Committee Hearing, May 26, 2009

COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA2 COMMITTEE ON RULES3 - - -4 Room 400, City Hall5 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, May 26, 20096 10:40 a.m. 7 - - - 8 PRESENT:9 COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL10 COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO11 COUNCILMAN W. WILSON GOODE, JR. COUNCILMAN BILL GREEN12 COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY13 COUNCILWOMAN JOAN L. KRAJEWSKI 14 BILL 090354 - An ordinance amending Chapter 14-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled15 "Commercial Entertainment District"... 16 BILL 090359 - An ordinance authorizing the revision of lines and grades on a portion of17 City Plan Nos. 146 and 271... 18 BILL 090381 - An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the19 zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Broad20 Street, the Delaware Expressway... 21 - - - 22 V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services23 Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 60024 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.267025 2 1

Good2 morning, everyone. This is a public3 hearing of the Rules Committee.4 I would ask Mr. McPherson to5 please read the title of Bill No. 090381.6 MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to7 amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by8 changing the zoning designations of9 certain areas of land located within an10 area bounded by Broad Street, the11 Delaware Expressway, Pattison Avenue,12 Packer Avenue, Delaware Avenue and League13 Island Boulevard Extended.14 (Witness approached witness15 table.)16

Good17 morning. Please identify yourself for18 the record and proceed with your19 testimony.20

Good morning,21 Council President Verna and members of22 the Rules Committee. I am William23 Kramer, Division Director of the24 Development Planning Division of the25 3 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I2 am here today to testify on Bill No.3 090381, which was introduced by4 Councilmember Tasco for Council President5 Verna May 7th of this year.6 This bill rezones a large7 section of land along the South Delaware8 riverfront in order to allow for the9 creation of a modern port. To accomplish10 this goal, a portion of the Navy base11 with a zoning designation of "G-2"12 General Industrial and land associated13 with Piers 122 and 124 with a zoning14 designation of "PI" Port Industrial will15 be rezoned to a zoning designation of16 "LR" Least Restricted. The properties17 are owned in conjunction by the18 Philadelphia Industrial Development19 Corporation and the State of20 Pennsylvania. These parcels are the21 subject of a state-sponsored proposal to22 develop Southport. The reason for the23 zoning change is to allow for multi-modal24 transfers of goods and not be limited to25 4 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 transfers to and from ships as a2 requirement of the district.3 The Philadelphia City Planning4 Commission at its meeting of May 19th,5 2009 considered Bill No. 090381 and6 recommended that it be approved.7 This concludes my testimony. I8 appreciate the opportunity to appear9 before you today and would be pleased to10 answer any questions you may have.11

Thank12 you very much.13 Do we have any questions from14 members of the Committee?15 (No response.)16

I17 would like you to make the record very,18 very clear. This has absolutely nothing19 to do with a car crusher?20

That is correct.21

Say22 it for the record, please.23

This24 application --25 5 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

This2 has nothing to do --3

This has nothing4 to do with the creation of a car crusher.5

Thank6 you very much.7 Do we have any questions from8 members of the Committee?9 (No response.)10

Thank11 you.12 Our next witness?13 (Witness approached witness14 table.)15

Good morning,16 Council President Verna and members of17 the Committee. My name is John Grady and18 I represent the Philadelphia Industrial19 Development Corporation. I'm here to20 testify in support of Bill No. 090381.21 This Bill rezones a large area22 of land along the South Delaware23 waterfront, a portion of which was24 acquired by the Philadelphia Authority25 6 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 for Industrial Development from the2 United States Navy in the year 2000.3 This land is located at the far eastern4 end of the Navy Yard and is surrounded by5 existing rail and port infrastructure and6 is part of the proposed Southport7 expansion project.8 Southport is proposed to be a9 major expansion of the port facilities10 south of the existing Packer Avenue11 Marine Terminal where the Commonwealth is12 projecting substantial new investment in13 the port and job growth as a result of14 this port expansion.15 The Philadelphia Authority for16 Industrial Development has executed a17 sales and development agreement with the18 Commonwealth's Department of General19 Services to provide approximately 11020 acres of land at the Navy Yard in support21 of this project.22 This rezoning and the proposed23 port and logistics facility are24 consistent with the Navy Yard master plan25 7 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 and, accordingly, PIDC and PAID recommend2 approval of Bill No. 090381.3 Thank you for the opportunity4 to testify, and I'd be happy to answer5 any questions that you may have.6

Can7 you briefly describe what is the purpose8 of the Southport expansion project?9

As I understand it,10 the Commonwealth is pursuing the11 Southport expansion project to create an12 opportunity for the development of a13 large-scale intermodal terminal that14 would allow for greater access to the15 port community for jobs and investment.16

And17 can you tell us for the record how many18 acres are involved?19

The overall20 Southport project covers approximately21 175 acres. A portion of those acres are22 located at the former Navy Yard property.23

Okay.24 Any questions from members of the25 8 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 Committee?2 The Chair recognizes Councilman3 Kenney.4

Thank you,5 Madam President.6 Mr. Grady, could you tell us7 why you're supporting the zoning changes8 and what the zoning changes would or9 would not do?10

We're supporting11 these zoning changes essentially in12 support of our activity with the13 Commonwealth to advance the development14 of the Southport container terminal. As15 I understand it from the Commonwealth and16 their zoning attorneys, they believe that17 the Least Restricted industrial zoning18 gives them the maximum flexibility to19 develop the kind of port terminal that20 they think will be most successful in the21 current and future economy.22

Does Port23 Industrial zoning constrain or restrict24 any activity?25 9 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

Port Industrial2 zoning does, as I understand it, limit3 certain container movements, particularly4 movements from the terminal to truck or5 from the terminal to rail. Port6 Industrial zoning typically focuses on7 activity from ship to land, and the Least8 Restricted industrial zoning would allow9 the movement of the goods from the land10 then out to their ultimate destination.11

Thank you.12

Any13 other questions from members of the14 Committee?15 (No response.)16

Thank17 you very much, Mr. Grady.18

Thank you.19

Our20 next witness?21 (Witness approached witness22 table.)23

Good24 morning. Please identify yourself for25 10 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 the record.2 MS. McNAMARA: Good morning.3 My name is Kate McNamara and I represent4 the Governor's Office and the5 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. I am here6 to testify this morning in support of7 Bill 090381.8 This Bill rezones approximately9 110 acres of land to facilitate the10 development of Southport, which has been11 previously explained by Mr. Grady from12 PIDC. Essentially, it's an intermodal13 marine terminal that will be located14 immediately south of the existing Packer15 Avenue Terminal and continuing into the16 east end of the Navy Yard. The rezoning17 will provide a consistent LR zoning18 designation across the entire site, which19 will enable us to have a modern20 intermodal container terminal that21 competes with the other ports that22 currently exist on the East Coast. The23 Southport terminal will have the capacity24 to handle more than a million TEUs at25 11 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 full build-out, which will bring2 tremendous economic opportunity, jobs and3 new local and state business revenue as4 well as tax revenue.5 Due to the impact of the global6 economic recession on the shipping7 industry and the capital markets, the8 recent bid process for Southport was9 suspended on Friday. The Commonwealth10 has elected to move forward with the11 project, however. We've dedicated $2512 million in capital funds to move the13 project forward to complete the14 pre-construction activity that's15 required, and we fully intend to go back16 out and bid this project within the near17 future when the markets are sufficiently18 recovered.19 Rezoning of the Southport site20 for the proposed port and intermodal use21 is consistent with the Commonwealth and22 the City's dedication to job creation and23 economic growth. Therefore, we support24 and recommend approval of this bill.25 12 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 Thank you very much for the2 opportunity to testify today, and we're3 happy to answer any questions that you4 may have.5

Thank6 you.7 Are there any questions from8 members of the Committee?9 (No response.)10

Thank11 you. But you will remain until the end.12 MS. McNAMARA: Thank you.13

Thank14 you.15 MR. McPHERSON: Our next16 witness is Henry Lewandowski.17 (Witness approached witness18 table.)19

Good20 morning.21

Good morning,22 Councilwoman Verna and fellow members of23 the Committee. My name is Henry24 Lewandowski and I'm a member of the25 13 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 Whitman Council.2 Councilwoman Verna, as you3 know, we have asked a few times for your4 office to introduce certain legislation5 that would change the zoning in the area6 surrounding our neighborhood and in your7 district from Least Restricted to Port8 Industrial. It was our hope that we9 could avoid some of the types of10 activities that we've received recently;11 for instance, the car crusher being one12 of them, and, of course, I think you've13 addressed that satisfactorily in your14 questioning today.15 Number two is our facilities16 like the strip club that we have there17 smack in the middle of the Port18 Industrial community. When we tried to19 fight that several years ago, we were20 told, Sorry, there's nothing you can do21 about it, it's Least Restricted. We22 believe, "we" being the community members23 and certainly all of the folks who24 attended our last community meeting last25 14 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 Wednesday evening, that Port Industrial2 would be the best use of that land that3 borders our neighborhood to the south and4 to the east along the river, and we have5 consistently asked that you help us in6 getting rid of the Least Restricted7 designation there and in helping us with8 Port Industrial.9 We knew nothing about this10 hearing today, learned about it, I would11 say, by accident on Wednesday evening.12 On Thursday and Friday, we did the best13 we could to learn about it, and, of14 course, many of our members could not be15 here today. Fortunately, I was able to16 rearrange my schedule to be here.17 What we heard from the18 Governor's Office, what we heard from19 PIDC is the first that we've heard about20 this, and if it helps to facilitate the21 full-blown Southport project, I think our22 community would be in full support of it.23 It's just that we have very little24 information and don't know anything about25 15 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 it, and we are, frankly, confused -- and2 when I say "we," me chief among them --3 with the idea that Port Industrial would4 somehow not support Southport.5 So we -- I come here today and6 I came here today asking for more time so7 that we could gather enough information8 so that we could make an educated9 decision about whether or not we support10 or oppose the project. I know there are11 other witnesses here that represent the12 International Longshoremen Association,13 and in many instances, our interests fit14 squarely within theirs.15

Can16 we have someone here from PIDC approach17 the witness table, please.18 (Witness approached witness19 table.)20 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.21 Good morning. Could you talk a little22 bit about some of the deed restrictions23 that are in this? That may address some24 of the concerns that Mr. Lewandowski has25 16 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 brought to mind. I understand some of2 the issues that he raised about some of3 the uses that have been there as it4 relates to Least Restricted for certain5 portions of Whitman. So can you talk6 about that a little bit?7

Sure. The8 Southport project is comprised of land9 essentially from two entities, the10 Commonwealth and the Philadelphia11 Authority for Industrial Development, and12 both conveyances, the Commonwealth's13 conveyance to the Department of General14 Services and PAID's contractual agreement15 with the Department of General Services,16 both have significant deed restrictions17 that limit the use of the land for18 maritime purposes only, and if those19 purposes are not -- if those deed20 restrictions are not complied with, the21 land reverts back to the original owner.22 So in each case, the land would revert23 back to the Commonwealth or back to PAID,24 depending upon which property was in25 17 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 question.2 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: So, in3 essence, what you're suggesting, what4 you're testifying to is that a strip5 club, those types of businesses, would6 not be permitted under the deed7 restrictions?8

That's correct.9 Regardless of the underlying zoning, the10 deed restriction would take precedence11 and limit the use only to the maritime12 uses that are prescribed in the13 restrictions.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO:15 Mr. Lewandowski, have you seen the deed?16

We haven't.17 And, Councilman, that is -- again, we're18 not here to oppose or to be19 obstructionists or anything else. We're20 here simply because of Wednesday evening21 we learned about this and knew nothing22 about it.23

We'd be happy to24 submit the agreement to Council.25 18 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: If you2 could submit it to the Chair, and then3 the Chair will make it available to4 everyone.5 And you will see the list of6 what the restrictions are, and I think it7 will address some of your concerns.8

I would9 appreciate that. Thank you.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,11 Madam Chair.12 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:13 Mr. Lewandowski, I certainly would hope14 that when something regarding zoning or15 change of zoning is in your immediate16 community, that you receive notices of17 the hearing. You do; do you not?18

If we do --19 and, again, I don't work in our community20 office. I serve there in the evenings21 and as a volunteer. I did not receive22 any for this particular hearing.23

Well,24 I guess you wouldn't because I would25 19 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 assume that people would think that this2 is at the Navy Yard, and it's such a3 distance away that it certainly wouldn't4 encompass your association's boundaries.5

I would agree6 with that from a geographical7 perspective, but certainly from an actual8 economic impact, our community is made up9 largely of longshoremen and port workers.10 The idea --11

I'm12 not addressing that. I'm not addressing13 that. I'm addressing the notice issue.14 I'm sure that a clerk looking at the15 geographic area, this is not Whitman's16 area, so they wouldn't be notified.17 That's all I'm trying to bring out.18

Okay. I19 understand that, and I would agree with20 that. But it does affect us.21 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:22 That's why you probably were not aware of23 it.24

Okay.25 20 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

Very2 well.3 Any questions?4 (No response.)5

Thank6 you, Mr. Lewandowski.7

Thank you.8 MR. McPHERSON: Our next9 witness is Jim Paylor.10 (Witness approached witness11 table.)12

Good morning.13

Good14 morning. Please identify yourself for15 the record and proceed with your16 testimony.17

Madam Chair, my18 name is James Paylor. That's P, as in19 Paul, A-Y-L-O-R. I am Vice-President of20 the International Longshoremen's21 Association.22 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:23 Welcome.24

Thank you.25 21 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 Madam Chairman, I wish I could2 be as brief as the last three speakers,3 but I don't think I can do that, so I4 apologize in advance.5 Hedsy just --6

Would7 you pull the microphone closer, please.8 Thank you.9

I just referred to10 Hedsy, because that's how I know11 Mr. Lewandowski. He just, I think,12 summed up what the importance of us being13 here is, is that we're concerned based on14 what is a golden opportunity if it's not15 handled properly could be at risk. And16 the golden opportunity is, the core17 development is the port development. 5 The problem that I'm having6 trying to understand what I learned only7 as of Thursday and Friday is, what does8 the zoning really mean. And I did hear9 the explanation today, and on the surface10 and the limitations of what they11 explained it, it doesn't sound like a bad12 thing. However, without understanding13 the full magnitude of what it could do, I14 think it could be an obstacle that could15 interfere or destroy the golden16 opportunity. 1 recall, with two issues. 16 We were disputing the importance of that17 based on what we knew was coming in our18 longshore industry or in our shipping19 industry, and at that time, we met with20 Roy Kienitz, who was the Project Manager21 for Governor Rendell. 1 change that process, but he gave us a2 challenge, and his challenge was to find3 an investor that would get $100 million4 of private money invested into the port5 project for the purpose of developing a6 shipping facility that the industry7 desperately needs. And we looked at8 that, and we met that challenge. 14 There was an RFP that was sent15 out. 18 And it's changed or it was redefined a19 number of times to this point. We're20 sitting here today. I'm still confused21 on what is available for the port22 developed land. 2 I sit in the position where I3 meet with the major shipping lines. It's4 called the Industrial Appellate5 Committee. 12 Those people are now looking at13 Philadelphia in a way they never looked14 at Philadelphia before. 20 (Sergeant-At-Arms gets21 paperwork from Mr. )22

4 And if you turn from the back and you5 thumb through about three or four pages,6 you'll see a few different designs that7 were developed based on the optimism that8 was in our industry over a year ago, and9 even during the time of a global downward10 trend still exists, and I'll explain that11 in a minute. But this is a presentation12 that I did make to -- it was an informal13 presentation that I did make to14 Councilman DiCicco and Councilman Kenney15 and yourself, Madam Chairman, with the16 hope -- and I understand everyone is17 busy, including myself -- that at some18 point in time, we would be able to make19 the formal presentation to the entire20 City Council. 1 if other lands were available, what type2 of development and what type of concept3 and what type of job generation would4 come. My understanding in the5 response -- and I haven't seen any of the6 responses -- that was due last week, that7 all four responded that two things. One8 is, based on the financial global9 problem, financing 110 acres and with the10 return that may come on only 110 acres11 may not be doable, number one. And the12 main emphasis based on the communication13 with two of the bidders is that they14 didn't want to bid on a 110-acre15 facility. They wanted to bid on a larger16 facility. 1 it's a letter that's addressed to you,2 Mrs. Verna, and it's from the3 Philadelphia Industrial Development4 Corporation, and in this letter in the5 first paragraph -- and that's the second6 document after the presentation. It's in7 your packet. 10 090166. "15 That is disturbing to me,16 because it was my understanding from the17 beginning and the people that we were18 asked to solicit to this facility,19 meaning the Southport project, is that20 the RFP went out with a separate and21 distinct parcel of land in the Navy Yard22 that was not to be recognized as an23 extension of the Packer Avenue Marine24 Terminal. 2 I have sent a letter to John3 Esty, Chairman of the PRPA, and he has4 sent a response, and it was a generic,5 very predictable response, and I know you6 all have it. 9 But this letter clearly states10 two things. 14 This brings me to another15 understanding. 1 it seems like there's a tug of war on who2 owns that land, and it's one that's not3 really clear. And I heard what John4 Grady said. I agree with him. 7 But this is the first sign8 there's been some confusion or some9 misrepresentation of the facts, whether10 intentional or unintentional. And I do11 think they're unintentional for this12 reason: They're not the only ones who13 are confused. 16 The next letter that you have17 in your packet is a letter from Hamburg18 Sud. Hamburg Sud we always refer to as19 Columbus line. They're a major shipping20 line that does go out the Packer Avenue21 Marine Terminal, and I consider them22 friends of the port. 1 But if you read the second or I2 guess it's the third -- no; second3 paragraph, it says, "HSDG/Holt recently4 became aware of Pennsylvania legislative5 proposal in the Pennsylvania House of6 Representatives, House Bill 666, which,7 if enacted, would convey approximately8 250 acres of land to the PRPA for9 maritime purposes only. 12 "A maritime conveyance of this13 size would represent a significant14 departure from the project as described15 in the SFP. " And it's signed by Rainer23 Dehe. 9 I sent a letter dated April10 15th to Mr. 15 More opportunities for them to have as16 options available to them would make17 Philadelphia a port that's recognized not18 just locally but globally in the shipping19 community. 1 and State Representatives to look at this2 for what it really is. This letter is3 from a gentleman named James A. 4 Mr. Capo represents all the major5 shipping lines that carry 95 percent of6 all cargo around the world. He also7 represents Mr. Rainer Dehe. And I met8 with Mr. Capo after I received Mr. Dehe's9 letter and I asked him, What is the10 industry looking at and why would11 Mr. Dehe write a letter the way he wrote12 the letter.

And I understand why,13 because he's a potential bidder. 16 If you look at the bottom17 paragraph, it says -- he's asking18 Governor Rendell, "I ask for your support19 in developing both the Southport and Navy20 Yard into maritime-related projects. 6 Here's what they know: Before7 the downward spiral, it was predicted8 that the cargo coming into the country9 was going to double in the next 10 to 1510 years. 12 Even during the time of this downward13 spiral, there's at least six RFPs out for14 major container facilities down the15 coast, and that's because they still see16 the value in that land for the purpose in17 which it was designated. There's also18 major capital improvements being done in19 a lot of those facilities for the purpose20 of enhancing the value. 4 There's problems on the West5 Coast that I won't get into the nature of6 them, but it's recognized that a lot of7 the West Coast cargo is already being8 diverted to the East Coast. 14 There's also in that15 presentation, if you look through it,16 you'll see a logistical movement map that17 shows that the trends in the shipping18 industry are changing from where the Far19 East cargo used to come to the West Coast20 and then there would be a mini bridge21 across the United States via truck or22 rail to come to the East Coast. That's23 all changing now. 1 cargo is to keep it on the water as long2 as possible. So they're taking cargo3 from the Far East and they're bringing it4 through the Suez Canal. When the Suez5 Canal -- and if you draw a straight line6 from the Suez Canal for navigational7 purposes, it lines perfectly with the8 Delaware Bay. 11 In addition to that, the Middle12 East is becoming the new Far East. The13 Middle East is where all the stuff that14 we as consumers buy is shifting -- the15 manufacturing is shifting to the Middle16 East. The Middle East is even closer to17 the Suez Canal; therefore, closer to the18 Delaware Bay. 21 The other thing that's now22 being recognized, that there's congestion23 in other ports that are in more local24 proximity, I guess. 1 the cargo that they're expected to2 handle. They have problems with3 congestion. They have problems with4 facilities. They have problems getting5 their cargo to those facilities. 10 After my meeting with James11 Capo, which was approximately a month12 ago, Mr. Capo looked at the Southport13 project with its full potential. He also14 looked at something that nobody else has15 looked at, but since they are the ones16 who fund our programs, he looked at the17 population in Philadelphia. 3 Now, here's what's startling in4 recent. 1 what the cargo consists of and the trends2 in each port -- Philadelphia is not on3 the map, because they don't refer to4 Philadelphia as a container port. 9 Now, when you're in a city10 that's got nine and a half percent11 unemployment, which is higher than the12 state level and higher than the national13 level, I would think that something along14 these lines would be considered what I15 consider as a golden opportunity, and we16 would then be able to do what it's time17 that this area does: Look at this for18 what it really is. 1 I think the opportunity that's there2 based on some changes -- and it goes3 along with the amendment of Bill Keller's4 bill -- is that other things that were5 already on the -- I guess up for6 consideration for development in the Navy7 Yard could be carved out, and there is8 room for both. And now I'm going to9 shock the world. 16 And if you look at Port Everglades in17 Fort Lauderdale, their port is right next18 to their tourist area. And if you go19 into any of the islands on the Caribbean,20 their port is right next to their tourist21 area. Because it would not only generate22 100,000 jobs, but it would develop all23 those other entry-level jobs that we24 talked about in other hearings. 2 All it takes is good3 communication and the ability to look at4 what's really in front of us and put the5 right group in place. 11

Thank12 you very much.13 The Chair recognizes Councilman14 Kenney.15

Thank you,16 Madam President.17 Thank you for your18 presentation, Mr. Paylor. As always,19 you're prepared and knowledgeable about20 your industry.21 What I'd like to do, if it's22 okay with the President, to ask either23 Ms. McNamara or Mr. Grady to come up and24 address some of the issues that were25 43 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 raised by Mr. Paylor so that we could2 have a clear record, because I don't3 think we're all that far apart, frankly.4 I also would like you to please5 confirm or clarify the ownership of the6 land and the exact amount of acreage that7 maybe not 350 that Mr. Paylor is talking8 about, but apparently we've been talking9 about 175. So if you could just kind of10 clear up some of the issues that he's11 raised, if you recall.12 MS. McNAMARA: Well, there were13 a lot of them. I'm not sure where to14 start, but I wanted to thank Mr. Paylor.15 His group has been great throughout this16 process. They've really helped us at the17 start of the Southport process with18 planning and trying to get a sense of19 where this project could go in20 Philadelphia and the economic benefit21 that it could bring.22 So I think his point is well23 taken, that we should all be working24 together on this, because it's a good25 44 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 project and it has a benefit for the City2 and the longshoremen and the State of3 Pennsylvania.4 There's a couple things that I5 think are important to be a little bit6 more precise about. The acreage was7 clearly set forth in the RFP. There were8 descriptions, legal descriptions,9 available to the bidders, maps, specific10 acreage. They were given a number of11 alternative sites that they could use if12 they wanted to use them for distribution,13 truck facilities, whatever they thought14 was appropriate.15 In addition to that, we said16 that if you need additional land, give us17 a proposal, tell us what you're going to18 use it for, and if we think that it's19 feasible and it's going to benefit this20 project, we will come to some sort of21 agreement on how we're going to get the22 additional land.23 The two responses that we did24 get, one of them mentioned additional25 45 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 land, but gave no explanation of what2 they would use it for. So without any3 justification, it's difficult for the4 Commonwealth to move forward with that5 proposal.6 The other thing is, the whole7 project for Southport, when you combine8 the acreage, is about 175 acres. Some of9 that is currently submerged land that's10 going to be filled to make a continuous11 marginal wharf. So that's the acreage12 that we're looking for. We continue to13 be open to making the site larger if14 there's a demonstrated need for it, but15 right now we haven't seen that. We've16 engaged professional engineers who have17 given us an opinion that this terminal18 can be accommodated on the existing site.19 And so we believe that this site works,20 although we recognize that there are21 certainly differences of opinion on it.22 The idea that the bidders were23 confused, I would have to take issue with24 that, because we gave them a clear25 46 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 explanation in the SFP. We also have a2 data room that's set up just for the3 bidders that gives them all of the maps,4 all of the legal descriptions, the5 acreage, and we also gave them an6 opportunity to submit questions during7 the whole process, which lasted a couple8 of months. And we did receive the9 question that Mr. Paylor submitted to you10 in your packet, but that question was11 responded to promptly and they were given12 an answer that was consistent with the13 land offered in the SFP.14 Now, if additional land became15 available, clearly we would be very16 excited to talk about adding that to the17 project, but we think that the project18 works the way that it's described right19 now.20 Were there any other21 specific --22

I just have23 a specific question as to why the24 Governor's Office and PIDC feel that25 47 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 there's a need to change the zoning2 sooner than later.3 MS. McNAMARA: In light of the4 recent developments with the suspension5 of the RFP, we want to get this project6 as close to being "shovel ready" as is7 possible before we bid it the next time.8 And so what we want to do, what the9 bidders have asked us to do is to10 finalize all the land acquisition, to get11 the zoning taken care of, to have the12 property consolidated into a single13 development lot, to do the environmental14 permitting, to do the environmental15 mitigation and to do the site preparation16 activities that are required, the17 demolition of the existing abandoned18 housing and some other site preparation19 issues that have to be dealt with. And20 what they've told us is, that makes the21 site much more appealing, not only to the22 four bidders who were qualified but to a23 series of other shipping companies,24 terminal operators and infrastructure25 48 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 investors that Mr. Paylor has been2 talking to over the years.3

May I respond to4 that?5 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:6 Certainly.7

There's not a8 whole lot of difference of opinion on9 what she said.10

I'm11 sorry. We can't hear you.12

There's not a lot13 of difference based on what she said, but14 based on direct communication, the design15 of the RFP was done differently than most16 other RFPs concerning port industry17 developments or maritime-oriented18 facilities. And even though the bidders19 did have the opportunity to expand on the20 land that was defined in the RFP, it21 would require a lot of money to do the22 engineering design for something that may23 not be made available, and that's where24 they backed away from.25 49 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 As far as people analyzing or2 assessing the way the RFP went out, based3 on an emphasis of engineering on the4 larger facility, if you wanted to include5 it, two stevedores that are known6 worldwide backed out of being part of a7 partnership with an investor for the8 facility, questioning the sincerity,9 since the RFP was done differently than10 most other RFPs. I'm not opposed to11 doing things differently, but when the12 emphasis is put on the engineering study13 to be done up front different than the14 financial wherewithal to design,15 construct and then operate, it raises16 some concern.17 The problem that I have as a18 person who grew up in South Philadelphia19 and spend 90 percent of my time there,20 that when you look at the development21 that's coming -- I'm also a realist --22 that the green necklace, as it's referred23 to, the middle Delaware Avenue24 development is going to eventually25 50 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 eliminate industrial land, because you2 have residential, commercial development3 there. Those jobs will be lost. We may4 only be trading off acreage when we're5 looking at eliminating industrial jobs6 that go at Pier 80, Pier 82, Pier 84,7 Pier 78, Pier 78 Annex, Pier 38, Pier 398 and Pier 40. They're right in the heart9 of that Emerald Necklace. So if you10 don't have space for them to work, you're11 going to lose that cargo and lose those12 jobs. So if we're only trading off13 acreage for other segments, I don't14 consider it progress.15 There's still an industrial16 base in the City. There's still a need17 for industrial-type jobs. Not everyone18 is going to school. They can be trained19 to handle these jobs, and these are20 family-sustaining jobs. All I'm asking21 is that this thing be delayed for the22 right reasons. And I do believe if there23 was a committee set up, just like there24 was to develop the middle of the Delaware25 51 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 section, with the proper people, what2 we're looking to do can be accomplished.3

Thank4 you.5 MS. McNAMARA: May I respond to6 Mr. Paylor's points?7 The Commonwealth understands8 the concerns that have been raised, but I9 think delaying the process only harms the10 project overall. There is a great11 opportunity here, as Mr. Paylor has12 indicated, but we have got to move this13 project forward. And the state has14 committed $25 million in capital dollars15 to move this forward now, and if we delay16 the project, I just think that it really17 threatens the viability of this18 development actually being realized.19 We're prepared to do it. We're ready to20 do it. We want to do it.21

Thank22 you.23 The Chair recognizes Councilman24 Kenney.25 52 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

Thank you,2 Madam President.3 Mr. Grady, is there any reason4 why PAID would be precluded from offering5 additional land in the event that it was6 requested by a person or respondent to7 the RFP? And will there be a new RFP?8 That's the other question I have. Will9 there be a different RFP than the one10 that Mr. Paylor described, more specific11 and more, I guess, open to additional12 land being utilized?13

As to the RFP, the14 Commonwealth issues the RFP, so that15 would be a question for Kate.16

Right.17

As to the land at18 the Navy Yard that would be available to19 support this project, I think a little20 context might be useful in that several21 years ago when we started discussions22 with the Commonwealth and the23 Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, the24 focus was really on acquiring a piece of25 53 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 ground at the Navy Yard known as Parcel2 9A, which off the top of my head is3 probably about 40 acres of land. We've4 agreed to convey our interest in that5 parcel as part of this larger conveyance.6 Then the effort was to get another 407 acres of land, without really8 understanding exactly how that might9 work.10 The Commonwealth then hired an11 engineering firm, designed a port that12 could meet the needs of modern industry,13 and based upon that design, we've14 actually made 63 acres of land available,15 and an additional 10 acres is going to be16 acquired from the Norfolk Southern17 Railroad Yard at the Navy Yard as well.18 So we've provided a significant19 amount of land to support this project,20 well in excess of what was originally21 requested of us, and we'll continue to22 support that. We've told the state from23 day one that as the bids come in, if24 there's an opportunity to expand the25 54 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 amount of ground that we can contribute,2 we would. Obviously we're limited by a3 couple factors. The first factor is,4 obviously it has to be land that we own.5 I haven't seen the images that are in6 front of you, but if they're the same7 ones I saw two years ago, we don't own8 all that land. The Navy owns a lot of9 that land. Norfolk Southern Railroad10 owns that land. A lot of that land has11 been developed. So we have to understand12 exactly what's in our control.13 I think, secondly, obviously we14 would want the port development to be15 entirely consistent with the development16 that surrounds it. So at some point, we17 would need to understand what types of18 uses would occur on the land and what's19 occurring on the adjacent land and make20 the appropriate decisions about making21 land available.22 But we've never hesitated that23 if a bidder comes in and is willing to24 invest money and it helps advance the25 55 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 project, we're more than happy to discuss2 the amount of land that will be necessary3 to achieve that.4

How much5 additional land that PAID has control6 over is available and suitable for an7 expanded footprint as described by8 Mr. Paylor?9

At this point, I10 don't think that there's any that's11 suitable. Again, I think the images that12 you have in front of you show marginal13 piers extending out into the Delaware14 River. That's not feasible from all the15 engineering that we've seen, and we16 discussed this several years ago when it17 first came to our attention. So I don't18 think that there's suitable land to19 continue to expand that type of port20 activity.21

That's22 controlled by PAID?23

That's controlled24 by PAID, correct.25 56 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 We've made significant land at2 the Navy Yard available to support the3 expansion of the port. In addition to4 the land for Southport, we've made over5 150 acres available to Norfolk Southern6 to build out that three Class A railroad7 system that Mr. Paylor mentioned as a key8 asset for the port.9 So we continue to do everything10 we can to support the growth of the port,11 and we share Mr. Paylor's concern that12 industrial land continues to be shrinking13 and shrinking in the City and we need14 that land to create jobs that can help15 sustain families in the City.16

Thank you.17

Could I make one18 other point, just one other comment?19 Mr. Paylor mentioned a letter I think20 that we had written -- PIDC had21 written -- in regard to the earlier22 zoning bill where there was some23 confusion about the zoning. If we24 misstated something in that letter, it25 57 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 was out of our own mistake or our own2 lack of understanding. I think when we3 talked about rezoning for Southport, what4 we were talking about was that Southport5 would be an expansion of the port6 activities south of Packer Avenue Marine7 Terminal. We didn't intend to imply that8 it was an actual physical expansion of9 the marine terminal. We've said all10 along that that's really a process being11 run by the state. And if it helps to12 clarify, we'd be happy to clarify that in13 a letter and send it back to the Council14 President.15

Thank16 you.17 The Chair recognizes Councilman18 DiCicco.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,20 Madam Chair.21 Good morning again. Following22 up on Councilman Kenney's questions, I23 think there's a little bit of a24 communication issue here on the details.25 58 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 It sounds that way. I mean, I think2 everybody agrees we all want to see the3 port expand, and there's some great4 ideas, and Mr. Paylor and I worked5 together on the casino issue, so I'm6 pretty well versed on what the potential7 for the port is.8 It might be helpful if you can9 at least sit down with Mr. Paylor and10 identify exactly how much land would be11 suitable that you control. It may be12 another 10 acres. It may be another 20.13 I don't know. And looking at his map,14 take out what you don't own, what's left15 that may be in your control that might be16 suitable, and maybe we can make those17 adjustments.18

Councilman, I19 think it's a great opportunity. I'm not20 sure what the obstacles are or maybe the21 land that John just referred to as land22 that may not be suitable, but at one time23 there was a shale problem in the river24 that some of more modern engineers are25 59 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 saying now that's not an issue to contend2 with. Of course, it costs money, but3 based on the need for the land and based4 on the cargo growth that's there, there's5 people who are willing to invest in6 things that they weren't willing to7 invest a few years ago, because the8 desperate need to maintain this land.9

I think it's also10 important -- we'd be happy to have that11 conversation, to continue to have it, and12 with the state as well.13 I think what's important from14 our perspective is, we want to hear from15 investors who are going to be on the16 line, who are going to make a commitment.17 And the state structured an initial18 process. Obviously no one really19 anticipated the direction the economy20 would turn. So we think it's important21 that the state continue along the road22 that they've chosen, which is put all the23 entitlements in place, put the zoning in24 place, put the environmental permits in25 60 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 place and reduce the amount of2 contingencies that are available to3 bidders in this process, so that when you4 come back out, you have a better5 opportunity for bidders to respond to.6 And I think that's what the Commonwealth7 intends to do, and we'll be happy to8 continue to support that.9 But there are significant10 contingencies to developing the project11 that Kate McNamara mentioned. The river12 has to be filled in to create additional13 pier area. There's nesting bald eagles14 in the middle of the site. There's15 wetland mitigation that has to occur.16 There's zoning approvals that have to be17 in place. And the more of those18 contingencies that can be removed and19 removed more quickly, the sooner you can20 get back out to the market. And the21 shipping operators, when they consider22 the money they're willing to put on the23 line, they will tell us how much land24 they need, and then we'll be able to25 61 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 respond in a meaningful way.2

So --3 I'm sorry. I didn't mean to interrupt4 you.5 So what do you see as the6 benefit of holding this bill today, Mr.7 Grady? I know --8

I'm not in favor of9 holding the bill.10

I11 know it wasn't your suggestion, but I12 just don't see what the real value would13 be in holding this bill up in view of14 what you just testified to.15

I would agree.16 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:17 Mr. Paylor, do you see --18

Unless it reopens19 the casino discussion, which I don't --20

No.21 In view of your statement as to the22 ownership of the parcels, I mean, why are23 we holding this up until we find out who24 owns the property, what ramifications25 62 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 have to be made? I mean, that could take2 quite a while. So why are we even3 suggesting that this be held when we4 could be moving forward on something5 positive?6

Madam Chairman, I7 got to explain it the best way that I8 can. Both people on both sides of me9 said --10

I'm11 sorry. I can't hear you.12

Both people on13 both sides said they would like to hear14 from the respondents or the people who15 would be willing to invest. And they16 have done that. They made that clear,17 sometimes with direct communication to18 myself. But you know as well as I do19 that when you're bidding on a project and20 you're concerned about the process that's21 in place, the last thing you want to do22 is offend the people who are assessing23 who would be the one that would be24 operating or developing or investing in25 63 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 that facility, because you may not become2 one of the bidders. So they live within3 the process, but they make their concerns4 known to people who are working and live5 within the industry.6 If the communication that's7 being talked about now has existed all8 along, we probably would have been9 sitting here a long time ago getting the10 proper zoning done. I'm not an expert on11 the zoning. I'm just concerned for this12 reason: My definition or my13 understanding of Least Restricted only14 came throughout this past weekend of15 reading about Least Restricted, and the16 way I understand it, it means that the17 user or owner of the facility can do18 whatever they want. And the document19 that was sent to me -- and I don't know20 if it's got any official standing or21 not -- but it listed everything,22 including the kitchen sink, as23 possibilities with a Least Restricted24 piece of zoning. If the zoning law is to25 64 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 include what was talked about here and2 only that, I wouldn't see any problem3 with it, but if it's used to then4 surround the port land that has already5 been designated but with other land that6 could be used by a potential investor7 that's willing to spend money and that8 land is then, I guess, assigned under9 Least Restrictive to develop something10 quicker that's not compatible with the11 port development, it could throw a monkey12 wrench in the whole opportunity. So I'm13 more concerned based on my ignorance.14

Madam15 President?16

Yes.17

Could you18 describe whether or not there are deed19 restrictions on this parcel that would20 preclude the bad list of things that are21 in -- obviously when you read the Least22 Restricted uses, slaughter houses and so23 on, it would cause anyone cause for24 concern. But you had described to us25 65 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 that there were deed restrictions in this2 arrangement that would preclude any of3 that activity.4

There are two main5 parcels that comprise the Southport lands6 that are in question. One parcel, the7 ownership interest was conveyed from the8 Commonwealth. The second would be9 conveyed from the Philadelphia Authority10 for Industrial Development. And both of11 those conveyances have deed restrictions12 that limit the use of the property to13 maritime-related activity. So they're14 very strong restrictions, that anything15 that occurs on that site has to be16 related to maritime trade occurring on17 the adjacent parcels.18

Any19 other questions from members of the20 Committee?21 (No response.)22

Thank23 you very much.24 Our next witness?25 66 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 MR. McPHERSON: State2 Representative William Keller.3 (Witness approached witness4 table.)5

Good6 morning. 10 I'll try to get right to the11 point, because in days gone by, I used to12 follow another guy named Jim and I never13 got a chance to speak. Everything was14 covered. So now I'm following Paylor and15 I don't get a chance to -- most of the16 stuff has already been gone over. But I17 don't believe we're here asking for a18 delay or trying to stop the zoning19 overlay. What we're really asking for is20 why are we doing this. Why are we21 changing important industrial land, which22 is what we're here for, our concern, to23 Least Restrictive? 1 PIDC know I've been involved in this from2 the beginning, for years. Since the day3 I got into Harrisburg, it's been my4 focus, is on the port. And as Mr. Paylor5 said, there's a great opportunity out6 there. 9 When they did the design for10 the Navy Yard, they never thought we11 would have this opportunity. That's why12 when Mr. Grady says it's consistent with13 our plan. But the plan has changed over14 the years. The shipping industry has15 changed. There's no place else to put16 cargo that comes into New York or17 Norfolk. 20 Now, the Governor has done a21 job that nobody else could do. 1 wouldn't even be here. So the Governor2 went out, took on fights that he didn't3 have to take on, but we've moved 904 percent of the way to dredging. 6 But we're doing the dredging --7 in order to take the best opportunity is8 to build new modern facilities. We have9 world-class people willing to come in and10 put up money. And they're not used to11 Philadelphia. 13 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania is a different14 thing. They don't understand. 17 But I think all we need is some18 time. And if we could sit down with the19 Governor's Office -- and I've been20 involved in it. The first I heard of it21 was this weekend -- or from PIDC, that's22 all we're asking for, is a little bit of23 time. 1 understand -- I don't understand why2 we're taking Port Industrial land and3 turning it to Least Restrictive. And4 they're saying it's because it will help5 the project, but Packer Avenue that is6 our terminal facility now, that's under7 PI. They're working today under that8 same zoning. It's my understanding. And9 when Mr. Grady says they're there to10 create jobs, absolutely. We're there to11 create jobs too. 14 There's one distinction in this15 situation. We could create jobs16 throughout the City. We could create17 technical jobs, bio-research. They could18 go anywhere. We ought to limit it. 21 So I think that's it, as far as22 I could see it. 1 because I just have doubts. I have2 doubts. And to get on, some day I would3 like you to take up Mr. Paylor's4 invitation. We have -- I know a couple5 Councilmembers have seen it. It's a6 great opportunity for us. 8 There's studies out there that say we9 could create 25,000 new jobs. There's10 nobody in the world that has three class11 railroads that pull into their port. We12 have it. We have the highway13 connections. We have opportunity now,14 because New York can't handle the cargo15 that's coming. We should be here, we16 should be working together to make this17 the largest facility we have. And I know18 Mr. Grady says that he's working with us,19 giving the 60 acres of land, but my20 contention is, I already put a bill in21 that took that land. That was riparian22 land. It upsets me a little bit when I23 hear Ms. McNamara saying we're doing24 Submerged Land Act through zoning. 3 So I think there's enough4 misunderstanding which probably could get5 straightened out if we could just sit6 down, take our time. We have time to7 come back. Council is not going out for8 a while. 10 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: So we11 have time. 17 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:18 Ms. )22 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:23 Ms. McNamara, I think you heard State24 Representative Keller's testimony. MS. He's been a tireless advocate of the7 maritime community.

10 The most important thing that11 he mentioned was the zoning for Packer12 Avenue being Port Industrial, and they do13 have a very similar type of operation to14 what we're hoping will happen at15 Southport. But the Packer Avenue Marine16 Terminal is owned by the Philadelphia17 Regional Port Authority, which is not18 subject to the City's zoning19 jurisdiction. So even though it's listed20 on the City zoning overlay as PI, they're21 not subject to it and their operator is22 not subject to it. 2 The reason that we need to get3 the zoning in place for Southport is that4 based on the structure of the sale5 agreement with PAID, the property will6 transfer to the Commonwealth and then to7 the PRPA, and the timing lag means that8 they will be applying for all of their9 permits and doing their pre-construction10 activities during a time when the PRPA11 doesn't own the property. 15 And so it's a little bit16 technical, but that's the reason why we17 need to have the zoning in place, because18 they're going to have to go through the19 permitting process. 23

Yes.24 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: One25 74 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 question. I'm not sure, because this is2 so nebulous. What parcel of land are we3 talking about? We're talking about Piers4 122 and 124?5 MS. McNAMARA: No.6 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Where's7 the parcel?8 MS. McNAMARA: This would be9 the land that is owned by PAID.10

I11 think he's asking for the location.12 MS. McNAMARA: Oh, Parcel 9.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I'm sorry.14 I didn't hear it.15 MS. McNAMARA: Parcel 9.16 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: All in17 Parcel 9?18 MS. McNAMARA: The sections of19 Parcel 9 that will be conveyed to the20 Commonwealth.21 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Which22 parts of Parcel 9?23 MS. McNAMARA: Well, I can show24 you a map.25 75 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 I don't have the map with me,2 but we can supply that to Representative3 Keller. And I would note for the record4 too that we've worked closely with5 Representative Keller, the members of the6 ILA, members of the Maritime Exchange for7 the Delaware River and Bay, and members8 of the Maritime Stakeholders Group on9 this process. We've met with them10 numerous times. We've heard their11 concerns and tried to incorporate those12 into the process, and we'll continue to13 do that, and I will get the maps to14 Representative Keller.15 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: I agree16 that you had some conversation with us,17 but I've never felt just like this.18 Kate, you got to admit, I've been19 involved with this from day one, and I20 have no clarity to it. How do we expect21 the neighbors to have clarity to it?22 Which the neighbors have been asking for23 years to change it to PI, Port24 Industrial. Now in this bill we're25 76 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 changing it to LR. You're doing the2 opposite of what the community wants and3 we haven't even been able to go to a4 meeting and give them an understanding of5 what's going on.6 We're just asking for a little7 time just to understand this better. I8 don't -- you don't need this done today.9 I mean, we have no bidders as we stand10 now.11 MS. McNAMARA: Well, with all12 due respect, there are no residential13 neighbors to this property.14 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Well,15 you could talk to the people from16 Whitman. They believe that's theirs,17 because they are the ones that were18 asking for that. They are the ones that19 put up with everybody having to put strip20 bars and anything that was not good for21 the neighborhood in that land. And they22 not only live close to it, they work23 there. So I think you have to give them24 some due.25 77 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:2 Excuse me. Mr. Grady, would you be able3 to identify the exact parcels that we're4 talking about? Just show it to State5 Representative Keller.6

Madam7 President, while they're -- Ms. McNamara,8 is it my understanding your testimony is9 that Packer Avenue Marine Terminal can10 operate various intermodal facilities,11 rail and truck, because they are exempt12 from the City Zoning Code?13 MS. McNAMARA: Yes.14

And that15 you won't be able to operate rail or16 truck intermodally unless we change the17 zoning?18 MS. McNAMARA: Yes.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't20 know if the Representative and Jim heard21 that.22 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: No, I23 did not hear that.24

I said it's25 78 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 your testimony that the operation of2 Packer Avenue Marine Terminal as a3 multiple intermodal facility, ship, truck4 and rail, only exists because the parcel5 is owned by the PRPA and exempt from City6 zoning?7 MS. McNAMARA: Yes.8

And that9 unless we change the zoning in these two10 parcels that you're asking for, there11 won't be able to be operated intermodal12 facilities on truck and rail?13 MS. McNAMARA: Yes.14

That's your15 testimony?16 MS. McNAMARA: Yes. And the17 reason is that there is a period of time18 where this parcel is not going to be19 owned by the PRPA, so the zoning immunity20 is not going to apply. So to get the21 proper permitting in place and to22 construct the facility, it simply can't23 be done under that zoning designation.24

Thank you.25 79 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: And,2 again, because I don't know a lot of3 things, I was under the understanding4 that as soon as it went to the5 Philadelphia Regional Port Authority, as6 soon as it went to the Commonwealth, it7 could be zoned with their purpose in8 mind, that the Commonwealth would have9 the ability to do it then. Now, I'm not10 a zoning lawyer, but I think that's what11 happened to Packer Avenue.12 MS. McNAMARA: But title is not13 going to transfer immediately to this14 property. It only transfers after the15 financial closing, which will not16 occur --17 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: But18 then, again, when it gets to the19 Philadelphia Regional Port Authority,20 zoning is no longer an issue.21 MS. McNAMARA: Right, but they22 won't be able to get their permits and23 construction authorization in place24 without complying with the City25 80 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 requirements, because title is not going2 to be in the PRPA.3 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Title4 for this parcel will not be in the PRPA?5 MS. McNAMARA: When they're6 applying for the permit.7 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: When8 they are applying for permits? To do9 what?10 MS. McNAMARA: To construct the11 facility.12

I'm sorry.13 Is that the 25 million in capital from14 the state? Is that the state capital15 dollars?16 MS. McNAMARA: That's going to17 be the environmental permitting, but they18 also have to go through a building19 construction permitting process. That's20 going to be the developer who goes21 through that, and they're going to be22 going through that permitting process23 while they're putting together their24 financing. And so there's a couple of25 81 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 things that are happening at the same2 time, but during that period, the3 property is not going to be owned by the4 PRPA.5

Okay.6 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:7 Councilman DiCicco.8 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,9 Madam Chair.10 My question goes to the timing11 of all of this. If this Council were to12 vote this out favorably and we did a13 suspension, my count is we have 23 days,14 including today, to the end of the15 session on June 18th, which would give16 you 23 days or 22 days for all of you to17 kind of sit down and -- I mean, it's good18 to get a lot of this stuff on the record,19 but I think there's a lot of stuff that20 just is misunderstanding or not an21 understanding of that. I think22 collectively you can all sit down.23 Because I think everything is coming to24 the right place and it may not take all25 82 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 that much time for all of you to sit in a2 room and figure all this other stuff out,3 which means we can hold the final passage4 of this as late as June 18th.5 But if we don't get it out6 today and you come to an agreement, we7 may lose that window of opportunity,8 which then would push this thing all the9 way back to sometime in September, and we10 can lose a valuable three-month period,11 approximately three-month period.12 So I guess my question is for13 all of you, but more particularly for14 you, Ms. McNamara, as long as it gets out15 by the 18th of June, would that be16 satisfactory to your side?17 MS. McNAMARA: That works for18 us.19 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: And20 Mr. Representative and Jim, does it give21 you guys -- I don't know what the end22 result would be, but you're going to have23 three weeks to have this conversation.24 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: And the25 83 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 only thing -- Councilman, you know, you2 represent the area, so does Councilwoman3 Verna. The communities are going to be4 out there now with more LR, which makes5 them nervous. They don't like it. And6 there's nothing here that can say, This7 will go to Port Industrial. It says it8 could go anywhere.9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: But I10 think --11

It's12 deed restricted.13 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Once I14 think you see the deed and the15 restrictions -- we said that earlier when16 Mr. Lewandowski was up -- that may17 address those concerns for you and the18 community.19

It's20 like the food distribution center. It21 was deed restricted, and I remember years22 ago people wanted to put other types of23 business there, and they were never,24 never allowed to because of the deed25 84 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 restriction.2 So I think this is something3 that you're all going to have to sit down4 and work out and maybe come to some5 conclusion, and I do believe that by the6 18th there should be some resolution to7 many of the concerns. Okay?8 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: I think9 that would be the Governor's Office would10 have to make that --11

I beg12 your pardon?13 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: I14 believe the Governor's Office would have15 to make that commitment. We're willing16 to meet with anyone any time. Like I17 said, there's a lot of this we don't18 understand, and I've been involved in19 this from the beginning.20

Well,21 since you don't understand what is being22 presented to us today, I think it's23 imperative that you have the meeting and24 come to some conclusion by the 18th,25 85 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 whether it's a good project, bad project,2 whatever.3 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: We're4 saying the same thing, Madam President,5 but we can't call the meeting. The6 Governor's Office has to call the7 meeting.8 MS. McNAMARA: We're happy to9 call the meeting.10

I11 think it was stated they'd love to have a12 meeting with you. So I think you ought13 to have it as soon as possible and get14 back to us as soon as you can. Thank15 you. I think PIDC said they would be16 willing to meet with you. The Governor's17 Office said they're more than willing to18 meet with you. So you're on the road to19 success here.20 REPRESENTATIVE KELLER: Okay.21 Thank you, Madam President.22

Thank23 you.24 MS. McNAMARA: Thank you.25 86 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

Thank you.2 MR. McPHERSON: Our next3 witness is Tom Otto.4 (Witness approached witness5 table.)6

Good morning, Madam7 President --8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:9 Welcome.10

-- and members of11 City Council. I'm here -- my name is Tom12 Otto and I'm President of Pennsport Civic13 Association, and that's who I'm14 representing right now. Now, Pennsport15 doesn't include the geographic area of16 the Navy Yard, but whatever happens down17 at the Navy Yard has a big impact on18 Pennsport and, more than likely, its19 people. Not too much the geographic of20 Pennsport, but the people of Pennsport.21 We need jobs today. That's the bottom22 line. Our city, our state, the federal23 government, the whole country is in a24 flux over jobs, and I think that we could25 87 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 create right here right at that Navy2 Yard, the facility, a stimulus package3 that is beyond belief and that would be4 recognized by the whole country,5 including President Obama.6 I'm here to submit a letter to7 you, Madam President and members of8 Council, and basically what it is is a9 table to motion to change -- to table the10 motion to change the zoning on the parcel11 of land down there at the Navy Yard. And12 a plan has been developed, from what I13 understand from maritime experts, to use14 the land for maritime terminals that15 would be the largest on the East Coast,16 at no cost to the City. So I think that17 could make everybody kind of happy.18 So, please, what I'm here today19 is, let the experts explain what's going20 on, because I certainly am not the expert21 of the PIDC or the Governor's Office or22 even the International Longshoremen, Jim.23 I don't have the numbers or the maps that24 these people have, but what I'm asking25 88 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 you today is to table this to the 18th or2 whatever, whatever date, and to get3 everybody to sit down and talk about what4 their particular plans are.5 It's a great opportunity, and6 from what I do understand, that the7 people that are willing to invest8 millions and millions and millions of9 dollars into the facility don't need a10 little parcel of land. They need a whole11 big parcel of land. Now, that's up to12 you's to work out. Hopefully that the13 Council will be involved with the14 Governor's Office and the PIDC. You15 can't exclude yourselves. You's got to16 be in the middle of this, because it's17 going to affect the City, the State and18 the federal level tremendously.19 So I'd like to submit this20 letter to Madam President and to members21 of this Committee to table this. I don't22 know who could take this, but I23 appreciate your effort letting me --24 giving me the opportunity to speak to you25 89 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 today.2

Thank3 you very much, Mr. Otto. We appreciate4 your coming in. Just a moment, Mr. Otto.5 The Chair recognizes Councilman6 DiCicco.7 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: First of8 all, congratulations on your recent9 election. Was it yesterday?10

Primary day.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Oh, I saw12 something in the paper there was an13 election yesterday.14

I'll tell you what,15 don't believe everything you read in the16 paper.17 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I don't.18 That's why I'm asking you.19 But I think you heard our20 comments to Representative Keller,21 Mr. Paylor and Ms. McNamara and Mr.22 Grady, that they will begin to have these23 discussions. So, again, it's not my24 bill, it's the Council President's bill,25 90 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 but if it gets voted out, that doesn't2 mean it's over. We still have at least3 three weeks to hopefully resolve any of4 those outstanding issues before the 18th5 when the final vote could possibly6 happen. So I just wanted to explain that7 to you, that by voting it out today8 doesn't make it a done deal. It still9 has some opportunities to be discussed.10

I'm not the expect.11 Thank you.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.13

Thank14 you very much, sir.15 Do we have anyone else to16 testify on this bill?17 Please approach the witness18 table.19 (Witness approached witness20 table.)21

Good22 morning. Please identify yourself for23 the record.24

My name is Janet25 91 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 Cullen, C-U-L-L-E-N. First of all, I'd2 like to thank Council for working so hard3 with all the taxes and everything, and4 I'm sure you'll follow through with all5 the waste and everything.6 This is going to be unusual.7 Usually you hear "not in my backyard,"8 but you're not going to hear from our9 neighborhood or Pennsport. We want port10 in our neighborhood and past that to the11 west. We'd like industry, manufacturing12 industry. And I think there's a lot of13 misconceptions that was put in front of14 the Planning Commission. There were15 statements saying -- I know there were16 four bidders and they said they had to17 change the zoning to market the idea18 better. Now, how could you have four19 bidders and then a month or so later20 saying you have to market it better?21 And also what was explained,22 they said why change from port to LR, and23 the statement was given, Well, if it's24 from a ship to a truck, from a ship to a25 92 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 train, from a ship to a bus, that's port.2 But you can't do train to truck or truck3 to train. Well, that's the whole idea of4 the waterfront. If you're going truck to5 train, go west. There's railroads there.6 There's land there and not the river.7 And another thing too. In8 front of the Planning Commission -- I9 don't blame them. Since I seen this10 announced on the March 17th bill, it was11 for information only, I think I called12 everybody in here, and I'm sure you all13 know it. It upset me pretty much. And14 then the last Planning Commission when15 this was discussed, they were talking16 about awnings, advertisement on awnings17 in Kensington or Mayfair, and that took18 ten minutes. For this bill it took five.19 So I think that gives you -- tells you20 something right there.21 So any land left on the river,22 I don't care we're talking crazy, no pier23 there, should go to the port, period, end24 of report. They already lost too much25 93 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 and we shouldn't let them lose any more.2 And you mentioned about having3 a meeting. I thought to find people that4 are interested in -- maybe the University5 of Pennsylvania. They get involved in a6 lot of this, and union members and the7 residents, please. Could you please add8 the residents to it.9 Let's see what else.10 Another thing that has me11 concerned, if a benefactor dictates a12 bill, then the benefactor becomes a13 dictator. So I'd like you to keep that14 in mind and remember democracy, if you15 don't mind. Okay?16 Thank you very much.17

Thank18 you. You've been extremely patient and19 we appreciate your coming in to testify.20 Thank you very much.21 Do we have anyone else to22 testify?23 (No response.)24 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:25 94 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 Seeing no one, I would suggest that2 Mr. McPherson please read the title of3 Bill No. 090354.4 MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance5 amending Chapter 14-400 of The6 Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial7 Entertainment District," by revising and8 clarifying requirements relating to9 parking, height regulations, gross floor10 area and permitted uses, all under11 certain terms and conditions.12

Thank13 you.14 MR. McPHERSON: Bill No.15 090359, an ordinance authorizing the16 revision of lines and grades on a portion17 of City Plan Nos. 146 and 271 by striking18 from the City Plan and vacating19 Shackamaxon Street from Delaware Avenue20 southeastwardly to a dead end and21 reserving and placing on the City Plan a22 right-of-way for various utility purposes23 within the lines of Shackamaxon Street24 being stricken and by relocating portions25 95 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 of the southeastern curbline of Delaware2 Avenue from Ellen Street to Shackamaxon3 Street, all under certain terms and4 conditions.5

Good6 morning. You've been very patient.7 Thank you.8

My original9 text mistakenly said good afternoon, and10 I have about ten seconds to say good11 morning, Council President Verna and12 members of City Council. I'm Alan13 Greenberger, the Executive Director of14 the City Planning Commission. 19 The first one, Bill 090354,20 amends the existing Commercial21 Entertainment District legislation to22 accommodate some important operational23 issues associated with the construction24 sequencing of the casino. 13 In this revised proposal -- and14 when I say "revised," I mean relative to15 the original plan of development from, I16 guess, at least a year back or more --17 the interim facility will actually be the18 first piece of the permanent casino to be19 built. It will rely on fulfilling its20 zoning requirement of four parking spaces21 for every five slot machines by using22 substantial surface parking on its own23 property. 5 Therefore, the developer has proposed to6 use a property immediately to the north,7 generally referred to as the -- by the8 name of the owner, the Bogatin site, for9 additional parking. That site contains a10 currently vacant warehouse building that11 is sufficiently large to house several12 hundred vehicles. 1 be building a garage structure that's2 intended to accommodate the vast majority3 of the parking demand for the entire4 site. The ground floor of the garage5 structure is also intended to accommodate6 the expanded gaming floor and new loading7 facilities for the complex. The8 construction period for the garage is9 approximately one year. During that10 construction period, the surface lot that11 occupies the ground that is intended for12 the garage will, therefore, be13 unavailable for parking. In order to14 ensure that the developer meets their15 zoning-required parking during this16 period of garage construction and ensure17 that parking does not migrate into the18 Fishtown and Northern Liberties19 neighborhoods, this amendment to this CED20 allows for temporary off-site parking21 only along Delaware Avenue for a mile in22 either direction. 2 Council should note that the3 very same issues existed in the original4 Plan of Development proposal for the5 SugarHouse casino; that is to say, if I6 could explain that a moment, there was an7 interim facility proposed then. It would8 have required surface parking then, and9 then a garage would be built. But that10 issue was not addressed at that time11 because there were larger issues that12 were being discussed. 15 With regard to the other bill,16 090359, the ordinance authorizes a17 revision to the City Plan by striking and18 vacating Shackamaxon Street from Delaware19 Avenue towards the river and to a dead20 end approximately 120 feet away. 1 Vacating the street will allow2 the SugarHouse development to clean up3 what is right now a very unattractive and4 decayed area. 10 I would like to add that we11 anticipate the formal submittal of the12 SugarHouse's revised Plan of Development13 to the Planning Commission by the end of14 May or perhaps Monday, which I guess15 would be June 1st. The Plan of16 Development will be made available to the17 public, both on the Commission website18 and on our offices, for a week-long19 duration. 5

Thank6 you very much.7 The Chair recognizes Councilman8 DiCicco. I'm sorry. All I saw was the9 light. The Chair recognizes Councilman10 Goode.11

Thank you,12 Madam President.13 Good afternoon.14

Good15 afternoon.16

Are you the17 only witness on behalf of the18 Administration?19

I believe20 that is correct, yes.21

I believe22 there was an Economic Opportunity Plan23 prepared for this project. Can someone24 please submit it to the Committee at this25 102 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 time?2

I will look3 after that. I don't know the answer, but4 I will look after that.5

I believe6 someone has it here. I just wanted to7 know if we could see it at this time8 since this is an appropriate time.9

Okay.10

Thank you.11 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:12 You're welcome.13 The Chair recognizes Councilman14 Clarke.15

Thank you,16 Madam President.17 Good afternoon.18

Good19 afternoon.20

I just had21 a quick question unrelated to the bills22 before us, but related to the project.23 Off the top of your head, can you tell me24 where we are with the I-95 ramps, the25 103 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 status of those ramps?2

My3 understanding from Deputy Mayor Cutler --4 and, unfortunately, I don't remember the5 exact timing she said, but these sound6 like they are ready to go this year.7

Meaning?8 When you say "ready to go," ready to9 start construction?10

My11 recollection is that there's a temporary12 ramp that has to be built to enable the13 larger piece of construction to happen,14 and I believe she said that that15 temporary ramp will start construction16 sometime this year.17

So will the18 completion coincide with the completion19 of this proposed development?20

I don't know.21 I'd want to check with her on the exact22 timing. They're obviously going on in23 parallel, but I just don't remember when24 the end dates were.25 104 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

That's kind2 of important in terms of alleviating the3 potential traffic issue.4 Okay. Thank you, Madam5 President.6

Thank7 you.8 Any other questions?9 (No response.)10

Thank11 you again.12

You're13 welcome.14 MR. McPHERSON: Our next15 witnesses are representatives from16 SugarHouse. Bob Sheldon, Ian Cope, Leigh17 Whitaker and Terry McKenna.18 (Witnesses approached witness19 table.)20

Good21 afternoon. Please identify yourself for22 the record.23

Good morning,24 Madam President and members of Council.25 105 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 My name is Greg Carlin. I am the CEO of2 SugarHouse casino, and I have with me3 here today Ian Cope, our architect; Terry4 McKenna, our Development Manager; Bob5 Sheldon, who is our President and COO;6 and Leigh Whitaker, our Director of7 Communications.8 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:9 Hello.10

Before I begin, I11 want to take a moment to thank Councilman12 DiCicco, Brian Abernathy, the Mayor and13 the Mayor's staff for working14 collaboratively with us over the past few15 months to develop a plan that we can move16 forward with quickly and get a casino17 open quickly and start generating revenue18 for the Commonwealth and for the City and19 also creating lots of jobs in the City.20 We are here today to testify in21 support of Bill Nos. 090354 and 090359.22 Bill 090354 seeks to amend the Commercial23 Entertainment District designation to24 allow parking on immediately adjacent25 106 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 parcels and to allow for more than ten2 percent of surface parking spaces until3 our garage structure is complete. Bill4 030954 (sic) seeks to authorize striking5 and vacating Shackamaxon Street to6 accommodate the construction of a public7 right-of-way and public entrance to the8 casino site. Both of these bills support9 the timely development and construction10 of our interim facility pursuant to our11 recently modified plan.12 At this time, I would like to13 turn it over to Ian Cope, our architect,14 who will give you a brief overview of the15 modifications to the Plan of Development.16

Thank you, Greg.17 Good morning, Council President18 Verna --19

Good20 morning.21

-- Councilman22 DiCicco and members of the Committee on23 Rules. My name is Ian Cope. 1 architects for the SugarHouse casino2 project. I'm here today to ask this3 Committee to approve Bill No. 8 Thank you for this opportunity9 to walk you through the design10 modifications we plan to make to our11 original development proposal. 15 We are proposing a modified16 site and building design, which includes17 an element that we have consistently18 referred to as the interim casino. Just19 as we had contemplated in the original20 2006 design and the 2007 approved Plan of21 Development, this interim facility is to22 be the initial phase of the permanent and23 much larger casino development. 1 proposing to situate our building on a2 different location within our site, this3 is to be a permanent building right from4 the outset. 7 I would like to get my8 colleague, Mr. 10 So you may want to refer to there. 19 The streets you see bordering the site to20 the west as seen at the top of the board21 is North Delaware Avenue. 13 This will give you an idea of the general14 massing and help you to see how the15 project will evolve. accommodate approximately 1,700 slot2 machines. This change in the number of4 stories of the building will not5 materially alter the appearance of the6 casino and will be virtually7 imperceptible to the customer and the8 public. 14 It's fair to say that all of15 the proposed modifications to our new16 plan reflect a substantially similar17 overall development program as our18 original Plan of Development did. 5 As I mentioned, the interim6 casino will house the first 1,700 slot7 machines and incorporate our permanent8 front door, or porte cochere, a new9 restaurant, feature bar or lounge, a10 snack bar for lighter fare. 1 interim casino building. This garage2 will precede any expansion of the casino,3 currently planned to grow from an initial4 1,700 to 3,000 slots. 9 Once this garage structure has10 been completed and we are no longer11 reliant on the full extent of surface12 parking lots, we are free to expand the13 interim building and complete Phase I14 with a total of approximately 3,00015 machines. This horizontal expansion will16 occur in the areas between the interim17 building and the contemplated garage, and18 portions of the casino and back-of-house19 areas will actually extend into the lower20 levels of the garage. 1 in the original plan. 10 We want to project an exciting,11 dynamic and contemporary architectural12 image for the project. In this image you13 see the porte cochere as seen from the14 Delaware Avenue approach. 12 I would like to touch on a few13 of the changes we have made to our plan14 that incorporate a number of the15 principles of the City's recent16 waterfront planning initiative. Just by17 way of comparison, the original approved18 Plan of Development is the board on the19 right. 1 intervals than simply at either end of2 our site. The notion was essentially to3 extend the streets or the street grid4 through the midst of our property. 9 What we are now proposing for the Phase10 II/future expansion phase in fact11 accomplishes both of these aims as we12 provide an elevated public concourse or13 Galleria, if you will -- Jim is pointing14 that out in blue -- that will align with15 what used to be Laurel Street at the foot16 of Frankford Avenue and extend right over17 the gaming floor and leading directly to18 the waterfront, where the public and our19 customers alike can descend through a20 public amphitheater down to the water's21 edge. 1 weather-proofed path leading right from2 Delaware Avenue to the newly improved3 waterfront promenade. This promenade4 will be suitable for bikers, pedestrians,5 joggers and the like. We've also opened6 up, or unearthed, if you will, Penn7 Street where previously we had extended8 the casino over the former Penn Street9 creating a sort of tunnel.

15 In addition to enhanced access16 to the waterfront, recent City planning17 efforts expressed a preference for a more18 naturalistic treatment of the river's19 edge, providing a closer relationship to20 the tidal changes and indigenous21 vegetation. 1 pile-supported concrete pier structures2 extending out into the water that we had3 proposed previously. 5 Another one of the principles6 that the waterfront plan espoused was7 using buildings to define the street edge8 by bringing the building face or facades9 right out to the street edge, in this10 case along North Delaware Avenue. 13 As you can see, we proposed14 additional blocks of development, housing15 street-level retail right out along16 Delaware Avenue, with the potential for17 structured parking and more hotel rooms18 above. 18 Thank you for affording me the19 opportunity to testify today. 1

3 MR. McKENNA: Good morning,4 Council President Verna, Councilman5 DiCicco and members of the City Council6 Committee on Rules. My name is Terrence7 McKenna and I am the Development Manager8 for the SugarHouse casino. I am here9 seeking this Committee's approval for10 Bill Nos. 19 As Ian Cope explained, it is20 HSP Gaming's intention to open the21 interim casino portion of our development22 as soon as possible. 8 In order to open the interim9 casino in such an expedited manner,10 certain adjustments to our development11 plan must be made. The largest of these12 adjustments is to operate solely with13 surface parking instead of structured14 parking within a parking garage. The15 reason only surface parking can be16 utilized during the interim phase is17 timing. In order to design, manufacture18 and construct a parking garage of the19 size needed for the SugarHouse casino, a20 period of approximately 24 months is21 required. 17 Specifically, Bill 09035418 permits the City Planning Commission,19 after consultation with the Department of20 Streets, to permit casino surface parking21 on immediately adjacent parcels in order22 to meet the City's requirement of four23 parking spaces for every five slot24 machines. 12 While HSP Gaming's parcel is13 fairly large, it does not have sufficient14 area to operate the interim casino and15 provide 1,360 parking spaces. 20 Under Bill No. 11 Bill No. 16 During construction of the garage, it is17 estimated that approximately 350 on-site18 surface parking spaces will be lost,19 resulting in a shortage of approximately20 245 parking spaces to meet the21 four-per-five zoning requirement. Bill22 No. 1 properties are located immediately2 adjacent to and accessible from Delaware3 Avenue. 11 Finally, Bill No. 09035912 authorizes the striking and vacating of13 the remaining portion of Shackamaxon14 Street to the east of North Delaware15 Avenue and the relocation of the easterly16 curb line of North Delaware Avenue. Both17 of these changes to the City Plan are18 required in order for HSP Gaming to19 implement the off-site roadway20 improvements that are required by both21 the Department of Streets and the22 Pennsylvania Department of Transportation23 as part of the Highway Occupancy Permit24 for the SugarHouse casino. 4 Thank you for allowing me the5 time to testify before you today. I urge6 you to support Bill Nos. 15

Thank16 you very much.17 Are there any questions from18 members of the Committee, any comments?19 The Chair recognizes Councilman20 Clarke.21

Thanks,22 Madam President.23 Good afternoon. A couple of24 quick questions related, but not25 128 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 necessarily to these particular bills.2 As you know, Councilman DiCicco and3 myself represent portions of the adjacent4 community, and during the course of the5 last couple of years, there have been6 varying views about whether or not this7 should be built. It's changed over a8 period of time, and a lot of it based on9 you all's willingness to meet with10 community people on a consistent basis11 and solicit significant input, and I12 think you have a much better project as a13 result of that.14 There are a couple of things,15 and one I may have to actually ask16 Mr. Frank, but since you guys are here,17 during the last several months, the18 community groups have put together a19 community benefits agreement based on the20 interaction with yourselves and also the21 City of Philadelphia, and I know there22 was a commitment by SugarHouse to those23 community groups and subsequently to the24 community benefits agreement. There is25 129 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 also a special services district that2 reflects the most affected areas of those3 perimeters in both of our Council4 districts. As recent as a month ago, I5 had an opportunity to meet with some of6 the representatives of the -- and I think7 they now call it the Penn Treaty Special8 Services District, and one of the things9 they had asked -- I had actually talked10 to Councilman DiCicco about this -- is11 that they would like to see both the12 community benefits agreement and the13 special services district as a part of14 the legislation simply as an exhibit to15 reflect the formalization of those16 commitments by both the City, the elected17 officials and SugarHouse as a part of the18 legislation. Is that something that you19 guys would be comfortable with?20

I'd have to check21 with counsel, but it doesn't sound like a22 problem. I'd like to check with counsel23 just to make sure.24

I know that25 130 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 you all have been interacting with, but2 they've done a lot of work and they would3 like --4

The community5 benefits agreement is referenced in our6 development agreement with the City, so7 it is covered in an agreement with the8 City.9

Right. So10 it's the actual document. They just want11 it as an exhibit. People think that if12 it's in the legislation, it's real.13

Right.14

And then15 the other issue relating -- I guess16 Mr. Frank might have to answer -- I'm17 sorry; Mr. Greenfield. I don't know why18 I call you Mr. Frank. Greenberger. I'm19 sorry. I was just talking about Motorola20 in the hallway and I got it confused.21 Alan.22 A part of the conversations23 over the last couple of years related to24 the adjacent communities as it related to25 131 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 traffic flow, the potential changing of2 certain streets to reflect the3 elimination of significant vehicular4 traffic up into the smaller adjacent5 blocks, and also there was this issue6 about zoning as it related to some of the7 perimeter of the community to prohibit8 certain uses that may have a negative9 impact on both the community and the10 operation of the casino. I know there's11 some discussions about check cashing12 places, because they didn't want people13 getting off work, going to cash the check14 and running to the casino. I use this15 term only because it's the term that's16 always used by a particular person in the17 Fishtown community that didn't want any18 "nudie" bars. And I don't know what that19 is, but that's the way she always20 referred to -- I know you all know who21 I'm talking about. They wanted to make22 sure that none of us --23

You don't24 know what it is? Okay.25 132 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

I had a2 protected childhood. Sorry.3 And I wanted to make sure that4 the City was aggressively working on both5 the vehicular strategy and actually6 pedestrian, because there'll probably be7 a lot of people walking to it, and to8 make sure that it coincides with the9 ten-month window of construction and also10 the zoning relating to the perimeter11 neighborhoods.12

On the13 traffic, on the question you asked14 earlier, I just sent an e-mail to John15 Elfrey to get an answer to that, but I16 don't have the answer yet, but I'll get17 back to you on it.18 On the zoning, I think that the19 things that are primarily concerning20 those kind of uses, check cashing and21 whatever else, is all regulated uses in22 both commercial and residential areas.23 So basically -- and, Bill, you'll correct24 me if I'm wrong here -- you can't do it25 133 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 without special permission basically.2

All of3 them?4

All of the5 uses?6

Yeah. I7 only referenced that one because that was8 one that came to mind.9

I don't know10 them off the top of my head.11

There were12 concerns about operations of certain13 types of clubs, and people think that14 this will stimulate the community, and15 then they want to make sure that there's16 no speculators that purchase the17 properties to create certain types of18 uses in the neighborhood that would be19 not conducive.20

I think21 there's a couple levels of your question.22 One is about some of the secondary23 regulated uses that people are concerned24 about, check cashing being an example of25 134 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 one of them. Those are regulated as you2 get into commercial and residential areas3 of any community in the City.4 The other ones, I still believe5 there's something called the North6 Delaware Overlay District that --7

That8 Councilman DiCicco did, right?9

Yeah. And10 that was set up, I think, in response to11 a lot of the clubs that started to appear12 probably back in the '90s. So that still13 applies. This project is exempted --14

How far up?15

Can you help16 me with that, Councilman? Do you know17 how far?18 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Spring19 Garden north to --20

Bill is21 saying to Allegheny.22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Allegheny,23 yeah. I did that when Marie Lederer was24 our State Rep.25 135 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

Spring Garden2 to Lehigh.3 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Lehigh.4

So going5 all the way up?6

Right.7

All right.8

So those also9 need variances, that's right. Does that10 answer the question? Was there another11 one in there?12

I asked you13 about the traffic issue.14

Well, the one15 thing I do know that they're doing --16 and, Ian, you may be in a better position17 to describe this. I know there was18 concern about flow of traffic from19 Shackamaxon in particular down through20 the neighborhood into Delaware Avenue,21 and I believe that in their plan they are22 changing the median strip. It's a23 detail, but I think it's an important24 one. They are changing the median strip25 136 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 in Delaware Avenue so that you can't just2 come through Shackamaxon and directly3 into this site. You actually have to4 make several turns, and the point to that5 is to discourage any traffic coming6 through the neighborhood and trying to7 get to the site. And I think the fellow8 is pointing to it right there.9 On the bigger question about10 Girard Avenue ramp, I will get back to11 you on that, because I don't have the12 answer at the moment.13

All right.14 And one last question relating to the15 pedestrian flow. The street16 realistically is going to be much busier17 than it currently is and there are going18 to be people that are going to walk from19 the adjacent community. That street --20 Frankford Avenue kind of comes in21 there -- is a challenging street for22 vehicular traffic, frankly speaking,23 because you got the smaller street. I24 can't think of the name of it now.25 137 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

Right.2 There's a number of things that come3 together.4

Yeah. In5 terms of pedestrian traffic, do you think6 after the full-blown development, years7 down the line, that there may be the need8 for pedestrian bridges or some other9 means of entrance beyond just simply a10 traffic light on those corners?11

Fair12 question.13

I'd love to14 see a monorail, but that may be a little15 far down the line for us, but...16

Or maybe17 water taxis at some point. But I think18 in general my preference would be that we19 spend more time worrying about how to get20 people across the street safely, and I'd21 prefer not to do that with bridges.22 That's kind of you see that in23 super-congested areas, like Las Vegas24 actually has a lot of bridges over the25 138 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 streets as well as some of the more sort2 of these huge boulevards. I was just in3 San Francisco where there's a similar4 condition of people walking down their5 Market Street and crossing what used to6 be the Embarcadero Freeway, and now it's7 a boulevard that is similar in scale to8 this, on grade, with a lot of really9 excellent pedestrian safeways to cross10 and extended period of light timing to11 allow the crossing so that people can get12 from the downtown to the ferry terminal,13 which is kind of like their Reading14 Terminal Market. It worked really15 effectively.16 So my first preference would be17 to say let's do it on grade, let's look18 at the timing of traffic lights and19 pedestrian intervals to make sure people20 can do this, including the possibility21 ultimately of, if we needed, of safe22 zones so that -- in Philadelphia, like23 the Parkway is being proposed, as you24 know, to have expanded pedestrian safety25 139 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 islands in the middle so that people who2 can only get halfway can do it safely,3 stand there safely and then get the rest4 of the way if they can't move fast5 enough. I think that would be the first6 preference. Because the flip side of the7 bridge question is if you encourage --8 it's one thing to encourage the9 pedestrian traffic from the neighborhood,10 people who are living there anyway. It's11 another thing to encourage it because now12 you're encouraging people to park there13 as well and then cross the bridge. So we14 just got to balance the two of them. But15 it is downstream, I think. We're not16 quite there yet. Do you think?17

I only say18 that in that people -- say, for instance,19 Penn Treaty Park, which is right down the20 street. This weekend there were a number21 of people that live in the adjacent22 communities walk to the park. They don't23 drive down there, because it's close24 proximity. If we think somehow if this25 140 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 happens this is only going to be the only2 development down there, I think we're3 kidding ourselves. This is probably4 going to stimulate other opportunities.5 So there's going to be traffic. I mean,6 and I support it, don't get me wrong, but7 I just want to make sure that we have8 enough foresight to understand that we9 need to manage both the vehicular and the10 pedestrian traffic. This whole issue11 about having lengthened intersections12 related to pedestrian traffic, frankly13 speaking, that's why if you go to Vegas,14 you see the cars stacked up down there,15 because you have people -- they want to16 move people across the street. So what17 we don't want over here is to have18 traffic stacked up on Delaware Avenue to19 the point where it's not conducive to20 people coming to work or doing whatever21 else they want to do, because right now22 as it related to Foxwoods was totally23 different in terms of just everyday24 traffic. So I want -- there's going to25 141 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 be an issue.2

I think your3 point is that everything needs to be on4 the table as we see how this develops.5 My first priority would be to get people6 to safely cross on grade, but if there7 came a moment when that didn't make sense8 or there came a spot in the river, like9 Penn Treaty Park, where it made more10 sense to really look at a bridge, then11 that's what we ought to be looking at.12

One last13 thing as it relates to this, is public14 transportation. Who is working on that?15

There are16 several studies that are going on that17 are coordinated between PATCO and SEPTA,18 who are together -- it's happening under19 PATCO's aegis, because they have an20 obligation to study things on this side21 of the river as well as some work they're22 trying to do on the other side.23 But the two organizations are24 coordinating on looking at transit25 142 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 options, both -- it's not so hard about2 up and down Delaware Avenue. It's more3 the question of where does it connect to4 something else. So they're looking at5 several options that include, in effect,6 an extension of the No. 15 trolley.7 That's one version. There are other8 versions that talk about -- from Girard9 Avenue. There's other versions that --10

I know. I11 was just trying to figure out where it12 would come. I'm very familiar with it.13

And it's14 hard. I mean, it's hard in every option.15 There's other options that look at16 interconnections between anything on17 Delaware Avenue and Market Street and/or18 the PATCO station that's going to be19 reopened at Franklin Square. So there's20 a whole series of them out there. Some21 of the options are probably more22 logically PATCO kind of options, but I23 think others are more logically SEPTA24 options, which -- I'm just expressing my25 143 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 personal preference -- I think would be2 smarter for us. But they're looking at3 them, and they're doing it cooperatively.4 So I don't have an answer yet, but the5 options are emerging and we'll able to6 show them to you fairly soon.7

All right.8 Thank you.9 Thanks, Madam President.10

Thank11 you.12 The Chair recognizes Councilman13 DiCicco.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,15 Madam Chair.16 Just to touch on that last17 comment about the traffic. This past18 weekend, I think it was Sunday, I19 happened to be in Atlantic City at The20 Walk area, which is the retail outlet21 stores. I don't know if you're familiar22 with that. There is a lot of traffic23 there, because it's within a block of the24 entrance and exit off of the Atlantic25 144 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 City Expressway. So you have all that2 traffic and you have casino traffic,3 which is just a little bit to the east.4 There had to be, I mean literally,5 thousands of people, and it works, I6 guess is my point I'm trying to make it.7 It works. No bridges. I'm not saying8 I'd be opposed to bridges, but it works.9 And I think a lot of it has to do with10 the timing. They give you about 15, 1611 seconds to get across either of those12 streets, which are a little bit more13 narrow than JFK Boulevard is, and even14 old people like myself were able to get15 across before the light turns red.16 So it can work. I mean, we17 all -- I've always had an issue and when18 we were dealing with this casino issue19 from the beginning about the Expressway,20 I-95 corridor, people getting on and off.21 So I think if it works out there and they22 have, especially in the summer months, a23 lot more traffic than we can probably24 hope to have coming off of that Atlantic25 145 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 City Expressway within one block of The2 Walk, I'm confident you'll be able to3 figure something out.4 I just want to go back to some5 of the comments that have been made by my6 colleague. He has discussed with me --7 I'm pretty on the periphery -- about this8 organization, Penn Treaty Special9 Services District. I just want for the10 record -- I'm not aware of any of those11 folks. I don't know who is on it. I12 think there was a community benefits13 agreement that was in place prior when14 the Street Administration was in, and15 does that take precedent or is that16 something that we're going to revise?17 And if you don't have the answer now, I18 appreciate you supplying it to the Chair.19 Is it going to be a new20 community benefits agreement or is it the21 old one or can we adjust the original one22 that was put in place a couple of years23 ago under the Street Administration?24

Actually, the25 146 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 community benefits agreement was signed2 post the Street Administration. So I3 can't remember exactly when.4 November 2008. And that5 agreement was negotiated over many, many6 months and a lot of time on both our part7 and the community's part. I think8 maybe --9 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Well, I10 guess I misstated it myself. The11 community benefits agreement that had12 been agreed to as a result of13 conversations with the -- because I14 wasn't part of those conversations, and I15 chose not to be part in those days. That16 is the same agreement that was signed in17 November 2008. Is that the agreement or18 is there -- and I think I heard19 Councilman Clarke saying is there a20 possibility of adjusting it? I think21 that's what I'm hearing.22

I'm not23 privy to the early one that you24 referenced. The only thing I know about25 147 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 is the one that was signed in November,2 and my understanding, that was a result3 of probably the year's conversation4 between the parties involved from the5 different neighborhoods. So I'm not6 aware of the earlier one.7

No. It's the one8 that was signed in November.9

That's the10 one? Okay.11

Correct.12 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Same13 agreement. I see her shaking her head.14 Thank you.15 And on the issue of the special16 services district, I certainly need to be17 included in that conversation. I don't18 know who are the members of that19 organization. I know the community20 groups. I can surmise who they are, but21 the individual Board members, I'm not22 familiar with them.23

I think it's24 modeled similarly to the stadium's25 148 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 special services district, where there's2 elections that will be held locally, and3 anybody can run for those positions.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's, I5 guess, my question. Was there an6 election or were there interim7 representatives until such time there's a8 district created?9 UNIDENTIFIED WITNESS: That's10 correct.11 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Do you all12 know who the people are?13

Yes.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Could15 someone supply the Chair with the names16 of those representatives? I'd like to17 see them myself.18 (Witness approached witness19 table.)20

I did not21 successfully avoid getting to the table.22 However, good morning. I'm Leigh23 Whitaker. I'm the Communications24 Director for -- oh, it's afternoon --25 149 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 SugarHouse casino. I apologize.2 The CBA -- pursuant to our3 development agreement, the City asked if4 we'd be willing to sign a CBA as part of5 that agreement. That agreement evolved6 over the course of probably 12 or 147 months. We ended up signing last year in8 November 2008. When I say "evolved," it9 had a lot more things related to the10 immediate community than the original11 sort of standard agreement that was12 attached to our development agreement13 had.14 We signed the CBA with Fishtown15 Action and New Kensington CDC. They have16 appointed interim Board members for now17 in advance of some elections that they18 will have once the SSD is formally19 complete. I don't believe that they've20 signed the documents yet. They have been21 working with a lawyer probably the last22 eight or nine months -- five or six23 months to formalize this SSD, or special24 services district.25 150 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 There are two people from the2 river side of Delaware Avenue from3 Fishtown who are on the -- who had been4 appointed interim. They are Delores5 Griffith and Tim Breslin, who lives about6 700 feet from our site. There are two7 members from Northern Liberties, Joe8 Rafter, who owns Liberties Tavern on9 Second Street, and Kevin Kelly, who lives10 on Front Street, probably about a11 thousand feet or so from our site.12 There is a representative from13 East Kensington Neighbors Association.14 I'm not aware of that person's name. I15 apologize.16 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Sandy17 Saltzman, by any chance?18

I believe19 Sandy -- I'm not sure who represents20 Kensington. I think it may be Sandy21 Saltzman, though. And then there's22 another woman, Peggy Rasipski from Olde23 Richmond Civic Association.24 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Right.25 151 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 Who is the attorney representing the --2

They are3 represented by Scott Sigman, who used to4 be with Bochetto and Lentz, but has since5 left to form his own practice.6 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.7 I don't have any other8 questions. Thank you.9

Thank10 you.11 The Chair recognizes Councilman12 Clarke.13

No.14

Oh,15 your light was on.16 Any other questions or comments17 from members of the Committee?18 (No response.)19

Thank20 you very much.21

Thank you.22

One23 moment, please.24

Sorry. I25 152 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 had to walk out of the room for a second.2 I just wanted real quick about the EOP.3 You got to come back up here.4

I'll come back.5

This6 relates to a conversation that I had7 earlier with some businesspeople who were8 members of the minority community in the9 City of Philadelphia and earlier10 conversations about operations within the11 facility as it relates to restaurants and12 other types of concessions.13 Can you just for the record14 tell me where you are with that? I know15 that there was some conversation16 traditionally that's handled internally17 by the operations, but --18

Right. At the19 current time, our plan is to run all the20 restaurants internally, so without any21 external operators. If you look at the22 other casinos in the area, Chester, the23 current Philly Park, that's pretty much24 standard for casinos that are regional in25 153 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 operation.2 If you go to Las Vegas, a lot3 of the restaurants in Vegas are run by4 third-party operators or management5 agreements, but the regional markets they6 tend to be more run by the casino.7

All right.8 Well, in Philadelphia we tend to do9 things differently. Because of the10 nature of this particular casino, the11 location, the need to be all inclusive --12 it looks like you guys may be the only13 one for a while -- we really would like14 to entertain providing opportunities.15 And, no, I'm not talking about creating16 the environment that we have at the17 Airport. We have all these vendors. But18 I think that we do have strong19 entrepreneurs in some facets of the20 minority community, and they would like21 to be in a position to have conversations22 about playing a role internally within23 the casino operations as it relates to24 restaurants or concessions. And I know25 154 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 what's happened recently, but one of the2 things that happened with the Phillies,3 as an example, which is why they believe4 to be one of the greatest new stadiums,5 both aesthetically and from an6 operational perspective, is that they had7 enough foresight to understand that8 bringing some of the local flavor to the9 Phillies concession operations actually10 enhance the operation. I don't know if11 you had a chance to go back -- what's12 that, Ashburn Alley? And, I mean, it's13 really a great experience, and it has14 that local flavor.15 So it will be helpful if you16 guys looked at maybe a model similar to17 that in some respects to just kind of18 have those kind of conversations, because19 I think we have some -- Philadelphia is a20 unique place. And I'm not saying that21 you should be selling Tastykakes in22 there, but I just think that there are23 some things that could conceivably24 happen.25 155 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

We'd like to sell2 Tastykakes.3 But in the interim facility, we4 have a very limited food and beverage5 program, so it would be difficult to do6 that particular piece, but once we7 expanded the larger facility, we can8 certainly take a look at that.9

Yeah. That10 gives us enough time, lead time.11

Sure.12

The13 Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.14 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,15 Madam Chair.16 Just to follow up on the17 interim facility as it relates to food18 and beverage. How will your facility19 compare to Harrah's in Chester?20

To Harrah's21 Chester?22 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They have23 one, I guess, more upscale restaurant. I24 was only in there for about an hour and a25 156 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 half a couple weeks ago. Linen dining.2 And the other was just a small little --3

Right. Well, it's4 an interesting question. Harrah's5 Chester actually has many restaurants,6 but the few times I've been there,7 they're either closed or they're very8 underutilized and the product is not very9 good.10 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: They must11 have been closed when I was there,12 because they only had two.13

The restaurant14 you're referring to, both times I've been15 there it's been closed. Actually, one16 time it was open. There was one table17 dining, and the other times it was18 closed.19 We're going to have a smaller20 food and beverage footprint, but we feel21 that we're going to be very busy. We're22 going to offer a more price-competitive23 product, better quality. I think we're24 going to have a lot of people coming25 157 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 there, and it's going to be a much better2 product than what I think is at Harrah's3 right now.4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you.5 Thank you, Madam Chair.6

Thank7 you.8 Any other questions or comments9 from members of the Committee?10 (No response.)11

Do we12 have anyone else that would like to13 testify on this bill?14 (No response.)15 COUNCIL PRESIDENT VERNA:16 Seeing no one, this will conclude our17 public hearing. We will now go into our18 public meeting.19 The Chair recognizes Councilman20 Kenney regarding Bill No. 090354.21

I believe,22 Madam President, there's an amendment to23 354, which I guess will be offered by the24 sponsor.25 158 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1

Does2 everybody have a copy of the amendment?3 (Yes.)4 COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Thank you,5 Madam Chair. I move that the amendment6 to Bill No. 090354 be approved.7 (Duly seconded.)8

It9 has been moved and seconded that the10 amendment be adopted.11 All in favor will say aye.12 (Aye.)13

Those14 opposed?15 (No response.)16

The17 ayes have it and the motion carries.18 Again, the Chair recognizes19 Councilman Kenney.20

Thank you,21 Madam President. I move that Bill No.22 090354, as amended, be reported out of23 this Committee with a favorable24 recommendation and a request made for25 159 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 rules suspension to allow first reading2 at our next Council session.3 (Duly seconded.)4

It5 has been moved and seconded that Bill No.6 090354 be reported out of Committee with7 a favorable recommendation, as amended;8 further, that the rules of Council be9 suspended so as to permit first reading10 at our next session of Council.11 All in favor will say aye.12 (Aye.)13

Those14 opposed?15 (No response.)16

The17 ayes have it and the motion carries.18 Again, the Chair recognizes19 Councilman Kenney.20

Thank you,21 Madam President. I move that Bill No.22 090359 be reported out of this Committee23 favorably with a request for a rules24 suspension to allow for first reading at25 160 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 our next Council session.2 (Duly seconded.)3

It4 has been moved and seconded that Bill No.5 090359 be reported out of Committee with6 a favorable recommendation; further, that7 the rules of Council be suspended so as8 to permit first reading at our next9 session of Council.10 All in favor will say aye.11 (Aye.)12

Those13 opposed?14 (No response.)15

The16 ayes have it and the motion carries.17 The Chair recognizes Councilman18 Kenney regarding Bill No. 090381.19

Thank you,20 Madam President. I move that Bill No.21 090381 be reported out of this Committee22 with a favorable recommendation and a23 request made for a rules suspension to24 allow for first reading at our next25 161 5/26/09 - RULES - BILL 090354, etc.1 Council session.2 (Duly seconded.)3

It4 has been moved and seconded that Bill No.5 090381 be reported out of Committee with6 a favorable recommendation; further, that7 the rules of Council be suspended so as8 to permit first reading at our next9 session of Council.10 All in favor will say aye.11 (Aye.)12

Those13 opposed?14 (No response.)15

The16 ayes have it and the motion carries.17 This concludes our public18 meeting of the Committee on Rules. Thank19 you all very much.20 (Committee on Rules concluded21 at 1:00 p.m.)22 - - -23 24 25 162 1 CERTIFICATE2 I HEREBY CERTIFY that the3 proceedings, evidence and objections are4 contained fully and accurately in the5 stenographic notes taken by me upon the6 foregoing matter on May 26, 2009, and that7 this is a true and correct transcript of same.8 9 10 11 12 13 ______________________________14 MICHELE L. MURPHY15 RPR-Notary Public16 17 18 (The foregoing certification of this19 transcript does not apply to any reproduction20 of the same by any means, unless under the21 direct control and/or supervision of the22 certifying reporter.)23 24 25