COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, November 28, 2006 10:30 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 060292-A, 060731, 060803, 060826 and 060827 - - - 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
Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would like the record to reflect that we do have a quorum present. To my extreme left is Councilman O'Neill. Next to Councilman O'Neill is Councilman Kelly. To my immediate right is Councilman Kenney and also Councilwoman Miller. At this time, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060731. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Canal Street, Laurel Street, Delaware Avenue and Lewellen Street.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules 3 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 7 060731, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco September 28th of this year. 2-acre parcel of land located in an area bounded by Canal Street, Laurel Street, Delaware Avenue and Lewellen Street from a zoning designation of G-2 General Industrial to a zoning designation of C-5 Commercial. This is the second of two rezoning bills introduced to facilitate a development known as Bridgeman's View Tower. The design submitted to the Planning Commission as part of the consideration of this rezoning request is a revision to the entire proposal. The first parcel was rezoned to C-5 Commercial as the subject of Bill No. 25 060290, approved by Council late last 4 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. spring. 4 million square feet, including two floors of retail commercial containing 36,000 square feet, three floors of office space producing 66,000 square feet and a ten-story hotel providing 170 units and 55 stories of condominium space providing 352 units. Additionally, a parking garage was proposed that would have provided 1,100 parking spaces. 2 acres. The proposed zoning change from G-2 Industrial to C-5 Commercial would increase the development potential of this parcel by at least 140 percent from an FAR, floor area ratio, of five to a base floor area ratio of 12 with no bonus floor area ratio. The Planning Commission requested that a decision on this 5 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. proposal be postponed due to two concerns. The first concern was that the proposed size of the project was more compatible with Center City where transit and other forms of transportation are available. The second concern was over the access to and the amount of parking in the project. 3 parking spaces per unit. We believe that the developer has or will be addressing these concerns going forward, and we recommend approval of this bill based on the following information. The overall height of the project has been reduced 200 feet, from 915 feet to 715 feet and a second smaller tower has been introduced. After review of traffic access, a left-hand turn from Delaware Avenue into the parking garage is possible, given existing grades and intersection locations. In addition, we note that 6 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. there is transit available within walking distance of the project for both bus and subway. As pedestrian connections to these facilities are improved, the traffic impact of this project may be lessened. In addition to the factors above, this project has a number of features that are consistent with sound planning principles. First, the ground floor of the project will contain retail with a passage through the project from Delaware Avenue to Canal Street, making it inviting to the public. Second, the project will be LEED certified. LEED-certified buildings are considered green, sustainable buildings. There are only two such buildings planned in the City at this time, and the Planning Commission supports the additional public benefit such energy conserving and efficient buildings provide. Additionally, the developer plans on opening a hotel in the smaller 7 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. of the two towers as soon as possible. The hotel will introduce economic diversity into the project and encourage visitors to this area, supporting both on and off-site retail. The Planning Commission wishes to note that the development team and his representatives have been responsive in relation to the City and community concerns, and many of the elements of the design are a direct response to those negotiations.
We also recall Council's request to do further traffic impact studies, and we are pleased to report that as part of the Central Delaware Riverfront planning effort, Praxis plans to provide a traffic model for the riverfront that will incorporate a ten-year buildout, including casinos. This information will be a basis for future decision-making for parking, public access and building density and massing. 8 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. The staff has also committed to work with the local communities in and around the waterfront to make efforts to alleviate parking and traffic congestion. Easing the parking problems in this area will help developers, including this one, to come up with better, more manageable parking and traffic plans. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of October 17, 2006 considered Bill No. 060731 and recommended its approval pending staff review. The staff has reviewed the latest iteration of the development and supports the approval of this bill. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee. Thank you.
Thank you very much. I would like the record to reflect that the Committee has been joined by Councilman Clarke and Councilwoman Brown. Are there any questions or 9 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes, Madam President. I understand this bill has a good chance of coming out of Committee today, and I abstained on this matter back in June and I'll be doing it again today.
Thank you. I know in spring it appeared that there were community groups that had many concerns. I'm certain that there have been meetings with the community groups and many of their issues have been addressed?
Yes, ma'am. There have been and there continue to be meetings with the community groups to keep them informed and directly involved in this. It's my understanding from the developers that if they don't have it finalized, it's very close to 10 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. finalization of a community development agreement.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I just would like to take this opportunity to thank the Rules Committee and particularly you, Madam Chair, for allowing us the opportunity since the last hearing to have further discussions. And a lot of what Mr. Kramer testified to in terms of conceptual ideas moving forward, the PennPraxis involvement and the community involvement, as you mentioned, which has been ongoing for many, many months, the developer has been consistent from day one when he made this proposal to the Northern Liberties community, has been very supportive of their concerns and has 11 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. been working tirelessly to address those concerns. So I just want to thank everyone involved, the Rules Committee, the neighborhood association, the developers, the consultants and everyone who is involved in this process. It is truly a very transparent and open process. Thank you.
Thank you. I'm sorry. I was just having conversation with one of my colleagues and we could not recall the price of the total construction package. What is the total amount of it; do you recall? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The developer is here. Maybe, Marc, you might want to step up. Come up to the witness table.
Good morning. 12 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.
Marc Stein. I'm one of the representatives of Bridgeman's View Tower development team.
We were having a little conversation and we couldn't remember the exact amount. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Could you tell us how long it's going to take with approval pending out 13 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. of Committee today and the passage next week, how long it will take to have it completed?
Yeah. Out of Committee today, six to eight months in the ground for foundations to start, and from that point forward, we're -- Turner Construction is here. I would say probably around 30 to 42 months for buildout.
And how many tradespeople will be working at that job?
But trade to trade goes as the job progresses, 14 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. correct?
Yes. It will be similar to construction of the Comcast Tower, similar slip form, fanned out steel, same kind of construction. So it's a very -- a lot of people working at the same time. It's continual throughout the process.
I just want to comment that Councilman DiCicco is again working tirelessly to both serve the community and serve those that need work in the City, and I just want to compliment him on his efforts.
Any other questions or comments from members 15 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. of the Committee? (No response.)
Congratulations, and we certainly wish you every success.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Harris Steinberg. I am the Executive Director of PennPraxis. We are the lead consultant on the Central Delaware Riverfront planning project. I'm really here today just to update you since we were here a month ago when we met to discuss the first kind of 16 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. pass at approving the bill for the garage at Bridgeman's View. I want to kind of reiterate what you've heard earlier in terms of the work that's been done. The development team, the Planning Commission, the Councilman's office and the neighbors have worked deciduously to really kind of rework this project, which we have maintained as really not within our purview at this time because it's a project that's been in play before we were asked to do our work. Our concerns have to do with traffic and transportation, and that's what we talked about last time and that's what you asked us to follow up on. So in the interim, we've met with a traffic engineer and we're in the process of commissioning them to do a study, as Mr. Kramer mentioned, of the ten-year buildout along Delaware Avenue. We hope to have some preliminary analysis by December 20th when the casino 17 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. announcements, the licenses, are announced so that we can begin to understand the impact that this project as well as others will have on the future quality of life of Delaware Avenue, as traffic and transportation really is a critical component of that. So we support the efforts that have been made and we will continue to do our work to look at the larger picture of traffic and transportation along Delaware Avenue.
Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you again, Madam Chair. I just would ask that there be a suspension of rules if this bill comes out of Committee.
That will be given consideration. Thank you. 18 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Mr. Stein, I just want to go over this parking garage. Are you including any mechanical parking at this point for your facility?
Yes. The bottom half will be self-park for the retail and commercial.
So that will be saving a huge amount of space, I imagine.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.) 19 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill 060803. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 10 amending Section 14-1600 of The Philadelphia Code, by adding a new section, entitled "Special Height Controls for Vine Street," all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you. I am told that at the request of the sponsor, this bill will be held. Mr. McPherson, please read the title of Bill No. 060826. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 21 approving the third amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the American Street Industrial Corridor Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Lehigh Avenue, Berks Street and 20 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Montgomery Avenue on the north, by Second Street and Philip Street on the east, by Girard Avenue, Oxford Street and Jefferson Street on the south and by Germantown Avenue, Sixth Street and Third Street on the west, including the third amendment to the urban renewal plan and the second amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately four properties for industrial and related uses; the provision of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project.
Good morning, Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee. I'm Michael Koonce, Executive Director of the Redevelopment Authority, and I am here to speak in support of Bill 25 No. 060826, which is the third amendment 21 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. to the redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan for the American Street Industrial Corridor. The proposal and plan provide for the acquisition of a total of four properties. Four vacant structures will be acquired on behalf of E.G. Emil's, Incorporated, which is a poultry processing facility. E.G. Emil's currently employs a staff of 40. This acquisition would allow for the expansion of their business and would support the growth of business and employment opportunities along American Street. The vacant properties are on the NTI Large Commercial Building demolition list. The estimated cost of acquisition is $317,000 and will be paid for with funds from the Commerce Department and the Empowerment Zone. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 25 060826 and would also ask the suspension 22 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. of Council rules to allow first reading on November 30, 2006.
Thank you. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Committee. My name is Richard Redding. I'm Director of Community Planning at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, testifying today in support of Bill No. 14 060826, authorizing acquisition of four properties for business expansion in the American Street area. The Planning Commission approved this proposal on October 18th of 2006, and I'll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mr. Koonce, your testimony is that the acquisition cost is approximately $317,000. 23 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
And it's to be paid with for funds from the Commerce Department/Empowerment Zone. Does this cost include the cost of demolition?
Well, can you tell us what the projected demolition costs are and who will pay that cost?
The costs will be paid for through the Large Commercial Building demolition list. Apparently that list is -- it's a list of properties that are being demolished and funded -- the demolition is being funded through NTI. There is a pot of money that's titled "Large Commercial Building Demolition Dollars" and we're told that that pot of money will cover the demolition.
Is that only if there's going to be new 24 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. development there or can it be used if a commercial structure is considered unsafe?
I believe it can be used for both actually, and it's sort of -- properties are led to this list by the Commerce Department and the actual District Councilperson. The requests are made.
I'd like to know what's in that fund. The proposed use is for industrial purposes.
Are there any current plans for the development of these properties to expand the business of E.G. Emil's, Inc.? I understand it's a poultry processing facility.
Yes. They are adjacent to the site now. This would expand their business.
Can 25 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. you tell us, if you know, what the cost of the expansion will be?
No, I can't, but there are representatives from the Commerce Department who could probably testify to that.
And can they also tell us what the sources of funding are for the expansion?
Can we have someone from the Commerce Department come up, please.
I'm sorry. Earlier in the hearing I had spoken to Andy Fishkof of the Commerce Department and I thought he was still available for testimony. Apparently he stepped out.
I'm sorry. I was asking if somebody from Commerce was here.
And I earlier at the beginning of the hearing had spoken on the side with Andy Fishkof of the 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Commerce Department about this project and I was under the impression that he was still here, but looking around the Chambers, he must have stepped out.
Mr. Koonce, do you know if there is a proposed completion date and, if so, when?
I don't know of the completion date. A lot of it will be depending upon how quickly the RDA can acquire the properties. I know they've been waiting for about three years for these properties.
Do you have any indication as to how many jobs will be created and will these be new jobs or are they jobs that have been in existence?
I'm told that the expansion will be new jobs, that it's not bringing in other employees from other branches of E.G. Emil's, that these will be new jobs and that they will be mainly 27 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. drawn from the neighborhood. I don't know how many.
Well, I think a person from Commerce should have been here to testify. Do we have any other questions or comments from members of the Committee on this bill? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 20 060827. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 22 approving the thirty-fifth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the northwest corner of 28 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Front Street and Spring Garden 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 8 properties for residential and related 9 uses; the additional land acquisition of 10 approximately 66 properties for 11 institutional and related uses; the 12 additional land acquisition of one 13 property for commercial and related uses; 14 the provision of certain relocation 15 services, as required by law and 16 declaring that condemnation is not 17 imminent with respect to the project. 18
Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I am here to speak in support of Bill No. 060827, which is the thirty-fifth amendment to the redevelopment proposal and the twenty-seventh amendment to the urban 29 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. renewal plan for the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area. The proposal and plan provide for the acquisition of a total of 85 properties. One assembled vacant parcel of land will be acquired for future commercial development. It's intended that this parcel will be the proposed site of a supermarket development at the southeast corner of 27th and Girard Avenue. 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 acquired under the Neighborhood Transformations Initiative, a strategy to rebuild Philadelphia's neighborhoods as thriving communities with clean and secure streets, recreational and cultural outlets, and quality housing. The property will be used in the development of 41 new 30 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. construction homeownership units as part of the third and final phase of the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone. This project is located in an area bounded by North 19th Street, North 20th Street, Master and Jefferson Streets. The current property owner will be relocated as part of this development plan. An additional parcels, 15 of 11 which are vacant lots and two are 12 occupied structures, will be acquired 13 under the Neighborhood Transformations 14 Initiative for future residential and 15 related development. 16 Sixty-six vacant lots will be 17 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 has authorized the Authority to enter into a non-assistance agreement with Temple University. The agreement will require that Temple University pay for all direct and indirect costs 31 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. associated with the acquisition. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 6 060827 and would also ask the suspension of Council rules to allow a first reading on November 30, 2006.
Yes. Again, good morning, Madam President and members of the Committee. I'm Richard Redding, Director of Community Planning at the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, testifying in support of Bill No. 060827, authorizing the acquisition of 85 properties concentrated in three sections of North Philadelphia. No. 1, 27th and Girard, and No. 2, Temple University, and No. 3, the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone. The Planning Commission approved this on October 18th of this year. Thank you very much. 32 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
Madam Chairperson, if I may, my office has agreed to notify the current owner of 2003 Diamond Street that we will not pursue acquisition of this property, as it's now under an agreement of sale and it's to be rehabilitated using private funding. We had these discussions just prior to the hearing with the owner of 2003 Diamond Street. Also, 2045 Diamond Street is listed as an occupied residence. Upon passage of this ordinance, my office will make every attempt to enter into a rehab agreement with the owner. We will pursue acquisition of this property only after we've exhausted all avenues of securing the rehab of this property also by private means. In addition, we've been asked by City officials to hold the acquisition of the 27th and Girard Avenue property pending further discussions with the owners. 33 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
Mr. Koonce, how many of these properties are currently occupied?
My information this morning is that two of the properties are occupied.
And what, if any, relocation plans have there been for the two owners?
In the case of 1917 Harlan Street in the Cecil B. Moore Homeownership Zone, there have been ongoing community meetings for the last six or seven years with all the residents in the area. Additionally, we make every attempt to place the relocated families if they're homeownership in one of the new properties. We've done that probably over the last two years with approximately 30 to 40 percent of the relocatees. In the case of 2045 Diamond Street, we're not exactly sure that that property is occupied. We listed it as 34 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. occupied because there were signs that it may have been. We don't have any conclusive proof that it is. And we'd like to offer the same relocation services, if after passage and further inspection we find that there is an owner there. I couldn't find any records of utility bills or anything in the property, but their staff did have an indication that it may have been occupied.
Mr. Koonce, are there any proposals for the use of the parcels to be acquired 16 under the NTI for future residential 17 development and, if so, what are the acquisition costs for these 17 properties?
It's anticipated that these 17 properties would be developed as low-income housing. A developer hasn't been secured so far to make that a reality, but that's the hope. As for the acquisition costs of 35 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. these properties, I could probably get that to you before I finish testifying from a staff person.
Thank you. Can you tell us what the costs associated with the development by Temple University?
Again, I don't have a breakdown of that figure either, but I can probably get that also for you. And Tabb Bishop of Temple University is here to testify also.
Good morning, Madam President. I guess I should state my name for the record. Tabb Bishop, Deputy Chief of Staff, Executive Office of the President, Temple University. And what I needed to do, if you don't mind, Madam President, if you could repeat the question for me.
I simply asked what are the costs 36 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. associated with the development by Temple University.
As it stands right now, these plans are being worked out, but we think it's going to be somewhere around the $80 million cost range to develop that site. That would include building on the lower half of that property a dry lab research space and offices, and on the northern end of that block would be parking, a surface-level parking lot.
Thank you, Mr. Bishop. Just a moment, please. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Mr. Bishop, has there been any community involvement in the planning aspect of this project and community solicitation in terms of 37 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. support? Where are you at with that?
Yes, Councilman. That property, as you will know, is more on the interior of campus. However, it is across from the Norris Home PHA development. But in addition to that, what we did, we saw there were three neighborhoods around that. There's that development, along with Jefferson Manor Homeowners Association and Yorktown Community Organization. We've been working along with those community leaders in terms of making them aware of our project and making sure that they were understanding the details of what we're doing. As you well know, in that neighborhood we've been trying to spend a lot of time and energy working ahead of the schedule in terms of informing people what we're doing, and they seem to be willing to be supportive of it. And, in turn, the University is working out -- strengthening its relationships with 38 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. those community residents and organizations as well.
Are you talking to any other local elected officials in the immediate area?
Yes. We've spoken with State Senator Shirley Kitchen, who has been active in that process, and certainly we've reached out, as you well know, to you as well on this process.
Thank you for your 39 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. time.
Do we have any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Gentlemen, thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? MR. McPHERSON: Yes. Our next witness is Ms. Dockery.
Mr. Koonce, did you ask for a suspension of the rules on this bill?
Thank you. Good morning, Ms. Dockery. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes. Thank you, Council President. My name is Netrisa Takesha Dockery and I am here to speak on behalf of Bill No. 060827. 40 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. I hope all the Councilmembers have a copy of my testimony in front of them. Essentially, good morning, esteemed and honorable members of the Philadelphia City Council. I am Netrisa Takesha Dockery. Please feel free to call me Netrisa. I come before you today regarding Bill No. 060827, the Model Cities Urban Renewal Plan, introduced by Councilman Clarke. I have come to ask you, as representatives of the people of this great city, to please stop the madness. Please stop the RDA's continuing practice of land theft from Philadelphia citizens in the name of progress for all. I am the property owner of 2036 West Diamond Street, Philadelphia 19121. It is a property located in the area covered by this bill, this ordinance. I can say without question that the passing of this bill today would seriously harm me and future generations of my family. 41 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. And I urge you not to pass this bill 3 until RDA addresses the harm that will come to interested parties. I love this city and I was an International Ambassador for Philadelphia as Miss Black America Pennsylvania during the Rendell Administration. You, the Philadelphia City Council as an exemplary role model for young women, also cited me. I care about this city and I want to see it continue to grow, but not at the expense of the blood, sweat, tears, time and money of hard-working citizens who are not fairly compensated for their work and diligence. I want to get right to the point and make some key points about my situation here. I own 2036 West Diamond Street since 1986. To date, I have received only one letter from RDA, the letter informing me of this hearing. I have been made no offer of compensation for my property whatsoever. I purchased the property from 42 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. beloved family member and elder, a 96-year-old man, Mr. Jacob Livingston, who I refer to as Uncle Jacob, for $20,000 in 1986. I spent over $17,000 in 1993 preparing the property for the MEND Program, which I was then told also went under RDA. I could never seem to pass a final inspection despite my great investment of cleaning out the property, getting architectural plans drawn up. I still never passed a final inspection, and then the program was terminated. Also, 2411 North College Avenue, at the request of PHA, RDA conveyed that piece of land, which was my real estate, my children's inheritance, to PHA and has never to this date compensated me for that land. Please stop the RDA theft of private citizens' land without fair compensation to them. If you will note in the packet I have passed out the correspondence between my then counsel, the late Rotan 43 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Lee, and the RDA, Mr. Herbert Wetzel and a Mr. Scafidi, regarding my attempts to get compensation for 2411 North College Avenue. So you ask what do I want? Why am I here? What do I want? I don't want my land stolen from under me again like 2411 North College Avenue was. I insist on being fairly compensated for my property at this time. My blood, sweat, tears, investment in Diamond Street and what it has cost me in terms of my health, my credit history, my overall quality of life can never be repaid. But I ask that I be fairly compensated this time for my financial investment if RDA really wants my land. In closing, again, I urge you, as the representatives of the tax-paying citizens of this great city, do not pass this ordinance, not at this time until the issues of my interests and others like me have been addressed and settled successfully. Besides, it's only fair 44 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. that I and others like me be given sufficient time to determine the true market value of our property. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.
I guess my question is more to Mr. Koonce, and it impacts you. What is the process for having those compensated for their land?
The process can't begin until there is a Council ordinance 25 in place that's been signed by the Mayor. 45 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Only then can we send out appraisers to appraise the property. That's when the process begins.
So you need an ordinance in order to get the property appraised?
You haven't appraised the property yet? I mean, we're getting ready to talk about acquisition. There's been no appraisal?
Okay. Well, let me ask you this. I just want to jump back to the College Avenue. I agree with her. I agree with any citizen that says if we're going to take their land, they should be fairly compensated. And it sounds like it broke down with Takesha on the College Avenue site. There needs to be some type of status for that, some type of status report, because if you eventually took the site, there had to be an ordinance and someone had to 46 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. go out and appraise the land in order for that site to actually be taken. So I'm assuming that it's not shut, the door is not shut in terms of compensation.
The door is not shut. This is the first time hearing of this one at this hearing now. I didn't play a part in this acquisition in the past. What the process should have been, the property was appraised, an offer letter was mailed. If the owner didn't accept the acquisition costs, then the RDA would go to Court of Common Pleas, file a Declaration of Taking, inform the owner of such and advertise the same, and then the owner was notified that they would have had the right to file for a hearing in front of a Board of View, in which an independent board would hear the RDA's appraiser testify and then hear the condemnee's testimony, and then they would choose a price. That's the process, the legal process.
For College Avenue. $1,000 was the offer letter. And the challenge also was because in my youth of buying the property, it was not properly conveyed in terms of title. In all honesty, it was not properly conveyed to me. It was conveyed in the form of an agreement of sale, which stated that the owner's interest in the property were conveyed to me, but a church held the mortgage. Had I been properly advised at the time, I would have foreclosed on the church and then had the property properly titled to me. But throughout the entire 15-year history that I held the property, I paid the taxes, the water bill. All the City records indicated everything was mailed to me, and that's where Rotan Lee was attempting to discuss with Mr. Wetzel 48 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. the fact that, yes, okay, in my youth there was a problem with the way that that property was conveyed, but it was an absolute fact of record that all of the bills, the taxes, water and so forth on that property were paid by me over those years. And that was acknowledged by RDA also, but basically the attitude was, you know, okay, spend $3,500, $5,000, go to court, fight us, get it or get your name put in it. It just turned into a situation that I felt I absolutely could not win despite my years of investment into that property. Also, roofs, renovation, I had all that for RDA. They looked over all of it and basically said, We don't care. It's not properly titled to you. We don't have to give you anything for it, and it was as simple as that.
I assume, Takesha, that this property is properly titled to you?
This one, yes. 49 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. This is properly titled.
It's a lot at this time, and even that really breaks my heart, because it was demolished after all of my investment with the MEND Program to attempt to bring the property up. I mean, I invested $17,000 to $20,000 cleaning it out, bulldozers, bobcats, architectural drawings, and could never seem to pass a final inspection, and then the program was terminated and I just took my loss.
Well, I guess because there has not been a fair assessment of market value of your land -- I'm not that familiar. Certainly I know where Diamond Street is. Because it's not in my district, I don't have a sense of worth.
Well, I was licensed in real estate for 13 years, so I do have a sense of real estate. And 50 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. the big thing here that I would strongly object to still this bill not passing is because the whole notion that first they get an ordinance and then they get an appraisal. It puts me in a position that, again, I feel like I'm back in a "take it or leave it," that whatever they come at me with, whatever RDA offers me, if I choose not to take that offer from RDA, the ordinance has already been passed. They can still move forward with whatever it is they need to do, I would assume. And so it puts me in a position as a private citizen that you want to go fight City Hall, you want to fight the government? That's not a fight I choose to engage in. So the passing of an ordinance 20 and then giving market value -- why can't market value in these things be worked out before the ordinance passes? If Temple University, we know, is one of the richest institutions in this country is going to also be developing here, why 51 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. can't these financial matters or whatever other interest people have be worked out prior to the ordinance passing to protect private citizens?
Well, I agree with that, but is there a reason why the market value is established after the ordinance or is it because there's no 10 point in doing the market analysis if we're not going to purchase it?
It would be if we have ten properties and we order an evaluation of the ten and Council does not pass the ordinance, then I can't justify the money. More to the point, though, is, the urban redevelopment law specifies this process. However, it does not say that we can't do it earlier. That's only because we do not want to expend the money until we know we have the authority. And also --
Excuse me. Can I 52 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. finish?
Also, since this is being paid for through NTI dollars, we can't spend money on those properties until Council approves the use of the money.
But you can beat up a private citizen after you got the ordinance passed to make them shove down their throat your offer or tell them they can appeal and go to court and fight you forever. Who has got the time to do that and work a job and raise children?
We offer dollars to help you cover the cost of the attorney. There's also a Board of View process that you don't even need an attorney for. And I will tell you, in my experience of the Board of View, you win more than I do.
There's an 53 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. independent Board of View.
You're talking about something I don't know, but I've never known RDA to -- again, my expenses here are already at $50,000, just expenses in this property, financial expenses.
I guess I would hope as an elected official, as a Councilmember that doesn't represent the district; however, acquisition and all those issues are Citywide, except where they don't have to be, but I would hope the citizens get some type of fair compensation for land when we're taking it under NTI or eminent domain or whatever we're doing. People need to be compensated. And I'll end with that. She should be fairly compensated. Thank you.
Thank you, Madam President. 54 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Good morning.
Sorry you are at this point in time where your property has been demolished and now it is being proposed for taking. What I would like to ask the Redevelopment Authority to do -- because I've seen the appraisal process and there has seemed to be some inconsistencies in some respects. It appears that in instances when the City is in the process of doing acquisition, sometimes the appraisal value comes up relatively high. In the case of, as an example, we were trying to acquire a property in Strawberry Mansion, which is in the 33rd Street area, and the appraiser got an appraisal from 15th and Oxford and was an extremely high number. And those particular neighborhoods were not necessarily, although both in North Philadelphia and in my Council District, but not necessarily the same 55 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. characteristics at 15th and Oxford. There was a high value on land because people were purchasing properties and land for student housing. And ultimately we got an appraisal that was closer to the 33rd Street area where the number was dramatically less than the 50,000. In the case of Ms. Dockery, her property, I believe, is in proximity to Temple University in some respects.
So I would assume that the appraisal for this vacant lot, because it is a vacant lot now --
-- would be in the higher range of vacant lots in North Philadelphia. So my assumption is that the value on that vacant lot would be a lot higher than the value on your prior endeavor with the Redevelopment Authority when you were offered a thousand dollars for College Avenue. And 56 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. actually, College Avenue would be much higher now given what's happening in Fairmount.
So my assumption is that it's going to be a relatively high appraisal, and I ask the Redevelopment Authority when they're looking at these appraisals -- and I understand what we're trying to do, because we're ultimately going to build low-income housing on the site, affordable housing. So it's for what we believe to be a reasonable use, something that's much needed in that neighborhood -- that we do our appraisals, that we look at some of the high end appraisals in that area to make sure that Ms. Dockery can be adequately compensated. I'm not sure how that appraisal process works, if you take the high and the low and then you average it out, but 57 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. given the history of Ms. Dockery and the Redevelopment Authority, if at all possible, we can look at some of the higher appraisals when we attempt to compensate her on this particular parcel. Would that be within your realm?
Actually, we have to -- our appraisers are selected by an open RFP type process, and part of their contract is that we can't interfere with their appraisal work. Having said that, we do have a staff appraiser who has to review and approve, and I think he could be instructed to be particularly helpful in making sure that not just this property but all future properties are appraised relative to the neighborhood. For example, I do know that the property that we agreed to drop this morning, the shell, it's under agreement of sale on that block for $80,000. So, no, this should be a much more substantial property than the one on College Avenue. 58 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
Right. Because given what's happening in that immediate area, there's a significant change in value, and we want to make sure that people are adequately compensated in the event that we have to do a condemnation.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Koonce. Thank you, Madam President.
You're welcome. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Just my last comment is, and I guess that will be worked out, too, because, again, from the demolition of the property, of course, I've incurred an $18,000 debt that's sitting there looking at the property 59 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. right after, again, all of the work was put into it. So I would assume that do I work that out through this process of negotiation with the RDA or is that something which is handled differently, since it's in your district, Councilman Clarke?
I would not like to answer that question at this time.
You're welcome. Our next witness, please approach the witness table. MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Bleznak, and then I have a Dr. Clark.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Daniel Bleznak. I'm here on behalf of 27th and Girard Limited 60 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Partnership. We own the property located at 27th and Girard Avenue. I would like to thank City Council and the Rules Committee for providing me with the opportunity to speak today regarding the thirty-fifth amended redevelopment proposal and the twenty-seventh amended urban renewal plan that is the subject of this Rules Committee session. My name is Dan Bleznak and I come before you today to speak on behalf of 27th and Girard Limited Partnership, of which I am a partner. 27th and Girard Limited Partnership consists entirely of my family members. First, representatives of 27th and Girard LP have had the opportunity to meet with Councilman Clarke prior to today's hearing. We have requested that he remove our property from this ordinance, a measure which it is our understanding cannot be done without having to reintroduce an entirely new 61 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. ordinance, thereby jeopardizing the apparent urgency of the institutional component, primarily the Temple University properties. We would like to state for the record that we emphatically oppose the inclusion of our property in this ordinance and are committed to fighting any attempt to condemn the property to the fullest extent of the law. We fundamentally believe that our property's inclusion in this bill will only stall progress made towards realizing a viable commercial development at our site. In our last two meetings with Councilman Clarke, we were, however, assured that the Councilman will direct the RDA in a written letter not to pursue condemnation of our property. Furthermore, should Council approve the ordinance with our property included, Councilman Clarke had agreed to request that the RDA promptly introduce before its Board authority to rescind the right 62 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. of condemnation of our parcel at 27th and Girard Avenue. We have been further assured by Councilman Clarke that the proposed ordinance notwithstanding no one but 27th and Girard Limited Partnership will be permitted to develop this property. While we oppose our property's inclusion in this ordinance, we will take the Councilman at his word that the RDA will rescind its right to condemn our property. It is also important to state for the record that we remain committed to this site and the community and trust that the Councilman recognizes our sustained efforts to properly develop this parcel. Since June when the original ordinance was introduced, we have consistently met with representatives from Neighborhood Transformation Initiative and PIDC to report on our progress toward a development. Understanding the community's desire for a supermarket 63 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. located along the West Girard Avenue corridor, we have met with representatives from traditional supermarket chains, such as Shop Rite, Pathmark, Fresh Grocer, Acme, Save a Lot, et cetera, as well as non-traditional formats, such as a food co-op based in Mount Airy. Site size constraints have been a limiting factor toward attracting a market to our parcel site. To that end, we have also begun investigating the feasibility ourselves of acquiring additional parcels to accommodate a traditional-size grocery store. Economic constraints in developing this parcel for a supermarket also presents a challenge that we have been working closely with both NTI and PIDC to overcome. Given some of the limitations toward developing this location for a full-size grocery store, it is also important that we look at other types of developments for this site that fit 64 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. within the existing site constraints. We hope to continue to work toward a redevelopment of our site for productive use that is a benefit to the community.
We will not, however, continue to pursue conversations with supermarket operators and other retailers or further expend our time and money toward the redevelopment of this site under the threat of a condemnation that puts at stake our professional credibility with those very same operators and retailers. It would be our preference that City Council show true leadership by voting not to condemn this property, as that will only stall progress made thus far. In lieu of that outcome, we are committed to resuming our efforts to redevelop this site once the RDA rescinds its rights to condemn our property.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or 65 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. comments from the members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Madam President, I have to leave the Chamber and I just want to leave my votes as aye on all bills and amendments to bills, except the one I mentioned earlier, 060731, in which I want to abstain. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have any questions or comments for this witness? Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just want to state that we have had very fruitful discussions with the development team and they've been very aggressive in attempting to develop this site, and I just want to thank him for continuing under circumstances that are not 66 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. necessarily conducive to trying to develop a site, but I want to thank you for continuing to work with us. We've given our commitment that we want to work with you and make sure that you have an opportunity to develop this site. And we will instruct the Redevelopment Authority -- well, we will ask the Redevelopment Authority to not proceed on the condemnation of this particular site, as I indicated in our earlier discussions.
And if I may ask a question. That includes ultimately, however that's done, the rescinding of that right to condemn the property? Because the mere threat of condemnation brings a credibility issue to me with those supermarket operators that I work with every day.
I'm a man of my word. 67 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
I appreciate that and I appreciate your meeting with us before this meeting.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Snead.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is William Caldwell Snead. I'm the owner of 1817 North 11th Street. I'm here to express my desire to contest this application by the Redevelopment Authority to, as they say, acquire my property for a number of reasons and also to comment on the statement that the representative of Temple University made whereby he said that they were going to develop parking. For the last ten years, Temple 68 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. University and its agents have allowed people to illegally park on my property, which runs between Montgomery and Norris Streets on 11th. It's a completely empty lot where people park for free at all times. And if I were to have a guest park on Temple University's property, I'm sure that they would call the authorities about that. My other issue is that a few years ago, this property -- I received a letter from the Redevelopment Authority saying that they were condemning the property. However, the property had been a lot for more than years, so their 17 research was obviously faulty. 18 Also, on the question of 19 compensation: Location, location, 20 location. This is the prime location. And they have never offered me one dime in compensation, number one. And number two, two words come to mind, one is "collision" and the other is "collusion." I don't understand how a government 69 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. entity in conjunction with the Zoning Board can zone a private property for educational purposes and thereby prevent me from exercising my right to engage in commerce whereby sell the property and then at some later date come and say, Well, we want to take your property -- acquire is the word they use -- take your property, apply it to whatever use we want to, still offer no compensation. Furthermore, in their communications with me, they decided that I'm an anonymous person. They don't even address me by name. They send their correspondence to an address and they say "owner of this property." If they have the address, they know who I am. I feel humiliated by the process and I feel disrespected by it. That's my comment.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? 70 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. We appreciate your coming in to offer your statements.
One question, ma'am. You have no inquiries as to whether my rights have been violated or not?
I don't believe they have. Mr. Koonce, can you respond to that, please?
Yes, it is a lot I own, ma'am, and it's been in my family for over 50 years.
I have the bill in 71 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. my pocket.
I think most of your problems before this year have been between you and Temple University; for example, the parking. The only thing -- and I can't speak to that. I do know that I'm aware that that is one large parking lot and has been for years and years and years.
It has turned into that. And I believe -- well, it hasn't been declared a parking lot, but I believe that there is no parking enforcement in that area, on that block and other blocks, so I don't believe the Philadelphia Parking Authority has any authority there to enforce their rules and regulations, nor has Temple ever enforced any parking rules and that students have just on their own chosen to park there because there were no tickets. 72 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
But this common law is sort of the way of doing things. The law cannot be suspended just in order to satisfy the interest of some entity like Temple University. And I'm addressing the Redevelopment Authority because you have historically expressed an interest in my property, but have never been willing to exercise any kind of dialogue with me whereby I could be compensated.
In years, since 13 1993, the Redevelopment Authority has not 14 expressed an interest in acquiring your property up until this expression of interest.
No, sir. I have to contradict you, and if you were to check your records, you will see that I had been threatened with condemnation of a property that didn't even stand on the property. So perhaps some other people who were less diligent --
Was that by L&I or was that by Redevelopment Authority? 73 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
No. That was by the Redevelopment Authority, but perhaps some people who were less competent than yourself did that.
I was the Project Manager for that area since 1993. It would have come over my desk, and it hasn't.
Well, how do I contact you? (Mr. Koonce gave Mr. Snead his business card.)
The Chair at this time recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Sir, just one suggestion I'd make relative to your issue regarding parking. If you legitimately own the property and it's titled to you, you can contract with a private towing company, post your site and I'm sure they'll clear it off in a matter of hours.
No, sir. It's a 74 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. broader issue, and the broader issue --
I'm just saying as far as your concern and upset with Temple students or whoever it is parking on your private property, all you have to do is post your private property, contract with a towing company and they'll remove those cars within a couple hours.
But it's a symptom, and what I'm saying to you, sir, is that if in fact, as this gentleman has stated, the law is being disobeyed by the Parking Authority, ignored by the Philadelphia Police Department --
It's private property. It's your private property right now. The Police Department or the Parking Authority or Temple Police have no authority. It's your private property. So if you want your private property cleared, you post like other private property owners do and the tow truck will come and remove those 75 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. cars, and I guarantee you that will happen once and nobody will ever park there again.
Thank you. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Dr. Clark.
Good morning, Doctor. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Alfonso Clark and I am here to oppose the parcels at 2114 and 2116 West Diamond Street. The properties in concern and question are part of a lot, several lots. There are nine lots between 21st and Diamond and Van Pelt Street on the south side of Diamond Street. Over a period of time I, as a private individual, have 76 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. owned seven of the lots, and over the process of a few years through condemnation and acquisition, I am losing the lots and currently only have five of them. My intent with the lots were to develop residential, senior residential, housing there at market rates, which the community does need senior housing. Plus it's a redeveloping area, and as everyone is aware of, mixed-income type of housing is needed to make a neighborhood viable. The problem that I've been encountering is that initially when I undertook the project from my father, who is now deceased, there was a private owner at one of the lots. I did go through the necessary process that I was told of of putting the property -- trying to locate the owner, putting the property up to sheriff's sale, and that took quite a period of time before it was turned over to the legal department. In the process of tracking it 77 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. down through the legal department, it was eventually turned over to the RDA. But the RDA -- I was not aware that RDA had it. I thought PHA had it. So, again, I went after the PHA to try to make acquisition of that lot, not knowing that the RDA actually had it. It's been a difficult process to develop these, because all developers are finding out that I don't have site control. And one of the issues here -- the issue is not development of this site. Darrell Clarke, and myself included, is interested in redevelopment in North Philadelphia. It is an area that I was brought up in. I went to Pratt-Arnold School. I went to William Dick School. My father has been there for 50 years as a medical practitioner, and we have never left the neighborhood at any time. So we do have a presence there and we would like to continue a presence there in helping nurture North Philadelphia. 78 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. The problem, as always, has been site control, and that's one thing that the acquisition from the RDA is doing, is they're trying to get site control. I have never been able to get site control of that particular area so I can interest developers or joint partners in a project. As it was stated earlier, that when you talk to a developer and they go and find that you have condemnation hanging over your head, everyone runs. No one wants to be involved with the project. So one of my problems and I know one of the concerns of the Councilman is is financing the project. And hopefully in taking a different approach, because I have retained counsel now to work with the condemnation letters, work with the RDA, because currently as I was told by counsel, he has been informed by Attorney Anastasi that they cannot locate the file. So this also delays the whole process of 79 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. just getting site control and going to a financial institution and stating to them that we do have site control and will you be interested in financing the project. So I'm asking that those two parcels, 2114 and 2116, be removed from the bill and that I be still given an opportunity, a brief opportunity, to develop those sites and if I can acquire a letter from the RDA to do a joint venture in terms of developing those sites for residential purposes for senior citizens.
Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Dr. Clark, you know my position on this, that that site has been vacant for a long, long, long time, and I understand that your family has been trying to develop that site for quite 80 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. some time. At some point, it's my responsibility as the elected official to rebuild that community. And I understand your plight and I believe your sincerity, but the reality is that at some point if you or whomever can't develop the site, we, the City, has to make a decision to move on. What I'm going to ask Mr. Koonce to do is to assign the appropriate person in his department or himself, whoever he deems necessary, to sit down with you and review your proposal and see if there is a reasonable possibility of you being able to develop the site. Because we do have interested parties who are willing and we believe that are in a position to build affordable housing on the site. The Diamond Street corridor is increasingly important to us in this community. It's a highly traveled thoroughfare, and we're finally getting some levels of interest in bringing in 81 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. people and developing that corridor. I'd really like to see that happen sooner than later. All right?
Thank you, Doctor. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask if we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill. (No response.)
Anyone else like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 25 060292-A. 82 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 3 amending Section 14-1611 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls," by providing for additional height controls in the vicinity of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 17 060292-A, which was introduced by Councilmember Clarke April 20, 2006. This bill amends Section 20 14-1611 of the Zoning Code by extending the boundaries of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls District to include the area bounded by the Schuylkill River, John F. Kennedy Boulevard, North 23rd Street, Arch Street, North 20th Street, 83 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Vine Street, North 18th Street, Brandywine Street, North 21st Street, Fairmount Avenue, North 22nd Street and Aspen Street, following a line extended from the center line of Aspen Street west to the Schuylkill River. In this area, a height limit of 125 feet for all newly erected buildings will be created. Additionally, this bill will establish a 45-foot height limitation for any building with frontage on Spring Garden Street between Pennsylvania Avenue and 18th Street. While this bill has not been formally presented to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission for consideration, the Commission staff does have some concerns about the provisions of this bill. The staff believes that the area that would be subjected to the proposed 125-foot height limit is unnecessarily large. Significant portions of the area, especially along 84 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. the northern and southern edges of the district, contain base zoning classifications that have height limitations of far less than the proposed 125 feet. In many instances, the properties are already limited to a maximum height of 35 feet. Similarly, the existing zoning for the area on the north side of Spring Garden Street where a height limit of 45 feet is proposed is already limited to a height of 35 feet, with only one block permitting heights of up to 60 feet, and that height can only be achieved with a significant setback. In other instances, the height limitation is placed on properties where high-rise residential and commercial buildings have been permitted since the City has had a Zoning Code. While we understand the reasoning behind the proposed height limitations, there are actually very few parcels where the existing zoning permits 85 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. heights exceeding 125 feet that are not already built out. The staff of the Planning Commission believes that the same results can be achieved through a zoning remapping of this area and that the staff is currently engaged in that process. We have prepared base zoning maps and building information and are scheduled to conduct a site survey of the study area this week. We believe that we can have a remapping bill ready within two weeks. We expect that this bill will be presented to the Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting scheduled for December 19, 2006. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you, Madam President. Let me give a brief statement before I respond to Mr. Kramer and the 86 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Planning Commission. As you know, this bill was introduced in April, and at the time, frankly speaking, it was in response to a particular proposal that the community people and this Councilperson thought was inappropriate, and once we had the discussion with respect to changing some of the height limitations, people had an interest in including some of the area. So we crafted a substantial area that pretty much goes down to Logan, down to Arch Street, above to Spring Garden from Broad essentially to the Art Museum, and at that time, there was a clear understanding that there would be some adjustments, because we did agree that the characteristics in those various neighborhoods were different, so there's no way that one particular height limitation could be appropriate for the entire area. Mr. Kramer, as I recall, at that public hearing the Planning 87 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Commission indicated for the record that they were going to work with us and assist us in developing a bill that would be conducive to everyone's interests. To my knowledge, nothing was done on that until I made a call to you and subsequently was told I had to call the Director, the newly hired Director, which I did. That was about a month ago. So from that time to April, in all due respect, there was nothing done by the Planning Commission on this particular bill. So for the Planning Commission to come in here now and ask me to hold off for two weeks, having done nothing throughout the summer or the fall, I think is pretty quite amazing to me. That conversation that I had with the Planning Director led me to believe that this would not happen in a timely manner. You now stand before me and say that you can have this done in two weeks. The conversation with her was essentially that you are understaffed, 88 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. which I believe you are, and the likelihood of this happening in a relatively quick time was pretty much nil. So I don't understand how you can now come before us and say that you can have something ready in two weeks when you haven't done anything since April.
Well, let me for the record indicate that while we did in fact drop the ball, as it were, and that this item did fall between the cracks such that we did not get things done in as timely a manner as personally I would like to have us do, we have not been sitting totally idle on this thing. We have done some studies. We have been doing some research with regard to this. There have been meetings. I don't know exactly who was there, but members of my staff were certainly in attendance, and discussions were going left and right with this. There have been contacts to our office from different attorneys, different law firms with regard to this 89 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. and what they were going to do on this, on that and the other thing. Whatever. We have been doing the base work for this.
Let me stop you there. Who have your staff people been meeting with? Have you been meeting with the community groups?
I'll be honest with you, I'd have to check with my staff to see exactly who was in attendance. I know that there were -- I know that your staff was not there.
I'm not worried about my staff. I'm worrying about what process that the Planning Commission had as it relates to the people who live and work in those particular areas.
The meetings that I was aware of were not necessarily meetings with the community but with representatives of properties that were being represented by attorneys, who they 90 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. were making concerned comments and calls to our office and, What are you doing? We're like, Wait a minute. And --
So you were responding, you weren't being proactive, is what you're telling me?
At that point, yes, you are correct. We were being responsive to --
So I don't think you can count that in your column if you're responding. That's not something that you guys did. You responded.
But at the same time, we were also investigating further to try to get the base -- and the only reason I'm saying this is because the new Executive Director is not aware of everything that my division is doing and that we have gotten a lot of the base work done in order to be able to accomplish getting a remapping bill 91 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. drafted within two weeks. That's the only comment I'm going to make with regard to it, is that a lot of the base look-ups, the checking of the building lines, the putting together the base zoning maps so we know what study area. We have not done the site surveys, and that was scheduled for this week. As a matter of fact, Mrs. Leonard is coming with us to do that as well, so that we know which sites have already been actually built out and can identify them. That's what we were doing. That's what we have been doing. Unfortunately, many other things have come up that have slowed us down, and not only being understaffed but other, as you say, fires that needed to be put out and other issues that had been addressed. That's why we're able to be in a position to be able to get a bill within two weeks. We understand that the concerns are here, and we want to respond to that and be as responsive as we can be. 92 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
But in all due respect, Mr. Kramer, the world can't just simply stop until you guys can decide that you're going to move this to the front burner. There are real projects. There are real needs in this particular area. And what we've done in this particular bill, we've attempted to work on an area where we were able to get what we believe to be a consensus in terms of making some adjustments to this bill. Now, there are going to be a number of other individuals that I'm assuming that will testify today that are not necessarily happy with either the current version or maybe the amended version. Because we weren't given an opportunity to have the information in a timely way from the Planning Commission, we've just had to attempt to do it the way we can do it, simply going out and meeting with communities, meeting with developers and attempting to craft 93 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. something that would put us in a position that we can pass something today. If you're telling me in two weeks you will have something that can address the entire area, that's all well and good, because we have a lot of interested parties in this particular hearing that will testify today and I'm not sure if what you're going to forward to us will reflect your conversations that you've had with them, because you clearly haven't had any conversations with the community.
So I would think that prior to you giving some recommendations to the body about a bill, that you should have some conversations with the people that live and work in those neighborhoods. Don't you think that's appropriate?
Because I 94 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. don't know how you give us a bill if you haven't had those kind of conversations. So what we're attempting to do today is to proceed with some amendments in an area where we believe we've had a consensus on after having talked to some of the interested parties; i.e., developers and the community organizations representing those areas, and we'll be more than willing to talk to you about what you're proposing after you meet with the community on this revised bill.
Because I never wanted to do it this way, and I said that in April at the earlier hearing. I would like to have the full participation of all interested parties, but because I was not able to have that, we had to do what we had to do. Okay?
Has Mr. Kramer been provided a copy of the 95 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. amendment?
Madam President, I'll briefly explain the amendment. Essentially the amendment today, we're attempting to delete the eastern portion of the proposed height limitations from 17th Street to Broad, which is essentially a very highly commercial/industrial district. We said all along that it was probably not appropriate to have a 125 height limit in that particular area. Along the Spring Garden corridor, we're asking to impose a height limitation on the north side of Spring Garden to maintain the residential character of that particular block, and on the south side have a height 96 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. limitation from 18th Street west to Pennsylvania Avenue to also maintain the residential character. We've been asked to do some other issues, some other things both prior to the hearing and during the course of the time leading up to the hearing. What I would like to do is to address those particular areas, particularly the River City area that I understand there are two or three new proposals that are coming to the table, one that has actually been a prior proposal that's resurfacing. And I actually talked to a representative of the community organization from Logan Square during the course of this hearing, and they've indicated that they have not signed off on any of those proposals and would like to continue the discussion. So I would like to have the participation of the Planning Commission as we move ahead to address those areas and some of the other areas where there 97 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. are interested parties in this particular height overlay. So that's essentially what we're attempting to do. And I'd like to say that my good friend and new colleague, Councilman Greenlee, will be deeply involved in this, so he can suffer some of the headaches that I've got as a result of this process. So, Councilman, thank you.
Certainly. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Kramer, just a question. You had said that you can have this bill 21 ready in two weeks, but am I right to say you have not talked to the community involved at all yet?
There have not been scheduled community meetings that I 98 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. am aware of.
Then can you really, in all honesty, do that in two weeks?
You can have a bill drafted. The idea was to get the bill drafted as quickly as possible and then take the bill and use that as the basis for discussions among the community. Certainly a bill cannot be or should not be passed without community input and involvement. I'm not trying to advocate that in any way, shape or form. But in terms of being able to actually draft an ordinance to get something on the table that identifies and solidifies a Planning Commission response and a Planning Commission attempt to address the concerns that have been expressed, yeah, we can have that drafted in two weeks to be able to put that on the table for public comment. And public comment is certainly something that's important 99 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. over the life of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls and the C-4 and C-5 controls that were done in -- finally approved in 1991. It was the result of a very lengthy public comment period and public meetings when I first became a member of the Planning Commission staff. That was a large part of what our staff was doing and a large number of meetings involving all members of the different communities, both the representative of the development community as well as the residential community. And we want to be able to get our facts together to be able to adequately give answers to both the community and to this Council.
I guess what I was getting at, back to the point Councilman Clarke was making, is that doing it that way, it's obviously going to be a long process before we would get to a bill that could really be passed, right? I mean, it's logical it would be a while, because I know that the 100 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. communities involved here, they're going to have quite an opinion on this.
I agree that there will be an opinion, but these are not the kinds of things that should necessarily be rushed into.
And sometimes prudency may dictate that. And who knows. Maybe we'll get very, very, very lucky and hit a home run on the first shot. Who knows, but I can't guarantee that either.
I think Councilman Clarke and I are thinking along the same lines. Thank you, Madam President.
Mr. Kramer, surely you didn't mean what you just said. 101 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
You said that you don't think this is something that should be rushed into.
I don't think any significant change to the Zoning Code is something that we should just immediately push through, because a lot of times there are unintended consequences and they do have -- it's a major item we're talking about.
So this bill was introduced in April and you didn't start your process until when?
Actually, we've been working on this off and on since that time.
What do you mean "off and on"? Mr. Kramer, I talked to you and I talked to the Director, and I got the impression that nothing had been done. This is a month ago.
I'll be honest, I have not had a discussion with our 102 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Director with regard to this particular bill.
But you're suggesting we're rushing something. This was done in April. We actually passed a bill and recalled the bill because we knew there were some concerns.
And now you're saying that you're going to have a bill in two weeks.
Again, as a means to give you a Planning Commission attempt to address the concerns that have been raised. Because we have been looking at it since April, I'm in that position to be able to get further along. There have been a lot of things that have been on my Director's desk in the last month since she's been appointed. This has not been something I have had an opportunity to get into her office to explain to her in great detail what our positions are and what we can do 103 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. and what we can't do. I'm not making excuses for that. That's my fault. That's my fault. I'm here and I stand here and tell you that. My staff is working on it and we do want -- and, again, to put it in some kind of perspective, when the C-4 and C-5 was redone, which of course affected a lot more of an area, it went on from -- the original conversation started in 1988 before a bill that was finally approved in 1991. And, again, this is of like nature when you're talking about a significant change in the Zoning Code. And, frankly, one of the most complicated sections of the Zoning Code, as someone who has read this thing and worked with the Benjamin Franklin Parkway Controls over the years I've been with the Commission, I've had many calls where people have done a variety of different projects and, frankly, I really regret when they ask me about the height controls, because they are 104 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. extraordinarily complicated. This certainly does, if it does nothing else, it simplifies it down to, bang, a simple height limit and this is an area. It's a lot simpler than what it currently is a part of the Code.
Sometimes it is better and it's more effective, but it is also a significant change from what was previously in the Code. And even though it has been introduced in April, there hasn't been an opportunity to have a conversation with my Director and, again, she's been in office now a month.
That's not your fault. You're absolutely right. It is not. And I'm not trying to imply that it is, but at the same time, I simply haven't -- I intend to do that.
Mr. Kramer, 105 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. come on. You had ample opportunity to start this process with the former Director. You can't now say because somebody was hired 30 days ago you didn't have a chance to meet with her from the time of April.
Agreed. And if you want conversations that were held with the prior Director, he was well aware of the provisions. Matter of fact, he wrote many of them. So, yes, there have been conversations, and he was certainly leading in terms of what we were doing, what are our options, how do we have to do this. We ran into some problems in terms of getting the actual work done, and I'm here to admit that.
I hear you. I'm not saying that we don't share a burden of responsibility here. We do. At this point, I'm trying to make as good a thing as I can, and pushing our resources, we can get you at least a rezoning bill to 106 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. cover what we hope are most of the issues that have been addressed.
Okay. Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Thank you, Madam President.
Thank you very much. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is Neil Sklaroff. I'm an attorney with the firm of Ballard, Spahr, Andrews and Ingersoll. We're here today to oppose this legislation, and we'd like to take a moment to just ask for some clarification, and perhaps Councilman Clarke can clarify, whether the newly revised zone will end at 17th Street or 18th Street. We believe it was read as being 18th Street and that 107 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Councilman Clarke mentioned it being 17th Street. It would somewhat affect our presentation to the Committee.
Thank you very much, Councilman. Our firm represents three particular properties, which we think can be used as examples, and our properties, which are severely and adversely affected by what we think is an arbitrary imposition of a height limitation, the properties include 17th and Vine. It's a property owned by Logan Square Associates, part of the Klein Corporation. Steven Klein, the principal, is in the audience behind me this -- what is now this afternoon. The property is a twin to a property that has been excluded from this area and, as you will hear, was always intended to be developed similarly and together. We also represent NM Edgewater 108 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Joint Venture, a joint venture of the Reeling Company and Northwestern Mutual. The property is located at 230 North 23rd Street, and Dennis Balumi (ph), the principal of that, is also in the audience behind me today. The property is already partially developed and the Part B of that process would be severely impacted should this be enacted. We also represent V&H Hotel Associates, which owns the property, which is the Best Western Hotel, at 501 North 22nd Street and which has been the subject and maybe the inspiration of this bill, but it has been, since he got an as-of-right permit, in heated and sometimes calm negotiations with the neighbors, and those negotiations are ongoing. We're all hopeful that there will be a development package which will result from those negotiations which will be meeting all of the goals of all of the neighborhood concerns, as well as the developers' concerns. Hopefully within 109 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. the next couple of weeks we may be able to announce that, but cannot at this time. We would be able to frame these issues as questions of jobs and bringing people back to the City and continuing to reenergize the City, which we think this will put a tremendous break on, but we choose today to ask you to look at this as a planning issue, to look at this as an arbitrary height limitation that ignores so many other factors that need to be calculated in shaping Philadelphia's development. I'm not the expert on that, but the two men sitting with me are. You know Richard Lombardo, who for 35 years worked with the Planning Commission and most recently the Executive Director and Secretary for Strategic Planning. We're fortunate to have him at Ballard as a Project Manager at this time. And to my left is Craig Schelter, who for 38 years has been involved in City planning and 110 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. urban development, years with PIDC and 15 years at the Planning Commission, also including a stint as Executive Director. We think by focusing on planning and the planning that went into getting the City where it is today and this area that is the zoning that is there now is not by accident but was because of a process of zoning and process that included all parts, all stakeholders that should not be abandoned without the same kind of care. I'll ask Mr. Lombardo to begin.
Good afternoon. 16 My name is Richard Lombardo. I didn't 17 know I'd ever find myself in this seat 18 again, but I guess here I am. 19 I'll try to be brief, because I 20 know the hour. I am only here to testify about my experience, which is 35 years of zoning in Philadelphia, and zoning, especially major, whether downtown or neighborhood zoning, has always been a deliberative, participatory, inclusive 111 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. process that occurred under the aegis of the Planning Commission. Notwithstanding the previous conversation with the previous witness, I still believe that is the place it should be, it should occur. As an example, in 1983 when Bill Rouse raised a point, Shall we go higher than William Penn's hat, that set off a series of public forums. Those of you who were around remember. Live television coverage, hearings on Channel 12, numerous community meetings. The whole sort of coined the phrase that Center City is everybody's neighborhood, because so many people were interested of the issue of whether or not buildings should go higher than William Penn. But what came out of that was recognition on a lot of people's parts that what was important was not what went on in the skyline but what happened where the building met the sidewalk, where the building met the community. That led to a new plan for Center City in 1988, which 112 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. it embodied those ideas of different -- basically what was important was how buildings related to the communities they were in, and also beginning also in the mid '80s and ending in 1991, a new set of zoning controls for Center City. I bring those up for one particular reason. When we embarked on that process with Council and with individual Councilmembers on the Committee, I think we were all surprised where we ended up in 1991, because the issues as we went into it were simply height and how tall a building should be. What we came out with was where curb cuts should be, should retail be located on certain streets, how should buildings interact with the sidewalk, should public space be provided, should it be public. It was basically civic values combined with -- we learned civic values combined with managing of density was how you direct development, not by height limit. The civic values came out of 113 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. that were the interests in the citizens of Center City as well as the neighborhoods in lively streetscape, public spaces on development that were truly public spaces that the public can go in and enjoy, bonuses for inclusion of fine arts and performance. That was something that was never -- without the sort of inclusive public process never would have come to the floor. The people wanted to see public art and public entertainment, things like that, take place in these public spaces. Active retail space to serve the communities was -- the communities were saying, We don't have the right kind of stores, we don't have services, we have to get in our car and go out to the suburbs or go further out into the communities to find services. The bottom line was that the process being inclusive and being participatory in discussion led to a series of zoning controls that made 114 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. sense. Were they the final word? No, they weren't the final word. Everybody realized that these things would continue to be morphed and need to be changed and be modified and respect the change in technology and what-have-you. And all I'm really here to urge the Council to do is continue that kind of a process, not I think that whether the Planning Commission can do it in two weeks or three weeks. I no longer work at the Planning Commission. I can't speak for them. I can't apologize for them.
I think it's unfortunate, as Councilman Clarke said, all this time has passed by with very little evidence of anything happening, but I don't think that's a reason to just pick 125 feet height limit out of the sky, if you would, as a sort of a way to get people's attention. I think the way to do it is to begin a process that identifies what are the real issues on a street-by-street, parcel-by-parcel basis, is it the height 115 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. of the building, is it where loading is going to be, is it how it's going to relate to the neighbors across the street, and deal with those issues, rather than just deal with it as a simple exercise of imposing a height limit. Under the new Zoning Code, there have been successful buildings. You hear people who are doing it will say that they were successful and they were educated by the zoning process. The Comcast headquarters, I heard Bill 14 Hankowski and John say that that project was educated and responsive to the plan for Center City, and it made the project a better project. Ten Rittenhouse Square. Liberty Place itself in the '80s, though it happened before the new zoning was enacted -- in fact, we worked with them and met with them throughout their permitting process. They were making attempts to meet the letter of the plan or the intent of the plan, the intent of the zoning. 116 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. So I would just end by saying I would urge the Council to take the time to step back and try to do it through a deliberative, inclusive process that would include the property owners in the case here, the would-be developers of these sites, as well as the community involved, and do it under the aegis of the Planning Commission. I think what really needs to be happening is, someone has got to -- if the new Director isn't aware, that she should become aware of the importance of this kind of work that the Planning Commission should continue to do since they've been doing it since the Code was originally adopted in the '50s. I would end my testimony.
Good morning, members of the Committee, Council President. It's nice to be back here before City Council. I've been away for too long. 117 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. What I'd like to do is focus on what the previous plan for Center City called out on these three particular sites that Neil has talked about and also talk about the implication of a hasty decision in terms of the development in the investment community. Increasingly, when I left the Planning Commission, I went to PIDC, and one of the things I -- the first thing that I found out was it was a lot harder to implement than it was to plan, because in planning, you're putting out all the should's of what should happen, and I learned the difficulty of dealing in the marketplace and where Philadelphia stands in the marketplace and also that any plan that gets done is one that gets done over a long period of time. So, for instance, the plan which Rich spoke about, which was done in 1988, the plan for Center City, it would take over ten years before an actual new office building came into play in Center 118 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. City dealing with these because of the market conditions that existed. It would not be for a lack of interest on the part of developers in trying to do the best development, because, frankly, if they can provide active streetscape, active street life, it behooves them when they actually market the project. But let me just go through the individual sites and then make some additional comments. The three sites -- and I'm just quoting here briefly from how they were articulated in the 1988 plan. This is the site at the Schuylkill River. "The 1963 Center City plan envisioned the Schuylkill River Park as a catalyst for high-rise development along the river. Zoning was changed to reflect the suitability of riverfront sites for dense commercial and residential construction. Now, coordinated development and imaginative design on both sides of the river is needed to take full advantage of 119 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. " Actually, perhaps I should stop here and give you copies of my testimony. ) The site of which I'm speaking, the 23rd and Race, is the Edgewater Joint Venture. The second site is 22nd and Pennsylvania Avenue. This is the site of Parkway North District. I think the one that the Councilman articulated was the original reason for such a bill. The plan provided for, quote, New high-density residential and related commercial development on the Youth Study Center site and the adjacent sites; the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue and the relocation of the police station. This was a site that I had direct involvement on during my 19 years of PIDC where we concluded that until we could get a first-class supermarket in the area, the area would be stifled for 120 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. development. And the closing of Pennsylvania Avenue and the relocation of the police station was absolutely critical in terms of getting the Valhall development and Whole Foods into that location, which fundamentally turned around that location as a residential location. The Youth Study Center site was seen as a tremendous opportunity, given the success of the Four Seasons, given having a site for a luxury hotel on the Parkway as the City began to market its efforts towards an international city and reinforcing the institutions that were out there. Finally, the 18th and Vine site, this is the Franklin Town site, and I think your boundary definition here is particularly critical with regard to this site. Franklin Town was listed as a hole. It was a 50-acre development parcel. In my time at the Planning Commission, I was the Chief of Community 121 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
Planning and then Deputy when this went through the City Council that involved a 50-acre condemnation and joint decisions on how the parcels would be used, and the plan states, "There are a number of major development sites located in the vicinity of Logan Square and the Parkway. The site most visible from the Square is at its northeast corner, along the east side of 18th Street at Vine. " And the reference there is 128. Now, the key thing here is that when Franklin Town was done, there were three key blocks of commercial development, the block on the south side of Vine Street where SmithKline developed their world headquarters and where the Wyndham, now I guess Sheraton Hotel, is located, and then on the north side from 122 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. 16th Street to 18th Street, those were seen as bookends, so to speak, for the new Franklin Town Boulevard. It was a time when there was an introduction of a new diagonal boulevard into the City. This was a plan developed by Philip Johnson, an internationally recognized architect at the time that the City Planning Commission worked with in trying to achieve that goal. And, in fact, the first high-rise development that went up on the Franklin Town Boulevard was on the west side of the Boulevard, not the east side of the Boulevard. So at the very least, here I would recommend that the line be 18th Street and not 17th Street for this height limit. Because both sides were seen as high-density development and the particular site at 18th Street is already covered by the Parkway Controls, which limit height on what would be the southwest corner of the site to fit in scale with the Family Court building and the library building, 123 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. which were the essence of the design controls that were established on the Parkway. As I said, Franklin Town is envisioned as a center of a larger commercial, educational, medical, residential community in the northwest quadrant of the City. I think it may be a little bit useful to say how did we get here. I think one of the things that I learned the hard way over time was that we build on previous plans. We all know in 1682 that Thomas Holme, William Penn's surveyor, laid out the plan for Center Square and the four squares, Rittenhouse, Washington, Franklin and Logan Square. And when you think about it, the fact that the City was developing east from the Delaware River, it's pretty remarkable. But those squares have stayed as the sacrosanct part of downtown Philadelphia. In 1963 -- and this, again, was 124 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. when I was at the Commission -- the Planning Commission developed a plan for Center City, which embodied all of the different plans. It was a plan that was updated on a yearly basis. It was the height of the urban renewal period in Philadelphia, and embodied both controls for the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, which for the first time had become a serious contender for development in the City. Heretofore, all the development had been in the Market west area and in the Market Street east and Society Hill area. And then in 1985, Bill Rouse put forward the possibility of a whole new approach in the City. And he came in and he questioned the notion of were we going to be a flat-top city, as he described it, with a 496-foot height limit and are we going to try and reach for the stars with something that was very special. And as Rich said, after lots of public discussion, the City decided that they would remove the notion 125 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. of a height limit. Where did this height limit come from? That height limit came from the height of the PSFS building. And it's interesting that that particular building is probably today among architectural scholars and architects and historians the outstanding example of international design in the City, and yet it was at the time a building that was going into a four-story neighborhood.
The same thing happened with Society Hill Towers. When the Society Hill Towers were done, everybody remembers Society Hill as it was historic preservation, but, in fact, it was the over 30-story towers of Society Hill that created the --
Mr. Schelter, with all due respect, we appreciate -- and you know I like you. We appreciate the history of the City and downtown, but we really want to focus on this issue. You've indicated that you 126 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. represent a client that has three particular sites.
And we can address those three sites. Because we've been here a while.
I don't want to lose a quorum. So that's the other issue.
Okay. I think my point here is that all the three sites that I mentioned were done with extensive discussions with the community, with extensive urban design and physical planning and that took into account the special site characteristics of the site. And if I were to look at the one that I've done the most analysis on --
But let me just say this: I agree with you. I 127 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. agree with you that we should have extensive consultation with not only the community and the residential community, but the development community, and it was our intention to have that happen. But that has not happened, so we decided to proceed in a way that we thought was appropriate, having limited discussion about a limited area. I'm hoping that the Planning Commission, in very short order, will have that discussion with the community residents on their proposal, and I'm assuming there have already been some discussion with some of the development community. And then we can proceed with doing something that makes sense. Because I've said from day one that this was not going to be the final product. We did the height overlay. There was a certain set of circumstances that presented themselves, and we did what we did at the time with the full intention of correcting it. And we want 128 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. to correct it. And I am a developer-friendly Councilperson, but I also represent residents in the Fifth Councilmanic District, so I have to adequately balance the interest of all people, and I'm fully prepared to do that. I hope that over the next couple of months, we will have an adequate discussion. And we don't have time now because we're going to recess. When we get back, we will be in a position to introduce a bill, with full participation from the Planning Commission, the appropriate community groups and all of the development community and these Councilmembers on the Rules Committee and the Councilmembers who are also a member of this body so we can ultimately pass something that makes some sense. Because this is a broad area and this is a very important part of Center City, and I clearly understand that. 129 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. So I say all that to say that we've heard you, we're prepared to do what we need to do, but in all due respect, I don't personally feel comfortable in achieving that today, because there's not an opportunity to have the level of conversation among all of the pertinent parties today.
May I respond for just a moment? We agree with you. We agree that the process needs to take place. The point I believe that Mr. Lombardo and Mr. Schelter were trying to make is that the zoning for these current properties was in fact the result of a long process. All three properties are noted --
We understand that, and it may revert back to the prior classification.
It is not 130 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. healthy to the development community. It is not healthy to our reputation outside to be able to bring developers in to have an arbitrary limit set, which shows that in Philadelphia you can't rely on any criteria. You can't come in and say, I'm going to be able to do this or that. Now, we're in support of a process taking place, but we should not, without that process, make a major change in our zoning regulations to something that was the result of a process. You may find after the process that exactly what you have is what you wanted, but you will not know that until you have the process.
Mr. Sklaroff, I'm getting to a point where I'm like -- you know, I've said I'm going to work with you. Frankly speaking, I don't appreciate the process that was had from one of your clients when you thought it was appropriate to build a 43-story tower on the Parkway. 131 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. But you did it. Now, we've moved past that, and hopefully we can move past this. I'm not going to sit here and debate with you about something that's not going to happen today. Unless another member of Council offers an amendment to take all of these properties out of this particular overlay, I don't think it's going to happen. But I acknowledge your concern. I understand your concern. We have the consensus on one part of that district and hopefully we will shortly be in a position to have a consensus on all of this and we can move ahead with a bill and have a unanimous vote, but it's not going to happen today. So I'm saying one and a half developments that you speak of today I've never seen, so you can't expect me to just delete it out of this particular bill without having seen it. I have no 25 idea what's going to happen at 18th and 132 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. Vine or whatever that location is, Mr. Klein's development. And Mr. Balumi, I've had conversations with him in the past about that development and even attended a ground-breaking ceremony. He's telling me about a Phase 2. Off the top of my head, I cannot recollect. But when I called the community people to ask if they were comfortable with it, they said no, not at this point. So before I do anything, I would like to, at a minimum, have that conversation with these community people and the development community, but I can't do that today. What I'd like to do is to be able to proceed on something that we have a consensus with. If there are some issues with respect to a specific developer and a specific time line, I'll get engaged. I have no 22 problem calling the financing entity of the development process. I've done that. I've called lenders and told them that we're going to try to move ahead and give 133 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. them an assurance that we'll probably do what we need to do in Council. So if you need me to get engaged at that level of specificity, I am fully prepared to do that. So I just can't --
Plus we're going to lose our quorum. So I hear you. We will hopefully be in a position to do the right thing by you. I'm feeling comfortable that the Planning Commission will give us something very soon that will serve as a blueprint for further discussion. If there's any particular development that's time sensitive, please let me know, and I will get engaged and do what I need to do to make sure that we can move in a timely way.
Could I just say one more thing? I represent the Philadelphia District Council, the Urban Land Institute, not the clients here 134 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. today, and they're a 15,000-member organization, probably the outstanding land use organization in the country, and they are also looking at this. They've asked me to review the plan for Center City, which is being done by CCRA in both your and the Council President's district to look at what the longer term implications are. So I think I would be remiss today if I were saying they were just these three sites. And I think that's why this is a complicated process and why I was recommending that the bill be withdrawn until you can be at such a point where we looked at all those other sites. And I also know I've talked with Paul Levy from the Center City District, who has looked at a number of these sites, about the implications for other sites of developers, not necessarily here. And what happens I'm finding increasingly is, in my national travels now, people will ask, based upon a piece 135 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. of legislation like this, what is going on in Philadelphia, and a big part of their concern -- I appreciate your willingness to talk to developers who are already committed and here and have started projects, but to keep the flow of investment capital coming into the City is extremely important. And I can only tell you from having worked with the developer of the St. James and Washington Square -- it was a 42-story development next to essentially low-rise historic buildings -- that brought major, major investment into the City, a major new contractor who was currently looking for its next project based on the acceptance of that building in the community. So we would just like to be able to do more of those, working with the Council, and keep this boom going and keep Philadelphia approaching this notion of an international city, the next great city, and I think that's what we're trying to be about. 136 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 18 060292-A.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I move that -- I'm sorry. There were amendments to this bill. I believe those amendments have been circulated.
I move for 137 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. the adoption of the amendments for Bill 3 060292-A. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendments are approved. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I move that Bill 060292-A as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for the suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 138 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. 060292-A be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly regarding Bill No. 060731.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 060731 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a suspension of the rules to permit first reading at our next session of Council.
Do I hear a second? 139 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 5 060731 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. The record will also reflect that Councilman O'Neill has abstained from voting on this bill. The Chair now recognizes Councilman Clarke. Councilman, I understand and I did announce -- I'm sorry. All in favor of Bill No. 060731 to be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended will say aye. (Aye.)
The 140 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. ayes have it and the motion carries. The record will reflect that Bill No. 060803 has been held at the request of the sponsor. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060826.
Madam President, I move that Bill 060826 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 17 060826 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? 141 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. (No response.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 7 060827.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 060827 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for the suspension of the rules to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 17 060827 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? 142 11/28/06 - RULES - 060292-A, ETC. (No response.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. This concludes our public meeting and public hearing. Thank you. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 12:30 p.m.) - - - 143 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on November 28, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)