Committee Hearing, November 29, 2010

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON RULES3 Room 400, City Hall6 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Monday, November 29, 20107 10:15 a.m. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY10 COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO11 COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN WILLIAM K. GREENLEE12 COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER13 COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL14 COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL BILLS 100552, 100656, 100678, 100709, 100720,17 100721, 100750, 100761, 100773 - - -20 2

Ladies and2 gentlemen, may I please have your3 attention. Good morning.4 Good morning. We have a quorum5 of the Rules Committee to discuss -- to6 conduct business today with7 Councilmembers Miller, Goode, myself,8 Councilman Kenney, who is chairing,9 Councilman Greenlee and Councilman10 DiCicco.11 We would ask everyone, please12 take a seat. We have a requirement that13 everyone be seated. There's plenty of14 room. There's plenty of chairs. Thank15 you very much.16 The first bill is Bill No.17 100721, which is an ordinance amending18 Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code,19 entitled "Zoning and Planning," by20 amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled21 "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section22 establishing the Fox Chase Environmental23 Control District, all under certain terms24 and conditions.25 3 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 (Witness approached witness2 table.)3

Mr. Kramer,4 please identify yourself for the record.5

Good morning,6 Councilman Kenney and members of the7 Rules Committee. I am William Kramer,8 Division Director of the Development9 Planning Division of the Philadelphia10 City Planning Commission. I am here11 today to testify on Bill No. 100721,12 which was introduced by Councilmember13 O'Neill October 28th, 2010.14 Bill No. 100721 amends the15 Philadelphia Zoning Code by adding a new16 Section establishing Fox Chase17 Environmental Control District.18 Bill No. 100721 affects the19 property known generally as Fox Chase20 Farms, which is a 34.8 acre farm located21 along Pine Road, the Pennypack Creek and22 the Philadelphia County border. The23 property is currently zoned "REC"24 Recreational and is not being changed by25 4 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 this legislation. This farm is used as2 an educational farm not generally open to3 the public, with the exception of4 periodic special events. The5 Philadelphia School District and the6 Fairmount Park Commission cooperatively7 operate Fox Chase Farm as an agricultural8 education facility. Programs include an9 active 4H Club and many visits by school10 children throughout the region.11 Bill No. 100721 creates a new12 Section establishing the Fox Chase13 Environmental Control District. The14 District encompasses the Fox Chase Farm15 and will limit the uses to permit an16 educational farm, agricultural activities17 for educational purposes, educational18 programs relating to horticulture,19 agriculture, environmental and historical20 studies, and programs coordinated by the21 School District of Philadelphia or the22 Department of Parks and Recreation.23 The Philadelphia Department of24 Parks and Recreation currently has no25 5 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 interest in placing commercial farming at2 this location or in changing the ongoing3 programs. The farm is City owned and4 operated, with the assistance of the5 Friends of Fox Chase Farms. Fox Chase6 Farms is one of the last working farms in7 any major city and has produced8 agriculture for over 300 years. The9 majority of the farm is actually located10 in Montgomery County. Accordingly, this11 legislation only covers a small portion12 of the farm.13 The current zoning of the14 property of "REC" Recreation does not15 permit commercial farming or any other16 commercial activity as a matter of right.17 This bill creates a zoning overlay to18 restrict a use at the property which is19 already not permitted under the current20 Code provisions. Accordingly, the21 provisions of this legislation are22 considered redundant and provide no23 additional protection for the Fox Chase24 Farm.25 6 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 The Philadelphia City Planning2 Commission considered Bill No. 100721 at3 its meeting of November 16th, 2010.4 After consideration, the Commission5 recommended that Bill No. 100721 be6 disapproved.7 This concludes my testimony. I8 appreciate the opportunity to appear9 before you today and would be pleased to10 answer any questions you may have.11

Thank you12 very much.13 Is there anyone here from the14 Parks and Recreation Department?15 (No response.)16

There's17 supposed to be written testimony. Is18 there anyone to testify from Parks and19 Rec?20 (No response.)21

Seeing22 none, additionally my understanding is23 the School District -- does the School24 District have an interest -- an25 7 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 interested party in this bill?2 (No response.)3

Is anyone4 from the School District here?5 (No response.)6

Thank you.7 The next folks on the list are8 Fred Maurer -- I'm sorry. Councilman9 Greenlee, please.10

Thank11 you, Mr. Chairman.12 Just real quickly, Mr. Kramer.13 This sounds fairly similar to -- I mean14 in scope to a bill we did a couple weeks15 ago in Roxborough.16

Absolutely.17

And I18 guess my question is the same as it was19 then. If you can't do it now, if this20 bill -- Councilman O'Neill is proposing21 to put these restrictions on, I guess,22 just to kind of make it clear where the23 community is coming from. I guess like24 it sounds like what's the harm in that,25 8 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 then. I mean, you say it's redundant.2 Maybe it is, but what's the harm in that?3 You know what I'm saying?4

I don't know that5 I would term it as "harm." I think from6 a Code perspective as someone who writes7 and reads and deals with Code, it adds a8 lot of unnecessary language to the Code,9 which makes it unnecessarily complicated.10 The whole purpose of any kind11 of Code provision is to send a matter to12 the Zoning Board of Adjustment or not13 permit it. The Code already does that.14 And, again, we've said it's redundant,15 and I cannot say that it's going to16 present as a harm issue, the passage of17 the bill. It doesn't really harm18 anything. It just adds another piece of19 language to the Code.20

Councilman21 O'Neill.22

Okay.23 Thank you.24

I would25 9 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 agree that it may be extra protection,2 but I think that's just what the3 situation calls for, as was the case in4 Roxborough.5 Thank you.6

Thank you.7 Mr. Maurer, please identify8 yourself for the record and proceed.9

Fred Maurer. And10 I have a copy here for the Clerk. You11 can give a copy to Mr. O'Neill as well.12 Ready?13

Please14 proceed.15

My name is Fred16 Maurer and I testify on Bill No. 17 I was present at a public18 meeting when Commissioner Michael19 DiBerardinis spoke of converting some20 vacant lands, City lands, into garden and21 farms. At the end he said some large22 parcels could then be made into23 profit-making farms. 1 When he talked about public lands, he2 only mentioned Recreation Department3 lands, and he suggested some excess4 Recreation lands could be used as a5 community neighborhood garden. He6 implied the loss of Recreation lands7 would be de minimis. He never mentioned8 a large change of legal uses. 11 When he was asked about12 Fairmount Park lands, he only said there13 would be no changes in them. 17 I now hear there's a plan by18 Commissioner DiBerardinis to convert the19 Fox Chase Farm out of its publicly20 dedicated public missions and to be used21 for a for-profit farm enterprise. 1 agricultural farm. This is a major2 change of public policy, and that was3 done in secret. It smells bad, with4 politicians pandering and favoritism. 7 I think Commissioner Mike8 DiBerardinis has to reveal and present9 the whole scenario of who and how this10 policy change was formulated. 13 As a concerned citizen, I want14 to see any transcripts where this change15 of Fox Chase Farm was ever considered and16 gave consent. The last time I requested17 to see a transcript, Commissioner Michael18 DiBerardinis denied me. 8 When we lost the Fairmount Park9 Commission governance, we also lost 16010 years of rules of law that is now park11 law and in precedents. 14 The Rec Commissioner Michael15 DiBerardinis spent the whole year to make16 a plan on how to sell and how to convert17 them out of our public rights. But the18 Rec Commissioner DiBerardinis now fails19 to honor our laws. 4

Thank you5 very much for your testimony.6 Jean Gavin, please.7 (Witness approached witness8 table.)9

Is James10 Kates in the room? Is Mr. Kates here11 also? Could you please come forward at12 the same time. And Susan Anmuth.13 (Witnesses approached witness14 table.)15

Sir, you16 can have that seat there.17 Please identify yourself for18 the record and proceed with your19 testimony.20

My name is James21 Kates. I'm Vice-President of the Friends22 of Fox Chase Farm.23

Do you have24 prepared testimony?25 15 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

Yes, I do.2

Whoever3 wants to go first.4

I am Jean Gavin, a5 member of the "Save Burholme Park" group6 that did exactly that, saved the park.7 Thanks to SCRUB's support, a thorough and8 thoughtful decision by an Orphans Court9 judge and a smart, winning lawyer, we10 saved Burholme Park.11 Now, we believe that the12 planned takeover of the Fox Chase Farm is13 the City's next step in its bid to sell14 off all of Fairmount Park.15 Mayor Nutter pretended that he16 was a supporter of the Philadelphia parks17 when he was a Councilman. I voted for18 him for this reason alone. However, the19 very first month that he took office as20 Mayor, he visited the Fox Chase Cancer21 Center in secret, without even one22 discussion with Save Burholme Park23 members, and gave away our park. Then24 when Samuel C. Stretton, our lawyer, won25 16 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 in Orphans Court against the opposition's2 multiple, high-priced, big-time lawyers,3 the City, under Mayor Nutter, appealed to4 the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania.5 This state court upheld Judge Herron's6 Orphans Court decision unanimously.7 Judge Herron has protected8 parkland in Philadelphia and in all of9 Pennsylvania in his thorough and10 thoughtful 2008 opinion, and the11 Commonwealth Court upheld this opinion12 unanimously. But Mayor Nutter has yet to13 understand this news. It's up to City14 Council to crack this nut.15 Save Burholme Park members16 support Councilman O'Neill's Bill No.17 100721 to save our unique treasure of Fox18 Chase Farm from the threat of big19 business commercial growers. The Rules20 Committee will have the first crack at21 this difficult task. Support Councilman22 O'Neill in his attempt to defend our23 inheritance, Fox Chase Farm and Pennypack24 Park.25 17 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Save Burholme Park's happiest2 day was on December 9, 2008 when Judge3 John W. Herron's decision secured our4 Burholme Park. Burholme Park was saved5 in spite of a political "done deal"6 through the strong support of three7 heroes for the environment. First was8 SCRUB's Executive Director, Mary Tracy;9 second, Samuel C. Stretton, our fantastic10 lawyer; and a wise judge, No. 3, John W.11 Herron with his unanimously approved,12 thorough, thoughtful decision. These13 heroes saved Robert Waln Ryerss' Burholme14 Park for the people. They were15 successful in saving parkland from big16 business interests.17 Now, the Rules Committee must18 take up the fight. Please support19 Councilman O'Neill's Bill 100721 today as20 your first step to save the rest of21 Fairmount Park. Keep Fairmount Park,22 quote, "free to the people forever,"23 unquote, which is a quote from the Ryerss24 will, for Philadelphia's present and25 18 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 future citizens.2

Thank you3 for your testimony.4 Please identify yourself for5 the record, sir, and proceed.6

My name is James7 Kates. I am Vice-President of Friends of8 Fox Chase Farm.9 Good morning, members of the10 Committee on Rules. My name is -- I11 already said my name. We want to12 publicly thank Councilman O'Neill for13 sponsoring this legislation to protect14 Fox Chase Farm from commercial15 development.16 Fox Chase Farm is currently17 under a long-term lease between the18 Fairmount Park Historic Trust and the19 School District of Philadelphia. The20 educational program plays host to 10,00021 elementary school children. It includes22 mentally gifted programs for middle23 school children and pre-vet program for24 high school students. The environmental25 19 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 education program and special events are2 organized by the staff of the Pennypack3 Environmental Center with the help from4 volunteers. These program events attract5 another 10,000 participants. The farm is6 also host to an active 4H program that7 provides 22 children the opportunity to8 help raise steers, goats and pigs so that9 they can represent Philadelphia County at10 the Pennsylvania Farm Show. Two of those11 4H children are with me today, and when12 I'm through, they'll make some very brief13 remarks.14 The Friends of Fox Chase Farm15 with over 400 family members feels that16 any proposal to use parts of this17 property to accommodate a few commercial18 growers may risk programs that positively19 affect so many and does not seem to be20 the best use of this facility. We have21 worked very hard for 20 years to preserve22 and improve this property and the public23 programs it provides. In just one day,24 we were able to collect over 30025 20 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 signatures to oppose any commercial use2 of this property, which is listed on the3 National Register of Historic Places.4 I think I turned one of those5 in before, but I have another copy of6 this petition if you'd like to see it.7 We are not opposed to the8 concept of growing fresh vegetables close9 to where City residents of the City can10 get access to them. We just don't11 believe it would be practical at this12 facility. There are over 50 head of13 livestock at the farm, including cattle,14 sheep, goats, horses and pigs. The15 fields are used for grazing the animals16 and growing hay for winter feed. The17 farmer cuts hay and bails hay at a nearby18 facility owned by a religious order to19 supplement what he can grow at the farm20 for winter feed. The 35 acres of land21 within the City include 13.4 acres that22 cannot be farmed, consisting of forest,23 steep sleeps, riparian buffers and24 farmstead buildings. The remaining25 21 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 acreage within the City is vitally needed2 for grazing and represents the best3 scenic view of the farm enjoyed by the4 passing public.5 The acreage within Montgomery6 County includes 20 in steep-sloped forest7 and 38 acres with swales designed to8 control storm water. Utilizing the9 acreage in the back part of the farm10 would require a new access road, which11 would take more land and running water12 lines, because there's no water in those13 back fields, and intensive agriculture14 requires irrigation.15 There are plenty of other more16 suitable places for this green17 initiative. The Somerton Tank farm site18 and the former Krewstown mounted police19 stable are nearby sites. According to a20 recent report, there are over 40,00021 vacant properties in the City, including22 one-third owned by the City. Brown to23 green would help revitalize neighborhoods24 and bring fresh food closer to those who25 22 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 can benefit the most.2 Please send this bill to the3 full Council for approval.4 Thank you very much. And I'd5 like to introduce Noah and Lindsey, who6 will make a brief statement.7

If they8 could just pull the microphone close up,9 sit up at the microphone so we can hear10 you, whoever would like to go first. You11 can pull the microphone down. Perfect.12 You could just state your name13 and say what you have to say about the14 bill.15

Hi. My name is16 Noah Lamutyan (ph). I'm a member of 4H17 in Fox Chase Farm in Philadelphia. 4H18 has given me the opportunity to learn19 about farm animals and interact with20 them. The majority of all the members21 are from Philadelphia, so if it wasn't22 for 4H, they might have never learned23 what they are learning now.24 My last animal was a pig named25 23 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Fibby, and I would brush him, I would2 walk him and I would play with him, and3 then I showed him. And then now I have a4 goat named Skipper, and I brush him, I5 walk him and I play with him. And I6 might never have had this opportunity if7 it wasn't for Fox Chase Farm giving 4H8 the permission to house their animals9 there.10

Thank you11 very much for your testimony.12 Please identify yourself and13 proceed. Pull that microphone right up.14 Thank you.15

Hi. My name is16 Lindsey Clark and I am 11 years old.17 This is my second year in 4H in the Goat18 Club. I have had three goats, and each19 one is so different. I have learned new20 things with each goat, things like how21 goats are used for either wool, milk or22 meat. I have learned responsibility that23 is hard work. The animals need care24 whether it is 100 degrees out, raining25 24 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 out or freezing cold.2 There are no farms near me3 except the Fox Chase Farm. If land is4 taken away, I would not be able to do 4H5 animal care anymore.6 I met the Commissioner of7 Abington at the train station this8 morning. He was contacted by 4H, because9 a lot of the farm is in Abington10 Township, though most of the kids in 4H11 Club live in Philadelphia. He told me12 all 15 Commissioners were against anybody13 coming to use the farmland for uses. I14 am thankful for his support.15 I have a younger brother who16 has been looking forward to joining 4H17 Club when he is old enough. Please leave18 the farm the way it is now for me and all19 the other young children waiting to have20 a turn.21

Thank you22 very much for your testimony. Thanks for23 coming in.24 That concludes the list of25 25 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 witnesses for this bill.2 Oh, please have a seat.3 How many other witnesses are4 there for this bill? Two? Okay.5 Because I sense the view of the Committee6 is that we're going to support Councilman7 O'Neill's bill. So if you're in favor of8 it, that's great, and we need to -- we9 got a big schedule today.10 So please identify yourself for11 the record.12

Good morning. My13 name is Susan Anmuth and I'm a member of14 the Friends of Fox Chase Farm, and I too15 am here to speak to the bill that16 Councilman O'Neill has begun.17 My husband and I are volunteers18 and we've been volunteers for many years19 at the farm. We consider the farm a20 jewel, and we, along with the others that21 you see here, have worked very hard to22 ensure that Fox Chase Farm remains a23 working farm for the public to enjoy.24 The public is what this is all about.25 26 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Any change in the farm would really2 impact and have a profound impact upon3 the farm community.4 I have two points. One, why5 would the City even consider jeopardizing6 a program that involves over 10,0007 school children every year? Fox Chase8 Farm hosts children every single day of9 the school year, from preschool to high10 school. Children come here for lessons11 from all over the City, and these12 children are from each of your districts.13 As a City resident and as an14 elementary school teacher, I have brought15 children to the farm many, many times to16 learn things that they do not learn in17 the classroom, things like maple18 sugaring, nutrition, tree identification19 and where their food actually comes from,20 as well as an appreciation of nature.21 Movement around the farm during22 these lessons is controlled, but not23 restricted. Children are touring,24 looking for leaves, measuring trees,25 27 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 visiting the animals and more. We worry2 about the real dangers of increased3 traffic, of heavy farm equipment and of4 the additional people that would be5 around the children if this is not6 approved.7 No. 2, we also wonder why you8 would choose to take away already9 established green space. In addition to10 the 4H Club that you heard about, we also11 have a farm garden where the produce that12 is grown is given to area food banks. We13 also have the public festivals, which14 draw thousands of people from all over15 the City.16 In recent years, the Friends of17 Fox Chase Farm, our hundreds of family18 members and our public, have had to fight19 to maintain and protect the space. Even20 though we are now on the National21 Register of Historic Places, this22 landmark seems that it is never safe. We23 do not want to see our farm parceled out.24 We don't want to have to police25 28 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 strangers. We don't want to have to2 worry about their use of pesticides and3 all the other safety concerns, especially4 since there are many other places in the5 City that are better suited for this.6 As we passed around this7 petition at our last festival, Applefest,8 there were several Kensington residents9 who came up to us and said, Why would10 they do this to the farm? Why don't they11 do this in our neighborhood? We would12 really appreciate it. And that is our13 question. We all know that green space14 has been shown to increase property15 values and the well-being of residents,16 and that's what we ask for. We need our17 Fox Chase Farm green space.18 We invite you out to visit the19 farm. It is at 8500 Pine Road in20 Philadelphia. And we would like to thank21 Councilman O'Neill for introducing this22 bill.23 Thank you.24

Thank you25 29 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 very much for your testimony.2 The last witness, please come3 forward.4 (Witness approached witness5 table.)6

Good7 morning. Please identify yourself.8

Good morning.9 My name is Lucy Strackhouse and I'm the10 Executive Director of the Fairmount Park11 Historic Preservation Trust and I'm here12 today to offer testimony on Bill 100721.13 The Fairmount Park Historic14 Preservation Trust administers the15 long-term lease with the Philadelphia16 School District for Fox Chase Farm, which17 was entered into on November 1st, 199918 and expires on October 31st, 2029. The19 lease has specific language, Exhibit E,20 which does not allow any uses by the Park21 and Recreation Department without22 appropriate permitting from the23 Philadelphia School District. Please see24 Exhibit E attached to this document for25 30 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 further information, and I'll review that2 quickly.3 The Fox Chase Farm Campus of4 Abraham Lincoln High School is a working5 demonstration farm operated with the6 purpose of educating the residents and7 school children of Philadelphia and the8 surrounding region in regards to the9 history of agriculture as well as10 present-day agri-business. Additionally,11 it serves as a learning center for12 horticultural, agricultural,13 environmental and historical studies for14 the teachers and school children of15 Philadelphia as well as the community at16 large. Programming includes educational17 tours and activities related to18 agriculture developed and implemented by19 staff and students from Abraham Lincoln20 High School. The farm is also used by21 teachers and staff from the various22 schools of the School District as a23 living land laboratory for experimental24 studies in all disciplines. The25 31 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Education Department of the Fairmount2 Park Commission, with appropriate3 permitting by the School District, also4 uses the Fox Chase Farm for public5 activities on non-school days for its6 programming. All activities for the farm7 are coordinated by Abraham Lincoln High8 School.9 We believe that Exhibit E10 accomplishes the intent of Bill No.11 100721, and we respectfully ask the12 Committee not to approve this13 legislation. We also agree with our14 colleagues in the Park and Recreation15 Department, Planning Commission and the16 Park and Recreation Advisory Commission17 that Bill No. 100721 places unnecessary18 restrictions on Fox Chase Farm.19 Thank you for your20 consideration.21

Thank you22 for your testimony.23 Councilman O'Neill.24

I agree25 32 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 it's in the lease, just as I agree it can2 be found in the Code.3 This is crystal clear. This4 leaves everyone who has testified in5 favor of this, spoken in favor of it,6 with a clear understanding that this can7 never happen.8 Thank you.9

Thank you10 very much.11 Thank you for your testimony.12

Thank you.13

That will14 conclude the witness list on this bill.15 I just want to make an16 announcement that there will be three17 bills that will be held today. They will18 not move forward at the request of the19 sponsors. The first is Bill No. 100720,20 which was introduced by Councilman21 DiCicco. It's an ordinance amending22 Title 9 of The Philadelphia Code,23 entitled "Regulation of Businesses,24 Trades and Professions," and Title 14 of25 33 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning2 and Planning," by adding special3 provisions regulating advertising signs4 in designated Commercial Advertising5 Districts; designating Market Street6 between 7th and 13th as a Commercial7 Advertising District. That will not be8 heard today. That will not be heard9 today. That will not be voted on in this10 committee.11 The second bill Councilman12 DiCicco is asking to be held is Bill No.13 100678, an ordinance amending Title 14 of14 The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning15 and Planning," by adding a new Section16 14-1642, entitled "I-95 Condemnation17 Corridor," to permit the relocation of18 certain structures and devices in19 connection with the PennDOT project to20 widen portions of I-95. That will not be21 heard today and will not be voted on. So22 if you're here to testify on that, you're23 welcome to stay, but I didn't want to24 waste your time, because it won't be25 34 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 heard.2 The third bill being held at3 the request of Councilman Clarke is Bill4 No. 100761, an ordinance amending Section5 14-1629 of The Philadelphia Code,6 entitled "Yorktown Special District7 Controls," by amending the specific8 District Boundaries; all under certain9 terms and conditions. Again, that bill10 will not be heard today and will not be11 voted on.12 COUNCILMAN O'NEILL:13 Councilman?14

Councilman15 O'Neill.16 COUNCILMAN 'O'NEILL: Can I ask17 for a rules suspensions when the18 Committee considers Fox Chase Farm.19

Yes.20

Thank you.21

Thank you.22 The next bill for discussion is23 Bill No. 100552, an ordinance amending24 the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing25 35 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 the zoning designations of certain areas2 of land located within an area bounded by3 Race Street, 4th Street, 5th Street,4 Florist Street; and by amending Section5 14-303 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled6 "'C-3' Commercial District," all under7 certain terms and conditions.8 Mr. Kramer, please identify9 yourself for the record.10

Good morning,11 Chairman Kenney and members of the Rules12 Committee. I am William Kramer, Division13 Director of the Development Planning14 Division of the Philadelphia City15 Planning Commission. I am here today to16 testify on Bill No. 100552, which was17 introduced by Councilmember DiCicco18 September 16th, 2010.19 Bill No. 100552 amends the20 Philadelphia Zoning Maps by amending the21 zoning designations of certain areas of22 land located within an area bounded by23 Race Street, 4th Street, 5th Street and24 Florist Street, and amends the25 36 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Philadelphia Zoning Code by amending2 Section 14-303 of The Philadelphia Code,3 entitled "'C-3' Commercial."4 This bill amends the zoning5 designation of this block from its6 current designation of "L-4" Limited7 Industrial to a designation of "C-3"8 Commercial. The bill as written amends9 Section 14-303 of the Philadelphia Zoning10 Code through a variety of permitted and11 prohibited uses, adjustments to the12 height regulations of the Old City13 Special Controls District and14 modifications to both parking and loading15 requirements.16 Bill No. 100552 will also allow17 for one non-accessory outdoor advertising18 sign providing digital display and19 changeable copy. The sign will be20 embedded into the east-facing wall of the21 building at the western portion of the22 property and have a maximum sign area of23 1,200 square feet, with no additional24 regulations.25 37 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 The City Planning Commission2 staff has worked with the applicant to3 amend the legislation to address the4 concerns of the Planning Commission while5 addressing the needs of the applicant6 while also communicating with the7 community. Respectfully, we submit the8 following amendments for your9 consideration.10 The amendments make certain11 technical language changes and reflect12 the following changes to the Code: To13 remove the Old City Special Controls14 District use qualifications for the15 property; permit a maximum of 35,00016 square feet of restaurant, entertainment17 or public assembly; permit a height18 maximum of 145 feet along the western19 portion of the property for the hotel;20 change the parking requirements to21 require one space for each three hotel22 units and one space for every 200 square23 feet of restaurant, entertainment and24 public assembly uses. This change will25 38 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 bring the minimum number of required2 off-street parking to 220 spaces as3 proposed; remove the provisions of this4 bill allowing the non-accessory signage5 as a matter of right; provide that the6 map changes would be a permanent change7 while the requested Code relief aspects8 of this legislation would have a two-year9 sunset provision.10 We feel that this will allow11 for the project to meet the building12 envelope as proposed, provide parking for13 their needs and provide the majority of14 uses they are requesting, while not15 having firm agreements with any tenants.16 Despite the best efforts from17 all the parties, there is a difference of18 opinion regarding the provisions of Bill19 100552 that deal with signage. The20 Planning Commission believes that the21 issue is a significant one and should be22 the subject of a separate piece of23 legislation. The applicants are seeking24 to obtain legislative relief to allow for25 39 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 accessory signage with LED capacity to2 permit changeable messages.3 At its meeting of October 19th,4 2010, the Philadelphia City Planning5 Commission recommended that Bill No.6 100552 be approved with the amendments as7 previously outlined.8 That concludes my testimony.9 I'd be happy to answer any questions you10 may have.11 I do have the copy of our12 proposed amendments, but I do know that13 there are very similar amendments that14 are circulating amongst the Council.15

Thank you16 very much for your testimony.17 Please let the record reflect18 that since we've begun, Councilwoman19 Blondell Reynolds Brown and Councilman20 Kelly have come to the table and they are21 here.22 Councilman Goode.23 Councilman DiCicco, do you --24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Go ahead.25 40 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

Thank you,2 Mr. Chairman.3 Thank you, Councilman DiCicco.4 Good morning, Mr. Kramer.5

Good morning.6

A couple7 questions just for the record. Some of8 them may seem strange, but who is the9 head of the City Planning Commission?10

The head of the --11 the Chair of the Planning Commission is12 Alan Greenberger, Deputy Mayor, head of13 Commerce.14

So he is15 Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic16 Development?17

Yes, sir.18

He serves in19 both purposes?20

Yes, sir.21

I assume22 that's to coordinate those efforts?23

I believe so, yes.24

And he is a25 41 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 voting member of the Commission?2

Yes, sir.3

So as the4 Commission considers projects, are5 economic development concerns taken into6 consideration?7

Absolutely. Yes,8 sir.9

And so those10 requirements that are economic11 development requirements; more12 specifically, economic opportunity13 requirements, are they considered?14

They are15 considered. I don't want to indicate16 that it is specifically brought out as17 part of the presentation to the18 Commission proper, but they -- it's hard19 for me, because they are part of the20 meetings going into it and certainly are21 issues that are discussed at great22 length.23

If an24 economic opportunity plan is required for25 42 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 a project, would the City Planning2 Commission approve the project without an3 economic opportunity plan being4 established?5

Yes, sir, they6 would, and they do that because under the7 zoning provisions of the Code, it's not a8 requirement under the zoning provisions.9 I understand it is a legislative one.10

And I11 understand that Alan Greenberger is the12 Deputy Mayor for Planning and Economic13 Development?14

Yes, sir.15

It means he16 serves in both capacities?17

Yes, sir.18

It means19 he's a voting member of the Commission.20 In fact, he chairs the Commission. He21 has the responsibility to make sure that22 the economic development concerns are23 considered along with the zoning24 concerns?25 43 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

Yes, sir.2

I understand3 that's not your job, but I was just4 asking the question for the record, and I5 will talk to Mr. Greenberger about that6 in the future, about as we consider those7 projects, before the Planning Commission8 recommends that we vote yes, that those9 things that should be in place with10 regard to economic development,11 specifically economic opportunity, be12 addressed, or at least if they are13 required particularly by law, that they14 be in place before the Planning15 Commission considers them.16 With that said, is there17 actually a specific project here?18

There has been a19 project that has been proposed. As to20 how real any of it is, I would defer to21 the applicants, who are also in the room.22 They could address that.23

Were you24 reviewing a specific project?25 44 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

I have seen plans2 for a specific project for this3 particular block, yes, sir.4

Do we know5 how many jobs are associated with that6 project?7

No, sir. That8 part of it I was not aware of. I'm9 certain it was mentioned at one point or10 another, but I do not know.11

So the12 Planning Commission does not deal with13 economic development concerns at all?14

As a Planning15 Commission, no. We're looking at the16 zoning provisions and the legislative17 relief required to meet the provisions of18 the Code. And, unfortunately, it is --19 it's difficult to pull it out of it20 completely, but, yes, it's not something21 that we put on our front burners. We're22 looking more for loading and parking,23 that kind of a thing.24

I understood25 45 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 that to be the case. I just wanted to2 ask those questions for the record.3

Thank you.4

Thank you5 very much.6 Any other questions for this7 witness?8 (No response.)9

Thank you,10 Mr. Kramer.11

If I may, just as12 a cautionary thing, there was a technical13 amendment to the maps with regards to the14 Law Department. Those have been made in15 the copies of the amendment that I have16 and I don't know that they've been made17 to the provisions of the amendment that18 was submitted by the applicant, just to19 make sure that it's clear so we don't20 have any other future problems with it.21 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:22 Councilwoman Brown.23

Yes,24 Mr. Chairman. Can we please have the25 46 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 question raised about the number of jobs2 answered by the appropriate party.3

Yes, we4 will.5

Thank you,6 Mr. Chairman.7

Thank you,8 Mr. Kramer.9

Thank you.10

Mr. Shiavo.11 And also let the record reflect12 that Councilman Clarke -- I'm sorry.13 Hold on one second.14 Mr. Shiavo, just hold on one15 second. We did not have a request16 specifically to us about the developer17 testifying at any particular time. The18 sponsor of the bill and other members of19 the Committee think it's appropriate to20 have the developer at least lay out the21 plans first prior to having comments.22 It's hard to get comment on the plans23 that haven't been presented yet. So I24 appreciate your understanding.25 47 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 (Witnesses approached witness2 table.)3

Please4 identify yourself for the record, whoever5 is ready to -- hold on. We have a --6

Sure. Good7 morning. My name is Ronald Patterson.8 I'm with the law firm of Klehr Harrison,9 1835 Market Street, and I am here10 representing ARC Properties, Inc., which11 is the property owner and proposed12 developer of this property. With me is13 Mr. Robert Ambrosi, who is a principal of14 ARC.15 If I may proceed?16

Please.17

As I mentioned18 Mr. Ambrosi or identified him, his last19 project was the Ten Rittenhouse project20 that we're all familiar with. This21 property has an address of 401 Race22 Street. 1 which is Florist Street. It's comprised2 of approximately 46,000 square feet,3 which is over one acre in size. There's4 an existing three-story building with5 parking lot areas that was formerly known6 as the Pincus building. 13 As Council will hear from14 Mr. Ambrosi, we propose a real financed15 project to reuse and build upon the16 existing building and to create a17 fabulous mixed-use location driven by a18 hotel -- this is a hotel use -- of a19 dramatic design with all of its accessory20 uses. 1 structure to the east, consisting of five2 stories along 4th Street that would have3 approximately 45 condominiums. 5 We're also proposing on-site6 parking, using a creative configuration7 of tandem parking, valet parking and8 mechanical. That's why you see that9 relaxation in the ordinance, because the10 Zoning Code does not recognize those11 types of configurations. The Zoning Code12 only requires, for example, that a space13 be 9 by 18 and there is a drive aisle14 that you can pull in and pull out. You15 cannot put cars one behind another. 6 million. 10 The property is vacated parcels that the11 Streets Department had taken over years12 ago as part of the street vacation. 16 The hotel is driving the design. The17 main proposed use is a hotel. And hotel,18 believe it or not, is considered a19 residential use, not a commercial use,20 and that is not permitted in "L-4" Light21 Industrial. 1 components that comprise the project as a2 whole to allow for the height of the3 hotel to exceed the Old City overlay of4 65 feet to 145. 18 As Mr. Ambrosi will get into19 more detail, this is an $80 million20 project with 150 construction jobs. It21 would be union, with 260 permanent jobs22 proceeding. 6 And after the culmination of7 about two years of discussion, with most8 of it concentrated on the last year,9 we've obtained the support of the Old10 City District, the Visitor Center, the11 Constitution Center and Historic12 Philadelphia. And we further narrowed13 the scope of the ordinance by negotiating14 a private agreement, proviso agreement,15 with the Old City Residents Civic16 Association, and we also expect to have17 conditional licensing agreements for the18 LCB license there. And by way of19 example, while "C-3" allows restaurants20 in infinite number, our agreement as21 proposed would only allow for two LCB22 areas, one in the hotel and one possibly23 on the first floor. 1 with the OCCA, and they're here to2 testify on their behalf. 15

Before you16 do that, could you point out for me where17 the sign would be, where the sign on the18 building would actually be.19

The accessory20 sign.21

The bridge22 is here.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The bridge24 is on the left side.25 54 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

On the2 condo portion of it?3

Yes.4

On the5 condo portion?6

I'm sorry. On7 the hotel portion.8

I'm just9 trying to orient myself. The top10 structure is condo or hotel?11 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: This is12 the hotel; this is the condo.13

And the14 sign would be where?15 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: On the16 north face.17

On the18 north face of the hotel.19 Do you have an elevation of20 that?21 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: (Witness22 indicating.)23

That's24 facing?25 55 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 UNIDENTIFIED SPEAKER: The2 bridge.3

That would also4 be set back a couple of feet into the5 building.6

Identify7 yourself for the record.8

I'm sorry. My9 name is Robert Ambrosi. I'm Chair of ARC10 Properties.11 Council, thank you for hearing12 us today and --13

You proceed14 with your normal testimony. I was just15 trying to get an idea of where the sign16 was.17

Sure. I was18 going to cover that as we go along.19 I think each of you should have20 a little pamphlet here showing the slides21 that we're going to be showing. Is it22 possible for me to stand up or do I need23 to remain seated? It would just be a lot24 easier if I could point to the board as25 56 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 we go through.2

If you can3 get the microphone -- no. We're okay.4 We're good.5 (Mr. Ambrosi handed wireless6 microphone.)7

10 We have a number of slides here11 we're going to go through. The first12 slide I'd like to start with is the13 experience of ARC Properties. We're a14 25-year-old company. We've done over 20015 projects across the country. We've won16 numerous awards, including an award from17 the Environmental Protection Agency, New18 Jersey Builder Association, School of19 Architecture, ICSC, which is the top20 retail institution in the country. The21 reason I bring it up is not to brag about22 us. 4 And so we have a good track record, and5 it's important. 9 I want to spend a minute on10 this aerial photograph, because in11 planning this project, we were very, very12 careful in what we are doing. It's a13 very unique site because the site is14 walking distance to the Convention15 Center, to the Liberty Bell, to Market16 Street and also to the new casino. At17 the same time, it's a very isolated site,18 because this site is surrounded by the19 Mint on one side, the entire city block,20 Franklin Square on the other side, Ben21 Franklin Bridge on the other side and, of22 course, 4th Street and the residential23 tower there. 4 By the way, this building has5 been vacant for about six years. 9 This is a closer shot of the10 site. Again, here you can see the Mint,11 which is a very dark street right now,12 Franklin Square, the bridge and how this13 project is really isolated. 17 In fact, some of these people are here18 today to testify on our behalf. We also19 met with the Old City District and the20 Old City Civic Association. 1 disagreement. 9 There was a flyer going around that we10 were doing a 35,000 square foot11 nightclub. That was never, ever part of12 our submission. Originally we submitted13 35,000 square feet. It was going to be a14 bowling alley, a restaurant, a retail15 store and a small music venue of about16 2,000 square feet. Then we went out, we17 started to talk to other people. We18 reduced it to 23,000 square feet,19 including a dance floor of 500 square20 feet, which is a 20 by 20 area. 24 One restaurant cannot survive here. 1 Mint occupies all of Race Street. 5 Now take away the square and put up a6 concrete building. Would the restaurant7 survive? 9 We need to have a critical mass10 here so that the project can survive. I11 am very sensitive, very sensitive to12 everybody's needs. 16 One other thing I'd like to17 mention, in doing this also we've met18 with all the unions. This is a union19 construction job. I know Unite Here is20 here now. 1 agreement. 5 Every job we've ever done in Philadelphia6 has been union. I see no reason why this7 one would not be union. I simply don't8 have the authority to negotiate until I9 have an operator. 11 In designing this project,12 we've also been very sensitive to the13 views. We rented a crane. We went up14 every level of the property, and we've15 looked at the best views. 1 old building and the new building. As2 you can see, we're trying to preserve3 some of the old building and then add to4 the new building to keep some of the5 nature of the building. I happen to6 think the building is a good-looking7 building. It needs to be fixed up. 13 I'm going to describe for you14 quickly the project, and as Ron stated,15 this is an $80 million project. It will16 create about 260 permanent jobs and 15017 construction jobs. 19 Then again, keep in mind, this is the20 Mint right here. 23

I'm sorry.24 The street with the trees is what street?25 63 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

This here is 5th2 Street. This is Race Street.3

Fine.4 Thank you.5

The back6 buildings are 4th.7 This curb, if I draw in the8 Mint building, you will not see this9 retail. This entire block is a 50 foot10 high concrete wall. So the retail here11 is a very sensitive issue. It really is.12 Anyway, here the first floor13 would be retail. The second -- and we14 will go through all the floor plans when15 I make this presentation.16 The second floor will be17 parking. The third floor will be hotel18 rooms. The fourth floor will be the19 hotel lobby with the amenity space, and20 above that will be the hotel. On 4th21 Street, there will be the residential22 building.23 I want to look at this plan now24 to show you the sensitivity that we've25 64 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 had in designing this. When we first2 started designing this project, we met3 with Old City Civic Association and we4 had a much higher tower on 4th Street.5 There were a number of different things6 we had. We had less parking. We had a7 higher tower. Over the past two years,8 we've reduced the building on 4th Street,9 and we've retained the height on the10 building on 5th Street, because we've11 been very sensitive to putting a buffer12 on 4th Street from the residential13 neighborhood so that we can serve the14 residential neighborhood in a quiet,15 peaceful way, and then we grew the16 project towards Race Street near the17 Constitution Center, near Franklin Square18 where there needs to be more activity.19 We've put the entrances to the retail20 along 5th Street. The combination of21 retail uses that we're looking at ideally22 would be a food store on 4th Street.23 That would be great. There needs to be24 some activity in here facing the large 5025 65 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 foot wall. We're not going -- we can't2 get a high-class woman's store here.3 It's impossible. They don't want to be4 across the street from a 50 foot wall.5 So what we need to do is to anchor this6 entire project with some sort of activity7 that will give it a critical mass with8 the entranceways on 5th Street so that9 people visiting, the 2.8 million visitors10 a year and the 150,000 cars a day, know11 it's here. There's no other way of12 identifying this retail along Race Street13 at all.14 So we've been very sensitive to15 how this project grows and integrates16 into the neighborhood.17 This is a copy of the first18 floor plan. For the moment, I've taken19 out the residential here, just so that20 you can see exactly what's here. Right21 now on 4th Street, there's a vacant lot,22 there's a steel building and a concrete23 building. The idea would be to renovate24 the first floor of the concrete building,25 66 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 and this is primarily where the2 restaurant space would go. As you can3 see, we've designed the entrance to all4 of the restaurant space on the corner of5 5th and Race. We originally had planned6 a bowling alley in between in the steel7 building, which we have not been able to8 reach an agreement on. We're talking to9 a health club. We're talking to a spa10 kind of operator, but this cannot be,11 again, a boutique, woman's clothing12 store, because you're facing the 50 foot13 wall and you're isolated because of the14 surrounding properties.15 Eventually the vacant lot here16 would be the residential. The hotel17 entrance would be here. There would be a18 sky lobby. So you'd walk into here,19 you'd go up three floors in the elevator20 to the sky lobby, and that becomes your21 grand lobby. Parking is on the second22 floor. So we've provided these parking23 ramps that would go up to the second24 floor. There would be access off of 5th25 67 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Street exiting onto 4th Street.2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Through3 Florist.4

Through Florist.5 The second floor here would be6 all parking, parking on site for 2207 cars. We can even get more than that if8 we add more lifts. This does not include9 the parking all along Florist Street or10 the current parking along -- that's down11 on 4th Street at the moment.12 By the way, in the parking13 we've also agreed to put PhillyCarShare14 within the parking facility to make it15 easy for the residents and to serve their16 needs.17

I'm sorry.18

Is that19 parking for the hotel?20

This is parking21 for the complex. It would be ticket22 parking where you come in, go up,23 valet -- it would be valet lift parking.24

How about25 68 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 the residents?2

The residents3 would be parking here also.4

I'm sorry.5 The area of land that you're looking to6 acquire from the DRPA, that's Florist7 Street too, isn't it?8

Yeah. What we're9 doing actually, we're acquiring an10 easement in perpetuity along Florist11 Street. They still retain the rights to12 fix the bridge and to service the bridge13 and do everything else.14

Do you go15 further out than the building line?16

I think we go out17 12 feet as far as a permanent right, and18 beyond that, the DRPA has the right to19 take the land back if they need it.20

Okay.21

What we've done22 here, you're seeing, is, this is -- the23 blue area here is the existing concrete24 building, and I think we've created25 69 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 something very, very unique. What we're2 doing is, we're cutting out a 75 by 753 foot hole in the roof, in the concrete4 roof, and it's go to be like sitting here5 and this would all be a park, and the6 rooms on the inside would all be facing7 this nice park, and from the fourth floor8 looking down, you'd be able to look at9 this park. So if somebody were having an10 event here; for example, somebody were to11 have a wedding or a business celebration,12 they could rent out these rooms and this13 would be a private space, completely14 isolated, completely in nature open.15 There's no glass roof. This is all16 natural, open landscape. And as you can17 see, we've wrapped the rooms around the18 outside as well as wrapping rooms around19 the inside. These rooms here would have20 access to a terrace. We're actually21 thinking of putting little fire pits22 outside where people could slide the door23 open in the winter or even the summer,24 have their own little private fire pit.25 70 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 This here shows the fourth2 floor. Again, I think it's a very3 unique, interesting design. We've been4 very careful about the views. And,5 again, I want to preface this. There is6 a building here, a five-story residential7 building, buffering this entire area from8 the 4th Street and everything that is9 east of 4th Street. This, again, I'll10 remind you, is the Mint, which is a 5011 foot concrete wall. You got Franklin12 Park here and you've got the bridge here.13 So this is a very isolated project.14 In the lobby area here, we have15 an entranceway. We have meeting rooms.16 We have a gym. We have a swimming pool.17 We have a restaurant with a terrace18 overlooking the Liberty Bell, and we have19 this outdoor backyard area with seating20 area, again, some fire pits. This area21 here would be walking trails and things22 of that nature. So it's a real green --23 and this will be a green project, by the24 way. It will be a LEED's project that25 71 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 we're doing.2 In doing a hotel, we originally3 had an L-shaped hotel that was much4 larger than this, and, again, working5 with the various organizations, they6 wanted us to cut the hotel down, make it7 more lean. We have done that. In fact,8 we reduced the original square footage by9 36,000 square feet from what was10 originally proposed and accepted, by the11 way, originally by all the different12 people we had worked with.13 We've already discussed the14 accessory sign. I think the sign is very15 important. We've designed it very16 carefully. We've set it back into the17 building. We've angled it on an angle so18 you can only see it from one opening19 coming down the bridge. It only faces20 one way. This project is isolated. It's21 surrounded by the Mint, Franklin Square22 and the bridge. We don't have the23 benefit of having neighbors across the24 street from us, of having that activity.25 72 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 There has been concern that2 this would turn into Market Street. This3 can't turn into Market Street. None of4 our neighbors can build everything.5 Everything is isolated and fixed. But6 unless we have the critical mass, this7 will fail. It needs to have its own8 identity. It needs to be a destination.9 It needs to have a critical mass.10 Thank you very much. I11 appreciate it.12

Thank you13 very much for your testimony.14 Councilman DiCicco.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,16 Mr. Chairman.17 Mr. Patterson, do you have more18 testimony? Because I can hold my19 questions until --20

No, I don't,21 unless there are any questions. I have22 Anne Fidulan (ph) here from Dale23 Construction who can talk about the EOP24 plan, and I have some witnesses in25 73 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 support.2

Understand,3 so I want to try to run the list so we4 have a little bit of balance. We had5 requested a witness list and didn't get6 it. So I have people who have requested7 to be here, so I want to kind of get8 it --9

I just want to10 make sure I can answer your questions.11

Everybody12 will be heard. I just want to make sure13 we have a little bit of balance back and14 forth, and maybe we can get some of the15 issues out there that may be resolvable16 as a result of that discussion. But on17 the EOP, Councilman Goode or Brown,18 whatever, if you want to pursue that.19

If you could20 just -- I have reviewed the plan21 attached. If you could just explain the22 plan.23

Sure. No24 problem. I think Mr. 1 name is Anne Fidulan. I am the head of2 Development for the Dale Corporation. On3 this project we're serving in a4 development and construction advisory5 capacity. We're not going to be the6 contractor on this project. 11 Just speaking about our12 background as Dale Corporation, we have a13 long history of success in the City in14 complying with minority and women hiring15 requirements. Our most recent job, Cecil16 B. Moore that we completed, we hit 2717 percent. We're continually trying to18 strive to get to 30 or above and to19 comply with all the regulations. We take20 it very seriously. 1 we balance sometimes the needs of Section2 3, local hiring, with hiring unions and3 hiring minorities. Oftentimes what4 happens is, we'll do a job in North5 Philadelphia and then we'll have another6 job in West Philadelphia. However, if we7 move that worker who we've established a8 good relationship with in North Philly to9 the West Philly job, we don't get the10 credit for it, and what we would like to11 do is create permanent jobs for these12 people, not just have them work in West13 Philly and then say, Sorry, we don't get14 credit for you in North Philly. 18 Anyway, regarding this project,19 One Franklin Square at 4th and Race20 Street, we have a draft EOP plan that has21 been put together. I believe it's been22 submitted to the Committee. 2 As was mentioned, I think,3 earlier, we anticipate 100, 1504 construction jobs at peak, probably5 during peak construction. 17 We will make best efforts to hit those18 goals. 20 As far as employment goals,21 we're looking at 50 percent for22 Philadelphia residents. That's what we23 try to hit for new hires. Thirty-two24 percent for minority. 1 Corporation we're constantly hovering2 around that 30 percent, a little bit3 better range. Again, our role here is to4 oversee this for this developer to help5 whoever is hired as the contractor to hit6 those goals. 15 Again, we are very successful16 in hitting minority. 1 they've been agreed to. We will make2 every effort to work with the developer3 and whoever is hired in the contract to4 exceed these goals, not just to meet5 them. And, like I said, we take this6 very seriously. 13

Thank you14 for your testimony. So the developer has15 made you responsible for the economic16 opportunity plan?17

I would say that18 they have asked us to help them and to19 serve in an advisory capacity to ensure20 compliance with the plan.21

And the22 developer testified that he has spoke23 with the building trades about the24 project?25 79 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

Yes, that is2 correct.3

Did you4 speak to building trades about the5 economic opportunity plan?6

I did not have --7 I'm not sure because I did not have the8 direct conversations with them about9 that. I can report back to you on that10 one.11

Who spoke12 with the building trades? You spoke to13 the building trades?14

My partners have.15

Are your16 partners available?17

Yes.18

They're19 available here?20

Would you like...21 (Witness approached witness22 table.)23

Good morning.24

Good25 80 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 morning. Please identify yourself.2

My name is Fred3 Cosenza with the Philadelphia Building4 Trades. I spoken with Dan McCaffery5 about the minority participation, that we6 are 100 percent on board, and with 507 percent unemployment, those numbers will8 be very easy to get to. We are in full9 support of this.10 I am also on every oversight11 committee for minority participation in12 the City, University of Penn. Anywhere13 that we have minority participation, we14 do and will hit those goals for this15 project. And, once again, we are 10016 percent behind this project. With the17 people that we have out of work, we need18 this work like we need oxygen.19

Did you20 discuss wage rates?21

No. The wage22 rates are wages --23

Set by24 prevailing wage.25 81 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

Yes.2

So they're3 set by law.4

Yeah. The5 unions -- this will be constructed with a6 union contractor, where our wages are set7 prevailing wage rates.8

By law.9

Yes.10

For the 15011 jobs.12

I'm hoping it's13 more like 200.14

Okay. Can15 someone respond to the 260 permanent jobs16 in terms of wage rates? Can someone,17 developer or counsel, some response to18 the permanent jobs?19

What is your20 specific question on the permanent jobs?21

What is the22 wage quality? What's the job quality?23

I don't know. We24 have to select an operator. Once we have25 82 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 approvals, we select an operator. The2 operator will then sit down --3

You do not4 have an operator?5

I'm sorry?6

You do not7 have an operator?8

We do not have an9 operator yet. We're interviewing four10 different operators.11

Point of12 information.13

One quick14 question before the point.15 You do realize this is a formal16 transcript?17

I'm sorry?18

You do19 realize this is a formal transcript?20

I don't21 understand the question.22

This is a23 formal legal transcript. Either you have24 an operator or you don't have an25 83 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 operator. Either you've decided upon an2 operator or you have not decided upon an3 operator.4

We have not5 decided on an operator at this moment.6 We are interviewing four operators right7 now.8

So you do9 not have an operator for the hotel?10

We do not. We11 have a franchise. It will be a Starwood12 franchise, and we're now interviewing13 four operators and management companies14 for the hotel.15

So it will16 be a Starwood franchise?17

It would be a18 Starwood aloft.19

So you do20 know who will be operating the hotel?21

The hotel22 franchise will be Starwood. The23 operator, my terms, my definition -- I'm24 sorry. My definition of the operator is25 84 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 the management company who manages and2 operates the hotel. So we are3 interviewing four groups right now.4

Have you5 discussed with Starwood at all the job6 quality of wage rates associated with7 whatever jobs they will be overseeing?8

No, I have not.9

Why not?10

Because they will11 not talk to me until I have an approval.12 The way the process normally works is, I13 fill out a franchise agreement. Once the14 franchise agreement is approved, I need15 to get my approvals for the project. At16 that point we appoint a manager, and at17 that point the manager, Starwood, and18 myself sit down, and then you have those19 discussions.20

So they want21 us to approve the project without22 ensuring any job quality or wage rate for23 the 260 jobs?24

We have not even25 85 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 had that discussion yet.2

Why have you3 not had the discussion?4

It's not5 appropriate.6

It is7 appropriate to discuss construction jobs8 with a prevailing wage rate, but it's not9 appropriate to discuss permanent jobs and10 the job quality and wage rates? That's11 ridiculous.12

No. I don't13 agree with you. I'm sorry. I'm the14 developer. There's a contractor who15 builds my building. I can have a direct16 conversation with that contractor.17

I18 understand. I'm going to advise you very19 quickly. This can be a very long20 discussion.21

I'm sorry. I22 just don't understand the question. I'm23 really trying to cooperate. I'm not24 trying to be an obstacle, but I'm trying25 86 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 to explain the process.2

And I'm3 trying to explain to you the process.4 Are you aware of the fact that5 there are living wage laws around this6 country?7

Yes.8

And you9 actually do developments along the10 eastern seaboard?11

Yes.12

You do13 development in New York?14

Do I develop --15

In New York.16

No, I do not.17

Well, your18 material said you did. In DC?19

It said the New20 York metropolitan area, yes. We develop21 in the DC metropolitan area also.22

And23 Baltimore?24

Yes.25 87 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

Have you2 done development in any jurisdiction that3 had living wage laws?4

I'm sure I have,5 but I want to clarify one thing. I'm not6 a contractor. I'm a developer.7

I understand8 that.9

Okay.10

So you have11 done development in jurisdictions where12 there were living wage laws?13

I'm sure I have,14 yes. Right here at Philadelphia must be.15 We developed Ten Rittenhouse Square.16

And the17 living wage laws did not extend to the18 developer?19

I'm sorry?20

And the21 living wage laws did not extend to the22 developer?23

I'm sorry,24 Councilman. I'm just not familiar with25 88 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 that process or the terms. I'm not2 trying to avoid your question. I'm3 really not. I just don't understand the4 terminology in the questions. Normally I5 hire a contractor. The contractor has6 those negotiations, and I have7 construction lawyers that handle that8 work. It's not my area of expertise.9

So you are10 more concerned with the construction of11 the project, not the operation of the12 project or the permanent jobs that are13 created?14

I don't get15 involved in the details of the operation.16

So who here17 is responsible for the permanent jobs18 that are being created?19

That would be the20 contractor.21

But the22 contractor is not here.23

We haven't24 selected a contractor. The contract will25 89 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 go out for bid. Right now we've hired2 Turner Construction.3

So you want4 an approval from this Committee and from5 this Council regarding permanent jobs6 that will be created, but you want us to7 not have to review the job quality or8 wage rates associated with it; is that9 what you're saying?10

Ron, could you11 answer this question?12

I don't think13 that's what he's saying. He's saying we14 would work towards the goals of the plan,15 since he cannot commit to who is going to16 operate it. I think if you're looking17 for assurances, we can give you as much18 assurance as we can. I mean, are you19 asking for a particular commitment?20 Maybe Mr. Ambrosi could put it on the21 record.22

I'm asking23 for a specific commitment that in any24 project that comes before this Committee25 90 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 or any other Committee of Council, that2 there is acknowledgment the City has set3 a wage standard and that it be included,4 just as an economic opportunity plan has5 to be included in certain projects that6 moving forward from this day, that we7 include job quality and wage rates and an8 acknowledgment that there is a wage9 standard that the Mayor and City Council10 and an overwhelming majority of the11 voters agreed with on November 2nd.12

Okay. I mean,13 if that's the law, we have no problem14 with it. We'll include it in our15 contracts.16

To the17 extent that the law does not extend there18 yet or it does, it is an accepted19 principle and we expect it to be20 discussed moving forward in terms of21 development projects. If there is some22 sort of economic hardship, a financial23 hardship that exists, there are waivers24 that exist, there's exemptions for small25 91 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 businesses, but there's no reason why in2 this city we should embrace development3 simply for the purpose of creating4 construction jobs or creating permanent5 jobs when those permanent jobs may be6 poverty-level jobs. At some point we7 have to make a stand, and that begins8 today at least in this Committee in terms9 of asking not just a question about10 business and workforce diversity, but11 about job quality and wage rates. So you12 should expect that question from now on,13 and I expect you to respond to that14 question in writing in terms of what you15 intend to do before I'm prepared to vote16 for this legislation.17 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.18

We will.19 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:20 Councilwoman Brown, did you have anything21 to add?22

Yes, I do.23 Good morning. Let me first24 thank you for your testimony and, quite25 92 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 frankly, an exemplary track record in the2 industry. Let me underscore, put in bold3 letters, with exclamation points all of4 the remarks and expectations stipulated5 by my colleague, Councilman Goode. My6 questions are similar.7 What is your philosophical8 position when it comes to wage rates and9 wage standards, separate from what you10 expect or do not expect of your11 contractors?12

I was just13 informed by one of my colleagues that14 Starwood has in their contract that they15 will comply with the local wage laws. So16 I don't see it being an issue. I just17 got that information just now. I'm just18 not familiar with it. That's why. I'm19 not trying to avoid your question. I'm20 really not.21

Well, this22 is the time and often our only23 opportunity to be very clear and precise24 about what our expectations are when it25 93 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 comes to the equal opportunity plans.2

I understand, and3 we were just not prepared for the4 information. If I knew, I would tell5 you.6

Surely.7 Okay. To the lady to your8 right, please, how long have you been9 affiliated with the gentleman here, this10 developer, given their 25-year rich11 history, particularly in the area of12 what -- Dale Industries or Dale13 Corporation?14

Dale Corporation.15 In this particular case, we've just been16 associated with this project. So I would17 say maybe 12 months, two years, something18 like that, because we've been dealing19 with the development side of things and20 advisory services there.21 As far as Dale Corporation,22 we've been in existence for a little over23 50 years in predominantly the24 Philadelphia area. Kind of recent25 94 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 history, probably for the past seven to2 ten years, our bread and butter has been3 Low Income Housing Tax Credit projects.4 We've done a lot of those. We also do5 upwards 40 to 60 million with the6 Philadelphia Housing Authority. We have7 a lot of private contracts as well, but I8 would say really our bread and butter and9 how we cut our teeth was coming up in the10 Low Income Housing Tax Credit world,11 affordable housing.12 And so we're very familiar with13 compliance regarding various sources of14 public monies, in particular in15 Davis-Bacon compliance, Section 316 compliance, and the minority and female17 business participation.18

Very19 helpful. Please define for me your20 definition of "best efforts." What does21 that mean?22

I think "best23 efforts" is, we have to document that we24 really pulled out all the stops. We do25 95 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 sort of the traditional job fairs and2 those kinds of things, but, for example,3 we were just at the NAMC dinner where we4 were invited to speak. We do outreach5 events like that, because we're always6 looking for good, qualified7 subcontractors. Hopefully we can help8 out with the minority and the women-owned9 ones. Like I said before, sometimes it's10 a challenge for the WBEs, but we have a11 very good track record with MBEs. And we12 like to establish long-term13 relationships. So we really are trying14 to form relationships with15 subcontractors, and I think a lot of16 contractors that do this kind of work are17 trying to do something similar where18 you're able to use that contractor on19 several different jobs and form a20 long-term commitment, and sort of that's21 how we are able to provide the best22 service to our client as well.23

So is it24 fair to say, then, that Dale Corporation25 96 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 will ultimately be principally2 responsible for honoring the terms of the3 EOP plan?4

We are not going5 to be a signatory to the EOP plan, but we6 are going to be there advising so that7 if, for example, a contractor may come to8 Mr. Ambrosi and say, you know, we're only9 able to hit 20 percent or we're only able10 to hit 22 percent, then I feel like our11 job is to make sure that they have pulled12 out all the stops and to say, Have you13 tried this, have you contacted these14 folks, we've used them in the past, and15 to get them over that mark. I would say16 that's what our role is.17

So18 procedurally for the record stipulate how19 you indeed recruit, outreach to MBE/WBEs20 for subcontracting opportunities. How do21 you do that process-wise?22

Like I said, we23 attend events, we hold job fairs, we24 publicize. There's certain listing25 97 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 services working with the Office of2 Employment Opportunity that the City has.3 We get information from them about4 qualified subcontractors, who's been5 approved, who's on the various list as a6 certified subcontractor. So we do7 outreach to them directly. Then also,8 like I said, we attend events and we9 encourage minority subs to contact us and10 to put themselves out there. And we were11 at the NAMC event about a year ago and12 they have something at the Enterprise13 Center. Della Clark had an event, and we14 attended that and we spoke and we handed15 out material there. I would say we must16 have handed out -- I don't even know how17 much material, but a handful of the18 contractors actually contacted us. We19 met with every single person that20 contacted us, and we were able to bring21 two or three of them on board.22

Okay.23 Thank you for your testimony.24 My last question is, you25 98 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 mentioned that you will have -- the2 building will be green and that it will3 be LEED certified. Which level?4

We don't know5 yet, because it's an existing building6 and we're trying to determine to what7 level we can go. But to be competitive8 today, you need to have a green or a9 LEED-certified building.10

Okay.11 Thank you for your testimony.12

Thank you13 very much. Just in addition to the EOP14 conversation, it would seem to me that in15 the economy that we're in, it's somewhat16 easier to find all kinds of contractors17 as opposed to an economy where the18 construction industry is booming and you19 have maybe a lot of the minority20 contractors already tied up on jobs. I21 mean, both non-minority and minority22 contractors are out of work. So I would23 suspect it's easier in this economy to24 get people in.25 99 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

I would say that2 people are definitely hungry and people3 are looking for work. I think the key4 thing for the general contractor is to5 make sure that subcontractor is qualified6 and in good enough financial standing so7 they can start and finish the job. We8 don't want to lose a contractor in the9 middle of the job.10 However, we have sort of,11 again, stepped up to the plate and, if12 people are having trouble making their13 union payments or whatever, tried to do14 what we can to enforce them to make sure15 that they get through the job and that16 it's a success for them as well.17

Thank you.18 Councilman DiCicco.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,20 Mr. Chairman, and good morning.21 Mr. Ambrosi, I just want to go22 back to you, the issue of the signage. I23 attended a public meeting with you the24 other night in Old City and that, as you25 100 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 said, was one of the points of contention2 or opposition from Old City Civic3 Association and maybe others. I'm really4 not clear what the numbers are opposed as5 those who might not be concerned with the6 sign.7 You mention -- well, let me ask8 you this question: If the project were9 built today, the first phase, not the10 residential piece, just the hotel, and11 the sign was there and I lived on 4th12 Street, would I be able to see that sign?13

The way we have14 it angled, no, because it's built into15 the building setback on an angle with16 shields. So you would not be able to see17 it, except from one point on the bridge,18 on the Ben Franklin Bridge. That's the19 way it's been designed.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So no21 residents would be able to see that?22

Not to my23 understanding. We've had actually an24 architect come out there, do a survey, do25 101 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 light sign surveys, and the reason it's2 being set back into the wall with shields3 on all sides is to give one particular4 angle to the bridge and that's all.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because I6 thought -- maybe I misunderstood with7 some of the people talking over each8 other the other night -- that there may9 be some illumination that would be10 visible to the residents or some of the11 residents on 4th Street, and is that12 accurate or not?13

The site lines14 that the architect has designed has said15 no, but I will go further. We've even16 agreed not to install that sign until the17 residential building on 4th Street is18 built, and since that building is the19 same height as the residential building20 across on 4th Street, it would be21 impossible to see.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's23 where I was going. I was going to ask24 would you agree to --25 102 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

Yes. We would2 agree not to install the sign until the3 residential building were built.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That was5 number one. And also -- and I don't know6 how we do this. The signage could have7 some interchanging texts on it from time8 to time. Would you be willing or at9 least be willing to have a conversation10 with either the City of Philadelphia11 and/or the DRPA so that in the event12 there was an emergency, some sort of a13 public service announcement could be14 broadcast over that sign, people coming15 into Philadelphia? Megan's law, as an16 example. I think Councilman Kenney and I17 were talking about this the other day.18

Not only that.19 When we first proposed this or we had20 discussions with DRPA, they wanted to use21 it as a warning or as some sort of22 indication sign.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I wanted24 to get that on the record. As you know,25 103 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 I'm a Commissioner -- at least today I'm2 still; I don't know about tomorrow. But3 I'm still a Commissioner there. I just4 wanted to get that on the record, that5 that's something --6

Yes.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: -- that8 you would incorporate into this signage.9 The 35,000, which is now down10 to 23,000 square feet of retail?11

There's an area12 allocated of 35,000 square feet of total13 retail. One user we had was going to do14 different venues. OCCA wanted one user15 for the entire space. That's how the16 discussion originally started. It's hard17 to find one user for an entire space,18 because we don't want one large space, we19 want to break it down into smaller20 spaces. So the one user that we had21 wanted to do a bowling alley, a retail22 store, a restaurant and a small music23 venue. So there would actually be four24 different uses within that 35.25 104 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 I don't know how many square2 feet it will be, because we're now3 talking, for example, to a gym. That gym4 may take the 13,000 square feet that we5 were looking at for the bowling alley.6 That would reduce us to 23,000 square7 feet. Even in the 23,000 square feet,8 the last user we talked to was going to9 do four different restaurants in the10 23,000 square feet. It would have been a11 Mexican restaurant, a pub, a sushi12 restaurant and there was going to be a13 small music venue with a 500 square foot14 dance floor.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could you16 explain that a little bit more? Because17 that, again, is, I think, the biggest18 point of contention from the community,19 and I'd like to establish on the record20 what your sense of that remaining portion21 of those four -- give us some idea of22 what that would be, how it would play23 out.24

There needs to be25 105 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 a restaurant because we need a restaurant2 to service the hotel. I think a small3 entertainment component is important.4 There's no reason why a jazz club,5 there's no reason why some sort of a live6 music venue. We need to create a place7 that has its own momentum, that has a8 critical mass to it. Again, we're faced9 with the Mint on one side, we have10 Franklin Square on the other side, we11 have the Ben Franklin Bridge and we have12 our own residential building acting as a13 buffer to 4th Street.14 Old City Civic Association's15 objection had been, We don't want it16 turning into Market Street. That's the17 last thing I want, because it would18 destroy the hotel, but it can't turn into19 Market Street because there are no20 neighbors here. There's nothing that21 could be developed on three sides of this22 project.23

If I could24 clarify, not a nightclub, and there's25 106 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 restrictions on the use that would be in2 the contract with the hotel operations,3 correct?4

Yes. That is5 correct. And, by the way, Starwood6 has -- how should I say this -- rights as7 to what is going to go in that building.8 They don't want a nightclub there.9 We never proposed a nightclub.10 That was rumor that was circulated.11 There were some flyers circulated. That12 was never proposed by us, never.13

Just a point of14 clarification, I would add that under the15 Zoning Code, once you have music that's16 other than piped in and once you have17 even an area of 100 square feet that you18 can dance upon, it's considered a19 nightclub. So that's the issue.20 It's not a nightclub as far the21 uses are concerned, and that's why we22 took the time to place and draft these23 restrictions if they were approved.24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Are there25 107 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 any hotels in the area that would serve2 as some sort of an example of what your3 hotel would turn out to be as far as a4 retail component?5

It's hard --6 there certainly are hotels in the area7 with some restaurants and light music8 venue, but this is a little different,9 because a lot of hotels will have10 adjacent properties, where someone can11 walk out of their hotel, go across the12 street, go to a restaurant, or walk out13 of the hotel and go across the street and14 hear jazz, or walk out of the hotel and15 go across the street and do some other16 activity. We don't have that option17 here. You can't walk across the street18 to the Mint, unless you want to print19 money, which wouldn't be bad, or -- I20 mean, you can't walk across the street to21 the bridge. There's residential right22 behind us and you have Franklin Square,23 which, by the way, is very difficult to24 cross.25 108 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 So, yes, we have the benefit of2 having Franklin Square and the3 Constitution Center there, but they don't4 bring amenities to this building. We5 need to make this an exciting enough6 place where it has a critical mass to7 succeed, otherwise it will not work.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And,9 again, just not to belabor the point,10 based on the conversation the other night11 at the meeting and some other12 conversations I had with you,13 Mr. Patterson, Prime Rib, the restaurant14 Prime Rib, under the Code would be15 considered a nightclub. Is that an16 accurate statement?17

That's my18 opinion, yes.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because20 they have a piano, a singer there21 occasionally.22

And an area to23 dance.24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And an25 109 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 area to dance. And it's part of a2 condominium, which used to be a hotel but3 it's now a condominium. People reside in4 that building. That's correct?5

Correct.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.7 At this time, I don't have any8 further questions.9

Any other10 questions for these witnesses?11 Thank you very much. If you12 could just --13

Councilman?14

I'm sorry.15 Councilman Clarke. I apologize.16 Councilman Clarke.17

Real brief.18 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.19 Good morning. Ms. Fidulan, I20 just had a general question for not21 necessarily just Dale, but you represent22 Dale today with respect to the23 participation goals, and I know you're24 going to answer this in a positive way,25 110 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 but I got to put it out there.2 In some areas it's thought that3 there are certain criteria or guidelines4 informally established as it relates to5 the geographical location of a6 development and/or whether or not there's7 any government support, which I think,8 frankly speaking, limits the9 participation goals citywide, because --10 and the reason I say that, because I've11 experienced a situation in my district12 there was a significant project taking13 place in one part of my district where14 there were pretty good numbers both in15 terms of contracts and workforce, and in16 another part of the district the same17 developer and the same contractor that18 was a block out of my district, frankly19 speaking, had virtually none.20 From your perspective, your21 company -- and if you can talk22 generally -- is it normally the practice23 that you feel, contractors feel that in24 certain areas, that the demographics25 111 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 reflect the goals of some of our EOP2 plans or other commitments as it relates3 to the City for Section 3? I think you4 know where I'm going with this.5

I do think at6 times there is a conflict. All the goals7 are very worthwhile. So Section 3 is a8 very worthwhile goal. Minority, female9 participation and disadvantaged business10 is a very worthwhile goal, and we are a11 union town, because we also believe in12 good, solid jobs. However, sometimes the13 three of those are -- it's difficult to14 meet all three of those goals with, let's15 say, the same person, and so sometimes16 you have to sort of combine meeting the17 goal of Section 3 with meeting the18 minority requirement with meeting the19 goal of having good, quality union jobs.20 Because sometimes you want to hire a21 neighborhood resident who is or is not a22 minority, but they may not be a union23 member.24 In Section 3, what happens25 112 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 oftentimes with jobs is -- you're2 probably familiar -- first you target a3 certain zip code and then you can sort of4 extend it out if you can't find, and5 extend it out. I think, like I mentioned6 at the beginning of my testimony, one of7 the difficulties we have is that when we8 find somebody who is a qualified9 community resident, we don't like to just10 hire them for six months or nine months11 or whatever the duration of the project12 is. We'd like to bring them on board as13 a permanent employee, and sometimes14 that's difficult because if we have a job15 in your zip code and then that job16 finishes, we don't get credit when we17 move the person over.18

Either you19 didn't understand the question -- not to20 cut you off -- or you're being --21

That's okay.22 We're both trying to bob and weave. So23 if we're not bobbing and weaving24 together, that's fine.25 113 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

The bottom2 line is that if somebody wants to3 develop, say, in North Philadelphia, part4 of my district, and we know that there's5 probably going to be --6

There's going to7 be minority participation available.8

-- a9 significant request, I usually start out10 at 50 percent, and the person behind you11 who had the pleasure of meeting with me12 about a project that actually wasn't in13 North Philadelphia, I started out at 5014 percent.15 From an industry perspective,16 do you all feel that you have uniform17 guidelines in terms of participation?18 Say if I'm in North Philadelphia, I'm19 probably going to have to do some very20 aggressive goals, but if I'm in certain21 parts of Center City or maybe on the22 waterfront, I don't necessarily have to23 worry about that, because the24 surrounding --25 114 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

I would say --2 honestly, it's tough for me to speak for3 the contracting community as a whole, but4 I would say that each contractor sort of5 has to make a decision as to how6 important minority hiring is to their7 corporation. For our corporation, it's8 very important because of what our bread9 and butter is. If we went and did a10 project in Center City and said minority11 hiring is not important to us and then12 wanted to still do the amount of work we13 do in the neighborhoods, frankly, that14 really wouldn't work well for us, because15 we built our hiring reputation on we meet16 these goals regardless, so to speak.17 Other contractors who may do things18 exclusively in Center City or other areas19 that might not have the same level of20 minority population may feel differently21 about it.22 But just like you just23 mentioned how you met with the gentleman24 behind me, I think you do meet with25 115 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 different -- you are very vocal and2 persistent about the goals that you're3 trying to reach, and you in some ways are4 that way because contractors have been5 able to attain them in your area. So I6 think that is something that contractors7 listen to. And if they're not pushed as8 hard, they may not -- it's sort of human9 nature. If you're not pushed as hard,10 you may not push yourself as hard.11

You don't12 really feel that you should self-impose13 any goals if you don't, frankly speaking,14 have to.15

Right. I mean,16 we agree. We agree, Dale Corporation,17 that it's important regardless.18

And obviously19 we've been sensitive to this issue. We20 brought Anne on about two years ago to21 coordinate all this. So it is a22 sensitive issue for us also.23

All right.24 I know it's a sensitive question, but the25 116 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 reality is, I think that if the industry2 and the trades have this self-imposed3 guidelines that are uniform across the4 board, it would be a lot easier to get5 participation for females and minorities6 in these various projects throughout the7 City of Philadelphia, just not from a8 geographical area that you're probably9 going to be required because of the local10 elected official.11

Well, in my other12 hat, Councilman, as part of the BIA, we'd13 be interested in having those14 conversations with you.15

Thank you.16 I was getting there. Thank you.17

Sure.18

Thank you,19 Mr. Chair.20

Thank you21 very much.22 Any other questions for these23 witnesses?24 (No response.)25 117 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

Seeing2 none, I've been asked for you folks to3 vacate the table and then just stay4 within -- what I'd like to do in this5 particular case, because there is a6 controversy, just kind of stay there so7 we can --8

We'll be9 available to respond.10

-- so we11 can have some dialogue. So the next12 person on the list is Mr. Shiavo.13

Thank you very14 much.15

I submitted to16 your aide copies of the support letters.17 We did have some people in support, if18 you wanted to take the supporters first19 briefly, Mr. Cuorato and --20

If there's21 no objection. I mean, again, I tried to22 run the list the way that it comes in,23 and to start juggling around is not fair.24 You wind up not being fair to somebody.25 118 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

I just thought2 we'd say --3

If it's4 really brief, that's fine.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7

Good morning.8

Identify9 yourself, please.10

Michael11 Mattioni. I'm here as the Chair of the12 Old City District, and I just want to13 state the Old City District supports this14 project. I think it's an important15 project for Old City and that it will16 address a derelict block that's been17 sitting there vacant for several years.18 Thank you.19

And you20 chair the Special Service District,21 right?22

Correct.23

Thank you24 very much.25 119 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

Thank you.2

Is there3 anyone else coming up? Please.4 (Witness approached witness5 table.)6

Please7 identify yourself for the record.8

Good morning,9 Mr. Chairman and members of City Council.10 My name is James Cuorato. I'm the11 President and CEO of the Independence12 Visitor Center. The Visitor Center is13 the official Visitor Center for the14 Philadelphia region, and I am here today15 to testify in support of Bill No. 10055216 for the One Franklin Square project.17 I would just briefly like to18 say that in the midst of this economy --19 and I know the Chairman has referenced20 the state of the economy and how it21 affects development several times22 already -- we have a number of great23 projects and attractions that are coming24 to Philadelphia, the expansion of the25 120 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Convention Center, the President's House2 memorial site, which will open in two3 weeks, the National Museum of American4 Jewish History, which just opened on5 Friday and had enormous crowds over the6 weekend, a new Ben Franklin underground7 museum at 3rd and Chestnut, new American8 Revolution Center also at 3rd and9 Chestnut. So there are a number of new10 projects coming to the historic area.11 We at the Visitor Center had12 2.8 million people come through our doors13 last year. Many of them are looking for14 dining and entertainment options in the15 area, as well as places to stay. So we16 think that the One Franklin Square17 project will be a tremendous addition to18 the historic area.19 Mr. Ambrosi came to us early20 on, presented the project to us. I had21 an opportunity to ask questions, review22 the plans, and I think it's a superb23 project.24 I would just add one final25 121 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 note. I had the privilege of serving as2 the City's Director of Commerce on two3 occasions, once in the '90s and then4 earlier this decade from 2000 to 2004.5 So while I am not speaking on behalf of6 the current Administration, I would just7 say that if I were Director of Commerce,8 given the state of the economy and the9 state of the development industry right10 now, I'd be standing on my head trying to11 attract a project like this, and we're --12 I think we're very fortunate in the13 historic area and in the City to have a14 developer with Mr. Ambrosi's credibility15 and experience to bring a project to the16 City like this.17 Thank you for the opportunity18 to present this testimony.19

Thank you20 very much for your testimony.21 (Applause.)22

Thank you.23 Mr. Shiavo, please.24 (Witnesses approached witness25 122 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 table.)2

Please3 identify yourself for the record.4

Richard Thom, Chair5 of the Developments Committee, Old City6 Civic Association. I have some short7 introductory remarks.8 Good morning, Councilmembers.9 My name is Richard Thom. I have been10 Chair for 16 years of the Old City Civic11 Association's Developments Committee. As12 most of you know, OCCA has for over three13 decades been an energetic advocate for14 the issues critical to our businesses,15 property owners and residents, all of16 whom have invested in the neighborhood in17 some fashion and many of whom are in18 attendance today in support of OCCA.19 I'd like right now to ask20 everyone who is here on behalf of OCCA to21 please rise.22 (Some audience members rise.)23

Thank you, folks.24 Twenty years ago, OCCA felt25 123 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 threatened by an onslaught of nightlife2 activity in our predominantly residential3 areas north of Market Street. We4 initiated the present zoning overlay,5 Section 14-1610, approved by Council in6 1990, with the enthusiastic support of7 Councilman David Cohen. Councilman8 DiCicco saw fit to extend these9 protections south of Market Street to10 ensure that problematic entertainment11 uses do not conflict with established and12 ever-expanding residential and commercial13 interests. These overlay provisions have14 encouraged many developers to invest15 hundreds of millions of dollars,16 confident that their financial commitment17 is matched by OCCA's efforts to promote18 only high-quality, compatible commercial19 uses.20 During this time, OCCA has21 supported five new hotel developments as22 well, recognizing their suitability in a23 residential area and helping to enhance24 the tourist experience in the historic25 124 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 district. We have publicly and2 repeatedly voiced our support for this3 bill's proposed 150-room hotel, including4 its height, function rooms, food and5 beverage uses, and parking capacity.6 However, the provisions of this7 same bill will, for the first time on8 this parcel of ground, remove the very9 protections we asked Council to enact two10 decades ago, a single parcel of ground11 surrounded by churches, residential12 condominiums and important historic13 sites, the very uses we sought to protect14 in 1990. We remain alarmed that this15 unprecedented prospect and concerned that16 this highly unusual step will lead to17 further weakening of our regulations that18 clearly have worked in the best interests19 of all people invested in the20 neighborhood.21 Furthermore, OCCA has been22 engaged in vigorous opposition at the23 Zoning Board and in the courts to24 billboards of any type in our community25 125 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 for over 25 years. Additional provisions2 of this bill lift existing prohibitions3 on advertising which we believe will4 negatively impact the historic area,5 immediately adjacent condo owners and key6 City gateway entrance.7 OCCA's subcommittee has, for8 over two years, engaged the potential9 redeveloper of 401 Race in discussions10 about his project and impacts it may11 generate. Committee member Joseph Shiavo12 to my right will discuss our13 recommendations for changes to the14 present bill. We hope Council will take15 these suggestions into consideration and16 help protect over 5,000 residents and our17 tax base represented in the hundreds of18 rehabilitated historic Old City19 buildings.20 Thank you.21

Thank you22 very much.23 Please identify yourself and24 proceed.25 126 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

My name is Joe2 Shiavo. I'm a resident of Old City and I3 reside at 155 North 3rd Street. I'm also4 Vice-Chair of the Old City Civic5 Association Developments Committee and6 have participated in the subcommittee7 working with Mr. 19 We are in support of this20 development. 1 So may I hand up our letter,2 please? " There's no12 disagreement that the underlying zoning13 classification of the parcel should be14 changed to be more consistent with the15 majority of parcels in Old City, and such16 change from "L-4" to "C-3" would then17 allow the hotel use by-right. That18 constitutes 85 percent of the project19 value, as described by Mr. 1 circumvention of the public process of2 considering and granting exception to the3 terms of the Zoning Code. 21 Today, the bill states very clearly in22 its first point that those controls will23 be removed. 1 Changing the zoning2 classification from "L-4" to "C-3" is3 entirely justifiable and an appropriate4 action to make at this parcel to better5 development -- to make a better6 development fit for the Old City7 community. However, lifting specific8 land use regulations of the Zoning Code9 to provide an advantage to this or any10 other developer, without justification,11 other than that it is the wish of the12 developer to gain such exception or13 advantage, is entirely unacceptable. 19 Our next point is that the20 proposed ordinance should not include any21 use approvals for the ground floor 35,00022 square foot retail or commercial space23 due to the absence of any definition or24 formalized plans for that area. 5 You did not see one today. 9 The developer will be permitted by-right10 all legal signage allowed under the11 Zoning Code. There is no justification12 or any community support for any13 exception to the applicable signage14 regulations relative to this project15 proposal. The inclusion of approvals16 within the bill for non-conforming LED17 and changeable-message accessory signage18 in a billboard-like format facing the19 Benjamin Franklin Bridge is obviously a20 stepping stone to a non-accessory21 billboard by any other name at that22 location. 19 Now, you heard it described at20 one point that the hotel is somehow21 connected to the 35,000 square foot22 retail space of the ground floor, and it23 is not. floor commercial space. They are2 separate leases. They are separate3 occupants. We understand that a hotel to5 be successful needs the food use. We6 understand it needs the hotel liquor7 license. We understand that8 entertainment is appropriate to the9 hotel. 18

Thank you19 very much for your testimony.20 (Applause.)21

Councilman22 DiCicco would like Mr. Patterson to come23 to the table.24 (Witness approached witness25 134 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 table.)2

Please3 re-identify yourself for the record.4

Ronald5 Patterson, 1835 Market Street.6

Councilman.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,8 Mr. Chairman.9 Good afternoon, Mr. Patterson.10 You've heard the testimony of Mr. Shiavo,11 both Mr. Thom and Mr. Shiavo. I'd like12 to get to Point No. 3. Do you have a13 copy?14 Joe, would you mind sharing15 that?16

I will provide him17 one. Thank you.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: To the19 paragraph where it says, "Further, as the20 terms of Bill 100552 stand today, there21 is no requirement of the developer to22 ever build the hotel," do you have a23 comment about that? I mean, how do we24 get there, Ron? Was that part of the25 135 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 community benefits agreement? Maybe we2 can talk a little bit about that as well,3 what's in the benefits agreement.4 Again, there are a lot of5 people who are here today from Old City6 who have not but for the last week was7 the first time they ever heard about what8 this project meant. I apologize for9 that, as I said, that I don't know if10 that's my role to get to everybody. I11 get to everybody by way of a civic12 association and by public hearings being13 announced. So it's still fresh in the14 minds of a lot of folks who were there15 last week, this proposal. It's not16 been -- they've not been aware of this17 proposal for the last two years that the18 Civic Association has been negotiating.19 So there's a lot of information, I think,20 that we tried to get out last week, but21 we still were not able to get completely22 out, again, because emotions were running23 high, there was a lot of people talking24 over each other.25 136 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 So if we can get to the meat2 and potatoes, if you will, of this thing.3 How do we ensure that if the project4 moves forward, that some of those5 concerns and conditions are met? And I6 think the Planning Commission had made7 some recommendations that not everything8 be put into the legislation, that there9 be a community benefits agreement that10 could give some assurances, and I need11 for you to explain that so for the folks12 who have not been a party to any of the13 prior meetings, except for last week, get14 the sense -- they may still not accept it15 at the end of the day and still may not16 support it, but at least I think they'll17 be more informed as to how they make that18 decision.19

Well, to20 address the first point, no, we never put21 anything in the ordinance that said that22 the hotel must be built in order for the23 retail to come through, and that's a good24 point, because it was never really25 137 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 thought that the hotel would never not be2 built.3 Now, I don't know anywhere in4 the Zoning Code that has that kind of5 arrangement, except if one considers a6 use accessory, then the principal use has7 to go in first before an accessory use8 can come in. These uses on the first9 floor are clearly not accessory under the10 Zoning Code, because they would require11 their own zoning permit.12 Now, we had an initial draft of13 the ordinance that was --14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could I15 stop you there, Ron?16

Yeah.17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Again,18 just point of information for the folks19 who are here today. You mentioned that20 you have to do zoning for the retail21 pieces?22

We'd have to23 pull a zoning permit, correct.24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So there's25 138 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 still a public process that would be2 involved?3

Well, if the4 use is not permitted under the ordinance5 that is proposed, then we would have to6 go to the Zoning Board. And what we had7 agreed to -- well, there's many levels8 here. Our original ordinance had a lot9 of provisions in it, our draft. Your10 draft that was introduced was to get the11 process going and give us a lot of lead12 time. The ordinance that we started to13 draft as an amendment did contain a lot14 of these provisions; for example, on the15 two or three uses with liquor licenses.16 When you get into how a business17 functions and hours of operation, et18 cetera, et cetera, those things are not19 appropriate for an ordinance, as we found20 out. So when the Planning Commission and21 the Law Department looked at what we were22 trying to do, they said language not23 appropriate for the ordinance. So we24 knew that most of that stuff would not be25 139 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 appropriate, so we have been working on a2 private agreement we had hoped that the3 Old City Civic Association would agree to4 that would cover all the issues that were5 taken out of the ordinance, plus all6 these operational issues; for example,7 two liquor licenses, no dance floor or8 dance floor or limit the dance floor, and9 all the other uses and functions that we10 or everyone had concern about.11 So, yes, the private agreement12 did not say that the hotel would have to13 be built first before the retail could go14 forward. I'm happy to put that in. I15 don't see that as an issue.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: All right.17 That's one point.18 Is there anything else in19 here -- you're the lawyer; I'm not --20 that has been raised by the Old City by21 way of this document that we can add22 language or remove language that would23 give a more comfort level to the support24 for this project? And if you need some25 140 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 time, we can work on that. If the bill2 moves out today, even with a suspension,3 we still will have an opportunity to talk4 about amendments before final passage.5

You know, there6 are certain issues that we're not going7 to agree on.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I9 think you heard me say last week -- I10 mean, I've been doing a lot of projects11 over the last 15 years. Nobody gets 10012 percent. That's just the way it works13 out.14

Here's the15 issue, and it's unfortunate because the16 civic group is the one taking the risk.17 We're proposing an agreement that has all18 these conditions and provisos. We19 haven't reached an agreement on it. If20 the ordinance happens to pass, then if21 there's no agreement, then there's no22 conditions and it's really a blank check,23 as have been described.24 We don't want it that way. We25 141 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 are hoping that they would consider and2 say, Look, if this is going to go3 through, we might as well reach an4 understanding. Yes, there are a few5 things we can't agree on, but that's a6 risk. That's how you have to handicap7 the project.8 This is a real project, and we9 hope that it all would interact together10 in a good way.11

Any12 response or -- please pull that other13 microphone over.14

In terms of the15 particular points that we've been16 discussing in the private agreement, we17 understand the value of the private18 agreement for the community and we19 certainly understand that there's certain20 points that cannot be covered in the21 ordinance, but just like with the terms22 of the ordinance, we have issue with23 particular key points, and as long as24 they remain in the agreement, like our25 142 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 approving the sign that we believe is2 illegal at the site, then it's difficult3 to get to the bottom of other points of4 the agreement.5 And so the version of the6 private agreement that we could possibly7 support was sent to Ron Patterson late8 Friday and it has the strike-outs and9 suggested alternative language, but we10 haven't discussed that since it was sent11 on Friday.12

I can tell you13 we can't agree to it.14

I'm sorry.15 Agree to any of it or agree to certain16 points and not with others?17

We cannot agree18 to the points set forth in their --19

In toto?20

In their21 proposed revisions.22

In toto?23 In total?24

Correct.25 143 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

None of2 them?3

Correct. It4 removes the key parts of what the5 ordinance --6

The answer7 is yes or no.8

The answer is9 yes.10

So Chairperson11 Kenney, perhaps it's a value for the12 Committee to see what version of the13 private agreement, and I regret I did not14 make copies for all.15

We can make16 copies.17

I have a single18 copy.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Joe, I got20 it on my BlackBerry, but impossible to21 read on the BlackBerry.22

Well, the23 members have our version of the agreement24 as part of our exhibit package.25 144 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They're in2 the package?3

My version.4

So the version5 that we're recommending that would6 reflect also the changes, the amendments7 that we're recommending to the bill, it8 makes the agreement consistent with the9 recommended edits to the bill.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just11 want to go back, and maybe I didn't hear12 you correctly, Mr. Shiavo. You used the13 term -- take, for instance, the14 signage -- we can't agree on the sign, we15 won't support it; therefore, we can't get16 to the other points. I mean, that to me17 says it's either all of what we want or18 none. And if I'm incorrect, tell me.19 Because that's the point I was trying to20 make the other night. There are21 compromises that need to be met any time22 you develop, and if you don't agree with23 the sign, I respect that, but that24 doesn't mean that you should not look at25 145 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 possibly agreeing or coming up with a2 compromise on the other points. Don't3 shut the door because of the sign.4

I appreciate your5 point, Councilman, and given that we've6 been working with the developer and his7 team for over two years and have always8 been willing to attend any meeting called9 or call meetings ourselves that we felt10 were critical, we've always participated,11 and I wasn't the one who just said we12 won't agree. That was actually Ron.13

That's correct,14 because they're taking out --15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not --16

Councilman --17

Well, I could18 spin it around and turn on you, say you19 won't agree with ours, so...20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We got to21 do it up here, this way.22

But, of course --23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:24 Mr. Shiavo, just to interrupt you. I25 146 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 wasn't being critical. I was just trying2 to make a point, that that's sometimes3 why things don't move along, because4 everybody is trying to get 100 percent,5 as I keep saying, and it doesn't work6 that way in the real world. It doesn't7 work that way.8

I appreciate9 that, Councilman, and that's why we think10 that we are able to move things forward,11 these discussions and these agreements12 forward, by taking the responsibility of13 marking up both the bill and the private14 agreement, forwarding it to all those15 participating so we could have a16 discussion. It doesn't go out with a17 letter that says all or nothing. It18 doesn't go out with any demands. It goes19 out with, these are the edits we're20 suggesting.21

Well, that's22 your version. I could tell you that23 we've started way out here and we've come24 down to two issues, and we can't agree on25 147 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 them. That's the reality. And there2 were maybe 30 other ones that got put3 into or paragraphs into the agreement,4 but we're now at the point where we are5 agreeing to disagree. I think that's the6 best way to say it.7

One of the8 issues that you did, I guess, at the9 table during the conversation or during10 Mr. Shiavo's testimony was that the hotel11 didn't have to be built, and I think your12 response was, we had always intended to13 build a hotel anyway. So putting it14 in --15

I have no16 problem with that.17

But isn't18 that -- that was just an example of a19 step --20

That's probably21 the first time it was actually raised22 that I remember.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But that's24 my point. My point is, that is one point25 148 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 that you raised that the developer is2 willing to agree to.3

Right, because4 we've always been leading with our chin5 that it's a hotel project.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And I7 think everyone would agree that when you8 look at the original ordinance that I9 introduced back in June, almost six10 months ago, that it's changed11 considerably. No?12

It has.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Joe?14

Yes. Yes.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Because of16 the time that's spent in negotiations and17 conversations.18

It became19 broader, but we still tried to attempt to20 narrow it by placing the restrictions and21 provisos and conditions in the private22 agreement.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:24 Understood.25 149 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

So, Councilman,2 when you say the ordinance has changed, I3 know that there's been a recent draft4 circulated by Ron to us, but how do we5 know if you folks agree with the changes6 that Ron has built into the latest draft7 of the ordinance? How do we know what8 elements of what the Planning Commission9 has forwarded and what elements --10

Actually, the11 amendment --12

Just one at13 a time.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let him15 finish.16

The17 amendment --18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Ron, let19 him finish.20

Just let21 him finish.22

I'm sorry. I23 thought he was done.24

I am finished.25 150 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 I'm asking for clarification so we know2 exactly what version of the bill are we3 considering today.4

I can say that5 the version I saw today submitted by the6 Planning Commission is the one that we7 are in agreement with.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You mean9 with the amendment to the requirement10 that a hotel be built, an amendment or11 some language that says that a hotel has12 to be built?13

If you can14 include it in the ordinance, we're okay15 with it. I just don't know if it's16 appropriate for the ordinance. I can't17 judge. I'm not the Law Department.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't19 know either.20 Mr. Kramer, can you weigh in on21 this, or is this part of the community22 benefits agreement?23

He doesn't24 want to come back to this table.25 151 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 You can stay there, Tom --2 Rich, you can sit there. Just slide3 another chair up; that's all.4

As a code5 writer --6

Identify7 yourself, please, again.8

For the record,9 I'm William Kramer, Development Division10 Director of the Philadelphia City11 Planning.12 In terms of the Code, the Code13 is permission. It would be a permitted14 use in the Code. I don't know of any15 section, as Ron says, that says in "C-3"16 you have to do this or you have to do17 that. It is a permitted use. It's18 already a permitted use in the Code.19 I'm not a lawyer, as most of20 you aren't, and so I'm not certain if21 there is another legal requirement within22 the Code. I certainly think it is23 subject and certainly appropriate to be24 putting something like that in the25 152 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 community agreement. I believe that's2 where it probably belongs. But in terms3 of the Code itself, I don't know of a4 place where you can actually say "C-3"5 has to build a hotel.6

No; this7 particular ordinance. This ordinance8 applies to this particular project. I9 mean, to me I don't see any harm.10

I don't know what11 language to put in it. I'd have to work12 on that.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'd14 suggest we do it both ways. We do an15 amendment, which wouldn't kill the bill.16 I mean, I don't think it damages --17

In a way, this18 is an overlay, because it says within the19 area bound by this rectangle. And,20 Councilman, you've done overlays before21 where, I guess -- so I'm thinking maybe22 it can be done, where it says if you have23 this use, you have to have parking, if24 you have this use, you have to have25 153 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 parking within 1,000 feet. So I'm sure2 that you can connect it to in the guise3 of an overlay, which is really what4 you're doing.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And it can6 also be included in the community7 benefits agreement as well, so you'll8 have two documents supporting that.9

But as far10 as the sequence goes, so I understand,11 is, the hotel has to come first? Is that12 what this conversation was? The hotel13 had to come first prior to the 35,00014 square foot --15

There's ways to16 write it. You probably would say that we17 have to secure a zoning permit and18 building permit in order to secure the19 zoning permit for the first floor.20

Right.21

See, it's not22 an accessory use. It's just a second23 principal use. So I'm going to have to24 think about how to tie the two together.25 154 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And the2 zoning for the retail space or spaces3 goes to the ZBA?4

No.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: No? It's6 a matter of right --7

Well, we get8 one. Under the ordinance, we get one9 restaurant.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Under the11 ordinance. The other two or --12

Any two, or13 however many, would still fall under the14 Old City overlay and would require a15 variance from the Zoning Board.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Correct.17

So under this18 ordinance, we get one, plus the hotel.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The20 community would have the opportunity to21 be heard at the Zoning Board of22 Adjustment, and if there are liquor23 licenses, they're also going to have the24 opportunity to be heard and raise their25 155 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 objections or support to the LCB; is that2 correct?3

That's correct.4 And even in our agreement, we recognize5 also that all these liquor licenses will6 be subject to conditional licensing7 agreements by the PLCB.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:9 Pennsylvania Liquor Control Board.10

Correct.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:12 Mr. Shiavo.13

As a point of14 clarification, because I believe Ron said15 there's only one food use approved by the16 ordinance.17 Is that what you just said,18 Ron?19

I said hotel20 plus one, correct.21

Hotel plus one.22 So it's two food uses, yes? Two food23 uses?24

Yes.25 156 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

Okay. Thank you.2 Mr. Chairman, may I ask a3 question of Mr. Kramer? It's just a4 point of clarification of something he5 said during his testimony.6

Sure.7

In his opening8 remarks, Mr. Kramer noted that they had9 worked with the community in constructing10 their recommendations relative to this11 bill, and I just wanted to ask what12 communications the Planning Commission13 had with the community specifically,14 other than we did attend public hearings15 and we did see a presentation of the16 project at the Planning Commission, I17 agree, and I did copy our planner, Laura18 Spina, who I consider to be our liaison19 with the Planning Commission on multiple20 communications. When a document was21 created, I often shared it. But outside22 of that, I was wondering before the23 Planning Commission issued their final24 findings, was there actually25 157 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 communication with the civic organization2 or community?3

Mr. Kramer.4

I would have to5 check specifically with Ms. Spina about6 exactly what communication went back to7 the community. The community8 communications have been done through her9 division, which is the Community Planning10 Division. It was my understanding that11 there was an ongoing -- as this has been12 going on for a couple years and certainly13 communication has been flowing back and14 forth. I would spend a number of issues15 going back and forth both with the16 development and with the community17 representative, in this case Ms. Spina,18 as far as what was being sent forward to19 the community and getting comments coming20 back the other direction were given to me21 by her.22 I did not have conversation23 with either Mr. Thom or Mr. Shiavo with24 regard to the bill directly. Not myself25 158 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 anyway. But it was my understanding that2 those were being done through my3 Community Planning Division.4

Councilman.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: One other6 question for Mr. Patterson. Is the7 developer asking for a suspension?8 Because if not, we do have three more9 session days.10

Yes, we do.11 And Mr. Ambrosi could probably elaborate12 better, but I think under some of our13 financing conditions, we needed to get14 into the ground and start by the end of15 the year.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: What I'm17 saying is, we can still approve without18 suspension, because I'm wondering do we19 need time on the amendment side or any20 other things that need to be drafted?21

If you think22 there's still time this session.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We have24 three sessions to do that. Normally I'd25 159 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 say do the suspension, but we have2 another Rules hearing on the 8th.3

Which still4 gives you time to get it out.5 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Still6 gives you time, whatever issues may be7 able to get resolved with the community.8 We can approve it. That gives a signal9 to the developer to talk to his lending10 folks that it's moving forward, but still11 gives us some time to --12

So what are you13 suggesting?14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I'm15 asking you as the attorney, do you need16 on -- either the community benefits17 agreement and/or the legislation what18 needs to be added into the legislation is19 going to take time. Could you do that as20 amendments, come back?21

I mean, yeah,22 sure. I mean, it's a once --23

Can I say24 something?25 160 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You can2 come up.3

I mean, the4 cleanest way to do it is to go to an5 already advertised date certain.6

That language7 you're proposing is simple. I don't see8 that we need weeks to do it. I mean --9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm not10 saying you need weeks. I just want to11 make sure, as the Chairman was saying,12 it's a cleaner document or...13

I mean,14 candidly, I see that as something I can15 put in, the hotel connected with the16 other use, but the other issues we're not17 going to reach an agreement on.18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We can19 actually do that before the close of this20 hearing?21

Okay.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We'll get23 that in and then we'll --24

So, Mr. Chairman,25 161 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 my final point would be to ask that the2 Committee not consider suspension of the3 rules today so that there is additional4 time to reach an agreement and the5 community has adequate time to consider6 whatever amendments are proposed.7 Thank you.8

Well, so9 the individuals in the room who have10 interest in this issue, rules suspension11 would mean that if the bill got out of12 Committee in whatever form, amended or13 unamended today, we would have first14 reading at Thursday's Council session,15 which would make it available or16 available for passage the week after.17 If we do not suspend the rules,18 it has to get -- it's not -- it would19 have to be read on two separate days,20 which would give an extra week to have21 the community benefits discussion and/or22 any other amendments that would go onto23 it on the floor. So it means a24 difference of about a week.25 162 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If for2 some reason there's an implosion, which3 we hope there isn't, the bill doesn't get4 read, it doesn't become -- it doesn't5 pass until the second and final reading,6 and then it goes to the Mayor for his7 signature. So if there's something that8 we haven't discussed today that really9 causes a lot more concern than we are10 aware of, the bill can be held, whether11 we suspend the hearing today, suspend12 today's reading, or wait for the normal13 week from now to have the first reading.14 So we still have time before recess, the15 Council recesses. And if there's no16 agreement, for whatever reason, it would17 follow into the next year, which we're18 hoping that doesn't happen, but that's a19 possibility. It has to be read twice.20

And,21 Mr. Chairperson, there are a number of22 community members here that wish to make23 brief statements on their own behalf as24 residents.25 163 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1

How many2 folks do we have that want to testify?3 (Some audience members raising4 hands.)5

All right.6 As long as -- one thing -- well, no.7 You're on the list already.8 The one thing I would ask9 relative to the testimony is that --10 we've had -- and you can say as much as11 you want or as long as you want, but12 we've had significant testimony on behalf13 of the community. If there's something14 additional you'd like to add that has not15 been brought up, we'd love to hear it.16 It's more difficult when the same17 testimony gets made over and over again,18 but that's the will of the people. I'm19 making that suggestion, because we do20 have about four other bills on here that21 are pretty lengthy also.22 So if you could just come up,23 whoever is interested in coming forward.24 And I would come up in three's, it's25 164 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 easier.2 (Witnesses approached witness3 table.)4

I'm sorry.5 These are residents of Old City, correct?6 These are for residents of Old City only,7 this process. So anyone who is not a8 resident of Old City is going to have to9 wait until we go through our original10 list, because that was how it was fairly11 done when people called in.12 So please identify yourself for13 the record.14

My name is Janet15 Coulter and I'm a resident in Old City at16 155 North 3rd Street.17 I was interested in hearing18 Mr. Ambrosi describe his project. It19 sounded like an island in the middle of20 nowhere, and he seemed desperate to find21 places to go and things to do. Actually,22 Old City is an area in Philadelphia that23 is rich in its offering of places to go24 and things to do for both residents and25 165 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 tourists.2 I see you're frowning, and I'm3 referring to --4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Me?5

-- his comment6 that he was concerned about --7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I beg your8 pardon. I was not frowning.9

I thought you10 misunderstood what I was saying. I'm11 sorry.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm just13 listening.14