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?