Committee Hearing, April 16, 2008

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, April 16, 2008 10:30 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILL 080253 - An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Front Street, Lombard Street, 2nd Street and Pine Street. - - - 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 a public hearing of the Committee on Rules regarding Bill No. 080253. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bill. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Front Street, Lombard Street, 2nd Street and Pine Street.

Do we have someone from the Administration? MR. McPHERSON: City Planning Commission.

Yes. Please approach the witness table. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. 3 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253

My name is Martin Gregorski. I'm a City Planner with the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Good morning, Madam Chairwoman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am Martin Gregorski, a Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill 12 No. 080253, which was introduced into Council on March 6, 2008. The purpose of this bill is to rezone an approximately 1.3-acre area of land bounded by Front Street, Lombard Street, 2nd Street and Pine Street, also known as 401 South Front Street or Stamper Square. The zoning of this site will change from an existing designation of C-2 Commercial to a new designation of C-4 Commercial. This change will permit the construction of a 15-story, 166-foot structure to be used as a luxury hotel 4 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 with approximately 150 units and a residential condominium with approximately 77 units. This project will also include underground parking and a green path connecting 2nd Street to Front Street. This project is located in Society Hill, which, while predominantly residential, contains a variety of mixed-use developments of various densities and heights that contribute to its unique character. The City Planning Commission believes that this mixed residential and hotel use is consistent with and respectful of its neighborhood context. It provides a high-quality design using appropriate materials and provides significant public benefit in the form of a green path that connects the neighborhood's long-established greenway network. However, we believe the rezoning proposed in this bill should be 5 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 tied to the formal plan of development submitted by the developer. Should City Council approve the rezoning of this site, we do not want to see this developer walk away from the site and expose both City and neighborhood to the possibility of an inferior development. It is for these reasons that the City Planning Commission at its meeting of April 15, 2008 voted to request that City Council hold final passage of this bill until the Commission can review and approve a binding agreement or deed restriction, which includes a copy of the proposed plan, so that any major modifications to the approved design will be prohibited. Additionally, the City Planning Commission voted to request that this bill be amended by adding a 12-month sunset provision that would revert the zoning designation to C-2 Commercial if the developer did not obtain a building permit for the project within one year of 6 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 enactment of this bill. For these reasons, we wish to offer an amendment to this bill. This amendment would prohibit the issuance of zoning permits with respect to any property rezoned by this ordinance unless the City Planning Commission approves the plan of development that, in its discretion, is appropriate in scale, density, character and use for the surrounding community and certifies that the requested permits are in conformity with the approved plan of development. The amendment also specifies that the ordinance shall lapse after one year unless on or before such date a building permit has been issued pursuant to the plan of development approved by the City Planning Commission. This amendment grants the City Planning Commission the authority to provide an extension of up to one additional year if the developer demonstrates substantial progress, as determined by the 7 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Commission. Should a building permit issued pursuant to the plan of development expire due to a lack of progress or stoppage of work, the zoning ordinance 7 should lapse as well, with the parcel reverting to its original zoning. I have copies of the proposed amendment for the Committee, and that is the conclusion of my testimony, and I'll be happy to answer any questions of the Committee at this time.

Thank you very much. Can you tell us what is allowable under the current zoning designation?

The current zoning designation of C-2 Commercial permits mixed-use developments with a height limit at 35 feet, for the most part. It can go up to 60 feet with setbacks from the front property line. It would permit a variety of retail and 8 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 residential uses.

Can you tell us what additional uses will be allowed if the zoning designation is changed to C-4?

The uses proposed would be permitted in C-2. They're not proposing -- the developer is not proposing anything that wouldn't be permitted in the C-2. The use is not the issue. It is more the height and the density of the property.

Will there be parking available to the general public in the off-street area?

I do not know that. The developer is here to answer those kinds of questions. They are providing parking for their --

I think that would be very nice if that would be permitted.

They are providing parking for the residents in 9 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 the hotel, but I'm not sure if there will be any public parking.

And can you tell us how many parking spots will be available for the residents of the condominium and the hotel?

I believe it's one-to-one parking, but, again, I would defer to the developer to clear up the numbers.

Can you tell us what the source of funding is for this project, or should I ask that of the developer also?

You should ask them. It's a private development.

With your hearing being so long yesterday, I would think that you would have answers like that. Okay.

I was stuck in the corner.

Are 10 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Seeing none, thank you, but you will remain --

Yes.

-- for the hearing, please. Our next witness. MR. McPHERSON: Bill Martin, Marc Stein, James Templeton. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Good morning.

Good morning.

Good morning, Madam President. I have a prepared statement and extra copies, if the members of the Committee would like them.

Thank you.

Good morning, 11 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Madam President and members of the Committee. My name is William Martin. I am a partner at the Philadelphia law firm of Fox Rothschild and represent Bridgeman's Development, the development partner in connection with the planned project at 410 South Front Street, the parcel which is the subject of the ordinance before you. I am joined by Marc Stein to my left, President of Bridgeman's Development; James Templeton to his left, principal for the project architect, H2L2 of Philadelphia; and to my right, Dr. George Thomas of Civic Visions, the project's historical consultant. We welcome the opportunity to provide you information about my client's site and the exciting world-class project it has planned. Following my brief opening remarks, you will hear from Mr. Stein, and then Mr. Templeton will provide you a more detailed description of the exciting Stamper Square Hotel and 12 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Condominium Project. Dr. Thomas is here if there are questions relating to the site history and its evolution. During the last months, the 6 development team has worked closely with 7 representatives of the Society Hill Civic 8 Association, its Zoning and Historic 9 Preservation Committee, its Executive 10 Committee, individual neighbors in the 11 Society Hill neighborhood, especially 12 those whose homes abut the project site, 13 and has worked with the Historic Commission staff, Planning Commission and other stakeholders, including local business associations and other nearby community associations. We have shared with them our vision for this project and heard a wide range of opinions regarding the site and what is needed there for this important community. At the completion of this extraordinary process, the Society Hill Civic Association is divided over whether to support or oppose the project. That 13 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 is to be expected. Some in any community hold for the status quo; others see the possibilities that will only occur if a project like this comes to the former NewMarket site. While those who oppose the ordinance before you will advise you directly of their concerns, I believe the main area of contention regards our plans for the development of a 15-story structure. A few in the community believe that such a height is unacceptably tall. We do not believe this. After all, it is less than half the height of the Society Hill Towers that initiated the transformation of this neighborhood from its post World War II state as the center of the food's distribution and a declining neighborhood. By placing the new buildings along the huge demolition that created I-95 and within the north/south line of the Society Hill Towers, we believe the project continues the 14 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 development ideas that begun with Ed Bacon and have continued to the present. In the way of additional background, it is vitally important that you understand the developer has worked throughout the process with the architects and executives of the Starwood Hotel Corporation, which has entered into a Letter of Intent for the purpose of locating a five-star Luxury Collection brand hotel as part of this project. The architect initially designed a building that was taller and denser in design. As a result of the dialogue we've had with the community, the final design is reduced in mass from our initial approach by a factor of 30 percent. We have concluded that it will not be possible to further reduce the height or density of the proposed building and still satisfy the requirements of Starwoods and allow for the location of the 77 condominium units, which are an essential part of this project and necessary to achieve 15 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 financial viability.

Starwoods has informed us that in the absence of land use approvals by May 2008, which will permit the development to move forward with groundbreaking this calendar year, it will withdraw from participation in the project and focus on alternative cities. This quality -- the quality that this project intends can only proceed with a quality hotel partner like Starwoods. There are no replacement partners waiting in the wings. As Mr. Templeton will address in his portion of the presentation, the existing zoning of this parcel of C-2 is a vestige of old assumptions and old development expectations that were based on the 1950s plan that this parcel would be, in large measure, a highway interchange. The inadequacy of the current zoning is evident in the lack of success of various development schemes on this property over a half century. The proposed rezoning of the parcel will 16 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 allow for an exciting world-class development on the long vacant NewMarket site. Construction will provide 600 man years of trade union labor and approximately 150 full-time permanent jobs for our citizens. The project will help anchor the revitalization of the South Street commercial district, which has struggled with the closing of the NewMarket, and will constitute continuing evidence to the financial community, the real estate community and our citizens generally that the rebirth of Philadelphia as an exciting 21st century destination for visitors and residents has started and continues. Let me introduce Marc Stein for brief comments, after which Mr. Templeton will brief you in more detail regarding the project.

Thank you, Bill. Good morning, Madam President.

Good morning. 17 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253

Members of the Committee. Some of you may already know me, but for those who don't, I would like to give you a brief introduction of who I am. My name is Marc Stein, obviously. I am a third-generation Philadelphia structural steel miscellaneous and ornamental steel fabricator and erector. My grandfather maintained a union fabrication plant at 42nd and Ludlow from 1905 until 1977. As a kid, I grew up in West Philly and I grew up in the fabrication plant. In 1977, my first year out of high school, I left the family business and started my first construction company. My first project was the Bourse building renovation, and with me today is Tony Naccarato, whose father was one of the structural engineers on that project. So we have some history here. That was the start of my 29 years in the steel 18 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 fabrication/installation business. I am honored to have contributed to the construction of some of Philadelphia's most prominent structures. I am proud of my commitment to building and progress in Philadelphia. Today I have Carlos Jones here with me from GPUAC. I'm very committed to equal opportunity in this city. I've been involved in the construction business long enough to know fair opportunity is entitled to all. In fact, some of the work that we've done here, you look at every day, is our glass railings and the Mayor's gates. So if you like that, then... As Bill Martin explained, my company, Bridgeman Development, purchased the development rights to the former NewMarket site over 13 months ago. With the purchase of those rights came a commitment to build a quality project that takes into account the concerns of those who live and work nearby. We 19 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 renamed the project Stamper Square. Its namesake was a gentleman named John Stamper, who was a very successful businessman and actually Mayor of Philadelphia in 1759. We figured it was good karma, get some good thing going on here, and we're hoping for the same success, God willing. As I mentioned, the project before you began over months ago. 12 From the very first meeting, our lead 13 consultant, Carl Englekey, committed to an open and transparent process. We conducted probably over 15, -- I lost 16 count -- public meetings. We hosted. Ones were hosted for us. We agreed to attend as many meetings as the neighborhood requested, listen to the residents and adopt as much feedback as possible from all concerned in order to have the highest quality project. We did this not because it was the only way. We did it because it was the right way. In closing, we are 16 days into 20 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 our 30-day Letter of Intent extension with Starwood. Time is of the essence for us. Since the concept of the original NewMarket failed, South Street and 2nd Street suffer. The businesses suffer. Our goal is to create a five-star destination that will help in energizing the Headhouse Square District and the South Street businesses. With higher-end hotel clientele, a world-class restaurant, a first-rate spa, banquet facilities and a concierge-served residences, we believe our proposed project achieves those goals. I would like to thank the Supporting Your Neighbors, the leadership of the Society Hill Civic Association, as well as the South Street Headhouse District and all those who have supported us in our journey to this point. We would also like to thank Councilman DiCicco for introducing this ordinance 24 and giving us the opportunity to present before you here today. 21 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 I look forward to answering any questions you may have at the conclusion of our presentation and testimony, and I will now turn the presentation over to our architect, James Templeton. Thank you.

Good morning. In front of you you have booklets of our presentation.

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

I'm sorry. I'm James Templeton. I'm an architect with H2L2 Architects and the senior designer for this project, Stamper Square project. In front of you you have booklets of our presentation, but if you will allow me to come forward and actually walk you through the presentation and the boards. Good morning. In front of you is our presentation. It's taken about 13 months to develop, with at least six 22 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 months of intense discussions with the neighborhood, as Mr. Martin and Mr. Stein had mentioned. The NewMarket site certainly has not a glorious past to it. The NewMarket development that was there in the '70s and the '80s unfortunately failed, and everything proposed since then has not ever gone forward, and the last proposal was a 40-story tower that was very controversial, and the Civic Association and others had vowed to fight that. And I think we would agree that that would be a very inappropriate building for this site. On the fourth page of your booklet, you'll see some of the previous proposals that had been proposed. We were brought in then after that tower had hit essentially a wall and was not going to proceed any further, and we wanted to do the right thing. So we started looking again at what Society Hill is and what is the sort of 23 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 appropriate massing and scale that would work for the neighborhood, but certainly work for our developer in meeting their needs. They have certain square foot needs. The building was originally much larger and we still even scaled it down about 30 percent, working with the neighborhood and working with the community and the immediate neighbors to get something that massed far more appropriate. So when we look at Society Hill, if you look at this board down here, we realize that Society Hill is several things. It's not just a neighborhood of historic houses, but it's actually a neighborhood that has contrasts of styles, is very modern architecture interwoven with historic architecture. It's actually in the Society Hill Design Guidelines that new architecture be built to look like architecture and contrast intentionally 24 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 with the older architecture. But even more so than that, Society Hill is a contrast of scales. There are many, many different sized buildings. Although most of the central part of the neighborhood is lower four-story and some three-story houses. The perimeter areas are much taller buildings, Walnut Street, Locust Street and certainly all around Washington Square. We feel our development being on Front Street is consistent with this sort of development, that the taller toward the perimeter and toward sort of edge conditions, with smaller toward the middle, and that's exactly how we've massed our building and we've designed it. So what we wanted to do is take the network of paths that weave their way through Society Hill, the pedestrian paths that sort of find their way from Ed Bacon's original 1966 plan and bring it 25 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 through our site and create another green space on our site. So this is our site plan. This is Front Street. This is Lombard Street. This is the 100 block of Pine Street, and this is 2nd Street and Headhouse Square. So what we are intending to do is actually bring a green path, a sort of paved plaza with beautiful landscaping, through the middle of our site, create a public plaza approximately the same scale and size of Three Bears Park on Delancey Street and then have that continue right through to Front Street, actually connecting to the river and hopefully future river development if that starts to happen. The building is laid out in a way that the hotel entrance will be actually off of 2nd Street. So it will be a very large two-story beautiful lobby area off of this northbound part of 2nd Street, which is not traveled much. This is the one part of 2nd Street that 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 actually is not traveled much.

We feel that we have enough room to have drop-off areas as well as through traffic that will not hinder traffic in the neighborhood. Then in the middle of the building are some back-of-house offices, but mostly a ballroom and a pre-function area that open up to this green space, this wonderful garden area. And then on the Front Street site, accessed from Front Street as well as from the courtyard, is a five-star restaurant that serves the hotel, but is also open for the public, that anyone can come to this restaurant. This will be the first restaurant or commercial entity actually on Front Street in Society Hill. One does not exist right now. And then other back-of-house areas here. But we're also very sensitive to the neighbors, of course, and we're pulling the building as far away from the near neighbors as possible. 27 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Here we've created a garden zone on this side so that there is a nice buffer between the building and these condominiums here, and we're also pulling the building away on the north. One advantage of doing this is unlike some of the buildings you've seen developed on the river lately that have blank walls, we will not have blank walls. We will have windows on all our walls. Now, the parking is all underground. Parking and delivery is completely underground, and we've tried to mitigate the effects of the parking by creating two ramps, one small ramp for down and one small ramp for up, away from each other so there isn't one giant hole in the building that will have trucks and cars backing up. We're trying to separate them as much as possible. And then if you look at the model here, you can see how the building is sort of massed, that our whole intent is to have sort of equivalent of a 28 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 four-story building here. This is Headhouse Square. This is Pine Street. This is Lombard Street. So that we have a four-story entry building that is in the same scale as the neighborhood with these adjacent historic buildings here and then comes into the courtyard, then steps up to a six-story building, which is the main part of the hotel, and then put the condominiums as far to the east as possible so that the shadow effects on the neighborhood are as minimal as possible. So keep the tallest portions to the east and to the south, but still creating the setbacks between the neighbors, allowing this garden to be this beautiful space, and then the passage goes under the building straight to -- a very wide passage goes under the building straight to Front Street here. The lower portions of the building are brick, sort of fit in with the neighborhood. I mean, we're very conscious, obviously, that we are in the 29 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 historic district and we are within Society Hill. Now, one of the challenges for us is that Starwood when they build new construction, they always insist on state-of-the-art cutting-edge architecture, and, of course, we saw that as a challenge, because we said, well, we're in an historic district, so we have to be careful how modern the building can be. So we're using the materials from the neighborhood. We're using brick, we're using copper panels, we're using, of course, glass, but also stone. There's a lot of stone detailing throughout the building. So the bottom of the building is brick and then the condominiums are glass and panels and stone. And if I show you the renderings here, this is the entry walk from 2nd Street as you're walking into the court -- toward the courtyard. This is the two-story lobby here, beautiful 30 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 giant space. You can -- very transparent. You can see in. We're going to have water features and beautiful landscaping. And as you enter into the space, it will start to get larger. We actually are negotiating with different galleries to make this an active sculpture garden and art gallery center that we don't -- we're not going to use the one percent requirement.

We're just going to put ourselves in there. We think it will be a wonderful space. And then the condominiums are in the back, again, toward the front. They're certainly taller than everything else. They're 15 stories, but we're using different materials for the condominium so they'll intentionally contrast with the brick. The brick will be of the neighborhood and the condominiums will be something different. We're not trying to suggest that they're giant row houses. That would be 31 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 ridiculous. We're also designing them in a way so they look like two buildings rather than one, so, again, to help kind of assist with the massing of the building rather than having one giant block that other previous proposals had been like -- tried to help with the scale of it. And then on Front Street, if you look at Front Street here, this is a very dynamic facade. Again, the brick of the same height as the rest of the neighborhood, the condominiums above, but this new restaurant, this sort of glowing box in the evening that will come out and really engage Front Street, the walkway into the garden. You'll always be able to see through from 2nd Street to the river through our site. And then the condominium entrance is actually on Front Street. So the hotel entrance is on 2nd Street. The condominium entrance is on Front Street. 32 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 And then we have some other images here, just some views of what the building looks like in the neighborhood. And obviously the issue for most people -- certainly the opponents of this project -- is height, that they think it's too tall. But as you can see from some of these images, it's certainly not even as close to as tall as some of the other buildings in the surrounding area, and the Society Hill Towers looming over our site. The Hyatt Hotel on the river is taller. Even the Dockside building that looks like a ship is taller than our building, which is just down the street. And from the neighborhood, because the way the building is in the middle of the block, if you're on Front Street or if you're on Delaware Avenue, you will see the building. Absolutely you'll see the building. But when you're in Society Hill further than 3rd Street, unless you're in a tall building, you will never see the site. 33 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 These are actual photo montages we did with our computer rendering. You'll see a little bit from 2nd and South Street. You'll barely see it from across Headhouse Square. Front Street, of course, you'll see it, but if you're at 3rd and Pine, 3rd and Spruce, 4th and Pine, 4th and Spruce, 5th and Spruce, you will never see this building, because when you perceive a building, you have to be either from a great distance or if you're walking -- even if you're walking along it, usually the way you perceive space is that you see maybe three or four stories of it. You do not see the full height. So, again, why we think 15 stories is not a bad height. And some of the other images we like to show -- because, again, many of the opponents who are going to get up against our project cite Ed Bacon's plan from the '60s as this model for how Philadelphia should be and almost as if Philadelphia shouldn't evolve, and 50 34 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 years I think the City Plan should evolve. But what's interesting is that Ed Bacon actually was talking about tall buildings along the river, not just the Society Hill Towers and not just along Washington Square. These are some studies that the Planning Department was actually proposing back in the '50s and '60s where you start to see tall building popping up all along the river, and that's actually what has happened. Tall buildings are being proposed as part of the Planning Commission as far inland as the east side of 5th Street back then. And then, of course, there were tall buildings even before the redevelopment happened.

Right across the street from our site there were eight- and 12-story giant warehouses. So there's a history of tall buildings not just in Society Hill, but even immediately adjacent to our site. And to further prove that, this 35 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 is our building, Stamper Square here. These buildings are all in or next to Society Hill. All of them are taller than our building, significantly taller than our building. All of them are in the borders of Society Hill. Again, most of them to the edge. It's exactly what we're doing. We're small toward the middle, taller toward the edge. And if eventually the river does get developed, as per the PennPraxis proposal, that this is from the PennPraxis proposal, well, they're proposing 30- and 40-story towers immediately adjacent to our building. Our building is the little one right here. So if this is the possible future of Philadelphia, we're just a small stepping stone to a much taller development. The two last things I want to talk about is that this building is a proposal that was approved by Society Hill Civic Association at 5th and Walnut. It's a 26-story condominium tower that 36 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 towers over three-story row houses just 29 feet from those houses. It's over 350 feet tall. This was approved by the Civic Association, by the Zoning Committee Society Hill Civic, most of whom are going to come and speak against our project. This 350-foot tower casts a shadow over Independence National Historic Park. We cast a significantly smaller shadow over I-95. And the last thing I will touch on is the zoning, because certainly one of the reasons we're here is for zoning. One of our arguments is that the zoning of this site has never been correct. I'll pull this board up here. That from its inception when the plans were being devised to create the South Street Expressway, the ramps cut right through our site. Here's one option. Here's another option. Our site was originally supposed to be one-third to two-thirds its size that it is now. So C-2, the smaller commercial zoning, 37 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 made sense. It was backed up against a highway and it was significantly smaller. Well, luckily the South Street Expressway never happened, but for some reason, the zoning stuck, and that has been one of the reasons that you've had failed development after failed development and NewMarket didn't work. So also it's interesting to point out that here's our site. C-4 is already just across the river -- not across the river. I mean across the highway. And the PennPraxis plan, they're contemplating legislation for a zoning overlay, which is multiple spot zoning, which you need to approve, but they're contemplating their legislation, which has very dense zoning. That would come right up to Front Street, and there's even talk of bringing it in further. Their minimum density is almost what our density is, and they're contemplating proposing that to Council. So that's talking about 38 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 bringing mixed-use multi-family density right up to here. We're well within the guise of what they're going to be proposing. Thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify?

Yes, we do. I'll pause for a second to ask if the Committee has any other questions of this group.

Yes, they do. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.

Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. Good morning, gentlemen.

Good morning.

To Council President's question regarding public 39 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 parking, I did hear in the testimony that the restaurant is going to be open to the public. However, I heard no connecting the dot with available public parking.

I certainly can address that. As the Planning Commission said, there's at least one parking space for every resident, but there are additional parking for the -- valet parking for the restaurant as well as the hotel. There's a capacity for the entire hotel as well as the entire restaurant. The restaurant has about 100 people. So based on calculations, there's at least 50 parking spaces available for the restaurant. There's an additional 75, approximately 75, spaces of extra space available for parking.

In the underground?

Underground. It's all underground.

Unless I missed it, I heard no discussion, mention 40 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 of LEEDs consideration, green building.

I'm sorry. Yeah. One of the conditions under the Starwoods agreement is that we at least maintain a minimum level LEED certification.

And your definition of "minimum level" is what?

Well, the way LEED is actually structured is the -- the equivalent of their Bronze level of certification means -- it's just called LEED certified. Then there's Silver, Gold and Platinum. We intend to be at least certified. We're trying to get Silver. Residential buildings are very hard to make more than Silver or Gold. There's only a handful actually in America. Even if we were LEED certified, we'd be one of the most environmentally friendly multi-family residential buildings in Philadelphia, unfortunately. That's the reality we're in. But at least LEED certified, hopefully Silver. 41 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253

Okay. In your diagram here, you gave a lot of discussion to green space, but unless I'm looking at this incorrectly, I don't see that reflected in this. I heard you talk about it, but I don't see it reflected here.

Well, a lot of it is paving, is paved area, but that has landscaping. So if you mind me coming forward and pointing out.

Please.

The entry plaza will certainly be landscaped. The walkway has garden and landscaping elements, and then this entire area is the plaza, and it will be well landscaped. And as you can see from the rendering, there is a grass area. There's fountain areas. There's a green planter area and then there's lots of trees and landscaping. It's not just a giant patch of grass, but it's a -- it's mostly a paved walkway, but there is a 42 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 very large green area and then additional different types of paved areas.

Surely. And as much as I appreciate you doing the comparison of the heights of the building, what then is the number one or two concern, reservation, angst with those who are not in favor of this development?

Well, you'll have to ask them.

From where you sit.

They just honestly think the building is maybe two stories --

Forgive me?

I think their argument is that the building is maybe two stories too tall. We have heard nothing but compliments about the design, or mostly compliments, but most of the arguments is 43 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 that the building is very nice, but we think it's too tall.

Okay.

We do not think it's too tall at all. And another point I'll point out is that -- I didn't mention -- is that our building only covers about 53 percent of the entire site. It is not massive. It's over an acre of land that we're only covering 53 percent of.

Okay. Where is the restaurant in this?

The restaurant would be right here on Front Street, and then it wraps around to the courtyard. So you can access it from the courtyard as well as from Front Street.

Okay, then. Thank you very much. Thank you, Madam President.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman 44 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Greenlee.

Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Templeton, you might as well stay there. A couple of questions. The setbacks from the residences, now there's residents right there on Lombard Street; is that right?

There are. There's a bunch of condos here and then there's some historic houses over there.

And what's the setback to any kind of building from them? I'm sorry. You probably said that, but I just want to be clear.

No. I'll get you the exact numbers. The setback from the condominiums here, from the face of the condominiums, is 37 and a half feet, which is consistent with other tall buildings and other small buildings in Society Hill and certainly throughout 45 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Philadelphia. These houses, the backs of these houses here to the building, are anywhere from 43 to 56 feet. And then on the north side -- again, we're pulling the building a little bit more to the south, not because we don't respect the south neighbors, that's not the reason. It's because sun is to the south and cast shadows to the north. So we tried to pull the building as far south as possible while being respective of the neighbors. Here we're anywhere from 90 to 89 to 100 feet from these north neighbors here. And 12 feet here.

So the closest would be the 37 and a half feet?

The closest is right here at 12 and a half feet and right here at 37, yes.

The 12 feet, I'm sorry, say again.

Twelve feet 46 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 between the north wall of our building on the first floor to that house there. Now, this is a party wall. It's not their main window wall, but it has a 6 and a half -- 7

And how 8 many residents are there about, roughly? 9

In the -- 10

From the 11 12 feet. 12

In the existing house?

Yeah.

It is just a single-family house.

And just so I'm clear, on this picture here, you can walk right from 2nd Street, anybody, the public can walk straight through to Front; is that what you're saying?

It will be open hours a day. The security of the 24 hotel will be monitoring the space. So it will not be a rowdy space with 47 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 drunkards. People will be shuffled away if something unruly started. There are no gates on this walkway. It will be open. It's a public space.

Okay. And last question -- and, again, this might have been said and I missed it. I know you said there's 77 units in the condo. How many rooms in the hotel?

It's 150 rooms, which is actually very small. It's a boutique hotel. It's not a Convention Center-sized hotel. Like even the Society Hill Sheraton just up the street is 330 or 340 rooms. We're 150.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Kelly.

Yeah. Thank you, Mr. Chair. Mr. Templeton, first of all, let me say that that's a very impressive 48 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 presentation. I'm really impressed by it. I just had a quick question on the underground parking. Your underground parking, now it's going to be accessible for -- it's going to be two entrances, one for the hotel and one for the condominiums, or they're both going to use the same?

They both use the same entrance. They both will go down together here and both come up here.

How many levels of parking are you going to have?

There's actually five levels underground. There's a basement level. I have a plan here. There's a basement level, which allows for drop-off to two lobbies. There's actually lobbies in the basement as well. The delivery happens in the basement.

Well, that's another question I had about delivery to 49 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 the hotel. The trucks and whatnot, they would use the same entrance?

They would also use the same ramp. Everyone would deliver or drop off or bring their cars down below. Now, again, the population of this building is not so great that we see this as a conflict at all. We have four levels of parking below the basement level. Half of it is valet and half of it is self-park. So the residents will self-park themselves and the hotel guests and restaurant guests will have a valet taking care of it. So that will be a very efficient system.

But most of the deliveries; in fact, all of the deliveries, would be inside then?

Yes. And that's actually something we worked with the Civic Association, that they would prefer to have that.

So there 50 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 would be no noise or whatnot at 3:00 in the morning.

Exactly. You won't hear the backing up of trucks. All of that happens -- and not just underground, but sort of in the middle of the site, furthest away from other property lines.

All right. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chair. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Any other questions? Councilwoman Brown.

Recognizing that this is a private enterprise, but this is the only time that Council has a chance to weigh in when it comes to educational opportunity plans, any mention, discussion, consideration of that as a part of this presentation of City Council?

Well, the developer has started a dialogue with 51 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 GPUAC, and we want to try to figure out a way to address both issues of contracting and employment in a way that's respectful of the community. And the purpose of having the contact with GPUAC -- and Mr. Jones is here if you want to address any questions to him -- was to try to do it early enough in the process, that we didn't have a situation where commitments were being entered into with contractors or subcontractors. From my personal experience, sometimes what happens is, you're halfway down the road and then you try to overlay those things and it becomes problematic. Well, if you start from the beginning, you can do it in a way that makes it more likely that you can meet your goals and also do it in a way that's economic within the confines of the project.

Sure.

And that was -- I'm sorry. And Carlos can expand on it a little bit, but we talked in great detail 52 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 about that not only on the construction side, but on the operational side, was going to be -- it was like -- it's a career. We have a contract with Starwoods for 30 years there. So for somebody for an opportunity for a mentorship program, it becomes a career.

Career path indeed.

Yeah. So Carlos is very excited. And just as a little background, back in '92 I got hurt in an accident and I was out of the business for a couple years and I was certified as a disabled company. So I got to really see the inner workings of the system, and that's how I know Carlos. And I'm very sympathetic to how to set it up, and I think that the best way to set it up is in the beginning at this stage so that --

Well, if it doesn't happen in the beginning, history tells us that it doesn't happen 53 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 at all.

It doesn't work.

So are there benchmarks or timelines attached to discussions and negotiations with GPUAC?

Our objective is to press the conversations with GPUAC so that we can come to an understanding regarding goals and objectives in advance of letting out contracts and looking for commitments from contractors. I would think it probably would be firming up in the summer and the fall. And, Councilwoman, we're happy to do that. I do want to make sure that there's no confusion, the Committee understands, this is a fully privately funded project.

Yes.

And we're not here and do not anticipate -- well, certainly as part of this process -- to have any public funding associated with the project. 54 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253

Surely. And that's well understood and recognized, but does not prohibit us from putting the question on the table every single chance we get.

And we understand and respect that.

So we're seizing the moment, because we may not get a second bite at this apple.

Certainly.

Could we hear from GPUAC on this matter?

Now?

Please. He's right beside you.

Oh, okay.

Good morning. I'm Carlos Jones and I'm the Director of the Economic Development Program at the Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, and I pretty much can echo what's been said already. They've asked us to, one, be a little proactive. And 55 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 generally I concur that most of the time we are asked to do some things well after the horse has sort of left the gates in the barn and it's very hard to in fact implement economic opportunity plans, along with the directives from your MBEC's office, when they are setting goals and particularly as you're talking about the early stages of a project and your design and your first foundation is structural. Many times we're asked after those contracts are already let and started, and we really don't get good participation. So in conversations with this developer, particularly Marc, we're saying that, one, you should in fact, one, design the building with an emphasis on Philadelphia-based companies being involved.

Pull your mike closer, please.

Sure. One, we wanted to see some 56 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 involvement or design with elements that said we want to see Philadelphia area companies being involved. We wanted to see construction methods that also made an opportunity available for Philadelphia-based companies. So we didn't want to see a lot of exclusive one-of-a-kind things from overseas. We wanted to say at least in the design issues that we wanted to say that people in the Delaware Valley region will be able to participate, and that we would take an emphasis, one, to make that opportunity for people to be involved. Secondly, the MBE, WBE, disabled businesses, we said, one, we should in fact leave a note open and expect that there will be some type of dialogue along with the City Council, as per previous EOPs, and that should be done and expected that MBEC or there will be at least some type of notation that we would like to see that. And we discussed some of the previous projects, like the 57 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 stadiums and other projects that had EOP plans as just a reference point. There has been no concrete numbers discussed. We respect some directions from your body as to what would be expected at this point. Secondly, as Marc mentioned, we strongly believe and emphasize that there should be some type of pipeline. And by "pipeline," I mean pipeline for the ongoing employment for Philadelphia residents, and particularly area residents. So that particular is not in place, but we're suggesting that the Starwoods, along with the developer, implement a program for community outreach that is consistent and has measurable accountability and responsibilities and outcomes with the hotel management as you move forward. That's pretty much the state of where we are.

Well, as 58 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 was stated, it's clear that the hotel, hospitality, tourism really does offer a career path. So to the extent that we can offer that to Philadelphia residents, that needs to be put in place. How many -- and you may not be the appropriate panel for this question, but I am curious to know how many young people live in that community under 11 years of age. And why do I ask the 12 question? If you travel the Chicago 13 river line, if you will, you find 14 intermittent areas of play for children 15 and young people. So historically when 16 developers come before us and the 17 community is unhappy with proposals, there's no talk, mention of what's going to be in it for the children that live in that world, because -- period. So I'm posing the question here. If not this project, to the developer, in other projects that you've done, has there been any thought of, any consideration for residents who have 59 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 children and giving them a place to play, residents who have grandchildren and want a place to play?

It's an interesting question, Councilwoman, and certainly behind us there will be additional testimony coming to you from folks who live in that neighborhood and have lived in that neighborhood for some time. The project as designed, to be honest, is unlikely to have a significant presence of children, young or otherwise. The units will probably be, from a normal person's perspective, quite expensive and they're likely to be older purchasers and people who are returning to the City from the suburbs, perhaps as their families have -- as their children have went on to college and beyond.

Sure. I raise it only as a consideration. I'm not suggesting anything more than that. But our world is made up of folk from 60 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 zero to 101, and I just think it's a legitimate consideration for developers of this time. Your points are well taken and, quite frankly, I agree with you, so I raise it only as a consideration.

Thank you.

Thank you for your testimony. Thank you, Madam President.

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

Gentlemen, thank you.

Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Paul Levy. (Witness approached witness table.)

Good morning.

Good morning. I have written copies of my testimony here 61 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 for members of Council. Good morning, Councilwoman Verna, other members of City Council.

Good morning.

My name is Paul Levy and I'm pleased to offer testimony in favor of Stampers Square, a mixed-use development proposed for the vacant site between the 100 blocks of Pine and Lombard Street. I wanted to emphasize that I am here in a personal and not professional capacity, because I'm a resident of the 200 block of Pine Street who lives about 500 feet from this site and who walks by it several times a week. When my wife and I moved back from Mount Airy to Center City four years ago, we chose a historic 50-foot-tall row house that was built in the 1820s. With our younger daughter, we enjoy the scale of the neighborhood, and during my ten-minute walk to work each day, there is not a single moment in which I miss 62 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 the morning rush hour on the Schuylkill Expressway. As someone who lived in Queen Village in the 1970s and 1980s and who regularly used to shop and dine at NewMarket, the commercial project that once occupied this site, I have been surprised by the reaction of those who want to preserve a ten-year-old hole in the ground surrounded by a chain link fence, instead of supporting a plan to build new condominiums, a hotel and a restaurant that will generate vitality, tax dollars and jobs. I have, therefore, attended many community meetings and have listened to the points of view of opponents, whom I respect, and want to address several of those concerns in my remarks. Concern that I've heard over and over again is that Society Hill is a small-scale community and tall buildings of size should not be allowed. I very much value the scale of Society Hill and 63 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 I personally prefer to live in a historic home, but it is important to remember how the revival in this area actually began. Containerization of cargo made most of the finger piers along this section of the Delaware River obsolete. The old Food Distribution Center, which had been located on Dock Street, was in decline and seriously blighted. The entire area was redlined by banks and no one was invested east of 6th Street in the 1950s. Existing residents were seeing their home values decline, and hundreds of properties had become vacant and fallen into disrepair. As the very first act of Center City renewal, the Food Distribution Center was relocated to its current location in South Philadelphia. Mayor Richardson Dilworth then personally supervised the demolition of the old Dock Street markets and saw them replaced by not one but three Society Hill towers, which rise to 292 feet, 126 feet higher 64 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 than the proposed Stampers Square. As those towers emerged, Old Philadelphia Development Corporation, forerunner to the organization I direct today, began to market 567 vacant historic properties that had been acquired by the Redevelopment Authority, with the goal of attracting families who would rehabilitate and commit to live in the City. But it took a big project like Society Hill Towers to jump-start the momentum for the smaller-scale historic revival and to signal to lending institutions that the area was a safe place for investment. As renovation proceeded, newly constructed in-fill homes were added and another tall project, the 351 tall Hopkinson House, rose on Washington Square, 185 feet higher than the proposed Stampers Square. This was the second large rock in the pond that created new ripples of rehabilitation on adjacent blocks. Then in the 1980s two towers of 65 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Independence Place rose to a height of 280 feet, 114 feet higher than the proposed Stampers Square. That has been the development pattern of this neighborhood for over 50 years, an alternating rhythm of large-scale and small-scale improvements. It is the big projects that provide the density the residents and the customers that can support the supermarkets, corner stores and the other amenities that make this an attractive place to live.

It is the small projects that provide the texture and intimate scale. So let's avoid these false either/or choices. A first-class development at Stampers Square can have an analogous positive effect on the revitalization of 2nd Street and bring new quality retailers and assist with the creation of an animated public space on Lombard Street -- between Lombard and South Street on 2nd Street. Concern No. 2, new tall 66 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 buildings, I've heard, violate the historic character of this area. Stampers Square does not propose to tear down historic homes in the middle of the neighborhood. Rather, it seeks to fill a hole that has been vacant for over a decade at the southeastern edge of the neighborhood. Tall buildings, who you've heard, already define the northern edge and the eastern edge. Stampers Square will preserve all of the historic buildings along the 100 and 200 blocks of Lombard Street, as well as those on 2nd Street. It will rise up behind those buildings and be visible from some locations in the neighborhood the same way that Society Hill Towers are visible from adjacent blocks on Spruce and Delancey Streets. Immediately across from my house at 3rd and Pine Street is a very tall tower that rises to 185 feet. It happens to be a national historic landmark built in 1761 called St. Peter's 67 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 Church. Clearly, large and small scale can exist comfortably in an historic area. Finally, Concern No. 3, you will hear this project is spot zoning and should be opposed on principal. Spot zoning could be said to occur whenever a small area or land in a section of a neighborhood is singled out and placed into a different zoning category. And while the proposal before you -- and my written testimony is an error here, but it will raise it to a higher commercial category, you should know, as you've heard, that commercial uses dominate on blocks immediately to the south of the site. All the storefronts on the site itself that face 2nd Street already have commercial tenants on the ground floor. So this is far from becoming an isolated island of land use. Critics also act as if this change is occurring like a spur of the moment, stealth decision. The reality is 68 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 that this project has been openly discussed and debated by the neighborhood for over a year on street corners, on front steps and at least three public meetings that I've attended, including one at which Councilman DiCicco met with the community members and fielded questions very patiently for over two hours. So here's the bottom line: Mayor Nutter has committed our city to a new cycle of growth, reversing a pattern of decline by adding jobs and residents. This is an historic moment for Philadelphia. We have added over 10,000 new housing units in Center City in the last ten years. We know from research and surveys that we have done that a minimum of 40 percent of those residents in all new downtown projects have moved in from outside the City. When we add new residents, we create new jobs and add more purchasing power that attracts more retailers. When we add new residents, we 69 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 add more voters and give ourselves more clout in Harrisburg and Washington, DC. When we have more clout in our state and nation's capital, we leverage more transportation and infrastructure funding that stimulates even more private development. We should never put on blindfolds and support a project just because it is new, but when a quality project like Stampers Square comes before us designed by architects who have taken the time to integrate their development into the fabric of our city, let's not listen to those who would have us dig a deeper hole. Rather, let's say yes to opportunity and yes to growth. Thank you very much.

Thank you very much, Mr. Levy. Are there any questions or comments from the Committee? (No response.)

Thank 70 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel consists of John Gallery, Joe Jacovini and Harry Schwartz. (Witnesses approached witness table.)

Madam Chair, would you mind if we added one person, that being me, to the panel?

Not at all.

Thank you.

Please come forward. Good morning, gentlemen. Do you have written testimony?

I do not. I'd be happy to send it.

No. 21 That's fine.

I just have a few documents, but one is a nice picture to look at.

All 71 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 right. Kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Madam Chair, members of the Committee, my name is Paul Boni. I'm a Society Hill resident. I'm also a member of the Zoning Committee of the Civic Association, as well as a member of the Board. I really only have one thing to say here in its capacity as Board member of Society Hill Civic Association, and that's that the Civic Association voted to oppose this bill. That's clear. I think the vote was 12 to 8. You make of it what you will, but the Civic Association voted to oppose this bill and to communicate its opposition to the City. So that's sort of point number one, and then I can take off my Civic Association hat and speak as -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me, Madam Chair.

The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. 72 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Good morning, Mr. Boni. Wasn't there a vote by the Zoning Committee, I believe, that was also taken, or is that the same committee? I'm confused. I remember a vote that was taken, it was 12/12.

There are a few votes, and on the project itself as far as the merits of the project as whether we would support it or not, the vote was 12/12 and we were in fact evenly divided. But then there was another vote just a week and a half ago or something like that about this particular legislation, and that, I believe, was 12/8. So to reconcile the two, I think it is fair and reasonable that a person might be able to support the project but not support rezoning; in other words, would like to see the developer go to the Zoning Board and seek a variance, which is a process that we're all very familiar with, and 73 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 not do it by the rezoning, which I think some people feel is a bit heavy-handed. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you for the explanation, but I just wanted to clear it up, that there was more than one vote and one was 12/12, which came out of the Zoning Committee.

That's the Board. The Board was evenly divided on the merits of the project. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Okay. Thank you.

The Zoning Committee is overwhelmingly against the project as it's presented and against the bill. And so there's no debate about that. I have ten quick points to make and then I'll hand it over to the other witnesses. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How many?

Ten quick ones as opposed to three really long ones. One is that this is, of course, spot zoning and it creates a hole in a 74 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 doughnut. There are no C-4 properties around it. It's all C-2. Second, to twin this with a restrictive covenant seems to me at least as ultra spot zoning. We might as well call it the Bridgeman Development bill or the Stamper Square project bill. That's what we're -- that's what would be going on here, and I think it will not stand up to the courts, with all due respect. Third, we have just in December of -- and my point in making these ten points is that this is the context in which this bill finds itself, and I ask you in listening to the remaining eight and to these ten points, why would you vote for this bill given these ten points. The third one is that Councilman DiCicco wrote us a letter at the end of 2005 saying that he will not rezone this property. And I just want to say that for the record, and I can submit it. I'm sure it's there. 75 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam Chair.

The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Boni, the letter you're referring to was not for this particular project; is that correct?

No. I believe it's for this particular property. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. I said project. Was it for this project or was it for a previous project?

This -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Boni, it's very simple. In 2005 you suggest that I sent you a letter, which I in fact acknowledge, that I would not do a zoning -- approve a zoning for that particular site as it related to that project. Is it the same project that this Council, this Rules Committee, is reviewing today? 76 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253

I will answer your question directly. It is not my understanding from our context or even from this letter that this letter is project specific. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Boni, I'm asking you a direct question. The letter you're referring to, did it reflect this project or a previous proposed project?

Can I read the letter and then I'll -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Boni, it's very simple. Is it for this project or is it for a different project? It's simple.

The letter refers to no project. The letter does not refer to any project. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: At the time of that letter, was there a project that was on the table that was being proposed?

Yes, of course. 77 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. No further questions. Thank you.

Of course. Maybe I should just read the letter. It's very quick. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I acknowledge it.

Okay. This developer does not have any sort of track record for new development. This developer has not given us any assurance or you any assurance that financing is in place. The only thing we hear is a threat that if approvals are not granted within two or three weeks, that the hotel will pull out. I'm going to mention for the record, because I think we are making a record here, that this project is -- this property is owned by Sant Properties. This developer doesn't own it. All they own is the development rights. And both the owner and this developer have made 78 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 thousands upon thousands of dollars of campaign contributions. And my only point is here today, that that doesn't look good. I'm not making accusations. I'm just saying that that's the context in which we find ourselves.

The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Boni, have you ever made a contribution to my campaign?

Absolutely. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.

Please proceed, Mr. Boni.

Of course, we have the last minute entree of the union. We have the Historical Commission, the staff of the Historical Commission, that recommends as follows: The tallest sections of this complex are not compatible with the scale of the surrounding streetscape and district. 79 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 The surrounding historic buildings are three and four stories tall. The staff notes that the south section of the proposed building is 166 feet tall, 175 to the penthouse, and that the staff recommends denial of this proposal. I think there is a false choice that is being presented to you, and I'm amazed to hear that some people come here to this microphone and say that the people who are opposed to this bill are in favor of the hole in the ground and the status quo. That's not correct. The choice that you have before you is the current proposal or a lower proposal. It's as simple as that. It's not -- no 18 one is arguing for the hole in the ground. Can we lop off five stories? Do we know the answer to that? We're being told that it's not economically feasible, but we don't really know the answer to that. Moving right along, No. 9 -- 80 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 well, I already mentioned that, that the Civic Association is on record against this bill. And, finally, I present a petition that we've generated in -- well, we got 230 signatures in less than a week. Now we're up to over 280 signatures of people who oppose this bill. The vast majority of the people on this petition are within three blocks of this project. There's a fiction that is being pitched to you that the community is divided. The community is not divided. The community is not divided. Even the 100 block of Pine, the majority of folks are not in favor of this. And I'll just read the three lines from the petition. "We support the existing zoning in Society Hill. Our Zoning Code protects us from inappropriate development that would be inconsistent with the historic character of our neighborhood. We oppose spot 81 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 zoning at the NewMarket property. The current zoning for the NewMarket property restricts new buildings to six stories." The W Hotel six or seven years ago got approval through the Zoning Board for, I think, 109 feet. So it can be done. We can work through the zoning process. We can work out a reasonable variance. That is the process that -- and we will work this out as we work -- you know we have a good track record of being pro development, and, of course, we all want to see this hole filled in, and that shouldn't be a factor here. What should be a factor is what is appropriate development. Look at the model before you. That's all you really have to look at. And look at the eastern edge and look at the historic houses that's closest to you on Front Street and ask yourself if this scale, this disproportionate scale, is in character with our neighborhood. The staff at the Historical Commission thinks 82 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 not. And I have some materials that I'll just pass up, the ones that I referenced. And I thank you for your time. If you have any questions, I'd be happy to answer them.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Boni, just on this whole height issue, what is it that you think is acceptable here? Because I know you mentioned the lopping five stories off, then you talked about another height level. What would you say is acceptable here?

It's an excellent question. I appreciate it. And it's a difficult one to answer, because every person has their own subjective view of what's appropriate and not appropriate, and that's why when I look at these sorts of projects, I stick with the planning 83 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 and I stick with the law, and I say that this allows six stories and if the developer can build within the code, that's great, and if they need a reasonable variance, let's understand why they need that variance, let's see the hardship, and if they have a hardship, not just they want to make more money, but if they have a hardship and it's a reasonable variance, then we'll work with them and do it. Let me answer your question now. My personal belief, six to eight stories, something like that, around eight. I don't know. I'll even go nine. I know that we did not oppose as a Civic Association -- and I think this was a mistake -- the W Hotel at 109 feet, but I believe --

That was 11 stories, right?

I think so, something like that. I always stick to the feet, because the stories depends on 84 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 how high the ceilings are. And so I think as a practical matter, that I wouldn't want the Civic Association -- it would be good if the Civic Association was not inconsistent, in that it would not fight something six, seven years ago but fight it today. And so I would -- that's why I would --

I'm sorry, but didn't you say the Civic Association supported the W Hotel? I'm sorry. Maybe I missed that.

We didn't. We did not oppose it. In fact, there's no 16 letter, there's nothing in our files that even says what happened. We were wowed, as I'm sure anybody would be, by Will Smith doing something in our neighborhood. The W Hotel is par excellence, and we were wowed into it. And, in fact, even at the end, after it went through, the developer went back to the Zoning Board and got a little bump up and no one was there to contest that, so 85 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 they made it even higher. I think we can put a really good -- I think this is a really good project, for the most part. I really do. I want to say that. I think a hotel is okay. I think condos are okay. But I think it's excessive. It's excessive, and that's why I think that with your help, we can get to something a little more manageable and something that would generate more of a consensus in the neighborhood. If the Board is split 12/12, what does that tell you? That tells you that --

They have a mixed opinion.

That there's not a consensus, that there's not a consensus for --

It might not be a consensus. I mean, in all fairness, sir, in these kind of things, there's always going to be mixed opinions. I mean -- and I guess the 86 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 reason I brought up the height and the W Hotel, that was stories. This is 15. 4 It doesn't sound -- I mean, I understand 5 the 40 stories. That's a big difference. 6 Eleven, 15, I mean, does it make that 7 much of a difference? 8

Well, as I explained 9 to you, at least in my mind, there's 10 regret for the 11. So it's not something 11 I'm happy about. It's something that I would move on with my life and fight other things.

But you have a difference of opinion than other people. I guess that just backs up what we're saying here.

And that's why I don't think we should do this by referendum. We shouldn't ask people what do you want. We should ask the Historical Commission, first and foremost, since we're an historic district and preservation of the character of our district is paramount. 87 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 And, of course, we don't know what the Historical Commission feels. We know what the staff feels. We know that the project failed to obtain approval at the architect's committee level. And I believe we should look at the law and the process, and I think that to spot zone over it -- I know it's a loaded term, but to rezone --

I disagree with the term "spot zoning."

I'll say to rezone. To rezone on top of all that existing process and attempt to do consensus building I think is to cut the legs out of a good civic association and out of a lot of good neighbors who abut this property, who you'll hear from today, who won't be able to go to the Zoning Board and argue that the hardship -- argue to show that the proof of hardship and will only be relegated to filing a spot zoning lawsuit.

Just one 88 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 last question, and you heard the testimony. I don't want to get hung up on the height thing, but Society Hill Towers is not that far away, obviously much larger than this. What is your reaction to that?

My reaction is that -- what makes a precedent, is your question, I think, and what is my reaction to Society Hill Towers? Society Hill Towers was a singular case in a very different time in our neighborhood when there was -- it was a public project and its purpose was economic development, and to point to those towers and, therefore, say that everything in our neighborhood or that something else in our neighborhood should be that high --

Well, not that high. In all fairness, this is, I guess you would say, reasonably considerably less. I mean, it's maybe not what you want, I understand that, but it's not as high -- this proposal is not 89 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 as high as Society Hill Towers and I don't believe as high as some of the ones west, Hopkinson House, Independence Place, that kind of thing. So, I mean, in all fairness, this isn't -- I would argue it certainly isn't precedent setting. I'm not here to just back this, but, I mean, in all fairness, I just don't see this as -- I can see if there was nothing else there. Obviously you're really breaking some kind of height line, but I don't see a height line in this neighborhood. I just don't see it.

Well, I ask you to go down there today and look for yourself. I mean --

I've been down there. I know where Society Hill Towers is. I know where Independence Place is.

I appreciate your position.

Pardon 90 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 me?

I appreciate your position.

Okay. Thank you.

We could argue all day.

No. I know. That's fine. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.

Thank you, Madam President. Good afternoon. You used the word "excessive." What aspect of this project falls in that definition, or is it just the height issue that makes it excessive?

By and large, it's the height. I mean, I think with height you get density and congestion and whatnot. But I think it's, by and large, the way that the buildings related to each other and the way that -- 91 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253

When you say the "buildings," the buildings of this model relate to each other?

Yeah. I think the closest to you, Councilwoman, is the particular aspect that I would ask you to look at, which is the corner with those small townhomes along Pine and Front, and to have this building behind it to block out the blue sky and to have to see this is just incompatible with the character -- when you talk about new construction in historic districts, you're talking about three things. You're talking about scale, design and materials. And scale is an important leg of that three-legged stool. I mean, maybe some other witnesses may want to weigh in on that, and you'll probably hear some things about that today, but scale is important. Scale is important.

From where you sit, where is there common ground? 92 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253

I think if the developer would come back something along the lines of the W Hotel, that, practically speaking, you'd have common ground, which was stories or 109. I'm 7 sorry; 109 feet. And I think it would be 8 begrudging, because I think that had we 9 not had that bad example -- and there's a 10 point here. Let me make it. Had we not 11 had that bad decision six or seven years ago to not oppose that, then we would be arguing for the Zoning Code, six stories, seven, eight, nine stories. And here's the point I'd like to make with the W Hotel: That project having been approved by the City but never built --

Having been what by the City?

Having been approved by the Zoning Board but never built because of lack of financing, that configuration has become the new normal. In other words, we can't argue for six stories anymore because we let 109 feet 93 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 go by. And so now we're stuck with that 109 feet as a practical precedent, just like some people like to point to the Society Hill Towers as a precedent. So if we allow this to go through at stories and it doesn't get 8 built for whatever reason, then 15 9 stories will become the new normal, and 10 in five years we'll have a new developer 11 because it will be flipped three times 12 and we'll have a different hotel, maybe 13 not the same character, and they'll say 14 the interest rate is different now and 15 the economics require 17 stories. And then there will be a new Councilman who will say to me, Gee, you know, 15 was okay before and now this is just 17. What's the big deal? It's just two stories. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I guess he knows I'm leaving.

No. I didn't mean -- I meant -- Frank, you're killing me. 94 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253

Finally, point of information to the sponsor of this bill. The Historical Commission, are they going to weigh in at some point? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The Preservation. My understanding, Councilwoman, is that the Historical Commission, there was a hearing. I think the developer can talk to this a little bit more specific than I can. But I do want to say in relationship to the question that was posed to Mr. Boni about what would be acceptable to Mr. Boni -- and I had this actually in my closing remarks, but I think it's important to go to it now. The e-mails that I've been receiving regarding this project over the last few months -- and I've said this at the community meeting that was referenced in Mr. Levy's testimony -- as for the opponents, there is no consistency, and I'm not being disrespectful. There has not been any consistency in what would 95 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253 satisfy the folks who are opposed to this project in relationship to the height. E-mails range from 35 feet up to ten stories and in some cases up to 13. So there's no place for me to try to figure out what the commonality or what the common ground would be, because it's all over the place. It's not even that there are more people in favor of ten stories as opposed to three and 13. It's just scattered all over, and it makes that a lot more difficult for me in terms of trying to find, if you will, the magic height. There is no magic number here. And the developer went from a specific number of stories when he first proposed the project and basically this is where we are today at the 15 stories. So there's no consistency. And again I repeat it, because I said it the night at the community meeting, it's kind of just all over the place and it's just impossible for me to even try to take an even wild guess at what would -- 96 4/16/08 - RULES - BILL 080253