Committee Hearing, December 8, 1999

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.

I may have read off the wrong numbers.

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.

Is that the area red?

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?

It is really into the island.

Where to you access into the 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?

Right.

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.

Okay.

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

The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter.

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?

The appropriate section 5 of the Philadelphia Code.

Thank you.

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 --

Right.

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.

Right.

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.

Absolutely, they would be lead to believe that.

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.

Yes, it was.

Why?

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?

That's my 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 build.

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.

Very good. Thanks, Councilman.

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.

Can we hear from the Law Department, please.

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?

The answer to that is yes.

Can you give us a couple examples?

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.

So floodway is within a floodplain.

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?

Yes.

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 --

Excuse me. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

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.

Are you in 761 or 760.

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.

All right, thank you.

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.

Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.

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.

Thank you. Ms. Smith.

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.

My name is Ed Weiner.

Please proceed.

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.

Thank you. Tom Connolly, Michael Sklaroff.

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.

Thank you.

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.)

Very good.

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.

Exactly, yes.

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.

Correct.

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.

Councilman Nutter, I think that is accurate description.

I believe it is an extremely accurate description.

If I may finish.

Absolutely.

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 Mr. Sklaroff --

And City Council needs to know that.

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.

So you'd like --

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.

But you met with the community yourself.

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.

I understand.

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 understand. Thank you.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you.

Mr. Krakower, do I understand you have --

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.

That is correct, and I am replacing her.

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.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

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?

Councilman, may I respond?

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.

Councilman Nutter.

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?

Yes, that is the 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?

I do not.

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.

You asked us to delay taking any action.

On this particular 361 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 ordinance.

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.

Yes, I have been.

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.

Perhaps this coming spring. That's all I'm talking about.

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 do.

You were at the first hearing.

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 --