5 to entrepreneurs and small businessowners6 to help them start up, stabilize and7 expand their businesses. 11 First, I want to commend the12 Zoning Code Commission for their hard13 work and efforts to craft a new Zoning14 Code. 25 365 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3 Those are businesses with five or fewer4 employees, and many of them start up or5 are based out of the homes. 19 The proposed Code promotes20 economic growth in our city and will21 benefit residents and businesses alike,22 especially the home-based businesses. By23 eliminating much of the zoning overlays24 that have accumulated over time,25 366 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 7 Compared with the current Code,8 the proposed Code provides more clarity,9 predictability, flexibility, particularly10 for individuals who are looking to start11 up businesses out of their homes. 25 367 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 And data shows that more than2 half the businesses are home based, and3 this number can only be expected to4 increase in today's economy. In fact,5 most businesses get their start in the6 home, in a spare bedroom, in the kitchen7 or in the basement. 19 I respectfully ask you, members20 of City Council, to give the proposed21 Zoning Code your full and careful22 consideration. Be mindful, please, be23 mindful to preserve its simplicity as you24 consider revisions to it and, at the same25 368 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 time, push to see that it is adopted in a2 timely manner. We want to make sure this3 new Code, once finalized, is robust4 enough to withstand the next 50 years or5 more. 13
Thank14 you. Thank you.15 Are you going to testify?16
Yes, I'd like to17 testify.18 Good afternoon, Council19 President Verna.20
My name is George23 Gould. I am the Managing Director for24 Housing and Energy at Community Legal25 369 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Services here in Philadelphia. My2 testimony will be very brief. I would3 just like to point out one of the4 sections of the proposed Zoning Code.5 Back in 2007, City Council6 passed and the Mayor signed a bill that7 would require inclusionary housing in the8 City, and basically what that bill said9 was that in any development of more than10 20 units of new or rehabilitated housing11 in the City, the developer would be12 required to put 10 percent affordable13 housing into that development or14 contribute to the Housing Trust Fund.15 There was a provision that said that the16 bill would not be implemented until17 incentives were passed by City Council18 which were given to developers which19 would help that process. Unfortunately,20 those incentives have not yet been21 created.22 We have a problem with one23 particular provision in the proposed24 Zoning Code, and, that is, 14-702(7),25 370 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 which creates a voluntary inclusionary2 housing program. It's somewhat similar3 to what City Council has passed, but it's4 totally voluntary. And what this would5 do, you would have two sections of the6 Code, one with a mandatory program and7 one with a voluntary program. I think8 that would be inconsistent, it would be9 confusing and, quite frankly, the10 organizations which we are involved with,11 the Campaign for Housing Justice, wants a12 mandatory program, which is what City13 Council has already passed. We have14 found that in other jurisdictions,15 voluntary programs do not work.16 Developers do not do it, and you do not17 end up with the affordable housing that18 is needed. Where there has been a19 mandatory program, it works. And what we20 strongly suggest is that you make the21 provisions in this Code consistent with22 what's already in the existing law or you23 simply strike it and make it a mandatory24 program.25 371 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Thank you.2
My name is6 Michael Churchill. I'm an attorney at7 the Public Interest Law Center of8 Philadelphia, and I thank you for the9 opportunity to speak.10 The Public Interest Law Center11 of Philadelphia submits its opposition to12 any amendment to the zoning proposal that13 would prohibit or impose additional14 burdens on facilities which serve persons15 with disabilities from neighborhoods16 where similar facilities would otherwise17 be allowed. Any provision which singles18 out for discrimination facilities serving19 people with disabilities, such as group20 homes, which serve our most vulnerable21 citizens, some of whom have autism,22 cerebral palsy, Down's syndrome, et23 cetera, and that makes it harder for them24 to find places to reside equally in this25 372 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 city or to receive the medical treatment2 necessary for some of them, violates3 federal law.4 In particular, the Law Center5 notes that banning group homes which6 allow persons with disabilities to live7 in the community, frequently near family8 and friends instead of being confined in9 institutions, is directly contrary to10 federal and state law. In the Claiborne11 case, the United States Supreme Court12 held municipalities violate the13 Constitution if they subject residents or14 persons with disabilities to different15 zoning standards than for other persons.16 And many courts have repeatedly17 recognized that under the Fair Housing18 Act, small group homes, albeit for19 unrelated persons, are equivalent to20 family residents for persons with21 disabilities and may not be excluded from22 residential neighborhoods.23 Labeling those homes as noxious24 is particularly offensive to many25 373 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 individuals who pose no threat to their2 neighbors and whose homes cannot even be3 identified by anybody walking by unless4 told beforehand.5 Additionally, attempts by6 Pennsylvania communities to exclude7 methadone clinics, which medically treat8 persons recovering from addiction,9 differently than other medical facilities10 have been struck down by the courts.11 Just three years ago, the federal courts12 overturned the efforts of both the13 Pennsylvania General Assembly and the14 City of Reading to require methadone15 clinics to go through more burdensome16 procedures for approval than other17 methadone clinics in a case called New18 Direction Treatment Services versus the19 City of Reading.20 Philadelphia is facing certain21 suit and unnecessary expense if it22 proceeds with the provision banning23 methadone clinics where it permits other24 medical facilities merely because of the25 374 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 population who uses that clinic.2 I will be glad to submit this3 testimony and any back-up materials that4 would be helpful to Council in their5 considerations.6 Thank you.7
Thank8 you very much. Thank you.9 MR. McPHERSON: The next panel10 is Lucy Strackhouse, Jeff Hornstein, Mary11 McCrea.12 (Witness approached witness13 table.)14 MR. McPHERSON: Gregory Moses.15 MS. McCREA: I'd just like to16 say I have testimony for the record.17
Ms.18 McCrea, would you take the witness chair19 and identify yourself and proceed with20 your testimony.21 MS. McCREA: My name is22 Mrs. Mary McCrea. I'm a resident of the23 Yorktown community, and I came to really24 listen and to have some input. I wanted25 375 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 to ask the Planning Commission mostly2 concerning we, the Yorktown, have a3 legislation in place, and I wanted to4 know the new zoning, will it overlap --5 have any interference with this6 legislation that we have in place?7
We'll8 have someone speak to you.9 MS. McCREA: Pardon me?10
We'll11 have someone speak to you.12 MS. McCREA: Okay.13
Do14 you have another comment or statement to15 make?16 MS. McCREA: That was about it.17 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:18 Pardon me?19 MS. McCREA: That was about it.20 Would she be able to speak to21 me?22
Point of25 376 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 information.2
Thank you,5 Madam Chair.6 Ma'am, generally speaking,7 throughout the City, everywhere there's8 an overlay or specific control in a9 neighborhood, it is being eliminated.10 And if you have that in your11 neighborhood, that may well be the case.12 And so Ms. Gladstein, who is behind you,13 can provide you specific information14 about that issue.15 MS. McCREA: Okay. I live in16 Councilman Clarke's district.17
Yes, ma'am.18 And I don't know about Yorktown or what19 the specific controls are there, but20 generally speaking, they're eliminated21 across the City, unless specifically22 included in the new Code. And yours are23 included in the new Code.24 MS. McCREA: Okay. Thank you.25 377 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Ms.2 McCrea, is this your testimony?3 MS. McCREA: No. That's4 Mrs. Pendleton-Smith's. She wasn't able5 to come.6
Very7 well. We'll give a copy of this to the8 stenographer.9 MS. McCREA: Yes.10
It11 will be transcribed in full.12 MS. McCREA: Okay.13
Thank14 you.15 Our next -- Greg, I didn't see16 you there. Please come up. Have you17 been hiding?18 (Witness approached witness19 table.)20
Pretty good.24 Pretty good.25 378 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 Please identify yourself for the record.3
Thank you.11 My name is Gregory Moses. I am12 the Executive Director of Southwest13 Association for Involvement in14 Development, as well as the Chairman of15 Ward 40-B in Southwest Philadelphia,16 Democratic Chairman.17 I'm here today in opposition in18 talking to -- referring to, rather, the19 idea of reentry programs. We have a20 parcel of land at 5312 Grays Avenue that21 City Councilwoman Jannie Blackwell and22 some others have been trying to turn into23 something else.24 If I may, I'd like to read what25 379 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 I have first.2 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:3 Please.4
My name is Gregory5 Moses. 10 At present, regulated uses are11 prohibited within 500 feet of a12 residential neighborhood. A prison is a13 regulated use. 22 For years, my neighbors and I23 in Southwest Philadelphia have been24 successfully fighting the development of25 380 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 a private prison, halfway house and a2 400-inmate prison at 53rd and Grays3 Avenue. 4 It hasn't really been for years. It's5 been a couple years. It's been going on6 and exceptions have been going on for7 about four years. The last two years8 we've been aware of it. 17 We have collected a petition18 of -- we have collected a petition of19 over 3,000 -- actually 3,500 --20 individuals who are against this21 particular project, opposed to this22 private prison. The applicant went to23 the Zoning Board of Adjustment and24 obtained a use variance. That was after25 381 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. The applicant -- excuse me. What occurred was, Southwest7 AID, they appeared at the hearing on that8 particular date, which I believe it was9 February the 27th of last year, and the10 developers, the Watts family, Dr. 13 Last night I learned that the14 new draft Code does not -- last night I15 learned that the new draft Code does end16 around on this issue. A new use category17 is created called reentry facilities. In18 other words, what they're trying to do is19 trying to put this under another title,20 which would not be subject to the 50021 foot rule buffer. These reentry22 facilities would be allowed by special23 exception in the districts formerly known24 as L-1, L-2, L-3, L-4, L-5 and Port25 382 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 2 We all realize that the value3 and importance of figuring out ways to4 reintegrate offenders back into our5 society, but for all times, these sorts6 of private prisons were prohibited from7 being 500 feet of a residential or school8 neighborhood. 25 383 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Just as a way of explanation2 with that, this is a situation whereas3 the major person who is the chair of this4 is Deputy Mayor Everett Gillison. He met5 in my home last fall, him and Tumar6 Alexander. Mr. 11 Mr. Gillison and I went back12 and forth. I allowed him to present what13 he thought would change my case or change14 our position. I wanted to hear what he15 had to say. And, most importantly, he16 wanted me to hear what he had to say,17 because he called me, not the other way18 around. 20 We as a community of over 35 --21 like I said, over 3,500 people -- that's22 3,500. 23 That does not include those who written24 letters, voiced their opinions or spoke25 384 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3 There are many other locations4 where this kind of situation can be5 built. What we're majorly concerned6 about is the closeness of such a thing7 such as this. 11
Greg,12 I don't mean to interrupt you. However,13 when this case went before the Zoning14 Board, how long did it take them before15 they rendered a decision?16
They did not render17 a decision. Well, they did -- I take18 that back. They did render a decision.19 What occurred is at the hearing the20 Southwest Association for Involvement in21 Development, we were the only ones who22 were there, because we learned about it23 the evening before by happenstance24 through the CDC, the Southwest Center25 385 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 for, you know, the neighborhoods. The2 young lady there called me, asked me did3 I know about it. I said no. And, of4 course, I got on the phone and started5 making phone calls.6 So ultimately speaking, they7 answered, I believe it was, the fall of8 last year. Now, this is from a hearing9 that was dated January, I believe, of10 2009.11
And12 it took almost a year, did it not, for13 the Zoning Board?14
Exactly. Right.15 It took almost a year for that to be16 answered. That despite, like I said, the17 many hearings that we had, two major18 ones -- well, there was one official one,19 which was held on the first of -- I'm20 sorry. I don't have it here in front of21 me. I do apologize. But there were two22 major hearings that were held, one that23 was headed by Councilwoman Jannie24 Blackwell, the other by myself. The25 386 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 official one, the official community one2 as directed by the Zoning Board of3 Adjustment, was held by myself on the4 second, because that's who I was directed5 to follow through on.6
The status right9 now is waiting for a hearing to be set10 allegedly sometime possibly in October.11
In terms of14 petitions, you see here well over 3,00015 petitions.16
Well over 3,50019 petitions. And, like I said, this only20 includes just the petitions, not the21 letters that were written individually.22 And these are petitions against this type23 of facility.24
Thank25 387 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 you.2
Okay. Other than3 that, at this particular point that's all4 I would have. There are a number of5 things I could say, but I don't want to6 waste the court's time.7
Thank8 you. I'm sorry you were kept waiting so9 long. I did not see you in the audience.10
The12 Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.13
Thank14 you, Madam President. I regret that I15 missed the beginning of this testimony.16 The proposed reentry center17 that was in my district, not in the18 President's district, we talked about19 that, and this is an issue that we talked20 about for years. Unfortunately, the21 gentleman speaking did not have the22 official meeting. That's not true. He23 knows it isn't true. He knows he's being24 dishonest. He had a meeting called for25 388 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 by his Senator. That was not the2 official meeting. We met for about two3 years on it.4 And so I regret that -- I won't5 go through all of that. Suffice it to6 say to the Committee that what he's7 saying is absolutely not truthful. He'll8 have his day. Whatever happens, happens.9 He'll have his day to appeal, which he's10 done, but he's just not being truthful.11 They haven't been for a long time, but12 he's being led unfortunately by one of my13 State Senators who created this hoopla in14 the first place in order to fight my15 reelection. But, you know, thank God,16 I've been here a long time, I'm still17 here.18 So I won't bother the Committee19 with that, but I did want to set the20 record straight that what he's saying is21 absolutely unequivocally not true.22
And we25 389 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 don't have to have debate back and forth.2 It's been a long day. He had his say and3 I've had mine.4
Okay. Thank you.8 Let me be very clear. The9 first time I heard about this situation10 was the day before the hearing. The11 hearing was, like I said, I believe it12 was January 27th.13
And I heard about16 it the evening before at exactly 5:45.17 That's when I first heard of anything18 about this whatsoever, which is why we19 started to hurry and scurry around, which20 is why the other group members, group21 leaders were not at the hearing, because22 we only had enough time to reach out and23 gather the people from Southwest AID.24
Anything else? So2 at this point, this is my first -- I3 excuse myself. This is my first hearing4 such as this. I've been to many, many5 hearings, but this is my first one such6 as this. So I don't know to open the7 board to yourselves or --8
Thank19 you.20 MR. McPHERSON: Our next21 witness is Tracey Gordon.22 (No response.)23 MR. McPHERSON: Tracy Green.24 I'm sorry.25 391 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591
Tiffany2 Green.3 MR. McPHERSON: Tiffany Green.4 I'm sorry. I apologize.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7
I want to hand12 these pictures in. I want the13 Councilmembers to take a look at that. 15 I'm here to oppose the new16 Zoning Code. The reason why I'm showing17 the pictures, because -- I'm here to18 oppose the new Zoning Code, because I19 don't feel that community participation20 has been 100 percent or has been a part21 of this. The reason why I think that22 this -- and many people in our community,23 people we've met with over the last24 couple weeks, we tried to explain the new25 392 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Zoning Code to them, and many of them do2 not want what the new Zoning Code is3 about. They really don't. 6 When we went up there, meetings7 were held at 8 o'clock in the morning,8 and as I stated publicly before, people9 have jobs, people have kids. 13 When we finally got a chance to14 get up there to the new Zoning Code,15 there were a lot of lawyers, zoning16 lawyers, planners, architects, and they17 all had a vested interest in this new18 Zoning Code. 23 With that, we feel that this24 document gives power to the developers25 393 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 and taking away control from the2 community. And you say, well, why do we3 say that? Well, look at the building4 heights. In the new Zoning Code, they5 propose building heights that go from 356 feet to 38 feet. Now, the average7 two-story townhouse or house in8 Philadelphia is about 22 feet. And9 you're allowing these developers to build10 up to 35 feet, and now they have attached11 on 38 feet. 15 Here is a zoning agenda from16 last month. We had four developers who17 want to -- or investors who want to build18 in our community. They want to add an19 attachment, three-story, deck in this20 two-story blocks. These are in South21 Philadelphia. Okay? 24 Majority of the blocks in South25 394 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Philadelphia are two-story houses. So2 everyone moving in is saying to us, Oh,3 well, it's zoned for a three-story. 8 We've done a lot of research on9 conformity. 11 When you look at those pictures that I12 gave you, when the developers are13 building, a lot of them are new, they're14 new investors. I call them Donald Trump15 wannabes. They're coming into the16 community, and when they build, they're17 not building exactly to the houses. They18 put up wooden frames. 25 395 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 When they build two-story --2 the community is not opposed to new3 development, let's make that clear, when4 we asked for our moratorium in March5 23rd. The people are not against new6 development. 8 I move on to say that when you9 remove the variances, if you allow this10 new Zoning Code to go through, the four11 developers that came to this meeting12 would no longer have to come to this13 meeting. 17 Now, this is not just happening18 in South Philadelphia, in Point Breeze,19 because the word on the street is -- we20 were wondering why development has slowed21 down. They're waiting for this day,22 September 14th. So once the new Zoning23 Code goes through, then you will start24 seeing them in West Philadelphia, you'll25 396 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 see them in North Philadelphia, you'll2 see them down in Kensington. 11 This is a headache. This is12 constant every month, four, five, six,13 seven, eight developers coming through14 saying they want to do three-story15 attachments and decks. 16 And then the houses, they're not really17 affordable. 19 And it also inspires other20 developers, other landlords to raise21 their rents. Their rents are going from22 $700 to $1,800. What do they do? 25 397 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 I'm just telling you what's2 really happening out on the street. I3 know we can go in a sophisticated level4 and go into the languages, and that's5 great, but let's talk about what's really6 happening. 23 And the thing about it is that the24 developers are able to go through the25 398 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES.
1104591 civic design and then they're going to2 have one person from the community that's3 supposed to rotate among the RCOs. 10 So you either have to -- why is11 civic design necessary? All this is12 about -- I've heard Alan Greenspan (sic)13 talk about reducing the workload for ZBA,14 saying we have as much workload as New15 York. Well, you know, variances help16 protect the community. It gives the17 community a say in what goes on as far as18 zoning is concerned. 22 The other thing I want to say23 is, when you remove the variances, you're24 putting the load back on L&I. L&I is a25 399 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 mess, and I'm not going to go into detail2 about that. 3 First of all, L&I takes 10 to 15 days to4 go out and look at a property. By the5 end, the developer is halfway through or6 halfway done. When he puts the building7 up, no one is going to tell him to take8 down the brick and take it down. So by9 the time L&I get out there, half of it or10 three-quarters of the house is done. And11 then you have representatives covering12 from our area down to the Naval Base13 home. 18
Not founded. Thank21 you, Ms. Verna. Not founded. We're22 getting a lot of not founded's. Well,23 something suspicious about "not founded."24 So I'm saying do not put all25 400 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that load back on L&I. They're already2 overloaded. You need to keep -- the old3 document is not too bad, but it needs to4 go back some and have more community5 input, a more realistic type of approach6 that will control the people.7 One more thing and I just want8 to go in the point, because I'm going to9 submit and Ms. Shikomba, she gave in10 recommendations. But we're saying also a11 public advocate. It is very hard when12 you're appealing to the civil court to13 find a lawyer to take the case. Many14 times it's conflict of interest. They15 talk about future earnings. They don't16 want to take the case, because it may17 affect them, because more of their18 clients might be developers as opposed to19 the community. So maybe a public20 advocate could come in and help people21 who want to appeal the process go through22 that, help them with going through that23 process, because civic court is real24 court.25 401 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 The following I want to say is,2 I think that this document needs to go3 back in front of the community. It has4 had five or six drafts. It has red ink,5 blue ink, black ink, and we just found6 out that they did type up a document for7 City Council because they didn't want to8 go through all that.9 So the thing about it is, it10 should go back in front of the community.11 They have not been in front of the12 community since last year. You have five13 and six rewrite drafts, three since March14 23rd when we submitted our moratorium,15 and the community has not seen it. How16 can you submit in a document or pass a17 document and the community, your bosses18 who have voted you in and you are19 supposed to work on behalf of them, pass20 a document that they haven't seen? I'm21 asking Ms. Gladstein, let's take it to22 the community centers, recreation23 centers, and let's not do a power --24 let's do a PowerPoint presentation, not25 402 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 poster boards. Senior citizens cannot2 walk around looking at poster boards and3 reading them. They get tired. Let's do4 a PowerPoint presentation. Let the5 people look at what was happening before,6 what's now and give their comment. Let's7 do the right thing. Let's do the right8 thing with the people, because people9 right now feel that they're going to be10 pushed out. You talk to people, they11 say, Oh, we're going to be pushed out.12 They're pushing us out.13 Do we want our communities,14 Philadelphians, do we want Philadelphians15 to feel like they're being pushed out?16 No, we do not.17 Send this document back and let18 it go back in front of the community.19 Let them see it. Explain it to them so20 they know what you're proposing.21 Thank you.22
Our3 next witness.4 MR. McPHERSON: I don't have5 anyone.6
Do we7 have anyone else to testify?8 Please approach the witness9 table.10 (Witnesses approached witness11 table.)12
Good13 afternoon. Please identify yourself for14 the record.15
Good afternoon16 to you all. My name is Jeff Carpineta17 from -- I'm the President of the East18 Kensington Neighbors Association. Thank19 you to Council and staff and the20 Commissioners, all that are involved, the21 Planning Commission, for putting in this22 really long day and for giving us this23 final window to make some comments to24 you. Thank you also to Councilman25 404 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 3 Our area, East Kensington, is4 the neighborhood just west of Fishtown5 and just east of the Market-Frankford6 train. We have three train stations at7 the western edge of our neighborhood. We8 are the neighborhood that's been hinted9 to many times today. East Kensington is10 the neighborhood that's sort of a11 minefield of zoning issues, of land uses12 and land abuses. We are the one that13 needs the new Code. We're the14 neighborhood that has heavy industrial15 parcels interspersed with tiny row homes16 and medium and tall row houses. We have17 several commercial corridors. We have18 several -- we have kind of an array of19 illegal uses through the years because of20 a previous Code that didn't quite make21 sense and was ignored. We have a lot of22 reckless auto businesses. We have23 commercial corridors where different24 zoning remappings and spot zonings25 405 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 5 And we have home builders who are6 convinced that front-loading garages are7 the most terrific thing. 11 So we burn a lot of precious12 volunteer energy in the neighborhood13 dealing with aspects of lousy Code, and14 we really hope and we make a plea that by15 the end of 2011 we have a new Code to16 work with. It makes a big difference for17 neighborhood life. 20 We want everyone here to be21 aware that all the meetings at 1515 --22 this is a compliment to Alan and Eva's23 work, the entire Commission and all the24 people that helped with that. All the25 406 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 meetings at 1515, the public outreach,2 the facilitated dialogues, the birth of3 the Citizen Planning Institute were all4 highly valuable and well worth it. They5 signal a new energy in Philadelphia. We6 built new leadership on the ground. 17 Some successes within the Code18 that I want to note that will make a19 difference in our neighborhood is that20 the civics are recognized and mapped. I21 think it's the first time in 30 years22 that there's actually a -- Planning23 Commission has a map detailing all the24 neighborhood boundaries and all civics25 407 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 that are involved to help make things2 easier in the neighborhood so that3 there's not as much agita and hashing out4 to do at the ZBA. That's part of the5 work that gets done in the neighborhood,6 and we feel like that's being recognized7 by finding a place within the Code, the8 role of the civics and the whole kind of9 protocols for civic engagement. 14 Something else that we're15 benefiting from the Code that sits before16 you is that urban gardens and urban farms17 have their place now. They're not18 existing in the shadows, as are the whole19 concept of live/work space and artist20 spaces within various types of buildings21 that seems like it may not any longer22 have to exist with sort of a "don't ask,23 don't tell" type policy of artists kind24 of hiding out in buildings and people25 408 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 having art studio practices within their2 homes. 10 So those are some successes for11 sure. We do hope that the final12 administrative procedure section of the13 Code articulates mechanisms for a few14 things. Number one, that ZBA review can15 run more efficiently. We want to be16 involved. We want the ZBA to know that17 we're here, that we're a partner in the18 process, as we talked about. But it is19 difficult.
We want to attend every20 meeting, our Zoning Chair or myself or21 Amy Miller here to my right, the22 Secretary of the Zoning Committee, but23 it's difficult when the meeting is like24 11 o'clock and we're not sure, we may25 409 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 wind up being down there until 3:00,2 3:30, 4:00 or 5 o'clock. 5 We would like to see some6 mechanisms outlined so that the ZBA and7 the members of the ZBA are able to share8 what their thinking is on the decisions9 that they make. 11 Because right now we do get the notice,12 which is great, of what the decision was,13 but we're not sure exactly why. And that14 doesn't mean that we're trying to be15 hard-headed or combative. 18 President Obama said once, he19 said, the things that come to my desk are20 the things that nobody else could really21 figure out. It's the toughest stuff to22 grapple with. 23 So the things that are winding24 up at ZBA should be, and we hope now with25 410 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 the new Code will be, the things that are2 more complex and difficult and need3 thoughtful analysis and consideration and4 evaluation. So what we need to be able5 to do is to learn from each one of those6 situations as live case studies what was7 the thinking there. The ZBA holds8 expertise. That's why they're there, to9 make those decisions. 10 We want to understand what are the11 perspectives, what's the reasoning, so we12 can grow. It's not always so that we can13 kind of come back for a second boxing14 match. And your better community leaders15 and your zoning committees and all the16 people now that are coming through the17 Citizen Planning Institute, they get18 that. They want to learn more. 20 We also hope that there will be21 clearly prescribed criteria for the22 granting of variances. 24 That's one of -- that's some of the most25 411 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 5 So just, again, thank you for6 the opportunity. 18
Thanks. Like Jeff19 said, my name is Amy Miller. I'm the20 Secretary of the Zoning Committee for the21 East Kensington Neighbors Association, or22 EKNA. Our seven-member committee23 submitted two formal letters to the24 Zoning Code Commission in the course of25 412 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 this process, and members of EKNA have2 attended numerous outreach sessions held3 by the ZCC. 9 The first letter that the EKNA10 Zoning Committee wrote to the ZCC was in11 response to the September 2010 draft12 consolidated code and focused on the13 proposed Transit-Oriented Development14 District, or TOD district. There are15 three stations of the Market-Frankford El16 that border East Kensington - Berks,17 York-Dauphin and Huntingdon. 20 We made some specific -- or we21 raised some specific concerns, and we22 feel that they have been addressed23 adequately, and we think that the current24 proposed Code on the TOD district is a25 413 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 6 We also wrote on the inadequacy7 of the tree standards. The landscaping8 and trees standard in the September 20109 version required street trees for10 residential subdivisions creating five or11 more lots. In the current proposed Code,12 this has changed to three lots, which is13 a significant improvement. 17 The required vehicle parking18 standards are also a great improvement on19 the current -- to the current as well as20 previous versions of the Code. In the21 current proposed Code, off-street parking22 is no longer required for traditional row23 home blocks. Attached residential24 buildings and lots less than 20 feet wide25 414 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 now would require a special exception2 approval. 5 Another great improvement in6 the definitions -- is in the definitions7 of home occupations. In the current8 proposed Code, artist studios are now an9 allowable home occupation. 16 The last comment I have is on17 requirements for bike parking. The18 bicycle parking standards are19 unfortunately unchanged from the previous20 Code. Philadelphia is one of the most21 bikeable cities in the world, except when22 you want to lock your bike. Stop signs,23 handrails and trees become ad hoc bike24 racks in the absence of adequate25 415 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 facilities. This is dangerous, unsightly2 and causes great damage to trees. The3 requirements for bike racks in the4 proposed Code are simply inadequate for a5 sustainable city. 9 For example, the current10 proposed Code states that for multi-unit11 residential of less than 12 units, zero12 bike racks are required. 22 In the process, Philadelphians have had a23 chance to reevaluate their city, their24 neighborhoods and their future. After25 416 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 this engaging process of rewriting the2 Code, we are now faced with the enormous3 challenge of remapping our land. 9
Thank10 you.11 Any questions or comments from12 members of the Committee?13 (No response.)14 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:15 Seeing none, thank you very much. We16 appreciate your patience.17
No20 agita.21 Do we have anyone else that22 would like to testify?23 (No response.)24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:25 417 9/14/11 - WHOLE - RES. 1104591 Seeing no one, this Committee will stand2 in recess until September 27th at 10:003 a.m.4 Thank you all very much.5 (Committee of the Whole6 adjourned at 5:10 p.m.)7 - - -8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 418 1 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on September 14, 2011, and7 that this is a true and correct transcript of8 same.9 10 11 12 13 --------------------14 MICHELE L. MURPHY15 RPR-Notary Public16 17 18 19 (The foregoing certification of this20 transcript does not apply to any reproduction21 of the same by any means, unless under the22 direct control and/or supervision of the23 certifying reporter.)24 25