Well, you're, you're coining the term baking in. I think what we did was we, in our analysis,
our experience with PWDA, they don't care. It's one project is what the way they look at it. So
we have 20,000 square feet of displaced area. You're going to need, in our experience, you're
going to need green roofs to lessen the size of the stormwater basin, but you're going to need a
stormwater basin in our experience well okay in my experience i guess i have a different experience
working with the um with the sustainable business network and the water department on these projects
but but let's just say that your assumption here is that you put in um a requirement for a gray
cistern and that dramatically increased the the cost for stormwater management by about 300 000
yeah and and and if you did a green system it would be some cost it may not be 300 000 but
it's still going to be a, you know, a cost. Right. But it would be substantially lower.
And we're talking about, we're talking about rain. I forget all the terms, but there, but there are,
but there are ways of, of, of taking the runoff off the driveways into, into green
substructures around the driveways, whatever. Right. But I guess I would add in the grand
scheme of things it's in the noise uh the the development just doesn't work so if if that cost
is slightly lower i mean mr huggles may i just just continue briefly well i wanted to just ask
you another question so so that's the cost we've lowered by by 1.2 million um we we can lower the
the stormwater management costs by something low 300,000? We don't know that we can do that,
number one. Number two, it wouldn't erase it. It would reduce that cost, perhaps.
For example, at our development project 22 townhomes, we went to a green system
and it actually increased costs. So the utility costs were higher. The pervious paving was higher.
we have green area on that project as well so it's really a project by project uh but in our
experience these types of development projects require you know a stormwater management system
of some kind uh and there's a cost for that so we added a cost in um on the on the rent um mr
holliman asked you what the rent um figures you were using and you said it was 275 for the for
the for the apartment for the for the large multifamily correct did you have a rent estimate
for the duplexes we did and it was you know as you get in as you get uh larger in your
leasable square feet in other words you're renting more square feet uh two bedroom apartments rent
for less than one bedroom apartments for example uh in the analysis that we did the uh large
apartments in the area rent at $2 a square foot, maybe slightly higher. We were, I think we were
at $2.25, $2.21, something like that, based on our market data that we analyzed. Okay. So
when we look at the rental viability scenario, and we're reducing the acquisition cost by $1.2
million. Let's say we were, we're reducing the stormwater costs by like, let's, let's say we're
reducing it by a hundred thousand. That's absolute conjecture, Steve. Well, he's got absolute
conjecture also. So we're all doing absolute conjecture here. We have 1.3 million. Does,
how does that, how does that change the, the value, the cash viability for the rental scenario?
Well, we wouldn't make that change. We're experienced developers. We analyze this as
Well, we wouldn't make that change.
You know, we're experienced developers.
experienced developers. Your rent for a duplex unit is not going to be 2750. It's just not going
to happen. So in fact, 2250 or whatever we ended up at is a stretch. That's what we think. That's
our opinion on what the rents would be. Apartments would rent at a higher rate per square foot
because there's smaller units, there's less to take care of, et cetera. And that's also based
on our experience. So we can only go by our experience, not conjecture. We can force this,
you know, if we lower the acquisition, if we, you can make any deal work, if you have false
numbers, that's not what we do. We analyze it based on our experience. Well, we know that
We know that the acquisition costs are wildly wrong in your table.
That's not correct.
So we've established that it's $200,000 as opposed to $1.4 million.
I can't comment on that, only to say that we ran it with a zero acquisition and it didn't work.
What's the number on the zero acquisition?
In fact, I have it right here.
uh that version uh was at zero acquisition the 6.25 was the um 6.25 and that doesn't include
any subsidies for affordable housing correct right okay um with zero with zero acquisition
I understand. Which means he's giving away the property.
No, he basically got it for a song at $200,000.
Mr. Masters, how much? I think I can
rest with this witness. You're done?
Yes. Thank you. Mr. Feldman, do you have a follow-up?
Yes, absolutely. Mr. Holquist,
real quick, when you do a full development of 36,000 feet,
PWD requires full stormwater management, correct? Correct. And are you aware that when you have a
green roof, it doesn't, it doesn't eliminate stormwater management, correct? That's what I
stated. Correct. Okay. And it's my understanding that there are no subsidies for new duplexes.
Objection. That's, that's a fact, not an evidence. Are you aware of any subs? Mr. Masters talked a
lot about subsidies for duplexes. Are you aware of any low-income subsidies? I'm objecting that
there's no foundation. I think he's going to ask that question and he can answer and we're going
to move this forward. Proceed, Mr. Feldman. Mr. Holquist, let me ask you this. You were very clear
about this and I want to make it one more time. Even at a zero acquisition cost, can you provide
your economic analysis of what would be, whether this would be viable or not for the duplexers
or for a smaller multifamily building?
At a zero acquisition, it would not be viable.
It's 6.25% cash on cost is just not going to be financeable.
And Mr. Masters made a lot about a $200,000 purchase price,
which was based off of a tax certification, not any closing sheet.
That was from 2012, correct?
Correct.
Correct. And you've done a lot of work in this neighborhood.
Well, at least from what was presented. I'm not familiar with that other than that.
And as you testified, you've done a lot of work in this neighborhood, correct?
Correct.
And you're very familiar with, as a developer, leading developer, the change in property values over time, correct?
Correct.
With the $200,000, even if that was true as a purchase price, would that still be the value that it is today?
objection that's that's not relevant to to his cost oh i'm going to let that
proceed that's fine mr feldman do you have anything else yeah the only other thing i would
add is no mr feldman do you have anything else sorry great is there anything further you'd like
to add right now yeah the the what what was paid is when we do a development analysis like i said
You look at it a couple of different ways, and we always run it at a zero acquisition as just a sanity check on the deal itself.
That $200,000 in 2012 would certainly not be $200,000 today, number one.
Number two is there's other costs outside of that that are related to acquisition that you would have to add to that.
Number three is what's the assessed value we would look at on OPA's website.
I think it was $823,000.
And then we would look at what would someone pay today for that property if it were being developed for duplexes.
So we look at all of that, and all of those far exceed the $200,000.
So we look at all of that and all of those are far exceeds.
So even at zero, it doesn't work.
We just don't believe that that kind of number makes any sense whatsoever in terms of assigning that as far as an acquisition cost.
Great. Thank you.
Okay. Mr. Feldman, your next witness.
Mr. Feldman, how many more witnesses do you have?
We have two more witnesses.
Okay, let's go to your next witness.
I'd ask now that Leslie Gerstein, my co-counsel, be elevated as a panelist.
She is going to present the testimony of our land planner.
Ms. Gerstein?
Ms. Gerstein, can you please raise your virtual hand?
She's coming back in as a panelist now, Chair.
Hi, could you state your name and spell for the court reporter, please?
Leslie, you'll have to unmute yourself and turn on your camera.
i'd also ask that um benjamin crumley our land planner be elevated as well
do they need to be panelists
i don't believe so because um staff can you just do audio please
and chair this is tanya that i respectfully remind the board that
um we're at the 11 30 mark and we have a hard stop at noon i know i'm aware
Is Mr. Cromey available?
Has he been elevated?
First, could you state your name and spell for the floor?
I'm sorry.
My name is Leslie Gerstein.
G as in girl, E-R-S-T-E-I-N.
Right.
Do you swear or affirm and tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
And we're waiting for a land planner?
Can you hear me?
Can you please unmute yourself and raise your virtual hand?
Can you hear me?
We can.
Could you state your name and spell for the court reporter?
Yes, my name is Benjamin Cromey, C-R-O-M as in Michael, I-E.
Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
May I begin?
Mr. Feldman, proceed with your supplemental evidence.
Mr. Bergman, I'm going to be examining this witness.
Mr. Cromey, you've already stated your name. What is your work address?
My work address is 1520 Locust Street, Philadelphia.
And how long have you worked there?
At CH Planning is the firm, and I worked there 10 years.
What is your job title?
I'm a senior planner.
And what does that require you to do?
I analyze land use, housing, transportation, and many other variables in terms of looking
at public infrastructure investment and private development.
Could you describe your educational background for the panel?
I'm going to stipulate that he's a certified planner.
I ask that he be accepted and designated as an expert in planning and development.
I'm provisionally okay with that, depending on what you're asking him to do.
Okay, proceed. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Masters.
Turning to the report that's dated July 20th, 2022, who's Nancy Templeton?
Nancy Templeton is my colleague at CH Planning. She is a land use expert and zoning expert.
Did you work with her in preparing this report?
I did.
And what were your tasks related to the report?
To provide supplementary information on the hardship and the least minimum variance.
Are you familiar with the area that is the subject of the report?
And how familiar, how are you familiar with this area?
And how are you familiar with this area?
Well, I reviewed the documents.
Well, I reviewed the documents, the preceding documents, the 2021 reports and supplementary information.
I made a site visit. I looked at the site itself and also the surrounding neighborhood.
I analyzed it online, online resources, including the zoning map.
I looked at the zoning code. I looked at also the city plan, the district plan for University Southwest.
Okay. Could you describe this area and specific block to the board?
Yes, it was developed, as has been stipulated, as a streetcar suburb, especially along Chester Avenue.
Ms. Gerstein, I think we really understand it. It's been explained to us twice today. So could we move on, please?
Certainly. Now, you said that you looked at a number of documents, Plan 2035, Rendering Street Department Guidelines. Why did you look at these documents?
I looked at these documents to analyze the site, the intended development in question, and also alternative developments, and how they fit within the context of the community, especially.
And the stated plans for development by the regulatory authorities.
I'm going to object to this line of questioning because we're just here to focus on hardship and minimum variance and not on broader planning policies or design.
So I think, Ms. Gerstein, where we want to be with this is we want to know what is the supplemental information that he has.
And I was just about to get to that.
Thank you. I appreciate that.
Yes. Other than going to the property and reviewing the documents that you just mentioned,
did you do anything else in preparation for drafting this report? Of course, I conferred
with my colleague, Nancy Templeton. But yes, that's the sum of the analysis I conducted.
Do you know what is proposed to be built on the property? I do. And could you describe it?
Okay, in short, 76 units of multifamily housing, 32 feet at the Cornice Line on Chester Street, and 42 feet in a setback section.
As well as, I want to underscore the shared parking with the Renaissance facility next door as part of a unity of use, all is one plot that they have the ability to share parking, which is a substantial advantage for the community.
In your opinion, can the applicant in this case construct the proposed building at this location?
No. RTA-1, the zoning there, will not support this development. It's because of the size and shape of the lots and the fact that they were set out that way to be multifamily units back in the 1920s.
To your knowledge, what is the purpose of RTA-1 zoning?
To preserve duplexes or twins.
And is that relevant in this case?
No, there aren't any twins to preserve. They're vacant lots, and they haven't been there for over 90 years.
Now, did you hear the testimony of Mr. Roller and Mr. Masters' cross-examination of him?
I did.