Committee Hearing, June 12, 2007

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, June 12, 2007 10:20 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, CHAIR COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 070370, 070371, 070463 and 070338 - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2

Good morning, everyone. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the bills that we will be considering today. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 9 070338, an ordinance continuing a neighborhood improvement district beyond the date of termination of such district in an area bounded generally by the eastern side of Tulip Street, the northern side of Allegheny Avenue, the western side of Amber Street and the northern side of Venango Street. Bill No. 070370, an ordinance 18 amending Chapter 14-305 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "C-4 Commercial and C-5 Commercial Districts," to revise parking regulations in the area bounded by Broad Street, Carpenter Street, South 13th Street, Kimball Street, South 12th Street, Washington Avenue, all under certain terms and 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. conditions. Bill No. 070371, an ordinance 4 to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Broad Street, Carpenter Street, 13th Street, Kimball Street, South 12th Street and Washington Avenue. Bill No. 070463, an ordinance 11 to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of land located within the area bounded by Pennsylvania Avenue, 20th Street, the Benjamin Franklin Parkway and 21st Street from partly class Recreational and partly class R-15 Residential to a single designation of class Recreation, under certain terms and conditions.

Thank you very much. We'll consider Bill No. 22 070463 first. Who is testifying, Mr. McPherson? MR. McPHERSON: The first 4 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. witness I have is Janice Woodcock from the Planning Commission.

Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good morning. My name is Janice Woodcock. I'm the Executive Director of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Here with me today is Mark Focht, Executive Director of the Fairmount Park Commission.

Thank you. Please proceed.

Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 070463, which was introduced by Councilmember Clarke on May 24, 2007. This bill concerns the zoning of the land located in the block bounded by Benjamin Franklin Parkway, 21st Street, Pennsylvania Avenue and 20th 5 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Street. This block is the current location of the City's Youth Study Center and anticipated future home of the Barnes Foundation. Today testifying will be myself and Mark Focht, and City Solicitor Romulo Diaz should be arriving to answer questions after our testimony. Currently, this block is zoned R-15 Residential, approximately the north one half of the block, and partly REC Recreational, approximately the south one half of the block. We have an exhibit for you. This bill would extend the line of the existing Recreational zoning so that it encompasses the entire block. The Recreational zoning designation would permit Barnes use as anticipated in the proposed lease that is the subject of Bill 070462, which was considered jointly by both the Committee on Public Property and Public Works and the Committee on Parks, Recreation and Cultural Affairs of 6 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. the City Council on June 5, 2007. At that time, the two committees voted unanimously to report the bill to Council with a favorable recommendation and a request for the suspension of the rules. This bill received first reading Thursday, June 7, 2007. The extension of the Recreational zoning designation is consistent with the existing pattern of zoning along the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. The Philadelphia Museum of Art as well as the Rodin Museum are also zoned Recreational. In fact, much of the publicly owned land extending from the Municipal Services Building to the Schuylkill River is already zoned Recreational. Before constructing this new facility, the Barnes Foundation must obtain the Fairmount Park Commission's approval of all exterior elements of the Barnes Foundation's facility. In addition, the Barnes Foundation will be 7 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. required to obtain the customary approval of the Art Commission. The City Planning Commission staff has considered Bill 070463 and recommends that the bill be approved. For the record, I would like to note that at last week's hearing on Bill 9 070462, witnesses from the Greater Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, Philadelphia Convention and Visitors Bureau, Philadelphia Museum of Art, Franklin Institute, Free Library of Philadelphia, Moore College of Art and Design, Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance, Parkway Council Foundation and the Greater Philadelphia Tourism and Marketing Corporation all testified in support of bringing the Barnes Foundation to this site on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. I would ask that the testimony of those witnesses be incorporated by reference into the record at this hearing, along with that of the Mayor's Chief of Staff, some of whose remarks I 8 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. could and I'm happy to summarize here, if the Committee would like me to do so.

That would be fine.

If Bill 070462 is approved by Council, it will permit the City to lease this block of land to the Barnes Foundation. To be more precise, Bill 070462 would authorize the execution of a master lease between the City and the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, PAID, under which PAID would then execute a sublease with the Barnes Foundation. This is a watershed moment for Philadelphia. Together, we now have the opportunity to bring to Philadelphia a priceless and breathtaking collection of original art, including 181 Renoirs, 69 Cezannes, 59 Matisses, 46 Picassos and the works by Van Gogh, Degas, Gaugin, Manet and Monet and Seurat. The collection also includes rare African, Asian and Native American art, unique 9 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. sculpture, antique furniture, ironwork and delicate Greek and Roman antiquities. With a heightened accessibility and greatly expanded exhibition space, the Foundation will be able to reach and inspire so many people from all walks of life -- so many more people from all walks of life than is now possible. When one considers that the space dedicated to programming will be almost four times greater than that at the Merion facilities, one begins to realize the potential of this new site. The proposed agreement with the Barnes Foundation imposes no financial obligations on the City or PAID. Instead, the Barnes Foundation will bear all costs, including the cost of demolishing the Youth Study Center, remediating hazardous substances and preparing the site, constructing and operating this new facility. The City's contribution to the project is the very substantial one of making the land itself 10 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. available. Under the proposed agreement, the site would be leased, not sold, to the Barnes Foundation through PAID for a nominal fee of $10. The term of the agreement would have two parts, an initial term that could last up to four years and a 99-year operating term. During the initial term, the Foundation would demolish the Youth Study Center at its own expense. The initial term would begin five days after the City vacates the Youth Study Center, but not later than May 30, 2008. If for some reason the City cannot vacate the Youth Study Center by that deadline, the Foundation can give the City more time or it can terminate the agreement. The City's commitment, however, is to be out of this location before May 30th of next year. After the initial term will come the 99-year operating term, during which the Foundation will build and 11 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. operate its new facility. The operating term will begin once the Foundation meets a series of conditions, and it is only at that point that construction can begin. Here are three of the key conditions: First, the agreement requires that the Barnes Foundation address the extremely important matter of parking before construction begins. The Foundation must submit a study that provides one or more alternatives to address parking needs for all of the employees, guests and patrons of the new facility, and the study must be satisfactory to the Mayor and to the President of Fairmount Park Commission, and the agreement will also provide for consultation with City Council. Only after the Foundation and City approve a parking plan can construction begin, and the implementation of that solution will be done at the Foundation's expense. Second, as noted above, before the Foundation can begin construction, 12 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. the final external design must be approved by both the Fairmount Park Commission and the Art Commission. This particular pre-condition is an essential component of the agreement, ensuring that the public has ample opportunity to weigh in once the design phase gets underway. Third, the Foundation must satisfy the City that it has obtained sufficient funds to complete the new facility's construction before it can begin to build the new facility.

Other encouraging elements of the agreement include a commitment by the Barnes Foundation to ensure that persons of all means have affordable access to the galleries displaying the Barnes collection, a commitment to incorporate green building designs into the design of its new facility, a commitment to protect the open space on the site during demolition and construction as much as possible and where is feasible, an Economic Opportunity Plan. With respect 13 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. to the Economic Opportunity Plan, Barnes Foundation Chairman Bernard Watson testified last week to the Foundation's aggressive commitment to meet and exceed stated goals. All told, this agreement shows remarkable sensitivity on the Barnes Foundation's part to the neighborhoods and residents nearby, to the special character and importance of the Parkway and to the City's concerns about design, accessibility and inclusiveness. The agreement will provide the assurance of site control that the Foundation needs now to move forward, while protecting the City's interests throughout the length of the lease. The project is equally exciting from the perspective of economic development and the opportunity it represents to further enhance Philadelphia's reputation as a cultural destination city. Arts and culture in 14 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Philadelphia constitutes a very rich and diverse sector of our economy and can act as a powerful economic engine in attracting businesses, residents and visitors to this great city. A recent study completed by the Greater Philadelphia Cultural Alliance showed that cultural organizations generate over 630 million in revenues annually, create 14,000 jobs and represent 56,000 events a year in Southeastern Pennsylvania. The addition of the Barnes to that rich fabric of cultural institutions within our City will bring inestimable value to the quality of life we offer to our citizens and to our visitors. It will enable Philadelphians and people from throughout the region, the nation and the world to enjoy greater access to this world-class museum and educational facility, with its incomparable collection. The Barnes expects to more than triple their current annual visitorship to well over 200,000 per year 15 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. by having the flexibility in their new location to expand the hours of operation. There is no doubt that a new Barnes facility on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway will enhance even more our reputation as a first-class destination for art lovers and for tourists of all stripes from throughout the world. Currently, more than 30 million visitors come here each year and spend more than million a day in the five-county 14 region while here. We can barely imagine 15 how these numbers will swell once the 16 Barnes is open. And in addition to being a world-class attraction in its own right, the Barnes as the newest addition to our cultural institutions along the Benjamin Franklin Parkway, Philadelphia's Museum Mile, will create an even stronger synergy among those great cultural institutions like the Philadelphia Museum of Art, the Franklin Institute, the Free 16 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Library and the Academy of Natural Sciences that already call the Parkway home. Other cities can only dream about the cultural, educational and recreational resources that we possess on the Parkway. I respectfully recommend that this Committee vote Bill 070463 out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, and I would request a suspension of the rules to allow for the first reading at the next session of Council. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today. City Solicitor Diaz and Fairmount Park Executive Director Mark Focht and I would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. And Mark, I believe he has some testimony.

Thank you. May we hear from the Fairmount Park, please. 17 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

Good morning.

Good morning.

Council President Verna and members of the Committee, my name is Mark Focht and I'm the Executive Director of Fairmount Park. I am pleased to appear before you today to testify in support of Council Bill No. 070463 on behalf of the Fairmount Park Commission allowing for the rezoning of the parcel of land on which the new art education and museum facility housing the world-famous Barnes collection will reside. This ordinance will provide a single zoning use classification for the entire parcel and introduces a classification that will permit construction of the new Barnes facility. Therefore, this ordinance is a necessary step that will enable the new Barnes facility to enter the City's great cultural corridor on the Benjamin 18 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Franklin Parkway. On May 24, 2007, in continuing our roles as stewards of the Benjamin Franklin Parkway since its inception, the Fairmount Park Commission enthusiastically passed a resolution 8 approving a lease agreement with the Barnes Foundation for the parcel of land located between 20th and 21st Streets on the Parkway, extending north to Pennsylvania Avenue. On June 5, 2007, I testified in front of a joint City Council Committee in favor of Bill 070463 enabling the City through Fairmount Park and Public Property Department to enter into a lease for the future site of the Barnes facility with the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development in which PAID is required to enter into a sublease with the Barnes Foundation for the development, construction and operations of the new Barnes facility. I would like to incorporate my testimony from the June 5th hearing, 19 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. which details the benefits of bringing the Barnes collection to the Parkway, but in sum, the Commission believes that the addition of a facility for art education which will also display the world-renowned Barnes collection promises to raise the profile of Philadelphia and the Parkway to a globally significant center for arts and culture. It is with great satisfaction that I appear before you today to pledge the wholehearted support of the Fairmount Park Commission and staff for this legislation and respectively ask that City Council approve Bill 070463. I would also like to thank all the Commissioners and staff of Fairmount Park, the Commerce and Law Departments, the Mayor's Office and the Barnes Foundation for their hard work and diligence in making this project become a reality. Thank you, and I'd be pleased to answer any questions of the Committee. 20 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

Thank you. I think we'll hear from the City Solicitor and then we'll ask questions, if we have any.

Thank you, Madam President. I have no prepared statement. I'm here to answer any questions that might come up. Thank you.

Very well. Thank you. Ms. Woodcock, one of the three conditions that must be met by the Barnes Foundation is that the parking needs of the new museum must be met and that this will require the approval of the Mayor and the President of the Fairmount Park Commission and that the agreement also provides for consultation with City Council. How will City Council be consulted and can you tell us what weight will be given to Council's recommendation?

Go ahead. 21 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

Madam President, if I may respond. City Solicitor Romulo L. Diaz, Jr. There are ten conditions precedent in the sublease which have to be met before the initial term of up to four years can be completed and the operating term of 99 years can begin. One of those conditions precedent is the preparation of a parking plan to the satisfaction of the Mayor and President of the Fairmount Park Commission, which has to also be developed in consultation with the City Council representative. Following the previous hearing in connection with the ground lease and sublease, we have negotiated with the Barnes Foundation representatives to incorporate a provision that that councilmanic consultation will be with the Fifth District Councilperson. We have put that into the sublease. We also have it in connection with the implementation of any options related to 22 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. the parking plan. That now has been also revised to require, in addition to consultation with the District Councilperson for the Fifth Councilmanic District, approval by the President of the Fairmount Park Commission and the Mayor, which is a change from the earlier language which only talked about Fairmount Park Commission and the City. We now have put specificity into both provisions relating to the parking plan and its implementation.

Thank you. Can you tell us what the impact on the City's Five-Year Plan is due to the temporary move of the Youth Study Center?

At this point, I cannot provide any details of that. They're still being worked out. You may recall that there was some general discussion of that issue in connection with the testimony by Chief of Staff 23 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Joyce Wilkerson. We're hopeful that we will have some final numbers with regard to the impact on the Five-Year Plan and the resolution of the temporary Youth Study Center relocation. I think we're close, but I think, most importantly for purposes of this hearing, I think it's important for me to convey the notion that we have a viable alternative temporary Youth Study Center that we believe can be brought online in time to meet the commitments that we have made to the Barnes Foundation in connection with the ground lease and the sublease, and we are committed to sharing, as quickly as we have a final resolution, information about the temporary Youth Study Center and any costs associated therewith.

Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.) 24 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

Seeing no one, thank you. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: Jay Raymond.

Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good morning. I have testimony.

Someone will get it.

Good morning, President Verna and members of City Council. My name is Sandy Gross Bressler. I'm a Philadelphian and an arts professional, having worked in museums and for this City's Office of Arts and Culture when it was first created under Mayor Goode and later as Executive Director of the Philadelphia Art Commission. I would like to share some thoughts with you as you consider the zoning change for the property 25 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. proposed for the Barnes Foundation. By passing this zoning change and the related ordinance for the lease of City land, you need to understand that you are inserting the City into litigation. This is because the Montgomery County Board of Commissioners voted last week to return to Orphan's Court to reopen the Barnes matter. They are joining the Friends of the Barnes Foundation, of which I am a member. Given Montgomery County's involvement, it might be better for you to step back from the brink of that litigation and have a discussion with them over the summer as opposed to necessitating a long and costly court proceeding. Last week, two City Council committees heard testimony explaining why the move of the Barnes art collection is ill-conceived and unnecessary. Nonetheless, the two committees disregarded the arguments and voted to approve the lease of City land for the 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Barnes. You just heard this morning that there were no financial obligations on the City if the Barnes moves to Philadelphia. However, your proceeding further on this matter is a costly venture for Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, requiring funds that need to be spent on basic human services, like education, the homeless and public transportation instead of moving a bunch of paintings. For example, the site in question is the Youth Study Center. It was announced last week that it will cost the City $10 million per year for the temporary relocation of that facility. This is City taxpayer money. Are there other uses for this $10 million that might benefit the City more? Absolutely. And that $10 million per year is not the only taxpayer money that is being used for the relocation. Governor Rendell announced a $25 million grant for 27 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. the move, from the state capital budget. But what was not mentioned is that that $25 million has to be matched with $25 million in City funds. Is this really the best use of state and city taxpayer dollars? Why are we talking about a SEPTA crisis, a school crisis, a City budget crisis, roads and bridges in need of repair while public monies are being used to move a collection of art that was bequeathed to Montgomery County? The cost to move the Barnes art collection to Philadelphia is already between two to three hundred million dollars. Much of this is private money raised or contributed by three local foundations. Is this really the highest and best use of hundreds of millions of dollars for Philadelphia? Aside from the lack of financial sense, there remains the fact that moving the Barnes art collection will actually destroy the Barnes Foundation. Friends of the Barnes has 28 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. just received a report that states that the Barnes Foundation, in its totality, which means the building, the collection and the grounds, is eligible for National Historic Landmark status. That is the highest level of historic designation in our country. As I stated last week, to remove the art collection will eviscerate the Barnes, literally rip the guts out of that institution. It is contrary to every precept of historic preservation and responsible art stewardship. Moreover, the Youth Study Center itself is a culturally significant early modern building eligible for the National Register. The idea of moving an art collection five miles and attempting to recreate what already exists, at a cost of two to three hundred million dollars just does not make sense. Step back and think about it for a moment.

Others around the country and the world are shocked and horrified with this plan, 29 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. calling it cultural vandalism and an aesthetic crime. Regionalism is a word we hear frequently these days. Maybe it's just lip service. However, the fact is that the SEPTA funding crisis and Philadelphia's need for assistance is going to require more than lip service when it comes to trying to get more money from Montgomery County. Regionalism connotes cooperation and working together toward a shared goal. The purpose of the Greater Philadelphia Tourism Marketing Corporation is to promote Philadelphia and its surrounding counties. It is not to move all attractions into Center City. There are many alternatives that have not been explored that would benefit both Philadelphia and the Barnes Foundation. Under the circumstances, I hope that you will consider tabling the matter. Thank you.

Thank 30 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. you. Are there any questions of this witness from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Thank you.

Hello. My name is Robert Zaller. I saw some of you last week. How are you all?

Fine. Thank you.

I would like to add a little more to the testimony I gave last week, particularly with regard to the events that have transpired since then, and to summarize some points at issue of which you may not be cognizant or perhaps have not taken sufficient cognizance. So if I may. On August 2, 2006, the Lower Merion Township Commission approved, by unanimous vote, a resolution endorsing plans to expand the number of visitors to be admitted annually to the gallery 31 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. collection of the Barnes Foundation from its current limit of 62,400 to approximately 140,000. The Commission has declared the Barnes Foundation to be an essential part of the artistic cultural and historic legacy of Lower Merion Township and called upon plans to move the Barnes Foundation to be abandoned forever. The trustees of the Barnes Foundation failed to respond to this reasonable and generous accommodation, which has the unqualified support of the immediate residential community and which would amply suffice to eliminate the operating deficit, which is the sole legal justification presented by the trustees for modifying the Indenture of Trust that governs the Foundation, and which states with regard to the gallery collection, that, quote, "All the paintings shall remain in exactly the places they are at the time of the death of the donor and his wife," unquote. 32 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Secondly, on January 18, 2007, the Montgomery County Board of Commission approved, by unanimous vote, a resolution 5 calling for the retention of the Barnes Foundation in its historic home in Lower Merion and, on March 1st, authorized a search for counsel to represent the County to this end. On June 7th, the Commission retained the services of Mark D. Schwartz, attorney at law, for the above purpose. At that time, Mr. Schwartz indicated his intention to file a petition with the Orphan's Court of Montgomery County to seek reversal of the order of December 15, 2004 granting permission to move the Foundation. Passage of Bill 070462 and 070463 would, in consequence, involve the City of Philadelphia in legal dispute with one of its neighboring jurisdictions. Thirdly, on June 5, 2007, Lower Merion Township Commissioner Brian Gordon testified before a joint committee of the 33 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. City Council and, on behalf of his fellow Commissioners, made a full representation of the Township's resolutions and affirmations concerning the Barnes Foundation. At the same meeting, representation was also given of the actions of the Montgomery County Commission. The City Council was thereby apprised of the interest and intention of the appropriate county jurisdictions in maintaining the Barnes Foundation in its historic home and duly requested to enter into discussion and correspondence with these jurisdictions before taking actions of its own. We note that the joint committee failed to honor this request in breach of the comity expected between co-equal jurisdictions of the Commonwealth and to the detriment of the cordial and considerate relations required if the public good is to be served. 34 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. We urge you and the full members of the Council to take due consideration of the request laid before it, less public funds be needlessly and wastefully expended on both sides and good relations jeopardized. Fourthly, on June 5, 2007, a National Historic Landmark Eligibility Overview Assessment prepared by the Cultural Resource Consulting Group for the Friends of the Barnes Foundation was released to the public. This report states in part as follows, I quote: "The Barnes Foundation property at 300 North Latches Lane, Merion, Pennsylvania is eligible for listing as a National Historic Landmark for its exceptional value as an unparalleled assemblage of the work of an exceptionally important American architect, manifest in a building purpose built to house a remarkable art and object collection.

In its current state, the property retains the high level of integrity requisite for 35 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. National Historic Landmark listing. The Barnes Foundation property is nationally significant under Criterion A in the areas of social history and education, for its association with the racially and gender-integrated philosophy-based education program of the Barnes Foundation, which preceded the vast majority of integrated education efforts in this country. The Barnes Foundation property is also nationally significant under Criterion C in the area of architecture as an important work of the prominent architect Paul Cret," unquote. These findings correlate with those of the many nationally respected art critics and historians who have attested to the unique aesthetic and historical value of the Barnes Foundation. In the words of Philadelphia critic Edward J. " As the New Yorker's Peter Schjeldahl has stated, Altering the work of art that is 36 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. " The City of Philadelphia has in fact already exposed itself to the ridicule of the national art community, and the debacle it is contemplating is being closely watched by observers abroad as well. " Michael J. Lewis describes it as an act of cultural vandalism in commentary. " The overwhelming majority of qualified art observers in the United 37 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. States and abroad have declared the proposed move of the Barnes Foundation to be a cultural catastrophe in the making. Far from making Philadelphia the new Athens or Paris of cultural destinations, as was testified here last week, moving the Barnes Foundation would make it deservedly the laughing stock of the civilized world. Five, some of those opposed to this move are Philadelphia residents and others are Philadelphia taxpayers, including myself. At a time of acute financial constraint in the City, we question any rationale for moving the Barnes Foundation a scant five miles at a cost that must ultimately exceed $300 million, including a prospective 10 million for the temporary relocation of the Youth Detention Center, which currently occupies the site of the projected facility, and a further $55 million for the construction of a new center in an as-yet-undetermined 38 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. location. No more irresponsible use of taxpayer dollars -- that's my money, ladies and gentlemen -- could be imagined than to create a mere simulacrum of an authentic and irreplaceable original that, fully serving the greater Philadelphia area, could be preserved in perpetuity for less than a tenth of the cost of moving it. As the stewards of the City's purse, we strongly urge you to reconsider so wasteful ruinous and unjustified an expenditure of public funds. Finally, some of those opposed to this move, many of them, are Montgomery County residents who take as much pride in our own heritage as Philadelphia County residents do in theirs. As custodians of the Barnes Foundation for more than 80 years, we assert in the words of our representatives, the Montgomery County Commission, that, quote, "The Barnes institution is a treasured institution 39 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. and is part of the fabric, character and culture of Lower Merion Township and Montgomery County" and that, quote, "The unique and intended educational and aesthetic experience of visitors to the Barnes Foundation would be forever lost if moved from its home in Lower Merion Township," unquote. We advise you that if you attempt to move the Barnes Foundation from our community is no more to be tolerated by us than an attempt by any other jurisdiction to move Independence Hall from Philadelphia would be tolerated by you. Philadelphia possesses sufficient assets of its own to attract, as it does, visitors from the entire world.

Its standing and reputation cannot be enhanced but only deeply tarnished by what the residents of Montgomery County and many around the world consider an act of cultural piracy. For each and all of the above reasons, we call upon you to reject Bill 40 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. 070463 and the profoundly ill-conceived and unacceptable scheme of which it is part. You just heard testimony this morning from, I believe, the head of the Planning Commission that moving the Barnes would be a watershed event for Philadelphia. Believe me, it will. It will be for you a Noah's flood of trouble. Thank you.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments of members of the Committee of this witness? (No response.)

Seeing none, good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.

My name is Jay Raymond, and I think my two colleagues here have said everything that I would say otherwise, so I'll spare you any 41 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. further remarks, but just urge you to vote against this plan, no matter how well intentional it seems to be.

Thank you. Thank you very much. We appreciate your testimony. Thank you. Our next witness? MR. McPHERSON: I don't have any more.

Is there anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? I would ask the witnesses to try to be as brief as possible, because we do have other bills that we have to consider today. Thank you.

Good morning, Council President Verna.

Good morning. Nice seeing you.

My name is Russell Meddin and I am the Vice-President of Logan Square Neighborhood Association, and the Bill 070463 is about a zoning 42 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. change in my neighborhood, the Logan Square Neighborhood Association. This is a piece of property that's on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway that goes through the dead center of our neighborhood. And I'd like to remind you, not all the testimony before me, that this is actually a request for a zoning change or a piece of property that is half Fairmount Park and half zoned Residential. And I do believe that all the adjacent property that abuts the Benjamin Franklin Parkway should be Recreational. So please remember that this is a bill to change a piece -- half of a piece of property from Residential to Recreational on the Benjamin Franklin Parkway. Thank you very much. I appreciate it.

Thank you. Good morning.

Good morning. My 43 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. name is Derek Gillman. I'm the Executive Director and President of the Barnes Foundation and I just wanted to thank Councilmembers for taking the time to hear this ordinance hearing for the zoning, and rather like Mr. Raymond, I do not want to repeat my testimony of last week, so I would merely say that we do intend to continue to make a major contribution to education and now not only regionally but also nationally. And, again, I thank the Committee members for hearing us today. Thank you.

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

Thank you very much, sir. Our next witness? Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) 44 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

Seeing no one, I would suggest we now go to Bill No. 070338. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Duane Bumb.

Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, President Verna and members of the Committee on Rules. My name is Duane Bumb. I'm the Deputy Director of Commerce. I am here today to provide testimony in support of Bill 070338. This bill would allow for continuing a neighborhood improvement district beyond the date of termination for the Port Richmond Industrial Development Enterprise, or PRIDE, Neighborhood Improvement District. The PRIDE district is bounded generally by Tulip Street on the east, Allegheny Avenue on the south, Amber Street on the west and Venango Street on the north. 45 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. The creation of neighborhood improvement districts is consistent with our overall neighborhood economic development objectives, including the recently launched ReStore Philadelphia Corridors program. The industrial business owners of PRIDE and the Urban Industry Initiative worked closely with other community stakeholders when forming the neighborhood improvement district in 2002. Since then, PRIDE has created a strategic plan, which has focused investments on improving the area for both businesses and residents alike. To date, this plan has attracted $2.3 million in funding for projects and improvements. In addition to area improvements, PRIDE, as a successful strategy of the Urban Industry Initiative, has engaged industrial businesses in projects they would ordinarily not have become involved with. As a result, companies became 46 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. participants in finding their own solutions. This has not only empowered them, but has had the effect of making them part of the community again, as they were 50 or 60 years ago. In short, the creation of the neighborhood improvement district has resulted in both job growth and the retention of companies that may have otherwise left the City. Neighborhood improvement districts are one of the best examples of collaboration between the City and our neighborhood commercial corridors. Like their counterparts in the East Passyunk Avenue NID, the Roxborough NID and the Mt. Airy NID, PRIDE businesses, entrepreneurs and property owners recognize the need to improve the environment within which they live and work. Their efforts to keep the Port Richmond industrial area consistently clean, safe and attractive have and will continue to directly impact the stability of the entire community. Further, as the 47 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. neighborhood prospers, the economic vitality of this industrial center will also be strengthened. The result of this successful collaboration has been a dynamic neighborhood improvement district that promotes the long-term growth and viability of both the industrial and residential areas of Port Richmond. This worthwhile effort deserves the support of the City. I urge your support of Bill 13 070338. Thank you for your consideration. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have.

Thank you. The district as it was originally established terminates automatically on June 30, 2007. Will City Council's inability to approve the extension of the life of the district until at least September of this year have any adverse effect on the continuing 48 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. operations of the district?

I'm conferring with the representatives here directly involved with the district, and the answer is no. They have sufficient funding to carry them through the summer recess.

Great. Now, it's my understanding that the residential properties within the district may be serviced by PRIDE and they will not be assessed; is that true?

That's correct.

Do the residential property owners within the district have any voice regarding the operations of the district?

I'm going to ask someone else to answer that directly for you, Madam Chairman.

Please identify yourself for the record.

Madam Chairman, 49 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. I'm Steve Jurash, President and CEO of the Urban Industry Initiative. Not directly the residents don't have say in how PRIDE operates. Obviously they're recipients of what PRIDE does.

Is that because they are not assessed?

Partially because they're not assessed. This is an industrial district.

Has anyone objected to the extension of the term of the district? If so, what percentage of the properties in the district do they represent?

I know of no 19 objections to this. In fact, from a residential standpoint, I think they're very happy about the work that PRIDE has done, and in my testimony I'll cover some of the things that PRIDE has accomplished in the area.

50 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Wonderful. Are there any questions of members of the Committee? (No response.)

Please identify yourself again for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good morning, President Verna and members of the Committee on Rules. My name is Stephen Jurash. I'm President and CEO of the Urban Industry Initiative, an economic development agency responsible for the manufacturing sector of this City. I am here today to testify in support of Ordinance 070338, an ordinance 18 continuing a neighborhood improvement district beyond the date of termination in an area bounded generally by the eastern side of Tulip Street, the northern side of Allegheny Avenue, the western side of Amber Street and the northern side of Venango Street, known as the Port Richmond Industrial Development 51 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Enterprise, PRIDE, Neighborhood Improvement District. The UII was instrumental to the creation of PRIDE in 2002. I would like to begin my testimony by describing why PRIDE was formed and what it has accomplished. This initiative, the first urban industrial district in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, works within the existing infrastructure to group neighborhood industrial businesses together so that they may shape their environment in a way most beneficial to themselves and the community. This new approach is distinct from traditional methods and very powerful in that, one, it seeks an ongoing collaboration between local business and government; two, it seeks to leverage the collective strengths of area industrial businesses; three, it addresses those issues which are of greatest concern to businesses - 52 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. security, neighborhood reinvestment, appearance and cleanliness; four, it seeks to access the strengths of the local residential and commercial communities and will provide benefits for these communities; and, five, it targets a neighborhood that still retains genuine business and residential vitality. This plan, designed in part by urban architects, involves the redesign of certain areas to accommodate 18-wheel trucks, green space and planting projects, distinctive signage and lighting, security measures, et cetera. At the core of PRIDE's success has been the collaboration of area businesses on a strategic plan. This was accomplished in 2002 and is now underway again. 3 million in funding to initiate improvements which would make the area both cleaner and safer, as well as curtail the flight of industrial 53 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. businesses from the City. Some of these improvements include replacement of approximately 4,000 linear feet of sidewalk; modification of sidewalks at corners 7 to improve cornering radius; modification 8 of sidewalk curb cuts; relocating several 9 utility poles; creating parking lanes in 10 three locations; landscaping; pedestrian 11 lighting; install district signage; 12 replacement of 3,500 linear feet of 13 fencing; identify and remove obsolete 14 signage. 15 Neighborhood safety and 16 aesthetics have been enhanced by the 17 following initiatives: Installation of 18 fencing along streets running under rail 19 viaduct; additional street lighting to 20 supplement existing fixtures; a blighted 21 lot was replaced with green space and is 22 now a park; the installation of high-tech security cameras in high-crime areas. Access to local businesses has been improved by the following: Selected 54 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. streets have been widened, relocating hydrants, gas valves, street signs and utility poles to allow the unimpeded passage of freight trucking; some sidewalks have been reinforced, others protected by bollards to withstand the heavy traffic of vehicles; City sewer inlets have been upgraded to highway grade to minimize future damage; on-street parking has been facilitated by the alteration to the streets, curbs and sidewalks. PRIDE has become a recognized Philadelphia address in a district distinct within the greater Port Richmond area.

The overall objective of the businesses in the Port Richmond Industrial Development Enterprise, PRIDE, is to attain the competitive level of operational efficiency, employee satisfaction, district security and support infrastructure found in the newest industrial parks in the region. The continuation of PRIDE's NID status 55 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. will be vitally important to its continued success. I'm concluded if you have any questions.

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

Thank you very much, sir.

We also have some members from -- business owners from PRIDE that are here to testify.

Good morning.

Good morning, President Verna and members of the Committee on Rules. My name is Dominick Murano and my business is located within the PRIDE located at 2200 East Ontario Street. We basically have owned that property for years, and I can say with 25 the PRIDE organization, we have seen our 56 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. streets cleaned, our lighting repaired, police protection, security, and all this is only because of PRIDE. Before the organization of PRIDE, we've had many problems, and today a lot of them have been addressed. And they have formed close relationships with the Graffiti Department, the Police Department, and things are working out much better. Thank you.

Thank you. Thank you very much. Good morning.

Good morning. My name is Tom Cerchiaro. I'm the Vice-President of Active Radiator and we have two manufacturing plants in the Port Richmond PRIDE area. A lot of the things have been said. I'm just going to talk about one instance. My owner of the business has been in the Port Richmond area for 24 years. Six years ago he's getting ready 25 to move his business out of the area 57 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. because of the graffiti, the crime, what he thought was a lack of commitment in terms of the people. When PRIDE was formed, he feels and I feel, as far as being his right-hand man, that we now see a safer area, an area that's more prone to help out businesses. We have 168 employees, of which 68 percent walk to work from the district. Since the formation of PRIDE, we have added another 80,000 square feet manufacturing in the district. So we're committed to the area because of PRIDE. I think it's -- we have cameras. We feel like we're a safer district. We feel that there's cooperation from the City and the Police. I think PRIDE is something that has kept our industry, our manufacturing, in the area and it's looking at us -- we feel that we could expand and expand with a group of other industries in the area to go forward. So we plan on staying in Philadelphia and employing as many people as we can. 58 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. So I ask for Council on Rules to approve this ordinance. Thank you.

Thank you. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning, President Verna and the Committee on Rules. My name is Steve Kress and I have a picture framing facility in the PRIDE area, 77,000 square feet, and I've been there since 1999. And since PRIDE has gotten -- come into existence, they've really helped me improve the look of my property, the feeling of security in the area and the fact that we have a lot of people come to our facility to purchase picture frames and framing. And it really changed from almost like a ghetto to like a nice residential business neighborhood in which nobody is afraid to come to anymore, and it's really -- I know I cleaned up my building a lot, and the whole neighborhood just because I've 59 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. cleaned up a lot has cleaned up their area. The residential people, they all respect us and they've cleaned up their area. It looks pretty nice. It's a good area to be in. Thank you.

Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Miller.

Thank you, Madam Chair. I'm just curious, I'm not that familiar with this part of the City that you're referring to. Is this a commercial strip or is it sort of light industrial, or how would you describe the area?

It's industrial. It's definitely -- the characteristic is very much more industrial, not so much commercial. But it's a mixed use between 60 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. industrial and residential.

Okay. Because it sounds like your NID is very successful, and I was involved with creating a special service district in the Germantown-Chelten area prior to coming to Council, and I know that so many of the districts are having financial problems, and when I read your testimony and you talked about all that you've done, it's really great. I mean, so many of these NIDs are having problems, so I just wondered whether it was just a commercial strip or whether it was light industrial.

It's definitely industrial. And I think a lot of the success of PRIDE has been the commitment of the business owners who have come together, put a strategic plan together that really made sense and then took that plan out and shopped it to foundations. They were very interested in things like altering the street so that truck traffic 61 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. no longer ties up all the residential traffic, to make slight alterations like that, so that there can be a symbiotic relationship again between residents and industry, much like there was 80 years ago. And that's, I think, one of the major goals of PRIDE, is to see these people working and walking to work again.

Great. Congratulations.

Thank you.

Thank you.

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

Gentlemen, thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify? Please approach the witness table. 62 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

Good morning, Councilmembers. You know me as the favorite aide of Councilwoman Joan Krajewski, but today I'm here as President of the Port Richmond on Patrol and Civic Association. As a member of that community, very quickly, I wanted to testify. PRIDE has become the pride of Port Richmond in the section that they did this in, and we wish that Steve Jurash would expand it to other parts of the industrial properties in Richmond. PRIDE started in an area that we thought would only survive if it was phoenixed. We thought we would have to really deconstruct it to the ground and then rebuild it, but PRIDE has been the stick of dynamite that ignited the industrial renaissance in Port Richmond. Their biggest, I think, success was when they installed security cameras in an area where our quality of life was just so bad and there was vandalism, 63 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. crime, graffiti. And once they installed those cameras, it just got 150 percent better. Thanks to the dedicated work and passion of Steve Jurash and PRIDE, long vacant factories are now looking to be loft condos. And I can't afford to live in Port Richmond anymore. So thank you, Mr. Jurash. But I wish you would support this as a resident from my civic association. This was long, hard work and it totally turned this part of the neighborhood around, and we wish you would really consider this, because it has done wonders for my neighborhood. So thank you.

Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify? (No response.)

Seeing no one, we will now consider Bill 64 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Nos. 070370 and 070371. MR. McPHERSON: Our first witness is William Kramer.

Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Senior Zoning Planner for the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill Nos. 070370 and 070371, which were introduced by Councilmember DiCicco on May 3, 2007. These bills would allow for the development of the site located at the northeast corner of Broad Street and Washington Avenue. Bill No. 070370 proposes to amend Section 14-305 of The Philadelphia Code to add the area bounded by Broad Street, Carpenter Street, South 13th Street, Kimball Street, South 12th Street and Washington Avenue as an area where parking garages would be permitted under the C-5 Commercial zoning classification. 65 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Bill No. 070371 rezones the site from a designation of G-2 General Industrial to a designation of C-5 Commercial. Both bills are intended to permit the use of this land for a major gateway to the Avenue of the Arts and Center City Philadelphia with a significant new development. These bills are scheduled for consideration by the City Planning Commission at its meeting of June 19, 2007. In anticipation of that meeting, the staff of the City Planning Commission recommends that both bills be approved with the following design guidelines as requirements: Structures must be built to the property line to create a street wall recognizing the grand scale and visual importance of Broad Street to the character of Center City. The towers for the project shall be placed along Broad Street to create a visual gateway to the Avenue of the Arts. Retail spaces to be 66 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. located in this building must contain windows along Broad Street and Washington Avenue to provide a view of interior activity as well as cast light upon exterior public spaces and sidewalks. The highest quality materials shall be used on the construction of this very important gateway structure. The project shall be LEED certified and incorporate a green roof where the spaces below the roof are conditioned. Building entrances on Washington Avenue shall provide transverse circulation through the building open to the public. Limit the Floor Area Ratio of any building or buildings on the site to an FAR of 10. The visual impact of parking on public streets must be minimized as follows: A portion of the parking shall be below grade. The parking shall be placed or wrapped by active retail and commercial spaces with transparent facades. The height of the structure 67 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. shall not exceed the existing warehouse building on the site. The design of the building facing Washington Avenue must consistent with the structural rhythm, materials and openings of the existing warehouse occupying the site. No curb cuts shall be allowed on either Broad Street or Washington Avenue frontages of the site. The retail uses facing public streets should include entrances off of these streets. There should be a variegated architectural treatment of the facade, especially along Washington Avenue. This would provide a more interesting visual plane, especially along Washington Avenue, and allow the architect to dress the wall to be in keeping with the type of streetscape that exists in the area. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before this Committee and would be pleased to answer any questions you may 68 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. have.

Thank you very much. I believe the design guidelines are being compiled. Is there a specific project that is being considered?

There is a specific developer who has requested this rezoning and the relief from the provisions of the Zoning Code, but the actual design of the building is still being negotiated between both the community and the Planning Commission and the developer. So the final design has not been finalized yet.

Thank you. And did you say that the Planning Commission will be meeting on this on the 19th?

Yes, ma'am, a week from today.

Can we talk about the parking garages? Will 69 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. they be on either side of the streets?

As I understand the initial proposal that I've seen -- and, frankly, this may have changed since I've seen it -- there was a parking garage on the 12th Street side of this development, and that was their primary parking garage, and it is that garage that we would like to see limited to the height of the existing warehouse building and have that facade continue to look as if it is a warehouse. There is also in the actual Broad and Washington site a proposal that will provide a significant amount of parking in that building as well, and those designs are a little different because the building itself is more of a mixed-use commercial structure with residential on the upper floors. So there is a difference in the way that they would be designed, the one building being far more of a parking garage per se by itself and the other being a mixed 70 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. use. So there's a difference in the design layouts that you would use.

Is the project to be owned and occupied by the developer?

I don't know that. I'd have to leave that for the attorney. Mr. Patterson is here, who represents the developer for this particular site.

That would be fine. Maybe he can approach the witness table and we could proceed. I'm sorry. Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's okay. Madam President, just for point of clarification, you're familiar with Washington Avenue, I know. There's an empty lot that sits just adjacent to the U-Haul building on Washington Avenue.

Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That is the parcel that's identified in Bill No. 24 070370, which would be an additional parking garage, just to give you a point 71 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. of reference. And then there is a garage component that would be in the main development, which is the piece that would be on -- for the other members of the Board who may not be familiar with it, it's the intersection -- it's on the site where Cirque du Soleil has its circus annually. That's the parcel we're speaking to.

At Broad and Washington? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes, on the east side. You represent the west side. On the east side where the actual tent where the circus is performed is the site that we're speaking to.

Good morning. Welcome.

Thank you. Good morning. Ronald Patterson with the law firm of Klehr Harrison and I represent the equitable owner, who has this under agreement and hopefully will settle at the end of this month. 72 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. This property is currently vacant, as you mentioned. It is zoned -- it's located in a G-2 General Industrial zoning district. It is comprised of two basic parcels. One is the one bordered by Washington Avenue, Broad Street, Carpenter and 13th, which is approximately four and a half acres, and that's the large parcel that's right in front of me. The second parcel is about one acre. It has 370 feet of frontage on Broad Street. This is an important parcel as I think we and the Planning Commission see it. We look at it as the gateway into Center City. I think it's always been thought of that way. Again, it's zoned G-2. We don't believe that it's any longer conducive for industrial uses, nor would anybody want industrial uses there. But I believe that it has not been rezoned, and what I know through discussions is that why rezone it until there's actually a concrete project 73 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. that's available. Otherwise, to rezone it without anything in mind would allow it to be developed haphazardly. So my client, Mr. Bennick Moon (ph), who is in the back, sought to purchase this. It's a very difficult seller. But at the same time, what we want to do is protect the community and the Councilman in that if the zoning is changed, what we propose would get built. We're proposing -- and here's a rendering that's right in front of you. We had a different rendering. That's actually rendered by the Planning Commission, which we found to be a handsome design, and that's what we are going to go with as far as the design is concerned. We're proposing a spectacular mix of retail, residential, office and parking, and you see the green space there. That's actually on top of the 6th or 7th floor of the base building, the base building having an element of 74 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. retail, approximately 30 to 50 retail stores, bringing in about 600 new jobs at a construction cost of about $500 million. You're also looking at two proposed towers, which we originally had designed at about 585 feet, but through discussions with Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition, we've reached an understanding to reduce the two towers to a height not to exceed 395 feet, which is about 30 stories. We're proposing 860 residential units, which is a mix of residential and hotel. Parking spaces in the main building at about 1,500 parking spaces. The other parking garage, which is located at 13th Street at this smaller parcel here, would have about 850 parking spaces. Retail is proposed to have about 543,000 square feet of retail, 911,000 square feet of residential and then an office element of 300,000 square feet. And I mentioned earlier about 75 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. rezoning it and not having a particular project in mind. So to that end, I had drafted and sent to the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition's attorney a Memorandum of Understanding that would outline our obligations and understandings, as well as a deed restriction that we have prepared that basically says that we will build something -- we will build what we're proposing. If it changes materially or substantially, it would not be able to be built because of the deed restriction, which means that even if we were not involved, it would have to be built to that design or it would have to be renegotiated with the civic group or Councilman could change the zoning back to G-2, of course. We're not asking for any city or state assistance, no TIF, no KOZ zone or any other type of assistance. It's all privately funded, and we're excited about it. We think it could be a 76 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. spectacular development for the City.

Thank you. If these bills were to be approved, can you tell me when construction would be anticipated?

We would anticipate construction, since there's no 10 demolition required, through the design approximately about nine months, and the complete construction would take about 36 months.

Thank you. What did you say the costs of the development would be?

$500 million.

Thank you. Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, 77 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Madam President. Real briefly, you indicated that there's no financial assistance from the city or state?

That's correct.

Will you be taking advantage of the tax abatement on new construction?

Yes, we would.

That is financial assistance from the City.

Okay. You're correct. I meant we weren't asking for any assistance in terms of grants or TIFs, but, yes, we surely would take advantage of the tax abatement. Thank you for correcting me.

Thank you.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.

Good morning. Given that revelation then, 78 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. what considerations are being given to employment opportunities for the immediate community as well as MBE, WBE considerations?

We have agreed and we intend to comply with the MBE, WBE, I believe it is, that's set forth in the guidelines, I guess, that's established and also appointed by the RDA, even though we don't have RDA land here. So, yes, we would try to comply with those goals. And we're also committed to work with the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition and the local community to ensure that the construction jobs would come from the local community, provided that, of course, they come through the unions, because we expect it to be a union job, and also that there be so many jobs at the location that we would give first preference in however way we worked it out through a job bank, et cetera, to ensure and try to ensure that the jobs will come right out of the 79 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. community.

So you said you're in discussions with RDA around --

No, no. I said as an example, we would try to meet the goals of the MBE, WBE, I believe, that are at least set forth in RDA guidelines. That's how I know them.

Oh, as set forth.

I think they're like percent or percent. 15

And you 16 say that you're working with the 17 Hawthorne -- 18

Hawthorne 19 Empowerment Coalition. 20

So what does that mean? You've had meetings? You've come up with --

We've had several meetings. I've had discussions with their attorney. I said I prepared a 80 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. draft Memorandum of Understanding and a draft deed restriction to reflect what our understandings are. There are two or three issues, as I understand, that need to be ironed out in terms of open space. For example, we are providing open space at the streetscape, but we also will allow open space to be used on the terrace for the public. We can't have it there open hours for security reasons, 12 but we would have it like playgrounds 13 are. For example, if you want to use the 14 green space, then you call and reserve 15 the space. So we're working out those 16 types of details. So I think we're 17 almost there. 18

Thank you 19 very much for your testimony. 20

Thank you. 21

Thank 22 you. 23 The Chair recognizes Councilman 24 Clarke.

Thank you, 81 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Madam President. I just want to follow up on Councilwoman Brown's questions. You said that you are following the guidelines of the RDA, the MBE, WBE participation goals?

We weren't given any particular or specific instructions about any goals because it's not a City property. So I was using that as an analogy. That's what I understand. That's the only time I've dealt with those goals.

And you said that that is reflected in the community benefits agreement in writing?

I believe so. I can't -- I don't have it in front of me, but if it need be, it will be in there.

Councilman. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We'll make sure it's in there.

Thank you. 82 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My understanding, if I may, Madam President, is that if this bill comes out favorably, final passage won't be until September, and there are a few outstanding issues with the community that still need to be ironed out. So over the summer we'll take our time to figure all that in and make sure that that's included in it as well.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

Suspension? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes. If I may, just for the record, if I may ask a question of the witness, Madam President?

Certainly. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Mr. Patterson, when was the first time that this project was presented? When was that; do you remember?

It was at least 83 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. a year ago, I believe. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So we've been working on this collectively, my office, myself, whatever?

Yes, and we've talked about different ways to perhaps get this done, go through zoning variance, but the parcel is quite large to seek a variance on. But, yes, we started with a proposal that was very different in design. I don't know if you can -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I remember that.

And so when we went through discussions with Planning and they came up with this design, we thought, again, it was a very handsome design and we tried to adopt all of the design criteria that Mr. Kramer actually mentioned in his earlier testimony. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. No further questions.

And also, 84 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Councilman, yes, part of that discussion and one of the main discussions had to do with the height of the towers, which we reduced as a result of discussions by about 200 feet from the originally proposed tower height. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you.

And we'd ask that the Committee could suspend the rules to have the first reading at the conclusion of the hearing. Thank you.

Do we have any other witnesses on these bills? MR. McPHERSON: Yes. Albert Hicks.

Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.

Good morning. My name is Albert Hicks and I'm a member of the Hawthorne section of the City of Philadelphia and I was one time active in 85 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. the community group as a whole. And by the way, good morning, Ms. Verna, Chairperson, and Vice-Chair, Mr. Clarke, and the other members that are attending these hearings. I'd like to bring to your attention that the community at large found out about this information initially and we couldn't agree or couldn't believe they was talking about putting a 52-story building in the midst of our neighborhoods, and we left that meeting with the consensus that this is not even going to happen. Well, since then, we had a community zoning meeting in reference to this project and the height also became an issue, and at that second zoning meeting, it didn't pan out pretty well. The people were really upset about it. Consequently, apparently the attorney for the community group and the members of the Zoning Committee actually were doing meetings with Councilman DiCicco's office 86 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. and the parties at hand in reference to this project. For some strange reason, it was not really brought out about the height. They claim they brought it down to 200 feet, but, frankly, that is too high for most of the members in our community to even stomach. As far as a grand scale to the Avenue of the Arts, we believe that a project maybe about 80 feet, eight stories high, would be just sufficient to do the same thing like this tower is trying to do, which we think is out of place. I had since yesterday delivered a package to each of the members of the Rules Committee in reference to the thoughts of the community and also the petition that was taken up a few days after this last meeting in reference to this project. We gathered within four days about 250 signatures against having these towers looming in our community. As far as I'm concerned, I 87 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. would like to, if I could, if I may, read my letter into the minutes of this meeting.

Certainly.

Would that be okay? All right. As I already said, my name is Albert Hicks and I am a resident of the Hawthorne section of South Philadelphia. The residents of Hawthorne and the surrounding communities have grave concern about the height and the proposed construction project at Broad Street and Washington Avenue. We are very concerned about a Center City skyscraper being proposed in a predominantly residential neighborhood. The initial proposed height of 52 stories was stated at the first community meeting. The general consensus of that meeting was it was ridiculous. The second meeting for this project was at the community Zoning 88 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Committee, and those in attendance couldn't get past the height issue. The third meeting was held on Wednesday, the 30th of May, and the height came to be about 390 feet, which is about 32 stories or, as they said here today, 30 stories. The meeting ended with the community in an uproar again about the height. So we, the community, started a petition Tuesday, on the 5th of June against the project to bring the building down in height to a conformity within the surrounding structures, and in a few days, like I told you, we collected about 250 signatures and forwarded you the results. There is a large hole at 8th and Market Streets already properly zoned with C-5. We believe this site is adequately suited for a project of this height and girth. The ordinances introduced May 3rd as Bill Nos. 070371 and 070370 concerning the zoning change could be removed and a C-3 probably 89 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. considered instead of a C-4 or a C-5. The tallest structure in a six-block radius from the proposed site is the Marine condo building diagonally across the street from the site. The Marine building from the ground going up to the roof counts to about eight levels high. The Broad and Washington Street building, if allowed, could create a looming sundown effect in South Philadelphia, change the wind patterns and not to mention a very different skyline and added traffic congestion. In conclusion, I would like for you to know that we, the community, know as well that this site needs something there, but not these towers. So give us a little more time to come to a better agreement than what we have before us at this moment. And I'd also like to comment, if I can, about the jobs issue. I'm also the Chairperson of the neighborhood development committee for our community 90 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. group, and one of the things I did bring to the developer's attention -- and I go to every developer that comes to us -- is to try to procure jobs for the community at hand, and a lot of the fellows in the community and as well as the ladies would like to work, but going through the unions, a lot of times the stringent application, they don't have the ability nor the time. So I had suggested that they take it upon themselves to make an agreement with the community in reference to what they call community job set-asides. So when they started dealing with the unions with this project, they will have this agreement already in hand and the unions will know that maybe two or three positions with every particular phase of work will be set aside for the community, and that was a suggestion that I made. I think that could be more or less agreed upon and we can go forward from there. That way, a lot of people would maybe get back into the union if 91 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. they had the opportunity to do so, work on this type of project. And I have also successfully done that on various projects that came before us, the Metro Development Corporation, the Russell Brothers, they did that. A few of the guys got absorbed into the union through my efforts of trying to get them jobs. Another small developer by the name of Don Ventresca, he came through, and also a fellow got absorbed into the unions based on seeing the type of work he does.

So we can work with him with that aspect and get this thing nailed down. I think that it will help the community greatly. But, again, I have to stress that all the people that we seen -- and, by the way, the petition is ongoing. We're still getting names and numbers. The height is an issue. So I'm ready for your questions, if you have any. 92 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Councilman Clarke.

Go ahead, Councilman. I can wait. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You're on the committee.

I can wait. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Hicks. Good morning.

Good morning. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You heard me ask Mr. Patterson earlier when he was testifying approximately when this project was first brought to the attention of the community. It's been about a year. You testify that a petition was circulated about a week or so ago in relationship to the concern for the height, which has always been probably the primary issue concerning this project with the residents; is that 93 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. a fair assessment?

Basically, yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: My question -- I don't mean this to be disrespectful -- why is it now, after almost one year, that a petition is being circulated to deal with an issue that we've been dealing with for almost 10 months and which the developer, although 11 it may not be satisfactory yet to the 12 community, has already agreed to reduce the height significantly by about 200 feet?

Well, to my understanding, the community wasn't really aware of the dealings between you and the developer in reference to this project in its inception. When it came in view as far as the community knowing exactly what's going on, that was like late of last year. We talking about November and December when this first meeting about this 52-story height issue became aware and known to the members of 94 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. our community. Now, I can't assess or attest to what kind of meetings or agreements or what-have-you in reference to this property that you had previous before that first meeting. And to also answer the rest of your question, we have a community group that actually became very successful out of this deep dynamic compaction in our community through another developer, which I will not mention his name, but in 1999, we came on board, and I was one of the active members of doing so, bringing this community group into fruition. So trying to let you know about why we was trying to not really go crazy with this thing, because we thought we had a proper community group in place. And we do, but for some reason it just -- it got askew and the actual feelings and the wants of the community for some reason wasn't really heard or wasn't going to bat for. Bringing it down just 95 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. 200 feet for a community that's saying no 3 towers is not satisfactory, sir. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I can understand that and appreciate that, but to suggest that there was some private meetings that took place long before the community was made aware of this is certainly not accurate on my part. So you'll understand, in most instances -- and I guess this happens with most District Councilpersons as well -- a developer came to talk to me about a proposed project. I looked at the project. I didn't give it a thumbs up or a thumbs down. What I do generally is say, Go meet with the community group, where there is such a community group, and I advise the developer, which I understand he did, immediately went to meet with Hawthorne. An attorney was hired, Mr. Krakauer, to represent the community in these negotiations. But to suggest that many months had passed before the community was 96 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. allowed or permitted or even made aware of this project and then to be engaged in it is certainly not a fair assessment, and I believe you were at some those public meetings that I attended at the Hawthorne Center.

I was at two of the meetings, sir, and I mentioned this in my letter to the Rules Committee here -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And they were when?

-- and the one I gave you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And when were those meetings?

I'm telling you now, they were in the late November, early December. You're saying a year. We're not in a year yet from that time frame. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: November is seven, eight months from this date. We're talking June. So seven, eight months ago was that meeting that you 97 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. recall me being at.

Correct. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: There were other discussions that took place with Hawthorne prior to that meeting.

Not with the community, sir. I'm not talking about the community group. I'm talking about the community per se. There's two little entities here we're dealing with. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But that's --

You're dealing with the community group and we're dealing with the community itself. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But isn't that the responsibility of the civic association, to bring this to the attention of the broader community?

Yes, it is, sir. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And if you're suggesting -- and I'm not saying that you did, because I've been working with Pat Bullard for a number of years, 98 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. and Pat has done a great job.

Oh, she's a fabulous lady, yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't think that anyone did not bring the community into this process. Again, my understanding, the community has been part of this process for almost a year.

I understand that, but she is present here, sir, and she can come up and answer your questions in reference to that to verify what you're saying and also what I'm talking about as far as the meetings for the community was only about three in count. This is what I'm trying to suggest to you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Three?

Three meetings that the community was aware of this project. Now, we can debate about this issue back and forth or I can bring the minutes into the office if you want to see them. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not going to debate you on the number of 99 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. meetings. I'm only discussing the amount of time that has been devoted to this proposed project has been almost a year, if not a year, and you, by your own admission, say that you remember me being at a meeting sometime back in November or December, which was eight, nine months ago.

Right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So if the community association did not engage the community into a broader discussion, why should we hold up this project now? Because I don't think anything is going to change. And remember what I asked earlier. If this bill comes out of this Committee today with a favorable recommendation, final passage won't be until we return in September, so you have another 90 days in which to work on any unresolved issues that the community may have a concern for starting today.

I understand that and I appreciate that. Just let me add 100 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. this, that when the meeting of May 30th was taking place, the attorney, Mr. Krakauer, was really surprised that the community at whole was still against this proposed height. He was under the impression that this thing here was okay. But it wasn't, not by the communities at whole. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But, understand, Mr. Krakauer, similar to myself, we were getting feedback suggesting that the reduction in the tower, the height of the towers, was acceptable. I didn't get it in writing, and I spoke to Mr. Krakauer about a week or two ago and he said he was looking at the final version and recommendation from Mr. Patterson on behalf of his client and he didn't think two weeks was enough time for him to review it, but he did promise to get back to me by today. I haven't heard from him yet. Again, this isn't on a fast track, is what I'm trying to relay here, 101 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. and I don't want anybody, based on your testimony, to think that there was some sort of behind-the-scenes deal going on that the public was not made aware of it. They've been made aware of this for 7 months. There have been public meetings, 8 and we have another 90 days to work out 9 any unresolved issues. And as I 10 committed to months ago, I did not even 11 introduce the bill prior to May when I 12 thought we were getting close, because I wanted to keep this project moving forward, the discussion moving forward, rather than just keep -- because every time you have a meeting, a new face shows up and says, Oh, by the way, I think it's either -- maybe it's not too tall, but it's too thick or I would rather have the parking garage entrance somewhere else. That happens. I mean, that is unfortunate, but that's just the nature of how these things are.

That's the nature of those meetings. Right. 102 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And you can't let that interfere with progress. So I'm going to ask this Committee to vote this bill out favorably today with a rules suspension so that we'll continue those discussions over the next three months to see if we can't resolve any unresolved issues.

Yeah. I understand that and I appreciate your position. My position still is with the general consensus of the community was to negate and remove this from the table so we can discuss further what's going on, because once it's in place, I mean, it can be more or less, using your vernacular earlier, railroaded right down the community's throat. My thing is that with the negotiations that was had at hand, maybe we didn't have enough community involvement as far as the general community concern, and we can rectify that definitely, but as it stands now -- 103 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. and, sir, I'm just trying to give you what I've been getting in the community here -- is that they are entirely against the height. Anything over, it seemed like, eight stories, which is as high as the Marine building, is really objectionable. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I can --

So now I was told by several members that that's a deal breaker, and I hate for that to go away, because we had -- the last love we had for that particular land was Will Smith. He wanted to do something there, and they was having difficulty with whoever owned the property, because they kept raising the price up. So I understand that, but, I mean, there's a couple other venues and a couple other things that we can do to make that property viable and also to make it a gateway to the Avenue of the Arts other than putting these towers 104 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I can tell you that, again, had we not spent as much time as we spent on this project, I would probably have asked -- first of all, I would never have introduced the legislation in May to begin with, but I can tell you that an eight-story building, you'll never see anything developed on that site, because the value and the cost of the land are just too cost prohibitive. It's got to be something of a more larger size. I don't want to use the word "massive," but it has to be something greater than eight stories. And what that magic number is, I don't know, but I thought we were there or at least close to it. So, again, with all due respect to you -- I went through this with the Martin Luther King project when we had to do the implosion. I worked, I don't know, how many -- maybe a year and a half on the condemnation stuff, and every week 105 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. I met in the church on 12th Street with Reverend Coger in his church --

I was there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You remember those contentious meetings.

Yeah, I do. That's the vote I didn't want to talk about. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We worked it out over that -- (Someone yelling.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And we worked it out -- Louise, I'll be right with you, Louise. We worked it out over the summer of that year and we worked it out, to my recollection, to the approval of the majority of the people in that community. And I'm committed to doing that over the next 90 days as well.

Well, I understand that and I commend you on your efforts with that project, because that's more or less what galvanized the community together in the instance in 1999, was 106 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. that particular situation. But I'm not going to belabor the point today. I'm just bringing what was told to me about this issue, because, like I said, for the three meetings that the community was aware of as a whole, they were really outraged about this height thing. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I respect their position.

And I'm not trying to diminish anything that you did, whether it was eight months or a year. I understand that, and you've been working with the community, and I respect that and I respect you. I have nothing as far as animosity toward you. So I hope we can work together there. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.

Because I'm actually running for President for the organization. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I heard. Tonight. Congratulations. Are you sure you want the job? 107 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

I don't know now, you know. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: This is your baptism of fire today here.

Oh, my goodness gracious. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right.

All right. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But we'll work together over the summer on it.

Thank you. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam President. Actually, some of my questions have been answered. One in particular, I wasn't sure what your position was with the Hawthorne community. You're a member of the Hawthorne community CDC, community development corporation? 108 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

No, sir. I was just a member of what we call Hawthorne.

Is it a civic organization?

Well, it's an area that was designated Hawthorne. The boundaries sit between South Street to Washington Avenue, from Broad Street to 11th Street. And being as though I live there, I was born there, I grew up there, I'm just a member of that community. I had did join the actual civic group, which is the CDC.

Okay.

And I'm not really in here in that capacity. I'm here as a civic citizen to express the outrage and the concern that most citizens had. And like I told you, it might have been just a few days ago we collected these signatures, but, again, only three meetings were brought to the community in reference to this and the people are really outraged about it. For me to 109 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. collect 250 signatures in a matter of days was like astounding.

Right. The reason I ask that question, because in the earlier testimony of the lawyer representing the developer, he referenced the Hawthorne CDC, I believe, as an organization that the developer has been working with, and I was wondering if there was a representative from the Hawthorne CDC here.

Yes. Ms. Pat Bullard, she's President.

All right. I mean, on one hand it sounds like there was interaction from a positive perspective. You're running for tonight?

Her seat, President's.

Is she stepping down?

She's stepping down.

Okay. Make 110 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. sure we do the equal time thing, you know.

Oh, yeah.

Hi. I'm Patricia Bullard, President of the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition and Acting Chairperson of the Zoning Committee. We are not a CDC, for the record.

Okay. You're a civic organization?

Yes. So there were questions you wanted to ask me?

Yeah. I'm trying to find out -- the representative of the developer earlier said that there were ongoing discussions and negotiations on the community benefits agreement between the Hawthorne community group and the developer, and I was just trying to find out from a person who actually represents the organization per se what their characterization of those ongoing discussions are.

Well, we have 111 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. been having ongoing -- "we" meaning the Zoning Committee -- have been having ongoing meetings with the developer, and when we felt as though we had something to bring back to the community, which we've only had a few meetings with the community on all the issues because we are trying to work them out and to have something to bring to them. When we felt as though we had something to bring back to the community for them to consider, we did, but our lawyer and the developers have been working on this project. We were always opposed to a C-5 for this project. We do not want Center City type of buildings to come down into what is a three-story row home area. We've tried to work out an agreement with the developer, but the last agreement that -- well, the last proposal was shot down by the community. We did offer them a 395 feet from grade height for the building, and the community is still opposed to those heights. So the only 112 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. thing that we can do at this juncture is to continue to work with them. They want the heights, and the heights are the real sticking issue. We're going to have an impact of probably a thousand units of housing brought down into that immediate area, along with all the traffic that it would bring. City Planning or someone doesn't want cars to enter and exit on Broad Street or Washington Avenue, so, therefore, they're going to enter and exit on 13th Street, which is an extremely small street, which that doesn't make a lot of sense either. But our main sticking point is, we don't like that height. There's no 18 need to have a C-5 zoning designation for the lot next to the U-Haul building. The C-5's open up the potential for greater height. Now, if we can come to some agreement with the developer, we would like our agreement attached to the bill 25 or ordinance. We would have some 113 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. restrictions, a deed restriction and a Memorandum of Understanding, as to what we all agree upon. And if he does not agree with our MOU and our deed restrictions, well, we would continue to oppose it.

Right. So for the record, there is at this point no 10 support from the designated community organization for the 395 height limit?

No. We brought it to them, "them" meaning the community, the Zoning Committee did, and the community is definitely opposed. Has always been a lot of opposition to the height of these buildings. That is the main sticking point and has been from the very beginning.

Councilman, do you mind if I ask you a couple of questions? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. 24

With respect to the community benefits 114 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. agreement, will that be a part of the legislative package? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't see any reason --

As an exhibit. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If we can make it part of the exhibit, certainly.

I know on the Westrum development we did that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.

Is there a reason why you need a rules suspension? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't know. It doesn't really matter. Just vote it out, then.

Okay. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We have 90 days to work it out, whatever we have to work out anyway. I know there's some time sensitive stuff on the acquisition. The developer has been paying the owner a considerable amount of money on a monthly 115 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. basis for the option to buy this. I mean, that's where we are. And I'm not suggesting that the community should be held hostage as a result of that, but that could be a significant issue on behalf of the developer.

Well, I ask that because this happens to be an issue coming up tomorrow that, to some degree, has a similar scenario and people are being asked to do certain things on that particular issue, and this is not necessarily the level of impact -- and it might actually be. I'm just wondering why -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: 500 million?

It's a significant development. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But for height, I think the community would accept it.

I guess I'm asking why do we have to -- 116 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I think it may have to -- Mr. Patterson might --

There's this whole issue about pending legislation that I'm sure is going to come up tomorrow. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand.

I can answer that. First, I'd like to add that looking at the design, we did push the towers towards Broad Street as far away from the residential area as we could. If it gets voted favorably out of Committee, we will go to settlement. And the rules suspension we requested is because --

I'm sorry. You would do what? You would go to what?

We will settle on the property.

Why is that?

Because then we 117 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. would be able to have our financing to justify to the bank why we want to purchase this property and use it for this use when it is currently zoned Industrial.

Why does that trigger your ability to get financing if it's voted out of Committee?

Because that's what the bank is looking for, is some kind of assurance at least that it's moving forward, that it came out of Committee. We asked for the rules suspension because we're going to have a 90-day delay, and then if we come back in September and we have two full readings, that will delay us further until we can actually apply for our zoning.

So seven days will kill the deal, seven additional days?

It won't kill the deal. I didn't calculate it as seven days, but if that's what you're telling 118 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. me --

Well, I'm saying if you vote it out with a rules suspension versus coming out without a rules suspension, it just adds seven days.

Okay.

I'm trying to find out why that trigger in terms of -- because it will have a first reading tomorrow and it actually physically will be out of Committee if it's a rules suspension. I'm trying to find out if that's a particular --

All we're asking for is that it come out of Committee. That's all I'm concerned with immediately, so we can then move forward with the project.

Okay.

That's what triggers the financing.

Okay. Thank you, Madam President. 119 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.

Thank you, Madam President. Moving it out of Committee today and you going to settlement, that document would have to show the existing height of the towers, since that seems to be the major hurdle here?

The zoning change has no height limitation in connection with the ordinance. We're not asking to maximize either the height or the Floor Area Ratio, the FAR, in terms of what C-5 would allow. C-5 allows up to 1,200 percent FAR. I think --

FAR is what?

Floor Area Ratio. It means how much square foot you can build based upon how much land you have. So in this case, you have four 120 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. acres. You're allowed under C-5 to build times 194 square feet. That's how 4 many square feet of building you can 5 build. We're not asking to build the 6 maximum. We're probably at around nine 7 or ten FAR. So there's no height 8 limitation. You're only limited by how 9 much FAR you could build. So that's why 10 we had discussions about the height, 11 because we too weren't going to -- didn't 12 feel it was appropriate to just leave the height as an unlimited height. So we look at the height and then we look at the FAR, and then when it comes out of Committee, it would not have a height limitation. It would the ceiling of 12 under FAR, but then we were going to -- our intention was to have the deed restriction and Memorandum of Understanding that would then further limit it specifically to our project and the parameters of the bubble of the building, both the height and the FAR.

Do you or 121 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. your company have any experience in negotiations where height was the sticking point and you reached a level of compromise, if you will?

As a matter of fact -- I'm just going to get up from the table for a minute. The colored rendering here in front of me is at Broad and South, the 1300 block, which is in the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition, which is actually built by Mr. Bennick Moon, who wants to build this particular project, and we did negotiate a similar Memorandum of Understanding in terms of height and they're down to that it's 73 feet. I mean, we probably spent over a year on that agreement as well and nine meetings in that time period. So, yes, we've dealt with and worked with in this particular area with the Hawthorne Coalition.

Okay. Thank you. 122 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

And by the way, let me just add, that was like pulling teeth to get them to bring it down --

Well, it was pulling teeth on the other end, too.

-- to 70 feet or so. And I believe there's also an issue with that, with this platform that's in front of this building right now. For some reason, that wasn't part of the original plan and --

Was or was not?

They have an elevation encompassing the whole facade of that same building.

Well, look, I don't think we need to get into that. That is an ADA accessibility issue where we're required --

I understand that. You're not going to outtalk me right here. I'm trying to talk --

Well, you're 123 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. not going to outtalk me either. You're being irrelevant now.

I'm explaining the situation that you brought up here.

Why don't you run for President now. Go ahead.

So now what I was saying is that, wheelchairs can't even get past with this obstruction from this particular building at this moment.

It's for wheelchairs. Excuse me.

And it's --

There's an ordinance allowing it to be built, an ADA entrance to the building.

Sir. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam Chair --

You want to speak out of turn. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam Chair --

No. I was 124 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. expounding on it. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam Chair, might I interject for a minute, Madam Chair?

Please. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Gentlemen, Mr. Hicks, you're mixing apples with oranges. I met with Pat Bullard again last week on that project that's in front of you, the South Street project. That was built conformed to ADA standards. We recognize there's a problem with the width of the sidewalk. We have two or three remedies that have been presented to Hawthorne as remedies to make that sidewalk more accessible for wheelchair bound and pedestrians in general. But we're working on that. We've been down that road with this project. There have been many adjustments, many adjustments that the developer made to accommodate the community.

Correct, sir. 125 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So, please, let's really stick to the Broad and Washington.

And to our detriment, I might add. It came down so low that we're out of space for retail. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand that, but that's not the issue. The issue here is Broad and Washington Avenue.

I was just trying to add some color to what's going on here in reference to that particular project that they dealt with us with.

Let me move to another item I wanted to revisit. You mention, Mr. Hicks, that you've had experiences with developers who were able to negotiate a type of agreement whereby residents from the immediate community were connected with a union, who then allowed people from the community to actually work on the project. Cite the name of those developers again. 126 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

We have a private developer by the name of Don Ventresca, who actually hired community members. One of the community members actually got absorbed through the union.

Which union?

I believe it was the Labor Union itself.

Local 332?

Yes, ma'am.

Okay. I'm trying to see if we can broaden that. Any others?

Yeah. We actually got members of the community on the worksite of Metro Developers at Broad -- 11th and Washington Avenue. One fellow actually got absorbed into their company and with all the rights and benefits that come with it. There's another young fellow that was working on various sites in the community that actually got picked up by Universal Companies. I believe it 127 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. was called UniPenn at the time. And that was the actual developer that galvanized us as a community to get together, and we had a lot of negotiation with them also, and this gentleman actually got absorbed into, I believe it was, the Carpenters Union.

Okay.

And he has since, young guy, he got incarcerated and he lost his ticket. But what I'm trying to say to you is that we try to be fair as a community. And, by the way, I was on the Zoning Board when this project came up, the one on South Street. And basically the premise that we try to hold, at least when I was involved with it, was to make sure that everybody come with a win-win situation. Everybody is not going to be happy, but we should come away with this with some type of consensus that you get a little bit, you give a little bit. Most of the developers came through. And I have to say -- I know he's talking 128 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. about mixing apples with oranges, but with the South Street project, I was promised jobs and the community never got them. Now, I was told there was some union constraints or whatever the case may be, but in any event, we never got the jobs from this particular project.

However, if I recall in your testimony, you've indicated that you're in discussions with the principal parties to put that in whatever written agreements you come up with?

Yes, ma'am. I had made a suggestion and gave it to Ms. Bullard as a suggestion from the committee that I chair, which is Neighborhood Development, and she has since gave them the suggestion, what I also made part of the record today, about trying to get some type of agreement with the community for community set-asides before the developer talks to the unions at hand that this contract will be in 129 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. place and when you talk and deal with the unions, that you make them aware that some of those jobs, at least maybe three or four, might be just set aside for community members. So I haven't gotten any feedback on that as of yet.

This is the first that I've heard of it. I haven't dealt with it before. It sounds like a good idea and we're happy to consider it. I'd like to see what the proposal is. If we can work with the union and appease them, that's great, too. The last thing we want is a job shutdown.

Right.

I thank you all for your testimony.

Thank you, ma'am.

Thank you, Madam Chair.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke. 130 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

Thank you. Mr. Patterson, if you are able to go to financing based on the passage of this bill out of Committee and I'm assuming that the bill incorporates a deed restriction that earlier you indicated it's for that project and that project alone --

Correct.

-- if over the summer there are negotiations between the Councilman, the community and the developer that call for a reduction in the size of the building, what happens to your financing and your deed restriction?

I don't know. We'd have to go back and see what the parameters of the financing is. It could be based on the amount of square feet. I mean, the project has to work as a whole, so many square feet to be constructed. We were offered saying you could build three towers if they're lower. You can have more square feet. 131 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. We didn't want to maximize the property. We were trying to look for the best design and have the majority of the project pushed towards Broad Street. So I don't know that answer right now. We didn't plan on that yet.

And also the issue with respect to the deed restriction since the deed restriction doesn't --

The final version of the deed restriction would incorporate what's called a draft final design of the site plan, and we would build in material compliance with that plan. If it deviates, then it would not be allowed, because it would be in violation of the deed restriction. So we're trying to give everybody comfort that what we're going for and what we say we're going to build, that we will build. Whether it's us -- and we have no plans to flip it -- that if another developer came in or he went 132 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. bankrupt, that that would get built or it would go back to square one and have to start all over again with the community.

So if there's a substantial difference in the nature of the project, it would have to start --

It cannot go through.

-- with another ordinance to get rezoned?

Or renegotiate to undo the deed restriction, which would be written for the benefit for the Hawthorne Empowerment Coalition. That would be the grantee, so to speak, of the --

Wouldn't you be required to do another ordinance? Because the deed restriction is a part -- is the deed restriction a part of the ordinance?

No. It's not attached to the ordinance. 133 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

It's not attached to the ordinance. Is it listed as an exhibit?

I mean, it could be. I don't know how the procedure would work in City Council, but we're committed to doing the memorandum and the deed restriction, and we've promised that to Councilman DiCicco as well.

Okay.

And the whole idea is -- look, I understand I'm a zoning lawyer and that if you rezone something and then you walk away, the zoning goes with the land, you could build whatever you want under C-5. That's not our intention. We're saying, look, if we rezone it, this is what we're going to build. If we walk away, we go bankrupt, whatever happens, if something unfortunate happens, no one is going to come in under C-5 and put a night club there. It's either what we're proposing restricted by the deed restriction or it 134 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. could be rezoned back to G-2 or, at the end of the day because the agreement is between us and Hawthorne, both parties would have to agree to amend, undue or revise the deed restriction.

Okay. Thank you.

That's what we came up with.

Thank you, Madam President.

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

Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill?

Yes. I would like to speak, because I live directly across the street from where --

Please approach the witness table, state 135 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. your name and proceed with your testimony.

Good afternoon, President Verna --

Good afternoon.

-- and members of this Committee. My name is Louise Hannibal. I was thrown out from the area at 13th and Bainbridge. A house was built for me at 13th and Kimball. I live directly across the street from that, DiCicco. And where you want to put that parking lot is directly across from me, and I'm looking at that site. So what happens to all the people that live in the three-story row houses on 13th Street that will interfere with our lives? Now, they built that building at 11th and Washington Avenue, but they didn't put no -- in your area where you live, DiCicco, there's no 32-story building there. It's a four- or 136 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. five-story building. On South Street, that is not a 32-story building. That's a four- or five-story building. Why do you want to support something that's going to go up that high in a residential area? And I've been living there for 67 years, DiCicco, and that has always been a residential area. Houses was all along Carpenter Street, all along 13th Street. You had a candy factory on the corner of 13th and Washington Avenue. You had the Armory over there that blew up where you want to put that. But we have never -- the highest building on Broad Street coming down that area is no higher than five stories. So I'm saying to y'all, do not pass this bill. We've been duped enough in that community. We don't get none of the jobs. They hire a couple people. When you look, they gone. We didn't get none of them jobs on South Street. We didn't get none of those jobs on 11th and Washington Avenue. Enough is enough. 137 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. You have darn near tooken our whole community. And you supposed the represent us, DiCicco, not the developers. You supposed to represent the voters of your district. (Applause.)

And I have always supported you. So support us for a change. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you, Louise. Madam President, may I?

Please. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You know I live two blocks away from 11th and Washington Avenue. So I do live in your community. I've been there for --

I know you do. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let me finish, please.

But you're not putting it on 11th Street where you live. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Louise, 138 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. you identified --

You put up five stories. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- that you used to live at 13th and where?

13th and Bainbridge, where we were thrown out. Not moved out, thrown out. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And that was what?

Martin Luther King. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: How tall was that?

That building was 15 story, and they claim they did no 18 longer want high-rise buildings in that area. They claim they no longer wanted high-rise buildings in that area because we wanted to keep the 15-story building and keep it for 55 and older and senior citizens. They came back and said they no longer wanted high rise. Now here you come with a high-rise, DiCicco. 139 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. (Applause.)

Represent us for a change. We support you every time you come out to run. So start supporting us for a change, DiCicco. You want a 30-story building? Put it on 11th Street where you live, DiCicco, or let the developers put it in they neighborhood where they live. You know it's not right. If you come -- I would like to invite this Committee to Broad Street, to 13th Street and see the highest building ever was built there. I've been there all my life and I'm tired of being pushed out and moved around. (Applause.) COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So you lived in a building that was 15 stories high, which was well above the eight stories that's being proposed by the Hawthorne community?

DiCicco, you're not talking about no eight-story 140 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. building. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No. The testimony is you would not accept --

But you agreed with them to tear it down because you didn't want no more high rise in the area. What you got to gain from it, DiCicco? Tell me. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That was the Housing Authority that did that, not me.

No. You was part of it. You went along with everything they did. What happened to the 42 low-income housing people that's supposed to been able to buy? We didn't get a one. We didn't get a one. Before they even built that house, they had sale signs on a half-built house. We didn't get a one.

Thank you very much for coming in to testify. Do we have anyone -- (Applause.) 141 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table, identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

Good morning. My name is Susan Petrone and my mother lives on the 1300 block of Ellsworth Street, a block from the proposed site. My name is also on that deed, so I am also a property owner a block away. I am also opposed to the height of these towers and the scope of the development on Broad and Washington Avenue. My biggest concern is that -- one of my biggest concerns is that there was a difficult seller here, to quote the developer, and that because the price was prohibitive and extortion, that my concern is that the scope and the size of this development will reflect what the profits are going to have to be so these people can walk out in a winning situation. 142 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. We are a residential neighborhood. We have been. I am a life-long resident. The area surrounding it is still light industrial, but primarily residential. I do understand that Broad and Washington is a boulevard and can take some larger and more beautiful development. Thirty to 40 stories is, in my opinion, not an appropriate size and scale for that site. And, if anything, from what I understand, even Symphony House a little bit north of that is not selling their units the way they anticipated. I think we should really take some more time and really get a better level of conversation going with the community for this and have something that's appropriate and is a gateway for the south end of -- I don't want to say the south end of Center City, but something that will be a gateway but more appropriate. Thank you. 143 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC.

Thank you very much. (Applause.)

Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Keep it an empty lot another years, make it easy. 9

10 Anyone else to testify on this bill? 11 (No response.) 12

13 Seeing no one, this will conclude our 14 public hearing. We will now go into our 15 public meeting. 16 Bill No. 070338 will be held 17 because it requires two hearings. 18 The Chair recognizes Councilman 19 Clarke regarding Bill No. 070370 and 20 030731.

Brief recess, Madam President.

Recess?

Brief 144 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. recess.

Okay. (Short recess.)

Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I make a motion that Bill 070370 be reported out of Committee, with no request for rules suspension, with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 17 070370 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. 145 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 4 070371.

Madam President, I move that Bill No. 070371 be reported by the Committee, with no 8 suspension of the rules, reported out with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 13 070371 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will signify by saying aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 070463.

Madam 146 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. President, I move that Bill No. 070463 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 10 070463 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

The ayes have it. The motion carries. This concludes our public meeting of the Rules Committee. Thank you all very much. (Committee on Rules adjourned 147 6/12/07 - RULES - BILL 070370, ETC. at 12:25 p.m.) - - - 148 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on June 12, 2007, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)