ZBA Hearing - May 7, 2025

As Mr. Labour has pointed out,

we did characterize the scheme as being complicated,

and it is complicated.

We understand that, and he surrounded himself

by a specialised team of consultants.

But there is seems to be no justification for a scheme that is exceeds the zoning code by so much, particularly with reference to height.

And it's for that reason that we oppose the granting of this variance and hope that this will be carried through by the zoning board.

thank you so so mr labor um if you would could you give me a five minute response

of what you heard just your general facts and then what i want to do is you could also provide

for us if you want to go each individual thing that he said on in a document all right so why

don't you just give me your general overview of what he said and i i'm well aware that you object

his testimony certainly mr chairman and then and just to say you know i'm trying to get through

a lot of this today hopefully we can get to the point in the next half hour finished this

i'm on board i understand i understand um i would i would i would ask mr chairman that you

incorporate the few comments that i made uh before the recorded testimony we absolutely

have that. And I would only add to that in the interests of time that we have an exhibit that

we shared with you at the March hearing that showed a north-south building section of the

11 Shores Lane right next to our proposed development. And you could see in that exhibit

the rock outcrop and the obvious differences. 11 Shores Lane is the one next to the railroad,

right yes okay that's right right and uh additionally um mr hunter makes uh i'll just

bring this up quickly maybe it will maybe it will help to uh see here that's the wrong

um mr hunter made reference to the uh prior developers it was a hearsay reference to prior

developers. I think he said that there were three developers who came before them and none of it

worked out. Yeah, I got that part. He was telling a story of everything, buddy. He talked to about

this, not this project about this area. And although it's hearsay, I would actually say

Right. Not this project about this area. And although it's hearsay, I would actually say, yes, Mr. Hunter, you're correct. All other efforts to develop here have failed. They have not been viable.

Our project that we're proposing now is challenging but viable.

It's challenging and it's viable, just like a few blocks from where we sit, people didn't think that a new tower could be built over the septa train tracks at 2301 John F. Kennedy Boulevard, and we all see that that's possible.

This is possible, too.

I won't take up further time.

Questions, questions for Mr. Labor, from the board.

So, Mr. Labor, just to clear up what Mr. Hunter stated about the PSF building, let's make sure we get that clear on the record. That's a 491-feet building, right? So the difference, just make sure we clear that up.

Forgive me if I let out an audible sound as I heard that again. I listened to that, Mr. Shahid, and I truly don't understand the point that he is trying to make. It's not comparable, and it's not relevant.

And then the other side of it is I do understand that some of the properties along the Main Street corridor are much lower, but part of the reason, if I recall correctly from your last presentation, is you left the building so you could do additional parking to slow down on some of the traffic study that will be coming along the Main Street corridor. Am I right?

Precisely, Mr. Vice Chairman.

We looked at the needs of the community, the desires of the community for achieving as

close to one-to-one parking as possible, going above and beyond code requirements.

But we wanted to be good neighbors.

We wanted to be welcomed in.

We also spoke with blood resiliency experts and quickly realized that we were not going to go underground.

Basement level just does not make sense.

So we have to build up here.

Also, what is viable at a first level?

Housing is not.

That's dangerous.

And Maniank has challenges with commercial.

So wouldn't it be better to provide the parking in a responsible way, to raise the project up in height, and to provide residents to patronize these wonderful local businesses that are looking to subsist?

Other questions from the board?

Yes. So in real succinct and layman's terms, with this design in the building, what would happen in the case of a flood? What would happen to that first level if there's a flood?

Yes. Thank you, Ms. Graham. At the highest elevation on the property, which is adjacent to 11 Shores Lane, going up Shores Lane, we have emergency egress, which you'll recall from the plans.

That will be available for the cars to exit safely and with warning to get out and to go up out of Floodsway to go to higher ground. Urban Conversions is going to be hands-on and is committed to working with our flood resiliency expert and following the plans that he proposes.

Other questions from the board?

What was the final parking?

Shell. The the final is close to one to one, but we have 163 residential dwelling units proposed 161 accessory parking spaces proposed.

Thank you.

One other question I had.

I know when you brought this up the last time,

we were talking about the parking

when you would enter in the parking.

Yes.

I wanted to hold my question until the report was done.

So when you come out of the parking lot,

the left-hand turn,

are you all looking to block that

or prevent that from happening

to slow down some of the turns coming out of that,

out of the garage?

Will it be right turns only?

Have you looked at that already?

It has been looked at.

To my knowledge, at this point in time, the experts, both City of Philadelphia Streets

Department and Bowman, have not made a clear recommendation on that.

But we would follow any guidance like that.

Not only is it in the interests of Maniunk and health safety and welfare, which is very

appropriate for the board to look at, but it's in urban conversion's interest to make

But it's in urban conversion's interest to make sure that their residents are getting in and out.

sure that they're...

But to pointedly answer your question, there's been no recommendation to limit in that way at this point in time.

Questions or comments from our attorney?

Mr. Labor, just to clarify, you said there will be a new set of revised plans coming because there have been change.

Okay.

I beg your pardon, Ms. Emerson. The revised proviso plans that were submitted

approximately five days before the March 19th hearing are the current plans.

Yeah. Okay. Okay. I just wanted to verify that. Thank you.

Questions or comments from the audience? Sure. Come on.

Yeah, sure. Just make sure the mic's on and try to get it as close as possible.

Can you hear me?

Most certainly.

Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?

Yes.

Abby Sullivan, A-B-B-Y-S-U-L-L-I-V-A-N.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, nothing but the truth?

Abby, could you identify yourself so everybody knows?

Sure.

I work in the Office of Sustainability.

I'm the Chief Resilience Officer.

Okay.

Please proceed.

Hello, and thank you for giving me the opportunity to speak.

I was going to say my name is Abby Sullivan.

I'm the Chief Resilience Officer, and I lead the city's Climate Resilience Division.

On my team, we have a program for flood resilience and compliance strategy.

So I'm speaking on behalf of the Office of Sustainability, but also the city's Flood

Risk Management Task Force.

That's a group of over 15, or sorry, it's 14 departments, including the Water Department,

Streets Department, Planning, Office of Emergency Management, Risk Management.

so we have all agreed um you know with the viewpoints that i am going to state here

i am here to comment in support of a refusal for the residential variance at this site we are not

against development in the floodplain but we want to see smart development and we oppose zoning

variances that convert industrial to residential we feel particularly strongly about this in areas

OF THE CITY WITH KNOWN HIGH FLOOD RISK MANYUNK IS ONE OF THOSE AREAS MANYUNK HAS SOME OF THE

HIGHEST NUMBERS OF WHAT WE CALL REPETITIVE FLOOD LOSS PROPERTIES IT KIND OF STAGGERS BACK AND FORTH

BETWEEN EASTWICK AND MANYUNK BUT THOSE ARE THE TWO PLACES WHERE WE CONTINUOUSLY SEE THE HIGHEST

NUMBERS OF REPETITIVE LOSS CLAIMS WE SUPPORT DEVELOPMENT BY RIGHT WITH THE APPROPRIATE

CAUTIONS. THE ZONING BOARD HAS THE POWER TO GRANT VARIANCE AND HAS THE GUIDANCE TO DO SO IN SPECIAL

CIRCUMSTANCES PRESENTING AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP. I JUST DON'T QUITE UNDERSTAND HOW A DEVELOPER CAN

BUY A PARCEL AND A PROPERTY KNOWING THE CONSTRAINTS OF THE PROPERTY, KNOWING THE ZONING, AND THEN

CLAIM THAT IT'S AN UNNECESSARY HARDSHIP TO BUILD THAT WAY. THERE SHOULDN'T BE AN ASSUMPTION THAT YOU

get a variance. I just want to turn quickly to Hurricane Ida. I think we can all picture that

in our heads. You can imagine those floodwaters when you've seen the drone footage going over

Maniunk. I respectfully disagree with, I believe it's the property owner who says, you know, it's

three days, three days of impact. That's what we see. We get preparation. We can get people out

ahead of time. I think the two people in our collar counties that drowned in Ida would disagree.

I think the many people... Objection for the record. Yeah, I mean, so you're saying other

counties that drowned? I'm saying flooding impacts have... Yeah, but what I'm saying,

there was no one drowned down there. Am I correct? No, but there were 29 residents that

were rescued by boat in Philadelphia. We've had that testimony before. Go ahead.

And over 1,100 residents were evacuated. Two shelters had to be open for displaced residents. And that one single event was estimated to have over $1.3 billion in damages. Major impacts to businesses, to families, people's cars.

The $1.3 billion wasn't just in the city here?

No, that's just in Philadelphia.

Philadelphia had $1.3 billion?

Yes, that was what was estimated.

In Maniunk, there were condos that went two and a half months without elevators after Ida.

So I just respectfully disagree that, you know, it's just a few days of impact and then we move on.

I want to talk about something just slightly technical, but I'm going to try to say it in layman's terms.

Hurricane Ida was not even a 100-year event.

That is sort of the level of risk that we all say we can live with.

That is sort of the level of risk that we all say we can live with, that's what we're going to plan to, a 100-year event.

That's what we're going to plan to.

It's very rare, 1% chance every year that we could see an event that big.

The Water Department did an assessment of Hurricane Ida, the flows on the Schuylkill River.

That's how we determine what those 100-year events are.

Using FEMA's own flow data that's outdated, it's over 20 years old, Ida is considered a 65-year event.

So that's not even the 100-year event, right?

That means that Ida, over a 25-year period, that same magnitude storm would have a 32% chance of occurring.

But the thing is, that's using outdated data.

That's from 2002 was the last that those flows were recorded for that assessment.

If we look at the last 30 years of flow data on this Google, Ida is actually characterized as a 30-year event.

These are statistics. I know it's hard to wrap your head around, but the idea is that these huge storms are becoming more frequent and they're, you know, the damage is greater, the elevate, you know, the depth of the floodwaters is greater.

So, a 30-year event, that's our risk today, Ida, has a 57% chance of occurring over a 25-year period. So, if this building is going to be up for 25 years, that's more than a 50% chance that we're going to see that type of flood again.

And if you use climate projections, so we use the best projections we can from the global climate models, using a high emission scenario, so assuming we don't curb our emissions and our greenhouse gas contributions to the atmosphere, that becomes a six-year event by the end of the century, Ida.

So that has a 99% chance of occurring over that 25-year period.

Since Hurricane Ida hit, in Maniunk alone, we have allowed 347 new units to be built in the floodplain. That's about 795 people, because there's 2.29 people per unit on average.

In the floodplain?

In the floodplain.

I don't see that. Where was that at?

We pulled it from permitting data.

Okay.

So now let's talk about this project. I really do appreciate the efforts that they did to make the design flood resilient. I think that's fantastic. But I think philosophically, we do not want to see more residents added in these high risk, dangerous areas that are just becoming more and more dangerous with climate change.

according to akrf who was the firm that they worked with to do this flood resilient design

they led a flood mitigation study for east falls and manny young cdc according to their modeling

this site is not just in the 100 year floodplain it's in the 10 chance floodplain so it's hard to

imagine but a 10 chance flood is one that's much smaller right a rain event that's smaller has a

10% chance of happening in any year. So this site today has a 10% chance of flooding in any given

year. That doesn't mean the Ida flood. It wouldn't be quite the magnitude, but water is getting to

the site. So this is adding 163 units, so over 370 people into the floodplain. And I just would

also argue that all the great benefits that were talked about, you know, some of them are site

specific, wanting to revitalize that part of Maniunk. But some of them, all of these economic

benefits, if you built that same, you know, that same unit out of the floodplain in a safe location,

those benefits hold true. So I guess my point is, you know, our office, we are a mayor's office,

We very much support the home initiative. We are pro-housing. We want to see more housing.

But I think, you know, if you actually look at a quote from the mayor, and I don't want to get wrong, she states.

Objection here, sir. So, please, I'll listen to the mayor's quote.

she says our historic two billion dollar housing opportunities made easy plan will ensure

philadelphians have access to affordable available and safe housing in communities for all across our

great city so i again i appreciate the effort to attempt to make this site safe but even if people

if the housing units are elevated i think there's still significant risk um to life and property so

So if I, I don't want to summarize your words, but what you're basically saying, you appreciate what they've tried to do to mitigate this. And they brought a lot of experts in and things.

you appreciate what they've tried to do to mitigate this and they've brought a lot of

experts in and things like that. But your position is you don't think more people should move into

the area? Yeah, we are opposed to variances that bring more residents into the floodplain. Adam?

Good afternoon, Ms. Sullivan. Thank you for joining us today. Excuse me, Mr. Laver,

are you planning to cross Ms. Sullivan? Okay, then we just need to call a city attorney. Mr.

reuter is here if we could promote him to panelists um because um ms sullivan speaking

on behalf of the city she needs to be represented so yeah mr reuter is here he's here yes he is

here we just need to promote him to panelists mr reuter yeah he has been promoted to panelists

he should be coming back in shortly

Good afternoon, Leonard Reuter, R-E-U-T-E-R, Senior Attorney for the City of Philadelphia.

Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

I do. I also apologize for not being dressed appropriately.

I actually was observing today's hearing, wasn't expecting to appear.

Yeah, and also, you know, apologies to Ms. Sullivan.

I had not been previously notified until this afternoon, pretty much just before the hearing, that she would be presenting a statement.

I would just say at the outset, and again, I would defer to the board on this, that I think the statements made by the Office of Sustainability could simply be considered public comment or comment from the city as opposed to testimony per se, because she's not here on behalf of a party involved in the case.

the city's not a party uh in this matter per se um however uh you know again i'm i'm just here

i'll defer to whatever the board decides uh to do here i'm just here to um

well you know represent the the city's interest in terms of like

whatever mr labor is going to go yeah i don't think mr labor is he's getting ready to start

I don't expect he would be too long, so why don't we let him start, and Leonard, you could be ready to go.

Okie dokie.