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.
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?
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.)
Hi. My name is Wanda Exline and I'm a member of the Save Burholme Park. And you are the Rules Committee?
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.
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.
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.
It's rather short. I know you've heard our testimony, but I thank you very much --
-- 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.
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. 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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.)