COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, June 1, 2006 10:45 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILL 060286 - An ordinance approving the thirteenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area... BILL 060347 - An ordinance approving the thirty-fifth amendment for the redevelopment proposal of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
This is a public hearing of the Rules Committee, and I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 060286.
Bill No. 060286, an ordinance approving the thirteenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of 40th Street and Spring Garden Street, including the tenth amendment to the urban renewal plan and relocation plan, as amended, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately properties for 17 commercial and related uses, the land 18 acquisition of approximately four 19 properties for residential and related 20 uses; the provision of certain relocation 21 services, as required by law, and 22 declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project.
Mr. Wetzel, are you testifying on this 3 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 bill? And City Planning. Is City Planning here? Please approach the witness table. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 060286, which is the thirteenth amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the tenth amendment of the urban renewal plan for the Mantua Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 21 properties for commercial and related 22 uses and four properties for residential and related uses for three proposed development projects. The Interagency Acquisition 4 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Review Team authorized the acquisition of two occupied structures, two vacant structures and vacant lots in support 5 of the Mantua supermarket project. The 6 Redevelopment Authority has been working 7 with Strong Properties, Inc., whose plan 8 is to combine these properties with those 9 privately acquired by Strong Properties 10 to newly construct a supermarket retail 11 center at the site. The estimated 12 acquisition costs are 235,000 and the 13 funding source for acquisition costs is 14 NTI bond proceeds. 15 Residential and related uses: 16 The Office of Housing and Neighborhood 17 Preservation has requested the 18 acquisition of three vacant structures as part of the People's Emergency Center Homeownership Phase II project. These properties will constitute part of a site to newly construct 18 homeownership units in the West Powelton/Mantua area. Each is 1,800 square feet, three bedrooms, one and a half baths and will have off-street 5 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 parking. These units will be marketed to moderate-income families and the sale price estimate is at $95,000. The estimated acquisition cost is $188,685. The funding source for acquisition costs is NTI bond proceeds. The Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation has requested the Redevelopment Authority acquire one vacant lot as part of 1260 Housing Development Corporation's Mantua Project. This property will be utilized as green space for their Melon Street Development, which is comprised of one two-story ten-unit apartment building and one two-story four-unit apartment building. These units will be rented to low- and moderate-income families and persons with disabilities. The estimated acquisition costs are $11,500. The funding source of acquisition costs is NTI bond proceeds. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 6 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 060286 and ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow a first reading today, June 1, 2006. Thank you.
Yes. Good morning, Madam President and members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding, Director of Community Planning at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission testifying today in support of Bill No. 16 060286, which calls for the acquisition of 26 properties for commercial and residential development in Mantua. It was approved at the Commission meeting of March 10th of last year. I'm happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Council President, 7 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 I've invited the developers for each of these projects here. I know two of them are here, so if there are specific questions about the development, which you've asked previously, so we now are standardly asking the developers to come to the hearings.
Wonderful. Mr. Wetzel, the title of the bill describes the development as, quote, beginning at the intersection of 40th Street and Spring Garden Street. I am having difficulty in visualizing this description. Can you be a little more specific, please?
I think we have a map over there. That's the beginning corner of the urban renewal area.
That's the beginning corner of the urban renewal area that we're amending the 8 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 redevelopment proposal for.
Thank you. According to your testimony, all of these lots and structures are vacant. Does RDA staff take photos documenting these conditions?
No. There's actually -- my testimony was that we're acquiring two occupied structures.
According to the fact provided, there are seven residentially zoned properties that are slated to be reused for commercial purposes. Does this bill authorize that zoning as a matter of right?
No, it does not. The developer would have to seek the zoning change.
And can you tell us if the RDA actually 9 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 prepares a zoning change for introduction into Council or does that come from the City Planning Commission?
Thank you. Are there any questions of the witnesses? (No response.)
Not at all. My fault. I just put my light on. With regard to the list, we would like to ask RDA to defer use of eminent domain with regard to 3619 and 21 Haverford Avenue. We'd like to see if a proposed developer, owner and RDA can make arrangements for alternate locations 10 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 for this property owner, if it becomes necessary.
Yes, and apparently, Madam President, it was a double property that wasn't so listed. So the City exempted one half of it and not the other half. So we want to make sure we resolve that issue, and we spoke with Mr. Wetzel yesterday.
Yes. I will go on the record and acknowledge and accept the request of Councilwoman Blackwell that we will not proceed to use eminent domain on 3619 and Haverford Avenue and, again, 18 work with the developer and the owner of 19 the property. 20
Very 21 well. Thank you. Do we have any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we 11 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 have anyone else to testify on this bill?
Rich Leinbach and John Mancini. And after Mr. Mancini is Christopher Booth.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Rich Leinbach, real estate broker, Coldwell Banker, commercial. Madam Chairperson and Committee members, we represent the estate of William July and have listed properties on 37th and Haverford over to Brandywine, and two of the parcels are part of the ordinance, 3700 Haverford, 3704 Haverford, and we'd like to oppose the taking of those two properties so that we can market this entire parcel together. We have received numerous calls on the project for development.
I have no idea or information about this. I 12 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 understand the son of the estate owner works for Risk Management and is here in the room. I don't understand even if we have people work for the City, if they're interested, I have no idea why we have this issue. We always try to resolve any problems we have before we come here, and I'm embarrassed whenever we have one. But I don't even understand. If we have the son who works for Risk Management, he probably knows as much about this as we do, and if we have brokers who are experienced at doing this, why are we here and what has -- I'm curious as to what their relationship has been with RDA, with City Planning. Certainly they've said nothing to me so that we can figure out where we are and what we're supposed to do. We're trying to build a supermarket for the community. We never try to hurt anybody in the process, but I don't understand why people haven't been 13 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 in touch with me or RDA or City Planning or somebody so that we're not here at this table in a public testimony on opposite sides of the issue.
We have made contact last week. We just listed this property.
We had -- I know John had some conversation with Herb Wetzel, and I believe we e-mailed a package to Councilwoman Blackwell's office on Friday.
Madam Chair, could we have Herb Wetzel come back. Maybe he could --
Certainly. Mr. Wetzel, please approach the witness table.
But didn't they know so long ago? You have to be notified so many months. You have 14 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 to have so many opportunities for notification. I still don't understand why experienced people haven't tried to communicate better prior to a public hearing. I don't understand that.
I was contacted by Coldwell Banker last week and I indicated to them that we were moving forward with an acquisition for affordable housing project and if they had concerns, they needed to direct their concerns to Councilwoman Blackwell and her office.
Madam President, this is the one that is for People's Emergency Center. That's the oldest housing shelter in our state. This is part of their development, and they're there on site every day. As I said, I have no idea. I have no idea why there's been no 24 communication and I don't understand why at this point when we're only trying to 15 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 help do apartments for low-income people why we're here now with this debate.
What are the addresses that you mentioned earlier, sir?
The two in the ordinance were 3700 Haverford and 3704 Haverford.
Madam President, we are requesting, if the Committee would consider, that we move forward.
Thank you. Excuse me, sir. Did you want to also testify? 16 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
Yes. I'm John Mancini. And I did contact Herb originally when we listed the property, which was just recent, and he suggested that I did send a package to Jannie Blackwell's office, and I did get a confirmed e-mail from her assistant that she received it and thanked me on Friday. So I don't know. Maybe there was a short time period or Jannie didn't receive this for some reason, but it was definitely sent and I was thanked for sending it.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee of the two witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, gentlemen, thank you very much. Our next witness.
Is Mr. Booth here? 17 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 (No response.)
Madam President, he was involved with the property referenced earlier, 3619 to 9 Haverford, that we've already talked 10 about. 11
So 12 he's been here and left and is satisfied. 13 Thank you. 14 Are there any other witnesses 15 that would like to testify on this bill? 16 (No response.) 17
18 Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to 19 please read the title of Bill No. 060347. 20
Bill No. 060347, 21 an ordinance approving the thirty-fifth amendment for the redevelopment proposal of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the northwest corner of Front Street and Spring Garden 18 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Street, including the twenty-seventh amendment to the urban renewal plan and the twenty-fifth amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of properties for residential and 8 related uses, the additional land 9 acquisition of approximately 66 10 properties for institutional and related 11 issues, the additional land acquisition 12 of one property for commercial and 13 related uses; the provision of certain 14 relocation services, as required by law, and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the Project.
Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 060347, which is the 19 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 thirty-fifth amendment to the redevelopment proposal and the twenty-seventh amendment to the urban renewal plan for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area. The proposal and plan provide for the acquisition of 81 properties. Fourteen properties are to be acquired for residential and related uses, 66 properties are to be acquired for institutional and related uses, and one property is to be acquired for commercial and related uses. Residential and related uses: At the request of the Office of Housing and Neighborhood Preservation, one occupied structure will be acquired for residential and related use. This parcel will complete the site assembly for the last phase of the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone. The property will be used in the development of 41 new construction homeownership units as part of the third and final phase of the Cecil 20 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 B. Moore Homeownership Zone Project, which is an area bounded by North 19th Street, North 20th Street, Master Street and Jefferson Street. The current property owner will be relocated as part of the development plan. The estimated acquisition costs, including relocation benefits, are $142,730, and the funding source for the acquisition costs is NTI bond proceeds. At the request of Tower Investment, Inc., 13 properties will be acquired for residential and related uses on behalf of Pennsylvania Development Partners, LLC, an affiliate of Tower Investment. The RDA Board authorized the Authority to enter into a Non-Assistance Agreement with Pennsylvania Development Partners, LLC. The agreement will require that Pennsylvania Development Partners, LLC to pay for all direct and indirect costs associated with this acquisition. Estimated acquisition costs are $2,752,000. 21 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Institutional and related uses: At the request of Temple University, 66 vacant lots will be acquired for institutional and related uses on behalf of Temple University. Temple plans to develop a new student classroom and laboratory building. The RDA Board authorized the Authority to enter into a Non-Assistance Agreement with Temple University. The agreement will require Temple University to pay for all direct and indirect costs associated with this acquisition. Estimated acquisition costs are $1,318,375. Commercial and related uses: At the request of the Commerce Department, one vacant parcel of land will be acquired for future commercial development. It is intended that this parcel will be for the proposed site of a supermarket development at the southeast corner of 27th and Girard Avenue. Estimated acquisition costs are $2,752,750. The funding source for 22 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 acquisition costs is the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 7 060347 and would ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow first reading June 1, 2006.
Thank you very much. I'd like to hear from City Planning, please.
Thank you and good morning again. I'm Richard Redding, Director of Community Planning at the Planning Commission, testifying in support of Bill No. 060347, which authorizes acquisitions in four sections of North Philadelphia. No. 1, 27th and Girard; No. 2, Temple University; No. 3, Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone; and, finally, in Northern Liberties. The Planning Commission approved this at its meeting of April 20, 23 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 2006. At the same time, we amended the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area plan to correct any land use discrepancy, and it's also consistent with a previous blight certification for the vicinity of 27th and Girard. That's my testimony. Thank you, and I'd be happy to try to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Mr. Wetzel, can you be more specific about how the authorization process for acquisitions work and what laws govern this process?
The process from the very outset requires that an area be certified blighted by the City Planning Commission, and that requires the Planning Commission to do research, do a blight certification and adopt a redevelopment area plan. Once that's done, the Redevelopment Authority can proceed to 24 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 adopt what's called redevelopment proposals, which these are today. Adopt a redevelopment proposal, have that redevelopment proposal go to the Planning Commission, and then that redevelopment proposal has to come before this body in the form of an ordinance, and then the Mayor has to sign that ordinance. Then the Redevelopment Authority can proceed to acquire.
Can you explain why or how the 13 properties proposed for conveyance to Tower Investment, Inc. made it to the redevelopment proposal and then into this bill?
Yes. It was a request to continue. There was a previous redevelopment proposal adopted for Tower at this particular location, and this was additional properties to fill out that site, is my understanding.
I understand certainly your commitment and 25 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 I will state for everyone here that you have always, always kept your word with us.
However, once this bill passes in its present form, the authorization for acquisition exists in perpetuity with no 10 sunset clause. In the future if there is different leadership of the RDA, they could exercise the right to do whatever it is that would be contrary to this bill. Wouldn't you agree?
I know you're going to agree with us. You're wonderful and you always keep your word, but --
-- I think that we have to be very careful of what we're doing.
I agree with you, 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 and I think that we have done a number of things in the past, for example, in your district and in others where you have said, Would you not acquire these properties, will you enter into a rehab agreement with these individuals so that once they fix them up and satisfy that rehab agreement, then whatever is in this ordinance goes away. In addition to that, if I were requested by any Councilmember to issue a letter to anybody who owns a property that's in this ordinance, I could issue a letter that indicated the fact that the Redevelopment Authority has no intention of acquiring this particular property under Bill number, whatever the bill 19 number is, and once that letter is issued, our power to acquire through eminent domain ceases and they'd have to come back to Council again. The Redevelopment Authority would have to come back to this body. So if there is at any point in 27 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 time -- most of the time what we've done is rehab agreements or revestment agreements with owners so they would go and fix up the properties. But if any Councilmember here who asked us to send a letter to a property owner saying that we will not use eminent domain as authorized under that bill, then we could not act on eminent domain without coming back to this body with another ordinance.
And I would be glad to do that at any time for any Councilperson.
Thank you very much. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Wetzel, how does this happen? How do you get properties from one district and another district and 28 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 comingle them in the same bill? Thank God people paid attention and looked at it. These are pretty routine bills, they go through pretty quickly. And what are the properties in Councilmember DiCicco's district, what are they for? What's that project?
That's for residential and related uses. It's a proposed project by Bart Blatstein. And the reason that this ended up covering two Council districts is, the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area actually spills over into the First District, a small piece of it does.
Well, did you know that this happened? Did you know that this happened when it was done? When the bill was drafted, who drafted the bill?
So you were aware that there were two different 29 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 districts?
I was aware that this -- I wasn't aware from the very beginning that there were two different districts. I'd become aware of it recently that there were two different districts.
I started talking to Councilman DiCicco, what, last week when I became aware of it.
And you're going to find out how that happened, or 30 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 you just think that was a mistake?
Despite the fact that the development may be controversial in somebody's district.
Yes. I think it was a mistake, and I accept responsibility for it.
I will share with you a memorandum that I issued yesterday saying that no redevelopment proposal will go before the Board of Directors of the Redevelopment Authority unless there's written evidence from the district Councilperson that such an ordinance has their support. And I'll share that. I have it with me. I'll share it with you.
No. I've been 31 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 here six and a half years and it's never happened before.
So it's only happened in Councilman DiCicco's district with a project that might be controversial in the community, and that just happened?
Accepting responsibility is one thing, but who in your staff is doing it? That's the other question. And how did it happen and why when one time in six years it happened it's in Councilman DiCicco's district, with a project that may be somewhat controversial? Potentially, not necessarily.
Does it or 32 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 not? Doesn't it seem strange to you?
A single mistake in six years in one district where there may be some issues. Okay.
Good morning. Follow-up question. Has this issue been fixed going forward?
Yes. I'll share with you the memo that my general counsel will -- I drafted to our general counsel. I think the simplest way to solve this is that there needs to be written evidence from the district Councilperson of their support or it doesn't go to our Board of Directors. That way, this won't happen. And there's only one urban renewal area that I'm aware of, unless there are others as a result of the change in districts, that is shared right now by two Councilpeople. 33 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
I understand. I mean, I think those were shared previously, except that there's less of it in the First District now.
Your general counsel himself drafted the bill 14 personally?
He drafts the bill 16 and sends it to the City's Law Department.
How many people in the general counsel's office over there?
Three lawyers. Robert Guerra, Nicholas Scafidi, Vern 34 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Anastasio.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, if I can, I just want to follow up real briefly on that particular issue, and then I have a couple of questions to ask about two other properties in that ordinance. Mr. Wetzel, is it possible -- because I understand this whole issue about not being able to introduce another ordinance in a Model Cities area until that ordinance is signed because you're actually amending the original Model Cities Redevelopment Authority area. Is 35 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 it possible for the Redevelopment Authority or some other City agency to change the boundaries of the Model Cities area so you don't have an overlap between districts so that in the Fifth Councilmanic District, as an example, that will be one Model Cities area and in the First Councilmanic District that will be another Model Cities area so you don't have that overlap?
It's possible to change the boundaries of the urban renewal area and also a redevelopment area.
So that's something that you can do administratively or would it have to be the Planning Commission?
The Planning Commission has the ultimate authority over the boundaries of this. And I think it would be an excellent idea, because wherever there's a -- and, listen, there could be another one that I don't know of 36 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 at this point in time because of changes in districts, but it would make a lot of sense that an urban renewal area be within a single Council district, that it doesn't overlap more than one, it's not in two districts or three districts, which could be a possibility in East or North Philadelphia. And if that's a request, we could look at how to do it. They'd probably have a different name. It wouldn't be Model Cities A and B. We'd probably want to give it a different name.
While you've acknowledged that that's a good idea, I don't want to take full credit, because you and I had this conversation yesterday, so I want to make sure that everybody knew that you were a part of that discussion.
Councilman, I don't think it would be done administratively at the Planning 37 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Commission. It would go to our official Commission meeting.
And I'd like to actually do this. We have new state legislation so that in 120 days from May 3rd, any blight certifications have to be done under the new legislation. So if we're going to do this, we'll probably want to do this this summer and get these two separated, and if there's any others that are overlapping, separate those as well.
Councilwoman Miller just reminded me that we actually share some areas up in Tioga in the northern part of the Fifth District.
Many of us do share. Like I share with Councilwoman Blackwell.
I think South Central is shared. Is South Central 38 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 shared?
South Central is shared also. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President.
No. That was a part of the earlier discussion. I had some questions on my own. Thank you. Just real briefly, Mr. Wetzel, one of the acquisitions has to do with Phase III of Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone.
Briefly, can you talk about the process on the current phase of Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zones and any acquisition and relocation of existing homeowners in that particular phase or the next phase, actually this current phase, what the process was for the residents that lived in that particular neighborhood. And the other thing, if at all possible, Madam President, I would like Mr. Bishop from Temple University to respond to the process as it relates to the acquisitions of properties for Temple University and what arrangement or what discussion is taking place with that community up in that area.
With regards to the homeowners whose properties were acquired for the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone, each owner of a property was given the opportunity to essentially have the right of first refusal for one of the new houses that is 40 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 being built, and of the homeowners accepted that opportunity. On a Saturday at 10th Memorial Church, we had two drawings. One, we drew their names out of a hat to establish the order they would pick numbers, and then they would -- and essentially we had names 9 on a list after that drawing was done, 10 and each one went in and stuck their hand 11 and picked out a ping pong ball with a 12 number on it, and starting with No. 1, 13 they went to the site and stuck a pin in 14 the new house where they're going to 15 move, which in many cases is less than 16 two blocks, I think you would agree, less 17 than two blocks from where they live now. And it was a very -- I can't describe it. It was one of those rare experiences where doing this work, you really felt like this is the reason that you do this. Seventeen people being able to stay in their neighborhoods, the neighborhoods they've lived in for years. And I'll tell you, the best -- I'll be real quick 41 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 about this, but a brother and sister have lived next to each other in a rowhouse for 30-some years and they were worried that they wouldn't be able to pick the new houses next to each other, because it was a lottery. And absolutely one of them was the fourth person to pick and one of them was the 13th person to pick. So they were pretty sure they weren't going to get a house next to each other. And what was absolutely amazing is, one of them picked ping pong ball No. 5 and the other one picked No. 6, and the brother and sister were able to select houses next to each other. So when they move, after 35 years of living next to each other, they'll continue to live next to each other. It was a great experience, and thank you for asking.
Thank you. And there was no additional cost to that homeowner. There was essentially a one-for-one swap, right?
No. And we 42 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 continue to do this for homeowners who have had some -- yes. Essentially, these homeowners, if they have no mortgage in their old house will have no mortgage in their new house. If they have an $8,000 mortgage in their current house, they'll have an $8,000 mortgage in their new house. But they will have no more debt when they move into their new house than they have on their house today.
Thank you. Mr. Bishop, can you please state your name for the record.
Yes. My name is Tabb Bishop. I am Deputy Chief of Staff, the Office of the President, Temple University.
Mr. Bishop, there are several parcels in this bill 21 that Temple is interested in acquiring. Could you tell me what Temple is going to build and what discussions they've had with the community as it relates to the development of the site? 43 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
Thank you, Councilman. Temple University, a lot of people look at Temple as a teaching institution, but it also has part of its mission as being research. As the University has been growing and expanding its programs in different initiatives, we needed to find some additional space to do this research. This parcel will be used to support that research mission that the University has. It will be a four-story 200,000 square foot facility on the lower end of that parcel. This parcel is bounded by Montgomery to the south, Berks Street to the north, 11th to the west and Warnock Street to the east. So closer to the Montgomery Avenue side will be the facility itself, and to the northern end, the northern half of that site will be parking for the University use for a variety of students or faculty members that want to use it. And for the University to be able to get to this point, we realized 44 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that an important part of this process will be making sure we have community support. We've met with the residents closest to that site. That will be Norris Homes, Jefferson Manor and Yorktown. These community groups, we've established a bit of a working rapport with, and we have some forward-looking projects that we're working on together. They have agreed to be supportive of us moving forward on this project. And this is all part of the working relationship that we've established with them that relates not just to this project but to several other projects that we're working on with the community.
I've had a recent discussion with Senator Kitchen, who represents the area, and she indicated that you all will be drafting some sort of agreement between the community and Temple University that will provide certain things as it relates to these discussions. 45 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347
That's correct, Councilman. We will memorialize all the arrangements and then have that as a shared document between the University and the community.
Can we agree that that will be available to this body prior to the ultimate passage of the bill?
Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Wetzel, I just want to go back over some of the questions that were asked by my colleague, Councilman Kenney, in relationship to the office of the general counsel. I'm sure Mr. Guerra 46 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 leaves most of the work up to his staff to decide when they draft legislation and he reviews the final document.
No. He's the kind of general counsel that he does all ordinances and resolutions himself. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And does staff review his work?
There's all kinds of legal activities at the Redevelopment Authority in terms of lawsuits, contracts, redevelopment contracts, redevelopment proposals and things like that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So how would he have gotten the information or the properties in question in my district? How would they have gotten to his desk?
That would have come to him from our Urban Renewal 47 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Division. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So staff has nothing basically to do with the drafting of the legislation?
No. And the legislation is drafted and then the process is, an ordinance or resolution is drafted, it is then forwarded to Richie Feder in the City's Law Department for review and approval. We get an e-mail saying come pick it up. We deliver it to the second floor to the Mayor's office. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The reason I ask that, because you and I have had a number of conversations over the last several months about that office and, in particular, one of its employees and the information that comes out of that office concerning me and my activities as a Councilperson and the job that I've been doing, most of which have been very negative. So in the 11 years that I've been here -- and I fully agree with the comments made by Council President 48 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Verna -- I always found you to be a very trustworthy person. You've always responded to my office and me. I never had a question about your sincerity or honesty or integrity, but as you know, there's been a lot of blogs and other information coming out of that office. So for me, this becomes another issue where I have to put out one of those little fires in the community that I represent. In fact, there are a number of folks here from Northern Liberties today who may have been under the opinion that because Mr. Blatstein is a big contributor, maybe not to me but to other folks, and the issue of pay-to-play and all those things we're dealing with, that there may have been some side deal agreement between me and Mr. Blatstein to include or somehow insert these properties in question into this bill, which is not the case. So I just wanted to make sure 49 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that when you go back and talk to Mr. Guerra, that he makes certain that some of these things be put to rest once and for all. Because taxpayers are funding that office. There's a whole issue going on in this Council on the reorganization of the Redevelopment Authority, and for its employees to sit there and basically promote themselves on a daily basis, whether it's against me or another member of this Council, I think is certainly inappropriate for a government authority to engage in that kind of practice. I wanted to state that for the record. My colleague, Councilman Clarke, who is the sponsor of this bill, earlier spoke on this, as we did, Mr. Wetzel, and I'm going to make a statement for the record that because of the several concerns that have been raised by the property owners and the civic association regarding the portion of this bill that relates to my district 50 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 and Northern Liberties; more importantly, the developer who would like to acquire these properties had not approached my office or the community prior to the introduction of this bill and, as a result, the prospect of moving forward on condemnation makes me very uneasy, I am requesting that you do not move forward on property acquisition on any of the properties in my district until you hear from me. And that has been met with the approval of the sponsor of the bill, Councilman Clarke.
And as we discussed, I will go on the public record and agree that the Redevelopment Authority will take no action regarding these properties without discussion with you directly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Vice-Chair.
Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? 51 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask Ms. -- I'm sorry. Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you. My fault. I submitted it earlier. We have testimony from Gloria Guard, People's Emergency Center, and we ask that this be submitted for testimony supporting the application.
Our next witness is Daniel Bleznak and Steven Seidel. UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Your Honor, I am not part of --
I'm sorry. You're going to have to come to the witness table, identify yourself, please. I'm sorry. Councilman Nutter, did you want to put something on the record?
Yes, Madam Chair, before we go into the next round. Going back to the issue earlier 52 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that was raised about urban renewal areas and districts which happen to cross boundaries between or among multiple Council districts, I'd at least like to get on the record for Mr. Wetzel. As was pointed out by yourself, you share some with Councilwoman Blackwell. Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Miller share some. I share at least share one with Councilwoman Blackwell as well. So I would only ask that if the Redevelopment Authority is reviewing all of these urban renewal areas and looking at them on a Council district basis, to make sure that any that are shared primarily, I think, between the Third and the Fourth are reviewed as well, and if they're going to start separating them based on boundaries, A, B, 1, 2, 3, whatever the system is going to be, I just want to make sure that those get reviewed as well. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank 53 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 you. As a matter of fact --
-- we just got bills from the Administration and I assume that there is one that we got that relates to Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Miller. Gentlemen, I'm going to ask you to please be very brief. Please identify yourself for the record and be as brief as possible.
My name is Daniel Bleznak. I am here today representing my family partnership of 27th and Girard Limited Partnership, which is the owner of the parcel in question at 27th and Girard Avenue. I will be as brief as possible. We have a long history on this site and I will try to be quick. I would like to thank City Council and the Rules Committee for providing me with the opportunity to speak today regarding the thirty-fifth 54 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 amended redevelopment proposal and the twenty-seventh amended urban renewal plan that is the subject of this Rules Committee session. As I mentioned, my name is Dan Bleznak and I come before you today to speak on behalf of 27th and Girard Limited Partnership. 27th and Girard Limited Partnership consists entirely of my family members. First, I think it's important that I provide you with a history of my family's involvement in the site, as we've been part of the West Girard Avenue community for more than two generations. And let me be absolutely clear, we have not and have no intention of abandoning the West Girard Avenue community or this site. We believe that the successful redevelopment of this site must occur, not through the taking of our property but rather through a public/private partnership between property owner, the City and the local civic groups. Any other method will 55 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 further delay redevelopment of this site and the revitalization of the West Girard Avenue corridor. We, therefore, respectfully request that this property be removed from the proposed ordinance. From 1958 until approximately 1997, the property operated successfully as a small neighborhood supermarket. In the first redevelopment of this site when my family originally purchased the property, the then existing bus terminal building was converted to a Baltimore Markets. In this process, this conversion, we worked hand in hand with the City to redevelop the site in order to make it an attractive and welcoming place for the local community to shop. Eventually, Baltimore Markets was taken over and operated as a Food Fair for many years. In approximately 1980, Food Fair entered bankruptcy, causing the property to become mired in a bankruptcy court litigation. While the bankruptcy 56 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 court trustee shopped the site to potential users, my family diligently pursued a new supermarket, and confident that we could secure a new food store, we bought back our own lease at substantial risk that a market would remain at the property. In 1982, we were able to secure a lease with an independent supermarket operator that operated under the Shop N Bag name through 1997. Unfortunately, due to changing market conditions, the operators of the Shop N Bag store could no longer survive and the building was vacated. In a communication that we promptly shared with Councilman Clarke, then Chief Legislative Assistant to then Councilman Street, this operator advised that it was infeasible to continue to operate a supermarket business at this site. After meeting with the community on several occasions at the guidance of Councilman Clarke and 57 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 consultations with neighboring business owners, we offered the best alternative to a neighborhood market when we entered into a lease with Eckert Corporation to develop a 13,000 square foot drugstore at the site. Understanding the community's desire for a food store, we convinced Eckert to expand the prototype store to sell groceries and commit a certain percentage of its floor area to food sales. While the lease was entered into in 1998, the redevelopment of the site was never realized due to delays in the development process. The primary reason for the delay centered on the vacation of Chang Street, a small public road that bisected the site and needed to be eliminated in order to accommodate the expanded store.
Despite the efforts of Council, including Council President Verna, who was kind enough to introduce the request, we were not able to obtain assistance until January 2001, at which 58 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 time, after spending $500,000 in pre-development costs and securing all building permits and zoning approvals, Eckert Corporation fell into financial trouble and ceased its expansion plans nationwide, resulting in the ultimate termination of the lease. Again with the guidance of Councilman Clarke, we met with many tenant prospects for the property, including several supermarkets. After several failed attempts to secure a supermarket and an alternative drugstore operator to Eckert, we entered into a lease with McDonald's Corporation in 2002. McDonald's attended civic and business association meetings and committed to establishing 60 jobs, as well as enhanced architecture, lighting and other improvements at the site. Although the development received mixed support within the community, the project successfully received approvals and zoning variances, 59 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 only to be later overturned upon appeal, ultimately resulting in McDonald's termination of the lease. During almost 50 years that my family has owned the property, we have successfully leased the site to a food store for 40 of those years. Since Shop N Bag vacated the site in 1997, we continued to pursue the successful redevelopment of this site. Given our longstanding history of ownership at the site, I am sure you can imagine my family's shock this past Friday, May 26th when we received an overnight delivery advising us that the Redevelopment Authority intends to condemn our property for commercial use and that the City Rules Committee would be voting to take our property in less than a week. Again, we have been here for 50 years and have made considerable financial investment over the past eight years in order to redevelop this site, 60 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 which includes, I would like to add, we have recently procured an Act 2 release for this site only two weeks ago. Today, the seeds being planted for the revitalization of West Girard Avenue are taking root. Brewerytown Square has brought new housing and people to the area. Market conditions are now taking a positive turn that will allow us to successfully redevelop this site. Given that market conditions are only now ripe for commercial redevelopment in the area, the introduction of this proposed ordinance is ill-timed and will only stall redevelopment efforts. We believe that a taking of our property, whether for another developer to redevelop or a specific end user or otherwise, is simply unjustified and, moreover, unjust. In closing, I can tell you that I've seen the blogs on the web that talk about our site and the redevelopment that is coming. They even refer to presentations made by other developers 61 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that claim to have control of the site, and meetings with community leaders. In fact, we hear that in one instance it is rumored that another site has emerged a prime location for a neighborhood supermarket, news which, if true, makes the proposed taking even more unnecessary. I do not put much credence into rumors, but one thing is clear, there's a lot of discussion about the redevelopment of our site, none of which involves us, the owners. On behalf of 27th and Girard Limited Partnership and my family, I ask that you remove the property from the list so that we can work together to bring a first-class development to this community. Thank you very much for your time and consideration.
You're welcome. Any questions from members of the Committee? 62 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, gentlemen. First, I would like to thank you on behalf of the community for your years of commitment to the community. It's a community that I lived in and frequented the former shopping site, and as you indicated, it went of business, unfortunately, and there were a number of unsuccessful attempts to get that site developed. This particular proposal to condemn this site was done after substantial discussion, both in the community and among government. It was not our first choice. My understanding, although I was not a part of the discussions, that there had been substantial attempts by both private entities and government to acquire the site on a number of occasions over the last two years. I personally have not 63 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 heard from your family or your representatives in two years, essentially since the McDonald's deal fell through. The site is a blight on the community, and I admit that you in fact attempted to develop it on a number of occasions working with the community. My concern, frankly speaking, because I haven't heard from you in two years, because the community continues to need to have that site developed for a supermarket, we did have hearings earlier, actually late last year, authorizing the City to purchase this site through PIDC. The City has indicated a willingness to make that money available. There has been substantial discussion with the Girard Coalition. They came in on two occasions to testify in support of the City acquiring this site, but in spite of that, I held off. We are now two years down the line since the last proposal and I think 64 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 that it was time for us to act on this particular parcel. In spite of that, as I indicated to you earlier in a side-bar in the hallway, I would like to ask the Committee to vote this out of Committee, but agreed to hold this while we can set up several meetings, both with the City and with the community members and the representatives, and talk about your proposed redevelopment plan, which this is the first I've heard of it. Actually, yesterday when I got a letter from your lawyer. So I'm personally willing to set up whatever meeting we need to have with the community, but I would like to pass this out of Committee so we can continue to move this process and hopefully we can come to a consensus.
We understand and we thank you, and we also agree that this site needs to be developed. And we understand based on our conversations earlier that this property is with a 65 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 whole host of other properties that are considered in this bill and that this legislation is moving forward -- or this ordinance is moving forward. Excuse me. We would like very much the opportunity to meet to discuss redevelopment plans, and, likewise, we believe, again, I'd like to reiterate, that the fastest and best way to do this is through a partnership with the City. And I know that the City and -- I'm curious as to who other property owners or who other developers that are proposing uses at this site be open and frank with us so that we can work together to bring a development plan. We have clearly creative ideas. The site is 1.2 acres and it is small for a supermarket, but large by City standards. There are clearly creative ideas that can be talked through to make something happen here, and we have some of those ideas and I suspect the City does as well. So we would like very much 66 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 to sit down and talk and see what we can work together, see how we can best work.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none -- sir, are you also going to testify?
Again, I'm going to ask all of the witnesses that will be approaching the witness table to please, please be as brief as possible. We have an awful lot of work to do this morning and we're really running behind schedule. So please introduce yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you, Madam 67 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 President, Vice-Chair Clarke, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Daniel Reisman. I'm a partner in the Philadelphia office of the law firm of Eckert Seamans Cherin & Mellott. We represent Mr. Bleznak's partnership with respect to the property. I have prepared testimony, which I'll provide, and I guess I'll just briefly summarize it based on --
And if you give us a copy of your testimony, we'll give it to the stenographer and it will be transcribed in full.
Yes, I will. The point I'd like to emphasize at least from -- I'm glad to hear that Councilman Clarke is going to be meeting with my client and try to work on a way to redevelop this property most efficiently. I think the legal issue as the lawyer is that in this context, these types of takings from one private owner to another private owner receive a lot of 68 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 scrutiny by the courts. As the Committee probably knows, the Supreme Court had a decision, the Kelo decision, a year ago. The Commonwealth Court just earlier this February of 2006 also had a decision in fact in which it held that the condemnation of a property by the Redevelopment Authority to a religious institution to use it as a middle school violated state law. And I think in terms of the goal of everybody, which is to put this property back on the market and redevelop it, I think the best thing is for the parties to work together. I note that in the Commonwealth Court case, the Commonwealth Court decision was not issued until nearly three and a half years after the Redevelopment Authority declared a taking. In Kelo, the time between the date of the taking and the Supreme Court decision stood at four and a half years. So I think the takings process is a cumbersome one and I think, again, 69 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 it's best if the parties can work together on this. My client is a capable developer, and I think working with the City, we can redevelop this site. Thank you, and I would be pleased to hand up my testimony so that the members can read it.
I was going to leave it alone, but I'm a little concerned at the tone of your representation. Mr. Bleznak, I have agreed to not proceed on the final taking so we can have an amicable discussion about the site. Then your lawyer follows up by essentially threatening to fight us in court, when I've clearly indicated that that's not our position at this point. So I would hope that in the future when we do sit down and talk, that's not going to be the tenor of the discussion, that you threaten us with the 70 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 Kelo lawsuit, which this is, I believe, much different than that particular lawsuit, because we're clearly aware of the state ruling and other rulings. So I hope that's not going to be the tenor of the discussion.
No, absolutely not. I think what I am saying is, other than me being here today, it's best to keep the lawyers out of the process in this redevelopment, other than to the extent there is zoning needs and so on. And I think with the existing developer developing the property, it's going to be more efficient, and I would hope that's the way this plays out. But it's certainly not meant as a threat of any kind. I've just seen these situations where they get tied up, and I don't think it's something that anybody wants to see.
If I may, Councilman, we did receive this only on Thursday and it did take us by surprise. 71 6/1/06 - RULES - BILLS 060286 & 060347 I agree with you, we need to sit down and talk, you and I, about how best to redevelop this site. So it is not the intention of our organization in any way to make this an adversarial process. I think, as you stated, for two years it's been too long and I think it's time for us to talk and communicate well, and that is my full intention.
Would the Sergeant-At-Arms get a copy of testimony, please, give it to the stenographer. Our next witness is?
Steven Seidel and -- excuse the pronunciation if it's incorrect -- Irachmiel Daskal.