Committee Hearing, May 30, 2007

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, May 30, 2007 10:30 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DANIEL SAVAGE BILLS 070386, 070396, 070397 and 070398 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2

Good morning. This is the Committee on Rules. We have a quorum present: Councilman Savage, Councilman O'Neill, Councilwoman Brown, Councilman Greenlee, Councilman Kenney and Councilwoman Miller. Will the Clerk please read the title of the first bill. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 11 070396, an ordinance to amend the Institutional Development District Master Plan of St. Joseph's University by allowing for the expansion of the Alumni Memorial Fieldhouse, the Campion Student Center and the Learning Center/Library.

Mr. Kramer.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Senior Zoning Planner of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 070396, which was introduced by Councilmember Campbell on May 10, 2007. 3 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. The purpose of this ordinance 3 is to permit the amendment of the St. Joseph's University Institutional Development District Master Plan. The ordinance will allow the University to expand the Alumni Memorial Fieldhouse, the Campion Student Center and the Learning Center/Library. The ordinance will also allow for the demolition of two small buildings, Flanagan Hall and Barry Hall Annex, in order to accommodate the Fieldhouse expansion. The Alumni Memorial Fieldhouse will be expanded in an effort to modernize the facility and to expand the seating capacity of the Fieldhouse. The Campion Student Center addition will expand the student dining area while also providing for a large function room for banquets. Additionally, the University is proposing a new accessible entrance and elevator. The Learning Center expansion 4 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. will create a 24-hour quiet, secure study space that will be connected to the library. Pursuant to Section 14-1107 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code, "no 7 proposed change in the Plan shall be effective unless approved by the Council by ordinance." The City Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 19, 2007, approved these revisions to the St. Joseph's University Institutional Development District Master Plan. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Mr. Kramer, is this land that is already owned by St. Joe's University?

That is correct, yes.

Are there 5 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. any questions by members of the Committee for this witness? (No response.)

There being none, thank you, Mr. Kramer, very much. Any other witnesses to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Just a moment, please, Mr. Kramer. Councilwoman Brown.

Good morning. Can you please speak to the level of community involvement, awareness, participation that took place with regards to the University Alumni Memorial Fieldhouse expansion?

It was my understanding that there were meetings with the community, but I do not have dates and times of those meetings. There are representatives from the University here that may be better able to answer that directly. 6 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC.

What traditionally is the role of the Planning Commission when it comes to interface with the community on matters such as this?

The role of the Planning Commission is -- we do not necessarily go out and require that individual institutions meet with the community. However, as part of our approval process, we certainly request and require the information from the institution. We don't take a position in support or denial of what the institution is proposing, but we do request that the institution meet with the neighborhood associations to be certain that the community is aware of what's going on. And that's pretty much the case in any of these institutions, whether it be St. Joe's or Temple or University of Penn or whomever.

Are they then required to report back to you the 7 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. outcome or yield of those discussions?

We usually are asking them to report that they've at least presented it. And if the community is aware that the amendments are foregoing or are ongoing, then the community has every opportunity to make themselves aware to our area planning organization, as well as it is a public meeting and can present information at that time. There was no representative from the community in opposition to these proposals.

Okay. Thank you for your testimony. Mr. Chairman, I would like to hear from representatives of the institution and/or any community members that might be present.

Absolutely, Councilwoman. Are there any representatives of the University present? And I also believe that there's 8 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. a member of Councilwoman Campbell's staff who wants to make a statement on behalf of the Councilwoman.

Good morning, members of Council. For those who might not know me, my name is Wadell Ridley and I'm the Assistant Vice-President for Government and Community Affairs at St. Joe's University. And to speak to the question of which you asked, Councilwoman Brown, we probably started meeting with the community in August of 2006. We met with a combined group of the Merion Civic Association and the Wynnefield Residents Association, and we had two meetings that were actually combined with both groups. Then we had a separate meeting that we had with the Wynnefield Residents Association as well as the Overbrook Farms Club. In addition to that, we sent out at least two of our publications titled "1927," which spoke to the Fieldhouse and the three phases that the 9 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Fieldhouse would experience, as well as the rest of the expansion that would be required under the IDD.

Please speak to, if you will, how the parking issue will be addressed with this expansion given the discomfort that that community has experienced in the past with regards to St. Joe expansion activities.

Certainly. One of the things that we've actually done, which is a separate project that's not part of the IDD piece but still is a major project, we have a parking facility that we're building on the 2400 block of North 54th Street that is going to have in excess of 400 parking spaces, and we feel that that's going to more than adequately cover any increase in parking that might be required.

How are the completion dates of this expansion of the Fieldhouse and the expansion of the 10 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. parking aligned, or are they not?

Well, actually, I'm going to allow Kevin Robinson, our Vice-President of Administrative Services, to speak to that.

Good morning.

Good morning.

My name is Kevin Robinson, Vice-President for Administrative Services at the University. The parking facility will be complete by the end of this October, where the Fieldhouse expansion, we're hoping that we can break ground this September or October. So the facility will be completed well in advance of the completion of the phases of the Fieldhouse.

Finally, what questions have been learned in the course of action that was taken by St. Joe's University and this project stacked 11 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. against St. Joseph's expansion three, four, five years ago and how the interface with the community took place?

You mean what has been learned previously as opposed to now?

What things did you do differently?

I mean, one of the things that has been real important for us and has probably been implemented since I came on board was really enhanced communication. We want to make sure that we are letting the community know exactly what we're doing and how we're doing it, which is probably why we increased our publication of that particular newsletter, as well as sent out individual letters that continually update the community of what's happening. The other thing is that we're looking to form an Advisory Council, and we've been meeting regularly with members of the Wynnefield Residents Association, 12 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. as well as Overbrook Farms and Overbrook Farms East Residents Association. So we want to be very active and proactive in sharing information so that people will know what's happening in advance.

And the Advisory Council will be composed of neighbors from all those associations you just mentioned --

Yes.

-- coupled with St. Joseph University?

Well, actually, there's a couple groups that we did not mention that will probably be a part of that as well. Wynnefield Heights Civic Association, Belmont Village. What we're going to look to do is kind of create a comprehensive Advisory Council of all those who actually touch on our campus so that everyone has an opportunity to share their issues, concerns and be supportive where they need to be.

Well, let 13 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. me close, then, by actually commending you and Ms. Kresta for your presence with those community meetings, and it is an improvement over years past. And if you could just -- do you have a read on when the Advisory Council -- will it be in place prior to the completion of either one of these projects?

We hope to do that. We're probably going to need some assistance of some members of Council for that.

Thank you very much for your testimony.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Ridley, I know you've been through a few community meetings over the years in your former job. How would you 14 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. characterize these meetings? Was there a lot of opposition coming in that was solved or were things going smoothly, would you say, generally?

I guess the short answer would be that things went rather smoothly. The long answer would be that at the time when we started to have these meetings, there was a number of different things that were occurring all at once that required a lot of attention and detail. So I think that the community was able to see a lot of effort from a lot of different angles that would let them know that we were serious about trying to make sure that anything that took place on campus would be a comfortable situation.

What was the most serious question people had about this particular plan, would you say?

About this particular project? 15 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC.

Yes.

The meetings that we had, there weren't a lot of questions, but the major question would be the Phase III of the renovation of the Fieldhouse where we would have a possible increase in seating in the Fieldhouse with the numbers. And I guess that was the question that the community would ask, is how that would actually impact on parking and traffic congestion. And one of the things about that is the increase was probably going to serve -- more than half of that increase would actually be serving the student population. One of the things that a lot of people didn't realize through this entire transition is that the students that go to St. Joe's University could go through four years and actually never go to a basketball game, because there's a lottery and there's a shortage of seats for students. So this is going to allow us to address that. Where if we were to 16 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. have 800 seats, you're probably talking about 300 seats for new people, non-students, and the parking facility that we are actually building will more than accommodate that.

That was my last question. What is the seating capacity increase, just so I'm clear on that?

We don't have an actual number. We're hoping that we have close to 800, but that might change. There are a number of things that will occur that would change that once we actually start talking with L&I and occupancy, talking about occupancy. I mean, those numbers might not be there. It might not be 800.

What's your total now? What do you seat in there now?

We are seating about 2,950.

Because I 17 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. know that's an issue over the years. I've heard a lot of people that want to see the games can't get in there. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you, Councilman. One last question. Has there been any discussion about an equal opportunity plan for the construction phase of the project and a neighborhood participation plan, both for short and long term, in terms of job opportunities?

There has been discussion. It has to be revisited, and we are willing to do that as well. So I could not tell you any details about that, but that's something that we would be able to revisit. Right?

Correct. The contractor/construction manager is LF Driscoll, and in my conversations with them, that, yes, there has to be a plan 18 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. and they're going to participate. The University is going to participate, and the neighborhood will be involved.

At what point do you anticipate having that agreement? Because traditionally once the contract is signed, it's a lot more difficult to get the appropriate commitments.

Well, what we have done in the past is write into the contract goals which we want to reach, and that's what we've done with other projects at the University.

Who oversees that process? And I only speak of Temple. Not to compare you to Temple University, but I've worked with Temple University.

We'll take a look at the existing zip codes and try to get as much of the manpower as we can through -- I'm sorry. The University oversees it, the contractor oversees it, 19 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. and in the past, we've used the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition to oversee it.

Will they be involved in this?

Yes.

Monitor the goals and assisting the solicitation of contractors and employees?

Yes, with the contractor and with the University.

And the assumption is that you have that in writing to the District Councilperson?

I'm sorry?

The assumption is that you have that language in writing to be available to the District Councilperson?

Yes, we will.

Thank you. Any other questions of these witnesses by members of the Committee? (No response.) 20 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC.

There being none, thank you all very much. I know now there's a member of Councilwoman's staff that would like to read something into the record. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chair, members of the Rules Committee. I'm speaking on behalf --

Please read your name for the record.

Edward Wright, Chief of Staff for Councilwoman Carol Ann Campbell, regarding Bill No. 070396. Councilwoman Campbell is fully in support of this bill and believes that this bill is necessary for St. Joseph's University to develop to its fullest potential. The Councilwoman feels that the community will derive a lot of benefit from this project: the expanded library facility, which has always been available and open to the community; the expanded Fieldhouse facilities, which 21 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. have always played a major role in the people of the surrounding communities personal physical fitness where everyone is welcome to use the track field. Councilwoman Campbell respectfully requests that the Committee on Rules report this bill out with a favorable recommendation so that St. Joseph's University can move ahead with this great project this summer. Thank you.

Would you prefer to have a suspension of the rules?

Yes, please.

Thank you. Any questions of this witness? (No response.)

There being none, thank you very much for your testimony.

Thank you, Mr. Chair.

Any other witnesses on this bill? 22 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. (No response.)

There being none, will the Clerk please read the title of the next bill. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 7 070397, an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-700, entitled "Recreational District," by adding new sections entitled "Passive Recreation District" and "Active Recreation District"; by providing for district regulations and controls, including permitted uses; and by making other technical amendments; all under certain terms and conditions.

Please proceed.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Senior Zoning Planner of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 070397, which was 23 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. introduced by Councilmember O'Neill May 10th of 2007. Bill 070397 proposes to amend Section 14-700 of The Philadelphia Code by adding two new types of classifications under the existing zoning designation of Recreational. It will establish a new district entitled "Passive Recreation District." The uses permitted in this district will include walkways and trails, community gardens and sitting areas. It would also establish several area regulations, including conditions that allow buildings to occupy no more than 600 square feet and must be certified as compliant with Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design. No parking is to be permitted in the district. The hours of operation are to be limited from sunrise to sunset. Trails shall be constructed of crushed aggregate material. If paving is required, it shall be constructed of porous paving material. Roadways will be 24 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. limited for access of maintenance vehicles and users of the park for pick-up and drop-off. A second designation would also be created entitled "Active Recreation District." This designation would include such uses as public or private athletic fields and associated structures and facilities, including a joint-use site, park or playground. It further provides that any private operation for private profit within this district and within 500 feet of a district boundary will require a certificate from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. This bill is scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission at its meeting of June 19, 2007. The Planning Commission staff is in the midst of preparing GreenPlan Philadelphia, its first ever comprehensive plan for parks, recreation and open space, expected to be completed by the end of this year. GreenPlan Philadelphia will set forth a 25 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. variety of means to implement and/or regulate open space recommendations citywide, which may include new zoning classifications or changes to the Zoning Code or other mechanisms. This concludes my testimony. I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.

Based on your testimony, it's clear that there is no position by the Planning Commission on this particular bill. I do have a question, a couple of questions actually, and the sponsor of the bill may be in a better position to answer this, because I know he's been working on this for some time. By virtue of this being a new classification that would affect all of the parks throughout the City of Philadelphia, could you give me a sense, assuming that you've done some research on this bill, what parks would be affected? Is there a criteria associated 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. with size, acreage?

Let me answer your question this way: The way this bill was constructed, it left the existing Recreation classification alone, so that the classification that exists today continues to exist and would be applied to all parks that are currently zoned Recreation. In order for you to be designated under one of these new designations, it would require an ordinance of Council to specifically designate a specific park. The bill does not call out any specific space requirements, area. That kind of stuff is not necessarily indicated in that and would probably be a consideration at the time any individual park was considered for rezoning at that time.

So it's similar to the bill that we did recently, the Industrial Transformation District?

Correct. It would 27 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. be the same --

We created the classification, but the Councilmember must introduce a bill to designate a specific location.

Correct. Yes, sir.

Okay. Thank you. Any questions? (No response.)

Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Anyone else to testify on this bill?

I'd like to make a quick statement to complete the record.

Councilman O'Neill.

This bill 23 has a companion bill that would place the Benjamin Rush State Park ground at the northeastern end of the City in this 28 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. category. The community, for about four years now, has fully supported this concept at this state park that, one, it be a passive park; two, that it utilize and undertake all of the smart green building that is out there, the construction, that it preserve all the urban gardeners that are there. It's one of the largest urban gardening sites in the United States. And most of those people are not from the area; they're from all over the City that go up there. And the state is responsible for the park because it's a state park. The state has agreed on several occasions to do a passive park like this, which is, first, unlike other state parks that are much more active and, two, other than a very small park in Pittsburgh, it will be the only state park in an urban area in Pennsylvania. I thought four years ago I had an agreement with the Ridge 29 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Administration and their staff to -- I guess it was a little more than four. It might have been five or six, counting back to when Governor Rendell went in -- to do this kind of park. And I had to strike two streets that had been on the map in that park for years. I did that. The state staff held a press conference in my district announcing a typical state park on the site about three months later, and with help from the Law Department, I unstruck the streets, put them back on the map and had been negotiating with the state under Secretary DiBerardinis to get this passive park done the way the community has asked for it. And they are in complete agreement. My problem is trying to get some guarantee for the community that the same thing that happened once won't happen again, if Secretary DiBerardinis is not around, if Governor Rendell is not around. And we've really, with the Law Department, had a lot of 30 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. difficulty getting something that anybody has confidence in would be binding. The state doesn't want to do any state legislation. They don't want to get that involved in their parks. And we are now in court. The state has actually gone into court and asked the Court to strike the streets, saying, We're going to build this passive park, don't worry, trust us. And working with the Law Department and our litigators, as well as our ordinance 14 writers, we think that we can settle that case and walk away from this if the zoning principles are in place. Our legal department is very confident that we can put this kind of zoning on a piece of City ground that would be a state park. And if the state has an objection to that, they're very free to object, but this will give us, I think, not only the community, the strongest protection possible, but I think it will also enable us to end some 31 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. awkward litigation we're involved with with the state, where we both agree on what we want to do but we can't as a city seem to get the state to agree to give us something we can count on five years, ten years, years from now. 8 This is enough for me that I 9 know I or a successor of mine will have 10 to come in and change the zoning as well 11 and have community meetings to follow 12 that. So that's pretty much where we 13 are, and I ask the Committee to support 14 it. 15 Thank you.

Councilman Greenlee.

Just a quick question, Mr. Chairman. Thank you. Councilman O'Neill, I know you said this would be the first one in an urban area in the state.

That's my understanding, yes.

Are there 32 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. other cities -- I know New York, I can think of something called a quiet zone or something.

Well, this was taken -- our staff in the Law Department and other agencies actually looked at other cities that have these separate designations of this. We pulled it from best practices in other areas.

Okay.

Thank you.

Thank you.

Thank you. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

There being none, will the Clerk please read the title of the next bill. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 23 070398, an ordinance amending the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of certain areas of 33 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. land located in or in the vicinity of Benjamin Rush State Park.

Good morning, members of the Rules Committee, Mr. Chairman. I am William Kramer, the Senior Zoning Planner of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 070398, which was introduced by Councilmember O'Neill May 10th of 2007. Bill 070398 proposes to amend the Zoning Maps of the City of Philadelphia by changing the zoning designations of the Benjamin Rush State Park from a designation of Recreation to a designation of Passive Recreation District. This park is located along the Roosevelt Boulevard in the Far Northeast section of the City and contains 238 acres of land. The bill is scheduled for consideration by the Planning Commission at its meeting of June 19, 2007. This concludes my testimony. 34 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. Any questions of this witness by members of the Committee? Councilwoman Miller.

Thank you. Mr. Kramer or Councilman O'Neill, does this park currently have like playgrounds and stuff like that?

Nothing. It's basically a wooded area with a lot of area that just needs to be cleaned up. It was part of the old Byberry State Hospital. It was designated for state park purposes in 1976, and this will be the first time a capital project would be done on it. The urban gardeners are there and there's a small area in addition to the urban gardeners that had model airplane flyers -- they have a designated area. I think they're there on Sunday 35 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. afternoon -- that use it. And they will be grandfathered into everything and their exact locations as well.

So the park is basically for running, walking, sitting, gardens?

Actually, it will be a little more than that.

A small building.

Yeah. The park will be primarily for walking reflection, but also there will be a lot of restoration of the horticulture from -- this ties in a lot to Dr. Benjamin Rush. Dr. Benjamin Rush was the father of American psychiatry, but he learned about survival medicine from the local Indians, and he taught it to Meriwether Lewis before the Lewis and Clark expedition, taught it to him for six months. They lost one person on that entire expedition because of what they had learned first from the Indians, to 36 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Dr. Rush and then to Mr. Lewis. And so there's going to be a lot of educational markers the state has agreed to develop, teaching children and others, adults, about the Indians that lived in this area, American Indians, long before anyone else did, and also trying to bring back some of the horticulture from the era that people can understand, because apparently some of it still exists in both the Fairmount Park and the -- there's a horticultural center in your district and I can't think of the name of it, but apparently they're willing to help out as well. Penn State, Temple have agreed to help out, Lincoln High School.

Morris Arboretum.

Morris Arboretum. Thank you. So it will be a lot more, I think, than just what you think of as a place to walk around. Hopefully it will 37 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. be a place where teachers will want to bring children and learn things.

All right. Good. Thank you.

And the ecological and environmental aspects of it will be state of the art hopefully.

Thank you, Councilman. I think in the future any further designation should have such a wonderful historical perspective attached to it. You are to be commended. Thank you. No other questions for this witness? (No response.)

Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

There being none, will the Clerk please read the title of the next bill. 38 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 3 070386, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of certain areas of land located within area bounded by Burholme Avenue, Napfle Avenue, Burholme Avenue, Hartel Avenue, Hasbrook Avenue, Central Avenue and Shelmire Avenue.

Please proceed, Mr. Kramer.

Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Senior Zoning Planner for the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 070386, which was introduced by Councilmember O'Neill May 10th of 2007. Bill No. 070386 amends the Zoning Maps of the City of Philadelphia by changing the zoning designation of the Fox Chase Cancer Center from a designation of R-3 Residential to a designation of IDD Institutional 39 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Development District. The Center is located in the block bounded by Napfle Avenue, Burholme Avenue, Hartel Avenue, Hasbrook Avenue, Central Avenue and Shelmire Avenue and encompasses 20.58 acres of land. The campus of the Fox Chase Cancer Center contains over a million square feet of gross floor area and occupies over 363,000 square feet. The purpose of the change in the zoning designations is twofold. First, it will allow the construction of a six-story patient care facility with 117,000 square feet of gross floor area and an eight-story garage, which will contain parking for a thousand vehicles. Second, it represents the first step in the Center's long-range development plans for this site. It is expected that future growth of the cancer research facility will require both zoning changes as well as amendments to the IDD Master Plan. Bill No. 070386 was considered 40 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. and approved by the Planning Commission at its meeting of May 22, 2007. At the same meeting, a Master Plan of development for the institution was also adopted. At the request of the Law Department, copies of the Master Plan are to be added to Bill No. 070386 as an exhibit. This concludes my testimony. I would be happy to answer any questions you may have. And these are the exhibits that need to be added.

Thank you very much, Mr. Kramer. Any questions of this witness by members of the Committee? (No response.)

Anyone else to testify on this bill?

Good morning. My name is Ronald Patterson. I'm with the law firm of Klehr, Harrison, Harvey, Branzburg and Ellers in Philadelphia. With me is Dr. Robert Young, who is the 41 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. President, and Mr. Thomas Garvey, who is the Vice-President of Fox Chase Cancer Center. Fox Chase Cancer Center has existed for about a hundred years and at this location since 1949 on acres, and 8 so, therefore, it predates the Zoning 9 Code. This property, along with Jeanes 10 Hospital that's located on the adjacent 11 parcel, is, as Mr. Kramer stated, located 12 in an R-3 Residential zoning district. 13 Hospital uses in R-3 are not permitted by 14 right, but you have to go to the Zoning 15 Board to get a use certificate for any 16 expansion, including any change in use or 17 even one square foot of additional floor area of a building. And it also does not permit multiple structures on the lot. It also does not permit buildings greater than three stories and has also setbacks and zoning and dimensional requirements that are more akin for housing there. The Cancer Center has grown in the last 15 years, and most recently, 42 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. they're able to secure funding for long-term expansion, because patients have increased twice fold and science and technology has been moving at a fast pace. Most currently, we're seeking to expand on the existing building and on our property to create a cancer research pavilion, a clinical expansion and a parking garage having about 605 parking spaces, for a total of about 300,000 square feet of additional floor area at a cost of about 70 million and which will also create 300 new high-tech jobs. Again, however, in light of this expansion and the future expansions, we think it no longer makes sense, as well as the Planning Commission, to have this zoning district still designated as R-3 and we believe this should reflect the hospital use, and the IDD would be the perfect zoning district designation for that. I don't think that anyone would argue that there probably no longer would be houses built on this R-3 43 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. location. So, accordingly, Councilman O'Neill introduced this ordinance. It encompasses the boundary perimeters of the Fox Chase Cancer Center, as well as a portion of the Jeanes Hospital property, on which the garage will be constructed and connected with the Fox Chase Cancer Center. And with that said, if Dr. Young has anything to add.

Well, we appreciate the opportunity to present this and talk about it. Fox Chase Cancer --

State your name for the record, please.

I'm sorry. I'm Dr. Robert Young, President of Fox Chase Cancer Center. Fox Chase now cares for about 7,000 new patients a year, about 70,000 outpatient visits, and the volumes are growing about five to seven percent a year, and we're trying to keep up with 44 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. the need that patients in this region and in this community have for cancer care and also maintain the standard of excellence for discovery-related science that's been a part of Fox Chase Cancer Center for over a hundred years. This expansion will all take place on land currently owned by Fox Chase and having been owned since 1949, except for a small portion that will include the garage, which has been long-term leased from Jeanes Hospital. This will not involve any aspect of Burholme Park.

Dr. Young, when you say "long term," we're talking long term?

We're talking about 120 years.

Is it fair to say that none of this proposed expansion encompassed by this ordinance will encroach anywhere near the Burholme Park?

That's correct. 45 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC.

Or into the park, I should say.

Correct.

Thank you.

Thank you for your questioning, Mr. Patterson.

Thank you. I thought to make it clear.

Mr. Patterson, could you mention the original intent was to do one large IDD hopefully, which is now at best scheduled for September, with some work to be done over the summer?

Correct.

But that you and the hospital had planned and did actually go to the Zoning Board with support from both civic associations, Fox Chase Homeowners and Burholme Civic and Town Watch, and my office. Could you explain the variance procedure that you went through and are in the midst of and what the impact of this bill will be? 46 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC.

Sure. That application was filed last year to construct a six-story addition to the existing building for use as a radiology outpatient treatment center as part of the cancer research pavilion, which is what we're designating here on this exhibit. Because, again, it was located in an R-3 Residential zoning district and because, as I said, one square foot of expansion or expansion of this use triggered a zoning review, that we had to go to the Zoning Board for both a use certificate and for variance relief. And in summary -- I'll look at the refusal here. We received a referral for the extension of the existing use hospital, which requires a use certificate granted by the Zoning Board after a public hearing. There is an open space requirement that you had to have a 70 percent maximum -- or minimum. We were at 53 percent. There is a building 47 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. height limitation of 60 feet. We were proposing 74 feet. And there were a number of story limitations of three feet, and we were proposing six. We did go to the Zoning Board. The Zoning Board granted a variance, and certain members of an organization that is supposedly affiliated with Burholme Park filed an appeal of that Zoning Board decision. At the same time, we've also filed the application to construct the garage having 600 spaces. That is within the Department of Licenses and Inspection right now. And we would expect that if the IDD is not passed, that that would generate a similar refusal and we'd have to go to the Zoning Board for variance relief for the garage as well.

I want to make the record clear, Mr. Chairman, that when those appeals were filed, I asked the hospital if they were going to be fighting those appeals, both the standing 48 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. issues and the legal issues. They said yes. I asked them to have the Planning Commission prepare above Shelmire Avenue, which is that cut-off line between the City ground and their own, as the IDD and make it a Part A and a Part B, because I didn't think it was fair that people who were clearly and legitimately, they have their democratic rights to oppose the larger expansion that will be discussed at some future time, and we've always said we don't care what they do on their own ground, to stop the will not only of Fox Chase Hospital but also two community organizations that overwhelmingly supported this on the ground of Fox Chase Hospital. There is a general contractor who is ready to go. There's a $55 million patient care pavilion. There's a $15 million parking lot. And this has been going on now in delay mode since about February. So I told them if their legal hands were tied time-wise -- and they 49 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. are -- then nothing will happen until the fall at least on the zoning variances, that I thought this was the right thing to do. And I've been to both civic associations with this legislation and they have overwhelmingly supported it almost unanimously, very close to it.

And I may add or clarify that the Zoning Board hearing date and the date of the decision was November 20, 2006, and since that time, we've had our hands tied.

Thank you. Let the record reflect Councilman Kelly has joined the Committee. Councilman Kenney.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Dr. Young, how many employees are at Fox Chase?

About 2,100.

Could you describe some of the types of work that 50 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. they do, other than the physicians?

Well, there are physicians and nurses. There are laboratory technicians. There are basic scientists. There are maintenance people and grounds people and mechanical individuals who support the infrastructure of the Center.

Are you able to determine the average salary?

It's about 60 to 65 thousand dollars overall.

And you have a couple Nobel laureates, I believe, there, too, also?

We have two Nobel laureates, yes.

I don't know of any other entity or company in the City that has any Nobel laureates, let alone two. What's your alternative to expansion?

Well, our 51 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. alternative to expansion primarily is to have to seek a long-term strategy to move the Center. It's critical for there to be an interaction between the scientific discovery aspects of what we do and the patient care delivery aspects of what we do. We can't split those two. No major cancer center in the United States splits those two and we're not going to be the first. They need to interact in order to produce the synergy that benefits patients.

Could you talk a little bit about the number of positions that the expansion will bring?

It will bring about 400 positions, and it will be across the spectrum that I mentioned earlier.

And the same average salary?

Correct.

Thank you.

There will also be obviously construction positions as a 52 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. result of this.

Right. Thank you very much.

Doctor, are you referring to what's in front of us today or the larger expansion in the future?

No. I'm talking just about this expansion, the 400 people.

And if you would just give a preview for what has been in the news for two years now, your --

Well, the full expansion over a to period of time 18 will create about 4,000 new jobs for the 19 City. 20

Thank you, 21 Doctor. 22

And how 23 much development is contemplated if the 24 whole plan -- 25

Well, over that 53 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. 25-year period, about a billion dollars worth of expansion.

I'd be remiss at this time if I didn't thank the Council Chairman of the Committee on Parks and Recreation who took a morning out of her life last year -- I don't know if she's still here, Councilwoman Blondell Reynolds Brown -- and she had breakfast with me up at our favorite diner and did a nice tour of the whole area to get a real good feel for what the issues were, both pro and con, and what we would be looking at when it finally gets to Council. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman. One last question. You referenced construction jobs and long-term jobs. Is there a plan to create a diversity program and a residential component to ensure that there are opportunities for people in 54 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. that community and people in the City of Philadelphia?

Yes. The long-term agreement we established with the City of Philadelphia actually contains that written language.

Is that with MBEC? You said the City of Philadelphia. What department?

My name is Tom Garvey, Vice-President at Fox Chase. And that was worked with -- I forget the proper name of the committee, but it was with Cheryl Gaston.

City Solicitor.

MBEC? Okay. And you've submitted a plan that reflects those commitments?

Correct.

Okay. Thank you.

Do you want us to supplement the record; is that what you're asking? 55 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC.

That would be helpful, yes. Councilman Kelly.

Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just have a comment to make. I know that there are probably a lot of people that use your facilities. In fact, I've had some family members who unfortunately had to use your services. And I'll tell you right now that you provided an excellent care that I think of any facility or any institution in this country, and I think that I would love to see you not only stay there but expand. And I think that your services and your care is tremendous for not only the community in the Northeast but the entire city or the entire state. Thank you.

Thank you, Councilman.

Thank you, Councilman. 56 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Councilwoman Brown.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I'd be remiss not to comment on Councilman Brian O'Neill's offer for me to have an up-close-and-personal look and tour of that area well over a year ago. So I need to comment, all of the stakeholders who started early on to work through and work out legitimate community concerns regarding this initiative and to see where you've ended up is commendable. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

You're welcome. Any other questions of these witnesses?

No, Mr. Chairman, but I would like to submit a letter from Paul Andris of the Burholme Town Watch and Civic Association, which explains their yes vote on this and overwhelming positive response. And I'm looking for the Fox Chase letter. I know 57 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. I have it. I'll have it by the end of the hearing. Thank you.

Thank you. No other questions? (No response.)

Thank you very much.

Thank you.

Anyone else to testify on this bill? Please come forward.

Good morning. My name is Mike Nakowski. I'm a 22-year resident of the Fox Chase area. My older sister, Dori, is one of the success stories of Fox Chase Cancer Center. My kids play organized sports and organized sports on Burholme property. We play football, baseball. They sled there in the wintertime. Fox Chase, in my opinion, Cancer Center is a success story for the neighborhood. The grounds are 58 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. immaculate. The property is kept immaculate. They're going to put a thousand car garage, I hear, there. I don't know anybody of my immediate neighbors that would be against it. They're all for it. I'm speaking for this proposal. I think it's great for the City. There's going to be no 10 impact where my kids go play football, baseball and sled. I see it's a win-win-win for everybody in the City of Philadelphia. Thank you.

And you're speaking as a resident?

Absolutely. Yeah, 22-year resident.

Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Good morning, Council. My name is Bernard Griggs. I'm a representative of the Building Trades Council. I work for Pat Gillespie. Basically I'm here to testify 59 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. today because the Building Trades Council represents many men and women that live in the Fox Chase area and really, quite honestly, when we look at the issue here, it's unfortunate when you're in the construction industry that every day that our men and women go to work, they're basically working themselves out of a job. So one of the many things that we do as Building Trade representatives and representatives of other unions is create the next job for our members. So we see this as an opportunity to create more jobs for local people and see Fox Chase Cancer Center expand. But just as equally important to the jobs that it would create, for Fox Chase Cancer Center to remain on the cutting edge of both cancer research and treatment, I mean, they desperately need this proposal to go through here. So I just wanted to say on behalf of the Building Trades Council that we fully support it and that we would really like 60 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. to see this get done. Thank you.

Excuse me, sir. There's a question.

Sure.

Good afternoon. What is your full name again?

Oh, I'm sorry. Bernard Griggs.

And how long have you been a member of the Building Trades?

A member 11 years of the Building Trade unions. I've been with the Building Trades Council for a little over four years.

And what was your entry into the Building Trades? Where were you prior to the opportunity to be a member of the Building Trades?

I was a tradesman in the field working for the Bricklayers Union.

And 61 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. process for entry was what? A test? Just walk me through how you were able to get an opportunity --

Well, there's an apprenticeship process that you fill out an application, you get accepted into the program and then -- I think back then when I did my apprenticeship program, it was 2,000 hours of training you had to complete to receive your journeyman card.

And so you were an apprentice -- the procedure or process is apprentice, then journeyman?

Yes.

Then? Help me out.

I'm sorry. Well, yeah, you're an apprentice and then as you progress, you ultimately reach the journeyman status, which is a qualified person to be a master at your trade.

I see. Okay. Thank you for your testimony.

And I 62 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. assume that as a member of the Building Trades Union you will work diligently with the development team to ensure that we have the appropriate participation and residential participation?

Absolutely. That's one of the things that we ultimately spearhead and make sure that it's done.

And the assumption is you'll also be involved in the St. Joseph project?

Absolutely.

Thank you for your testimony.

Thank you.

Any other witnesses? Good morning.

Good morning.

Please proceed. State your name for the record.

Good morning. I'm Jean Gavin. I'm a resident of Fox Chase 63 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. and a user of Burholme Park. And I'm reading my experience since last fall with Fox Chase Cancer Center Court of Common Pleas suit that I wrote on March 14th, '07. First of all, I support the Fox Chase Cancer Center expansion on its own land. Save Burholme Park does, too, and encourages expansion on the Fox Chase Cancer Center land. We object to the taking of Burholme Park land, and we intend to defend our inherited Burholme Park. This suit is not about Burholme Park. This suit is about changing the zoning laws without notifying the involved communities. This suit is about the Fox Chase Cancer Center communicating with our Councilman and our community presidents, but not with us. This is the cause of the suit and the result of another, quote, "done deal," unquote. Talking with the local politicians but not with the voters does 64 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. not cut mustard when we have regular resident meetings and should be advised and informed and included in the decision-making process. Now here is my story: Last September 21st, '06, William Rice, a reporter for the Northeast Breeze, reported on, quote, "a four-level parking garage able to fit 600 cars," unquote, and, quote, "the homeowners voted for the expansion through," unquote. He also reported about an, quote, "opponent," unquote, who wanted, quote, "architectural drawings," unquote, not, quote, "water color pictures," unquote. At the same meeting, Councilman O'Neill told of hiring, quote, "a Dr. No," unquote, to do a traffic study. On Sunday afternoon from to o'clock, I give tours at the Ryerss Mansion in Burholme Park. I live on Rhawn Street, so naturally I pass Jeanes Hospital on my way to the Ryerss Museum. 65 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. In late November of '06, I spotted an orange zoning notice at the bus stop on Central Avenue and the water tower road, which is also called Shelmire Avenue. Curious, I stopped and read what SEPTA was up to, but lo and behold, it wasn't SEPTA. It was the Fox Chase Cancer Center asking for a change in zoning. They stated on the appeal that, among other things, the change in zoning, quote, "will not adversely affect traffic in the area," unquote. Really? Where was the traffic report? I hadn't seen it. I still haven't seen it. Further on, they state, quote, "reduction in off-street parking from 997 spaces to 993 spaces," unquote. Now, this is four fewer spaces after the building of a 600-car garage than before. So where is this additional parking garage? Something was very fishy here. After my tours, I copied that zoning notice, went home and wrote a petition. My petition said, quote, "We, 66 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. the immediate neighbors of the Fox Chase Cancer Center, reject any present Fox Chase Cancer Center plans for building anything but a total parking garage. This community has been patient long enough. This is a second new building in about as many years that suddenly is not a parking garage. Do consider our community. We have no street parking available to us. We need space, too," unquote. I walked Burholme Avenue and Hartel Avenue for one page of signatures. That was signatures. The 16 conversations along this route convinced 17 me that another petition was needed. So 18 I went home and wrote a second petition. 19 My second petition states, quote, "We, 20 the immediate neighbors of Burholme Park, 21 insist that no future buildings be 22 constructed that obscure the panoramic 23 view of the park grounds of the Ryerss 24 Mansion/Museum and Library. Furthermore, 25 we demand that a three-dimensional model 67 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. " Thirty people signed this petition who live on Central Avenue, Hasbrook Avenue and Cottman Street. I delivered copies of these two signed petitions to Councilman O'Neill's office on the Monday preceding the Wednesday, December 6th Zoning Board hearing.

Walking Jazzy, my all-American Burholme-loving Women's Humane rescue dog, I noticed that the Fox Chase Cancer Center had neglected to post a zoning notice at their main entrance at 333 Cottman Avenue. I phoned the Zoning Board to alert them that there was no 18 posting on the Cottman Avenue area. At the Zoning Board hearing on 12/6/06, I was informed that Cottman is not Fox Chase Cancer Center's legal zoning address. Shelmire Avenue is their legal zoning address and so is 7701 Burholme Avenue, so Fox Chase Cancer Center didn't need to post a zoning 68 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. notice at their main entrance, 333 Cottman Avenue. I wrote a new petition, which I delivered to Councilman O'Neill and the Council-at-Large, Dr. Young, Chairman Auspitz, President Nix, stating, quote, "At the Zoning Board meeting on 12/6/06, we learned that the Fox Chase Cancer Center did not need to place zoning notices at the 333 Cottman Avenue address because that is not their legal zoning address. If this is not Fox Chase Cancer Center's legal zoning address, does that mean that this is not a legal entrance? If so, then why is it open to through traffic? Therefore, we, the inheritors of Burholme Park, demand that the Fox Chase Cancer Center signs at the 333 Cottman Avenue entrance to our park be removed and replaced with Burholme Park signage. Also, we demand that the locked open gates at the top of 333 Cottman Avenue entrance be locked closed immediately. We want this stolen park 69 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. returned to us. We want control of our inheritance," unquote. Then at the zoning hearing itself, the Fox Chase Cancer Center displayed architectural renditions of their property and the surrounding area that I hadn't seen at the Fox Chase Homeowners meetings or at the Burholme Civic Association meetings. There were no architectural drawings displayed of any garage, old or new, at any of the meetings. The Chairman directed Fox Chase Cancer Center to bring garage plans to their next zoning meeting. The Fox Chase Cancer Center did note that the water tower is higher than their requested variance. Do they mean to build that high? The Board found that the Fox Chase Cancer Center because -- the Board found for the Fox Chase Cancer Center because Chairman Auspitz said that he had favorable letters from the two resident group presidents and the Board usually finds for the Councilperson, and 70 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. that Councilperson had two people representing him there that day. Later, by United States mail, I received a Zoning Board of Adjustment notice, RE: Decision No. 06-1514, 12/7/06, 7701 Burholme Avenue, and it said "granted," unquote. At the bottom of this notice was this direction: Quote, "All appeals from this decision are to be taken to the Court of Common Pleas of Philadelphia within 30 days from the date of this decision, Zoning Board of Adjustment," unquote. The First Amendment to the Constitution gives me the right to petition and to appeal. The Zoning Board notice even told me that I can appeal their decision. Therefore, I was and am insulted by this, in my opinion, unethical attack by the Fox Chase Cancer Center against me personally. And exactly where do each of these responsible Fox Chase Cancer Center people live? Certainly not on Rhawn 71 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Street or any other address in Fox Chase or Burholme, I'd bet. During this time, I requested a copy of all the Fairmount Park Commission's agreements concerning Burholme Park. From that information I learned that the Fox Chase Cancer Center had agreed to many things, some of which I could check upon and readily see that they were not following through on their agreements. Our request is that the Fox Chase Cancer Center is to comply fully with all past commitments with Fairmount Park regarding Burholme Park and including, but not limited to, signs, paths, landscaping and gate closings.

All proposed buildings will be environmentally sensitive and constructed with materials that will enhance the facade facing the park. All construction will be capped at 74 feet 6 inches and conform with setback lines. Shelmire will become a legal street. Air 72 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. conditioning and heating units will be centralized in one building, not on individual rooms. I want my side of the story told in the paper and published that -- that publish the Fox Chase Cancer Center's story. I believe that I deserve a public apology from the Fox Chase Cancer Center, a cancellation of this, in my opinion, slanderous suit and follow-through on the issues raised for change in the park. I want that traffic study report explained to us by Dr. No, no matter what his conclusions. Finally, a 3D rendition of the complete plans for the future Fox Chase Cancer Center into Burholme Park is to be displayed at the entrance window where the hand-made quilt usually hangs of the Fox Chase Library at the librarian's pleasure for all to inspect and form their own opinions based on actual fact. Sincerely reported, Jean Gavin.

Thank you 73 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. very much for your testimony. Are there any questions of this witness? (No response.)

Thank you. Any other witnesses?

Hi. My name is Wanda Exline and I'm a member of the Save Burholme Park. And you are the Rules Committee?

Yes, ma'am.

Members of the Save Burholme Park strongly oppose Bill 15 070386 that has been introduced by Councilman Brian O'Neill. Members of Save Burholme Park appealed the zoning issued to Fox Chase Cancer Center with 50 signatures that surround the park, and that was confirming to stop the building because it didn't conform with R-3 zoning. Fox Chase Cancer Center in retaliation filed a slap suit for $110 million against two members and Save the 74 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Park organization. Brian O'Neill now sees fit to reward the Fox Chase Cancer Center with Bill 070386 for spot zoning, which would create an industrial medical center. Before 2004, Fox Chase Cancer Center has used what I call window dressing and fiction before the truth of their plans became known. I would like City Councilmembers to heed the words of President Eisenhower, who said "Beware of the industrial medical center complex." This bill, 070386, would create such a place. The area surrounding the park is a traffic nightmare, and to introduce more cars and people would just compound a really bad situation. Thank you.

Thank you, ma'am. Any other testimony? UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is testimony before City Council Rules Committee on Bill 070386, was given 75 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Wednesday, May 30, 2007 by Tim Kearney. He says, "What do the Fox Chase Cancer Center and the old Women's Medical College have in common? One wants to expand and the other is empty and looking for a medical industry tenant. And the East Falls community is waiting with open arms for a hospital tenant. This keeps the projected 4,400 new jobs in the City. It saves federal tax money by avoiding unnecessary new building and it reuses and recycles Women's Medical College. Problem solved, case closed. "For my next trick I get the Phillies and the Eagles to pay for their own stadiums rather than the state and local taxpayers. "I oppose Bill 070386 for numerous reasons. I ask that it be held by the sponsor. First, it is unnecessary. It is attempting to swat a fly with a sledgehammer. The slight variance needed by the Fox Chase Cancer Center Corporation should have been 76 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. avoided by lowering the height of the building slightly and then repositioning the building a little further away from the boundary of the park and the museum, Ryerss Museum. This mansion/museum is a National Historic Site and should not have hospital research and parking buildings pushed so close to it. To live within the current R-3 zoning would be so easy for the FCC Corporation, the developer. If the FCC Corporation had lived within the requirements of R-3, then their two or three proposed buildings would be half built by now. It is their stubbornness that is holding them up, not community opposition. The Save Burholme Park supports their new buildings when built within the R-3 requirements. The necessary adaptations to their building plans are easy and still available on their ample 17-acre grounds. An IDD Institutional 77 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Development District requires much more community input, community awareness and a comprehensive plan. This area has been residentially zoned as far back as people can remember. We do not need an IDD designation to make a slight variation to meet the requirements of R-3. So why such a major proposed zoning change to one of the nicest residential areas in the Northeast? Because Councilman O'Neill introduced Bill 070386 as an end run around Philadelphia Court of Common Pleas Judge Glazer's decision that Save Burholme Park's appeal of the Zoning Board of Adjustment's variance would proceed. The Zoning Board gave the Fox Chase Center Corporation a variance to the R-3 height and setback requirement. Save Burholme Park appealed the variance. Then the FCC Corporation tried to get Judge Glazer to throw out the appeal. Judge Glazer refused to do so. The court hearing date on the appeal is August 2007. 78 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. The FCCC Corporation is fearful of losing the appeal, thus they got Councilman O'Neill to introduce an entire zoning change. And here we are with the Councilman attempting a completely unnecessary and illegal spot zoning for the Cancer Corporation. The IDD will open up cheek by jowl medical industrial complex building rendering Fox Chase to Penn, Jefferson and Hahnemann's cement and macadam urban industrial landscape. The IDD will open and broaden Shelmire Street, running it through to Abington Township and far greater amounts of traffic right past the children's playground and the picnic area. The IDD will then be expanded to include Jeanes Hospital's 34 acres and Center City will have come to Fox Chase. We need responsible development that protects and preserves the natural beauty of Burholme Park, the FCCC site, the Jeanes Hospital site, the historic value of the museum/mansion. We need 79 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. smart growth properly placed and in conformity with the local historic zoning. We do not need to up end a neighborhood to cure and treat cancer.

In fact, smart growth is the opposite of cancer. Some of the FCCC corporate proposals have been described by some local people as a cancer in Fox Chase-Burholme area, growing wildly and out of control, not following the rules. What Dr. Robert Young, CEO of the FCCC Corporation, is proposing in Fox Chase and Burholme he could never get away with in his neighborhood in Chestnut Hill. Does he think Burholme and Fox Chase are working and lower middle-class neighborhoods that we cherish our parks any less than Chestnut Hill cherishes Pastorius Park, Winston Park and the Morris Arboretum? The variance should never have been granted. The FCCC Corporation has no hardship. They have 17 underutilized acres. They have the space to build 80 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. within the R-3 zoning requirements. They do not have to do what they are proposing. They are an award-winning non-profit which can continue on at the same size they have now. Any necessary expansion can be handled elsewhere or by another federally designated cancer corporation. There is no requirement by government that expansion be on site. By avoiding Judge Glazer with passage of Bill 070386, the FCCC Corporation invites a spot zoning lawsuit which will just set them even further behind in a court battle, because we will have to start all the way back at the beginning again. Instead of an impending court hearing in August 2007, it will be January 2008. The Cancer Center has been offered free land at at least two locations by elected government officials, probably more. They are greedy. If they cannot have their first choice, then they want no choice. 81 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. The Cancer Center and Jeanes Hospital have benefited from being in such beautiful surroundings for years. Both have beautiful Burholme Park running down the side of their properties. The community has benefited from the two hospitals with health services and jobs. Now the FCCC Corporation seems hellbent on paving paradise, putting up another parking lot, literally. I expect Joni Mitchell to testify next. Years ago, the communities let the Cancer Center build a driveway through Burholme Park. It cuts the park up badly. 5 acres out of 60 acres out of the middle of Burholme Park. Now they want to drop an IDD right smack in the middle of Fox Chase and Burholme's residential zoning because they refuse to make minor changes to be in compliance. Many members of the community are tired of giving so much to the Cancer Center. 82 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. And we haven't even started on the issue of traffic. A psychiatrist will say they are their own worst enemies. Perhaps the new CEO coming this summer will with the whole community, rather than just those who will rubber stamp the FCCC Corporation plans.

Thank you so much for your testimony, ma'am.

My name is Fred Mauer.

Good morning.

And I have a copy with exhibits for the Clerk. So if you want to take that from me now, you can distribute it. I think there's five of my testimony and ten for some of the other -- Councilman, ten are the exhibits I'll be talking about. Now, this ordinance is a major change to the Fox Chase community at the borderline with Burholme Park, and I want 83 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. to testify on its ramifications. I have a long-term relationship with the Friends of Burholme Park and Ryerss Museum and Library, with their mission to preserve and protect this public park for the public welfare against any encroachments or nuisance by our adjacent property owners. We have had 100 years of good neighbors with Jeanes Hospital Land Trust. This exhibit right here is total land of Jeanes Trust, not Fox Chase Cancer Center. This is the whole property that's owned and administered by the Jeanes Will. We have had 100 good years relationship with the Trust and had no 19 conflicts until Fox Chase Cancer Center's newest expansion plans that disturb the park quality at our borderline and with this new zoning district proposal. For Exhibit-1, I present this pamphlet that's here from the Friends of the Park to demonstrate how they serve 84 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. the public welfare with a quality park and historical mansion in the Northeast, as the first free library and Museum house located at the park borderline with Jeanes Will Trust. While Fox Chase Cancer residential community was City planned in 1910, it was centered and developed around Burholme Park, with good public planning and residential zones. The park was developed by the WPA in 1939, and the City Plan wanted a borderline Shelmire Avenue 80 feet wide. The back of this pamphlet shows how the City Planning Bureau bounded Burholme Park inside a square of public streets. That evidence is in the back of this map. That's what's been published for years and years. Shelmire Street does not exist except as a City plan. The right-of-way on Shelmire had existed as a property line fence and a horse carriage path only to the Ryerss Museum stable before the Water Department 85 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. installed an elevated water tank for the area. Shelmire Avenue was not developed, because there was no private or public needs at the time and because the two lot holders had legal frontage on Central Avenue. The two Shelmire Avenue lot holders are Burholme Park and the Jeanes Will Trustees. The will of Robert Waln Ryerss and widow Mary Baum deeded Burholme Park and it was placed under the Fairmount Park Commission and it was zoned REC, Recreation District. And we will be affected when this adjacent land is changed from R-3 Residential into a Development District. I'll put an aside. R-3 does allow hospital usage. It is not a prohibited use in an R-3 district. All it does, it says you have to accommodate to the reasonable zoning qualities. It is not a prohibition. There was a mistake on the testimony earlier about 86 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. that. Correct that. The benefactor of this ordinance is Fox Chase Cancer Center, who is not a Shelmire Avenue lot owner. In fact, neither do they border on the park. This poster exhibit I show the City surveyor plan of the full Jeanes lot and the trustees, which is the basic map plan for all development. With my exhibit, I enclosed inside here a folded paper, a simplified diagram of the borderline as my Exhibit No. 2. This is a simplification of the situation for your information. The City ordinance Exhibits A and B are not accurate and they omit many details that the Rules Committee should examine before deciding. Fox Chase Cancer Center has two of five leases on the Will Trust land. One other leaseholder is the City Water Department, and this lease holding is not shown on the exhibit map, Exhibit A or B maps. 87 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC.

This ordinance plans to split the Jeanes Will Trust into two zoning districts. I think any land division on Jeanes plot must have the consent of the Jeanes Will Trustees on how they want their land developed. I think this ordinance 9 functions as an eminent domain taking. 2100. This poster exhibit will exhibit that whole area for you. My Exhibit No. 2 adds more details at the property line. This Jeanes Will was divided by selling off two sides for residential housing on Hartel Street and Burholme Avenue. They were the two legal divisions that have already occurred. So local district impacts on this ordinance will be felt when the corporation is granted permission to oversize on Hartel Street and Burholme 88 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Avenue residential backyards, and no one has notified these residents of the reasons and effects of what is happening about them. The negative effects of more developments at the park border will be even greater. We only know what was reported in the Northeast Times on May 17th, the newspaper that said Councilman O'Neill introduced a bill to change the zoning of the hospital ground from Residential to Institutional Development District and said approval will come quickly and this will, in effect, nullify a pending appeal. I repeat his real purpose, that this will, in effect, nullify an appeal. Councilman O'Neill talked about a building and a garage project of 70 million but not about any Institutional Development District Master Plan facts. It looks like that Councilman O'Neill has substituted the Fox Chase Cancer Center 20-year $1 billion Master Plan into a 70 89 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. million IDD zone. If this is so, then the Councilman may have resolved one matter, if it was done right. If Councilman thinks IDD zoning will nullify the present zoning appeals, then I think he has stumbled. Judge Glazer was already crafting a settlement with all parties and was waiting for the City survey office to resolve major facts, and this unwelcome interference harms more parties after we all agreed to wait. During the Judge Glazer trial, Fox Chase Cancer Center claimed that they owned four feet inside of Burholme Park and were entitled to build at the park line with no setbacks. When you examine the City ordinance exhibit maps, they show IDD contact at Burholme Park, with no Fox Chase Cancer Center street frontage or setbacks. This exhibit map shows Shelmire extended. I did not find the term "extended" in the City Code and I don't 90 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. know what it means. This Shelmire extended ordinance seems to make a small driveway into a legal street. However, the 1961 City agreement to lease a parcel of Jeanes Trust for the City Water Department to build an elevated water tank agreed that the City will not take more parkland. I think the introduction of this ordinance is very bad faith with the Jeanes Will Trustees. I think this IDD ordinance has many procedural flaws. An IDD district required much careful planning and a slow track process. The introduction of this ordinance before City Council was not timely, and it cannot be implemented immediately, as the ordinance writes. Councilman O'Neill introduced the bill on May 10 and had it approved on the City Planning Commission agenda of May 19, 19 days after it was officially introduced. There are many mistakes. Fault one is on Code 14-1107(a), that no IDD 91 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. shall be established unless accompanied with a development plan. I note the May introduction did not have the required 5 plan, and no plans were made available to 6 the City Council Clerk for public review 7 in the legal public notice. 8 Fault No. 2, Code 14-1107(a), 9 requires recommendation of the Planning 10 Commission and Streets Department with traffic pattern, parking, plan and driveways. I note these mandates were not done before or at introduction time. Fault No.

3, Code 14-1107(b), development plan must be submitted at least 45 days before the bill 17 introduction. I note the City Planning action on May was not presented 19 timely, and the action of approval behind the introduction date was not proper and it was too late. This looks like a pay-to-play scheme to avoid an honest and fair review of the IDD development plan. Fault No. 4, Code 14-1107(b)(1), plans for the entire and 92 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. not a parcel basis. I noted in my poster exhibit the existing district of Jeanes Will Trust is zoned R-3 and all parcels are contained in one single code. That's R-3. This new ordinance will split the entire district into parcel zoning as non-legal spot zoning. Fault 5, Code 14-1107(c), which I call public policy, no change shall be approved which is contrary to the criteria set forth. Since the listed criteria have not been studied in the mandatory 45-day waiting period, this safety rule was violated. Conclusion: I think the Rules Committee should honor the good principles of City planning and follow the Zoning Code in the public record. There are many faults in this project, and it should be withdrawn or tabled until any legal cases are concluded. And I suggest an outside review of the Development Master Plan without the current dirty-hand participants. 93 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. And if you give me just a moment so I can demonstrate to you what's on the -- all those items that I talked about. Here's the whole plan of Jeanes Will. I got this in the City survey, so it's the official map. These two parcels here -- I got it upside down. That's a little better. No, it's not. I had it right the first time. In here is Hartel Street. These two parcels here were split off from Jeanes Hospital. I think it would be better if I turned it upside down. Let me turn it upside down.

Mr. Mauer, I think we get the point. We get the point. Because we have other witnesses.

Well --

We get the point. We've seen the map.

I think --

We get the 94 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. point. We've been hearing this testimony for about an hour now. Thank you.

Further testimony?

Yes, please.

This is my written testimony. Thank you.

Please state your name for the record.

It's rather short. I know you've heard our testimony, but I thank you very much --

No problem.

-- for listening to our testimony. We, of Save Burholme Park, thank you, and we do think it is very important, so please have patience as we speak to you about our testimony and our concerns. This is addressed, of course, to --

State your name, please. 95 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC.

My name is Marlene Sellers of Save Burholme Park, and this is addressed to City Council and the Rules Committee. We, of Save Burholme Park, support the Fox Chase Cancer Center. We understand the remarkable work that they have done. We support their goals to prevent, detect and treat cancer. We agree that it is a remarkable institution. But the fight against cancer must not allow the destruction of Burholme Park, which is a national treasure in our City, which is listed in the National Historic Register. We have people coming from all over to see this treasure, which is in the heart of Burholme Park. We insist that the Fox Chase Cancer Center respect the integrity of the park, respect our local residential neighborhoods surrounding this entire Fox Chase Cancer Center, with consideration of our boundaries, which are still in 96 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. dispute; setback lines; open space; height limits; reduction of noise and pollution into the park; traffic control. These issues have not been resolved at all. Adequate parking facilities. These issues have not been resolved. Exterior appearance of the buildings facing the park. The next page, in regard to the court sessions and Judge Glazer, we ask that the designation of the Fox Chase Cancer Center as an Institutional Development District be tabled or withdrawn until further studies are considered and until we go through our other court process with Judge Glazer. Our appeal of the zoning variance is before the courts now and we ask that consideration be given while the court case is in process. We ask that due process be allowed to continue as citizens in a free society. A complex Institutional Development District will have a negative 97 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. impact on the residential neighborhood and will destroy the character of this national recognized park. We have a sacred duty as citizens to protect the park, its boundaries and beauties. It is our inheritance which was given to us over 100 years ago by the will of Robert Ryerss to the citizens of Philadelphia, quote, in his will, "free to the people forever," unquote.

Thank you. Thank you for your testimony.

Good afternoon, members of Council. My name is Hal Schirmer. I wanted to quick point out one of the things which has come up over and over again is -- you have heard Fox Chase initially mention that this was not about Burholme Park. Tangential to this there is a current lawsuit. Burholme Park (sic) has sued the neighbors and Save Burholme Park for approximately $110 98 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. million. As part of that lawsuit, they have stated that this garage and this pavilion are part of the expansion plan. So it's a little bit disingenuous for them to come before City Council and then state, No, this is not part of the plan. Part of the reason for this concern is that Fox Chase does good business, so everyone believes that they have a great business plan, they're in doing a good job. However, sometimes large businesses do dumb things. Sometimes you have this entire development district which is focused on one property, one owner and one 14-foot building. This is a sledgehammer for a flea. There is no need to go through with this Institutional Development District. This Institutional Development District for one owner, one piece of property bypasses the adjacent hospital. If you're going to do an Institutional Development District, think about actually developing the district, 99 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. actually look through the area, do a development and do an ordinance which is of the correct scope, do an ordinance 5 which is not rushed through. There is actually no need for this ordinance. On May 4th in front -- actually, just down the hall in Courtroom 426, the zoning appeal, which was the focus and apparently the reason for this ordinance, went before Judge Glazer. The attornies for both sides went into the back, came back and said, Yes, we can come up with a settlement in good faith. Fox Chase's good faith suddenly disappeared, because instead we now have this ordinance to rezone everything. This is unusual. It's a lot more than is necessary. I believe the parties were already on the record discussing information and trying to put down boundaries. So it's unusual to have this ordinance, one, in only two or three weeks. There's no background for the scope of this location -- there's no 100 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. reason for this rush to avoid the zoning variance legislation. The question which was put to Judge Glazer is, Hey, have the neighbors brought a frivolous lawsuit? The decision from Judge Glazer was no, it's a valid lawsuit, it should go forward. Immediately Fox Chase comes through, Okay, fine, we aren't winning first, we're going to change the rules in the middle of the second quarter. This idea of rethinking what Fox Chase should grow into is a good idea. The location is a good location. Oddly, the Councilman may have come up with the best solution, since we have seen people concerned about the expansion of Fox Chase. The concern previously was that Fox Chase would be expanding out into Burholme Park and eating away at the park. Now that you have an Institutional Development District, you have the opportunity to think about maybe they should go up. How high they go up and 101 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. whether there should be setbacks, but considering that you're currently stripping away the three-story height limit, that opens up a win-win situation if this is done correctly. Don't just consider a garage. The Planning Commission paperwork specifically showed highlighted one pavilion, one garage. You don't legislate for two buildings and for two floors out of two buildings. This is something that City Council should table, should think about. There is no rush.

And as far as the building trades and as far as growing the City and making this a good medical campus and making it a good medical city, as the letter from Tim Kearney pointed out, Philadelphia currently has a medical research campus sitting empty, empty, over on Route 1, with great transportation, great infrastructure, looking for people to come and move into it. There is a clear reason for Fox 102 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. Chase -- or a clear out for Fox Chase. Go use the existing hospital while you're rebuilding this hospital. While you're taking the chance to consolidate everything and instead of sprawling across your campus, plus the park, rethink this. Do this correctly. Hey, talk to Jeanes Hospital, see if they're interested in putting together some kind of comprehensive plan. We're looking at a 20- to 25-year plan, according to Fox Chase's own admission. Instead of waiting to 15 25, 30 years for Fox Chase to start 16 curing cancer, do it tomorrow. Take the 17 millions of dollars that you have now, 18 rent out the other campus and start 19 working. While you're working over at 20 the East Falls campus, you can -- they're 15, 20 minutes apart. While you're setting up to begin doing the work now and thinking about a real master plan over the next six months to a year, then you can go through and also start to 103 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. rebuild the Fox Chase Cancer Center. Instead of building it out and eating up the park, start building it up. Start making it a LEED-certified building. Start making it a showcase building for Philadelphia and for Fox Chase and start making it some kind of win-win situation instead of an attempt to change the rules in the third inning because you aren't getting what you want. Fox Chase is not a bad corporate citizen. CSX was not a bad corporation citizen. They had certain problems listening to the people. In this case, especially given the days 17 since this bill has gone through to the 18 point that we're sitting here, there 19 needs to be some communication with the 20 residents. There needs to be some thought about a master plan. There needs to be some background for this legislation before it goes forward. So I'd ask the Committee to table this resolution pending some input from the 104 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. neighbors. Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. (Applause.)

Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

There being none --

If I could briefly rebut.

No. 15

No? Okay.

Thank you. This concludes the public hearing of the Committee on Rules and we will now go into the public meeting. I'd like to call on Councilman O'Neill for a motion on Bill 070386.

Mr. Chairman, I'd like to make a motion on Bill No. 070386 that it be reported out of Committee with a favorable 105 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended so as to allow first reading at our next -- MR. McPHERSON: Wasn't there an amendment on this one?

Let's ask Mr. Kramer. Was there an amendment on this one, Mr. Kramer?

The Law Department asked for the introduction of an exhibit, which was the master plan.

It was placed in the record.

It was in the record. Okay.

So I recommend a rules suspension, as well as a reporting out. (Duly seconded.)

There's been a motion on Bill No. 070386. All those in favor? (Aye.) 106 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC.

Those opposed? (No response.)

Bill No. 6 070386 will be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation with a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. Councilwoman Brown, can you give me a motion on Bill No. 070396?

Sure, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill 14 No. 070396 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and further move that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next scheduled session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)

There's been a motion on 070396. All those in favor? (Aye.)

Those 107 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it. Bill 070396 is reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation with a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. Councilman Kenney, a motion on Bill No. 070397.

Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 070397 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension to be made to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)

Being moved and seconded, those in favor? (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes 108 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. have it. Bill No. 070397 is reported out of Committee with a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. Councilman Greenlee, give me a motion on Bill No. 070398.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill 10 070398 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the rules of Council be suspended to allow for first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

It being moved and seconded, those in favor? (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it. Bill No. 070398 is reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation with a rules suspension as 109 5/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070386, ETC. to allow reading at the next session of Council. This concludes the Committee on Rules public meeting. Thank you very much. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 12:15 p.m.) - - - 110 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on May 30, 2007, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)