COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, November 18, 2003 3:25 p.m. - - - - BILL 030686 - An Ordinance amending Title of The Philadelphia Code... 10 BILL 030716 - An Ordinance approving a new plan, estimated costs and proposed method of 11 charges of the City Avenue Special Services District... 12 BILL 030719 - An Ordinance amending Section 14-312 of The Philadelphia Code... 13 14 PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO - - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 I N D E X BILL 030686 PAGE THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Comm....... HARRY PERKS......................... 35 BILL 030716 DUANE BUMB, Commerce................ 69 DAVID COHEN, City Avenue Special Services District............... 72 BILL 030719 THOMAS CHAPMAN, Planning Comm....... 75 3 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686
Ladies and gentlemen, the Council's Committee on Rules has a quorum with the attendance of Council President Verna, Councilmember Rizzo, Councilmember DiCicco, Councilmember Nutter, Councilmember Cohen and Councilmember Clarke. We have three Bills on the agenda today. The first Bill is Bill No. 030686, which is an Ordinance amending Title of the 11 Philadelphia Code entitled, "Zoning and 12 Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1200 13 entitled, "Reserved," by adding a new Chapter 14 14-1200 entitled, "Pending Public Acquisition District," by establishing certain restrictions on land sought for acquisition by the City, all under certain terms and conditions. Mr. Chapman, please.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee for the City Planning Commission. My name is Thomas Chapman. I'm here today to testify on Bill 24 No. 030686. This Bill was introduced by Councilmembers Nutter and DiCicco on October 4 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 23rd of this year. This Bill adds a new section, Section 14-1200, to the Zoning Code by establishing certain restrictions on land sought for acquisition by the City. The Bill would allow for the continued lawful use of a property once it has been designated for acquisition by the City, while not allowing for a change of use of the property from the use for which about use registration permit has been obtained. The Bill would not allow construction on vacant land, expansion or improvement of any existing building prior to its designation as a Pending Public Acquisition District. This particular Bill is being considered by the Planning Commission as we speak. The Planning Commission's meeting is just coincidentally the same time as this hearing. I understand that there has been a number of amendments to this Bill that were prepared by the Law Department, and I believe 5 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 that they will be submitted by Councilmember Nutter.
Councilmember Nutter, do you have any statement relative to amendments?
Yes. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. First, Mr. Chapman, thank you very much for your testimony and for your assistance in working on this very serious matter. You may recall that I had contacted you and Rich Lombardo after discussions I had with Councilman DiCicco and some others pursuant to a news article, I guess maybe about a month or so ago, where the prospect for development activity, specifically in the area which has already been designated for expansion by the Pennsylvania Convention Center, there were permits apparently issued and a zoning variance to turn a vacant building into, I believe, 45 loft apartments or apartments of some type. The concern here, and as I expressed with you and Mr. Lombardo, is that -- I mean, 6 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 people certainly have a right to use their property. On the other hand, I think the governmental interest here and the taxpayer interest is that, to the extent that we can seek to not have people take advantage of the known fact that -- and whether it's the Pennsylvania Convention Center or other major development activities by the government or government agencies for public purposes -- that the taxpayers not pay more than they should in terms of fair market value for these instances where, I guess in the entrepreneurial spirit, people figure out that they can increase the value of their property and ultimately have the government pay for it. I think that's unfair to the taxpayers. So I appreciate your work on this matter. As you well know, the Law Department has also provided some assistance, but I do appreciate the perspective of the Planning Commission and your interest and concern about this same matter. And you helped us with the initial Bill and the framework for what we have, and then the amendments have built onto 7 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 that.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I may not necessarily have a question of Mr. Chapman. It may actually be for the sponsor. I'm trying to read this language here. Let me just ask the question. What specific threshold would be set -- I wasn't sure if Mr. Chapman could answer the question. I thought maybe the sponsor could, Because one of the questions I had in terms of the intent of the City is into what level of specificity that would be set. I know in my district, and I'm sure other districts, there are sometimes things that the City intends on doing and they never happen. Is there a specific threshold that we would look at to determine what would then fall 8 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 under the purview of this particular legislation? I understand, obviously, the intent of the Bill, but I just want to make sure that I have a sense of where we are.
Sure. Councilman, I appreciate the question. That helps to lay out some of the provisions. And I will first and foremost admit that, again, through some very quick conversations with both Councilman DiCicco on the concept and then even the Planning Commission in trying to respond rather quickly, I think our first stab at this may have -- if it didn't get us in the ballpark, it at least got us in the parking lot. And then subsequent time and effort with the proposed amendments to deal with that issue. Your question relates to what criteria do you have to meet to create a Pending Public Acquisition District or what kinds of things have to be put forward. What you'll find is on the amendment page -- I think this will be responsive to 9 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 your question. On under No. 2, Statement of Interest to Develop or Condemn, where it talks about a statement verified by a reasonable official of a public agency attesting to the intentions of the agency to acquire by condemnation or otherwise a specifically identified area of the City for purposes of development improvement or other public purpose, subject to the availability of funds currently being sought by the agency or other contingency set forth in the statement in setting forth the agency's plans for redevelopment of the area. That's first. The second and I think the critically important component here is that a bill actually has to be introduced to create a Pending Public Acquisition District. What we have here in essence is a two-part process. The bill in front of us today merely creates the opportunity or the ability to have Pending Public Acquisition Districts. If this bill 23 were to pass, there are still no Pending Public Acquisition Districts anywhere in the City. If you had such a project that you were 10 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 talking about or -- again, specifically in the case of Pennsylvania Convention Center, a Member of Council would have to introduce a bill to create such a district, lay out what the boundaries are. And then when you go to Section 8 14-12031, it talks about, upon the filing by the City or City-related agency with the Chief Clerk of Council of a Statement of Intent to Develop or Condemn, the Council may designate as a Pending Public Acquisition District all of the area involved. And again, you have to lay out what the plans are for that particular development. So I think this is one of those situations where the Councilmember introducing the bill to create the Pending Public Acquisition District -- that's a lot to say at one time -- would be quite well aware of what's going on with that particular project, what its likelihood is. And that doesn't mean I think you're relating to -- there are a few things floating around here where we've created certain districts for development, and 11 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 sometimes they happen, Sometimes they don't.
I didn't want to get into that. And I guess you've got a couple other things here.
Councilman, one of the concerns I may have -- I'm not sure -- once the Statement of Intent to Develop or Condemn is issued and by whatever official or agency, does that then not set up a potential de facto condemnation? I know that there is some caveat with respect to the Redevelopment Authority if there's an action or discussion taken about condemnation or potential acquisition by the City that can legally set up that type of situation, and I'm wondering would this fall under that same category?
There was a fair amount of discussion about that particular issue with the Law Department, and I think the Law Department recognizes that there is a line that we do not wish to cross. This type of legislation is an effort to balance both the 12 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 rights of property owners, as well as the legitimate interests of taxpayers in not paying more or excessively more than they should. There have been court cases, not obviously specifically on this particular point, but on the larger issue you raised about condemnation or a taking. The courts have ruled in some instances that, for instance, moratoriums on development, while there are comprehensive plans being put together, are not illegal. And we at least tried to address that particular issue specifically with regard to variances. When you go to the last page, because that issue is raised affirmatively in the section that talks about, the Zoning Board of Adjustments shall not grant variances from the provisions of this chapter except where the denial of such variance would effect an unconstitutional taking. Lastly, there is a time limit on this. And, again, balancing the interests of the property owners versus the taxpayers, 13 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 there is a two-year time limit. And I guess what you have in effect here is relying on the good judgment of the Member introducing the bill, knowing that the project is going forward. If in fact that area is going to be developed, you know that the public is going to acquire those properties and should start that particular acquisition process or condemnation anyway.
The Statement of Intent would be -- I'm assuming you're saying that the Statement of Intent should not be introduced or issued, I guess to some degree, obviously, prior to the introduction of any condemnation legislation. My concern is that --
Well, if you've got condemnation legislation ready to go, quite honestly, you may not necessarily need this. This is a situation where you may not be ready.
My question is, what triggers the actual condemnation process? Is it the Statement of Intent, or is it the 14 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 traditional, which is the introducing of the authorization for the Redevelopment Authority?
I think the answer is the latter. I don't think filing a statement of interest initiates a condemnation process. The condemnation process, as you well know, it's a legally structured process, I think, by state law. So the filing of this statement, I do not believe represents the start of a condemnation process. I think what you referred to as the latter process, which is the actual filing of a condemnation piece of legislation is what starts that process.
I'd like to see a ruling on that. I'm supportive of the bill. I just haven't dealt with this. I've known in time there were members of the Redevelopment Authority, we were in a room and we were talking about a conceptual project, and they had to excuse themselves from the meeting because they felt if they were even in a discussion with an individual about property acquisition, that that could in fact be construed as triggering the condemnation 15 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 process. This is a little more official.
Obviously, I wasn't in those meetings. I would have to assume that their concern would be that they actually represent an agency with those powers, and if they participate in that kind of forum, it may give the impression that they're about to do something. Our -- when I say "our," City Council's ability to condemn is a function of filing a state statute and then introducing the necessary legislation. I don't necessarily know, Councilman, for instance, that if any one of us set out in a public forum, that, you know, we'd like to acquire X number of properties for some governmental purpose, that that statement in and of itself from any one of us is de facto condemnation or a start of a condemnation process. I think it is the filing of the official documents in accordance with state statute.
I don't want to belabor the point. The statement verified by a responsible official. Sometimes people say 16 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 we're not in that category, I understand. I'm assuming it's not going to be by one of the Councilmembers. Maybe I'm assuming wrong. It would be some government entity out of our purview.
Yes. The anticipation here is that the particular agency or organization would pass some resolution or they might even -- you know, the general manager, the president, the chairperson of that particular agency, if they sent a letter over with all the details expressing that this is being sent on behalf of that particular agency or authority or governmental entity, I believe that that would certainly qualify as verified by a responsible official attesting to the agency. Unless a person is just --
I'm very concerned about this bill. I'm fearful that it might pass, it might get enacted and it 17 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 might do what the Tax Reform Commission did. I regret very much that I voted to support it because it did the very worst thing that government agencies do. So I would be fearful that this bill might be utilized. And once utilized, it would, of course, be utilized for the wrong purposes, as the Tax Reform Commission, in my judgement, has utilized the Tax Reform Commission. I think we're getting processed to death. Is there any acquisition that's required now? What's wrong with the present method of acquiring things? Yesterday there was a meeting that no other Councilmembers except the President and I attended where community members demonstrated their deep concern about the government's tendency to grab land for whatever purpose, good, bad, indifferent. And instead of the City worrying about the rights of citizens, the City seems to be becoming an economic engine all by itself. The City is engaging in activities just like private business does, and it does the same kind of 18 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 things that I've always condemned private business for, showing no interest in the taxpayers, no interest in the citizens, but only interested in developing business. That's the reason I'm concerned if this bill 7 is adopted and if carried through will, whenever utilized, be utilized always for the wrong purpose and always with no consideration for taxpayers. I think we've had enough taking of properties. I think the demand yesterday for a moratorium on any takings was a sound one, but apparently City Council is not interested in what citizens think about anything. They're only concerned with what business forces seem to be interested in. I see no 18 need. Is there any -- can I ask the sponsors, whoever they are, on this Bill, is there any acquisition now needed? Because I'm convinced that the same cost will be involved and acquisition by an acquisition district, the businessman will decide what the investment is worth. It will be included in 19 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 the price and the taxpayers will be paying for the campaign contribution that occurs after the transaction is completed. I see nothing progressive, nothing worthwhile to be achieved by this bill. I think every project ought to be developed on its own. And always I believe the City ought to begin changing many of its policies to put as its first concern what the impact is on the life of the community and the life of citizens.
Councilman Cohen, I appreciate your concern. If I can respond. First, the campaign finance activity is tomorrow.
Campaign finances are always paid for by taxpayers. Because if they're good businessmen, they're making investments.
Councilman, let 20 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 me make sure that we're all clear on the purpose of the bill. This bill only relates to projects that a government or government agency is trying to develop. So, for instance -- and again, the impetus for this is -- we've not talked about the Convention Center, but there is certainly a growing interest in the potential expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center. It needs to be expanded both to the west and to the north. There are -- and Mr. Perks is here who works for the Center -- probably over 100 individual properties in the area within which the Center seeks to expand. The government, in an effort to expand the Center, will need to acquire the properties in the area where the new building would go. Under state statute, we have to pay fair market value for those properties. The issue here is, there is a certain cost of acquiring those properties in their present state. Whether they're used, whether they're vacant, they have a value. The concern is 21 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 that some property owners, now knowing that there is a likelihood that the Pennsylvania Convention Center, for instance, may expand, are seeking to improve, if not rehabilitate or develop their properties that are in the area where the Center plans to expand. The result of that action is that the government, the taxpayers, who I know you care about, will have to pay more for those properties in their improved state if we continue to allow people to just improve their properties, knowing that the government is going to acquire them at a later point in time. Now, I will take the position that anyone who engages in that kind of activity purposely is ripping off the taxpayers. They are driving up the cost and the value of their property that we will have to pay, as citizens of this City or the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, to acquire those properties. This has nothing to do with the issues that I know all of us care very deeply about with regard to property acquisition that may be involved in the NTI program. Because, one, 22 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 the City is not developing those sites. This is only where the government is developing a project. So, for instance, the same situation could have been faced, I don't know, at the National Constitution Center. The same situation could have developed at the -- I don't know if this is government-owned property -- but very well could have been the case at the Kimmel Center or other places where the government has a direct interest, but must acquire property. My only goal here is to seek to prevent as many people as possible from inappropriately developing the properties that will drive up the cost that the public will ultimately pay to acquire those properties. That's what this Bill is about.
Councilman Nutter, I wasn't in Council at the time that you may have been here. Did we not go through something very similar to this when the Convention Center was first being built in terms of acquiring land in that area?
Actually, this 23 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 is worse.
This is probably worse than that because that owner sat on the property and let it deteriorate. This one is now investing money in it to drive up the price to make it more expensive.
Right. I'm sure there were many properties that were acquired by the government to create the present building. I don't know how many.
I couldn't testify to the number, but I can testify that there were many properties that had to be acquired at that point in time.
Well, I think it's a wrong interference by government. Projects are developed that often don't get carried out. I think it's wrong to stop what we're generally trying to do, to get people to improve their properties. I think it's wrong 24 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 for government to pick out one purpose and say, "Since some time the government may want to use this land for such and such a purpose, therefore the owners are going to be rewarded better by denying them the right to improve their properties, even though the development may not occur for years." 9 With respect to the Convention 10 Center, I don't know how long it's going to ever take or if they're ever going to reach agreement. I think if there's any merit to the proposal at all, I think there are other ways of reaching it. Maybe the state laws ought to be changed with respect to the computation of value. And if it's found that somebody has improved their property simply to get more money, maybe a jury awarding a value will discount that. Maybe not. I don't know whether that would be legal. But it seems to me a terrible interference with the rights of private property owners. And if the government acts as the government of Philadelphia recently has acted, it will support the worst aspects of 25 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 what happens, instead of the better aspects.
And I think the Tax Reform's finding that they've issued today convinces me that these efforts to bring in reform techniques to do things always, without exception, always produces the wrong result by just strengthening all the bad characteristics.
Two additional pieces of information, Councilman, to respond to a couple of points that you've made. One, in order to create one of these districts, a separate piece of legislation would need to be introduced. The bill today does not create any specific district. A Councilmember would have to introduce a piece of legislation that is project specific after the Statement of Intention to Develop or Condemn is filed with the Chief Clerk's Office. So to a great extent, we will be relying on the Councilmember who's involved in the project to know when the appropriate time 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 is to introduce the necessary piece of legislation. Second, there is a two-year time limit on the pending Public Acquisition District designation. So if in the event, as you lay out -- and sometimes it certainly does happen -- if the project doesn't move forward or activity or condemnations begin during the course of that two-year period, it would then expire and you'd go back to business as usual. And, you know, the government would be subject to whatever the marketplace determines the value to be. Or if owners go and start improving their properties, we'll ultimately pay the price. I'm very respectful, certainly, of the rights of the private property owners, but I think that in this Council we also have a responsibility to respect the taxpayers' interest here and the public treasury.
It seems to me, first, that it might well be an improper delegation of power to a District Councilmember or any Councilmember that 27 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 introduces the bill if it triggers the operation of this thing. And secondly, why should any taxpayer owning property be denied the right to improve his own property on the view that a Councilmember believes that government has an interest in developing a project? I don't for a moment see government working hard to save money. To the contrary, I think government moves in just the opposite direction. So I think that what you have is a good sounding purpose that will result in much higher costs to taxpayers. And to take away the rights of private citizens, and at a time when there are already far too many complaints about private property being interfered with, that you're going to extend that. When I looked around the room 20 yesterday and saw a roomful of constituents concerned about losing their property and saw that there were only two Councilmembers in the room, I really felt badly. Sure, there were a few staff members. That's the technical way in which we absolve ourselves of 28 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 responsibility for a government acting in a humane way. But a Council Body that shows no 4 interest in the concern of people about losing their homes and finds other things to do -- up to the election, maybe you had an excuse of the campaign. But I don't see any public interest in this at all that deserves interference with the taxpayer's right.
Thank you. Before I recognize Councilman Clarke, I would like the record to indicate that that's one of the reasons why I was the only "no" vote on the NTI program. I voted against it for that reason. That was one of the reasons why I voted against it, in addition to the lack of information. But maybe if more of us had cast a "no" vote, we would have been in a different position to negotiate better. Councilmember Clarke.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, I just wanted to ask one specific question, I guess, on Section 29 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 2-B. The language, "prohibits the construction of vacant land and expansion or improvement." And I guess my question is very detailed with respect to an existing building. As an example --
I'm on . I'm sorry. As an example, an existing building, an occupied building, and from time to time properties are in need of maintenance or I guess you can call it improvements. Say, for example, you needed a new roof on the building, things of that nature, to maintain the existing operation of the building. Is there a provision that would allow those property owners to make those improvements that are necessary or critical to the maintenance of the building and the marketability of the building?
I think there are two things. One, you're absolutely able to get permits to fix any violation, or in the alternative, I'm sure, to prevent you from 30 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 having a violation.
Violation issued by the Department of L&I, Although I am talking about that, but not necessarily only that. As you know, if you have a property, you from time to time have to make improvements to the property simply to make it marketable, not necessarily up to code. I mean, being an owner of an apartment building -- I'm using that as an example -- you have to be able to have a building that's conducive to you making it marketable to potential rentals or condos or whatever that may be. From time to time there's a need to make certain aesthetic improvements, certain preventative improvements. While a roof may not be leaking to the point where you would have a code violation issuance, but you know that at some point you need to put a new roof. So I'm just concerned about that.
Councilman, I think I have two other matters in front of the 31 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 Committee. If it would be okay with you, what I'd like to do is maybe get Tom Chapman out of the witness stand. I think basically what I'm taking from what you said is there needs to be some provision that allows you to maintain the general -- I don't want to say integrity, but you've got to be able to keep your building up and in good and proper working condition. And I understand that. I guess we'll try to do something. I want to make sure, though, that we don't get too close to the line of what's keeping it up to standards. I don't want to say the code, but what's keeping it in good, proper working order versus, you know, crossing that line into, "Well, you know, this will help increase the value." Anything you do is going to increase the value to some extent. But we have an extreme example. You've got a vacant industrial building. You go change the zoning and make it loft apartments. I think that's clearly across the line. If your roof is failing or if you're about to sell the building, like a residential 32 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 property owner might do, you're in the process of selling your property, if you can fix the bathroom, put a new roof on or something like that --
Right, PAINT, shutters. Why don't we in the course of the hearing try to come back with language that addresses that particular issue?
The other question that I have is, what's the role of the Zoning Board in all this? It seems to me that without the Zoning Board's complicity in this action, that nothing would have happened. Is there not a need for the Zoning Board to either take information from the Planning Commission or from the Commerce Department or PIDC or some other relevant agency that would give them information that would see or make it clear that this was an in rem to get a 33 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 variance to improve a property that was vacant, for the most part, until it became clear that the possibility of expanding the Convention Center was going to happen? I think, one, if it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it's a duck. And this is a duck. And the taxpayers are getting ducked as a result of it. What role do you think the Zoning Board should have in having enough information available to them from various agencies so they can say, "Wait a minute. In the best public interest, in the interest of the taxpayers, we're not going to approve this variance because of all the reasons stated earlier"?
Does the Planning Commission have interface with the Zoning Board as a result of that kind of issue? You know, "Wait a minute. Maybe you didn't know, Zoning Board Members, or maybe you did, that we're going to expand the 34 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 Convention Center soon and this building is right in the middle of the mix."
That's certainly something that we would bring to their attention.
I can't say that it was in this case. But it's certainly something that if we had knowledge of and we attended that hearing -- we attend just about every hearing. So if we had knowledge of it and attended that hearing, then we certainly would have brought that to the Board's attention.
Maybe Mr. Perks would be as far as institutional knowledge of that particular parcel. Are there any other questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.) 35 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686
Can I bring Mr. Perks forward to just get his testimony? Could you please identify yourself for the record?
My name is Harry Perks. I'm the project manager for the Convention Center expansion. The plans include expanding from its present location to Broad Street between Arch and Race Street. The Convention Center has been planning this expansion since 1997. And during that period, every two or three years, in order to get a scale on what the overall costs would be, we have RDA make appraisals of the properties within those boundaries. And it shows significant inflation of the properties in that area. If we were to compare the numbers that RDA gave us for the acquisition in January of 1998 and compare them with the cost that they say it would take to acquire them in January of 2003, the costs are three times as much, or about better than 20 percent inflation. And when they asked us as to why those inflation rates are so high as 36 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 compared to inflation of other things, they say that it's partly due to the general commercial value of all the properties downtown as a result of the new hotels and new restaurants and new entertainment venues. But they also say that part of that is the improvements that have been made to the property. There have been several pieces of property in there that have been improved during that time. There's also properties in that block that are empty and not serving any purpose. One of those properties just recently is the one that Councilman Nutter was referring to, where it was reported in the paper that the property was being changed from commercial to residential and a derelict piece of property is going to be turned into 60 apartments, and would increase the value of that property several fold.
It is true that even just the designation from commercial to residential without an inch of improvement would inflate the property tremendously. 37 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686
Just the mere designation of that property from commercial to residential without one cent of improvement being made would increase the value of the property?
Very definitely. Because of the request -- it's kind of a quirk of our laws. The fact that the property request for zoning was improving it, there wasn't any -- you can improve -- they applied for it and got it the same day. They applied on the 26th for the zoning improvement. They got it. The 27th they applied for their building permit. And that's just because it was being changed from commercial to residential, which is an upgrade which is allowed without any fanfare.
Without any fanfare, if the Zoning Board -- would it have been with fanfare if the Zoning Board had taken into consideration the fact that this is an area that was planned for expansion of a public project to expand in that area, could 38 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 they have taken that into consideration? Or maybe they ignored it.
I have no idea as to that process. I wasn't privy to that. I only know what's on the record now and why the Zoning Board justifies to me, just a citizen calling them on the phone, why they say that was so easy to do, because it was an upgrade and upgrades don't have to satisfy any criteria other than that.
Thank you, Mr. Chair. Following up on your question, and your comments, Mr. Perks, the inflation rate, even for those buildings or property owners who did not make any significant improvements or improvements at all is a result of the change in the environment, which we as a government promoted, taking vacant buildings and doing the conversions, they're benefiting by that as well. I guess I'm going back to one of my 39 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 earlier questions or comments to Councilman Nutter, as he responded to Councilman Cohen, just go back to the Rappaport days where he didn't make any improvements to those properties, but he was land banking. And I guess at some point he was aware that the Convention Center was going to be built and seized the opportunity to profit significantly on those properties that we as a government needed to acquire in order to build the Convention Center. So I'm not suggesting that there's another Rappaport out there, but I think the potential for that becomes greater unless we do something now. Would you agree with that, or am I making too much of a stretch?
There's no question. Even if you look at the data that we have -- and it's limited to that block -- but we have a lot information about that block, that the first two years happened to be the years when the new hotels were being built and trying to acquire for the Republican National Convention. The inflation during those two 40 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 years was a lot higher than it has been in the last three years. A lot has to do with the other dynamics of what's going on in the City. Generally, property in downtown -- I only have evidence of this particular property, but I would be surprised if other property downtown wasn't escalating.
I was the sponsor of the original bill, the Exemption Bill that caused the incentive for these vacant buildings to be converted. Basically, when I see it come across my desk, I immediately do a letter of support because I think it's a good thing to be taking vacant buildings and put them to use. But I have two hats, as you know, as a Councilperson for the district, but I also sit on the Convention Center Authority Board and a number of its committees, One being the Expansion Committee. I'm seeing already the potential for a financial burden, an additional financial burden to the taxpayers if we don't act now. As you know from that meeting we had, some of the other things that maybe at 41 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 some point Councilman Nutter may want to entertain the Board giving a briefing to Members of City Council on some of the things that we are paying attention to as a result of the proposed expansion area in terms of, not only the landlords, but the tenants who are occupying some of those buildings, that we're very sensitive to their needs. We don't want to see us lose those tenants. We want to keep them in the City. We've already begun a process of trying to figure out a way of addressing those concerns. I want that on the record so it's not perceived in any way, shape or form that it's the record against one particular property, because it can be many other properties that we may have the same problems going forward. Thank you.
You may have identified yourself earlier, but -- did you? Not just by name, but by your --
In your 42 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 professional opinion and in the capacity that you serve the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority, do you have -- based on this most recent experience, do you have a concern about the potential for escalating cost of acquisition, given both the trends that you've already noticed in the general real estate market and if we have repeated occasions of this situation that has already happened this past summer?
Yes, I do. Because the previous Convention Center in this expansion is one that the public expects to be economically justified. The economic justification for the first one has -- you know, the PEL has made a report in three consecutive reports of progress on two-year increments. That would be from, like, '93 to '99, where every two years when they made an evaluation and the return to the taxpayer was more than what was anticipated in the Economic Justification Report. We have the same problem now. I mean, every time we revise the estimate, we have to test that against an 43 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 income stream. And inflation, obviously, makes that more difficult every time we do that, because it's escalating, especially with respect to the land, because it's escalating at such a disproportionate rate to escalation of everything else in general.
Any reasonable steps that the government can take to both recognize the rights of property owners -- I mean, in another venue. The courts will determine what the fair market value is. That won't be decided in this room. Those rights versus both the economic issues that you've raised, as well as minding the taxpayers' dollars in a reasonable fashion, this is a balancing act. But in your professional opinion, should we take some step to not only recognize those rights, but also protect the public interest and the cost involved?
Mr. Perks, in your basic testimony you said -- correct me if I'm wrong -- when did the talk first start about expansion of the Convention Center?
1997. So we're six years from that. So that this bill, if in effect then, would have for two years stalled any improvements. And yet four years after the two years had expired, there still would be very little movement.
Well, I think during those six years -- in the development of any major project like this, the day that you ask somebody to test its economic feasibility is not the day that I think that you would file 19 for one of these designated areas that Councilman is suggesting. During that period of time, we've tested the economic feasibility. We've had economic studies made to verify that the location in itself was one that took a while to establish. You can't make a good estimate of a project until you 45 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 have the preliminary designs done, and that has taken us time. So I think that you would be in the stage that we are now or perhaps even a little further along before you would request or suggest that such a property would be designated.
So what good would this bill have done in a real sense?
I don't see what good this bill would have done if it had been passed before. Suppose this law were in effect 10 years ago; What would be the situation at the Convention Center?
As I understand the objective of this proposal, I don't think there would have been a bill proposed much earlier than now. It wasn't like when the Board tested the feasibility or is it possible. That was the first question that was asked of me in '97: Is it possible to expand the Convention Center. And if so, where would it go and what would be the implications of that, et cetera, et cetera. 46 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 And those technical problems have been being worked on. Right now, we have about half of the design finished. We think the estimates we have now are very good, that we could go before those agencies that will be appropriating money and defend what the costs would be and how we would justify those costs and what data they would be based on and what the economic implications of it would be.
What I fail to understand is, when would you have started? When would you have decided to insert this two-year rule? Now?
Yes. I would say we're at the stage right now that we would request that. I don't think we would have requested that in 1997, is all I'm saying.
Well, wouldn't the owners of the property begin preparing for that in advance? Won't they, as soon as they understand that the government might be thinking down the road, even five or ten years, of fixing up their property before anybody produces a bill? 47 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686
I know during these years there have been improvements to the property. There's properties involved and 5 several of them -- I can't be specific right 6 now without doing more research, but several 7 of them have had considerable improvements 8 done to their properties during that period of 9 time. 10
It just seems to 11 me that there are far simpler methods to 12 achieve what you're trying to achieve if it's 13 a proper purpose. I'm not sure it is. It 14 seems to me that every business should be 15 keeping in mind what's happening with the area 16 in which they're working, whether there's wise 17 investment of funds to bring it up to date. 18 Just like the food market today where business 19 owners have to decide, do we fix up our 20 property or may the market be moving to 21 Delaware Avenue or even to New Jersey? Is it 22 worth our investment? That's a business decision to make. And that's what they have to make. I don't see anything much to be gained and a lot to be lost if we begin 48 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 interfering with the laws that should govern business. I feel strange arguing the role that business ought to be free of this kind of government interference.
And some folks who have always felt that business ought not to be interfered with by government are now arguing in the other direction. I think that's very strange.
You are the author of the statement, which we all recall, that even rich people have some rights.
Sure, they do. And businessmen make those decisions when they make their campaign contributions, when they make what others might call genuine investments.
Councilman, I think, though, your questioning does help to make the point. Mr. Perks lays out, based on your 49 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 question to him, the time for any Member to have introduced a Pending Public Acquisition District Bill would not have been five or six years ago when this proposal was started. It was nowhere near ready. What happens in the marketplace, as you well know our wonderfully entrepreneurial business community is, when people anticipate that a project is on its way -- not just an idea, not just a whim, but that there's actual likelihood that it's going to happen, they can anticipate. And so you see a flurry of, for instance, real estate transactions in certain places because the entrepreneurial market is anticipating that something will happen. That's fine. There's not much you can do about that. In this situation, though, unlike five or six or seven years ago, it is much more likely, given some other things that have happened over at the Center -- new labor agreement, the place is starting to turn around, the legislature and the Governor talking directly about the prospect of expansion -- it is much more likely now that 50 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 the marketplace will respond in a fairly rapid fashion to seek to do the things now that they have not done for a variety of years. What other reason, what other purpose would the recent activity have taken place? What would possess someone to improve their building, to build 45 new apartments in an area that they know that the Convention Center plans to expand in, but for the purpose of dramatically increasing the value of the property, which we will have to pay for? And if the apartments are fully occupied, the government or the authority will have to relocate or pay a relocation cost for all 45 people or entities that live in those units. That is an outrageous level of activity. It is way beyond any textbook discussion about economics, free trade, entrepreneurism or anything else. That is a rip-off of the taxpayers. And I think that this government should try to do something to prevent that.
Well, why doesn't the State pass a law and we'll join in with an 51 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 ordinance?
Well, Councilman, I don't work for the State. And they don't even have a budget; they don't have school reform; they don't have property tax reduction; They don't have a whole lot of things going on up there. And in the meantime, we have people down on the ground where we operate and function, not in a lofty place like Harrisburg, where this activity is going on right here in our City. I think that we owe the taxpayers some effort. I'm not saying that we're going to stop it all. I'm not saying that we're going to prevent it all, but it might cause someone to slow down or think a little about what they're doing or at least have the government say, "We're not absolutely sure that we're going to make it smooth sailing for you to do something like this because we know at the end of the day we have to acquire all of these properties in order for the Center to thrive."
Why don't you introduce a simple bill providing that any 52 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 repairs done from the point of view of changing the price in a new market developing area will not be considered by the boards that decide the amount of judgments and get that done here in the City?
Councilman Cohen, it's the courts of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania that decide value when you go to condemnation. Now, you know as well as I do, as creative as we are, I can't control what the courts are going to do. I can't have any impact on what they may do in terms of valuing a particular property. We have no ability to legislate with regard to what happens in a condemnation proceeding at all.
Well, we certainly have. We have State Representatives. We have State Senators. We can communicate with them, explain the situation, if you will, and let the State take action. And when the State approves its expenditure --
I understand. Councilman, I'm surprised you'd be advocating 53 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 for the State to take action down here in Philadelphia, given some of our recent situations down here. That may be about the last thing we want to happen. But I understand your point.
I don't think we can have much more confidence in what the City does. But I think what you are doing is creating a process that's going to make these judgments seem fair, when in fact you're going to be ripped off just as badly as you've always been.
Talk about the expansion of the Convention Center has been going on for many years now. If you're making a business decision and you own a property and it is unclear that expansion will ever occur -- because I believe a Governor said, over his dead body possibly, or something close to 54 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 that.
I don't think he went that far. He likes life too much.
Something close to that was said. Now, if I owned a property and heard that kind of conversation, that uncertainty, may never occur, is it fair to stop a person that would like to do what you just described from doing that, knowing that there's nothing --
Councilman, I guess all that I can say to you is that the Governor's comments were back in February. There was a highly charged political environment. And I think if you called Governor Rendell right now, I think he will tell you that after working out a variety of political situations up in Harrisburg, he looks forward to coming to not only the groundbreaking, but the ribbon cutting on the expanded Convention Center.
And I'm sure Speaker Perzel will tell you the same thing.
I understand that. Again, my point, if your' re a business person and nothing is occurring and it doesn't appear that there's anything occurring and you've got a building that has potential and you choose to move forward on that project, should you be penalized?
Well, I guess the question is, what your definition of "penalty" is. What we're saying here is that you can't change the use of the building or significantly improve it. Again, this bill 16 does not create a Pending Public Acquisition District. It creates the ability to create Pending Public Acquisition Districts. Another bill would have to be introduced in a specific place after a Statement of Intention to Develop or Demise was introduced or sent to the Chief Clerk's Office by the responsible agency. There would then be a bill introduced to create the Pending Public Acquisition District. We would be in a public hearing 56 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 about that bill. And you would ask all of those questions about that particular site and that particular development and what's going on with the funding and what's happening with those property owners. This bill does not create any specific district. This is similar to a zoning bill. It creates a classification. How people use it and what they do with it is the subject of a subsequent bill in this Body. So there is no automatic Pending Public Acquisition District created, not even for the Pennsylvania Convention Center. And one could not be created unless two things happened: One, the Pennsylvania Convention Center would have to put the Chief Clerk's Office on notice that they approve the project and have all the plans and details to go with it. Second, a Councilperson would have to introduce a Bill to create a Pending Public Acquisition District. Three, there would have to be a public hearing on that Bill. It would have to 57 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 get through Committee. It would have to be approved by Council. It would then have to be signed by the Mayor. This is not a willy-nilly, slipshod kind of process here. It's all functioning in the public ground like any other bill.
Councilman, I don't set the schedule. We've all had bills move rather quickly.
Councilman, you're not creating a situation where someone that is in the area today, that in fact has a property that they want to develop -- there's the possibility that the Convention Center is going to be expanded. If they choose to improve their building today, you have no 20 problem with that, that value is increased. And once this decision is official, at that point, after all the improvements that they've done, then you would like them to cease making improvements on that property?
Two things, 58 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 Councilman. One, if this bill moves out of Committee, if this bill is approved, if the Mayor signs this bill, it does not affect the Pennsylvania Convention Center or any other buildings in the area that the Center plans expanding to at all. It creates a new zoning classification and a new district. A separate bill, subsequent to the authority, for instance, sending in their Statement of Intention to Develop would have to be filed by the Chief Clerk. A separate bill would have to be introduced to create the district. At that point, you're talking about the Convention Center or some other specific project. Today, there is no project affected by this bill. There's nothing affected by this bill. And if people continue to improve their properties or do whatever it is they're doing while this bill is sitting here in Committee or after it gets out or anything else, it has no impact on those property owners. It doesn't take away from the value. It does nothing to them because there's still no Pending Public Acquisition District 59 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 anywhere in the City of Philadelphia.
I think part of the issue is -- I'm speaking for myself. I don't mind that an entrepreneur uses their ability to look into the future and have some vision and improve a property and make some money from it or even to sell it to a private entity. But the entrepreneurship and the vision is lost on me when the ultimate payer of that profit is the taxpayer, the State and City. If some speculator were to pick up a property in a zone planned for some development by a private entity for retail use or for entertainment use or whatever, and then that private entity had to pay that premium for that improved property upon acquisition or trying to acquire it. I wouldn't have a problem with it at all. That is entrepreneurship. But when the ultimate payer of a profit is the taxpayer and the -- the owners of these buildings were slated to earn 60 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 a profit on their property unimproved. But I think it's becoming somewhat piggish when you want to, you know, expediently improve that profit four or five times what normally the taxpayer would pay in order to acquire that building. So, again, I think the difference in the bill -- and this is Councilman Cohen's ideological issue -- I don't mind people having the foresight to make a profit based on a private investment with another private investor. But when the ultimate payer for the profit of that entrepreneur is the taxpayer, I think we have a responsibility to protect them in some way. Councilman.
Well, I agree that there is a responsibility to the taxpayer. That's why I opposed to use some public monies for the building of the stadiums to turn millionaires into billionaires. That was the whole purpose. I love new things too. I love new stadiums, but not at taxpayers' expense. So it does come strangely from 61 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 people who supported hundreds of millions of dollars going into stadiums to suddenly express concern about the taxpayers. This hearing itself is going to spur a boom around the Convention Center because everybody is going to say, Councilman Nutter is a serious man. And if he's talking about taking the first step so that the second step can be taken in another bill, they can understand quickly that they may have very little time to act. They'll say, well, Councilman Nutter is President of the Convention Center Authority. He's talking. He has Mr. Perks here as an expert witness saying it's long ago time. It's going to cost us more money if we delay. And while it may be that another bill is needed, that's very simple to do once the decision is made. I don't think there will be any problem, and I expect the Councilmembers who cover the area involved are ready to move as soon as something develops. So I think you're setting off the boom today, Councilman Nutter, where it hasn't 62 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 been set off before, that people are taking a business chance. If Mr. Perks has to wait another six years, they may decide it's a losing proposition. But I think it's a facetious argument to say that we're not creating anything now. We are creating. Without this bill, then nothing would be possible later. Nothing could follow the schedule I say that within two weeks to a month the whole thing could be done. We've lived through that experience. And those who say they're worried about the government spending money, I have great difficulty with that argument because the argument is largely coming from those who supported the great extent of public funding. And everybody knows we can, if there's enough pressure, to get a bill passed quickly. Certainly, people won't feel that we're just wasting our breath by enacting this. They'll certainly decide this is the time we're going to move ahead on the Convention Center. I happen to feel differently. I do think the Convention Center is going to have a lot of 63 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 problems with any expansion problems or expansion proposals. I could be wrong and maybe it will go through very quickly. I don't want to get caught again in this wild passion for stadiums or extensions of Convention Centers or anything. There is no 8 time later. Nobody listens. From the moment a plan is proposed and the money is provided, nobody will listen to anything except every day delay is wasted money. Let me ask you, what would have happened if we had this bill and it had been applied when the Mayor chose Chinatown as a place for one of the stadiums? For two years that would have been blocked until such time as the Mayor came to his senses and decided Chinatown was not the right place. But it wasn't the Mayor. The people made clear that they wouldn't support any proposal for Chinatown.
Councilman, you assume that in that particular instance that Councilman DiCicco would have introduced such a bill. I think my recollection is that the 64 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 Councilman was opposed.
I like Councilman DiCicco, but I wouldn't want to take a chance on that. But I'm really concerned by this. The theory of having these procedural items set up, I believe is only to make something look good when it doesn't look good. That's the net result. That's why the Tax Reform Commission gets an editorial from the Daily News today. The people voted for the Tax Reform Commission; therefore, we've got to support them all the way and come up with a proposal which just is meaningless, that just gives credibility to a bad taxing system.
We've heard from the laissez-faire, so let's go to Councilman Rizzo.
What if a property owner decides to expand or significantly improve the property, and by the time the property gets condemned, he's 50, 60 percent through the project; would the property owner be allowed to finish the project after notice is served that the property will be condemned?
Councilman, I apologize. What was the first part of the question?
I have no problem reading it again. If a property owner decides to expand or significantly improve the property, and by the time the property gets condemned, he's 50, 60 percent through the project; will the property owner be allowed to finish the project after notice is served that the property will be condemned?
To get the value of the property. 66 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686
He'll have that already because the zoning designation will give it that.
Councilman, with or without this particular legislation, that is an issue that anyone -- forget about whether there is a Pending Public Acquisition bill or not -- and Mr. Perks might actually be able to respond to this from his previous experience. If the government decides to acquire a property for public purpose, a value is placed on the property, an appraisal is done and you end up in court. It's where those decisions are usually made. The court will examine what has happened here, how much have you completed, what could you have realized since you've started down this particular path. And in your example, you're actually more than 50 percent along the way. The court will then calculate what basically is your loss by the project not going forward and place a value on it. And the property owner can either accept it or they can not accept it and appeal the court's decision. 67 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 With or without a Pending Public Acquisition District, if the government decides that it wants a property for a public purpose, it will get that property. It will take that property and it will pay some amount of money as determined by the courts. Whether you're half finished, a quarter finished, 75 percent or you're about to cut the ribbon to open the place, It doesn't matter.
But haven't there been situations -- I remember -- and maybe not here, but in other places where people have fought the condemnation and have survived and won? It's not a given.
Absolutely. I saw a situation -- I don't know who the condemning party was, but I saw one of the casinos, I think they had to build the casino around somebody's house. I don't know the particulars of it. I'm sure that there were some people who didn't want to sell in the first Convention Center situation or in the Gallery or any big public project. Stadiums. Last I checked, they all seem to be pretty 68 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030686 happy campers. And the Eagles are doing not too bad and the Phillies are anticipating opening next season. I saw the pictures, I saw the weird little situation. I don't know that we've had that problem here in Philadelphia. You end up in court, a value is assigned, you pay your money. If you don't like it, you appeal to the next higher court. But the situation that you lay out, quite honestly, I would say has virtually nothing to do with this particular situation. Once the government files their condemnation papers and a bill is introduced here in the Council for that particular situation, you can either take what's offered, negotiate a better price, or you're going to end up in court, regardless of how far along you are with your project because the government has the right to condemn property for public purpose.
Councilman, do 69 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030716 you have anything to add?
Why don't we proceed with the other bills. Thank you, Mr. Perks, for your attendance. The next Bill on the agenda is Bill 10 No. 030716, which is an ordinance approving a new plan, estimated costs and proposed method of charges of the City Avenue Special Services District for and concerning business improvements and administrative services to portions of the City Avenue area of the City of Philadelphia and Township of Lower Merion. Please identify yourself for the record, Mr. Bumb.
Good afternoon, Councilman Kenney. My name is Duane Bumb. I'm the Deputy Director of Commerce. I appreciate the opportunity to provide testimony in support of Bill 030716, which approves a new plan for the City Avenue Special Services District. The plan includes 70 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030716 the estimated costs and assessment charges for those properties within the City of Philadelphia and Lower Merion Township that are located within the boundaries of this Special Services District. The Bill will allow the City Avenue Special Services District to continue its enterprising work of improving the image of the City Avenue area while developing effective programs and introducing additional resources. Last year City Council approved a 20-year extension of the term of the City Avenue Special Services District, allowing it the flexibility to seek long-term borrowing. The loan proceeds obtained through such borrowing will be used for streetscape enhancements or other investments in public infrastructure that can further assist in beautifying the area and attracting investment from the private sector. The Special Services District has been effective in creating an environment where area property owners, businesses and 71 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030716 institutions work together bridging across the City boundary to further the improvements of the larger community. As a result, the area has seen an increase in physical improvements, like landscaping, streetscape and private building enhancements, while experiencing a decrease in crime levels. The City Avenue Special Services District presence has strengthened the long-term business viability of the community. With a new plan authorized by this Bill, the Special Services District plans to continue to promoting the potential of the area as the nation's first multi-jurisdictional Special Services District. The City Avenue Special Services District's success has been documented many times and serves as an example of how inter-governmental cooperation can have a positive impact on the community. The renewal of City Avenue Special Services District is critical to the future success of this area. I, therefore, respectfully urge you to support passage of this bill. I'd be 72 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030716 pleased to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Mr. Cohen, I know you've been here awhile, so if you'd like to synopsize your testimony, I'm sure you're in favor of it also.
Thank you. And I will try to be brief. I'm David Cohen, the Executive Director of City Avenue Special Services District. I want to thank the Committee on Rules for allowing me to testify today on Bill No. 030716, approving the 20-year plan and other aspects of the District going forward. Following the public hearing held by the City Avenue Special Services District on the 20-year plan, which was held on September 24th, 2003, during a 45-day objection period which ended on November 8th, 2003, the City Avenue Special Services District did not receive objections to the 20-year plan. Also, the Township of Lower Merion Board of Commissioners' Building and Planning 73 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030716 Committee held a hearing on a resolution 3 similar to Bill No. 030716 on November 12th, 2003. The City Avenue Special Services District is completing its fifth year as the first multi-jurisdictional business improvement district in the country. Among its programming, the District has created an eight-member community service patrol, where the City Avenue area is patrolled by bicycles six days a week. The District has also performed improvements to the landscaping, including a $329,000 project to rehabilitate the Presidential Boulevard pedestrian bridge, which is scheduled to be completed by Christmas of this year. In addition to its programming and work, the District has also helped to facilitate improved cooperation between the Township of Lower Merion and the City of Philadelphia. A number of elected officials have been key to the formation and success of the 74 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030716 City Avenue Special Services District, including Councilman Nutter, former Representative Leader Cohen, Commissioners Edelson and Mack of Lower Merion Township. In addition to these individuals, we've had the support of Senator Connie Williams, Representative Louise Williams Bishop, Representative Catherine Manderino and Representative Melissa Murphy Weber, as well as members of my Board of Directors. I'd like to acknowledge the support of property owners within the City Avenue Special Services District as well. Bill No. 030716 provides for 16 years of additional operation of the City 17 Avenue Special Services District, so that the 18 District can continue to implement and expand 19 its program. 20 I respectfully request that Bill No. 21 030716 be reported from the Rules Committee. I'd be pleased to answer any questions concerning this bill. Thank you
Thank you very much. 75 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030719 Any questions for these witnesses? (No response.)
Seeing none, thank you for your patience in waiting. Mr. Bumb, do you have to testify on the next one, or no?
Okay. Thank you. The next Bill for consideration is Bill No. 030719, which is an Ordinance 13 amending Section 14-312 of the Philadelphia Code entitled, "Commercial District Rules and Exceptions for All Districts," by adding the area of Lancaster Avenue, both sides, between 63rd Street and Girard Avenue. Please identify yourself for the record.
Good afternoon once again, Mr. Chair and Members of the Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 030719. This Bill was introduced by Councilmember Nutter on October 30th of this 76 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030719 year. This Bill amends Section 14-312 of the Zoning Code by adding the area of Lancaster Avenue, between 63rd Street and Girard Avenue, as an area where parking regulations for dance halls, nightclubs and restaurants would be required. Section 14-312 1-B requires dance halls and nightclubs to provide one space for every two occupants for nightclubs and dance halls, and one space for every four occupants for restaurants. This bill would apply those same requirements to this stretch of Lancaster Avenue. This bill is being considered by the Planning Commission again today. I'd be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you very much. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.)
Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, the 77 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030719 Chair recognizes, when he is ready, Councilman Nutter for the purpose of discussion of amendments to Bill No. 030686.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, if you go to the proposed amendments there now as a result of the good discussion -- additional proposed amendments. If you go to , Section 11 14-1203, insert a new sentence after the first sentence, which would read, "The Chief Clerk of the Council shall deliver a copy of the Statement of Intent to Develop or Condemn to the Zoning Board of Adjustment and the Philadelphia City Planning Commission within three days of the filing of such statement." On , after Letter E, there would be a new Letter F to read, "Letter F, parentheses, nothing in this section shall prevent the issuance of a permit for work to be conducted in order to ensure the general maintenance and proper upkeep of any building or structure, regardless of whether a violation notice has been issued by the 78 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030719 Department of Licenses and Inspections." Lastly, in Section 14-12051, a new sentence at the end of the first sentence, which would read, "The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall be notified by the Chief Clerk of Council within three days of the filing of a Statement of Intent to Develop or Condemn, and shall consider the Statement of Intent to Develop or Condemn in making any decision." I believe, Mr. Chairman, those are all the proposed amendments responding to some of the issues that were raised.
Are there any questions or comments from Members of the Committee relative to the amendments? (No response.)
Seeing none, is there anyone to testify or have any comment on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing none, that will conclude the Committee on Rules. - - - - 79 11/18/03 - RULES - BILL 030719 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - - Tuesday, November 18, 2003 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 030686, 030716, 030719. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK RIZZO 80 11/18/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We'll now convene a public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion to approve the amendments to Bill 030686.
Mr. Chairman, I move that the amendments as read into the record in the public hearing to Bill 030686 be approved. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed to the amendments. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on the amended Bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 030686, as amended, be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be 81 11/18/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
Let the record show that Councilmember Cohen has voted no. 12 The Bill No. 030686, as amended, will be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on 030716.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill No. 030716 be reported out of the Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.) 82 11/18/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030716 will be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Nutter for a motion on 030719.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I move that Bill No. 030719 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and seconded. 83 11/18/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor? (Aye.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030719 will be reported out of this Committee favorably and a request be made for Rules suspension to allow first reading at our next Council Session. I appreciate your attention. That concludes the business of the Rules Committee. Thank you. (Council adjourned at 4:50 p.m.) 84 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of November 18, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR