Sometime after that, the city actually acquired the site, perhaps for something like tax delinquency.
So the sum total of that is that it's been either vacant or abandoned or used for illegal purposes like dumping and illegal storage for half a century. So there's been nothing productive here for a very long time.
Um, what, what is precisely the, the environmental impact of that past galvanizing use? It's that the company Urban Engineers that conducted the phase one environmental review on this site found these three issues, that there are metals in the soil above statewide standards for acceptability, that there is free floating chemical products in the shallow groundwater table,
and that there is at least one large underground storage tank probably that was used for petroleum
fuel. These issues have to be remediated regardless of what the use of the property is.
So this is a summary letter by the firm that did the phase one that I just showed you.
And what they concluded in terms of next steps here are that the above preferred remedial action,
which is capping, I'll describe in a second, would be the same regardless of residential
or commercial slash industrial redevelopment of the site. So the applicant or whoever would
develop this property has to pay for environmental remediation regardless of what is going to go on
here. And the applicant actually put together this model that showed, and I'll point out in a second
what A and B mean, but they looked at two different development possibilities. And regardless of what
is developed here, there are some very large fixed costs that have to do with cleaning up
the contamination. And those, in a very brief manner, I'll tell you what has to happen is
most of the site needs to be capped with a new concrete podium. And any portion of the site that
isn't capped, perhaps because we do want some landscaping. The soil has to be removed. It has
to be replaced with new soil. And the old soil has to be sent to a special facility where it can
be scrubbed of chemicals. Finally, we have to have a very sort of high-end stormwater management
system because we can't let our stormwater just seep into the soil as normally happens. It has
to be captured, put into a tank, and then piped directly into the sewer system so that we're not
running even rainwater through the soil. This is all for public safety. And we would do these
things. And that letter by the environmental firm concluded that those actions would safely address
what's going on here. But because they need to be taken, it adds a lot of expense to any
development of this site. So the question becomes, you know, what type of project can cover
these environmental-related expenses and the tremendous expense of building any new building.
And because the site is not well-suited for commercial or industrial use,
perhaps we could attract some tenant for those uses, but it would be risky. And it certainly
wouldn't be a flagship sort of grade A tenant with good finances. They're not interested in
a site this narrow that depends on narrow residential streets for access. That all means
that residential is the only safe bet. And further, there's a minimum number of units that
has to be developed to make sure that we can finance the development of even a residential
building. So this A and B here on this slide, scenario A is the 70-unit building. Scenario B
is a 65-unit building, which we also analyzed as an alternative. And if we're going to do this
commitment to affordability, which is important to the seller of the property, the land bank.
What it means is that a 65-unit building, this model shows, would not...
What it means is that a 65-unit building, this model shows, would not return a steady, positive cash flow until year 13 of the building's operation.
The first 12 years of the existence of a 65-unit project, the building would be losing money.
That's not going to be able to attract financing.
A 70-unit building, on the other hand, would return a positive cash flow in its second year of operation and thereafter.
So what that means is that 70 units, given a margin of error of one or two units, is really the minimum number of units that can be developed here and make this project work financially.
Therefore, that's what we call the minimum necessary relief under the law, to the extent that there's a minimum necessary relief requirement on this property.
I think I can pretty much wrap it up there.
I would like to bring on one or two folks from the developer team to adopt my testimony and maybe add one or two comments.
But again, we believe that the industrial or commercial development of this site simply is not feasible.
That represents a hardship.
We can't comply with the code, therefore.
And that 70 units is the minimum that would make this project feasible.
So can I give you the names of the folks I'd like to bring on, Mr. Chairman?
Okay. So those individuals would be Justin Kaplan and Blaine Stoddard.
Mr. Kaplan?
Brandon, Phil Balderston is on the call.
Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. So in lieu of Justin, we have Phil Balderston.
Thank you, Rachel.
Phil Botterston has been allowed to talk.
Hi, could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Philip Botterston, P-H-I-L-I-P, Botterston, B-A-L-D-E-R-S-T-O-N.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Proceed, counsel.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Phil, first of all, are you authorized to speak on behalf of Sep V. Valaft's LLC?
Okay. Did you hear the full extent of my testimony this morning?
I did.
Was it true and accurate to the best of your knowledge?
Yes, it was.
Would you therefore adopt it as if it were your own?
Okay. Anything else you want to add, Phil?
No, I think that's fine.
Okay. Thanks.
Questions from the board.
Oh, Mr. Chairman, we did one additional because there's a partner investor in this process. I'd like him to adopt my testimony as well.
Oh, sure.
Thank you. And that's Blaine, who's on, I see.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Blaine, would you unmute yourself if you're there?
Yes, he's unmuted. He just would need to speak.
Hi. Hi. State your name and spell, please, for the court reporter.
Mr. Stoddard, are you available?
He is unmuted, though.
Could you state your name, please, and spell for the court reporter?
Seems as he's having technical difficulties.
Okay, fine. We're fine.
Questions from the board?
No, Mr. Chairman.
No, Mr. Chairman.
Questions or comments from the virtual audience?
i see no hands raised thank you i'm sorry there's one uh okay oh alturo hall
hi could you state your name please hi could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
please yes alturo hall a-l-t-o-r-o last name hall h-a-l-o do you swear or affirm to tell the
truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth. Yes, I do. Proceed. On behalf of the Commerce
Department, I'm requesting that the permit at 2201 East Tioga Street be denied. The site and
questions within the thriving and established industrial section of the city. Additionally,
the operation of the current adjacent industrial users would be negatively impacted if multi-residential
development becomes their neighbor the cohabitation of heavy industrial operations comprising of
sound smells vehicles deliveries uh adjacent to residential housing often leads to community
complaints, followed by punitive measures against the industrial user and
followed by punitive measures against the industrial user and requires potential location.
This site is currently used, would be used for industrial purposes, if could be,
and the characteristic support is continued use as a viable industrial site.
Once again, the project would also create negative consequences for the industrial user and adjacent residents.
so therefore we we request that uh it be denied thank you chairman yes i'd like to briefly respond
to that and then i'd like to um allow angel rodriguez who is the executive director of the
land bank to speak as well it's been kind enough to attend i just want to mention that um we do
have a land planner um and we did submit significant documentation and proof to the validity of the
use here. I don't believe we have obtained any documentation, proof, or information aside from
Mr. Alturo's speculative testimony related to any negative impacts. Again, the property has been
held by the Land Bank and the City of Philadelphia since at least 2000. It's now 2023. There have
been no applications that are qualified related to any commercial or industrial use. There has
not been the denial of the ability to do so. And again, the testimony provided by Mr. Hall has been
speculative at best. Additionally, I just want to mention that we did have a number of community
meetings where we did have to submit certified letters requesting attendance at both a community
meeting and CDR hearings at which Commerce Department did not attend, neither did anybody
from the community to voice any opposition for this project at all or any concerns related to
its location near any other commercial or industrial buildings. I want to just allow
Mr. Rodriguez to speak, and then again, happy to answer. Is he in the audience? Yes. Okay.
Mr. Rodriguez, you're allowed to speak?
State her name, state his name again, please. Ms. Angel Rodriguez, can you unmute yourself?
Certainly. Thank you. Can everybody hear me? Hi, yes. Could you state your name and spell
for the court reporter? Certainly. Angel Rodriguez, A-N-G-E-L. Rodriguez, R-O-D-R-I-G-U-E-Z.
I'm the executive director of the Philadelphia Land Bank. All right. Do you swear or affirm to
tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth? Yes. Proceed, counsel. So I just want to
report to the board that point in fact what Ms. Pritzker had mentioned was true. What we're
talking about here is uh if anyone has been utilizing it in the industrial corridor they've
been doing it in illegally occupying city-owned properties i can tell you that uh through
extensive conversations with the commissioner of public property the council office and even
our own internal piece this is why we allowed this property to be conveyed out as um for
residential development um we do require all developers to meet with the community and if
there were any opposition we would have tried to address that issue we did not see that it
was brought before the philadelphia land bank board it was affirmed and we sent it to council
council res resolved to allow for the disposition so as proposed uh and what's being brought before
the board at no point in time in commercial when we have public property meetings did commerce ever
raise any objections to this. So I would just say that we've been through this process for
several months. I was a little shocked about hearing this now. All right. Mr. Pritzker,
do you have any questions? Thank you. Mr. Chairman, I really do apologize to have to do
this, but because a court would likely deem the Commerce Department to have standing to bring a
court action. And because I am not an expert in the planning field, I have to bring on the
gentleman who authored that planning report to briefly sort of back or give his own statement
as to a summary of his report. That's going to be a requirement in the event that this was to
go to litigation. That should only take a couple minutes if I could bring him on.
What's his name?
George Ritter.
mr ritter hi could you state your name please and spell for the court reporter
ritter state your name again please yes my name is i-t-t-e-r okay do you swear
affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth i do proceed um george in a moment
George, in a moment, I'm going to ask you essentially to summarize your report.
i'm going to ask you essentially to um
But just before I do that, can you provide the board a brief explanation of who you are and your knowledge and experience, keeping in mind that I've already put your CV into the record?
Yes. I've practiced in the field of land planning now for more than 35 years.
years. AICP certified. I've appeared before numerous planning boards in both Pennsylvania
and New Jersey to discuss subjects of land use planning and issues. I've also appeared
as an expert witness in the field of land planning before the Superior.
I have a BS in landscape architecture from Penn State University and a master's in
okay Brandon he seems to be going in and out yeah we'll do the best we can so Mr. Chairman I just
would like to make a motion to admit Mr. Ritter as an expert in the field of land planning
Okay, thank you.
So, George, you've sort of heard the back and forth between myself and the Commerce Department
representative.
Can you summarize your report insofar as it addresses the current flavor of land uses
on our side of Tioga Street and what sort of use on this property would be more appropriate
in terms of industrial or commercial versus residential?
uh yes essentially what we did is we went out and did a
both north southeast and west of the property uh and took a look at what was actually going
on in the neighborhood as compared to uh what is some of the properties are actually zoned
which we all know many of these names really reflect the current uses on the ground.
What we found was it is particularly suited for residential development
because the neighborhood within which it is sitting has substantially changed over the years.
uh what were industrially zoned and developed properties have been converted to resident
uh it's been pointed out that basically to the uh west of the property west of septiva street we
have uh brandon i think brandon just for a point of information i think you've covered
what he said okay i mean why don't why don't we try to move him a little bit
George, thank you. Yeah, you're cutting in and out a little bit, but thanks, Mr. Chairman,
I understand. And George's full report is also in the record. So that's fine. The last thing I just
wanted to touch on to clarify, Rachel and Mr. Rodriguez's statements is that I believe this
project was sort of flushed through public comment opportunity at the land bank board meeting during
the RCO meeting regarding this variance and during the CDR process. While I believe there were, I
think, four out of 18 attendees at the RCO meeting for the variance expressed some degree of
opposition, none of those were industrial or commercial users. Those were just certain
individuals who live in the neighborhood. So that's the point. There's been no industry who's
come out of the woodwork that we have a problem with this. All right. Is there anyone else in
virtual audience who has a comment. I see no hands, Chair.
Hi, Planning Commission. Thank you, Chair Bergman. Ian Hegarty for the
Philadelphia City Planning Commission. My last name is spelled H-E-G-A-R-T-Y.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
I do, sir. Proceed. Thank you, Chair. Good morning, Board members.
Board members, this proposal completed Civic Design Review in July 2022.
Just as a note, the CDR process and the CDR recommendations are not an expression of the City Planning Commission's recommendation.
The comprehensive plan recommended industrial zoning for this block when this neighborhood was remapped in 2017, according to the comp plan.
The community recommended ICMX and PCPC accepted that, and that was eventually incorporated into these neighborhood remapping that was adopted by City Council.
That was done to retain the industrial zoning, but also allow commercial uses.
That was done to allow additional business options for these industrial properties, while still promoting uses that are generally compatible with industrial zoning in this industrial area, which extends well beyond the blocking question.
That was done to allow additional business options for these industrial zones.
While the City Planning Commission is generally supportive of affordable housing, and we appreciate the challenges of redeveloping this site, the Comprehensive Plan does specifically recommend discouraging residential uses in the Aramingo industrial area.
this is part of the adopted plan and the language is very clear. The Aramingo industrial area is
broader than just this block that's been analyzed by the Appalance Land Use Planner and extends
quite a good distance to the southwest. The ICMX zoning here has two rationales. First,