COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING AND PUBLIC MEETING BEFORE COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, December 1, 1998 9:45 a.m. - - - BILL 980718 - Related to Hospitals & Higher Education Facilities Authority BILL 980657 - Prohibiting Sale of Laser Pens BILL 980750 - South Street/Head House District (previously heard, voted on) BILL 980748 - Amending Phila. Zoning Maps BILL 980749 - City Ave. Spec. Svcs. District BILL 980761 - Related to Appeals to Courts BILL 980779 - Related to Zoning and Planning BILL 980780 - Amending Phila. Zoning Maps BILL 980781 - Amending Model Cities Urban Renewal Area BILL 980801 - " " " " " Bill 980800 - (Being held by sponsor.) RES. 980112 - Related to Minority Contractors Collection of Funds (Full text of bills contained within transcript.) PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY, Chair COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILWOMAN ANNA CIBOTTA VERNA COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES I N D E X Page BILL 980718 Donald Cramp, CEO . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5 Hospitals & Higher Education Facilities Authority Sister Marie Rudegair, Administrator. . . . . 6 St. Joseph Villa Dr. Ray Lefton, CFO, Temple East. . . . . . . 7 BILL 980657 Lt. John Colarette, Philadelphia Police Force Michael Hasson, First Union Center. . . . . . 10 Director of Security Services 11 BILL 980780 12 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 29 13 Paul Deegan, PIDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39 Joseph Pacetti, Developer . . . . . . . . . . 42 14 Joseph Egan, Real Est. Consultant - J. Pacetti 44 Arthur Plaxton, Past President. . . . . . . . 48 Spring Garden Civic Association Allen Rubin, Spring Garden Resident . . . . . 53 Henry Schwartz, Divisional Dept. City Solicitor 61 BILL 980748 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 67 Carl Primavera, Esq., Counsel to. . . . . . . 70 First Anthony Residential Capital Corporation George David, Sr., President. . . . . . . . . 71 First Anthony Residential Capital Corp Barbara Capozzi, Realtor. . . . . . . . . . . 74 President - Packer Park Civic Association. BILL 980761 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 82 3 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES (Index, cont'd.) BILL 980779 Richard Lombardo, Planning Commission . . . . 87 Paul Deegan, PIDC . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 89 BILL 980781 Noel Eisenstat, Executive Director. . . . . . 91 Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority BILL 980801 Noel Eisenstat, Executive Director. . . . . . 94 Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority RES. 980112 Earl Calloway, Owner, C.E. Franklin, Inc. . . 98 Grace Gibson, Owner . . . . . . . . . . . . . 104 Quality Heating and Sheet Metal. Jihad Ali, Business Owner . . . . . . . . . . 110 Member of United Minority Enterprise Association 4 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980718 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning, ladies and gentlemen. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Rules. A quorum has now been established, and we thank you for your patience in waiting. Bill No. 980718 is an ordinance 9 declaring that it is desirable for the health safety, and welfare of the people in the area served by Temple East, Inc., at its Northeastern Hospital facility and at its Neumann Medical Center facility and the Convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph, Chestnut Hill, at its St. Joseph Villa Nursing Home facility, for the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia to undertake certain projects for Temple East, Inc. and the Convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph Chestnut Hill, each a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation organized under the laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed. 5 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980718
Mr. Chairman, committee members, my name is Donald Cramp. I serve as the chief executive officer of the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia. I wish to make a brief introductory statement in support of the proposed bills before you this morning. On October 13, 1998, representatives of Temple East, Inc. and the Convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph Chestnut Hill attended the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia board of directors meeting seeking the Authority's assistance in a financing. Temple East, Inc. and the Convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph Chestnut Hill's applications were accepted by the Authority board. A Public Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, a TEFRA, hearing on behalf of Temple East and the Convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph Chestnut Hill will be held on December 9th in our boardroom in accordance with the published newspaper advertisements. Today we have the privilege together of assisting Temple and Convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph Chestnut Hill and the many people 6 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980718 associated with these outstanding medical centers. And, to close, I would like to express our appreciation sincerely to each member of the Rules Committee and the Council on behalf of the board of the Authority for the scheduling and prompt handling of this meeting. Mr. Chairman, I'd like to introduce, if I may, Sisters Marie Rudegair, who is the administrator of the Convent of the Sisters of St. Joseph Villa.
Good morning, Sister, please identify yourself for the record. SISTER RUDEGAIR: I'm Sister Marie Rudegair, the administrator at St. Joseph Villa in Flowertown, Pennsylvania.
Please proceed. SISTER RUDEGAIR: First of all, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee, I'd like to thank you for the opportunity be here today. We are grateful to the Hospital Authority for their assistance in helping us to finance capital expenses for the villa. St. Joseph opened in 1968 and it was built as a convent home for the Sisters of St. 7 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980718 Joseph. However, in 1981, we realized that we could expand our mission from just Sisters of the St. Joseph, and we rearranged levels of care, and we also are a licensed nursing home, and we take in lay people and religious of other congregations commission. We're joint-commission-certified and, you know, we have a building that is 30 years old, and we have some capital needs, and that's what we are using the money for, to finance a sprinkler system as our major thing, and also other capital needs.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any other questions for Sister? (No questions.)
Yes, there is Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ray Lefton is the chief financial officer of Temple East.
Good morning. You should all have a handout which I've provided. Again, my 8 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980718 name's Dr. Ray Lefton. I'm the chief financial officer for Temple East, which is the result of a merger between Northeastern Hospital and Neumann Medical Center. It's a pleasure to testify here in front of you to discuss the financing of approximately $11.5 million on behalf of Temple East. The money will be used to consolidate two tax-exempt debt financings that were issued outside of Philadelphia County. The refinancing will result in cost saving as well as result in providing flexibility with respect to a less restrictive bond indenture. No new money will result from the financing. We appreciate City Council's support on this initiative as well as the assistance of the Hospital Authority. On the next page of the handout, please find some background information on Temple East. If you have any questions, please feel free to ask me at this time or at your convenience. Thank you very much.
Thank you very much. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.) 9 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657
Mr. Chairman, if your board members feel that we can vote this out, please suspend the rules if you may.
Thank you very much for coming in. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 980657, which is an ordinance amending Title 9, entitled "Regulation of Business, Trades and Professions" of The Philadelphia Code by prohibiting the sale of laser-pointing devices to minors and regulating the display of laser-pointing devices for sale. Will the witnesses please approach the -- if we can get the whole group of witnesses up 10 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 around the table. (Witnesses come forward.)
First for the record, the person's who's going to lead off the testimony, please identify themselves for the record and then you can proceed. You can just have a seat. Thank you. And please, this system's very old, you need to pull the microphone right close up to you. LT. COLARETTE: My name's Lieutenant John Colarette.
Could you spell your last name. LT. COLARETTE: C-O-L-A-R-E-T-T-E. I'm a member of the Philadelphia police force, currently assigned to the SWAT team.
Please proceed with your testimony. LT. COLARETTE: I've been asked to perform a demonstration this morning, comparing the laser pointer and comparing it to weapons that are equipped with laser cites.
Use that board. 11 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 LT. COLARETTE: If you notice, the laser dart or the laser pointer, you can obviously see that quite clear. What I have here is a Taser device that introduces 20,000 volts of electricity into the body. It paralyzes you, rendering you completely incapable of any type of defensive acts at all.
Is that commonly known as a "stun gun"? LT. COLARETTE: Stun gun, that's correct. This is laser-pointed laser-sighted. And, as you can see, there's no way to differentiate between the two.
When that's activated the Taser gun, there's a cord that shoots out? LT. COLARETTE: There are two darts that shoot out, correct.
What's the distance to that? LT. COLARETTE: The distance of the Taser is 15 feet.
Okay. 12 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 LT. COLARETTE: I have a 9-millimeter pistol here. This is laser-sighted. This weapon is totally unloaded, the slides lock to rear, it can't fire at all.
Good. LT. COLARETTE: There's no ammunition in it, the magazine is empty.
Although yesterday, after five hours of testimony, I wish you would have shot me with that. (Laughter.)
Please proceed. LT. COLARETTE: And you can see that the laser on this weapon, it's very difficult to tell the difference between the two, the laser pointer and this. Same type of thing. Laser sights can be mounted on any type of weapon. They can be mounted on M-16 rifles, they can be mounted on AK-47 assault rifles. It's very difficult for a police officer to be able to make a call between what you're being pointed at, whether it be a laser pointer or a laser-sighted weapon. It could cause some very serious and tragic outcomes. 13 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657
So is it your belief that the use of laser pointers on the street, for the most part, is being done by people under the age of 18, years of age? 6 LT. COLARETTE: I would say most 7 reckless use of laser pointers is being done by 8 juveniles, yes. 9
My name's Michael Hasson 12 (ph.), I'm the Director of Security and Services 13 at the First Union Complex, in South 14 Philadelphia. And we're responsible for both the 15 Spectrum and the Center events. 16
Over the last two years, we have had an enormous impact of laser pens coming into the building by juveniles and adults alike, pointing them at hockey players, basketball players, entertainers --
Wrestlers, in fact, which is probably the heaviest use. In fact, yesterday, we had a ten-year-old that we escorted out of the 14 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 building for the use of the pointer, and he blamed us for telling not telling him that he wasn't allowed to use it, even though we had signs up all over the building, on the doors, on our turnstiles. And the thing that probably bothers me the most is that they try and make us responsible for the use by not letting them know that they're not allowed to use them, but the performers themselves, the production companies don't want them in the building for the same reason that the police are testifying, is that there's a whole lot of different uses with the laser pointer itself. In fact, last week, there was an article in the paper, the Kiss group was up in Madison Square Garden, and they almost got into fight when the drummer had a pointer on him, and the person that was actually doing it was only two or three rows into the seating area. And they weren't going to perform. That's a major problem for us because we fight that every day when they come in and they say, you know, they want all these rules and regulations about the use of lasers. And we're 15 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 resource-poor as it is, in the sense that we have enough people on to handle the security, without trying to grab 500 people laser pens and putting them on the performers. So besides the fact that it confronts us all the time, the use itself, I think the responsibility has to be placed on the user and not necessarily where they're using 'em. I brought one specific laser, which I'll point on the board in a second that they've gotten cute too. I mean, it's the same thing. It's a personal affront, I believe, when someone puts a laser pointer on you, especially if there's some other hidden agenda behind doing that, and you can use your own mind to say what that -- you know, feel that one out. This one here we had, they were putting it on the scoreboard on one event, if you can see that, get it there. That's real nice when you come in and you're in a family entertainer center and someone's got that shining all over the building, and you're trying to locate it to get it out. These are the kinds of things that are actually -- 16 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657
I'm trying to figure out how to let the record reflect as to exactly what was shown on the board. It's a commonly -- "flipping the bird," I guess would the way to --
Would be appropriate. But there's other ones out there too that are, in fact, very insightful too for different things for discrimination and things like that.
And as part of your duties and your people, are your people authorized or directed to confiscate them?
We consider it contraband, so depending on -- my policy down there is to confiscate and to remove the people from the building. And, depending on what these different production people want for the different shows, is we'll put that on top of it also, for confiscations or escorts out in that regard. But I'd like to see further, even though the sale for juveniles would help us out tremendously 'cause it would be a good educational process, is the use itself or defining use of it at a certain point about the actual use of laser 17 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 pens.
Okay. Is there anyone here from L&I? Do the officers have anything else to add as far as your testimony? Thank you. Any questions from any of the witnesses? Councilmember Verna.
Adults that act like juveniles are -- we have a lot of those, too.
Right. That would help us out, it would be a great help for us.
Well, one of the things that the lieutenant mentioned was the issue of children on the street using them. It would put them in a dangerous position. Considering the new weaponry or the technological aspects of the weaponry being used out there today, it may put 18 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 that child in danger. Councilmember Mariano.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I have something to say that -- I have a box here with one of these laser pointers, and I had hoped to have someone here from Wills Eye Hospital; he called up at the last minute and couldn't come, one of the eye doctors from down there. But basically the box says, it says: "Please note that the laser radiation is harmful to the eye. Do not look directly into the aperture while the laser is in operation." Well, you could look into it, which would be pretty dumb, but if someone's shining it in your eye, it could hurt your eye, depending how close you are. These things are available everywhere. I consider this a two-part legislation. This one will take care of what it says, will regulate the use of these. Then we're going to do what the gentleman from the First Union Center said, we're going to try to get that in in the next couple 19 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 weeks. L&I was here this morning, they couldn't stay around. They're drafting legislation for me, which we could regulate the use in the second part, the second part, there, you know, the misuse of it, and we're going to do that, but I think it has to be two parts. That's why I wanted to do it this way.
Any other Councilmembers have anything to add? Councilmember Nutter.
I don't know whether it's for the police or the gentleman from the Center. Are these devices illegal? LT. COLARETTE: I don't know of any law forbidding the use or the manufacture of laser pointers.
And, I guess, at least for the moment, based on what Councilmember Mariano just said, I mean, this particular bill 23 will not necessarily do anything for you as it relates to the little thing that you showed with the hand or pointing out performers or anything 20 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 like that 'cause this just talks about who can sell them. It has nothing to do with behavior or anything like that or --
Well, I can answer, if I may. I think the issue of a juvenile purchasing one with an adult, you know, there has to be something there. That's an educational tool that at least makes the parents aware that there is a problem. But as far as changing behavior, there's nothing here because they can still come into our building and they can still be on the street if, in fact, their parents have allowed them to purchase one.
Right, or they bought it for them. LT. COLARETTE: Or they bought it for them, right. But at least there's an education of saying, you know, why do I have to sign for it. At least it educates 'em to the fact that there is a problem with laser pens.
Right. And is there now under discussion that there will be regulations on how this can used, whether it's an 21 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 adult or a juvenile, that you wouldn't be able to point it at people? I mean, what's the offense?
A lot of the things that we have down at the Center that affect behavior that the police write citations for. I would like to see it go that way that if, in fact, you're using --
You mean like rowdyism or being drunk or disorderly conduct or something?
That kind of thing, the sort of conduct where they write them up and it's a summary offense. I would like to see that because that actually might help us to change the behavior, because we do it to educate people that come in the building, we tell them that they're not allowed to use them. But we only either take the laser if they use it or we escort them out of the building. So all lose really is the laser pen or the cost of the ticket to enter. But our policy down there is very strict because of the types of crowds that we have. Anyone that's there that causes a problem, the police will cite them. 22 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 So if this helps us to get the word out that people come, especially if they come in more than once that, in fact, this is what will happen if don't control your own behavior. And that's really where I would like to see it go, as a behavioral aspect of being able to control them.
Who are the primary sellers of these things? I mean, where can you buy these?
I have never purchased one but I know for a fact that at wrestling in particular, there will be vendors outside in our lots and on the streets selling laser pens. And they're very cheap; you can get them for about $15. And if you watch wrestling, if you're into wrestling, at every event that's on TV, you'll see laser pointers, hundreds of laser pointers on the ring and on the performers, the wrestlers. And, you know, that helps out to sell them.
You can buy these anywhere. I mean, like he said, out in the lot. 23 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 I bought one on South Street, I bought one on the Boardwalk in Wildwood, New Jersey. When I first started this idea to do this, I narrowed it down to the regulation, but like this gentleman's saying from First Union Center, it looks like we have to -- I have following legislation being drafted to follow where the actual usage is. You know, and it can be cited, just as you mentioned, as possibly as like drinking at the Vet, same deal. They can write a ticket and it would be -- what is it, a summary offense, Councilman? And that's what would happen.
But the regulation that I'm trying to do now, what's going to probably happen is that if you type in "laser pointer" on the Internet, they're so available now. Six months ago, when I thought of this legislation, they weren't that available. They've become so common now that this is just step in a two-step process.
Councilman, did you 24 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 say that L&I had been here but they left?
Well, they were here. They thought there was a hearing for L&I at 9, and I spoke with --
At 11. John Campbell was here, and he had to go somewhere else, but I had talked to him previously, and he's almost ready with that.
Probably Councilman Mariano can give the answer to this. I wanted to know why the bill is limited to minors. I'm following up on what Councilwoman Verna said. Because it seems to me that if parents can do it, they're going to be hard-put to resist doing it on behalf of this kids, and you're going to continue to have the same problem. If there is a problem, it seems to me it's as bad a problem whether an adult does it or a child does it. 25 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657
I think the problem has gotten worse as the time goes on. The technology changed so fast. From June and July, when I considered this legislation, they've become cheaper. They went from $125 two years ago -- which was something that everybody probably couldn't afford unless you were or a college professor or someone in an office and you were doing demonstrations -- to $30. Now they're down to $9. And certainly, they'll probably be $5 before Christmas. We wanted to do it like regulating the use of spray paint, but as we got into it and had this bill introduced, I saw that, as I just spoke with Councilman Nutter, that we're probably going to have regulate more the usage next. But I think this is a start.
I may have missed this, and I apologize. What is the problem, other than that the performers and I understand the police are 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 concerned that they might see a beam and that can be confused for a gun with a laser site on it, but what is the magnitude of this problem?
This touches on pretty much sort of Councilwoman Verna's question too. The problem is how people behave with these, and that's why we're trying to regulate behavior, their usage. But behavior, a lot of young people take these on South Street on a crowded Saturday night, people will take that pointer point out a female's. . .
Right. I was trying to think of a nice way to say it.
Private parts. And maybe Councilman Longstreth could demonstrate that on me, I don't know.
It just causes -- I've seen different scenes where, Oh, you did that 27 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 you, pointed at my girlfriend? It's a big deal. I didn't realize it was that big of a deal till I've seen it two or three times. I saw down the shore but then I saw it back here in September.
Just in response to Councilman Nutter's question, it can have a harassing effect when you're walking along 'cause I noticed that down the shore. Suddenly you're surrounded, your feet level, by these red dots and don't know what they are, and you sort of move away from it because you don't know what it is, and it follows you. And I heard a lot of complaints from a lot of the adults about the annoyance. They don't know whether they're being targeted by somebody for some purpose, and they start looking around at who's doing what. You can't see anybody because it's a small thing and could be hidden. So, as I say, it has a harassing effect. And if it's a young woman, she doesn't know whether it's a group of men going to be after 28 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980657 her or what.
So I just think it's not a good practice. And I think people ought to be able to be free to walk around without being followed by these red dots.
And also, Councilman, I think we're missing one point -- the actual damage that it can do to your eye or my eye. Imagine a 3-year-old or a 2-year-old where their eyes aren't totally developed.
So I would assume the attempt these now for sale is the first step in --
And the next set of legislation would be dealing with behavior.
The shore must be an interesting place in the summertime.
No, I think I'll 29 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 stay up here in West Philly.
Thank you very much. Any further questions? (No further questions.)
Seeing none, thank you very much, gentlemen, for coming in. We'll now move to Bill No. 980780, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of the following area of the City from partly Class "R-15" Residential and partly Class "Recreational" to a single designation of Class "RC-4" residential: Southeasterly corner of 21st Street and Hamilton Street, containing in frontage along 21st Street, approximately 298 foot, and along Hamilton Street approximately 320 feet. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, from the Planning Commission, and I'm here today to speak on Bill No. 980780. As you said, this is a bill to rezone 30 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 approximately one acre of land at 25th and Hamilton -- the 21st and Hamilton, I'm sorry, on the map on your left, my right, which Mr. Kramer's pointing to. The existing zoning is R-15 and class "recreational." If anyone's familiar with this site, what the site is, it's actually a hole in the ground or a railway cut that exists behind the Rodin Museum. What is proposed by this bill and a subsequent -- or a companion bill, which is a public property bill, would be for the City, through PAID, to transfer basically what is the slope of the railway easement, but it's owned by the Fairmount Park Commission and some land behind the Rodin Museum, which today is more of a service and loading area, not very well maintained. Two of the parties that are interested here who proposed to use that land along with the land that they own -- they own the remainder of this one acre parcel of land -- and develop that site with a hotel. I believe the hotel will be a 23-story building, will have roughly 48,000 square feet of retail and office space in it, both underground 31 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 and above-ground parking. The above-ground parking will be on levels of structured parking 4 garage, 252 units of hotel rooms. I believe these will be suite hotels. The proposed developer is here with his architect and will get into the detailed plans. This proposal, given the fact that the number of actors involved on the public side -- it's land owned by Fairmount Park, it's under the jurisdiction of the Art Museum, the Rodin Museum, and it's had to go through a number of meetings and approvals. I believe it's been to the Art Commission, the Art Museum, and the Fairmount Park Commission as well as the Planning Commission for review. The reason it's being rezoned to RC-4 is that the -- well, the R-15 would allow a building of this size, it would allow an 18-story building, and that building could be used as a hotel in terms of the rooms, the hotel as a residential use. The other aspects of the hotel -- the restaurants, the office space the shops, the commercial activity would not be permitted in the%-15 residential, so the proposal here is to 32 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 zone it RC-4 residential. RC-4 residential is a residential district that allows some limited accessory commercial to go within the same building, and it is a district. That was drafted for uses like a hotel or an apartment building that would have some ground floor retail or services for the tenants of that live above the -- in the upper floors of the building. For the record, the Planning Commission had its meeting on November 5, 1998, and recommended approval of this bill.
I believe it -- I'm trying to think if somebody abstained. It would have been -- I believe it was -- it would have been unanimous of the people voting. I just don't know the number of members there, if anybody abstained for any reason. But no one voted against it.
If you have any questions about the RC-4, the RC-4 basically is a 33 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 floor area district. It has requirements for public space and open space. The public space and open space will be met both on this site. Part of their deal with the Fairmount Park Commission and the Art Museum is they will also improve the space behind the Rodin Museum, which is, like I said, a servicing area. They also will be providing off-street parking. They're actually doing two sort of levels of parking -- underground parking and above-ground. The underground parking with accessory to the hotel will also provide parking for patrons of the museum as well as there has been talk about having direct access to the lower level of the hotel for access to restaurants and shops for people coming to the museum.
Just where is Hamilton Street? Is it between Spring Garden and Callow Hill?
North of Callow Hill. 34 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780
No. All that's there on that block now is the Rodin Museum. And if you were to go out to this site today, you would see a railroad cut. The building site is actually a railroad cut that used to be -- used to be used by Conrail. One of the prime uses was to carry newsprint to The Inquirer. In earlier days, it carried other freight to the 401 North Broad building. The buildings no longer use the rail service.
It is two blocks to the -- it's one block west of the Youth Study Center.
But in about that same location from a north-south range.
Yeah, about the same location. It's one block off the Parkway. Of course, the Parkway's going up in a diagonal.
Was there a hearing 35 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 by the Planning Commission.
My understanding was that there was a developer who was asked to have these community meetings, I think, before this thing was even introduced, so I will let him speak to that. But by the time they came before the Planning Commission, they had been before the Art Museum, they had been before the Logan Square Neighbors Association, they had a written agreement with the Logan Square Neighbors Association. They've been to the Fairmount Park Commission, they've been to the Art Commission. The Art Commission has to review it. Part of this on had been land adjacent to Fairmount Park and the Art Museum because they're doing a joint sort of improvement of the area around the Rodin Museum.
Right now it's open 36 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 space?
The ground level is open. When you go out there and look at it, what you're looking at is a railway cut.
Particularly in the downtown area, and I guess it would apply to other areas, I'm very concerned about losing open space. Because for the current residents, it may present a problem. We have so little of it in many parts of Center City, but that would be a concern that I would have. But you say that this was discussed fully at the hearing before the Planning Commission?
Yes, it was. And to answer your question, I mean, it is open, as physically, there's nothing there, but it is a railroad cut. And what land is there, even if the land is coming from the Fairmount Park Commission, is the slope of that cut. It's not a part of the park that's actually usable by park patrons or patrons of the museum.
But it's open as far as the eyes are concerned. It may not be usable. 37 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780
Yeah, it is open as far as the eyes are concerned, but the trade-off here would be improvement of the land that is behind the museum to a level -- well, the Fairmount Park Commission can speak for themselves. But that was the rationale of the deal, was the improvement of the area around it.
The planned use is a hotel, some retail space and some office space as well as -- as I said, off-street parking both for the hotel patrons and the museum patrons.
Okay. Hotels seem to be springing up everywhere. Is that true of Market Street East? Which, to my consternation, since it's the first place I had a law office on, I understand the building is totally empty?
"Market Street East," it used to be called. Now it's One East 38 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 Penn Square.
Right. And the Marriott is the next block over, and then the PSFS is going to be a hotel and --
The City Hall annex is going to be -- yeah, it's going to be a Marriott.
And this building right across from City Hall is between the City Hall annex and the --
Yeah. One East Penn Square, I haven't heard of anybody wanting to do a hotel there yet, but that doesn't mean that it may not happen there in the future, but. . .
All right, thank 39 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 you.
Mr. Lombardo, I don't know if you indicated how many stories the hotel would be.
The hotel would be 8 stories. I think it's 18 stories of hotel above a 9 couple levels of off-street parking. It's 18 10 stories of room and a total of 20 stories. 11
Thank you very 12 much. 13 Any other questions for these 14 witnesses? 15 (No further questions.) 16
Thank you. Who 17 else do you have plan to have to testify? 18 (Paul Deegan comes forward.) 19
Good morning. I'm Paul 20 Deegan, representing PIDC and PAID. I have submitted written testimony and I think Mr. Lombardo -- I think a lot of it will be redundant as far as the description of the actual project. But I would like to say, to get to the second page of my testimony, to point out the 40 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 benefit of a new hotel. It will be 225 new hotel rooms, when the City is trying to reach a goal for the year 2000 for the Republican Convention. The developer has also been negotiating for many months with Fairmount Park Commission, and the developer's agreed to provide significant capital improvements and ongoing maintenance to the adjacent Rodin Museum property. And this will be a public benefit that the developer of the hotel will provide. They've met with the Art Museum people, who actually operate the Rodin Museum, and with the Fairmount Park Commission. And they've gotten into quite a bit of detail of what kind of capital improvements will be made to the property. So the end result will not only be a new, attractive hotel, but it also will improve the Rodin Museum property, which is one of the City's tourist and convention attractions. Another significant point, especially in light of Councilman Cohen's comments, this hotel will be 100 percent privately financed. There will be no TIFs, there will be no KOZs, no 25 empowerment zones, no enterprise zones, no special 41 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 services district. This will be all privately funded. And a developer has, you know, put a significant part of his business out to get this project moving, but he has not asked the City for any public financing for the project. It's also what I think or I think what many people think from looking at the brochure that's been handed out, the site now is basically an eyesore, it's an overgrown vacant lot. It slopes down to an old railroad -- an abandoned railroad right-of-way, and the park land -- I think it's unusual for the park to agree to sell the property. But in this case, this park land has such little use that Fairmount Park is okay with conveying title to the developer through the Philadelphia Authority. So for those reasons, we support the proposed rezoning.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions? (No questions.)
Thank you. Who's going to testify for the 42 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 developer? (Joseph Pacetti comes forward.)
Good morning, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.
Sir, you need to bring the microphone close and speak very loudly.
Yeah, okay. I speak very low most of the time. My name is Joseph Pacetti (ph.). I have offices here at the Bourse Building, we've had offices downtown Philadelphia for the past 30-some years. Most of my development has been basically out of the City, although I have developed a few items in the City back in the '70s. We've purchased this parcel and one or two others in the City that I've had for quite long time. About ten years ago, we went through the process of introducing this same bill, I believe, and the economics at that time were such that the real estate market had just disappeared. We've recently, because of the influx 43 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 of growth and hotel and also the economy, we sort of dusted off this project and went through the process all over again and revisited the entire group and the entire regulating authorities to get this bill to where it is today. The hotel in question, by the way -- I just want clarify one point -- is a suite hotel, primarily an extended state facility, which is more in conforming with that particular area than a transient type of hotel. We spent a lot of time, a lot of effort, and a lot of design time and negotiating with the various groups. I would like for this board to give us their consent to proceed with this project. Also, if you look at the facility that's there now, it's totally -- it totally doesn't do anything for the environment currently at the location, and I would appreciate if we could get some assistance from the group to permit us to proceed after ten years of process. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for Mr. 44 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 Pacetti? (No questions.)
Mr. Egan, do you have anything to add? Or if you would identify yourself, please.
Yes. My name is Joseph Egan. I am the real estate consultant to Joe Pacetti and his projects here and also in projects in other parts of the country. I would add two things to his statement. One is this is going to be an all-suites hotel. And I think the point of building an all-suites hotel, we were sensitive to making sure we protect the character of that neighborhood. The other is that it's going to employ a hundred-plus people, and this is a project that would be a real complement to the commerce of this city. And in addition to that, it will be a real complement to the Parkway because of the process that we went through here -- I mean, from the neighborhood group, Logan Square, which is the name of the designated neighborhood group in that area, all the way through the Art Commission and 45 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 the Rodin Museum and the Art Museum. And there's lots and lots of opinions about design when you build a building on the edge of the Parkway, which is a very discrete resource. And we came to a consensus which we think is a very fine building, an architectural statement. And great buildings make great cities, and this is a great building. And I've been involved in a lot of projects in the City, from the Gallery to the Convention Hall to Independence Mall to Penn's Landing. Believe me, this building will win awards, and it's something we feel very proud of. And we feel proud that we did this conventionally, without coming to the City for TIFs or incentives. Thank you.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilmember Cohen.
Mr. Egan or the developer or both, is it your understanding that the community is fully in support of this?
Well, I think the Logan Square community signed a trust agreement with us 46 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 on this building maybe five or six years ago. And we went back and briefed them and we asked them at the last meeting that we went to, would they help us talk to the neighbors regarding putting our servicing of the building underneath instead of leaving it up at the Rodin Museum. And, basically, there was a consensus in that group to do that. But they've signed an agreement with us in that area, and we went through that process and a fairly extensive one and a professional one. But every time you build a building 14 stories in the air, you aren't going to get total 15 consensus, you just aren't. 16
Well, Logan Square 17 Association, I have high regard for but I think 18 they represent one area. I think this location, 19 if my knowledge of the City's wards are accurate, 20 probably comes sort of in between several areas, and downtown Philadelphia's full of lots of community organizations.
Well, they are, and there's no question they have a right, and should have a right, to come in and voice their opposition or 47 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 support. And, you know, I've been in government and I recognize that fact. And there might be a community group -- we've met with other interests in this area. We didn't think, for example, the Art Museum -- but, generally, they were very concerned about how this building would relate to the Art Museum. We met with them, and we'll be glad to meet with anyone else if it's the Council's will to do that. However, in this market that we're in, when you set aside this long process of well over a few years and you get to now, in a time that we're between a stock market that is influencing interest rates and people are in an uncertain time for financing, we have some feeling that we have a window of opportunity to finance. And this is something you can check independently. The financing of hotels have now become very difficult, and we have a hard time holding our flag and we want to make sure that our flag is a top flag. So the longer we're delayed, this project moves away. And I don't think a city like ours can afford to have this project move away because -- 48 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780
Well, I don't think involvement of appropriate community groups, you know, causes delay. Generally, it provides an opportunity for the party to exchange views. And if it's done in good faith, generally, there's an agreement. That's the matter I'm concerned about.
And I concur, no 9 disagreement on that, Councilman. And your track record is significant in that area and something that I have always respected.
Thank you very much, thank you for your testimony. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? Please come forward. (Arthur Plaxton comes forward.)
If anyone else is going to testify, please come forward.
My name is Arthur Plaxton (ph.). I live at 2022 Brandywine Street. I am the past president of the Spring Garden Civic 49 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 Association and an elected Democratic committeeman from the 17th Division of the 15th Ward. First, I wish to thank the committee for the opportunity to testify here. I would also like the committee to know that I had the opportunity of meeting with the developers and their architect yesterday afternoon. They were very helpful, they showed me their drawings and answered my questions. However, we are still -- I'm still urging you very strongly to vote against this particular bill. The change would allow the construction of a high-rise hotel. This plot of land is situated on the southwest corner of North 21st and Hamilton, not the southeast, as stated in the ordinance summary. It is the land immediately behind the Rodin Museum. Part is a portion of Fairmount Park, and the remainder is land below the natural grade level formerly occupied by railroad tracks leading into to the Philadelphia Inquirer buildings. The division which I represent is the division most affected by the proposed building. 50 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 The sentiment here is overwhelmingly against the construction of a high-rise building on the site. There are several important reasons. First, the Parkway is very heavily used, not only for various events for the entire city, but also on a daily basis by the residents of Spring Garden and Fairmount. We need an enlargement of the Parkway, not a reduction with even heavier use and traffic. Also, a high rise behind the Rodin Museum will act as a wall visually and psychologically, so to speak, isolating and throwing a shadow on the neighborhoods to the north. This isolation will depress property values and tend to reduce business north of the Parkway as people unconsciously see the high-rises as the northern boundary of Center City rather than considering Spring Garden and Fairmount as extensions of it. Of course, as a member of the Rules Committee, you're concerned with the interests of the City as a whole, not just our neighborhood. The case that the proposed zoning change is detrimental to the City as a whole is very 51 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 compelling. The Parkway is one of the major assets of Philadelphia. It's a magnificent, beautiful urban boulevard, unrivaled by anything in New York, Los Angeles, San Francisco, or King of Prussia, for that matter. It cannot help but favorably influence business people to locate here or tourists to visit here. The proposed zoning change site is approximately midway along the Parkway, which is lined with classical structures of about four stories, such as the Cathedral, Family Court, the Free Library, the Academy of Natural Sciences, Franklin Museum, Rodin Museum, and culminating in the Art of Museum. All of these are whose height is much less than their width. They have a human scale, so to speak. They have a degree of architectural unity. Do we really need to destroy this to build a hotel when there are numerous other sites for which can be found in the city? Is the dominating huge mass of a high-rise building a few feet away something that will enhance the attractive proportions and setting of the Rodin Museum?. 52 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 Given that we do not yet know what will eventually replace the Youth Study Center on the adjoining block, can we really intelligently decide what's the best use for this site? Now, you don't need to take my word on it. The next sunny day, maybe today, go and take a walk there. Go to the north side of the 2200 block of Spring Garden Street and ask, Where will the tower be? And you will not that the view it will block. And ask yourself, How compatible is a 20-story tower there with the rest of the Parkway?
Thank you for your testimony. Before I ask for questions and recognize the other gentleman, you had mentioned in your testimony that this is not the southeasterly corner.
What I've asked is for the Planning Commission and PIDC to determine whether, in fact, that is true. And if it is, there's a problem with the bill on its face, and that is, the title has to be changed, which 53 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 requires new legislation to be introduced, so we're going to try to get some confirmation. Just hold on one second. (Chairman Kenney confers with Mr. Lombardo.)
After you gentlemen are done testifying, we're going to have the Law Department come up and clarify this southerly and southwesterly issue and whether or not it's critical to the bill. So what I'll ask you to do, to the gentleman, if you could identify yourself for the record and proceed, then we'll ask whatever questions are appropriate.
Good morning. My name's Allen Rubin. I'm an attorney and I resident of Spring Garden, I'm past president of the Spring Garden Civic Association, and I have been on the board of that organization since 1968. We represent approximately 2,000 members and another several thousand occupants of the area between Spring Garden and Fairmount, the Art Museum and Broad Street. And, essentially, we have been responsible for the rebirth of that 54 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 neighborhood. We are an organization that started in 1965 and have succeeded in what you now know as "the Art Museum area." The property values, the tax base, all of these things have gone up 50-fold. And not only that, the taxes are collected. Ten years ago, I was on the site with Councilman Street and I believe the then-ward leader Bernice DeAngelis. And we looked very carefully at this sight because there was an application. And we came to the conclusion, all of us, that it was an inappropriate site to build that type of a building. One of the reasons, which has not been mentioned today, was because it affects the site lines of members of our community. If you stand out at Pennsylvania Avenue, the houses, 2601 Parkway House, all of those buildings, the site line of the Cathedral and City Hall will be blocked by this site. The site lines from some of the high decks on Green Street and on the fabulous restorations that have happened in the 2200 block of Green Street will also be affected by this site. 55 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 Something else has occurred since that ten-year span, which makes it even more inappropriate to build this building on this site. Fresh Fields has been built and is a hugely successful development and it is right behind the police station. It is where the old police station used to be, at 20th and Pennsylvania, directly across from the Youth Study Center. The police station has now moved to 21st Street. The emergency entrance for vehicles is essentially diagonally exactly across the street from the entrance to this garage. The trucks for Fresh Fields' loading dock is directly across the street from this entrance to this garage from this hotel. The street is approximately 30 feet wide. The 48 Bus turns there, it is a congested spot. There is also a child day care center directly across the street. So you have a day care center, you have police emergency vehicles, you have huge trucks backing up, all of which is across from the only entrance of this garage. It is an absolute diagram for disaster in terms of planning. It is a totally inappropriate site 56 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 aside from the fact that the site is much too small for a building of this size. It blocks the views and it is creating problems for the police, for the day-care center, for Fresh Fields traffic, and traffic is extremely because of Fresh Fields. And it's wonderful, Fresh Fields is a wonderful addition, but we cannot stand one more piece of density on that site. I think, in addition, we have not been consulted. There was testimony that the Logan Square had signed eight or ten years ago some kind of agreement. Logan Square is not as affected. It technically may be in Logan Square or may not be in Logan Square -- I don't want to get into the details, but it affects traffic from our area and views from our area, and the density would be insufferable from the standpoint of the quiet residential nature of our neighborhood. We have not been consulted. Someone mentioned that it was posted. I went to look for a posting; I could not find a posting. It was then pointed out to me that the posting for this hearing was on a pole this high in a parking lot which says "No Trespassing." Of course, I did go 57 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 in there and looked at it and I saw it. But it was an obscure a posting as I have ever seen anywhere.
I assume it was a posting for this hearing. It was on an -- there's an old iron fence, and in the corner of the iron fence, near the railroad cut, it is no more four feet high, wrapped around this post -- not on a stick, not out where you could see it. Wrapped around this post was what purported to be a legitimate posting for this hearing. Plus the fact that we had been on record from ten years ago with this same developer that they were opposed to his position. And, of course, we weren't consulted over the last months and months. And we are a presence in the City, we are well known by the Planning Commission, we are well known by every department, by our Councilman, by everyone. And, inadvertently, we were forgotten. Thank you.
Councilwoman Verna. 58 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780
I'm sorry, I was distracted. From your testimony, I understand that the developer never met with your civic association?
Well, then years ago, we met and said we did not like the proposal. We have not met with anyone, no. 10
That was one of the questions I was going to raise. Is that the reason that you were not at the Planning Commission public hearing? 59 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780
I did not even know of that hearing. We were never notified of the hearing by the Planning Commission, and we are in touch with the Planning Commission. I know personally the members that were here, they know me by name, they know my phone number, and I know Barbara Kaplan, and they know us and they know that we're active, and we have heard nothing from anyone on this.
One other question. Each of you has identified yourself as a past president of the Spring Garden Civic Association. MR. RUBIN; that's correct.
That's what I was going to enter into the record after the gentlemen completed their testimony. This is a letter from the current president of the Spring Garden Civic Association, a Patricia L. Freeland. And that's F-R-E-E-L-A-N-D. Basically, the letter is in complete agreement with the previous two testifiers. We will add it formally into the record.
All right, thank 60 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 you. That was the question. I was going to ask why were the two the past presidents here and if there was any consideration by the current administration of the association.
Well, we're presently on the board. I'm chairman of the zoning committee as well. Thank you.
Well, you present very interesting arguments. It's a typical problem that we have in cities that are trying to avoid urban sprawl, protect free land; and, at the same time, promote economic development. It's a classic controversy.
We are certainly not against development, and we have never taken that position as a blanket position, never.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone here from the Law Department to clarify the issue on the description of the property so that the record's clear. There was a question raised by Mr. Plaxton relative to 61 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 the description of the property as southeasterly corner of 21st Street and Hamilton Street. His contention is that it's not the southeasterly but the southwesterly corner, and that that is a fatal flaw or a serious flaw in the legislation. Could you please identify yourself for the record and respond.
Good afternoon. My name is Henry Schwartz. I'm the Divisional Deputy City Solicitor for Real Estate and Economic Development. It was brought to my attention that there is a mistake in the title to the bill. It is, in fact, the southwesterly corner, and not the southeasterly corner. However, the intent of the charter in the short title is to provide notice that there is a matter pending before Council. It is the corner of 21st and Hamilton, so it was posted and it was advertised so that anybody with an interest would realize that it was the corner of 21st and Hamilton. The substance of the bill, which is the text of the bill, is correct, and so it would be my opinion that it is not a fatal flaw because 62 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 there was adequate notice to the surrounding area that the bill would be concerning 21st and Hamilton, but the substance of the bill is correct, as far as legal position.
Respectfully, I would have to disagree. I believe that the purpose of titles and the advertising is to give people notice. Conceivably, people might have a different view if it's on the southeast or in the southwest. It would seem to me that it would be in everybody's interest that whatever action Council takes, that it be immune from attack. The feelings on both sides seem to be very strong, and under those circumstances, I would clearly say I believe it quite dangerous to enact a bill, if that's what Council would do, in its in its present form. There's no serious lost time at all, but it may save a lot of time in the future. So it would be my feeling that this is a fatal flaw in the bill if, in fact, the land is on the southwest and not the southeast side. Thank you very much. 63 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780
Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity. I think I'm inclined to agree with you, Mr. Schwartz, that this is, at worst, a (unintelligible) error. In every other respect, is the description of the same accurate in this bill.
Containing frontage along 21st Street approximately 298 feet; and along Hamilton Street, approximately 320 feet. Is that correct?
Okay. So if you looked at the entire paragraph below the term and ordinance, every word in it is correct except the term "southeasterly," which should have read "southwesterly."
Mr. Chairman, I think it is a stretch to say that (unintelligible) 64 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780 error is such a fatal flaw. Now, I understand that it is our intention to hold bill over, and in that period, I think we should correct it, but I think the record should be clear that this is a fatal flaw.
The short title cannot be amended without republishing it; as compared to the bill, which can be amended as part of the legislative process.
Well, I mean we have two lawyers here -- three lawyers here that are expressing two different opinions. And as long as -- what I think Councilmember Cohen did was bring the issue to the fore so that you can make whatever decision you think is appropriate in this regard. Councilmember Clark agrees with you and your position, so to be forewarned is to be forearmed, I would say. 65 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980780
And I don't disagree that we should hold it. And I think, in that intervening period, it should be corrected. But just for the record, I think that is a stretch to say the (unintelligible) error arises to the level of a fatal flaw.
Thank you very much. Thank you very much for your testimony. Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
As was previously stated by Councilmember Clark, this bill will be held to a date into the future, and all parties will be notified, and we thank you for coming in with your testimony. Bill No. 980750 was originally heard on November 17th but over-advertised for November 17th and for December 1st. So in an effort to accommodate anyone who like to testify based on the December 1, notification, Bill No. 980750 is an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and planning by amending 66 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980750 Section 14-1612, entitled "South Street/Head House Square Special Services District Controls," under certain terms and conditions. If there was testimony given on the 17th, there is no need for additional testimony, but I'd like to ask anyone in the room who had not testified on the 17th but is here because of the advertisement for December 1st, if they would like to testify. (No response.)
Seeing no one, we will continue on. Bill No. 980748, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zone designations of certain areas of land located in the 26th Ward and within an area bounded by 20th Street, Pattison Avenue, Penrose Avenue, and the Walt Whitman Bridge approach from partly Class "R-10" Residential, partly Class "C-7" Commercial, partly Class "L-5" Limited Industrial, and partly Class "R-9A" to partly Class "R-10" Residential, partly Class "C-7" Commercial, partly Class "L-5" Limited Industrial, and partly Class "R-9A" Residential. 67 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748 Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, Chief of Project Planning, Planning Commissioner, here today to speak on behalf of this bill. Although this bill talks about 2.35 acres of land to be rezoned from various classifications, what we're really talking about here is, back in 1995, Bill No. 1240, the City Council approved the rezoning of land from "L-5" industrial to "R-9A" residential to permit a residential subdivision to go ahead in the Packer Park neighborhood of South Philadelphia. Basically, it proposed to take what was various limited industrial uses -- mostly trucking-related -- and to put in new streets and to build new single-family row houses. Subsequent to the passage of that bill 22 and the beginning of construction, the party interested had acquired additional land. And what this bill basically does is redraw that boundary of the zoning to conform to the additional land 68 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748 that was acquired by the developer to allow for the -- basically for this to be developed in accordance with the same plan that's been around since 1995 and has been approved by the Planning Commission on several occasions and City Council, on several occasions, in terms of streets, bills, and utility bills and a previous zoning bill and by the Packer Park community. When this is completed -- if this bill 11 is passed, the developer will build 79 attached single-family sales housing, market-rate housing, along a series of new city streets, in accordance with the zoning and subdivision regulations of the City of Philadelphia. For the record, the Planning Commission, in its meeting of October 21, 1998, recommends approval of Bill 980748. Also, the Planning Commission, in various meetings, has approved the streets, bills, and subdivision plans for this development. Are there any questions?
Any questions for these witnesses? Councilmember Verna. 69 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748
I did not, but I believe there have been -- I guess one of our South Philadelphia planners may have attended. I personally was not there. But we have had this before the commission a number of times. We've always been accompanied by letters or comments from Packer Park in support of this. I know I've talked over the phone over the years to individual members of the Packer Park leadership, asking questions about when these bills are going to be passed or when this project was going to move forward.
Thank you very much. Any other questions? (No further questions.)
Would you like to testify? Members of the community? No, yes? (Carl Primavera comes forward.)
Carl Primavera, P-R-I-M-A-V-E-R-A. I'm here representing First Anthony Residential Capital Corporation, Mr. George David, Sr., behind me. They are the anticipated developers for the project. And also with us is Barbara Capozzi, from the Packer Park Civic Association, who has been working very closely with the with the developer to make sure that this proposed development meets the community's needs. We're really here to answer any specific questions and just to confirm that we have been working with the community.
Mr. Primavera, could you please give us, for the record, a description of the developed and what's proposed.
Sorry, this is Bill 23 -- for the committee's sake, this is Bill No. 24 980748.
Yes. As a matter of fact, with me is George David, Sr., and what I will have him do is just describe the development plan as he's devised it and as approved preliminarily by the Planning Commission.
My name is George David, Sr., and I'm the primary stockholder and President of First Anthony Residential Capital Corp.
What we propose to do here in stages is develop 79 row-house configuration homes in modules of or homes, without a break. They will be 3- and 4-bedroom town house configurations. We intend to start the development along the existing street. And then as it progresses to build a new street, a loop street back in to accommodate the balance of the property.
And that street is up before Council next week, I believe, for a street 72 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748 ordinance. And could you tell us a little bit about who will be the anticipated residents and what the prices will be?
Well, our sales agent will be Barbara Capozzi's real estate agency, who has done a great deal of preliminary work in offering this property and describing it to the community. And so we really anticipate that the vast majority of the houses will be bought by people from the existing neighborhood or people who formerly were from that neighborhood.
Are these homes -- could you describe these homes. Are they singles, twins, or row houses?
And this would be similar, I guess, to what the existing Packer Park configuration is now?
And my understanding is that the great desire or demand for property in Packer Park would, hopefully, maybe keep some of our younger couples in Philadelphia who may want to move to Washington Township and maybe thing about staying in South Philadelphia, in Packer Park.
Yes, the general price range would be from 175 to about 185 or 190 thousand dollars.
We're now at a point where the weather will be what will be the determining factor. We would be ready in every respect by 74 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748 about January 15th.
Well, if our absorption rate projections are correct, it would be about a two-and-a-half-year project to build out.
And I would like Miss Capozzi to come up and state for the record what the position of the Packer Park Civic Association is regarding this bill.
Barbara, could you please identify yourself for the record.
Okay, Barbara Capozzi, C-A-P-O-Z-Z-I. 75 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748
I'm currently the President of the Packer Park Civic Association. And from the beginning, this developer has sought our advice and taken our suggestion when we asked for changes in the home, different design changes, things that we knew would be comparable to our neighborhood. So from the beginning, they have been most willing. And at our request -- this bill was at our request to make this development the same R-9A zoning as Packer Park, to eliminate any duplexes or triplexes. That was at our request. At our request, Councilwoman Verna introduced this bill, so we're very happy about it. Right now, there's a dirty trucking company there, and it could be only -- we know it will be a big improvement.
Miss Capozzi, did I understand one of the other witnesses to say that you were doing the sales of it? 76 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748
Yes. I own the property right next door also, so I mean I have multiple interests in seeing this --
My interest in the question is that you are not a disinterested citizen, resident. Are there other residents who do not have a financial interest in the success of the project who would be willing to come forward and say they agree with you, that this is a good thing to do?
Well, we have people 15 on our board. The developers met with our board 16 three times, and it's been unanimous. There's 17 nothing not to like in having new homes in your 18 neighborhood, especially when it's a trucking company now.
Well, I'm in no 21 position to argue that point, I only raise the point that you are not a disinterested party. Your being the head of the civic association is somewhat in conflict with your being the sales agent for the new houses. 77 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748 Having said that, that does not mean that you are not a wonderful, wise, and good person. However, you would have to see that there is some confluence of interest, if not conflict. "Confluence" is the term that I've used here.
Let me ask you another question, and we will just that statement hang out there. Are the houses going to be cul-de-sac? What is the configuration of the land use?
There's homes on 20th 15 Street, and then there's one break in that, and it 16 winds around to a very quite cul-de-sac where there's more homes.
From the very beginning, even at our general meetings, I have made my multiple positions known to everybody, and I have heard no opposition. I will be happy to get a 78 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748 letter from the rest, signed individually by the rest of the board or whatever you would feel comfortable with.
The point that I have made has been made. If you want to send a letter, we will happily receive it.
However, even when you send the letter, wearing one of your other hats, that does not take away the confluence of interests.
Excuse me, if I may something. I believe that there's been so much interest generated for this particular proposal. How many people do you have on the list who have expressed a desire to purchase one of these properties?
As of yesterday, we have 79 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748 232 people on a -- I don't want to say "a waiting list," but an interest list, who have received a brochure, who have seen the home and who know the prices. So once we get these preliminary approvals, we'll bring the people in, you know, and see how many of those 232 people will actually buy a home. But the interest is very high. And I have -- my very, very first buyer is somebody moving back from New Jersey, which I'm very happy to report, and that's a story that we all want to tell.
Thank you. In great respect for Councilwoman Clark's concern over confluence, I just want to say for the record that Miss Capozzi, in addition to their civic functions and volunteerism, represents something that's unique in South Philadelphia and in Philadelphia, and that is a real estate agent who lives in her neighborhood. We have real estate agents by and large in South Philadelphia who have decided that greener pastures may be better in South Jersey and 80 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748 Delaware and Montgomery Counties. So I am confident, as a South Philadelphia resident and as someone who has known Barbara and her family for a long time, that their major commitment is making the neighborhood work because they have a stake in it because they live there and are not simply selling people property while they go home to their cul-de-sac in Montgomery County and don't care what the quality of the residents are. And I mean this respectfully, and I do understand Councilwoman Clark's raising the confluence issue, but I just want to say for the record that we're glad you're living with us.
Thank you. Would anyone else like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The next bill is No. 980749, which an ordinance approving the plan, estimated costs, and proposed method of charges of 81 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980748 the City Avenue Special Services District for and concerning business improvements and administrative services to portions of the City Avenue area of the City of Philadelphia and Township of Lower Merion.
980749. Is there anyone here to testify on this bill, Councilmember? Could those interested parties -- this is City Avenue.
Mr. Chairman, I think my chief staff has talked to John O'Connor in your office. That bill has already been done. That's one of those double-advertising.
Since it was already done, is there anyone else here to testify on this bill advertised for December 1st? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will move again. Bill No. 980761, an ordinance amending 82 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980749 Section 14-1807 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Appeals to the Courts," to provide for the re-posting of the notice of a zoning hearing when the Court of Common Pleas remands to the Zoning Board of Adjustment for a full and complete record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, from the Planning Commission, here testify on Bill No. 980761. This bill amends the administrative section of the zoning code deal with the Zoning Board under the section of "Appeals to Courts" by requiring that when a case is remanded back to the Zoning Board for additional testimony by the courts on the case of an appeal of a Zoning Board decision, that the property be re-posted so as to provide notice to the neighbors of the additional testimony being taken before the Zoning Board of adjustment. Basically, the way the posting requirements are is that any requirements for public notice by the Zoning Board requires an ordinance of City Council to require that public 83 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980761 notice. Since there is no requirement today for expanded testimony on something that's already been heard by the Board, if you're an interested neighbor and from some reason you couldn't make the first hearing and therefore didn't put notice in, you would not be notified of the new hearing. This would assure that everyone that lives near a property would be renotified. As a matter of policy, the Planning Commission has always supported the concept of adequate public notice in the posting of public property, so we would support the enactment of this bill.
We just had a criticism that it was a little tiny notice on a low post that was inside a fence that said "No 22 Trespassing." So how much notice is that?
Well, the Zoning Board -- let me ask you this -- I don't know about -- that was a City Council posting. The Zoning Board 84 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980761 posting requires it to be posted at the street frontage, at the sidewalk poster, and their poster is a bright orange that you can see for blocks away, but it has to be posted at the public sidewalk for the Zoning Board. I don't know what the posting requirements of City Council are in terms of public posting.
Thank you very much. Any other questions for these witnesses? Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Just very briefly, I have had conversations about this proposal prior to its introduction with Common Pleas Court Judge Steven Levin, who receives the appeals from any zoning cases, which is the next level of appeal, as well as the chair of the Zoning Board, chairman Tom Kelly. The reason this issue arises is when people take their -- when the applicant or 85 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980761 protestants utilize their right to appeal the action of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the case goes to Common Pleas Court, sometimes judge will accepted the case back without retaining jurisdiction so the case go back to the Zoning Board the judge will send the case back without retaining jurisdiction, and so the case goes back to the Zoning Board. The judge, at that point, considers the case to be a new case. There is, though, as Mr. Lombardo said, no posting requirement, and that process can take some months. And, literally, property can be bought and sold in the intervening time between the first hearing, the appeal, and the remand. And so new neighbors or current neighbors may not know that there is a second hearing for this particular application. Judge Levin and Mr. Kelly, chair of the Zoning Board, are both in agreement with this particular bill, and that is the reason for it; it is only to provide additional notice. There is no 23 additional payment for the new posting to be paid by the applicant. They're not required to post any additional dollars, only to put up the signs 86 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980761 and be in accord with the 12-day posting requirement. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Thank you very much. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we'll now move to Bill No. 980779, which is an ordinance 12 amending Title of The Philadelphia Code, 13 relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending 14 Chapter 14-300, entitled "Commercial Districts," by amending Section 14-305, entitled "C-4" Commercial and" C-5" Commercial Districts," and by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by amending Section 14-1607, Entitled "Special Controls for the Center City Commercial Area," under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record. Before you do that, the City Council Committee on Licenses and Inspections scheduled to 87 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980779 meet at will be meeting immediately following the Rules Committee. Please identify yourself and proceed.
Rich Lombardo, from the 6 City Planning Commission, here to today to speak 7 on behalf of Bill 980779. 8 This bill really is a bit of 9 housecleaning. It comes about because, in the 10 planning for a new Performing Arts Center, one of 11 the streets, basically the street that used to exist between the subject site and the Philadelphia University of the Arts, which are Delancey Street, was stricken a number of years ago as part of site assemblage. Since that street is no longer a City street, it would function and will continue to function like a street. When the Performing Arts Center is built, this street -- we'll call it a "private street," will still provide access for parking and loading and servicing of the new Performing Arts Center. But since it is not a -- since it was stricken as a street, it has become a driveway. It creates a zoning problem. The Zoning Code in Center City does not 88 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980779 allow a curb cut from Broad Street, ingress or egress from Broad Street, without a zoning variance. There is no special exemption, there is now way around it. A site that -- it can meet zoning and every other category. It can be within the height, the width, the frontage, the permitted use, but because it has a curb cut to Broad Street, it would require a zoning variance. Obviously, that was done to encourage continued introductions of left- and right-turns off of Broad Street into various parking garages and accesses. This, however, is a place where a turn has always been permitted but until, recently, there was a street there. The street was just stricken as part of the site assemblage. So what this bill do, it would exempt this block from that prohibition on curb cuts. And since its a publicly controlled block, and the rest of the block is historically certified in the University of the Arts, we know there will never be more than one curb cut, and that curb cut will go where Delancey Street used to be -- or actually, where Delancey Street will still be, though it won't be public street anymore. That's 89 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980779 all the bill does. For the record, I did talk to on the phone with the representative -- I believe she's the attorney, Judith Eden, calling on behalf of that for Center City residents and just asked her that's all this bill will do and I explained it to her, and she said they had no problem with it.
Thank you very much. Any questions for this witness? (No questions.)
My name is Paul Deegan, D-E-E-G-A-N, and I represent PIDC and PAID. We were instrumental in assembling the site for the Regional Performing Arts Center. We also -- we're the sponsor of the bill to strike the street, thereby creating this problem. And so we asked the Planning Commission how to fix it, and this is the bill they 90 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980779 produced. And we respectfully request favorable consideration and report it out at the next session of Council, with a suspension of the rules.
The next bill is Bill No. 980781, an ordinance amending an ordinance approved December 15, 1969, as amended, which approved the Redevelopment Proposal, the Urban Renewal Plan, and the Relocation Plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area by approving the 22nd amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal and the 14th amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan, which provide, inter alia, for certain additional land acquisitions. Redevelopment Authority. (Noel Eisenstat comes forward.) 91 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980781
Please identify yourself for the record when you're prepared.
Good morning. My name is Noel Eisenstat, E-I-S-E-N-S-T-A-T. I am the Executive Director of the City's Redevelopment Authority. And as you've read, I'm here to give comments on Bill No. 980781. This is a bill 9 authorizing an amendment to the Model Cities Urban Renewal Area. This bill is actually the 22nd amendment to the Redevelopment Proposal, and the 14th amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan. The maps before you describe -- we are basically here for two reasons today. One is to acquire 38 parcels of land for the African-American Development Corporation. Unfortunately, their president Marwan Kreidie, who's also a member of the City's Civil Service Commission, is conducting business in his capacity as a civil service commissioner and is unable to be with us. But let me explain that this is an area that is adjacent to the Al-Aqsa Islamic Society, and the Society is currently housing space for worship and classroom and a specialty food store. 92 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980781 The properties are to be developed into a parking lot to provide approximately 83 parking spaces in an area for modular classrooms -- these are 5 actually double-unit classrooms. The Arab-American Development Corporation will lease the parcels from the Islamic Society. Financing for this project is being provided by the Arab-American Development Corporation. The other development in this urban renewal taking are for two properties on behalf of Community ventures and the Francisville Community Organization. Mr. Steve Kauffman (ph) was here earlier here today; he left just recently. These two properties are for a senior citizen rental development project located at Edwin and Wylie Streets. The project will consist of new construction of affordable rental units 20 for seniors. The rest of the properties for this 21 project were previously acquired during urban 22 renewal taking approved on June 11, 1998, the same 23 calendar year. Funding is to be provided through 24 low-income housing tax credits in a combination of Year 23 Community Development Block Grant Funds. 93 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980781 If you have any questions about either of these --
At the beginning of your testimony, we think that you said -- Councilwoman Clark and myself -- "African-American Development Corporation." Do you mean "Arab-American Development Corporation?"
I'm we glad made that change. Thank you. Are there any questions for Mr. Eisenstat? (No questions.)
Is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you very much. Bill No. 980800 will be held at the request of the sponsor, Councilman DiCicco. The next bill is 980801, which is an ordinance amending an ordinance approved August 15, 1969, as amended, which approved the amended 94 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - 980781 Redevelopment Proposal, the amended Urban Renewal Plan, and the amended Relocation Plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of Pennsport Urban Renewal Area, by approving the 4th amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal and the 3rd amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan, and by providing for certain changes, namely: certain additional acquisition of a property for rehabilitation with an institutional reuse; certain land use changes from residential to institutional/public; certain expressly designated and provided-for imminence of condemnation; and updating the property rehabilitation standards, all as contained in the amended Redevelopment Proposal and Urban Renewal Plan. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Noel Eisenstat. I am the Executive Director of the City's Redevelopment Authority. I'm here to provide comment on Bill No. 980801. This is a revision to the Pennsport Redevelopment Area. I would note that this is the 95 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980801 for the since the early 1970s that the Pennsport Urban Renewal Area has had any activity. The property that's actually in question, that is the cause of this hearing, is 1600 South Second Street, which is adjacent to 1602 South Second Street, the Jokers New Year's Day Association headquarters. Councilman Kenney and I have spent numerous other attempts to attempt to acquire this property through other mechanisms, through buying liens, other types of condemnation vehicles. And ultimately, this is a property that needs to be acquired through the urban renewal process, and this will be used to expand their Mummers Clubhouse. The property is a vacant three-story mixed-use commercial property, and it's a blighting influence along Second Street, in the Pennsport community.
Okay. For the record, I think it's important to make it clear that I am a member of that New Year's association, which is a nonprofit organization. There is no 24 financial interest whatsoever in the organization. And the bill was introduced by 96 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980801 Councilman DiCicco at the request of the organization and the surrounding neighbors, due to the blighted nature of the building and the lack of prospects that the owner, which is no longer the owner, was going to do anything to fix it up. As a matter of fact, there were pieces of bricks that were falling out of the second floor and a dangerous pavement that's resulted in a number of lawsuits. And children and young adults were entering the basement and using it as a kind of hangout, drinking, drug-using activity. So we're hoping that the acquisition by the club will enable the club to rehabilitate it into a useful purpose and less of a blight on the neighborhood. Are there any questions for Mr. Eisenstat?
Anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.) 97 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Bill 980801
Seeing none, we will now move to Resolution No. 980112. I think there are four witnesses that have requested to testify. If they could approach the witness table now. This is a resolution. Let me say for the record that this resolution authorizing the Rules Committee to conduct hearings examining the problems that certified minority subcontracting firms experience during the course of their employment on City-funded projects; specifically, their attempts to collect funds due from certain general contractors. Let me say for the record that this resolution deserves and will get a more expanded hearing. Because of the rush of the legislation in the limited days left before our recess, we thought it would be appropriate to allow these individuals to come in to open the record. This record will be extended and expanded at a different time more appropriate to a full-blown hearing on this resolution. But we do thank you for taking time from your work day today. We know you're trying 98 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 to -- considering the resolution, you're out there trying to make a living, and we'd like to give you the opportunity to testify on your concerns today, and then we will recess the hearing to another date and notify you again. So please identify yourself for the record. Thank you for waiting and proceed.
I'm Earl Calloway, and I'm the owner of C.E. Franklin, Incorporated. I'm a certified minority business enterprise with the City of Philadelphia, and we subcontract for plumbing, heating, and air-conditioning work from general contractors. I've been in the business since 1976. All large contracts involving general contractors withhold 10 percent retainage of the total amount of the contract until it's complete. This happens even if the general contractors are only being charged 5 percent retainage themselves. I have a continuing problem with ever collecting this amount and even collecting the final bill. Once we've finished the work for the 99 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 general contractors, the general contractors habitually do not pay the balance for various -- you know, they use various excuses ranging from missing paperwork to erroneous back-charges. They make up the back-charges which consist of work they claim to have done that we were supposed to have done. They do not have to present any proof of this work and often come up with this months after the contract was committed. The only current result I have is to place mechanic liens on the property or sue the general contractor. Both of these involve legal fees, which are very costly. Currently apply all of the retainage for the Sarah Allen Project, Phase IV, which I have completed in December of 1997. This amount is $58,000. I have been back-charged approximately $8,800 of this $58,000, which they're holding until I sign a final waiver. This is a typical ploy by the GCs who can afford to wait, to play the waiting game. So because we, as subcontractors, have limited resources, we must settle for smaller amounts. This problem at Sarah Allen and with 100 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 the Sarah Allen contract is only one of the many examples I could use to demonstrate the payment difficulties I have had and continue to have. I appreciate your interest in the problem. We would like the City to become involved in the process on City-funded jobs. When GCs aren't paying their subs, we would like to see the City step in and enforce payment to the subcontractors. The subcontractors need someone to go to when the authorities -- with the authority to act so that we can get paid. Thank you.
Let me see if I understand it. As a standard practice of doing business, GCs, your own contractors, withhold up to 10 percent of the total value of your contract.
That's correct. 101 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112
And almost always come up with some reason not to pay it over.
So it's a thinly disguised way of stealing percent of the money, 9 isn't it? 10
And if I were to distill your comments, it would be that you need the City to establish an oversight to make sure that this illegal extortion of money is ended. You need some entity in the City that has the authority and the willingness to follow up on that 10 percent hold-back that almost never gets paid over. It's almost like security rent where the landlord figures out some reason that, you know, you either painted the place too dark or you left holes in the wall, something's going to give him a reason not to give you back your security deposit. Is that the same kind of thing?
That's exactly what 102 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 happens to us constantly, and we have many people here today that could testify to the same thing.
Now, specifically, you have 58,000 that is owed to you on a recent project.
Have you any reason to believe that you are going to get any of it back? I know you say that 8,000 is "back-work" or something, that they had to do that you were supposed to do.
That's correct. And at this present moment, they are wait for me to sign the releases so that they will pay me the 58,000, less the 8,500.
And in signing the release, you agree in writing legally sufficient to foreclose any other claim to the $8,000.
Okay. So you, in effect, in order to get the 50, which you desperately need, are complicit in contributing 8,000.
That's correct. 103 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112
Yes, ma'am. When we work basically on a to percent margin, when we're operating out there, that $8,000 basically is all of my profit.
Mr. Chairman, I think that is a reprehensible practice. Thank you for the clarity of your testimony.
That's why we decided to have this hearing and have an additional hearing into the future, to discuss this at length. Councilwoman Verna.
What is your recourse at the present time if you're waiting over a year to be paid?
Basically, there is no 21 recourse, we have no recourse, and that's why we're coming to Council today, to ask for your support, to kind of step in and help us with our problem. We have no recourse. The only recourse that we have is, 104 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 basically, like I stated earlier, is to basically sue the general contractor, which is very costly, or, you know, put a lien on the properties where we've been working. That is also a costly and drawn-out process.
Yes, I will, thank you very much. My name is Grace Gibson. I am the owner of Quality Heating and Sheet Metal. I'm an HVAC company, which is heating, ventilating, and air-conditioning. The company was incorporated in 1966. I purchased this company in 1983 and became certified WDBE in January of 1995. In 1991 and 1992, I connected connect with a general contractor named Earnest Bach (ph) & Sons and was awarded jobs on seven different Projects for him. Those jobs ranged from jobs outside the city to jobs inside the city. One of the jobs was a City-funded project, 47th, 56th and 105 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 Chestnut Street, 74 apartments. Another was Medical College of Pennsylvania and 2100 Pioneer Road, Tom Bach's personal home. All were completed 100 percent or 95 percent complete. Mr. Bach paid me the 15th of the month until I approximately completed 60 percent of the job, and then the back-charges started. He would state that we did not close and lock doors and windows, we did not lock the gate, we did not clean up. And his favorite was we were not adhering to his schedule. Needless to say, we were not the last ones to leave the job. It was not our responsibility to lock his job; it was his foreman's. We did, in fact, clean up. And as far as the schedule, there never was one, either written or verbal. The total money owed to me at that time from this one contractor was $165,000. I sued Tom Bach for $30,000 and --.
Just one minute, Miss Gibson. Of the $165,000 owed, how much of it is City projects? Recognizing that our 106 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 responsibility is to City projects.
On the one project, I was owed $30,000, which was a federal project, the bulk mail postal service. I won but, another stall tactic is to appeal, which only delays, and we don't still get our money. I had to settle with him for $20,000; I lost $10,000, which he pocketed. The balance of $135,000 was still owing, and I had to file a lawsuit, which is very costly to me. During the time that I was working for Tom Bach, I received threats and false statement made by him in the form of verbally abusive conversation. He sent me three or four faxed letters per day and sent me certified mail two to three times a day. This is each and every day. Tom Bach would state in his letters that I had to be at a job at a specific time, a specific day, and if I was not there, I would be 107 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 removed from the job and back-charged. If I did not install equipment on a specific day, I would be removed from the job, and I would be back-charged. These sordid demands were meant to terrorize me since the job was not ready for me to comply with his demands, as he was well aware of. I nonetheless sent men and equipment to the jobs and lost precious time and money trying to meet his demands. His conversations with me went beyond business issues. He threatened to see me homeless, on the street, and would never pay me a dime. He threatened to punch my 70-year-old father in the mouth the next time he saw him. Tom Bach, at the time, was 32 years old. My father tried to resolve these problems. He did nothing but insult us, call us liars in writing. I pleaded with Mr. Bach to at least pay my subcontractors and my suppliers. He did say in a letter, in writing, that he would, but he never did. My company installed Tom Bach's personal home -- duct work in his personal home, and I billed him for the work at that address. He called me and told me in order to get paid, I had 108 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 to send a new bill and bill it to a City-funded project, and that was the only way I was going to get paid. I did so out of fear of not getting paid. I informed Tom Bach that it was not right to do and his response, "You don't tell me who to bill, I tell you." During these years, we hand-delivered invoices, there were miscellaneous times he said he did not receive the invoice. His pay was supposed to be 45 days from the date of the invoice. According to rules on City-funded projects, we're supposed to receive payment within 5 days after he receives payment. He also holds 10 percent of the money on all City projects, and we never get it; and if we do, it's not all that we all should get because they make up these erroneous back-charges. My husband -- and Tom Bach knew this -- is not well, he's physically handicapped, he has multiple sclerosis for the last 11 years, and he has a very bad heart and has had two major heart. I am the sole support of my family, and if I have these kinds of things that happen with general contractors on City-funded projects, I'll be out 109 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 of business. The problem we face as MBE/WBEs is that we have no contact directly to City agencies; we can only deal with the general contractor or builder. If we have a legitimate complaint, problem, or we're not getting paid, we have no 8 recourse to correct these problems, no one to contact. We also do not, as MBEs, know which general contractor's builders have a good track record and are honest with dealing with their subs. We take a gamble when we work for general contractors do not know. There are at least 15 companies that I am aware of that have this 16 ongoing problem. 17 Any general contractor who abuses their 18 subcontractors to this degree should not be allowed to continue to be awarded City-funded work, but that is currently going on. I respectfully request a solution to our problems and I thank you for your time.
Thank you very much. Sir, would you please identify yourself 110 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 for the record.
I wear two hats. I'm Jihad Ali, wearing the hat of a committee member of the United Minority Enterprise Association, and I'm going to give a statement on the resolution you just --
Pardon me? I'm with the United Minority Enterprise Association, which is a trade organization.
Chairman Kenney and members of the committee, I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today to discuss this committee's resolution authorizing public hearings and examining the problems that certified minority subcontracting firms experience during the course of their employment on City-funded projects; specifically, their attempts to collect funds due from general contractors. Mr. Chairman, to begin with, I would like to just thank you for considering this 111 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 resolution. When I think of the enormous workload of all the members of City Council are under at these final stages of the year, it is truly exceptional for you and members of this committee to still take the time out of a very active schedule to consider the matters of the disadvantaged. My remarks will be very brief in light of the work burden this Council is under. Our organization, the United Minority Enterprise Association, is a self-supported building trades organization with a decade-longer existence than any City agency that is involved in the black, male, women, disadvantaged and disabled field. We have many members who are here to testify at the planned hearings. Our members are prepared to give anecdotal evidence of many occasions when they were not paid, resulting in some firms experiencing financial difficulty, and in some instances, their firms ruined. It is a necessity for this Council to investigate how millions of dollars are being disbursed and who is benefitting. 112 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 Thank you, members of this committee for initiating this and inquiring into this problem. I'd like to put my other hat on now as one of the members of the subcontractor community that was ruined on several City-funded projects. ) Construction, and I didn't know Mr. Calloway was going to be here today, but we also performed on the Sarah Allen project. My company was a carpentry subcontract company and was composed of a group of young African-American men who were very gifted in their field. The Sarah Allen project that I'm speaking of was the 80-unit old nursing home on 40th and Poplar Streets. And on that project, my subcontract was -- I believe it was $640,000. The fact that the general contractor gave us a contract without a bond indicates our level of expertise and our experience. We completed that job -- it was a 7-story building with 80 units. We did the entire layout on our own. From the initial day that we started our work scope, the architects came over, checked 113 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 our layout, and never came back. We completed all 80 units, we got down to the first floor, we had yet to do our finish coat on our dry wall. We were doing the drywall, the framing, all the interior layout. We got down to the first floor, and the contractor -- we were down to our last 60,000 to build. He owed us 50. There was 130,000 in change orders that he didn't want to pay for, so he refused to pay us. And at that time, we were also doing a project with the Shriners Hospital. I did the entire ninth floor of the Shriners Hospital with another company called "Wyatt," but on that project, we were second-tier, which is another disadvantaged position for subcontractors to be in. The bottom line is that you get stole from twice because you have work that's in place that's complete and you also have that 10 percent. So they're actually stealing. In this case with the contractor on the Sarah Allen, we had 50,000 we were yet to bill for, they took that 50, and then had our other 60,000 that was retainage for what we had already completed. 114 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 But there are solutions. The problems that we have is that the City -- our forefathers that preceded us already laid this out. And part of the problem is today, we just don't have the heads of certain departments taking a strong stand.
They're just denying their responsibilities because most of the money that we're benefitting from is federal money. And most of that money, when the projects are proposed to developers and contractors, they're only by law entitled to receive a certain percentage. So the way to correct problem is to start having the Finance Director or the other appropriate entities do an audit because in those cases where we were replaced or we weren't paid, somebody made that profit, and it wasn't the builder. By law, the builder's not supposed to make that profit. That's just a little known fact. If we could just get some enforcement of the provisions, things would end overnight, and it also would end up benefiting the welfare of our community. Because those of us who are disadvantaged from the inner neighborhood, we 115 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 employ other disadvantaged people. And when you employ youth, you end up putting a dent in crime, and that's what it's all about. All our whole will be better, but what we're going is we're creating modern day titans, and we're standing by while crimes are being committed. But I thank you all for taking the time out of your busy schedule to look into this matter.
Thank you very much for coming in and for your testimony. Councilmember Clark.
Well, Mr. Ali, we really don't have anything that's more important. This is work. I appreciate your kind words, but this is work, this is what you elected us to do, this is what said we would do if you elected us.
Let me ask you about the Sarah Allen project. Is that a City- funded project in any way?
Yes, it was. It was funded by the Redevelopment Authority, and they had 116 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 received HUD funds. Most of the multi-million dollar contracts have some form of HUD money in it. And HUD money, once that one dollar of HUD money comes in, that's really our strongest position because that really has a lot of sanctions attached to that money. There's a lot of rules and regulations that the Council is aware of, like the mayor's executive order, which is his executive order that has no sanctions attached to it. When you put in HUD money, you're triggering Section 3, which has some very stiff sanctions in it.
Federal, exactly. And what we really need is just as I said earlier, we just need stronger leadership in these organizations to say they're not going to tolerate it. Because just like that guy holds up our money, if you hold up his money, it will put an end to it.
You say he ruined you. Did the practice of back-charges and holding on to some percentage of the money destroy whatever profit you would have made on the job? 117 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112
Well, with my firm, we really -- by the grace of God, we're really gifted. I never got back-charged for anything that we had omitted or failed to do. Our problem was always, if you pay me for one cup, I'm only going to give you one cup, don't expect me to give you two.
So when they came up with change orders, I wanted to be paid, and I would -- in the industry, you either have to issue something, a document saying, Well, I'm going to do this but it's in protest and you're going to pay me for this later. Well later, they wouldn't want to pay. They tell you, Well, I didn't get paid, or, I signed a no-change-order contract. But somebody had to get paid because sometimes there are clearly admissions from the documents. If it's not on the document, it's a change order, and that's really the way to look at it plainly, and the problem was they wouldn't pay us. And then some people -- you get into this -- into people and their personality and what they perceive how you should act. I would be at a meeting and they would be with some other 118 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 disadvantaged contractors and put their arm around them and say, Well, you should be a contractor like this. You're too arrogant, you know, you stand up too much. This one contractor we're speaking of, I wrote a letter to the Congressman because it was federally-funded project and I asked him to look into it. When I went up to the office, he pulled me out, he was ranting and raving. He said, I do $80 million a year in business with HUD, and you're threatening to have me disbarred. So they released my funds at that time, but that was just preceding the rest of the issue. And what normally happens is -- it's just really just outright theft. Because if you're a competent contractor, other guys don't go through this, and there is -- sometimes it's unpleasant to talk about black and white, but sometimes, with the African-American firms, it's harder because you really have a legitimate problem on the change order, and they just don't want to pay you, it's just that blatant. Whereas, I've done joint ventures with other majority firms, and we never have a problem 119 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Res. 980112 over nothing. We just say, We'll do it, and then we get paid at the end. Nothing's ever held up, money is smooth, everything like that So it's a host of problems, but there are solutions.
Thank you very much for coming in and testifying. Is there anyone. Is MBEC -- is there anyone from the City? No, okay.
As I said, so you know what will happen, we will have, after the 1st of the year, we will have another hearing that's more and more expansive than this. And, again, thank you for waiting till the end and giving your testimony. Thank you very much. That will conclude the business of the Rules Committee public hearing. - - - 120 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Public Hearing
We will now convene a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Verna for a motion on Bill No. 980657. All of these will be requesting a rules suspension.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980657 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? Let the record reflect that Councilman Longstreth had to leave room but has requested to be voting aye on all bills. There are none opposed on Bill No. 20 980657. This bill will be reported out of the committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on Bill No.980718. 121 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Public Hearing
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 980718 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 12 980718 will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Verna for a motion on Bill No.980748.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 980748 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation; also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. 122 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Public Hearing All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 4 980748 will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. Bill No. 980749 and 980750 were previously reported out of this committee on November 17th and have received first reading and will be finally voted on this Thursday, so no 12 action needs to be taken by this committee. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No.980761, with a rules suspension.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980761 be reported out with a favorable recommendation, and with a request for a suspension of the rules of Council permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 25 980761 will be reported out of this committee 123 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Public Hearing favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Cohen for a motion on Bill No. 980779.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 980779 be reported out with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension to permit first reading at the next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor? There are none opposed. Bill No. 980779 is reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. Bill No. 980780 will be held at the request of the sponsor. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clark for a motion on Bill No.980781.
Mr. Chairman, I 124 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Public Hearing move that Bill No. 980781 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit consideration at our next stated meeting. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? There are none opposed. Bill No. 10 980781 will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. Bill No. 980800 will be held at the request of the sponsor. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clark for a motion on Bill No.980801.
Mr. Chair, I move that Bill No. 980801 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next stated meeting. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. All in favor, aye? 125 12/1/98 COMMITTEE ON RULES - Public Hearing There are none opposed. Bill No. 3 980801 will be reported out of this committee favorably, and a request will be made for a rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee. We thank you for your attendance. Let the record reflect that the hearing on Resolution No. 980112 will be recessed to a date certain, and the appropriate parties will be notified, at the call of the Chair. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee. Thank you for your attendance. (Adjourned at 11:45 a.m.) - - - 126 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of Tuesday, December 1, 1998, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of same. RE: COUNCIL COMMITTEE ON RULES BILL NO.'S 980718, 980657, 980750, 980748, 980749, 980761, 980779, 98078, 980781, 980800, RES. 980112 __________________________________, JOSEPHINE CARDILLO, Registered Professional Reporter