No, I didn't say3 that. I said that we're going to form a4 limited partnership.5
And you're9 going to own 90 percent of it.10 (Indiscernible; parties talking11 over each other.)12
No. We -- the13 limited partner, which is an outside14 investor such as a bank or a large15 corporation that comes in through a16 broker, they own 99 percent of the17 limited-partnership entity that owns the18 project.19 So there's no really no20 ownership interest to share with21 anybody's else, because they own almost22 all of it.23 All they receive is tax24 benefits and savings. They eventually25 302 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 leave after 15 years. And at that2 15-year mark, it's very easy to structure3 an ownership relationship with Jim's4 organization or Lucinda's because at that5 point --6
You can do11 that. And this is the point at which we12 discussed that.13
Well, right.17 Yeah, we will certainly sit down with18 both of them and figure that out. We19 haven't -- it hasn't come up yet as a20 matter of discussion.21
Thank you3 very much.4 Are there any other questions5 for these witnesses.6 (No further questions.)7
Seeing8 none, thank you very much.9 And I do want to reiterate that10 I do think this project is extremely11 important for this neighborhood and will12 be a total benefit to the neighborhood.13 And I just want to try to get14 us around -- and I didn't mean to offend15 if I did, to get us around some of these16 housing issues, 'cause people are afraid.17 And I do appreciate the hard18 work you've been doing and the great19 projects you've done, and I'm sure this20 one will be also. So thank you.21
Dennis Lee,25 304 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 Diane Marshall, Shelton Roland. And any2 representative from Macedonia Pentecostal3 Church, please come forward. How many4 folks from the church are going to5 testify? Is everyone testifying or --6
Whoever is11 ready, please identify yourself for the12 record.13
And I am a18 resident and a relocator from the first19 project that was done.20 I am just here to testify, I21 guess, that how the process worked for22 me, moving out of a house where I was not23 able to really do much with it, and then24 be able to move into a home now that it's25 305 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 beautiful. I'm in a area where I don't2 have to worry about breaking in or vacant3 houses around.4 So I am here just to say that I5 agree with the process and hope that it6 goes through because it's something that7 will be better for the community.8
Yes. Good21 afternoon. My name is Pastor Valerie22 Leonard. I am now the pastor of23 Macedonia Pentecostal Church of24 Deliverance, where my mother was the25 306 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 pastor in that community for over 412 years.3
My comments6 are that I'm not on drugs, I've served in7 that community, I grew up in that8 community from a child, I lived in that9 community. My children went to Heston10 School in that community.11 My mother served until she12 passed in 2008. She served the13 community, she housed the homeless, she14 fed, she clothed. She was very active in15 the community.16 I don't have a problem with the17 rebuilding of the community because it is18 necessary, but the problem I have is that19 if you want to relocate me, the money20 that you want to use to relocate me and21 my church family, why not invest in me to22 stay there so that I can continue to be a23 positive attitude in that community.24 Also, when we received a25 307 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 letter, as you before stated,2 Mr. Chairman, yes, we was upset. And3 then we went to the first meeting at4 Councilman Jones' office. We was5 bullied. We was told that we had no6 decision by the community activist.7 Parkside Association told us that the8 meeting that we went to on the 31st at9 Councilman Jones' office in Wynnefield,10 that was the only meeting we needed to go11 to. We didn't need to come here because12 this hearing was irrelevant to us.13 We was bullied by the14 redevelopment that looked me in my face15 and told me I had no choice, but I had to16 get out of the community, that they would17 take over my mother church, my18 inheritance from me and my children.19 I felt very insulted, I felt20 bad, because when we are asked to go out21 and vote, when we are asked to pull that22 lever, we are asked to trust in our23 Congress people, our representatives who24 we vote for, that they would look out on25 308 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 our behalf.2 Now, we do see that they do3 have stuff and plans to look out for us,4 but why move me out of a community that5 you want to build up, when I was there6 from the beginning, with the drugs, with7 the break-in, and everything else.8 So now that you're saying that9 the community can become better, kick me10 out? I don't think so.11 (Applause.)12
Thank you13 for your testimony.14 Sir, could you please identify15 yourself for the record.16
Dennis Lee, Chairman17 of West Philadelphia Financial Services18 Institution.19
And I just wanted to21 talk about a little bit about process.22 Nineteen years ago, when the23 first individuals started thinking about24 building the Park West Town Center, they25 309 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 thought about building a little strip2 mall. Through the years, it involved --3 kind of mushroomed into this -- what we4 see today.5 But in that process, there's a6 lot of emotionalism, and it takes7 sometimes to -- you'll hear one person's8 opinion of what was done, and then you'll9 hear another person's opinion of what was10 done. And when you listen to both of11 them, everyone wants the same thing:12 Everyone wants that community to be13 bigger and better.14 We're not stepping into15 lightness; we're already in lightness.16 We're stepping into enlightenment. And17 that's what this process will do.18 This process right now -- and19 hearing my good friend the pastor talk20 about the wonderful things that they21 would like to see it in the community and22 what have you, but it takes looking at23 everybody's vision. And that's what it24 took nineteen years ago. That's why we25 310 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 have a Park West Town Center, because the2 people came together.3 There are meetings constantly4 in that community, there's access in that5 community. And I don't want -- I don't6 want us to be misled that there was not a7 process in this whole thing, 'cause8 there's been meetings.9 Now, everybody doesn't hear all10 the notices, everybody doesn't always get11 a opportunity to be at the meetings and12 what have you, but there is a major13 process in that community.14 The result is a $60 million15 complex, with 19 renovated homes, and 1916 of those individuals lived in that17 community and were relocated in that18 community, as well as those that are19 going to be looking at the process will20 have a opportunity to be a part of that21 process.22 So I think once calmer heads23 are set in the room and we all get a24 chance to talk about it and talk about25 311 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 this process, the emotionalism will set2 aside, and then the true process will3 happen.4 And I thank you for that5 opportunity to give that testimony.6
Thank you7 for your testimony. I appreciate it.8 Ma'am, are you testifying?9 Ma'am?10 Who else is in the room to11 testify on this bill? Please come12 forward.13 (Witnesses come forward.)14
Thank you. I17 am Minister Teresa Lockhart King, of18 Macedonia Pentecostal Church of19 Deliverance.20 I'm a member in that community,21 and after having been there and seen the22 community and having talked with the23 residents there, this project that24 they're trying to bring forth is not25 312 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 conducive for the community.2 The residents there would like3 to remain in their homes. Why take and4 rebuild homes, put these people out, or5 tell them some story that, Oh, you're6 going to be able to remain there. They7 already have homes.8 We're trying to rebuild the9 community. And through the church and10 the people in the community, we plan to11 revitalize. We want to develop a12 partnership within that area with the13 business associations, with the civic14 associations, and with the people that15 live there.16 I heard someone speak earlier17 and say that, Oh, we have given jobs, we18 have created jobs. Those jobs weren't19 for the people in the community; those20 jobs were through the labor unions and21 through people that were hand-picked by22 them, but not people that live in the23 community.24 Our church has a plan already25 313 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 in place of what we plan to do to2 partnership with the community as well as3 the businesses there.4 Our vision statement is this5 for the community -- our statement of6 purpose, I'm sorry. Our statement of7 purpose reads as such:8 Macedonia Pentecostal Church of9 Deliverance, Inc. endeavors to create:10 1. Create and develop11 relationships that will inflate our12 community resources in surrounding urban13 marketplace.14 2. To help rebuild and bring15 improvement to the community through the16 awareness and implementation of various17 programs such as: In one year, after-18 school programs; a GED literacy program,19 six months; parenting skills within six20 months; business empowerment and21 entrepreneur networking in six months;22 job-readiness training -- résumés, cover23 letters, et cetera; summer lunch programs24 within a year, and we have already25 314 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 partnered with the Archdiocese and2 received our number to start lunch3 programs around there and feeding4 programs, and we're going to be working5 with PhilAbundance; counseling task force6 for substance abuse; senior activities,7 and we're also going to partner with PCA;8 neighborhood watch programs; Philadelphia9 More Beautiful Committee; we intend to10 have health (indiscernible) to bring11 awareness to the neighborhood and to the12 community and to the residents about13 different issues concerning health care;14 and reentry programs for the prison15 ministry that it's working on; reentry16 programs so that people that are coming17 out of these correctional institutions18 will have a opportunity to have a second19 chance to come back and be a contributing20 factor within the community, to have21 jobs, to have someplace to live, to know22 that they can once again survive in the23 community that they grew up in.24 Our programs and work ethics25 315 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 are rock solid and will involve the2 community residents, businesses, and the3 members of Macedonia Pentecostal Church4 of Deliverance, Inc.5 One thing I would like to say6 is that the residents there, they don't7 want to be relocated; they want to remain8 where they are. But the same money that9 you're going to take -- I keep hearing10 about tax credits, tax credits. So you11 going to take the tax credits from the12 homeowners that already live there that13 are paying property taxes, school taxes,14 and all these other actions; now you want15 to give it to a corporation instead of16 taking that money and returning it --17 turning it around and recycling it back18 into the community for the residents that19 live there.20 (Applause.)21
The rebuilding22 of this community is vitally important to23 our church simply because we care. We24 care for the residents and we're25 316 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 concerned about their resolving issues.2 The crime, that's why we want3 to put a Town Watch in place. We want to4 involve the people that live there5 because when we involve them and they see6 that their community becomes more stable7 and they can revitalize it, take will8 take more pride in their community, not9 just where they live at, but in the10 surrounding areas.11 We plan to partnership with12 other churches in that area --13 (Applause.)14
-- to help15 rebuild, not tear down and build up16 something else but rebuild what's already17 there. Don't try to fix what's not18 broken'; just take what's there and fix19 it.20 (Applause.)21
Currently plans22 are being formulated to involve community23 residents in rebuilding and24 revitalization processing. In other25 317 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 words, use the people that live there.2 You bringing all these people in from3 everywhere; what about the people that4 live there? They have feelings, they5 have issues, they have concerns, and they6 want to be a active part of the process7 that's going on.8 We have no problem with9 rebuilding and revitalizing the area, but10 work with us; don't take from us.11 (Applause.)12
Thank you13 for your testimony.14 Please identify yourself for15 the record.16
My name is Karen17 Best.18 I am one of -- two issues. I19 am one who basically was a part of the20 relocation; and also, I am a part of you21 guys getting ready to take properties22 again at -- one of the properties that23 are getting ready to be taken again.24 My concern is two things. I25 318 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 can appreciate everything that Lucinda2 and the society has been doing because it3 was a positive thing with me moving and4 being located. But also, I am also in5 agreement with these young ladies here in6 reference to the property that I own now,7 in searching or reaching out to try to8 get it be maintained or renewed or some9 help with it. It was never done.10 Just as she's stating, instead11 of taking money into -- and putting it12 into other people's hands, why not give13 it to us so that we can rebuild and stay14 within our locations. I have children15 that have been raised up in this16 location. I don't want, every time I17 turn around, property to be taken away18 from me.19 I do understand money is20 involved and is needed. Why can't the21 money be given to us to fix and maintain22 instead of taken away from us.23 (Applause.)24
That's my only25 319 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 concern.2 They have -- I benefited have3 from the relocation process as well. I4 do want my neighborhood beautified, I do5 want things to be right. I give Lucinda6 credit for the hard work she's put in in7 trying to do that.8 But all I'm saying is that for9 those that are middle class like myself,10 who's trying to work hard to maintain and11 rebuild, why take it away.12
Sir, please15 come forward and identify yourself for16 the record.17 (Witness comes forward.)18
Is there19 anyone else left to testify on this bill?20 (No response.)21
So this22 will be the final witness for this bill.23 Please identify yourself for24 the record and proceed.25 320 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451
Good afternoon. My2 name is Jerome C. Avery, and I currently3 reside in the West Park area. I have4 been in the area for very close to 505 years. And once I became an adult I have6 been working for about the last 30, 357 years with the youth in the community,8 and I continue to do that to this day.9 I am currently and have been a10 board member of the Parkside Association11 for the past six years. My main reason12 for becoming a board member was to get13 involved in youth development and the14 future of the West Parkside community by15 improving the area schools and preserving16 the existing homes, while ensuring that17 the community's input was accepted and18 respected when it came to the many19 changes in the West Parkside community20 This proved to be an extremely21 difficult task. The difficulty lies in22 the fact that, as a board member, I was23 never informed of or invited to any of24 the strategy settings, planning, steering25 321 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 committee, or business meetings, et2 cetera. I had no input in any serious3 discussions pertaining to the future of4 West Parkside area.5 I was intentionally excluded6 because I consistently raised the issue7 of community exclusion at every community8 and Parkside Association board meeting9 that I attended. I raised other issues10 that were extremely important to the11 community. They were housing,12 specifically the rehabilitation of the13 homes in the a 5100 block of Columbia14 Avenue, youth development, and a tax15 abatement program for the homeowners that16 remain in the West Parkside area.17 We have addressed the18 tax-abatement issue at several meetings.19 Councilman Curtis Jones attended a few of20 those meetings. The issue of tax21 abatement is extremely important in that22 the existing community members, those who23 have a vested interest in the community,24 will be faced with the difficulty of25 322 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 increased property tax as the community2 continues to develop.3 And the question is: Will the4 residents who move into the newly5 renovated or newly built houses, will6 they get tax abatements?7 The main and most important8 issue that I raised at those meetings was9 the intentional exclusion of the10 community in the changes that were being11 planned and implemented in the West12 Parkside area.13 Community exclusion became the14 most important issue because if you don't15 have some control and input in the16 community issues, you won't be able to17 control the education, housing, taxes, or18 anything else in your community.19 If the investment groups or20 financial groups want to build or promote21 a project in the West Parkside area, they22 should have honestly discussed it with23 the majority of the community and not a24 select few.25 323 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 (Applause.)2
5 In many cases, our home is our6 biggest economic investment. 11 Based on my experience as a12 board member and my being intentionally13 excluded from any serious strategy or14 planning sessions, I question why others15 who are employed by the financial group16 and the public relations groups and17 represented their interests were included18 in the strategy and planning sessions19 and, in some cases, hired by the Parkside20 association. This allowed them to21 deceitfully make it appear that they were22 representing the community's best23 interests. 6 For example, a community7 meeting was held and hosted by the Urban8 Partners and Baker & Company, LLC, on May9 19, 2011. 11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 their community and the rehabilitation of2 homes in their community. Instead, they3 found that some of their homes were being4 acquired for projects that they were5 completely unaware of. 12 The community has been13 misinformed and misled on several14 occasions regarding the housing on15 Columbia Avenue. 13 I would like for someone to14 honestly address the issue of housing on15 Columbia Avenue. 6 On Thursday, June 2, 2011, a7 community meeting was held at the Penn8 Memorial Baptist Church. 14 It was my understanding that15 only three people from the community16 attended this meeting. 11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 they mention or inform the community2 members of the June 2nd community meeting3 at Penn Memorial Baptist Church that was4 directly related to the changes in the5 West Parkside area. Why didn't they6 mention this public hearing that is being7 held today regarding the proposed changes8 in the West Parkside area9 I can tell you why. 11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 specifically ShopRite, where most of the2 community shops. 6
Sir, excuse7 me, I'm sorry. I' don't mean to8 interrupt. Do you have -- is there many9 more pages? Or --10
Oh, okay.12 All right, thank you.13 (Indiscernible; parties talking14 over each other.)15
I16 appreciate it. We're just backing up17 into other hearings now --18
I attended 7523 percent or more of the Parkside24 Association Board and community meetings.25 330 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 I also attended 90 percent of the2 community meetings held by or directed by3 the various development and investment4 groups.5 Okay. Well, can I just read --6 I'll just read the last part, and can I7 leave a copy of it?8
Oh,9 absolutely. Your entire testimony will10 be printed in the record, without a11 doubt. So if you can summarize, that12 would be helpful.13
Okay. 18 After the presentation, a19 question form was issued for any20 additional questions, comments or21 concerns. The question form was to be22 handed in at the meeting, faxed, or23 e-mailed, or called in. 2 I eventually mailed my3 completed question form on 6/11/08. 8 New ideas, changes, and9 proposals are usually discussed and10 decided upon by the time they reach11 members of the community. 18 My next issue is the future of19 the 1700 block of North 51st Street. The20 1700 block of North 51st Street consists21 of six houses. 5 My current address is 17266 North 51st Street, and it is next door to7 one of the properties listed to be8 acquired. 11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 The appearance of blight always2 gives justification to redeveloping a3 specific area. 20 When the City demolished at21 1728 North 51st Street, they left my home22 and the surrounding cement structures in23 complete ruin. 11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 exposed. The lot appeared as a dumping2 ground, and many people used it for that3 exact purpose. 11 I followed the rules and12 regulations as I was required to13 pertaining to correcting the damage that14 was done to my property by the demolition15 crew. 9 These two agencies under the10 direction of the Mayor and, to some11 extent, City Council violated laws12 against the citizens. Should they be13 held accountable? )2
Thank you.3 And I would also like to say4 that I am not in support of this5 ordinance as it stands today.6
Okay, thank7 you.8 (Applause.)9 (Mr. Covington returns to10 witness table.)11
If you12 absolutely have to, if you absolutely13 have to, please go ahead. I mean, it's14 just -- go ahead, I'm sorry.15
I just want to16 confirm, particularly with the audience17 here, that there is a process under18 Councilman Jones's leadership that has19 already been underway in which owners of20 properties that are not critical to this21 development have been able to come to the22 developers and to the Councilman's office23 and discuss their situation. And we've24 already reached agreement on certain25 337 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 situations that would not proceed even2 under the passing of this ordinance.3 So I just wanted to have that4 for the record as a process that's5 underway under Councilman Jones's6 leadership, and that will continue as7 part of this process.8
Thank you9 very much for your testimony.10 We will now move to Bill No.11 110306, an ordinance amending --12 Oh, oh, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.13 Hold it. Wait, hold it, hold it. I14 forgot Councilman Goode asked for some15 consideration.16 Mr. Redding, could you please17 come back to the table on this bill.18 (Mr. Redding returns to witness19 table.)20
Hi. I'm Richard25 338 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 Redding, Director of Community Planning2 at the Philadelphia City Planning3 Commission.4
Mr. Redding,5 I'll try to make this as painless as6 possible. We've known each other for7 several years. You know my familiarity8 with development in West Philadelphia,9 and I know yours.10 For the record, how long have11 you been doing planning in West12 Philadelphia?13
For 36 years at14 the Planning Commission and over 20 as a15 West Philadelphia community planner16 before I became Director of the Division.17
Okay. So18 you're very familiar with the planning in19 West Parkside.20
And at what22 point was there a Park West Town Center23 shopping center envisioned or planned?24
'96, '97 is when25 339 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 we started work on redevelopment area2 plans for that shopping center.3
Yes. It was very6 much -- it was an idea that grew out of7 the empowerment zone committees.8
And without9 that idea growing out of the empowerment10 zone, that area would have been slated11 just for industrial development; is that12 a fair statement?13
Yes. The land14 now occupied by the shopping center had15 been industrial land.16
And there17 was no affordable housing development18 planned in the area, which is being19 planned right now; is that correct?20
Over the years,21 there's been scattered rehabs proposed22 and different housing programs applied in23 the West Parkside community, and there's24 been different planning documents.25 340 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451
But there's2 been no major affordable housing3 development in that area; is that4 correct?5
Councilman, for6 instance, on the west side of 52nd, the7 northwest corner of Jefferson, the sides8 of -- actually, both corners at9 Jefferson, apartment buildings were10 renovated as affordable rentals during11 the '80s and '90s.12
And was that13 a result of City Planning, or was that a14 result of private development?15
Well, I -- it16 certainly would not have happened without17 a private developer, but I think of these18 things as partnerships and --19
But there is20 not an active community-development21 corporation in that area that develops22 affordable housing, is there?23
There's a very2 active community development corporation3 called the Parkside Association of4 Philadelphia.5
Approximately16 four years ago for the second phase, and17 four years prior for the first phase. I18 think probably a little bit more than 2519 total.20
And I'll21 make this as my last question and22 statement, and you can respond however23 you want and elaborate however you like.24 A lot of that grew out of the25 342 6.7.11 - RULES - BILL 1103451 empowerment zone as well. The plans for2 that area were actually for industrial3 development type of developments4 happening there, grew out of an5 empowerment zone process.6 I am sure that Councilman Jones7 is going to do a great job of making sure8 that there is more than industrial9 development done there, that there10 continue to be retail and housing11 development done there.12 But there are actually roots in13 how this stuff happened, and I just14 wanted to get that on the record.15 Thank you, Mr. Redding.16
Thank you18 very much.19 We'll now move to Bill No.20 110306, which is an ordinance amending21 Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code,22 entitled "Zoning and Planning," by23 amending Section 14-1604, entitled24 "Outdoor Advertising and Non-Accessory25 343 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 Advertising Controls," by permitting one2 nonaccessory outdoor advertising sign,3 with certain conditions within the area4 bounded by Moore Street, Swanson Street,5 Columbus Boulevard, Morris Street, and6 Water Street, and making certain7 technical changes, all under certain8 terms and conditions.9 (Mr. Kramer and Mr. Patterson10 return to witness table.)11
Mr. Kramer,12 please identify yourself for the record.13 Mr. Patterson, you're not14 scheduled --15
No, I21 understand that, but that's not the list22 I have.23
I gave the list24 up with my exhibits.25 344 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061
No, you're2 third on the...3 (Councilman Kenney confers off4 the record with staffperson.)5
Good afternoon,8 Chairman Kenney and members of the Rules9 Committee. I am William Kramer, Division10 Director of the Development Division of11 the Philadelphia City Planning12 Commission, and I'm here today to testify13 on Bill No. 110306, which was introduced14 into City Council on April 28, 2011.15 Bill No. 110306 proposes to16 amend Section 14-104, "Outdoor17 Advertising and Non-Accessory Advertising18 Controls," for an area bounded by Moore19 Street, Moore Street, Swanson Street,20 Columbus Boulevard, Morris Street, and21 Water Street.22 The bill would permit one23 double-face, freestanding, non-accessory24 outdoor advertising sign mounted to a25 345 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 single-support structure. The sign would2 be permitted provided each sign faces no3 more than a thousand square feet, and the4 height of the sign from grade to the top5 of the sign does not exceed 67 feet.6 The bill also permits the sign7 to be internally illuminated, and digital8 electronic changeable messages would be9 permitted.10 In 2007, an application for11 this non-accessory sign was reviewed and12 denied by the Zoning Board of Adjustment.13 The ZBA's decision was reversed on appeal14 of the Common Pleas Court but then15 reaffirmed by the Commonwealth Court on16 July 24, 2009.17 The Philadelphia City Planning18 Commission, at its meeting of May 17,19 2011, recommended that Bill No. 11030620 not be approved. The Commission believes21 the excessive number of outdoor22 non-accessory signs in the City23 contributes to visual clutter and24 detracts from the esthetic beauty of25 346 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 Philadelphia. Such signs are also a2 detriment to public safety, creating a3 hazard to both motorists and pedestrians.4 Additionally, the proliferation5 of commercial outdoor advertising signs6 contributes to the appearance and7 deterioration of commercial and8 industrial areas, negatively impacting9 the economic viability of these areas.10 The Commission had made a11 recommendation at the time of the Zoning12 Board of Adjustment hearing also13 recommending that the requested variance14 not be granted, as it is the Commission's15 opinion that non-accessory signage is16 inappropriate at this location.17 That is the conclusion of my18 testimony. I'd be happy to answer any19 questions you may have.20
And its2 conversion, or proposed conversion, to3 digital is a detriment to the safety of4 who?5
Depending on who6 you ask.7 The digital component of this8 sign was not something that was9 specifically concerning the Commission10 because they haven't specifically11 addressed that.12 The Commission looked at this.13 It started life as an accessory sign; it14 was then changed to a non-accessory sign.15
-- my22 understanding that the Risqué place has23 an office at this location. That was not24 my determination as to whether it was25 348 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 accessory or not.2
But what3 does the Commission base its public4 safety detriment on, the number of5 accidents on I-95 or --6 (Indiscernible; parties talking7 over each other.)8
I mean,9 what do you base -- in order -- whether10 you like the sign or you don't like the11 sign is not an issue.12
When you14 testify that it is a public-safety issue,15 what do you base the data on this16 public-safety position? That's all I'm17 asking, a very simple question.18 What did the Planning19 Commission do to determine that it's a20 public-safety hazard?21
The public-safety22 hazard was considered as a public traffic23 issue more than anything else. It24 distracts from the public traffic.25 349 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 It was consistent with the2 research that was done back in --3 whenever the original non-accessory4 outdoor advertising sign legislation was5 considered, which, if I remember, was6 '98, if I'm not mistaken.7
That was done by10 my predecessor, Mr. Chapman, and11 Mr. Lombardo.12
And it said17 that this particular sign caused traffic18 accidents or accidents?19
No, sir, it did20 not say any one specific sign. It was in21 general that signage of a non-accessory22 nature contributed to driver distraction23 as a general statement.24
Probably4 not as much as a cell phone, but that's5 another --6
Do you know9 if there's any effort on the part of this10 digital request to have hook-in with11 Margalo, Amber Alerts, or any other types12 of public-safety needs relative to13 disasters or accidents or any kind of14 weather issues, or any kind of alerts15 that the public may need relative to16 homeland security or any of those things?17
I have not been18 made aware that they were part of that19 consideration.20
All right.21 If in the event that something like this22 is somehow interfaced with that, would it23 make it more or less of a public safety24 issue? I mean, if we were going to snag25 351 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 a guy that just grabbed a kid because2 somebody read it on a billboard --3
I certainly4 would -- I would have to consider that as5 to making a snap decision.6
And, again,7 I don't mean to beat this horse, but when8 you come up and testify on behalf of a9 government that this is a public-safety10 issue --11
Thank you.20 Any questions for Mr. Kramer?21 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,22 Mr. Chairman. I was going in the same23 direction, but I...24 As a former of the TRPA, I25 352 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 actually made a call as recent as this2 morning. In the last year, maybe3 year-and-a-half, two billboards that are4 on the Philadelphia side of the Walt5 Whitman Bridge, as you come from Jersey6 into Philadelphia, two billboard have7 been converted into digital billboards,8 and there's no evidence that there has9 any increase whatsoever in any accidents10 on the Walt Whitman Bridge as it relates11 to those digital signs.12 I just thought that would be13 important, because I know they're popping14 up in lots of places and lots of other15 states, and there is this argument that16 they are distracting. I know how I feel17 about that: I don't think they're18 distracting, but others may feel that19 way.20 And there's no empirical21 evidence, from what I can tell, that22 would support that they are contributing23 factors to additional accidents.24 Thanks.25 353 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061
Thank you.2 Any additional questions for3 Mr. Kramer?4 (No further questions.)5
Thank you.6 Mr. Kelly's not here, I understand. And7 Stephanie Kindt, please.8 (Witness comes forward.)9
Hello. My name is10 Stephanie Kindt. I'm the staff attorney11 with SCRUB, the public voice for public12 space.13 Bill No. 110306 involves spot14 zoning, and I know that every time15 someone comes up and talks about zoning,16 it's spot zoning.17 But in this particular case,18 it's not like we're taking an entire19 block; there is the parcel that's20 identified in the bill, but we're21 actually -- literally, this bill is for22 one spot; the size of the pole that the23 billboard rests upon. So it's truly just24 to create this -- the legalization of25 354 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 this currently-noncompliant billboard.2 In 2009, the Commonwealth Court3 ordered the property owner to come into4 compliance. And since that time, they've5 had six violations issued on this6 property.7 And you can see up on the8 slide, there's actually two non-accessory9 signs on the property right now; one for10 Risqué and one for David's Auto Dealer.11 There is a trailer located on12 the property. The permit for that13 trailer wasn't made until this past14 summer, in July. There was a 3-1-1 call.15 An investigator had gone out in May.16 So the trailer that's now17 located on the property, I think, is half18 split between a Risqué office and a19 David's Auto dealer. So there is no auto20 dealer on the property; it's a trailer21 that has, I guess, a desk.22 It originally was an accessory23 sign in the size of the billboard. And24 this was taken probably in 2005, prior to25 355 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 it converting to non-accessory. So2 there's a whole history of litigation,3 there's a whole history of violations.4 Clearly, the property owner has5 wanted this to be non-accessory. You can6 get a place for where it's at right now;7 it's just north of the Target.8 There is absolutely no benefit9 except to this property owner. The10 Commonwealth Court was crystal-clear in11 its upholding of the Zoning Board of12 Adjustment's decision.13
I'm sorry.14 Could I ask you a question about the size15 of the --16
How does18 that sign -- it's spatially difficult to19 determine --20
Well, let23 me finish.24 (Indiscernible; parties talking25 356 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 over each other.)2
It's6 spatially difficult to determine the size7 of the sign based on its position to8 Target.9 So how big is the Target sign10 and how big is the Risqué sign?11
The Risqué sign is12 actually bigger than what's allowed.13 It's --14
I'm actually not17 sure of the size of the Target sign. I18 know it's actually -- because of the19 distancing there --20
Yeah, it looks like23 it's smaller, but it's not, because it's24 so far away. It's 2400.25 357 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061
Whereas the legal3 is 1200. It's actually also too tall.4 It's 67 and 25.5
So does the6 Target sign -- is that -- who does the7 Target benefit other than --8
No, I'm11 saying, other than Target, who does the12 Target sign benefit? You said there's no13 public benefit to it. Who does the14 Target sign benefit?15
The Target is an16 accessory sign telling people where the17 Target is.18
I'm just24 looking --25 358 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 (Indiscernible; parties talking2 over each other.)3
Right. Well, an20 accessory sign tells people what's on the21 property. So if you want to go to22 Target, you would see the sign and go to23 Target.24
But25 359 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 that's -- so you don't view that as2 blight?3
You don't5 view that as blight, the size of the6 sign --7
But it's13 still large and imposing, and it's in the14 landscape.15
So the residents of22 Pennsport have been arguing for over a23 decade.24 And I think at one point, even25 360 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 Councilman DiCicco, you were against this2 sign becoming non-accessory, along with3 John Dougherty.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That I5 doubt.6
Okay.7 (Laughter.)8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I doubt9 there was an agreement there.10
Well, we do --11 there is a letter from Pennsport as well12 as from some of the riverfront, CDAG,13 that -- they feel very strongly about14 this. And these folks can see the sign15 from their front windows. So -- and a16 lot has been invested in this area to17 really beautify underneath 95.18 And to allow this to be19 legalized by an ordinance in this fashion20 would really reward this property owner21 for years of noncompliance and for years22 of being in violation. It would just23 really go against everything that this24 neighborhood is really working towards25 361 6.07.11 - RULES - BILL 1103061 and striving towards.2 So I would ask the Council to3 absolutely not support this ordinance.4 And also included is just a5 timeline of all of the different6 litigation that's occurred with this7 billboard in the back of your packet.8 Thanks so much.9