COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, October 29, 2003 2:10 p.m. - - - - BILL 030395, BILL 030488, BILL 030564, BILL 030565, BILL 030566, BILL 030628, BILL 030644, BILL 030645, BILL 030657, BILL 030658 PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILMAN ANGEL ORTIZ COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN RICHARD MARIANO COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 030645 WENDELL YOUNG, IV, UFCW Local 1776 ........ PAT IDING, AFL-CIO......................... 28 BOB BURNS, Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters......................... 36 GUY PIACCELLI, Regional Council of Carpenters Union...................... 37 MICHAEL SKAROFF, Esquire................... 51 DOUGLAS GRASON, Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust...................... 55 BILL 030395 THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Commission........ 59 CARL PRIMAVERA............................. 60 ROBERT FRIEDMAN, Goldenberg Group.......... 62 BILL 030488 THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Commission........ 63 STEVE PALMER, Goldenberg Group............. 65 BILL 030564, 030565 THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Commission........ 68 LOUIS ROSMAN, Law Department............... 72 BILL 030566 THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Commission........ 76 BILL 030628 THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Commission........ 78 GREG SPEARMAN.............................. 83 RUBY GRANT................................. 92 CYNTHIA PRESTON............................ 93 MARVIN T. MOY, SR.......................... 95 HELEN WRIGHT.............................. 103 WILLIAM WRIGHT............................ 104 MATTHEW FUNCHON, Penn Distributors........ 106 BILL 030644 THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Commission....... 116 ALBERT M. TANTALA......................... 117 BILL 030657 THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Commission....... 118 ROBERT RIVELLI, East Passyunk Avenue Business District.............. 119 BILL 030658 THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Commission....... 123 MARY TRACY, SCRUB......................... 124 3 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645
Good afternoon, ladies and gentlemen. Can we have your attention please? Council Committee on Rules is now in session. This is a large group of people here today, so any conversations that need to be had could please be had in the hallway. It would be much easier for us and for the stenographer. A quorum is present: Councilmembers Rizzo, O'Neill, Council President Verna, Councilman Kenney and Councilman Nutter. The first bill for consideration today is Bill No. 030645, which is an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code relating to "Zoning and Planning" by amending Chapter 14-1600 entitled miscellaneous by adding a new section 17 14-1628 entitled "Zoning and Construction Permits for Retail Stores," all under certain terms and conditions. Is there anyone from the Administration here to testify on this bill?
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. I don't have testimony on this bill this afternoon 4 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 because this bill just happened to fall into a time period of where it was introduced in between Planning Commissions meetings so we haven't considered it formally.
So the Planning Commission has no official position on it today?
Thank you. Mr. Wendell Young and Mr. Pat Iding, would you please go to the table together? Whoever would like to start first, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your young.
I'm Wendell Young, President of the United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1776, and my son Wendell, IV, is going to do the testifying.
I apologize. We had a little caucus. That happens once in a while.
No problem. Please identify yourself, please. 5 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645
My name is Wendell Young, IV. I'm a representative with United Food and Commercial Workers, Local 1776. I want to thank you today for allowing me to appear before you to discuss Bill No. 6 030645. This is important legislation that will limit the so-called big box retailers in Philadelphia City Limits. Although many of the examples I will give in this testimony may relate to Wal-Mart, that should not be taken as meaning that this legislation is targeted towards that company. However, they are the largest employer in the nation as well as in Pennsylvania. They are the largest force and super center development and have the greatest impact on community development because of their size; and therefore, they are the most watched and studied. Other companies also build big box super centers, and my comments reflect on the sector as a whole, not just Wal-Mart. Across the country, 90,000 UFCW are locked out and on strike. In California alone 70,000 workers are in picket lines. The companies, the union, and independent industry analysts all agree that the biggest reason for this labor unrest is Wal-Mart and their plans to begin opening super 6 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 centers in California. Just like in the Philadelphia region, there are not many super centers in California, but the plans are already in motion. This legislation does not limit a stores ability to open in the City, but does put some limits on general size what sort of goods can be sold in certain types of store. It says that no 10 store that sells food shall be larger 180,000 square feet and that no store larger than 90,000 square feet can have more than 10 percent of its sales space in total sales volume dedicated nontaxable food items and other related items. This proposed law also requires studies about the economic impact of such a store, including the effect on an area's existing workforce and taxes. This is important information for zoning officers to have when deciding on allowing such retail development. This is not to say that UFCW Local 1776 is in any way against retail development. We are against the kind of development that trades good jobs for bad ones, and we're for the kind of development that will bring in jobs that pay a living wage, provide adequately for healthcare 7 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 insurance and other benefit needs of their employees and generally assist in the development of a community, not tear it down. A June 2003 American Demographic Study included in the handouts of what's known as pull factors in Maine showed very clearly that there is no added sales draw if a big box store opens. The pull factor is calculated by dividing the per capita income from a region by the average per capita retail sales. There was a marked decline in pull factor in 70 percent of the communities that open Wal-Marts. In short, any Wal-Mart or other super center does not create business, it only steals from existing retailers. We witnessed the same negative pull factor when Carrefour opened its super center in Northeast Philadelphia in 1988, Carrefour's weekly business of 600,000 to $1 million resulted in five neighborhood supermarkets closing in the first year alone, followed by several more supermarkets closing during their five years of operation. What did the City have to show for it? As soon as the City's tax abatements were exhausted, Carrefour closed its doors, putting the lesser paid replacement workers 8 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 out of a job as well. The first super center experience in Philadelphia is when Carrefour killed Philly twice: First, by destroying the grocery stores in the neighborhoods and their good jobs, including managers, administrators, and office workers; then by closing down and killing off the lower wage replacement jobs. The growing power of super centers is shown by one frightening statistic: 82 percent of families made at least one purchase out of Wal-Mart last year in this country.
Why is that dangerous when any one company has such a long, powerful reach, it can and does set trends for the entire business community. In an October 6th story in Business Week, they said at Wal-Mart everyday low prices is more than just a slogan; it's a fundamental tenet of a culture masquerading as a company. The article looked into many aspects of their business culture and found several disturbing trends. I've put a copy of this article in the information passed out to you. Wages at super centers are well below others in the retail industry. A study by the United Food and Commercial 9 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 Workers International Union as well other independent studies by other analysts found that they paid 30 percent less than other retail outlets. This may not sound too bad, but it means that the average Wal-Mart associate earns $13,861 per year. The federal poverty line is 14,631. In contrast, local companies here, Acme, Super Fresh, and Shop Rite pay more per year for employee benefits than Wal-mart and other super centers pay for a year's worth of wages for their own employees. Paying below the poverty rate translate into extra cost for taxpayers. Wal-Mart associates are largely unable to afford the company healthcare plan and therefore are applying for state-based aid programs. At Wal-mart and other super centers, only about 38 percent of the employees are covered. With premiums and co-pays making them pay about 50 percent of the health insurance plan costs. This meager coverage leads most associates to rely on community hospitals and often leaves them unable to pay bills, further adding to the escalating cost of healthcare on the rest of us. Compare this to a national average of 60 percent of the country's workers that are covered by employer-based health 10 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 insurance, requiring them to contribute 28 percent of the total cost of these plans. And that includes all workers, union and non-union. In many states, Pennsylvania included, low wages paid by super centers mean that employees qualify for federally funded food stamps and State's Child Health Insurance Program, CHIP, as it's well known, as well as the Adult Basic Care Program. In fact, the majority of workers at super centers receive some form of taxpayer funded help. 50 per hour. Regular full and part-time grocery store members of Local 1776 earn 12 to $14 per hour on average, and more within the full-time rank. Full-time employees alone make between 14 and $19 per hour in our Acme, Superfresh and Shop Rite stores. Big box jobs are not the kind of jobs that will help with the revitalization of Philadelphia. Some can say that this legislation is anti-capitalist or against the free market. Nothing could be further from the truth. It's completely false to suggest that these retailers who get tax breaks, community development funding, and other 11 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 taxpayer funds are competing in the free market. This is corporate welfare run amuck. We are not anti-development; we are for smarter development. All this says nothing about the multiple lawsuits filed against Wal-Mart. They are being sued for forcing employees to work off the clock, for improper payment of overtime, and recently they had the largest civil rights suit in history filed against them for gender discrimination. There have also been charges of racial discrimination. In one case, a woman is suing Wal-Mart because she was fired for simply being married to a black man. And as we witnessed just this past week, they are the target of a federal sweep and investigation over 16 states, including Pennsylvania, for violations 17 related to the hiring and abuse of undocumented 18 foreign workers. 19 Small and mid-sized manufacturers have 20 also expressed concern over the predatory pricing at Wal-Mart. org. Fred Tedesco, owner of PA Ted Spring company said, "They're destroying small medium sized businesses. They're destroying the middle class.
" 12 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 In 1997, Professors Edward Shills (ph) and George Taylor from Wharton found that for every two jobs created when a super center opens, three higher paying jobs are lost. These job losses come from the businesses that Philadelphia needs to continue to grow. They come from the other retailers in the City who have invested here for many years, from the mom and pop stores, from the businesses that someone has just started. 3 million person workforce to quit this year alone. That begs the question, why are people quitting a job in such a tight labor market? If the wages, benefits and work conditions at super centers is so positive as their executives claim, why would people be quitting in such numbers. We need the kind of jobs that people stay at for years to really provide the economic growth that Philadelphia is capable of. Developers on behalf of super centers, such as Wal-Mart, before they open a store come to town armed with rosy predictions of booming job growth, an increase in property taxes and shining tales of success. They don't tell you that a study 13 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 in Maryland found that personal property tax receipts growths slowed in the years after a Wal-Mart was built. They don't tell you that the same report found that the expected growth in income taxes may have been offset by low-wage jobs offered by the large retailer and the loss of employment in competing businesses. I urge you to take a moment to compare Wal-Mart's promises to reality. I'm sure that you remember what they said before they opened the Columbus Boulevard store here in Philadelphia. You can see the impact. Does their rhetoric match up to the reality? Philadelphia would be one City in a growing list that are taking a stand to help manage their growth by passing legislation like this. Ashland, Oregon, passed a bill that limits retail stores to 45,000 square feet. Roxborough, Maine, limited new retail stores to only 25,000 square feet. And just last month, Phoenix, Arizona, passed a similar big box bill. Cities and towns across the country are taking a stand against the increased traffic, the increase in crime, the increased demands on CITY 14 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 services and voting to limit these super centers. This trend is also growing internationally. Ireland and Norway have both passed laws limiting new retail operations to about 32,000 square feet, joining others who have already done so. France, who really invented the super center concept as I mentioned with Carrefour back in the '80s instituted laws nationally after they realized the negative impact the hyper-markets, which are super centers, had on many of their towns and cities. In Ithaca, New York, they were faced with the question of Wal-Mart in 1994. The company promised a gain 405,000 to 490,000 in yearly property and sales tax receipts. A June 1994 article in the Ithaca Hours reported that when a study by RKG consultants looked deeper into it, they found to keep the Center City business district alive, the City would have to offer free parking in Center City at a cost of $865,000 per year. This just doesn't make good fiscal sense. One of the keys to stimulating the local retail sales is known as the multiplier effect. 3 times 15 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 more within the area. With their low wages, very little is re-spent locally by money that goes to SUPER centers. And in Wal-Mart's case, their profits go straight to Bentonville or on to China and Mexico where many of their products are made in sweat shop conditions. UFCW Local 1776 has 22,000 members across Pennsylvania, 9,000 of whom live and work in Philadelphia. These are the individuals that are affected by the explosion of big box retailers. They are losing their jobs in record numbers. Over the past five years, Wal-Mart has become the largest employer in the State of Pennsylvania.
Local 1776 has lost over 6,000 due to super center development throughout Pennsylvania. Local 1776 is trying to help Philadelphia and the Council and Administration with new ways to bring retail business into the City. We will be happy to continue to do so. We just want to make sure that the kinds of stores that are opening are ones that will help all Philadelphians. Super centers are not the answer to Philadelphia needs. They destroy jobs, communities, and eat at a municipality's tax base without an 16 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 appreciable return to the community. On behalf of the members of Local 1776, we urge you to pass Bill 030604, and we will continue to work with the Council, the Mayor and others to help this City grow and prosper. I'd like to add a few comments. I mentioned some numbers about the losses of our membership. Sometimes it's hard when you're here looking at what you think the impact might be to realize what that really is. And it's especially hard when people are dangling big box development as a way to bring hundreds of jobs. And some of you we've had this conversation with over the years, whether it was the Christopher Columbus Boulevard store, the Carrefour store up in Councilman O'Neill's district. But the reality is that Carrefour store hurt. Those five stores had people that counted their service in decades that close in that first year and four or five more in the years that followed. And the minute those tax abatements ran out, they were out of here. That doesn't say that everybody is going to do the same in terms of running out of here when tax abatements are up, but what has happened all across the country, we asked 17 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 you not to ignore. It is too easy for a developer to walk in here or someone else to say because it creates a temporary construction job that this is good. This is not good for Philadelphia. It has been bad for a lot of other places. And we don't have to go too far into the midwest or west to go look at it, as we had to a few years ago. Right here in Pennsylvania you can go from town to town and see what happened local business districts, shopping centers, other businesses, retail manufacturers. We represent workers in a number of fields. This doesn't just squeeze people in the retail sector, it squeezes people in the whole supply line. But in terms of retail, I say we have loss over 6,000 jobs. More if you include the non-union employees of those firms and management, clerical and administrative jobs. They are very real jobs. They worked for companies like Caldor's, Bradlee's, Shop Rite, Acme, Superfresh, A&P, Bilow, and Riverside Markets, a number of other markets around the state. In the Lehigh Valley, if you go there now and you drive through Lehigh valley, 18 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 Allentown, Easton, and Bethlehem, you cannot find one union grocery store. And the only reason why is because -- and the developers know this. They're in their years -- Mark Kaplan over there, he's in there years ahead of time on behalf of their clients trying to line up these deals, and the other retailers know it too, because the Realtors all talk. The companies that would provide the better jobs can't compete against this force so they quickly do not renegotiate leases and do not reinvest in the reconstruction and renovation and modernization of stores. The very work that all these carpenters and painters and glazers have enjoyed from Acme Superfresh and Shop Rite all these years and will enjoy many years to come is what's gone in the Lehigh value. And it's gone in almost entire in northeastern Pennsylvania. So I don't come here -- I had some people almost laugh at me when I went around and talked about this with some of the officials here resenting about losing 6 to 7,000 jobs, because they didn't see it happen here yet because you don't have super center here yet.
Go with me to Allentown, go out to Lancaster, go our to York, Hanover, go up to the 19 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 Lehigh Valley, go up to northeastern Pennsylvania. Six to seven thousand good jobs above poverty level, good benefit plans, pensions are gone. And those people can't even get jobs as minimum wage greeters at because Wal-Mart won't hire them and Target won't hire them and Kmart won't hire them because they knew better. Those people enjoyed a better standard of living. So I come here urging on behalf of those members not to put them out of work here in Philadelphia too. Thank you.
Thank you very much. What's the oldest municipality -- how long ago was the first bill limiting --
Well, the first one I'm aware of was the country of France, and I don't know which year, but in the '80s I testified about that here earlier when we had some other big box development.
I'm not sure. I believe Long Beach, California, enacted one a couple of years ago. I don't have the detail on that. I think we provided a list with the handouts of some other 20 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 places where this is done. It's also been a recent trend.
Is there any information available from the cities that have passed these types of legislation whether or not Wal-Mart or any of these other large super centers have developed immediately outside of the municipality? My concern is that if this bill passes, which is laudable and I understand your testimony very clearly, what would keep Wal-Mart from opening a super center across the county line in Bucks County or Montgomery County? And would they not then draw similarly from the same group of people if they were inside the City?
The only think I could answer -- I can't speak for Wal-Mart and I'm sure they would tell you that I'm guessing, that they would develop anyway. But those few locations that would be close enough and draw I think would be far out weighed by the fact that they have this way huge chunk of land in Philadelphia that they wouldn't be able to do it. I think it would also decrease the amount of locations that they would consider 21 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 elsewhere. For example, Wal-Mart eyeballed this area long before today. I was here in this same chamber -- well, the other before it was rained on -- years ago testifying about many of the same issues where many sites, well over 50, 60 sites in Pennsylvania were being eyeballed. Many of those sites, like Philadelphia, ended up being regular Wal-Mart stores, not super centers. Where they built them ground up, I think they built them with an eye for expanding the super centers when they get enough critical base here. Philadelphia's key to that critical base. From a marketing, advertising, distribution, transportation point of view, Philadelphia is key to their ability to do that well throughout the five-county area. And for that reason, I think it's important Philadelphia step to the plate and protect the jobs that have been invested in here for so long.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, Mr. Young. Just to follow-up on the Chairman's comments, I too 22 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 appreciate your testimony and the concerns related to your testimony and some of the things that the company Wal-Mart has been neglectful of in terms of hiring people at decent wages and the benefits that they deserve. You are aware, and I'm sure everyone in this room is probably aware that the genesis behind probably what this bill has to relate to is the proposed development of a Wal-Mart on Allegheny Avenue adjacent to the Northeast Hospital.
Well, you can if you want. There are many issues that involve Wal-Mart; there's no question about it. But you are aware of a proposed Wal-Mart development site on Allegheny Avenue?
You also are aware that I've been in negotiations or conducted several meetings over the last several moths to try to figure out a way in which we can develop that site, whether it be a Wal-Mart or not.
Unfortunately or fortunately, depending on which side you're on, the only developer that came forward to develop that site is someone who wants to develop a Wal-Mart. During some of those negotiations that I've been involved with, it has been agreed to, although not in writing yet, should I, Councilman DiCicco, move forward with a zoning change for that site that would allow a shopping center that the Wal-Mart to be developed there would not be a super Wal-Mart. So my question is, if it were not a super Wal-Mart and the size and space of the food area, the area where sale of food would take place were limited, would there still be an objection to that site being developed?
If this bill were approved, no, there would not if it fell within those parameters.
Well, this bill 22 aside, no matter what happens, whether this bill is passed or not, that site, that particular site on Allegheny Avenue would require an ordinance 25 introduced by the District Councilperson. And at 24 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 least up until December 31st of this year, it will be me. Would require that introduction before anything could happen. Whether this bill passes or not or whether it existed or not before today. So if I can carve out those agreements and get the limited space and this would be in a deed restriction that it would not be --
I've already discussed that. I've already discussed the deed restriction that would limit this to not to become a super Wal-Mart and limit the size that was of an appropriate size. Maybe the 10 percent, but I'm sure so I'm not going to go on the record saying it would be 10 percent, because I don't know what we already agreed to. I know it was a minimal amount, but I don't remember on that particular site whether it was 10 percent or percent, but it was in that 20 range. And I understand big box stuff. I don't like boxes, personally. People tell me I live in a time warp because I still like to shop in my neighborhood. Have I ever been to a Wal-Mart, have I ever been to a Home Depot? Yes. Only when I 25 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 can't find what I'm looking for in other places. But that's me. Unfortunately, Americana has changed, shopping habits in this country have changed. People for some reason are drawn to the big boxes. Although, again, I'm not someone who promotes those things. What I am promoting is economic development. And we can differ on the operation of Wal-Mart and how it treats its employees. Certainly, we would not disagree on those things; we would agree. But I have a vacant warehouse that's sitting on Allegheny Avenue taking up about two square blocks. I tried desperately for five years to keep the company there. It was a printing company. We worked with every agency in the City to keep them there. After three years, they just had to fold their tent and leave, unfortunately. That blighted property is doing no 19 one in that community any service. I wish it was something other than Wal-Mart, but no one else has stepped up to the plate. So there are jobs all the way around. There are jobs for the trades folks. And I understand that the trades might be divided on this issue. Carpenters want it; electricians don't. You know, we've all got to come together and figure 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 something out here because the last thing I want during my watch is to keep that building vacant. So, again, I'm going to be working -- whether this bill comes out of this committee favorably, whether it gets voted on or not, I'm going to work as best I can to address the concerns of your folks. And a deed restriction will be that tool that I will use.
I appreciate your efforts. And if I can comment a little bit, there's no doubt that what's happened down in your district on the site you mentioned is part of why we're here, but it's not the only reason. We've been active since Carrefour came here in the late '80s on community development issues throughout Pennsylvania, a lot of it throughout southeastern Pennsylvania, we've appeared before many a township council and other groups like yourself talking about the same issues. There's people here in the audience today from as far away as Lancaster participate in the same efforts on behalf of their communities. We've one some, we've lost some. In the five-county area, we've one quite a few. Where we have Wal-marts in the five-county area and other companies that build 27 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 the same kind of big boxes, they are not super centers, in a large part because of that that activity. But some of the them have the capability of being enlarged. And when you open the door for a regular store -- and since I brought up Wal-Mart as the example, I'll continue to use that example. When you open up the door with a new facility to build a Wal-Mart and down the road you don't know whether nearby tenants are going to leave, go vacant or land becomes available. The opportunity is then there for expansion. They've now built up a base of stores in this area. And as well as you may protect the issues we're concerned about in that Aramingo Avenue area store, the other stores that could materialize whether it's at Whitman's Chocolate or other places, someone may not be as vigilant at the time it's built. And that future expansion could lead to a very quick turnaround where all of sudden where we have no super centers, we have 12 or 15 of them between Wal-Mart, Target, Kmart and others who aren't even here yet but operate in other parts of the country. So I appreciate your sensitivity to it and we will work with you on those same issues. As 28 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 well as I think John Meyerson from my office has brought up the deed restriction issues with you. But our concern is more from a regional perspective and that's why this bill is here. That was the genesis of this bill. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Mr. Iding, please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. My name is Pat Iding. I represent the Philadelphia Council of AFL-CIO, which has a present membership of over 125,000, which you should know includes building trades, private sector unions, and public sector unions. The ordinance that we're looking at would restrict the building of super centers or big boxes, as we commonly refer to them, within the City of Philadelphia. Contrary to some of the belief that the bill would -- contrary to some belief, we believe this bill would enhance the building of other stores. And in fact, we also feel it would entice the building of other stores, traditional stores, stores that have been here for many years. And we believe that those stores, the stores that 29 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 have been here and the stores that would build here would be stores that would pay the kind of living wages and benefits of the stores that we normally have within the City limits Philadelphia. The big box stores after one construction site then proceeds to hire people at low wages. We happen to know that most of the people who have build and operate big box stores, their wages are 30 to 50 percent lower than the other retail stores that would normally be in the area, whether they be food stores or Target or those stores. We also know that the predatory pricing of, in particular, Wal-Mart, but most big stores that can control the input of their products coming from China and other places usually put people out of business that have been there for a long time. We know for a fact -- and certainly, I'm not going to repeat all the things that Wendell said. We know for a fact that people can't compete with that predatory pricing. Just recently there was an article in the paper about Wal-Mart in this area and how they can reduce the price of their pharmaceutical products more so than anybody else no 25 matter what anybody does. This is done because they 30 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 use imports from China. They get paid low wages. They pay no benefits. If they pay any benefits at all, they're very little. And what that results in is that the rest of the people in the community wind up paying for that healthcare and the other things that normally come from people who make good wages and have good benefits. So when we look at this ordinance, we don't see it restricting construction. We believe there will be more stores. We happen to know that the traditional retail stores close because of the predatory pricing. Losing jobs that are jobs that have traditionally paid money into the City coffers through taxes and those kinds of thins and carrying their own weight as far as health and welfare. We also noted that traditional stores won't want to build in an area where there's super center. And it's very important if we're going to development in an area that everybody looks at the City and wants to put stores new stores. We can go through the City of Philadelphia any day of the week and see an Acme or a Superfresh, and those people expanding. And they're expanding with union labor, building trades labor, and they're hiring people who are 31 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 getting good wages. So it's important that we remember the overall effect of it. More than that, as I understand the bill, and I don't pretend to be a legislator, it doesn't stop Ikea, Home Depot, Lowes, Kohls, Target and Wal-Mart discount stores from building. So in effect we really don't take anything away from our building construction work that we normally look for in the City. And it enhances people to want to build in the City. I don't know the exact towns. I don't have them in front of me, but I can locate them. There's over 170 cities and towns in this country who have developed legislation to stop big box stores and super centers. Certainly, if there's that much movement across this country, some of the stuff you've heard today has to be believable.
I would like to see the City of Philadelphia and all the labor unions come behind this ordinance so this ordinance will have the City of Philadelphia do the same kinds of things like Arizona and other places in Pennsylvania have done. And when I speak about the trades, anybody who knows me, knows that I come from the 32 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 trades. So I certainly wouldn't endorse or bring anything to this table that would restrict development in Philadelphia. Everything I do, whether it be for the AFL-CIO or for the building trades, it's about development. But we certainly -- in my position as the head of all labor unions in Philadelphia as they are right now, we have to concern ourselves with what people make and what they bring to the community after these buildings are built. And as Wendell talked about the Carrefour center that was up in Northeast Philadelphia, we had a whole lot of trade unions and retail workers and those kinds of things arguing back and forth with each other. In the end, what happened is Carrefour come in here, they picked us clean and then left. Just looking at Wal-Mart -- and I know we have to come back Wal-Mart all the time because it's the most obvious. This is a company that has taken over not only in this country, but eventually is going take over the world if we let them. And I don't think the City of Philadelphia should let that happen. So that's why I come here on behalf of this bill. Thank you. 33 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645
Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just had a brief question. I missed some of the earlier testimony. Can you give me a sense of the disparity in wages from a dollar perspective, if there is in fact any between the big box employee versus the smaller supermarket or the, quote/unquote, mom and pop stores?
Wages traditionally come in somewhere around $14,000 a year, total. In some cases a little bit more. But how they get around wages and how they make them look a little bit better, they say they don't part-time workers. Full time workers in some of these stores work 28 hours a week and subsequently what they're making at the end of day very little compared to what everything else is. On top of that, if they get any benefits at all, it's very minimal and very restrictive. And going into a long history of it, in some cases they have to buy the kinds of benefits that the company offers and doesn't include their families or anybody 34 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 else. So it goes a little bit further than just what they make an hour. But I would say there's very few that make $30,000 a year.
Has there been an analysis, something that we can review in writing that talk about the differences in benefits and the differences in wages on an annual basis.
Yes. In some of the handout information you have, there are some newspaper articles and some quotes by analyst other than UFCW that point out the discrepancy. One analyst report I read not too long ago -- and it was not a UFCW source. It was a Wall Street analyst commenting on super center development, Wal-Mart specifically as an example, that they pay 15 to 20 percent less than their other non-union competitors and 30 to 50 percent less than their unionized operations. Now, what that means here locally, we don't have to go far to look at Wal-Mart is paying on Christopher Columbus Boulevard or Northeast Philly. But generally, if you peel away the management jobs, Wal-Mart workers make 6 to 6.50 an hour, including full-timers. Department managers make as little as 8 and 9.50 an hour. Most Wal-Mart workers, a 35 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 majority of Wal-Mart workers live and work under the level of poverty, and their healthcare plans offer require a thousand dollars deductible --
The wages there for a regular employee compared to Wal-Mart's full-time employees, to $19 an hour. They get fully paid health 11 insurance, you know, with the typical office 12 co-payments, a $5 office co-payment, prescription 13 co-payments 5 or $7, things like that. But they 14 don't pay for premiums and they get insurance that covers 98 percent of the bill, not 50 percent of the bill. The pensions, Wal-Mart does not have an employer paid pension plan. All the companies I mentioned here locally where we represent workers have employer paid pension plans as well as 401K plans if they choose to participate. So the differences here locally are absolutely huge. I hope that answers your question.
Thank you very much. 36 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 Any questions for Mr. Iding? (No response.)
Thank you very much for your testimony. The Chair now calls Mr. Bob Burns and Guy Picoccello. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon. Bob Burns, we're representative of the Metropolitan Regional Council of Carpenters. We have over 12,000 members in locals throughout the region and we are 13 adamantly opposed to this bill. 14 To categorically deny retail stores the 15 opportunity to thrive in our City is wrong. We are 16 all too well aware of the declining population and 17 the decline of good jobs in the City. To attract new residents into our City, we need to provide places for them to work and shop. Large retailers provide this. They will also improve the quality of life in our neighborhoods. This is an opportunity to stop losing shoppers to Cherry Hill, King of Prussia, Oxford valley, and on and on. These retail stores would provide thousands of man hours for construction 37 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 workers and countless hours permanent jobs for local residents. All of these jobs mean much needed tax revenue for our City. The fact is that these stores are being built across the region and people are shopping in them. We can't have Philadelphia be left behind. Mr. Young mentioned locations across Pennsylvania that have super stores. And unfortunately, that's where Philadelphians are moving to. We have to put a stop to this. We can't deny out citizens this opportunity. There already is a mechanism in place to hear these issues, and it's the Zoning Board that's been working fine for years. Please join is opposing this bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon. I'm Guy Piaccelli from the Philadelphia Regional Council of Carpenters Union. In Philadelphia, our union represents 38 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 10,000 active members who live and work in the Philadelphia area. They pay taxes and enjoy the quality of life. Our union feels if this Bill 5 030645 is passed, it will prevent retail stores and shopping facilities to be built. There's a mechanism in place, as Council Rep Robert Burns had mentions for permits and zoning. Why amend this bill? Our members earn their daily bread working on construction projects. We ask you, Councilmembers, to please oppose this bill. Thank you.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good afternoon, gentlemen. I would just like to ask a similar question with respect to the disparity of wages on a full-time bases, those jobs. Do you refute or have you done an analysis on what the earlier testimony was? It's pretty wide-ranging if in fact those numbers are true; $14 various $6. Have you all done an analysis. 39 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645
We have not, but the opportunity to organize these workers is there, as it is for us to organize in our field as well.
Mr. Chairman, I actually had -- and I apologize. I had a couple very brief questions I wanted to ask the previous witnesses.
You may have answered this if you did I apologize. What is the largest -- I guess the unit of measure about all these is square footage?
That's the parameters spelled in this bill deals with square footage and percentage of food related sales.
My questions are 40 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 related to each other. What's the largest square footage Wal-Mart in Philadelphia?
I'm not sure of the exact footage of the Columbus Boulevard or the Franklin Mills store, but my guess is that they're somewhere around 70-80,000 square feet, in that ballpark. I'm just not sure of the exact number. It's been a while we've been here testifying on those.
Well, it puts a cap on stores of the type that sell food at 180,000 square feet. Most super centers in this country don't go that large currently. New ones being built in some parts of the country are being built over 200,000 square feet. Carrefour when they came here in the late '80s was built at 330,000 square feet and everyone recognized as a model was too big. Wal-Mart perfected the model, rolled out smaller versions after Carrefour's demise or during its demise. 41 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 Super centers range anywhere from -- and I'm giving you -- this isn't a hundred percent solid, but about 100 to 200,000 square feet. It depends on the community they're building in, availability of land, cost of land, other issues. The regular Wal-Mart stores are smaller.
Between 100 and 200,000 square feet. Now, this bill would cap at 180 total for any store like this. But it also says that anything above 90,000 square feet could not sell more than 10 percent of its items as a food-related items or allocate more than 10 percent of its floor space to that.
Let me make sure I'm understanding the distinction because you do have two things going on here. Would it be fair to say that your primary concern is on the grocery and food side?
So the cap is 180 in 42 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 the bill and no more than percent of the square footage.
If it's over 90. It's 5 important to understand that distinction because as 6 someone just testifying a moment ago from the 7 trades, this doesn't stop them from building these 8 kinds of stores. 9
I understand. Let me 10 just walk through it. I'm a little slower today. Over 90, no more than 10.
And I know you had a second part that you wanted to get to. What is -- if the food and grocery component which, again, I know you said may be your primary concerns but you might have primary plus one as some additional concerns --
I would like when you get done to get a chance to explain that.
You know I will. Food is a primary concern and you're 43 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 dealing with a bill that more than 90,000 square feet, no more than percent food, 180,000 square foot cap, which naturally means you can't have more than 18,000 square feet of food. Tell me what your concern is in a non-food context for a larger store.
What makes a super center so lethal is that you put under one roof, whether 100,000 square feet, 150,000, 200,000 square feet, about half of that square feet gets allocated for food. And they use food as the lost leader because people don't go to the non-food store every week to get videotapes or DVD discs or shoes or pocketbooks toasters or small TVs. Those are things they might go once or twice a month or even every couple months. But people generally go to a supermarket once or twice a week. So as I said earlier, the concept was developed in France.
I understand that, but no matter what the size, if you're limiting your food and grocery to 10 percent, I mean what's the --
Okay. What's the average size of a supermarket today. 44 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645
In this region a newly constructed supermarket will run between 45 and 70,000 square feet.
And the renovations, for instance, that I know Acme in my district has closed some smaller stores and expanded some others into the 50, 60 neighborhood because they have at least either figured out or determined that the 30s don't work anymore.
That's right. You can't get the efficiency out of it from a distribution, merchandizing point of view. I still want to finish the other, if I can.
Here's the thing. As I was saying, people go to the supermarket every week generally. They don't go for non-food retail. The food is used here as the lure to get people in that store, and then they've got a captive audience. And they use food as a lost leader to get them into the store. Once they're in there and they pick up those other things, it doesn't only shut out the other 45 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 grocery stores in the area, it shuts out all other merchants in the area as well, because then the people don't go to the appliance store on the avenue or the place that sells sporting goods or other things because they sell everything under one roof. And that's what's killed so many towns and so many business districts within towns and cities. It's the food that used as the lure. It is the bait on the hook, folks. And they use it very effectively. Now, I'd like to comment on something I didn't get a chance to address earlier because you mentioned a store in your area that's been reconstructed. You have another one in your area that's probably going to be constructed with union labor when they tear down another store, I think there's plans to do that and build yet another bigger store. A number of years ago because Wal-Mart set their sights on this region, not just Philadelphia, on this region, Acme Markets made a decision to sell. Some of you remember that; 199O. We were fighting Carrefour '88 through '90. Wal-Mart had already set their development plans in this area. Acme decided to bail out. A&P a few years ago made a decision to bail out and eliminate 46 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 their Superfresh stores in this area and contract language acted as an anchor. We litigated and kept them here for now. The only reason why some of those chains decided to change course and turn around is we spent a lot of money in nearby communities and here in Philadelphia -- as I said, I've been in this Chamber before on these issues -- convincing communities not to allow the larger super centers. If those super centers are here, these jobs would already be gone just like in the Lehigh value and other places. And you don't have to go far to see what it's done to other towns. Food is the bait on the hook. That's why we've used this bill this way. Other towns have taken over approaches. I gave you some examples. If we had simply said you can't build anything 100,000 square feet, if we recommended that, then I know there would be a bigger problem from the building trades because that knocks out -- if you didn't put the food criteria in, it knocks out too many other things that aren't the same as -- you know, people don't set out to go to Ikea every week. And other businesses within the community can still compete with an Ikea here. But 47 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 when you add food to the dynamic, you eliminate all those other competitors.
Thank you. Mr. Young, I may have missed this earlier. How big is a super Wal-Mart.
As I said earlier, new ones are being built in some parts of the country as large as 200 to 225,000 square feet. It depends on when they were built. The more recent they are, they're larger. They range from 100 to 200,000 square feet. If one was built 10 years ago --
It is. They build within that 180,000. If you're out in a rural area -- like, you go out into the midwest where land is plentiful and they're pulling people from 30, 40 miles around because things are scarce, they'll build a 200 or 230,000 square foot store. Here where land is pricier, not as available, a lot of the stores you see in this area went into other existing retailers like on Roosevelt Boulevard 48 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 Wal-Mart put a store in a failed store in that Sears project that it's not that old, they had limits on how big they could make one. They couldn't put a super center. But super centers exists within that 100 to 150 and 200,000 square foot range. And I'll give you example. You build a store 120,000 square feet, that gives you 60,000 square foot, you know, if you use their standard model, for food and 60,000 for non-food. Most supermarkets in Philadelphia aren't even 60,000 square feet. You might as well as just get the wood stakes out and drive it in the heart of the supermarket industry here.
That's important to me because, again, no disrespect to all the other issues and other things that are going on in the region, as my immediate concern is the Allegheny Avenue site. The proposed Wal-Mart there is somewhere between 130 to 140,000. And they did agree to keep the food section, the food component, to 10 percent, and they would do that in a form of a deed restriction.
Not withstanding 49 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 your other issue, and I respect that. Mr. Meyerson has been to see me on a number of occasions. I'm not dismissing those issues.
What we're saying here is if there is a recognition, that they are credible parameters to achieve, then let's do it city-wide and not allow people to gain this from one neighborhood to another.
I'd just like add, if I could, I'm hearing a lot of discussion about development. And I'm here today because of the kind of stores we're talking about, these super stores the box stores, I'm certainly not here against development. I wouldn't be here against development. In parameters that we're looking at, even Wal-Mart -- and I know the comment was made that we can organize them and I can assure you there's a tremendous move to organize Wal-Mart. So that really doesn't play in this. The point here is that it drives other people out when you get to this 50 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 other area, this bigger area and the food area. Certainly, as I said in my statement, Ikeas and Home Depots, there's nothing here that we see that would stop that or I wouldn't be here testifying.
Thank you very much. Thank you for your testimony. May I add for the record that as I appreciate the fact that there are two unions here who have strong views on this situation and this proposed legislation and everyone conducted themselves with dignity and testified with respect to this Chamber, and I want to thank both sides for their maternity. Thank you.
I got here a little bit later today. Is the Administration testifying on this at all?
I had asked that at the beginning, and there is no one here representing the Administration. The Planning Commission did not take this issue up and have at this point no 24 opinion.
I'd be curious, 51 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 because I know the Mayor shops at the Wal-Mart on Columbus Avenue, what his position would be on this. I saw him there on a few occasions.
If I may, I think Councilman Mariano may have stepped, but I do believe the Mayor offer a letter of support to Councilman Mariano for this bill.
I understand that, but generally what we do for the record is we try to get the PIDC, the Commerce Director or someone officially from Administration to kind of put it on the record, so that would be helpful. Mr. Sklaroff, do you have individuals with you? Please come forward. Please identify yourself.
Mr. Chairman, Councilmembers, my name is Michael Sclaroff. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Ballard, Spahr, Andrews & Ingersoll. With me this afternoon is Doug Grason who is the Executive Vice President for Development of Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust. Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust, as I think we all know, is a Philadelphia organization listed on the New York Stock Exchange 52 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 and is active in development throughout the eastern region of the United States and has done major projects in the City of Philadelphia. Essentially, we are here to request further consideration of this bill. This bill was drafted in haste. This bill should have been referred to the Planning Commission with sufficient time for the Planning Commission to comment. There are serious issues concerning this bill. Some of the issues are issues in which reasonable people can differ. There are social issues here. There are economic issues. There are fiscal issue. And there are issues that involve the future of City of Philadelphia as to whether the City will be welcoming to new development or not. I've consulted with two of my colleagues here to see whether I have read the bill correctly. No disrespect to anybody who might have been involved in drafting the bill, but when you read the bill carefully, the bill does some things which I don't think are intended. The first thing it does is it contains an outright prohibition on any retail establishment which has any food service if that retail 53 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 establishment exceeds 180,000 square feet. So that hypothetically, let us take Nordstrom which is a very terrific upscale shopping department store, in effect. If they wanted to come to the City of Philadelphia and they had any food on their premises, that would be outright prohibited. And I'm not sure anybody really intends that. Number 2, if there's a new concept that's not a department store but is something that the market creates and is exciting and it's something that other cities would want if it's 180,000 square feet, there's an outright prohibition. And I'm just not sure that even the people who propounded this bill intended that. The second thing is that when you get to facilities that are in excess of 90,000 square feet, we have this 10 percent prohibition on food; 10 percent as to the area devoted to food, 10 percent to the revenues. And this gets the City of Philadelphia, City Council, and more important, the Department of Licenses and Inspections in the business of receiving fiscal analyses and analyses of what's happening in the business of a user. And that's unprecedented. It would create a 54 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 bureaucracy. I'm not sure we could even meet that task. But there are no real standards on the economic development impact. And I think you want to look at that. And the third thing, and again, no 7 disrespect, if you look at this bill literally, you can get a permit for the sale of food if you are in excess of 90,000 square feet. But it doesn't provide that you can get a permit if you're less than 90,000 square feet. Literally -- and I'm sure this wasn't intended -- this would outlaw the corner grocery. This would outlaw Walgreen's and CVS. And I'm not sure that City Council would want to do that. So what we're arguing here today is that this needs a lot more thought, a lot more work. It certainly needs the input of the Philadelphia Planning Commission which, under the Charter, is supposed to be here. And we're here to re-argue Aramingo Avenue. This is not about Aramingo Avenue, at least our position. And I would suggest that if there were more time and there had been more advanced notice, there would be other people in the development community who would come in and have 55 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 opinions on this that you would find valuable. Now, I would like Mr.
Grason to testify briefly on what this would mean in terms of the perception of Philadelphia, both in the development community nationally and with regard to important users, the kinds of businesses that we would like to attract to the City of Philadelphia. So Mr. Grason, would you --
My name is Douglas Grason I'm Executive Vice President of Development for Pennsylvania Real Estate Investment Trust.
I think I speak for -- I know the speak for PREIT and I speak for the development community at large that when legislation like this considered by cities, especially cities that are first class cities such as Philadelphia, it sends a message that Philadelphia intends to try to micromanage what is best for the market in general, to say that ideally a retailer should be merchandised this way, be laid out this way, occupy a certain amount of square footage, devote a certain 56 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 balance between sales devoted to different type of merchandise. And it would be read as hostile in a very chilling effect on whether or not somebody would want to come and do business in that City because what it does is it has long-term ramifications for real estate. It puts restrictions on the ability to use that real estate in the future which will have an effect on the disposition of it down the road, whether or not a perspective user is free to use it in a way that meets the market. So to try to anticipate what the retail market will look like 10 years down the road and say, this is the ideal store, it's a difficult thing to do. And I don't believe, as there was earlier testimony, that is some huge ground swell of significant cities looking to try to put controls on what the marketplace should look like. There are many places where it's been advanced, and most places it fails.
Thank you. Councilman Clarke, do you have a question or comment?
Yes. Actually, a couple of questions. With respect to Nordstrom, is that why 57 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 they're not moving into the City?
No, no, no. I'm giving you an example of what we would be precluded. If they wanted to move in the City and if there was a site, and hopefully there is and will be, this could knock them out.
I just don't want people leaving here with the impression that it's imminent that Nordstrom is coming.
With respect to the testimony around City Council micromanaging development and use of buildings, land, sometimes I think that it's much needed, not necessarily in a instance like this, but on occasion we who represent neighborhoods and people in neighborhoods feel the need from time to time to get involved in the operation of a business. I recently introduced an overlay on Chestnut Street because there's a concern about what types of development may happen because we want to induce the type of business climate on that particular corridor to be comparable to Walnut 58 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030645 Street. So we find ourselves in a position where we need to get into the business of kind of micromanaging the type of uses. I was talking to my colleagues here 30 seconds ago about the numerous, quote/unquote, stop-and-goes that come into our communities that we believe are a detriment to our communities. We feel the need to micromanage that type of activity. So because we're talking about a larger entity, I don't think it should limit our ability to get into some of the operations of some of the those larger facilities. And I think we should be cognizant of our constituents' needs and constituents' concerns. So we find ourselves sometimes trying to micromanage some operations. If you'll excuse us.
I always agree with you, Councilman. Whether I want to or not.
Any questions for these witnesses? 59 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030395 (No response.)
Anyone else here to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The next bill for consideration is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Roosevelt Boulevard, Grant Avenue and Blue Grass Road, Bill No. 030395. The Planning Commission.
Good afternoon again, Mr. Chairman, Members of the Committee, for the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. I am the Director of Development Planning for the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill No. 030395. Councilmember O'Neill introduced this bill on May 15, 2003. Bill No. 030395 re-zones an approximate 3.7 acre parcel of land which will be part of the development of the proposed Whitman Square shopping center which is located on Roosevelt Boulevard just north of Grant Avenue. Previously, through the enactment of Bill No. 020684, the Council had 60 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030395 re-zoned 36-acre parcel immediately to the south of the subject site to permit the Whitman Square proposal to move forward. The Planning Commission at its meeting of June 17, 2003, recommended that Bill No. 030395 be approved. That concludes my testimony.
Thank you very much. Any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Councilman Kenney, Carl Primavera, P-R-I-M-A-V-E-R-A. With me is Robert Friedman on behalf of the Goldenberg Group and George Reeves from Langdon Engineering. Good afternoon, Members of the Committee. We'll be very brief because I know you've had a long afternoon already. This is a small expansion, as Mr. Chapman said, of the Whitman Chocolate Center which is now under construction. We had the groundbreaking with Councilman O'Neill about 10 days ago. This piece was always envisioned, but it couldn't be under agreement at the same pace as the original piece. 61 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030395 Again, going from the industrial to the commercial is what the community has supported. We have a letter from the President of the Greater Bustleton Civic League, and we believe that this small expansion will allow us to accommodate some of the tenant demand that wasn't able to be located within the original site. Unless there are questions, I'll just make available Mr. Reeves who does have a large blow-up. And just for the record, we'll pass up a site plan, an aerial photo, and some other exhibits that you can look at at your pleasure. And with that, we would conclude our remarks.
Thank you very much. Any questions for these witnesses? Councilman O'Neill
Mr. Primavera, are you asking for a Rules suspension?
Yes. Thank you for reminding me. We are. Time is of the essence for this, and we appreciate that. We would definitely ask that the Rules be suspended.
Thank you very much for your testimony. 62 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030395 Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. How big is the Wal-Mart store for this proposed development?
Let me identify myself. Robert Friedman at the Goldenberg Group. We're the developer on this. I can certainly go on record and say that that Wal-Mart store is not a super store; it will just be a department store. It's about 130,000 square feet which is their prototypical department store.
Not groceries. I would guess they sell some bulk items, but it's certainly a very minor part of their sales
You were here, Mr. Friedman, for the previous testimony on the prior bill?
How does this Wal-Mart fit into what the discussion or concern was from retail clerk's union, 10 percent of the space, 63 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030488 20 percent of the space? Could you testify to that?
I personally would not know in terms of either volume or percentage of revenue. I just don't have those figures, Councilman.
Thank you very much. Any other questions? (No response.)
Since there are no 12 other questions, the witnesses are excused. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the next bill for consideration is 030488, which is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Snyder Avenue, Vandalia Street, the former McKean Street and Christopher Columbus Boulevard. Mr. Chapman.
Once again, for the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This Bill No. 030488 was introduced by Councilmember 64 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030488 DiCicco on June 12, 2003. This bill re-zones a two-block area bounded by Snyder Avenue, Vandalia Street, McKean Street, Christopher Columbus Boulevard. This bill re-zones these two blocks from the existing designation of LR Lease Restricted Industrial to a designation of C3 Commercial. These blocks are located between the site of the proposed Ikea and Lowes development and existing shopping center, both of which are owned by the Goldenberg Group. The interested party, the Goldenberg Group, intends to develop these blocks of retail uses and to link the existing shopping center with the new Ikea Lowes proposal. While the Planning Commission has not specifically considered this bill, this rezoning is consistent with the Commission's approval of Bill 18 NO. 020738, which re-zoned the site of the Ikea Lows proposal to C3 Commercial as well as the adoption of a redevelopment area plan and blight certification for this area. I'd happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. 65 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030488 Chairman. My question would be for Mr. Primavera. This is the piece across the street from Snyder Avenue, right? There will be no potential tenants besides Target, and then think it's Superfresh or something I see there?
Identify yourself for the record so the stenographer knows who's speaking.
My name is Steve Palmer. I'm Vice President of Finance Goldenberg Group.
Yes, Shop Rite is existing. I apologize. I mean to say below Target, that piece that this bill is addressing.
On the front most parcel bounding Columbus Boulevard, it will probably be two restaurant pads. Likely tenants at this time would highly include a Krispy Creme in the area and also a Famous Dave's Restaurant.
Any Wal-Marts proposed there? 66 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030488
For the record, we've just handed up a brochure which includes not only the blow-up that George is showing, but the aerial photograph. Again, this is just a infield piece that helps round out the retail environment. We have been working with Whitman counsel. They are supportive. And I don't know if you know what Famous Dave's is, but I hear it's a very nice restaurant. Krispy Creme we all know is a great opportunity. So we've been just fortunate to be able to get that property under agreement. We also ask that the Rules be suspended on this as well.
This probably should be for the Planning Commission. Why the C3? Carl, you can certainly pinch hit. Why C3 and not area shopping center or some other -- I'm just trying to educate myself.
It's as simple as this: The area developed by Bart Blattstein was C3 so for consistency's sake up and down Christopher Columbus Boulevard it's been C3. Area shopping center would 67 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030564 be absolutely fine. I think Bob Friedman and I went back and forth, but for consistency's sake when Blattstein started to develop it was C3, we decided to keep it that way. I don't think that it would make any difference. And Tom can correct me.
That's all I want to know. There's no impact on setback coverage, parking, all those things?
Thank you very much. Any other questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, we will now move to Bill No. 030564, an ordinance to waive concern conditions, covenants and restrictions affecting the use of development of a certain area of land situate in the 58th Ward consisting of 20 acres on Red Lion Road and known and assessed as 300 Red Lion Road, Tax Parcel No. 88-2-1744-00. Also we'll take at this time Bill No. 68 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030564, 030565 030566, an ordinance to amend Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Academy Road, Morrell Avenue, Black Lake Creek, Berea Street and President Street. These bills are being taken together because they affect the same area.
Mr. Chairman, I believe they each have amendments which are more technical than anything else. One amendment is something that shouldn't have been in the original bill, was extra and has to come out. The other is something that should have been in the original bill. And I believe that the City Solicitor will testify on that. That's on the deed restriction. The zoning one was more expansive than it was supposed to be and we're reducing it.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. My name is Thomas Chapman I'm here today to testify on Bill 23 030565. Councilman O'Neill introduced this bill on September 11, 2003. Bill No. 030565 re-zones part of an area 69 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030564, 030565 Red Lion Road, Gantry Road, Geiger Road and Global Road. This property is also known as 300 Red Lion Road and is located in the Bustleton section of the City. This bill re-zones approximately acres 7 of land from existing designation of G2 General 8 Industrial to a designation of R1 Residential. 9 Currently, the property is vacant. It had been the 10 parking lot for the Bud plant which had been located 11 immediately across Red Lion Road from the subject 12 site. As Council knows, that site is now a golf 13 course. 14 The party at interest here, my 15 understanding, is Transit America Limited, the 16 owners of the property. We understand that there 17 will be a proposal to construct approximately 60 18 detached single family homes on this site. That 19 development will require further action of City 20 Council in the form of streets bills. There are also deed restrictions on this property that would prohibit any residential development of this site. The removal of these restrictions is the subject of Bill No. 030564. We've discussed both of these bills with 70 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030564 the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation, and there are no objections to the proposed zoning change or to the removal of the deed restrictions. The Planning Commission at its meeting on October 14, 2003, recommended that Bill No. 030565 be approved, and I would be happy to answer any questions.
Just so record is not confused, I made a mistake. I made a mistake. Right now we are considering 030564 which I read into the record, and 030565 which I did not read -- I read 030566 instead of 030565. So let me read both bills so that it's clear. 030564 is an ordinance to waive concern conditions, covenants and restrictions affecting the use of development of a certain area of land situate in the 58th Ward consisting of acres on Red Lion 19 Road and known and assessed as 300 Red Lion Road, 20 Tax Parcel No. 88-2-1744-00. 030565 is an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of a certain area of land situate in the 58th Ward of the City of Philadelphia consisting of 20 acres on Red Lion Road and known and being 71 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030564 assessed as 300 Red Lion Road. So one I covenants and one is zoning. I just wanted to make sure the record is clear. 030566 will be considered next. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Chapman?
Mr. Chapman, did you mention that you have an amendment? Does somebody have amendment for me for this bill, on the zoning? I believe the Planning Commission pointed out that the area in the bill covers existing industrial as well as the vacant ground and we're only trying to change the zoning on the vacant ground for housing.
This is for the restriction, this is for 030565. There's going to be an amendment for the zoning bill, the 030565.
030564 will be 72 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030564 amended also, but the City Solicitor Office Mr. Rosman is here to discuss that.
Please straighten this all out because we're totally confused. Please identify yourself.
I thought the Planning Commission would have the amendment with them. I didn't know if you were going to testify to it or anything. I have the amendment. That's fine. It's just on the map, right?
Good afternoon, everyone. I'm Louis Rosman, I'm a Senior Attorney with the City Philadelphia Law Department. In connection with Bill 030564, which is the bill to waive the deed restrictions 300 Red Lion Road, we recommended to the Councilman an amendment to the bill that the bill as introduced would purport to waive two paragraphs of the deed under which the Bud Company acquired the property. The 73 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030564 first paragraph essentially says that the property can only be used for industrial use and has a provision stating that that restriction continues unless until the Council of the City of Philadelphia shall by ordinance waive, alter or amend the restriction. And there's no problem with that portion of the bill. There's another deed restriction, Paragraph 3, that contains a number of set back requirements, parking requirements, things like that. That does not have the language about Council's authority to waive the deed restriction. And absent that language in the deed, our view is that Council cannot itself waive the restrictions, that needs to be done by the parties in the chain of title. So the recommended amendment is to simply take out of the bill the reference to waiver of the restrictions in Paragraph 3 of the deed.
That's fine with me. That's the Law Department's position.
That's 030564, this is the bill dealing with the deed restrictions. 74 10/29/03 - RULES - BILL 030564
Are you going to also describe the amendment to 030565?
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The amendments that have been handed up would replace both the existing zoning map and the proposed zoning map on the bill as introduced with the map that I'm holding my hand right now and also Councilman O'Neill is holding, and it limits the re-zoning to a property that is roughly 1550 feet along Red Lion Road, not the entire site bounded by Red Lion, Global, Geiger and Gantry Roads.