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.)