COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, June 13, 2000 10:15 a.m. - - - BILL 000282 - Approving the redevelopment proposal, the urban renewal plan, and the relocation plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area by approving the 26th amendment of the redevelopment proposal, the 18th amendment of the urban renewal plan, and the 17th amendment to the relocation plan which provide, inter alia, for additional land acquisitions for approximately 5 properties and provisions of certain relocation services required as by law. BILL 000337 - Amending Title Philadelphia Code provisions relating to penal and correctional institutions, under certain terms and conditions. BILL 000347 - Amending Title 14 of the Phila. Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1605, entitled "Regulated Uses," by expanding the list of regulated uses to include tattoo parlors and body piercing shops, as defined, all under certain terms and conditions. PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Vice Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 6/13/00 - RULES COMMITTEE I N D E X Bill 000282 Herbert Wetzel, Redevelopment Authority. . . . Cardell Blue, Phila. Housing Authority . . . . Bill 000347 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission. . . . . M. Harty, Burholme Civic Assoc., Town Watch 8 Bill Logan, Greater Northeast. . . . . . . . . Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce Joel Shipley, Eddie's Tattooing. . . . . . . . Bill 000337 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission. . . . . 19 11 Otis Haigler . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 John McDougall, Defense Attorney and . . . . . 45 President, Min-Sec Corrections Corporation Reverend Leonard Smalls, President . . . . . . 63 Rescue and Find Incorporated Timothy O'Brien, Bail Commissioner . . . . . . 76 City of Philadelphia Paul Soult, Vice President . . . . . . . . . . 81 Business Development, Min-Sec 3 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000282 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask Mr. Mezzaroba to please read the title of Bill No. 282.
Bill No. 000282, an ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 15, 1969, as amended, which approved the redevelopment proposal, the urban renewal plan, and the relocation plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area by approving the 26th amendment of the redevelopment proposal, the 18th amendment of the urban renewal plan, and the 17th amendment to the relocation plan which provide, inter alia, for additional land acquisitions for approximately 5 properties and provisions of certain relocation services required as by law.
Who will be testifying on this bill? (Witnesses come forward.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record 4 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000282 and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel, I'm Executive Director of the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority. Madam Chairperson and members of the Rules of Council, I am Herbert Wetzel, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. I am requesting your approval of Bill No. 282, which authorizes the 26th amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the 18th amendment of the urban renewal plan of the North Philadelphia Redevelopment Area, Model Cities Urban Renewal Area. In the 2400 block of North College Avenue, five properties will be acquired on behalf of the Philadelphia Housing Authority. These five properties will be combined with five other properties currently in PHA's inventory, one other property currently in the City of Philadelphia's inventory, and one other property being acquired separately. The resulting project will consist of 12 single-family lease purchased units to be added to PHA's inventory. The Planning Commission, at their 5 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000282 meeting of April 20, 2000, approved the 26th amendment of the redevelopment proposal and the 18th amendment of the urban renewal plan as set forth in this bill for the acquisition of the five properties. Bill No. 282 is consistent with the plan for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area and would result in a clear community enhancement. Therefore, I respectfully urge your favorable consideration of Bill No. 282 and request a suspension of the Council rules to allow for first reading at your June 15th meeting. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Wetzel. Are any of the five properties that you mentioned occupied?
Yes. Two of the five are occupied, and relocations services will be provided to the residents of those properties.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.) 6 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000282
Yes, Madam Chairman. I am Cardell Blue (ph.), the assistant general manager of the Philadelphia Housing Authority for Development, good morning.
I am here to testify in support of Bill 282, which will authorize the Redevelopment Authority to condemn five properties in the 2400 block of College Avenue for transfer to the Redevelopment Authority. This condemnation will enable PHA to build 12 units of new housing, which will be available for public-housing residents for home ownership opportunities. We believe that this will improve the quality of life for the public housing residents and the surrounding community in the location of the 2400 block of College Avenue. This activity also furthers our overall goal to continue improving our scattered-site inventory. We, therefore, urge you to recommend favorably Bill 282. 7 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347
Thank you very much. Mr. Wetzel, are you requesting a suspension of the rules?
Are there any questions from members of the committee of either one of the witnesses? (No questions.)
Gentlemen, thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on Bill No. 282. (No response.)
Seeing none, the next bill being called for consideration is Bill No. 347.
Bill 000347, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 14-1605, entitled "Regulated Uses," by expanding the list of regulated uses to include tattoo parlors and body piercing shops, as defined, all under certain terms and conditions. 8 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, with the Planning Commission, here to speak on Bill No. 000347. This amends the Zoning Code by designating tattoo parlors and body piercing shops as regulated uses. Today they are currently permitted in most commercial zoning classifications as a matter of right. As the Council knows, the "Regulated Use" section of the Code is a section of the Code that was created to protect commercial and residential areas by limiting the concentration of certain types of uses that are found to be detrimental to the economics and the viability of the commercial and residential area if they're concentrated in large numbers. They sort of change the character. In the past, the Council has added uses like check-cashing agencies, most of the adult uses, drug paraphernalia stores. Today we're talking about tattoo parlors and body 9 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 piercing. This does not disallow the uses; it requires that if they desire to locate within 500 feet of a residence, a school, a playground, or within a thousand feet of another regulated use, they have to go through a Zoning Board public hearing process for a variance, at which time the nearby businesses and/or residents have an opportunity to appear before the Board. It forces them to a degree to work out with the community ahead of time how they're going to occupy the business, you know, in exchange for community support or business association support. This bill, for the record, was reviewed by the Planning Commission's meeting of June 1, 2000, and the Planning Commission recommend it be adopted. As a matter of course, generally, when the Members of Council think that a use becomes a problem and desirous of community -- some community or business input, we usually concur with that. We think there's nothing intrinsically wrong with giving the local businesses and communities an opportunity to participate in the location of certain types of what we call "problem 10 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 uses." Parenthetically, these particular uses, tattoo parlors, were originally in the -- this is all the result of a Supreme Court decision about years ago in a Detroit case about protecting 7 the economic viability of a neighborhood that the 8 Supreme Court reviewed and found to be 9 constitutional. One of the uses in that original 10 ordinance was tattoo parlors. That's just a 11 little bit of history I'm throwing in. 12 For the record, we recommend adoption 13 of the bill, and I'm here to answer any questions. 14
Thank you. 15 The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. 16
Who has the burden 17 of proof when the matter goes before the Zoning 18 Board? 19
The applicant does in 20 this case. This is more than a certificate. It's 21 a burden of proof on the protestants; it's a 22 burden of proof on the applicant. 23
That's right, the 11 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 applicant has to file the appeal and present the case --
A certificate assumes that the use is a permitted use, and the only thing challenge that can be mounted -- I'm simplifying this -- can be that it injures the public health, safety and welfare, and all evidence and testimony to that effect has to be produced by the protestants. And in the absence of that evidence, documented evidence, the board pretty much has to approve the certificate. There's a difference between a certificate and a -- whereas in the case of a variance, the applicant has to prove there is no other location they can find, there's no other appropriate building or store for what they want to do. And they have hardship if they can't go in that particular property, and the burden of proof is on the applicant. 12 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347
Any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the table, sir. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and Councilmembers of the Rules Committee. My name is Michael Harty (ph.), and I'm here representing the Burholme Civic Association and Town Watch. We ask for your support for Bill 347. We feel that it's appropriate that the community and the neighbors have an opportunity to discuss businesses that is come into their community, 13 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 particularly a tattoo parlor and body piercing shop.
Good morning my name is Bill Logan here represents greater Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce also local business owner Northeast Philadelphia. And I'm also a local business-owner up in Northeast Philadelphia and a longtime resident and business owner. I'm here in support of Bill 347 because I feel as if the community associations, the home and school associations, the business associations, and individual neighborhoods should have a voice at the Zoning Board of Adjustments in regards to the specific businesses becoming a part of their neighborhood. I enthusiastically urge the passing of this ordinance. And I thank you.
Do we have anyone else to testify? 14 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 Kindly approach the table, sir. (Witness comes forward.)
Do we have anyone from L&I who will be testifying? (No response.)
Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
My name is Joel Shipley (ph.), and I work for Philadelphia Eddie's Tattooing, which has been a business owner in Philadelphia since the '50s. We run professional shops, and we support the community's right to have an input on what they have in their community, but we want a voice and put on the record or objection that a tattoo parlor or a piercing business isn't necessarily a problem business. As you know, tattooing and piercing is about as mainstream as you can get at this point -- probably a little too mainstream. Most shops are run professionally, and the ones that aren't usually don't last and are usually not in business areas that are popular or thriving. The 15 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 concentration of tattoo shops that you have in Philadelphia now are on South Street, which is an area where it's always been a sort of alternative retail area.
Don't you think that's a thriving business area?
Oh, yeah, but it was always an alternative thriving business area, with businesses that couldn't make it on Market Street or Chestnut Street. For over a hundred years, South Street has been that way. Again, we support the community's right, and we've always worked with the community. We've never had any problems with our businesses, and we wanted to come and put it on the record that we don't see that tattooing or piercing are problem retail businesses if they're handled professionally, we do. But we do support the right of the community and the local businesses to control what they have, as long as, again, we're not regulated out of anything.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Just I have a 16 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 personal question. I don't mean to be offensive, but I'm wondering, are you wearing a hat for religious or other reasons?
Well, that's usually true in Council sessions and in courtrooms.
I was never in a courtroom either. I've spent my whole life pretty lucky.
Okay, very good. I was wondering. There are some people who, for religious reasons, where a hat.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments by members of the committee? (No further questions.) 17 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347
May we hear from L&I, please. (Witness comes forward.)
Good day, Council President Verna. My name is Otis Haigler, Jr., and I'm the Legislative Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 000347. The Department of Licenses and Inspections as an agency responsible for enforcement of the Zoning Code is prepared to implement the provisions of this bill if it is adopted by City Council. As the City Planning Commission is the agency responsible for promulgation of the Zoning Code, any questions of a substantive nature should be addressed by the 18 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000347 Planning Commission.
Thank you. Any questions from the members of the committee? (No questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the next bill being called for consideration is Bill No. 337.
Bill No. 000337, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and planning by amending Chapter 14-100, entitled "General Provisions," by amending Chapter 14-300, entitled "Commercial Districts," by amending Chapter 14-500, entitled "Industrial Districts," and by amending Chapter 23 16-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," all by amending various provisions relating to penal and correctional institutions, under certain terms and 19 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 conditions. (Witness comes forward.)
Good morning, Madam Chairman, members of the rules of Council. My name is Richard Lombardo, from the Planning Commission, here to speak in support of Bill No. 10 000337. As was indicated, this bill amends various sections of the Code that deal with penal and correctional institutions. Currently, penal and correctional institutions are permitted in the Zoning Code with a certificate in the C2 commercial, L4 and L5 limited industrial; under C4 and C5, G2 and LR, they are permitted as a matter of right. By designating private correctional institutions as a regulated use, in addition to complying with those requirements of the individual districts, these uses now would require a public hearing before the Zoning Board if, as in the previous case, the tattoo parlors, they are located within 500 feet of a residence, a church, 20 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 a playground, a school, various types of uses. " It's not necessarily a problem use, but uses that when they come in concentration raise themselves to a level that could sometimes create problems for the area residents or the area business. So this section 11 of the Code does not allow a concentration of these uses of -- like I said, adult uses, cabarets, amusement arcades, things like that. The reason for this bill grows out of a series of meetings. The City has had for years a group that meets on a regular basis called the Technical Advisory Committee on Zoning, and it's to deal with zoning interpretation and zoning problems. It's made up of the Planning Commission, the Department of Licenses and Inspections, and the Law Department. And in recent months, in the last six months or so, L&I has had an increasing concern about the number of private correctional institutions that are coming before them. And the 21 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 problem is that there's no clear direction in the Code. We have the term in the Code today "penal and correctional institution," but they're not defined. So if a provider comes in for a private facility and they have a properly that's zoned residential, they argue to L&I that they're a halfway house, they're a rooming house, they're a multifamily use and, therefore, should be permitted in the residential district. If have a commercial or an industrial property, they argue to L&I that they are a penal institution and should be permitted as a matter of right because they are a penal institution in an industrial district. And through this process, L&I told the committee that they've been told by providers and by others that there's an increasing number of these facilities, as not only the Pennsylvania prison, but other prison systems look to privatize the housing of prisoners. And L&I's concern is, without any direction in the Code, that they're going to be in the position of having to make this decision. Should they permit in them in 22 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 multifamily residential, or should they permit them in industrial as a matter of right? Today, a person can say, Well, you know, prisons are permitted as a matter of right, but public prisons go through a public process. They have to go through a funding process. If the prison below Linden Avenue, the City prison, wanted to expand, they're going to be before City Council or they're going to talk to the District Councilperson, they're going to have a capital program, an amendment to provide funding, they're going to be scrutinized by the local residents because of having to go through the process. So they go through a public process. And the decision -- or the recommendation on this bill is to make the private prisons also go through a public process on their location.
That being explained, what this bill 20 does, by making them a regulated use, it says that if they go into the industrial districts where they're permitted and they're not within 500 feet of a residence and they're not within 1,000 feet of another prison and they're not within 500 feet of a church, they still go in as a matter of 23 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 right. However, if they fall short of that, then they would be required to go to the Zoning Board for a variance, at which point there would be a public hearing and an opportunity for others in the community, whether the business community or residential community, to voice an opinion one way or another about whether this facility should locate in that particular location. And that's basically what this bill is all about. What this bill would result in is the public facilities continuing to be permitted in the districts they're permit it in and still require that they become a regulated use. In terms of the private facilities, it would only permit them in industrial districts as a regulated use. And that's basically what this bill will do. If you have any questions, I'm here to take them.
I think in your statement you've answered this question, but I would like the record to be crystal-clear as to what the purpose of having a distinction between public and private institutions is.
Okay. The distinction 24 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 was made because, as I said, a public institution is one that's either operated by the City, the State, or the federal government. If you will recall, when the federal prison when down at Independence Mall, it went through a very public process by the very fact that it was public and it was government-run. When the house of corrections expanded and went to their module units a number of years ago, they went through a very public process of hearings before Council for budgeting, for property bills for -- as being the nature that they're public, they go through a public process. The distinction is being made to indicate that the private ones do not go through the same kind of public process as the public ones do.
How about with the State, when they have some of their clients, let's say, come into a private type of institution, what process is there?
Uh-huh I. Really don't know of any -- 25 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
It's -- the public process is really -- it happens out in Harrisburg, at least the public --
But the residents of that particular community are not aware of it.
That's true, they're not aware of it, unless the State chooses to make it -- it depends on the policy of one administration to another. Some administrations go through a public process, even though they don't have to. Others do not. And, you're right, they do not. And the same thing with the federal government. They can choose not to go through the public process. However, when they did go into Independence Mall, they did go through a public process. And I think, generally, the federal government does choose to go through the public process rather than just getting permits across the counter. But to answer your question, neither one has to; being a higher authority, they don't have to go through the zoning. They do not have to allow themselves to go through the local review 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 process if they don't want to.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Lombardo, are there many industrial areas within the City that are further than 500 feet from a residential district? I know the way the City industrial base has developed over the years that a lot of the industrial base had a residential community around it, that -- where the workers came from. So, I mean, if you have a larger dilapidated, kind of rundown industrial area, are there many areas in the City that have a much further than 500 feet distance from the residences to the industrial area?
I think there's -- basically along the River front, there is both -- if you can envision, you know, most of the -- especially as you start to get north of -- north of Spring Garden Street, there's a greater distance between the nearest residents, which are generally east of I-95 or east of -- west of I-95 27 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 or west of Front Street or -- and the industrial -- the distance is more than 500 feet to the River. That pretty much holds all the way up to the City facility above the -- up at Linden Avenue or up at --
I guess the other area is out by the airport area there?
Down by the airport, South Philadelphia, around the Naval Base.
Let me ask you a question about residentially zoned areas that may be don't have any houses around them at all. For example, areas where houses have been cleared, where there may be a rundown area that, you know, hasn't had any development or any life, would that apply to residences that are existing or simply residentially zoned?
No, it would apply to residentially -- let me -- let me -- let me qualify that.
'Cause I'm sure 28 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 there are residentially zoned areas where there's no houses.
Yeah. I think what the -- what the zoning -- what the district says is residentially zoned properties, but that can cut -- that can cut two ways. It was residentially zoned property if you have a zoning permit for a residence. And in a commercial area, it's residentially zoned property, though, its underlying zoning is commercial. And I'm sorry that. . . Residentially zoned district -- it carries -- it -- actually, the requirement's for both. So it's either it's a residential district or a residential property. So to answer your question, if it was a large vacant lot -- tract of land that had been cleared but was zoned residentially, it would apply. But then, I guess, the other side of that would be a -- if you made your case before the Zoning Board, you would demonstrate that there aren't really any residents in that 500-foot area, 500-foot distance.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Lombardo, does this bill redefine in any way penal institutions or correctional institutions?
Does it redefine it? They're not defined at all today. It defines it for the first time. Currently, that's one of dilemmas L&I has, is there is no definition in the Zoning Code today of penal and correctional institutions. So they have this sort of argument placed forth by the applicants that, Well, we're not really a penal or correctional institution, we're a halfway house. Or in some instances, we're not a residence, we're a penal or correctional institution. And in the absence of a definition, that creates a problem with L&I on how to interpret what these issues are. So what this ordinance does do is create a definition of penal and correctional institutions. Before this bill, there was -- there is no definition.
Could you tell us what those definitions are that it creates? 30 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
All right. A penal and correctional institution that is private is defined as "an institution operated by a private party under contract with the City of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or the federal government for the confinement of offenders sentenced by a court and still under jurisdiction of the court. A penal or correctional institution, public, is defined as "an institution operated by the City of Philadelphia, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, or the federal government for the confinement of offenders sentenced by a court and still under the jurisdiction of the court." That's the distinguished between people who have been paroled or released and are in some kind of a post-release program before they -- like a job training program or a drug rehabilitation program or some type of a program, but they're no 24 longer under the jurisdiction of the courts; they've served their sentence and now have been 31 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 released. That's to make that distinction between those two types of facilities.
And that's when they become correctional, when they're no longer under the jurisdiction of the --
No, the other way around. They're correctional when they're under the -- when they haven't been -- when they haven't been paroled, they haven't been released from their -- their -- their -- by the courts from their sentence, they're a correctional institution. Once they have, they're no longer considered a correctional institution.
Is there any specific definition of "a halfway house" anywhere in the Zoning Code?
No. A halfway house is treated like any kind of -- and I think that -- and I -- and I -- maybe someone from the Law Department can answer that, but I believe that's really because of the Fair Housing Act. You cannot make a distinction between any kind of a residence and a halfway house that's for special-needs people, people with special needs. 32 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 So there is no definition of a halfway house. It's treated like a boardinghouse, a multifamily use. But I believe that's a result of the Fair Housing Act, which says we cannot make a distinction between types of housing.
But in the minds of the community, if somebody is being released on -- and has to come back, can go out to work but has to come back at night to sleep --
-- for a period of time, say, a month to three months usually.
Well, if they're still under the jurisdiction of the court, that's a private correctional facility; that's not a halfway house. A halfway house is -- my understanding of it -- is when they're completely free to come and go.
I'm sorry. My understanding from my experience and knowledge of it is that when you have a specific curfew, you're 33 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 still under the court's jurisdiction, and that a boarding or a group home setting may be the next step from the halfway house into independence but if you're required to be in at a certain time and go to work and be their on the weekends, you're under court supervision.
I don't think we're saying different things. You know, what we've been told is -- though, maybe in the parlance, some people call those "halfway houses." As far as the law is concerned, they're still penal -- correctional facilities until they've been released by the courts.
Mr. Lombardo, this really doesn't address the halfway houses.
Not the halfway houses where someone has now served their sentence and has been -- they're no longer under curfew.
It's not a halfway house. 34 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
I don't think -- once you're off of court supervision, there's no 4 longer a halfway house. It may be a group home, boarding home, it may be some, you know, system -- it may be some group living arrangement.
That's right, I'm sorry. We're using a term that's really not defined. It's not a half -- when you -- right, they're -- actually, they're just any other type of group home, and under the Fair Housing Act, should be treated the same as any other type of a group home.
Aren't there situations in which community complaints arise from the fact that somebody going to L&I and says I want a permit for a private penal institution or a private correctional institution. And then what the community learns is that it may be what the community calls a halfway house, people perhaps suffering from some form of substance abuse. And the community, not knowing anything about it, not having -- no one's bothered to 35 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 discuss it with them, suddenly finds a group in the community that they're concerned about. Now -- and wasn't there a study made by the Planning Commission a number of years ago that showed over-concentration of these facilities in certain districts?
And I'm wondering whether that study is still considered valid and whether it's been updated.
Well (unintelligible) about that study, we had been asked by communities to look at certain types of residential-related uses, and we did find that there was a tendency to concentrate -- when there was an accepting community, there was a tendency of other facilities to go into that community, which the community accepted those types of facilities. The point what I want to make about it is, we no longer use that because of the -- basically because of the Fair Housing Act and we no longer keep records or track or do any kind of record keeping of those residential living facilities. 36 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
I don't understand why the Fair Housing Act would stop you from at least having some census of where these properties are located. The Fair Housing Act comes into play when an individual is recovering from substance abuse. If you have a residential treatment home where neighbors are complaining about obvious drug use on the sidewalk by the residents, they are no 13 longer under the protection of the Fair Housing Act, 'cause they are no longer recovering, they are now substance abusers, and that does not give them protection of the Fair Housing Act.
So I don't understand why federal law would have prohibited or stopped the Planning Commission or L&I or whoever from keeping track of where these facilities are and --
That's one type of facility, and you're right, and probably more -- better people to keep track if would be the Police 37 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Department 'cause we don't -- that's where we get the records. I'm just saying we were keeping track of all types of non- -- of group living arrangements at one point in time, whether it was for substance abusers or whether it was from people released from a private institution for the mentally disabled.
Because we were told we no longer could keep those records.
Are you going to join my -- (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
That's our law department. Well, I think we ought to -- 38 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
-- keep numbers on it and take a look at what the Law Department has told you to do. I mean, I can't believe that they would unilaterally tell you to stop keeping track of any of these properties. There was no evil intent in keeping track of them, it's always nice to know -- I mean, the Philadelphia Fire Department does a block check, they go and they check the properties, commercial, residential, institutional. I mean, what's -- I don't understand the big deal. There's some violation of federal law for just knowing where they are?
Well, apparently once they -- you -- this whole thing of allowing these facilities to come in as single-family residences under reasonable accommodations so you're basically obliged to -- and really, I wish we had someone from L&I or the Law Department around here. My understanding is, you put on blinders and you treat them as a single-family 39 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 residence; and, therefore, what they tell you is, you don't keep track of all the other single- family residences and how many people live there and what their comings and goings are; therefore, you shouldn't keep track of these facilities either.
Well, I'm not disputing you because I've you've been told not to do it, but I think that you have unrelated 11 males living in a single-family rowhouse, 4 or 5 12 to a room with a bathroom and a half, I think that's something we ought to keep track of. It's just -- I mean, what happens is, the reason where I disagree with you on the proliferation of these type of facilities has to do with the economics of it. It's only in neighborhoods where the property is worth investing in, jamming in 10 to 15 people, taking their disability checks, taking money from them for not doing drug rehab work that they're supposed to be doing as part of their, quote/unquote, program, that's where the abuse came in. And that's the reason why they're concentrated in Kensington and Harrogate and other 40 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 areas of North Philadelphia of the City because the property is worth it to the investor and the so-called drug treatment person or the drug-treatment operator because they'll make money there, as opposed to making money somewhere else, where the property is worth more and they'll make less. So I think the Law Department made a -- when did they tell you to stop doing that?
This was a number of -- I guess we haven't kept these records for a half a dozen years at least.
Mr. Lombardo, the bill before us is for incarceration, not for halfway houses or treatment centers.
That's right, it's only for -- it would only deal with those individuals who are still serving their sentence.
Good. Councilman Cohen, I don't think you've 41 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 finished your questioning?
Well, I just want to say that I think it's a good bill because it enlarges community participation in determining the composition of the neighborhood in which people live, but I think there are real and problems these kinds of institutions are badly needed. And it's true that communities feel that they are being overwhelmed with the number of institutionalized uses. And I think the City agencies that you referred to and perhaps others have a job to find some method for making sure that communities are fully involved. The worst thing that happens to a community is to have something which, in the mind of the community, has been imposed upon itself without the community's participation. And these are difficult problems. A community has rights, and I believe society requires these kinds of facilities, and they clash. But I think communities have an absolute right to be participants in the decision-making involving what's going to go into their communities. So I view this bill in this direction. 42 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 What we understand happens often -- and are you saying that it's unnecessary? -- that somebody goes in and says, I want a permit for a penal institution or a correctional institution; and, in fact, they have -- the place turns out to be used for halfway house living, even though, by your definition, it's not supposed to be.
No, I think what I'm saying -- what I said was that L&I -- that the dilemma they have is that when someone comes in and they have purchased a building that's legal for a 30-unit boarding home, which basically you can have up to 90 people in it, the applicant may make argument to L&I that we have a right to go in this facility as a residential facility. You call it a halfway house, they'll call it a multifamily residential facility. Conversely, the very same type of facility goes into -- now they have a building that's in Kensington and is zoned industrial, and they come in and they say, Oh, we're a penal and correctional institution and, therefore, should be permitted to go in as a matter of right, because penal correctional and institutions are zoned 43 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 general industrial, though both are the same type of facilities. And what L&I was saying is they needed guidance in terms of a definition to know how to treat these facilities. And that's the first -- And then the second thing they raise the issue of was that either way, there would be no community scrutiny. If you treated them as residential facilities, then there would be no 11 community scrutiny of 'em going in the residential areas. If you treated them as industrial facilities, there would be no scrutiny in the communities, as Councilman Kenney pointed out, where you -- in the older areas where you have industrial zoning sitting in the middle of the block of rowhomes.
Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Lombardo? (No further questions.)
Thank you. I would ask that you remain. Mr. John McDougall. 44 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 (Witness comes forward.)
Mr. McDougall, you can take the witness table. We'll have someone from L&I testify on this bill. (Witness comes forward.)
Good day, Madam President. I believe my testimony will be brief. Good day, Madam President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am Otis Haigler Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for L&I. I appear today to testify on Bill No. 14 000337. The Department of Licenses and Inspections as an agency responsible for the enforcement of the Zoning Code is prepared to implement the provisions of this bill if it is adopted by City Council. As the City Planning Commission is the agency responsible for promulgation of the Zoning Code, any questions of a substantive nature should be addressed to the Planning Commission. Thank you.
Thank you 45 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 very much, sir. Mr. McDougall, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Madam Chairwoman and members of the committee, my name is John G. McDougall. I am the President of Min-Sec Corrections Corporation, a practicing criminal defense attorney for 34 years. Initially, I have trouble understanding a definition as presented by Mr. Lombardo as to the difference between penal and correctional institutions. I did not see any differentiation between "penal" and "correctional," as presented by Mr. Lombardo. The difference in the definition seemed to be only to between "private" and "public." With respect to the proposed amendment to the zoning ordinance, it is a regulated use that we and I, in our industry, find somewhat repulsive. I know that historically correctional -- community correctional facilities have been deemed to be harbors of evil people coming back to a community to rend bad things there. We're put into the same category as pool halls, massage 46 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 parlors, and that sort of thing. Madam Chairman, in Philadelphia, there are only 1200 beds for the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections. These are for men who have earned the opportunity to come out within one year of their minimum sentence, to have traditional help in going back to their homes, to get guidance and getting employment, to receive guidance in family matters when they have been away and have broken that family relationship, to have health and drug and alcohol abuse problems. These things are being given to men. Rather than coming cold from a prison, they're given an opportunity for more help. In Pennsylvania correctional institutions, 34 percent of our State prisoners come from the City of Philadelphia. They are coming back, either without the additional help or with it. By these regulated uses, you are placing the future of community correction probably as an impossibility in the City of Philadelphia. I do not understand the actions or the function of this committee, ma'am. It is my thought today, if possible, that this matter be 47 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 given to a subcommittee for the presentation of testimony not from people in the profit end like myself, and I will admit I may be held suspect because of that, but from, perhaps, the Department of Corrections or public agencies who need what we are doing on the private side, to convince this committee and eventually the Council that this is not a needed regulation 'cause you're going to prohibit a good thing coming into the community to help the young man who are coming back to do a better job. Thank you.
Min-Sec Corrections Corporation. We operate a facility in Chester, Delaware County, Pennsylvania, and we have just built a 140-bed drug and alcohol rehabilitation center at D and Luzerne, in Councilman Mariano's district. We service there the Pennsylvania Department of Corrections and the City of 48 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 Philadelphia, where men deemed to have drug and alcohol problems are sentenced from 90 to 100 days. From there, they go into a correctional facility -- a community facility to begin their transition back into employment.
My company, through a subsidiary, had an agreement, a lease agreement with the owner of the site on Island Avenue. We notified the State Representatives and Senators of what we intended to do. We met with the community, the community did not like what we were doing, even though, under zoning, we were a permitted use. As you know, Madam Chair, I think you had communications with the Secretary for Corrections, Martin F. Horn, who then told you if you object, he would not give us the contract to go to that area. In one sense, that satisfies Mr. Lombardo's concern of if there's a public meeting on this, is there a public proceeding to which one goes. We are required, anytime we wish to go 49 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 into a community, to notify the elected representative that we are coming there, what we do, and --
Well, Mr. McDougall, I consider myself an elected official in that community; I was never notified. And it was only through rumor that one of my constituents learned about the proposal.
The State regulations, ma'am, requires that you're notified by a State representative and senator. I agree, we should certainly look at the Council level as well, but I didn't, with all respect, write that regulation, but we honored it, ma'am.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. McDougall, aren't you also involved in another similar project in another part of the City -- as we politicians speak in terms of wards -- in the 11th Ward, at 1916 West Atlantic Street? You're going to a meeting tonight, I understand? 50 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
There is a meeting tonight. I was not going to be in attendance. That was with the community as well, to give them an understanding of what we are about and to seek comments from them as to what is taking place there. We have a lease agreement on that property, and that would be a similar operation if we are accepted.
And there, again, the local elected officials were not notified.
I was not involved with that directly. I doubt very much that we failed to notify them, sir. I rather believe that our marketing force did notify the State elected representatives.
If it was Council, sir, again, as I spoke to Madam Chairman, the regulations from the State DOC tell us whom we should notify, and that's what we followed. I agree again, sir, City Council should be on that list. I would ask the Department to amend their regulations. 51 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337
Well, there's nothing that stops you from notifying -- the State regulation may require that you at least notify State officials, but there's nothing in the State regulation which says don't notify the City officials.
So that's a matter of your own choice, or your company's own choice, not to have notified anybody in the City.
I -- I would be -- would be surprised, sir, if having notified a State senator and State representative that they were not in communication with other interested elected officials from the area.
If I may, sir, I will ask the Department, although I have no power, to amend it, or I will take your suggestion and --
Councilman Cohen, if this bill were to be passed, then I believe the Councilpeople would be notified because they'd have to go before the Zoning Board, 52 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 and the people in the community would also have some knowledge of it.
But there have been more than one instance in my district where we have faced problems where they come in and maybe the State representatives are notified; District Councilpeople are not notified, and the area residents have no knowledge of it other than a rumor, and then we have to track down the rumor. Then we call a community meeting. I just think it's very unfair. Councilman Nutter?
Thank you, Madam Chair. Councilman Cohen has kindly yielded. I was listening to this testimony. I'm sorry, I didn't catch your name.
Okay. You've made 53 6/13/00 - RULES - BILL 000337 reference on a couple of occasions to your strict adherence to these State regulations, although you're obviously conducting your business in the City of Philadelphia. Now, do you have to get any other licenses or permits to do what you do?
At the center at D and Luzerne, yes. We are licensed by the State Department of Alcohol and Drugs.
Okay. Do you have any other licenses or permits in the City of Philadelphia to do what you do?
I would not be in that part of the -- I'm in the marketing department, Mr. Nutter, and --
Okay. Did you get your business privilege from your State or State senator?