Committee Hearing, December 7, 2005

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, December 7, 2005 10:25 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO BILLS 050953, 051021, 051022, 051026, 051028 and 050954 - - - 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 2

Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. For the record, I would note that we do have a quorum present. To my extreme right is Councilman Kenney. Next to Councilman Kenney is Councilwoman Miller. We also have Councilman Clarke, and to my extreme left is Councilman Kelly. At this time, I would ask Mr. McPherson to kindly read the title of Bill No. 051021. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 16 approving the 17th amendment of the redevelopment proposal for the South Central Urban Renewal Area, being the area beginning at the intersection of the southerly side of Washington Avenue projected and the easterly side of Delaware Avenue, including the 17th amendment to the urban renewal plan and the 12th amendment to the relocation plan, which provides, inter alia, for the 3 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. additional land acquisition of approximately two properties for recreational and related reuses; the provisions of certain relocation services, as required by law and declaring that condemnation is not imminent with respect to the project.

Mr. Wetzel. 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 Chairperson and members of the Committee, I'm here to speak in support of Bill No. 051021, the 17th amended redevelopment proposal and the 17th amended urban renewal plan for the South Central Redevelopment Area and the South Central Urban Renewal Area. This bill would authorize the 4 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Redevelopment Authority to acquire two vacant blighted lots. The Redevelopment Authority will acquire this land as part of the Neighborhood Transformation Initiative. The acquisitions will be financed with NTI bond proceeds. This amendment will allow the Authority to complete an assemblage of vacant lots on the 900 block of South 22nd Street. This assemblage will result in the creation of an urban park that will provide open space for the Southwest Center City community. Madam Chairperson and members of the Committee, I respectfully request favorable consideration of Bill No. 18 051021 and would request a suspension of rules to allow first reading at the next scheduled Council session.

Thank you very much. Mr. Wetzel, in your testimony, you stated that NTI bond proceeds would be used for the acquisition of these 5 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. properties. What is the anticipated acquisition cost?

The estimated cost of acquisition is $120,000.

$120,000?

Yes. And when we budget that, Council President, that includes all the advertising, for example, for this hearing, the subsequent advertising for the declaration of taking and a percentage of funding in case the value was challenged by the owners at the Board of View. So that's the maximum we think that it's going to cost, and most times it's less than the maximum, but we want to make sure we budget appropriately.

Thank you. What will the approximate size of the proposed park be once the acquisitions are completed?

Council President, 6 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. I'm Kathleen Murray from the President's office. This rendering shows it's --

I think we have somebody from the Redevelopment Authority here.

It will run from Montrose Street to Carpenter Street.

I'm sorry. You're going to have to identify yourself for the record.

Good morning. Troy Adams, Project Manager for the Redevelopment Authority. Madam Chairperson, the park will run from Montrose Street to -- I believe the next street is Carpenter Street. The lots are approximately 60 feet deep. So it will give you almost an entire City block of open space, approximately 8,000 square feet.

Thank you very much. Are there any questions from 7 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. members of the Committee? (No response.)

Seeing none, we will now hear from our next witness. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Thank you, Madam Chairwoman and members. Good morning. I'm Richard Redding, Director of Community Planning at the City Planning Commission here to testify very briefly on Bill 051021. It's a redevelopment proposal in South Central for recreational use. It was approved by our staff in March of 2005. I'm here to indicate Planning Commission support and to help answer any questions. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions or 8 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Seeing none, I thank you, gentlemen. Thank you. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please call our next witnesses, please. MR. McPHERSON: John McHugh, Ann Hoskins Brown, Larry Scheffer, April White, Gary Spawn.

Good morning. I don't know who is testifying first, but please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

My name is Ann Hoskins Brown. I've lived in the Southwest Center City community for almost 20 years now. I'm the former Board Chair of SOSNA, the South of South Neighborhood Association. We've been working on this project for probably going on three years now, and I wanted to start by thanking 9 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. you and your office for the support that you've given us with this. The lack of a public park in our community has been a problem for a number of years. When I first moved to the area, there were many active community gardens, but the only truly public space was the Marion Anderson Recreation Center. There's still no 11 public parks in our area, and, in fact, in the entire 19146 zip code, there are only three public parks as opposed to 19147, which has 11. There's a lot of development going on in the neighborhood, and sites are rapidly being eaten up by this development. We believe this is the last site remaining in the community that would be available for use as a public park space. We really want to encourage the Committee to support this, and the community has been heavily in favor of this for a number of years. As the Planning Commission pointed out, it has 10 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. been included in the neighborhood plan, which was approved by the community last year. So thank you.

And I want to thank you publicly for all the time, effort and energy that you have put into this. Thank you so much.

You're welcome.

Our next witness, please identify yourself for the record. MR. McHUGH: My name is John McHugh. I'm a member of the South of South Neighborhood Association. I'm the Chairman of their Zoning Department, and I've been working with this Garden Committee for a few years, too, and we've been trying to put together different parcels, and it seems that this is really the last opportunity to get an open space park area for the neighborhood, and I think it's very important just for the 11 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. whole sense of community to have a park. I would like to thank City Council President here. She's worked hard with us on all this, and Kathleen Murray, her staff, and I'm in favor of it. Thank you.

Thank you very much for coming in to testify. Our next witness.

I'm Larry Shaeffer. I live at 1805 Christian Street. I've lived here for over three years, and one of the first things I recognized was that there are no open space and green space. And it just came to mind yesterday on the NPR radio program, they were talking about the trend of middle-class families with children leaving the cities. They interviewed these families, and one of the first issues that came up was green space, that people wanted green space for their kids, so they were going to the 12 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. suburbs for a front yard. And they interviewed families that were staying in the cities, and one of the first things they said was that the neighborhood parks were their front yards, and that's what they liked about it. So we need more of them. Our neighborhood has just about the least amount of green space in the City. Marion Anderson Rec Center is a great facility, but it basically is restricted just to team sports. And so I'd like to thank the President for all her work on this project, and we look forward to having a park in our neighborhood. Thank you.

And I thank you for coming in to testify. Thank you. Our next witness?

Hello. My name is April White and I live in the 2100 block of Montrose Street, within the site of 13 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. the proposed park. I've lived there for about a year now and have been watching the neighborhood change quite rapidly in that time. I found the thing that I am really impressed about the neighborhood is how important it is to the neighbors to have a sense of community and not just blank buildings and faceless neighbors, and I think that this park is a wonderful opportunity to have a community gathering spot. So I hope that you find that you can support it. Thank you.

Thank you.

My name is Gary Spawn, neighborhood resident. I thank the Council for considering this proposal. I believe that it's important to our community to see some progress on the implementation of some of those things that we worked into our neighborhood plan, and I believe if this 14 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. park comes to fruition, that it will be a positive sign in the neighborhood that active involvement and active planning in the neighborhood does make a difference for a better community. Thank you for your consideration.

Thank you. Sir?

My name is David Grande. I live on the 2000 block of St. Alden Street, just a few blocks from where the park would be, and I just want to reiterate the neighborhood and the community support for this project. I think it's incredibly important that we begin to have some open space in the neighborhood, and just urge you to support this, because this is really the last opportunity for this neighborhood to have any sort of park in our neighborhood, and I think it will really do a lot to improve the quality of 15 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. life, as well as to really help bring the neighborhood together as it begins to change so rapidly. Thank you.

Thank you. I certainly want to thank all of you for coming in to testify and all of the time that you have put into this and certainly for all of your involvement in the community. Ms. Murray, is there anything that you would like to add to the testimony already presented?

Yes. Thank you, President Verna. Kathleen Murray. I have in front of me letters from Representative Babette Josephs in support of this, and I will give these to the stenographer to put into the record. I also have a letter from Doerte Smith, a resident of the 1800 block of Fitzwater Street, and Laura Blanchard from the 2000 block of Christian Street in support of 16 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. this. And just quickly, one other point, the rendering you saw, we looked at five locations, and the market forces simply stay ahead of us. There are houses in that area, as the President knows, that are selling for almost a million dollars. We could not acquire the properties we needed, and this literally is the last site. City Planning had gone as far as to do three renderings, and the 22nd Street is the last site. Another important note is, Redevelopment Authority owns all the other lots adjacent to these two. Thank you.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.

Yes. Thank you, Madam Chair. I just have one question. 17 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Maybe Mr. Wetzel could answer it. Who will be responsible for maintaining the park?

There's a non-profit neighborhood group that will be responsible for maintenance of the park. They are seeking private foundation funding to do this.

And they will be financially able to do that?

We believe so, yes.

Thank you.

Thank you. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Seeing none, is there anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)

Very well. 18 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. I called that bill first because I noticed that on our list of witnesses, that was probably the only bill that we had so many private citizens to testify and I didn't want to have them sit here all day unnecessarily, because I know many of them have to go to work, but I want to thank them for coming in. And having said that, I do note that our City Solicitor is sitting in the audience, and I am sure that he has to get back to work, so I would, therefore, ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 051028. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 17 amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by adopting a new Chapter 14-400, entitled "Commercial Entertainment District," under certain terms and conditions.

Good morning, gentlemen. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Good morning.

Good morning. 19 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. SOLICITOR DIAZ: I'm Romulo L. Diaz, Jr., City Solicitor for Philadelphia.

Good morning. My name is Thomas Chapman. I'm the Acting Deputy Director of the City Planning Commission.

Who is going to testify first? SOLICITOR DIAZ: I'm going to go first, Madam President, if I may. Good morning, President Verna and members of the Committee. I am Romulo L. , City Solicitor, and I appear today on behalf of the Administration and the Philadelphia Gaming Advisory Task Force, of which I am General Counsel. Before the Committee is Bill 24 No. 051028 introduced by Councilman DiCicco and ten of his colleagues, which 20 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. proposes to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Code and adopt a new chapter to create Commercial Entertainment Districts. My testimony today will describe the general need for this legislation, and I will defer to Thomas Chapman, Acting Executive Director of the Planning Commission, who will discuss the details of the proposal. The stakes for the City could not be higher. New industries that employ thousands are not created every day, so it is a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the City to plan the arrival of such an industry. In short, the City must act effectively and responsibly to ensure that the arrival of casinos is managed in a manner that maximizes returns and minimizes impacts on the people of Philadelphia. In summary, the purpose of the bill is straightforward: To establish zoning rules which City Council can apply to specific prospective districts after the districts have been appropriately 21 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. planned and designated. Both the Administration and the Gaming Advisory Task Force support timely passage of this bill. In July 2004, the Commonwealth authorized the licensing of two slot casinos in Philadelphia. Among other things, the Pennsylvania Race Horse Development and Gaming Act of 2004 created a state Gaming Control Board with exclusive authority to license gaming facilities in the Commonwealth and preempted local land use controls. Under the Gaming Act, each casino will have 3,000 slot machines and can, with permission of the Gaming Control Board, increase to 5,000 machines. Casinos will operate hours 20 a day and, according to projections 21 developed by the Gaming Advisory Task 22 Force, will likely draw approximately 5 23 million people annually to each casino. 24 Those people will largely come by car, with as many as 28,000 automobile 22 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. arrivals at each casino on a peak day. And depending on the marketing strategies implemented by these casinos, there may be substantial bus traffic as well. Therefore, Philadelphia's local interests require implementation of appropriate land use controls as soon as feasible. On June 22, 2005, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court struck down the zoning preemption. It is important to note that the General Assembly retains the ability to reenact the preemption provision. In this complex environment, we believe that it is in the best interests of the City to establish a transparent process that balances local interests with the Commonwealth goal of prompt revenue generation to fund tax reduction. Therefore, it is the Administration's desire to establish reasonable land use controls that provide for casino development permits as of right. The proposed Commercial Entertainment District legislation is a 23 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. good first step in such a process. The second step is subsequent legislation that would authorize and establish rules for each district to ensure that neighborhood-specific concerns and issues are addressed. The Gaming Task Force included in its report five proposed districts, but those are merely intended to be illustrative. City Council and the Planning Commission will evaluate Commercial Entertainment Districts as suitable districts when projects are submitted. We recommend that district-specific planning be initiated only after license applications are submitted to the Gaming Control Board. This initiative mirrors efforts taking place across the Commonwealth.

For example, Pittsburgh's Planning Commission has approved a gaming-related ordinance, and next Monday the Pittsburgh City Council will hold a hearing much like this one, with the aim of enacting 24 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. zoning changes before the legislative session ends this month. Additionally, the Administration is committed to exploring ways to streamline development timelines. For example, the Administration expects to allow phased or bundled permitting while final design elements are being completed. This will be a complicated and development-specific process, but one that the Administration is committed to exploring with proposed developers while their applications are pending with the Gaming Control Board. In closing, I would like to express my appreciation to Councilman DiCicco and his staff, the staff of the Task Force and the team of experts in the Law and Planning Departments who worked tirelessly to draft this bill. This concludes my prepared testimony, and I would be pleased to answer questions either now or after Mr. Chapman's testimony. 25 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Thank you.

I think Mr. Chapman should render his testimony, please.

Thank you. Good morning once again, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I'm the Acting Executive Director of the City Planning Commission. Bill No. " The proposed Commercial Entertainment District is intended to permit the orderly development of major entertainment facilities, including licensed gaming facilities in the City of Philadelphia. This bill would create the new district, but it does not map that district anywhere in the City. That would require further action by the City Council. Under the terms of this new 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. zoning classification, both the City Council and the Planning Commission prior to the enactment of any site to the Commercial Entertainment District zoning classification must approve a plan of development. That plan of development must include the following details and information: The extent, boundaries and area of the district, including the lot area and width dimensions; the gross floor area of all buildings; the dimensions and heights of any proposed structure or any existing structure, as well as the use of all buildings; the total occupied area of the district; all setbacks and open space; the size and location of all parking areas; and the size and location of all driveways to be used for vehicular traffic; the size and location of any signs; and a landscaping plan. The permitted uses in this district include licensed gaming facilities, exhibition halls, meeting 27 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. facilities, banquet facilities, hotels and other residential uses, marinas, offices, parking facilities, restaurants, nightclubs, retail sales and theatres. Once a Commercial Entertainment District has been established, building plans are submitted initially to the Planning Commission to determine whether they are in accord with the approved plan of development. If those plans are not in accord with the approved plan of development, reconsideration by City Council would be necessary. If they are in accord with the approved plan, the plans are then referred to the Department of Licenses and Inspections for the issuance of permits. Area regulations, including provisions limiting the gross floor area of all buildings on a site and height limitations, may be imposed by Council, depending on the location. Open area is required at 30 percent of the site for properties larger than four acres and at 28 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. ten percent of the site for properties smaller than four acres. Thirty percent of the required open area may be located above the ground level. Any site located on either the Schuylkill or Delaware River must provide a setback of 50 feet from that river. In terms of off-street parking, for hotels the legislation poses a ratio of one space for every two units and for licensed gaming facilities provides for the imposition of a parking ratio that will address the individual needs of the specific location. In areas of the City where there's a greater level of off-street parking already in existence or where public transportation is readily available, a lower parking space ratio may be appropriate. Prior to the establishment of any Commercial Entertainment District, a traffic study must be presented to the City for consideration. All parking lots 29 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. and garages require screening, lighting and landscaping, and in instances where a Commercial Entertainment District would adjoin a residential district, a planted buffer of at least six feet in width and six feet in height must be provided. Accessory signs identifying the name, use or purpose of each building in the district are permitted generally based on the linear street frontage of the property. Additional size may also be permitted upon the approval of the Art Commission.

Considering the significant scale and extraordinary level of activity these businesses will create, a design review provision has been proposed for buildings in a Commercial Entertainment District. This review would be administered by the Planning Commission as part of its consideration of any requests for rezoning of a property to the Commercial Entertainment District classification. The design of any 30 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. building, as well as siting, access and landscaping would be considered as part of that design review. A Public Art requirement has also been proposed for this district. Conformance to these provisions would require the approval of the Art Commission. Public Art would be required to be included in the development at a cost based on the percentage of the cost of the development. For the record, the Planning Commission at its meeting of November 22, 2005 reviewed Bill No. 051028 and recommended that it be approved. I would like to acknowledge the excellent work of the Mayor's Gaming Advisory Task Force under the leadership of Shawn Fordham and also my colleague, Romy Diaz, and his staff at the Law Department. I'd also like to thank Councilman Frank DiCicco and his staff for their leadership and interest in this issue. 31 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. That concludes my testimony, and I'd be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.

Thank you very much. Mr. Chapman, Subsection 14-403(2) of the bill provides Council approval of "a plan of development shall be presumed if Council fails to approve by ordinance, disapprove by ordinance or table consideration of a proposed plan within 45 days after submission by the Commission of a proposed plan to Council." Why are these time restrictions being imposed on Council, and can you tell us what happens if Council is not in session during that period of time?

Madam President, if you read through the entire bill, time limits are imposed on all of the various reviews. That is part of --

Streets Department, Water Department. 32 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

And Planning Commission.

Well, I think that's something that we have to discuss I think for the record, if nothing more, because the bill also provides that "the Commission shall submit any proposed plans to the Streets and Water Departments for their review before the Commission takes any action and that the Departments have 30 days within which to conduct their reviews." Again, the question is, what happens if the Departments do not take any recommendations or make any recommendations within the 30-day period? Why is the Commission's approval presumed if it fails to take action within 45 days of the submission of a completed plan? SOLICITOR DIAZ: Madam President, could I just respond briefly?

Please. SOLICITOR DIAZ: I want to go 33 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. back to your original question, because I think the way it was posed suggests something different that was intended. This is not an attempt to impose on Council, but, in fact, a proposal to Council that if you believe that it makes sense from a time perspective given the time constraints imposed by the legislation adopted by the General Assembly and the expected issuance of licenses, there's going to be a need to move, frankly, expeditiously through all of the processes that are laid out. It is certainly anticipated that the Administration in terms of the permitting process and the operating departments will be acting quickly. One of the points that I made in my testimony is that we would be looking at phased and bundling of permits that would be responsive to the building industry association report of last year, which essentially said that the permitting 34 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. process needs to be streamlined. The Administration is committed to doing that. There's every expectation that to the extent recommendations need to be made by the operating departments, they will be made in a timely way. But I would just simply indicate that there will be a time-limited opportunity for the licenses to be issued; that is, an opportunity for the City to make decisions about how we want these licenses to -- not licenses, but the facilities to be operated. We are essentially being pressed in many ways because of the desire of the Commonwealth to generate revenues and to lay out a very strict timetable, and we will have an opportunity to respond to the applicants once the applications are filed and the Gaming Control Board allows us to have a 60-day comment period. But if we are going to be able to take action in an affirmative way to proactively address the design elements, 35 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. traffic impacts and the other issues that Mr. Chapman alluded to and which are covered by the legislation, we frankly are going to have to partner between the legislative branch and the Administrative branch so that we take action while we still have an opportunity to do so. So no intention whatsoever to suggest an imposition of a time frame, but a suggestion of what appears to be a reasonable time frame for action by City Council obviously subject to your approval.

Section 14-412, entitled "Administration," provides "regulation shall be adopted as necessary to implement this section." What section is that?

Madam President, that is referring to this specific section. Within a short time after this legislation is enacted, we expect to be working with the Law Department, the 36 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Department of Licenses and Inspections, the Commerce Department, as well as the Art Commission to discuss how things like design review and the considerations that the Art Commission are involved in to discuss and lay out the nuts and bolts of those specific provisions. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Madam President, if I may, I just confirmed my impression, that you caught something that needs to be fixed in the legislation. Indeed, the reference to a subsection is an error. It really is to the chapter. We're talking about regulations that would allow for implementation of the change in the zoning provision, not just that subsection.

I think I should also mention that it states that "nothing in this Subsection (g) shall delay the effectiveness of this chapter." What is Subsection (g)? 37 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. SOLICITOR DIAZ: That is, unfortunately, a carry-over from a previous draft and it's my understanding that should be a reference to Subsection (1). (G) was an earlier version of this legislation.

Well, don't you think all of this has to be amended or corrected so that if in fact this does pass, it's very clear to anybody reading the ordinance? SOLICITOR DIAZ: You're absolutely correct, Madam President, and we'll work with you --

And are you prepared to do that? SOLICITOR DIAZ: Absolutely.

Are you going to be prepared to do that today? SOLICITOR DIAZ: I think that's a very simple fix, and I think we'd be -- we'd defer to Councilman DiCicco, but we'd certainly be prepared to do that 38 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. today. And Mr. Chapman informs me that we believe that may be the only error or typographical error of this type. Obviously based upon this hearing, we will work with you to make any other corrections that may be required to the legislation today.

I don't know. I still have some concerns about the time restrictions that are imposed, not only for Council but for the Water and Streets Departments, the architects.

Madam President. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Could I respond, Councilman, to --

The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

Comment on the 45-day. As a member of the Committee and a member of the Council, I would not appreciate any restriction like this. If 39 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. in fact a license gets approved in June, 45 days could easily pass before we meet again and we'd have no input. And, secondly, what is the reason why we need to do this legislation before our final day before the holiday break? SOLICITOR DIAZ: If I could --

Why are we pressing this? Apparently it seems that there's some issues in here from either typos or other issues that seem to need to be gone through again, as opposed to trying to rush this through and fix it after we pass it. SOLICITOR DIAZ: If I could respond to both your question, Councilman Kenney, and also to the previous question by the President. Let me just go back and just sort of remind folks about the time constraints within which we're operating and a delicate balance, frankly, that we are -- that I've alluded to, perhaps I 40 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. should just be more direct about. In terms of the delicate balance, we know that the Pennsylvania Supreme Court has struck down the preemption of local land use controls. From my personal perspective, that's a very helpful thing for them to have done. It allows us to use this opening to create what we believe are responsible planning initiatives such as before you today, this bill, to try to regulate, if you will, how these facilities will do business in Philadelphia. But the delicate balance is that there is still this imperative on the Commonwealth's part to get these facilities quickly into operation so that they can generate revenues and thereby allow funding of tax reductions. The Gaming Control Board, notwithstanding the fact that some important decisions have not yet been made such as supplier relationship approvals, is continuing to move forward 41 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. with its application deadlines, and the deadline for applications for the 4 licensed facilities to be received 5 remains December 28 of this year. 6 The anticipation is that by 7 next summer, the first conditional 8 licenses would be issued to the so-called 9 rasinos, the gaming facilities located at 10 licensed racetracks. And as early as the 11 first quarter of calendar 2007, the 12 licenses for the so-called Category 2 or 13 the stand-alone slot casinos such as we 14 expect to receive in Philadelphia would be licensed. If you back up from that kind of a time frame -- and no one has a crystal ball. We only understand the pressures that are being felt by the Commonwealth with regard to all of these activities, and we're trying to anticipate and be responsive to those. If you back up from that kind of a licensing decision in the first quarter of calendar 2007, one could imagine that 42 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. the applications that are received for Philadelphia would be the subject of some tentative decisions by the Gaming Control Board and opportunities for Philadelphia to be heard during its 60-day comment period as early as next spring, no later presumably than the summer. The point I'm trying to make here is that we have a window within which to take action in connection with passing legislation so that we can essentially establish a scheme for zoning classifications. There would need to be subsequent legislation, Councilman Kenney, in connection with the designation of particular districts. We would want to see what is filed by December 28 with regard to Philadelphia. There simply would not be a need to designate a particular area where there is no application pending for a gaming license to be designated as a Commercial Entertainment District. 43 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. And the point I'm trying to make here is that we have a window of opportunity to develop an approach with regard to zoning before the possibility that the General Assembly might reimpose preemption and also to allow for the subsequent steps that the proposal would envision; that is, that there would be a specific district designation, there would be plans of development for those particular districts, there would be permitting activities, and all of that would have to occur presumably before any licensing decisions would be reached by the Pennsylvania Gaming Control Board.

It's that time frame which then suggests that this is a timely piece of legislation, so that we can begin this process to plan carefully but in a timely way for gaming facilities coming to Philadelphia.

Madam President, my question then is, you picked out two seemingly simple mistakes 44 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. in it. I mean, I don't see -- unless there's some reason why the end of January we pass this. Are we messing up the schedule at the end of January as opposed to -- see, part of the problem with this time of year, and I think I can comment on it because I've been here -- this is my 14th time here. There's some magical reason, I don't know whether it's Christmas or something, that everything seems to need to get pushed through before we leave for Christmas break, and in the past, we've made mistakes with stuff like that. I don't know what's so magical about Christmas, other than the spirit, that we need to get important pieces of legislation passed before we leave on the 15th. I don't get it. I mean, two things that you pointed out were simply seemingly innocuous, but mistakes nonetheless. I don't see why we need to rush this in a timely way. I'm not saying we should wait until the spring, but, I mean, I 45 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. don't see why the end of January or when we come back here and have a clear head we can't deal with this. And on the 45-day issue, I'm opposed to imposing any of those limits, because I think that we need time to deal with this. And I think even in the constraints of the Gaming Commission's deadlines, we still can do it in a timely way. I don't like having a specific date imposed on us, especially if a license is issued in June. I mean, we can always come back. Certainly the summer is not -- we can work in the summer, but I don't like being under that gun. SOLICITOR DIAZ: May I respond to the Councilman's inquiry, because it certainly is an important question in terms of the timing? First of all, there is an opportunity through the subsequent district designations to address any concerns about the legislation that is before you in terms of the Commercial 46 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Entertainment Districts, but, more importantly, I would ask that at a minimum, the Committee report out the legislation. I don't know that it has to be enacted prior to the end of this term, but it would have to be enacted early enough next year not to get caught up in the budget process and to be subsequent to that, because if that were to occur, then we would have missed the opportunity. But I think if there is passage or at least a reporting out of Committee and if there are opportunities to pass this legislation early in calendar 2006, that certainly would allow this timely effort to proceed, but if it could not be enacted in early calendar 2006, then I think we could very well miss the opportunity.

I hear everything you have said, but I just don't know how that addresses the 45-day issue. 47 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. SOLICITOR DIAZ: It was not intended to, and I think that clearly is a policy question that needs to be reached by Council. We've put forward what we think is a good-faith timeline for action with regard to the plan designation proposal, but if there is a desire for some reasonable additional time, I think we would certainly be prepared to listen to that.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam President. Before I ask a couple of questions that I wanted to ask about the zoning, I just want to get some clarity on this. This bill was sponsored by Councilman DiCicco, and as the sponsor of the bill, I think we probably should at some point talk to the Councilman to determine the process as it relates to 48 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. reporting out of the bill or moving forward on this particular bill. I see the Councilman's light on. I didn't know if he wanted to speak on that matter now, Councilman.

I'll wait for you to finish with your inquiry.

Okay. I just wanted to get some clarity on this whole zoning process. Correct me if I'm wrong. Essentially you're setting a new chapter, a new zoning classification with this legislation. Any application will still have to go through the traditional Zoning Board process?

Not necessarily, Councilman, no. This bill requires the submission to the City Council and to the Planning Commission of a development plan. That's a little bit different than what we have in place for just about anything else right now.

That's what 49 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. I thought. That's why I asked it in that way.

In my opinion, if the plan doesn't conform to what's been approved by City Council, it goes back to City Council, not to the Zoning Board.

So there will be no Zoning Board process as it relates to any aspects of any application?

Not that I could see. Because of the way this bill has been written, a plan of development needs to be submitted. That plan of development needs the approval of both the Planning Commission and the City Council. If a subsequent plan is submitted that does not conform to what's already been approved by City Council, it has to come back to City Council. So I just don't see the Zoning Board of Adjustment getting into that process.

So in this language on , you said "prior to 50 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. the issuance of any zoning permits," that's essentially the traditional zoning permit, over-the-counter zoning permits through the Department of License and Inspection?

Yes.

I just want to make this clear. The only community participation will essentially be a City Council hearing?

And the Planning Commission hearing.

And the community meetings?

Yes.

All right. I just want to make sure. Is the basis for that based on concern of the timeliness of our ability to move this process and particularly Harrisburg's concern in terms of opening this up to a traditional Zoning Board process where we get bogged down sometimes and the Zoning Board's 51 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. inability to make a decision in a, quote/unquote, timely way and subsequent challenges to that particular situation?

That's certainly part of the concern, but the significance of these facilities, in our opinion, requires the review and approval by City Council as the legislative body.

So we'll do a much better job than the Zoning Board?

Absolutely.

I hope you don't have any cases in front of Auspitz this week.

I thought I'd throw you that softball. Okay. I just wanted to clarify that, because there is some reference to zoning in the legislation, but I just want to make sure that everybody understood that the traditional Zoning Board process is not going to take place if in fact something like this were to be implemented, because I know there are a 52 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. lot of community members who are waiting. There have been a series of meetings. I know Councilman Nutter participated and Councilwoman Donna Reed Miller up in the Hunting Park area in representing now parts of Fishtown. I know individuals' ears are by the door waiting to see if something drops on the riverfront. And I think that people probably feel that they will have some level of participation, probably the traditional Zoning, but if that's not the case, then I just wanted to clarify it.

I believe that there will be plenty of public participation.

I don't see any District Councilperson not doing that or any At-Large Councilperson not doing that, but I just wanted to clarify the fact that the traditional Zoning Board, you will not see the orange sticker up on the site and folks gear up to come down to the Zoning Board. 53 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

That's correct. But as was stated earlier, each site that's going to be zoned to this, there has to be a public hearing before this Committee.

I understand. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Good morning.

I actually had the same types of questions that the Councilman had about this whole process and community input, but I do have another question, too. On of the bill under Item No. 14-407 as it relates to off-street parking, some of the questions 54 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. that community members have had in some of the meetings basically deals with what cost to the City when we talk about fiscally strapped. So in this particular part of the bill, it says "parking provided in the districts shall be adequately served by high-capacity roads." Now, that's after the Streets Department does its survey. So if the result of the survey says or the traffic engineering firm says that -- first of all, I would like to know what a high-capacity road is, and if the results of the study says that there is no high-capacity roads or the roads are not wide enough to accommodate the additional traffic, who actually will incur that cost if widening the road is the option? Because I would assume that if the road was not wide enough, that it has to be widened.

Councilwoman, my understanding of that provision would be that the cost would be borne by the 55 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. developer. It's up to the developer to -- if they want to get people to the site, it's on them to pay for the improvements that are going to be necessary for that to take place.

Point of information, Madam President.

Yes. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.

By way of background, Councilwoman Miller, as you know, my district has a lot of development going on, a lot of large development. In fact, there's a bill 16 that's coming up shortly after this bill, and there are a number of people from the community and the developer here. Historically, I don't know of any large development, meaningful development, Ikea, high-rise residential development, that the developer did not bear the burden of the cost. Now, it's not set in stone, but, again, I am not aware of where the City, outside of maybe 56 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. gas lines, water lines and other improvements that are underground that are part of the City's infrastructure that may be necessary to accommodate the development up to a certain point of the property line. Beyond that, the developer has traditionally, in the ten years I've been here, they have borne the responsibility of those improvements.

Okay. Thank you.

And that is the intent, by the way, from the conversations I've had on proposed sites that have potential sites for casino development in my district, is that it's always been emphasized that those costs would be the responsibility of the developer. That's negotiable, obviously, but my best guess is that's not going to be something that's going to kill the deal, because it's part of the -- built into the cost of the project development. 57 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

Okay. The highways is also an area of concern out in neighborhoods to some extent regarding the issue of eminent domain and the state's ability to use eminent domain to build new highways. SOLICITOR DIAZ: If I could respond to that question. The Gaming Control legislation does not authorize use of eminent domain to facilitate the siting and construction of gaming facilities. So that has been precluded by the General Assembly legislation.

Right, but I thought that that had to do more with the construction of the facility, but not the highways. Are the highways also included? SOLICITOR DIAZ: It doesn't speak to that kind of a distinction, but I think the expectation here is that, as the Councilman has indicated, that, A, costs would be borne by the developer. This is supposed to be a net revenue 58 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. generator for the City and for the Commonwealth, and that, secondly, eminent domain powers would not be utilized to facilitate the construction of these facilities. And that would seem to suggest, but obviously we're talking about case-specific situations that would have to be reviewed, that would seem to suggest that in most, if not all, instances eminent domain powers, even if they could be utilized, would be inappropriate.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

Thank you, Madam President. First, I would like to just make sure that the record is clear that there is an existing zoning ordinance 24 that requires the approval of this Council of any gaming facility that 59 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. sunsets in May of '06. So as far as being protected, I think we have some protection in place already. But not that this is more extensive and should not be considered and put in place because of all the other things it brings to it, but as far as getting a casino approved before May of '06, Council needs to approve it anyway, and all the other issues that would be raised relative to traffic and parking would still be part of that process. The other thing is -- SOLICITOR DIAZ: That is my understanding, Councilman.

The other thing is a hypothetical. With this bill 19 in place, if the casino commission approves a license for a particular location and we, as a Council, fail to approve it here, what happens? They pick a site in the City, community opposition, nobody wants it. We fail to approve it through this 60 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. process. Does it go there? SOLICITOR DIAZ: I would personally not want to see a situation where we get put into that kind of a situation, and I think that that is the reason that I suggested earlier we're trying to attempt a very delicate balance here. I think if in fact there were that kind of a situation to occur, I think there would be a real impetus for the possibility of reinstating the preemption of local land use controls, and I think that would be unfortunate.

But don't you think that the potential exists with something as controversial as gaming and traffic and other things that come with it that a District Councilperson may be not overrun but seriously concerned about the level of opposition in his or her district, that he or she would have to listen to the will of his constituents or her constituents? And I can't imagine 61 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. that any other District Councilmember and probably mostly all of the At-Large members would go around that Councilperson and approve it without their approval. So I don't think that situation would exist, but its potential is more than just a vague potential, considering where they choose to do it. SOLICITOR DIAZ: I understand the concern. It's certainly a reasonable and important concern, but I think that we have to utilize whatever local land use control opportunities are before us. This legislation attempts to begin that process, subject to a lot of public participation, subject to subsequent Council authorization for the districts and the development plans. There will be, I think, a lot of opportunities for the developers that might be licensed by the state to do the right thing, but I think we also always have to be cognizant of the fact that if 62 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. we aren't able to do this in a way that works for both the City and councilmanic constituents and the developer, the state retains the opportunity to always reimpose the local land use control preemptions, and, again, I just suggest that would be a very unfortunate consequence. What we are really trying to do is to begin a very systematic dialogue related to specific locations, expectations of the community, expectations certainly of the District Councilpersons so that we don't ever have to reach that kind of an impasse. That certainly would be the desire and the expectation through this kind of a legislative process.

Doesn't also the potential exist that of the five sites not recommended but discussed by the Gaming Task Force group, that the Commission might pick something that's totally different than those five? 63 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. SOLICITOR DIAZ: That certainly is an open possibility, which is one of the reasons why the suggestion is that the districts, the Commercial Entertainment Districts, not be designated until after the applications have been filed, and I think the Gaming Advisory Task Force was very clear that the five districts that were being proposed were illustrative only, subject to finding out what kind of developer applications might be filed with the Commonwealth and knowing what kind of locations those are. The Gaming Advisory Task Force tried to take into account either specific locations that were being proposed or rumored, and if those specific locations were not themselves considered, at least comparable locations were being considered so that the impacts could be measured and revenue opportunities could be measured as well. So no crystal ball here that 64 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. those will be exactly the five that might be potentially the subject of a license application, and the December 28 deadline will give us an opportunity to go back and review whether those in fact are the right locations and fix it in terms of the second step of this process, which is the district designation.

Thank you.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.

Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Mr. Solicitor and Mr. Chapman. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Good morning.

Good morning.

If this was answered earlier, please don't go back over it. And, Madam Chair, I appreciate the opportunity to ask questions. 65 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Just kind of a basic question to start. Who wrote this bill? SOLICITOR DIAZ: This was generated, at least as an initial draft, through the Gaming Advisory Task Force development process. Certainly subsequent to those initial drafts, there have been a number of participants, and I had indicated earlier the Administration's appreciation to Councilman DiCicco and his staff for being very much involved in that process.

And what was the basic background or model that was used to develop the various components of the legislation? How did you figure this out? SOLICITOR DIAZ: Well, I'm going to just give a general statement and then I'm going to ask Tom if he might address the drafting process and the model. But I think what we learned through the Gaming Advisory Task Force 66 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. process is that there would be particular elements of gaming facilities that we wanted to be mindful of and be proactive about addressing, such as traffic, such as the transportation requirements, parking in particular, and it was a consequence of that process that we really began to develop a focus about what should be contained in a proposed Commercial Entertainment District. I also would say in conclusion that one of the things we also are mindful of is a need to provide some clarity to developers about our expectations. And we believe that given the fact that without a clear set of principals upon which districts would be designated and the expectations of developers with regard to the elements that they would have to address that have already been mentioned, you really have a number of ad hoc approaches that don't seem to be consistent with the intent of the gaming legislation and the 67 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. opportunity to plan in a comprehensive way. But I'll turn it over to Mr. Chapman.

Councilman, as Solicitor Diaz stated, this is based in part on the recommendations of the Gaming Advisory Task Force and also partly as a result of discussions that the Planning Commission staff and Law Department staff have had with each other and internally and also with Councilman DiCicco's staff. There are some provisions in the district that you will see in other existing provisions of the Code having to do with certain site plan submission requirements, landscaping, things like that. SOLICITOR DIAZ: And I'm also told that part of the Gaming Advisory Task Force process certainly included site visits and discussions with a number of other gaming jurisdictions. In other words, in conversations, for example, with New Orleans, there were questions 68 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. put to them about if you were to do this now based upon hindsight, how might you improve upon those approval processes, and we certainly tried to incorporate those lessons learned in this proposal as it was developed.

Some of the provisions that you see in the district before you are quite similar, if not exactly the same, as those in the legislation that's before the Pittsburgh City Council right now.

On in Section 14-408, you've determined that for specifically designated areas, four parking spaces for every five slot machine or gaming positions provided for patrons and guests. What is a "specifically designated area"?

That's something that will have to be revisited by Council when a specific site has been designated. This provision as well as several others 69 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. in the provisions of the bill are left to the discretion of Council and would be specified at such time when a specific development plan and a specific site comes before you to be rezoned.

And is it possible that in some situations, depending on the scope of the development, the four for every five, you might want that number to change?

Yes, most definitely. Our understanding of --

Well, how would you do that in 14-408, I don't know, what is this, (1)(A).1.A?

Under that --

That's the standard.

Under that, you could place an amendment right in that subsection there stating for such-and-such a location, the parking ratio shall be one space for every gaming position. 70 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Councilman, if I could just add to that. In the subsequent district designation, you will have an opportunity to take into account, for example, mass transit opportunities. To the extent that there is sufficient mass transit in the location, for example, in Center City, which I believe is described in the Advisory Task Force report as essentially from Washington Avenue to Spring Garden, in that area you have ample mass transportation opportunities, and it's in that context that it was analyzed that you might have percent of the gaming visitors 17 utilizing mass transportation. 18 If that were not to occur given 19 wherever the district is being designated 20 that you have those mass transit opportunities and you thought that an 80 percent parking ratio to visitors was inappropriate, this doesn't set one standard. This sets alternative standards to be specifically reviewed as 71 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. part of the district designation.

Okay. In 14-403(2), we get this whole 45-day issue, and in another section, 14-404(3) and (4), you have in here that "if the Streets Department does not take action on a plan, fail to approve, disapprove or conditionally approve proposal within 45 days after submission, the approval of the Department shall be presumed." And, again, if you've gone over this, I don't want to backtrack over the territory. I mean, it is certainly quite plausible that any one of us could be hassling with the Streets Department about somebody's plan, and I think if this plays out to its unfortunate or illogical conclusion in an effort to get a change in a parking plan, which is eating up the 45-day clock, if the Department doesn't do anything, the proposer gets the plan that they want just because no action has been taken. Is that really the way you want 72 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. to have this work out?

Well, but, Councilman, eventually this plan is going to get to this body, and if there is a serious concern with that, it can always be addressed here at Council.

What, that the City Council is then going to change somebody's traffic plan?

No. The point that I was trying to make was if --

We have to pass bills to get stop signs put up. I mean, we're not exactly in a great position to deal with a traffic or parking study.

My only point was to try to say that if there was a serious consideration that the Streets Department was not able to reach within that 45-day period, that it could theoretically be addressed at the hearing to create the district either by the Streets Department or by the district. 73 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

I understand that. What I'm only suggesting to you and, quite honestly, trying to avoid is, whenever that plan gets over here, the proposer or the developer or whomever will at that point at least be able to legitimately say in accordance with this particular bill, they have an approved plan.

They'll have deemed approval, right. Correct.

They have an approved plan by the Streets Department.

That's correct.

So they will sit at that table and we'll be arguing about whatever we're arguing about, and they're going to say, I submitted a plan, no one did anything with it for 45 days, you guys chased around or did whatever you did, now you have me at a City Council hearing, I have an approved plan, who are you to now try 74 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. to change it? I played by the rules, 45 days went by, I'm now here on day 47, I've got an approved plan. What are you talking about? It either boxes the Department or certainly potentially boxes the Council into someone that, one, we have nothing to do with; two, we rely on the Streets Department or at least consultants to help advise us on parking issues in the first place, and they are legitimately going to be able to say, I have a presumed plan, I played by the rules.

Councilman, could I suggest to you that the 45 days is a sufficient period of time? There are other provisions of the Code that require departmental reviews under the provisions of the Institutional Development District and also the RC-6 district that require --

Well, I think the Institutional Development 75 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. District just got changed, and I would only suggest back that depending on the nature of the matter, 45 days sometimes can be a long time, 45 days on June 10th is not a lot of time or, for that matter, on December 6th or 7th, or whatever today's date is. I mean, it just depends on where you are in the whole scheme of things. Sometimes 45 days is a long period of time. For gaming, it might be a blink of an eye. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Councilman --

We operate in a real world here and I'm just raising the question. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Councilman, if I may, and it's certainly a reasonable question and it has been raised by others before. But I would just ask that you take a look at on , direct your attention to Section 14-403(4). The 45-day clock, as I understand it, doesn't begin running as soon as a piece of legislation hits the Council's desk. 76 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. What we've got here, in effect, is a review by the Planning Commission that's consistent with the type of plan reviews that are done by the Commission for other zoning categories. There certainly would be an opportunity for the Commission to negotiate what the plan is going to look like to indicate whether it would approve or disapprove. Only upon approval would it be submitted to Council. And in connection with the operating departments --

Mr. Solicitor, we might be in two different sections. I'm in 14-404(4). It says "where the approval of the Department of Streets is required before the issuance of a permit, including as provided in Sections 14-1404(2)(H) and 14-1408(2) relating to off-street parking, if the Department fails to approve, disapprove or conditionally approve the proposal within 45 days after submission of complete plans to the 77 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Department, the approval of the Department shall be presumed." SOLICITOR DIAZ: I understand that. I was really trying to address two issues. I think you expressed two concerns. One, that there would be a clock ticking with regard to councilmanic action, and I --

That was only in response to Mr. Chapman's comment that 45 days is already in the Code and IDDs and all that. So that was more of an offhand response to that. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Okay. But I was trying to address that first. With regard to the Subsection 4 that you just alluded to on , frankly, I can't conceive of a situation, given the importance of this effort to Philadelphia, where the Department would just simply sit on it, not take action and the -- and I think the appropriate response if there are questions or concerns, lack of a traffic study, 78 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. whatever those questions or concerns might be, I think the appropriate reaction would be a rejection by the Department. The operating department, it seems to me, should be making sure that the interest of the careful review, public participation and the thoughtful process that's being laid out in this legislation is realized. And I think the way you do that is, you take advantage of the opportunity to reject an application if there are deficiencies or concerns that haven't yet been addressed within that 45 days.

Well, I do appreciate that response, and I'll move on and possibly even conclude, but I think based on a whole series of recent events, that the notion that any of us can sit at any of these tables and talk about things that we cannot conceive of in this government, I think we left that realm a long time ago. There are a whole 79 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. lot of things happening around here that most of us could not have conceived of. So given the fact that we've never done this before and, at least speaking for myself, we're probably not even sure what we don't know about what we don't know, we should probably try to expand our minds to the conception of the bizarre and the absurd. This will be highly watched and I'm sure aggressively pursued by a variety of parties who have any number of interests. It will place all of us in a highly unusual and difficult situation wherein virtually anything could happen. And at the moment, we don't know for sure, because -- not a criticism, it just seems to be a fact -- the Gaming Control Commission has virtually met no deadline that they have set for anything. Now, they might adhere to the December 28th date. I already hear that there's a discussion about -- aren't they supposed to approve these by March or so of next 80 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. year? SOLICITOR DIAZ: The expectation is that by next summer, is the latest word that I heard, that they anticipate the conditional licenses for the so-called Category 1 rasinos, according to a statement that was released yesterday by the Gaming Commission, which used the opportunity that --

Well, I think that new date is now on the heels of a previous date, which I believe was winter into spring. SOLICITOR DIAZ: That's correct, but they use the opportunity at the same time to reinforce the notion that there is a December 28 application filing deadline.

I understand that. SOLICITOR DIAZ: And I certainly don't want to suggest that we shouldn't be prudent and do contingency 81 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. planning in terms of what-if's with regard to a new process, but I began my testimony, Councilman, with, I think, an expectation that the kind of collaboration which has already occurred between the Administration and the Gaming Advisory Task Force and Councilman DiCicco and his staff and the ten co-sponsors with Councilman DiCicco would continue. This is just simply too important an issue for us not to collaborate. The expectation is that that would continue even with respect to a permitting issue. If there were important questions, I think it just simply would not be supportable that that 45-day deadline would pass without some action to preserve the City's rights, yours and ours and the residents of this City, with respect to those important questions that need to be addressed.

All right. Well, you know I love collaboration, so 82 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. let me ask my last question. Presently, we have a bill that has a sunset of somewhere around mid May of 2006. So now I want you to try to imagine a scenario where if that bill 7 were to sunset and this bill, 051028, were not in effect and somewhere in between that time the Gaming Control Commission approved an entity for licensing, what would happen if that entity walked into the basement of MSB and started seeking permits? SOLICITOR DIAZ: Well, I will try to --

And the assumption is is that we have not, of course, designated districts. SOLICITOR DIAZ: I've addressed part of it, and I'll summarize my response to the earlier questions along that line and add a new piece. The new piece is this: With regard to zoning designations, I think we're all mindful of situations where not having taken 83 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. action before filings have been made, it is extremely problematic, from a legal perspective, to then impose new requirements retroactively.

Right. You can't go back. SOLICITOR DIAZ: So the purpose of this legislation is to get those requirements out in advance of the approvals by the Gaming Control Board whenever those approvals might be made, and, clearly, we have no crystal ball as to exactly when that would occur. But as to the summary of my earlier testimony, Councilman, with regard to what happens if we have the existing zoning approval requirement on the books through May, an application has been filed and the City refuses to take action to implement that license approval by the Gaming Control Board. I would hope we could avoid that, because, frankly, I think that would just simply create a basis on which 84 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. the General Assembly might reconsider the imposition of local land use control preemption that it had previously authorized and the Supreme Court struck down earlier this year. I don't think that's helpful to us or to the Commonwealth to allow that to occur, and we're trying to work with this Council as well as the developers so that we get a product that will be coming to the City of Philadelphia, frankly, whether we want it or not. We're going to get a product that's going to be in the best interest of the citizens of Philadelphia.

Why don't you just propose designating all of the districts or areas that have been identified by the Gaming Control Commission, or the whole City? SOLICITOR DIAZ: The Advisory Task Force has anticipated, but certainly has no clairvoyance, as to exactly where those sites that will be the subject of applications will be located. So what 85 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. I've tried to suggest earlier is that those five sites or districts are illustrative. If we wait until December 28, we'll have an opportunity to know exactly where the applications are being filed for; that is, from everything I have heard, a very hard, firm deadline established by the Gaming Control Board. So on December 28, we'll know where the applications are going to be located, if those facilities are licensed, and there will be an opportunity for the second step in this process, which is the district-specific designation and a determination about what kinds of elements are going to be required for the plan of development, including such things as what's the ratio of parking to the gaming visitors, taking into account where that district is to be located.

Okay. Well, I guess we'll see what happens. Thank you. Thank you, Madam Chair. 86 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

You're welcome. I'm sitting here and I hear from my colleagues and I feel the same way, I think this is a very important piece of legislation, certainly one that's very complicated, and I don't understand why Council would not be entitled to some briefing before we have a hearing so that we don't have to go through this and take hours of Councilpeople being uncertain as to what the bill actually does and many of us asking probably the same question but in a different way. I just don't think it's fair, and we seem to do this much too frequently. We wouldn't have to be sitting here as we are today, many people feeling very uncertain as to what position they want to take on the bill. With that being said --

Madam President. 87 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

-- I would recognize Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Madam President, and I agree with your comments, and I will take partial responsibility as the primary sponsor of this legislation. We did not receive any calls from any Councilmembers' offices or staff as to the contents of this bill, but I'll take responsibility. Maybe in hindsight I should have called and asked for those Councilmembers who wanted to be briefed on this bill to set up a meeting to do that. Notwithstanding that, I think the City Solicitor and Mr. Chapman have done a very good job, an excellent job, in explaining, I think, the purpose of why we need this bill and why I think it needs to at least be, at the very least, be voted out of Committee favorably. And as the primary sponsor of the bill, I'd also ask that we do not -- and I would pledge that I do not call it up for 88 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. second and final vote until we come back after the holiday recess sometime January or February. But my concern for the action to move this bill out of Committee was articulated by the City Solicitor in the timing of this. Councilman Nutter is correct, there have been dates that keep moving and moving from one date to another, and it's quite possible that the December 28th date may be moved again. No one knows that for sure. What I would not want to see is for us to be in a position where -- I know this Council, we have complained from time to time that Harrisburg has put a lot of constraints on the things we'd like to do in the City of Philadelphia, and then there are times when we go to Harrisburg and ask for them to give us those opportunities or to work with us. I think in this situation, given the fact that the Supreme Court made a recent ruling, there were those in 89 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Harrisburg who believe that Philadelphia just can't get it right no matter what. We understand, as Councilman Nutter has suggested, that this is a first for us, but there are many components in this bill that are issues that we historically deal with on development in our respective districts. As I said earlier, there are a number of folks behind me today who are here about a development that is being requested to have a zoning change on. These are issues that I deal with and I'm sure most Councilmembers deal with, District Councilmembers deal with, on designs, on parking, on infrastructure, on public space, on traffic controls that are typical of any large development, be it a casino, slot parlors or big box retail or residential development. What I think, again, is that if we do not take some action today, in my opinion, this will send a message to Harrisburg that we still have no idea as 90 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. to what we would like to do or how to get it done in Philadelphia. And the time that we will have between now and the time that the bill will be brought up for second and final reading, assuming we get to that point, we will have enough time to talk about some of those issues. This is not a perfect bill. I'll be the first to admit it, and there are some questions that you raised, Council President, along with the other members of Council that I think are reasonable concerns and issues, but I think we can work through those over the next several weeks or so, and I don't know what the deadline for that date would be, to see if we can get this bill, tighten up some of the issues that may be of concern and put a bill before Council for second and final passage that we are more comfortable with. That's my recommendation and suggestion.

Thank you. 91 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I would just like to ask the sponsor of the bill, Councilman DiCicco, I'd feel more comfortable if we had a commitment from you that you would not put this up for a final vote until after all of us, any member here, that's interested in getting a full briefing of what this bill really does or doesn't do, and I think that I'd be in favor of all that.

Certainly. And, listen, if I were to call -- if I tell you one thing, and I think you know me better, when I tell you what I'm going to do, I'm going to do it. If I tell you one thing and then decide to call the bill up, given the environment and the questions that are being asked, I think the bill is doomed for failure, and that certainly I don't think is in anyone's 92 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. best interest. We have citizens in our respective neighborhoods where these casinos/slot parlors may be placed, and we need to do our best to protect their interest and concerns. For me, this is not unlike -- except the fact that there's a gambling component, but most of the infrastructure and the activities that will be involved with these two parlors, the slot casinos, are very similar to other types of development that I personally have been involved with in my district. So it's not that far-reaching for me to understand what I know based on experience dealing with community groups of what their concerns are. I suspect no matter where the casino commission decides to place these slot parlors, we're going to have opposition, because I don't know if a neighborhood, at least I don't know of any yet, that are saying, We want you in our neighborhood. 93 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. So we're going to have to do our best to address those concerns of the community, and I think this bill 5 initially, even in its present form, although there are some concerns, addresses many of those issues. And it sets a standard for the industry to -- for them to understand what it is that we are looking for in terms of being responsible business in our communities.

Well, I certainly think that not only are community groups interested and going to be heard on this issue, but I think there are a lot of people probably in Harrisburg that are probably also looking at this situation and seeing what we're doing or what we're not doing, and I think that we do have -- I think this Council has some, I think, considerable interest in doing something on this bill 23 so that we can keep it in our Council Chambers rather than have it tabled by someone -- 94 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

Let me say one more thing, if I may. Politically, the easier thing for me would be that Harrisburg takes total control and says to the City of Philadelphia, You have no 7 say in this, and then I can look at the folks behind me and the rest of the people who live in my district and say, It's not my fault, it's Harrisburg, we have no control. That's the easy way out. I don't think that's the correct way to handle this. I think we should be involved in the process. And at the end of the day, as I say in most community meetings, neither side gets a hundred percent. There will always be some people who will walk away dissatisfied with the process, but at least we have an opportunity, I believe, to address their concerns and to try to act responsibly, because we just can't point the finger to Harrisburg at this time.

95 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Councilman, with that being said, if you cannot convince your constituents within that 45-day period, where are we?

Well, we will work on this and maybe the 45 days -- I'm not suggesting that we're going to -- maybe we can move the 45 days. I don't know what the magic number of days is. This is in the proposed legislation, and I think those are issues we can speak to over the next several weeks.

But isn't it true after 45 days if we don't do anything, it's deemed approved, so it's approved.

We can amend the bill that it is not 45 days. I don't know what the magic number is. Some people may not be satisfied with 60 days or 90 days. The fact is that we're going to have some -- we're going to have to speak to that issue at some point, because you just can't leave it out 96 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. indefinitely. And I won't say 45 is an arbitrary number, but I believe that because I was not -- I'm not going to try to fool anybody. I was not involved in every aspect of this bill. It just doesn't work that way. But based on the advice from the Task Force, the Gaming Task Force, and as the City Solicitor spoke to speaking to folks in other cities like New Orleans and based on their experiences, they were able to put this bill together. And, again, it's not a perfect bill. I admit that. But I'm willing to say let's move it out. If this Committee, the Rules Committee, would at least be in favor of voting the bill out today and we'll hold it until such time that we have a tighter bill, a bill that addresses if not all the questions or concerns, the majority of them. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Council President, could I respond to Councilman 97 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Kelly's issue, and I think it reflects certainly the sentiments that I heard. The first point I wanted to just emphasize is that the first time that the public hears about this is not going to be when the 45-day period begins to run in connection with a plan of development. The City Planning Commission will be reviewing it. It has a responsibility to make recommendations to this Council, not unlike other plan development recommendations that it makes each and every day. And the second point that I want to make to support Councilman DiCicco's comment about trying to be responsive to the questions and the desire for briefings, you have my personal commitment to make sure that on behalf of the Administration and the Gaming Advisory Task Force, to the extent that you want materials, briefings, any information that will be helpful to you in understanding and appreciating this 98 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. legislation, you have that commitment. And then, lastly, again, supporting the point made by Councilman DiCicco, 45 days we thought was a reasonable number. Is it sacrosanct and unamendable? Absolutely not. I think through this collaborative process, and I truly believe that it should be that, and certainly that is the Administration's intention, we would hope to make sure that we come up with an approach that works for the Administration as well as the Council with regard to things like timelines.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President. And this question is really directed at Councilman DiCicco and the witnesses there. I was sitting here trying to figure out what's making me apprehensive about this particular bill 25 being moved out of Committee today, and 99 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. certainly we've all dealt with residential and commercial development, but I think it's because we're familiar with residential, we're familiar with certain types of commercial. And I've talked to Shawn Fordham and Kevin Greenberg, and I thank them for them assisting me in trying to understand, as the City Solicitor says in his testimony, a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity for the City to plan the arrival of such an industry. I don't know anything about gaming, and I think probably my feeling that I need to know about gaming and all the factors is adding to my anxiety and apprehension to vote on this particular bill, and that's where I am. And I don't know whether there's anything you can do to help me. My feeling is that it should be tabled until we have a briefing, not just on the zoning designation bill here, but on the casinos itself. How is that going to impact the 100 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. change of life in the community? We know how residential does impact community living. We know how commercial strips or malls or plazas impact the citizens of Philadelphia, but there's so many other things intertwined in this whole licensed gaming. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Councilwoman, we stand ready, as I said earlier, to provide you and the members of this Committee and Council with any briefings that would be helpful to you, prepare any documents and share any materials related to the industry, the Gaming Advisory Task Force analysis, as well as this legislation, and to the extent that that has not already occurred, I certainly take responsibility for that failure, but we will going forward work with you and Councilman DiCicco to make sure that you get everything that you think that you require to give consideration to this legislation and hopefully favorably.

And I 101 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. guess one reason why I feel that I need to know, I heard on the radio a couple weeks ago that there were only two applications in Philadelphia and one of them, I assume, and it was confirmed last week with Donald Trump's visit, is for the Budd site, which is not in my Council district, but it borders my district. I mean, it's just right across the street. It's in Councilman Nutter's district. But already we have had lots of community meetings, lots of concerns from neighbors, Kevin and Shawn and Tom to meetings. And I just need to know what we're voting on here a little bit better than just to go on and vote on this without an opportunity to really review. And I know I could have done some of this yesterday, but I was also in a community meeting last night about a whole different issue. But that's where I am, and I could just speak for me right now. I want to feel comfortable enough that -- 102 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. there's actually a meeting next week on the 14th of December. I want to feel comfortable enough that if I go to the meeting or when I go to the meeting next week and people say to me, What did you vote out, I want to be able to explain that and why, not the what so much but the why, and why does it have to happen now.

I think you posed your question to me earlier about the gaming issue. With all due respect, Councilwoman, I mean, gaming is coming.

I know. I understand that.

That's a foregone conclusion.

Right.

And briefings on what does gaming mean, I think you mean what the impact may be on surrounding communities. That's a reasonable question, a reasonable 103 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. concern. I can't answer that. There are people who are in favor of gambling and there are people who are anti-gambling, and both sides have their opinion. We know, whether it's gaming or not, a business of this type will draw in anticipation of thousands of cars, not unlike the Simon project that we dealt with for seven years that we thought was going to be built down at Penn's Landing where we anticipated 10,000 cars a day. So community meetings were held, seven years of my life, every other month, two, three-hour meetings talking about the impact on communities, and we tried to figure out a way in which we can mitigate those problems as best we could, understanding that those cards would have been coming anyway. Again, I can't answer the question on the gaming side of it. One thing I do know is, and we all know, it's coming.

Right. 104 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

And this, as I suggested, does not have to be in its final form, this bill. So on your December 14th meeting, you can speak to some of the aspects of what this bill 7 represents, but not in its entirety, because there may be some amendments going forward. I mean, that's the best answer I can give you at this time.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome.

One more thing. When this gaming issue first came about, I had every reason to believe at that time that both facilities would be in my councilmanic district. I figured I would be in the most unenviable position to have to deal with not one but two. At presently, that doesn't appear to be that way, but going forward, it could be that they will both be in my 105 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. district or neither of them would be in my district. I don't know. So for me, this is not my issue. It could be anyone's issue in this Council, any District Councilperson, not At-Large obviously, but the District Council would have to be faced with similar concerns that I have and Councilman Nutter has, because the Budd site -- I think it's in Councilman Nutter's.

I got it.

Potentially being built in his district. And that all may change, because the licenses have not yet been issued. We don't know where they're actually going to be, although we have two applications that we're dealing with. That could all change. I had two in my district up until a month or so ago. AmeriStar pulled out. They were in the running and they decided that it was not economically in their best interest to go forward. 106 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

That's true, and I understand that, and when I heard the Governor remark on KYW a couple Saturdays ago that two good applications is all we need, knowing that one came from Trump, the Budd site is physically located in Nutter's district, my community is right there. And then, of course, he has the residential community. So it's just that I know it's coming, and I want to be prepared.

And the incinerator site, which is being discussed --

Is that your district?

-- is very close to Councilman Clarke's district. I no longer have -- I'm not exclusive from Delaware Avenue west to Broad Street anymore near Spring Garden. Councilman Nutter's new district, that portion of Northern Liberties and the northern end or the southern end of Fishtown, could be 107 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. impacted as a result of a casino being built at the incinerator site. So it's not just me exclusively. I get the majority of the problems, I'm sure, but Councilman Clarke will have some similar issues that you have.

Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I just wanted to ask a question, I guess, of the Solicitor and, I guess, Tom, the Executive Director of the Planning Commission. Prior to the preemption being struck down by the state, was there any process proposed for citizen participation under the old scenario where the state and the Gaming Board 108 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. would be responsible for the site selection, or did they even get that far? Did they set up any kind of process? SOLICITOR DIAZ: The statute provided for a 60-day comment period by the affected municipality, and, clearly, we would have anticipated the opportunity for public participation, but it would have been extremely constricted. We would have had to anticipate these applications, which is one of the major factors in terms of the Mayor's Advisory Task Force being developed to begin with. What we were trying to do is to get public understanding and participation in the process so that we didn't have only the 60-day period within which to try to get public participation. It's my understanding that the Gaming Control Board also anticipates that there will be a public comment period.

So when they say public comment or public response, does that mean that you have to 109 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. proactively send in your response or would they be like a community forum? I'm just trying to get a sense. SOLICITOR DIAZ: I think that is still evolving, but what my most recent information is with regard to what the Gaming Control Board intends to do relative to public participation is to have a single state-wide public comment opportunity, and they have committed to having a public hearing in Philadelphia. That's in addition to whatever City Council would implement through this process that is being envisioned through the zoning.

I'm not talking about this particular process. I'm saying prior to the Supreme Court striking down the state's preemption, had they envisioned any type of public process prior to that? SOLICITOR DIAZ: The Gaming Act requires only a single state-wide public hearing. 110 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

One meeting for the entire state to basically respond to gaming generally, but anything relating to site specific? SOLICITOR DIAZ: No, sir, and the only opportunity that a municipality that could potentially be subject to a gaming license within its jurisdiction would have to be heard would be during that 60-day period, which it could then comment on with or without further public participation from within that locality. But the Gaming Act itself is very, very sparing of public participation as a requirement, which is why, frankly, the process that's being discussed today is an opportunity to really create that public participation process, both through the Planning Commission process as part of the plan development, but also through City Council review of the plan and district designation, and try to tailor what is being done with regard to the district designation to protect the 111 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. kind of constituent interest that Councilwoman Miller and others have alluded to.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. Councilman Nutter, your light has been on. Did you want to be recognized?

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'll be brief. I guess in the course of this conversation -- and maybe I missed this at the beginning. Again, I apologize. Solicitor, I understand Councilman DiCicco's point and I hear this concern out of Harrisburg, but moving the bill, recognizing that there are any number of things -- and the Councilman is being very straightforward about this -- that there might be some other things that need to be done, what does moving the 112 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. bill do or, in the alternative, what are you concerned about happening if nothing happens here at the moment? What's the doom's day scenario here? SOLICITOR DIAZ: I don't know that I would characterize it as a doom's day scenario, but, Councilman, I think Councilman DiCicco was quite articulate on this point. This really represents an opportunity for the City of Philadelphia, and in particular this City Council, to weigh in on what is important to Philadelphia with respect to gaming facilities that will come with or without councilmanic action on this bill.

I understand that. I'm just trying to understand the timing issue. Today is December 7th. Applications are due December 28th. At best -- and you have added now to the record the Gaming Control Commission may not take action until before the summer. Why is this critical on December 7th as compared to, 113 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. I don't know, January 22nd or February 5th? I mean, obviously I'm just missing something here. I don't understand the urgency, I guess, of the matter. I mean, you're here and Tom Chapman and the Councilman is putting forward his best case. I am not grasping the urgency of the matter. Look, I mean, I'm not on the Committee. I don't even have a vote. The President is kind enough to let me ask some questions, but I'm missing something here about December 7th. With the acknowledgment that more work, more discussion, possible amendments, et cetera, et cetera, may need to be done, fuller reading of the legislation, I'm missing something in terms of the urgency of the matter today. What is the issue? SOLICITOR DIAZ: Let me, if I may, try to express my belief as to the urgency. The first is that you have pending in the General Assembly bills that could be used to preempt the City of 114 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Philadelphia and every other locality in the Commonwealth that might have a gaming license issued within its borders could be preempted, and so it seems to me that one of the important elements that we're trying to demonstrate here is that we are capable of planning for the arrival of licensed gaming facilities in Philadelphia in a timely way.

So this is a competency test that's being imposed on the Philadelphia City Council? SOLICITOR DIAZ: I wouldn't term it that way, Councilman, but I would say that there are some who are looking in the General Assembly to consider the possible reimposition of preemption with regard to local land use controls. It seems to me --

Let me ask this question. Are you telling me -- SOLICITOR DIAZ: May I please respectfully finish the answer to your previous question? 115 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

I understand. SOLICITOR DIAZ: And the second answer I would give you in terms of the urgency, which I think was your question, is that I would suspect that you're going to have before this Council beginning early next year a very full agenda. You've already had hearings in connection with full valuation. You know that you're going to be dealing with budget issues, et cetera. I think what I heard was a reasonable request, that the Committee favorably report out the bill. There will be opportunities for us to brief Councilmembers to give you whatever further information is required, to give you additional time to consider improvements to the legislation so that you could take action early next year, but in terms of the urgency, it seems to me that we always have to be concerned about the potential for preemption being 116 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. reimposed and, secondly, to provide an opportunity for this legislation to be finally passed early next year.

Okay. Two quick responses. Are you prepared to tell us that the mere moving of this bill 8 out of Committee is going to stop some of the 203 members of the House or 50 members of the Senate from still taking action with regard to whether localities in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania have zoning control over licensed gaming facilities? SOLICITOR DIAZ: I can't make that commitment, as you well know.

Can you tell me that if a bill were to pass, that the General Assembly still would not take action on this particular issue and even if legislation were in place, there's nothing to stop the General Assembly from the preemption issue, as I think we all well know, right? SOLICITOR DIAZ: I will say 117 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. this, sir: I think it is going to be much, much more difficult for the General Assembly to try to reimpose preemption if this body, working with the Administration on behalf of the residents of Philadelphia, are trying to come up with a timely comprehensive and thoughtful approach to making sure that when gaming facilities come to Philadelphia, that we know what kind of requirements have been made and that we have an opportunity to take into account constituent concerns to protect the interest of the citizens of Philadelphia. It's going to be much harder for them to try to justify the need for preemption if we've done all of those efforts to put the kind of zoning proposals into -- to enact those zoning proposals as are being suggested today. Yes, sir, I do believe that's going to be a much harder justification to make by the General Assembly.

Well, we 118 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. don't have to continue this wonderful legal debate too long, but I would only respectfully respond that the General Assembly found in their wisdom that notwithstanding the fact that some people here in Philadelphia think that people should not be able to run around with AK-47's and MAC 10's and Tech-9's and kill people in mass quantities, the General Assembly did decide that preemption was more important than the general safety of citizens here in Philadelphia, which I think might slightly outrank licensed gaming facilities, and so when the Assembly or the legislature decides that they want to do something, they do it, end of conversation. I mean, it's a good legal argument. I'm sure it will fill a brief with that much more ammunition, but I think we all know in the final analysis they'll do whatever they want to do whenever they decide to do it under 119 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. whatever set of circumstances and conditions. I hear what you're saying, and it may bolster the case. I'm not exactly sure what it does for Councilwoman Miller and I to have a bill sitting out that most people don't understand. We're not going to be able to explain at a meeting next week when people are wondering whether or not we have somehow already started down a path of ensuring that certain things may or may not happen in their community. Because I don't necessarily know that this bill, with every respect to my colleague and the Planning Commission and everyone else who worked on it, I don't know that there's anything in here that ultimately addresses or satisfies a constituency out there that is not necessarily, let's say, as excited about these kinds of issues and, at best, will be confused as to what in the world just happened here in City Council and what does it all mean. 120 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Everyone has their competing pressures. You're trying to deal with the views and the concerns and the whims of the folks up in Harrisburg. Some of us have to deal with folks right down here on the ground because we represent them, and I don't necessarily know that all of those goals can be accomplished in the one piece of legislation or based on whatever the action is. I assume the idea here is move the bill out, demonstrate our ability to do something down here and then subsequently make whatever amendments need to be made. Is that what you anticipate happening, or sending the bill 18 back to Committee or just have a series of amendments on the floor? SOLICITOR DIAZ: I believe Councilman DiCicco had offered to work with you and the members of this body to make whatever amendments would be appropriate. The Administration would certainly be ready to collaborate in 121 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. connection with those improvements to the legislation. And I reiterate my earlier offer, between now and your community meetings next week, or whenever, I stand ready, this Administration stands ready to make sure that we give you what information you need, what briefings you need so that you feel that you can understand and articulate what is being proposed through this legislation. I commit to that.

This is absolutely my last question. If you got information from Harrisburg that said voting a bill out is not enough, nice effort, appreciate it, but until Philadelphia passes a bill, we're going to continue to have over your heads the preemption issue, would you be recommending that not only we vote the bill out but approve it by the 15th? SOLICITOR DIAZ: I haven't heard that, and I'd rather not --

I 122 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. understand you may not have heard it. It's a hypothetical question, but it's within the realm of reality. SOLICITOR DIAZ: I have not heard that, and what I have suggested, despite the fact that, as you very articulately pointed out, the sovereign, in this case the General Assembly, can do whatever it wants to do whenever it wants to do it. I believe that this is a reasonable and careful approach to address the legislation.

I understand that. I'm asking you, as an advisor, if you learned this morning that the leadership in Harrisburg said, We know you have a hearing, we know you're trying to demonstrate that you're really interested and concerned about this, but if you don't pass a bill on the zoning matter related to licensed gaming facilities by the time you get out of session, we will move forward on the preemption issue, would you advise us to 123 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. not only report it out, get a rules suspension and pass it on the 15th? That's my question. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Given the concerns expressed today and the desire to have a better understanding of this legislation, I believe that it would be prudent to have this Committee vote out the legislation, to do the work that needs to be done, to make improvements, and as early as possible in the calendar year 2006 session, to approve this legislation finally. I stick to that.

But not by December 15th? SOLICITOR DIAZ: Whether you change the basis for the question or not, my recommendation remains the same, having heard the concerns expressed and the commitments made by the chief sponsor of this legislation.

Okay. Thanks, Madam President.

The 124 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

Darrell was ahead.

Oh, I'm sorry.

That's okay. I just have one more real quick question. Fortunately, I have not had to participate in any of the community meetings as of yet. At all of the community meetings District Councilpersons -- I'll stay on my side of Lehigh Avenue. I know when to stay on my side of Lehigh Avenue. Has the Gaming Task Force or any members of the Administration participated in any of the community meetings or is it essentially left up to the elected officials?

They were at one at Mercy Vocational a couple months ago. It was not a stroll in the park. 125 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Councilman, my recollection is that as part of the Gaming Advisory Task Force process, there were community meetings across this City in each of the districts, and that even subsequent to that when there have been community meetings and it has been made known, the Gaming Advisory Task Force folks have participated. We certainly, on the part of the Gaming Advisory Task Force as well as the Administration, are prepared to be of assistance in connection with those community meetings going forward at any time that you or your colleagues designate.

So any subsequent meetings, these same individuals, or whomever is so designated, will participate in a process that could talk about the explanation of this legislation or any changes in the legislation that Council was interested in, assuming we report this bill out? I don't want to assume anything. But that 126 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. same commitment and participation would be maintained? SOLICITOR DIAZ: Councilman, on behalf of the Administration and the Gaming Advisory Task Force, that is my commitment certainly to serve at your invitation.

It won't be mine. It will not be mine. I probably won't be there. All right. SOLICITOR DIAZ: But at the invitation extended by you or your colleagues, absolutely, sir.

Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

Thank you, Madam President. In order to get, I guess, get off the dime here, I have no idea why in the world this bill has to get out, but 127 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. because Councilman DiCicco requested it, I'd be willing to support it, and only because of that. Because I think that the process that this Administration imposes on us is terrible. And you sit here today and you tell me you want to be collaborative and you're going to give us briefings and do all this stuff. Only that happens when we have this kind of colloquy and there's a problem and there's an impasse, and now we're going to be open and we're going to give you briefings and show you charts and do everything. It happens with every single piece of legislation that comes from the second floor to this body. It's been happening since the inception of the Administration. I think it's terrible. It's obviously not going to change until the Administration is over, and then maybe we'll have a better relationship. But only because he's asking am I willing to do it, against my best judgment, because I don't think it needs 128 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. to be out. There's something else afoot here, as there always is when stuff comes up from the second floor, but because of him and only because of him, I'm willing to vote for it. The other issue is, I think that Councilmembers ought to be concerned that this legislation in place, there's a big or enormous expectation on the part of people in the community who are going to have these licenses imposed upon them, and we get to a point where we're trying to impose these very laudable goals on this development and it gets too far and we ask too much, it's going to stop. Just like Act 39 where they dumped the beer license in our lap, this is dumping in our lap also. And I hate to think that one of my colleagues here is going to wind up with a piece of legislation that is worthless because we've asked too much and they've said no and then the state or the Gaming Commission takes it back. 129 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. So I'm willing to hold my nose and vote for this only because he asked, but I think the way in which you deal with us is terrible. And I don't think you need to comment. After six years of this, it's enough. It's like enough. SOLICITOR DIAZ: I would appreciate the opportunity to comment briefly in two respects. The first comment is that one of the things that we learned as part of the Advisory Task Force work is that, frankly, we did some very good work, and the Gaming Control Board has been very clear that it seeks to build upon that work, not to try to supplant it, but to build upon it, because it has been useful. Your efforts in this regard, it seems to me, are going to be helpful to the Gaming Control Board, and so, therefore, I think this has value not only for us, but, frankly, I think that the Gaming Control Board, from all the conversations that I've had and know of 130 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. from the folks in the Gaming Advisory Task Force, that they welcome this kind of review and work by Philadelphians. And, secondly, again, I take responsibility to the extent that I have personally not been involved in briefings being offered with respect to this legislation. I take my responsibility as City Solicitor and as your Chief Legal Advisor, as well as the Chief Legal Advisor to this Administration seriously, and to the extent that I have fallen short of my responsibility to you as your advisor, I take that responsibility personally, and I will fix that.

Thank you. Are there any other questions, comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Very well. Again, I'm going to very strongly, strongly suggest that there be a briefing, and I think at that briefing, 131 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. it has to be spelled out very, very clearly precisely what this bill will do. For instance, if Councilman DiCicco were to have applied for one of these casino permits and he is given permission to go forward, precisely what happens step by step, what happens thereafter, and I think that would make us all feel much more comfortable in dealing with this bill. And, as I said, I have spoken to a number of my colleagues on the Committee, and I think they all feel that way. And for my colleagues who are not here, it would be a shame if this were brought up for a second reading and final passage vote and many of them would have the same questions and unanswered questions that many of the members of the Committee have today. So I would urge -- and it's not my responsibility, I don't think, to call this briefing, but I think that's something that definitely has to be done. 132 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. SOLICITOR DIAZ: Agreed, Madam President.

Thank you very much. Do we have any other witnesses to testify on this bill? (No response.)

I see that we have a number of people who apparently have been waiting to testify. I don't know what bill that's on. I know that there are counsel, we have people from the Administration that have been sitting here, but I think we should consider people from the public first. Gentlemen, thank you. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 050953. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 21 amending Section 14-305 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "C-4 Commercial and C-5 Commercial Districts," by increasing the permitted floor area of lots designated C-4 in an area of land 133 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Vine Street, Water Street and Summer Street.

Good morning. Please identify yourself -- it's afternoon. I'm sorry. Identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good afternoon, Madam President and 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 050953, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco October 27th of 2005. Bill 050953 amends Section 20 14-305 of the Zoning Code by raising the base allowable gross floor area from 500 percent of the area of the lot to 700 percent of the area of the lot for the property located within the area bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Vine 134 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Street, Water Street and Summer Street. This is the site of the Marina View Tower development and the property is currently zoned C-4 commercial. This property is also subject to restrictive covenants and this bill will not relieve or amend the terms of those covenants. At its meeting of November 22nd of 2005, the Planning Commission considered and approved Bill 050953. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.

Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)

I don't see anybody with any questions. Seeing none, we will now consider Bill 22 No -- I'm sorry; witnesses.

There are witnesses here to testify on this bill.

I 135 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. don't have a list of the witnesses, so if they would simply approach the witness table, we will be more than happy to hear them. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good afternoon, Madam Chair. My name is Marcus Saitschenko. I am with the Housing Association of Delaware Valley. I'm here on behalf of that agency, as well as on behalf of myself, a resident of Old City in Councilman DiCicco's district. The Housing Association of Delaware Valley asks you to reject Bill 19 No. 050953, which grants spot zoning to a single parcel of land bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, Vine Street, Water Street and Summer Street. The Supreme Court of Pennsylvania has defined spot zoning as a signaling out of one lot or a small area 136 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. for different treatment from that accorded to similar surrounding land indistinguishable from it in character for the economic benefit of the owner of that land or to his economic detriment. Spot zoning is invalid if the permitted use is very different from the surrounding area; if the area is small, as in the case here; or it can be shown that the municipality has favored one landowner to the unreasonable detriment of the surrounding area; or so as to prejudice the intention of the comprehensive plan. Spot zoning smacks of favoritism and annoys neighbors. While the size of the rezoned parcel is not dispositive of the issue, in the matter of Baker versus Chartiers Township Zoning Hearing Board, the Commonwealth Court found that a 221-acre tract rezoned from agricultural to industrial constituted spot zoning. Clearly, that was a much larger parcel than we're considering 137 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. here. In that case, the rezoning was accomplished without submitting a rezoning amendment to the County Planning Commission, without testimony from any expert witness as to the environmental impact of the rezoning, supporting the argument that such a decision was arbitrary. The court used an earlier decision in Township of Plymouth versus County of Montgomery and others to generally define spot zoning as zoning provisions adopted to control the use of a specified area of land, without regard to the relationship of those land use controls to the overall plan and the general welfare of the community. The Housing Association believes that single parcel zoning changes foil the intention of a comprehensive planning and zoning and deprive citizens of the right to reasonable certainty of land use regulations within their communities. If 138 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. individual parcels can be rezoned at the request of a developer, then no citizen is protected from arbitrary changes to the parcels of land that lie in close proximity to their homes, their businesses and their places of recreation. For these reasons, we strongly urge City Council to reject the proposed zoning change outlined in Bill No. 050953 and to limit zoning changes to those that are compatible with comprehensive land use planning. Thank you.

Thank you very much, sir. Councilman DiCicco.

Thank you, Madam President. And good afternoon. Your name again, sir?

My name is Marcus Saitschenko.

139 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Mr. Saitschenko, how long have you lived in Old City?

I've been a resident of Old City for one year.

Were you on the Committee or involved in the Civic Association at the time the discussions involving around 205 Race Street were going on?

I have been attending Civic Association meetings for about six months. I'm not sure -- the traffic pattern plans for 205 come up in that time, but not much more than that.

Do you know what the height restriction currently is in Old City?

I believe it's six stories.

65 feet. Does that sound familiar?

Yes.

Do you know what the height of the building that 140 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. is going to be constructed at 205 Race Street is?

I believe it's ten stories.

About 100 feet to 110 feet, which exceeds the 65-foot height limitation. Would you consider that spot zoning?

If it was done by City Council as a zoning change at the request of the developer, then we would consider that spot zoning.

So if the developer goes in front of the Zoning Board of Adjustment and asks for similar considerations to increase the height beyond what the height limitations are in Old City, you would not consider that spot zoning?

I believe that if the developer can go before the Zoning Hearing Board and establish that the existing zoning impacts his parcel such that he cannot otherwise develop it 141 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. and that he has an economic hardship or another hardship, then the Zoning Hearing Board is obligated to act accordingly.

I understand that, but I'm just trying to simplify this. You have concern and you're suggesting that there may be some favoritism involved with this development or that the general view when you do a development of this nature in an area that has a height limitation and you come before Council for approval, that it's considered spot zoning. Zoning matters come before us all the time, whether it's in Council or the ZBA. People come in for variances for various reasons. 205 Race Street, in my opinion, is a perfect example where there was community involvement, community participation, along with the developer, in allowing for the development of a building that exceeded what the height limitations in that particular community 142 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. are allowed. One can look at that and say that that is spot zoning, because it is different from what the zoning already allows. I mean, you can say that in simple terms, correct?

Correct.

There was no objection -- let me back up. There was objection to the original development, but over a six-month, seven-month period of time, interaction with the community association, the Zoning Committee of Old City, and they do a fine job, and most of the folks behind me supported me in the past, and I would hope they support me in the future, but there was a process, and we're going to go through that process again today. But if we allow for 205 Race Street -- and there was considerable opposition to 108 Arch Street, I believe, many years ago. That project is completed, it's done, and there are those 143 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. who think it's a great project, there are some who still think that it's not so great. So we're going through this process. I guess I get a little bit concerned when the accusation is spot zoning. It kind of puts the emphasis on me as the elected official that I'm trying to do something that has never been done before in a given geographical area. My point being again 108 Arch, whether it was met with community support or not, 205 Race Street, are exceptions that are made periodically based on the conditions of the development and what the community believes is in their best interest. So this is not unusual in that regard. Make sense?

That makes sense and I agree with you.

Because there's been the suggestion out there and I get these rumors coming in, especially this week, this is favoritism, I'm doing 144 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. this because of the unions. I get supported by some unions and I get pretty beat up by others, so I'm not doing this for the unions. I believe this may be in the best interest of repopulating neighborhoods and doing something positive with land that sits along Delaware Avenue in our efforts to develop the Delaware Avenue-Christopher Columbus corridor. So I just want to make certain that this is not spot zoning because of any particular obligation I have to any entity or individual or to the developers or anyone else. I want that for the record to be understood, because I have worked with this community and other communities to make adjustments to what the community originally was opposed to. That is the process. I thank you for your testimony. I just want to make sure that everyone understands, there have been other developments, because my colleagues who 145 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. are on the Rules Committee may not be familiar with this, and it's not unusual. This has been done in Old City in the past. So it's not the first time we're being asked to raise the height limit on any individual project.

Councilman DiCicco, no offense was intended. If any was received, I apologize.

I'm not suggesting that you were trying. There's been rumors out there that DiCicco is doing this because the unions are his supporters. The people behind me and you are the people who vote for me. The unions may give me money, they may not give me money for my campaign. Ultimately, the people in this room are the folks who vote for me. And as I said earlier with the previous bill, no one gets a hundred percent. It just doesn't work that way, unfortunately or maybe fortunately, and I will try to figure out a way in which we 146 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. can accommodate both sides to the best of my ability. And I'll make some calls that may not be acceptable to the community. They may not agree with them, but that's what I get paid to do.

Okay. I haven't been a resident of your district for very long, only for a year. I don't know how 108 or 205 were approved, whether those were done through City Council or through Zoning. We believe that those matters of hardship or variances should go through the Zoning process and not be done by legislation.

I appreciate that, and I also want for the Committee's information to understand that the 500 percent that was in the testimony of Mr. Kramer, that this zoning request raising the base allowable gross floor area from 500 percent of the area of the lot to 700 percent of the area of the lot does not change the height of the building. So if the Rules Committee 147 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. would not vote this bill out favorably, the height of the building would not change. It's the area that is being used on the footprint -- I'm not an architect, but I think I'm explaining it correctly -- that would be changing. It's not even the height.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Councilman, has there been a prior zoning variance for the height?

On this particular site?

Yes.

No. 18

So are we only dealing with the volume of the base?

I believe there will be other testimony. Mr. Thom may have different testimony, but if the developer were to use the 500 percent allowable floor area, the height of the building would not change, correct. 148 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

But the proposed height exceeds the current height limitations?

Yes. Well, no, no, no, no. No, it doesn't. It is not part of this -- the height limitation is not part of this process. Why I brought this up is because it's in close proximity to where the height limitation, which is on the west side of I-95, is implemented.

So there will be subsequent -- I'm trying to understand. Maybe this is throwing me off here. Is this the proposed development, the gray building?

Yes.

Does that proposed building exceed the existing height limitation?

No. 23

It does not?

Dealing 149 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. with the gross floor area. And Mr. Thom and others may speak to that.

North of I-95, the west side --

Yes. The west side of 95 is where the height restriction is.

I got you.

That, over here (indicating).

Thank you, Councilman.

Richard Thom. I chair the Developments Committee, Old City Civic Association. To clarify my credentials, I've been Chair of the Committee 12 years and I've had a business in Old City for 18 years. I was a former resident of the neighborhood in the 1980s. The Developments Committee of the Old City Civic Association -- and also to clarify our boundaries. The Old City Civic Association for over 30 years 150 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. has had boundaries from 5th Street to the Delaware River, from Walnut Street to Spring Garden Street. So this particular project falls within our recognized boundaries for over 30 years. The Developments Committee of the Old City Civic Association has voted to oppose Bill No. 050953 for the following three simple reasons: The intention of the bill is to provide selected site-specific relief to a project for one developer for one time only. It does not address the complete rezoning of the site or the relationship of the proposed change to the adjacent zoning districts. OCCA considers it a form of spot zoning and an attempt to circumvent the purpose and intent of the Common Pleas Court Mariner case ruling on relief of zoning requirements by adjusting only those specific restrictions deemed offensive to the developer. In other words, they're not rezoning the whole 151 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. site, simply adjusting one criteria. We believe that such relief should only come from a thoughtful review of all the present zoning along Columbus Boulevard. Number two, Point two, Old City is under intense pressure from developers to support them in efforts to exceed many of the requirements of the current Historic District zoning. If this site-specific effort is successful, every new project seeking code relief from the City's Zoning Board of Adjustment will request that Council individually adjust the undesirable requirements, subverting one of the fundamental purposes of the Zoning Code. In effect, this will place Council in the unfortunate position of rewriting the Zoning Code piecemeal, site by site, and thwarting the policies of the City's 1987 Master Plan for Center City as officially adopted by Council. This is a precedent-setting piece of legislation in the historic area that 152 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. will open up a Pandora's box of expectations by the development community that can only be resolved with repeated undermining of the present Zoning Code by legislative tinkering. Point three, the developer's attorney has publicly admitted that his client now has the possession of a permit for a matter-of-right project on this site, and I've been notified through the Historical Commission staff that an application has been filed for a foundation permit, assumed to be for the same matter-of-right project. If this is the case and the developer has the right to build a project in conformance with the current code and all the other present requirements of the property deed restrictions and covenants, then OCCA does not understand why this legislation is even necessary. With that, I respectfully request that the legislation be tabled. Thank you. 153 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

Thank you. So your contention is that there is or you've heard that the developer has an as-of-right over-the-counter permit --

That's what we've been told.

-- to essentially increase the base from 500 to 700 percent?

No. He has a matter-of-right permit that doesn't violate the Zoning Code. That's my understanding. Is that correct? His attorney is here and he can represent the developer. He has a right to build another project on this site, not the project that's represented in the model prepared by my office. He can build another project. He now is seeking relief from those requirements in order to build a larger project. And Councilman DiCicco is 154 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. correct, we understand the height would stay the same, but the total area of the development, total square feet of the project, would go up.

Okay.

And what is your problem with that again, the area? Doesn't this have more to do -- and we've met in my office, Mr. Thom, and I know you've met with the developer. You've expressed a great concern about not only the design of the building and the look of the building, but the fact that the building will obscure the view coming from north to south along Delaware Avenue of the bridge abutment.

I did express that, but that's not what my Committee voted on. We voted to oppose the legislation.

But wasn't that one of the driving forces? You and I had a meeting in my office, and that was a big sticking point with you. And I'm not disrespecting your opinion. 155 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC.

We did not vote to oppose the project. We've taken only two votes on this project. Vote No. 1 was to oppose the relief that they sought from the deed restrictions at the Planning Commission and Vote No. 2 was to oppose this legislation.

But you also know that if this legislation doesn't move forward, that it basically kills this project and the views will no 13 longer be obscured and maybe the design would have to be completely altered if either this developer or another developer were to come forward to try to develop that parcel?

I cannot assume that, Mr. Councilman, if he has a matter-of-right permit.

You also are aware that in addition to meeting with you and other members of Old City, that I have had a significant number of meetings with the group known as the 156 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. River's Edge Community Organization, that they have sent a letter of support?

Yes. I understand they have.

If I may, Madam President, just to acclimate the Committee on who lives where, what community we're talking about, if I can get up and just -- excuse me for standing in front of you. Behind this building just north where this -- is this Spring Garden?

Yes.

This would be Delaware and Spring Garden, which is --

A little to the north.

-- north of this proposed site. There's actually a community of residential homes between I-95, the ramp coming off of I-95, and Delaware Avenue. This community, which is within the boundaries of the Old City 157 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Civic Association, has their -- and you're familiar with your community groups and their subgroups within a neighborhood. It's known as the River's Edge Community Civic Association. I have met with these folks on a number of occasions. I remember spending about two or three hours on a Friday evening to go over some of their issues. The task for me was how to try to address the issues of everyone but, more importantly, no disrespect to the folks of Old City, how do I address the issues of the people who would be most immediately impacted by this proposed development, since they literally live either across the street or down the street from where it's being built, as opposed to the other side of 95, because Front Street is, I guess, back in here somewhere. And this is not to scale, but it's back in here somewhere. And this is where the majority of the protestants who are here today and I suspect are going to 158 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. testify. You don't live here?

Yes.

You're shaking your head. SPEAKER: I don't think that Front Street is way back there.

According to this, this is 95, the ramp, so it's not based on this model. I tried to address as many of the concerns of the River's Edge folks in terms of aesthetics, in terms of traffic flow, all the things we were talking about in the previous bills and the things that we go through when development occurs. There have been a number of provisos. I don't have a list of them with me, but there's a significant number of provisos that the developer has agreed to. There will be some light retail. They've even talked about limiting the types of retail that would go into this 159 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. facility. They speak to parking that will be provided to not only the tenants of this building, which will be a condominium -- this is not rented. This is a condominium, for-sale units, and a number of --

How many units is that, Councilman?

200 units.

And it's condominiums?

Condominiums. The streetscape improvements, I've been trying for several years to try to get the City to do some improvements to the existing street back here, which is a cobblestone street. The developer has even agreed to replace, repair or reconstruct much of the cobblestone street surface to accommodate the community. I can go on for an hour of all those things that I just, off the top of my head, remember. 160 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. The difficulty for me is, how do I satisfy everybody, folks who live on the west side of I-95, Front Street going west. We've tried, and the issue still remains that people believe that this building, although it came about without a height, had a concern for the usable floor space area, and I don't know how --