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 --
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.
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. 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 --
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 --
-- 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 --
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.
So now what I was saying is that, wheelchairs can't even get past with this obstruction from this particular building at this moment.
There's an ordinance allowing it to be built, an ADA entrance to the building.
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.
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.
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.
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 --
-- 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 --
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.
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.
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.
-- 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 --
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?
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.
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.
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.)
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.)
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.)
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.)