All right. I'm going to probably give you guys a call, because we need to get that 90 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. type of stimulation in the Eighth Council District. Thank you.
Mr. Koonce, I believe you indicated that NTI funds are being used for the acquisition of the properties. Can you tell us in what amount?
I'm not exactly sure. There was an allocation that remained, a Fifth District allocation amount that remained from previous acquisitions, but it wasn't enough to cover the acquisition, so PHA and RDA agreed to enter into a cooperation agreement, which would provide that PHA would cover the remainder. In other words, when the NTI funds ran out for the project, PHA would cover the remainder, and I seem to remember it would be something like three to one, but I don't remember the exact number. It was three PHA dollars for the one NTI dollar.
Thank 91 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. you.
Madam Chairwoman, PHA is putting $6.2 million into the project.
The Philadelphia Housing Authority has committed to $6.2 million for housing funds on this project and we're also going in for low-income tax credits in the amount of $11.5 million.
I also heard about the commercial space to be provided for the development. Is there a developer for the properties? If so, what is the projected cost for the development and what is the projected completion date for this project?
Madam Chairwoman, a developer, it would be the Philadelphia Housing Authority at this point. We have not selected a construction manager at this time. 92 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. The total development cost for the project is approximately $17.8 million. We anticipate that the project will get started hopefully after the next round of tax credits. We are going in for tax credits this round, Madam Chairwoman.
With respect to the commercial portion of the development, the Housing Authority under their Charter is not authorized or, in our understanding, doesn't do commercial development. The thought was that on the Germantown Avenue portion of the development site, they were going to do a mid-rise development, residential development on Germantown, and the first floor would be made available. We're actually trying to get a local community development corporation to be responsible 93 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. for that first floor space so we can get some local tenants on the first floor portion of the development actually as a partner, is what we're talking about, if we can identify a development corporation that will enter into a partnership with the Housing Authority for that component.
Okay. Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
My name is Gudai Ping. I'm the cousin -- my cousin is the owner of 2850 Germantown Avenue and he received this letter. I'm just translating. He want to find out what's going on with the building. The City is going to take over? Are they going to buy it, or what's going on?
Actually, we sent the letter to notify your cousin that the City was contemplating acquiring this 94 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. property for a specific project and it was sort of an invitation to come to the hearing if he or she had any questions or concerns. The process would be that we would have this hearing, and if the Committee approved the bill -- the bill 9 itself would actually or the ordinance 10 would actually allow the Redevelopment Authority to then make an offer for your property, and if the Redevelopment Authority and your cousin couldn't come to an amicable agreement, we would then file a Declaration of Taking for the property. At that point, the Redevelopment Authority would own the property and we would then have a Board of View hearing. You would present your evidence as to how much it's worth. The Redevelopment Authority would present their hearing, and then an arbiter, a board of three individuals called a Board of View, would determine what the true 95 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. value is. But at the point that we file 3 the Declaration of Taking, we would actually own the property. That's if this bill is reported out of Committee and approved at Council.
If this bill that we're having a hearing on today passes Council, then we will probably proceed. And our time frame would probably be three months or so before we would be making you an offer.
If the bill 18 passes, we would hope to make you an offer within three months and probably file within four months a Declaration of Taking.
96 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. You're welcome.
Let me just add -- and I probably shouldn't be saying this. I probably should have left well enough alone. There are actually a couple of functioning commercial properties and I think your cousin may own one, because he's on Germantown Avenue, right?
I understand that probably a couple of the commercial properties that have been established in that neighborhood may be interested in staying in that neighborhood to continue to operate their retail, to continue to operate their store. If that's the case, I'm sure that through working through the Commerce Department and the City, that they'd be willing to look at you possibly, if you had to relocate, to relocate in that immediate area so you can continue your operation, because I understand that the 97 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. people that go to the store, they're used to the store being there, so they will probably want to continue to be in that area.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table, kindly identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Lillian Rosa Cuertas, and my husband and I, we're the owner of 2842 Germantown Avenue. And ever since this letter notify us about this meeting and we here to know what is going on, because that building we're going to use as a church 98 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. right now. So we want to know what's going on.
Currently, the Housing Authority of Philadelphia, we have a design to bring 50 new residential rental homes to that particular area. There will be some possibility of commercial space consisting of new construction, one, two and three and four-bedroom units. I don't have the site plan in front of me. Someone is in the process of bringing it over to me and I would be better able to tell you exactly what would actually go onto that site, but right now we're looking to put approximately 50 new residential homes on it for low-income individuals.
And you're going to buy this or you're going to relocate us? Because we're a church. So I don't know.
The Redevelopment Authority would, like I said, probably 99 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. within the next two, three months, will begin negotiating with you to purchase the property from you, and in the event that we purchase and/or we had to condemn, we would offer relocation assistance. Essentially, we would try and help you find a new location and we would offer moving assistance for you.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Beverly 100 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Rawls. I'm the Administrator of the House of Hope Christian Center located at 2809 through Germantown Avenue. We're 5 here for the properties listed at 2800, 6 2802 and 2804 Germantown Avenue. 7 First, I'd like to say I 8 approve of your plan to do this area. I 9 grew up in this area and I love 10 Germantown Avenue, and I've seen -- I saw 11 the other one you did, Columbia. It's beautiful. Forgive me, Madam. I'm a little nervous. However, I do not approve of just taking people's properties. We just moved in this area in January of this year and we didn't know about the first bill that came forward, and we purchased those properties. The congregation, we all chipped in together, because we, too, want to see this area beautiful again. We are willing to talk and compromise. However, we just purchased 101 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. those properties. We've been doing some work on those properties. This is my husband, Pastor Ricky Rawls. We are also contractors licensed here in Philadelphia, and we are working on our properties now. So we're here to see what's going on.
The Redevelopment Authority sent you this meeting notice to notify you that we were having a hearing on an ordinance today, and that ordinance 13 contained the three property addresses that you own on Germantown Avenue. If this bill is approved from this Committee and goes to the full Council for vote and is approved there, then the Redevelopment Authority will then begin to acquire these properties. What that will mean to you is that within a couple of months, two to three months, we will send you a letter out saying that we would like to send our appraiser through the properties to get a value, and you would be welcome to 102 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. accompany them. And after he sends in his report to us, we would then make you an offer for those three properties. We would negotiate with you for approximately 30 days. If we were unable to reach an amicable agreement, then we would proceed to Court of Common Pleas to file a Declaration of Taking to acquire the properties, and then a Board of View would determine whether your property value or my appraised value was more reasonable. But the purpose is to acquire the properties to convey to the Philadelphia Housing Authority for a mixed-use development.
What exactly is our rights as owners now to fight that if we don't choose to relinquish our properties over? Because we purchased them as a congregation for the vision that we have in the community, which is also not so much residential but community work.
You're exercising 103 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. one of your rights now, and that's the right to object to it at this hearing, but further down the road as we notify you of events happening, for example, you may or may not choose to accompany our appraiser, you may dispute the appraised price that we offer you, the fair market value price that we offer you. If we do go to court to acquire the properties, you then have 60 days to file a claim in the Court of Common Pleas to stop the acquisition of your property. It's called -- I think the legal name is preliminary objections you would file, and then a judge would hear your case and then the judge will decide, judge of Court of Common Pleas.
Certainly. Good afternoon. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. 104 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. My name is Ricky Rawls. I'm the Pastor of the House of Hope Christian Center on Germantown Avenue. Like my wife said, redevelopment is what we're all about. They want to see the community come up. I mean, that place is tore up. Germantown Avenue needs a lot of work, and we know that we don't possess the funds to bring it to where it needs to be. We don't have a problem with that. We're not here to fight about the redevelopment of Germantown Avenue or anything you're doing in that area. As long as it's fair market value, you have no problem with us. We believe that if you redevelop Germantown Avenue, it's going to help the church a whole lot. We believe it's going to help us in areas that we're not able to do on our own. So you don't have a problem out of us with that there. All we ask is that the offer 105 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. be fair market value, that's it. And as long as it's that there, we're in agreement with it and we look forward to seeing it done.
Do we have anyone else to testify? Please approach the witness table.
My name is Bernie Smith. I'm at 2862 Germantown Avenue. I was listening to everything that was said, and they said that they're going to get in touch with me in a couple of months. I just wanted to say that I was here because I received the letter. So I guess I have to wait and hear whatever they have to say with giving me fair market for my property. 106 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
I guess I have no 5 choice. So I'll wait to hear in the next couple of months.
Fine. Thank you for coming in. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Good afternoon. Kindly state your name, please.
Good afternoon. My name is Judith Robinson and I'm here to testify on all of the bills that are before us today regarding the Redevelopment Authority. I have been attending the Redevelopment Authority Board meetings for several years now, and I have two major concerns. The first is that in fact people do receive fair market value when they're relocated and their property 107 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. is condemned through NTI or whatever development. As I have compared -- and I'm a licensed real estate broker, by the way. As I have compared notes from each hearing over several years, what I've found is that when properties are condemned, the appraisals come back very low. As you well know from reading the newspapers, the market value in Philadelphia overall has very much increased. Even the properties in the worst of condition in the worst of neighborhoods are selling. People are coming from far and wide to purchase properties in even our most neglected areas. So the property value has truly increased. As most people have stated today, it's not so much a concern about beautifying our City development, et cetera, but it's to make sure that everybody rises with this tide, that people in fact are going to be given a 108 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. fair market value when their property is taken. And I have just found that not to be the case. Without being disrespectful to our fellow professionals that are appraisers -- some of these people I know, and I do respect their work, but I do find it very strange that when it comes to condemning a person's property, when it comes to relocating a person, the appraisals are coming in very, very low. I challenge them as professionals on that, because I can document property values increased for even the worst of condition property. The other area on the opposite end of the spectrum that I'm concerned about is the land banking. When the appraisal comes back for land or for a property to be sold by the Redevelopment Authority, all of the sudden we see very high appraisals, very, very high, astronomical. So I just don't understand as a professional how when they condemn a 109 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. property, it comes in so very low and then you can turn around and sell land, for instance, for higher than the cost that you're giving people when you take their properties. Something is out of order, and I'm here today to challenge us to find out what is out of order and to do something about it very soon. Real estate is an asset that creates wealth in our nation. We know that. So no one should have their equity stripped from them through a government process, a sheisty real estate person or any other type of detriment to a homeowner for taking in that wealth building. I know the government is not in the business of trying to make people wealthy when they condemn their homes. Therefore, I think we need to be clear about exactly what we're doing as it relates to this whole process, because in some cases, the government is taking a property from a private citizen, giving 110 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. it to a money-making entity, a developer. These deals are all shmished together. And I'm not going to get into -- I understand them as a real estate professional, but there's subsidies here, there and all of this together that the average citizen doesn't understand. So I think we, the professionals and those of us that have expertise, should break it down for this average citizen, make them understand this process. I am really concerned that the average citizen that would come before us doesn't have knowledge of what their rights are.
Now, I have challenged this at the Redevelopment Authority, and I have to admit they have made some amends, I should say, in that they have a letter that was a little better than the one that they were handing out before to the average citizen, but I really think they need to do something called common language as it relates to what a citizen's rights are when their property 111 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. is condemned by the Redevelopment Authority. For instance, I have found -- and this is real facts from me attending the meetings -- that in most cases, the average citizen never gets beyond the Redevelopment attorneys. The Redevelopment attorneys are negotiating a lot of times with the average citizen. The average citizen doesn't have that knowledge and expertise to be able to back up my market value is X, Y and Z. Rarely -- and you all can correct me if I'm wrong -- rarely does the citizen get to that level to the Board of View. And I respectfully even challenge the Board of View, what are their area of expertise to say yea or nay about fair market value? It's three people. They rarely meet. We read the article about how often they meet. And they just got an increase. Why? Because rarely does the citizen ever get to that point. So eventually a lot of times they skip right past that and end up having to go into 112 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. court, which I'm sure causes an increase in the process. So I would just encourage -- are you the new head of RDA yet, sir?
Just Mr. Koonce to consider a better letter for rights to citizens. I would encourage that you look closer at what your appraisers are giving as fair market value and allow the citizens to challenge. I think rarely is the citizen made aware that there are funds available for them to have a second appraisal. And I just wish that we could, as professionals that understand this stuff better than the average citizen, give more information, be more transparent. And that's just what I would like to add to this hearing today, and I thank you very much for your attention.
You're welcome. Thank you very much for coming in to testify. 113 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 11 060582. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 13 amending Title of The Philadelphia 14 Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by adding a definition and providing for day care in certain commercial districts and as an accessory use to churches and places of worship, all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank you, Madam President. I just have a few comments and acknowledgments. I do want to first say a huge thank you to 114 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Mr. Kramer, along with Tom Chapman, Esquire, Marty Gregorski, Lewis Rosman of the Law Department and Rosalie Leonard for working in doing both the research and creating this legislation we're offering up today. The proposed ordinance amends the Philadelphia Zoning Code to permit day care in commercial districts, which is currently not permitted. Under this ordinance, day care for 12 children or less would be permitted in Class C-1 Commercial Districts and day care centers would be permitted in the Office Commercial District and in the Neighborhood Shopping Center District. As a result, day care in some form would be permitted now in all commercial districts across the City. There are also two substantive changes to the ordinance, a definition of "day care" and clarification that day care is permitted as an accessory use to churches and places of worship. 115 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Currently this is the case, but this ordinance proposes to state that specifically. Thank you, Madam President.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 16 060582, which was introduced by Councilwoman Reynolds Brown June 15th of 2006. The purpose of this bill is to add a definition for day care to the Philadelphia Zoning Code that is consistent with the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania definition. Currently, there is no definition for day care in the Code. The new definition will read 116 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. "An establishment providing care to individuals for periods less than 4 consecutive hours, provided that such day 5 care providers conform to all relevant 6 licensing and/or registration 7 requirements of the Commonwealth of 8 Pennsylvania and the City of 9 Philadelphia." 10 In addition to adding the 11 definition, this bill will add day care 12 as a permitted use in the OC Office 13 Commercial Districts, NSC Neighborhood 14 Shopping Center District, and it will 15 also add day care for 12 or fewer 16 children as a permitted use in the C-1 17 Commercial District. This bill will 18 essentially add day care as a permitted 19 use in the only commercial zoning 20 districts where it presently is not 21 permitted, the effect being that every 22 commercially zoned district will permit 23 some form of day care. 24 Lastly, this bill will permit a church or other place of worship to have 117 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. day care as an accessory use. This will clear up some of the ambiguity of the current Zoning Code regarding this situation. The Planning Commission at its meeting of July 18, 2006 considered Bill 8 060582 and recommended that it be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the Committee on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you again, Mr. Kramer, and to all of those who have worked quite diligently to bring us to this point. Thank you very much.
It is 118 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. my understanding that we have some people that would like to testify. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you. Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman. My name is Allison Anderson Acevedo. I am a child care policy associate with Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth, and I also serve as the Chairperson of the Zoning Subcommittee for the Southeastern Pennsylvania Early Childhood Coalition, which is a regional coalition composed of child care advocates, child care practitioners, families and administrators and School District personnel working to improve the child care facilities and child care quality for families in Southeastern Pennsylvania, particularly low-income families. So I'm representing that group as well as PCCY, which is a local child care advocacy group. 119 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. And I'm also the primary author of a December 2005 report regarding child care zoning called Swimming Upstream - Child Care Providers in the Zoning Process in Philadelphia, and I'm here today in support of Bill No. 060582 affecting child care in Philadelphia and amending the Zoning Code. In Philadelphia, there are approximately 65,000 children under five years old in need of some form of care, and there are about 1,400 child care providers in the City who are licensed and regulated by the City and the State available to provide that care. In Philadelphia alone, about 40 percent of children receiving State subsidy are in programs not subject to State regulation and are often not meeting local regulations. PCCY and our local child care coalition believes that children, particularly the children from neediest families in Philadelphia, deserve 120 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. high-quality care, and the gateway to quality is ensuring that children are in licensed and regulated child care in the system. Zoning approval is one of the first steps we believe on the road to quality. The 2005 report developed some recommendations for the zoning process and recommendations for amendment to the Zoning Code based on review of three data sources. First of all, we conducted a survey of child care providers in Philadelphia. Then we reviewed the child care cases before the Zoning Board of Adjustment in 2004, and then also had a focus group of practitioners who went through the zoning process who told us about their concerns with the zoning process. And one of the key recommendations out of reviewing all of this data was to show that the child care providers in the community wanted to amend the Zoning Code to get some clarification on a few points relating to 121 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. child care zoning issues. The second thing was making revisions to the Code reflecting needs of families in the City and to encourage more practitioners to participate in zoning and ultimately get involved in that licensed and regulated system, which, again, moves folks on to quality child care. And there are really three points based in part on those recommendations but on other factors that we believe are key for moving this legislation forward and why PCCY and our local coalition supports it. First, the three districts are C-1, Neighborhood Shopping Center and Office Commercial District. All three of those districts are good fits for child care. C-1 is often an anchor to a residential neighborhood. For instance, in my neighborhood we have C-1 properties that are zoned C-1 that are, for instance, a barber shop and a retail 122 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. facility that support the needs of a neighborhood that are smaller places. And, again, this bill only allows up to children in C-1, so it would be a good 6 fit for supporting families who need 7 child care in a smaller commercial 8 setting. 9 The second thing is, 10 Neighborhood Shopping Center Districts 11 include businesses such as restaurants, 12 other retail sales and business and professional offices. Office Districts now allow personal service treatment or treatment of patients.
Again, we're adding child care to the list of professional services that are provided, and these would be a good fit for families who are working to support people where they work and where they do business in the Office Districts, in the Neighborhood District and in C-1, support the places where they live. The second thing that we have to keep in mind is that this is zoning 123 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. approval only. This bill relates to approving zoning for child care facilities and for land use. It doesn't allow approval or immediate approval for people or entities to start operating child care. Child care providers who operate in the City of Philadelphia start with zoning approval and start with getting a business privilege license. This is the beginning of the process. What we're doing with this bill is just allowing the land use. Child care providers are still subject to State and local laws that they have to adhere to to make sure that their facility is operating with some sort of quality and safety. And the bill in fact even goes a step further and requires that zoning approval is contingent upon compliance with State and local regulations. So in addition to zoning, after the zoning process is complete and zoning approval is granted, child care providers have to get building plans approved by 124 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. the Licenses and Inspections, review the space in the building, review the building plans to show that there are appropriate exits. The second thing that has to happen is that child care providers have to get an inspection by the Health Department. The Health Department reviews sanitation requirements, reviews food protection requirements, reviews hot water, what is the temperature of water, reviews play equipment. Then above the Health Department, the Licenses and Inspection Department has to come and do another inspection beyond just the building review to make sure that there is appropriate fire safety and fire alarm systems and things like that. So keep in mind that this zoning approval doesn't allow somebody to start operating. It's just in the context of regulating a system and regulating child care. And once in the 125 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. regulated system, once the zoning approval and all these other approvals are granted, then the child care provider can take advantage of certain quality initiatives, like our State quality initiative, Keystone Stars, and also help with the non-profit finance fund to deal with facilities. And the third key point with the legislation is that this legislation focuses on commercial districts. We are not focusing on or not attempting to make residential areas commercial. And I, as a participant and Chair of our local zoning subcommittee for the child care coalition, have observed hearings and have noticed that one of the chief concerns of residents and Council offices is that there is anxiety surrounding the commercialization of a residential area. The proposed bill focuses solely on commercial districts that would be enhanced by inclusion of child care as one of the permitted commercial uses and 126 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. does not attempt at all to redesign the residential landscape of neighborhoods. That's a key point, that we're trying to add child care as a professional use along with some of the area professional services and not moving it into residential neighborhoods. And one other thing that the bill does that is key for providers is that it clarifies the use for faith-based facilities, which, again, Councilwoman Brown mentioned was an issue of concern with the provider community, and it clarifies a definition for child care, which says that it's care for people under 18, not for over a 24-hour period. So that helps providers who want to move into the system to be licensed to get into the license process and to move forward to quality.
So given the large number of children in child care, it's not only wise but imperative that the City laws address finding enough high-quality child 127 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. care for children who need it. So the changes in the Zoning Code do just that. They put people on the path to quality and licensure. Thank you.
Good afternoon, members of the City Council. My name is Donna Johnson Bullock and I'm an attorney with Community Legal Services. I'm actually going to keep my comments brief, as Ms. Allison Acevedo had touched on a lot of the legal issues and the issues surrounding child care, but I do want to share my experiences. Community Legal Services had got involved in child care several years ago, realizing that it was a need for many of our low-income communities and our families, and so we created the Child Care Law Project. Since then, I have been the sole and legal resource for many child care providers in the City of 128 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Philadelphia. In that role, I have represented many child care providers before our own Zoning Board of Adjustment and saw them through the licensing process. I've educated them on their tax responsibilities, their insurance responsibilities and really taught them about the zoning process and licensing process. Through that work, our goal at Community Legal Services is to make sure that child care is available in our most vulnerable communities and that those communities have access to quality child care and that the providers that get involved in this business understand their legal responsibilities, that they employ sound business practices and, most importantly, that they provide a safe place for children. In our experiences, we realized that families and the children in their families usually seek child care near 129 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. places of work or where they reside, and that's usually what a parent is looking for. A parent is also looking for a child care facility that's accessible by bus route or that has flexible hours, that can provide care for a special-needs child, that may provide faith-based care or may provide child care in multiple languages. Today I also stand before you asking for you to support and approve these changes to the Zoning Code to allow child care in C-1 properties, in the Neighborhood Shopping Districts and Office Districts. By expanding day care to these districts, we are providing more child care options for parents in the City of Philadelphia. In the context of my work, the legislation will support the child care providers who want to become licensed and regulated. We have seen many growing home-based child care providers who seek assistance to go through the zoning 130 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. process so that they can either, A, expand their child care within their home or, B, move on to a smaller commercial location such as a storefront. Often times expanded day care in the home is not strongly supported by the community, so a commercial storefront seems to be the more likely situation for a child care provider. A storefront such as a C-1 property offers a small environment that can still encourage a small family-like environment that many parents are looking for. Some parents aren't seeking a large child care center. They want to have a small center where their child can thrive. C-1 properties offer this sort of location and small size and an atmosphere. I would just like to share with you an example of the type of child care facility that we're looking at. Recently, I had the opportunity to work with a woman in the Northeast section of the City. She had a home-based child 131 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. care for four children and she had a waiting list for several families, and she sought to lease a property on Castor Avenue in District 6. It was a small commercial storefront on a commercial corridor. Unfortunately, the property was zoned C-3, and although she had support from the community, we had to go before the Zoning Board, which added a long time to the process as well as additional costs. If she wasn't eligible for my services, she would have also had to hire an attorney.
Nonetheless, the Zoning Board supported her request for a variance, and I had found that almost every C-1 request that I've brought before the Zoning Board for child care was overwhelmingly approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. On several occasions they have told me they preferred to see child care facilities in similar locations such as a C-1. I've also helped child care 132 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. facilities along other small corner stores, locations or Neighborhood Shopping Districts in other parts of the City, in West Philadelphia, North Philadelphia, along Ridge Avenue, Frankford Avenue and Baltimore Avenue. The community organizations, as I mentioned, have overwhelmingly supported child care requests in C-1 properties or Office Districts. However, with the added zoning process, this can delay a child care facility from ever opening up. So on behalf of Community Legal Services and the clients that we serve, I strongly support allowing small day care centers in C-1 properties and expanding day care use in Neighborhood Shopping Malls, Office Districts and faith-based institutions. I encourage City Councilmembers to become champions of child care, to pass this legislation and to promote the availability of more quality child care options for children 133 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. and working parents in the City of Philadelphia. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify in this -- excuse me, please. I think Councilman Clarke would like to be recognized.
Thank you, Madam President. First I'd like to say that how happy I am to see two women from my Council District on each end of the spectrum taking on such a lead role in this very much-needed opportunity for child care in commercial corridors. I want to thank Councilwoman Brown for continuing to play a leadership role in this. It's very encouraging to see 134 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. you guys in a different role as opposed to what I'm used to seeing you in the neighborhood. I will say that you are on the top of your game today. I just had a question with respect to some of the regulations associated with this ordinance and the existing regulations as it relates to child care. I know that now child care require certain aspects. The property in question must have outdoor space, must have certain entrances and exits as it relates to the operations. How does this ordinance phase into the existing regs? Is it essentially an overlay of the existing regs? Will there be any additional requirements or will any of that --
Most of the requirements that you're referring to, Councilman, come out of our building code and what's required for a Certificate of Occupancy. They aren't actually zoning requirements. So those are requirements 135 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. that are coming from the State and other local regulations that Allison had referred to earlier.
The reason I ask that question, because I had a particular operation on Cecil B. Moore Avenue where a gentleman has a barber shop on the first floor and they put a child care facility on the upper floors, and I know they had to go to zoning and there was some issues with respect to the exit and there was no outdoor space and it was --
I'm familiar exactly with that site. I haven't worked with it. When I speak to a child care provider, one of the things if they're looking at a commercial location, particularly in a commercial corridor, I do say that once you get past zoning, you 136 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. will have to address the building code issues, and those issues are, you need to have two means of egress from any level. So when you're using a second floor, if you don't have a rear exit or another means of egress, another stairway, it's not feasible. So it's not going to happen. And those are not things that we're looking to change, because that ensures safety of children. We realize that having those two means of egress allows those children to be able to move and get out of there in case of an emergency. Those are all requirements of the building code.
So all of the commercial spaces that could possibly be utilized for this particular use must comply with all the existing building codes?
Correct. There would be no changes to those existing laws that Donna is speaking about, 137 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Councilman Clarke. The child care provider will still have to meet licensing, L&I building codes, will still have to meet the State child care codes, which is a thick book, which talks about, again, place base and means of egress, and will still have to meet the Health Department standards. So, again, what the Zoning Code changes do is just address the land use piece. None of the other regulatory requirements will be minimalized.
I'm sorry. You want to be recognized regarding Councilman Clarke's ordinance?
Yes. I'm Otis Haigler, Jr., Director of Legislative Affairs for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. What the young ladies have said is absolutely correct, and I would more 138 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. or less add that the ordinance before you today somewhat assists the Department's Zoning Unit in making determinations as to whether or not a day care is an accessory to a church, because it clearly defines that a day care would be an accessory use of a church, and this would in fact help the zoning process. Everything they've said today, by virtue of my experience working with the Department for years and working 13 in various areas of the Department, 14 including plans examination and approvals 15 of plans for building construction, they 16 pretty much touched on everything that we 17 do with regard to that matter. I just 18 wanted to put that into the record. 19
Thank 22 you. 23 The Chair recognizes 24 Councilwoman Miller. 25
Hi. Good 139 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. afternoon. There's a church in my district that's been a day care provider forever, for a long, long time, and so actually they were like a get-set with that age category, and now that the School District has moved their day care into a local school to save rent, there's a private day care that actually wants to open in that space, and the church wants them to do that. I was pretty surprised to find out that because that day care, the private day care, services children younger -- because I think they even have infants and the other day care started at age three -- that they may have to go for zoning also. So there's a difference in the zoning when you are serving young infant-type children instead of the three and up?
Yes. More recently, the Zoning Unit has required to put the ages -- which the age bracket 140 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. that you're looking at is the two and a half age. The reason being is, if I'm correct, is the building code, once you have more than five children under the age of two and a half, it kicks you into another use in the building code requiring sprinklers and a number of other requirements because of that age group. So to address it, they take care of it right in the Zoning Unit. They want to have it clearly defined the number of children you'll have under two and a half so that they know what use you would be for the building code, and that goes back, again, to fire safety and getting those children out of that building safely.
Okay. I just didn't know that. This is actually the first time we've received that type. And you said this is a recent change?
Right. The building code was changed a couple years ago, in 2003, and so it clarified a lot 141 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. of things for how we should be doing these permits. One of the other things that you probably noticed with that church, Councilwoman, is that there was an outside entity operating the day care use, and that had been one of the issues that was not clear in the Zoning Code, whether or not if the church was operating the day care facility or if they allowed an outside entity to come in and operate the day care facility, whether or not that was permitted under an accessory use. So these are some of the things that we were looking to clarify with this legislation.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. 142 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Mr. Haigler, are you in the DROP program?
I think if in fact you do leave, we may have able replacements.
Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. Identify yourself for the record, please.
Good afternoon. My name is Christie Balka. I'm the Director of Child Care and Budget Policy for Philadelphia Citizens for Children and Youth. However, I'm here to read 143 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. testimony for Sharon Easterling, who is the Executive Director of the Delaware Valley Association for the Education of Young Children. Unfortunately, she couldn't stay until this point and asked me to read her testimony. My name is Sharon Easterling. I'm the Executive Director of Delaware Valley Association for the Education of Young Children. DVAEYC is a non-profit --
Excuse me. I don't mean to interrupt you, but if that statement is rather lengthy, we can make copies of it, make it part of the record. Is it very lengthy? Because we do have a number of bills to go over yet and it's getting late.
I will give you copies to share with colleagues and to read yourselves. The gist of the statement is that DVAEYC supports the proposed bill because it will get child 144 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. care providers that are currently unlicensed on the right track and into the regulatory system and the quality of child care centers for all children in Philadelphia will improve.
Thank you. And if you would give us a copy of that, we'll give it to the stenographer and it will be made part of the record. Thank you very much. We appreciate your patience. Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 22 060621. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of 145 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 57th Street, Market Street, 56th Street and Chestnut Street.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060621, which was introduced by Councilmember Blackwell September 14, 2006. This bill rezones a block bounded by 56th Street, Market Street, 57th Street and Chestnut Street from a current zoning designation of G-2 General Industrial to a designation of ASC, or Area Shopping Center. The site currently houses a Fresh Grocer supermarket and a Rite Aid drugstore. The zoning change is intended to reflect the existing land use for this block and will also protect the 146 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. existing surrounding residential community from the possibility of the property being utilized for uses allowed under the G-2 General Industrial classification which are not residentially friendly. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of October 17, 2006 considered Bill 060621 and recommended its approval. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Is there going to be any development within the rezoned area in the immediate future?
Not that I am aware of. There are no plans pending in our office for such.
Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.) 147 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060625. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by the Delaware River, the Tacony Bridge, Eldridge Street, New State Road and Magee Avenue.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I'm the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill 060625, which was introduced by Councilmember Krajewski September 14, 2006. This bill represents the addition of 3.5 acres to a previously approved RC-6 development of the former 148 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Dodge Steel site located to the north of the Tacony Palmyra Bridge. At the Planning Commission of May 31, 2005, the Commission approved a rezoning of 6 acres and adopted a Master Plan for an 7 RC-6 development at this site. This bill 8 will rezone an additional 3.5 acres to 9 the RC-6 classification and require the 10 amendment of the existing Master Plan of 11 development. 12 The amendment to the Master 13 Plan would allow for the construction of 14 16 buildings providing 570 dwelling 15 units. Seven of the structures will be 16 four stories in height, with the 17 remaining nine being five stories. The 18 plan also provides for 1,005 parking 19 spaces and leaves 3.5 acres of the site vacant to be developed as parkland. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of September 19, 2006 considered Bill 060625 and recommended its approval. Additionally, the Planning Commission considered and approved 149 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. amendments to the RC-6 Master Plan for this location. At the request of the Law Department, I request that the bill be amended to make certain technical corrections to the bill. The first is a spelling correction in one of the street names, and the maps need to be amended to reflect streets that are currently on the City Plan. These amendments do not change the substance of the ordinance. I thank you for your consideration. I would happy to answer any questions of the Committee. I also do have a copy of the Master Plan, if you care to see it.
Can we have the amendments, please? Mr. Kramer, is the additional 3.5 acres that are to be rezoned pursuant to this ordinance necessary for the 150 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. project already in place on the Master Plan?
Yes, ma'am, they are, and the reason for that is, the originally approved Master Plan was a different type of development. When the owner, who is a first holdings limited corporation -- actually, it's Mr. Deemer -- requested this amendment, he was amending it -- the original plan called for eight buildings with 652 units. It's currently being amended to be lesser units, less parking, but lesser height in the building. The original height of several of these buildings was 16 stories tall. He found that the construction costs were prohibitive and went to change the plan to lay out where the buildings were going to be and the like and found that he needed additional open area. So he acquired this additional 3.5 acres specifically to leave it open, which is what he's going to do. And in addition to that, he is 151 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. turning it back over to the City to allow it to be used as a trailhead for parkland along the waterfront right starting at the Tacony Bridge.
Can you tell us when it is anticipated that this project will be completed, when it will start, when it will be completed?
At this point, they can't even start it until they get this approval, so that they have not done the engineering. I would anticipate six months to a year before they actually turn soil.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
152 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Seeing none, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the last bill, 060635. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 5 repealing Section 2 of the ordinance, Bill No. 050418, approved December 1, 2005, entitled "An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Fairmount Avenue, Front Street, Brown Street, I-95, Poplar Street, Front Street, Laurel Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Canal Street and Poplar Street.
Madam President, I do not have any specific testimony on this bill, in that it is just repealing a section of a previously approved bill and doesn't really affect the Zoning Code or the Zoning Maps at this time, but I will be happy to answer any questions you may have. 153 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC.
I don't have any questions if it's just repealing. I don't know that anybody on the Committee has.
Mr. Christmas is asking for a suspension of the rules on Bill 060635 so as to have first hearing at the next Councilmanic session.
On Bill 060635, the one that appeals that section. He would also like the same suspension of rules for Bill 060621, which was the rezoning bill at 57th and Market.
Okay. Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this last bill? It's the repeal of the bill. (No response.)
This will conclude the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes 154 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. Councilmember Clarke regarding Bill No. 3 060544.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam Chair, I make a motion that Bill No. 060544 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 060544 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The 155 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 5 060585.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 060585 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation with a rules suspension to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 060585 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The 156 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown regarding Bill No. 5 060582.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 060582 as amended be --
I move that Bill 060685 be amended, approved for an amendment. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendments have been adopted. 157 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. The Chair again recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 060582 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 11 060582 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller regarding Bill No. 22 060621.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 25 060621 be reported out of this Committee 158 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to be considered at our next hearing. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 9 060621 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit consideration at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060625.
Thank you, Madam President. I move for the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 060625. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as presented be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I move that Bill 060625 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation with a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council.
Did 160 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. anyone ask for a rules suspension?
No rules suspension. I'll say it over again. Madam President, I move that Bill 060625 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 12 060625 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 23 060631.
Madam President, I move that Bill 060631 be 161 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 7 060631 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060635.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 060635 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation.
With a request for a suspension of the rules to 162 10/19/06 - RULES - BILL 060544, ETC. allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 7 060635 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. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Thank you all very much for your patience. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 3:45 p.m.) - - - 163 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on October 19, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)