Okay. So is that a hundred percent of the 42 percent of the equity?
Okay. So essentially, the local interests are getting about $20 million year? 145 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
Thank you. Are there any other questions from members of the committee of this panel?
Unfortunately, no, Mr. Councilman, no. They could not be here today.
Any 146 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 other questions from members of the committee of this panel? (No further questions.)
What we would like to do, Council President Verna, the purpose of the hearing today -- and I know we wanted to answer your questions as they arose -- is really to present the plan of development. And we have Mark Brodsky, who will go through the boards, which are the larger version of what's in this. The Planning Commission will then, I believe, according to the agenda, confirm that the plan of development has been approved. So at this point, with your indulgence, we'd like to have Mr. Brodsky go through the actual plan, which you're here to consider today.
147 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Councilman DiCicco?
Anyway, just -- is there any -- who's here from the Planning Commission? Can I just ask a few preliminary questions?
'Cause I'm a little concerned about the process. (Witnesses come forward.)
I'm Gary Jastrzab. I'm the acting executive director of the City Planning Commission. 148 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
Right. The deliberations on the approval of the plan of development, I think it was approved by the Planning Commission on what date?
Do we have a new Planning Commission? Yes, there is a new commission that was appointed.
And there are three ex-officio -- the Commerce Director, Managing Director and --
For a total of nine. 149 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
And those seven did not participate in the process that approved -- the Planning Commission approved the plan of development in August of 2007?
Um, the Planning Commission at the time received the plan of development from Foxwoods, and that plan has not substantially changed. It was the opinion of the 150 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Commission at that time to make a recommendation for approval.
But what is the recommendation of the commission that sits today?
That this issue has not come before it, the new commission.
Well, then shouldn't it? I mean, here we have a situation where we had a past administration who was absolutely and totally in favor of this project -- for good or for ill, and I'm not making a judgment, but they were totally in favor of it. So they kind of moved things as quickly as they possibly could before the last day of the administration to get things approved. Now we have a new administration, and it probably has -- not probably. It has a lot of things on their plate to deal with, and because of the impact of this 151 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 development, both on the northern end and the southern end of the Philadelphia waterfront, it would seem that the new Planning Commission would, by rights, have the ability to come in now and review and either or reapprove, change, or not approve it. So I'm not comfortable with a position being taken now by -- and no 11 denigration to you -- an acting director with seven new members of a board that hasn't had a chance to review this. So while I understand the need for this hearing to keep the record going and open and having discussion, I'm not comfortable listening to any advice until I hear the new Planning Commission tell me what they think. (Applause.) (Booing.)
The Chair recognizes Councilman Goode for a point of information. 152 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
As a quick point of information and as a follow-up on Councilman Kenney's point, it's not just seven members that are different but actually eight. The eighth one you mentioned was Duane Bumb, who's the acting commerce director.
I believe there's already been a commerce director selected.
Who's also going to be deputy mayor for Planning and Economic Development.
It's part of a whole new vision for how we do 153 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 development in the City, so that not only are there not just seven new members, but the eighth member is not only a key member in terms of also being the new commerce director and deputy mayor for planning and economic development, but who is supposed to bring a whole new vision to how we do development in this city. Don't you think at least that not only should all seven new members be heard, but that one in particular should be heard, don't you think?
That's certainly an option, and -- but this record -- the record of the commission -- or the record of the recommendation by the existing commission, you know, that decision is on the record. I would look for advice from the Law Department as to whether or not the commission could hear this again, but it's certainly an option.
Are you 154 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 aware specifically what the new mayor has done with the commerce director's position?
And are you aware that not only is it a deputy mayor for planning and economic development, but there is a series of departments and --
No, no, no. 14 Given that he's been given responsibility for, I believe that not only does it include planning, but does it not include zoning?
It includes the Department of Licenses and Inspections, which, you know, the Zoning Board of Adjustment is -- operates under L&I.
Are you aware of another commerce director that was appointed deputy mayor for planning and economic development has a whole 155 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 host of development agencies under them that now also will oversee? I mean, this is supposed to be a radical change for a new vision for how we do development.
But not just a new Planning Commission, but a administration with a new vision for how to do commerce, planning and economic development.
Madam President, I don't know how everybody else feels but, I mean, I wouldn't mind taking the testimony and having the record be what the record is but, I mean, for the record, as far as I'm concerned, I think we need some additional advice from the new folks that are there. So that's my 156 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 recommendation.
Just one question. Good afternoon. To your knowledge, is the plan of development that the commission approved -- and I asked this of Mr. Dougherty -- is it the same plan that was submitted to the Gaming Board?
I do not know the answer to that question. I do know that the -- we've been told by Foxwoods that the plan of development has not changed from the plan that the Planning Commission saw back in August.
But you don't know if that was the same plain submitted to the Gaming Board.
Thank you, nothing further. 157 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Thank you, Madam Chair.
Yes. As a follow-up, has the leadership in the Commerce Department had an opportunity to see any of these documents, review any of these documents?
Is it expected that he'll have the benefit of this new information?
Yes, yes. He 158 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 will be briefed on all of the variety of projects that the City Planning Commission as well as the other development agencies in his portfolio and he will receive briefings on all of those projects, yes.
Madam President, given Councilman Goode's line of questioning, I support the notion that we need to hear from the new leadership.
I think we would all agree to that. Thank you. I believe you have testimony that you would like to present?
Yes. Good afternoon, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. As I stated earlier, I'm Gary Jastrzab. I'm the acting executive director of the Philadelphia Planning Commission. I'm here to testify on Bills 080027 and 080028, 159 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 which were introduced by Councilmember Tasco for Councilmember DiCicco on January 24, 2008. Bill 080027 will rezone the proposed Foxwoods Casino site from its current R-10-A zoning, which does not permit casinos, to a zoning designation of CED, or Commercial Entertainment District, under certain circumstances. Bill 080028 approves the plan of development for Phase I of the Foxwoods Casino to make way for the issuance of zoning and building permits for the project. I will first review the rezoning proposal, describe the plan of development, and outline the benefits that the passage of this legislation will bring to the City and Commonwealth. In order for the Foxwoods Casino to proceed, the zoning of the site must first be reclassified. This 160 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 bill proposes to rezone the site bounded by Christopher Columbus Boulevard, (former) Reed Street, the Delaware River, and Tasker Street (extended) with the CED zoning classification. This classification is necessary for the construction of a casino. It's the only zoning designation in the City that permits licensed gaming families and their ancillary uses such as hotels, restaurants, offtrack betting facilities, and theaters. By rezoning the site to CED, this bill sets forth specific development standards, including: a parking ratio of four parking spaces for every five gaming positions; a building height limit of 300 feet, or 30 stories; and an overall density for the project of 400 percent, meaning that the building's floor area can equal up to four times the site area. 161 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Additionally, certain conditions must be met in order for the rezoning of the site to become effective. These provisions are included in the bill and require several resolutions to be adopted by City Council, finding that a not-for-profit organization will be established for the purpose of providing community benefits in the neighborhood surrounding the CED. The goals of Philadelphia Entertainment and Development Partners, PDEP, making traffic conditions on Columbus Boulevard better than they are today have been met. This will require an independent traffic report. Appropriate public safety standards are met for all areas within one mile of any land designated as CED. This will require the contracting of an independent public safety consultant. 162 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Approval of a developer's agreement reached between the City and PEDP. The negative economic impact to businesses within a two-mile radius of the area zoned CED is minimal. This will also require a written report from an independent economic consultant. The storm-water management needs of all relevant storm-water systems are adequately met to avoid flooding throughout those systems. This will require a report from an independent engineer. All required rights for riparian land necessary have been obtained pursuant to an act of the General Assembly. And, lastly, that all streets bills necessary to implement the plan of development be enacted. The CED zoning district requires that for all sites zoned CED 163 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 a plan of development must be reviewed and approved by both the Philadelphia City Planning Commission and City Council. This plan of development is a master plan that sets out the layout, phasing, height, gross floor area, uses, occupied area, the size and location of parking areas, signage, and landscaping for every building located within the CED zone. It also includes the results of the City Planning Commission design review relative to the building massing, materials, quality and appearance, and impact of the development on the public environment.
Bill 080028 would approve the plan of development, as previously approved by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission on August 21, 2007. Before I highlight the positive results of the City Planning Commission review -- 164 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08
Madam President, could I have just one point of information? And I apologize for interrupting your testimony 'cause I have to leave in a few minutes, but for the record, before you proceed with the benefits, has anyone in the current administration reviewed your testimony for today's hearing?
Okay. So the administration is aware of what you're going to say?
I'd like to just highlight some of the positive results of the Planning Commission review. 165 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 While we did not control the Gaming Board site selections, we did retain local zoning authority. The previous administration worked diligently with casino operators to assist them in complying with local laws, to address access and traffic, and provide employment opportunities for all Philadelphians. The alternative would have been to -- would have been a project imposed upon the City without the benefit of local review. We believe that this alternative -- this alternate process would have been less responsive to local issues and concerns. For the physical aspects of the project, this local review process has resulted in certain benefits for the City of Philadelphia at this location. Some of these were mentioned in earlier testimony today. In summary, the Foxwoods 166 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 Casino Philadelphia will pursue certification as a LEED-certified development and will take all commercially reasonable measures to achieve such certification. A portion of the roof will be a green roof, approximately 10,000 square feet, with another 140,000 square feet classified as a cool roof by LEED standards for green buildings. The north-facing blank wall in Phase I will have a combination of vegetation, lighting, and/or other designed features to create visual interest as viewed from the public bike and pedestrian trail. The landscaped area along Columbus Boulevard in front of the parking structure will be widened as much as technically feasible to permit more dense landscaping and screening along the sidewalk. The width of this design feature, including the possible narrowing or elimination of a traffic 167 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 lane, will be examined with the Streets Department, PennDOT, and the City Planning Commission as engineering plans are finalized. In addition, Foxwoods will explore and will consult with the City and State authorities about options to have the paving and paving treatments of the access road adjacent to the landscape median designed to slow the speed of traffic as it passes by the sidewalk. Architectural treatment of the parking garage will be provided on the facade facing Columbus Boulevard and will include vegetation, lighting, or other design features to create visual interest when viewed from the public street. When developed, plans will be provided to the City Planning Commission for review. Subject to applicable regulatory approval, Foxwoods will provide appropriate vending and/or 168 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 refreshments for sale during seasonal months to provide activity and amenity on the trail along the waterfront. Additionally, the Foxwoods group has agreed to a number of traffic improvement proposals, including: Revising traffic-signal timing for the I-95 northbound on-ramp at Lombard Circle; To construct northbound double left-hand turn lanes for the I-676 and I-95 ramps from Columbus Boulevard; For Christian Street, to restripe eastbound Christian Street to provide a separate left-turn lane and shared through- and right-turn lane; For Washington Avenue, to restripe eastbound Washington Avenue.
The eastbound Washington Avenue approach to provide a separate left-turn lane; To construct a northbound Columbus Boulevard double left-turn 169 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 lane; To restripe the southbound approach to provide two through-lanes and a separate right-turn lane; To revise traffic signal timing for the northbound I-95 off-ramp; To restripe eastbound Reed Street to provide a separate left-turn lane, a shared through- and left-turn lane and a separate right-turn lane; To restripe westbound Reed Street to provide a separate left-turn lane and a shared right-turn lane, a right-turn, through- and left-turn lane, and to revise traffic signal phasing; For Dickinson Street, to install new traffic signals, restripe southbound Columbus Boulevard to provide a single left-turn lane and three-through lanes; For Tasker Avenue, to widen eastbound Tasker Avenue approach to 170 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 provide a shared left-turn and through-lane and a shared right-turn and through-lane. To restripe the southbound approach to provide three through-lanes and a separate left-turn lane, to prohibit westbound left turns and through movements, to align the northbound approach to provide an exclusive left-turn lane; And, finally, for Morris Street, to widen the northbound approach to provide three northbound through-lanes and a separate left-turn lane. To construct a signalized at an at-grade crossing to provide a direct left turn to the I-95 southbound on-ramp. Given that any traffic mitigation scenarios for Phases II and III of the development will require the construction of additional transportation solutions -- likely a new ramp from the I-95 Expressway -- and given that there's no concrete 171 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 timeline or funding for such a ramp, the City Planning Commission staff recommended that the project be approved with provisos that require resolution of these traffic issues before the project progresses further to Phases II and III. This would permit Foxwoods to pursue all permits for Phase I, while allowing negotiations to continue regarding the I-95 ramp. When those negotiations are further along and a date certain is set for the construction, the Foxwoods team would return to the City, acting on the advice of the City Planning Commission, for determination of whether an adequate transportation plan is in place to address existing and anticipated visitation. It is for these reasons that the City Planning Commission, at its meeting of August 21, 2007, considered and approved the Phase I plan of 172 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 development and rezoning for the Foxwoods Casino. These approvals included two provisos or conditions: First, Foxwoods may only apply for building permits for developing beyond what is labeled as "Phase I" in the plan of development if, in addition to all necessary approvals from relevant government bodies, Foxwoods has completed a transportation plan that, in the City's determination, after receiving the advice of the City Planning Commission, adequately addresses and funds the needs of an expanded casino complex. Second, that the City Solicitor certify that an agreement has been reached between the City and Foxwoods that adequately and appropriately addresses the issues raised by the Philadelphia Gaming Advisory Task Force, including, but not limited to, a commitment by Foxwoods to support a Special Services District. 173 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 This concludes my testimony. I'd appreciate -- I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and would be happy to answer any questions that you have.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair, good afternoon again. When did the City Solicitor notify the Commission that the provisos had been met?
I have a letter dated November 28, 2007, from the City Solicitor to the former executive director stating that the City and Foxwoods reached an agreement on November 23, 2007.
Would it have addressed the issues raised by the Pennsylvania Gaming Task Force?
That included the commitment for the Special Services District?
In your testimony, you said something that there was an approval back in August?
That's when the City Planning Commission approved the CED zoning and the plan of development, yes.
So subsequent to that, because of that proviso that was still left out, you didn't approve the plan until November.
The City Solicitor -- the proviso called for the City Solicitor and Foxwoods to develop a agreement, which had been worked on after the commission approval and had been concluded on November 23rd, according to my information.
In your opinion, was the plan of development 175 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 that was finally approved by the commission until that provision was met? That's a little bit tricky way I'm asking that and I got to figure out a better way of asking that quick. Could the commission's approval have been enacted prior to the proviso?
The Planning Commission's approval was conditioned upon that agreement being put in place.
So the final approval didn't occur until the conditions were met and the proviso was met, which was in November --
Yes. Once the proviso was executed by the City and Foxwoods, the commission's approval.
Do you think that it would have been premature for Council to consider the development 176 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 plan, taking into consideration those issues?
The City and Foxwoods were -- had been working on this proviso for quite some time, you know, before the commission's approval, but the commission, as I stated, did not want to approve without that proviso being in place.
Do you have an opinion on the conditions that were placed in Bill 080028? Do you think that they're reasonable or obtainable?
We believe that they were reasonable. I mean, the staff spent a lot of time reviewing the plan of development, negotiating with the developer to get improvements in their plan such as the landscaping 177 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 provisions that I mentioned, some of the facade improvements, so we feel that they were reasonable, yes.
Do you have any suggestions or additional recommendations?
You may have some but you don't have 'em at this time?
Well, I mean, we -- I mean I think the staff feels confident in our ability to get the best project that we could, given the constraints under which we were working, namely that the State Gaming Commission, you know, selected the sites. And we worked hard with the developers and the City Law Department to get a development and an agreement that we thought was the best that was possible.
Were there 178 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 any other constraints that you were concerned about? Would timing have been a constraint, that the administration on its way out and a new administration was coming in? Would that have been a constraint?
At the time, you know, the commission -- the commission was presented with the information that was available and made a decision on that basis. You know, the staff was comfortable with -- with our ability to negotiate some of the provisions that we -- with the developer that we were able to get.
If Council were to reject the current plan, would the commission then take up a new consideration -- a consideration for a new plan?
If a new plan 179 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 were submitted to the commission?
Thank you. The testimony given by the Foxwoods representatives seemed only committed to the development of Phase I. As they have provided in their handout, Phases II and III will be forthcoming, quote, when market conditions permit, end of quote. Who makes that determination?
And if market conditions do not permit the construction of Phases II and III, what are we left with?
We would be left 180 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 with the existing Phase I development.
So how long would we have to wait before it's determined that the market conditions would permit them to go further?
I think that would be up to the developer making that determination.
So we could end up with these vacant lots after all, huh?
Mm-hmm, mm-hmm, indefinitely. Councilman Greenlee?
Thank you, Madam President. Sir, when the commission and staff was coming up and making a decision, what involvement with the community was there with the community?
Our negotiations 181 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 with the developer were -- our negotiations -- the City Planning Commission staff negotiations were primarily with the developer.
We did not hold separate community meetings about this. That was -- that was really something that the developer was holding with the community.
Is it usual for the Planning Commission to somehow, in some manner, get the pulse of the community? I mean --
I mean, most often, when there are development proposals, we will -- we will request the, you know, the position of the community.
And that factors 182 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 into our decision, you know, applying other professional planning judgments as well.
I'm not trying to nitpick your words here, but when you say "request a position," help me with that a little bit.
We generally -- I mean, generally speaking, we will ask established community associations in an area of a development --
-- you know, where they stand, in favor or opposed to a particular development, what their issues are.
I don't know that that was done separately, but there were two public hearings that were held in these chambers where, you know, Planning Commission staff attended, so we're well aware of the 183 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 controversy involved here.
Okay. I guess I'm just thinking, you know, that something like this -- okay, you had the public hearings, I understand, but it would seem like -- and I'm not saying your decision, your opinion is right, wrong, whatever; I'm just saying -- I'm just trying to get on record what involvement the community was. And, obviously, this is something we know where the community stood. You know, if you were alive in Philadelphia, you kind of knew certain things, but I'm just wondering, as your process went through, 'cause I know on a lot of zoning things, there seems to be community involvement, you know.
And I'm just trying to see officially what the Planning Commission did, not just 184 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 listening from news reports or whatever. You know, that's what I'm trying to get at that.
I don't know for a fact but, you know, typically our community planning staff will attend community meetings. I don't know if they attended meetings between the developer and the various community associations. I imagine that they did, but I -- you know, I do not know if staffers were present at each and every meeting.
Well, maybe not each and every meeting. Again, I'm not trying to elongate this process. Maybe Mr. Kramer or somebody could just tell me what the direct Planning Commission to the community or with the community, what interaction was there, do you know?
There was no -- as I understand it -- and, for the record, my name is William Kramer and I'm the 185 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 development division director for the City of Philadelphia Planning Commission. In answer to your question, there was no, as I'm aware of, independent meeting between the public and Planning Commission staff with regard to the casino developments. These were meetings that we considered the -- obviously, the developer had the responsibility to meet with the community, and we were holding him to that. And the fact that the community representations, the position of the public was certainly noted in the newspapers, it was no 19 secret. And we were aware of that. We did hold two public hearings on this matter, at which time the public certainly made their opinions known to the Planning Commission directly.
Mm-hmm. I guess I'm just thinking -- I know a 186 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 lot of times, when there's issues, the community planner comes out to the Bustleton Civic League or whatever the case may be. That's -- I'm just wondering what exactly -- and, again, I'm more just saying it for the record; I'm not criticizing it or anything.
Yeah, that is a policy of our agency, to have our community --
It is a policy of our agency to have the community planners very much involved and in touch with community associations and their pulse on the community feeling.
But this time -- and I'm not trying to put words 187 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 in your time, but this time, because of the -- what you felt was the well-known positions out there, you felt that that wasn't necessary for you to do? Is that a fair assessment or a fair --
Well, because there were other community meetings happening between the developer and the community, we didn't necessarily think we had to duplicate those meetings. I mean, we -- as I said, I'm not sure that staff attended those meetings, but I -- I have a sense that we, you know, that we were present at -- that the City Planning Commission staff was present at some of those meetings.
-- on that question, Councilman. 188 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 You said that the developer indicated that there were meetings with community groups? Or something to that effect, you said?
Well, Foxwoods had conducted a variety of meetings with stakeholders.
Well, I thought -- I'm not putting words in your mouth; I'm asking. I thought I heard you say with community representatives or some sort of community action with the developer. Is that what you --
No. I -- what I meant to say was that to the degree that the developer met with stakeholders along the central Delaware waterfront in public meetings, that it's very likely that City Planning 189 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 staff, our community planning division, attended some of those meetings. And there were no separate meetings between City Planning Commission staff and community associations on this specific issue.
We participated in those stakeholder meetings, generally speaking.
I'm -- that's what I'm trying to find out. What stakeholder meetings are you referring to?
You know, to the extent that the developer was meeting with the community early on in the process.
How do you -- where did you get your information? Where do you get your information that the developer was having those meetings and with whom? 190 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 From the developer?
-- early on in the process, some years ago, that the Foxwoods folks did have initial meetings with the community, and to the extent that those were held, our community staff would have been there. It was also my understanding that the communication between the developer and the community did break down and that there were no further communications between the community and the developer, and that's what -- and because there was animosity, shall we say, we were advised to stay out of the way, as it were.
I'm not condemning the fact that you weren't 191 BILLS 080027, 28 - RULES - 2/25/08 there; I'm just trying to get to the point as to whose information you were relying on. I believe, Mr. Kramer, that the meetings you're talking about are the ones that were held in January and February of '06 that I convened with the four potential operators before the two sites had been chosen. I mean, I initiated those meetings and I basically invited each of the community associations that were in close proximity to each of the four sites to get to know who the potential operators were at that point. I don't recall any other community operator meetings having taken place. And that's what I'm asking, is if you have some knowledge.
No, sir. I do not have knowledge of any other community meetings.