It said the New20 York metropolitan area, yes. We develop21 in the DC metropolitan area also.22
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
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
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
So who here17 is responsible for the permanent jobs18 that are being created?19
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
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
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
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
-- 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 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
-- so we11 can have some dialogue. So the next12 person on the list is Mr. Shiavo.13
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
If it's4 really brief, that's fine.5 (Witness approached witness6 table.)7
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
Thank you24 very much.25 119 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
Is there3 anyone else coming up? Please.4 (Witness approached witness5 table.)6
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
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
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'm sorry.15 Agree to any of it or agree to certain16 points and not with others?17
Correct. It4 removes the key parts of what the5 ordinance --6
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
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
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
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
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
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
Just one at13 a time.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Let him15 finish.16
The17 amendment --18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Ron, let19 him finish.20
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
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
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
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
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
Hotel plus one.22 So it's two food uses, yes? Two food23 uses?24
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
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
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
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