COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Thursday, October 29, 2009, 1:15 p.m. - - - BILL 080130 - Transit-Oriented Dev. Districts. BILL 090071 - Overbrook Farms Transit-Oriented Center Special District Controls. BILL 090578 - City Ave. Reg'l Center and City Ave. Village Center Special Dist. Controls. Bill No. 090582 - Changing zoning of area bounded by 8th, Filbert, 9th, Market Streets. BILL 090584 - Changing zoning of area bounded by 12th, Catharine, Fawn, and Clymer Streets. BILL 090585 - Changing zoning of area bounded by 12th, Spruce, Camac, and Manning Streets. BILL 090667 - Designating Waverly Walk and Addison St. as Demolition Moratorium Districts. COMMITTEE MEMBERS PRESENT: Anna C. Verna, Chair Blondell Reynolds Brown Darrell L. Clarke Frank DiCicco W. Wilson Goode, Jr. William K. Greenlee Donna Reed Miller - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 080130
Good afternoon, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Rules Committee. I would ask Mr. Erekson to please read the title of Bill No. 080130.
Bill No. 080130, an ordinance amending Title of the 9 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and 10 Planning," by amending Chapter 14-300, 11 entitled "Commercial Districts," by 12 adopting a new section, entitled 13 "Transit-Oriented Development District," 14 to promote mixed-use, higher-density development in certain areas in order to encourage the use of public transit and less reliance on automobiles, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Mr. Kramer. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William 3 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 080130 Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify today on Bill No. 6 080130, which was introduced by Councilmember Greenlee February 7th of 2008. Bill No. 080130 will amend the Zoning Code by creating a new section of the Zoning Code, entitled "Transit- Oriented Development District (TOD)," in order to encourage the use of public transit and less reliance on automobiles, which is a function of better development. Several months ago, a representative of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission indicated that the Planning Commission supports the concept of the creation of a transit-oriented district in the Zoning Code. To that end, the staff of the Commission has worked with representatives of Councilman Greenlee's 4 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 080130 office as well as other interested parties in order to develop the criteria to be adopted into the code. These efforts have resulted in an amendment, which I have respectfully submitted to the Council. As amended, the bill will create a new overlay template for transit-oriented development overlays. To be clear, this bill does not actually establish such an overlay anywhere in the City; to do so will require additional legislation. Such an overlay would contain a designated commercial street and designated transit stations. The provisions of such an overlay would permit certain uses over and above the uses permitted in the base zoning designation. These would include single-family dwellings as well as multifamily dwellings, retail sales, and professional offices. A list of auto-related uses to be prohibited has been established, 5 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 080130 including auto sales lots, the sale of automobile parts, car-washing and cleaning services. Service stations and parking lots would be prohibited on designated commercial streets. Commercial and industrial buildings would be allowed to occupy a hundred percent of the lot, and new height relations would be established. Building entrances in active retail spaces would be required on designated commercial streets. There are also requirements for parking garages and surface parking lots, as well as a reduction in parking requirements in the district. Signs above the bottom of the second-floor level would not be permitted; and for properties where no 22 signage is permitted under the underlying zoning district, signage will be permitted as if zoned C-2 commercial. Bill No. 080130 was presented 6 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 080130 to the Planning Commission for their consideration, with a staff recommendation for approval. After some discussion, the Commission believed that this complex issue warranted further review and wanted to avail themselves for a report on the subject being prepared by neighborhoods now. This report is expected to be released shortly. Accordingly, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 20, 2009, recommended that Bill No. 080130 be tabled to allow for additional review of its provisions. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Kramer, I note that that this bill 23 had been scheduled to -- for two prior hearings; and, of course, we have it before us again today. 7 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 080130 Do you and your staff feel that the proposed amendments sufficiently resolve the concerns that you might have had with this bill?
They do address the concerns that the staff had raised. The Commission was asking questions with regard to specific provisions of the bill; in particular, they had concerns with regard to the height. They were looking for a minimum height requirement, which is not included in this legislation. It was the opinion of staff that if that was really deemed something that we needed to do, we could have done it with additional legislation. However, the Commission voted to recommend the tabling of the bill, which is what I'm putting forth here.
You know, I just noticed that the bill was introduced February 7, 2008.
You mean that's not enough time for all of these issues to have been addressed?
As I have said, the staff has worked with the Councilman's office to address just those concerns, and we have come up with the answers to what we believe are most of those concerns. The Commission wanted to take it a step further and was aware that this neighborhood's now report was coming out and specifically said that they wanted to see that before they made a final ruling or recommendation. The staff of the Planning Commission has, in fact, seen that report in its draft forms and has made comments on it back to neighborhoods now, and it's my understanding that they are just about ready to print that publication and release it. It may be done by the end of the week or next; I'm not sure which.
Thank 9 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 080130 you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee Greenlee.
Thank you very much, Madam President. I think for the record, we should be clear of the differences between the recommendation of the Commission and the recommendation of the staff. The staff, Mr. Kramer, Mr. Greenberger, and others have worked very closely with us, with Beverly Coleman of Neighborhoods Now. And if I could editorialize; they're not the problem. We've worked with them. The amendments I'll ask to be submitted today, which everybody has, are amendments which they proposed. So we all understand the need for this bill and the Planning -- the members of the Commission, as you pointed out, Madam President, this bill was introduced by myself and actually Councilman Jones -- somehow his name fell 10 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 080130 off the pink sheet; I don't know what happened. But it's -- they had sufficient time for anybody to ask questions about this and apparently chose not to do it. So I will be moving for the bill to be approved today if the committee sees fit. I just want to make really clear what this bill is and what it isn't. What it is, as Mr. Kramer said, is a template to promote transit-oriented development, which a lot of cities have done. We're a little behind some other cities on this. What it is not is an attempt to push any particular area of the City for this. That's obviously a decision that the District Councilperson of that particular district area has to do, and he or she could make necessary changes that they see fit. So this sets up the area. And then it's for, as Mr. Kramer said, future 11 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 080130 legislation to determine if and when there is a specific district set up. So I hope that that keeps it clear to everybody, that we're not trying to promote -- I know you District Councilpeople get very touchy about this, but this at-large member is not trying to push any particular area; we're just trying to set up the general template. So I hope the committee sees fit to move this bill, as amended. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Seeing none, do we have any other witnesses that would like to testify? (Witness comes forward.)
Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Here's my testimony. (Ms. Coleman passes forward copies of her testimony.)
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I will keep my remarks very, very brief. My name is Beverly Coleman. I am the executive director of Neighborhoods Now. I've testified before Council on two separate occasions in support of TOD and legislation that supports TOD. Over the past year, we've worked very closely with Councilman Greenlee, Councilman Jones, and the City Planning Commission on the legislation that's before you. We're very comfortable with the legislation, and we support it. 13 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 080130 Thank you very much.
Just very quick, I just want to thank Miss Coleman for all of the work she's done. This is certainly something she brought to us and has worked very hard on. And I thank her for that. And I note that, Miss Coleman, the Planning Commission seemed to hold it up because of the plan you have, which is in support of the bill.
Yes, that Neighborhoods Now supports this bill, right?
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. Erekson to please read the title of Bill No. 090071.
Bill No. 090071, an ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adopting a new section, entitled "Overbrook Farms Transit-Oriented Center Special District Controls," under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify today on Bill No. 9 090071, which was introduced by Councilmember Jones February 5, 2009. This bill amends Section 12 14-1600 of the Zoning Code by creating a new special control district for an area fronting on 63rd Street between City Avenue and Woodbine Avenue. The bill would prohibit certain uses in the district, most of which are auto-related such as auto sales, service stations, and repair shops, as well as restaurants with a drive-through service and dispensing windows on the sidewalk. It also allows for office commercial use to be allowed in properties whose base zoning designation is residential. 16 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090071 The bill also establishes building standards for the district and signage regulations to be applied in the district. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission, at its meeting of March 17, 2009, considered Bill No. 090071 and recommended that the bill be approved, with two amendments. The first amendment would be that section (5)(b)(.3) be removed from the ordinance because it would require the staff to perform a historic review for these properties, which would encroach on the responsibility of the Historic Commission. Additionally, it is expected that such review would require the expertise available only at the Historic Commission. Secondly, the Planning Commission is recommending that the portion of Section (5)(a) requiring the Planning Commission to coordinate Art Commission reviews in this area be 17 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090071 removed. It is believed that such provision would complicate and likely delay the process of Art Commission review. The City's Law Department has reviewed this bill and has requested certain technical language amendments be made in addition to the recommendations of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I submit the amendments respectfully for Council's consideration. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear and will answer any questions you may have.
Thank you, Madam President and members of the committee. This is a long process that was started by two fine groups -- the Special Services District of City Avenue and the Overbrook Farms Civic Association, which 18 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090071 has a proud history of maintaining the character and dignity of an important part of the Philadelphia community. I learned in a number of hearings that many of my colleagues happen to also share fine walking experiences and traveling experiences in that area, and all have waited on this matter. And I'm proud and pleased to support this piece of legislation and ask that all members consider giving it a favorable recommendation. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any further questions from the committee? (No further questions.)
Seeing no one, do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? Kindly approach the witness table. 19 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090071 (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record.
My name is Terrence Foley. I'm the president of the City Avenue Special Services District. Thank you for hearing me today. To put this ordinance in context, I just wanted to let you know that the Overbrook Farms Transit-Oriented Center is one element of a comprehensive update of zoning along the City Avenue corridor, from the Schuylkill Expressway to 63rd Street, in both Philadelphia and Lower Merion Township. The basic goal of the zoning provision is to improve the economic vitality of this multi-jurisdictional corridor through preserving and protecting some areas such as the 63rd Street Neighborhood Commercial Corridor covered under this ordinance, while encouraging higher-density, regionally- 20 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090071 oriented, or pedestrian-friendly development in the larger undeveloped parcels close to the Schuylkill Expressway on both the City and Township sides of City Avenue. Over the last, the City Avenue District, with its consultant (indiscernible), has been working closely with the Planning Commission staff in Philadelphia and the planning department of Lower Merion, as well as impacted property interests and neighborhood groups, to develop appropriate ordinance 15 legislation for each specific area of the district. In June of this year, this committee approved Bill No. 090072, which dealt with the area known as City Avenue Regional Center covering the area between Stout Road and the expressway and the area known as City Avenue Village Center covering the area between 52nd Street and Belmont Avenue. A separate Bill No. 090071 is 21 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090071 before you today. It covers area the known as the Overbrook Farms Transit- Oriented Center, covering the 63rd Street Commercial Corridor between City and Woodbine Avenues and includes the R5 Overbrook Station. While our consultant drafted the ordinance in conjunction with the City of Philadelphia Planning Commission, it is based upon the work performed for the Overbrook Farms Club by the Community Design Collaborative. The intention of this ordinance is to protect and preserve the character of the area and to better define the permitted uses. The bill has the full support of the Overbrook Farms Club and will be a key ingredient to the revitalization of this important corridor. Here with me today representing our partner in this effort is Mr. Terry Henry, the president of the Overbrook Farms Club.
Good afternoon. As Terry, said I am Terry Henry, president of the Overbrook Farms Club and the Overbrook Farms Civic Foundation. About four years ago, our community embarked on a planning mission that was designed to ensure our community remain vibrant, that improved our quality of life, and preserved our significant history. One key element of that plan was to develop a master plan for our unique commercial corridor along 63rd Street. Working with the Community Design Collaborative, the steering committee of stakeholders, and our community, we developed that master plan. That plan is designed to improve the overall look of the corridor and to revive it as a walkable neighborhood commercial district. Our commercial corridor master plan overlaps with that portion of the 23 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090071 City Avenue Special Services District plan called Overbrook Farms Transit-Oriented Center. Terry sat on our steering committee, and the concepts identified in our master plan have been implemented in the Overbrook Farms components. These zoning revisions will enable the community to maintain the historic look and feel of the corridor, which is a major attribute of our area. These revisions also better define permitted uses for the properties so that the community can work together toward the kinds of development sought after for walkable neighborhood commercial corridors. The Overbrook Farms Transit-Oriented Center zonings revisions set out in Bill No. 090071 are an excellent example of what community partnerships can achieve, and it has the support of the Overbrook Farms community. Thank you. 24 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090071
Thank you very much. Any questions or comments from members of the committee of these witnesses? (No questions or comments.)
Thank you very much. We appreciate you coming in. At this time, I would like the record to reflect the members of the committee who are present at the moment. To my extreme left are Councilwoman Brown and Councilman Goode; to my immediate right, Councilman Greenlee and Councilman Jones. I would ask Mr. Erekson to kindly read the title of Bill No. 090578.
Bill No. 090578, an ordinance amending Section 14-1637 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "City Avenue Regional Center and City Avenue Village Center Special District Controls," including by making changes 25 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090578 relating to minimum spacing and buffer areas, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 14 090578, which was introduced by Councilmember Jones on September 17, 2009. This bill amends Section 18 14-1637 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code, entitled "City Avenue Regional Center and City Avenue Village Special District Controls." This section of the code was established as a result of the passage of Bill No. 090072 in June of 2009. A clerical area occurred during the passage of that bill, and Bill No. 26 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090578 090578 will correct those omissions. These corrections involve certain language with regard to building bulk and spacing requirements for the district. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 20, 2009, considered Bill No. 090578 as an item in accord with previous policy; and accordingly, they recommended that Bill 11 No. 090578 be approved. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Kramer, do I understand you to say that the amendments are technical?
There's no 23 amendments to this bill. This bill is an amendment to a bill that was previously passed. 27 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090584
Very well. Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions or comments.)
Thank you very much. We will now consider Bill No. 10 090584.
Bill No. 090584, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 12th Street, Catharine Street, Fawn Street, and Clymer Street.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I 28 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090584 am here to testify today on Bill No. 3 090584, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco on September 17, 2009. Bill No. 090584 is a rezoning bill for the block bounded by 12th Street, Catharine Street, Fawn Street, and Clymer Street. This bill proposes to rezone the block from a zoning designation of R-13 residential to a designation of REC, recreational. Currently, this vacant site is being used as a site of unregulated open-air car parking and short-dumping. The rezoning of the property to the zoning designation of recreational will allow for the block to be transformed into a park facility under the control of Fairmount Park. Such open space will be an asset to the community and help to complete the Martin Luther King, Jr. Plaza development. The land is owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority and will 29 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090584 be leased to the City of Philadelphia and placed under the jurisdiction of the Department of Parks and Recreation. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 20, 2009, considered Bill No. 090584 and recommended that the bill be approved. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions or comments.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask that we now consider Bill No. 090585.
Bill No. 090585, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia 30 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090585 Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 12th Street, Spruce Street, Camac Street, and Manning Street.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify today on Bill No. 14 090585, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco on September 17, 2009. Bill No. 090585 is a rezoning bill for the block bounded by 12th Street, Spruce Street, Camac Street, and Manning Street. The entire block is currently zoned C-1 commercial. This bill proposes to rezone a portion of the block to a designation of C-3 commercial. The portion of the block to be rezoned is located along 12th 31 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090585 Street between Spruce Street and Manning Street. The purpose of the rezoning is to allow for the use of the property for two commercial spaces and eight residential units. This is a proposed reuse of an existing five-story structure. Because the existing instructor covers a hundred percent of the lot, there is no zoning designation which would eliminate the need to obtain a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. In discussions with the developer and with the District Councilperson, we have recommended that the property be rezoned to a zoning designation of C-2 commercial. This will allow for the flexibility needed by the developer in order to obtain tenants while maintaining the character of the community. Both the developer and the Councilperson agree to such an amendment and respectfully submit such for your 32 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090585 consideration. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission, at its meeting of October 20, 2009, considered Bill No. 090585 and recommended that the bill be approved, with the requested amendment. That concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear and will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Did I understand you to say something about an amendment?
Yes, ma'am. The map was originally issued as a C-3 commercial, and we're making the recommendation that the map be amended to be C-2 commercial. I submitted those prior to the hearing to the clerk. The reason for that is, the only benefit that C-3 would give you would be to allow for wholesale uses at this location. That's not on the radar screen for the developer or his 33 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090585 representatives; and, therefore, it accomplishes the same purpose to leave it at C-2.
Thank you. Mr. Kramer, is the structure that's situated on the property currently occupied?
I'm not sure if it's currently occupied. It's currently being considered before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and the matter, I don't believe, has been voted yet but has been considered.
Okay. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions or comments.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon 34 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090585 Madam President and --
-- members of the Rules Committee. My name is Tom Chapman. I'm an attorney with Blank Rome, and I represent the owner of the property and the redeveloper of the property. Mr. Kramer really covered everything there is to be covered. I just wanted to address your question. The building is currently vacant; it's been vacant for quite some time. It's a five-story building, it's a historically certified building. And my clients are going to sink a lot of money into the building to restore it. It's a very attractive building, but it's been vacant for quite some time and it needs a lot of work.
Do we have anyone else to testify? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. Erekson to please read the title of Bill No. 090582.
Bill No. 090582, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of certain areas located within an area bounded by Eighth Street, Filbert Street, Ninth Street, and Market Street.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify today on Bill No. 36 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 090582, which was introduced into City Council on September 17, 2009. This bill rezones the property bounded by Eighth Street, Filbert Street, Ninth Street, and Market Street from an existing zoning designation of CED commercial entertainment district back to a zoning of C-5 commercial. This change reflects the failure of the Foxwoods Casino group to move forward with a proposed casino at this location. Leaving the property zoned CED would negatively impact the owners and proprietors of that block, as they would be forced to create a master plan for City Planning approval as part of the CED process. The Philadelphia City Planning commission, at its meeting of October 20, 2009, recommended approval for this item as it was in accord with previous policy. This is the conclusion of my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions of the committee at this time. 37 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582
Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions or comments.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Kindly approach the witness table, please. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Adam Cutler. I'm an attorney with the Public Interest Law Center at Philadelphia, and I represent the Chinatown Preservation Alliance. I am here to read into the record a statement from Mary Yee, the president of the Chinatown Preservation Alliance, who could not attend the hearing today. And so, with your permission, I'll go ahead and read that 38 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 now. "On behalf of the Chinatown Preservation Alliance, as president of the organization, I apologize for not being present in person and ask that my testimony regarding Bill No. 090582 be read into the record "After the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board ordered Foxwoods to cease its efforts to relocate to Center City adjacent to Chinatown, the Chinatown Preservation Alliance requested that Councilman DiCicco propose legislation repealing the CED designation previously granted to the former Strawbridge's parcel at Eighth and Market. We are indeed grateful to Councilman DiCicco for introducing Bill No. 090582; and without question, we support the repeal of the Strawbridge's CED designation. "However, we ask that the Rules Committee and Council take additional steps, given the Gaming Control Board's September 1, 2009 order. We strongly 39 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 urge the repeal of the 2009 amendments to Chapter 14-400 of the Philadelphia Code that created a new CED classification applicable to the area bounded by Sixth Street, Broad Street, Chestnut Street and Arch Street, which added new zoning rules applicable only to that area such as amendments to Section 14-409 of the Philadelphia Code that now allow trucks to back out of off-street loading areas in that area. "There is no circumstance for which the City now needs a CED classification or special zoning rules for this area, as there are no pending casino proposals. Keeping the options open is not a response that inspires citizens' confidence in the governmental process. "Retaining the now-moot Market East CED classification only serves to corroborate the public's views that the entire casino issue has been contaminated with behind-the-scenes deals, 40 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 pay-to-play, and political sleight of hand. We disdain the pitting of neighborhood against neighborhood. We urge you to rebuild public confidence by doing the right thing. "In light of our community's experience with large-scale public projects and Council's support of the City's neighborhoods, we believe it to be in the public interest, and for the good of this committee and Council, to consider request pass a bill as soon as possible that protects the City and citizens. "This bill would require: One, obtaining in-depth knowledge of the true costs and benefits of any casino locating in the City; and, two, adopting a more thorough and transparent review process before approval of casino development plans and related documents. "So that both the citizens and Council could make informed decisions accordingly, independent, economic, 41 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 social, public-health, and transportation impact studies should be commissioned, a requirement that the professionals at the Planning Commission know to be good ethical practice. "Now that Foxwoods location is set, there is no rationale for delaying the commissioning of comprehensive impact studies, which should include neighborhood input. "This is the time, without the excuse of exigent circumstances, for the City to develop a comprehensive, multifaceted understanding of the real effects that two casinos will have on the economy of the City, the quality of life in our neighborhoods, the well-being of our families, the need for health and social services, and public safety.
"The Chinatown Preservation Alliance will continue to speak out to this committee and council to urge the adoption of rational and ethically-sound policies as laws, including preventing 42 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 casinos from locating within 1500 of homes, schools, day-care centers, or places of worship. We will resist and fight the casino industry's attempt to take away our power to control development in our own communities, whether in Chinatown, Society Hill, Logan Square, Northern Liberties, or other neighborhoods across the City. "Again, we would be gratified if Bill No. 090582 passes out of the Rules Committee and then passes in full Council, but we will return to ensure that this is only the first step in rectifying how casinos influence our public process and how government responds to citizen advocacy. "Thank you. "
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee. 43 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582
Thank you, Madam President. And good afternoon. So just to make it clear on the record, there's no opposition to this bill. You're talking about proposing another bill at some point; is that basically it?
We're seeking the City's recognition that there are still problems that remain and that the overlay, which covers an area from Sixth to Broad and Chestnut to Arch, is no 15 longer necessary.
I understand that, but that bill isn't before us today; we can only consider what's here.
Okay, all right, fine. Thank you. And you support that bill, right?
We support Bill 44 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 No. 090582, yes.
Good afternoon, Madam President Verna and Councilmembers of the Rules Committee. My name is John Chin. I'm the executive director of the Philadelphia Chinatown Development Corporation. I am here to state my support of Bill No. 090582 to remove the CED designation originally granted to the real estate parcel located at 801 Market, also known as the Strawbridge building. I'm also here to ask that additional action be taken to broaden the scope of this bill to repeal other bills, No. 090354 and No. 090294, which were previously granted to create a CED district from City Hall east to Sixth Street. I just want to underscore one concern that we had during this process with the Foxwoods siting at the 45 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 Strawbridge building, and that one concern is that there appears to be a -- my concern seems to be genuine now based on Foxwoods' most recent request for a temporary facility. I just want to quickly say that the Chinatown neighborhood has always expressed concern about the City's hopefulness for what Foxwoods' impact along Market Street corridor could be and how it could jump-start revitalization of Market Street East and the neighboring corridors. Yes, we do need to look at the positive. However, Chinatown has also to look at the worse-case scenarios. When something like a casino is built and placed in a location, we have to live with it, whether it's good or bad. So the Foxwoods site along Market Street was just too close to Chinatown, and that should not be allowed anywhere. Councilman DiCicco shared the same concerns about harm to neighborhoods 46 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 in his response to the Gaming Control Board's recent decision to extend Foxwoods' license in August. He says: "From the beginning, I have believed that gaming, if done well, will be a great benefit for Philadelphia. However, if enacted poorly, I have no 9 doubt that gaming will harm the City and damage our neighborhoods." So I just want to underscore that point and the fact that whatever -- however you move forward with these casinos, that there needs to be a more thorough process in reviewing the impacts of these casinos on neighborhoods. Thank you for your time.
My name is George Moy. I have appeared before this body for over 43 years. How is that gambling was once considered wrong and a crime, is now 47 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 considered okay and actively supported as a means of making money. Gambling is like a virus: It will destroy people, families, and community; it will come back to bite you. Why is it that neighborhoods don't want casinos in or near the community, yet the authorities, who are supposed to represent their constituents, keep pushing to establish such facilities around the state and country. Anyone who thinks the proceeds from gambling are a panacea are sorely mistaken. Gambling produces nothing but problems. Vast amounts of money go into pockets of people who probably don't even live in the vicinity, some with a shady past. It has potential for corruption. Currently, with the proliferation of casinos, the profitability of each casino will surely diminish, as some have already gone bankrupt. Any arrangements to share the proceeds without -- I'm sorry. Without 48 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 any arrangements to share the proceeds will no longer be any windfall. The cost of dealing with the negative impacts of problem gambling far outweighs any proceeds that any entity might get. Every person, especially any official, owes it to themselves and their constituents to look into the reams of studies that have been made regarding gambling before making any decision regarding this issue. There will be no 13 way that the harm gambling creates can be undone. The retention of the CED keeps the door open to future undesirable facilities. I'm 84 years old, and I would like to retire to my rocking chair once and forever. But one other comment, and that is with regards to the past bill. It would permit the backing out of loading docks by large trucks. It's a danger to pedestrians, especially children. And if it's not permitted in other areas, how is 49 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 it okay in this area. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions or comments.)
Gentlemen, thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Good afternoon, Councilwoman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Roseanne Loesch, and I'm president of Society Hill Civic Association. Our neighborhood goes from the river to Eighth Street and from Lombard to Walnut Street. We also support the introduction and passage of Bill No. 50 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 090582 that removes the CED designation for the Strawbridge building at 801 Market Street. But in addition, we also strongly urge the repeal of Bill No. 7 090354, which created a CED overlay in a 24-block area in the heart of Philadelphia, from Sixth to Broad and from Chestnut to Arch. We do not understand what purpose is served by keeping this area CED-permissible unless there is some non-public plan to put a casino in Center City. We also concur with the earlier speakers that now is the time to do a long-promised study on the costs and benefits of casinos to the City of Philadelphia. Residents and taxpayers deserve to know, before casinos open here, whether casino revenue will be a net benefit in light of the known high economic and social costs and the current crumbling of the casino industry 51 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 nationwide, including the declining revenues at our sister city of Pittsburgh, at the casino in Pittsburgh. Our association's position remains that the two Philadelphia casinos be put in locations in Philadelphia that will not cause unacceptably high impacts on neighborhoods; and none of the four proposed sites, two on Market and two on the waterfront fit the bill. In conclusion, we urge Council to introduce legislation to repeal the CED overlay, to do a cost-benefit analysis, and to work with residents and elected officials to move Foxwoods and SugarHouse off of the waterfront and away from neighborhoods. I thank the committee for its time.
Good afternoon. I wonder if you wanted to ask questions 52 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 of my colleague here. Ladies and gentlemen, my name is Tully Speaker. I am a former president and currently a member of the board of the Logan Square Neighborhood Association, LSNA. I was authorized by Robert Stewart, who was then president of LSNA, to report that at its regular monthly meeting, on 14, April, 2009, the LSNA Board considered zoning bills 090294 and 090295. Very briefly, on a motion duly made and seconded, the LSNA Board affirmed that LSNA continue to oppose building casinos close to residential neighborhoods and on East Market Street. I continue on our board and have been authorized to speak today by our current president, Sam Little. Only this morning did we become aware of today's efforts to repeal zoning permitting a casino in a commercial entertainment district on East Market Street; that is, Bill 090582; and a 53 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090582 related effort, 090354, to remove also the commercial entertainment overlay along East Market and parallel streets. Our short notice has not provided the LSNA Board time to review and consider these prospects, and I cannot, therefore, speak for the board. However, speaking as an individual and as an active board member, I believe our board would maintain its former position -- positions, plural, opposing both casino and the overlay. I personally strongly believe that LSNA may be expected to recommend repealing both the casino overlay and the commercial entertainment district overlay. I would say you can bet on it. Thank you.
Thank you. I thank both of you. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
54 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 Seeing none, I thank you again. Are there any other witnesses to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. Erekson to please read the title of Bill No. 090667.
Bill No. 090667, an ordinance amending Chapter 14-1600 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Miscellaneous," be repealing Section 13 14-1626, entitled "Demolition Moratorium in Old City," and Section 14-1628, entitled "Demolition Moratorium in Queen Village," and enacting a new Section 17 14-1626, entitled "Demolition Moratorium Districts," and designating Waverly Walk between 12th Street and 13th Street, and Addison Street between 12th Street and 13th Street, as Demolition Moratorium Districts, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of 55 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify today on Bill No. 7 090667 which was introduced into City Council September 24, 2009. This bill repeals two existing districts in which there was a moratorium on demolition, the Old City District and the Queen Village District. This bill 13 then creates a new Section 14-1626, entitled "Demolition Moratorium Districts," and creates the following regulation: No demolition of any building or any other structure shall be permitted in the following areas unless one such demolition is necessary to abate an imminently dangerous condition as determined by the Department of Licenses and Inspections; or two, either a zoning and use registration permit for such demolition or a building permit for such 56 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 demolition was issued prior to the enactment of this something. Lastly, this bill creates two areas which are covered by this new regulation: Waverly Walk between 12th Street and 13th Street and Addison Street between 12th Street and 13th Street. The reason for the new districts is that along this area, a large gas main was built in the basements of the rowhomes. Tearing down one of these rowhomes would expose this large gas main to the elements and to possible harm. This potentially dangerous situation is unacceptable; thus, the creation of a demolition moratorium until a policy and procedure can be adopted by the City. In order for the bill to pass any legal hurdles, a sunset provision must be added so that there is a date certain for the ending of this moratorium. The Philadelphia City Planning 57 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 Commission, at its meeting of October 20, 2009, recommended approval for this item, with an amendment to include a sunset provision. That is the conclusion of my testimony. I'd be happy to answer any questions of the committee at this time.
Any questions from the committee? (No questions or comments.)
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? I think there may be a witness list. Richard Brome. Is Richard Brome here? (Witnesses come forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and continue with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and Councilman 58 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 DiCicco and members of the City Council's Committee on Rules. My name is Richard A. Brome and I come before you today to offer testimony opposing Bill No. 090667. I am grateful for the opportunity to address City Council and the issues surrounding my million-dollar-plus investment in my neighborhood and my attempts to address my neighbors' concerns over this investment. Seated next to me is my attorney, Leon King, II, former Deputy City Solicitor Civil Rights for the City of Philadelphia, and my architect, Jackie Gusick. Unlike the thousands of others who come to Philadelphia for an education and then leave the city for what they consider better opportunities, I came and made the city my home. It has been 13 years since I came to Philadelphia to attend Drexel University. I then established my own 59 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 successful business here eight years ago and purchased my first home here two years ago. My business contributes well over $100,000 in tax revenue to the City each year, and I have invested over $1 million to date in my property and renovations for my home in the beautiful Washington Square West neighborhood. My intent is nothing more than to establish a permanent home for myself in the city I love. My home on Pine Street is historic, and I have invested in restoring the historic aspects of the home that were previously neglected. I love the quaint historic charm of the neighborhood I live in and want only to contribute to it and enhance it. After purchasing 1210 Pine Street, the property immediately behind it, 1211 Waverly Walk, came on the market. I saw a unique opportunity to enhance my property, and investigated the 60 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 options. I spoke with my architect and multiple City departments, including the Planning Commission and the Department of Licenses and Inspections. I was told that I would be permitted to demolish 1211 Waverly Walk, which is not historically designated, and combine the two properties. I was told the Zoning Code permitted this and that no zoning variance would be required. It was with this specific understanding of city law and in full reliance on the City's representations that I spent $416,000 to purchase 1211 Waverly Walk. I plan to use this property exclusively for a large landscaped yard. Since then, I've been busy taking all possible steps to plan the project in a careful and responsible way. I have been working with my architect, structural engineer, contractor, and demolition experts to ensure that all potential structural issues are addressed 61 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 with a detailed plan. The experts I have talked to all concur that this is a standard rowhome of typical construction, there are no unique structural issues. I've also been working closely with PGW to address the unique gas main configuration on our block. PGW engineers have come up with a simple, safe solution that neatly addresses this issue. I have put extra effort into steering PGW toward a solution that does not impact my neighbors unnecessarily, specifically steering PGW away from an initial plan that would have involved partial demolition of my neighbors' finished basements to address the gas main issue. Coming up with a better solution has involved significant compromises to my original plans, and I was happy to make those compromises to avoid negative impact on my neighbors, as any good neighbor would do. 62 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 Separately, I have maid compromises to my plans to ensure the final design meets PGW's high standards for safety, durability, and maintenance. Throughout all stages of the project, I have been, and continue to be, committed to minimizing the impact on my neighbors, even at significant extra expense to myself. As I mentioned, I am committed to enhancing the neighbor.
To that end, I plan to make the part of the property facing Waverly Walk an attractive, architecturally-appropriate brick fence, with land set aside devoted exclusively to a small garden, creating new green space on Waverly Walk. The new configuration will have significant benefits to the neighborhood. First and foremost, it will replace the current impermeable area of the entire property with a permeable landscaped yard. This will relieve the overloaded storm and sewer system of significant 63 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 storm runoff, which is exactly the kind of change the Water Department has recommended to address the serious issue of basement flooding on our block. In addition, the project will improve natural light and airflow to Waverly Walk, which is an unusually narrow and dark passageway. And new landscaping will also contribute to air quality in the neighborhood. I have attempted to contact my thirty closest neighbors about this project, provide details, address their concerns, solicit input, and involve them in the process. Only three neighbors have responded with any interest in meeting with me, and only two have been willing or able to be with me. In reaching out to thirty closest neighbors, I offered to leave the appearance of the property as it faces Waverly Walk completely up to them. Again, I received almost no interest in cooperating on this. 64 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 I have proposed designs that have sacrificed part of my property to add new green space exclusive to the Waverly Walk side of the fence. It has also been suggested that the entire façade remain, a suggestion I'm willing to consider but one that has also been met with a cool reception by my neighbors. With this option on the table, I have a hard time understanding any argument that the streetscape will be affected in any way. As I stated earlier, I purchased 1211 Waverly Walk only after researching the Zoning Code, talking to City officials, and determining that my plans for it were permitted and did not require any zoning variance. How can anyone commit to purchasing property with the intent to improve it if the Zoning Code is a moving target. If the Zoning Code can be changed on the fly, with extremely narrow exceptions, at the request of anyone 65 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 opposed to civic plans, I worry that this precedent will discourage investment in our city. If my plans are somehow unreasonable, then I humbly suggest that the City Council examine larger issues of the Zoning Code as it applies to the whole city. To create a new law that so clearly targets just my property is unfair, discriminatory, and unconstitutional. This, of course, also has created additional expense, and it has caused me to hire Mr. King to protect my legal interests and advise me if and when I should take this matter to federal court for resolution, which, while I am certainly prepared to initiate a lawsuit to protect my rights and investment, I'm extremely motivated to reach an agreement with my neighbors. While I appreciate my neighbors' concerns, they must be balanced with my personal property 66 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 rights. I certainly have no desire to have a negative impact on my neighbors' property, nor on the neighborhood in general. I have the same vested interest in this neighborhood that they do, I've gone out of my way to minimize impact on neighboring properties and out of my way to include my neighbors in the process. I've also made sure to address their concerns about utilities and structural issues. My neighbors have thus far been unable to articulate any other concrete reasons to oppose my plans. They only a vague opinion that the block should never change. A non-historic block stuck in time impedes progress and discourages investment in our city. What we are left with is a simple difference of opinion about the character of the block. I believe my plans will have a significant positive impact on the block.
My neighbors may not agree, but that 67 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 doesn't justify the extreme measure of this legislation, which tramples on my personal property rights. I also believe this legislation flies in the face of the current reform effort being undertaken by the Philadelphia Planning Commission. For these reasons, I urge this committee to vote against the bill -- vote against moving this bill to the Committee of the Whole for final passage. I also request that in light of my desire to reach a resolution of the issues with my neighbors and the significant legal uses as I see them, that at the conclusion of testimony today this hearing be recessed until the call of the Chair to allow further discussion on settling these matters without the need for an enacted bill and the likelihood that litigation will follow. I suggest a period two of weeks. Thank you for the opportunity to testify on this matter and for your 68 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 concern for my neighborhood. At this time, and with the Council President's permission, Mr. King has just a few words to add to this presentation, and then we will be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the committee. I just want to more clearly outline why we think it's a good idea to finish the testimony today and then allow us a couple weeks to work more with the neighbors, perhaps under the auspices of Councilman DiCicco. I was hired on this matter on Monday, and I received the amendment last night, at 9 o'clock, when I was at home, looking at my computer. Yesterday -- the first problem with this is, it came up and it is 69 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 specifically targeted at my client; there was no other issue in the neighborhood. He bought this property, he relied on the City's representations that he didn't need any zoning variances to demolish Waverly Walk. No sooner had he signed the papers, people found out about it, and we're here about it today. And we in America are not allowed to target specific people to regulate their property rights in this way. There were acknowledged legal issues with this legislation yesterday. When I talked to representatives of executive branch, they echoed what the Planning Commission gentleman said about a sunset clause being required in this legislation to avoid taking issues under the fifth amendment, and I think it would appear that the Administration is still taking that issue. I talked to the person who heads the Civil Rights Unit yesterday in 70 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 the Law Department on this issue. Based on our conversation, he said that he thought there were some civil rights issues with this. And what we have now is a new amendment that sort of maybe recognizes that we can't do this forever, so we're going to give my client a little bit of due process rights. But the burden that's being imposed on him is higher than the burden that the City will have to respond to if we go to federal court on this matter. The standard being imposed is: If you can show us, one, that the building is imminently dangerous -- he's not a bad neighbor, so that's not going to happen; or two, if you can show us that you can't use this property for any other reason, you have to prove this to us then. And if there's a public benefit from you doing this, then you can do it. And that's unreasonable and, I would submit, unconstitutional standard 71 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 to impose on my client. And I think that, you know, based on the little bit of research I've been able to do, it even flies in the face of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court precedent in this area. I again last night submitted, you know, this suggestion, and I would like to hear from the Law Department what their legal rationale is in regard to this, and they haven't had the courtesy of responding to me this morning so that we could move forward. So I really think, as my client indicated, you know, if we're talking about esthetics, how the block looks, he's willing to keep the façade of the building; and if that is true, I can't imagine what the reason would be that the neighbors would be opposed to this. As in regard to the gas main that I think was mentioned by the gentleman from the Planning Commission, within days, I think -- we're awaiting a 72 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 report from PGW that's been worked out with the architects and Mr. Brome in regards to what PGW's going to do with those pipes. And he has -- you know, there are certain rights that he has under his deed to reconfigure this gas main, whether or not he demolishes the property. So I think that it would be best if we continue to talk about this so that everybody in this particular situation doesn't have to lawyer up, meaning I would lawyer up, the Law Department would have to lawyer up to defend the City's actions to this case, and the neighbors of the neighborhood might have to lawyer up, depending on who I decided would be additional defendants in the lawsuit when we go down to federal court. So I think -- and if go to federal court, you know, nothing's guaranteed.
We may all end up with a decision that we don't like. So our 73 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 request that I'm emphasizing again is that the committee allow us a couple weeks to work with Councilman DiCicco and the neighbors to come up with a solution, especially since my client is so motivated to do so. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. And good afternoon. Mr. King, just to address your comments about the Law Department. With all due respect, it's my understanding they were not contacted until late last evening.
I contacted -- I had a conversation with Mr. Straw from the Civil Rights Unit. We met at 4:30 yesterday; it was a prescheduled meeting. I personally went over to the Law Department, to the 17th floor and 74 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 sought out Miss Maioni (sp?), Mr. Feder, Miss Johnston who, I understand, wrote the memo in this case. I left messages; no one got back to me. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But you have to understand it's not the Law Department, the City's law department's, responsibility to respond to individuals who are threatening to sue.
That's what they're there for. They're there to respond. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right. You and I are not going to argue. You're the lawyer, I'm not; we're not going to get into an argument. I just want to get that on the record. Yesterday, we had a meeting in my office with Mr. Brome and Mr. King, so I want that established for the record. I believe the community understood that I 75 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 would be having a meeting to see a little bit more clearly what your proposal was and to try to see if we can come up with some reasonable accommodation to allow you to continue with your expansion of your Pine Street property, while recognizing and trying to respect the concerns for the folks who live on Waverly Street. And as I said at the onset yesterday, these are not easy issues to deal with. Waverly way has a very unique characteristic. And by the way, do you happen to have any of the artist renditions, copies that you left me yesterday? Do you happen to have any extra with you?
I do. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah, I'd like for -- so that my colleagues on this committee can get a better appreciation for what we're talking about. And while that's being delivered, just again to summarize, some 76 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 of the comments and discussion we had yesterday was that I'm sensitive to both sides. We certainly want people to move into the City of Philadelphia; I've been an advocate for development for a long time, as have my colleagues. But we also try to understand and respect the characteristic and aesthetic of some communities that we represent. And I think the fact that Waverly Way is a very unique residential community, any disturbance of that certainly will get the attention of folks, and people just are going to be resistant to that kind of change because they feel as thought it will disrupt the characteristic of their community in such a way that it may take away from some of the positive things that encouraged people like yourself to want to move into Washington West and into other neighborhoods. So if you just give me a few minutes, I would like to explain a little 77 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 bit to my colleagues. Do you not have the other photo of the Pine or Spruce Street property that would be a similar example of what you're trying to do?
No. I'm sorry. I don't have it with me. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I have to ask Brian to go to my desk. I apologize. In the interest of time, I will point out, until the other photographs arrive, that the red buildings, the taller structures, represent existing houses on Waverly way. This is a three-story building, and this is a two-story. They're all residential, single-family. Where you see the tree and the shrubbery now exists a two-story residential property that would be the same height as this one on the right. Mr. Brome is looking to take down that building, that single-family home, replace it with either a wall or 78 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 one of these three renditions, with some shrubbery that would be facing the walkway, Waverly Walk. And on the other side of it, where you see the tree, would be the extension of his yard on Pine Street, coming back. When the photograph of Waverly way comes up, I think you'll get a better appreciation for the concern of the community in breaking up that. These are all elevations. I don't know if you guys want to see these.
Councilman, I don't know if it would be helpful, but he also has a picture on his iPhone of the property around the corner that was used as the examples for those designs. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This is not Waverly Way, but if you would -- and you'll see again when the photographs come up, this would be the result of the demolition of the property is, where there would be a two-story house here. 79 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 This is on Pine Street, I believe, around Ninth?
Yes. 1325 Pine Street. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 1325 Pine. If you'd like, Madam Chair, maybe we can begin to get the other testimony. Why don't we do this, gentlemen. We'll start the testimony from the residents, folks that are here. And then when the photographs arrive, we'll then take it from there.
Either Mr. Brome or Mr. King can answer this question. If it's your contention that the legislation is targeted toward an individual property and that it is illegal to do so, then wouldn't amending the legislation based upon negotiation with an individual be just as illegal? 80 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667
Well, our proposal isn't to negotiate to amend the legislation to reflect our agreement. Our intention is to negotiate with the neighborhood and come up with an agreement and not have any legislation.
I just wanted to make that clear for the record. Thank you.
Thank you. In order to save some time, do you mind sitting within the rail so that when Mr. DiCicco's aide comes down with the photos, we could see them.
I just have one question for Mr. Brome. In reading your testimony, you did say you did reach out to your neighbors, and none were really able to 81 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 talk to you except for two?
Okay. Is that -- what does that mean? Did it mean that they're not interested?
Or that they weren't interested in talking to you regarding what they want or what they didn't want or just didn't want you to make the change?
I don't know. I tried to communicate and received very little response. It started with a letter requesting a meeting. I sent a letter to all of them saying that's great, I would love to meet with all of you. And then I received two responses to that.
Okay. Are the neighbors here today? 82 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667
Quick follow-up, Madam President. I do have a quick follow-up so that we're clear. You've reached out in writing?
And you say you received two responses. Were they written? were they verbal? were they e-mail? What were they?
I included a response sheet with several suggested meeting times to meet in person.
And people returned that sheet with meeting times checked. There were two of those responses.
And have you had the follow-through with those meetings?
Yes. There was a 83 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 meeting last night with the two neighbors that were able to make it, the neighbors immediately on either side of the property in question.
Is there a neighborhood association that makes up that part of the world?
Oh, okay. All right then. Thank you for your testimony.
In order to save time, I'm going to call up the next three witnesses: Michael Daly, Elizabeth Mell, and Susan Browne. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. Kindly identify yourself for the record for the record and proceed with your testimony. 84 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the committee. My name is David R. Applebaum, and I live at 1215-C Waverly, Walkway. Since purchasing my house in 1998, I have been active, engaged, and involved with the neighborhood and our community. I am also someone elected by my neighbors to represent them in partisan politics. This is not a partisan political moment, and the legislation proposed transcends narrower concerns and goals. My field of expertise is history, and my work is in Paris, France. Cross-national comparative historical analysis informs my understanding of the current statute under consideration. The walkway on Camac Street can be compared to the Cité des Fleurs, a street in Paris in the neighborhood of the Institut d'Histoire du Temps Present. 85 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 They differ from Cité in terms of the time period of urban construction and renewal. They share with Cité a history of intentional creation of an urban space and streetscapes with unique and exceptional value. The value is shared by homeowners and citizens, as evidenced by the guided historical tours of the walkways. In other words, the goals of the RDA during an era of the Great Society programs for urban renewal are being fulfilled. Cité is protected in Paris. The walkways are worthy of protection in Philadelphia. The process of finding ways to safeguard the walkways in my experience dates to 1998, 1999. At that time, homeowners gathered to address concerns and issues. It was, and is, up to us to play the lead role in that effort. The City of Philadelphia does not cover any 86 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 of the expenses associated with the walkway and its maintenance. We worked together and built consensus. For example, planters at one end of the walkway were removed by one owner in order to resolve the water problem that impacted the entire block. Discussions and problem-solving may have predated my purchase of the home on the walkway. They have continued over time, and the conversation has been one element in the semiannual neighborhood gatherings that take place on Camac Street. In sum, the legislation proposed by Councilman DiCicco comes out of a rich and shared set of ongoing concerns. At the same time, there is no 20 doubt that the imminent demolition of one property on one of the main walkways in the legislation has brought greater clarity and purpose to the residents. The legislation proposed has been carefully crafted. It provides for 87 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 individuals to exercise personal property rights through the process of appeals and potential exemptions but within the framework and a context of mutual obligations. It fills a gap in currents regulatory process and guidelines. It is our sincere hope that in time, the regulatory regime -- and here I would reference the work of Gunther Teubner on reflexive law on the regulatory crisis -- will be resolved through changes in the zoning rules inside the city. And specifically, it just concerns associated with the absence of an effective and just regulatory regime for demolition processes. And I've spoken with Alan Greenberger about. This and I'm quite sure that this will be part of the new work of the Zoning Board. Under the proposed statute, there is no presumption that the answer will be no. Rather, it establishes the basis of a burden of proof upon the 88 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 person who wishes to make change that is as significant as the demolition of a building. It is consistent with principles and values from John Locke and Adam Smith in the Wealth of Nations. Careful reading of those texts, which are the basis for the existence of our democracy, demonstrate that the concept of private property rights was not one of anarchistic individualism and foreshadowed government action to create due process norms as well as boundaries and limits.
Those limits, sometimes referred to as responsibilities, freedom, and individual property rights, exist within the framework of do no harm to others. That existed under customary law and it's adapted in Blackstone and in common law. As a common law municipal statute, the legislation proposed by Councilman DiCicco reflects the 89 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 appropriate and necessary control that will make sure that there is both continuity and change within the framework of the regulatory regime. And I have for you photographs which will give you a clear picture of the walkway as well as a clear picture of the pieces that will be taken out and cut out. I would also add that built space is also populated space. And what the walkway is about is not simply the building, but it's people going into and out of homes, it's neighbors moving. And the empty space is an empty space; it is a space of deep population, depopulation within the framework of community. And it is a disruption that will permanently and fundamentally alter the interplay that takes place among and between the neighbors. Thank you.
Thank you very much. 90 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 Mr. Daly?
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the committee. My name is Michael Daly, and I live at 1215 Waverly Walkway. I purchased my home after returning to Philadelphia in 2004. I had lived in Washington Square West during the early part of the 1990s, and I came back ten years later, happy to see the neighborhood had retained the charm and beauty I had so admired. I was thrilled to move onto the walkway; it had stayed the same as I remembered it, a contiguous row of homes and the quiet, hidden nature of the pedestrian street. Friends who visit are interested in the historic homes that surround the walkways and remark how well the Waverly and Addison development is integrated into the neighborhood with its reclaimed brick and with all of the homes opening onto the walk. Tour guides routinely take 91 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 groups to the crosswalks, pointing out the way in which the developer united the historic homes that had survived the decline of the neighborhood with the townhomes that now border the walkways. Passage of the ordinance before you is critical to maintaining the fabric of our community and these unique residential walkways of Washington Square West. The vision of Edmond Bacon in the 1950s and '60s was to revitalize and regenerate the alleys that had fallen into disrepair and neglect and have resulted in a vibrant and successful design. It is the ensemble of homes, the consistent feel of Waverly and Addison that draws visitors and residents of the City into the walkways, a feature that is only reproduced by historically protected homes on streets such as Camac, which Waverly and Addison border, in Washington Square West. As residents of the walkways, 92 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 we are the stewards who must protect and be responsible for the maintenance and care of these brick passages. We are passionate about our piece of the neighborhood and are stunned by the possibility that a demolition can occur on a pair of streets that are fully established, completely viable, and in excellent condition. And yet, a routine, over-the- counter transaction can by bypass the important Zoning Commission that allows the walkway to be surgically cut up so that properties now become open gaps serving as backyards to other properties. That vision of the developer and the RDA to revitalize the walkways in the 1960s where all homes opened onto the pedestrian walks will be forever changed. This sets a precedent that increases the certainty of future demolitions dismantling the walkways, returning them to the ally status they once had. The Waverly Addison Walkway 93 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 complex is too valuable a component of the neighborhood to be put in a vulnerable such as facing a demolition. There are also significant structural hurdles that must be overcome to remove a walkway home, which the original developer of the project perhaps never intended or anticipated in their construction. This is evidenced by the unusual setup of a gas main that runs through the basements of the walkway homes and the seamless nature of our brick façades that unite the development. It is my hope that this ordinance will bridge a gap that exists in the zoning process so that the seriousness of a demolition in a successful and viable neighborhood is given the highest level of scrutiny and in the context of a walkway plan instead of an individual's desire to demolish for individual purposes. Unless the walkway homes are protected, we will always be under a 94 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 possible demolition threat from the larger homes on the streets that surround us. This is not a question of individual property rights but a question of protecting a shared vision of the walkways between its residents and the City of Philadelphia alike. Thank you for the opportunity to speak to you today.
Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the committee. My name is Susan Browne, and I live at 1215-B Waverly Walk. I write this letter in support of the amendment of the Philadelphia Code, Chapter 14-1600, "Miscellaneous," that proposes to identify demolition moratorium districts Waverly Walk and Addison between 12th and 13th Street. I bought my home in August of 2006, when I moved to Philadelphia from 95 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 New York City at the commencement of my employment at American (indiscernible) in West Point, Pennsylvania. My fiancé joined me there in March of 2008, and we intend to build our married life there, at 1215-B, Waverly Walk. I have to commute for more than an hour to work every day, but instead of living close to work, I chose to live in Philadelphia because of it's a vibrant and cultured city that offers a wealth of environments, events, and opportunities that I could not find outside the city. And in particular, it's a culture of neighborhoods. There are multiple areas within the City that provide access to all of the many benefits of Center City living, but I chose to live in Waverly Walk because it provides all of those benefits plus numerous more; in particular: Safety. The contiguous nature of the houses means that backyards access is currently almost impossible from the 96 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 street; and peacefulness, due to being on a walkway and off a main road. It's a beautiful environment to experience every day, and it's a friendly, neighborly environment. During the three years I've lived on Waverly Walk, my positive first impression of our block has only been embellished. Among the neighbors who are residents in the street, I now count several as close friends; and I underscore, they are residents in the street. There is a feeling of community, of camaraderie, and of pride for our block. This extends from Waverly Walk to include Addison Street, Camac Street, and Iseminger Street within our block of 12th to 13th Street between Pine and Lombard. We've got good reason to be proud of our block. I cannot count the number of times I've told where I live and they've responded with a comment like, "I know Waverly Walk. I love to run there. I love to walk my dog there. " The community spirit of the block is evidenced by the high number of interactions that take place amongst the neighbors, including people looking out for each other's properties, children playing together on the street, and the regular block get-togethers. It is also evidenced by the large-scale negative reaction from the residents to the possibility that the fabric of our block could be threatened by the risk of demolition, or demolitions, in the future. There are numerous reasons that I believe we need to protect Waverly Walk and Addison Streets from the possibility of property demolition. First, these residential streets were built up as part of the urban renewal of the 1960s; they were part of the thrust to bring more residents back into the city center and to build the type of vibrant city that we 98 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 all know and enjoy now, in 2009. Removal of one residential property would be a step towards reversing the availability of areas that people want to live in and could have a huge negative impact. Importantly, if one property were to be removed, this would set a precedent that could have terrible repercussions for the neighborhood. As soon as one property is lost, the contiguous nature of the houses that line the streets would be interrupted. This will create multiple negative corollaries. One, we are all concerned about the structural integrity of the rowhouses if a central component is removed, and this includes the possibility of structural damage and issues surrounding the safety of shared amenities such as, but not limited to, the gas supply.
Second, an important safety barrier for all of the properties, the 99 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 contiguous frontage of the streets, will be breached, facilitating possibility of increased crime via the rear of houses, which are out of view of the street. Third, the empty lot will create dead space, which has an increased likelihood of attracting negative activities to the area. And fourth, the neighborly fabric between residents will be interrupted. One can easily see the domino effect that one demolition might have on Waverly and Addison Streets. Once residents begin to see the negative repercussions of one lost property, there could be an exodus of residents leading to a decline in maintenance of this district and ultimately loss of city center residences and residents. As a property owner and a resident of Waverly Walk, I feel that my property rights would be infringed if I did not support this amendment. I and my 100 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 fiancé, Robert Green, who could not be here today, are giving our very strong support of this amendment because we feel it is vital to maintain the integrity of our property and of our neighborhoods. Furthermore, it is clear in the ordinance that there are provisions to allow for any demolition required on the grounds of safety, if ever required. It is also clear that there are precedents for demolition moratoriums in other districts in the City; for example, in Old City and Queen Village. The precedent of allowing a voluntary demolition of a residential property on Waverly Walk or Addison Street would provide no benefits to the community; but instead, has the potential for an unknown number of negatives. I thank you for your time. And please register my support for this amendment advocating both Waverly Walk and Addison Street as demolition moratorium districts. And this is 101 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 co-signed by my fiancé, Robert Green. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions for these three witnesses? (No questions or comments.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I will move on to the next panel: Marilyn Yakowitz, Connie Moore, Judith Frank. Judith is not here? Connie Moore? Rick Wright? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: Could I concede my spot to someone? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Who is that? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Inaudible.) (Witnesses come forward.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Have a seat, ladies. Sir, your name?
Robert Lee. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. 102 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 Decide among yourselves who will begin. Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Thank you very much, Madam President and Councilmen, Councilwomen, ladies and gentlemen. I'm Dr. Marilyn Yakowitz. I'm representing 1214 Pine Street, a house that was built in 1828. The owner, Ruth Eldridge, is currently abroad and sends regrets that she could not be here. I want to simply address two specific issues and emphasize them. One is security, and one is the comparison to 1321 Pine Street, which I believe is a red herring. Although the area has been described in the most bucolic and ideal terms, we are all aware that safety and security remains an issue. As a consequence, people living in the residences have alarm systems; they guarantee that people are in the buildings, which helps keep them 103 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 security. We keep lights on all night long. We have locks, we have alarmed windows and alarmed doors. We fear break-ins. There are many muggings. Mr. Taylor, who is here's, wife was mugged two times. We are aware of problems of drugs in the area. So we are very concerned that opening up one of the lots will allow access to all of our structures. In comparing the proposal to 1321 Pine, we are really comparing apples and oranges. 1321 Pine is three lots across. The open space is actually a front yard of the el of one of the buildings, so there are actually only two properties. The garden that is in front of the el only opens the house up to the house that has the garden itself; no 22 other properties are exposed by that garden. There is a wall in front of that garden. There are two, what appears to be false, gate houses, so it's really 104 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 been improved in a lovely way. There is a door that can go in and out to the street, which I believe is used. So this is really only the front garden of one house exposing no 7 other houses and does visually add to the neighborhood and creates a lovely property but really is not a property that can be compared with what is currently being proposed. Thank you very much. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Please identify yourself for the record.and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Robert Lee. Councilman and Councilmembers, thank you for this opportunity. I don't have any prepared statements; I will be brief. I rent an apartment on the corner of Waverly and Camac, on Waverly Walk. And I've been rent -- I've been living there for about nine years now. 105 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 I'm not here to represent my fellow renters, but I would say I am probably representative. There are units in the 6 building. About half of my neighbors 7 have been there longer than I have, the 8 other half a little less. 9 What attracted us to rent 10 apartments in that building is the same 11 reasons that people -- my neighbors have 12 bought properties there. I don't think any one of us expect to -- expected to be living there as long as we have. But the neighborhood -- the qualities of the neighborhood that have already been discussed keep us there, in a building with very few amenities and no 19 elevator, because we enjoy the location, we enjoy the certain serenity of Waverly Walk and we enjoy the community aspect. Most of us know our neighbors. I have even developed friendships in the community. Let me just add that the 106 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 serenity and security that we speak of is a fragile condition in our experience. While the block itself is very quiet and neighborly, we are in the middle of the city. We're very close to bars, nightclubs, and there's traffic at all hours around the general area. And so, it's kind of a struggle to keep the neighborhood safe. And I would like the Council to consider not just this one proposed demolition but what might happen when the next property owner wishes to demolish or modify the character of the neighborhood. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
My name is Constance Moore, otherwise known as Connie. Thank you, Councilman Kenney and others for hearing us.
I'm sorry. 107 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I smile a lot.
I do know you. Sorry. I live on two historic properties on the corner of Addison Walkway. And the neighborhood, since I bought in 1980, has really improved a great deal. However, I understand from neighbors that there is some drug traffic and prostitution in that area that is building up. I feel demolishing a building on one of the walkways and leaving a garden, which could be vulnerable to people to climb the wall, hide in, and continue this unattractive behavior is not good for the area. There are a lot of historic properties adjacent to it, as was said previously. There are historic tours that go through because what we have there is a village in the city. 108 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 And it's very special. People really do care for each other, and they do maintain the environment as best they can. And I think any demolition of it would cause a commencement of deterioration. And I ask that we have this moratorium on demolition. And I fear for my property and those around me and the nature of this area, which, in the city, is quite unique and should remain so. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you for coming. Any questions for this panel? (No questions.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Rick Wright? Next panel, please. Carol Basile? No? David Jack? Hugh and Betty Taylor. (Witnesses come forward.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, 109 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 gentlemen. Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Rick Wright. Thank you, Councilman. And thank you also, Council President Verna and other members. I live at 1213 Waverly Walkway. I have several paragraphs too but noting how many points have been hit, I'd just like to stress the one paragraph that may be the most important to me. That is that there is a daily coming-and-going from all of the buildings where I've gotten to know all of my neighbors. And I think continuing to have that kind of flow in and out of a building is important. Removing a home effectively makes that remaining wall kind of a dead zone or sort of a back of a property kind of quality to it. My former neighbor at 1211 was a piano student. And despite his penchant for late-night practicing on a 110 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 baby grand piano, I felt it added personality, presence, comfort, and quality to the street. You could hear him tinkling on the ivories constantly. And that's the kind of engagement that I like and appreciate about the walkway and will miss when that house is now unoccupied completely. The house that the piano player was in was occupied, thriving, and adding to the sites and sounds. With an empty space, there is no more coming and going. And based on experience, it does become a kind of a dead zone in that place, and any dead zone on any of these streets gets used for less than appealing behavior. The detritus and evidence of that you can see in the mornings following, which require a pickup and a cleanup of not a, uh... not the most appealing character. Thank you.
Thank you. 111 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon and greetings to Council President Verna and Councilmember DiCicco and other members of the committee. I am Hugh Taylor representing myself and my wife, Betty Taylor, who are co-owners of 1209 Waverly Walkway. My wife, who was then Betty Jukanski (sp?) bought this home in 1980 and lived there between 1980 and 1985, when we were married. She and I now live in a Delaware County lot which backs up to Chester Creek, and you can see no 17 house directly from where we live. And so, she has learned about country living from me, and I have learned about neighborhood living, in particular living on Waverly Walkway, from her. Her original home in the city was on 18th Street, a rowhouse. And when she grew up and graduated from high school, she worked about three jobs so 112 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 she could save money for a similar property closer to the city. And she researched and found Waverly Walk as a place that she would like to live. And as I said, she lived there for about five or six years. As Waverly Walkway residents talk with us, our hearts go out to them, because they want to keep their neighborhood in its current symmetrical and neighborly configuration. We've talked about a missing link there being somewhat like a missing tooth. It raises questions. It doesn't to us seem right for them and for us as homeowners. We see no need to destroy 1211 and set a precedent for further theft of the neighborhood's sense of neighborhood and sense of habitat. We also have talked about the safety issue others have mentioned. As one prior speaker talked to you about, my wife, Betty, was mugged twice during her five years on Waverly Walkway, at one 113 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 point being pushed into her own front door. And so, we would yearn to not have a discontinuity of a vacant lot or a yard on that block, which just gives more opportunities for mischief of one kind or another. This community, as I understand it, is really Waverly Walkway, not Pine Street. Pine Street people, including the gentlemen you've already heard from, are also very fine Philadelphians. But they do not come and go on Waverly Walkway, they do not congregate with this neighborhood. It's different for them. And we believe they would also respect the need for Waverly Walkway to have its own uniqueness and front door access to the people on that street. This proposed demolition erodes the well-known neighborhood culture of Philadelphia. It disturbs the current residents who've talked to you and with great passion and also of us who are 114 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 owners and are renters. So we would plead with you to protect Waverly Walkway and Addison Street as they exist today by approving this demolition moratorium and also, in so doing, protect the historic and wonderful neighborhood nature of Philadelphia. We thank you and respectfully submit this as Hugh and Betty Taylor.
Thank you, sir. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. My name is Dr. David Jack. And good afternoon, Council President and Councilmembers. Thank you for the opportunity to provide testimony for you today. I don't have a written statement, but I just want to kind of reiterate some of the thoughts that I had as a homeowner on Waverly Walkway. I moved to Philadelphia from 115 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 the suburbs of New Jersey because I found that Philadelphia, and specifically Waverly Walkway, was a very cohesive and friendly neighborhood. I'm very well accepted by everyone in the neighborhood and very -- once again, very cohesive. I was contacted by the current homeowner of 1211 regarding the demolition but asked to select a wall, which I really didn't agree with, so I never responded back to that individual. I'm here to say that, you know, there's an aesthetic beauty to the walkway. I do believe that there are safety issues concerned because our backyards are all joined together, so it would propose itself that somebody could jump a wall and then have access to many of our backyards. And, you know, I have French patio doors that lead onto it, which would be easily accessible to anybody, you know, causing mischief. I would definitely support a moratorium for demolition and would ask 116 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 Council to, you know, think about some the long-term ramifications that if people are able to take a very viable structure and demolish it, you know, for the sake of, you know, improving and enlonging in their yard, you know, I think it just does open up a Pandora's Box. Thank you.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions or comments.)
Again, I thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you. Did you want Mr. Brome to come up again? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I 117 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 have some comments. Yeah, maybe Mr. Brome and his attorney can come forward and the architect as well. ) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. And good afternoon, everyone. As is often the case, when change is being proposed, residents who have a longtime history or connection to a community feel threatened in a way when something is being proposed that will change the appearance, the feel, the look of the community which they live in. And I did express that earlier in some of my brief remarks earlier, and I also expressed that to Mr. Brome yesterday along with his attorney. What I've been hearing since I first got involved with this a few months ago, and more recent today, are a couple of issues that seem to be paramount in the majority of the folks who are here to testify in favor of the moratorium and 118 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 opposed to the demolition: Population, meaning if you have -- if the building is demolished, you lose one more residential property, meaning there's less people coming and going and it may somewhat disturb the balance of what you have become used to. The counter answer to that for me is, Mr. Brome owns the property; he can either rent it out or keep it vacant. You can't control that. Assuming he decides that he doesn't want any tenants, would like to see how this thing plays out over the long haul, the population in that property doesn't exist. I'm not saying he will do that, but he could. If, at my recommendation, this council were to enact this legislation I have to assume that Mr. Brome will then take it to the next level of the judiciary. It's going to take a lot of time and money on both parts. Someone will win that case. If he wins the case, the 119 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 building comes down, he puts in one of the three or some other version of the fence, vegetation buffer, if you will, between his backyard and Waverly Way. If it goes the other way, the community wins, the house stays up, but it could stay vacant. I don't think it would at that point, but it could. And the other key thing I keep hearing is about aesthetics and continuity. And for me, having been on Waverly Way several times -- I'm personal friends with Mr. Applebaum and his wife, who is also the president of Washington Square West Neighborhood Association -- I'm familiar with Waverly Walk. And I went out there a month or two ago just to take another look at what was being proposed. And the first thing that jumped out to me was the aesthetic value of keeping all of the facades in place, the continuity of that, and the charm, and all the things that I think are important to Waverly Way and to not 120 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 disturb some of the balance that we try to maintain to keep our neighborhoods intact and have a certain characteristic about it that we can identify to. If the property were demolished, the other issue is the security. Someone could get over the wall, get into the backyards of the adjacent properties, which also means that they could then get into Mr. Brome's property as well, which obviously he does not want. So taking all of those things into consideration -- demolition, replacement of the seven-, nine-foot fence what have you, getting the moratorium passed for however long that could be held up before you get through the judicial system, I don't know how long that would take. I had proposed yesterday to Mr. Brome, and I mentioned this, I believe, on one of the visits I made a couple of months ago that what if he were 121 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 given the opportunity to demolish the property but leave the façade intact so that when you walk down Waverly Way, except for the folks who live on Waverly Way, no one would ever know that there's nothing but a garden that exists on the other side of that wall. I try to find compromises in in most things I do.
I wasn't too successful with casinos. Most other issues I've dealt with I've been able to find that common ground. Mr. Brome indicated to me that that is something -- and correct me if I'm wrong -- that he would support and maintain; he would maintain the façade.
Absolutely. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. It doesn't deal with the depopulation. Again, he could keep it vacant forever. Not a good business decision, but I think he has the wherewithal to not worry about the rental income. No disrespect. Because if he 122 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 tears it down, it's just going to be a part of his yard and he's never going to get income from it anyway. You're all neighbors. He moved into the neighborhood. After having experience at an educational institution in Philadelphia, fell in love with the city, fell in love with the neighborhood. I don't think it's one side versus the other in terms of who cares more about it. He made an investment and he wanted to improve his investment. I think if he had to do it again, without having purchased it and knowing this, he may not have done it, I think. But he did. He owns the property. And he unless makes a decision that he wants to sell it as is and not expand his garden, we're stuck with making that decision as to whether we do either the moratorium for the community and Mr. Brome either sits down and comes to compromise -- and I don't know if there's another 123 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 compromise beside that compromise I'm offering to maintain the façade. If somebody has something other than that, I'm all ears and am willing to entertain it. I'm looking over to my legislative assistant. We can either vote it and out hold it, or hold it and not vote it out. What's your take on that? I have my idea. I don't want anything to happen to either side. I want to keep this conversation going, all right? I would not like today to be, it's over, you guys go fight it out in court, or they go fight it out in court. I'm trying to see if we have some -- a little bit of breathing time and see if either my recommendation works or some other recommendation other than what has been placed -- the three walls with a full garden or the façade remaining intact. Excuse me. 124 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 (Councilman DiCicco and aide confer off the record.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There are a lot of options, about three options I have here. I think what my recommendation to this committee would be is that we vote this bill out but we will attach a sunset provision somewhere about two or three months, which should be ample time for everybody to kind of work this out. I could ask Mr. Brome to respect that moratorium -- temporary moratorium for a two- or three-month period to see if we can't come to a reasonable accommodation for both yourself and the community. If at the end of that two- or three-month moratorium, the sunset provision, we're still not in agreement, I could always amend, which would be to the community's benefit, amend the sunset provision out, which means the moratorium could take place, and then it becomes a 125 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 legal hassle that I think we would not -- none of us really want to see happen. I just want to keep the ball rolling. I want you all to continue to meet on this.
Are you suggesting that you're going to amend the bill and put a sunset provision in the bill and let it go through the City Council process. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Correct.
So it sort of ends in January or December somewhere on its own.
And if something is agreed upon between now and then, we don't -- we just hold the bill 19 or withdraw the bill; we don't need it any longer.
I mean, that sounds like something reasonable. I would like to see the language and then.
We'll work on that in the next five minutes. And I 126 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 don't know how the community feels about that. I see David saying yes or no. If you want to say that on the record, please step forward.
I have to come up? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yep, yep, you ned to come up. (Witness comes forward.)
My concern is as follows: The argument -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Identify yourself again.
My name is David Applebaum. Thank you all again. My concern is as follows: This is not a specific and targeted effort; this is an effort that dealt with the entire walkway, from the historic apartment building at one end to the historic area at the other end, and it dealt with the historic houses along Camac Street as well as with the properties that spread over and, in some 127 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 ways, connect us to St. Peter's Claver, because we have had celebrations with people who belong to St. Peter Claver, who were born in the houses that were left behind. So what we're talking about is something that's richer and deeper. And while the potential would be -- you know, if I were to frame the legislation, it would be that there would be a potential for one exemption as a way to compromise but not to lose the opportunity to protect the walkways. And I think that's crucial because it's not the property; it's the walkways that brought us here. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Camac -- there are historic properties on Camac but not on Waverly.
And we are not historic. And that's just a quirk in terms of the way things have worked out. And the place that I mentioned in Paris is from the 1920s. It's not -- 128 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 it doesn't fit historical designation, but it is profoundly historical. And what we have on the walkway is what has been lost on Pine Street. We have a brick walkway, we have planters. They have macadam and they have concrete. And so, we have the 19th century and they don't, but they're 19th century- designated houses. The architect Bidler calls this "the architectural uncanny." And what we have is what is architecturally uncanny. And to lose that -- you can't get -- you can't give it historical designation, and we need it. Bidler, by the way, is the person who's created the possibility of Libeskind, who's doing the work at the World -- who's doing the World Trade Center. This is known architectural and historical architectural theory. And we have vernacular forms of that that require protection. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah, I 129 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 appreciate that. And, again, I'm not an attorney so I'm not going to try to argue the case here. If the concern is -- and correct me if I'm wrong, is that if we allow the demolition of the building but keep the façade, that that will not discourage other property owners who are on Pine Street from asking for the same relief.
Pine or Lombard. I mean -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Or Lombard. And I think -- and Mr. Kramer can answer this -- that going forward, the moratorium, as it relates to demolition, would have more legs for future property requests of demolition. Is that a fair assessment, Mr. Kramer, or no?
Let me make sure I understand. 130 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 This is if -- you're saying if we put it through, then it would also serve to protect other streets? See, because part of the problem is the justification for this is a unique condition to the walks, aside from the architectural thing with the provision of the gas main. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right.
And then providing a sunset provision places a time limit on why you're going to have it, as was done with both the Old City moratorium and the Queen Village moratoriums were listed for a specific reason -- to allow for legislation to be put in place for the protection. So in the sense that you would do it that way, yes, it would serve for that purpose. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Did you get that, David?
I think so. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, 131 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 correct me if I'm wrong, okay, Mr. Kramer? But it would apply to this property, but all other applications for demolition would not -- would be -- would not be entertained because of the moratorium. And the reason for one is because it was unique. It's the first time that it's being requested. Is that correct or incorrect? And, David, if you don't want to answer yes or no --
I can't -- I can't -- we have to -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yeah, and that's why we're willing to do a sunset provision. It gives --
With the sunset provision, then we can see how things unfold and what kind of contractual guarantees are involved in making any compromise. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay.
Because 132 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 clearly, word of mouth does not stand up in the court. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Brome?
Can I speak about the gas main issue specifically? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sure.
On the issue of the gas main, I just want to say that I've been working with PGW for the past three months, holding many meetings with their lawyers and their engineers. And that's PGW's property and infrastructure that an easement allows to be there. And I've been nothing but impressed with their vigilance in protecting their property. I can't legally do anything that PGW doesn't agree to. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You wouldn't be allowed to.
No one can. And their engineers have been very vigilant about making sure that anything that touches their system is done correctly. 133 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 And we have arrived at a plan with PGW and are awaiting the actual delivery of the engineering drawings for a plan that meets their high standards. So that's why I feel this is unnecessary, as it relates to the gas main.
And just on the sunset clause in the amendment, I would like to read it and it have a minute to look over it and think about it. I don't want to sit here and agree to it immediately, number one. And, number two, I would just like to point out to the committee, if you take the logic that the neighbors -- and they all seem like very nice people -- have enunciated today, what you really need is a moratorium on demolition for the entire City of Philadelphia, because I'm sure there are other neighborhoods -- I live in Mt. Airy, Councilwoman Miller is my councilperson. And while we're disappointed that no 134 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 one's going to suck up our leaves this year -- you know, I had to get that in. You know, if my neighbor across the way knocked the house down, I might, you know, feel some sort of way about that, but I think if someone were to propose a demolition moratorium for the entire, using the same logic, there would people jumping up and down about how that's unfair, especially when you have the onerous burden that's included in this amendment. So my -- and I also want to reemphasize, all of the issues -- and, Councilman DiCicco, you hit 'em all on the head. Really, the façade takes care of all of them, except for maybe the safety and structural issues, but those issues are covered by the code that already exists. We already have laws that say you have to do it safely. We already have laws that say what happens if there's a problem with the structure. 135 10/29/09 RULES - BILL 090667 And so, adding another one isn't helpful, so I'd be happy to take a look at the amending language and confer with my client a little bit. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. As soon as Mr. Abernathy returns... Thank you.
This concludes our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee regarding Bill No. 080130.
Thank you, Madam President. I offer the amendment that was discussed a couple of hours ago now on that bill and ask that it be approved. (Motion duly seconded.)
All those in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the 136 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 080130, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and further, that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at our next session of Council. (Motion duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 16 080130 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and 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. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman 137 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Jones regarding Bill No. 090071.
Thank you, Madam President. I make a recommendation to this committee to approve with favorable recommendation Bill No. 090071.
Okay. I move the approval of the amendment of Bill No. 090071. (Motion duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All those in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. Again, I recognize Councilman Jones.
I make a motion that Bill No. 090578 be approved. 138 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
I make a recommendation that Bill No. 090071, as amended, be approved with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended. (Motion duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 15 090071 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and 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. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode regarding Bill No. 090578. 139 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 090578 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended.
I'm sorry. Excuse me. Wasn't there an amendment?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 090578 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Motion duly seconded.) 140 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
It's been moved and seconded that Bill No. 4 090578 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and 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. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown regarding Bill No. 15 090582.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 090582 be moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading. (Motion duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 141 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING 090582 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller on a motion regarding Bill No. 090584.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 090584 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Motion duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 142 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING 090584 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, and 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. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 090585.
Thank you, Madam President. I make a motion on the amendment to Bill No. 090585. (Motion duly seconded.)
To approve. I'm sorry. 143 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING (Motion duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 12 090585.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 090585, as amended, be approved and moved out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request a rules suspension. (Motion duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 22 090585 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, and further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading 144 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 090667. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just got a signal from the bench to hold it a second. (Short break taken.)
Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I move that the amendment to Bill No. 090667 be approved. (Motion duly seconded.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And for the record, the amendment includes a three-month sunset provision, as was discussed during the testimony in the public hearing. (Motion duly seconded.) 145 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be approved. All those in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 090667, as amended, be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation (Motion duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 090667 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation as amended. All in favor will say aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it, and the 146 10/29/09 RULES - PUBLIC MEETING motion carries. Thank you all very much. This concludes our public hearing and public meeting. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the Committee on Streets and Services will convene momentarily. (Proceedings end at 3:35 p.m.) * * * 147 C E R T I F I C A T E I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings of the City of Philadelphia Council Committee on Rules are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on Thursday, October 29, 2009, and that this is a true and correct statement of same. __________________________________ JOSEPHINE CARDILLO Registered Professional Reporter (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.)