m. - - - BILL 960064 - Real estate signs. BILL 990331 - Jefferson Sq. Redevelopment Area BILL 990673 - Health Care Advocate BILL 990678 - Fifth St. Special Controls District BILL 990719 - Appeals to Zoning Board of Adjust. BILL 990729 - Boxes for Dist. /Manayunk Spec. Controls District BILL 990761 - Zoning of Residential Districts BILL 990812 - Exemption from Real Estate Taxes on New Construction BILL 990817 - Special People in the Northeast Inc. ) PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN DARRYL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center, Suite 600 Philadelphia, PA 19103 (215) 561-2220 I N D E X Bill 990817 Donald Cramp, Chief Executive Officer . . Hospitals & Higher Ed. Facilities Authority David Lacino, Pres. & Chief Executive . . 5 Officer, Special People in the Northeast Mr. McGrail (no title given). . . . . 9 Bill 990847 Edgar Einhorn, Esquire. . . . . . Richard Lombardo, City Planning . . . . Bill 990064 Lindsay Johnston, President . . . . . Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors Ann Rubin, President-elect . . . . . Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors 11 Lenora Bersin, Center City Residents Assoc. 31 Judith Eden, Center City Residents Assoc.. . 33 12 Melanie Lamond, Realtor . . . . . . 42 13 Bill 990678 Richard Lombardo, City Planning . . . . 59 14 Brenda Frazier, Staff Attorney for C. Tasco 82 Marian Johnson, Councilwoman Tasco's Staff. 83 15 Richard Feder, Esquire, Law Department. . , Member of Bar . . 90 16 Bill 990719 17 Richard Lombardo, City Planning . . . . 61 Otis Haigler, L&I Regulatory Affairs Mgr. . 66 18 Gray Smith, South Street Neighborhood Assoc. 69 Stanley Krakower, Counsel to Civic Groups . 72 19 Richard Feder, Esquire, Law Department. . 76 Bill 990729 Otis Haigler, L&I Regulatory Affairs Mgr. . 92 Al Taubenberger, President. . . . . 94 Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce Michael Klauder, General Manger . . . . 94 Country Club Restaurant Bill 990848 Councilman Darryl L. Clarke . . . . . 99 Reverend William King, Calvary United Church 105 Captain Dorsey, 23rd District . . . . 114 Gladys Mead, 29th St. ) Bill 990844 Thomas Chapman, City Planning . . . . 130 Stanley Krakower, Counsel to Civic Groups . 132 Gray Smith, South Street Neighborhood Assoc. 133 Richard Feder, Esquire, Law Department. . 134 Bill 990331 Noel Eisenstat, Redevelopment Authority . . 157 Jeremy Newburg, Jefferson Square CDC. . . 170 Peggy Brookens, St. John's Leadership Team. 177 Mary Black, St. John's Leadership Team. . 181 Irv Ackelsberg, Community Legal Services. . 182 Kevin Price, Jefferson Square CDC . . . 197 Bill 990673 John Domzalski, Health Department . . . 199 Yvonne Tisdale, Phila. Unemployment Project 208 Citizens for Consumer Justice Witness . . 212 J. Stein, Counsel, Community Legal Services 216 Kevin Wigglesworth, DVHC . . . . . 219 Bernard Johnson, Health Family. . . . 238 Bill 990812 Michael Nadol, Dir. of Finance . . . 247 David Glancy, Revision of Taxes . . . 254 Steven Kline, Kline Company . . . . 266 Ben Edison, Developer . . . . . . 273 Bills 990760, 990761 Richard Lombardo, City Planning Commission 276 Patrick O'Neil, City's Environmental Counsel 303 Robert McAlane, Namico . . . . . . 317 Kay Smith, Manayunk Neighborhood Council . 319 Dan Netison, Developer . . . . . . 322 Ed Weiner, Citizen . . . . . . . 324 Virginia Restemeyer, Citizen . . . . 328 Peter Kelson, Dranoff Properties . . . 332 Michael Sklaroff, Cotton Street Landing, Ltd. 334 Stanley Krakower, Manayunk Neighborhood . 345 Council, Friends of Manayunk Canal, Sierra Club Kathy Tomaski, Manayunk Neighborhood Council 368 Sarah A. Willig, PhD. . . . .
. ) Wendy Lathrop, Land Surveyor and Planner . 400 Ernest Cohen, Engineer . . . . . . 438 Dorothy Berner, Riverkeeper . . . . 442 5 P R O C E E D I N G S
Good morning everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask that the clerk to read the title of Bill No. 990817.
An ordinance declaring that it is desirable for the health, safety, and welfare of the people in the area served by Special People in the Northeast, Incorporated, a Pennsylvania nonprofit corporation, for the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia to participate in the financing of certain projects for Special People in the Northeast, Incorporated.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, good morning. How nice it is to see you all again.
My name is Donald Cramp. I serve as chief executive officer of the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority. May I proceed with my testimony? 6 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990718
Thank you very much. I wish to make a very brief introductory statement in support of the proposed bill before you this morning. On May 10, 1999 a representative for Special People in the Northeast attended the Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities Authority of Philadelphia's Board of Directors meeting seeking the Authority's assistance in a financing. The Special People in the Northeast's application was accepted by the Authority Board. A public Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act, the TEFRA hearing, on behalf of the Special People in the Northeast, was held on September 10, 1999 in our boardroom, in accordance with the published newspaper advertisement. Today, we are very pleased together of assisting the Special People of the Northeast, Inc. and the many people associated with this outstanding organization. In closing, I would like to express deep appreciation at this time of the year for the Rules Committee to convene and to consider this 7 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990718 bill. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Would someone describe for the record SPIN and what services they offer, please.
Yes. My name is David Lacino (ph.), and I'm the president and chief executive officer of Special People in the Northeast, Incorporated. It is a nonprofit corporation, a subcontractor to the City of Philadelphia. And our mission is to support individuals with mental disability from infancy through senescence. The organization is almost 30 years old. It serves some 1600 people annually, and it has an array of services, starting with infant stimulation, day care, preschool services, employment opportunities, actual handicapped employment, and residential programs, as well as wraparound therapeutic services for families in the home and people residing in their natural family setting. The agency serves all of Philadelphia, but the major focus of its service is from Olney 8 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990718 north, to the Bucks County line, and out to the River and the Montgomery line. Is there any other information you would need?
Now, this bill would authorize improvements to SPIN facilities?
That's correct. It's a $5.6 million tax-exempt financing. Roughly $1.1 million would be financing for two new commercial sites on Drummond Road, which are needed to support the therapeutic staff, the training initiatives of the agency, and the support personnel for the adult services, the residential programs. Almost $3.8 million of the money is refinancing all of the commercial debt in the agency, which is the result of two other commercial properties and home in which the residents live. And, finally, there is a $700,000 piece. We are cooperating with the City of Philadelphia for this year's expansion, and six new homes will be identified, and those homes will 9 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990718 require another ordinance and coming back before City Council. They have not yet been identified yet. But the financing is all a part of that package, and that's what the money will be used for.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Thank you very much, and thank you for all the wonderful work that you do.
Mr. Chairman and members, if you see fit to vote this out, I would appreciate a suspension of the rules.
The next bill 11 being called for consideration is Bill No. 12 990847. Will the clerk please read the title of that bill.
An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area beginning at a point on Penn Street 140 feet northeast Christopher Columbus Boulevard and extending 624 feet along said Penn Street, then extending to the Delaware River.
Yes. I'm Edgar Einhorn, 11 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 and I represent the purchasers of this property, which also is known as Piers 35, 36,37 -- Piers 36 through 39 north.
I'm sorry. I'm incorrect. It's Piers 36, 37, 38, and 39 north.
This property is approximately nine and a half acres and was occupied by the former Riverfront Theater. My clients have it under an agreement of sale and will be going to closing in January. Their intent is that they would like to develop the property for residential purposes. There are no definite plans now, but their intent is to put up single-family dwellings along the river's edge portion and in the center to put a mid-rise structure of apartments approximately ten, twelve stories. They also would like to have some commercial uses, mainly to facilitate the people living there -- like a commissary, dry cleaner, 12 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 some offices, restaurants, things like that. And that is their intent at this point, purely to develop it for residential purposes.
Thank you. Do we have anyone from City Planning present?
Madam Chair, I could find all of the City Planning people 'cause they're in my office right now.
I know that City Planning met on this last Thursday, and Mr. Chapman advised me that they had approved it.
Well, I would like someone from City Planning to testify for the record.
Are there any 13 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 questions of Mr. Einhorn from the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Could you give me an idea -- maybe I didn't hear your testimony, but how many residential units are planned for this location?
Right now, the intent is to put up about 80 single-family dwellings.
What they would be would be similar what are on Pier 3 and Pier 5, mainly six-story buildings, with two-level single-family on each level, so you would have three levels of single-family in these six-story buildings.
Are all the structures multifamily? Are there any single-family structures?
I have a conceptual plan 14 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 that's been drawn. City Planning has this mounted for you. There's a conceptual plan that's been drawn that shows the location of the six-story single-family structures and an approximate idea of where they would put the mid-rise structure.
Okay. Are you a part of the group that's doing the work or the --
Yes. They own several pieces of property in the City. They own the One East Penn Square building.
I'm sorry. They currently have control, site control, over this parcel now?
Yes. And we have a letter that I presented to Councilman DiCicco consenting by the present owners, the Tabises (ph.), the rezoning of this bill.
Oh, this is the Tabis property? 15 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847
Okay, fine. What is your client's timeframe on construction?
It depends on financing. I would assume they would probably like to do something next year.
Their intent is to move ahead with it as soon as possible. As I said, they've already been meeting with an architect to get some ideas conceptual ideas of what to do with it, and actual groundbreaking all would depend on how they get their financing lined up.
Fine, thank you. I think this kind of project is -- I've had discussions with Councilmember DiCicco about this, and these are tremendous projects which continue to extend the Center City waterfront into -- probably more north than south because of the commercial and industrial nature of the southern port, but the extending of the northern waterfront district with residential properties is a 16 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 tremendous --
Absolutely, and this is the first time something's going north of Spring Garden, and I think it would be a great impetus to the whole area if we can get this going.
Thank you, Mr. Einhorn. Mr. Lombardo, we are now considering Bill No. 990847.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo, from the Planning Commission, here today to speak on Bill 990847. I'll try to brief 'cause I know you have a very extensive day. But this is bill is a bill to rezone approximately 9.4 acres of former the Riverfront Dinner Theater from G2 industrial C3 commercial. You'll remember back a number of years ago when the Planning Commission did a number of plans for the riverfronts, both the lower Schuykill and upper Schuykill, central and lower Delaware. In the central and the edges of the 17 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 north and the edges of the south, the Commission recommended that ultimately those piers would no 4 longer be needed for industrial or port-related business; it should be rezoned to C3 commercial. A number years ago, we did the south end. We did where Walmart and Home Depot is, all the way down to Snyder Avenue; we rezoned all that C3 commercial. This bill would rezone the area north of Poplar Street to C3 commercial. If we had had time at the end of the administration, we would have probably recommended these -- a larger bill that also would have encompassed other property along the riverfront, which -- what it does now is, it sort of jumped up from Dave and Busters up several blocks to this site, but still the stuff in between, including the incinerator, is still zoned industrial. We would have recommended the whole riverfront in that area to be zoned to C3 commercial. We believe that that is a district that would allow mixed-use development, similar to what is proposed here. And for the record, we would recommend, as of the Commission meeting of December 2, 1999, 18 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990847 that Bill 990847 be approved.
Thank you. And, Mr. Lombardo, I assume that there have been community meetings regarding this change?
I believe there was a meeting held with Northern Liberties, and our community planners tell us that they are -- I wouldn't say they supported it, but they had no 11 objection to this. I think they actually are supportive of this proposal; they have no 13 objection.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
The next bill 22 to be considered is Bill No. 990064. Will the clerk please read the title of that bill.
An ordinance amending Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled ""Regulation 19 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 of Businesses, Trades, and Professions," by amending Chapter 9-600, entitled "Service Businesses," and by amending Section 9-608, entitled "Real-Estate Signs," by amending the terms and conditions pursuant to the time period real-estate signs may remain upon premises containing single or multifamily dwellings and by deleting Subsection (2), relating to prohibited signs, all under certain terms and conditions.
Do we have anyone to testify on Bill 26? Please approach the witness table, identify yourself, and proceed with your testimony. (Lindsay Johnston comes forward.)
I'm Lindsay Johnston. I am the president of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors. Would you like me to go ahead and make the statement?
Please proceed, mm-hmm. 20 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064
As you know, this is not my first time in front of this august body. Without getting into too much history, I would like to reiterate that we have made every effort to meet with Members of Council to discuss these issues. The Members of the Center City Residents Association, who are opposed to our moving forward with this bill, have no-showed us at meetings and have also stood you up at meetings, claiming a certain inconvenience. We believe that our issues and their issues are like comparing apples and oranges. We are still, however, willing to meet with them and discuss the issues that they have regarding their Bill 51, I believe, which they want certain restrictions on the length of signs up in Center City, etc. What I would really like to discuss today is the fact that, as we have given you, we've provided you briefs in the past, and now we have something from the City Solicitor that 21 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 states, again, that clearly, any law prohibiting these signs is unconstitutional. And so what we ask again is that you pass this legislation, you allow the signage, and that you don't force us to institute a lawsuit against the City that the City cannot win.
Thank you. Please identify with the record and proceed with your testimony.
I'm Ann Rubin, I'm President-elect of the Greater Philadelphia Association of Realtors and Chair of the Legislative Committee, and I have been involved with working with Council on this for about four or five years now. We initially came to Council to talk about this. It was brought before Council, it never got out of committee. We then sought legal counsel, and our legal counsel explored this extensively and advised us that we should move forward with a suit against the City, that it was unconstitutional, and that we could win this for sure; that it has been proven in other cities, which I can cite if you want, we've supplied all 22 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 this to you. We chose, rather than going through that route, which we felt would cost the taxpayers unneeded money, to come back to Council with that information, and ask for this to go around again, and here we are. The issues that have been brought up by the Center City area have been old issues that we have been trying to work with them on signage. It is separate and apart from the issue of whether we can place a "sold," the word "sold" on the signs that already exists. Constitutionally, it our right, it is the right of the citizens to be able to advertise that. If they want to talk about size of signs, if they want to talk about length of time, we're happy to work with Council and with the residents and work on something that's right and good for everybody. We have tried to set up meetings, under the advice of Council. The meetings have been scheduled, the people that are opposing this bill, for wrong reasons, have chosen not to show up, have not returned calls. It is a struggle. We are prepared to move forward with a lawsuit in the year 2000 and win this. We would 23 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 prefer that Council just lift the ban and move this forward in the simplest and easiest way for everybody. And that is what we are stressing for the last time in front of Council, because our stand is that we have the constitutional right to do this. Your City Solicitors have supported that. We'd like to work together with you and move this forward now -- or see you in court.
Thank you, Madam President, and thank you, members of the Realty community for being here. As you see on Bill No. 26, it says that Mr. Kenney introduced this by request. And at the time, and I still believe at the time then and I still believe now, that the request that was being made was a reasonable request for an industry that does a lot of good work in Philadelphia, and that is an important part of our economic life blood here in the City of Philadelphia. They are the people who kind of put their best foot forward to 24 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 promote the city, to have people move into the city, to make sure that neighborhoods remain stable. And one of the things that they have discovered, as a result of their experiences, is that the stability of neighborhoods relative to a 1970s ban on sold signs, which originally was intended to stop the block-busting practices of a few unscrupulous Realtors and land speculators was, in fact, having the reverse effect of destabilizing neighborhoods because community people who lived in the community would see sale sign after sale sign, without any understanding or knowledge of what the end result of that effort sale was, whether someone had bought that property or whether someone was moving into the property, or if it was going to remain vacant. I believed at the time, and I believe now, that the simple placement of a sold strip across the existing sales sign, which would remain -- in my experience, those signs remain on the property until the day of settlement. The day of settlement comes, the people move in, the sign comes down. There's no reason to keep a sold 25 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 sign, sales sign, or any other sign on a property after the property's been settled and the new neighbors have moved in. As a result of concerns expressed by the Center Residents Association, which, I believe, are legitimate concerns about the issues of the size of signs, the types of signs that protrude from buildings, the length of times that for-rental signs stay up, and the whole panoply of issues relative to signage in Center City, I believe were realistic and reasonable issues that were raised by these community groups. In that regard, we tried on many occasions to set up meetings and to deal with these issues together. We wanted to try to give relief to the industry, the real-estate industry, on the sold sign ban issue, but at the same time wanted to resolve those issues of size and length of time and all those other issues that were plaguing Center City and the residents and their concerns. For some reason or another -- and I can't figure out to this day why -- we were not able to get that effort completed. Where we sit here today is with a bill 26 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 that's been worked on for, come February 8th, for four long years, with all of the efforts that have been undertaken to try to resolve everybody's problem. I don't think it's fair to this particular industry, considering the fact that what they're asking for is not intrusive. They're not asking to expand their ability to place signs anywhere, they're not asking for the ability to make the signs bigger or put them out in the public right-of-way; what they're asking to do is to remove a ban that will allow people in the neighborhood to understand that houses are being turned over, that people are coming into the neighborhood, that the neighborhood's remaining vibrant, and that's all they have asked for. Now, as a result of my request of the City Solicitor's Office, we find today, and we will ask that the letter from Stephie Franklin-Suber be placed into the record on her opinion that the ban on sold signs, period, is unconstitutional. And it's very clear in her lengthy opinion that it is unconstitutional. (Copy of City Solicitor's opinion letter not provided to stenographer). 27 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 I don't know what the result of this bill is going to be today; I would like to see it get out of committee.
If it gets out, it gets out; if it does, it doesn't. But what I would suggest to you is that if it doesn't get out of committee, is to utilize the opinion of the City Solicitor to start to do it anyway, and if the City then cites you for that, then you have at least some request for remedy from the courts, which I think you'll be successful in. I want to compliment the real-estate industry on their fortitude and patience and their continuing desire to talk to people about these issues. And, you know, I've gotten some information back from various sources in Council that there are now new members of Council who may be close to it, people that weren't involved in any of the discussions but now have an opinion that they're opposed to certain elements of the bill or the fact that it affects their district. And I don't know where we're going to go by the end of this particular hearing, but I want to compliment you and commend you and thank you for the effort that you've made to get reasonable 28 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 redress and attention of this legislative body to an issue affecting your industry. Again, I don't know what the end of it's going to be, but I do think you have the legal footing now to proceed with getting what you wanted in the first place without our help, if that is the case, but I just wanted to thank you for your continued patience. And, hopefully, it will work out, but if not, then I expect to see sold signs in neighborhoods letting people know that properties are changing hands, people are moving in, and the city is not a constant flight of residents out to the suburbs. So I thank you for your time.
Councilman Kenney, I appreciate your comments and thank you for your advocacy of our position. To reiterate -- and I'm not trying to school anyone here, but there is an oath of office that says that you will uphold the Constitution, and this -- as cited by this opinion, the failure to pass this bill is almost a dereliction of duty in that why would they force us -- why would City Council force us into civil disobedience when it's 29 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 clearly stated that forbidding sold signs is unconstitutional. There are a host of court cases and decisions stating that. So it would seem that Council would want to just go ahead and that, We have no right to stop this, we can't stop this, we'll approve this.
Well, in addition, my desire, in addition to removing the sold sign ban and giving you some relief, was to address the serious problems that face Center City and other areas of the city. When it comes to the size of signs and the length of time, I mean, I was willing to allow neighborhood groups to write a specific bill that we would all agree on, to say that this is going to be the end of these large A-frame protruding signs from walls, things that are really esthetically ugly, and we're going to miss this opportunity, at least at this point in time, to do any of that, based on lack of cooperation.
And for the record, there was a bill written that addressed the concerns of the Center City residents, that we said we were 30 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 happy with. And when we said we were happy with it, all of a sudden, the Center City residents weren't happy with that bill anymore. So I want you to know that -- make it clear that this is not the only place that we have tried to address this issue. We have, over the past four years, been more than willing to sit down and talk about it and to agree to what we thought they wanted until we agreed. And, also, I'd like to ask, for the record, you all have copies of petitions. We have a very large Realtor community that cannot afford to take the time off, unfortunately, to come down here every time there's a hearing, but we have asked and in a very short time circulated petitions, and I would like to make sure that that gets on the record, that you know that there's a large population that does support what our efforts are. (Copy of petition not provided to stenographer.)
And last but not least, I would like to mention that, for instance, the University City Community Council has unanimously passed a resolution favoring this bill. 31 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 We bring issues in front of the Council that are not only Realtor-driven issues, but we are a consumer advocacy group, and the issues that we bring in front of you and look for your help with help, we believe, not only help our industry but also help the citizens of Philadelphia.
Well, I certainly think you've done your done best, so we'll see what happens.
Thank you. I believe earlier I saw a member or two from the Center City Residents Association. If they're in the room and would care to testify, please approach the witness table. (Center City Resident Association representatives come forward.)
Good morning. Thank you for the opportunity. I'm Lenora Bersin (ph.), President of Center City Residents Associates, and 32 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 Judith Eden, who is the Co-chair of our Zoning Committee. I've never heard us accused of not being present before, but we're here today. We understand that there is a --
Excuse me. Would you pull the microphone closer to you, please.
We understand this is a complex issue. We also understand that Councilman Kenney and other Councilmen have moved to try to be fair to everyone, and we understand and hope that it will happen that there will be an amended version to the bill that will say that no person shall erect or place a sold sign upon any premise containing a single or multifamily dwelling in the area bounded by Market and South, the Schuylkill River, and Delaware River, at least half of which is our territory. And we just wanted to come up to thank Council for their concerns, to say that we are always willing to talk to people, and we're here today to support the amendment and support your efforts. 33 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064
May we have a copy, please? (Copy of amendment not provided to stenographer.) Miss Eden, did you want to testify?
I don't think that it's necessary. We did understand that the amendment that the president of CCRA just referred to was to be introduced today.
Okay. Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Could you repeat your statement, again, please. You said you didn't understand or you did understand?
The Center City Residents Association and, for that matter, the Society Hill Civic Association, were told that an amendment would be offered to the bill before you today that would exclude Center City, from the Schuykill to Delaware Rivers, from Market to South Street. 34 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 And we came here today prepared to testify in favor of that amendment. We've not yet actually heard any of you place the amendment in the record.
And if that amendment were adopted as part of this bill, then would the Center City Residents Association support the bill, as amended?
We would. Yes, sir, yes, sir. 'Cause everybody has different needs.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Miss Eden, could you give me the boundaries of the Center City Residents Association?
Our boundaries are Broad to the Schuylkill River, Market to South.
In the amendment, the amendment calls for the boundaries to go from Market Street to South, from the Schuykill to 35 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 Delaware River. That's the east side of Broad Street --
Excuse me. Which is the district that I represent. And to the best of my knowledge, although I have been inundated with lots of mail concerning this issue, I don't recall anyone from either Society Hill Civic Association, (unintelligible) West Civic Association, Queen Village, or any of the other areas that would come under this amendment opposing the bill or asking for this amendment.
Could you -- I'd like to know how you got to these boundaries.
We were told that Councilman Kenney had prepared this amendment and was introducing it.
The Chair 36 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There has been and there is discussion relative to the submission of this amendment in an effort to try to come to some unanimity amongst the Council as it relates to the passage of this bill. I haven't gotten anything official, but as a result of this being circulated around Council, there have been one or two other Councilmembers that have now indicated that they may want to have their districts opted out of the bill, so we could potentially wind up with a bill where we have Councilmembers taking their districts out so that the bill is of little, if any, value. Now, you know, I would still intend and hope to introduce the amendment, but if it does create a circumstance where District Council Councilmembers are now excising their districts from the bill, the bill in effect of no importance or no use, and that's why I'm suggesting at some point that if that happens, that the Realty Association take the City Solicitor's opinion and start doing it anyway and see if City then cites 37 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 them, and then I think they have some opportunity for relief. I think the sad part, again, as I said earlier, is that without the ability to discuss and to negotiate, you know, we could have come to a conclusion at this point in time and hopefully make everybody as happy as possible. So, I mean -- and secondly, the amendments themselves are usually submitted at the meeting level, not the hearing level. So the discussion of the amendment is on the record now. And if it's offered, it will be offered in the meeting, if the bill moves at all, because there's some -- there's some concern as to the ability to move the bill in toto relative to some Councilmembers' now concern over their districts not being excluded, so I mean, it's getting a little muddier as we go along.
Well, on the basis of our belief that this amendment would be offered, we did not intend to testify against the bill in toto, but we are, of course, prepared to do that now, if you wish.
Well, my 38 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 understanding is that if the amendment goes in, you're for it; if it doesn't, you're against it.
Right. And we're certainly hoping that there will be a future opportunity to address the issue of real-estate signs in a more generic way.
Well, it's been our hope too, and we have not been invited to any meetings but one in several years, and that was in less that hours' notice in October. So I would 15 assume that a lot of miscommunication has been 16 occurring. 17
We shouldn't argue about 18 it. We're ready to come, we want to come, and we 19 want to talk about it. 20
Thank you 22 very much. 23 Are there any questions from any 24 members of the committee? (No questions.) 39 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on Bill 26? Please approach the witness table and again identify yourself for record, please.
Ann Rubin, President-elect, GPAR, Chair of the legislative committee. I'd just like to say that when we understood that there was opposition from groups about the ban on the sold signs, we discussed with Councilman Kenney amending that area of the city with the idea that before we came back here, we were going to sit down to discuss with them what the issues were and how we could work with them. And that never happened. And our feeling is as strong as it was before, and even stronger now that we've come back from the City Solicitor's Office, that this ban should be lifted across the city and that no areas should be excluded. And in the concerns that they have about signage, we are ready, willing, and able to sit down and work those issues out, which are separate from this.
The Chair 40 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 recognizes Councilman Cohen.
I'm just trying to understand some of the discussion. You heard the testimony from the Center City residents, that they've only been invited to one meeting that was a couple years ago and that they were only given hours' notice. 9
Councilman Cohen, that is 10 inaccurate. We actually had met with them a 11 couple of years ago over this -- I'm saying "a 12 couple," but I would really need to check our 13 records for exact dates because I don't want to 14 quote dates, but we did meet to discuss the issues 15 at one point. 16 And there was a bill -- I believe it 17 was, at the time, Councilman Fernandez introduced 18 the bill based on their concerns and the meeting 19 that came out of that. When the bill came up, 20 again, they were opposed to it at that point. We 21 were very confused. 22 After the last round when this came to 23 the Rules Committee a month and a half ago or so, 24 we tried to set up a meeting in more than 24 hours' notice. In fact, we tried on several 41 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 occasions, and one, if not more, of those efforts was through Councilman Kenney's office to get the meeting together. They were going to get back to us, we'll call you back to confirm. We never got calls back. Times were set, then they had to be cancelled. So I'm not sure where the miscommunication is, but we're very clear that many, many efforts over several years, and in particular over the last month and a half, were made to meet with the groups that were concerned with this bill.
And their last position was that we would have to agree to disagree, but that they would not meet with us. So we have made every effort to --
It was the Center City Residents Association. 42 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 Councilman Cohen, I am going to let someone --
'Cause I've never found community groups to be unfriendly to meetings. It seems to me that generally, the complaint against community groups is they want too many meetings. And I don't like to see aspersions, you know, on groups, which I think are not rightfully made.
And so that this is not hearsay, I'd like to introduce Melanie Lamond (ph.), a fellow Realtor from Urban Realtors in University City, who has had conversations and who can give you firsthand information.
I spoke to Lenore Bersin -- it was probably around Halloween -- on the phone, and she said that we would just have to agree to disagree on that this, that their organization had taken its stand two years ago and that she wasn't interested in anecdotal evidence or any other arguments that I might make that this bill was good for the benefit of the City and the City's residents. She said that they taken their position and they didn't plan to change it. 43 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064
It sounded to me this morning that that's not the position currently, whatever it may have been at that time. I think the parties are ready, I think we ought to try to move. Whether it's now or at the beginning of the new session, we ought to try to get a consensual agreement; that would be my position.
It's clear to me at this point, whatever the history may have been -- and I'm not familiar with that, not having been involved in any way at all on that issue -- I think maybe we are at a point where we can get agreement, and that's always the best way to achieve a result.
Councilman Cohen, we are absolutely willing to work on an agreement on the signage issue; that issue is separate and apart from the ban on the sold signs, it always has been. They tried to tie it to this. To work things out, we were agreeable to continue, but we are no longer agreeable. They are two separate issues. 44 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 What we are asking for is our constitutional right to change the words that exist on our sings from "for sale" to "sold," to "sale pending," to "under agreement," to "under contract," to indicate that these properties are moving, that the communities are vital, and we are not changing the signage in any way by doing that other than changing a word. The issues that the Center City Residents Association have are about length of time that the signs are up, about the size of the signs, about location. It is separate and apart from this issue, and we are more than willing to discuss that with them and to come to terms that are agreeable and work.
Sounds to me as if the willingness to talk and refusal to talk have shifted sides. I have to tell you, I did not see the City Solicitor's opinion until this morning. I'm not sure that I agree with it at all. I have not had time to completely read it. I saw the conclusion. It is contrary to the opinion I've always had. I'm ready to reconsider my opinion 45 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 after I read the City Solicitor's opinion and have had an opportunity to study it. I don't understand, if that's the City Solicitor's opinion, why that opinion has not been rendered a long, long time ago. But I would like an opportunity to study it. So I cannot accept at this time the City Solicitor's opinion as being the last word on the law. It may be, but it may also not be. I'm just urging all of the parties to try to, at this point, come to an agreement. Apparently, people are now ready, from both sides, to talk. And I don't think there ought to be any difficulty with arriving at that kind of an agreement. So I'm just suggesting that we take a little extra time and move ahead. And I think we're probably going to get a consensual agreement, particularly if the City Solicitor's opinion appears to be one that Councilmembers can accept.
I agree with you. I'm not sure why it's here in front of you now, but just for the record, when we first brought this up, we 46 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 did come with the opinion of our legal counsel, based on their research, that it was unconstitutional and that we had a right to move on that. And that information was provided to Council and to the committee at that time. There has been many discussions, both in a forum like this and in your individual offices, about these matters, and we appreciate your open-door policy and always being willing to listen to us. But I can't reiterate enough that the issues of the signage that are the concerns of the residents groups have nothing to do with what we are talking about here.
Well, you're welcome to question that, but the issues that I understand they have are about the size of signs, about the locations of signs, about the length of time that signs are up. And none of those things are what we are discussing when we discuss the ban on sold signs. When we discuss the ban on sold signs, 47 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 we're talking about the ability to change a word on a sign to indicate to the community that the neighborhoods are vital and moving forward. And both our private counsel and the City Solicitor's Office have agreed, based on their research, that we have a the Constitutional right to that. I can cite cities where they have gone to court and won, and that's where we're at with this. And to continue to tie these two together is fruitless.
Sir, I'm sorry I didn't bring my props today, but basically, if you can imagine that this were an 18-by-24-inch residential sale sign, and across the top of it, it said "sale," all we're talking about is taking a little tag that says "sold" and sticking it on top of the sale sign. In residential real estate, the sold sign is not permitted. In commercial real estate, the sold sign has always been permitted. In residential real estate, a sign cannot exceed an 18-by-24 or an 18-by-36-inch size. In commercial 48 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 real estate, a size can be larger. The issues that the Center City Residents Association has are with commercial real-estate signs, protruding signs, V signs, the length that they're up, the certain rental signs that seem to be up in perpetuity. Nothing to do with putting a sold-sign sticker on a residential sales sign. And to reiterate what Ann has said, the City Solicitor's opinion is based on (unintelligible) vs. Willingboro, New Jersey, and certain other cases that we have provided briefs, and she's basically reviewed these briefs and said, It's here. This went all the way to the Supreme Court, it's unconstitutional. You do not have a leg to stand on. And that is why we are so adamant in our position here. The Center City Residents Association, I have a hard time with them today acting like they're ready to talk because, I guarantee you, we have called them every day, and they have not been willing to talk. They have dis-ed us, and we are tired of their attitude, and we're frankly tired of their attitude in stopping you from moving 49 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 forward. What we need is progress here.
Well, I'm suggesting that the way to get progress is, now that the parties are indicating -- all parties are apparently are indicating that they're prepared to sit and talk and discuss, and I'm not --
They're saying that to you that they're willing to talk; they're saying to us that they're not.
I'm sorry. You're going to have to identify yourself so that the stenographer knows who's speaking.
I'm sorry. Melanie Lamont reiterate. I'd also like to reiterate that the Realtors are not here in the largest part for the Realtors; we're here because the City of Philadelphia has lost, depending on what report you read, anywhere from 8 to 12 percent of its population in the last 10 years. We can't afford to lose -- we as a city, not we as Realtors, can't afford to lose our population. 50 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 Putting up the sold signs proves to people that the city is viable. That proves to the newcomer who drives around the city and drives into the suburban counties that the suburban counties are not the only places where people are buying. As it is now, if they go around Philadelphia, they'll see those sold signs on commercial properties, so they won't realize that sold signs are illegal on residential properties. And they will go into in the neighborhoods -- they'll go into South Philadelphia or West Philadelphia or Mt. Airy, Chestnut Hill, they'll go into any of those places and they'll never see a sold sign in a neighborhood. And they'll make the assumption that this is not a healthy place to invest their money, and they'll go to the suburbs. We can't afford that to happen anymore. It's for that reason that the Board of Realtors has been working on this for so many years. We can't afford to take more time to talk and keep losing more population while we're doing this. We need to get sold signs on properties as soon as possible to be able to prove the viability 51 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 of our city. And we're willing to do that for the city for free; it wouldn't cost you anything to have us put out positive PR.
Well, it seems to me that no matter what the history has been, precisely at the time that the other side is willing to talk, you're saying No, we don't want to talk now.
No, excuse me. We're not saying that we don't want to talk. We are saying that we absolutely do want to talk, but the issues that are there to discuss are separate from the sold sign. And I'd like to just piggyback on one point that Melanie made that I think needs to be made. The consumers, the public as a whole out there have no clue that there's a ban on sold signs. All of the surrounding communities of Philadelphia, all of the townships and municipalities are permitted to put sold signs on their signs when a property goes under agreement people. And people in Philadelphia that go out of the city borders see that. And when my clientele's property goes 52 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 under agreement, the first thing they usually ask me is, Well, why haven't you put a sold sign up yet? And then I explain to them that I'm not allowed to by law. And they say, Well, then how will people know that this is a good block to live on? And so I think Council needs to understand that we are very well-educated on this because this is what we do for a living, but the public doesn't. And Melanie's right, when people drives through the city, it looks like everything is for sale and nothing's moving, but when they go out of into the suburban communities, it looks like everything's selling. And the reality is, the City is doing well in real estate right now but we have no way of showing that. So I ask that you put this to a vote today, and we can either move forward together on the ban on sold signs, or we will move forward with our attorneys in court.
And I would like to thank Council for listening to our position and make a vote.
Could I ask a 53 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 question of the witnesses? What is your position, if this amendment is adopted; do you support the bill? I was told that there was an understanding that --
-- if an amendment was introduced, there was going to be no problem with bill because there was going to be an amendment introduced that everybody had agreed to. I have no idea what that amendment was or who had agreed to it.
So I'm surprised by the extent of this debate and the fact that there still seems to be disagreement.
We will agree to it and we will continue to attempt to have dialogue with the Center City Residents Association to move forward and resolve their issues.
And as the Legislative Chair for the Committee and from the Board, I'd like to say that we will agree to it with no other 54 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 amendments coming on board, and with the understanding that we want to meet with the Center City Residents Association to discuss their signage issues and come to resolve once and for all on this.
Thank you, Madam Chair. For the record, as it relates to the amendment to Bill No. 960064, I would like the record to reflect that I'm requesting that we remove from the amendment the east side of Broad Street to the Delaware River, from South Street to Market Street, from that amendment. (Copy of amendment not provided to stenographer.)
The amendment would read, "No person shall erect or place a sold sign upon any premises containing a single or multifamily dwelling in the area bounded by Market and South, Broad Street west to the Schuylkill 55 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 River."
Could I ask if the Center City residents -- do they have a representative still here? Would that amendment be acceptable -- just to your organization?
I would just like to address that question. The area that I am deleting from the amendment is the area that is in my district, the west side is in Councilmember Clarke's district. And the Center City Residents Association represents the area west of Broad, so their area would still be included in the amendment.
All right. I just want to make sure the Center City residents understand that. Would you come forward for a moment just for the record, so. . .
That answers the needs of the Center City Residents Association.
I'm sorry, Miss Bersin, you're going to have to identify 56 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 yourself.
Lenora Bersin, President of Center City Residents Association. We believe that that amendment satisfies our problems. We came to speak of our problems, and we do not wish to speak for other people's views. We've, of course, heard from Realtors in our area too, and they support us in that small area. And that's what we want to talk about. We'd be glad to talk whenever about the other problems, which we think are problematic in size and other issues, and I think that perhaps there's more agreement on that.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Yes, Madam Chair. I'm glad that some people agreed on getting their area out of this bill. I would ask for an amendment to be added to this amendment, taking my entire district out of this bill. 57 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990064 I do not want sold signs in my district. I thought it was working really well for the last how many years. People would like to do away with sales signs if they could, but they realize that's not possible.
Ann Rubin again. Councilman O'Neill, I appreciate your concern for the district, and correct me if I'm wrong but I don't remember that you've been here for any of the testimony over these past four years on this.
I don't have to be here for any testimony, Miss Rubin, and I resent the implication that I haven't been involved in this. We did this bill years ago. Nothing has changed as far as the residents of my district are concerned, Realtors notwithstanding, okay?
Okay, I just want to bring back to the Council's attention that you do have in your hands petitions signed by the real-estate community in the Northeast section of Philadelphia that do business there that speak to the buyers 58 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678 and sellers up there that do support this bill. And, again, we want the bill passed with no additional amendments.
Are there any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Is there anyone else who wants to testify on Bill 26? (No response.)
The clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 990678.
An ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code relating to zoning and planning by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 14-1617, entitled "Fifth Street Special District Controls," under certain terms and conditions.
Is there anyone here from the City Planning Commission to testify on this bill? 59 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo of the City Planning Commission. I'm actually not here to testify on this bill. In the rush, with all the that are bills being heard at the end of the administration we did not consider this -- the Commission did not consider this bill, so we have no position of the Planning Commission on this bill. I mean, what I understand about the bill is that the Councilwoman put this in at the request of neighbors and business people along Fifth Street, but unfortunately, I can't make a recommendation from the Planning Commission one way or the other on this bill.
Prohibiting wholesale vending. Can somebody give me an explanation as to what "wholesale vending" is?
Wholesale vending would be not be selling to the ultimate consumer, the customer. You know, a wholesale operation would more likely be selling in case lots or in larger quantities, though, to retailers, as opposed to selling to customers. For example, some of these 60 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678 -- again, every neighborhood has these cash-and- carry food operations.
Do we know how many wholesale vending businesses there are on Fifth Street?
I have no idea. A lot of the area covered in this overlay is zoned residential so I assume there's no commercial activity going on in those properties. I think that there have been some wholesale uses granted by the Zoning Board for a variance in this area where this has been protestants and the Zoning Board is still granting them over the protestants, and that may be what's generating this bill.
Do you know if the Law Department has been consulted on this issue?
I do not know. I'm sorry, we prepared this bill at the request of the Councilwoman's office. You know, we do a drafting service for any Member of Council. And I don't know if then the Councilwoman sent it to the Law Department or not. You know, I don't know what 61 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 her normal practice is once we prepare a bill and give it to her.
All right. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
May I suggest that we go over this until such time as we contact Councilwoman Tasco's office to get more information on it. The next bill being called for consideration is Bill No. 990719. The clerk will read the title of the bill.
An ordinance amending Section 14-1705 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Appeals to Zoning Board of Adjustment," by providing that appeals to the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not stay proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from, under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, again, Madam Chair and Councilmembers, members of the committee. My name is Richard Lombardo from the City Planning Commission, here today to testify on Bill 990719. 62 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 This bill amends Section 14-1705, dealing with appeals to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The purpose of this bill is to clarify that an appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment does not stay other proceedings against property owner or business operator who has been cited for code violations. Currently, the language of the Code creates an ambiguity as to whether court proceedings, such as an action to enforce a cease-operation order, should move forward once an applicant has an appeal to the Zoning Board. It is the intention of this bill to clarify those provisions so that other proceedings can continue to take place when the applicant proceeds to the Zoning Board. Basically, you may have a property that, among other violations it has, it has also a zoning violation -- it didn't get a use registration permit, they don't have an appropriate setback or they didn't get a zoning permit for an addition, and because the regulations construed to say, If you file for your zoning appeal, it stays the Department from taking 63 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 other actions, and I think this bill is to clarify that, that if there are separate other issues not related the to the Zoning Board appeal, that those can move forward while you resolve your one problem with the Zoning Board of Adjustment, or try to resolve it. And this bill was introduced by Councilman DiCicco and -- Councilmember DiCicco and Councilmember Nutter. And for the record, the Planning Commission, on December 2, 1999, recommends approval of this bill.
Are there any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. Mr. Lombardo, please stay with us.
I'd just like to know if there's going to be any witnesses testifying on the bill. It sounds good to me, but I'd like to hear what brought this about.
Do we have any witnesses to testify on this bill?
The Chair 64 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Councilman Cohen for the question. And I do believe that there are a couple of community people here to testify. What brought about this particular bill 8 is the common experience that many of us have wherein a person builds or constructs or does something to their property with no permits usually and proceeds to do whatever it is that they do, the neighbors complain to their Councilperson, contact L&I, they send a person out and, yes, they are in violation of a Zoning Code. The current code, the way it operates, that person then goes to get their permits. They are then, of course, denied because the proper zoning's not in place. They then appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The current code is constructed such that the moment you appeal to the Zoning Board, it effectively stays any action, enforcement action, by L&I against that person. So they get a free ride now to continue doing what they've doing, even though they now fully know -- even if they 65 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 didn't know. They have now applied for permits, so they clearly know that they are in violation of the Zoning Code and they continue to use the premises in that fashion, while L&I has to sit twiddling their thumbs, waiting for an appeal to go through the Zoning Board. To get to the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board takes the testimony, community opposition. They tell them, Go back and have some meetings. That goes on for a month or so, then they come back. Then the person, maybe they lose at Zoning, the applicant. Then they naturally have a right to appeal to the Common Please Court. But they continue to use the premises in an illegal fashion. And, again, the Licenses and Inspections is prevented from doing anything with that person. This bill seeks to prevent that kind of practice. People use the system generally because it's easier to ask forgiveness than it is to ask permission.
I think you described a very common complaint among people out in the communities.
Thank you. Thanks, 66 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 Councilwoman.
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today I'm here to provide testimony on Bill No. 990719, amending Section 14-1705 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code by providing that appeals to the Zoning Board of Adjustments shall not stay proceedings in the furtherance of the actions appealed from. The Department of Licenses and Inspections has serious concerns regarding our ability to enforce the requirements of this bill. As written, the bill would require that Licenses and Inspections continue its enforcement actions against persons who are in violation of the zoning 67 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 code, even if the person has exercised their right to appeal the violation. Currently, as stipulated under the present requirements of the Code, Section 14-1705, Subsection 4, the Department's policy has been to stay its enforcement of the action which precipitated the issuance of the refusal and appeal to the Zoning Board. The reason for this was to afford the appellant the opportunity to address their grievance of the City's requirement before the proper administrative board that has the power to grant a variance to waive the refused use or requirement. In areas where the continued use or activity constitutes an immediate threat to public health, safety or general welfare, the Department has proceeded with its enforcement action, in the interest of protecting public health, safety, and welfare. This provision is in line with the other provisions of the Philadelphia Code that are enforced by Licenses and Inspections and has been universally enforced for other issues such as building, fire and business regulatory. 68 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 Under the Administrative Code Section 3 A-805.2 of the Philadelphia Administrative Code, it states that "an appeal shall not constitute a stay of proceedings by the Department or Fire Department, where either Department finds and certifies in writing that the violation is intentional or that there exists a condition of immediate danger or hazard to health, safety or welfare, which requires immediate compliance." This provision applies to all of the technical codes that are enforced by the Department, including the Zoning Code. Bill 990719, if enacted, would generate additional hardship for property owners and businesses that are seeking legal relief from our requirements. It will also cause confusion within the Department, due to the simultaneous actions of the Department related to enforcement and appeals. As an example, currently, if the issue that precipitated the variance request is stayed, we do not prosecute the matter in the court system until the Board handling of the appeal or the Board handling of the appeal renders a decision. Under the provision of Bill 990719, we 69 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 would have to proceed with prosecuting the matter in the court system, which, in turn, could issue an order in favor of the City or appellant, or the court could remand the case back to the Department until a decision is made on the appeal. Either way, the bill will tie up the court schedule with cases that have been, and can be, handled administratively by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The Department of Licenses and Inspections strongly urges Council to withdraw or table this bill until such time that the bill can be fully studied to determine the impact it will have on our department and the public that we serve. Thank you. I'll be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time.
Good morning, members of City Council and the committee. I do want to -- I'm Gray Smith, and I'm the Zoning and Code Enforcement Chairman of the South Street Neighborhood Association, where we have almost 70 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 daily some zoning controversy that comes up, including those similar to the scenario that Councilman Nutter defined. And when I first saw this bill, because of the difficulty in the language and because it seems to be aimed at a specific problem rather than at many problems that exist both in the procedures of the Zoning Board as well as the enforcement capabilities of Licenses and Inspections, which, although Mr. Haigler brags about them, I would question as being so efficient. Our initial concern was that the amount of work that would be imposed upon community organizations and the Zoning Board, particularly of a legal nature, would be enlarged by the nature of this ordinance, because it requires legal decisions to be made by the Zoning Board, which may impose too much of a burden on them, since they are not a judicial body, essentially. On the other hand, Councilman Nutter's concern is our concern, and we agree that the language that is in the bill right now will help resolve that problem. I believe, however, not with changing 71 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 the bill or the language in the bill, that we need to also focus on another scenario, which I had discussed with Councilman Nutter last night, when we finally got a chance to talk about this bill. And that was that was when Licenses and Inspections issues a permit for zoning over the counter, without a hearing, for a use that may actually be prohibited in a zoning area -- and it's happened many, many times, particularly when there's zoning overlays, and there's a lot of those now, which many examiners don't seem to be familiar with at L&I. And the community sees a business open up which is adverse to the community and is prohibited by the Zoning Code, the community then has to file an appeal to the Zoning Board because efforts through the Department of Licenses and Inspections' enforcement tend to be very defensive rather than aggressive on behalf of the community, because, after all, L&I's the one who issued the permit. So once one appeals, the business continues to operate. There is no stay because -- and in this bill and, I guess, because of the inaction of L&I, there is no stay against that 72 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 business operating. And it could take as many as five to six months to achieve a rejection of that zoning permit. And all I'm saying today is that we need to incorporate, in perhaps another ordinance 7 or another amendment at a future date, some language that deals with that scenario as well. And I do want to thank Councilman DiCicco, who's our City Councilperson, and Councilman Nutter, who both probably are extremely aggressive in zoning issues on behalf of the community, for introducing this bill.
All right. My name is Stanley Krakower. I'm a lawyer who represents a number of civic associations, community groups, residents groups, etc., in land-use matters throughout the City, particularly with regard to zoning. The problem that's involved in this amendment to Section 17-05 is one that I deal with 73 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 frequently. I, first of all, wholeheartedly concur with the objective which Councilman Nutter and Councilman DiCicco seek to obtain via this bill, but like Mr. Smith, I have questions as to whether the exact language by which the bill seeks to do it is -- tends to be successful at it, and may raise some additional side problems. My concern is twofold. Number one, where a permit is issued across the counter to an applicant, it should not be issued for any one of a number of reasons. The civic associations become the appellant to the Zoning Board to have that permit stricken. During the interim time, as the bill now -- the language of the act now stands, at least it appears, whether it's intended legally or not, it appears to prevent continuing permits from being issued to that zoning permit holder. What you have frequently is, a zoning permit is issued and then, before that permit holder can get building permits, the appeal is taken and puts a halt to that. Now, here, the bill would make it clear that in the interim, while the matter is pending to get to the Zoning 74 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 Board, the permit holder can continue to get building permits or even start construction, though there may be some risks to that. But I just think that the procedure should be made more clear that than it is right now. I also have a concern as to whether simply amending the Zoning Code will have the effect in Municipal Court where, frequently, L&I is engaging in an enforcement action against some violation of the Zoning Code or the building code. And then when you get to Municipal Court, the judges stay the action on request of the defendant because there is a matter pending -- an appeal is pending before the Zoning Board. So that while it's before the Zoning Board, there can be no continued prosecution before Municipal Court. Well if there's not something done with regard to the rules of Municipal Court and with regard to that type of procedure, as I look at this bill, it talks about -- I think the exact language is the action -- let me see if I have a draft of that proposal. It doesn't appear to me to be clear 75 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 enough that it will impact on the Municipal Court enforcement action, and I would like to see the language tightened up to make sure that it addresses the very problem it's intended to address. So my only concern is that while I wholeheartedly agree with the purposes for which the change is being sought, the purpose both by Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Nutter, I have questions as to whether the language is fine-tuned sufficiently to do that. And perhaps the answer could be that the improvement that we get out of this bill could then be further improved by a subsequent amendment at another time, if we wanted to do that. The language that I'm talking about says that an appeal to the Zoning Board of Adjustment shall not stay any proceedings in furtherance of the action appealed from. And that's my concern -- that in furtherance of the action appealed from, it may not be clear enough. Thank you.
A couple of important items have been raised by the community people at the table, and I'd like to ask if Richie Feder from the City's Law Department could come up and provide both explanation and some clarification and what the actual implementation of the law is.
By all means. Mr. Feder? (Richard Feder comes forward.)
Mr. Feder, before you begin, Madam Chair, I also want to at least put on the record that Councilman DiCicco and I have, somewhat amazingly, been working on the same issue at the same time, unknown to each other. And not only because of our common experience with this particular issue, but as a result of conversations with other staff people at L&I, these issues were raised to us as problems for them. So -- I mean, I heard the testimony earlier. I respect Mr. Haigler, and I know he comes from the legislative affairs side of the house, but there are at least some individuals in 77 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 L&I who, I guess, are on the front lines of this action, who the Councilman and I have had discussions with. And some of this emanates from discussions with people in L&I. So, I mean, we'll get that situation straightened out. But, Mr. Feder, can you respond to the issues as raised by Mr. Smith and by Mr. Krakower.
Certainly. Thank you, Councilman. Thank you, Madam Chair. My name is Richard Feder, I'm the Chief Deputy for Legislation in the City Solicitor's Office. I'd like to clarify that I'm not here to testify in favor of the bill or against the bill; I'm here to answer questions to explain the bill.
The bill, as currently drafted, would clarify -- because there apparently has been uncertainty as to what the code currently provides. The bill would clarify that if L&I were to issue a notice of violation or a cease- operations order against a building owner or a developer who is engaging in some conduct that is in violation of the Zoning Code, this bill makes clear that if the building owner or developer 78 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 appeals from the cease-op, or appeals from the notice of violation, that appeal does not stay L&I's authority to continue with its enforcement action against the building owner or against the developer. Mr. Krakower did posit a slightly different situation, which is not covered by this bill technically. I don't think bill changes the law with respect to Mr. Krakower's situation. What Mr. Krakower posited is the situation where someone has been denied a permit, and they appeal from the denial of the permit. And I believe that the issue that Mr. Krakower raised is whether the appeal from the denial of a permit would prevent L&I from taking enforcement action. And I don't believe this bill says one way or the other on that -- although I don't believe there is anything in the Code currently that prevents L&I from taking action enforcement against that owner if, in fact, the permit was properly denied, and they shouldn't be going ahead with the action.
Mr. Feder, let me just ask you, I guess, kind of a jurisdictional question. 79 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 You stated earlier that you're the Chief Deputy for Appeals and Legislation; is that correct?
And do you work with the attorneys who actually represent L&I in their various proceedings, either before administrative agencies or in the courts?
I understand that. And you provide advice to them from time to time about these kinds of activities.
Mr. Feder, in your opinion, would this create any particular enforcement difficulty in Licenses and Inspections if this amendment were adopted?
Councilman, that puts me in an awkward position. It borders on a policy question. 80 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 I can tell you that this would authorize L&I to take enforcement action against owners who currently have appeals pending in the Zoning Board. Whether that would be difficult for L&I, I really have to defer to L&I and to this committee.
But I can talk about policy issues. And, Councilman, you're well aware that oftentimes, what people do to avoid action by L&I is immediately run to the Zoning Board and file their appeal and now hold themselves out as "you can't touch me." And as long as I'm in front of the Zoning Board or have a case going, it's "L&I, sorry, you can't do anything to me." And that is the issue that we're trying to resolve and get some closure on, because people are using the system essentially against us.
Well, I think, as I see it now, the pluses of this bill far outweigh the negatives, and that's the reason I wanted to ask Mr. Feder if he knew, and I appreciate his answer, you know, whether this would create 81 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 insuperable difficulties. I don't see why it should. And you can't explain to constituents, and it does not appear to be a right thing to permit what clearly seems to have been an illegal grant of a permit. According to the Zoning Code, you can't permit that to permit somebody to take advantage of that grant and to continue to operate. And so I think, on balance, this -- we ought to do this. It may very well be that the issues raised by Gray Smith and Sandy Krakower should require further consideration by City Council because, there may be other imperfections, and we are charged with responsibility to the Zoning Code. It's our problem, City Council's problem to deal with it.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? 82 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990719 (No response.)
May we please go back to 990678 that was introduced by Councilwoman Tasco? I understand there's a member of her staff here that will testify on the bill. (Brenda Frazier comes forward.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Brenda Frazier, staff attorney for Councilwoman Marian Tasco. And with me is Miss Marian Johnson. She conducts many of the zoning cases at the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and brought this case to the Councilwoman's attention. Last year, the Councilwoman held hearings on the proliferation of wholesale businesses within the Fifth Street Corridor. Many of the neighbors and residents of the area came to testify that their services were being curtailed by the influx of wholesale businesses. This bill 25 is a result of many of those -- of that 83 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678 discussion. I refer you to the legislative findings that were detailed for the rationale for this bill. The Councilwoman asked that you approve the bill and refer it out of committee.
Good morning, Madam Chair Lady and others present. I would just like to add that I am also from Councilwoman Tasco's staff, and I do the zoning and hear the L&I matters for the Councilwoman. And many times, it's kind of complicated because you have people from the residential neighborhoods who come to us because they have complaints regarding the wholesale operations in their area, and their main reason for complaining is because the wholesale operations lock them out of actually shopping in their corridor. If they are not purchasing in quantity, they're not permitted to make their purchases that they would normally make in the 84 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678 neighborhood. We have a number of zoning applications for wholesale that we have had to be involved in, and we have opposed them strongly. We are still continuing to oppose them, but it's a difficult battle because, along the Fifth Street Corridor, I think because there are several that are already in place, other illegal wholesalers tend to just jump on the bandwagon. We've had meetings with them, they've made commitments about all kinds of ways they would stop wholesaling, but they have not lived up to that, so it is truly a problem in the 9th Councilmatic District, especially on the Fifth Street Corridor.
Did you ask the City Solicitor for an opinion on this? I just don't know if it's legal to prohibit the granting of variances.
This is a bill that has been reworked several times, and the Planning Commission did work on it for us and develop it, and that this was comparable to several other bills that were introduced in other districts, 85 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678 that this was just a restriction for this particular area and doesn't affect any other part of the City.
May I just ask the last speaker, are you saying there have been other bills in the City banning wholesale vending?
This is not wholesale vending. That is wholesale vending in retail areas, where there are mainly stores that the residents would prefer a dry-cleaner, they would like to have dry-cleaners and small shops for cosmetics and different kinds of things that are not accommodated by wholesale.
From the City Law Department? I wonder if he would approach the table.
He's just reading the bill now. 86 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678
This is just for the C2 areas, which are commercial areas that are bordering residential areas.
I think our problem is, we don't know whether the City has the power to, say, ban toy stores somewhere, or to ban a specific kind of business that is not, say, like a pornographic shop or something, and we -- let's see what the Law Department says.
Mr. Feder, I understand you're reading the bill at the present time.
That's correct, Councilman. I always try to do that before I give you an opinion. (Laughter.)
Miss Frazier, maybe you could tell us how many wholesale businesses there are in this particular area, in the Fifth Street Special District. 87 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678
We have some that have grown up that have not been approved by the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Probably from the Boulevard to Olney, there may be a half a dozen.
Mm-hmm. But does this bill prohibit the granting of variances from the provisions of the bill?
No, it's the granting of variances from the stated requirements for C2 commercial district. That is the -- the idea is that the commercial districts are basically there to support and provide economic possibilities for the residents, and that when the wholesale -- for example, wholesale hats or wholesale electronics, this detracts from the opportunities for the -- to support the community.
Thank you, Madam President. I'm Richard Feder, from the City Solicitor's Office. I believe you asked me -- I'm sorry could you repeat the question? Councilman Cohen, did you have a particular concern about this bill? I'm sorry. 88 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678
Yeah, we were wondering, does the City have the power to enact this kind of bill, to enforce it?
It is our view that, certainly, within a defined area, as opposed to citywide, Council has the legal party to prohibit certain uses within a defined area. And in terms of prohibiting the granted variances, I would construe that provision to say,"The Zoning Board shall not grant variances unless there's some constitutional reason to require a variance." For instance, if a property owner were able to come in and say that the denial of a wholesale -- the right to do so wholesale business is a complete taking of my property and this would violate my fifth-amendment constitutional right not to have my property taken, then I would construe this bill 19 to say that a property owner still has the right to make that case to the Zoning Board. But absent the constitutional taking, I believe Council does have the power to say, in certain instances, that no variances shall be granted. At least I'm not prepared to tell you that you don't have that power at that time. 89 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678
I conclude from your statement that you're saying at this point in time, as far as your understanding is concerned, Council would have the power to pass this bill.
At think moment, I don't know if -- I have looked into these issues in the past in related bills, but to be honest with you, Councilman, I have not looked at this bill before five minutes ago. But from my general understanding of the zoning law, I don't know any reason why Council couldn't prohibit this. I don't want to mislead you.
It is possible we could go back to the office and I could discuss this issue with --
Mr. Feder, do you mind staying at the witness table? I believe there is someone else that wants to testify on this bill. Please approach the table, identify 90 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678 yourself for the record, and proceed with your testimony. (Witness comes forward.)
Yes. My name is Michael Sklaroff. I'm a member of the Bar. I didn't come here to testify on this, but I would suggest that the Law Department be asked to address the specific question as to whether City Council can impair the power of the Zoning Board of Adjustment to grant variances in light of the City Charter.
We would be certainly happy to look into that. I believe -- I'm doing this from memory -- that the Charter says that variance power shall be done pursuant to ordinances, but I would really have to look into that. Mr. Sklaroff obviously has a concern, and I mean, I'd be happy to go back and look at that and discuss it with the Solicitor.
Well, I think that's important. I think it's important that you do that before we pass this bill.
We could move the bill out of committee and hold it until we get the 91 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990678 opinion.
Mm-hmm, the City Solicitor's opinion. All right. Any other --
We would appreciate it if you could move it out and have the vote pending our decision.
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, I would ask the clerk to please read the title of Bill No. 990729.
An ordinance amending Section 9-211 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Boxes for the Distribution of News and Printed Material," by adding additional locations to the 92 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990729 designated program area, including the 1700 block of Cottman Avenue, under certain terms and conditions.
Again, I wanted ask that you identify yourself for the record, please.
Good day, Council President Verna and members of the committee. I am Otis Haigler, Jr., Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I am here to provide testimony on Bill No. 990729, amending Section 9-211 of the Philadelphia Code by adding additional locations to the designated program area, including the 1700 block of Cottman Avenue, under certain terms and conditions. The Department of Licenses and Inspections offers no objections to the enactment of Bill No. 990729.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.) 93 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990729
Thank you. Just for the record, Mr. Haigler just had a sidebar with Councilmember O'Neill, and I think it would important to advise the applicants of the newsstands that will be covered in this bill about the requirements for the materials of newly-constructed newsstands. And also, I think it be beneficial for them to understand what we're attempting to do. Oh, I apologize -- I thought it was a part of the newsstands.
Just the honor boxes. Okay, I apologize and I withdraw that. Thank you.
Okay, do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witnesses come forward.) 94 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990729
Yes, I will. My name is Al Taubenberger, T-A-U-B-E-N-B-E-R-G-E-R, President of the Northeast Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce.
Good morning. My name is Michael Klauder, K-L-A-U-D-E-R, general manager of the Country Club Restaurant on 1818 Cottman Avenue.
Pull the microphone closer to you. And before you do that, the noise level is much too high in the room. We could just about hear the witnesses. So if you want to engage in conversation, please do so in the corridor. Thank you. Please repeat your name again.
Yes, ma'am. My name is Michael Klauder, K-L-A-U-D-E-R, and I'm general manager of Country Club Restaurant, located at 1717 Cottman Avenue.
Madam Chair, we also have two sets of pictures for the committee, just 95 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990729 to look at what this looks like visually and to have an idea what ware talking about.
The problem that we have with the honor boxes is, they were put there without permission, and we're located next to Northeast High School, with 3500 students, and to our east is Woodrow Wilson Junior High, with 1500 students. And almost daily, the students go by before and after school and open the honor boxes and throw the papers up in the air and cause a problem with litter and a mess, and it causes damage to our business. Also, it prevents patrons from parking on Cottman Avenue because it makes it difficult for them to get out of their cars with the proliferation of all the news boxes there.
Thank you. Any questions from members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. 96 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990729
Mr. Klauder, have you attempted to contact any of the owners of the vending boxes and asked for them to remove them or --
Without success. Okay, I was just having a conversation again with Councilmember O'Neill about an honor box legislation that we passed in Council not too long ago. We're in the phase of the pilot program in Center City to create some uniformity in the way these boxes are placed out there. I'll speak further to Councilmember O'Neill. There might be an opportunity here to erect one of those corrals in and around the facility that would maybe make this a little more uniform, so I'll work with you on that. But you have not -- no one, obviously, 97 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990729 has decided to remove these boxes. Have you tried contacting Licenses and Inspections?
And I would also suggest that maybe contact you through Councilmember O'Neill's office, the Streets Department, because there are ways and means by which sometimes we can have these boxes removed.
The problem is, they just suddenly appear. Like, one day there's two, the next day, there's eleven.
Thank you. Any other questions from members of the committee? (No further questions.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I just wanted to briefly say real quick that the photos clearly 98 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 state how bad the situation is.
There are eleven boxes there that interfere with parking and so on, and we really would appreciate it if this bill 8 would be passed so these things could be removed and regulated. Council President, thank you.
Thank you very much. The next bill being called for consideration is Bill No. 990848.
An ordinance amending Title 9 of the Philadelphia Code relating to the regulation of businesses, trades, and professions by amending Chapter 9-2000, entitled "Sale of Malt or Brewed Beverages," to further regulate and restrict the operation of businesses that sell malt or brewed beverages, under certain terms and conditions.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. (Councilman Clarke comes forward as a 99 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 witness.)
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam Chair. My name is Darryl L. Clarke, Councilperson for the 5th Councilmatic District. I'd like to thank you for this opportunity to testify on behalf of this bill, and I'll be as brief as possible. Essentially, I introduced this ordinance to remedy one of the major problems that severely affects one of the neighborhood throughout the city, but particularly low-income communities with large minority populations. In many of these neighborhoods, establishments to sell malt liquor, also called "stop-and-go's," tend to create public nuisances. The people who will testify after me, community leaders and police officers, will describe these nuisances and how they affect the everyday life of citizens and neighborhoods trying to turn around and maintain cleanliness and order. Frequently, stop-and-go's are the 100 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 centers of criminal activity. Drug dealers stand out in front of them, people drink beer in front of these stores, crap games are played on the sides of these establishments. The number of people loitering in front of these stop-and-go's essentially create a concentrated air of negative activity that frightens many people in the communities in which they exist. To compile the situation, the stop-and-go's frequently market a strong or more potent version of malt liquor targeted to minority communities. This enhanced malt liquor is both difficult to find in middle-income and non-minority communities, but very easy to find in virtually every low-income minority community. Worse yet, our neighborhoods are already targeted with concentrated numbers of bars that sell even more potent liquor. Unfortunately, these stop-and-go's also market items to children, while maintaining items typical of a small corner store -- for example, individually-wrapped candies and toys and arcade games. Many minority and low-income communities are also lined with sexually suggestive posters 101 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 exhorting patrons to buy alcohol. This is a frightening contradiction that is still all too common. To add insult to injury, advertisements for this enhanced malt liquor appear in radio and magazine advertisements whose primary audience is dominated by teenagers. It seems to many that these marketing practices encourage children to purchase malt liquor and beer illegally. This marketing technique is even more concerning when these stop-and-go's are located within close proximity to schools. In my district, there are many examples. Across from Dobbins High School, at 22nd and Lehigh, there's a store that's frequented by students and people wishing to buy beer. There's another one at the corner of Dover and Cecil B. Moore, in between 29th and 30th Streets that's right across from the Kelly Elementary School. And it goes on. Sadly, around each of these locations exists several other stop-and-go's that sell beer while children walk home to and from school. Moreover, in many neighborhoods throughout Philadelphia, many schools are within blocks of 102 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 many places that sell malt liquor. With an aggressive marketing campaign that is directly primarily directed towards minorities, this enhanced malt liquor floods our neighborhoods. These establishments create an create ongoing --
Councilman, excuse me. I think you deserve a little more respect than you are getting. Again, I am going to suggest that the noise level is much too high. Anyone having conversations will please do so in the corridor. I'm sorry.
Okay. Unfortunately, existing State law generally prohibits municipalities and counties from regulating malt liquor establishments in a way that treats places that sell malt liquor differently than those that do not. However, State Senator Shirley Kitchen is willing to offer 103 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 an amendment to State law to enable the City of Philadelphia to enact laws that will protect our citizenry from the nuisances that these establishments create. The loitering provisions of this ordinance are similar to existing provisions in the Philadelphia Code, except for this ordinance 9 adds an onus onto property owners to abate the nuisance. Obviously, the property owner is not expected to do so him or herself. He or she should call; in this way, the police can help stop these nuisances and other crimes that they create. In conclusion, I hope that my colleagues join me in helping to empower neighborhoods to help themselves. As we hope to improve the quality of life of neighborhoods throughout the city, I ask that this ordinance be voted with a favorable recommendation out of this committee so that the nuisance that these establishments create can be properly regulated. I thank you for your time and consideration.
Thank you. Are there questions from members of the 104 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 committee? What is the penalty to the property owner if he does not comply?
Well, there are currently regulations associated with some of the nuisances. Right now, we have not a set a penalties for the particular noncompliance of this bill.
Okay. And it's my understanding that we have Captain Cynthia Dorsey here to testify?
Yes, we have Captain Dorsey, and we have several representatives from the community.
All right. Would captain Dorsey please approach the witness table? (Captain Dorsey comes forward.)
Capital Dorsey is taking care of a little personal situation at this moment. (Laughter.)
All right. And while we're waiting for Captain Dorsey, may I 105 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 suggest that Reverend William King approach the witness table? (Reverend King comes forward.)
I'd like to begin by saying that I support the proposed amendments to this ordinance, and I want to thank Councilman Clarke for offering these amendments. But I am also -- I would like to also say that I've been here since about 9 o'clock, and I'm a little disappointed in that all of the chairs were filled with Councilpeople at that time. And up until about maybe 15, 20 minutes ago, it now appears that there are only three Councilmembers that are at the table, which indicates to me that there doesn't seem to be a whole lot of interest or concern in this issue. And I would like to submit that this is a very 106 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 important issue, especially when we consider the fact that so many of the crimes that are committed in our community are a direct result of alcohol and drugs. I'd like to also identify myself. I am Reverend William L. King. I'm the minister of Calvary United Church, at 29th and Lehigh. Let me say that the problems that these activities create are monumental. Our young people are very important -- or should be very important to us. And anything that's going to impact on their lives and help to mold them, it seems to me that we ought to all be very concerned about it. I'm sure that all of you are aware of the brutal murder that just took place in our community just a few days ago of this eminent journalist, and I'm sure that when you look at the perpetrator, somewhere in his background, you're going to find something to do with drugs and alcohol. So it seems to me that anything at all that's going to try to help impact and improve the quality of life in our communities, we all ought to be very concerned about it. 107 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 Having these stop-and-go's in our communities impacts on our young people because, at a very young age, as they enter these places, they see these beverages dispensed, they see people partaking of them, and it begins to influence them. I have a youth center in my church, and many of the young people that I come in contact with, they smoke pot, they drink these malt liquors, and together, they get a high that's unbelievable. They're out of their minds; half the time, they don't know what they're doing themselves because of this. , '20s, and I know there are people who say we can't regulate mortality and all of that, but I do believe that we need to make some effort -- this is just one small effort -- at trying to control the situation that has a tremendous effect on our young people. All of you are well-educated and intelligent people, and I know that you realize that we are all influenced in one way or another 108 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 by our environment, the things that we come in contact with, especially when we're young and impressionable. So it seems to me that this one small step here will go a long way with trying to help change some of the behavior that exists in our community. Now, you already have -- this ordinance 9 is already on the books. Part of the problem today, however, is the enforcement. We need -- we need our law enforcement people to be sensitive to this and to try to help them in whatever way they can -- and I think that they can be a big help without further exacerbating the situation by causing confrontations. But, certainly, with the young people hanging out in front of these places, it does create a real problem, and I would appreciate your consideration of these amendments and for you to seriously consider how important and what an important factor it may be in trying to help the clergy who, we often are criticized because we don't do enough, and it makes it very difficult for us to do our jobs when we can't get support of our authorities in trying to undo some of the 109 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 situations that exist in our community.
One of the worst things -- and I don't know if any of you are clergy, but one of the worst things that I've had to face is trying to administer to a family who has lost a loved one because some kid got high, stole the car, and caused an accident and took their loved one from them. We all sympathize perhaps with the youngster, and we can say it was an accident, but the impact and the hurt and the pain that it causes the family is something that the minister has to try to deal with. And believe me, it is very difficult. Thank you for this opportunity to come and share my views, and I appreciate your attention. And I'm happy to see that some of the other members have joined you at the table.
Reverend, Reverend, why don't you wait a moment, please. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney, but before I do recognize him, Reverend, I do want 110 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 to thank you for your patience in waiting to testify, and this is an issue that we have all been concerned about, and there have been, I know, more than one bill that was introduced by Councilman Kenney. And I agree with you that we could pass all the bills in the world, but if they're not enforced, they're just a useless piece of paper.
At this time, I would like to recognize Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chairperson. Reverend, I just to give you a little bit of history on what the Council's been doing over the past eight years as it relates to what I believe is a scourge on the communities of our city, and more clearly, a scourge in the minority communities of our city as opposed to some of the other areas of our community. Back in my first term, starting in 1992, I was successful in getting a piece of legislation passed which required zoning approval for any new takeout-beer delicatessens that were 111 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 to be opened or were intended to be opened in our city. To my knowledge, because of that zoning bill, I don't believe that any new ones have been approved. What we have basically are the scourge of the existing ones that have been there. Part of what I learned in dealing with this problem is that there's a lot of money to be made, and a lot of money that's being made. And sadly, that money is not only being made by people who are taking it out of our communities, but many of the people who own these operations do not even live in the City of Philadelphia, but simply only their relationships to the city is their bank deposit bag. And on one occasion, I drove from Allegheny Avenue from 29th Street down at Mercy Tech to Broad and Allegheny, and I counted ten different take-out-beer delicatessens in the space of that many blocks. One of the things I wanted to caution you about is, our efforts to really come down on these operations landed us in federal court, if you could believe it or not, but the City of Philadelphia, along with myself, were sued by the 112 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 Beverage Association that represents the people who own these operations in federal court. We shut down a large number of them, based on zoning violations that we believe existed. The court reversed our efforts and allowed those operations to stay open, sad to say. The other problem that we face in dealing with the governance of this issue the absolute right, or the absolute perceived right, of the State to monitor and to have jurisdiction over the sale of alcoholic beverages. Take-out-beer delicatessens were not intended when they passed the law allowing you to serve a beer in a delicatessen. Basically, what was envisioned was a kind of a restaurant setting where someone would come in for, say, a corned beef sandwich, sit down in the normal place, have the sandwich, and be able to have a beer or two. What they did was take those -- what are called e-licenses, which are State licenses for those types of operation, and created a corner grocery store, with four walls of refrigerators, stocked top to bottom with what I call "liquid crack," which is what it is. There is no reason 113 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 for anyone in the world for anyone to need to drink brewed beverages with the high alcohol content that some of these beverages have. I mean, a regular Budweiser or any other traditionally sold beer does not come close to the amount of alcohol that's in these large bottles of malt liquor. So I commend you for your continued efforts, I commend Councilmember Clarke for his efforts in this regard, but I want to tell you something you probably already know: There's a lot of money being made, there's going to be a lot of lawyers running around, trying to stop us from doing what we're trying to do. And I never believed that the federal court really should give some -- they said it was unconstitutional for us to regulate and to try to shut down some of these operations. So I just wanted to alert you to the opposition that's going to come about, but I'm sure, with your faith in God, you'll continue on. Thank you.
Thank you, Reverend. 114 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 Are there any questions or comments from members of the committee of Reverend King? (No questions.)
Captain Dorsey? (Captain Dorsey comes forward.) CAPTAIN DORSEY: Good morning.
Good morning. CAPTAIN DORSEY: Thank you for the opportunity to speak here today. Let me tell you a little bit about the 23rd District. I've been Captain of the 23rd District since June 15th of this year. Demographically, it's bonded: on the north, by Montgomery; on the south, by Poplar; and on the east, by Tenth Street; and on the west, 33rd Street. 3 square miles, primarily neighborhoods with approximately like 30,000 to 35,000 people, 95 percent of which are minorities. I did some research, and what I came up 115 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 with is, there are approximately liquor-on- the-go establishments in this small, congested area, which, in my opinion, is far too many. Residents here are often in need of governmental financial and police service. But if they need alcoholic beverages -- and that's in addition to the other bars and things they have. Alcoholic beverages are readily available to them and also the State stores. I looked from January to August of 1999. There were approximately 350 calls for service in the areas where these 11 establishments were, and they ranged from everything disturbances, to disorderly crowds, hospital cases, a person with a gun, and lost property. And that's 350 calls where the police could be providing service, and they have to go and answer calls in or around these establishments. Many of the locations are grouped together. On Ridge Avenue, I counted four within a one-block radius and that is too many. Also, on the 2800 block of Girard Avenue, within a one-block radius, there are two of them. The problems -- the unique problems 116 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 that they bring, 40 ounces is a lot of beer, that's a lot of beer for someone to consume. And these malt liquors have a high percentage of alcohol in them. When you drink 40 ounces of beer, you are going to have to take care of your bodily functions. The problem is, the mindset is, patrons, when they purchase the beer, don't believe that they have to go home to use the facilities, so if they can't use the facilities inside, we have a problem with public urination. That's one of the things. It also encourages gambling on the highway because encourages people to hang out on the corps or outside of the establishments. Now, we have beat officers on Ridge -- I have a beat officer on Ridge Avenue. So what that does is, that discourages them from hanging outside, because the officer won't tolerate it. Especially if they're engaged in any illegal activity, they know they're going to be arrested. Sometimes they go inside of the establishments, and that doesn't make things any better, because there are people coming in, there are children coming in. 117 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 Also, children coming from school have to pass by these establishments. They're intimidated, and it's a bad role model for the kids to see. It also -- you have seniors who do most of their shopping in North Philadelphia. They shop on Ridge Avenue, they shop on Cecil B. Moore Avenue. Sometimes they're intimidated by these people hanging out, even though they don't think they're anything wrong. They're violating the open-container laws -- we have open-container laws here. They think that as long as it's in a paper bag and concealed, but that's against the law. You have disorderly crowds, gambling on the highway, as I said. Sometimes it's coupled with the illegal use of narcotics. There's littering -- where do you put the 40-ouncers or the bags or the food that you eat? Do you throw it in the trash or do you just litter the streets? You litter the street with it. So there are disorderly conducts, confrontations with the officers, because they really don't believe that they're doing anything wrong. 118 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 Something like this has been in the community for many years. It's accepted behavior by some of the people that patronize these places.
So these are the problems that the police encounter in dealing with these malt-liquor establishments. And the thing is that it is bringing big money in. And that's the problem.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Captain, thank you very much for your testimony. You may be aware of this, but if not, I'd like to make a suggestion to you. Every year, liquor licenses are renewed, they need to be renewed by the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. One of the problems that we faced when we dealt with Councilman DiCicco a couple of times on some problem bars, one of the problems that we face in dealing with the license renewal effort to have the license denied for that year is the way in which the police incident reports are written. Often, when an officer arrives on the scene and there's a confrontation on the highway with the proximity of the take-out-beer 119 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 delicatessen, the 48 Form, or the incident report, is not written clearly as to the specific address of the location of the location. So if your supervisors, yourself, your supervisors and your line squad people can specifically write the address for each service call of the particular take-out-beer delicatessen, that creates a volume of evidence that this is, in fact, a nuisance bar and should not be reason stated. I know the officers are, you know, doing a great job and they're out there, and sometimes if the fight or the altercation is on the sidewalk outside of the place, the 48 is not written clearly that it is a specific address that relates to the take-out-beer deli. And what happens is, even though we go to court or we go in front of the hearing examiner of the State and we have a wealth of incidents of requests for service at a location, the lawyers for the liquor licensee basically say, Well, wait, that's not our location, that's on the highway, that's in the street, that's across the street. So if we can continue to try to focus those incident reports on a specific address, it 120 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 builds a much better case again the licensee when it comes for renewal. CAPTAIN DORSEY: Okay.
Are there any other questions or comments from member of the committee? (No questions.)
Captain, thank you very much. CAPTAIN DORSEY: Thank you.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (Witness come forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Gladys Mead (ph.), and I have an organization, the 29th Street 121 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 Community Services Center for Performing Arts, and a CDC. And I'm now getting a building renovated on 29th Street, which is not too far from one of these stop-and-go's, and I have at least about 30 or 40 children that goes up and down that area in the summertime. We have a great big festival on 29th Street that carries almost 2,000 people in two blocks. And I don't think that we should have another stop-and-go in our area. We're trying to build up our area and trying to make it liveable for the people that's in there now, especially for the senior citizen, because there's a lot of senior citizens around there, and they're afraid to go out at night, they're afraid to walk -- to even sit on their porches. And it's a hazard to the whole community. Now, like they said, there's a lot of money dribbling around with these things, but there's drugs involved in that, and they can't seem to control the people that goes in and out of these stop-and-go's. They give them anything they want and then they stay in their little 122 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 institution and do whatever they have to do. And they're a nuisance to the community. At all hours of the night, they're up and down 29th Street and on Lehigh Avenue raising a lot of fuss. And it's deteriorating from the community. So we are trying to build our community up, and we really don't need another one of those establishments in our community. Now, with me and my organization, this performing arts, I have a multiculture center, and I'm looking for the best sort of people to come there, and they will not attend my center if we have this sort of thing in our community. So a lot of the folks that have lived in our community have left, but they're coming back, and we're trying to keep it going so that we could have a decent and respectable center and a decent and a respectable community. Now, when I have my festival, everybody comes out, I invite everybody from the city -- I know you got some mailing from me. And they have come, the Mayor has been, the -- all of 'em. Even I've invited you, Miss Lane (sic). But you know, you need to be - the 123 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 community is -- we're trying to build it up, and we really don't need these stop-and-go's. And them guys that's on the corner, they throw those bottles anywhere, they smoke them cigarettes and throw them on the street, and it's just a regular hazard. So I hope that you will feel free and find it in your hearts not to have this kind of a nuisance in our neighborhood at this time.
Thank you so very much for coming in and for your patience and testimony. Are there questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Councilman Clarke, I believe you have amendments to offer.
Yes, I do. 124 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 Before that, I'd like to thank Councilman Kenney for sharing his experiences with us today. He told me earlier about some of the problems associated with what he had attempted to do earlier. And because of that, we felt it was probably more prudent to attempt to regulate some of the operations, as opposed to regulating the sale. As I indicated, State Senator Kitchen is working on legislation at the State level that will enable us to further regulate something here locally. And, hopefully, that will pass, and I appreciate your support on that and in sharing that experience with us. As indicated, Madam Chair, I do have a couple of amendments to this particular bill. Would you like me to read them?
Councilman, yes. Do you mind taking the witness table because I do have a copy of it? Does everybody have a copy of the proposed amendments? (Copy of amendments not provided to stenographer.)
It's really 125 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 not very clear. Does everyone have a copy? Please proceed.
I asked him to provide the assistance on making it somewhat clear.
Actually, what we'd like to do is, I'm going to delete a couple of the proposed amendments. On your pink bill, on 2, there's --
No, we've told we can't amend that particular title, so we're just going to amend --
We're going to 126 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 leave that. We're just going to do , on the pink, on the top.
Where it reads -- after where it reads, "is under proper supervision," we want to also "add parent and guardian" to an adult person. And also, at the top, the initial paragraph, we want to delete the italics, after "combined gross sales of both food and all beverages and. . . " delete that italics.
Okay, so what we're doing there is deleting "and card all patrons who enter. . ."?
Just deleting the italics. That should actually come off the bill.
That stays, yes. And we want to delete both sections (i) and (j), at the recommendation of the Law 127 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 Department.
And also, we want to insert after "shall request to see identification to confirm ages of all patrons who are not minors who enter the premises and appear to be under the age of years old." And that's 9 after where the old italics were. 10 You can't hear me? I'm sorry. 11 And last, I'd like to insert as Section 12 3. The terms -- I'm sorry, actually as Section 13 2: "The terms of this ordinance shall not apply 14 to any establishments that have a distributor 15 Class D on imported distributor Class D license 16 from the Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board." And 17 the purpose is to exempt wholesale liquor sales 18 from beer distributors. 19
We're 20 deleting (f), and (g) will become (f)? 21
No, we're going to 128 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848 keep (f).
Wait a minute. I'd like Mr. DeMarco to come over so that. . .
Please proceed. So them (f) stays in the form. That it's?
And (g) remains (g). All right, please continue. Letter (h) will be. . . regularly clean tables and floors of the establishment. Then you're deleting --
So (i) then becomes "comply with all relevant provisions of the Philadelphia Code"? 129 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990848
I think that what I'd like you to do is maybe a member of your staff and Mr. DeMarco could sit with the Chief Clerk to make sure that we have all of these amendments in the appropriate places.
Thank you. Now, Councilman, I understand that Bill 12 No. 990849 is also your bill?
At this time, I would ask the clerk to please read the title of Bill No. 990844.
An ordinance amending title 14 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by Amending Section 14-1703 relating to 130 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 zoning and use registration permits to provide the Department of Licenses and Inspections must deny certain zoning or use registration permit applications that are made within a certain period of time after a substantially similar application was finally denied, and to provide for appeals of such denials, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This bill would amend Section 14-1703 of Section 1703 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code relating to appeal of the Zoning Board of Adjustment. It's my understanding that this bill 21 will codify --
Sorry. It's my understanding that this bill would codify 131 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 long-standing regulations of the Department of Licenses and Inspections and the Zoning Board of Adjustment. These regulations have provided that once an application to the Zoning Board has been refused, an applicant must wait a year to file the same or a substantially similar application to the Board. Under the provisions of this bill, an applicant may appeal a denial under what has been known as the "one-year rule to the Zoning Board of adjustment." This bill would place what currently are regulations actually into the Zoning Code. I think the aim of this bill is so that once it -- I guess, more than anything else, it's to help community groups so that they don't have to continue to come back to the Zoning Board over and over again to oppose a same application within the same year. At least that's my understanding of what the aim of this bill is. And for the record, on December 2, 1999, the Planning Commission recommended that Bill No. 990844 be approved.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for this witness? 132 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 (No questions.)
Seeing none, is there anyone else here to testify on this bill? Please approach the table. (Mr. Krakower returns to the witness table.)
Thank you, Councilman Kenney and members of the Committee. I'm Stanley Krakower, and I've introduced myself before. I'd just like to say a few words on behalf of this bill and make one slight suggested modification. That is that when the L&I stamps -- and I think the bill provides for an actual stamp to say "one-year rule." That if that could also provide the date on which the one-year would expire so that people will know whether there is one month to go or eleven months to go or whatever so that civic associations don't have to keep dealing with the same thing over and over again. So when the stamp that is referred to in this bill is stamped on there, could it say, "one year date of January of 2002," or whatever the date is. I think that would be helpful. Basically, I think the bill is needed. 133 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 It does codify an existing practice, but it will make it more clear to the zoning community. And for that reason, I would support the bill.
Thank you very much for your testimony. (Gray Smith returns to witness table.)
Good morning again, Councilman and members of the committee. I am Gray Smith, Chairman of the Zoning and Code Enforcement Committee of the South Street Neighborhood Association. Whereas the problem that is described and the basis of this ordinance does not frequently occur in the South Street Corridor, where we do have frequent zoning issues that arrive, it does happen occasionally; and as a result, it causes our organization, which is strictly volunteer, to participate in numerous hearings on a particular issue. And so we believe that this ordinance 24 would help us significantly in not having to continue to come back to zoning hearings on the 134 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 same issue when refilings are made under essentially false pretensions. And we applaud the adoption of the bill should you do so.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Are there any questions for these witnesses? (No questions.)
Seeing none, thank you very much. Mr. Feder, please. (Richard Feder returns to the witness table.)
Good morning, Councilman. Richard Feder, from the City Solicitor's Office.
Councilman Nutter asked me just to appear to explain what this bill does and answer any questions in terms of clarification. Candidly, I believe that Mr. Chapman, from the Planning Commission, did a very good job of what it does. I'm not sure I have anything to 135 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 add, unless there are some questions about that, although Mr. Haigler may have some comments.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Feder, this is not a policy question. This is an application question or an implementation question. There is a concern, and we will hear more from L&I. The Department is under the impression, for some reason, that this bill will somehow impact a person who files an application with L&I, they are denied that application because they're not in compliance with the Zoning Code, they naturally then appeal to the Zoning Board. The Department is apparently concerned that the person, either because of community meetings or whatever the case may be, during that time, would not be able to file an amended application, that they would somehow now be subject to the one-year rule; as opposed to the intention, which is to file your application and if you're denied, you appeal to the Zoning Board 136 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 of Adjustment, and you have your case. And what happens with some people is, they lose at the Zoning Board and then they appeal, as is their right, to the court of Common Pleas, and then they subsequently file a new application two weeks later with the Zoning Board. The community is then left in a position of having to fight with the person in the courts and deal with the new application at the Zoning Board. That is a situation that we are trying to deal with. If you could provide any clarification as to what the bill does and what it does not do or hamper someone's efforts to amend their application at the Department while their appeal is still pending at the Zoning Board, that would be helpful.
Councilman, I believe the bill does everything that you just described, although there may be one slight area of confusion, which, if there is confusion, we can amend the bill, depending on what the committee wants. If an applicant applies for a zoning 137 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 permit and it is denied, and regardless of whether they appeal or they don't appeal, they subsequently realize that a small change in their application would make the application be granted.
One could read this bill to say that if that new application is still substantially similar to the first one, L&I has to deny that second application, stamp it "denied, one-year rule," and --
The second application -- that application -- the second application to the first application, which never actually went to the Zoning Board.
Denied by L&I, okay? Regardless of whether it's appealed or not.
Two months later, the applicant realizes, I'm only entitled to a 12-foot deck, not a 13-foot deck and they make a slight change.
But that new application is still substantially similar to the first one. Under this ordinance, even though that second application would be one in which they're entitled to a permit, L&I would have to stamp that second application "denied, one-year rule," and the applicant would have to appeal to the Zoning Board and claim materially changed circumstances, and in that case, the changed circumstances would be "I fixed my application."
Is it fair to say, though -- I mean, your example, which is a good, one would come about in the strictest of reading 139 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 of this particular provision. And, one, we could at least make it clear on the record that that certainly was never the intention of the bill, and I don't think that you and I, in working on this, ever discussed the possibility of that particular scenario. Is that accurate?
I don't recall all of the discussions, and you've also had discussions with some of my colleagues. So I would say that if you're --
I understand. But that scenario's never been presented to me, and that's my testimony.
Do you have a suggestion on a legislative fix that we can calm Mr. Haigler down with?
On this issue, I believe I could quickly come up with an amendment which would allow L&I, but what that would mean, Councilman, would be that L&I would have to make the judgment whether there are changed circumstances. And my understanding of this bill 25 is that it wasn't clear whether you wanted L&I 140 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 making that judgment as to whether there are changed circumstance. My understanding is that you wanted that judgment only to be made by the Zoning Board.
Well, why don't we do this. We have a little bit of time. If you could craft a proposed amendment to deal with the issue. Mr. Haigler, did Mr. Feder fairly accurately express what some of the concerns of L&I are?
I still have certain concerns about L&I making the decision themselves related to whether or not to accept the application. I believe, though, that as a public service agency, it's our responsibility if persons decide they want to apply --
-- within the process, then we should allow them to at least make their application into the process. And then we should, at some point thereafter, determine whether or not they're in compliance with our codes.
And if not, then supersede with either what we normally do, which would be to give them a refusal.
And to allow them to go before the proper administrative board to make the determination of whether or not they want to grant that refusal.
I believe that people should clearly have due process, but at the same time, people should not be able to, as we say, "play the system."
Well, I understand that. And currently, under the regulations that are promulgated within the Zoning Code, the zoning regulations that are promulgated as a companion to the requirements of the Code, it addresses that issue, where if somebody were to intentionally do something that would circumvent the process, then the Board themselves would make that determination of whether or not they would want to hear their case or whether or not they will send them on their way.
I know. 142 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 Mr. Feder, if you could work on the proposed amendments, we are going to have a little bit of time here, and I would be glad to take a look at it in the course of the hearing. And, Madam Chair, with your permission, I'll come back to this particular bill. But we can certainly take all of the testimony and get that squared away, but there may be amendments later.
This is more a question to Councilman Nutter. Why do we limit it to a one-year rule? Why doesn't it say eighteen months or two years? Is there any particular reason?
Councilman, I've tried to do some research on that. Pretty much, this is basically in keeping with the current Zoning Board regulations. There is -- not in the code, but the in the regulations that govern the activities of the Zoning Board, they have what in 143 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 essence is called "a one-year rule." So I didn't necessarily want to -- I don't know where that came from, I don't know when it was instituted, could never get any documentation on it, but that's what it was. And it generally seemed to be a reasonable period of time. I'm striving, Councilman, to become a more reasonable person.
Yeah, well, I -- we've had occasions and a few instances where year after year, they wait the year --
And the neighborhood says, My God, how often are we going to have to deal with the same situation?
'Cause it's often difficult for people in the community to get away from work and come down to the Zoning Board.
Absolutely. It is definitely a burden. I mean, that's what -- I was comporting with what currently exists.
There's no other 144 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 legal requirement on that?
And in the case you're citing to Mr. Feder, if somebody does file, say, two months later, couldn't they appeal the refusal of the second application? Say, if the L&I stamps it "refused?"
Under one-year rule, couldn't that particular application be appealed? And the Zoning Board look at it and decide whether or not it's substantially the same?
I feel more comfortable with the Zoning Board making that decision than with the person at the desk.
Yes. Councilman Cohen is correct that, as the bill is currently drafted, a 145 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 denial by L&I, on the basis of the one-year rule, can be appealed to the Zoning Board, and the Zoning Board can then determine whether there have been materially changed circumstances to provide an exception to the one-year rule.
Yes. And if we relied on that, then no amendment would be needed at the present time.
Well, I think, though, in the case that Mr. Haigler raises, it would force that applicant who has possibly decided rather than going to Zoning Board route that they'd just rather amend their application to be in compliance with what they could potentially get over the counter, they would never end up at the Zoning Board, and I think we don't want to take away that person's opportunity literally at the ground floor of the MSB Building to possibly change their application. And I'm certainly fine with that.
So you're saying 146 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 that there's no appeal made the first time to the Zoning Board.
But do we need an amendment for that? Or is that provided for in the bill now?
No, as I said earlier, I think a very strict reading of the bill 13 could lead one to interpret it the way Mr. Haigler has laid out. I would like to not have that confusion because I think we're in agreement that we're not trying to stop that person from at least going back to the ground floor of L&I and amending their application.
Exactly, right. So we'll work on that and come back to it. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any other questions or 147 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 comments from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Good day, Council President Verna and members of the committee. , Legislative and Regulatory Affairs Manager for the Department of Licenses and Inspections. Today, I am here to provide testimony on Bill 990844, amending Sections 14-1703 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code to provide that the Department of Licenses and Inspections must deny certain zoning and use registration applications that are made within a certain period of time after a substantially similar applications was finally denied, and to provide for appeal of such application or such denials. The Department of Licenses and Inspections has serious concerns regarding our 148 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 ability to enforce the requirement of this bill. As written, this bill, in a very broad sense, will require that Licenses and Inspections automatically deny applications made by any citizen because other applications have been made to the Department within the same year that may be similar in nature. The phrase "substantially similar" is subjective and leaves a lot to the opinion of the employee who is making the review as to whether there are grounds to deny the person right to file 13 to legalize a condition or obtain a permit for an activity. Instances where a person who is turned down and issued a refusal for a zoning matter and then decides to amend or revise their application and resubmit it within the one-year time period would now be subject to an appeal before the Zoning Board of Adjustment because of the application process instead of the condition that precipitated their refusal. If the change that was made addresses the refusal and the applicant wanted to reapply for zoning, this bill, as written, would require 149 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 that we automatically deny the application since it is similar to the one that generated the refusal. Not only will this bill cause a problem for our Department related to interpretation and enforcement, but it also adds additional layers to our current requirements for many of the property owners and businesses that do business in the City of Philadelphia. Our current policy is to research and record the three previous refusals and actions taken by the Zoning Board of Adjustment as part of any subsequent refusal pursuant to the latest application. By doing this, the Zoning Board is alerted of all previous actions related to the subject premises, including actions taken within the one-year timeframe. Further, under the current regulations of the Zoning Code entitled "Decision of the Board," Section 3, No. 16, the Zoning Board of Adjustment already has the power to deny a hearing or a rehearing of a zoning case where there was a final determination by the Board or court within one year from the date of such final 150 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 determination. The requirement to write a refusal simply based on the person making an application to obtain a permit and not the condition that is in violation of the Code adds more extent to an already-lengthy process. In the best-case scenario, it currently takes approximately two months from the time that a refusal is issued to get a decision from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. This bill stipulates that the Board will only address an appeal of the process to apply for a permit. If the Board finds in the person's favor, it appears that they can proceed with the application process, and we, then, may find a condition of the Code which may generate another refusal, which will require the scheduling of another hearing before the Board to address the condition. Not only is this time-consuming and confusing, but it will tie up the schedule of hearings before the Board, with appeals related to the application process instead of violations of the code.
, appears 151 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 to give the general public at large the right to appeal the Department's decision to accept a person's application and issue a permit, or the applicant can now appeal to the Board if we determine that a refusal is warranted, based on a condition other than the submission of the application, subject to the one-year rule. Each day, our employees service the needs and concerns of our customers after they visit or telephone us. The Department of Licenses and Inspections, within the past year, has made strides to open the lines of communication with the public we serve by meeting with them and listening to them, as they assess our strength and weaknesses as a department that services their needs. One of the main points that came out of the meeting we had in April with our stakeholders was that the Department could do a better job in communicating our requirements to businesses and the general public prior to either a visit from us regarding a violation or a visit from them to our facilities for the purpose of obtaining required documents to conduct businesses or perform an 152 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990844 activity in the city. This bill puts Licenses and Inspections in a position of doing what, in the past, we have been criticized for, and that is not being user- or business-friendly. The Department of Licenses and Inspections strongly urges Council to withdraw or table this bill until such time that the bill can bee fully studied to determine the impact it will have on our department and the public we serve. Thank you.
Thank. You any questions from members of the committee? (No questions.)
Gentlemen, thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The next bill 23 being called for consideration is Bill No. 990331.
An ordinance approving the redevelopment proposal of the Redevelopment 153 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of a portion of the Jefferson Square Redevelopment Area, Jefferson Square Urban Renewal Area, being the area generally bounded by Washington Avenue on the south, South Fourth Street on the east, Dickinson Street on the south, and South Sixth Street on the west; approving the urban renewal plan and determining that such plan or redevelopment proposal conforms to the general locality plan and make adequate provisions for individuals, business concerns, and families who are displaced; determining the necessity for changes in and for zoning streets, alleys, public ways, street patterns, location and relocation of public utilities; determining that the urban renewal plan and redevelopment proposal prohibit discrimination because of race, color, creed, sex, sexual orientation, national origin, ancestry, or handicap; declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project, except as otherwise expressly provided for in the proposal; and declaring that the redevelopment undertakings in the project to be an important part of the City's program to remove and prevent the spread of 154 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 urban blight.
I would invite Mr. Eisenstat to come up to the witness table, please.
Thank you, Madam Chair. First, I want to thank all of the people who are here from the Jefferson Square community for your patience this morning. I would just like to, for the benefit of the Councilmembers that are here, just give a quick overview of the project that we will be discussing this morning. As many of you may recall, back in, I believe it was, June of this year, the Rules Committee began to look at the bill in front of us today. The vision that we talked about in June was a vision that had been presented to the community back in June of 1996, where we were beginning to look at an area that has, over the 155 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 years, become quite blighted, and an area where people's lives and futures were, in my opinion, basically at risk. We are looking at an area that comprises about a two- to three-square-block area, that we believe is in dire need of rehabilitation. There was still some concern, after about three years' worth of meetings with the community and the Redevelopment Authority, that some of the folks who live in the designated areas that we will be speaking to this morning were still not certain as to what our goal and our mission was, and there was some concern as to the issue of relocation -- not unlike the issue that was before this Council about a month or two ago in relationship to the MLK and Hawthorne vicinity. At the suggestion of some of the Councilmembers, we continued that hearing till up until today. During the summer months and through the fall of this year, a series of meeting have been taking place with a group known as "the St. John's Leadership Team," that were the designated representatives for the community of the Jefferson Square Project. 156 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 We're confident today that we have made every attempt to recognize the concerns of the community. However, I will caution everyone that I expect that there are those who are still not going to be satisfied with the decisions that have been made collectively between the Jefferson Square CDC and the St. John's Leadership Team. But, again, I believe I'm confident today in saying that we have attempted to make -- to address every issue as it relates to relocation, new housing, rehabilitation of housing, etc. I want to thank everyone again for your patience, and we'll proceed with the hearing. And during the hearing, I will probably be interjecting as to the status of some of the properties in addition to the residential properties that we will be rehabilitating in this community. Thank you.
Thank you. Mr. Eisenstat? (Noel Eisenstat comes forward.)
Or, excuse me. Good afternoon, Council President. My name is Noel Eisenstat, and I come before you today as the Executive Director of the City's Redevelopment Authority. I'm here to speak to you concerning Bill No. 990331, which has been read into the record, with a brief introduction by Councilman DiCicco. I would like to discuss a few aspects of my testimony only briefly. As the Councilman indicated, this matter was before this governing body in June of this year, and at that time, a more expanded urban renewal taking was proposed. At this time, after meetings were conducted under the leadership of the District Councilperson, the Redevelopment Authority comes before you today specifically for the acquisition of only 133 properties, which includes 44 buildings and 89 lots. Twenty-one of these buildings are occupied. Based on our estimates that were conducted in the spring of this current year, 6 are estimated to be tenant-occupied units and 15 are thought to be owner-occupied. 158 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 The Redevelopment Authority's relocation program will provide resources, services, and payments to occupants who might be relocated as a result of this public taking. No 6 families or individuals will be relocated until rehousing can be accomplished, according to federal relocation guidelines. I would also note that in June of this year, the Council had also approved Bill 990255, which accompanies this bill, which concerns the acquisition of adjoining properties in the 13 Pennsport area. 14 Let me further depart from my testimony 15 to explain that substantively, the parking element 16 of this bill that was here before has been 17 excluded, and that is basically provided that residents on Lithgow and Lawrence Streets will not be affected by this bill at this time -- 1300 South. Furthermore, the CDC, Jefferson Square CDC has spent considerable time working with the potential relocatees and has come to an agreement which I can verify today that it is the intention of the not-for-profit, with the Authority behind 159 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 it, that to the extent that individuals wish not to be relocated until replacement housing has been built within the area, we believe that will be accommodated as well. The CDC, which we can talk a little bit more about later this afternoon, about the mix of housing, and we can further explain what will be developed here in terms of the townhomes and the rehabilitation of units as well as the building of twin homes as well. And we believe that the relocation program will be such that individuals will have an opportunity -- the rehab of certain units will be able to commence in plenty of time to provide a viable facility to allow individuals to move once if they wish to stay in the neighborhood. I wanted to keep my comments short. I know that you've got some folks that -- people you'd like to speak with today. I'll be here today for a while, as you usually like me around.
Thank you. Mr. Eisenstat, you said that there are 133 properties? How many of them are lots?
Eighty-nine of them are 160 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 lots.
And did I understand you to say that of the occupied 5 properties are occupied by the owners? 6
Thank you. 9 The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. 10
Good. I understood that you said that there was basically agreements reached on many areas between representatives of the community and the Redevelopment Authority and the CDC that's involved; is that right?
I would say that the Authority was not directly involved in much of this; much of this was really at the direction of the Councilman and the CDC. What we've come to you today is, as it relates to a urban renewal taking, it reflects 161 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 that basic understanding, and that understanding is that relocation will be taken to a minimum, that the acquisition that was contemplated surrounding a parking lot will not occur at this time, nor will the Lithgow and Lawrence acquisitions on the South 1300 block areas occur, in part, due to certain reconfiguration, and in part also due to the fact that the properties that were a part of this bill in June that were associated with the parking lot will be deleted. I will be supplying the clerk today with a revised list that I have reviewed with the Councilman, with the CDC, and with lawyers representing the community group from Legal Services.
I think that's good progress. But you also stated that there were some basic agreements reached with respect to people who were going to be relocated?
And those assurances relate to the fact that there will be some 162 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 individuals who may be wishing to receive their relocation benefits and go on their own and leave the area, that there will be some individuals who will be looking to leave sooner or later, and there will be some individuals specifically who will not want to move until replacement housing within the program has not only started, but is ready for them to move into, and the CDC will schedule its construction and its development needs to accommodate those families specifically.
And will those understanding and agreements be reduced to writing? Are we going to be presented with something that reflects that? I say that because we're nearing a change of administration, which only aggravates the situation. I frequently run into --
It doesn't aggravate me at all right now, Councilman. (Laughter.)
No, but it aggravates the situation in that very frequently, memories begin to dim, and later on, when disputes come up, there's nothing in writing. And I'm 163 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 hoping that whatever you say is going to be reflected and will conform.
Let me see if I can help, and then Councilman DiCicco can correct me. And while I appreciate your understanding, there was a -- let me be exceptionally clear here. There was a request by representatives of the St. John's group that the ordinance before you be amended. Technically speaking, according to urban renewal law and our general counsel at the Redevelopment Authority, the ability to amend an urban renewal bill without starting the process back at the Redevelopment Authority and the Planning Commission are such that we cannot insert that language into the bill today. To do that would require a new bill, and I don't believe, for some of the same reasons you've articulated, no 19 one wants to do that today. I'm more than happy to confirm my understandings, as it relates to this, with the St. John's group as well as the CDC and the Councilman, by having a memorandum of understanding, which I believe is probably as good as we're going to get, and I'm happy to provide 164 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 that. The only thing, as I've indicated, that is really permissible is to insert language within the ordinance itself. A document between the CDC, the Redevelopment Authority, the Councilman, and the St. John's group would be a way to address this.
Would that memorandum to your understanding be arrived at prior to finally passage of this bill? Is that going to be presented to us today?
I think with this passage of this bill, it needs to happen today and we're -- I believe, with the Councilman's leadership, this will be no problem. I don't have language today; I think that can be drafted. Councilman, as you know, I've been with you for seven and a half years. And when you or your colleagues have asked for specific things like this, they've occurred and they've been implemented, and I don't think you don't have anything to worry about.
Incidentally, the legal interpretation you gave is the first time in some 32 years that I've ever heard that proposed. 165 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 The one rule we have that I know about is that we cannot amend the title of a bill. You know, that would require a new bill, but I've never heard what you said, but I assume the attorney for the Redevelopment Authority would be prepared to --
I'd be happy to have him forward you a short note which explains the statute and the case law that we are somewhat bound by in this matter, yes.
Okay, all right. Thank you. Is your attorney going to be here at the hearing if that becomes a --
Not, he's not, but I'm happy to follow this up with a letter as it relates to the modification of the bill.
Yes, because I think the best thing would be if there were one single package that had everything in it because it makes it much simpler.
I appreciate what you're suggesting. I'm very confident on this legal analysis, and it would, I believe, be -- if we had a little time, we could confer with those 166 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 in the City Law Department. And, Councilman, I can sure you a memorandum that will memorialize this understanding should be more than enough at this time.
Well, I don't know where you're going to be the next four years, but nobody knows, nobody knows.
Except elected officials, we've been elected, so know we're going to be here for four years.
Councilman, I appreciate your concern and your interest in --
Well, I just raise it because Mr. Eisenstat raised the issue.
And I appreciate your concern and interest in this. Although we now understand that Noel Eisenstat will be leaving and there will be a new mayor coming, the one thing that will remain is 167 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 that I've been reelected and I will be here, hopefully, for the next four years. And as a party to the negotiations from day one, I've attended all of these meetings with the community group and the St. John's Leadership Team, and I can assure you that there'll be no deviation to this. I mean, this was my project from the beginning and I'll see it through till the end. Thank you.
Good, but the legal training I have says that understandings are most successful when things are reduced to writing in a form so that there's always something there and people don't have different memories of what was agreed to. But let's see what the --
Well, I also think that the record that we have here today will memorialize what Mr. Eisenstat has said.
Well, I was in a court hearing, Councilman DiCicco, and have to tell you, and a gentleman -- I don't mention this generally in public, but Mr. Rouse, with the Liberty Building, and there were all kind of 168 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 understandings made at the hearing, and when those understandings were not carried out, the court wanted to know where it had been embodied in an agreement; the court was not ready to take testimony given at hearings as proof of the existence of the development. So that having gone through that, I'm very sensitive to the need of having something memorialized in writing. And the best thing she indicated, the court indicated at the time, would be, Well, show me in your ordinance, where did it say that? So that's the reason I'm very sensitive in this area. And in the interest of everybody, just think, in view of the all the discussions that took place, all the work you've done, Councilman DiCicco, over the years, we want to protect all of that as well as the community interests. And the best way to do it is to have it in writing. But let's go ahead and let's see how it works out.
Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Eisenstat? (No further questions.) 169 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311
So this will be your last hearing, I guess, you'll be attending before this committee.
And I certainly want to publicly thank you for all the cooperation that you have given us in the last several years, and I know that you were always there, ready, willing and able to assist in any way that you could, and I want you to know that we're very, very grateful for all of the service that you've given us.
I appreciate those kind words from you and from your colleagues today.
Do we have 170 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the table. (Witness comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please pull the microphone closer to you, identify yourself for the record, and proceed with your testimony.
Mr. Newburg, you're going to have to pull the microphone a little closer, please. Thank you.
Jeremy Newburg, Jefferson Square CDC -- Community Development Corporation. Good afternoon. Thank you for the time to talk. And I'd like to say good afternoon to the St. John's Leadership Team and the residents of Jefferson Square and express my appreciation for their patience this morning. In June, we introduced the Jefferson Square plan to you. So for the sake of time, I'm 171 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 not going to go over all of details of the plan. What you have there is Version 10, and in that version, what you see is the result of more than seven scheduled specific meetings with the St. John's Leadership Team to work through an agreement regarding the issue of parking for the Mt. Sinai Hospital regarding the issue of clarifying what type of relocation services will be provided. And what you have there is a plan to produce 72 new construction twin houses. The motivation for the twin houses is to introduce a lower-density design to the rowhouse neighborhood as a means to keep families in the city rather than choosing to move to the suburbs. However, we seek a balanced approach on this, and it includes the construction of to 30 19 in-fill rowhouses. The 20 to 30 in-fill rowhouses 20 will be dedicated specifically to families that are being asked to relocate. Homeowners who live in the neighborhood, who are on the condemnation list, will be given first priority for the relocation rowhouse. The relocation rowhouse will have a 172 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 minimum of three bedrooms and two baths. We're currently experimenting with a design format where we include a drive-in parking space, actually a drive-in garage. We think the drive-in garage actually modernizes the rowhouse and adds value. So what I'm trying to put forth is that this plan provides balance where families that can pay upward from $85,000 for the new twins, they will benefit from a revitalized neighborhood. But more importantly, existing owners of properties who have to move will be provided a house within the neighborhood. So then rather than asking a family to move somewhere in South Philly, we're asking them to move half a block into a new house, that, in all likelihood, may be worth three times what their house is worth today. So in this plan, existing residents benefit from the reinvestment as much as the new residents. I want to make it clear that we've really had a hurdle to get over, because the Mt. Sinai Hospital closed. We need that hospital reopened. The benefit of these negotiations over the summer and fall is that we've come to common 173 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 ground that the hospital needs to be addressed, and I think we'll work together towards that end. But one thing that we've made clear in our commitments -- and I'd like to address this specifically to you, Councilman Cohen -- is that when an operator for the Mt. Sinai Hospital is identified, we will engage in a similar process of meetings with community residents, so that, number one, the hospital administrator does an exhaustive assessment of what their parking needs are and can we maximize the existing parking that is there today without expanding or taking anyone's house. If the new operator determines that they need to expand the parking, it will be done so within the context of joint meetings with St. John's and Jefferson Square CDC so that it's an open process. One of the things that clouded this whole process was that we didn't actually have an operator for the hospital, okay? So I want to be very clear that we've established a tone for communicating, we've produced an agreement that that plan reflects, and we will continue to use that process. " A personal relocation plan entails establishing the fair market value for the property, working with the RDA to calculate the relocation benefits, and then helping that family determine where they want to go, if they want one of the relocation houses, if they want to rent in the 37-unit Mt.
Sinai low-income senior project, what they want to do. So it's all or nothing. We have to get everyone on board. So we've put that in writing in the plan that we've submitted, and I think we're open to signing a memorandum of understanding. But I can say with confidence that we've done a lot of work over the summer. We both learned about each other's needs and goals, and we both were committed to an outcome to resolve the situation. 175 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 So approval of the 133 properties in the combination list will facilitate the new housing construction, but more importantly, it facilitates the land acquisition so that we can build the relocation rowhouses. So if I could present a timeline for you on where we're going with this plan. With the urban renewal plan being approved today, all the Councilmembers facilitate what's known as "equitable title" for us, which is site control. That jump-starts all our development activity in the sense that we can finish the fund-raising and move forward with personal relocation plans for each family that's being required to move, okay? So immediately, we'll condemn all of the vacant lots and all of the shells, but we won't condemn the occupied houses until we've done a relocation plan with each family; and they if choose to move into the relocation rowhouse that we build, we will first build that house, and then the family will move. So the first housing production that could occur is actually the relocation rowhouse. By the end of the spring, we'll have the first two 176 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 models built. So I thank you very much for your time. And if there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.
Thank you very much. Are there any questions? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
This is not a question, but a comment. I wanted to commend all the parties. I understand that under Councilman DiCicco's leadership, all of the parties have been very busy at work, and I'm hoping that today, we can see an end to it, with all parties fully satisfied that their rights are protected, you know, forever. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. And you did indicate that there were a number of people from St. John's Leadership Committee. Maybe they could just stand so that we could just recognize them. (St. John's Leadership Team members 177 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 stand for recognition.)
The record will indicate there are about people in the 5 audience from St. John's Leadership. 6 Who is the next person to testify on 7 this? 8
If there are 9 a number of you to testify, come up to the table 10 so that we can save some time. 11 (Witnesses come forward.) 12
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Peggy Brookens, and I am a co-chair for the St. John's Leadership Team. As you have been informed, we were here in May and June. We were here in June under some much heated debate regarding the relocation of families that did not feel as though we should have to move, especially those people who were going to be forced out of their homes, to make provisions for a parking lot. I'd like to say now that we thank you for making it possible for us to 178 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 meet with the Councilman and to come up with a mutual agreement about the plan that has been presented to you. Regarding the development of our community, although we still remain opposed to people being forced out of their homes, much work has been put into this plan over the summer. Councilman DiCicco has worked with us very diligently so that we could come up with a mutual agreement regarding the process of relocation. Our initial meetings were indeed tense, but we were able to overcome the tense atmosphere so that we could begin to work with the real issues regarding this relocation process. During the summer, they produced a plan which shows a lot more concern for the community than its original draft. It has allowed us to have some input with the decision of the plan, and we are pleased to let you know that that has occurred. Thank you, Councilman DiCicco, for working with us and agreeing to allow us to be a part of your decisions regarding what happens to our community, and we look forward to working with 179 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 you on a continued basis throughout the process of this plan. As you heard before, there is a concern that the plan and the ordinance are two separate documents. Our concern is that we do want to have -- we feel we need to have some type of protection stating the promises that have been made to us in the plan. Because, you know, we're confident that, in all sincerity, the promises that have been made in the plan are those things that you and the developer intend to do. But, you know, stuff happens, and we need that assurance in writing, the promises that you have provided for us, aside from those things that are in the plan 'cause, after all, this is an intense revision of this plan, and we need to have that indicated in writing, preferably in the ordinance. And, you know, we feel that this type of thing should be a part of the ordinance anyway 'cause we should not have to read -- we, nor anyone, in the future should have to contend with working with two documents when it pertains to their lives. You know, like the plan will say one thing, the ordinance may say something else, and a 180 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 lawyer will further elaborate on that when he speaks. But during this process of working with the plan with the redevelopment of our community, we've gone through some very tense moments, you know, for the past two years. It's been, you know, a lot of anxiety, a lot of hard work, a lot of fear that we were going to be forced out of our homes and not have any input regarding where we were going to go. We felt we were going to have to move out of the community. Now, knowing that we will be allowed to stay in the community, it has taken a load off of us, our parents, and it just makes for an entirely different situation. And we thank you for that again, you know. On the other hand, working with this plan has allowed us the opportunity to gain a lot of experience in fighting for those rights that belong to us. We gained a lot of experience in doing that. We've met -- we've built new relationships, and we've also earned the respect and the awareness that we can, and we have a right to object to those things that we think are not to our benefit.
181 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 And I'd just like to end by saying that we look forward to continue to work with you, and we're depending on you to make sure that these things are carried out so that they will benefit the community on the whole along with the residents in the community. We thank you.
Thank you very much. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Mary Black, and I live at 1303 South 15th Street. I'm also a member of the St. John Leadership Team. First I'd like to thank God for allowing all of us to be here today. I'd like to thank City Council for allowing me to speak. I just want to say briefly that we appreciate and we thank Councilman DiCicco for working with us, and we truly look forward to working with him in the future. We also acknowledge the fact that there's been several changes in the plan, but we also would like for City Council to consider the 182 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 fact that we don't believe that this is a good policy to have anyone removed from their homes for parking-- not just in our community but anywhere in the city, anywhere. Thank you.
Madam Chair, members of the Rules Committee, my name is Irv Ackelsberg, and I'm with Community Legal Services, and for the past several months. I've had the great privilege and honor of representing the St. John's Leadership Team in this struggle. I would like to first just reiterate the thanks and recognition extended to Councilman DiCicco. When this process began, there was a tremendous amount of distrust on both sides. And I think largely due to the graciousness of Councilman DiCicco in hosting the talks and in his real determination, I think, to make something happen out of the talks, I think that distrust very clearly, as you can see here today, gave way to a spirit of cooperation that I'm convinced will have a lasting positive effect in this corner of South Philadelphia. I do, however, just want to briefly 183 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 address the issue that Councilman Cohen raised. I think it's very important -- it's very important not just for this particular redevelopment bill, but really for how Council does redevelopment bills in the future. I heard what Mr. Eisenstat said in terms of his lawyers being of the opinion that redevelopment bills can't be amended. I think that what that means is that -- I mean, I certainly would agree that this body does not have the power to change the boundaries, to add properties to the list. Those matters have to go before the Planning Commission; we all know that. However, the law specifically says -- and I'm actually reading from the State law that we're operating under. The governing body, meaning the City Council of Philadelphia in this context, shall not approve a redevelopment proposal unless it is satisfied that adequate provisions will be made to rehouse displaced families, if any, without undue hardship. Now, in the bill that you have before you, there is a finding in Section 4 of the bill 25 that Council finds and declares that the 184 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 relocation is adequate. Now, I suspect that this is boilerplate language that is used in virtually any redevelopment bill that comes before Council. There is nothing in State law that prevents Council from being specific about what, in fact, those relocation provisions are. If you read section 1 of the bill 9 before you, which is really the only section that is authorizing anything in particular to happen, it refers to the redevelopment proposal, including maps, the plan, the maps, and all other documents, etc., which form a part of the proposal, without really specifying what documents we're referring to. Now, the agreement that has been described at length here this morning is contained in a document entitled, "The Jefferson Square Revitalization Plan." It's Chapter 8 of this document and it has a date of November 1999. It is our position that there is nothing whatsoever in State law which prevents this body from amending the ordinance just to make it clear that those documents contain this particular -- the documents alluded to contain 185 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 this document, and that the relocation provision is the relocation provision that is agreed to in this document. I have taken the liberty of drafting a proposed amendment to the bill, which does nothing more than make clear what I have just said and make clear the understandings that have been alluded to here and described at great length. But, again, the redevelopment lawyers have taken the position that, for some reason or another, you know, this can't be in the bill. I would respectfully dissent from that opinion. And maybe if it can't happen today in this bill, that this body should ask the Law Department for its opinion. And I would be more than happy to work with Council on that. But I would ask that Council the amendments that I've proposed, and if I could approach and give the Chair. . . (Copy of Mr. Ackelsberg's proposed amendments not provided to stenographer.)
Mr. Ackelsberg, not being an attorney, I've been hearing arguments on both sides as to whether this is a legal way of 186 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 proceeding with the amendment and can it be interjected into the bill. For the record, I would read it into the record this morning. Councilman Cohen, I'll probably yield to you being the attorney that's sitting here with Council this morning. I don't know if that makes a difference or not. And I understand the question of trust, which goes even beyond this document, and I'll just speak to that very briefly, that I want to thank all of you and all of the members of the St. John's Leadership Team for allowing me the opportunity to present this plan and this vision over the last several months, and for your open-mindedness in allowing me to be able to present that. And I do agree that at the initial stages, even back as far as 1996, there was a lot of suspicion out there. And it was a learning process for me also. Having been a first-time elected Councilperson, I had a vision for a community close that is very close to where I lived and wanted to change some things for the better. 187 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 Maybe I was a little bit slow or derelict in my presentation to the community, so I apologize for that never. It was my intention to just uproot people and change the entire community, but I was looking to make some minor changes, or maybe some significant changes, that would make for a better product all the way around. As to the issue of the parking lot, we discussed this for the last couple of years and more recently during the summer months, during our negotiations, that we all do agree that something needs to be done with the hospital facility. And I think at the meeting before the last -- or two meetings before the last, before we even began to discuss the plan, I had mentioned to all of you that I had found out that there was no deal to reopen the hospital. So that the issue that we had been negotiating, as it relates to a parking lot facility and how that would impact on the number of families and homes that may have to be taken, was not an issue at that time. So I think I was very honest with you. I could have probably just passed by that and no 188 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 one would have known. But I was just doing that as an effort to express to you that there was no 4 secret agenda here, and that there was openness on my part. We will at some time, as I think Jeremy Newburg pointed out in his testimony, need to revisit the issue of a parking lot in order to get tenants into that building to provide jobs for the community and to occupy a building that is almost one city square block that is now vacant. There are negotiations, as we speak, going on with Methodist Hospital and others, who are looking at the hospital facility and occupying a couple of those floors. So it's very fluid and you'll always be a part of that process. Whether this document is in there or not, I can assure you of that. I have no reason to want to change the way I've been doing business with your community or any other community over the last four years. And, again, I do want to take this opportunity one more time to thank all of you for allowing me into your life basically to present this plan and vision. And I think in the end, 189 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 over the next couple of years, we're going to have something that we can all be proud of. Thank you again.
Madam Chair, if I could just conclude. Again, it is our wish that the agreement be referred to in the bill. If that cannot happen, you know, the memorandum of understanding that was referred to before that -- and as I take it, the idea is that this memorandum of understanding would be signed and made a part of the record, and I would say it could be included within the other documents that are referred to in Section 1 of the bill. If we could do that, I think that it would be extremely important, and it would be the bear minimum, I think, of what needs to be done here. But, again, I would strongly urge Council to consider this whole question of why it is that agreements like this could not really be a part of the regular business of this body, because after all, under State law this, it's body, not the Redevelopment Authority, which has the legal 190 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 obligation to make sure that adequate provisions have been made for relocation of current residents. Thank you.
A question to Mr. Ackelsberg. Where precisely in the bill would the amendment go?
Councilman Cohen, it's really just two things that I would suggest adding. One is just simply a new whereas clause. That's the first paragraph in the sheet that I've given you.
And that whereas clause would read as follows: "Whereas, the Redevelopment Authority, through the Jefferson Square Community Development Corporation, has engaged in discussions with existing residents of the redevelopment area, and as a result of such discussions, has developed a document, entitled 191 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 "Jefferson Square Revitalization Plan," dated November 1999, which document contains, among others things, a relocation plan for existing residents." So it would be a new whereas clause, and then the key amendments, Councilman Cohen, would be in Section 1. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
I'm making two suggestions. One is an additional whereas clause, and that's the first paragraph on the sheet that I've handed out.
The second suggestion is in the actual enabling text of the statute, that Section 1, that we insert the shaded language that I've included. And hopefully on the copy, Councilman Cohen, you can see that, and perhaps I should --
Okay. In other words, I would insert in Section 1, after the reference to the various documents that make up this 192 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 proposal, the following language: "And including the Jefferson Square Revitalization Plan, dated November '99, which plan contains the relocation provisions applicable to current residents." And then I would ask add a phrase at the end of the second sentence which gives the redevelopment the authority to take such action as is necessary to carry out this, and that we add, "Except that involuntary relocation of current residents of the redevelopment area is conditioned on compliance with the commitments contained in the Jefferson Square Revitalization Plan, dated November '99, and will occur only if sufficient funding exists to comply with such commitments." And that, finally, in the subsequent sentence, "which gives the redevelopment the authority to proceed with minor changes that are in substantial conformity to the plan as passed by Council." And that we add the phrase, "and as long as such changes are in conformity with the relocation commitments contained in the Jefferson Square Revitalization Plan dated November '99."
Mr. Eisenstat, do you mind approaching the table. 193 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 (Mr. Eisenstat comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Now, I would ask you to reiterate what you said earlier.
I'd be happy to, but now that I understanding where Mr. Ackelsberg's coming from and he's explained what he would like to do, it creates a series of other issues which he had not discussed with me, and I would further like to explain that I believe the authority before this body can commit to what's been said. But as Mr. Ackelsberg has gone on and on and on, he has outlined more issues that become more problematic as it relates to the specifics of which he's attempting to speak here today. Specifically the problem that I see he's -- leaving aside the issue I spoke with you earlier about, the legality of amending redevelopment plans at the time of final adoption, the problem here is, he's attempting to reference a document dated November 6th that was prepared by the Jefferson Square CDC and by incorporating that document, the concern is that's a document that 194 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 was never presented for approval or consideration by the Planning Commission or by the Redevelopment Authority. Furthermore, you, was the governing body of Philadelphia, approve the developers and then subsequently approve redevelopers. And part of that process is the acquisition of land and then the selection of redeveloper. And what Mr. Ackelsberg has proposed is effectively binding City Council to make the Jefferson Square CDC the redeveloper, without following State statute as it relates to redeveloper's agreement, redevelopment plan and adoption by the Redevelopment Authority and the Planning Commission before coming to you by resolution. And I think that by beginning this process, it would just be unnecessary. As I've expressed to you earlier, Council President, the Authority is willing and able to, by a letter, bind itself in a way that memorializes the understanding. We believe substantively that, as first explained to me yesterday and the day before, which was the first time I saw Mr. Ackelsberg's language, although 195 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 hard to read on the fax, I would have had further discussions with him earlier or later if I thought that this would have persisted. This can be accomplished in other ways, and we would believe it most appropriately to do so.
Madam Chair, the intent of this idea was certainly not to create additional problems, and I appreciate what Mr. Eisenstat has said. And, really, I think the way to address that is where the language here speaks of the Jefferson Square Revitalization Plan dated November '99, we can simply say the memorandum of understanding, dated whatever that date is. In other words, we can -- my point was not to do all of the various things that, you know, to endorse a particular developer. My point is that the agreements, as they exist as of now, are in Chapter 8 of this document. They don't exist in writing anywhere else. And the point is -- and I think is obvious and I think it's articulated most clearly by Councilman Cohen that whatever happens, there's a lot of understanding, it needs to be memorialized in some fashion. And I think the 196 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 easiest way to do that is to allude to the document that contains it, whether it's this plan, whether it's a separate document called a memorandum of understanding, it needs to be specified. That's all.
And I agree that we should be able to have a memorandum of understanding, and I believe that you will actually not be able to take final passage till a week from Thursday, not tomorrow. So I don't see any reason why we don't attempt to have an independent agreement that is now memorialized in the document rather than amending the ordinance 15 today.
And just for purposes of some history here, if you can indulge me. I just want to make clear, though, that that then will be -- that memorandum of understanding will then be one of those documents that accompany the plan and that are referenced in Section 1 of the ordinance.
If you're asking me to respond to that, I'm not. I'm not here, again, to 197 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 amend a bill; I am here today to suggest that if you wish to enter into -- you're asking me.
If we're going to go through this debate, I think we better do it -- the two of you can go into the back of the room because we have six other bills and we have a Finance Committee hearing that has been waiting in the wings for another hearing, and then we have Public Property that's also listed today. So maybe you could go to the back of the room and have this discussion among yourselves, but to have this open debate on the record, I'm afraid the hour is much too late people and we have other people that have been waiting here since 9 o'clock to testify.
Is there anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witness comes forward.)
My name is Kevin Price. 198 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990311 I'm a Democratic Committee person, and I'm also a member of the Jefferson Square Community Development. I'm also a neighbor of the people of Jefferson Square -- I mean, the St. John's community group and I'm a parent of the neighborhood. I strongly come forward to support the bill, over the last five months, meeting with Councilman DiCicco, the St. John's group and other members of the neighborhood that are not represented here today. The only concern of the members was the relocation of residents being moved out of their homes, and I think that we've come up with an agreement that's a win-win situation for everyone involved. That's all I have to say.
Fine, thank you, and thank you for your patience. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Okay. Seeing no one else to testify on the bill, I would ask the clerk to please read Bill No. 990673. 199 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673
An ordinance authorizing the Health Commissioner, on behalf of the City of Philadelphia, to enter into a contract with the Health Care Advocate to represent the City's health consumers in various matters relating to the provision and access to health care; and amending Chapter 17-100 of the Philadelphia Code, entitled "Procurement Contracts," by requiring that a City contract with a hospital health management organization or other health-care provider shall include the provision requiring such health-care provider to make available to a City-contracted Health Care Advocate information relating to the provision of health care to City residents, all under certain terms and conditions.
I'm so sorry you've been kept waiting all this time, but it's one of those days.
President Verna and members of the Rules Committee, good afternoon. I'm John Domzalski, Executive Deputy and Chief of Staff for the Philadelphia Department of Health, and I'm pleased to represent Commissioner Richman in presenting testimony concerning Bill No. -- 200 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673
Excuse me, excuse me, excuse me, Commissioner. Sorry but the noise level is much too high. We must be able to hear the witness testifying, please. Thank you very much. Please proceed.
Thank you. The concept of a health care advocate for the citizens of Philadelphia is a very attractive one to the Philadelphia Department of Public Health. This bill incorporates two very distinct functions. One is to act as an ombudsman to give consumers of health-care services a voice with health-care providers that would also provide a place where consumers can turn to resolve individual problems. The second function involves working with providers around charitable care policies and practices, which is an increasingly important issue as the number of the uninsured in Philadelphia continues to grow. The Department is increasing aligning itself with other major stakeholders in the City's 201 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 Health Care Agreement to development regional responses to health-care quality and access, and the provisions of this bill greatly expand that role. In the last year, the Department has broadened its outlook on the uninsured to move beyond the impact on our health-care centers. Along with other major providers, the Department has begun looking at citywide numbers and trends toward development of regional responses, but these efforts are in their infancy and are being done at this time with support from staff on a collaborative basis. This bill would support and enhance these efforts. One function of this bill is to act as an advocate with health-care providers to resolve individual consumer problems. In fact, the bill 19 states that the health care advocate must provide an annual report on the number of cases handled and results obtained. Clearly, these problems have the potential to range from very small specific problems to larger systemic ones. While attempting to solve problems and perhaps assisting in an ombudsman role, the advocate will need to 202 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 have real authority to accomplish this. The second function includes data- gathering and analysis and projection, and there are very different skills needed for this, and it clearly means that the Department will need to access staff with sufficient expertise to produce meaningful information. Again, this effort will need a great deal of cooperation from health-care providers, as they are under no present obligation to provide the information stated in the bill. The ability to gather data on the uninsured is vital. The number of uninsured is a critical issue for city government and for all health-care providers. A healthy population is a long held value in the City of Philadelphia. Key to this is access to health care and the corresponding access to health insurance. Philadelphia has an adult population of approximately 860,000. And survey data from 1998 shows that 10 percent, or an astounding 86,000 of these adults, are without insurance at the time of the survey. And that 20 percent, or double that number, 173,000, are without insurance at some point during the year preceding survey. In 203 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 addition, percent reported having no 3 prescription drug coverage, and 24 percent 4 reported being without dental coverage. Vital to 5 any initiative addressing the growing fiscal and 6 social burden of providing care to those without 7 insurance are data. 8 While the current system of safety-net 9 providers, including the City's hospital systems, 10 has continued to provide services. We are 11 critically aware that broad system changes are 12 necessary for the viability and continued quality 13 of care for Philadelphians without insurance. 14 Accurate data would show not only the number and 15 demographics of the uninsured population, but also 16 the utilization of existing resources to determine 17 which members of this population are not accessing 18 available services and what services are most 19 needed.
Recognizing the lack of a current obligation on the part of health-care providers to provide the type of information to the City, the provisions of this bill would provide a means of obtaining data necessary for citywide policy development around health care for the uninsured. 204 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 And, Madam President, we thank you for the opportunity to present testimony on this bill 4 today.
Thank you. I hear most of your testimony, but I note that this bill creates a position for a health care advocate and confers certain powers to that individual. Describe, if you will, the position of the particular advocate and what that person's responsibilities would be.
As we understand it from the bill, Madam President, it would be responsible for collecting the data that is essential to understanding the dynamics and the demographics with regard to the extent of the uninsured in Philadelphia, and it would also -- it would also report the --
Not overall. There are bits and pieces. Each health care system has its 205 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 own bits and pieces of those aspects that are clearly important to it. I'm sure the Delaware Valley Hospital Council has some information, probably a lot, that would be very valuable. And we --
So they would provide the Health Department with all of the necessary data?
Well, the idea is that the provider, the hospital systems, the health-care providers, the insurers would -- who are under no present obligation to do this, would, under this bill, do it.
And how do you feel that this bill will improve the delivery of health care to the citizens of Philadelphia?
I think that if we get it to a point where it can be implemented, it would be a bill that would create the important body of information that tells us who are not getting services, who are -- what are the complete demographics of the uninsured population, who is accessing care, and who is falling between the cracks. 206 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 You know, we grapple with this issue on a daily basis on a one case by one case basis in the Department now, and we don't have an overall body of information to help us plan effectively.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee?
Thank you, Madam Chair. I know that there will be testimony from representatives of the health-care community as well as advocates in the same community. A number of concerns have been raised, which I am, Madam Chair, more than prepared, I think, to try to respond to, both in a general fashion, as well as in a substantive fashion, about some of the scope of the activities of this person. I think it should at least should be stated for the record that the passage of the bill 25 does not create a health care advocate for 207 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 Philadelphia. It enables the City administration to create such an advocate by contract. And there are amendments that I have to put forward to make sure that both the administration is clear and the Council is clear on what the ultimate and detailed responsibilities are for this person, as well as allow us some time for all of us to continue to meet and discuss these issues, not necessarily under the high-pressure environment that we may find ourselves in today, but to grant some time to allow for other potential amendments going forward. So I wanted to at least put that on the record, and I'll discuss shortly what those amendments are, but I appreciate your testimony and your views, Mr. Domzalski.
And if you don't mind waiting until the conclusion of this hearing, there may be other questions that we have to ask you. Thank you. 208 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table. (Witnesses come forward.)
Is there anybody else that's testifying on this bill? Why don't you approach the witness table so that we can save time. Ladies first. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
), and I'm the Assistant Director of the Philadelphia Unemployment Project. Part of my job is to run a health rights hotline, in which I attempt to gain access to health care and advocate on behalf of health care for the citizens of Philadelphia. Accessing health care for the uninsured has become increasingly difficult. The amount of available resources is shrinking and the number of uninsured in Philadelphia is increasing at an 209 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 alarming rate. We are in a health care crisis in Philadelphia. Over percent of the adult 5 population between the ages of 18 and 64 are 6 uninsured. Seventy percent of them are working 7 adults and another 30 percent are unemployed. On 8 top of that, an additional 21,000 families have 9 lost their medical assistance in the last year due 10 to welfare reform. These numbers represent over a 11 100,000 people in the Philadelphia area who have 12 no health coverage at all. 13 People are being turned away from 14 hospitals and clinics simply because they cannot 15 afford to pay for care. They are cancer patients 16 who are being refused chemotherapy treatments, 17 patients in need of liver biopsies who are being 18 denied surgeries. We have head-trauma patients 19 who can't get MRIs just simply because they can't 20 afford to pay for care. Most of our hospitals are nonprofit institutions, which are bound by a charitable mission upon which they were established. This mission dictates that they provide care for poor and uninsured citizens in the community. It is 210 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 sad to say that some of these hospitals are reneging on their obligations. This is unacceptable, especially when these institutions have not only a charitable but also a legal obligation to do so. Within the last year, we saw the emergence of the first for-profit health-care system in our area. They had no charitable or legal obligation to care for our poor and uninsured. Historically, for-profit health-care systems have a tendency to cut services to increase profits. It was only through the demand and pressure from health care advocates and the community that a commitment was made by this for-profit hospital to implement a charity care policy. This is the first formal written charity care policy in the city, and it is a commitment that needs to be made by the rest of our hospitals to ensure that the health needs of our citizens will be met by all health-care institutions. As competition in the health-care industry intensifies and the government subsidies to hospitals decline, this results in an increase in the uncompensated care for hospitals. It is 211 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 probably safe to say that we will see more for-profit institutions emerge in our area and a decline in the services to the poor. Presently, there is no City agency or agent monitoring or enforcing any regulations or commitments by health-care agencies and institutions to make sure our citizens get the necessary care they need. These institutions are left to monitor and enforce policies at their will, and sometimes at the detriment of the poor and uninsured. Our city health centers remain the only means for which the uninsured get care without being turned away, but these centers are being burdened with the overwhelming number of uninsured who walk through their doors. People are waiting for up to four to six weeks before they can get appointments. As the number of uninsured increases, this will create a significant need for additional funding for our health centers. This could severely impact the financial stability of our city. Presently, there is no one monitoring the impact of this crisis, which could create a 212 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 financial hardship for us. All of this could be the role of the public health advocate. The advocate would be a significant resource and consumer protection agent for the city and its citizens.
We must ensure that the health care needs and demands of our city and their citizens are met. I would also ask that this position is contracted to a nonprofit agency who will not in any way jeopardize the credibility, integrity, or commitment or effectiveness of the job that needs to be done. I hope you understand and do see the need for an important position like this to be developed. Thank you.
Thank you. HEALTH CARE ADVOCATE WITNESS: Good afternoon. My name is Stephanie (unintelligible), and I'm reading this on behalf of Alison Stein, who is a public health professional and the director of the health care organization for Citizens for Consumer Justice. I would first like to thank Councilman Nutter and the Rules Committee for allowing me to 213 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 speak today concerning the importance of amending Chapter 17-100 of the Philadelphia Code, thereby allowing the City to hire a health care advocate to represent consumers and that there is a willingness on the part of the committee to listen to us on the consumer perspective of why it is important to have a health care advocate. Let me say that what has been apparent in the organization of the CCJ existent is the growing disillusion and the powerlessness that consumers feel in relationship to health systems. CCJ has identified many health issues of growing concern to consumers. Among these issues are the growing number of uninsured in Pennsylvania, the difficulty in obtaining charitable care from hospitals and other health-care providers, and the need for the advocate to act as an ombudsman to assist consumers with their health-related problems. Only these matters would be addressed by hiring a health care advocate for Philadelphia. The proposed legislation would strengthen the individual participation in the health-care systems in many ways. The health care advocate would be in a position to serve as an 214 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 information clearinghouse while monitoring and examining current health-related policies and recommending direction for a change and action. He or she will be able to mobilize individuals and organizations around issues that affect the health of Philadelphia residents and communities and provide the technical information to help people become advocates for their own community health. In addition, the health care advocate would be able to educate people about available health-care services and their rights and relationship to these services, provide referrals to health-care providers, advocate for consumers, and analyze important policies which affect people throughout the City. Finally, a health care advocate would help the City of Philadelphia determine what best to focus our limited energy and resources. As an example, there has been little research on managed care impacting a minority population and to work on what delivery systems feature can best insure access and quality care for the underserved population. Providing a health care advocate for Philadelphia would be an opportunity to fill some 215 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 of the important knowledge gaps by providing the City with a person whose job is to access the health and well-being of the consumer. One of the Citizens for Consumers Justice's primary goal is that a health-care system should respond to the needs of the local communities. We welcome any organization or individual who will play a role in the public education and policy to improve the health system. We want to the public to know more about the community health. We want accessible, reliable information concerning health care available to all consumers in Philadelphia. We want to promote a dialogue between health professionals and laypeople. We want to give the public a voice in the health and well-being of their community. And finally, and most importantly, we want to improve the health of people in Philadelphia. For all of these reasons, we ask that you amend Chapter 17-100 of the Philadelphia Code and allow the City to provide a health care advocate to represent the City consumers. 216 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673
Thank you, Madam President. I'm Jonathon Stein, and I'm general counsel at Community Legal Services here in the City, and we have been representing the interests of uninsured and those low-income people who have been facing barriers to access to health care. I think this is an historic moment for City Council because this is an extraordinary moment of giving a voice to health consumers and to the uninsured, which they never had in the city before. And we applaud Councilman Nutter's initiative and your interest as Councilpeople here this afternoon in this bill. The bill continues to support our district health centers which are really the care of last resort for the uninsured. And the City is to applauded and Council is to be applauded in terms of that continuing support. But we can't rely on health centers to fill this enormous gap, and I think there is a role for a public health advocate to assist people in getting through the systems 217 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 โบ-ล that exist to access benefits. There are thousands of people in the City who have a right to health under existing programs but are not getting due to various problems in state government and state welfare programs. And I think this public advocate can play an important role in doing that. You will hear, as I imagine you'll be hearing, some concerns by some others to be speaking in a moment or two about this advocate, but I can only recall that 10 years ago when the public gas advocate was established and how PGW wasn't particularly happy with that. We'd had a very successful decade of work with gas public advocate. It saved ratepayers millions of dollars. It's helped resolve lots of problems. It hasn't solved the problems of PGW or gas service, but it's made, I think, an important public service contribute. This advocate does need some flexibility and breadth. And I know there are some concerns that are being expressed that their responsibilities need to be more specifically defined. Some people have specific agendas for the advocate like medical assistance enrollment. But I think the important not to tie the hands of this advocate since the 218 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล health system is changing so much and issues really will be altered really continually into the future. So in conclusion, I think this is really an extraordinary initiative the City is taking, an important one that gives consumers a voice. And let me just say that the Philadelphia Citizens for Children and youth couldn't wait to this moment to give their testimony wanting me to pass on their written testimony to you and have it entered into the record. Their a group that has been advocating for children and families for many years and they see, too, that this health care advocate is crucial to help those families assist and access health care and look to broader solutions and recommendations that I think are needed in this entire area. I'd like to offer this piece of testimony as well. (Testimony attached to transcript.)
Thank you very much. The Stenographer will take and add it for the record. Are there any questions for these witnesses? Councilman Nutter?
No questions. I 219 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล just want, again, thank you for your testimony and your advocacy in the health care community and really appreciate you coming out this afternoon.
Mr. Chairman, before the next group comes to testify, we received testimony. A person indicated that they wanted to be here to testify, but they may have had to leave. Alisa Simon, Director of Health Care Organizing Citizens for Consumer Justice. With the Chair's approval, I'd like to offer this testimony as if it's been read into the record. (Copy of testimony attached.)
Good afternoon. My name Andrew Wigglesworth, I'm president of the Delaware Valley Health Care Council. Kevin Hannifan who is president CEO of Methodist Hospital had hoped to be here to present his views. Unfortunately, he was called away to actually a health care issue. His son has injured his arm and he had to go be with his family. So he apologizes for not being able to wait. 220 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล DVHC, and perhaps you can give our testimony up. DVHC represents and advocates for more than 150 hospitals and health care systems and health related organizations across southeastern Pennsylvania, including all hospitals in the City of Philadelphia. I will summarize my written statement, which is being handed out in the interest of time, but I want to say at the outset that we obviously appreciate the opportunity to present our views relative to this ordinance which would create a health care advocate. In concept, as we've done in discussions with Councilman Nutter, the sponsor of the legislation as well as with others, we're very supportive of the concept. Some of the issues that the previous witnesses raised about the growth of the uninsured, the growth of uncompensated care, the lack of a national solution to the problem of the growing numbers of uninsured are some think we are absolutely as concerned if not more so than previous witnesses. But I think that the complex nature of this legislation, some of the -- basically the way that it is currently drafted it is so broad as it is difficult to determine precisely what the role of 221 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล the health care advocate would be and how the health care advocate would fit into in the context of the existing advocacy programs. For example, under the Older Americans Act and Philadelphia Corporation for Aging currently has a ombudsman program for senior citizens that advocates on behalf of senior citizens. If Kevin Hannifan had been able to stay, he would have told you about the advocates for the Asian community with resect to Methodist Hospital and in terms of the long-term care ombudsman, as well as the governmental agencies, for example, the Health Care Financing Administration with respect to Medicare patients has very explicit responsibilities as it relates to advocating for patients. All hospitals have patient advocates as well as social work departments that attempt to assist the uninsured and as well as other patients deal with the health care deliver system, which as we all know, has become increasingly complex and difficult. So there are a whole series of different agencies. There's a lot of talk in terms of the representative of the City Health Department as it relates to data and data collection. Well, there's a state agency called the Health Care Cost 222 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล Containment of Council, which annually produces reports on uncompensated care delivered in this City as well as across the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. As you know, again, DPW has responsibility with respect to medical assistance recipients. This isn't to say that a properly crafted ombudsman or health care advocate role in the City couldn't be an enormous help. But the way the legislation has been introduced and we think that basically there needs -- we would respectfully request that the Committee defer action on this. Let's sit down and basically craft the legislation in a way that we can all support it. I think in terms of the delivery, and there were some comments by previous witnesses about the delivery of services to the uninsured. I think all the members of this Committee know that the hospitals in Philadelphia are committed to providing access to quality care for all of our citizens. It's a principle that they live by today. Philadelphia actually is the largest city in the country without a public hospital. The services are provided by private hospitals.
Philadelphia has the highest percentage of uninsured residents of any 223 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล county across the state. And again, according to the Health Care Cost Containment Council, last year hospitals provided over $235 million worth of uncompensated care. That number is under stated in that it -- that's only in-patient services, it doesn't include clinic services, it doesn't include services of physicians to others, it's just inpatient hospital services. So hospitals are providing an enormous amount of uncompensated care today, and quite frankly we agree with the witnesses previously that we all need to work together to try to provide answers or solutions to the growing numbers of uninsured. We think one thing that we hope that this Council as well as and all the advocates that are here today can work together with us on is in terms of trying to attain tobacco settlement funds in terms of providing coverage for the uninsured, which would be a meaningful step in terms of trying to provide access to all our citizens to health insurance coverage. I think two final points before I just touch on a couple things. One is also to put this whole environment into the context. As you know, 224 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล hospitals and actually on a previous bill there's discussion about the closure of Mount Sinai Hospital. Three-quarters of the hospitals in this region lost money on operations last year. 5 billion. A previous witness represented or discussed the reductions in medical assistance under act 35. That increased hospital uncompensated care across the region by more than 150 million. There are enormous issues with respect to health care, enormous issues that we think we all need to work together on. And to the extent that a health care advocate could help enroll people in insurance in the children's health insurance program or MA, that would be appropriate role. The bill, as drafted, doesn't even provide that role which is, as we see, a significant problem. Additionally, we think the health care advocate should advocate on behalf of consumers and providers with insurers and managed care organizations. There are enormous problems with people being denied coverage by their managed care organization. And we think the odbutsman or the 225 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล health care advocate could play a role in that. The legislation, as drafted, doesn't cover those situations. Moreover, as I indicated before, as drafted, the bill basically duplicates many of the existing duties of state and federal agencies. Given the limitation on resources, we think it should be focussed in those areas where it doesn't duplicate the existing governmental activites and would note that the way the bill is drafted now, it's not only the uninsured, but every person that's covered under Medicare, Medicaid, city employees, federal, state employees, or military dependents, all, the way this bill is drafted as those are government-sponsored programs, would all be in effect eligible for the advocate services under this legislation. That's an enormous responsibility, enormous resources that we think, again, we need to more narrowly focus this bill or target this bill on the specific problems, not focus away from problems but basically make sure that we utilize the resources of this city and the most effective way. Those, I think, are the comments that I wanted to share with you. Again, my written 226 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล testimony goes into the specifics of the bill in greater detail. We also provided a report that is a compilation of information about uncompensated care across the Commonwealth as well in the City of Philadelphia. I'll be happy to answer any question or go through each one of the issues with respect to this bill as it's drafted and talk to you about what the potential complications or implications are. Thank you for the opportunity to testify.
Are there any questions of this witness? Thank you very much. I believe your next to testify. You're not testifying?
Rose Wenshal (ph) works for the Delaware Valley Health Care Council. I apologize. I should have introduced her to begin with.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me say to both Mr. Wigglesworth and Ms. to Ms. Wenshal, I appreciate your testimony, your views. I think as you have articulated, we have had 227 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล an opportunity to talk about this on a number of occasions. As I mentioned earlier, I do plan to propose some amendments which I think directly will respond to a couple of the issues that you raised. I understand from your perspective the timing issue. I will try to address that. It may not completely to your satisfaction, but I will at least say here on the record and in public that I am sure that there will be other issues that need to be addressed as relates to the creation of health a care advocate. And as we continue our discussions, I will continue to work with you and talk with you and other groups and organizations. And during that time period, I would come back with any needed amendments to clarify even further the role of the advocate. I don't think anyone envisions that the mere creation of the advocate, one, will solve all the health care problems in Philadelphia; two, that this individual, either by themselves or if someone were suggesting that they, for instance, would need an army of people to work with them, one, we don't have an army of people to throw at this particular operation. But I do think this Council and the City Administration and all our citizens would benefit 228 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล from someone having somewhat like a laser beam focussed on this particular issue. And let me also state for the record that while the title would be something along the lines of health care advocate, that does not mean that they are exclusively only for consumers. There are issues that Delaware Valley Health Care Council has that both the Council and the City Administration need to know about, and there is certainly nothing, I would think, prevent the health care advocate figuring out some of those issues from advocating on your behalf as it relates to negative policies that may come down to us, as they often role up the highway from Washington or roll down the highway from Harrisburg. That effect, hospitals and other providers in their ability to provide services to our citizens. So I don't look at it as necessarily a one-way street. There may be issues that both consumers and providers agree on and that you need someone else to make that advocacy and be in the ear of the Mayor and ear of the Council as we try to work together in a cooperative fashion to get to the point where we all want to be.
Councilman Nutter, I appreciate your comments and we, obviously, would 229 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล like to work with you. But again, in terms of passage of a bill at this point that basically authorizes we're-not-sure-what to a one in context of the transition of a new administration. We're not certain who would be the city health commissioner to basically authorize the creation of it and entering into a contract for a whole range of services that we don't know, one, what it is, and the things you just said in terms of providers and consumers having very similar concerns, absolutely. But the bill as drafted doesn't do that. So we, again, would respectfully suggest that you sit down between now and the start of the new session of the Council. Obviously, you all will be back here again shortly after the first of the year, and we'd love to work with you to develop a bill that is focussed like a laser beam on the issues in a way that is meaningful, because as it is now, it is so broad as to be somewhat incomprehensible, with all due respect.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Mr. Wigglesworth, I 230 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล read the bill before I attached my name to it, and then as I heard your testimony I was wondering whether I was on the right bill or not and I kept trying to hear a specific complaint. Seems to me this bill is just exactly what an advocate's bill 7 ought to be. The problems in the health field are too great that it seems to be any advocate has to have a very broad range of powers and it seems to me that Councilman Nutter's explanation made that very clear, and you've indicated yourself from time to time that you agree that these problems have to be dealt with. So let me ask you a specific question. Is it that your concerns are really not about the advocacy part but about the provision that relates to contracts with health care providers which authorizes the advocate to obtain information from hospitals? And I did not hear anything from you with respect to that, and yet your strong feeling against doing anything on the bill and not giving us any specific problems dealing with led me to believe as a lawyer that maybe the real problem was that this bill would arm the advocate with the right to get information which perhaps hospitals did not want 231 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล to give. Am I wrong as to that?
Well, put it this way. To the extent that I didn't, I should state absolutely for record, and I'm glad that you reminded me, as a matter of record, we, one, don't appreciate the mechanism that's used in the bill in terms of conditioning contracts on the delivery of information. It's not that the information can't be necessarily be available but, again, the way the bill is structured, it says obtaining necessary information from hospitals. We don't -- what does necessary information mean? Related to various matters; what do various matters mean in terms of obtaining as it relates to -- deal with issues and problems for Medicaid, Medicare, city employees, state employees, federal employees, Campis recipients, those are hundreds of thousands of people. Concern about the information pieces that as notwithstanding some of the language in the bill 21 which suggest at least makes a passing reference to it. Information that we have is confidential. There are federal laws as it relates to the release of substance abuse and mental health records. There are state laws as it relates to release of patient 232 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล identifying information. With respect to information on uncompensated care and the delivery of services, as I've indicated before, we report that to the state government today and have been for years. Pennsylvania has one of the most comprehensive data reporting requirements for hospitals in the country. So it's not that we're afraid to have data out there or whatever. But, again, the way the bill is structured, this would say that the health care advocate could say, "We want to see every single patient record for all admissions to the hospital." And this law theoretically would enable that. That would be overly burdensome and we would suggest inappropriate. What we think needs to be done is to focus this legislation on those areas -- if it's complaints, for senior citizens they can complain to HIFFA. As you know, under federal law we must provide services to all persons who present at the emergency room. They must be screened and evaluated, and to the extent they have an emergency condition, must be treated under federal law. If there's a complaint about that, the federal government can come in and basically lift Medicare 233 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล certification, there's various substantial enforcement mechanisms as it relates to that. And I'm not afraid and I think having an advocate involved in that would be okay. Let's focus the scope of this onto the problems. And, again, the way the bill is drafted right now, it's wide open for whatever and conditions it. And some hospitals, quite frankly, may not want to enter into city contracts if this is wide open. And I'm not sure who losses the most under that, whether the City losses the most or the hospitals lose the most. But certainly, people do; people lose the most. And I don't think it needs to have that kind of dynamic because this is an area that we all agree that we need to do more to provide coverage for the uninsured. We need to provide access to consumers. Hospitals need help in terms of financing uncompensated care. It's a huge problem.
Councilman Cohen, if I can quickly respond to that. Councilman, the bill 22 could not be more clear. In Section 17-108, Item 1, which is in this area of the contract issue, that section reads, "Such provisions shall not require any health care provider to provide any information 234 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล which the health care provider by law may not provide to the health care advocate." From my perspective, at least, the hospital or other providers not allowed by law to release the information, they don't have to give it to health care advocate.
Again, that raises the spectra of, okay, the advocate wants information about a complaint and it would be against state law to release patient identifying information; so therefore, we go to the health care advocate and say "There's a complaint." This is an extreme example, but under this bill, basically there's a complaint. There's a city of 1.6 million people, go out and find what the complaint because we can't identify the patient under state law. We think that we need to work through these kinds of issues. There would be a requirement if the patient consented to having records, then that could be done. But again, what you're talking about is volumes of patients. And 235 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล again, it is not that we're opposed to the concept per se, but we think the legislation needs to be crafted more carefully and targeted more carefully. And that's, I guess, where we have the disagreement.
Madam Chair and Councilman Cohen, again, I would suggest that through amendment there some opportunity to lessen at least for the moment some of the concern as expressed. I think all of these concerns are very legitimate. I do believe that with time and added review by the Council of scope of services what the terms and conditions of this contract are, if, again, the new administration decides to enter into a contract, Councilman, you may have been out of the room a little while ago, I suggested that I have some amendments that have been circulated across the table that may address some of those issues and give us additional time and opportunity as well as a direct involvement in review of all these activities.
Is your intention to have the Council act on a bill before the end of our session?
One additional suggestion for you. One final point. From a technical standpoint, the bill reference to health management organizations, which I think it's supposed to refer to health maintenance organizations which are HMOs, but in that context it would leave out basically all the other major insurers. So that either a whole series, for example, Blue Cross is a hospital plan corporation. Children Health Insurance Program. Variety of others. So that, again, the scope of the bill is not what those that are supporting passage of this particular legislation would suggest and it needs to be cleaned up as far as that goes as well.
Mr. Wigglesworth, I'm sorry, I missed part of what you just said. I hospital plan corporation.
You would have insurers, you'd have under state law, the way that this is drafted, the HMOs would say this bill 25 doesn't apply to them. Managed care plans would say 237 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล that the bill doesn't apply to them. Blue Cross would say that it wouldn't apply to them. In other words, there needs to be specific amendments to basically cover, and I assume the intent would be to say that non-profit plans like Blue Cross to the extent that they have a contract, which they have a very substantial contract with the City, should provide information to the health care advocate as it relates to them denying services. I would assume that you would also want to include community health care physicians, long-term care, nursing homes, all of these other facilities where there are issues in terms of -- those are the kinds of things that in terms of trying to address this between now and the 16th, which I understand is where the problem is.
I understand. Let me just ask you one very specific question. You made a statement earlier. You said hospital plan corporation and then something you said something after that. That was the thing I didn't hear.
It should be basically HMOs, PPOs. It should also, for example, Children's Health Insurance Program, if you wanted to cover that, the two major vendors for that are 238 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล AETNA US Health Care, but then it's also the Independence Blue Cross Caring Foundation which technically is not an insurer and, therefore, would have to be crafted in a different way. I'm not sure how to do that.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from Members of the Committee? Thank you very much.
My name Bernard Johnson. , and I'm the Chairperson of the Philadelphia Health Consortium which has a focus on infant mortality. I'd just like to say that that's an area that the health department has talked to our committee about, the area of infant deaths where the 239 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล City cannot always get a record from all the city hospitals. So some hospitals in the City, as it relates to my understanding, may not issue a death certificate for a child who was born premature and dies. That has caused a problem for the Office of Maternal and Child Health and for Healthy Start Consortium in our partnership to design education programs for families who have suffered the death of a child. So we have been, through MCH and through the Pennsylvania Citizen Association, been trying to negotiate with the hospitals for them to produce the dealt records for every child who is born and dies. So I think that's an area, Councilman Nutter, that is a clear area for us where documentation is not easily obtained from the hospitals. But I would like to say that the reason I came to the table was to support the broadest clearest definition of a health advocate. And that we may want to make sure that this advocate has all the tools that are necessary in terms of staff. Not an army of people, certainly, but a staff that certainly could assist the advocate in carrying out the everyday duties that are outlined there because that's a real task there. 240 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล I'd like to just give some areas where we're concerned that we think an advocate would be helpful. Around drug and alcohol centers, programs, that provide quality care as it relates to drug and alcohol but may not have the tool that allows it to provide mental health services to those folks. We think that those, especially men who are in those types of environments need to be advocated for so that they in fact can get, if needed, get the behavior health services that are necessary. Another area is around boarding homes. And I've tried to establish a conversation with Councilman Kenney around the quality of boarding homes and the type of care that people who are living in boarding homes should be entitled to but in many cases are not receiving. We believe that an advocate there would be a very useful kind of person. I'd like to talk about the areas where behavior health services are provided. We don't believe that in Southwest Philadelphia and in parts of South Philadelphia that there are adequate behavior health services. And what we've found is that people get referred to a behavioral health provider based on their address. So you have 241 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล neighborhoods where people are getting services, but we believe they're not quality services. As an example, about six months ago we took a client of the Kingsessing Network Behavioral Health, we took their client and met with the Health Commissioner and dumped on the Health Commissioner's desk about two years' worth of prescription drugs that had been given to a patient and with no follow-up, the dosage just continued to be increased by saying, "Do you want more? " And the person nodded her head and said, "Yes, I'll take more," because that person actually thought that they had to accept the medication in order to keep their public benefits. So that is the type of concerns that we're having. We also think it would be a good opportunity for an advocate to bring all of the advocacy groups and organizations and individuals that they could identify in the City together along with people like the folks that were sitting here from the Hospital Council so that we can begin plan and develop programs and services that are going to meet the needs of folks who are in the most critical parts of their life when they're I will. So, again, 242 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล I just wanted to -- and I tell you another thing. This is my next point.
What people believe is the dual system of care at like hospitals like the University of Pennsylvania where they strongly believe that if you're insured through a commercial company, you get one type of service; if you are insured through a managed care company that services people on public assistance that you get another type of service; and if you're uninsured, then it's real questionable as it relates to the quality and care you receive. So I'm here on behalf of my organization Healthy Family and on behalf of the Philadelphia Healthy Start consortium encouraging the Council to move forward and adapt the bill that will allow the Commissioner to appoint an effective health care advocate and team. Thank you.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing none, I would ask the clerk please read the title?
At this time the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair with your permission I'd like to 243 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล read into the record proposed amendments to Bill 3 990673 which could then could be taken up in the public meeting portion of today's proceedings. The first amendment would amend Section 1 of the bill 6 starting on the fifth line, the sentence currently reads "health management organizations." The word "management" should be stricken; the word "maintenance" should be inserted. After the word "organizations" and comma, insert the words "third-party payers, managed care plans, health plan corporations, children's insurance programs for other insurers." The sentence would continue, "and other health care providers," insert "or foundations." That's in small 1. In 2, the sentence presently reads, "Resolving problems and issues relating to the access of city residents to health care services." The amendment would add in the phrase or wording "and assisting children and other eligible persons to enroll in plans for which they qualify." In 5, the end of the sentence, last line of that sentence presently reads, "And any discernible trends in the provision of health care to city residents." Additional language, "including 244 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล detailed information and reports regarding the policies and practices of the city, state or federal government that may negatively impact the ability of hospitals, health maintenance organizations, third-party payers, managed care plans, hospital plan corporations, children's insurance programs, or other insurers and other health care providers or foundations to provide these services to city residents." Amend Section 2 of the bill, add a new sentence to the end of that paragraph to read, "The contract shall not be executed until the contract, including it's terms, conditions and scope of services, has been approved by resolution of Council. Amend Section 17-108(1), at the top presently reads "health management." Strike the word "management"; insert the word "maintenance." Continuing on in that sentence, after the word "organizations" a new come and add third party payers, managed care plans, hospital plan corporations, children's insurance programs, and other insurers." The sentence continues, "and other health care providers" insert "or foundation." 245 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 รโบ-ล Lastly, add a new Section 4, Section 4 to read, "This ordinance shall take effect July 1, 2000." Those are the proposed amendment, Madam Chair. What that effectively does is starting with the last one, the bill would not then be effective until July 1, 2000. Secondly, should the health care advocate be appointed and a contract drawn up, that contract would be subject of approval by resolution of City Council. I believe, Madam Chair, at least those two mechanisms the City Council clearly in the process for what the final activity would be for the health care advocate with full discussion of those matters. It also allows us time to have those discussions among, I believe, all the parties stated at the table today they were more willing to have continued discussions about this. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. At this time I would ask the clerk to please read the title of Bill No. 990812. (Pause.) Mr. Ackelsberg. We're just going back to the bill regarding 990331. You did have a 246 12/8/99 RULES - BILL 990673 BILL NO. 990812 meeting?
Yes, we did, Madam Chair, and we have agreed that between now and the session where the bill would be put up to vote, there will be a memorandum of understanding. Joining in that agreement will be the CDC, Councilman DiCicco's office, the St. John's Leadership Team, and Redevelopment Authority, and at the time the bill is presented for a vote, it will be made clear in the record that it is understood by Council in passing the legislation that the memorandum of understanding is a part of what is happening.
Thank you. The clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 990812.
An ordinance amending Section 19-1303(4) of the Philadelphia Code entitled, authorization to offer exemption from real estate taxes on new construction of residential properties by changing the definition of eligible dwelling unit under certain terms and conditions.
Who's testifying on this bill? 247 BILL NO. 990812 Good afternoon.
Good afternoon, President Verna, and Members of the Committee. I'm Michael Nadol, N-A-D-O-L, Director of Finance for the City. I hope that you've all received our written testimony, the Administration's written testimony regarding this bill. I'll be happy to briefly summarize it if that's the Committee's pleasure. Also with me is Mimi Pulasky from the City Law Department, and we may be joined shortly by several other administration officials who had stepped out momentarily to help answer questions. This is actually our second round of testimony in recent weeks regarding tax abatement proposals. We did testify at some length about the Administration's general approach to such abatement initiatives so long as we don't lose our focus on reducing the overall tax burden for all Philadelphians, we do believe that some target incentives can be a tremendous boon to the City by stimulating residential and commercial development that might not have happened without such incentives. Certainly, the recent conversion abatement program to convert vacant and unused 248 BILL NO. 990812 office and commercial space into residential apartment dwellings has been a tremendous success and we hope that some of the ordinances recently enacted after our previous testimony and previous hearings on this matters will have similar beneficial stimulus affects. One of those bills that was recently considered was a proposed expansion to the existing City abatement program for real state taxes on new residential construction. Currently, there's a three-year full abatement for new residential construction and under a recently passed ordinance 14 that is slated to be change to a 10-year phased out abatement program creating a somewhat greater incentives to try to spur new investment in residential housing. That bill and this amendment that we're considering today or rather the bill that we're consider today which would also amend the same provisions of the City Code, it should be noted would require change in the state enabling legislation to take effect. Currently, again, that expansion of this program that was recently approved and the one that's being considered today could not take effect. What this proposed bill would do is to 249 BILL NO. 990812 further expand the new construction abatement program to include apartment, commercial, rental housing, apartment dwellings. Currently and for many years, this particular tax abatement program has been limited to owner-occupied dwelling units. We have, with the help of the Budget Office -- I have been joined now by Rob Dubow, the City's budget director. We have under taken our best efforts to analyze the potential cost impacts of this bill. Of course, as with any abatement program, the stimulus impact is hard to project, but what we have looked at is the recent usage of similar current a basement programs that taxpayers would be eligible for if they're undertaking commercial apartment rental housing construction. We've looked at the level of usage throughout the City and we've looked at what financial impact would be in terms of foregone revenues if the bill that's under consideration today were fully in effect. And over the course of a 10-year period, the aggregate4 cost of that bill would be approximately 6- to $700,000 with that impact, of course, borne both by the City and the School District. The initial years of the program would actually not have an adverse 250 BILL NO. 990812 impact on the City's budget. That's because new commercial construction, including that for apartment buildings, rental housing, is already eligible for a three-year or abatement of real estate taxes under the commercial improvement tax abatement program that the City currently offers.
By switching to a 10-year phase program, in the first few years there might actually be a net savings to the City because we would be phasing out the benefit of the abatement, but over the course of time as the full program kicks into place over the decades ahead, we would be looking at, again, assuming current levels of construction activity, about $150,000 a year aggregate impact between both the City and the School District. While this financial impact is relatively modest, and we certainly share the goals that we believe are embodied in this proposal of stimulating new apartment and residential construction and investment in the City, the Administration does have some concerns regarding a potential impact of this expansion of our abatement programs on the success of some of the programs already in place. Specifically, we have concerns by 251 BILL NO. 990812 tilting the playing field a little bit further by new construction of apartment buildings we would be tilting the playing field away from our existing successful abatement program at a time when there are many active conversions still in the pipeline and at a time when there are still, according to preliminary analysis by the Board of Division of taxes we're now at a point in time where there are still scores of potential candidates for future conversion to residential apartment buildings. And we would not want to see that program, as successful as it has been and as we hope it will continue to be in the near term, we would not want to see that program undermined by the creation of a new incentive that might serve to undermine it. So taking that concern and to some degree the cost considerations into account, the Administration at this time does not recommend support for Bill No. 990812. We do, again, share many of the goals reflected in it. We welcome this opportunity to talk about the creative ideas such as this, and we would be happy to answer any questions that you may have at this time. I also want to note that I've also been 252 BILL NO. 990812 joined at the table by David Glancy, Chairman of the Board of Revision of Taxes. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Thank you, Mike. Just lay out a scenario. Let's just assume for the moment that there were no 9 potential conversion candidate buildings available in Center City. Would the position of the Administration be somewhat different than it is presenting today? And that's a hypothetical. And where I'm going with this, I will have someone who is a developer who is here today to testify as to whether or not he believes that the all of a sudden because there is a bill that may be passed today or voted out of the Committee today that is favorable to new construction that for some reason developers are going to abandon the notion or the conversion of vacant buildings. I think the testimony will be presented today by developer and there may actually be another developer who does conversions that that is not necessarily what will occur. The irony of this whole thing is when we introduced the original conversion bill, there was concern for the negative 253 BILL NO. 990812 impact to the City finances, and now their worrying about all of sudden we may not have a conversion thing happening. So even to my surprise, it's much more -- there's more conversion going on than I ever anticipated in my wildest dreams. And I mean with the demand, at least as it relates to Center City which is the only neighborhood we have seen an increase in population. The demand for more units, I think that this bill is necessary at this time in order to give developers a little bit more of an edge to encourage them to begin developing units that will accommodate for the demand. And Mr. Dranoff, Carl Dranoff, I'm hoping shows up before these hearings end, has indicated yesterday that there are not that many buildings left that are good candidates for conversion and there's a whole set of reasons for that. Some of them have to do with the start up of tax credits, some of them may have to do with the integrity of the building. And as someone who has done several and is anticipating a few more conversions, he will simultaneously be conversions and new if the opportunity presence itself. And it also has to do with location, location, location in real estate that not all abandoned office buildings 254 BILL NO. 990812 or industrial buildings are going to be candidates for conversion merely because people may not want to move into those neighborhoods. So I think this is an opportunity for us to give more incentives, to encourage more development of either new and/or existing buildings, and I think the conversion bill 8 has proved that if you give developers a reason to do it, they will come and they will do it. Again, I understand your position and I understand it's not a hostile -- you're not adverse to this bill because you think it's going to negatively impact the budget all that much. But I certainly, again, based on my conversation with builders, don't think that they're going to abandon that conversion. But Mr. Kline who is here, Steve Kline is here is a developer; he's going to testify also. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Good afternoon, Councilman DiCicco and Madam President. My name is David Glancy and I'm the Chairman of the Board of Revision of Taxes. I know Mr. Nadol gave the testimony of the Administration. What I might say may coincide with the Administration; it may not. But I will try to make obvious to you as I say it. I guess I'd 255 BILL NO. 990812 like to give you some real facts. There are 38 applications, some are still pending, but nonetheless 38 applications for the 10-year conversion bill. And I agree with you, this has gone beyond our wildest expectations, so I suppose the fear of those of us in the Administration have is will this put a stop to that particular success story. I did a very quick first pass on properties in what I call Center City corridor which really goes down from Washington Avenue, river to river, and maybe up to Spring Garden Street. And using the criteria in the ordinance about age and about vacancy, I came up with about 70 buildings. Again, these were not inspected nor was there an economic analysis done, obviously. I came up with about 70 buildings that just on that first pass would meet those qualifications. As I was sitting here this morning, I went through that list of 70 buildings to see in my own mind if I knew where they were, what they looked at. And again, physical location. And of that 70, about 44 looked like they would pass at least physical location muster. Now, none of that goes to the economic viability. And again, every building would have to be inspected all by itself. 256 BILL NO. 990812 Each one is a suey-generous type of property, where you would just simply have to say on an ad hoc basis whether this makes sense or not. But I do believe that the pool does exist. We were here last; there was some testimony that everything that can be converted has been or most of them have. I'm not so sure that's the case, again, just based on the quick kind of first pass analysis that I did with the information that we have. And I'm not here to tell you that all 44 of those buildings could possibly pass the economic test, the muster for that. One of the things that has made this conversion bill so successful, I believe, is that it is not just that it is a 10-year abatement when you do this conversion; it's been coupled with some other things, i.e., historic tax credits. Not so sure, in fact, we know that new buildings will not be able to make that kind of kind of coupling. So the one final thing I would like to add is that -- and maybe this is more of an aesthetic argument, in that some of these buildings are historic. And it's my experience that it is a lot cheaper to build new than it is to convert. If you have buildings that might still retain historic nature of the City and 257 BILL NO. 990812 if I'm developer -- and again, the developers can testify about this better than I. But if I'm a developer, I might say, "Well, yeah, it would nice to have that building, but that lot is really what I'm interested in. I can knock that building down, build cheaper new." And the question is, is that what we want to do as a matter of policy? Are we concerned about maybe savings som of that? But again, that's not my decision to make. I just raise that for your consideration.
I understand that and I appreciate it, but if it's a building that has historical significance, they're just not going to be able to knock it down that easily either.
It may not be historically certified by the Historical Association, but it may have historical significance and you can make those kinds of moves.
And I guess the other thought that I've had is in the area you just described, there isn't really that much land where new construction could begin to take place, I don't think.
Well, again, as I said -- 258 BILL NO. 990812 well, there's probably some on the riverfront if we go north and south of Penn's Landing.
And that's going to occur anyway. We're negotiating now with community groups along Delaware avenue to do some multi-level high-rise apartment buildings on the river, whether there's a tax abatement or not. But again, I think the developer Mr. Kline is in the room today can testify better than I can.
I agree with you, but as I indicated, you can find land if you knock something down, and that's really a concern.
If you do and you take it and you knock something down, historical significance aside, we've accomplished something. We're taking a vacant building, putting up a new structure, and providing an opportunity for people to move into the City. I mean, that's what this is about. It's about reinventing and recreating neighborhoods and giving people an opportunity to want to move in. So if it's an old building, we take it down and they build new and they take advantage of this bill, I think we've accomplished what we've set out to do, repopulate the City and 259 BILL NO. 990812 we're going to start from Center City and continue to go from there out.
One of the other concerns that we would have, as you noted there are proposals for additional apartment construction that would happen -- would very likely happen with or without this abatement. And to the extent that that were to occur, the cost impact could become significantly greater than what we've seen. We based our financial analysis on just the last several years worth of activity where new apartment construction has happened to have been relatively modest in scale and almost exclusively within the low income housing market. If we do see -- and there are a number, as you've indicated, a number of major projects in the pipeline. If we do see those come to fruition soon, we might be foregoing more revenues that we would have received even without this abatement, and that is just something to take into consideration.
Let me rephrase that and then we can go on with the other witnesses. There are two project that I'm aware of in my 260 BILL NO. 990812 district. One has already been tiffed. That's the multi-level high-rise apartment at Seventh and Walnut. So that wouldn't even come under this; they've already gotten tiffed. The other is the proposal by DePaul for a high-rise development on the river. So really it's only one that is even being proposed and would be affected by this. My hope is that what we get out of this is the same benefits that we got our of the conversion bill that will stimulate simultaneously conversions and new. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table, sir.
I was trying to relate -- unfortunately, I wasn't here at the very beginning of the discussion. I was trying to relate the discussion that you and Chairman Glancy of the 261 BILL NO. 990812 Board of Revision of Taxes was having to this bill. Could you help me with that?
I think what the chairman was suggesting that in an area which we refer to the Center City from Washington Avenue to Spring Garden, river to river, there were about 77 buildings that, in his opinion, may qualify for conversion.
Converting vacant office buildings or industrial buildings to residential rental units which was a bill that this Council passed a couple of years ago. And beyond even all of our expectations there are a significant number of buildings that have already been converted or are in the process of being converted. Mr. Glancy suggests that possibly 40, 44 of those 77 buildings would qualify or pass muster just on the integrity of the building, not looking at the economics of the building for conversion. Should this bill pass, people may abandon the notion of doing the conversions and opt for new construction. What I say is even if they take that 262 BILL NO. 990812 building which would qualify for conversion but decided it's cheaper to do new and they tear it down, so what? We have a new building, we're providing for people to come into the City because there's a demand for people to want to move into the City and move into these rental units. Whether it's converted or new, I think we've accomplished our mission by repopulating these neighborhoods.
But the basic purpose of this bill is to remove the limitation that may be abatement applicable only to a home --
So the purpose of this bill is to eliminate that exemption.
And why that? Because I understood because I think I remember the original discussion, the main point was this is to benefit owner-occupied people.
Because originally, and correct me if I'm wrong, Mike, the bill I think said up to three or four unit dwellings, and we actually amended that to include 263 BILL NO. 990812 multi-level high-rise apartment buildings. And if you had a developer and he or she is required to live in a unit, how many units could they possible live in? It's really taking that out of there saying, you no longer have to be an owner-occupied unit to qualify.
If I may try to clarify very briefly. Under the current abatement programs of the City, apartment housing, newly constructed apartment housing, newly constructed rental housing is eligible for a three-year full abatement. This bill will shift that category of property into a new category and along with other recent amendments approved by Council within recent months would have the effect of having apartment dwellings receive eligible for a 10-year phased out abatement for newly constructed apartment buildings.
Newly constructed apartment buildings under this ordinance would go from eligible for a three-year full abatement to become eligible instead for a 10-year phased out abatement. Phasing out, you know, a hundred percent in the 264 BILL NO. 990812 first year, 90 percent in the second year, 80 percent and so on over years. 4
If I can just add, all new 5 residential construction would fit into that 6 category, all new residential construction. So 7 homeowners are part of that. 8
Homeowners are now already 9 part of that or will be pursuant to a very recently 10 passed ordinance. This would also extend that change to apartment dwellings.
And what was the concern you raised that you thought we ought to be thinking about?
The concern I raised, and just for consideration, was that the 10-year conversion abatement that is currently in effect is so successful that would this ordinance, which would encourage new construction as opposed to conversion of older buildings to residential dwelling units, would that impede the success of our currently very successful ordinance. And I raise that for Council's consideration.
And I gather Councilman DiCicco's response was sort of, so what, 265 BILL NO. 990812 it would be beneficial if it did.
At least I understand the issue now. I'm sorry to make everybody go over it.
Yes, Madam Chair. I just want to let the Committee know, and I mentioned it to the sponsor, I will have an amendment to exclude my district from this. I'd like to explain why. This bill, I believe, is a good bill for many areas in the City. I do not need or have to be responsibility for having encouraged the development of one more apartment building in my district. To the extent that different parts of the City have different needs, I would like that to be recognized. This little different from what I was earlier today. I have no problem with the concept of it or what Councilman is encouraging in certain areas of the City that could really use it. But, again, if there was a bill here that was going to figure out -- that was going to encourage apartments being torn down in 266 BILL NO. 990812 turned into single family houses, that's what people in my district would be looking for, not encouraging more apartments. That would be the purpose behind my amendment.
Any other comments or questions from Members of the Committee? I believe we have a gentleman that had wanted to be recognized. Mr. Kline.
Afternoon. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to participate. My name is Steven Kline, and I'm the president of the Kline Company, and we specialize in developing apartments in the Suburban Philadelphia market, Bucks, Chester, Montgomery County, and down in Orlando.
Excuse me, Mr. Kline, can you identify where you live?
I live on 217 Delancy Street. I'm a Philadelphia resident, love living downtown, a long time suburbanite, wouldn't go back, it's the best, selling all my friends. Anyway, we've owned at site at 18th and Vine for 17 years. It's the large1 parking lot 267 BILL NO. 990812 right in front of Logan East. We've been trying to build a residential apartment community there for several years. Unfortunately, the economics don't allow us to do so. Let me explain a little bit to you why that's so. In the suburbs it costs us about $45 a foot to build an apartment complex. In the City, it's over $100 a foot because of the high-rise construction costs that you incur. The rents in the suburbs are about $1 to $1.10. The rents in the City, probably $1.60 to $1.70. So you can see the economics really are very difficult, almost impossible to complete. In addition, the real estate taxes in the City as they exist today after the short three-year tax abatement are double what they are in the suburbs. So what's happening is that you see no new apartment construction. There hasn't been an apartment construction of a new building for the past 10 years. What has been very successful is the bill where you have allowed the tax abatement for conversions of office buildings and industrial buildings to residential. So you have now approximately 8--, 900 units that have been completed and there are others in the pipeline. And to confirm what I'm saying, it's very easy. Just 268 BILL NO. 990812 look around the City. There are no new apartment buildings and we are seeing new conversions of older buildings to apartments. The marketplace speaks for itself. It confirms what I'm here to tell you. Without the tax abatement, there will not be any new residential apartments unless there is help from some part of the City, and the tax abatement program provides such a program. I've heard some comment here today as I listened to the testimony and I'd like to respond to that as well. It was said today that the City would lose certain revenues through the tax abatement program. And there is a study by Erston Young that points out that the City would gain revenues although the City would lose money from the tax abatement by populating the City with wage earners, obviously the wage tax and other incidental taxes are available. The other thing that happens as well, the Erston Young study says that about 75 percent of the money earned by people living in the City would be spent in the City. So there is a net gain in City populating the City providing housing of all types. What this bill is intend to do is really level the playing field so we have new 269 BILL NO. 990812 apartment buildings as well as converted apartment buildings. And I think and I can testify for my fellow developers that you will see both type of activities occurring because the conversion has a certain charm, a certain elegance that exist with an older building. A newer building is more contemporary, it's sleeker. It's like having two flavors of ice cream; some like chocolate, some like vanilla; some black clothes, some like blue clothes. And that's what you're really providing here, a chance to level the playing field to allow the City offer all different types of residential housing for people who want to come downtown. And in fact, there is a demand for people who want to come downtown. So it's my suggestion here that by passing this bill you would level the playing field and you would see in this City new development such as you're seeing of the conversion and you would have both types of building here and you'd have choices for people and make it further enticing to come and live in the City.
Thank you, Mr. Kline. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam 270 BILL NO. 990812 Chair. Mr. Kline, the property that you mentioned that you own and operate as a parking lot, you're paying a certain dollar amount in taxes, real estate taxes today.
You would propose to build at some point a luxury high-rise apartment facility. Could you tell me what the taxes are today and what the taxes at the year of the tax abatement on the real estate of the improvements would be approximately?
Today I believe our taxes are about $50,000, give or take, and in 10 years from now I would think it would probably be somewhere from 600--- and 750,000 a year.
Not counting what the economic impact to the City is by bringing more people in and the spending, as was reported by Erston Young.
Basically, put 300 people in an apartment building and minimum salary would have to be $50,000. You're talking about 15 to $20 million OF earning power per year. Take the wage tax on that, it certainly makes up for the real 271 BILL NO. 990812 estate taxes and then all the money that's being spent.
Thank you. Any other questions? The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
Could you explain why a conversion doesn't run into the same market problems that new construction does currently? You gave us the illustration of how much more expensive it is in Philadelphia for new construction and how you can't compete with the suburbs. Why can the City compete under conversion? What changes?
The bill that you passed several three years ago, the tax abatement has allowed the conversion of the older buildings to the residential apartments. That difference of not paying the taxes for 10 years has made the difference where something is not economically viable to where a project is economically viable, and that's made the difference. The first buildings that you see converted also have had other tax advantages, sometimes facade easements, historic 272 BILL NO. 990812 credits. So when it's all said and done, you've got to say that the initial round of conversions from office to residential has had some form of subsidy in one form or another, but primarily the tax abatement bill has been the major driving force and all we're saying here today is level the playing field, let new construction and the tax abatement for conversion exist side by side. And it's my opinion that you will see both converted residential buildings and new apartment buildings.
Well, the question I have is, their real movement of foot to keep knocking down the wage tax to the point, not only to go into 4 percent, but far below it if possible because most people for many years have said that's the real impediment to people coming into the City much more other conditions. Yet you kind of base your argument on the fact that more money will come in on the wage increase and the wage tax. And it just seems to me it continues to put the City in a very difficult bind. On the one hand we're trying to reduce reliance on it; on the other hand we're increasing the City's reliance on it.
Well, I think, sir -- I'm 273 BILL NO. 990812 not an expert, but I've just read some of these reports, and basically you put so much purchasing power in a 200 or 300 unit apartment complex that the amount of taxes that would be generated to the City through even a lower wage tax and amount of money that is spent by these residents who are coming down to the City will far exceed the amount of revenue that is not being paid because of the tax abatement. In effect, you can see that the new residents are paying more taxes than the building would have paid with real estate taxes.
Thank you. Any other questions from Members of the Committee?
Thank you Mr. Kline. Do we have anyone else testify on this bill?
My name is Ben Edison. I'm a developer from Manayunk. I was actually here on another issue, but I think it's important because I personally have taken advantage of this bill, the 10-year conversion bill. I converted a property 274 BILL NO. 990812 that was sitting vacant for eight years; it's now full. I took a survey of over 200 people who live there. The 200 people who live there represent $57,000 a year in income. That $57,000 a year income, as Steve said, can be translated into $12 million. Those people are paying City wage tax. Surprisingly, because I am in Manayunk, 70 percent of those people who are living in my apartments work outside the city, but yet they have chosen to come here and pay the City wage tax. Another interesting statistic is 70 percent of those people who live in my buildings previously lived outside the City. So I was able attract people who were suburbanites, they came into the City, and they're paying the City wage tax. The other incredible thing about my own survey is that very surprisingly none of these people have children. So they're paying City wage tax, they're helping our school system in effect by subsidizing our school system by paying our taxes and certainly they spend a lot of their disposable income in Manayunk. I heard that there's all these available buildings that can be converted, however, they're not in Manayunk. There are no buildings that I know 275 BILL NO. 990812 of, and I've been in Manayunk for years. I've taken advantage, like I said, of the older buildings and gone and converted them. There are no new buildings. Maybe Dave Glancy knows of one or two; I don't. I've been there a long time. So I think what's the difference? If it's new construction or old construction, the City is losing people all the time. The only other thing I'd like to add is I took a survey of my people again -- actually, City Planning did also. 46 percent of my tenants would consider buying a house in Philadelphia if they were available. So I mean, it's a home run for everyone here because one of the biggest problems is that we're losing all these people all the time.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Any questions from members of the Committee? Thank you, sir. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Seeing none, I would ask the clerk to please read Bill Nos. 990760 and 990761. 276 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 I'm sorry, at this point the Chair would like to recognize Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I have an amendment to offer to Bill No. 6 990812. In the interest of time I will supply the stenographer with a of the copy of the amendment and also make a copy available to all members of the Rules Committee.
Mr. Lombardo, please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee. Richard Lombardo from the City Planning Commission here today to speak on behalf of Bills 990760 and 990761.
Mr. Lombardo, I'm sorry. The Clerk did not read the titles of the bills. I think we're all kind of anxious at this point.
Bill No. 990760, an ordinance amending title 14 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Zoning and Planning" by amending Chapter 277 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 14-1600 entitled Miscellaneous by amending Section 3 14-1615 entitled Main Street/Manayunk Special District Controls, by establishing use and zoning controls for Venice Island under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 990761, an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Zoning 9 and Planning," by amending chapter 14-200 entitled 10 Residential Districts by repealing 140221 entitled 11 "RC-1" Residential District, and adopting a new 12 section 14-221 entitled "RC-1" Residential District, 13 under certain terms and conditions. 14
Once again, Madam Chair, Members of the Committee, my name is Richard Lombardo here to speak on both of these bills. Actually, of these two bills, the most substantive bill and the bill, I think, is generated most interest is 960 which establishes or rather expands the zoning overlay, special zoning controls for Manayunk to include approximately half of Venice Island. Before I get into the exact testimony, I want put a couple thing very quickly on the record. First of all, neither of these bills have anything to do with changing, amending, recreating, undoing 278 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the floodplain controls of the Schuylkill River. There will probably be lots of testimony today about building in the floodplain and floodway of the river. These bills are two bills that deal with changing the land use controls on Venice Island from what we believe is an obsolete zoning classification G-2 General Industrial to a zoning classification which will allow for both conversion and new construction of residential units. This Council for a number of years has been endorsing various pieces of legislation on both the Schuylkill and Delaware waterfronts to convert from industrial zoning to various zoning classifications that would allow mixed use development to take place. And a lot of mixed use development has taken place, Piers 3 and 5, the bills that were before counsel earlier this morning for the Old Tavis Dinner Theater to allow mixed use development of that, rezoing of the south waterfront south of Penns Landing to C-3 Commercial to allow, again, for multi-family and mixed use development, the approval of the hotel at Penns Landing, all within the floodplain of the Delaware River. I just want to make a point that this is not a new idea of taking obsolete industrial zoning and 279 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 rezoning the waterfronts to allow for residential development. The second point I wanted to make is this process that we've been going through in the last couple years is part of over a 25-year process that the Planning Commission has been involved in making plans, amending plans, redoing plans, changing plans, and putting forth new plans for Manayunk. Most of what's happened in Manayunk over the years is the results of various planning efforts done in conjunction with the present District Councilperson, present residents, their predecessors. This plan is a result of a request made to us to look at the issue of what is the future of Venice Island given the fact that today you have on the island one operating industry, Smurfet Stone, the rest of the Island is either vacant land or vacant industrial properties. It's part of a larger question of the future of this type of industrial in this whole area of northwest Philadelphia. If you're familiar with driving a car up a Umbria Street above Manayunk, you will see the industrial areas generally characterized by non-industrial uses, autobody shops, junk yards, 280 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 self storage, medical office buildings, diners. But in fact, what's sort of been happening is industrial areas in the district also understand this that industry is either leaving the city or going to the newer industrial parks or Keystone opportunity zones or places where the City is able to attract business by offering tax incentives and other things. We were asked to look at the issue of what is the future of Venice Island. Against the background of years of articles and testimony dealing with traffic conjunction --
Councilman Cohen and I are at a loss. We just don't know where Venice Island is located.
I'm going to get there. I was just trying to give you the context in which we did this. I'm sorry, I apologize, and I'll zero it in. We're asked to come into Manayunk to look at this whole issue against the background of traffic and parking congestion. Venice Island is the area of Manayunk which is bounded by the Schuylkill River and the Manayunk Canal. It extends basically from Lock Street which is just a little bit above Shores Lane and it extends up to the Flat Rock Dam which 281 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 is, again, a little bit below Shawmont Avenue. The island is depicted on that map there.
Well, the area in red is the area we're proposing in the controls. The island is much longer. As I said, we're only proposing controls for about half of the island. The reason for that is the northern end of the island Mr. Chapman has pointed to is currently today occupied by Smurfet Stone which is an industrial paper box, paper product manufacturer and we wanted it clear that nothing we're doing is at all intended to jeopardize or discourage or affect the continuation of that business. So we're not putting changing zoning in that business, we're not putting any overlay or any impediment in the continuation of that operation. We're only talking about the area south of that, which again as I characterized, is basically vacant industrial land, vacant industrial buildings. There is, I believe, a restaurant and an auto detailing shop. The whole island, including the lower end as well as Smurfet Stone is zoned industrial today with the exception of recreational 282 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 land owned by the City of Philadelphia, Venice Island playground and area south of that which was acquired in more recent areas for river front access and river front recreation. This plan was developed against the background of numerous articles, community meetings dealing with issue of traffic congestion and parking. The City commission a study by Bold Smyth of traffic in Manayunk. Layered on top of that, Planning Commission conducted its own traffic study, traffic survey. We also had a citizen survey questionnaire that was mailed out to residents to add certain their living patterns and how many cars they own, where they park, how many people in their family had cars to sort of deal with the issue of what's the truth, what is the real factual situation in terms of traffic and parking in Manayunk. No 19 surprise, there is conjunction there is traffic construction, there is a shortage of on-street parking. That itself has led us in the community to adopt certain policies in dealing with conversions. For example, our policy has been for a number of years of a conversion of a building to apartment that they provide more than one space per dwelling 283 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 unit, one off-street parking space for dwelling units. We look for one off-street parking space per bedroom rather than per dwelling unit. The point I'm making about parking is we looked at this as sort of the motivating driving force. However we change land use on Venice Island future, we have to do it being cognizant of the traffic impact of the change abuse. What would be the impact of any new development on the island against the existing background traffic in the surrounding community. And that is because you are dealing with a series of streets that end at the river. There is no -- there is very limited access once across the river. You have a Green Lane Bridge. Next place to cross the river south of here is down at City Avenue Bridge, north of here you have go up to Conshohoken to cross the river. So you have already a funneling effect of traffic. So we had to look at what the impact of future development would be on that background traffic. We used as our point of reference, not to see new construction that would require infrastructure improvements to accommodate its traffic. In other words, we are looking at a level of development 284 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 would go up to the point that you would not need to rebuild bridges, widen streets, try to build new roadways. Basically, the development live within the available capacity of the surrounding streets in the area. That being said, we analyzed what the traffic impact would be of various types of development. And I don't think --
May I interrupt you for a moment? Is it really an island?
There are three points of access into the island today -- actually four points of access, Lock Street at lower end, Cotton Street about a third of the way up, there's a bridge that is not a street that goes over to a parking lot which is operated by the Manayunk Development Corporation for Shoppers parking that occurs just below the Green Lane Bridge and north of that there is a City street, Levering Street which becomes Flat Rock Road that comes down from Henry avenue and goes 285 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 on to the island and then ultimately culminates in a cul-de-sac up at Smurfet stone. So there are four points of access to the island today. Now to get back to what I was saying. We started to analyze the impact of the potential land uses, notwithstanding our believe, which I began by saying industrial is no longer in the future. When analyzed the impact of light industrial, heavy industrial, retail commercial, office commercial, and residential. In no surprise the lowest impact of traffic is that of residential. The spectrum runs -- and usual residential is the basis, the lowest, on weekday traffic retail would produce 15 percent from a square per square foot basis, 15 times more traffic than an equal square foot of residential. Heavy industrial would produce 12 times the amount of traffic of an equal square foot of residential development. Light industrial approximately would be 7 times as much traffic. And office commercial approximately 4 times as much traffic.
I'm sorry to interrupt you. Where did those figures or that analyst, where does that come from? 286 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
That comes from our traffic people basically used standard planning -- planning standards that are put forth by organizations like the American Planning Association, Trip Generation Annual Traffic Engineers.
Somewhere in that book or document there's a formula that lays out what the anticipated number of trips based on the type of use, is that what you're saying?
We're taking us through an analysis of certain types and where residential was as compared to industrial or commercial or other uses?
I was trying to be brief because most of it, if you look at the studies, even the studies that were done at Manayunk, the points of congestion are a.m. rush hour, a.m. peak. So we looked at the impact of traffic at those points, a.m. peak. I'm sure you're familiar because you probably get complaints about it all the time. Traffic backs up on the Green Lane Bridge up Main Street. We look at the impact of traffic at those 287 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 particular times of day, a.m. and p.m. peak.
So that being said, so we come to the conclusion that residential will have the least impact. The next thing we did was we then looked at the amount of development that could potentially take place on the island, and we sponsored a suret of potential land use. We invited architectural planners to come in and participate in an all-day examination and putting forth the proposals for the potential development of Venice Island. And what they all came up with using the underlying zoning G-2, which is a very high density district, it's a 5 FAR district, very intense development, it's very intense mixed-use developments of retail and an apartments and even a supermarket. But various levels of entertainment, residential, and retail. That was presented to the community. Community comments were taken. Not to abbreviate that, but the point I wanted to get to is that we took it back to our own office and we began to analyze it. All we found real quickly is that approaching anywhere near those levels of development that came out in 288 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the suret would just grid lock Manayunk. You just couldn't do enough infrastructure of prudence to deal with the traffic. You could replace the Green Lane Bridge. I mean, you'd be talking about infrastructure improvements like rebuilding the Schuylkill Expressway from Manayunk to Center City. I'm somewhat exaggerating. You'd be talking about major infrastructure improvements to accommodate the amount of traffic that would result from the levels of development that development teams put forth in the suret. So we went back to our point of departure became at point that any development would be limited to development that could exist within the background traffic conditions in Manayunk, and we came up with a number of scenarios that looked at a residential and limited commercial reuse for the island. 0 of the underlying G-2 industrial zoning. We, after analyzing the traffic impact against our benchmark, we came to the conclusion that FAR with limited retail commercial was the desirable level of development that we thought that Venice Island could accommodate. We 289 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 had a meeting that Councilman Nutter participated in, actually arranged to participate in with the residential communities to discuss our recommendations of the plan. There are other recommendations, but I want to talk about these bills and not the other recommendations. And we then had a subsequent meeting with the Manayunk Development Corporation, which more represents the shopkeepers and other business interests down on Main Street. We found out two things. It wasn't an awful lot of interest in retail commercial on the Island. Matter of fact, the Manayunk Development corporation, they are here and can speak for ourselves, I think were concerned about if you put retail on the island you would create levels of congestion activity would only detract from the commercial Main Street. So the MDC's point of view was they would rather see residential and hotel but no commercial. 35 because we eliminate the heavier traffic from the retail. But if we added back in hotels, in fact hotels would generate 290 BILL NOS. 0. At that point in time, the business community backed off the interest in hotels and said they'd rather go to an all residential scenario at which point we prepared another draft of the plan with the intention of -- and resubmitted that back out for discussion. We got comments from the MDC and we got comments about 10 days ago or 2 weeks ago from the community on that plan. Subsequently, this past Monday we've had meeting at the Planning Commission Office with both groups representatives from MDC as well as representatives from the residential community. And I think the Councilman somewhere later in the testimony can characterize what the results of that meeting were.
Basically, some folks still opposed the plan, some folks have gone over from being opposed to it to supporting the plan, and some people who came into the room supporting the plan left the room still supporting the plan. The plan I'm talking about is a plan that basically calls for about a third of the island to be recreational, about a third of the island residential, and about a third of the island to 291 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 remain industrial. The area that would be residential would be limited to just residential and it would be further limited by requirements that buildings provide setbacks from both the river front and the canal to allow for public access to both the river front and the canal. It would also encourage cultural and recreational use on the recreationally zoned portions of the island, the publically controlled, and not disallow cultural and recreational uses on the residential parcels as long as they're within the normal residential restrictions, like you can't have an amusement park in the residential district. With me today, I should take the time to introduce, I have sitting with me today to my right Elmer Boles who is an engineer and whose firm has done engineering for development elsewhere, both inside and outside the City along the Schuylkill River if the issue comes about developing on an island, developing the in the floodplain. I also have Charlotte Gaston from the Law Department and Patrick O'Neil from the Law Department, and Marty Soffer who is the head of the Planning Commission's environmental unit. 292 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Lombardo, why don't we get to what I think are the most controversial aspects of most of this discussion which would revolve around, I'm quite certain, issues related to the ability or inability, the legality or illegality, compliance with the Philadelphia Code or non-compliance with the Philadelphia Code, on the issue of whether or not development can take place in a floodway or floodplain in accordance with the appropriate provisions of the Philadelphia Code. What I would like you to do is to talk about those provisions, what is allowed, what is not allowed. I'd also like to hear from the Law Department on those particular issues as well in terms of how the Code is not only interpreted, but how it's implemented and what the facts are related to those particular issues.
I'd be glad to do that. One thing I wanted to tell you is we did prepare an outline of the floodplain regulations in the Philadelphia Code as they are --
The appropriate 293 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 section from the Philadelphia Code that governs this?
Secondly, and I know I said this at the beginning of my testimony. I'll just very quickly refer to it again. Nothing in either one of these two bills is going to change or propose to change one iota any of these existing control that exist in the Code today. What I have given you beginning with the top of the page is Section 14-1606 entitled floodplain controls for all bodies of water, the Schuylkill, the Delaware River, and various creeks, the Wissahickon Creek, Poquessing Creek, the Pennypack Creek, Cobbs Creek, in the City of Philadelphia. Cutting to Paragraph 5, it says the following special controls are imposed to regulate setbacks in the floodplain, construction and earth moving activity along water course subject to flooding. These controls are in addition to the requirements that the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Resources. Note, A, within a 294 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 floodway. And this is here because the entire Venice Island is within the floodway of the Schuylkill River. The Code says, within the floodway, no encroachment (including fill, new construction or any development) is permitted except that public utilities are permitted as long as they cause no increase in the 100 flood year level. Point 2, public utilities shall be prohibited from placing mobile homes and/or offices within the floodway. Point 3, construction or substantial improvement of any structure used for the production of storage of any of the following listed materials or used for any activity required, the maintenance or supply in excess of 550 gallons or other comparable volume or used for any purposes involving the production storage or use of any amount of radioactive substance shall be prohibited and no 20 variance granted. This section deals with sensibly not putting hazardous materials where they can get pulled into waterers of the water. Now, that's the sole requirements of what can you cannot do in the floodway. 295 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 The next paragraph I've included, Chapter 1800, powers of the Zoning Board. Jurisdiction and power. Point 1, the Zoning Board may after public notice and public hearing, A, hear and decide items -- I don't have to read all that, but it's, hear and decide appeals on zoning matters when error is alleged in order to require decision of termination made by the department of this title herein decide special exceptions to the provisions this title and authorize, and this is the important part, authorize upon appeal in specific cases such variance in the terms of this title that will not be contrary to the public interest where owing to special conditions a literal enforcement of the provisions of the title will result in unnecessary hardship so that the spirit of this title shall be observed substantial justice done subject to such terms and conditions that the board may decide. Some of that we go down to -- this is the important thing. Where the property in question is situated in areas subject to flooding as provided 14-1606, that's the floodplain controls, related to flood plain controls, the Zoning Board of Adjustments shall consider the following criteria in granting a 296 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 variance under 14-1801c, which I just read above. One item the board has too consider, no variance may be issued that will result in any increase in flood levels during a regulatory flood. That basically means, you can still build as long as what you build after engineering studies is documented that it will not increase the flooding in the river. This does not mean that you can't build, it means that you can only build so long as what you build does not increase flooding. That is determined by engineering studies. I don't want to beat a dead horse. We drafted this legislation, it's been imposed by the Federal Emergency Management people, FEMA, imposed on the City. So that people living and building in the city would be eligible to flood insurance.
If we didn't adopt these regulations -- so this is an insurance issue. If we didn't adopt these regulations, the City and its residents would not have been eligible for flood insurance.
Mr. Lombardo, let me ask you a question. In 14-1606(5)a.1 --
It reads, no 25 encroachment; including fill, new construction, or 297 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 any development is permitted except that public utilities are permitted as long as they cause no 4 increase in 100-year flood level.
If a person were to read that and that section only of the Code, would a reasonable person be left to think that you cannot build anything in a floodplain or a flood say.
If a person read that section and the rest of the applicable sections of the Philadelphia Code, would that change your perspective on what the entire meaning is of whether or not you can build or not build in a floodway or flood pain.
Because when you look at what the board has to consider -- for me it's different because I was involved in drafting this so I know what was intended. But if you read the sole condition that Zoning Board is to consider when granting a variance in this section of the Code, the 298 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 condition is not a condition necessarily of whether it's appropriate development or whether it has enough parking. It's one issue. The issue to consider is whether or not the development is going to increase potential of flooding within the floodway.
What is the connection between 14-1606(5)a.1 and the rest of the Code? Do they operate separately from each other, do they operate in conjunction with other?
They operate in conjunction with each other. Basically, when you would get a reference to the Zoning Board, the Zoning Board would reference 5, they would like that quote in there. When the Zoning Board got the item before, they -- and I'm sure anybody who's doing this would have an attorney who would make a presentation that would explain that the one condition the board considering, and the board would know this themselves, is under Sub A under Paragraph 3, areas within a floodway. That was the only refusal they would get. They would get a refusal for being within the floodway.
So your testimony is 299 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 that you can build in a floodway or in a floodplain and that if you end up at the Zoning Board of the Adjustment, the board's role and their criteria is to take in consideration whether or not the applicant is able to prove or not prove that this proposed development will or will not increase the 100-year flood level; is that your testimony?
Can we hear from the Law Department on this issue, please?
I would just like to make an announcement that the Finance Committee public hearing will be held immediately after this hearing. Thank you.
Councilman Nutter, could you explain what the issue is immediately that the Law Department is going to talk about?
The Law Department is going primarily talk, Councilman, about the same issue that Mr. Lombardo talked, but from the Law Department perspective on the issue of whether or not you can build in a floodway or a floodplain and under what circumstances and conditions you can or cannot do that. 300 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
What is the issue? Apparently there is a disagreement apparently on some interpretation of something. What is that?
The disagreement quite directly, Councilman, is that if a person were to read 14-1606(5)a.1 and only read that section, that person might be led to believe that you absolutely under no circumstance can build anything in a floodway or in a floodplain.
That you could not. The reason I asked Mr. Lombardo, and I'm going to ask the Law Department the same question, is, again, whether or not that particular provision solely operates exclusive of every other provision of the zoning code or if it is a part of the larger consideration of the zoning code and when you get down to 14-1801 3A. So if a person believes that you cannot absolutely build in a floodway or a flood plane because they've only read the one section, therein lies a dispute on the fundamental issue of whether or not you can build in a floodway or a floodplain, as explained by Mr. Lombardo. And I 301 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 don't know what the Law Department is going to say. The testimony is you can as long as whatever it is you build doesn't increase the 100-year flood level. And therein lies some sense of dispute or difference of opinion by some people in the community. We need to clear up that fundamental issue because you can't make any kind of progress.
Are there any standards anywhere to guide the board in reaching a conclusion as to whether or not whatever is proposed is going to increase the likelihood of a flood, or does the board decide that on its own?
I believe it's base odd various studies, but Mr. Lombardo might want to respond to that and I think the Law Department does as well.
Does the gentleman from the Law Department have a copy of what Mr. Lombardo just read?
The answer to Councilman Cohen's question, we are operating in an arena where you also have the State Department of Environmental 302 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Resources as well as FEMA, Federal Emergency Management people also operate in that arena. There are standards of the type of engineering studies that they would require a developer to do. The reason for the public hearing of the zoning variance was to do it in a public way, not to just have an engineer submit a study to a L & I examiner but rather to have a public forum so that if there was disagreement, your engineer, if you disagreed, can argue with their engineer about whether or not their study is correct or not. The way it works in Philadelphia with the Zoning Board and Marty Soffer heads our environmental unit is here, they do the reviewing of the engineer study for the City and then would in writing notify the Zoning Board that that the study does bear out what the engineers are intending that it wouldn't increase hundred year flood. That's the way it work. And there are certain standards there are only certain types of studies that FEMA and the State and the City would accept as -- we wouldn't just accept a letter from an engineer saying it's not going to increase. As a matter fact, I have Mr. Boles here who has done these types of studies within the Schuylkill 303 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 watershed who could testify as to what the standard are of these studies.
My name is Patrick O'Neil, and I'm, generally speaking, the City's environmental counsel. Sitting next to me --
I'm Cheryl Gaston Deputy City Solicitor. I am counsel to the Zoning Board of Adjustment.
Councilman, I suppose if given that we've heard the conversation to this point, and both Cheryl and I can probably address this issue to some extent. The simple answer to your question, I think, the question being is it in fact legal to build something in the so-called floodplain. The answer is yes, it is legal to do so. And yes, you do read the entire set of regulations that are provided under Section 14, when you read them together there is a specific provision for variances to move forward. I think as a practical matter, it is probably worth noting that throughout Philadelphia, I believe Mr. Lombardo point this out, there's been plenty of building and 304 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 development in the, quote/unquote, so-called floodplain, whether it's along the Delaware and Delaware avenue specifically, whether it's Home Depot or whether it's redevelopment one of the peer projects all along and including the Schuylkill.
Mr. O'Neil, I hate to interrupt you. Have those developments taken place since this particular provision was added to the Philadelphia Code and are any of them residential in nature?
It's my understanding that the peer developments took place since that I time. I think Rich would have to address the other projects.
I'm not going to be all inclusive, but there is South Center City in Councilwoman Verna's district there's new townhouses that have been built near Schuylkill River Park and near the playground within the floodplain of the Schuylkill River, Locust Point, the converse of the Curtis Publishing Building, the residentials within 305 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the flood plain of the Schuylkill River. Further up near Vine Street, River's edge Condominium. There's also the presbyterian church did a senior citizens housing, again both built within the floodplain of the Schuylkill River.
Can you tell us in words or less the difference between a floodway 9 and a floodplain? 10
Yeah. In 15 words -- 11 Marty's going to kill me trying to do this in 15 12 words. A floodway is, as has been described to me, 13 as a engineering construct that says, first of all, 14 only in bodies of water that are non-tidal. If 15 you're dealing with tidal water, you don't have floodways, and that's because level of the water is affected by the tides of the ocean so there's not a constant there. Where there is the constant, what the core of engineers did is they went out and they analyzed obstructions within the area where the water flows and identified obstructions or areas where you don't want to have further obstruction. That became the floodway. And a lot of instances, the floodway winds up -- on the other side of the river from Philadelphia, the floodway is the bank of 306 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the river going up to the Schuylkill Expressway, that's the floodway. You don't want to fill in further, put more dirt that would down increase, that would narrow that area, constrict the flow of water is what we're talking about.
What is the technical difference if you can explain it, because I'd like to move on from this, between a floodway and a floodplain.
Floodway is an area within a floodplain where federal regulations do not allow further constriction of the flow of water.
Within a floodplain. And it has nothing to do the height of the water or the speed of the water. There could more water outside the floodway than inside the floodway. It can be deeper. For example, the water gets deeper as you get down towards -- I mean deeper in terms of the level of the hundred year flood. It gets higher as you go down towards Center City than it is at the north when you're getting up towards of the city boundary with Montgomery County. 307 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Okay. Why don't we have the Law Department finish up and then we've got a very sizable list of people who wish to testify.
In terms reading the zoning code and how it has to be read, what you'll have is in one section it may you can do thus and so or you can't do thus and so; and then in another section it will talk about what kind of variance requirements there may be so that you can do those things even though the Code may say in some other section that those things are prohibited. I think in terms of reading these regulations, there are a few things that are important to note. First, where it talks about the special controls, it says they are imposed to regulate and not to prohibit setbacks in the floodplain. So if there was an intention to actually prohibit any kind construction within the setbacks in the floodplain, then I think that the language of the Code would be different and would actually say that we're going to prohibit as proposed to regulate the different kinds of construction or earth moving activity that would go on in these water courses that are subject to 308 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 flooding. Second, in terms of where it talks about Subsection A.1, some of this language is a little bit different -- not the language, but the punctuation is different. The semicolons behind "encroachment" and behind "fill" are not in the latest version of the code, and I think that's because I don't think that this was meant to read quite this way. But I think that that section was really intended when it was drafted to say that there's no encroachment that causes an increase in this 100-year flood level. And that is consistent with what it says in section 14-1802, Subsection 3, Subsection A, which is further down on the sheet that you were given by the Planning Commission where it says no variances may be issue which would result any increase in flood levels during the regulatory flood. The interpretation of that would be that there is no development allowed which will cause an increase in the hundred year flood levels. And then part two of that would be if it's allowed, then you have to elevate the flood proof structures to or above whatever that regulatory flood elevation would be. So there's a two-part kind of consideration at 309 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 least for the Zoning Board. Do you allow development? They can allow this development as long it doesn't cause an increase in these hundred year flood levels. Again, if they're going to allow it, they generally require that there been some elevation, again, to prevent the structures from being subject to flooding. And that's in keeping with the FEMA regulations. The FEMA regulations talk about the fact that these regulations are really intended to reduce future flood damage by requiring the local regulation of new development in flood prone areas. So it's not to prevent development; it is to make sure that if there is any new development in these flood prone areas that there's local regulation and that the concerns about what happens in the floodplain are taken into account and they are compensated for in terms of any construction.
I think Councilman Rizzo has a question. Do you want me to ask the question?
Councilman Rizzo was rather concerned if in fact there is 310 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 construction would the people be able to get flood insurance?
That's why these regulations are in place, yes. There's parts in terms of why these regulations were adopted many years ago. It's to provide the general public the opportunity to obtain insurance coverage to cover flood damages to buildings and their contents. So by making sure that any new construction is in keeping with these regulations, then we have the ability to have our citizenry get flood insurance. So part of what the Planning Commission is charged with doing is making sure that these floodplain controls are complied with. And then the Zoning Board would do the same thing for the same reasons.
In the Eastwick area where they've had the flooding a couple months ago. Were they in the floodplain?
My understanding is, I wouldn't want to give you a definitive answer, the worst of the flooding was not in the floodplain of the Schuylkill or Delaware River. It was actually caused by the lack of similar controls that we have in the City within the watershed of the Cobbs and 311 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the Darby Creeks which are out in the counties. As a matter of fact, since that has happened, the City has been working with the Delaware County regional Planning Commission and the local municipalities to try to get them to adopt. It's very difficult. In the counties you're dealing with a lot of little municipalities that may or may not choose to do it.
Not to get off this subject, but I thought that there was a new law out that if you lived in an area such as Eastwick and there was a possibility of you're being near a floodplain that if you actually got a mortgage, if you bought a home, got a mortgage, you were compelled to get flood insurance. Is that so? Is that a new law?
This is all part of the eligible you're talking about. What you are required to do is either get flood insurance or get certification from an agency, delegating agency who happens to be Planning Commission is one of them, that you do not need to get flood insurance. That is determined simply -- not simply, but it's determined by elevation on federal flood insurance maps. If you're below the hundred year flood 312 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 elevation, you were a flood-prone area and, therefore, you would be required to get flood insurance. If you're not below that elevation, you may still get it; it's good advise to get flood insurance, but you're not required to get it. Unfortunately what happened in Eastwick, and I think people misunderstood, in hearing they weren't required to get it, they said, "Fine. Thanks a lot." Rather than asking someone or thinking themselves is it a good idea pay the extra money to have flood insurance as well. It's not a guarantee that just because you're not in a federally designated flood prone area that at some catastrophic conditions you may have flooding. I think if anything was learned from that, not just by the people in Eastwick, but people throughout the region, that it's probably a good idea if you're anywhere near a creek or stream, at lease explore the possibility of getting flood insurance.
Any other questions for these witnesses? Anyone else to testify at the table?
I have one other thing. As I mentioned earlier -- I'm sorry to do this. I 313 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 know it's late and you people are tired. We had a meeting Monday that Councilman Nutter arranged for. Out of that meeting came an agreement to submit some amendments to these bills today. The amendments deal with --
Mr. Lombardo, I always want to make sure the record is absolutely clear. I don't want you to overstate what came out of the meeting on Monday in terms of any agreement about anything. There was discussion about some wording clarifications that needed to be made in a couple sections. There were some suggestions about a couple other items that might get adjustment. The one think you didn't -- I'll just state for the record from earlier. The Planning Commission did react to, I believe, a document dated December 17, 1999, from some members of the community who reacted to the Planning Commission's original plan and subsequent amendments to that plan based on the Planning Commission's discussions with various parties, including business people. Monday's meeting was somewhat of a point by point looking at 314 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the community's concerns and then the Planning Commission's response to those concerns. I think out of that came at least some better understanding, if you will, of what the Planning Commission did, although in many instances complete disagreement with the Planning Commission's plan. There were a couple of areas where some understanding was reached or agreement was reached on some proposed amendments, but I don't want to leave the impression on the record that you are putting forward amendments that have been either completely agreed to by all parties involved in this or that this is a comprehensive list of any proposed amendments or ideas that other people may have, because I'm sure that your list is not going to be comprehensive in nature.
I am sure it is not. What I meant by saying "agreed," it was agreed to by us, the Planning Commission, to sponsor these particular amendments based on comments made by various people at that meeting. And again, Councilman is right, they were not unanimously adopted by everyone, but from our note-taking and recollection these were the ones that we thought 315 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 that most people had no problems with.
If I may, I want to ask Councilmember Nutter if he thinks it's appropriate now to read into and discuss the amendments or would you like to wait until the meeting stage?
Probably some later stage possibly in the public hearing. We do have a number of people who wish to testify. But I do want to get in a time when everyone here so people know what they are. I do want to ask Mr. Lombardo one question.
I wasn't intending to read them in, I was just going to characterize them.
I understand. There was, Mr. Lombardo, from my notes, one item that was not resolved of a number of items that weren't resolved, but one that was in active discussion was about the walkway or the pathway on the river side between the buildings and the river. This was a 4-foot versus 6-foot discussion. Did you address that?
We did not. Since that was unresolved, we left that unresolved. We did not 316 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 address that. Basically, we addressed the issue of to make sure the people knew that cultural recreation use was going to be encouraged and permitted. We put in -- it was concern about facade review and what the buildings would look like. We put in the same requirement for the Island that we have for Lower Main Street requirement of facade review. We made it clear that no building should be closed within feet from the Manayunk Canal, no future 12 building within 10 feet from the Conrail 13 right-of-way which we are proposing to be a walkway 14 in the future. And we made a last requirement that 15 plant material used for screening be materials that 16 are indigenous to the river bank or the island 17 rather than just put the wrong type of vegetation in 18 developments. They were points that we had in our 19 notes as the points that were raised at the meeting 20 that seemed to be somewhat agreement on. 21
Can you point to me, 22 though, for the documents that you handed out, where 23 is the 4-foot versus 6-foot issue, which section of 24 the bill would that be addressing? 25
It would be on .2, 317 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 setback from the Schuylkill River.
Oh, I'm sorry, 760, 5, point 2 at the top of the page. That's the language, and we have thus far are not proposing any change to that language.
Any further questions for this panel? Thank you very much. The Chair now recognizes in groups of four I guess would be the easiest way to do it.
Mr. Chairman, two housekeeping items. If we can ask the city agency folks to stay around for awhile, there may be issues that come up in the course of the testimony that may need further clarification.
My name is Robert McAlane (ph). I'm the primary owner of the property that is designated there as Namico which is former soap 318 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 plant and my statement will be very brief. We also have plants in Ohio and California. We sold the business in mid year 1998. The plant has been closed. There are no people in the building. It's about 135,000 square feet. We had one of the larger real estate companies representing us when we were trying to market the property. And I can just tell you because we've been given some very helpful suggestions from some of the neighborhood groups that this be converted into a number of different uses. I can tell you from my experience that we had zero interest in this property for manufacturing. We had zero interest in this property for an office building. The only interest we had was as a residential conversion. It's also in a historic district. Two of the buildings have been designated by the authorities in Harrisburg as being appropriate for historic conversion. Carl Grantoff who is the foremost converter developer of historic buildings has the property under contract. I'm sure it's no surprise to any of you that there is no interest in this property for industrial because there are virtually no industrial companies left in Philadelphia. They've moved out 319 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 for reasons that we're all well aware of. There are only two outcomes that I can see: One is that this property will remain vacant and deteriorate and it's not a real pretty building, or secondly it can be developed into a residential property with 160 luxury apartments, citizens who will shop in Manayunk, worship Manayunk, go to the bakery, the cleaners and contribute to the community center and all the other activities that people do in a community or it can sit there and became a deteriorating eyesore.
I am Kay Smith I'm execute director of the Manayunk Development Corporation. Manayunk Development Corporation is a non-profit community department engaged in planning economic development for the Manayunk Commercial District. Included in our projects are also a number of community projects which include the canal and the waterfront area. I want to lead off by saying that the Manayunk Development Corporation fully supports the proposed Venice Island overlay. This zoning gives 320 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 tremendous opportunity for the expansion and development of public amenities such as recreation environmental green space as well as cultural facilities for the entire community. Never in the history of Manayunk has this community had legal public access to the river front area in Manayunk. The entire waterfront area has been in private land ownership, and this actually gives us an opportunity to get that kind of access. Conditions of this zoning overlay wil negotiate public access to the waterfront area and setbacks from the railroad for future pedestrian/bike-way. Ground at either end of Venice Island which will include the Locks that existed for Schuylkill Navigation System -- and I will say that this section of canal is the only total complete section of canal on the Schuylkill system that's been left intact from end to end -- will ultimately be planned for park space. A reasonable residential presence will create eyes and ears that protect those recreational green space areas. Manayunk Development Corporation over the years has initiated, responded, and worked to plan on behalf of the Manayunk community 321 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 particularly in the area of economic development. In Manayunk, economic development and quality of life issues go hand in hand. Below are projects initiated and developed by MDC in partnership with the city of Philadelphia to plan, develop, and expand Manayunk's Manayunk public recreational green space. '95, Capital Project Masterplan for the Manayunk Canal. '96, the Lock Street Bridge. '97, the Cotton Street Bridge. '97-'98, a Recreational Masterplan which takes a look at the entire island and was incorporated into a lot of the efforts that Planning Commission has put forth funded by MDC and involved the total community. '98-'99, and actually in the next year, we have funded in partnership with William Penn a person who just is dedicated to the green space park space projects that are along the water front area. Right now as we speak, the bank stabilization is underway along the canal and looking forward through a lot of the efforts that everyone has put forth, funding is now in place for 322 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the Manayunk Canal of $4 million. There's another $1.2 million for the bike-way, the completion of some of the ends. As a result of the hard work of many, many people representing many different aspects of the Manayunk community, Manayunk is in a unique and very special position. Manayunk has a market driven economy, bringing tax base to the City and Manayunk has the opportunity with the funding is in place to invest significant capital dollars and the recreational as green space quality of life projects of the residential community has requested for so long.
Thank you for testimony. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Dan Netison (ph). I'm a developer basically concentrating in Manayunk. Some of the things I've done, I've developed 50 retail properties. I own and operate five restaurants in Manayunk; as I stated prior, 200 apartments. That construction and development has really accounted for 600 new jobs along Main Street and I think was the catalyst for future development that involved into 3,000 new jobs along Main Street. 323 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 I currently own a piece of ground on the map with my partner, as ex-Mayor Bill Greene called Venice Island partners. The property currently is zoned actually for office space. We could build a 20-story high office building there. Unfortunately, there is no demand for office space, being so close City Line Avenue, so that's out. You heard me say I own and operate restaurants. Actually, the zoning allows for another restaurant on that particular piece. I don't think it would work there because there's not enough parking. What I do own, as I said, was 200 apartments, and residential seems to make the most sense for that particular piece since there's very little demand for anything else. I am for this ordinance because the projects that I have mentioned in the past, it seems anytime that I have gone in front of the Zoning Board for a variance, there's certain people in the neighborhood who are opposed to anything. If I get the zoning, then they appeal it. And my most recent hearing, it took 22 months before I got the zoning that was properly required. So if this passed I think that would eliminate a hurdle and save a lot of time. I think one of the benefactors would be 324 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the City for increased tax dollars.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Any questions for these witnesses? Thank you very much for your attendance and your patience today. The Chair now calls Ed Weiner, Virginia Restemeyer, Tom Connolly, Mr. Sklaroff, if there's Mr. Kelson here. Please identify yourself for the record.
Back when I first moved to Manayunk, nearly 14 years ago, my wife and I took a stroll along what was then a Main Street that was beginning to show signs of becoming what it is today. There was tremendous excitement in the air. Abandoned buildings were being renovated. They were removing the two-story-high weed trees that were growing up through the roofless building that is now Le Bus. We were witnessing a sleeping place roar awake. We started speaking with a longtime, resident somebody we didn't know but just began chatting with. Manayunk can be a friendly place. 325 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 We said to him that people were saying that Manayunk was going to be the next New Hope. He looked at us and said, "Forget New Hope. This place is No Hope." His wish, which we subsequently heard echoed by others as well over the years, his wish was that everything on Main Street would fail. That might mean Main Street becoming a ghost town again, but at least it would be his ghost town. Then, last month, I had the opportunity to be part of the task force made up of a coalition of representatives of a few civic and special interest groups that was created to respond to City Planning Commissions overlay proposal for Venice Island. We had several meetings and hammered out a compromise position which recommended, among other things, limited residential development on the island. But before this report could be made public, the local civic organization's executive board took it up as its own property and changed the task force's document to more directly reflect some members own personal biases and stripped all language about residential from the report, making it seem as if the sense of the entire community arrived at after considerable deliberation was that 326 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 industrial and office space was what was wanted. That was not and is not the case, and it has shattered our valuable coalition. In years, the persistent negativity 6 and ax-grinding has hasn't changed all that much 7 even as Manayunk has. We have a few who claim to 8 represent the community who would rather see nothing 9 than anything new, who would rather scream at a 10 problem than explore a rational possible logical 11 solution. There sense of losing control of what was 12 once their town is completely understandable. But 13 the fact is, Manayunk is changing and those who will 14 do anything to deny that, including wrapping themselves in the cloak of environmental concern when it really anti-development and anti-outsiders that they espouse are out of step with the times and with the changing community and its differing wishes and values and interests. Not that the City Planning Commissioner's plan is perfect or "the" answer. Residential would not have been my first choice. Filling a cultural void by making it an island of the arts was my pet idea, but it is in the face alternatives a sensible one. One that needs to be 327 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 nutured within an overriding context of a rational coherent plan that sees the island as a totality and not just separate developable parcels and one that never forgets the impact on and what is owed to the longtime residents on the mainland. Those fighting against City Planning's overlay just don't get it. That by working to defeat a plan that sets limits on developers' natural tendencies to over-build and under-care, they are exposing the community to far worse horrors. It is all well and good to want to plant trees on the island, I want to see that too, but not if the trade-off planting seeds of our own undoing. This should not be a place held hostage by those who rally around no hope, nor is it New Hope. Frankly, hope, I think, has nothing to do with it. But reality does. Reality is not sexy or the stuff idealism or fun or dreams. Reality definitely bites. But a big dose of it in the form of approving the ordinances before you and City Planning Commission's overlay is what's needed here and now. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. 328 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Ms. Restemeyer, would you like to add? Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Virginia Restemeyer. I am a member of the Manayunk community and I'm on the board of the Manayunk Neighborhood Council. Thank you for allowing me the opportunity to speak about the proposed Venice Island residential ordinance and zoning overlay. My opinion may differ from other community members being heard today. Mostly you will be hearing from partisans. Almost every person in this debate is a stakeholder, financial stakeholders who want to protect their investments, ecological stakeholders who want to protect nature, and Manayunk stakeholders who want to protect their way of life. I am none of these. I am a stakeholder only in the best future for the island. I have lived in the Manayunk area for nearly 14 years and believe I am a good citizen. I have been a member of several civil groups, although not all that currently exist in the 21st Ward. 24 This past year I rejoined Manayunk Neighborhood 25 Council and became a board member. Although I am 329 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 affiliated with this group, I cannot allow their position to speak for me on Venice Island development. Capitalism has always driven the use land. What was profitable in the 18th Century was farming, in 19th it was industrialization, and in our current economy it seems to be housing. Manayunk is what it is because of the capital lists who changed it. First the canal owners followed by the land owners, the mill owners, and the railroad owners, and in recent memory, the business owners on Main Street. Every one of these entrepreneurs changed the face of Manayunk for better or worse although it's landscape seems natural to us now. Venice Island was never a natural island. It was landfill from the digging of the canal and for a good portion of it's history it was covered in wall to wall factories. Residential use of the island seems to have less of a negative impact than anything the island has experienced in its 180-year life. This proposed ordinance will, I feel, protect the island from rampant suburban-type development but also protect the neighborhood from 330 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 industrial and commercial uses which have a more deleterious effect on the community. My stance isn't pro development, but rather responsible regulation of it, which has been suggested by Councilman Nutter and the Planning Commission. The Plan Commission's recommendation, all residential use with a limit on density, is conservative and practical and it is in accord with the Manayunk business community. Manayunk Neighborhood Council's recommendation, all industrial and commercial use, is counter-indicative of our changed economy and detrimental to the neighborhood. As a civic group, Manayunk Neighborhood Council has an enormous number of issues to deal with. And all those their voices are loud, their membership is small and the group functions with a skeleton crew. For the Venice Island debate, protocol was not followed. Two officers of the board unilaterally determined that Manayunk Neighborhood Council is opposed to development, most is especially residential development. No vote was taken among the board members, neither was a consensus taken of the membership which is only about a hundred people, nor 331 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the community at large, roughly 10,000 to 12,000 people. There was an attempt to pole the membership with a survey from which about a dozen responses returned. My voice has been misrepresented by these community spokespersons. Based on what I have seen, I don't think Manayunk Neighborhood Council represents the many varied voices of Manayunk. Residential use of Venice island seems the most sensible and least harmful course for the neighborhood. Naturally, what kind of residential and how dense are questions which need to be addressed. One hopes that what comes to the island will be architecturally respectful and reflective of what came before, that the developers will be sensitive to the history of this region.
I support responsible residential development that looks to long-range planning and reuses existing buildings as I am open to new structures that refer to the pre-existing industrial style. Therefore, what we need in Manayunk is an overall plan that sets forth guidelines for development of the island, including facade review to ensure that this now variable piece of land does not become a free-for-all in its future development. The island comes with certain baggage, 332 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 it is in a floodway. But it's potential for complementing the neighborhood as a viable residential alternative to the Cliffside mill-workers' houses should be encouraged. This legislation, I hope, will ensure that. Thank you.
Thank you for your testimony. Are there any questions for Ms. Restemeyer? Mr. Kelson, please proceed.
Thank you, Councilman. Peter Kelson representing Dranoff Properties which is proposing to develop the Namico Soap factory site for residential housing. Very briefly, what we are proposing to do is to take the historic structures and renovate them into 160 luxury apartments. On site will also be contain 214 parking space, one parking space for every bedroom unit which is accordance with the Planning Commission recommendations. I would like to offer to the Committee an vantage point which I think maybe helpful. It is ironic that the development that we propose, and I'm sure the developments that you will here about from others in the room, would actually benefit the 333 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 floodway situation if it is approved. Let me be specific as to why. When we renovate the Namico property, what we will actually do is remove a great deal of structure, almost 50 percent of what exist there now; and we will replace it with a smaller amount of structure, but structure that is actually constructed in a way to leave the feet 9 from the ground floor to the bottom of the structure 10 open. Very simply, from a common sense standpoint 11 and a common engineering standpoint, that will 12 facilitate the flow or floodwaters on the site. It 13 will also enable the flood situation to be bettered 14 because you will be removing structure that right now actually contributes to the floodway problems on Venice Island. So it is ironic that you will hear option to the floodway development today when in fact the development that we propose would better the situation and create a viable energetic residential component to this cultural resource in a matter which would be consistent with the Planning Commission recommendations. If the Committee has any questions. We have brought engineering data with us and engineering experts who can help answer the question 334 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 of floodway development. I think the Law Department and Planning Commission made it very clear that floodway development is in fact appropriate and permitted so long as it is done in a matter which is designed from an engineering standpoint to not increase, and the Namico situation which would actually decrease the impact on the 100-year flood. I thank you for your time.
Madam Chair, before the gentleman starts, if I could just respond to one of the issues raised by Ms. Restemeyer. In the amendments that were put forward by the Planning Commission, there is a new Section 4 that proposes to have facade controls and reviews by the Planning Commission on facade issues. That was one of the items that was discussed on Monday night. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Madam Chairman, members of the committee, my name is Michael Sklaroff. I'm the attorney for the purchaser of the Connolly Container property, Cotton Street Landing, Limited 335 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Partnership. However Mr. Connolly has asked that I make a statement in his absence. He was here for the first four and a half hours since a.m. He had 5 to leave, he actually had to go overseas. He has an 6 audience with his Holiness Pope John, II, and he is 7 going to accept an award for the humanitarian 8 efforts of the Connolly family, only something so 9 important would have prevented him from staying and testifying today. So humbly I will speak words that he would have said.
Mr. Sklaroff, I'm sorry to interrupt you. Is it really possible for you to humbly speak or is this the first opportunity we're having a humble spoken word by you? Can we note this for the record today? (Laughter.)
There's an old proverb that he who is a hero holds back the wisecracks, so I am silent. (Laughter.)
In any event, the Conolly family has been a member of this community, an employer, and land owner since 1959. I think it is 336 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 generally known that the Connolly family has been a benefactor and supporter of people and institutions in the Philadelphia area since that time, and I would say and Mr. Connolly would say that there probably is not a neighborhood or institution in the City that hasn't benefited from the generosity of the Conolly family. And no community has benefited more from their generosity and participation and their citizenship than the Manayunk community. This property -- and I'm not going to go into the details of this proposal. I will tell you that it is a proposal for 270 units on 3.1 acres. It would occupy the former Conolly site and the two other residential developments are now proceeding before the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and this is not the time to tell you how wonderful the project is, as I'm sure the other two are, or why they should be entitled to variances and other approvals. That's for the Zoning Board. We're here on the legislation. And it is quite clear that the property no longer has a future for industrial purposes. We now have, and Mr. Connolly has an opportunity to sell the property for development. He went through a process, a request for proposal 337 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 process. He didn't take the highest bid or the most prominent developers necessarily, but he did take a very prominent responsible developer and a developer with a good plan. They took that plan to the community. That plan initially had a hotel, it had retail commercial, and it had 270 units and it had much parking. It now does not have a hotel or a retail commercial, it has just those 270 units. And that was part of the process of meeting with the community. Nevertheless, and as I said, the plan has been submitted for zoning approvals and is now pending. Our concern here is process. We agreed with the general concept of the Planning Commission that these sites should be rezoned to residential development. We agree with their concerns about the floodway and the floodplain. We agree with their concerns about the traffic impact. And we would seek to satisfy all of those concerns. However, all of the process that you've heard about, the meetings that were describe between the community and civic groups and special interest groups, Mr. Connolly was not invited to that. He did not participate. Now, Mr. Malumian (ph) who is the principal of the purchaser had some meeting with the Planning 338 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Commission, but there were many meetings where he was dis-invited. So from Mr. Connolly's perspective, he would like to be at the table. He has input. There are elements of his proposal that would excluded by this ordinance. There are elements of his proposal which we would like to present to City Council as being worthy of consideration in this ordinance. We're not against the other projects; we think they're fine, but ours is the only one of the three that cannot proceed because of the strictures in this ordinance. And we think that, really, given the involvement of this Connolly family in this community for all those years that it is unconscionable that their interest should not be taken into account in this ordinance. And what we're asking for is an opportunity for input on behalf of the Connolly family. You're asking for a delay in consideration of the ordinance 20 so that we can get our input. If we're unpersuasive, that's fine; but Mr. Connolly needs an opportunity to put his case before the City Council and before the Planning Commission in a meaningful way because this ordinance is going to govern development of Venice Island in the future and it's 339 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 going to have a tremendous impact on their interest. Thank you for the opportunity.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Mr. Sklaroff. Just for the record, Mr. Sklaroff, is it true that we've had on, I believe, at least one, possibly two occasions, you and I and Mr. Malumian have met about his proposal; is that correct.
And I believe that the sum and substance of those discussion, and they, I believe, both took place at a time when the proposal was a much larger and more intense proposal at those times.
And on both of those occasions, I'm quite sure that at the end of the meeting I suggested that you continue to have meetings and discussions with people out in the residential community and the various community groups and organizations. I think I provided probably at a minimum names and addresses, I think I 340 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 did not give you phone numbers because I generally don't do that; is that correct.
Not only correct, but you were one of the civic leaders with whom we met and was part of the process in changing the plan. But the point of it is, when we got down to the nitty-gritty and there was an ordinance which was being moved through the Planning Commission, Mr. Connolly was not invited to the table. He did not have a meaningful opportunity and Mr. Malumian was also non-included in what we believe to be a meaningful way.
I understand your perspective on that, but Mr. Malumian at least has met with the Planning Commission on his particular proposal; isn't that correct.
Mr. Malumian has had meetings, however, there have been meetings when the specifics of the ordinance were being hammered out as testified to between the civic groups and special interests, and I use the same phrase that was used, Mr. Connolly's interest and Mr. Malumian's interest were not included. Now, we don't have major problems with this bill. But the problems we do 341 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 have the bill have a major impact on our development, and I think the bill will benefit from an opportunity for Mr. Connolly and Mr. Malumian to make their interest known.
Well, I understand that, and I don't think they're prohibited from making their interest known at the Planning Commission, neither Mr. Malumian nor any other developer has by way of their plans you are not at any disadvantage as it relates to City Council because City Council is not going to receive a presentation from Mr. Dranoff, we're not going to receive a presentation from Mr. Netison, and we're not presentation from you and your client. I mean, none of those proposals are going to end up in this body. All of those discussions are over at the Planning Commission or out with the community.
I don't think that is an 342 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 accurate description of the process. This bill was hammered out in discussions with people where we were not present. This bill prevents two developments to go ahead and one development not to go ahead. There was input at a time which was sensitive where we were not invited to the party.
But let's not poison this record. Please to do not leave the impression with the Members of Council that somehow these planning controls were put in place strictly to deal with or solely to deal with two proposals or five proposals, or any number of proposals. This is a process that started sometime ago before there were any proposals. Those are the facts.
Councilman, I am not poisoning the record and I am MAKING no aspersions. All I will say to you is --
I just want to make sure that we're very clear about what happened and what didn't happen. Everyone has an opportunity to go and talk to the Planning Commission. I can't 343 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 stop that.
Councilman Nutter, you are as sophisticated in these matters as anyone. And whether you are at the table or not is part of an ongoing process, some of it formal and some of informal. When this bill was drafted, we did not have input. Evidence of that the fact that there are of the three developments, two would be permitted by this ordinance, and one for reasons of density would not be permitted.
Is that because those developments or those developers have tried to make their projects in conformance with the direction that the planning was moving? And let me finish, it sounds like your client has also attempted to do the same thing because when this started you were doing a hotel, retail commercial, and residential. Your testimony here today is that you have eliminated the hotel, you've eliminated commercial and retail, and only real item of dispute and discussion here is that you want to be at 270 units of residential and the FAR for the zoning controls won't allow as much residential as you would like; isn't that the fact? 344 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
No, that is absolutely not the fact. Our site has been recognized from the beginning as having more potential for density. The 270 residential units was never an issue. I'm not going to comment on the other two projects. I will assume that their densities are suitable for sites and our density is suitable for our site, and that's the case we're presenting to the Zoning Board.
Excuse me, just let me finish if I might. What happens as a result of the process is, which Mr. Connolly and Mr. Malumian believe they were not fairly included in, and I'm not talking about the formal process. I'm talking about the real community special interest process here which is fine.
We were not included not included in the process and the end result is that two projects can go forward under this zoning and one can't.
And given what Mr. 345 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Connolly has done for this community, that is not acceptable from our perspective. It will be for City Council to decide. So what we're asking here is straightforward. We're asking for the opportunity to have this delayed somewhat. There's no hurry on this. There are already pending applications. There's a real question as to whether it's going to affect them or not. But we would like to know that when the day is done, our reasonable proposal on the Connolly property is consistent with the ordinance. And we're asking for the opportunity for there to be an amendment to the ordinance to take the Connolly development into account. Thank you.
I have number of people who I will probably bring in as a group when I'm finished. I want to do sort of an opening if I can to set a stage for what we're going to do next, if I 346 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 may. Madam President, Members of the City Council Rules Committee, I also want to thank the Committee for an opportunity to make this presentation. I would like the record to reflect in all fairness that it is now minutes after 4:00 8 and for the very first time the members of the Council are going to hear from those people who object to the Planning Commission proposal and hear reasons why. We have a couple things I'd like to point out. For one thing, I represent approximately a dozen civic and neighborhood organizations.
If I could interrupt you, and I apologize, for one second. If you want to make that point for the record, then I will make the point for the record that the witness list for this hearing reflected that the first people to testify after the government people was Elizabeth Durella, President Manayunk Neighborhood Council. Let's be a record be clear about that.
I'm not talking about who you're replacing. What I'm saying is, is 347 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 that the community people were asked and had the opportunity and were listed as testifying first after the Planning Commission and the Law Department. They requested to come on later on.
I understand. It's a question of the sequence, but I would that we will be given full opportunity here and now because there are many, many very serious concerns. I first want to put on the record that I'm representing the Manayunk Neighborhood Council, the Friends of Manayunk Canal, a number of other organizations, the Sierra Club, and approximately a half dozen other groups whose names I need not recite, as well many, many individuals. I would venture to say that these organizations and individuals probably number in the hundreds of people who are residents of Manayunk and the area immediately here by Venice Island. Our people oppose the ordinance to rezone this island residential. We start by pointing out that the name of the island is Venice Island. There's a reason for that. It's not Denver Island, it's Venice island. And we're going to show you photographs and documents and diagrams that I 348 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 think more than a lot of words will show you why residential development on this island is improper us, is dangerous in fact. Let me point out, if I may first of all, we not only oppose the ordinance, but we wish to put on the record that we oppose this process of relative haste in an ordinance of this kind, this serious a matter to have to be considered the last hour of the last day on which it could be considered within this Session of Council. This is a matter that deals -- we think we'll show you this -- deals with the very safety of people who are going to live, not only on the island, but around the island. It is a matter that should be given full deliberation; and full deliberation, we submit, includes the liberation from engineers and experts, some of which we have here today who were never heard by the Planning Commission. It's funny, Mr. Sklaroff's comments that his client was not at the table when the details were being worked out. Neither were our people. There were opportunities for meetings, but not opportunities where we could present nuts and bolts hard facts and expertise with regard to the use that's proposed. We submit that what should have been happening here is that open 349 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 hearings -- something like we're doing today -- should have been available but not with such a time pressure as we are right now. We believe in essence that this bill, this ordinance, should be tabled and held over for the next Session of Council and it is not an appropriate ordinance to be done at this 11th hour as the chariot turns back into a pumpkin. Now, I have a number of people -- there's some specific legal points I want to make. First of all, Councilman Nutter asked, and I think it's very important, the difference between a floodway and a floodplain. And I think it's extremely important to recognize, because otherwise you'd get som disingenuous comments, frankly, like that some of the construction that was done in a flood fringe or a floodplain was in the floodway. I'm very familiar with the construction in Councilwoman President Verna's area around 24th and Locust. I think it's well known for 15 years I've represented the Center City Residents Association. That construction is in what is known as the floodway fringe, not the floodway. And I ask before you vote on any this ordinance that you look at Section 1606, 14-1606 of the Philadelphia Code 350 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 dealing with floodplain controls, Section 3D, E, and F are definitions. These are statutory definitions enacted by this Council. They make clear that there are three separate items, one is the floodplain, another is the floodway, and the other is the floodway fringe. And the difference is the floodplain is the entire area that is subject to flooding. Whether that flooding is six inches deep and barely moving or whether it's six feet deep and rushing like a torrent; that's the floodplain.
The heart of that area, and the definition is the area of the floodplain that's required to carry and discharge floodwaters of a given magnitude, that is the floodwaters that are moving at a given speed and at a given depth. In other words, that's the river and that's the floodway. And then the code provides that the fringe is that portion of the floodplain that's outside the floodway. So you have the floodway is actually, you can almost consider it part of the river, and then the outer banks are the flood fringe, and all of it is the floodplain. Now, the 24th and Locust project -- and I have, by the way, an expert here on mapping, who does mapping for FEMA, for the Federal Emergency 351 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Management Administration. The area that is being discussed as part of the floodplain is really the flood fringe, it's not the floodway. In the area down along 24th Street and Locust Street, you may notice, for example, that the Schuylkill River is within concrete barrier banks, they've actually built walls of concrete. That defines the floodway at that portion of the Schuylkill River. Outside of it is the fringe. In it is the floodway. Up in Manayunk there is no specific concrete wall. But there is the difference between a floodway, meaning the area in which, as you will see photographs, trucks are actually carried down the street, down the island. And I think when you look at some of the documents, some of the photographs of what happened on this island, and I'm not talking about many, many years ago; I'm talking about in 1999, this past spring. And you see what went on, then you can recognize, first of all, this major difference between a floodway and the flood fringe. And that's one of the main points I think. So that when people talk about whether construction is in the flood fringe, for example, the construction along the Delaware River along Penn 352 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Street and along the area that was referred to previously by Mr. Costello, is within the fringe of the Delaware River, not within the floodway of the Delaware River. I also have a couple other things to point out.
Mr. Krakower, I'm sorry. I notice this is very technical in nature, and I do appreciate the way in which you're telling us about floodplains and fringes, but the question that I have is that if we were rezone the way it's being requested, there would have to be a lending institution that would have to finance any residential project that would go forward on this island. Would any financial institution that you're aware of lend money to any developer who is going to build a residence, a commercial operation, or anything in such an area that it was likely it was going to be swept away by flood?
Councilman Kenney, may I answer? Some financial institutions granted mortgages on the homes in Logan that we now know as 353 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the sinking homes of Logan. Some mortgage companies granted mortgages on houses on Wissinoming Avenue which we all had the experience with only recently. Mortgage companies make those mistakes.
Well, prior to any code that had jurisdiction over backfill and other issues. I recognize that. But when it comes to something as basic as whether or not a structure is going to be flooded or washed away, would not bank, that lending institution, that mortgage company, want to have their own engineers determine that this is in fact a safe or an unsafe area to do it? And the other question is that what would stop Main Street from being flooded and over run with water if we got enough rain? Is there anywhere in the city with the exception on top of Billy Penn's hat that is so totally safe from potential flooding that we could guarantee that it would never receive floods?
Yes. It's been a long day, and I'm just trying to figure out --
The issue is likelihood. 354 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 It's not a question of absolute guarantees, of course not. The issue is to what extent is the potentiality. The federal government, for example -- and I have people here, I'm going to turn this matter over to them soon, who work in these areas will tell you there's a difference between something that is extremely remote and something that's likely, that is at least more foreseeable. And the question is, are we and are you as the Council of Philadelphia undertaking a reasonable risk or an unreasonable risk? And the other question is, has this matter been given the full and proper deliberation? Have you heard from all the people on the other side you should have heard from? I'm going to let some of these people talk now because I believe, from what I've heard, that they have not been fully heard. Let me just point out that one of the questions, by the way, just to point out some of the concerns I have as a lawyer. I'm limited. I have engineers here, I have geologists here, I have all kinds of people who have expertise in this area, and I don't, I'm just a humble little old lawyer. But I have to wonder also about whether there isn't 355 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 possibly a spot zoning issue here when you take this small an area and rezone it for what appears to, at least to me, to be an accommodation for a specific developer or two specific developers without really taking into consideration all of the needs of all of the area in this matter. One of the things that the Planning Commission has indicated in its memorandum is that Council is required to allow a certain level of development in a given area. I respectfully submit to you I've been before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and can cite you a cases where the Supreme Court has held to the contrary, that no 14 developer has a right to a specific level of development other than what the development rights were when he purchased it. When Mr. Dranoff and the other man who's buying from Mr. Connolly and Mr. Malumian, when they bought this property, they knew it was zoned G-2 and they knew it was in a floodway, not the flood fringe, a floodway. And therefore, for them to contend, if they are, that if they're not given these added development rights or this residential development that they're rights are in some way bing infringed is contrary to my understanding of a number of Supreme Court cases. 356 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
I may be wrong, and again, as far as that argument's concerned, my understanding from my experience here is that G-2 Industrial being the most expansive potential zoning designation, that anything less than that was a reduction. What confuses me is that I have never seen a group of residents who have opposed the reduction of a G-2 industrial site to anything -- I mean, they may have complaints about the commercial C designation and what may be the commercial use of it, those arguments I've heard. But I've never heard anybody argue that they didn't want -- that they still wanted to maintain a G Industrial zoning designation for any parcel of land. I would always think that going lower than G was always in the best interest, generally, of what the community wanted and especially when it comes to residential development, I thought that that was --
Ordinarily, Councilman Kenney, that is correct. But you have a unique situation here. It's the uniqueness that I want this Body to consider. This is on an island. It's an island that's only acceptable by four small bridges. It's an island you haven't heard anything 357 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 about yet. The soil on which that island is composed of, from what I understand, it's man-made fill. There are questions about the ability of that fill to hold up the proposed houses. We've seen no 6 engineering from any of this proposed development. We have an island that is difficult to reach. We have an island that gets flooded regularly and it gets flooded severely. I want you to look at photographs. This is the problem.
But I just want to go back to my original question that I broke in and so rudely interrupted you. Why then would anyone want to build or finance a residential housing project on this desolate, unreachable, flooded-out island?
Because it can be sold and turned into a profit. And if would you like, we can get you a list of the areas in which that has happened that afterwards people say, "Why did they build here? Why did they do this?" They're available. FEMA has documents of those. They're available on the internet. Look up "floods org" and you'll see the stories about people who did the same thing, decided they could make a profit. 358 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
From my perspective, unless I hear something different, I've got to believe that the market, the lending market would determine what does or does not get done there as a result of their investigation and their analysis of the feasibility of building on a particular parcel of land, whether it's this island or any other island.
With all due respect, and I'm going to complete with this, I'm going to appeal to this Council to reach to a higher sense of civic duty and responsibility than the market. There are things which the market will allow for profit which would be detrimental to the interest of the people of this City, not just in with regard to this particular project.
I'm not in any way indicating that the market should be a moral compass for us. What I'm saying is, is that the market in its amorality to me is a protection in itself because they're not going to lend to anybody who's got some crazy scream to build on something that's going to sink or float away.
But they do. I'm going 359 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 to call on some witnesses to make some comments.
Hold on for a second. Let me go back to a couple of the things that you said. Is your list the same as the list that was shared with us in terms of who you plan to call?
This is who I have list as far as the order. I have Kathy Tomaski, Darlene Macina, Robin Mann, Wendy Lathrop, Ernest Cohen. Is that the same list?
Let me go back to one of your statements. Now, I've never been the greatest with distances, but you made a statement that the Planning Commission's actions or possible subsequent actions by Council may result in, your phrase was spot zoning, which is normally a phrase that would go with, you know, here's a property or here's a house and we're going to change the zoning for that. Now, do you know the distance from what generally is referred to as the northern tip to the southern tip of this island? I mean, isn't it a little large to be considered spot zoning? 360 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Well, the problem is, from what I understand, Councilman Nutter, not all of it is included in this bill. This ordinance only relates to something like a third of it, and when you consider the width of it, I'm not too sure. I mean, I am not making a flat statement. I think it's something that could be examined. I'm just concerned because I don't think the process here was really fair to the total community.
I hear what you're saying. So you don't know the distance that we're talking about, square footage?
Second, what I've taken from the testimony, and I've had discussions with many community people about this, the essence of your position is we should do nothing at the moment. I guess I have a couple difficulties with that position. One --
That's not quite accurate, but I'm going to listen to you, sir.
Well, on this particular ordinance at this particular time, taking no action means do nothing. You understand that, you've been around the block a few time.
So from the take no 9 action, do nothing in that context, what you are then asking us to do is to just leave the current G-2 industrial zoning in place until some future point in time when there is more discussion, more process, and the like; is that correct.
But at some point in time. Now, how does the absence, dislike them as you may, you can state for the record that you think they are absolutely worthless. But how does the absence of any controls on any development help the community when we know for a fact that on any given day of any given week anyone can go to the Zoning Board and seek relief from a very broad now possibly impossible zoning classification of G-2 Industrial? How does that help the community? 362 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
For one thing, I would hope that the Zoning Board also would give careful deliberation to this matter. The Zoning Board, for example, right now has before it a request for a variance, as you well know, Councilman Nutter.
Yes, I was. At which hearing I expressed my own concerns about some of the these issues and concluded with if the Zoning Board does take an action they need to provide for certain provisos. That is was my testimony at the Zoning Board.
Correct, which we wholeheartedly agree. However, the problem here is that neither the Zoning Board nor this Committee, and to our knowledge, nor the Planning Commission has heard input some of the expertise that we have to offer. That whenever we wanted to --
Prior to today had these experts, new or old, contacted the Planning Commission with their views?
I believe they have. 363 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 They're here, some of them are here today, and that certainly can be asked of them.
As recently as day before yesterday, I believe, the Planning Commission had another meeting, and I believe Councilman Nutter, you were present.
At that meeting, however, there was no input or opportunity for input from the people I'm talking about who are here with expertise to try to show the Planning Commission the error of their ways.
Let's be fair to the record, though, Mr. Krakower. First, you were not at the meeting; is that right? 364 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Second, don't leave the impression that -- and I don't know who you're talking about. But if anyone didn't have any input at the Monday meeting, it can only mean that they weren't at the Monday meeting, correct.
Because anyone who was at the Monday meeting certainly had a full opportunity for I think a couple hours to have input, right,?
Well, I was there, and anyone who was there had an opportunity to speak, respond, criticize, review or anything else, so let me just state that for record.
Let me at least put into the record just so my colleagues have some context. Most people generally don't run around with copies of Philadelphia Code or the 365 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 classification section. In G-2 Industrial today as a matter of right, a person could come to L & I and apply for permits to do things such as have a heliport, the killing, dressing, packing and canning of poultry, rabbits and other small game including cleaning, packing, grading, drying, and freezing eggs; the manufacturer of aircrafts, including component parts and axiliary equipment; fire arms, guns, mortars, military tanks, and components, torpedo tubes, Y-guns, flame throwers and other ordinance except the manufacture, use, handling, or storage of explosive in any forms. Mr. Krakower, were you here for some of the discussion about a Planning Commission and the Law Department on the issue that has been debated back and forth on whether or not you can build in a floodway or a floodplain?
Well, so have I. And is there any disagreement from your perspective on --
Because as I read Section 1606, and I read it differently than the Members of the Planning Commission do or than the representative of the Law Department. I believe that the language is clear that as you read it, I don't think it's as difficult as they would make it.
Building within the floodway is distinguished from building within the floodplain. I think that's the problem. You can build in the floodplain; you cannot build in the floodway. That's why I started with that distinction.
All right. Why don't you bring your folks on. Your testimony is you disagree with the City Planning Commission and City's Law Department on this particular issue.
Let me just state why. Because I believe they are not distinguishing between the floodplain and the floodway.
What I'd like to do, if I can, is ask Mr. Krakower to remain at the table as the counsel to this group, and if you could just 367 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 move to the side what I'd like to do is bring up people in threes.
Yes, Councilman Kenney, that's exactly what I'd like to do. Sally Willig.
This is the order that your group is interested in? I was given another order. And I have no preference.
Because of the hour and certain people have a need to leave, I'd like to be able to change that order so I can get people who must go and get them on.
This is in no way means to limit the scope of your testimony, you're free see whatever you want about whatever you want. If you could just for our sake and for rest of us kind of stay on issues that haven't been discussed before. So if one person brings up one issue, if you could either elaborate or go to another issue so we're not being redundant. But if you feel the need to say whatever it is you want to say, please go right ahead. What I had like to do is ask you to 368 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 please identify yourself for the record and then proceed with your testimony. We'll let everybody testify first and then we'll have questions. Thank you.
My name is Kathy Tomaski. I'm the former president of the Manayunk Neighborhood Council. Manayunk Neighborhood Council is the recognized civic in the Green Lane corridor. When I was president last year, we had 163 members, exclusive of approximately 40 members counted as one. So if you were three in a family, you were counted as one. I volunteered to work with Mary Tracy on the cigarette billboard plight in the corridor. I am also a democratic committee woman for the last 13 years in the 4th Division of the 21st Ward bordering the Main Street corridor, which by the way, all of you were carried by my division. I am a devout activist in the Philadelphia unemployment project, the Mt. Valley, Instrumental in Pennsylvania social problem solvings. I am awardee of several various honor of community activism. Last, but not least, I am a widow having 5 children, 15 grandchildren, 10 of whom live in the Manayunk area bordering the canal. They attend a 369 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 local school such as Roman Catholic High School, Roxborough High School, St. John's Elementary, two headed toward Hallahan, St. Josaphat's, Green Lane Nursery, and Jenks in Chestnut Hill. We are true Philadelphians and true Manayunkers. Therefore, I people qualified to give testimony here today. I had a conversation with Tom Connolly when I was president a few years ago and I asked him to please get involved in what was happening in the Main Street corridor and he, quote, told me he didn't want to get involved with the Manayunk Development Corporation and only dealt with the Catholic charities in the Manayunk are. So I'd like to give my testimony so the others can go on. A few days ago, I read an article in the Philadelphia inquirer concerning ambitious proposed Bill 300 commonly known as "Growing Greener." The expenditure was estimated a $500 million dream, but apparently other members of the State Senate had their own take on the proposal. Whenever the decision, it is certainly a start in the right direction. I believe the suburban sprawl of developments has hit a nerve in the densely republican counties such as Chester, Delaware, 370 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Montgomery, and Berks. They are all saying no. 3 They want to keep their green space. Isn't that why they're willing to create green bond issues? In the meantime, back in Philadelphia the City commonly known as "it's not what you know but who you know," the community has absolutely no 8 say in policies that adversely affect te health, welfare, and safety of our family, friends, and neighbors. After losing in court on highly publicized apartment complex in the heart of dense Manayunk, a Dan Edison property, we lost hope and faith in the powers that we elected to represent the community of Manayunk in the 21st Ward. Also, the thoughts of one so-called group, Central Manayunk Council headed by John Tiegs and Vince Esposito have not a clue as the zoning overlay is decided here today as they touted development. The Manayunk Neighborhood Council, along with other credible organizations, have done the research proving that the whole island off Main Street in Manayunk would be in serious danger of a catastrophe if the development is approved. Wasting gasoline could run into the Schuylkill River and the environment. 371 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 I used to be a believer that the residential development at the canal wouldn't be so bad, but Floyd has been a sign from God saying no. 5 Does the City of Philadelphia want to risk a class action lawsuit for promoting and approving a catastrophe? Now, the FEMA issue comes into play. If FEMA is willing to cover million dollar complexes, what's left for the real victims? So tax abatements, flood insurance at taxpayers' expense is a slap in the face of the taxpayers of Pennsylvania. Please take my testimony into consideration and act responsibly. Kathy Tomaski.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Ma'am could you pleas identify yourself for the record. MS. Willig: Yes. I'd like to give each of you a handout to look at while I am talking.
Good afternoon, Councilmembers, I appreciate your hearing us at this time of day. This is very important issue, as 372 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Stanley Krakower has indicated, that should not be done with haste. I live near Poenixville in Chester County, Pennsylvania. I earned a PhD in Geology in 1988 from the University of Pennsylvania, and since that time have been teaching there on a part-time basis out of the Departments of Earth and Environmental Science and Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning. I teach a number of different courses including wetlands, environmental geology, regional field ecology. An underlying goal of all of these courses is to increase students' understanding of ecosystems processes and functions so that they can make wise land-use decisions. In looking at case histories of various natural disasters, it becomes clear that when humans fail to understand and respond to recurring destructive landscape processes such as flooding, tragedy is inevitable. As you consider the future land-use of Venice Island, you must not ignore the well-documented history of periodic severe floods submerging Venice Island and Manayunk. Less than three months ago, rainfall from Hurricane Floyd began falling in the Schuylkill 373 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 River basin early in the morning, and over the next hours up to 10 inches of rain fell, 10 inches of 4 rain fell at Valley Forge. This led to dramatic 5 flooding along Schuylkill. 6 If you would turn to the first 7 attachment, you can see information from the 8 Delaware River Basin Commission, a summary of 9 Hurricane Floyd, and in ther it says parts of 10 Manayunk and Venice Island were submerged. 11 If you glance at the photos here in 12 front of you, you can see ones taken by both 13 residents of Manayunk and by the Philadelphia 14 Inquirer showing the submerges and the dangerous 15 conditions that were produced. 16 I'd like you to look at this hydrograph 17 to see a very important point. Hydrographs are 18 graphs of rise in water level, change and discharge over time. What you will see, there is time along the bottom. The upper diagram shows discharge, the lower one shows rise in water level. The water level rose extremely quickly. According to the proprietors of Little Wood Dies at Shurs and Manayunk Lane, they've there, there's four generations, they've seen many floods; this one rose 374 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 faster than any they had ever seen, faster than Hurricane Agnes. That makes for very difficult evacuation of areas. A little more three years ago in January of 1996, three feet of snow rapidly melt and we had unprecedented flooding throughout Pennsylvania including on the Island of Manayunk. " The 50-year flood of Philadelphia was Hurricane Agnes in June of '72. The FEMA report of 1996 for the City of Philadelphia has a little exert based on "Philadelphia Evening Bulletin" accounts, and it says, "Manayunk was hard hit by the flood with some houses swept away and all its factories closed leaving approximately a thousand workers temporarily unemployed. " The hundred-year flood on record occurred in 1869. Again, "Philadelphia Evening 375 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Bulletin" accounts give you some feel for it. "Two canal boatmen were drowned when their canal boat was overturned in the Manayunk area. Property damages were estimated to be a million dollars for the Manayunk area alone. Ice from the Pennsylvania Ice and Coal Company, innumerable barrels and hogsheads, canal boats, numerous freight cars and every other movable object from the Pennsylvania Rail Yards. " So that's just to give you a sense of the scale of flooding that has taken place and could take place again in the area of Manayunk. Why does it flood so severely at Manayunk? There is a reason of this. It's a combination of both the natural configuration of the Schuylkill River Valley in that area and human modifications at the time to the floodplain in a hydrologic cycle.
If you take a look at the next 376 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 attachment, the pull-out, it shows a section from a report by Alter, a USGS report in 1967.
You're going to have to continue to use the microphone. You can pick it up.
The main think I want to show you is from the Conshohocken Curve all the way down to Venice Island, a distance of some three miles is straightaway. There's a steep narrow valley cut in the hard Wissahickon rock and the water low flow conditions is impounded somewhat by the Flat Rock Dam to create lake-like conditions. But at high flow, it is not a flood control structure. The water comes raging down through here. It's essentially a chute and hits an area of naturally exceptional hard rock, a constriction, at the northern end of Venice Island. You're familiar with the Flat Rock Tunnel, the on-ramp to the Gladwyne, right in that area, and the water is forced through there and it rises to a more dramatic degree below there from Flat Rock Dam down to mile marker 14. If you look at Attachment Figure 6, this shows the rise in water level from Conshohocken down 377 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 to the Falls Bridge. Are you able to find that? And this was based on high water marks by significant floods up to 1967. And this is probably the most important thing I want you to walk my talk here today is that Venice Island is unique. It floods more dramatically at Venice Island than it does upstream or downstream of Venice Island along the Schuylkill River. And you can see that by the significantly higher rise in surface water elevations. For the 1933 flood, water rose feet 12 at the Green Lane Bridge; that's pretty significant. 13 Additional impacts to the hydrology 14 there are storm sewer inputs to the Manayunk Canal. 15 There are five six-foot diameter storm sewer 16 outfalls into the canal, so that just exacerbates 17 the problem when there's severe flooding. 18 So finally, if you look to the future 19 use of Venice Island, you've got many options. 20 You're thinking about one here today. What is 21 another consideration is extension of the greenway 22 that Philadelphia now has south of the confluence 23 with the Wissahickon along the Schuylkill River 24 Drive. It would promote the recreational use of the 25 island which is great at the moment in its current 378 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 condition where there's not great access to many parts of the Island. It would also promote natural habitat there. In conclusion, I strongly oppose Bills 990760 990762 which would rezone portions of the island to residential and have the City of Philadelphia knowing place its citizens in harm's way. I urge you to be thoughtful in your decision-making and understand that you have a legitimate basis, that Venice Island periodically floods severely, for saying no to rezoning to residential. Thank you.
Mr. Krakower, I'm sorry, this is not a courtroom. Testimony is given, and we ask questions. Please identify yourself for the record.
Hi, my name is Liz Terella (ph) and I'm president of the Manayunk Neighborhood Council and I'm a board member on the Manayunk development corporation. I have a short little 379 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 letter that I want to read to you and then it looks like stack but I'll only be pulling a couple things out of here that I've noted in my little my book here that has to do with some errors and omissions and inaccuracies. Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Although the neighborhood had hoped this would not be necessary to speak on this matter in the particular manner that we must. We had expected that consensus could be reached in regard to Venice Island before we would be speaking to you. We were promised by the City Planning Commission and our Councilman Mr. Nutter that the community's input would be considered. That has not happened. And so here we are today. I have spoken here before about the fact that my grandchildren can say they have roots in Manayunk that go deep, over 100 years and plus. All well and good, but that's the past, and we speak of the future. In light of the fact that if you call it whether the last year of the old millennium or the first year of the new millennium, we are entering a new age. This should call for us to look 380 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 at lessons learned and some things differently. The Senate of Pennsylvania and other speak of municipal cooperate, and we see in the plans Venice island little of that. By rushing so quickly for residential, have we spoken Lower Merion Township about this development? As a member of the board of Manayunk Development Corporation, I know it has taken a long time and great effort and the hard work of Representative Kathy Manderino and others to finally get something moving in changing the traffic sequence at I-76. This was done through MDC and these other factions, thinking that the sequence would help the problem on the Green Lane Bridge. Have we mentioned to them the plans for Venice Island and all the commuter traffic it will generate? Is this our good faith effort? In that same vein, has the City of Philadelphia put forth the type of effort for other options from Venice Island that we have taken in regard to other areas similar issues. We are asking for time. What is the rush? To give patent approval to this zoning overlay so that we would not have to face the same developers in court and therefore take the risk of losing seems ridiculous. We are currently 381 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 developers 3, neighborhood 0, but we're still standing and would rather take our chances with an informed constituency, which is what we're currently doing, than give up our rights. The good people of Manayunk, whom I love and respect, have endured enough. We are not against development, but we have become a regional destination without regional infrastructure. The numbers for planning analysis as used in the Commission's draft plan are incorrect and do not match the numbers from the traffic engineering study. In the draft plan they said they used planning analysis numbers, not actual engineering numbers, but I have the numbers from the traffic study. The problem is commuter traffic, not commercial trips. And if I may make an aside, they mentioned that commuter trips are much more trips for square footage, et cetera. Manayunk is not a place -- they're using those commercial numbers are used for suburban trips, you run out to the hardware store, you run out here and there. Manayunk is not that kind of place. You come and you park. They're not trips back and forth because you can't park so you come once and stay and walk around. We need a 382 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 breather. The Civics neighborhoods bordering the island and river Umbria Street neighbors, Manayunk Neighbors Council and Wissahickon neighbors are all opposed to the zoning overlay.
But since that time Wissahickon neighbors community, they went to them and they said no opposition, although I do have a letter stating their reservations about the manner in which this plan was drafted with no community input. As I said, Manayunk Neighborhood Council, we're opposed to the zoning overlay at this time, and you good people should be also. Philadelphia is called the city of homes and they speak about the density of Manayunk and you can see that small island and you've see the little place where they would be building. That will encompass the same number of homes as the 4400 block of Baker Street, 4500 block of Baker Street, 4400 block of St. David's, 4500 block of St. David's, 4500 block of Richie, 4500 of Smith, 4400 block of Mansion, 4300 block of Silverwood, 4400 block of Silverwood, 100 block Green Lane, 100 block of Conarroe, 100 block of Carson, 100 block of Day 383 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Street, 100 block of Maiden, 100 block of Grape, 100 block of Levering, 100 block of Cotton, 100 block of Rector, and 100 block of Roxborough Avenue, and will take our section of Manayunk from one that has one of the highest incidents of owner occupied properties in the City to one of the lowest by virtue of apartments. I have recently worked on a project with MDC. They've gotten a grant and other things to promote single family home ownership in Manayunk. Mr. Netison has brought in over 200 apartments, and we're speaking now of 700 more. That's 900 apartments, not counting the illegal rentals that we speak about. We will no longer be a community of homeowners. Another thing that one thing that was said today was that we want to leave the island G-2. That is incorrect. We were invited to a meeting on September 9th that came about because we entered a motion MDC that MDC write a letter to the planning commission requesting that they please sit down with the community because our request for the planning commission to sit down to the community went unheard. There actually had to be a motion entered 384 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 and seconded, and then we were invited on September 9th to meet with the Planning Commission. 35 based on comments made at the meeting with the community representatives. Michael Nutter, Councilman Nutter and others were there Kathy Manderino, that was not a working meeting, that was an information meeting where we went in and they gave us the draft plan. And the only questions or comments we had were clarification. That was not a working meeting. We were asked to go form a task force and form our own draft development plan for Venice Island, which we did. In ours we said that we acknowledged that Venice Island almost entirely falls within the floodway of the Schuylkill River. We firmly support the local, state, and federal floodway regulations that prohibit new construction or development in floodway. However, to protect the interest of the community, should those regulations be ignored, we present the following development plan. In our plan we ask for commercial, recreational, cultural, technical, and light industrial. And I won't go into our plan. We presented our plan, faxed it on 385 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 November 17th. In another letter I have from Barbara Kaplan, she states, "No one is leaving the community out of this process. " We presented this on November 17th and I have the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting the next morning where this recommendation was put in, the next morning. How much thought was given to our recommendation? 5. Our meeting was October 23rd. 35 with a couple days' notice.
FAR is the foot area ratio. For example, if a lot is a thousand square foot, you can put a thousand square foot building.
In their own draft plan at 1.0 ratio, they state that traffic is at peak capacity. Then they said that if they were able to go to 1.35 because they eliminated the commercial. The only commercial that was in the original plan was accessory to the apartments, not commercial that would have generated these so-called so, so many trips. Also in the letter from Barbara Kaplan she wants to say, "In closing, I would to remind you that any zoning legislation must have the support of both the residential and business segments of the community in order to be enacted by City Council and the Mayor." In the traffic survey that was done by Boles Smyth Associates and was directed by Councilman Nutter's office, the Mayor's office, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, SEPTA, the Philadelphia Streets Department, the Philadelphia Parking Authority, PIDC, business and community representatives, Manayunk Development Corporation and Manayunk Neighborhood Council. The study was contracted through PIDC. Their findings say regarding quality of life and economic viability, "The parking" -- now, this goes to refute what was 387 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 said here today, that the infrastructure is enough. "The parking and access infrastructure is currently inadequate to effectively accommodate the increasing demands which in turn impact the overall quality of life in Manayunk." This study was done April of 1997, and we've had more development since then with no changes in the infrastructure. Also, in speaking about one of the highest traffic times, it was said that Saturday is the time of most commercial activity and therefore residential would be good. Here, these counts showed Friday to be the heaviest travel day of the week. On the Green Lane Bridge, Wednesday and Friday were equal. Also, their own studies here say that on Friday there were 1300 cars going up the street at 6:00 p.m. a Friday here at 5:00 p.m., 480 -- over the bridge, I'm sorry. 1300 going over the bridge. But Friday at 5:00 p.m. there were only 480 cars, and at noon on Saturday 430. Less. It states that commuter traffic. I don't have it with me today, but I also have a letter that I thought I had where Mr. Tom Connolly wrote a letter to Manayunk Neighborhood Council saying he didn't understand why we had a 388 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 problem with commercial development since anybody who knows Manayunk knows that all the problems are commuter traffic and that Main and Green Lane is nightmare. I will send that you. I have a letter from Umbria Street Neighbors speaking about it. I have a letter to the Zoning Commission that deals with the traffic, the floodway issues, and the fact that we are trying to promote home ownership. There is was also something said here today that I personally took a little bit of umbrage to, and that was that Manayunk people, you know, it's a class thing. Fifteen years ago I was giving seminars at North Light called Yunkers and Yuppies. I believe that people have the same rights if they've been in a place a hundred years or a day and a half. If I moved to New Jersey tomorrow, I expect to have the same rights as anybody who's ever been there. There was something said there that our problem is with the class of people, and that was said by Mr. Ed Weiner. This is an E-mail that when I saw it, I want Mr. Ed Weiner off the committee for the task force. And if I might read it. "I believe 389 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 lots of people have hopped on to the floodway bandwagon" --
First of all, as temporary Chair of the Committee, we're willing to listen to issue relative to floodways, flood fringes, traffic, but I'm not going to allow a personal attack or personal argument. It's not germane.
I don't want it in the public. I don't want it in the record.
I will do that because what was said today here was not true.
He has an opinion and you have an opinion, and you're both expressing it.
But here he gives his 390 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 opinion of Manayunkers.
It's not between me and him, sir; it's between this Council, too. This is our City Council. I'll make copies. What I want to say is I also want to show -- this is something else. Am I allowed to say? I won't go into that either. I'll give you copy where some things that were said today are quite different that what was said there. Also I guess I'll wrap it up-- oh, wait a few more things. The "Review," the local newspaper has editorials speaking about the folly of building in a floodplain. They are opposed. They end by saying, "We say again no matter what developers tell us about the strength of proposed buildings on Venice Island, their plans will some day dissolve into river silt if they were are allowed to build in the floodway. We say again, City Council must take a strict stand on floodway development." And they actually had three editorials. And my final thing is, as I had said to 391 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Councilman Nutter, I was going to read this. This was Councilman Nutter's position on the Dranoff proposal before the Zoning Board. "The members of the Zoning Board are probably familiar with the events of September 16, 1999, when the City experienced extremely heavy rainfall resulting from Hurricane Floyd. This led to severe flooding in many locations in Philadelphia and especially in the vicinity of Venice Island and Main Street Manayunk. The application before you was a site which suffered serious flooding and which is located within the floodway. I, therefore, question the wisdom in converting this former factory building into apartment units. Local, state, and federal laws and regulation prohibit certain structures and expansions of existing structures in floodways. Furthermore, these laws and accompanying regulations specifically encourage actions which reduce flood loss and minimize the impact on health, safety, and welfare if flooding occurs. Given the most recent event and location of this property, the Board should deny this application." And then, of course, as he says, he did say that if they were to do it, there would be provisos. 392 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 I have taken enough time. Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Thank you. Darlene Macina, Robin Mann, and Wendy Lathrop.
Hi, Rules Committee. Thank you for taking the time all day to listen to us. It's been very painful for us, too, over the last four months. My name is Darlene Macina. I'm with Friends of the Manayunk Canal. I established the organization. We are Friends of Fairmount Park Group. I moved into Manayunk, bought a house 14 years ago because of the Manayunk canal towpath and 15 access to the river. I'm a rower and waterways are 16 very important to me and pedestrian access as well. 17 I want to ask if you can acknowledge the package that I sent to your office on last Friday and had on some time to look at it. There are a number of articles from various papers, specifically the "Inquirer," which I think really bring home the fact of what Floyd did in Manayunk. We are stewards of a modest park land. Our area focuses a narrow band of land adjacent to Venice Island and the Manayunk Canal which is 393 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 parallel to the Schuylkill River. Our members represent a broad array of park-users, both local and regional. They are of all ages, incomes, and colors. They come from North Philadelphia in Center City, they come up from the cliffs of Manayunk. They com from Montgomery County, they come from Westchester. Manayunk is a center for -- is a destination for the region, and we like that. Our members are users of the Schuylkill River, the Manayunk Canal, and towpath. They are active and passive users such as bird-watchers, kayakers, rowers, joggers, runners, cyclists, and fishermen and women who sit along the canal for hours. All of our members support smart economic development which is sustainable and beneficial for the entire region. We all benefit from smart growth and development. We encourage projects that compliment and enhance the existing community. I also would like to mention that FMC was nominated to the Fairmount Park Residential Citizen Advisory Board and we serve on that committee because of the work we do and the kind of research and reports that we have submitted. In additions, we have received grants and in-kind 394 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 services which amount to thousands of dollars and some of that work you can see here today. Through these efforts, we have produced professional reports and research about Venice Island and our park land. In fact, I think we are the experts of this area which we're talking about today. And I hope you do have the time to read some of the reports, and they're all on our web site if they're not in your packet. We have distributed our reports to MDC, Philadelphia Planning Commission, Councilman Nutter, and other groups. Our reports have been cited a number of times. We come to you today to state our opposition to the two bills 990760 and 990762 and I would like this testimony to apply to tomorrow's hearing at well. We have met as a group on this issue of land use in the floodway on an average of once a week for three hours for about four months. We're tired. Our dedication and commitment is rooted in our personal lives and professional lives. That's why we've been here today since 9 o'clock. We don't get paid for this. We have tried to look at the broad picture of economic development for the City 395 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 of Philadelphia as well as the quality of life and the quality of experience in neighborhood for both ourselves and the guests of our community. We've tried to look at the economic viability and cost expenditures of new construction in the floodway and environmental repercussions of construction in the Schuylkill River floodway. Our conclusion is as follows: We find that development along the Schuylkill River in Manayunk will lead to increased flooding thereby endangering the loss of property and life, creating health and safety hazards and cause the wasteful and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for protection and disaster relief efforts.
To prevent such adverse conditions and consequences, it would seem necessary to impose restrictions and regulations for development on Venice Island. I want you to know what I just read, that last couple of sentences, was pulled exactly from the City Code; that actually wasn't my text. I would like to call your attention to a letter in your packet which I dropped off, members of us, we dropped it off on Friday, from the Delaware River Basin Commission, which was signed by 396 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Carol Collier, Execute Director. I believe a copy of this was sent to Commissioner Margaret Taglioni (ph) and it was addressed to members of both the House and Senate urging them to consider buy out in conversions of floodways and doing so to consider this as a part of the planning process as opposed dealing with these types of lands and disaster responses. Lastly, I want to say that we strongly support the mechanism of the zoning overlay. The zoning overlay is the basic approach many municipalities have used to regulate floodplains to comply with the federal flood insurance program. However, we feel this important issue of the future of Venice Island, the floodway, should be given more careful consideration and time. We do believe there is an alternative plan and we ask you for that time and to work more closely with the stakeholders that you see here today and the experts. Thank you for your time.
Madam Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee, I'm Robin Mann. I'm speaking on behalf of the Southeastern Group of the Sierra 397 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Club, f which I serve as chair of the wetlands and water quality committee. I'm speaking to express our strong opposition to bill 990760 and 762 to amend the City's Zoning Code. The Sierra club is a national organization with chapters active in all 50 states dedicating to promoting the protection of our natural heritage for present and future generations. The Southeastern Group has approximately 8,000 members residing in Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware, Chester Counties. Many of our members are actively involved through the club and other conservation initiatives in efforts to improve water quality and restore watersheds in the Delaware Valley. The Sierra Club is not opposed to all growth and development. We are opposed to poorly planned development that is wasteful of scarce resources. Our current national anti-sprawl campaign is aimed at highlighting the positive steps the communities and state governments can take to promote smart growth. We encourage open protection, land use, and transportation planning, and urban revitalization, all of which can help to limit 398 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 environmental impacts of development and to promote livability. We do oppose new development in the wrong place. And especially oppose new development in floodplains. The protects of undisturbed floodplains from development, the prevention of more intensive redevelopment in the floodplain and the restoration of floodplains through mitigation measures are important, not only for the range of environmental benefits they provide from flood surge protections to water quality improvement, but also for the benefits in terms of protection of life and property. Bill Nos. 990762 and 990760 would allow new residential development in the floodway of the Schuylkill River by rezoning the southeastern portion of Venice Island for low-density residential use. We firmly oppose this measure because it would put more people in harm's way directly in the path of future flooding. It would aggravate the problems that Manayunk must handle in times of flooding emergencies. And it would increase the already-heavy burdens on city, state, and federal taxpayers for flood damage relief and related public spending. 399 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 We also oppose this measure because it would forfeit the very significant opportunity that the City presently has to find a creative forward-thinking and broadly supported solution regarding comprehensive planning for the island. In our view, such a plan would be respectful of the island's location in the floodplain of the Schuylkill River by providing for restoration of substantial portions of the floodplain and expanded dedicated open space, not just a 5 foot ribbon along the riverbank. Twenty years ago a forward-thinking city government adopted restrictions on the types of development activities that could occur in the floodplain and in the floodway for the expressed purpose of insuring proper protection of the citizens. I won't reiterate. Darlene just quoted from the code. Now, so soon after the major flooding brought on by hurricane Floyd is not the time for the City to abandon that commitment. Approving Bill No. 990602 would do exactly that. Over the last quarter century, other municipalities around the country have taken measures to opt out of the flood-and-rebuild cycle 400 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 and improve their flood protections. I have listed a number of cities that have taken measures and have learned the hard way to move their citizens to higher ground. You can read them in the text. In short, cities are moving the residents to higher ground out of, not into, the path of floods.
Around the country we are seeing a growing appreciation of the need for floodplain protection and restoration and a growing recognition that more extensive development in floodplains is foolhardy and dangerous. In the present instance, Philadelphia is facing developers' pressures to make a short-sighted decision that would benefit private inters and place added long-term burdens on the City's resources and limited state and federal relief funds. Approving this rezoning would be a step backwards for Philadelphia, not forward progress. Thank you the opportunity.
My name is Wendy Lathrop, and I have some photos and a copy of my testimony I'd like to also hand forward.
We will make a copy of your testimony available to the stenography 401 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 and it will be included in the transcript. (Testimony attached to transcript.)
My name is Wendy Lathrop. I'm a land surveyor and planner with years of 6 experience and mapping and land-use regulation. I 7 have significant amount of experience particularly 8 with floodplains, the wetlands. At this point in 9 time I have been serving as an advisor to the 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency on a flood 11 mapping program since 1995. On that particular 12 Council, I represent the American Congress in 13 Surveying and Mapping, which is an organization of 14 approximately 7,000 surveyors, cartographers, and 15 geodesists throughout the country. On that Council 16 we make recommendations to improve the 17 implementation of mapping and regulations to 18 protect lives and property from the hazards of 19 flooding affecting our citizens throughout this 20 country. It's in relationship to that particular 21 background that I wish to make my testimony. 22 More directly and personally, I'm also 23 very familiar with Manayunk area. I just recently 24 moved back to the area. I live just across the 25 river on the Bala Cynwyd side which, to me, means 402 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 that I am directly affected because water, when it rises, does not rise only on one side of the river. It will effect my side as well. I'm a frequent visitor to Manayunk, both to visit friends and to travel along the towpath. I can't say that I do a tremendous amount of shopping there because I'm not the shopping type, but I do spend quite a bit of time along the towpath. I do want to make some clarifications regarding some of the testimony that was made a little bit earlier regarding floodways and flood fringes. And I also want to address directly the terminology that the City Planning Commission has written in regards to its recommendation to change the zoning of the island to residential. In its preamble it talks about preserving the constraints to development are significant historical past environmental constraints, traffic constraints, and location entirely within the floodway. It then goes on to say that they should only permit development that will complement the existing constraints and then at the conclusion for some reason instead of saying how to best implement that, it merely says that the use would cause the least amount of traffic 403 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 would be residential. It does not say that this is the best use for the area; it merely says that this is one that will cause the least vehicular traffic. There is a big difference between them. And at this point, I'd like to refer you to some of the photographs that were taken directly after Hurricane -- actually at the point that it hit Philadelphia, it was downgraded from a hurricane to a tropical storm. If these photo are not sufficient, you can take a ride down Kelly Drive and look at the tree that's stuck in the bridge down by East Falls about 12 feet above the water level. If you think in terms of what kind path the water is taking, I can't see from this side, but one of this photographs is from front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer that shows tractor-trailers smashed up against each other from the path of water. Now, this was not the hundred-year flood. If the water is moving tracor-trailers to this extent, and this is only considered a 25-year flood, that's one-quarter the strength of what is considered a 100-year flood, which is really a misnomer. It's not in terms of it happens once every 100 years; it means it has a percent opportunity per year of 404 1 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 occurring and every year it has that same 1 percent chance. That's why in 1996 in January of 1996 which was when I moved back to the area, I was privileged to experienced another flood just three years ago, also not a 100-year flood but also causing significant amount of damage. The difference between a floodway and a floodplain. The floodplain entire area that is covered by water at some point in time.
A flood is considered the covering of land by water where land is not normally submerged. And floods come in different frequencies and intensities. We refer to 100-year or 1 percent annual chance of flood as the one that is the trigger mechanism for regulations. There are other floods that are calculated when development is planned. 2 percent chance of occurring a year, a 50-year flood, which has a 2 percent chance, a 10-year flood, and a 25-year flood. But the one that is considered the trigger to make regulations go into place according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and thereby through the states and the communities that participate in the national flood insurance program 405 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 is the 100-year flood. We have not experienced a 100-year flood for a significant amount of time, yet we have seen water raging through our streets and causing significant damage much more frequently than that. We are looking at areas that will cause significant damage to property as well as endanger lives. A person cannot walk through water like that. A floodplain covers the area -- at this point we're talking about the hundred-year floodplain or the regulatory floodplain. A floodplain covers the entire area. Within it is an area called the floodway which carries the greatest volume of water at the greatest velocity. The purpose of reserving the floodway as free from obstruction from water is to allow that water to get out of there so the water can then go back down and return to pre-flood levels. It is important to keep that area free from obstructions or we get situations such as this with tractor-trailers. If we put something in the way such as a building -- let me back up a bit and talk about the floodway down by the Locust Point Development. There is a misstatement by Mr. Lombardo 406 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 that floodways only occur in areas that are non-tidal. The Schuylkill River is tidal below the Fairmount Dam. And in fact, the floodway of the Schuylkill is contained entirely within concrete walls at the area where it goes by Locust Point. However, that area, the terrain is very different from what it looks like in Manayunk. In that area we have a very flat -- we have a contained channel that water is basically contained in concrete walls and then we have a flat area. So when the water comes up, it can go a significant distance at a shallow depth and not travel as great a velocity nor causes much damage. As when it's constricted in a very narrow steep-sided valley, as we do have in Manayunk, in the situation such as Manayunk, the water has nowhere to o but directly up and up very rapidly. And that means that we have a significant increase in damages to property and danger to lives. Another problem is that in the area of Manayunk, the river is coming down a straight path so it has a chance to build up velocity. As it approaches Locust Point, it has taken several bends. As it goes by the art museum it takes a bend, for instance. When you have meanders such as that, that 407 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 makes the water slow down. So that, again, the floodway is more able to be contained. Talking about obstructions in the floodway, there are none in the area near Locust point. That part of the water is completely open with exception of the bridge as that crosses through there, the one near the Walnut Street Bridge, South Street, all those. Those actually are obstructions when the what we call the base flood elevation or the level to which water rises in a flood is reached, that calculation is based upon there being no obstructions to water flow. In other words, they calculate what opening is in the bridge to allow the water going through, but don't take into account the fact that a car may be getting washed away or a tree such as the one that's stuck in the bridge down by East Falls. That's a pretty dramatic reminder of what happens.
The base flood elevation is dependent completely upon there being no obstructions. When the developers that we've heard earlier today talk about improving the flow of water, they are talking about taking buildings out and putting new elevated buildings in. There are several objections to this. Number one is it is 408 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 better to take buildings out, but when you constrict water from the sides and leave it open to travel through, water travels in a much different manner than if you put certain pilings or stilts in there, then you create a situation called scour or vortices which cause swirls and the water will travel in a different way. Things will no longer go in a straight path; they'll start swirling around. That's a totally different kind of a damage. I am not a hydraulic engineer and I cannot give you specific figures on that, but I will tell you that I have observed that. I have been caught in the floods in midwest in 1997. I was evacuated from Paducah, Kentucky, when the rivers crested there, so I know what it looks like. I also wanted to mention -- I hope that I've clarified to you the difference between the floodway and flood fringe at this point. On the maps, I believe there's one of the Namico site here, the floodway on the flood insurance rate maps that are issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the dark gray area along here -- there are two different kinds of floodplains shown on here. 2 percent 409 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 opportunity of the water reaching that level in a year. The dark gray is the regulatory flood zone or the 100-year flood zone. And you'll see within that there is an area that is shaded. That shaded is the floodway. You'll see that all of Manayunk, with the exception of a large boulder area up in the north end of it, is entirely covered by floodway. It has the policy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to promote, not only proper regulations to control existing hazards in the floodplain and the floodway, but they are using the approach called mitigation which is not only to fix things after they have gone wrong, but to prevent future damages and in 1997 came up with a plan called project impact. " And I would predict that this particular situation would be a similar disaster rebuild disaster cycle with vehicles crashing into the stilts on the elevated buildings or the cars going down and getting stuck on the openings of the bridges down stream, essentially causing an obstruction and further raising the floodwaters. In the guidelines for project impact for 410 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 residential mitigation, the first plan that they have is if there are existing buildings, get them elevated or demolish them. In regards to new construction, the answer is don't put it there. And I ask that this City Council also take that same approach to mitigation and prevent damages. We have a problem with residential versus other kinds of uses. When you have a commercial or industrial use, you can close the doors and send people home. If you have residential use there, going home is not an option. Those people must be evacuated. I don't know if any of you are familiar with exactly how tight those four accessways are to the island. They are not inter-connected. In other words, if you will be on one part of the island, you cannot exit by another bridge. You must go out the same way that you came in.
I believe Councilman Kenney has a question he would like to ask.
Just so I can try to understand two things. Number one, do you work for FEMA?
I am not speaking on behalf of FEMA. I am speaking as a concerned citizen with floodplain management knowledge.
Give me some examples what would be acceptable on Venice Island in your opinion. Residential seems to be the big bugaboo here so I'm wondering whether or not --
The reason is because of safety issues, the evacuation is much more difficult when you have residents. You cannot force a resident to leave his or her home. You can force an employee to leave.
You would have to evacuate them both, but somebody who is working in a retail or industrial site, they're willing to go home.
They're happy to get out of work, you mean. 412 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
I'm just trying to get an idea as to what type of development is acceptable. I'm confused. If this is such a treacherously dangerous plot of land, what is acceptable in any kind of development there?
Well, every time we come up with ideas, we're immediately debated. So I guess I would want to reserve our answer unless someone else wants to come forth, because I do think that with, you know, thinking out of the box, feeling like our back's up against the wall, we have to go with residential because we don't have another alternative because the Zoning Board's not going to protect us, and that's our only recourse. Well, I'm not so sure. I think that there are other alternatives, and, you know, we've thrown around some ideas. I mean, one thing for sure is Manayunk was a textile center, and it's possible to get some manufacturing back. I mean, the City has been able to build incentives for different kinds of use like the navy yard and like other sites in Philadelphia. We don't know.
The only incentive 413 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 you can give to textile manufacturing would be the slave wages that they pay in the far east. I mean, I don't how we can compete with.
I would offer the observation that the City Planning Commission itself two times in 1982 and in 1983 wrote reports in which it said that as industry left the island that that area open and returned to recreational due to the high hazard of building in that area.
The problem that we face here is, is that somebody owns that land. I don't know whether you can take a person's private property that they purchased --
We are not taking property. If somebody buys a piece of property and those regulations are on the books, that is not a taking. Public notice is made as soon as -- those regulations have been on the book for years. 20
My question was as to what's acceptable development there, if any.
Obviously, Smurfit still thinks it's acceptable. In fact, it's one of the successful industries in Philadelphia. So it is acceptable to possibly think that that is a 414 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 potential use, to continue to have industry there. Now, I guess don't want to debate the issue because I'm not looking to fill those spaces, but I don't think it's very fair to say to us that residential is the only use and that we have to make a decision right here and today to have a vote on this bill. I think what you've heard today is that we think it's not a good public safety decision.
My own opinion is that on one hand it's unsafe for residents, but on the other hand I'm being told that it's not unsafe for other types of development which would bring employees or other people there. It's either unsafe or it isn't, and I don't know if I necessarily want to work or live in a place that is most likely to be swept away by a raging flood.
I agree with you. I would have to say that I would not want to either live nor work in an area that was going to be threatened by water. In terms of safety -- I also have a dispute with you regarding the flood insurance later on, because I think you have misunderstanding there.
I never mentioned flood insurance. 415 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
What I mentioned was that people would be unlikely to lend a developer money to develop --
If you are required by the government to have an insurance policy, does it matter to you whether you get the money from the person you lent it to or from the insurance agency? I think not. You're getting your money back.
So in other words, First Union Bank would lend any developer money to build a residential development in an area that's likely to be swept away by a raging flood.
As long as they had that flood insurance, yes. I have talked to bankers about this, too. We have bankers on our advisory council.
Well, we tend to disagree on that. We will wil disagree on that. I think that's a little silly a position, actually.
I do believe, and I think it would be hard to argue that when you have a home where you put your head on the pillow to rest and you keep your personal belongings, if you are not 416 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 there during the time of evacuation or in the middle of the day and there's a traffic jam on the Schuylkill Expressway and the trains are not moving very fast, you still want get home and get your things. People, when they're personal property is at risk of damage or being lost, people act irrationally. I think the risks are much greater when you're talking about places where people live as opposed to where they're employed. People pretty much leave the job pretty quickly if they're getting let off work early. I think that would be hard to argue.
I just want to get an idea as to the dichotomy of public safety issues when talking about development, bringing people onto this area.
I think there's a great difference between where people live and where people work. I think people act irrationally about their personal belongings, whether it be an animal -- I mean, this has been recorded.
Thank you. I believe Councilman Cohen has a question or would like to be recognized. 417 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
I'd like to be recognized. I don't know whether it's a question; it's a concern. I share in Councilman Kenney's concerns. I'm not sure really what we're talking about. Are we concerned -- I'm talking of those who came here in opposition and expressing that opinion. Are we concerned about the safety of people coming or are we concerned about what development of Venice Island does for those who already live in other parts of Manayunk? I mean, what is the issue that's being raised? I can see there's a difference between residential and business. At least a worker at a plant, if he or she is in a dangerous place is there only for 8 or 10 hours, and people who live there may be there for 24 hours, young kids, parents who are taking care of the young kids. I see those differences. But I'm not sure what we're talking about. If this place is going to be developed, everything I've been reading recently with all the floods moves in the direction of saying it's foolish to develop a place that is likely to have problems. We have problems in Philadelphia with the singing homes and they're create chaos and where there are lots of row houses in different parts of the City 418 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 today we're concerned about the fact that homes are beginning to sink there, we're not exactly sure why. The 5700 block of Kimball Avenue, nobody knows why suddenly one home right in the middle of the block began to sink. We know there are all kind of little creeks and other things underground. We don't know whether we're going to have sinking home problems all over the City. Seems to me strange to be talking about development of any kind on this area. But then again we here proposals that maybe something else could be developed there.
Well, if we said to you we think that those private properties should be demolished and managed as increased park space -- in fact, this was in a City Plan Commission on recreation along the Schuylkill riverfronts in Philadelphia in 1986 or so. It talked about increasing park space on Venice Island as the private businesses left and land acquisition. But if I said that to you today, you would -- and we have sort of said this, but we kind of think nobody is going to accept that, people are going to laugh in our face if we say convert it to park space and create it as a University Pennsylvania environmental 419 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 ecology site. I mean, have the University of Pennsylvania buy it. I can't tell you how many students I've met there looking at the unique qualities of the island. There are other uses, and I think there are maybe other options for acquisition and there should be enough time to look into these other options.
I was going to ask Councilman Nutter how long has this been the subject of discussion in the community? Councilman Nutter, may I ask you a question? I notice in material we have, there's a letter to you from the Zoning Board, November 22nd of this year which indicated opposition, I assume to this proposal, or was it some proposal?
There's a particular application currently pending in front of the Zoning Board of adjustment, Councilman, generally referred to as the Carl Dranoff property. That application is still in front of the Zoning Board. There were three issues that I outlined in my letter. One was the community wanted a continuance, and I asked the Board to grand a continuance which they chose not to. I then said to the Board that I was opposed to 420 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the -- I was concerned about this proposal in the particular area and I was out the day after Hurricane Floyd and I continue to have concerns about development in this area. I did state opposition to the application based on those concerns, but I also recognize that according to the code development can take place in these areas. And with that mind, what I said to the Board, and I'll read this part into the record, it was not read in earlier, "If the Board after full review of the testimony decides to grant the request of variances, however, then I strongly recommend that the Board consider including the following provisos: "One, applicant shall prepare engineering studies which demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in any increase of the flood levels and will not increase danger of flooding. Such studies shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and approval prior to construction. "Two, applicants shall secure any and all permits or authorizations required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protects 421 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 for the proposed development prior to construction. "Three, applicants shall prepare in consultation with the City's Emergency Management Office, police and fire department, an emergency evacuation plan prior to occupancy." That's rest of the letter.
Councilman Nutter, may I interject, sir, that I am not aware of this ordinance having any of those requirements in it; none. So that's point number 1. This ordinance has no such requirements as any of those three provisos. The second problem with regard to Councilman Cohen's prior question is that my clients here are not prepared candidly to answer the question "If we don't do this, what else can we do?" The problem is that we have not been afforded a real opportunity to address that proactive response. We have been given the position by the Planning Commission that they have a developer or two developers that have three that have their own plans which those developers have formulated they make a profit based on those plans and that's what they want the City to do, 422 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 period. And before we can respond, "We want this instead," first we must at this 11th hour of the 59th minute of the last day hope to preclude the waiver of the rules by this Rules Committee an enactment by City Council of the present ordinance 7 without having had full opportunity to explore the very things that we are talking about today. I know Councilman Nutter asked, do we want to do nothing. No, we don't want to do nothing. We want the following: First, that this ordinance should be tabled. We realize that means it will picked up by the next Council, but I believe everyone in this room will be on that next Council. That secondly, we are ready to work with the Planning Commission, but with the Planning Commission also considering the testimony of people like Dr. Willig and Wendy Lathrop and the other experts. These are people that have worked with FEMA, advised FEMA, who are engineers. And let us also in at the table when these plans are going on to discuss alternatives. We believe that similar to the stadium bill for the Phillies and the Eagles that within reasonable time in the spring we can come up with active alternatives, but first the door 423 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 must be open. If the door is closed and there's already a determination that the business community, and that's who met with the Planning Commission, the business community and three developers and the Planning Commission have said, "This is what we want to do," then there's no way we can possibly make alternative suggestions unless we can do it, not in this atmosphere of the doors closing, but rather in an atmosphere of mutual collaboration where we don't have this kind of time pressure.
Mr. Krakower, let me respond. Let me just respond to one issue that the gentleman raised. Mr. Krakower, you made a statement that the present bill does not contain the requirements that I had articulated as proposed provisos in my letter to the Zoning Board of November 22nd. The only problem with your statement, Mr. Krakower, is that some of the issues that I was referring to are also issues that are covered presently by the Zoning Code in Sections 14-1606 and in Sections 14-1801. They are not being amended by this particular bill, and all of those provisions are in effect still, even with the passage of this bill. The one has nothing to do 424 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 with the other. They don't need to be in this particular bill; they're already in the Philadelphia Code.
Councilman, one of my concerns, however, is I believe that enactment of this ordinance will in effect have affect on Section 8 1606.
Because there are parts of this ordinance which contradict Section 1606 or appear to raise internal conflict. I believe that that matter --
I believe that permitting this particular ordinance with respect to this locale can be interpreted, and a court eventually would probably wind up doing so -- though no means am I giving you an opinion right off the cuff. But I think it could raise the question as to whether there is a conflict between that provision of 1606 which says there should be no construction in a floodway, again, not plain, but floodway.
Which is then incorporated by direct reference and then superseded 425 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 by 14-1801, Item No. 3 that reads, "Where the property in question is situated within areas subject to flooding as provided in Section 14-1606." That means the entire 14-1601 is now brought into and subject to all the powers and controls of 14-1801(3), which continues to say relating to floodplain controls "The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall consider the following criteria when granting a variance under 14-1801(1)(c)." That is the conflict here. People are not reading the statute or the section of the Code to understand that if you only want to read 14-1606 by itself, you could be correct. We had that testimony on the record. When you read 14-1801, it references everything in 14-1606 and makes it subject to 14-1801(3).
14-1801 only comes up if the matter goes to the Zoning Board. If you enact this new change into 16-16 and the applicant such as Mr. Dranoff and the others go to the L & I, they can get permits over-the-counter, don't have to go to the Zoning Board. They can get their permits without going to the Zoning Board.
So is your testimony now that they are then subject to no controls 426 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 whatsoever and they don't have to deal with FEMA, they don't have to deal with hundred-year flood levels? Is that your testimony?
I don't see where they would, that's correct. At this point another problem is at this point if they go to the Zoning Board, they are asking for approval from the Zoning Board without these engineering studies. They want to submit them later. So far, not a single study of the kind that you mentioned or have been in this proviso that you would suggest --
They have indicated they do not. They are proceeding without them. And what they want to do is get a Zoning Board to say, "We will approve this subject to your subsequent approval by these other agencies. The problem there is that there's an implication. If you go to FEMA and you go to the State later and you go with in hand a document says the Zoning Board has given you preliminary approval, there's an implication that you already have the favorable pat on the head from the Zoning Board. 427 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Don't you still have to do all the hydrological studies and the like to be able to be able to convince FEMA and the Department of Environmental Resources or EPA that you can in fact prove that you're not going to increase the 100-year flood level? Don't you still have to do that?
You still have to do it but this would make it a lot easier to persuade those people, would give them a leg up.
So your testimony is that FEMA really cares one way or the other whether someone has a zoning permit in their hand?
I think it has some influence. It gives them a favorable imprimatur.
Go with me on assumption. Let me address it to the attorney, Mr. Krakower. Assuming that Council passes the bill in its present form, does the developer then go at some later time to the Zoning Board or does that finish everything up? What's your understanding? 428 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Technically, particularly Councilman Nutter's provisions are not part of this bill. I believe that the implication is that the developers no longer have to go to the Zoning Board at all. They may have to go to the Zoning Board for building permits, but they are entitled to zoning permits. And I'm making the distinction between the zoning permit and the building permit. They're entitled to the zoning permit from L & I. Now, once they have the zoning permit, they next have to go get a building permit. That may require that they obtain some of these engineering studies. But once they have a zoning permit in their hand, there is an impact on the next level that you go to.
The question I'm trying to get at is, is it that they are trying to change the rules under which they would go to the Zoning Board? I'd like a view from both of you.
I believe they are. They very much would be changing the rules under which they have to go to the Zoning Board. Now they have to go for a variance.
Mr. O'Neil, I see you shaking your head. Did you want to be 429 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 recognized?
The difference is now they need a variance. With this they will not need a variance.
Excuse me, please. I think we have Mr. O'Neil from the Law Department here. You were shaking your head. Are you in agreement or disagreement with what was said?
First, Council President, I apologize. I didn't realize that I was shaking my head and, as I said, I apologize. That's impolite and perhaps a little unprofessional.
That comes from us being lawyers and thinking about something. Go ahead. 430 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
In any event, the answer is they still have to go to the Zoning Board.
Did they have the option? Why is this bill here -- could they have gone to the Zoning Board right now and requested a variance to encompass all the things they hoped to get by this ordinance?
Rich Lombardo from the Planning Commission. I think there's been sort of like a shell game going on here. This ordinance is not an environmental ordinance. It's not a floodplain ordinance.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're going to have to play by my rules when I ask a question because I want to be able to understand the answer. Just speak a little bit slower. Now, did they have to go City Council or did they have the option? As in many cases applicants have the option of going either to City Council or to the Zoning Board. Was that option here or does this come here because it has to come here if the applicant wishes the kind of relief they're seeking?
This is coming here, not because applicants are seeking relief. This is the 431 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 end result of a many-year planning process to look at what is the future of Venice Island. This is not a floodplain ordinance. It is an ordinary to change the land use from industrial to residential.
It has nothing to do with any developers seeking any kind of use in the land?
There are developers out there -- I want to put this clear on the record. There are developers out there seeking variances from the Zoning Board. We did not confer with any of those developers in terms of developing these controls. These controls were developed strictly, as I stated beginning of my testimony, based an analysis, the background traffic and the impact of development on the traffic situation in Manayunk and along Main Street. The fact of the matter that some development may meet these regulations and some development may not is not an issue of ours. We were basically calling it this is what we think is the best level of development. All of the development, if you pass this bill or don't pass this bill, still has to go to the Zoning Board because of the flood regulations. Those flood 432 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 regulation are not being changed by this legislation. And it's disingenuous for Mr. Krakower to say that you would be changing them because the way it works on practical matter is that all the zoning maps of the City show the floodway boundaries on the maps. When someone walks into L & I with the plan in that area, before the L & I examiner even reviews their application, they send them over to our environmental unit, Marty Soffer, to begin review under the federal and state and city floodplain regulations. Marty will not even release the plans back to the examiner until a basic level of information as well as the developer being made aware of their need to do an engineering study as taken place. At that point, it then goes back to the examiner for any other either issuance -- not issuance but any other refusals or review the L & I examiner to do. Now, I think to make it sound like the City will willy-nilly now just ignore federal and state flood regulations and issue permits because we have a bill that says you can now do residential development on the island rather than commercial and industrial development is being unfair to this Committee and unfair to the people in 433 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 this room. That is not what this is all about. And to s spend all this time talking about flooding and the flood regulations when there is not one thing being proposed today that change those floodplain and flood regulations. Everyone will still have their opportunity to argue before the Zoning Board and to argue before the Planning Commission in a public foreman of a public hearing their opinions about whether or not things should proceed in the floodway of the Schuylkill River. And that is all I would like to put on the record.
From your point of view, the passage of this bill does not improve the position of these developers before the Zoning Board; is that what your conclusion is?
It improves it to the degree that they are no looking for a variance from the underlying industrial zoning. They would now would not -- at least a variance for use. They may still need variances for setbacks or for legal other issues, but they will not be looking for a variance for use. The use will become residential instead of commercial and industrial. So to the degree that they have a residential development would help them. 434 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 It would remove that use refusal from the zoning variance process.
See, the reason I think there's a lot of confusion, this bill comes to us the way normal zoning applications come to City Council. A District Councilmember generally introduces -- when I say generally, I mean 99.9, maybe a hundred percent of the time. It's the District Councilmember who introduces zoning legislation, and the rest of the Council is not involved. Generally speaking, we expect the District Councilmember to carry out all the discussions with people and to then make a recommendation to the Council, which we nearly always honor. It's very rare that the Council as a whole does not honor the recommendation of District Councilman. I came here today expecting a normal problem. To me, this is becoming a very major environmental issue, and I have spent my years in Council working very hard and I never knew that there was any environmental issue, and I don't know why the Planning Commission did not communicate with other people in City Council, you know, why they didn't, for example, even inform me that they're 435 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 dealing with a major environmental issue like this seems to be, and that's the reason I'm so concerned. I thought we were just dealing with normal issues that we deal.
We are changing the rules that apply to the environmental issue. Those rules are unchanged. They were mandated upon us by the federal government; we being the City, not the Planning Commission. We are still going to enforce those regulations. One other thing I want to point out. We were involved -- I was personally involved at the time we adopted those regulations. The federal government was were very clear. When they did not want us to allow something, they made us put the word in "prohibited." They went so far as making us put in language that would not allow the Zoning Board to grant variances from some of the regulations. In this particular area, they did not make us prohibit the use; they made us allow for a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment as a method of determining whether proper engineering had been done. The proper engineering is being done to prevent environmental problems. 436 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Yes, but what you're asking to us to do at the close of the day when we're winding up our session, you're wanting us to take on good faith everyone else's advice. I was not at all prepared to consider when Mr. Krakower and Councilman Nutter debated an legal issue. I can't comprehend that legal issue and evaluate it and say, "Let me check out something first." I think this represents a lot of environmental issues. We may wind up with a conclusion that you have after we consider them, but I just think it's inappropriate to ask City Council to take action on this matter. This is not a simple zoning matter. And I think if you feel that it needs quick action, we're going to be back in session very soon. The new Council is going to be sworn in on January 3rd. I'd like to know what I'm voting on, and I would like to be able to make a decision. I tried to follow you, Mr. Krakower and Councilman Nutter. Councilman Nutter is not a lawyer, but he sure sounds like one and a very good one.
The two of you were 437 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 discussing something and I was struggling, and I think I'm a pretty good lawyer. I'm concerned that follow that. I have questions I would like to ask of Ms. Willig at great length, but we've got a heavy schedule ahead of us still. There's a 1 o'clock meeting that hasn't even started yet today. So I think this should have been brought to the attention to the whole Council long before the final day for getting bills passed.
Not at this moment. COUNCILMEN KENNEY: Unless there's some issue to raise, we still have a list of witnesses that need yet to testify on this bill.
Councilman Cohen, I really recognize what you're saying, and I think you're absolutely right, this should not necessarily take place here and we haven't had the time or the opportunity to really discuss this in debt with all the stakeholders. In fact, I actually think that there's been maybe motivation to keep us out because we are a group of experts, that we'd like to bring this information forward to the community. We've 438 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 had public forums. We've invited different people to attend. In fact, I think many of City Council were invited at different times where we had experts out there. And so I do think that this should given more time and consideration.
Thank you. We will break for the stenographer. (Brief recess.)
We are back in session. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. Again, I just want to caution on one area, that if the issue has been already discussed, we can it either break some new ground or be assured as we can with issues that already have already been talked about on had record. Thank you.
My name is Ernest Cohen. I've been a registered professional engineer in Pennsylvania since 1974. I have a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering, primarily because I want to apply system engineering to nonmilitary areas. Before I came engineer, I was also a mathematician and computer programmer. I looked at an interesting question, 439 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 what is the true probability for flood. Ms. Lathrop has given the information that there were floods 4 dating back to 1757 to just a few months ago. So to 5 spread it out a little bit to 250 years and 20 6 floods, this is an average of one flood every 12 and 7 a half years. But my question was, what is the true 8 probability of a flood? And based upon this, it's a 9 very technical thing, and the equations are written 10 down. You can check them out with any statistician. 11 The probability of a flood is not exactly ever one 12 every 12 and a half years. Remember, this the 13 flooding of Venice Island itself. The hundred-year 14 flood level, how the water is rising in Manayunk is 15 another story. 16 Now, it may be that we have a low 17 probability of flood and they've just been very 18 unlucky these last 250 years, in which case we're 19 talking about a flood every about 22 to 30 years. 20 And maybe they've been very lucky and have had fewer floods than the true probability, in which case the probability of a flood is about every eight years. So we're not sure where it is in between, but both of these assumptions, the range of probability of floods is between 8 and, let's say 30 years. 440 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Now the question, of course, is the future. And this is just a probability. And there are a few things. One is -- it's not conclusive by a long shot, but in the first hundred years they had eight floods. And in the last hundred years of this period they had floods. So it appears probable, 8 it's not inconsistent to say that the flooding is 9 increasing. 10 Now, the EPA who is dealing with various problems like this has been worried about global warming. They had a conference about two years ago on the effect of global warming of Pennsylvania. Basically it said there's going to be more precipitation, more rain, but it's not going to be lots of drizzly days; it's going to be more --
Mr. Cohen, I don't mean to interrupt you. And I know that everybody's been extremely patient, they've been here since 9 o'clock this morning, but we do have two other public hearings that have been scheduled and people have been waiting since o'clock this afternoon to testify. I know that you're talking about flooding. Can you talk about the bill before us? Are you in favor or opposed to it? 441 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
I am opposed to it because -- I'll put it bluntly. If they hadn't built things in Venice Island back a hundred years or so ago when the canal was an important way of moving industrial and coal particularly, they would not be allowed to build on it today. However, things have been built. And the question is what do you do about it. And there is a legal loophole through which changes can be made to an area that's already been developed. On the other hand, you have to ask whether it's wise to do it or whether, as other people talked about, 10 to 15 years ago when they said "Well, maybe when the factories close, they should just revert to nature. This doesn't say close down the factory that exists and is running. But if they abandon the property, don't build because under FEMA rules they would not be allowed to build today from scratch. I mean, that's very simple. So the question now is do we try to use a legal loophole to push development there or do we do what should have been done in the first place and not build on the flooded area, areas subject to flood.
Thank you, Mr. 442 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Cohen. Our next witness is Dorothy Berner.
My name is Dorothy Berner. And for the stenographer, my last name is spelled B-E-R-N-E-R. I am a Professor Emerita in biology at Temple University. I'm Philadelphia born and bred and have lived my whole life in the Schuylkill River watershed. My area of expertise is in working with small fresh water animals that are generally included in what you call zoa plankton, and some of these animals are particularly sensitive to pollution, flooding, siltation, and so on. I have served as a consultant to the US Environmental Protects Agency in the development of their short-term biological test for toxicity of effluence. That test is probably used by our sewage plant here and many industries around Philadelphia. Because of my concern about water quality, I became a member of the Riverkeepers Network. And I am now on the advisory board for Schuylkill Riverkeepers, which is a field office of Delaware Riverkeeper network. Today I am speaking in the place of Chari Towne who is the director for Schuylkill Riverkeeper because she was unable to attend. And 443 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 you have the statement that she wrote in front of you. I am going to skip through parts of that because of the time constraints. One thing I would like to have on the record is that Schuylkill Riverkeeper did write to the Planning Commission, knowing this Venice Island issue was coming up, and asked to be able to attend their meetings and speak on this issue. They received no reply from the Planning Commission, so here I am today. We are concerned -- I would just like to add for those who don't know, that Riverkeeper is a private, nonprofit environmental organization with over 6,000 members throughout the Delaware watershed. From the Schuylkill office, Riverkeeper works to protect and restore the Schuylkill River, its tributaries, and habitats. Most of its work is done by citizen volunteers. It has a very small office staff. We are concerned for the future of Venice Island and the impact to the Schuylkill River that will result, should the zoning change currently proposed be approved. Riverkeeper opposes the use of the floodway for residential development and urges you to protect the Schuylkill River as well as 444 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 public health, safety, and welfare by denying any proposal that encourages new residential construction in the floodway. There are two environmental impacts associated with such development. Firstly, parking areas associated with residential development will threaten water quality with increased impervious surfaces and associated stormwater runoff. This is an issue that hasn't been discussed today. Urban stormwater is polluted with oil and antifreeze leaked from motor vehicles, weathered paint and wood preservatives, fertilizers, pesticides and litter dropped on sidewalk, streets, and parking lots. Would the runoff from these new parking areas be properly treated or would it go directly through storm drains into the Schuylkill? Would the addition of residential units result in increased litter, soda cans, plastic bottles, food containers in the river? Riverkeeper is concerned about these impacts to water quality. Secondly, the most significant environmental impact of new construction maybe its impact upon the floodway, that area of land carrying the bulk of floodwaters during a significant rain event. I am going to skip the next two and a 445 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 half paragraphs because I reiterate what has already been said today concerning floodways and things that can impact on them. Recent flood associated with Hurricane Floyd clearly made the case against living in the flood fringe, let alone the floodway for many residents of the Darby and Neshaminy Creek watersheds. Other communities are working to reduce flood losses by acquiring flood-prone lands, relocating people from harm's way and utilizing these lands for parks, recreation, and open space. " This is speaking specifically of Manayunk.
Certainly, the addition of residential development to the floodway increases the identified damage potential. The Corps study was particularly concerned with the difficulty in getting emergency 446 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 rescue equipment to the Manayunk area. The interests of the river and public health, safety, and welfare would best be served by efforts that increase awareness of the existing flood threat rather than by dismissing flood impact with proposals for elevated walkways for evacuation or car catchers that will in reality impede flood flows. On behalf of our members, volunteers, and the river, we urge you to reject any proposal that would encourage the construction of new residential development in the floodway but to seek alternative zoning for Venice Island. Open up the floodway to protect the Schuylkill River and its surrounding urban community. You will be protecting public health, safety, and welfare in the process. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
In your statement right at very end you suggested different zoning. Could you be more specific? Just in your very last few sentences.
I don't know all the zoning 447 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 possibilities in Philadelphia. I would just support what other people have said and say that rather than assuming that new construction is the only way to go, that from the Riverkeeper point of view, open land is the best situation to have in a floodway if you can manage it. How that would be effected for Venice Island, I wouldn't want to conjecture at this point.
Thank you very much. Any other questions from Members of the Committee? - - -
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? This concludes list of witnesses that we have on the two bills. My understanding is there is written testimony submitted regarding bill 990760 and 990761. We will make it part of the record and give it to the stenographer. (Testimony attached.)
The Clerk will 448 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 read the title of Bill No. 990846. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time I will ask for the withdrawal of the bill.
Thank you. This concludes the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. - - - 449 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Wednesday, December 9, 1998 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Public Property and Public Works, held in Room 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL NOS. 960064, 990331, 990673, 990678, 990719, 990729, 990760, 990761, 990812, 990817, 990844, 990847, 990848, 990849 PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN DARRYL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH - - - 450 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now begin the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 990064.
At the request of the individuals who requested this bill who had an opportunity to be heard over the last four years, I have requested that the Committee withdraw this bill. With that Bill No. 26 at my request with the understanding of the people involved in its original request is withdrawn.
Thank you. Bill No. 26 has been withdrawn. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 990331.
I move the adoption of the amendment read in the record earlier today on Bill 990331. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted.
I think you were 451 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING out of the room at the time. Mr. Ackelsberg testified that there is an agreement. We will have it in a draft or a written form between now and time the bill is voted on next week. There is an understanding, and a memorandum will be coming forward.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the adoption of Bill No. 990331, as amended, be reported had out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 990331 be reported out of Committee with a favorable 452 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye.
I want to thank Councilman DiCicco for his persistence. I think it is very good mark for City Council. I think this Committee ought to recognize Councilman DiCicco.
I would echo the gentleman. Job well done. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding bill 990673.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the adoption of the amendments read into the record during the public hearing for which I have additional copies if members would like. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments be adopted. 453 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990673, as amended, be reported out with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990673, as amended, be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen regarding Bill No. 990678. 454 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990678 be amended. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. I move that Bill No. 990678, as amended, be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and with the request for suspension of rules to permit first reading the next session of Council.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990678, as amended, be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, with a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 455 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill regarding 990719.
Madam Chair, I move Bill No. 990719 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our to next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990719 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our to next session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding 990729.
Madam Chair, I move Bill No. 990729 be reported out of this Committee 456 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990729 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding Bill No. 990760.
Madam Chair, there were voluminous amendments put forth. Copies were distributed to the Members, Bills 990760 as well as 990761. Those amendments have not been read into the record. They are somewhat brief. I'd like to read in the amendments.
Read the 457 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING amendments for Bill No. 990760.
Bill No. 990760 proposed amendments are on (3) where it reads the following: "Prohibited uses," strike, shall be prohibited; insert, regulations prohibitions and/or controls shall apply to the following noted areas: On Page, (c)(.4), insert, any type of recreational or cultural use subject to the use qualifications and/or restrictions of the underlying zoning classification. Insert a new (4) entitled Facade Controls. (a) no building shall be erected nor any facade altered on any building or land fronting on any street located within the area described in paragraph (2)(b) or (2)(c) above unless plans of the facade have been approved by the Planning Commission. The Planning commission shall have sixty days to take action, after which it approval shall be presumed; On , (.b), the sentence reads, "All structures feet or more in height above the 23 actual ground level at the base of th structure 24 shall set back from the" -- strike, Conrail 25 right-of-way no less than 25 feet; insert, Manayunk 458 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Canal no less than 25 feet from the Conrail right-of-way no less than 10 feet. (.c), strike the word after "Conrail right-of-way," "a." , (b), insert a new section (e), the type of material shall be selected from a list of types, sizes of species of plants, and numbers of plants that are appropriate to achieve adequate screening and appropriate for the location of the parking facility; provided, that on Venice Island the plant material shall be of species of plants indigenous to the island and/or the Schuylkill River bank. This list shall be prepared and maintained by the City Planning Commission, in conjunction with Fairmount Park Commission. Those are all the amendments, Madam Chair. For Bill No. 990760, I move adoption of those amendments. (Duly seconded.)
I don't recollect testimony for or against any of these amendments; is that right? I didn't hear any discussion by any 459 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING witnesses.
There was no 4 discussion. It was referenced. I'm not sure given how events, if you were in the room at the time. These are issues discussed at the City Planning Commission offices on Monday of this week. It is certainly my impression from that meeting there is agreement on those items. They didn't go to any longer discussion earlier today.
I move the adoption of the amendments of Bill No. 990760. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments of Bill No. 17 990760 be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990760, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and 460 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
I would like ask that this bill, I'd like Councilman Nutter to consider holding this bill. Many aspects of it, I just became acquainted with it. The environmental aspect troubles me. There are a lot of technical and legal issues raised during the discussion. I don't know if I should be voting for or against the bill; I just don't know enough about it. I suggest this bill be held and reintroduced again by you and come up early and discuss it so we all have an opportunity to understand it.
I understand and appreciate the request, Councilman, as we've discussed on a couple occasions at side bar. One, and this was discussion on Monday, that would essentially put us in a position where we realistically couldn't revisit issues until about April of next year. I do have a very strong concern about the prospect of leaving this area in a G-2 461 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Industrial without some of the provisions that criteria in the bill do provide. Some controls are better than no controls. So I will have to respectfully decline the request. As the Councilman knows, we will not vote on this matter until Thursday, December 16. In the interim I'll be more than happy, Councilman, to have further meetings and discussions about this issue and try to bring him up to any further speed he would like to be.
I think it's wrong to have this bill come up at this late stage where all of the concerns that have been expressed and been considered by Council for the first time and to have this bill pushed through. I think there is no need to wait until April. I don't know what you're referring to with respect to this bill won't come up until April. It may or may not. I don't think it's any reason to push this through. I have made the request. I think request a fair ought to be honored.
Councilman, with all due respect, let me add to the record, not to extend the day, while a bill at this point in time this issue of zoning and zoning controls in Manayunk has 462 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING been a rather extended process over a considerable amount of time. I know some members of the Community feel that and it's certainly true that the final plan was not available for serious discussion until the meeting of September 9th. But as testified, there were various planning events and a variety of meetings. I will not say whether the process is perfect or not. I'm sure many would state it would be viewed as imperfect. We do vote by the committee on the bill. With regard to the April comment, normally there are no hearings on any bills during the general budget season process, and at least historically we have done that in the months January, February, March.
Councilman, I'm suggesting this is more than a zoning bill. I thought we were considering a zoning bill. I now find it to be a major environmental issue.
Okay. There's motion pending. 463 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 990760, as amended, be referred out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and with a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed?
No. I change from the abstention because I think the denial to my request is unreasonable and I think I'm voting no on the bill. I am concerned about the environmental issues, and apparently there has been no opportunity for this Council to consider merits of that question.
The record will note that Councilman Cohen voted no to the motion.
The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding Bill No. 23 990761.
There were amendments proposed that were similar to the 464 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING previous bill. These need to be consistent. On of Bill 990761(.1), the sentence should read, Every point on a structure shall be a minimum horizontal distance from every lot line which -- strike, is not a; insert, is not a boundary line between the lot and a river, stream, canal, railroad right-of- way or a -- street line in accordance with the following requirements. In point B in the same section, that sentence should read, For building over feet in 12 height equal every point on the structure shall be 13 a -- strike, minimum horizontal distance of 25 feet 14 from every lot; insert, minimum average horizontal 15 distance of 25 feet from every lot line but in no 16 case less than 10 feet. 17 (.2), the sentence should read, Every 18 point on a structure which faces a -- strike, street 19 shall be a minimum horizontal distance from the 20 centerline of said street; insert, river, stream, 21 canal, railroad right-of-way or a street shall be a 22 minimum horizontal distance from the centerline (or 23 the combined centerlines) of said river, stream, 24 canal, railroad right-of-way or a street -- equal to 25 the height of that point above the mean ground level 465 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING at the base of said structure. There are no other amendments to Bill 4 990761. I move the adoption of those amendments. (Duly seconded.)
It has moved and second that the amendments be adopted. All in favor signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried the Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 990761 as amended be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendation that Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
Mr. President, I make my request again that this bill than held. I make it of Councilman Nutter.
Yes, Madam Chair. Councilman, I think I would, again, respectfully 466 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING respond in the same fashion that I did in the earlier discussion about Bill 990760 and for the same reasons I would have to respectfully decline the request.
It has moved and seconded that Bill No. 990761 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed?
The record will reflect that Councilman Cohen voted note no. 17 The next bill to be considered is Bill 18 No. 990812. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. AUDIENCE MEMBER. Excuse me, ma'am. May I ask a clarification question, please?
Sorry, we're in a public meeting. If you'll wait until after the public meeting, we'll be happy to recognize you. Thank you. 467 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move for the amendment to Bill 990812 -- I don't know if we read this in the earlier, but I'll supply the Chair and the stenographer with a copy of that amendment. And I also understand that there's an amendment being offered by Councilmember O'Neill.
Are you moving for the adoption of the amendment?
I move for the adoption of the amendment that I am introducing to Bill No. 990812. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment submitted by Councilman DiCicco be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
Madam Chair, I'm moving the following amendment, as I mentioned during the hearing, Section B, Subsection 3, adding the language -- actually, one sentence being added 468 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING at that end of that section would read as follows, in the Tenth Councilmanic District, only an owner occupied dwelling unit would be eligible for this exemption. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment offered by Councilman O'Neill be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill No. 990812 as amended by both myself and Councilman O'Neill be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation and also that the Rules of Council be suspend so as to permit first reading at our next session of City Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the Bill No. 990812 be reported out of Committee with a favorable 469 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING recommendation, as amended, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill regarding bill 990817.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990817 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further representation that the Rules of Council be suspended to allow first reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990817 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? 470 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING The ayes have it. The motion is carried. Bill No. 990844, I believe we were waiting for amendment for that.
Yes. Madam Chair amendments have been circulated and I can now report to the Committee that at 6:35 this evening I talked with Otis Haigler from the Department of Licenses and Inspection. We have agreement on amendments to Bill No. 990844, and Mr. Haigler authorized me to say that with those amendments he and the Department supports 990844.
I'd like to read those amendments into the record, Madam Chair.
In section 14-1703, Section 6 (c), at the point where the bill reads "If it so determines" -- add a comma, and if the application is not one that the Department may grant as of right -- continue the sentence, "then the Department shall" -- strike, deny the application, and stamp the application; insert new material, 471 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING issue a refusal or referral and shall note thereon: The sentence continues, "Denied - One Year Rule." In Section (d), start of a sentence, "The" -- strike, denial of an application pursuant to the; insert, issuance of a refusal or referral denoted, "Denied -- the sentence then continues. To the bottom of that same section where the sentence picks up, "Then the Board shall" -- strike, remand the application to the Department for further proceedings; insert, consider the appeal on the merits in accordance with its usual procedures, including the holding of an additional hearing in accordance with Section 14-805, for which reposting shall be required in accordance with Section 16 14-1805(11) and the applicable Board regulations, but for which no additional fee shall be imposed. Letter (e), the sentence reads, "The failure of the Department to deny an application on the basis of the One Year Rule may be raised by any" -- insert, aggrieved -- the sentence continues. New section, insert, Chapter 14-1800, Zoning Board of Adjustment. Section 14-1805, Hearings. (12) Hearings on appeals relating to the One Year Rule set forth in Section 14-1703(6) shall 472 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING be conducted in accordance with the procedures set forth therein. Those are all the amendments, Madam Chair, to Bill 990844. As I mentioned earlier, there is an agreement with the Department of Licenses and Inspections and they support the bill 8 as proposed to be amended, and I would move the adoption of those amendments. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990844, as amended, be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and a further recommendations that he Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session.
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990844 be reported 473 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, also a recommendation that Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The record will reflect that Bill No. 11 990846 has been withdrawn at the request of the sponsor. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding 990847.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990847 be reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990847 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next 474 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 990848.
Madam Chair, I move that the amendments offered to Bill NO. 990848 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990848, as amended, be reported out of this Committee favorably, and a request made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.) 475 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990848 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, as amended, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The record will also reflect that Bill 13 990849 has been withdrawn at the request of the sponsor. This concludes the public meeting of the Rules Committee. Thank you all for your patience. (Council adjourned at 7:15 p.m.) - - - 476 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of December 8, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES ___________________________ Josephine Cardillo, RPR and Notary Public ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public