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
Okay. Good.15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We know16 each other long enough. I'm not --17
That's why I18 thought I understood that expression of19 frowning.20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: You don't21 know me as well as I thought you did.22
We'll try harder.23 Of course, the main attraction24 for tourists are the 33 historic sites,25 166 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 four parks, 23 programs and tours, 112 museums, five theatres, seven waterfront3 activities and two memorials, not to4 mention the pleasure of just walking5 around Old City. We have the most unique6 retail and cultural area in Philadelphia.7 Proud to say we have very few chain8 stores or chain businesses in Old City.9 We have fashion boutiques, 17 of those;10 galleries, 20; home furnishing showrooms,11 15; and styling and personal care salons,12 11. Of course, there are many other13 businesses that are more focused on14 residents than tourists.15 More than anything, though, we16 have places to eat, drink and dance. We17 have 61 restaurants, 21 cafes and spots18 for a light meal, and 25 pubs and19 nightclubs. Yet, Mr. Ambrosi and his20 team seem to think that what they need to21 do with their 23,000 square feet of22 retail area is to supply us with23 entertainment in the form of even more24 restaurants or possibly nightclubs.25 167 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 The ideal plan for bringing2 people to Philadelphia is to introduce3 them to what our city has to offer, not4 to keep them cloistered in the same5 building. We are hoping that Mr. Ambrosi6 is not proposing a project that has the7 mentality of a cruise ship or a casino8 where the entertainment is within a9 single environment.10 Mr. Ambrosi, I have prepared --11
I'm sorry.12 You have to direct your comments to us.13
I'm sorry. I14 have prepared this booklet for you, just15 for you, to become familiar with 255 of16 the shopping, entertainment and dining17 possibilities for a tourist in Old City.18 Please bring us something we need, not19 something we already have.20 The premise on which21 Mr. Ambrosi bases his belief that he22 needs an entertainment venue in his23 project is flawed. Any concession to24 include entertainment in the ordinance25 168 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 would also be flawed.2 Thank you.3
Thank you4 very much.5 Would you please identify6 yourself for the record, sir.7
My name is Robert8 Catell. I'm a retired architect and9 community planner in Old City for 3510 years.11 I think most of the community12 is in support of the project, but not the13 ordinance. If the ordinance could be14 separated out to take out the15 objectionable portions and the rest of it16 go ahead, I think you would have17 excellent community support.18 I think the Philadelphia sign19 ordinance has been effective for years20 since its inception, and let that process21 take its own course. The rules of the22 City, I think, will work fine in this23 case.24
Thank you25 169 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 very much.2 Please identify yourself for3 the record.4
My name is Brian5 Fritz. I live at 209 North 4th Street at6 the corner of 4th and Race in the 5th7 Floor just across the street on 4th8 Street looking at the site, and when the9 building goes up, I'll lose a great view10 and a lot of light and all of my11 afternoon sun, but neither my wife nor I12 have ever complained about that, because13 I understand that this is not a large14 site and in order to put a hotel there,15 you have to go up. There's just no other16 way.17 I ask you to protect me from18 two things. First, I look straight out19 at the Ten Rittenhouse billboard that's20 there now, and whether you call it a21 billboard, whether it's accessory or not22 accessory, I would ask Councilman DiCicco23 or someone to take the lead to put24 language in to make sure that the people25 170 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 who live in my building -- and I am, by2 the way, at the southernmost end. As you3 move to the northern end, you can see4 that billboard even better.5 But I've heard people say that6 billboard can only be seen on the bridge7 when you're driving over from New Jersey.8 Come on up to my place, I'll give a great9 view of it, and the view gets better. So10 I'm hoping -- and I would love to be in a11 gathering of hotel developers next year12 where someone says, Did you hear someone13 in Philadelphia convinced the City that14 you can't put up a successful hotel15 development in Center City without a16 1,200 square foot electronic-changing17 digital display?18 So I'm asking for protection19 for that.20 And the other only thing is, I21 was at the meeting the other night, and22 Councilman is correct, we all live in the23 City and sometimes people wake us up, but24 I would like to not have the "Old City25 171 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Drinking District." I've been looking at2 those plans for eight months deciding not3 to complain because I'd feel embarrassed4 to come and complain about my view being5 blocked. It says 35,000 square feet of6 commercial space. It doesn't say 35,0007 feet of commercial drinking space. And8 if as much of that can be used, as it9 sounds to me like the ordinance can be10 used, for entertainment and drinking, I11 admit, I don't want to be woken up more12 than a few nights a month.13
Thank you.14 Please identify yourself for15 the record, whoever would like to go16 next.17
Ted Watson,18 Elfreths Alley in Old City. Two brief19 remarks.20 I believe that this is, by21 definition, spot zoning. Changing the22 zoning classification would be one thing,23 but it is quite another to include in the24 bill all the other specific details to25 172 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 allow this project. That is not how2 zoning laws are supposed to be enacted.3 This is improper selective favoritism.4 Councilman DiCicco has stated5 publicly, including at the community6 meeting on November 22nd, that he7 introduced the bill for the purpose of8 circumventing the Zoning Board of9 Adjustment, their process, where he10 asserts a single protestant can hold11 things up for two years. I disagree with12 his factual prediction, but in any event,13 that is an improper premise for enacting14 a bill. The change in zoning15 classification should not be motivated by16 a desire for expediency for a particular17 developer at the expense of citizens'18 rights and the character of a19 neighborhood.20
Thank you21 for your testimony.22 Councilman DiCicco.23 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I just24 want to respond to that. You are --25 173 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 (Applause.)2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: In my3 opinion, you're somewhat accurate. I4 didn't use the word "circumvent." I did5 point out, in my opinion, having done6 numerous developments in the 15 years7 that I've been representing this district8 that if you do go to the ZBA, all it9 takes is one person to object and you10 could tie up a project, not only this11 project, any project, for two years.12 But what I also said -- and you13 may not have heard it, because there was14 a lot of people talking over each15 other -- if you do it by way of16 legislation, the same things that you17 would have gone to the Zoning Board of18 Adjustment for, you have law now that19 protects those provisos, where if you20 went to the Zoning Board, I have found21 out in my 15 years that the provisos are22 basically unenforceable and useless. So23 it is better to get those things that you24 want in a bill rather than go to the ZBA25 174 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 and have them put a list of provisos2 that, again, I have found out are3 basically unenforceable.4 So this document, whether you5 agree with all of it, some of it or none6 of it, is law. The Zoning Board is not7 law in the sense that I have been8 experiencing doing these development9 projects for 15 years.10 So I didn't do it to11 circumvent. I said one person, a12 competitor, a hotel competitor who may13 not want to have that competition, could14 file an objection. I saw this happen on15 South Street with Whole Foods. I think16 most people whoever went there would17 think Whole Foods is a great business for18 South Street. There was a competing19 businessowner who put someone up to file20 an objection in Common Pleas Court and21 that project was held up for almost two22 years. That's all I was pointing out the23 other night.24 Thank you.25 175 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
Please2 identify yourself for the record.3 MS. DiCOSMO: Hello. I am a4 Francesca DiCosmo. I am a longtime5 resident of Old City. I live in the6 Wireworks.7 By the way, I think the8 community would love to have a Whole9 Foods as a part of this project. Those10 would be some of the acceptable uses I11 think that we could all agree on.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We all13 agree on that, and we've been talking14 about that for years, but no one has15 stepped up to the plate, unfortunately.16 MS. DiCOSMO: Let's try and get17 one.18 I did have some prepared19 remarks, but as Councilman Kenney has --20
Please, you21 can --22 MS. DiCOSMO: I don't want to23 be repetitive.24
After the25 176 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Supreme Court decision last week, I don't2 want to limit anybody's speech. So I was3 just making a suggestion. It wasn't a4 hard and fast rule.5 MS. DiCOSMO: Right. Right.6 No. I'm not here to --7
But I was8 also wondering if we were able to go up9 to the Supreme Court while they're10 deliberating and express our opinions11 during the course of their deliberations.12 And I don't think that they would let us13 do that, but that's another argument.14 MS. DiCOSMO: That's right,15 that's another argument for another day.16
Thank you.17 MS. DiCOSMO: You're welcome.18 I just would like to say, first19 of all, that the presentation that has20 been made by the Old City Civic21 Association I think has indeed covered a22 lot of the points that the residents, the23 property owners, the voters and the24 taxpayers in our community have25 177 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 expressed. They expressed them last week2 at the public meeting and certainly as I3 have moved throughout the community have4 expressed many of them to me.5 I think that there probably is6 a solution, and I hope that we get to it.7 No one wants to disenfranchise the8 property owner from his right to develop9 the property. I don't think that that's10 what anyone is about, and I think we've11 all been pretty clear about that.12 People want to see something13 there. They want to see something14 satisfactory there, and they, of course,15 want to see something that's in harmony16 with the historic nature of the Old City17 district.18 I think, however, and rightly19 so, the community is very fearful when20 they hear about proposals that include21 any kind of -- and let's wordsmith this22 all we want -- entertainment venue,23 entertainment complex, dancing venue,24 deejays, nightclubs. Whatever word we25 178 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 all want to pick, this is a very, very2 scary word to us.3 We understand that things can4 be developed one way on one day, and a5 few weeks later when that person has gone6 out of business or no longer wishes to7 operate that original venue, things can8 change, and oftentimes they have changed9 for the worse. I think that we have all10 seen this happen in the Market-Chestnut11 Street area. I don't think that a lot of12 the places that are there today which13 have now become a nuisance to many of the14 residents -- I think we can agree that15 some of those places have become16 nuisances -- that they didn't originally17 start out that way. Many of them started18 out as other things, other restaurants,19 other clubs. And maybe they were great20 then, but they're not now. And I think21 this is the kind of thing that's very22 difficult to legislate and very difficult23 to include in very broad terms and in24 broad regulations.25 179 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 So when we move down the lane2 to try and get an agreement that protects3 everyone's rights, the rights of the4 developer to develop his property, the5 rights of the wage earner to earn a good6 living and the rights of the community to7 have a safe, quiet and wonderful place to8 live, those are the issues at hand, and I9 am hoping that we come up with a solution10 for that.11 The community -- and my final12 remark is, the community is being13 inundated with these kinds of venues.14 We're getting inundated by people who15 have very bad behaviors from the south of16 us, from the Market Street area, and17 we're also being inundated by people who18 have been displaying very bad behaviors19 from the clubs and venues that are north20 of Vine Street. So, in a sense, we're21 starting to be sandwiched by a lot of22 this kind of thing, and we really do23 wonder if we need any more.24 And so with that, I will25 180 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 conclude my remarks, and I wish everyone2 the best of luck on this project. I3 think the community does want to see4 something happen on the site, but let's5 just make sure that we in the future6 years are not impacted by something that7 said, Well, it started out great, but now8 is degenerated into something that really9 is not what anybody expected.10 Thank you very much.11
)14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,15 Mr. 1 give a blank check, if you will, for2 liquor license application approvals. We3 had developed what was called a4 conditional liquor license, meaning if a5 10,000 square foot restaurant/theme bar6 with music, dining, whatever, were to be7 approved by the LCB, by the Zoning Board,8 by the community, whatever that license9 had been issued for must continue. 20 So no one gets a blank check. 1 Control Board can literally pull your2 license and you have to start all over3 again. Okay? 6 MS. DiCOSMO: Yes. 7 I appreciate those comments. Again,8 though, I think the community is very9 skittish about this kind of thing. I10 think that -- but for me personally -- I11 don't want to speak for others who are12 not here certainly, but for me13 personally, I understand that people feel14 they need to have certain kinds of15 things. I'm not sure a lot of us are16 actually sold on the need for having17 dance floors or deejays or any of that18 kind of thing within the restaurant19 venues. Quite frankly, a lot of people20 have asked me, Why can't it just be a21 regular restaurant? 1 will act. It's illegal to rob a bank,2 but people rob banks. 5 I'm on your side. I'm6 sensitive. 9 I mean, I'm a realist about this, but I10 think -- I don't think this project of11 $80 million is going to be built for the12 purpose of accommodating a nightclub in13 the sense that most people think of14 nightclubs. 18 I don't think you would. deejay dance event. That's what we don't2 want to happen. MS. 15 MS. DiCOSMO: Thank you. 17
My name is20 Reverend Michael Kane. I'm the pastor at21 Old First Reformed United Church of22 Christ. We first owned the parcel at the23 southeast corner of Race and 4th in 1747.24 We moved away for a while. We came back25 186 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 in '67. Since then, serving the urban2 poor has been a primary part of our3 ministry. We kind of know a lot about4 what it is to be good neighbors, and5 that's not always easy. Sometimes there6 is conflicted agendas around that. So we7 serve primarily the urban homeless8 veterans in our cupboard and our shelter,9 and that sometimes pushes us up against10 our physical neighbors in the surrounding11 residential facilities.12 As I think about this, that13 leads me to two points. The first one is14 simply, I don't want the two Councilmen's15 concerns from the beginning to be16 forgotten in this long discussion. From17 the church's point of view and18 presumably, risking speaking for the19 other two churches on the other side of20 this project, one of our concerns would21 be that there are jobs created that are22 fair labor jobs. It's incredibly23 important for this city, not just the24 immediate interest of Old City, which I'm25 187 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 going to get to a minute, but Old City is2 not an island, and in that sense, we have3 an interest in not only the construction4 jobs, which I understand are promised to5 be union jobs and then will be protected,6 but also those other purported 260 jobs7 that will be created. I really wish that8 we could hear of some agreement as soon9 as possible that they're going to live10 into the fair labor expectations of our11 city.12 The second one is, as I was13 saying, we understand how hard it is to14 be a good neighbor, because you end up15 with competing interests. That seems16 what this is all about. There's the17 interest of the larger city and economic18 development and the need for hotel spaces19 and the developer's need to make a20 project that's going to work financially21 and the residents. It just seems to me22 in the same way we have to have meetings23 every time the neighbors get upset that24 the homeless are too loud when they're25 188 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 out in front of the church at the AA2 meeting or troublesome at the shelter or3 bothersome on Saturday morning, we're not4 backing off of any of those ministries,5 because it's why God has put us there,6 but we also have to make peace.7 So I guess in some sense, I'm8 just agreeing with Councilman DiCicco.9 Can't we somehow, as we go into this,10 begin with some closer agreement where11 both sides seem to be giving in rather12 than just kind of this endless holding13 each other at bay?14 Thank you.15
Thank you16 for your testimony.17 Please identify yourself.18 (Applause.)19
We have one20 more. Please identify yourself for the21 record.22
Hi. I'm Gary23 Vernick. I reside at 215 Vine Street.24 I've had a presence in Old City since25 189 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 1978.2 I'm extremely concerned with a3 couple of things I heard here today, the4 first being the term "critical mass." I5 had to kind of sit back and try to think6 about what critical mass is, because the7 last time I really heard that term had to8 do with the atomic bomb when everything9 kind of exploded because something10 reached a critical mass, where there are11 things happening that get out of control12 in the future. And I think that this13 bill does not have the necessary controls14 for what the developer itself called15 "critical mass."16 The second thing that I'd ask17 this bill be amended to reflect is as18 follows: The last time our neighborhood19 really faced a critical mass was when20 I-76, the Vine Street Expressway, came21 through right on the north side of Wood22 Street. We knew that was going to create23 a critical mass, and we learned at that24 time the word "mitigation."25 190 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 That strip of land is now2 green. It is up on berm. It is sound3 baffled, and it has become a place where4 the neighborhood gathers peacefully. I'd5 ask that this project likewise be6 mitigated.7 I heard Attorney Patterson say8 that the residences, the condominiums9 along 4th Street, are going to be phase10 two. Those residences are the buffer and11 the mitigation that the neighborhood12 needs from this critical mass project.13 I'd ask that this bill be amended so that14 those residences be made part of phase15 one and be tied into the hotel and the16 critical mass project so that the17 neighborhood is protected from exactly18 this issue as to the entertainment or19 whatever is going to go in there.20 There's an old theory when it21 came to the highway, that if you didn't22 see it, you didn't hear it, and I think23 it applies equally to this project.24 Thank you.25 191 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
Please5 identify yourself for the record. You6 can pull that microphone down a little7 bit.8
My name is Bette9 Woolsey. I live at 225 Race Street, and10 I also am a part owner of a restaurant in11 Queen Village. My restaurant is about12 3,300 square feet and its maximum13 occupancy is about 70 seats per seating.14 Extrapolating that out, I am15 very concerned about the vagueness of the16 35,000 square foot retail area, but if17 one extrapolates that all of that space18 would be restaurants, I become very19 fearful that 700 to 900 people can be20 served at one seating.21 Also, when we were given our22 liquor license, it had many conditions23 such as no happy hours, curfew, no live24 music in perpetuity, and that really25 192 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 fit -- that was fine. The restaurant fit2 in with the community. It's a chef-owned3 restaurant, and it has survived bad times4 and continues to thrive.5 I am concerned about the6 addition of chain restaurants, the7 lowering of the kind of standards and8 interest that we have in our9 neighborhood.10 That's all I have to say.11
Thank you12 very much for your testimony.13 Mr. Patterson, do you have14 something you want to add?15 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:16 Mr. Chairman, as Mr. Patterson is coming17 up, in reference to the last statement by18 the lady who just spoke, I think that in19 the meeting or after the meeting, I think20 the developer agreed to some language21 that said there would not be a chain22 restaurant. We're talking about23 McDonald's, Wendy's, those types. We24 agreed that that would not be --25 193 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
We did discuss2 that.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: We did4 discuss that as well. It wasn't done, I5 think, in a public sense because it was6 kind of a sidebar.7 And the gentleman who also8 spoke before that about the critical9 mass -- I'll have to come back to that.10 Oh, the revision. We have a reverter11 clause in there, right?12
I was going to15 address that, because if you really read16 the private agreement, I think it17 addressed some of the concerns you heard.18 For example, it limits the dance area to19 three percentage of whatever the gross20 floor area of that area would be, which21 is below 1,000 square feet if you're22 going on the higher end. It also says23 for the first floor, there's one zoning24 permit. So if the use does change or an25 194 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 operator changes or is sold, it doesn't2 piggyback on the first zoning permit.3 You get one shot at the first floor4 retail/commercial/restaurant, and if it5 doesn't comply with the then current6 ordinance, it would go to the Zoning7 Board.8 It also says that there are no9 third-party deejays, which seems to be10 the problem when you hear about someplace11 that has music in it. And the town and12 part of the problem is trying to define13 what a nightclub is and what isn't, as14 you've tried to do so. That's why we15 tried to put that in there.16 And the agreement also says --17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Excuse me,18 Ron. Could you explain that third party?19
Well, for20 example, the owner of the establishment,21 the restaurant, may put music -- this is22 in general terms -- have music provided,23 whether it's piped in music, put in a CD,24 have a deejay that changes -- whatever a25 195 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 deejay is now. There's no vinyl records2 maybe anymore, that you can press a3 button on the computer and all the songs4 line up, or whether you have a live band.5 If the person providing the music is6 under authority of the operator, they7 have control. You lose control when you8 rent out your space to a third party, who9 then brings in all of his people and his10 deejay and they promote it as a deejay11 party. That's where you run into12 problems. That's why we have in the13 agreement no third-party deejay, if they14 have a deejay at all.15 And also it does cross16 reference again that the liquor licenses17 would be subject to a conditional18 licensing agreement, which, as you19 describe, can go into more detail about20 the operation of that liquor license for21 that particular entity. So even if the22 use stays the same but the operator or23 owner changes under the liquor license,24 they need a whole entire new conditional25 196 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 licensing agreement that can then box2 them into the corner. And the example I3 always give is, under the Zoning Code if4 you go in and ask for a zoning permit for5 tea and doughnuts, you get back a zoning6 permit that says take-out restaurant, and7 so how do we, both me as a developer8 lawyer and I also have two of my own9 civic groups, how do you protect against10 Burger King jumping on that supposedly11 small permit is you then put proviso12 agreements, saying no deep frier, no13 hoods, no ovens, et cetera, et cetera.14 And that's what we've tried to do under15 the private agreement, so that no one16 could come in under the guise under a17 cloak and dagger and say, Well, now I18 have this permit, I'll make this entirely19 different. That's what we tried to20 prevent in this agreement.21
Thank you22 very much.23 Next person on our list is24 Mr. Dugdale and Rosslyn Wuchinich.25 197 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 (Witnesses approached witness2 table.)3
My name is6 Rosslyn Wuchinich. I'm the Staff7 Director with Unite Here, Local 274.8 Our union stands before you in9 opposition to Bill No. 100552, and we are10 urging the members of Council to vote no11 on this bill.12 Our union represents over 6,00013 workers in the Philadelphia region,14 including hotel, gaming, stadium, airport15 and school cafeteria workers. We16 represent hotel workers in the area17 surrounding the 4th and Race site,18 including the Holiday Inn at 4th Street,19 the Comfort Inn and the Hyatt Penns20 Landing.21 On the jobs issue, there are no22 regulations or laws in effect to prevent23 this hotel project once it opens from24 hiring people at the federal minimum wage25 198 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 of $7.25 an hour without benefits. If2 those jobs were created, those would be3 poverty-level jobs, and the City of4 Philadelphia does not need any more5 poverty-level jobs. You should also know6 that there is no separate agreement with7 this developer concerning the permanent8 jobs that are going to be created at this9 hotel.10 So we want to make sure that11 the Council does not allow consideration12 of the permanent jobs that are going to13 be created to outweigh the serious14 planning and zoning concerns presented by15 this proposal. We don't want you to16 think that because the project is17 creating jobs, that you can look the18 other way on the planning considerations.19 You should not do this.20
Antony Dugdale,21 also with Unite Here, Local 274.22 I just wanted to talk for a23 minute about the zoning and then after24 finishing this, I wanted to respond to25 199 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 some of the comments from the developer.2 It would be one thing if the3 bill proposed was just to rezone the lot4 from "L-4" to "C-3" and apply all the5 normal conditions associated with "C-3"6 to this lot, which would include the Old7 City overlay, but that's not what this8 bill is doing. It's creating a unique9 and specific zoning classification that10 bears on just this property. It has11 unique use regulations, which supersede12 the regulations for the Old City13 district. That's what allows the 35,00014 square foot restaurant with a dance15 floor.16 The proposed zone has unique17 height regulations that differ from the18 surrounding area. It has -- the proposed19 zone has unique parking and loading20 requirements for this site which don't21 fit the surrounding area. And, of22 course, the proposed zone has unique23 signage regulations, which treat this24 property differently than all of the25 200 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 other surrounding properties and other2 properties up and down I-95 by allowing3 signage that would otherwise be4 prohibited without review and specific5 approvals from the relevant bodies.6 In short, the proposed new zone7 is an entirely new creation, one which,8 quote, "does not bear alike on all9 persons living in the same area." In10 other words, it's spot zoning. In 1965,11 Pennsylvania's Supreme Court explained12 spot zoning by saying, "What is most13 determinative is whether the parcel in14 question is being singled out for15 treatment unjustifiably differing from16 that of similar surrounding land, thereby17 creating an island having no relevant18 differences from its neighbors."19 This bill does that. It treats20 this parcel differently than any other21 parcel in the City and any other parcel22 within the Old City overlay. That's not23 permissible, and we urge the Council to24 reject this proposal.25 201 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 I also want to respond to two2 things that have come up earlier, one3 thing the developer said, that because he4 didn't have a hotel operator, somehow5 that tied his hands to being able to make6 any decisions. That's not been the7 situation with other projects. Cira8 South, Brandywine Realty, we were here in9 front of this body. You approved it. We10 were in support. We had an understanding11 with that developer even though there was12 no hotel operator for the hotel portion.13 The American Commerce Center in14 Councilman Clarke's district at 180015 Arch, a similar situation. We were here16 in support of that project. And we17 reached an understanding regarding --18 with the developer, even though there was19 no hotel operator, concerning the hotel20 operations.21 Stampers Square, a very similar22 situation to this one, in that Starwood23 was a franchise, but there was no24 operator signed on. We were here in25 202 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 support with Councilman DiCicco in that2 area, and there was no hotel operator.3 There is no need for there to4 be a hotel operator signed on before5 standards can get agreed to to make sure6 that the permanent jobs at this facility7 are good and create solid, permanent jobs8 that the folks who live in this city can9 actually live on.10 I have not seen the draft --11 our comments, I think, were based on the12 draft that was publicly available. I13 have not seen the amended draft of the14 zoning that's been put out. We would ask15 you to not suspend the rules and to16 consider this on the 8th after we've had17 a chance to actually review the actual18 zoning proposal that's in front of us so19 that we could make our decisions at that20 time.21
I22 appreciate your testimony. Just a23 curious question relative to -- I would24 assume that the wage rate and standards25 203 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 is your primary issue as a labor2 organization that's representing your3 members?4
But the6 zoning issues that you were, I guess, as7 heavy in your testimony with has to do8 more with what impacts the residents. So9 how do you -- if you had an agreement,10 would you be against the zoning issues?11 I'm trying to understand -- I understand12 what you do. I used to be a member of13 this union, as a matter of fact, when I14 was in college. So I understand what15 you're doing. I'm trying to determine16 what's more important, the fair labor17 standard rate with an operator or with a18 developer or the zoning stuff, because it19 seems if you had the agreement on the20 wages and standards, you'd still be21 opposed to the project.22
Well, I think if23 we could have a chance to sit down with24 the developer and try to discuss this,25 204 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 we'd be in much better shape. The last2 time -- we had one meet-and-greet maybe3 three months ago. That lasted maybe ten4 or 15 minutes. And then last week he5 threw us out of his office and made very6 clear that he had no intention of7 negotiating any agreement with anybody8 until after he got his approvals.9 So we have not had substantial10 discussion with the developer. If we had11 that opportunity, we'd be happy to12 consider anything.13
Okay.14 Are there any other questions15 for these witnesses?16 (No response.)17
No. Thank18 you very much for your testimony. I19 think Mr. Ambrosi would like to come20 back, re-identify himself and rebut.21 Mr. Patterson, if you'd like to22 accompany your client.23
I have met with24 Antony twice --25 205 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
Robert Ambrosi,4 Chairman of ARC Properties.5 I met with Antony twice, one6 other time with his representative. He7 said if I sign an agreement, he will not8 object. If I don't sign an agreement, he9 will object. I told him until I have an10 operator, I'm happy to put him in11 touch -- all the work we've ever done in12 Philadelphia has been union. Today in13 the meeting, my colleague informed me14 that Starwood agreement requires us to15 comply with all local trade laws. There16 probably is no issue here at all, but17 until I have an operator -- I'm18 interviewing four.19
That's not24 what you stated.25 206 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
You said3 that the agreement stated that it had to4 specifically apply to -- the agreement5 had to include the local living wage6 standard law. You did not say it had to7 include any applicable laws, which means8 that what you're saying now is that if9 the law does not apply, then it will not10 be included in the agreement.11 So I need you to actually12 clarify your statement about whether your13 agreement will specifically say that it14 has to comply with the Philadelphia15 minimum wage and benefits standard. If16 it does not say that, then you17 misrepresented yourself.18
Guess what?21 You not only need to read it, you need to22 present it to us.23
You did ask for25 207 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 it.2
I just don't have6 it. As soon as I have it, you will have7 it.8
The last12 person I have on my list is Mr. Scott13 Shaw. Is Mr. Shaw here?14 (No response.)15
Anyone else16 to testify?17 (Witnesses approached witness18 table.)19
Whoever20 would like to go first, please identify21 yourself.22
Good morning. My23 name is Mary Tracy. I'm the Executive24 Director of SCRUB, Public Voice for25 208 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Public Space, and also the President of2 Scenic America. I'm also a resident of,3 I think, Society Hill, not too far from4 Old City now.5 I want to just address my6 issues as regard to the digital signage7 that's proposed here. That's always been8 one of SCRUB's primary interest, and we9 have worked with Society Hill Civic on10 these issues for over 20 years, those11 laws that were passed to protect the12 scenic character of our city. But in13 addition to allowing signage in the14 gateway coming into Philadelphia, I think15 that the Council would do a great service16 to the citizens who drive over the Ben17 Franklin Bridge on a daily basis.18 There are studies19 internationally that have shown how20 distracting digital signs can be, and I21 think this particular sign would be22 especially distracting, because you're23 looking at a sign that's vertical seven24 stories high. It talks about full motion25 209 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 animation, which I would invite all of2 you to take a look at a clip from St.3 Louis where a similar sign, accessory4 sign, is in place, and as a result of5 that sign being put up, they now have a6 moratorium on all digital signs. There7 are about 30 other cities that I know of8 that have a moratorium on digital signs9 because of its high distractive quality.10 And I think it would be very important11 before including this in any kind of12 legislation, that the accidents, crashes,13 near crashes of that particular highway14 of the Ben Franklin Bridge, take a look15 at that, because at that point, anyone16 who has come over the bridge knows that17 you head down, there are many, many18 decision points, which requires a high19 driver workload, and in those particular20 instances, a sign such of this in many21 countries, including Australia, would be22 totally prohibited because of the high23 risk of a crash or a near crash. I think24 it's important to take a look at that.25 210 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
Secondly, I know we3 want to be the clean, green city. SCRUB4 has been working through a grant with the5 Fels Fund on the environmental impact of6 these digital signs, and the current7 technology places a high carbon8 footprint. In fact, a traditional9 billboard, it would take 25 traditional10 billboards to use the same amount of11 electricity as just one of these digital12 signs. I'm not sure that --13
So are you14 in favor of traditional billboards? Are15 you in favor of traditional billboards16 now?17
Well, you know how18 I feel about traditional billboards, but19 certainly from a safety aspect, that20 would be preferable.21 So I think if you really are --22 I would agree with the community in23 removing this and having that discussion,24 especially until the end of January. The25 211 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Federal Highway Administration has been2 undergoing a two-year study with real3 drivers to get a better understanding of4 how distracting are LED signs compared to5 other signage, and that --6
They did do7 a study on cell phones, too. I think8 that's probably the number one --9
-- probably11 the number one -- texting and driving is12 probably more dangerous than a billboard,13 I would think. I don't really pay14 attention to the billboards.15
Well, the16 difference, though, Councilman, is that17 with texting and with a cell phone, you18 have a choice whether to use it or not.19 With these digital signs, you have no20 choice. It's there. They're glaring at21 you, and you find yourself -- everyone22 I've talked to have said that to me.23 Whether you want to or not, you're24 looking at that. So we're foisting25 212 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 something that could be highly2 distracting on thousands of ten3 thousands, if not millions, of people4 that cross that bridge every day.5
Not to6 debate highway signage, but it also has7 the possibility of being highly8 informational as a result of a snatched9 child or a hurricane or a natural10 disaster or something that can direct11 people to various areas to get out of the12 way of traffic. I mean, there are -- we13 have, for example, it's not an14 advertising sign, but on the Turnpike,15 you have a digital sign that tells you16 that ten miles up the road there's an17 accident. If you can get off, get off.18
So, I mean,20 look, the primary purpose of the signs is21 to generate revenue, no doubt, but there22 are some homeland security, safety, child23 protection opportunities that come along24 with that. I mean, there's been stories25 213 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 around the country where Amber Alerts go2 across those signs and they wind up3 finding a kid within an hour.4
I would agree.9 There's always an upside, but at what10 cost? Because we have other electronic11 signs that do give us those driver safety12 tips that we look at. They're dark most13 of the time and when they're on, we know14 to look at them to say slow down,15 accident ahead, and those same signs16 could use the Amber Alerts. So it's not17 like this sign is going to be the savior.18 And at what other risk are we talking19 about here? And I think removing this20 particular piece --21
I'm not22 talking about this particular sign, but23 that's all debating now. We were just24 talking in general about highway signs25 214 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 that some people think are the worst2 things ever happened to -- I think the3 worst thing ever happened to our country4 are interstate highways, but that's5 another story. So the signs to me have6 minimal effect on the ugliness or the7 intrusiveness of the interstate highway.8 So it's all relative, I guess.9
It is all relative.10 And then one final aspect of11 this bill is that many, many people have12 testified today that they are considering13 this spot zoning, and whether it is or14 whether it isn't, one could argue that15 point. But whether the Federal Highways16 consider this spot zoning in order to --17 I mean, they totally prohibit spot zoning18 to allow outdoor advertising. We could19 lose ten percent of our funding. So I20 think we need to be looking at the21 federal laws, state laws, as well as our22 own that have totally prohibited signage23 in this area for over 20 years.24 Thank you.25 215 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
Good afternoon,4 members of the Rules Committee. My name5 is Jihad Ali. I'm a citizen as well as6 I'm a member of the Contractors7 Roundtable.8 I wanted to testify today about9 Bill No. 100552, specifically the10 economic opportunity plan. Earlier I11 listened to the testimony of the12 developer, and Councilman DiCicco and13 other members of this Committee, I know14 how hard you fought on behalf of15 minorities and other disadvantaged and16 the disabled to get the plan approved and17 passed by the voters, which the voters18 did during the last election.19 One of the things that concerns20 me about this plan, when the attorney21 talked, he expressed an opinion that22 there's always two sides of a story. I23 mean, when the developer came up here, he24 talked about his contractor. He25 216 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 talked -- he said -- I wasn't clear. I2 wanted to get clarity. He said that Dale3 was not the contractor. However, Dale4 was being used for this minority outreach5 stuff. So I wanted to get the clarity on6 that, was Dale the contractor. And if7 he's being used for the minority outreach8 stuff, where does he have that kind of9 expertise? I mean, who is he approved10 by?11 This Council, when you passed12 Bill 100135, you said -- you listed a13 specific number of organizations that14 would be considered as a good-faith15 effort in utilizing them on the16 employment outreach stuff.17 Dale -- like the two sides of18 the story, I'm here to express my19 opinion. Dale is one of the worst20 contractors out in terms of minority21 outreach. Yeah, they talked about a lot22 of jobs that they did where they23 self-perform. They were performing work24 on behalf of a GC or the GC, and they did25 217 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 that work. So they have a list of2 minorities that they've used. But when3 you step outside a broader view and you4 look at the City as a whole, we have5 agencies that we have trust and6 confidence in.7 I don't agree with everything8 OEO does, but OEO is a respectable9 organization. There's a lot of10 third-party certifiers that you all know11 about. Some of them are here today that12 can be utilized on this.13 So in terms of this contractor,14 he said he worked with this guy -- he15 started working with Dale two years ago.16 Well, since that two years, we've passed17 the resolutions that this Committee put18 forth, 100135. So if the developer would19 at least just go back and try to utilize20 a third-party certifier to help him21 achieve what he's trying to do, then I22 would support it. But as long as he's23 using Dale, I would be here to not24 support that bill. I'm asking, because25 218 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Dale is not qualified to represent2 minorities in the City.3 Thank you.4
Thank you5 very much for your testimony.6 Is there anyone else to testify7 on this bill?8 Come on up.9
I'm sorry. I10 just want to say one other thing. Dale11 has been hired as a consultant. Turner12 is currently doing the pre-construction13 work. We will be interviewing four14 contractors, and that will be taken into15 consideration very carefully.16
Thank you17 very much.18 Mr. Patterson, can you please19 come up and put into the record the20 amendment that was added, if you have the21 language.22 Please identify yourself for23 the record.24
Ronald25 219 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Patterson, 1835 Market Street, on behalf2 of the owner and developer.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I didn't4 give you the right one.5
Sure. Based on10 the earlier discussions about tying in11 any other zoning permits to the hotel12 use, we've added, it looks like,13 Paragraph 4 under -- I'm sorry; (a)(4)14 was added. It reads as follows: "For15 any other uses to be permitted a zoning16 permit would first need to be obtained17 for a hotel use."18 So I think that satisfies the19 concern that the hotel would have to be20 built in order for anything else to21 obtain the zoning permit.22
Seeing5 none, we'll move to now Bill No. 100656,6 which is an ordinance amending Section7 14-305 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled8 "'C-4' Commercial District," all under9 certain terms and conditions; and10 amending the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by11 changing the zoning designations of12 certain areas of land located within an13 area bounded by Hamilton Street, 19th14 Street, Callowhill Street and 20th15 Street.16 Mr. Martin -- or is there17 anyone from the Administration?18 Councilman, is there anyone19 from the Administration?20
Yes. There21 were some community issues that needed to22 be resolved.23
Whoever is24 available to testify on this bill, please25 221 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 come forward.2 (Witnesses approached witness3 table.)4
Could you9 please identify yourself for the record10 and proceed.11
Good afternoon,12 Mr. Chairman, members of the Committee.13 I'm William Kramer, Division Director for14 Development Planning, Philadelphia City15 Planning Commission.16 We had previously testified in17 relation to this bill in support of this18 legislation and had recommended a small19 amendment to the maps of this bill owing20 to an acquisition of a triangular piece21 of property that we had done with22 previously. I have no additional23 testimony at this time, other than we24 originally supported the bill and there's25 222 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 been nothing that's come to light to2 change that opinion.3
Thank you4 very much for your testimony.5 Mr. Martin, please identify6 yourself for the record.7
William Martin,8 Fox Rothschild law firm. I'm joined by9 my clients from Granary Partners LP, Reed10 Slogoff and Mr. Jim Pearlstein.11 Mr. Slogoff will be joining me to provide12 some testimony in a bit.13 To remind the members of the14 Committee, we were here approximately two15 weeks ago, and at the request of16 Councilman Clarke, the matter was held to17 suggest some further dialogue with18 certain interested neighbors. Following19 on that meeting and as a result of the20 Councilman's suggestion, there was a21 change in an element of the design to the22 project, which Mr. Slogoff will testify23 to. We'll talk about this design change.24 We'll also talk about our economic25 223 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 opportunity plan based upon specific2 encouragement by Councilman Clarke and3 Councilman Goode. And then we'll talk a4 little bit more about where we are right5 now with the neighbors.6
Good afternoon.9 Reed Slogoff from Pearl Properties.10 Just to quickly remind11 Councilmembers, the project we're here to12 discuss is the Granary project. We own13 the Granary building, which is at the14 northwest side of 20th Street between15 Callowhill on 19th and 20th, and what16 we're proposing to do is build a new17 structure along Callowhill Street to18 connect that project, that building, to19 the Granary building. We will be20 building 210, approximately 210,21 residential apartment units, as well as22 retail space along the ground floor of23 the new building and retail space in the24 Granary building itself.25 224 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 At the last Council hearing on2 the 16th, we heard for the first time3 some concerns from the neighbors4 regarding the amount of parking. The5 existing ordinance provided for half of a6 space per residential unit. Since that7 time, we went and redesigned our8 underground parking to accommodate 0.79 spaces per unit, which is something that10 we, again, heard for the first time, and11 we've committed to doing so, and what we12 have brought with us is a plan to show13 you where that parking would be.14 I'm happy to provide more15 details about the project if Council16 would like to be reminded of anything.17
Thank you,20 Mr. Chair. Mr. Chair, actually, the21 developer just referenced one issue that22 I wanted to bring up. I just want to23 clarify from my perspective.24 A couple of the most25 225 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 significant outstanding issues were in2 fact the parking, which you've just3 referenced. There was an issue about the4 traffic on 20th Street, which is a5 challenge regardless as to whether or not6 you proceed, and I've been told that the7 Planning Commission is looking at that.8 Based on the look of Mr. Kramer's face --9
There is a traffic11 consultant that has been retained by the12 developer, which has prepared an analysis13 of the project and impact, and will be14 submitting that to you, Councilman, and15 to the interested neighbors certainly16 well in advance of any Council vote on17 this ordinance.18
Okay. And19 the last issue is the process, which20 depending on who you talk to was somewhat21 challenged, but there's not much we can22 do about that, but I understand we will23 continue to have discussions as we move24 forth throughout this process, and I25 226 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 personally will be a little more2 intimately involved in the subsequent3 conversations as it relates to some4 ultimate resolution on this one.5
In response to6 that, Councilman, we have been advised7 that there are neighbors who are going to8 suggest that the Rules Committee not act9 on this because of the process being10 incomplete --11
Don't worry12 about that. I'm not talking about this13 process. I'm talking about the process14 in the community as it relates to the15 interaction.16
But we've19 done that, and I only reference it20 because I want to acknowledge that there21 are some concerns about the process.22 We're, frankly speaking, beyond that, and23 I just want to say as we move forward, I24 personally am going to be a little more25 227 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 engaged in that process, because at some2 point ultimately it's my responsibility3 to recommend personally to my colleagues4 on the Rules Committee as to what action5 we hopefully will take either in support6 or in opposition. So I think my personal7 engagement will give me a better sense to8 reflect as to -- give me a better sense9 of what recommendation I give, and then10 we will make the appropriate decisions as11 it relates to suspension, not suspension,12 out of Committee, in Committee. That's13 what the folks hired us to do.14
And I certainly15 acknowledge that, Councilman. And for16 the record, I'd like to indicate that my17 client and/or I have met with either the18 leadership or representatives of the19 neighborhood 12 times, first starting20 June 2nd, 2010. When a request was21 tendered for a neighborhood development22 agreement, a draft was provided two days23 later. When comments were given, they24 were responded to two days later. When25 228 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 further comments were given, they were2 responded to the next day. And we stand3 ready to engage with the neighborhood at4 any time, at any place at their request,5 and we're pleased by how much progress6 has been made in terms of that dialogue7 up until now.8
Thank you11 very much.12 Do you have further testimony?13
The only other14 point I will mention in response to15 Councilman Goode's prior questions from16 the last session is, an economic17 opportunity plan was submitted for review18 both to Councilman Clarke and to Angela19 Dowd-Burton at the City's Office of20 Economic Opportunity. At the request of21 Councilman Clarke, my client agreed to22 strengthen certain of the targets that23 had been suggested in that economic24 opportunity plan, and we welcome the25 229 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 opportunity to have further dialogue with2 him and with the City's Office of3 Economic Opportunity.4
Okay. Any8 questions for these witnesses?9 (No response.)10
Anyone else14 to testify on this bill?15 Please come forward.16 (Witnesses approached witness17 table.)18
Please19 identify yourself for the record. You20 could pull that microphone very close to21 you.22
Good24 afternoon.25 230 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
Oh, well, I've6 been here so long, I lost track. I've7 been here since 10:00, as have you.8
My name is Susan10 Lombardi and I'm here regarding Bill11 100656. I'm the President of the Tivoli12 Condominium Association at 1900 Hamilton13 Street. Our Association is comprised of14 more than 250 homeowners who live in 11415 units. We are the nearest neighbors to16 the Granary project that will have a17 tremendous impact on our residents.18 Our committee's deliberations19 are thoughtful and considerate. What20 else would I say? We believe that it is21 far more important to get an agreement22 with Pearl Properties right than to get23 it done fast. And I don't want anyone to24 have a heart attack when I say "get it25 231 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 done fast." We're talking about weeks.2 We're not talking about months. It could3 be a couple of weeks. This is in the4 best interest of Tivoli residents and the5 best interest of our neighbors and in the6 best interest of the City.7 Pearl Properties has been very8 cooperative in addressing our concerns9 with regard to parking, retail,10 landscaping and numerous other issues.11 We have not yet finalized our12 neighborhood development agreement. In13 the absence of completion of our work,14 even though we think we are close, we15 respectfully ask that Bill 10065616 changing the Zoning Code for the17 Callowhill Street parcel between 19th and18 20th Street to "C-4" remain in the Rules19 Committee until our work is completed and20 our legal counsel has had an opportunity21 to review the final draft.22 We appreciate your23 consideration.24
Thank you25 232 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 for your testimony.2 Please identify yourself for3 the record.4
Dr. Ashley Angert.5 I'm one of the near neighbors. I'm at6 the Tivoli nearby at 1900 Hamilton7 Street, and I'm testifying on Bill8 100656.9 As near neighbors, we have been10 working with Pearl Developers. We have11 not met about this project for more than,12 I think, several times with Pearl13 Developers. It started quite early on,14 and people should be reminded that the15 original plan was to build several16 stories on top of the Granary, and there17 were a number of meetings about that and18 that project was scrapped and a new19 project was started. So the new project20 we have not met 12 times, as stated.21 The last time we met here was22 November 16th. November 24th was last23 Wednesday, which meant we had eight days,24 including the weekend up to Thanksgiving25 233 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 weekend when a lot of people are away, to2 try to get things done. During that3 time, we met several times. We met with4 the developer, I believe, in there. We5 met with our lawyer, and we have6 submitted an original list of changes.7 We now have, I guess you could call it, a8 semi-final draft which is being completed9 right -- actually is probably completed10 over the weekend, which the developer11 will get shortly. We need to review that12 tomorrow night, then the developer can13 have it and take a look at it and come14 back with their comments.15 So we are working actively with16 the developer. We just don't have enough17 time.18 The other thing is that the19 developer has given us a parking plan. I20 got that, I think, on Wednesday before21 Thanksgiving, possibly Thursday, but we22 don't have yet what the building looks23 like. We still have not gotten drawings,24 diagrams of the complete building on all25 234 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 four sides, and we have concerns about2 that. We want to know what the materials3 are that it's going to be made of, what4 it's going to look like, and that was one5 of the things that we had asked.6 There are a number of minor7 changes that I think will be made without8 any difficulty.9 With all that in mind, we10 don't, as Susan Lombardi said, don't want11 to be rushed into something. We want to12 do it properly and have it legally13 recorded. So we're asking that it not be14 moved out of Committee, that we have some15 time to complete the work and do it16 properly.17 Thank you very much.18
Thank you19 for your testimony.20 Please identify yourself for21 the record.22
Good afternoon,23 Council. My name is Mark Perry. I'm a24 resident at 325 North 19th Street. I'm25 235 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 directly in front of the property of the2 Pearl Properties. I got to commend3 Pearl, they've always been up front so4 far and personal with us. They've made5 changes to their plans. Since the6 beginning of June, I believe we first7 met -- we met in June -- my wife and I8 have attended all the meetings. We've9 even welcomed them to the community,10 welcomed to the area.11 We're working hand in hand in12 this, but the bottom line is, we'd like13 to see what we're going to get. And14 there's a couple properties in the area.15 There's one up at 18th and Spring Garden16 Street. There was a bank there. I'm a17 policeman, where one of our officers was18 slain. There was a -- you could see a19 beautiful facade, but behind it it's just20 stucco. So we would just want to see21 what type of materials that they're going22 to use, what type of landscaping, the23 designs, just a little more information24 up front before we agree to this. And we25 236 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 are working with them diligently. We're2 not lackadaisical. We're not like the3 last group in here. We could have been4 out of here in ten minutes.5 But it's a pleasure talking6 with you. It's a pleasure meeting you7 all, and I wish you all a good day.8
Thank you9 very much for your testimony.10 Any questions for these11 witnesses?12 (No response.)13
Thank you14 very much.15 Anyone else to testify on this16 bill?17 (No response.)18
Seeing19 none, we will now go to Bill No. 100709.20 I'm sorry. Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't see21 you.22
That's okay. My23 name is Jovida Hill. I live at 419 North24 20th Street, and I actually don't need to25 237 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 testify again since I testified the first2 time two weeks ago. And I just wanted to3 find out whether or not there were any4 questions in addition to just testifying5 to the fact that we would like the bill6 to be held until we finish a signed7 neighborhood development agreement, which8 we're working diligently on.9
No. Thank14 you.15 We will now move to Bill No.16 100709, an ordinance approving the first17 amendment of the redevelopment proposal18 for the Center City Redevelopment Area,19 Franklin Town Project, being the area20 beginning in the vicinity of Spring21 Garden and Twenty-First Streets, which22 provides, inter alia, for amending the23 land use map and regulations to add24 religious institutional as a permitted25 238 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 use, modifying the regulations to exclude2 certain portions of the project area from3 building setbacks and adjusting height4 limitations, and for amending the5 regulations by adding provisions related6 to gates, fences and walls within certain7 portions of the project area.8 (Witnesses approached witness9 table.)10
Whoever is11 ready to go first, please identify12 yourself for the record.13
-- and members18 of the Committee. My name is Ed19 Covington, the Executive Director of the20 Redevelopment Authority of the City of21 Philadelphia. I'm here to speak in22 support of Bill No. 100709, which would23 approve the first amendment to the24 redevelopment proposal for the Franklin25 239 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Town Project.2 The provisions of the proposed3 amendment apply predominantly to 17014 Vine Street and will facilitate the5 development of a Mormon temple on this6 site by the Corporation of the Presiding7 Bishop of the Church of Jesus Christ of8 Latter-Day Saints while ensuring that the9 original goals of the redevelopment10 proposal are met. All proposed changes11 were made in consultation with the staff12 of the City Planning Commission, which13 has since approved the proposed14 amendment.15 The amendment provides for16 modifying the land use map and17 regulations to add, quote, "religious18 institutional," unquote, as a permitted19 use, revising the regulations to provide20 greater flexibility on this site as it21 pertains to setback and height22 restrictions, adding glazing requirements23 for buildings on this site with frontage24 on the former Wood Street, and adding a25 240 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 subsection with standards for walls and2 fences.3 There are no acquisitions4 included in this bill, and no families or5 individuals will be displaced or6 relocated as part of the proposed7 development.8 Councilman Kenney and members9 of the Committee, I respectfully request10 favorable consideration of Bill No.11 100709 and would also ask the suspension12 of Council rules to allow first reading13 on December 2nd, 2010.14
Good afternoon,21 Mr. Chairman and members of the Rules22 Committee. My name is Richard Redding.23 I'm Director of Community Planning at the24 Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I25 241 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 am here today to testify in support of2 Bill 100709 pertaining to Franklin Town3 and the site at 1701 Vine Street.4 The bill approves the first5 amendment of the redevelopment proposal6 for the Franklin Town Project. It adds7 "religious institutional" as a permitted8 use. It modifies controls for setback9 and height, and adds controls for gates,10 fences and walls.11 The proposals are in accordance12 with the Center City Redevelopment Area13 Plan, as amended by our Commission in14 September of this year. The Planning15 Commission staff approved this amended16 redevelopment proposal on October 19th,17 2010.18 I'm happy to answer any19 questions.20
Thank you21 for your testimony.22 Any questions for these23 witnesses?24 (No response.)25 242 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
Seeing2 none, anyone else to testify on this3 bill?4 Please come forward.5 (Witnesses approached witness6 table.)7
Good afternoon,10 Mr. Chairman and members of the11 Committee. My name is Tom Chapman. I'm12 an attorney with Blank Rome here in13 Philadelphia and I represent the Church14 of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints in15 the matter before you this morning --16 this afternoon, rather. With me here17 today also is Ahmed Corbett, who is the18 local representative of the church.19 This Bill 100709 is actually20 the third matter considered by City21 Council in the past six months related to22 the development of the new temple and23 church facilities at the site that's at24 18th and Vine. Just last week Council25 243 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 approved the resolution, and then six2 months ago, Council approved an amendment3 to the Zoning Code that allowed the4 height of the spires to reach 209 feet.5 Currently, this property is a6 surface parking lot. It's zoned "C-5."7 It's been a parking lot for, I would say,8 at least 20 to 25 years, and it's the9 intention of the church to establish a10 new temple and ancillary building at this11 site, along with 200 below-grade parking12 spaces.13 Thank you very much. I'd be14 happy to answer any questions of the15 Committee. And I'd like to thank16 Councilman Clarke for his support with17 this project thus far. He's been a great18 help and source of support from day one19 with this. And I'd also like to thank20 Mr. Ed Covington and the staff of the21 Redevelopment Authority as well.22
Sir, please25 244 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 identify yourself again for the record.2
3 I'm a citizen, as well as a member of the4 Contractors Roundtable. I wanted to5 testify today as a citizen, because as6 this project was working its way through7 the various agencies, particularly at the8 RDA, when it comes to getting information9 about a project with the RDA, it's been a10 difficult task. As a citizen, I have to11 obtain a lawyer. I got to get a12 right-to-know request. 1 Councilman Clarke. What concerned me was2 that EOP plan. 9 When that occurred in June of10 this year, the Redevelopment Authority11 through their process, they moved their12 resolution and a couple months ago --13 Council was there. When they approved14 the resolution for the project, they told15 me at that time, Well, you can't see the16 EOP plan -- no. I'm sorry. Let me17 correct. The EOP was attached to their18 resolution, but it was the EOP plan that19 should have been at the June hearing. 1 this project, because I support my2 Councilman. I support this project for3 the Latter-Day Saints. It's just so --4 and this project really touched me5 personally, because I had a run-in with6 the Latter-Day Saints back when I was a7 young guy. I was 18. I was a marine8 stationed at Iwakuni, Japan, and there9 was a period of time where Latter-Day10 Saints did not accept African Americans11 in the religion. Well, I suffered the12 brunt of that, because there was some new13 recruits that had become Latter-Day14 Saints. 19 But like all organizations in this20 country, they moved forward, and I21 support them. 1 they have this service where they2 research your family, your family3 history. I didn't know it because, once4 again, I had to obtain outside counsel5 and I had to get a genealogist to go back6 and find my history. 9 Unfortunately -- one thing, I did find my10 family, and it was just -- I think that11 that's an enlightening thing. 16 So the reason -- I was never in17 opposition to this. I talked to18 Mr. Corbett, Councilman, and I wanted to19 be clear, I support this project. My20 history is my history. I'd like to put21 it in the record because I went through22 that. getting that information. And when it comes to the EOP plans, I4 mean, you carried the ball to the5 election. The citizens spoke after that6 and they said we want this. 13 So I support the project. 16
I17 appreciate that. Thank you very much.18 Councilman Clarke.19
Thank you,20 Mr. Chairman.21 Good afternoon now, Mr. Ali. I22 do have an issue with respect to this EOP23 plan, and I still haven't gotten a clear24 understanding of exactly what happened.25 249 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 I do recall at the time of the initial2 public hearing when we requested the EOP3 plan, that was not available at that4 time, and through a lot of work and a lot5 of commitment by my friends from the6 Latter-Day Saints, they gave us an7 extremely aggressive proposal. It wasn't8 the 50 percent that I originally asked9 for, nor did I expect it to be, but the10 reality is, what they told me, that they11 gave me a number, I think it was around12 40, 41, something like that --13
It was15 quite high. They wanted to commit to a16 number that they thought was something17 that they could reasonably achieve, and I18 appreciate that and respect it, but19 somehow when it left Council approval and20 got into the subsequent processes, which21 were the RDA and the OEO, those numbers22 somehow dropped from 40 and I think23 they're down close to 30 percent, and I24 still haven't gotten a clear25 250 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 understanding of that reduction. And2 what I do know, that did not come from3 the Latter-Day Saints, because they had4 made their earlier commitment based on5 what they believe that they could6 reasonably make.7 And I agree with you, Jihad,8 that that transference from Council9 through the Redevelopment Authority10 process and through the OEO process was11 somewhat unclear to me, and it reflected12 a much lower number as it related to13 goals for the participation. But I just14 have to believe that the reality is that15 the commitment was made by the Latter-Day16 Saints organization, that they will keep17 the original commitment. It's trying to18 be as aggressive as possible. But I do19 share that concern with you about the --20 and I don't want to say lack of21 transparency, but the nature of which22 those numbers are diminished during the23 course of this process.24
Thank you25 251 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 very much.2 Thank you for your testimony.3 Anyone else to testify on this4 bill?5 (No response.)6
Seeing7 none, we will now move to Bill No.8 100750, which is an ordinance to amend9 the Institutional Development District10 Master Plan of Holy Family University,11 located at 4500 Grant Avenue, by allowing12 for the construction of a new13 administrative building.14 Mr. Kramer, please identify15 yourself.16
Good afternoon,17 Chairman Kenney and members of the Rules18 Committee. I am William Kramer, Division19 Director of the Development Division of20 the Philadelphia City Planning21 Commission. I am here to testify on Bill22 No. 100750, which was introduced into23 City Council November 4th, 2010.24 Bill No. 100750 would permit25 252 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 the construction of a new office building2 for Holy Family University, located at3 4500 Grant Avenue. The new building will4 be constructed generally in the footprint5 of the existing Marian Hall, a6 two-and-a-half-story, 7,000 square foot7 structure situated on a8 one-and-a-half-acre lot. The new9 proposed Marian Hall will contain10 approximately 12,740 square feet of11 office space in a two-story structure,12 with off-street parking for 39 vehicles.13 The new Marian Hall is14 necessary to meet the administrative15 needs of the growing University. The16 building will house administrative17 functions, some executive staff, the18 University's Board of Trustees, offices,19 conference rooms and a multi-purpose room20 which will be used for an office assembly21 space. The new structure will display22 some existing parking with a net increase23 of parking to 29 spaces on the site.24 The Philadelphia City Planning25 253 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Commission at its meeting of October2 19th, 2010 approved an amendment to the3 Institutional Development District Master4 Plan for Holy Family University.5 Accordingly, this item is in accord with6 previous City Planning Commission policy7 and we recommend the approval of Bill No.8 100750.9 That is the conclusion of my10 testimony. I'd be happy to answer any11 questions the Committee may have.12
Thank you13 very much for your testimony.14 Any questions for Mr. Kramer?15 (No response.)16
Seeing17 none, please identify yourself for the18 record.19
Good afternoon,20 members of the Committee. My name is21 Peter Tantala. I'm an engineer working22 with Holy Family University in support of23 their proposed office building at 450024 Grant Avenue.25 254 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 The University has reached out2 and worked very collaboratively with3 neighbors on the project. They do4 propose a two-story office building for5 their own accessory uses of the6 administration at the University. One7 item by way of correction, the proposed8 site would include 39 parking spaces, not9 29. And I'd happy to answer any10 questions the Committee may have.11
Seeing15 none, thank you very much for coming in16 and for your help in getting this project17 moving.18 Anyone else to testify on this19 bill?20 (No response.)21
Next bill22 is 100773, an ordinance declaring that it23 is desirable for the health, safety and24 welfare of the people of the area served25 255 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 by The Children's Hospital of2 Philadelphia and The Children's Hospital3 of Philadelphia Foundation for The4 Hospitals and Higher Education Facilities5 Authority of Philadelphia to participate6 with such institutions in constructing a7 new 5-story ambulatory care center and8 making certain other capital improvements9 to such institutions' buildings and10 facilities primarily at their campus11 located at 34th and Civic Center12 Boulevard, Philadelphia, PA.13 (Witnesses approached witness14 table.)15
Whoever is16 ready to go, please identify yourself for17 the record.18
Mr. Chairman, I'm19 James Baker, the Interim President of the20 Hospital Authorities -- Hospital and21 Higher Education Facilities Authority of22 the City of Philadelphia.23
Before you24 start, one question. Mr. Dubow, why are25 256 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 you here?2
Well, that5 can't be true, number one. Number two, I6 mean, because we used to go through these7 pretty quickly, if I recall. Is there an8 issue?9
No. The Finance10 Director has always come and given11 testimony in support of these.12
All right.13 Please proceed.14 Councilwoman Blackwell, do you15 want to have anything to say?16 COUNCILWOMAN BLACKWELL:17 Absolutely. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and18 members of the Committee. We just want19 to say that we support this project, have20 talked about it, been informed about it,21 are involved in it obviously since it's22 in the Third District, and we certainly23 would appreciate the Committee's24 consideration.25 257 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
Please5 proceed with your testimony, whoever is6 first. It doesn't matter to me.7
Good afternoon,8 Councilman Kenney, members of the9 Committee. I'm Rob Dubow, Director of10 Finance. With me today is Interim11 President of the Hospital and Higher12 Education Facilities Authority, Jim13 Baker, and we're here to testify on14 behalf of Bill No. 100773.15 The bill authorizes the16 Authority on behalf of Children's17 Hospital of Philadelphia to issue revenue18 bonds in an aggregate principal amount19 not to exceed $315 million. The bonds20 will provide the hospital with funds for21 the construction of a new ambulatory care22 center and an underground parking garage23 and other improvements relating to the24 ambulatory care center, capital25 258 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 improvements, equipment purchases and2 campus renovations that will support the3 continued patient care, research and4 educational operations of the hospital.5 Those improvements benefit the region and6 the community as a whole.7 The City has no debt service8 obligation on these bonds and is not9 liable for any payments related to the10 bonds. The Administration supports this11 work and the bill.12 That concludes my testimony.13 I'd be happy to answer any questions.14 CHAIRMAN KENNEY: Please15 re-identify yourself and proceed.16
Mr. Chairman, I'm17 James P. Baker. I am the Interim18 President of the Hospital and Higher19 Education Facilities Authority of the20 City of Philadelphia. I'd like to21 testify on behalf of Bill 100773 on22 behalf of the Children's Hospital of23 Philadelphia.24 The Children's Hospital of25 259 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Philadelphia submitted an application to2 our Authority seeking the Authority's3 assistance in financing their project.4 The application was accepted for5 consideration by the Authority. A public6 Tax Equity and Fiscal Responsibility Act,7 TEFRA, hearing was held on November 23rd8 in the Authority's boardroom and the9 Children's Hospital of Philadelphia was10 represented at the hearing.11 Today, we have the privilege12 together of helping the Hospital and the13 many people associated with this14 remarkable organization. I want to15 express my appreciation to each member of16 the Committee and to Council on behalf of17 the Board of the Authority for allowing18 us to appear before the Committee today.19 We are working to meet the Hospital's20 needs to get to market before the end of21 the year. We do, however, recognize the22 importance of inclusion and are,23 therefore, working with the24 Administration, with Councilwoman25 260 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 Blackwell to prepare an amendment to add2 to an EOP to the bill for consideration.3 We pray you would suspend the rules and4 be able to allow for first reading of the5 bill on Thursday and as presentation for6 passage on 12/9.7
I've been11 saying this to Austin for years. I12 always marvel -- when I first came into13 Council, I chaired this committee and I14 used to love when people come in and they15 want to borrow a lot of money and we're16 not on the hook for it, so they can spend17 it here, and I'm like, Yeah, thanks. I18 don't even know why you're here, to tell19 you the truth. I mean, I know there's a20 legal requirement, but thank you. Thanks21 for the $311 million in investment and22 your continued presence out in West23 Philly.24 Any questions?25 261 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1 See, you're going to wreck my2 average now.3
It's all4 good.5 Forgive me for not paying close6 attention, but I just want to put on the7 record the interest of members of the8 Committee around the OEO plan. That was9 stipulated in your testimony, correct?10
Thank you12 very much.13 Thank you, Mr. Chairman.14 COUNCILMAN KENNEY:15 Councilwoman, the testimony will be16 amended into the bill before passage.17 Councilman Goode?18
Any other20 questions for these witnesses?21 (No response.)22
Anyone else23 to testify on this bill?24 (No response.)25 262 11/29/10 - RULES - BILL 100552, ETC.1
Did you2 have testimony, sir? I'm sorry. Only if3 you desire.4
We're good.6 Austin, take care.7 I think that's it. That will8 conclude our public hearing. We will now9 move into our -- I'm sorry. We did that.10 We'll go into our public meeting.11 As I said before, Bill Nos.12 100720, 100678 and 100761 will be held to13 the call of the Chair.14 The Chair recognizes Councilman15 Greenlee for a motion on Bill No. 100721.16