COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, March 13, 2006, 10:25 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS-BROWN Bills 060043, 060044, 060054, 060055, 060107, 060116 and 060117 V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Specialists 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. This is a public hearing of the Committee on Rules. And I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060054.
Bill No. 060054: An ordinance amending Section 14-1624 of The Philadelphia Code entitled "North Delaware Avenue Special District Controls," by changing the district boundaries to the area generally bounded by the south street line of Spring Garden Street on the south, the west bank of the Delaware River on the east, the north street side of Lehigh Avenue on the north, and the east street line of 5th Street on the west.
Mr. Kramer, before I recognize you, I would ask if there are copies of the testimony. Do we have copies of your testimony, Mr. Kramer?
Very 3 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 well. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the senior zoning planner for the development planning division of the City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill 060054. Bill 060054 was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco February 2 of 2006. This bill amends Section 14-1624 of the zoning code by amending the boundaries of the North Delaware Special District Controls. Under the provisions of the bill, controls would cover an area bounded by the north street line of Spring Garden Street on the south, the west bank of the Delaware River on the east, the south street line of Lehigh Avenue on the north, and the east street line of 5th Street on the west. This is being done in order to remove an overlap of zoning overlays created with the passage of Bill 4 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 051200, which extended the area of the Old City Residential Special District Controls. Bill 060054 changes the boundary of the North Delaware Special Control District by moving the southerly boundary northward from Vine Street to Spring Garden Street and extended the westerly boundary from Frankford Avenue to 5th Street. The Planning Commission at its meeting of February 16, 2006, considered this bill and recommended that Bill 14 060054 be amended to reflect no extension of the already existing North Delaware Special District Controls. The Planning Commission believed that the area between 5th Street, Girard Avenue, Frankford Avenue, and Lehigh Avenue would be economically harmed if these controls were to be extended into this area. An amendment indicating this change has been drafted and I submit it to Council for your approval. The amendment would change the boundaries to be as follows: 5 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 The north street line of Spring Garden on the south, the west bank of the Delaware River on the east, the south street line of Lehigh Avenue on the north, and the east street line of Frankford Avenue, the north street line of Girard Avenue, and east street line of 5th Street on the west. With this amendment, the Planning Commission recommended that Bill 060054 be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. You stated that if the proposed boundaries were expanded to include the area between 5th Street, Girard Avenue, Frankford Avenue, and Lehigh Avenue, economic harm would occur because of the controls imposed by being included within the district. Would you please explain for the record what this harm would be and who and how many properties or individuals might be harmed?
I can't answer the 6 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 second part of that. I don't have enough information to tell you an exact number. Testimony at the Planning Commission meeting essentially came from the commerce department as well as other members of the Commission wherein the concern was by placing the controls, which these controls limit takeout restaurants, restaurants, nightclubs, and make a lot of those type of uses go to the Zoning Board of Adjustment, it was concerned that what would happen is a lot of these uses would then simply move out of the area of the overlay. And they did not feel that there was enough economic -- enough of an economic engine to sustain that. And that was coming from Commission members.
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee?
The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney. 7 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Thank you. Would this only affect businesses going forward or existing businesses?
It would affect businesses going forward, but the portion of the bill that also prohibits extensions and expansions.
So there was a concern that businesses would move out even though they weren't affected?
There was some concern. It was not necessarily our staff concern, but it was a concern of members of the Commission.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) 8 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Seeing none, before we read the next bill, I would like the record to reflect that we do, in fact, have a quorum. To my extreme left is Councilwoman Miller. Next to Councilwoman Miller is Councilman Clarke. To my extreme left is Councilwoman Brown and Councilman Kenney. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060055.
Bill NO. 060055: An ordinance amending Bill No. 040369, which became law June 21, 2004, as amended entitled An ordinance amending Chapter 14-1600 of The Philadelphia Code entitled 'Miscellaneous,' by adding a new section prohibiting the demolition of buildings or other structures located within an area.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. I am senior zoning planner in the development planning division of the City Planning Commission. I am here to 9 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 testify on Bill 060055, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco February 2 of 2006. This bill is amending Bill 040369 so that the provisions prohibiting the demolition of buildings or other structures located in an area bounded by Locust Street, 5th Street, Washington Avenue, and the Delaware River would not expire until June 30, 2006. The purpose of this bill 12 is to allow representatives of the Queen Village neighborhood and the Planning Commission to complete the provisions of a neighborhood conservation district for this area. Proposals and discussions have been ongoing and a culmination of the process in an ordinance creating a neighborhood conservation district is expected in the foreseeable future. The Planning Commission staff believes it is appropriate to continue the demolition prohibition to allow for the creation of this zoning district. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee. 10 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Thank you. Mr. Kramer, will anyone be adversely affected by this prohibition? And, if so, who and to who extent?
I don't have -- I don't believe that there's anyone currently I'm aware of that would be negatively impacted. I believe the prohibition does not apply if it's imminently dangerous, so subsequently it would not provide an instant problem for anyone or shouldn't.
Any questions from members of the committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? 11 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 (No response.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam Chair, if I may, I would ask for a suspension on both bills. And thank you for hearing those bills first.
We'll certainly consider it. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.
I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060043.
Bill No. 060043: An ordinance approving the fourth amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the 45th and Sansom Urban Renewal Area.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning. My name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm executive director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam 12 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 Chairperson and members of the committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 4 060043, which is the fourth amendment to the redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan for the 45th and Sansom Redevelopment Area and the 45th and Sansom Urban Renewal Area. This bill 9 would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire two vacant structures for future development as part of the neighborhood transportation initiatives. No families or individuals will be displaced or relocated as part of this development plan. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 060043 and would ask for the suspension of Council rules to allow a first reading on March 16, 2006.
I'm 13 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 sorry. I didn't realize --
Is there a developer for these properties? If so, what is the projected cost for the development?
Madam Chairperson, Partnership CDC, we've been working with them for a number of years and they are the intended developer but not -- we're not obligated to convey to anyone as a result of this, but we've been working with Partnership CDC. We've acquired additional properties around here. The one property on Sansom Street is a stand-alone and it's an area where 14 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 there's been some significant subsidence and the City has had to demolish in that area. So we're just assembling parcels. They have not finalized their entire project plan at this point in time.
Is the development of these two properties part of a more widespread development project? If so, would you please elaborate?
I'd like to ask a member of Partnership CDC to come forward who can give you more details on what their plans are for this particular area.
That would be fine. Thank you. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Rob Johns. I'm the housing director for the Partnership CDC. I have some prepared testimony which may answer some of your questions. 15 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
All right. I think that was just given to us. I don't know whether you have to read it. We'll give a copy of it to the stenographer. It will be transcribed in full. And may I suggest you simply abbreviate, please. Thank you.
Sure. I think the question that brought me up here was is this part of a larger project, and it certainly is. In September of 2004, we acquired properties for redevelopment 14 on the 4500 block of Sansom Street and 15 have been working with the RDA to 16 assemble a phase 2 package that would 17 total 18 properties. These are the final 18 two pieces of that 18-property package. 19 Everything else has either been acquired by the RDA or has been approved by Council and is in the process of acquisition. You were concerned about a budget. At this point we are waiting for appraisals to come back which will tell 16 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 us what the cost of the project is going to be, at which point we can turn around and produce a budget. So we don't have really even a meaningful budget because the appraisal is such an important part of the cost. But this is a market rate project and we have paid for the properties at market rate. Depending on the value of the property, I think in total for phase 1 we paid $374,000 for the 19 properties and would expect to pay something related. (Inaudible.)
No. It's being done by using NTI funds but conveying to the Partnership CDC at fair market value and then those funds go back into the NTI pot.
Any questions or comments from members of the committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, I thank you, Mr. Johns. 17 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Yes, good morning. My name is Ortellin Bowser. I'm here on behalf of the Samaritans, Incorporated. We are the owners of the property, one of the properties they're speaking of, the only existing standing structure. The only other property that's existing is a vacant land, a vacant lot that I guess someone else has possession of. We have been going through this with the Partnership CDC going on now almost two years. We are the outright owners of the property. We bought the property actually and acquired the property at sheriff sale, you know, through all ordinary processes. And our company, our organization is we are a development corporation ourselves. What we do is we provide housing for women that are coming 18 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 out of shelters and, you know, domestic abuse situations. In 2005, we had plans to shore the property as well as to develop the property ourselves for affordable housing, but because of the legal battle that we incurred with the Partnership CDC, all of our funds were exhausted for rehabbing the property. I have a letter here from our legal counsel that was copied as well to Blaine Stoddard and Mr. Johns where their legal representation made us an offer for our property and wanted to negotiate with us to basically, you know -- for us to sell the property. They tried to -- once that didn't work, then they tried to take us through license and inspection. Then they tried to basically say that the property was imminently dangerous through the board of standards. We hired a structural engineer to prove and verify that the property wasn't imminently dangerous. Like I said, we have been fighting this battle to retain our 19 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 property and develop our property ourselves, not for them to acquire it, you know, at a very low market value for them to turn around and develop it themselves.
Do you mind reading your attorney's letter for the record, please?
Okay. Here it is. Regarding the Partnership CDC versus Ortellin Bowser/Samaritans, Incorporated, Philly CCP, January Term 2005, Docket 3442, Dear Attorney Lipsky, pursuant to our conversation today, I am enclosing the praecipe to settle, discontinue, and withdraw the above-captioned litigation. Principals of my client would like to discuss with representatives of your client a possible business accommodation regarding the parties' respective properties on the block of Sansom Street, 20 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 including the possible purchase. In light not just of their common proximity but because of the subsidence geologic issues all these parties face in common, I and they would appreciate if your principals of your client would either call Blaine Stoddard or Robert Johns at 215-662-1612 to discuss this and other matters relating to the Sansom Street properties. Thank you for your efforts in arranging for such discussions. Very truly yours, ReedSmith LLP, Ira S. Lefton, Attorney Ira S. Lefton.
You indicated that you acquired this property at sheriff's sale. When did you acquire it?
We acquired the property I believe it's in '04, ma'am, sometime in '04. I don't have the exact date in front of me, but it was in early '04, 2004. Actually, I'm sorry. The property, ma'am, was acquired in '03. My apologies. September of '03. 21 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Mr. Wetzel, did you indicate how many properties you're trying to acquire on this block?
So is it this property and a lot or are there two standing properties?
There's one standing property my understanding facing Sansom Street.
But the property this gentleman's referring to is occupied, is it not? Is your property occupied, sir?
At this present 22 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 time, ma'am, we actually had someone that was living in there. Actually, that was a person that was squatting in the property. And we, you know, allowed the person to inhibit the property through the winter months as we were actually planning to rehab the property.
So you haven't done any rehab at all on the property?
Yes, we have, ma'am. Yes, we have. We have receipts and everything. We had to basically shore the property. We structurally made the property secure. We secured the property as well as gated the property off and boarded the property up. Basically, like I said, our entire budget was exhausted fighting the legal battle for this. So, yes, we did make --
We incurred legal fees upwards over $20,000, you know, to 23 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 just fight the battle.
Thank you, Madam Chair. You say you have an individual living in the property?
Well, again, we weren't aware. Like I said, we were basically slighting the property. We sealed the property up. And in the process of getting the property prepared to, you know, rehab the property, someone else basically was able to -- they were already living in the property before.
Yes, they were squatting in the property. So once they got out of the property, basically that person just said, listen, I've been here 24 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 whatever the case may be, you know, for a little while, you know, could I just stay here through the winter months. And basically we agreed.
So is the building up to code? Is the property up to code?
Yes, the building is up to code. We have no L and I violations or anything.
Again, there's no 15 one living in the building at the present time.
When the Council President asked you the question was it occupied, you said yes. You gave us the impression -- there's a difference in condemnation for an occupied property versus a vacant property because we take very seriously having to relocate individuals from a property. But if it's a vacant property, there's a different 25 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 level of standard as it relates to the decision-making process. So the property is vacant?
Again, that's what I'm saying. The property was vacant in respect to, you know, in our possession, but, again, there was someone that was able to gain access into the property and, you know, they were squatting there. We were aware of that. As to this point in time as to whether or not someone's there right now today, again, that's anyone's guess.
I would like the record to reflect that Councilman O'Neill has joined the committee. Councilwoman Blackwell, did you want to add anything to this testimony?
We've been supporting the Partnership CDC in this regard. We've been working with the Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 Redevelopment Authority. I just heard Friday that somebody would come up with some other agenda, but we've been working with Herb Wetzel. As all of you know, Lisa Sneed is now director of the Partnership and we met Friday and this issue came up. So I have no idea, frankly. I don't know this gentleman. I have no idea what he's talking about. I know we've been working with RDA for some time with regard to these two properties and we would like to move ahead as scheduled to get this project -- this is part of an urban renewal area. I mean, I'm always happy to meet with the gentleman. I have no idea who he is, but we would certainly ask that the committee move ahead with the 45th and Sansom Street Redevelopment Area and the urban renewal issue.
Councilwoman Blackwell, I've been to your office on a few occasions. I've called your office on several occasions, spoken to your 27 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 assistants. I don't know what more I could have done to make it clear to you that we were interested in working in conjunction with the Redevelopment Authority as well as, you know, the NTI, the Partnership CDC, and anything we could do to actually work in conjunction, you know, because our interest was in doing the exact same thing that they're interested in doing, which is developing the property for affordable housing. So, you know, again, like I said, I have letters from their office stating that they were looking and willing to work with us, you know, once they realized that all the means that they tried to use to take the property, you know, weren't going to work. And everyone else that they got out of the properties, they actually told the residents in this community that this neighborhood was sinking. Okay? They told these residents -- they don't care about the residents. They don't care about the 28 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 people here. They only care about their initiative that they're claiming is an affordable housing initiative when there's properties in the 4400 block selling for $400,000. I've seen their plan. I've seen their layout. I've been in the Partnership's office. I've seen what they're intending to do. They're claiming this to be an affordable housing project and it's nothing of the sort.
I'd like to object to that characterization. We're not claiming this to be anything but what it is, which is a market rate development.
I'm sorry, sir. I don't know that the stenographer knows who's talking.
My name is Rob Johns again from the Partnership CDC. I'm sorry. And I feel that was a mischaracterization of our project. It is not represented as an affordable housing initiative. It is a market rate housing initiative under NTI. We have 29 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 some affordable components to the project, but we have never misrepresented it as an affordability housing project, pure and simple. Furthermore, we have not simply tried to take the property from the gentleman next to me. We've made every effort to make a good faith offer to purchase the property at fair market value as the letter that he read indicates, which was a letter from our attorney to him trying to make an offer. So I just feel we need to set the record straight.
Yes, the Chair recognizes Councilwoman Blackwell.
Thank you. This is a case where I'm reminded and you may remember we had an individual who came in here and complained about 30 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 really all the problems she had had with the City and finally we prevailed upon the Partnership to kind of -- we argued with them and got them to agree to try to in advance -- because she just couldn't sustain it, to pay her. I think that the Partnership at that time gave her somewhere in the neighborhood of $30,000 because I insisted that they continue to not abuse this poor woman who couldn't handle it. Then you have someone in the middle who wants to come in and said, look, they're developing this block and wants to come in and say, hey, maybe if I can get it and charge, get a hundred thousand or something like that. It's that kind of situation where blocks are being developed. You get someone wants to come in the middle and make a big profit on the development project. That's the issue. That's what's at the heart of the issue and that's why we really want to continue on with the initial plan. It's been years. There 31 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 was a woman who owned this property. She came here. She pled with this Council such to the extent I said you better in advance, Blaine Stoddard, give her this money because she can't handle it. And then somebody in the middle manages to kind of weasel in and try to come in and make a big profit in a development area. So, you know, we're happy to work with him in some other area in some other project but not this area and this project so far as I'm concerned, Madam President. We hope the committee will consider it.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a couple quick questions. You purchased the property at sheriff's sale?
Yes, through 32 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 sheriff's sale. So I don't know what she's talking about.
Mr. Wetzel, has an offer been made or an appraisal been done?
What were the numbers on the appraisals on the other properties that were acquired?
I do not have 33 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 those numbers with me, but I can deliver them.
The properties that we acquired to be rehabbed generally appraised around $24,000. We have not acquired properties in this exact circumstance so there isn't a comparable appraisal that I could give you that would sort of enlighten you.
Just to give you, Mr. Councilman, the idea, a lot that's next door adjacent to the property that I own was selling for $130,000.
Yes, a vacant lot. There's properties up the street right now selling for $400,000. Everyone knows this area. It's 44th, 45th and Sansom Street. It's the Penn catchment area, Drexel University, Penn University. And again, I don't understand why 34 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 Councilwoman Blackwell is making this as something I'm doing. It's no different than the thousands of other people that go to sheriff's sale every month and acquire properties. I think it's very unfair for even that type of accusation to be made when this is just a situation where myself and a corporation -- it's not just a person here. This is a corporation, okay, that acquired a property for the interest of what we already do. We have a proven record. We work with 1260 housing. We work with several programs. This is a multi-unit property as well. So we have an intention of putting three families in this house. It's already zoned as a multifamily house. Again, they're making this like something that it's really not when in actuality it's just the mere case that I acquired a property. They had intentions -- because the City obviously doesn't communicate properly, the property should have never went up to 35 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 sheriff's sale. That's not my fault.
Yeah, it seems to be a lack of coordination with the judicial sales division not knowing that the City was interested in acquiring it on behalf of the CDC, which is unfortunate.
So, Mr. Wetzel, is it my assumption assuming that the gentleman's indication that the appraisals are upwards of 130 for a vacant lot, 400 for an existing occupied structure, that the comps that will be done by the Redevelopment Authority will reflect those numbers?
They have to be sold. They can't be on the market asking that. They actually have to be real transactions that become comparables. 36 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Is there an approved budget for acquisition dollar amount?
There's a budget of 161,000 right now, but as with every budget if the appraisals come in higher, we would go back asking the City in this case, the office of housing and neighborhood preservation, do you want to continue and --
I don't have the individual breakdown between the two properties.
What are we basing that budget on? 37 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
On a base estimate of the properties plus advertising costs and other contingencies.
How much of the 161 is for administrative fees and advertisement and how much is for compensation?
I don't have that number, but I can get it for you. Councilman, also, unless there's some other indicators that this property is not subject to it, the reason that the majority of the properties were demolished on this block was a subsidence issue. I'm trying to remember the name of the creek.
But yet they're 38 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 still going to build on top of it.
Well, and speaking of that, we commissioned a geotechnical survey which confirmed the problems and also provided remedies for new construction. Our obvious concern is we don't want to build property next to a building that's falling down and incur further liability as a result of something like that or put people in danger. There's also the issue of the continuity of the project. This is the only building standing on what is now a vacant block. And for us to build new construction, certainly it makes more sense to us to build that project so that the new housing is uniform and attractive in appearance.
Mr. Bowser, if you've exhausted all your funds for legal fees, what's the likelihood -- 39 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Actually, we just acquired financing through a business loan actually of $200,000 to rehabilitate the property.
Mr. Wetzel, I'm a little confused as to how we get to this point asking for legislation for acquisition of property when you haven't done any appraisals and you've done guestimates I guess or -- wouldn't you have to do the appraisals first so when we give you approval to take the property you'll have a real budget to work with?
No. We do estimated appraisals. And again for many years that wasn't an issue. In some areas where there's a dynamic market, we could have done an appraisal four months ago that wouldn't be accurate today. The 40 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 fact is that if you point out that things are on the market for that price, that doesn't mean anything. They've actually had to sell. You know, a lot on a block where there's a subsidence issue may be on the market for $100,000, but buyers wouldn't know there's a subsidence issue.
But have you looked at comparables in that neighborhood?
How many sales were done in the neighborhood in the last year?
Because you only 41 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 look at ones that are close by.
Well, how many houses have sold or properties have sold close --
Then how do you do a comparable? His issue aside, I'm more concerned about the process. How do you do comparables when you don't have any sales?
Now, you reached outward to properties that haven't been sold?
I don't have the appraisal here, but I can get that answer. 42 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Why do you come here then when you can't tell us answers to the questions of the process? This gentleman, whatever he did, he went into sheriff's sale, he bought a property, he has it, he's got ownership of it and you're trying to take it. That's fine. I understand all that. But you come here and tell me about comparables and preliminary budgets and there's no comparables that you're aware of. How do you pull this number out of the air?
No. We look at sales in that particular area but they're not formal appraisals.
Let's stop. You look at sales in the area. How many sales in the area in the last year?
So there are comparable sales in the neighborhood. Since these are mostly vacant lots and dilapidated buildings, how far do you have to go out for a comparable sale?
I don't have that answer, but I can get that answer for you. This is not --
I know it's not scientific, but it should be more than this.
It is at this stage a rough estimate because we have no 15 authority to spend money under NTI until an ordinance is passed. So we have no 17 authority to order an official appraisal until that.
I have no 20 authority to buy a property unless the bank approves my loan, but I still go out and check out the comparables sales. I check out what sold recently, what I expect to have to buy it for. You can do the research without the approval. You 44 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 have the ability -- you have the inability to do appraisals without us approving this?
We cannot spend money on appraisals without an NTI ordinance approving the acquisition.
So we have to approve it first before you go appraise it? That's a little ass backwards, isn't it?
The ordinance says we can't spend NTI bond proceeds without either a resolution of Council or an ordinance of Council to acquire property.
That should be changed because I don't know how you can come here with no equipment and have a discussion and ask us to approve something.
I think it would 45 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 be beneficial to change that, but as of now the ordinance does not authorize us to spend any money on a property until it's been approved by Council.
Madam President, I'd like to just also add I have here a regular mail -- not even certified, mail that this organization just sent to me on this past Thursday for this hearing today. My attorney wasn't advised. I wasn't advised. I got this on Saturday and I'm here today only because I received this on Saturday. Had I not gotten this on Saturday, I wouldn't even be here today to represent myself. This is the type of business that these people who are acting as though they're acting in the best interests of our community, these are the type of tactics that they're doing, not even certified mail, regular mail sent out on Thursday, March 9 for a hearing today. I ask that this ordinance be striked and just 46 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 removed from the record.
What's the normal time line, Mr. Wetzel, on notification? I know we had this big issue a couple years ago about notification.
There is no legal time line for notifications on these. It's not part of the statute.
Do we treat it differently if it's an occupied property versus a vacant property in terms of notification?
What we do is do the research to look for both -- especially if it's a vacant property, we look for research for off-site addresses because we know they're delivered to vacant properties, it's unlikely the person will be noticed. In this case, two letters went out, one to the property itself and then one to the off-site address in Jenkintown, which is I believe probably where you received the letter. 47 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Sir, you indicated that you went out for a $200,000 loan?
We are actually right now approved for the loan and we are in the process right now for signing for that loan, yes, ma'am. That will be done before the end of this month.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? 48 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 6 060117.
Bill No. 060117: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Bustleton Avenue, Fulmer Street, a railroad right-of-way, and Grant Avenue.
Please identify yourself and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the senior zoning planner in the development planning division of the City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill 060117. This bill was introduced by Councilmember O'Neill February 16 of 2006. This bill is a 49 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 zoning and mapping bill for the Bustleton area of the city. It covers approximately 33 acres of land bounded by Bustleton Avenue, Fulmer Street, a railroad right-of-way, and Grant Avenue. The area is primarily zoned R-4 for residential with certain properties maintaining a commercial designation along the major streets in the area. The commercial designations will remain the same under the provisions of this ordinance. This bill will rezone a majority of the residential properties to a designation of either R-1 or R-2 in order to restrict their ability to be subdivided as a matter of right. This bill is scheduled to be considered at the Planning Commission's next meeting of March 16, 2006. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Are there any proposals for development under the existing zoning?
No, ma'am, at 50 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 least none that I'm aware of.
Is there any developer who wishes to build here based on the proposal zoning changes? If so, who and for what purpose?
I have no seen no 9 plans for any development. There may be there outstanding, but they have not come to my office as yet.
Does anyone have any questions of Mr. Kramer? The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
No 17 questions. This is a small area of Bustleton. We just did a very large area of Bustleton recently and there's one large area left. And this is actually a bill to upgrade the zoning to dissuade developers from coming in here and tearing down houses and sort of ruining the neighborhood. It's been going on in Bustleton and Somerton for a while now. 51 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 There's only about 20, homes in this little area and they have been just bombarded with developers banging on their door trying to put parcels together. And Mrs. Ortiz, who's here to testify, really has done a yeoman's job of keeping in touch with my office, letting us know what developers are doing and trying to hurry us along with the process, but she also instead of having a massive meeting of the civic association that would have delayed us more just went right to the people. There's only 15 houses. They all signed the petition 16 that Ms. Ortiz circulated and everyone's 17 in total approval of this remapping. But 18 I'll let her state that for the record. 19
Thank 20 you. 21 Good morning, Ms. Ortiz. 22 Please identify yourself.
Good morning, Honorable Councilmembers. My name is Isabel Ortiz. I currently reside at 9636 52 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 Banes Street, Philadelphia, PA 19115. I am here to testify in favor of Bill 4 060117. My property's currently zoned R-5 and I understand with the remapping it will either be R-1 or R-2. I strongly believe that when this process takes place it will prevent the onslaught of developers who have knocked at my door with no exaggeration at least every other Saturday or Sunday encouraging me to sell my property. My property is a corner property. It currently is 170 by 46 and a half with 30 feet of city street that I have occupied for the past years, so 16 basically it's 170 by 80. And they have 17 encouraged me to sell to them my 18 Victorian house I have worked so hard to 19 restore back to its original decor. It 20 is dated back to 1854. They have, 21 quote/unquote, told me that if the remapping goes through, my property will become devalued. I have corrected them. I think it's a poor choice of words. I strongly believe my property will always 53 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 be worth what the market will bear. For individuals who work for the City of Philadelphia, policemen, firemen, Gas Company, et cetera, that have to live within the city and enjoy living in the city and all the amenities that the city has to offer, it's a wonderful place to live. Parking's never an issue. If you enjoy wildlife, if you enjoy the fact that there is space around you. To encourage me to sell my property so that they can knock it down and subdivide it and put as many properties that would be allowable under the R-4, I think there needs to be a stop to it. All my residents -- all the neighbors within my small community, which is from Banes to Pearson, Bustleton, and to the railroad tracks wholeheartedly believe a stop needs to be put to this. So again I'm here to testify for myself and the rest of the community that we've in favor of the this remapping in the bill.
Thank 54 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 you very much. Are there questions or comments from members of the committee?
I may have forgotten to thank Ms. Ortiz publicly, but she really did a whole lot of work on this. Thank you.
Thank you for coming in. Thank you. Mr. Kramer, I did not hear you or the sponsor ask for a suspension.
I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060044.
Bill No. 060044: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designation of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by I-95 Expressway, Island Avenue, and the County Line, also known as the Philadelphia International Airport. 55 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the senior zoning planner in the development planning division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill 060044. This bill was introduced by Councilmember Blackwell for February 2 of 2006. This bill would change the zoning from its current zoning to partly L-5 to partly G-2 general industrial and partly C-2 commercial. This zoning consolidation will allow for the extension of runway 17-35, which is required for the economic well-being and continued economic growth of the airport. The Planning Commission at its meeting of February 16, 2006, considered this bill and recommended that Bill No. 21 060044 be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you. I would ask that you remain at the witness table. And if Mr. Isdell is 56 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 here, I'd like him to approach the witness table, please. Good morning, welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam Chair and members of the committee. I am Charles Isdell, director of aviation for the City of Philadelphia. City Council previously passed Bill No. 12 051140, which permitted the closure of State Route 291 as part of the runway 17-35 extension project at Philadelphia International Airport, which will require the relocation of the runway safety area connecting taxiways, navigational aids, lights, and parking facilities as well as associated utilities. Bill No. 060044 will change the zoning designation for the area of intended construction to least restricted. This will achieve a substantial saving of time and city resources by eliminating the necessity of filing several zoning variance requests 57 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 to accomplish the intended result. In order to maintain the tight construction schedule for the runway extension, I urge the committee to approve the change in zoning designation to least restricted. And I'll be happy to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much. Mr. Isdell, is all of the land that is to be rezoned under the control of the airport?
It is? If the land is not controlled by the City, but you say it is, my question was going to be, will the proposed changes affect any private development at the airport? But it will not?
When is the runway extension project supposed to be completed?
And what are the sources of the funding for the project?
Seventy-five percent of the funding will come from the Federal Airport Improvement Program and the remainder will come from passenger facility charges directed by the airport.
Very good. Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee on this bill? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify? (No response.)
And is there any need -- Mr. Isdell, is there any need for a suspension of the rules on this?
You're welcome. Mr. McPherson, I would appreciate it if you would please read the title of Bill 060107.
Bill No. 060107: An ordinance approving the first amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the West Fairhill/East Tioga/Hunting Park Urban Renewal Area being the area generally bounded by Wingohocking Street, Roosevelt Boulevard on the north, North 5th Street, North 6th Street on the east, Lehigh Avenue on the south, and Broad Street and Venango Street on the west, including the first amendment to the urban renewal and the first amendment to 60 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the additional land acquisition of approximately 44 properties for residential and related uses, the additional land acquisition of approximately six properties for commercial and related uses, the provision of certain relocation services as required by law, and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project.
Madam Chairperson, my name is Herbert Wetzel. I'm executive director of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 21 060107, which is the first amendment to the redevelopment proposal and urban renewal plan for the West Fairhill/East Tioga/Hunting Park redevelopment area and the West Fairhill/East Tioga/Hunting Park 61 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 urban renewal area. This bill would authorize the Redevelopment Authority to acquire a total of five vacant structures and 45 vacant lots for future development under the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. No families or individuals will be displaced or relocated as part of this development plan. Madam Chairperson and members of the committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill 060107 and would ask the suspension of council rules to allow first reading on March 16, 2006. If I could refer you to the map if you've received the map, the bulk of the properties are between 11th and Germantown and Cambria and Somerset and are being acquired in cooperation with the Philadelphia Housing Authority that's looking to design 80 units of affordable rental housing in that particular area. The other properties up on the area between Hutchinson and 9th, Indiana, and Clearfield are for the women's community 62 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 revitalization project. We previously have Council ordinances to acquire a significant amount of the properties in that area. And I think it's 69 properties that were previously approved by this Council. They're intending to do a low income housing tax credit project with 60 units of rental housing for very low income women and their families. So those are the two projects that this is intended for. And the estimated budget for the acquisition of these properties, including all accessory costs and any contingencies, is $730,425.
Mr. Wetzel, can you please explain the discrepancy between what properties are to be acquired pursuant to the bill and what is to be acquired according to your testimony?
My testimony is five vacant structures and 45 vacant lots. Is the bill different from that?
I 63 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 believe. I'm told it is. According to the -- do you have a copy of the bill 4 before you?
We'll be happy to give you a copy. It says 44 properties for residential and related uses, an additional land acquisition of approximately six properties for commercial and related uses.
I think I understand, but let me just have my staff person brief me on this. I've been corrected here, Madam Chairperson. If you look at the map for 11th to --
Right. I'm going to correct that. The correct number of properties in this is 50, 45 vacant lots and five structures. The reuse, 44 of the properties are to be reused for residential purposes. And my staff just 64 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 corrected me. The PHA project along Germantown Avenue is going to be commercial, a commercial project. So PHA, that's zoned commercially and currently has some small businesses on it. So it's PHA's plan to continue for that to be commercial. So the reuse will be six of the properties that are located on Germantown Avenue will have a commercial reuse. The rest of the properties along with what PHA owns will be residential.
Mr. Wetzel, in the title of this bill, it says 44 properties for residential and six properties for commercial. There's a discrepancy between your testimony and what is in the title of the bill. I'm assuming that you agree with the discrepancy. And, if so, my question is, does another bill have to be prepared, corrected?
No, madam. The addresses are correct. And I corrected 65 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 my testimony to indicate that the PHA project has two components. I only mentioned the residential component. The PHA project calls for commercial along Germantown Avenue.
You know how to confuse us. Okay. So to make the record absolutely clear, it's 44 properties for residential and six properties for commercial?
That is correct, for a total of 50 properties to be acquired.
Are NTI funds to be used for these acquisitions?
You state that these acquisitions are for future development?
Who is the developer and what is the development that is being proposed?
On the properties on the map that I gave you that are bounded by 10th and Clearfield, Indiana and 9th, that is a project sponsored which the women's community revitalization project. It's going to be a low income housing tax credit rental project with approximately 60 units. It's going to be new construction and it's going to be townhouses and apartments for very low income women and their children. That's on that piece. On the Warnock Street, on the project bounded by Cambria, 11th, Germantown, and Somerset, that is a project being sponsored by the Philadelphia Housing Authority that combines somewhere between -- let me just look at the numbers from PHA here -- about 80 units of affordable rental they want to build there with off-street 67 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 parking and, in addition, 16,000 feet of commercial space along Germantown Avenue PHA wants to develop.
Okay. To whom will these properties be deeded once they're disposed of?
The properties for WCRP, they will -- if awarded low income housing tax credits, they will set up a Pennsylvania limited partnership and the properties will be conveyed to that partnership. And the Philadelphia Housing Authority, if they also receive low income housing tax credits for theirs, those parcels will be conveyed to that partnership, which is required by law to be established when you use low income housing tax credits. And the commercial properties would probably be conveyed directly to PHA unless they create another entity to engage in the commercial activity.
Are there any questions or comments from 68 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 members of the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Regarding the Housing Authority's projects, both residential and commercial, why do NTI funds have to be used for them? Don't they do projects like this all the time where they for their own capacity acquire property and rehabilitate it for low income use?
No, they have not. All the projects you see that are off-site -- they have done that on-site for the properties they own. For example, when they demolished Mill Creek, they built back on the land they owned.
But we used NTI funds to acquire the balance of the off-site development for Mill Creek. We used CDBG funds to acquire the off-site 69 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 properties for the Martin Luther King projects.
What monies did PHA use over its history to acquired scattered site housing that they manage and --
You mean PHA scattered sites? It's my understanding those were acquired in the '60s by PHA.
You're telling me PHA does not have the capacity to acquire property and rehabilitate it and rent it?
Any questions or comments from members of the committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Mr. McPherson, please read the title of the 70 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 last bill, 060116.
An ordinance 4 amending Section 14-1610 of the Philadelphia Code entitled "Old City Residential Area Special District Controls," extending the boundaries of the district to include the area generally bounded by Wood Street, 6th Street, Vine Street, and 5th Street, all under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the rules committee. My name is William Kramer. I'm the senior zoning planner in the development planning division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill 060116. This bill was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco February 16 of 2006. This bill is an amendment to Section 14-1610 of the zoning code that expands the area of the 71 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 Old City Special District Controls. This further expands the controls as recently extended under the provisions of Bill 5 051200. The controls would be extended to include an area bounded by Wood Street, 6th Street, Vine Street, and 5th Street, and would prohibit many uses, including cabarets, dance halls, entertainment of guests and patrons as a main use, restaurants and takeout restaurants. Further, it provides for a 65-foot height limit on buildings and a 70-foot limit on the frontage of any new buildings. This bill is scheduled to be considered at the Planning Commission's next meeting of March 16, 2006. I would be happy to answer any questions of the committee.
Any questions or comments from members of the committee? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you. 72 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
So we'll just leave it. Thank you. This will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
To tell you the truth, on the RDA stuff, I'm a little bit confused and I find myself feeling confused a lot when I'm voting on this stuff. And part of the problem is it always seems like we don't get all the information or all the information's not made available to us and it's done in a way that always leaves a question in your mind whether you're making the right 73 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 decision. The other hand is if you don't do it, you're accused of holding stuff up and being an obstructionist. On the other hand, if you do it, you feel like you're at a disadvantage because you're making a decision on something that affects people one way or another and you don't have all the information. I don't mind voting on it, but it's increasingly and has been for a while uncomfortable with this process whether it's notification, whether it's budget, whether it's appraisals, whether it's the right information in the title of the bill or not. I'm not really confident that we have all the information to make the right decision. But having said that, I don't mind voting on it, but I just wish this process would change because it's not a way to do business. Whatever.
This concludes our public hearing. We will now move to our public meeting. The 74 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060044.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Madam Chair, I move that Bill 060044 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill NO. 12 060044 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060054. 75 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
Madam President, I move for the adoption of the amendment to Bill 060054. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the amendment is adopted. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I move that Bill 060054 as amended be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension. (Duly seconded.)
It 76 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 3 060054 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation as amended, further that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of council. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Councilman Clarke, 060055.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 060055 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 24 060055 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a 77 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060107.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 060107 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for suspension of the rules to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 23 060107 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the rules of Council 78 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06 be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding 060116.
I move that Bill 060116 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 19 060116 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Those opposed? (No response.) 79 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 6 060117.
I move that Bill 060117 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill 15 060117 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
Those opposed? (No response.) 80 Committee on Rules - 3/13/06
The ayes have it. The motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 060043.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 060043 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 13 060043 be reported out of committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will please say aye. (Chorus of "ayes.")
The ayes have it. The motion carries. This concludes our public meeting of the Committee on Rules. Thank you all very much. - - - 81 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence, and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me on March 13, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. _____________________________ Kimberly A. Overwise Certified Realtime Reporter Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)