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