ZCC VOTES YES! Draft code moves to City Council, but threat remains

ZCC Regular Session

Zoning CodeCommission members voted 22 to 0 to send the Preliminary Report to City Council. Seven commission members abstained, including Councilmen Bill Green and Brian O’Neill. Green and O’Neill petitioned fellow commissioners last week to include an amendment that would delay the effective date of the new code until zoning map revisions are completed in each planning district– a process that may take another 5 to 10 years. The proposal generated a heated debate at today’s meeting, but the required two-thirds vote was reached by a majority of members who believe the draft codeis ready for City Council. The threat to delay the code’s effective date remains, however. Bill Green quickly introduced a motion to include a minority report in the package that is transmitted to Council and make councilmembers aware of the proposed amendment. That motion passed with 9 votes.

The debate about effective date centers on what Councilmen Green and O’Neill are calling “de facto” or “back door” remapping. They believe the adoption of the draft code will result in automatic changes to existing districts and that these changes are essentially a rezoning of property. “The expansion of permitted uses and changes to dimensional standards embed remapping into the text,” O’Neill said. Councilman Green agreed and described how the consolidation and renaming of districts could impact neighborhoods. He said the conversion from R-4 to RSA-2, for example, would allow a block of five single family houses to transition into11 dwelling units by right. Green added that newly permitted home occupations could exacerbate that density further with traffic and noise, changing the quiet character of the neighborhood. (View the Councilmen’s May 5, 2011 Letter to Commissioners  and proposed amendment.)

Not all ZCC members were convinced. Emanuel Kelly said the draft code is a framework of words and ingredients, not a remapping. Greg Pastore disputed Green’s R-4 example more directly, stating that the same number of homes could be built under the current code. More importantly, Pastore emphasized that the issues Green and O’Neill raise will not be solved through remapping. He explained that the commission made decisions on uses and dimensional standards that some may think need to be revisited, but any concerns must be addressed with the text. “The code will be the tool PCPC hasto work with during remapping,” Pastore said. Commissioners Daniela Voith and Peter Kelsen raised concerns about enforcing two codes at the same time, which would be necessary if the new code comes into effect as each district is remapped. They both urged the ZCC to send the code to City Council and let it do what it needs to do.

Commissioner Eleanor Sharpe wanted a professional opinion. She asked consultant Kirk Bishop if he thought Philadelphia was heading down the wrong path. Mr. Bishop replied that the consultant team recommended this course to begin with and that he believes it is the right one: write the code first and address the zoning map second. “I have been a zoning consultant for 25 years,” Bishop said, “and this is the preferred approach.” He explained that this debate occurs in every jurisdiction and it is always a difficult discussion. “I was project director for Chicago and they have done exactly as recommended here,” Bishop added. “Broader uses, new setbacks and standards became effective the day the code was adopted. But this approach allows everyone to be treated equally. The basic rules need to apply universally or the project can get derailed.” He stressed that it is nearly impossible to create a zoning code that doesn’t trip the wire for someone. “There is always someone who is going to perceive a change as a rezoning.”

While there are some unresolved issues that remain, most ZCC members agreed the draft code achieves the primary objectives of making the zoning process more predictable and transparent. Any flaws, they said, can be discussed with the benefit of City Council input. But Commissioner Stella Tsai cautioned fellow ZCC members about characterizing code language that way. “Much of what we are calling flaws are policy decisions where we drew the line as a commission,” Tsai said. “We are using the word “flaw” to describe what we would prefer if we had our way. To me, this code does what the charter wanted us to do and it is ready to roll.” Bill Green agreed that the ZCC has done a lot of good work, but he doesn’t believe the Commission is meeting the charge to protect existing neighborhoods. “That is why I am recommending this one small amendment,” he said.

Before Chairman Alan Greenberger called for the final vote, the public had an opportunity to weigh in. Kiki Bolender, an architect that led workshops associated with the ZCC civic engagement process, said she was disappointed. “During the Common Ground workshops we heard people say over and over again that there is a lack of leadership in City Council. This is the most craven example,” Bolender said. Speaking directly to Brian O’Neill and Bill Green, she said she was disappointed in their fear-mongering and inaccuracies. “How can you call this proposal a small amendment when it will delay the process 5 to 10 years and probably kill it?”

Mr. Greenberger called for a vote on the motion, stating that it required a two-thirds vote or 21 of 31 members. The vote to send the Preliminary Report to City Council passed 22 to 0 with 7 abstentions. (View the Resolution.)

Bill Green immediately called for a motion to provide a minority report, which would be transmitted along with the majority Preliminary Report to City Council. The minority report would be the Preliminary Report with his amendment as the only change. Mr. Greenberger clarified exactly what the vote meant and that it needed just seven positive votes. The minority vote passed with 9 votes.

The zoning code now goes to City Council, which is required to convene a public hearing within 45 days.