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.
The 124 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
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. 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.
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, Madam President. And good afternoon. Your name again, sir?
139 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. Mr. Saitschenko, how long have you lived in Old City?
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?
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?
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?
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?
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.
Councilman, has there been a prior zoning variance for the height?
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?
Does that proposed building exceed the existing height limitation?
Dealing 149 12/7/05 - RULES - BILLS 050953, ETC. with the gross floor area. And Mr. Thom and others may speak to that.
Yes. The west side of 95 is where the height restriction is.
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 --
-- 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.
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?
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?
This would be Delaware and Spring Garden, which is --
-- 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?
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 --
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 --