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