landscape plan the gates that i mentioned providing or not providing access to the public
to part of this pathway that goes only on half of the site to the east it's about 200 feet
but you can see also on the left because the building and the parking has ignored the 50
foot setback and it's being pushed to as far as it can which is where the floodway changes to the
floodplain that there is no room by the river's edge wall to continue a pathway that some of the
members asked about it's planted at the moment but it reduces down to almost just about three feet
at best but it's also planted so people coming into the the public area if it is open to the
public could only go in a small area and all of that planting would be decimated the first time
there's a flood not necessarily a flood of 10 feet which is the worst case but just floods of
three four or five feet which would objection speculation thank you um i think with that um
i would conclude by saying that we believe that we would like to see um a development
on this piece of land we don't want it to be left as it is for the last nine years
sorry seven years neglected and open and we understand that you know some retailers and
some neighbors are concerned about that but this is not the scheme that should be provided a variance
to proceed and we think that we concur with both the planning commission recommendation in 2016
16, with the CDR's recommendation, which where they voiced serious concerns on a basic level
for this development in 2023. And the program manager for the city, Elaine Montes, her conclusion
when she gave testimony on July 16, was that this development was unsafe and irresponsible.
And we completely agree with her. Thank you.
Mr. Laver, do you have questions?
I think that I can clarify in a few responsive statements, Chairman Bergman.
Go ahead.
Thank you.
We've just heard a lot of speculation.
Can we please stop screen sharing?
Sorry.
Mr. Chairman and members of the board, unfortunately, we've just heard a lot of speculation and unqualified testimony.
We attempted to be respectful and not to interrupt too much to allow the voice of the coordinating RCO to be heard.
We have a really important public policy issue before us right now.
Plans have been refined in response to input from many different sources over the period of three years, and the suggestion has been made that Mr. al-Haddad perhaps did something wrong by updating the plans.
But public policy would encourage applicants to be responsive to community input, to the input of the various boards and stakeholders and officials who offer their thoughts.
specifically in response to Mr. Hunter's testimony and written statement which we received a few
minutes before five o'clock yesterday we have a vote from the coordinating RCO from it appears
11 or 12 people who voted in opposition we have the statement made that parking is insufficient
However, 3 to 10 parking, a very common high ratio of parking in the city, would be 35 spaces, whereas the plans have been revised to provide 46 spaces at street level, not below grade.
The contention has been made that there will be a loss of commercial parking for the commercial users across the street.
parking for the commercial users across the street. As the record shows, the commercial
As the record shows,
user across the street is in support of this project. Furthermore, this site, the subject
property, is not zoned for parking. Mr. al-Haddad has attempted over the years to
to put in fencing for safety and protection, which has been taken down by others.
Any parking that's occurring on that property right now, quite frankly, is trespassing.
But Mr. Al-Haddad is trying to be a good neighbor.
And actually the support, I suppose, of many of the nearest neighbors speaks to that.
The submission that was made to the board states that the proposal is out of scale with the historic district.
Although we would concede that we are close to the historic district, the subject property is not in the historic district.
And what's perhaps most troubling is that MNC purports to be recognized without basis as flood resiliency experts.
And in a very complete record before the board, the applicant submitted the testimony written and verbal of several actual experts, and that's fully in the record.
There are also unclear references that have been made to other cases, proceedings, another case that I may be bringing before the board that's completely unrelated.
All of that is irrelevant.
Regarding Hurricane Ida and the photos that we saw a few moments ago, they are very powerful.
Photos from across the city of Philadelphia of that dreadful flood are shocking.
I still have photos on my phone of Vine Street Expressway in Center City being completely submerged and flowing like a river.
Multiple locations throughout our region were impacted.
Yet, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, we have not abandoned those locations.
So what do we do?
Do we champion responsible land use?
Do we recognize the right of a property owner to do something appropriate with his or her property?
References were also made in testimony today to Venice Island.
The subject property is not an island.
It is not Venice Island.
It's located on Main Street.
And those references are quite misleading.
We object to the consideration of an unsigned flood analysis report from a quarter century ago, which was submitted to the board by MNC yesterday.
A lot has happened since then.
So what's most relevant is that there is engineering in place for responsible development.
Clayton Smith of Taylor Wiseman and Taylor is the engineer of record.
And we have eConsult and also Dr. Cohen, true experts who have presented testimony and reports that the board has reviewed.
And I know that there was extensive questioning in our last hearing.
So we're left, Mr. Chairman and members of the board, with, do we perpetuate parking lots and self-storage, or do we allow appropriate use of property here in Philadelphia?
I don't think it's necessary to ask specific questions at this time.
Very much.
Hillary, our next step would be planning.
Yes, Mr. Chairman.
Planning Commission, please.
Amy Boyd with the Planning Commission.
The proposal completed its Civic Design Review in October 23.
The Civic Design Review Committee's advisory recommendations are not an expression of the City Planning Commission's recommendations or opinions regarding zoning invariances, special exemptions, or other discretionary approvals associated with this proposal.
The City rezoned this property in 2014 from industrial to general industry to ICMX, industrial and commercial mixed use.
The site is within the floodplain and within the special flood hazard area.
The comprehensive plan recommends a change in zoning at this location to CMX2 commercial mixed use to encourage commercial development.
While residential use at the proposed density would be allowed under the recommended CMX2 zoning,
would be allowed under the recommended CMX2 zoning. The appellant has not shown
The appellant has not shown.
that approximately 24 additional feet in height is required to afford the appellant relief.
We also note for the board that absent participation in city, state, or federal program
or a city zoning initiative affordability mentioned in the appellant's testimony cannot
be enforced by any city agency. The City Planning Commission remains concerned about placing
substantial residential proposal in a location with proven flood risk and with less than the
required waterfront setback? Just a couple questions, if I may, Chairman Bergman? Sure.
Thank you. Ms. Boyd, thank you for sharing the Philadelphia City Planning Commission's
recommendation today. In formulating your recommendation, the recommendation of the
Planning Commission, did you have the opportunity to fully review Clayton Smith's report, Dr.
William Cohen's report, and Dr. Peter Angelides' reports?
Thank you for your question, Mr. Lieber.
I will not be answering questions.
In that case, nothing further, Chairman Bergman.
Thank you very much.
We're going to hold this vote for two weeks.
Am I right, Hillary, two?
Yes, Mr. Chair, December 4th.
December 4th, and we will vote on this at 9.30 a.m., Mr. Laver.
Thank you, Chairman Bergman and members of the board.
Happy Thanksgiving to everyone.
Thank you, and thank you, Mr. Laver, and thank you, Mr. Hunter, for your testimony today.
Thank you.
Is there anyone in the virtual audience whose case has not been called?
I see no hands.
Thanks, everyone.
See everyone tomorrow morning.
Great job, everyone.
Good afternoon, everybody.