In December, among the ordinances that were approved by Council as it relates to the stadium transaction were five different ordinances which authorized the City to acquire each of the five parcels required for stadium development, and those parcels were permitted to be acquired either by condemnation or by amicable negotiates. So the authority of the City to file condemnation on the properties that 00098 we're talking about here were part and parcel of what was approved by this Council in early December.
You know, let me explain one thing: The basis to some of these questions is, we know that in private transactions involving private money, all sorts of things take place -- let's assume they're all even legal, but there are all kinds of actions that take place. But when you're dealing with public monies, taxpayers have this old-fashioned, quaint notion that they kind of have a right to know what's going on and how their money is being used, and they even have a right to express an opinion whether they think it's right or wrong and whether or not they have legislative power, you know, to effectuate those feelings or not. But these are important issues to people in Philadelphia, and that's the reason I'm trying so hard to get to the bottom of what have we actually done and what are the powers of the Council. And that's the reason I raise the questions. We hope that in telling us what's going 00099 on, that the language is clear and simple, and that ordinary conclusions can be safely drawn without our later being told, Oh, but we used this word. You know, we were very careful not to say something else. And we're trying to avoid that. Thank you for the explanation, Mr. Solicitor.
We appreciate that. So the City owns the property, but we're not certain yet or not whether the estimate as to the cost of the property, the estimate that the City made, will prevail, but I assume the payment is within the limits of the City's estimate of what it costs, so we don't yet know of any overrun on acquisition of property. Would that be a fair conclusion to say, without revealing the amounts?
Yes. They're -- on the two parcels where prices have been established, first the Acme, and there is a risk that it may be increased, and as to T-Warehouse, which is a set amount still to be funded, those two numbers, as 00100 agreed upon, constitute a slight increase as to what was budgeted. But the vast -- the majority of the contingency, which I previously described, continues to be available to the transaction. So we weren't right --
Yes. And we were wrong within the contingency; we weren't right on in terms of the numbers, but perhaps over by a couple million dollars total.
And I guess in transactions involving the latest estimate, I understand, of the immediate cash going in is something like 1.3 billion from all parties, not just the City, that this is now being described as a $1.3 billion project and, as I calculate it, with some 6 to 700 millions of dollars in tax money being require over the next 30 years to pay for the cost of bonds. I would call it from my arithmetic a $2 billion project from the point of view of the total costs. Do you disagree with that?
Well, you can calculate 00101 the value of the transaction in any number of ways, Councilman, and I'm sure that if you accept certain premises, your calculations are accurate.
Okay, very good. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. City Solicitor.
Now, back to -- what is the indenture? There is reference made to indenture. In the leases for example, there is this very intriguing language, I think, worthy of a detective novel. Section 18.4(a), I mean that designation is enough to scare away lawyers as well as citizens from reading further. Section 20 18.4(a) of the Eagles prime lease states that the City must abide by all of the lease documents, plus the obligations imposed on the City pursuant to the indenture. Now, that raises a whole new question. What is the indenture and what's going to be the 00102 impact of the indenture on everyone? What do the lease agreements mean by the word "indenture"?
Councilman, the indenture refers to the document that will be central to the bond or note financing by PAID, and it is a document that sets forth the terms under which the bonds or notes or commercial paper will in fact be sold and the rights and obligations of the parties concerning that.
When I went to law school back in the '30s, "indenture" meant a deed.
No. It's a document that would be used if the financing transaction. If, 00103 in fact, you denied greater detail than that, I would get one of the bond lawyers to respond, but it's not the deed for the real property.
Well, could you, without going into detail, tell us generally what does the indenture relate to? Why is there such a thing as indenture? Why weren't the leases enough?
Well, because we have different parties. The leases in the first instance, the underlying leases, are between the City and PAID, the layers of leases that you referred to in your earlier question.
The next layer of leases are those between PAID and the two teams respectively. As you're aware, there are subleasing development agreements between PAID and the Eagles and between PAID and the Phillies, and they set out the respective rights and obligations of PAID and the teams to each other as landlord 00104 and tenant for the new facilities.
The indenture -- and then there are a variety of other documents -- are documents that will be used by PAID to obtain the funds necessary to make the various payments that are necessary in the transaction. So, for example, the terms sheets that Council approved in December anticipated that the City would provide, through PAID, money for, for example, with the Phillies, the construction of their stadium. PAID will borrow those funds in order to have them available to make that investment in the stadium. The borrowing documents include the indenture. So the indenture is not --
I think it is actually, Councilman, the contract between PAID and the bondholders. So it is the document that sets forth that PAID will borrow the money and the terms under which it will repay the money.
Well, if it's between the bondholders and PAID, then it's an obligation running to the bondholders.
Are they the only parties that can enforce the terms of the indenture?
Yeah, the trustee, under the indenture, can also enforce, and usually would be the party enforcing, on behalf of bonds holders.
Well, then, tell me, how does that impact -- or does the indenture come before City Council at some point?
No, the indenture does not come before City Council because City Council is not a party to it. The underlying leases --
Then why -- if the 00106 City is not a party to it, then why does that section that I read, Section 18.4(a) say that the City must abide by all of the lease documents -- that I understand -- plus, quote, the obligations imposed on the City, pursuant to the indenture?
You mean there are going to be obligations imposed on the City that we know nothing about?
No. These are the obligations, in fact, that will result from these underlying leases being used as the vehicle for funding those dollars necessary so that PAID will be in a position to repay the borrowings that it makes in order to develop the stadiums.
Well, I understand that, but why -- this language indicates that there are going to be, or may be, additional obligations; otherwise, there's no need for that language. The City and PAID are going to have various kinds of obligations through the lease agreements, but this says that the City must abide by all of the lease documents and, in addition, 00107 must abide by the obligations imposed on the City pursuant to the indenture. Now, if there are obligations already imposed on the City by the leases, then there is no purpose to having them impose a second time pursuant to the indenture. So this, to make sense, must refer to the possibility of there being other obligations not imposed by the lease which may be further imposed upon the City by the indenture, obligations which we know nothing about.
Councilman, it may be worth, in terms of getting the broader picture, to go back to Section 4.6 of the prime lease, which I think is the document that you're. And 4.6 indicates that the terms and conditions of the indenture, the credit facility, the identity of that provider, the form of the bonds, collateral, security, all of that is subject to the prior written approval of the City acting through its Director of Finance, which may be granted or withheld in its sole discretion. So, again, this is a necessary component of the overall financing structure, but the prime lease has been structured in a way to 00108 ensure that there is nothing about the indenture or the bonds or any of the documents collateral to the indenture or the bonds which will impact the City or impose any obligations upon the City other than ones that we're anticipating by the sublease agreements.
You know, I don't mean to be disrespectful in any sense, but it just sounds like pablum. In one place, there is clear language that there may be new obligations, which we know nothing about that are going to be imposed upon us by a document -- in this case called the indenture. And then we're told that somewhere else in the document is something that says you can go back to sleep peacefully, don't worry about because actually, even though it sounds like we're doing something, we really haven't done anything at all. You know, we haven't added anything that you haven't already agreed to. Now, I just have enormous difficulty with that. I'm not going to pursue that further but I think you can understand why it raises so many -- so many questions in our mind, because what we see -- let me speak for myself. What I 00109 see is the possibility at sometime, when there may be other people representing the City, when maybe there may be other City officials, they're coming in and they're saying, Well, it was plain as day that the indenture said that it had the right to impose other obligations on the City. And as a matter of fact, we went through the Council's transcript, and you even discussed that. Why are you complaining now that there are other things? And then we'll say, Yeah, but at the same time, we were told that it really doesn't mean anything, because there was another clause that was supposed to have made the first one that troubled you utterly meaningless. You know, I think that that puts taxpayers in a very uncomfortable situation 'cause I don't-- I really don't know what the answer is. When you draft a document -- and I've done many in my lifetime -- everything you say has a meaning by the drafter. Maybe other people don't know what the meaning is, but the drafter knew what it was that he or she wanted to achieve. And it kind of doesn't make sense to say that phrases like imposing additional obligations in the indenture 00110 upon the City, saying that that's there but it doesn't mean anything. At this point, I have no further questions, President Verna.
Well, for a moment, I'm sure as I contemplate this intricate pattern of leases and indentures and imposition of obligations, but not really. You know, we're only putting it in words.
But we'll put in words that will eliminate the effect. Thank you, Madam President, for your patience.
Thank you. Are there any other questions of this witness? (No further questions.)
You're going to stay with us for the remainder of the hearing, 00111 I'm sure.
Our next witness is Mr. Hardy. And I would recommend that Mr. Hardy take whoever he wants to the witness table. (Witnesses come forward.)
Good afternoon. And may I thank you for your patience. Many of the Councilmembers are in their offices, and they can hear the testimony. You have a letter, a copy of which is now being distributed to each of the Councilmembers.
Thank you, Council President. My name is Chuck Hardy, and I'm here with my associate Tyler Wren, who is going to start out giving the testimony that we are giving today on behalf of some of the community groups who live in the area most affected by the proposed 00112 new ballpark and new stadium. Mr. Wren?
My name is Tyler Wren. I'm an attorney with the law firm of Sprague & Sprague here in Philadelphia. We are testifying here today on behalf of the various community organizations which represent the South Philadelphia residential communities that will be most affected by proposed new Eagles stadium and new the Phillies ballpark. , South Philadelphia Community Civic Association, Broad Street West, and the Packer Park Civic Association. Our clients -- your constituents -- have suffered more than 30 years from the effects of the present Veterans Stadium: noise, traffic, illegal parking, drunken and disorderly fans, and a non-caring and unresponsive City government. It was clear to everyone when we began the new 00113 process here of new stadiums that this sorry state of affairs could not be repeated with the new stadiums. This Council and this administration made clear their resolve to not repeat the past mistakes and to not ignore again the interests of citizens of South Philadelphia in the construction and use of the new stadiums that will replace Veterans Stadium. To this end, the neighbors, with our representation, spent many hours in discussions and negotiations with the City and with the teams to develop a plan that will provide a reasonable and profitable venture for the teams, but one that will minimize the impact on the neighbors. This was not an easy process, but we were eventually successful in obtaining promises from the teams and the City, which we feel go a long way to address our community needs, particularly with respect to the types and locations of uses within the Stadium District. There was no litigation by the neighbors; we worked out our differences. In December, this Council passed Bills 000721-A, 000722-A and the various other bills 00114 necessary to authorize the stadium development. The deal, as embodied in these bills, was satisfactory to the City, the teams, and the neighbors. Before this Council at this time are the actual leases and development agreements for which the City and the teams seek final approval from this Council. As Council is aware, and the other witnesses have reminded Council, under the December bills, these final leases are supposed to conform in all material respects to the terms and provisions set forth in the December bills and may contain other terms and conditions as are not inconsistent therewith. These final leases were negotiated between the teams and the PAID representatives. The neighbors and Council not included in this process. We did not see the proposed final leases until they were filed with Council last week and a ten-day approval process began. We have now reviewed the leases and have found a number of critical provisions which do not clearly embody the terms as authorized by Council and related promises benefitting the neighbors which the 00115 Administration has made to Council. In reviewing the leases, we found that the leases did not explicitly provide, as previously agreed, for buffer zones between the stadiums and the neighborhoods. The leases did not provide, as previously agreed, on the limitations for the use of parking in the nearby Naval Hospital site. We also noted that the leases did not provide for review by the neighbors of development plans as they would be generated by the teams. We found that the leases before you also appear to improperly allow PAID in many in many critical areas to modify or waive in its sole discretion the teams' commitments in a way that would violate the promises to the neighbors in the December bills and ultimately in a way that would thwart the will of City Council. 2 of the Phillies lease, dealing with their rights as so signage and advertising at the stadium site, revealed that the Phillies intend to erect what would be a second so-called theme tower. This is a free-standing, massive two-sided 00116 electronic billboard with faces that easily would be 30 feet square. Such a massive tower already exists at the stadium site.
Somewhat to the west of Tenth and Packer, there is this large, approximately 120-foot tall electronic billboard that is designed to catch the eye of the motorists as they travel on I-76. This operates hours a 9 day, 7 days a week. The Phillies wish to erect a 10 second so-called theme tower. It is an 11 advertising billboard. 12 The Phillies maintain that they, under 13 the lease, have the right to erect the second 14 tower anywhere they like within the district, 15 including within the parking-only zones and in the 16 limited-activity parking zone, which was worked 17 out by the neighbors and the teams and is embodied 18 in the December ordinances as an exhibit to the 19 terms sheet. 20 A second such tower in this location 21 was never agreed to by the neighbors and, indeed, 22 was never even does discussed with the neighbors 23 by the teams and the City. A second tower, any 24 tower to be located in this parking-only and limited-activity zone is unacceptable. 00117 These are the areas on the western edge of the site that are adjacent to the homes. And the intention in working out the arrangements by which uses in this area would be limited was that there would be only parking, or, on occasion, limited events by the Phillies that were controlled in a way that would not generate excess noise and other impacts on the neighbors. The proposed theme tower, the 120-foot, 24/7 sign, potentially on the very edge of this neighborhood would undo many of those good restrictions which we had worked out. We've discussed our various concerns with the teams and the City in the preceding week since we've had these leases, and we are pleased to report that, with the exception of the theme tower issue, the neighbors' concerns have now been met in a way that is acceptable to the neighbors and which will not a require the actual leases before City Council to be modified. William Martin, who has just testified here, acting as a representative of the Administration and of PAID, has today delivered to Council President Verna a letter which recites that PAID and the teams will 00118 forego in the areas at issue rights which they believe were given by the leases, which we believe exceed the prior agreements with the neighbors and the will of Council. I would like -- in order to make these commitments of record, I would like to distribute to Council and read into the record the letter to Council President Verna from Mr. Martin.
This letter is dated January 29, 2001 on Mr. Martin's letterhead of his law firm. It's addressed to the Honorable Anna C. Verna. Dear Mrs. Verna: Thank you for the opportunity on Friday evening to meet with you and your constituents regarding their questions about the sublease and development agreements herein after the Phillies agreement and the Eagles agreement relating to new stadium development which have been submitted for review by City 00119 Council. I am writing to you in my capacity as representative of Mayor Street's administration and the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development in connection with new stadium development. I believe Friday's exchange was useful in allowing both PAID and the two teams to better understand the concerns in the neighboring community. After consultation with the teams, we are able to respond to certain of the community's concerns with clarifications of the manner in which parties intent to implement the respective agreements. As to specific items raised by the constituents, I can advise you as follows: 1. Phillies signage. The Phillies have confirmed to PAID in writing that the team will locate its video display and two of its three electronic message boards on a portion of the stadium premises, as defined in the Phillies agreement, other than in the parking-only zone, which is identified in Section 5A of Exhibit E to the Phillies agreement. You will recall from our discussions that the third electronic messages 00120 board is intended to be located on the northeast corner of Broad and Pattison. 2. Buffer zones. The Phillies have confirmed in writing that they will undertake the construction of a 150-foot buffer zone along the east and south sides of the Veterans Stadium neighbors' community. The entire perimeter of the buffer zone will be fenced with what is known as "Eagles fencing," a high-quality fencing, or a fencing of similar quality. Maintenance access for the buffer zone will be from the parking lot side only, with locked limited access gates. The Phillies will advise the community regarding design plans for the buffer so as to solicit its input regarding appropriate landscaping and lighting for the buffer. Furthermore, the Phillies have confirmed that maintenance of this buffer zone will be a component of the Phillies maintenance obligations, pursuant to Article 8 of the Phillies agreement. PAID confirms that it will design, create, and cause to be maintained a 200-foot buffer zone at the Naval Hospital site, along Hartranft Street and 20th Street, consistent with 00121 the existing buffer along Hartranft Street. Both sides of the area will be fenced with Eagles fencing on the street side and cyclone fencing on the parking lot side. of the Eagles agreement. Category 3, Navy Hospital Lot. of the Eagles agreement. 3 A or B of the Eagles agreement. Nor will it approve any other uses by the teams at anytime without the prior written consent of the incumbent Councilperson representing the 2nd Councilmatic District. Category 4, Review of Plans. Within 00122 hours of its receipt of such plans, PAID will 3 make available for inspection at its offices by representatives of the Special Services District all schematic plans submitted by the teams to PAID and all other plans submitted to PAID by the teams for areas outside of the football stadium and baseball ballpark. In addition, similarly available for inspection will be relevant studies and reports prepared directly by PAID or its representatives -- for example, traffic studies. The last category, number 5, General Commitment.
PAID confirms to you, as the local 14 District Councilperson, that PAID will not grant 15 any waivers, consents, or permissions, or make any 16 elections, which may otherwise be allowed by the 17 Phillies agreement and the Eagles agreement if the 18 grant of such waivers, consents, or permissions, 19 or the making of such elections would be violative 20 of the provisions of Exhibit E of the Phillies 21 agreement or Exhibit D of the Eagles agreement. 22 Mr. Martin concludes: I hope that the 23 confirmations and commitments set forth above are 24 helpful to you and your constituents in your respective review of the two agreements. Copies 00123 of the written commitments of the teams are enclosed. I'm happy to provide you or other members of Council any additional information which would be helpful in your review. Signed, William F. Martin. I'm advised that Mr. Martin -- that the actual wherein commitment of the teams to which he refers in the letter are not yet in hand but are expected shortly. But he has indeed the verbal commitments that he so relates in this letter. Accordingly, the concerns which the neighbors found in their review of the leases have been addressed, with one exception: the issue of the second theme tower which the Phillies wish to erect literally potentially right on the line of the neighborhood to the west. The existing Phillies theme tower at Tenth and Packer will remain. The neighbors do not like the existing tower, it does operate 24/7, with flashing lights, but will live with it. Moreover, the neighbors have no problem, recognizing the realities of this deal, with the Phillies placing a second theme tower anywhere on the site, but it must not be erected next to our 00124 clients' homes, on the western edge of the site. To place a tower in this area, in our view, will clearly violate the December ordinances. It will violate Exhibit E to the Phillies lease, which provides for a parking-only zone and a limited-activity parking zone in this area. To place the tower in this area will intrude massively and unnecessarily into the lives of the residents, your constituents, in the affected neighborhoods. The tower will have a huge display area, as we had said, operating 13 hours a day, 14 7 days a week with flashing lights. 15 We believe that locating this tower in 16 this area to the west of Tenth Street, as we had 17 said, would violate the ordinances. And it would 18 violate the promises to the neighbors, which City 19 Council adopted and embodied in the December 20 ordinances. 21 And in the agreement before you, the 22 commitments are referred to as the use, scheduling 23 and parking rules, an exhibit to the lease. As we 24 had said, this provides a parking-only zone and a limited-activity zone in the area north of 00125 Hartranft and west of Tenth Street. We believe that the Phillies siting the second tower in this area would violate the lease and the will of Council. We do not wish to have to fight this issue in the future. We want, and I think it is in all parties' interests, to have this issue resolved now by Council. The negotiation process on this development has been a long one. Both sides -- and I say the neighbors versus the team and the City on occasion -- have come a long way. A spirit of cooperation, supported at every turn by this Council, has resolved most of the neighbors' problems. This remaining -- and these problems are all quality-of-life issues. And the neighbors were reasonable in their requests in this regard of this Council, and Council supported the neighbors. We look again to Council to resolve this last major issue. The final Phillies lease does not have to be modified to resolve this issue.
Like was done to resolve the other issues we have mentioned, PAID and the Phillies can 00126 provide to Council written assurances and commitments that the Phillies will not request, and PAID will not approve, the erection of a second tower in the restricted parking zones next to the residential neighborhoods, as identified in Exhibit E to the lease. Again, we look to this Council to protect the neighborhoods by obtaining adequate assurances from the parties here that this last issue will be resolved. Thank you much.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Gentlemen, could you for the record expand a little bit on any issue in the lease as it relates to the neighborhood that would deal with the scheduling of multiple events at the stadium on the same evening or in the same 24-hour period. One of the major problems in that community usually happens when there are potentially four buildings -- three buildings now 00127 and potentially four buildings in use in one particular 12-hour or 24-hour period. And could you talk a little bit about what protections there are for keeping that from not happening, or at least what notifications are required if it's intended to happen.
Councilman Kenney, there are specific provisions in this lease intended to address that very issue. And Mr. Martz, the Managing Director's Office and parking and traffic experts, Commissioner Timoney, members of this Council, and representatives of both the Phillies and the Eagles were involved in lengthy discussions regarding just that issue. There are several aspects which need to be addressed in order to minimize the adverse effects of simultaneous scheduling or overlapping scheduling. One is planning, and there is written into these leases, both of them, similar provisions which require schedules be set in advance and that information be exchanged and available to everyone who might be affected. The next issue is determining how long particular events can go on, because, of course, 00128 the fact that an event occurs in a day doesn't tell you whether traffic problems begin at in 4 the morning or at 3 in the afternoon or when they might end. So there are within this lease particular restrictions on the time prior to and after the intended length of the event in which ancillary events in the parking areas on the plazas might go on. The intention there being that simultaneous events be put at a minimum and that there not be overlap and that there not be 40,000 people trying to leave an area at the same time that there are an additional 35,000 people trying to get into the area. One aspect of that planning that cannot adequately be addressed soley in these leases is the fact that there are two other venues down there which are not directly covered by these leases; namely, the Center and the Spectrum. And there are provisions and intentions to come up with a comprehensive plan that would include them. They already do have some restrictions which the neighbors have felt are not adequately enforced. In addition, there is a sensitivity to the limited amount of parking. And so the number 00129 of people who can be expected at an event has to be limited to some extent by the amount of parking. And the magic number that was reached -- as magic numbers often are, by compromises -- is the number 84,000. And if the attendance at simultaneous events is intended to exceed 84,000, it is the neighbors' hope that those events will not be scheduled simultaneously. If, in fact, there is simultaneous events which exceed that number, there is a penalty. So that there is an incentive on the teams and the owners of the venues not to have those simultaneous events. A contribution has to be made to the Special Services District.
Let me give you a scenario, a potential situation at the complex. I'm talking about all four buildings, as it's envisioned. The flyers win the Stanley Cup Finals, hopefully, in June. The Phillies have scheduled a Yankees game, which is always a big draw. The Dave Matthews Band has booked the Eagles facility. And the opportunity arises for Comcast SpectaCore or the operators of the two buildings 00130 in the middle there, not involved in this discussion directly but indirectly. The opportunity arises to book another minor concert that may also draw 10, 15,000. And it's done without the prior time constraint notices that are a part of this arrangement. What's the penalty? Who begins the penalty process? And what are the details about that kind of potential happenstance?
If, in fact, there is a violation of simultaneous scheduling by over-booking events, there is a penalty of $50,000 imposed for the event that goes over.
It's imposed, under these leases, both the Eagles and the Phillies, jointly and separately.
That's correct. They're beyond the reach of these agreements. That's for the first violation. To prevent it from becoming a chronic situation, there is a provision that for the second and every 00131 further violation, that penalty goes up to $100,000. So there's a great disincentive have not to have that happen. I will tell you this and to assure the people of Philadelphia: that each time this arose, it was the unanimous opinion of all of the neighbors that if it was a World Series game or a playoff game, that they only wish that would happen. But nonetheless -- and there are some exceptions for extraordinary circumstance like that. But ordinary planning which results in exceeding the limitations of 84,000 would result in those penalties automatically. And if, in fact, there isn't the amount of parking that's been promised -- and this is the major concern for the neighborhood, 'cause when the parking lots are full, of course, the neighborhood is full of cars seeking parking and people circling the blocks -- that that 84,000 number is reduced by the number of parking spaces that are not available, whether they haven't been built or whether they're occupied by some other thing.
I think the concern 00132 on my part and my experience with the history of this complex, having worked at another job that brought me involved with the construction at the First Union Center, is that the goal of all of these organizations, admirably, is to fill every seat every night. That's what they're supposed to do. And I guess the concern that I have is if we have locked in the Phillies and the Eagles to certain constraints, how do we deal with the potentiality that the operators of the two buildings not involved in the agreement will hold true to the goals and spirit of neighborhood preservation?
Well, you do have yet to come before you this stadium area limited partnership agreement, which is supposed to be an agreement among all four venues with regard to parking and development and, I would, hope scheduling issues, since they relate to parking. And perhaps it's that opportunity. We don't see an opportunity here. I think Comcast is not (indiscernible).
And for the 00133 first time -- I don't mean to interrupt you. For the first time, the community will have a board, they will have a Special Services District. It my understanding -- and I understand your concerns, Councilman 'cause we've lived through that, but it's my understanding that if in fact there were a fine imposed. Eventually down the road, all four venues would have to pay. Fifty percent of the penalty would go to the Special Services District, the other 50 percent would go to the Children's Fund.
Part of this, and Council President Verna knows it very well, is credibility with the community. When we first hashed out the agreement to allow for the construction of the First Union Center, the late Governor Casey at the time came down and talked to the neighbors in the basement of the (indiscernible) school on a rainy Saturday or Sunday and made assurance on these issues of multiple events and numbers people. It never seemed to have ever been enforced. And I do understand why people feel that -- there's some 00134 skepticism. Despite the hard work Council President and the Mayor's Office and the teams, there's some skepticism as to its long-term enforceability, especially as it relates to the two buildings, 'cause we've run into problems in the past there, where the operators of the First Union Center and Spectrum decide without notice, for example, to have an outdoor concert with a heavy-metal band. And it kind of seems that that industry will book things at the last minute, when opportunities arise, different from what the Phillies and Eagles do because their schedules are known and promulgated at least almost a half a year or so in advance. So it's not as much how many Phillies games there's going to be or how many Eagles games; we know that. Concerts, of course, impact it in the larger arena, but I think the two buildings -- the Spectrum and the First Union Center -- have been kind of the uncontrollable problem in last-minute scheduling, multiple-event scheduling, and scheduling of events that break the ceiling on what was prior agreed to for limitations. 00135
Councilman Kenney, in fact, under the leases that you are being asked to vote on this week, there is a provision in Article 2 B of these use rules which says that the teams, Comcast, and PAID shall enter into an agreement within 30 days, if possible, which agreement provides for limited scheduling of simultaneous events, and that's exactly addressing this issue. So it is the goal to get this going right away. But, again, as I said earlier, there will be an opportunity for you to address it directly with Comcast.
And I thank you for the answers and I thank you for the hard work that you've put in along with Council President to assure the neighbors hopefully some credible and consistent enforcement as we go forward.
Thank you. And the neighbors are very grateful for your interest in their concerns.
Thank you. Councilwoman Blackwell, your light's on. Did you want to ask a question?
No? As I understand your testimony, you are not saying that you are opposed to the second theme tower; your concern is where the second theme tower would be erected. Is that correct?
Mr. Montgomery, would you or your attorney feel free to discuss this at this point in time? This one issue, if you will? And gentlemen, please stay where you are, and we can just pull over two more seats. (Mr. Montgomery and counsel come forward.)
Mr. Montgomery, I know you've been sitting here very patiently --
-- listening to the testimony, and you have heard what the concern is about the tower. Do you mind addressing that one issue? And perhaps we can put this last issue to rest. 00137
Well, Council President, I believe that we have -- first of all, my name is David Montgomery, and I'm joined by David Cohen of Ballard Spahr. I'm President of the Phillies, and David acts as legal counsel on our behalf on this issue. It's a pleasure to be here. As far as the specific question that's been raised, I think our goal all along was to provide the neighbors with the opportunity to participate in the dialogue, and I think, as was testified earlier, the opportunity to clarify in those cases where the existing document did not provide clarification necessary, some of the issues that the neighbors raised upon their inspection of the full lease, which I guess took place during last week. As far as the theme tower is concerned, you know that the existing team tower does in fact exist, as was testified, on an area which was already identified as the parking log-only or parking-only area or limited parking area, and it would be absolutely consistent with our understanding of our discussions with the City 00138 that we would have the opportunity to place a second theme tower. I believe, in the initial terms sheet, there was reference to theme towers plural as far as our situation was concerned, and it even referenced the existing team tower that's there. So --
The existing theme tower sits in the northeast corner of the North Lot. Now, keep in mind, the North Lot is approximately some 80-plus acres of square footage. This happens to be very close to the corner of Tenth Street and Packer Avenue. It sits on a very thin base. I'm not sure that I could verify the specifics as far as the description that was made, as far as the size of the face. But most of the theme tower is a tower to a video display opportunity, which was correctly identified as being something that actually was there when the Vet was first built, in 1971. That tower has existed from that time. I believe the Phillies took over obligations associated with it about seven or eight years ago. 00139 The first few years that the theme tower was erected, I believe it took a couple of years for it to become fully operational. And my understanding is that it was an element of the advertising display system in the initial design of Veterans Stadium. And it was in part, I think, funded by three sponsors at the time that were also involved in putting up some dollars for the initial scoreboards that were located in the facility. So it's been an element of Veterans Stadium itself for a number of years. And as far as our discussions with the PAID and the City through Bill Hankowsky and then subsequently Bill 16 Martin, it has been an element that we talked about from day one.
My understanding is that the Eagles lease provides them the opportunity to have two such towers.
You know, it's amazing, during all of the hours of discussion, I don't know that this issue ever came 00140 up.
Council President, if I could remind you, you were involved in many of these discussions, and Mr. Montgomery stood in front of that plot plan that showed, as best they can now, their plans for the stadium and discussed what it was they wanted to do and where they wanted to do it. And our neighbors' concern was, of course, particularly there in the segment to the west of Tenth Street and as you approach Broad Street, where, of course, the neighborhoods are. And never did Mr. Montgomery indicate that he wished to put a theme tower, a 120-foot electronic billboard in the area near and adjacent to the neighborhood. This was an area which we worked out as a parking-only area. In fact, the terminology used continually in our negotiations was that this be a pristine parking area. Mr. Montgomery indicated he had -- the Phillies had the need to have certain very limited activities within the parking-only zone and what was described as the limited-activity zone, which was the area north of Hartranft, south of Packer, 00141 between 10th and 11th. In those zones, he indicated his desire to have certain small events at certain times. And the neighbors, realizing the financial aspects, the necessary financial aspects of the deal, agreed to all of this. Never, not once, did Mr. Montgomery indicate a desire to put a second theme tower in this area. The language which we worked out, which is embodied in the ordinance and now is part of the lease, in our view, is clear. It provides for a parking-only zone. That is the terminology. They contend that they have the right to put this theme tower there; we contend they absolutely do not. We do not wish to, as we said, fight about this in the future; it should be resolved now. But it is totally inconsistent with the spirit and, we contend, the letter of the agreement worked out between the neighbors and the team and the City to ensure that the stadium, the new stadiums, will not unnecessarily impact and diminish the quality of life of the neighbors.
Thank you. Mr. Montgomery? That was my 00142 recollection too, that there would be parking only. However, let's talk about how we can address this issue so that, as I said, hopefully we could --
Council President, let me just add, if I might, I agree that there was very specific concern about what would occur in what's called "parking lot activities." And frankly, from the team's perspective, recognizing there was an activity already known as a theme tower that existed there, you can understand why we did not necessarily feel the need to be more specific on that subject. We felt that, obviously, the documents that we had agreed to specified that there would be multi-- the opportunity for multiple theme towers. As you know, we've had this discussion. The club, at this time, has not designed this facility. We have the right, it's an important right, that the team felt was a key element of its negotiation to have the opportunity to do two theme towers. As far as the specific siting of that, that is yet to come. But I want to be very specific since it 00143 was represented that there was a great deal of discussion on this. There was, indeed, a great deal of discussion, but it comes under the heading of "parking lot activities" and specifically what they were. And, again, if there was a burden on our side to identify a second, I would suggest there was a similar burden on the other side to identify concern with the one that already existed in the area that was identified.
Council President, my name is David L. Cohen, a partner with Ballard Spahr and am counsel to the Phillies in this transaction. And let me try and respond, if I can, to your last question, with some thoughts about a potential resolution to this. As Mr. Montgomery stated, the problem for the Phillies is that they do not have a design today for what this will look like, what these areas will look like. And that, as Mr. Martin testified -- I mean, a lot of this is about flexibility. And we, the Phillies, do understand the concern of the residents, your concern as their representative and as Council President, and 00144 all of Council's concern about these issues. And I would suggest that within the framework that exists with the leases, as they are currently before you, there is a relatively easy way to deal with this, and it does require a little bit of trust on both parties, on all of the parties involved in this, and I would hope that we could use that. And that is an understanding of what will happen when the Phillies do their design and know where it is that they want to put this second theme tower. And what happens under that system is that there will have to be, first of all, an approval process with PAID. Second, there will have to be an amendment to the master plan, which will require the Phillies to go before the Planning Commission. We -- obviously, the Council President would be aware of those proceedings. I would suggest to you that if it would be of assistance in improving the level of trust, that the Phillies would be prepared to, either in a letter to you or a letter to PAID -- we can figure out the mechanics -- make crystal-clear that the Phillies will communicate their plans 00145 with respect to the second theme tower to you and to the residents before approval of PAID is sought, and obviously before there is a Planning Commission proceeding. At a Planning Commission proceeding, as you know, the community has the right to appear, and most certainly, the Council President as the representative of the community and of the residents not only has a right to appear but the right to offer on opinion and offer an opinion by letter. And we in the Phillies certainly understand that when the Council President says to the Planning Commission, "I don't like this," there's a problem for the proponent. And we're willing to rely on the trust that we will be able to work with the residents and with the Council President and her staff and hopefully be able to have a plan that is acceptable to everyone. And I think we'd ask the residents to work with us with the same level of trust that we can be able to work this through the process at that time and not have a black-and-white rule that it can't go here or it can't go there, when no planning has been done. 00146 And, frankly, I mean, we don't know what the buffer is going to look like and how the buffer might protect these homes. Looking at it within an entire design concept, people may have a different attitude about it than they have about it today. And then, finally, I would note that even if all of that didn't work, even if somehow, the advance notification, the discussions that would inevitably result, because I know the Council President, if the neighbors are not satisfied, are going to call and ask, can you come in, and can you have Mr. Montgomery come in an talk about this, we need to figure out a way to try and resolve this. If all of that doesn't work, if the Planning Commission miraculously ignores an adverse recommendation from the Council President -- I'm not sure I recall the last time that occurred, but if it miraculously happened, the residents would still have their legal position that they have expressed here today, and that is that a theme tower -- that a second theme tower in the parking-only or limited-activity parking zone 00147 would violate the provisions of the lease.
And there would be nothing to stop them from exercising that litigation option, which itself would bring the Phillies back to the bargaining table yet again in an attempt to negotiate a resolution. So, the bottom line, I think if you put just a morsel of trust on the table both ways -- and, by the way, I want to echo something Mr. Wren said, because I know that the Phillies feel this way: There's been a lot of progress made here. The City has made progress and the teams have made progress, and the residents have certainly made a lot of progress. And I would hope that part of the progress that has been made is an ability to put little bit of trust on the table, that this last remaining issue can be worked out through the process in the way contemplated by the lease, as currently drafted, and frankly, by our normal administrative proceedings in the City government.
Council President, the Phillies maintain that under the lease, as presently written, they will have the right, the right to site this second theme tower anywhere 00148 they want in the district, including in the parking-only zone and in the limited-activity zone adjacent to the neighborhoods. If down the road, when they decide exactly where to site the tower, they then make a presentation, of course, to PAID and say, We want to site it here, please approve it, I am certain, being that since they are good lawyers and intelligent executives, that they would argue that for PAID to refuse to site the tower in that area, which they believe they have a right to do, would be a bad-faith refusal by PAID, and they would have the ability to go to court and further their view before a court. We cannot trust the process, but it should not be addressed in a way that guarantees a lawsuit. If you look at where it's -- now that we know that they are contending that they want to put a second tower anywhere they like, the most likely location for this tower would then be at the extreme western edge of the site, up against the neighborhood. Because those towers, in order to be effective for their purpose, would be as far apart as possible on a line adjacent to the 00149 expressway. The motorists coming would see the first sign, read it, and then come to the second sign. You don't want have them too close together because they won't be able to read by the motorists. So from hearing where they're coming from now, it is our expectation that the location will be at the northwest corner of the North Lot; that is the location that they will come back to PAID and say, Please approve this. It is crystal-clear now, since we hear where they're coming from, that they do not intend to honor the parking-only zone that we worked out, that this issue needs to be addressed now. And there is no trust on this issue. We thought we had a trust on many issues. This second theme tower, their intention to locate it in the North Lot, potentially the northwest corner, is out of left field. We do not want to have it resolved in that way. This Council should address this issue now and demand -- the Council should demand of the teams that they honor the agreement that they worked out with the neighbors before. 00150 And let me just say one other point. I'm glad you mentioned the buffer zone. This, of course, was the 150-foot area between the neighborhood on the west and the activities and the parking lot on the northwest corner portion of the site. And, of course, one of the issues that we had to raise in reviewing the leases was that the buffer zones were not mentioned in the leases. They now are going to be addressed. Obviously, it was the intention of all parties that the buffer zones exist. Now, those buffer zones were intended, among other things, to protect the neighborhood from the noise and, in this case, light that would come from activities at that portion of the stadium site. To locate the second theme tower in this portion of the site, which is likely to be as tall as the one there, 120 feet, there's no 20 landscaping in a buffer zone that's going to protect the neighborhoods from this massive, 24-hour/7 intrusive light, blinking lights all the time. It is totally unacceptable to the neighbors, it was never discussed with the 00151 neighbors. Mr. Montgomery stood up and he never said, "I want to do this here," when we had a chance to negotiate it. We believe that the language we worked out addressing a parking-only zone means what it says, and there can never be a second tower sited in this area. This issue should be addressed and clarified now, not later in a lawsuit.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just a few questions about the issue of towers. How effective are they and how do they fit into the overall revenue scheme? Are they really necessary? And the only reason I raise this is because I've lived in South Philadelphia my whole life and have seen that 120-foot tower that's there now. I mean, I don't know how effective it is in informing me of anything. You know, if you're -- I actually see more information on the lighted billboard outside the Spectrum driving there than I've ever seen driving either on the 76 Bridge approaches or the 00152 Walt Whitman Bridge, or certainly I can't read it from my house at 11th and Tasker. I mean, how effective are they? And I think you do recognize what potentially could be a kind of conflagration of two towers in, you know, the Eagles facility and two towers in the Phillies facility. I mean, it seems like it would be adverse to the design of a ballpark that we're looking for, kind of a throwback ballpark, with low-rise, and all of the things that was attractive to us when we looked at the design. It would seem antithetical to --
I think you've identified a key point, Councilman, and we're not necessarily overly proud of the design of the existing theme tower. And part of our discussion was to pursue the opportunity to design something that would be perhaps more in keeping with the facility. As far as the --
I'm sorry. Does that mean the intention is to take it down?
No. I said that we were not -- we -- we are not necessary wedded to 00153 the existing architecture associated with the current theme tower for some of the reasons you said. It may not be the most esthetic complementary structure to the ballpark that we're talking about. As far as the utilization is concerned, we have said from day one that the theme towers that were afforded us and to the other organization are primarily highway signs. And as a result, they cannot be used in the same manner as the electronic message boards that you identified outside, in front of the Spectrum, for one good reason, which is that traffic moves fairly quickly on highways such as I-95 and the Walt Whitman Bridge approach. And so you can only have a board that would have what I would call very quick viewing, if you know what I mean, opportunities. And so it is for that reason, we have stated and said this directly to the neighbors the other night, that we're not sure we will follow up and do this second theme tower. But the fact of matter is that it was part of the display right opportunities that we have been granted, and it is 00154 something that we want to preserve the right to do where it would be most effective and --
Is it an issue of -- is it an issue of publicity for the events an issue of revenue for the signage? Or a combination of both?
It's a combination of both, but I would say in this case, revenue from the signage, I mean, that's the obligation that we took on with the current theme tower 'cause it had fallen in such disarray, you know, it had gone, I think, about at least a half dozen years where it didn't work at all. And the City took the position that they weren't anxious at that time to rehab it and make it into an ongoing useful message board.
I asked, but I wasn't clear on the answer, whether or not there's an intention or a possibility that the existing team tower would come down and be replaced by something different or the intention is that the existing theme tower would stay in the same place and same height, perhaps with some improvement. Has there been a decision on whether it's -- 00155
There has not, Councilman. (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)
We wanted the flexibility to have theme towers, and we are -- we wanted the flexibility to retain the existing one. We put ourselves a good bit of money into it not that long ago. And at the same time, we wanted the opportunity to investigate whether or not it could be redesigned so that, as you pointed out, it would be more esthetically pleasing.
Again, I'm not in this business and I'm not in the advertising business and I'm not in the sports promotion business, but I mean, I just don't know any way to gauge the real benefit of having them at all, other than the potential revenue from whatever -- whoever is advertising on it.
Right. Again, I'm certainly not ignoring the revenue associated with it. I mean, after all, we've been asked to take a significant North Lot obligation. It was asked earlier about, you know, the 110 acres north of 00156 Pattison. There are opportunities, obviously, that we wanted to at least have the ability to pursue. At the same time, there are obligations that the City wanted us to take, and very significant obligations. And that was a major part of the discussion. If I might, it may be an appropriate time while I'm here, just to clarify one question that you raised earlier of these gentlemen. And that was -- you talked about a scenario whereby we were playing a baseball game at our venue, and at the Eagles new facility, there was a concert. I want to be perfectly clear that our document specifically prohibits us from doing that, as between just the two of us. Neither a team sporting event nor a concert can occur at the same time, Councilman.
So I wanted to make sure you were comfortable with that restructuring on behalf of the neighbors.
If I could make one additional comment in response. 00157 I think you can redesign all you want a tower, an electronic billboard, but it's still going to be an electronic billboard tower. It's going to be huge, it's going to be 24/7 blinking lights, it will affect in a massive way the quality of life of the neighbors. These neighbors have borne the negative effects of the Veterans Stadium for 30 years, and the hope of all parties all the way around was that this would be a new day dawning and that there would not be this massive intrusion any more than necessary into the neighborhoods. This -- in our view, this intention by the Phillies, which we are hearing now for the first time, once these leases are presented to Council, leases in which we had no involvement in negotiation, in our view, could well undo everything that we worked at in so many hours of negotiation, by putting this massive presence right in the windows and in the backyards of these neighbors. This can't be allowed to happy. We are sympathetic, of course, to the Phillies' need for revenue. We do not have a problem with the existing tower remaining where it 00158 is, on the eastern edge of the North Lot. We do not have a problem with a second tower being erected elsewhere, other than in the parking-only and limited-activity zones. South of Hartranft is fine. This cannot be allowed to happen and this will undo everything we worked so hard for and that you, Council President Verna, and other members of Council recognized and supported in a way by agreement was the intention, and we did arrive at agreements by which the new development could go forward not contentiously, not with the prospect of litigation, but by a consensus of a development that would benefit all. This will be undone if this is allowed to proceed.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I can understand the Phillies' desire to have the second tower, and I also understand the community's objection to it. And I'm wondering if the Phillies would be in a position to -- we hear the term "24/7." The one tower is 00159 running 24/7 at this point. If the second tower was constructed in a location that would be considered inappropriate to the community, could there be some restrictions on its operational -- the hours of operation, where it would be limited to game day, that it wouldn't need to operate after a certain hour? Would there be some considerations to limiting the hours of operation or locating it in an area that would not be so desirable. So would there be a trade-off of limiting its operation versus putting it in a location that would be not desirable to the Phillies?
Councilman, first of all, again, we have not specifically identified where this potential theme tower would be, nor have we in fact decided to go forward with it. However, I would tell you that the purpose of the theme tower, as I answered Councilman Kenney's question, is one that is primarily a highway sign. And so to the extent that you would go through the cost associated with the construction and everything, you would end up needing to 00160 operate it days a week and hours a day. So I would not want to mislead you in that respect.
So it's fairly 6 obvious that if you do make a decision that would 7 impact the community, that you'll never get it 8 done? 9
It appears to me 11 that if you decide, if your research decides that 12 it would go into the parking-only area, and that 13 would be your decision that that's where you'd 14 want it, you'd probably never get it there based 15 on what we're hearing here today. 16
Well, I think, as we 17 said earlier, we have -- we have to look at this, 18 I believe, in the context of the entire impact of 19 our facility, our ballpark, and other elements of 20 it. As far as the community is concerned, I 21 would, I guess, disagree with the characterization 22 that this is sort of a breach of an otherwise, I 23 think, effective dialogue between the community 24 and the club. We have clearly agreed to things that probably at one time we were not necessarily 00161 thinking we were and I'm sure the community feels the same way. I think this is an element of it and I think it's an important element, as far as the team's concerned, to keep the option open. We negotiated on a number of issues with the City that we ended up being discouraged or displeased about. And this is one that we have this opportunity available to us and it's one that we want to at least pursuit.
I appreciate that, but in all fairness, it's a lot different negotiating before a lease than negotiating after there's a lease signed. So I think the community's concerned that once the document's inked that it's going to be very, very difficult to challenge the Phillies in exercising something that's already been agreed to. So I would hope that there would be a way to work this out, but if that's not possible, then we'll see what happens down the road.
Well, I just ask you to make that comment in the context of all of the other elements that we have reached agreement on. 00162 Thank you, Councilman.
Does this have to go before the Art Commission? I don't know; I'm asking the question.
I would suggest that I wouldn't be the best person to respond to that, Council President.
The Planning Commission would certainly have to sign off on it.
I don't believe it would require Art Commission approval unless the team was seeking to utilize this as part of their contribution to fine arts.
Council President, it's my 00163 understanding that any structure that is erected on City property -- and this is indeed City property that's being leased through a number of parties, ultimate to the teams, that any such structure has to be approved by the Art Commission. That's my understanding.
Council President, David Cohen, again. You could add the Art Commission into this. Whether it's there or not, the fact of the matter is that there will be a Sunshine City administrative approval process for this, and frankly, the concerns raised by Councilman Rizzo, I mean, the Phillies understand that we're going to have to go through that. And with all due respect to Mr. Wren's desire to resolve everything now, we may not be able to do that. This is an issue that is sufficiently small, that is sufficiently concrete, and with the protections existing down the road, that I think it is not an issue that has to be resolved now, when the Phillies are without the benefit of being able to make a comprehensive pitch based upon what the entire design of the 00164 area north of Pattison Avenue looks like and how it is that the neighbors' concerns have been taken into account as a result of that design process. That's really the difference that I see happening as resolving it now, when frankly -- and I don't object to Mr. Wren characterizing this way, of a theme tower that looks exactly like the existing theme tower being planted right next to the buffer in the northwest corner of the parking-only zone. I mean, that's the worst nightmare for the residents, and that's what they're trying to avoid. But that is not at all what the Phillies are contemplating. It's not that they know what they're contemplating; they don't know. I think they would just like the opportunity to have a rational discussion about that once there is a plan and it is a complete plan and everyone can see what it looks like and they have the opportunity to pitch that within the context of an overall plan.
Council President Verna, I will tell you that this is not a small issue to the community. They've lived for decades with the 00165 sign blinking in their bedroom windows. There are hundreds of homes affected, the sign is visible across I-76 on the other side of the Schuylkill Expressway to those neighborhoods in South Philadelphia, as well as to the areas immediately next to the parking lot and the areas on the other side of Broad Street. Doubling the level of that intrusion, moving it closer to even more homes by three or more blocks is of major concern to the community.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Montgomery, you referred to this as a highway sign, and I've seen it a million times, and actually from my home in South Philly -- I live a little further north than Jim Kenny -- I can actually see it 'cause I have a roof deck. And I'm not offended by it, by the way. Is there any other type of advertising that goes on those signs, that is broadcast on those signs besides what the events are?
What we have on there 00166 -- again, you cannot -- my point earlier was that you cannot run a 10- or 15-second sequence, so you can't say, for example, if it were Coca Cola or, let's say, a bank that you cannot identify that, you know, that loans are available at a certain rate, et cetera.
It basically works just with logo orientation. We have, I believe, two sponsors that exist on the triad that is the lower portion of the board. I believe two of the three spots are in use at the present time. I believe Maxwell House Coffee and Verizon are the two that come to mind. Frankly, I'm not sure who the third is.
My point was, it could be used, and it is used, for non-events.
Right. So primarily, it talks about what's going on at Veterans Stadium and then it does put up a Verizon logo, for example.
I guess I'm raising that because I'm getting into an area with 00167 some legislation -- one piece I've already introduced and I hope to have some amendments to it as it relates to outdoor advertising, and this kind of falls within the same area or at least the same concerns that neighbors would raise as to how close the sign is to their residence and things like that. Isn't there something in this agreement, or is there something we can do that would just make certain that there is a process, at least to the community. And I think you spoke a little bit about that, David, but I think it should be rather simple to figure out a way in which we could put some language in here that will assure at least that there is the community involvement as to a process on the site of the sign and where it gets placed.
And, Councilman, I believe that under existing law, there is a process. The City Planning Commission approval process is a public Sunshine process for the community to be involved and have an opportunity to object if they don't like it. And I say this -- and I'm not trying to 00168 overstate it but, I mean, you have been in front of the Planning Commission. You know if the District Councilperson is in front of the Planning Commission and is arguing vehemently against what a developer wants to do, the Planning Commission does not just say, Well, it was nice hearing from you, Councilman DiCicco, we're going to ignore you. And where the District Councilperson is the Council President, that is even more the case. What I had suggested, as a possibility to help improve the trust as to the quality of this process, was that -- was for there to either be a letter to the Council President, or maybe we could figure out how to feed it into the PAID process, that is in the PAID letter that Mr. Wren read, and supplement it by a commitment letter that we, the Phillies, would write to PAID, underlying that letter, that there would be advance notification to the Council President, which I think, in this situation, is the equivalent of to the community, which is what I'm trying to accomplish here, before the approval of PAID was sought under the terms of the lease. And I chose that only because I think the PAID 00169 approval comes before the Planning Commission action. So I was trying to create the community process that Councilman DiCicco was talking about, where the community would have confidence that it would have advanced warning of what was happening here, an opportunity here to comment, to participate. The Phillies, knowing that that was going to be the case, would then have every incentive and, in fact, it would be -- it would be unthinkable for this not to have happened, for there to be a discussion with the community before approval is sought of PAID, which would be well before the Planning Commission approval was being sought. And that is, I think, by definition, community process. So that there would be an opportunity to make a presentation to the community within the context of the overall plan to try and persuade the community, if in fact the sign was being located in this area -- and it might not be. But if in fact it was, that it was okay with the community, with the Phillies' understanding that 00170 if they could not get the community on their side, that they were likely to have the Council President telling PAID that she doesn't want PAID to approve it and have the Council President appearing in front of the Planning Commission saying, "I don't want you to approve this," and if all of that goes wrong, that there would still be a litigation option from the perspective of the community.
Thank you. And I think that's where I was going. I would say you more eloquently described what I would like to see happen. And especially, again dealing with some of the pieces of legislation that I'm going to be dealing with shortly, as long as the community is satisfied with what that process is, that's okay by me. And I'm not speaking on behalf of the Council President because the stadium is in her district. But I also think it's important to the community that they have the final say in that as it relates to them because, as you know, there are other groups throughout the City that have taken a position -- because I think someone could say that 00171 this is a billboard. I mean, you can call it what you want, but someone may take that position, and I think that that's the last thing we need to do, is have someone who's from the Overbrook section 6 or some other section of the City deciding -- excuse me, Councilman Nutter, I'll pick another area. Northeast Philadelphia, since the District Councilperson is not here today, coming in and deciding for the people who live in the Veterans Stadium area what is good or not good for them. But thank you, Madam President. Thank you.
Madam President, can I have a brief response. What Mr. Cohen is saying has some facial appeal, but our fear is that when you get into this and if you have these processes down the road before PAID, before the City Planning Commission, which, by the way is an executive branch-administrated agency not controlled by City Council, that they will begin these processes by saying up front, We have a right, in their view, as they've told you today, we have a right to 00172 place this tower anywhere in the District given to us by City Council. We wish to put it here. Our fear is in the northwest corner right next to the neighborhoods. And while the City Planning Commission and PAID might say, Well, maybe you should make it green rather than blue, the core issue will be, as presented by them, we have a right to put it there. And this should not be allowed, we should not, in essence, be buying into litigation down the road, or indeed, buying into a process that when it's all said and done, the Phillies will be able to prevail because any refusal to put it where they seek will be, by their view and maybe by the court's view, a bad-faith disapproval. This has to be addressed now to protect these neighborhoods.
Is Mr. Martin still in the audience? (Mr. Martin returns to the witness table.)
Mr. Martin, I know you've been listening to just about all of the testimony. Can you tell me what the 00173 Administration's position is on this?
Yes. First of all, we are gratified by the discussions we had on Friday and over the weekend that we're able to assuage the neighbors' concerns on the vast majority of the issues that they've raised. I guess there's two points that I'd like to make. One is, I reject Mr. Wren's characterization of any of these issues as constituting inconsistencies between the lease terms and the lease agreements which have been submitted for approval. There have been, in the letter that he read that I provided to you, some clarifications and other commitments, which I think will be helpful to you in representing your constituents to give the constituents some -- assuage certain of their concerns. But that being said, I don't think that they were necessary to deal with any inconsistencies; they were rather just helpful in trying to answer concerns that the neighbors and their attorneys. That is to the general point. As to the specific point of the theme towers, I do think it's worth noting that the 00174 terms sheets specifically referenced theme towers in the plural. It referenced the existing North Lot theme tower. The scheduling and use rules, which were referred to, and the parking lot-only -- the parking-only provision was in the context of activities. And I don't believe it is the best reading of that provision to suggest that that parking-only zone, also by its terms, would provide no theme towers, number one, because the existing theme tower is and is not otherwise addressed, and also because there will be a variety of other things such as presumably parking islands, lights, other things there that are not parking-specific, but which I think were contemplated by the parties. Finally, regarding the reference to the spirit within which the negotiations were handled, we spent in excess of two dozen hours with the attorneys from Sprague and Sprague negotiating these provisions. And we spent approximately hours dealing with significant levels of 24 detail, including where clowns could appear before 25 games and the exact square footage of outdoor 00175 tents and the numbers of decibels that music could be performed at. So we went into great detail through the scheduling and use rules. And if it was a requirement of the attorneys representing their neighbors that there not be an additional theme tower, or either theme tower, in some portion of this parking lot, certainly there was significant opportunity to raise that. That being said, I would think that on behalf of the Administration, some of the solutions tendered by Mr. Cohen seem to make sense, and perhaps they're an effective way to balance the interests of the parties.
Now, with all of the hours that were spent dealing with this issue with the community, I don't know that this particular issue was ever raised. As a matter of fact, I did not know that there was such a tower presently in the North Lot.
Would this require that it go through L&I also? Would there have to be an L&I permit? I mean, there's a lot 00176 of different steps this issue would have to take.
There's a general requirement that everything that is done by the teams in connection with these leases be done in connection with all applicable law, zoning and otherwise. So if there's a requirement for such a permit, they would have to procure it.
But if they had a right given by City Council to put it anywhere, L&I would be obliged to let them site it there.
I don't think we're agreeing to the fact that it could go anywhere. Am I being misunderstood? Can it go anywhere, Marilyn?
No, you're correct, Council President. The siting of all of this signage is subject to approval by PAID. Their plans and specs- - that is, the Eagles and the Phillies -- must be submitted to PAID for review. And, in fact, PAID provides review, particularly with regard to signage as to the location and the size, and I think that is indicated in the document. I understand that the lawyers for the 00177 community may have concerns about how those approvals are granted, but I think that's why the procedure that Mr. Cohen outlined in terms of the Planning Commission having an opportunity to review this in the context of the master plan, you having an opportunity to know in advance that this is coming and to know where the Phillies are planning to site the sign will in fact allow people to make sure that the approvals are not given in a way that is willy-nilly or is somehow arbitrary. It doesn't necessarily mean that everyone will agree, but it does mean that there will be a public process that will be open under the Sunshine Act and that people will be able to participate in that process.
I'd like to, for the record, since this is City property, do we -- does the community waive any of its rights based that this is City-owned property, where there would be a loophole of what you just described wouldn't be applicable because of the fact that the sign would 00178 be constructed on City property? Do we, Council, does the community waive any of the protections that if in fact this were being constructed on private property?
No, I think to the contrary, Councilman Rizzo, there are additional protections built into the document. Council is not, by its approval of these leases, approving a particular site or saying that somehow you won't have to go to L&I with full normal permits. The documents are very clear, that neither action by PAID, nor action by City Council replaces the normal approval and permits that must be obtained by anyone who's developing within the City, and that includes areas of signage such as this.
I would like to respond a little further on that because I understand that as part of the zoning approvals here that, in 00179 fact, anything that is permitted in the leases that would otherwise require zoning approval would be deemed an approved use within the Stadium District. So the approval of these leases will, to some extent, as I understand it, constitute approval for zoning purposes of what's contemplated by these leases. I want to further say that I'm not sure that we fully described what these towers are for those of you who are not familiar with them. In addition to having this blinking and flashing 24-hour signage to be visible from the highway, there are very bright lights which shine downward on the tower and do create a huge presence. The closer you are to it, the more intrusive it actually is. And that's the existing tower that's here today. I would also like to inform Council, if you may not have heard this before, that when the stadium area was finally concentrated and attention was centered on putting both of these facilities in South Philadelphia, the neighbors were told that what the teams wanted to do was have a first-class football stadium, a first-class 00180 ballpark, and the appurtenances that would go with that and nothing more, and that they would come to Council to get that approved. For the first time with this sign, I think what we're finding is that unrelated and not appurtenant really to any of these sports team and sports usages, we're looking for a separate profit center and we want to put it anywhere we can in the district, as intrusive as that might be. And it really goes to the understanding that has underlain the community's participation in this process of developing a plan which, but for this particular issue, the community is now willing to live with. Mr. Wren may have overstated it when he said the community has no problem with the existing tower. There are problems. What we're saying is, we can live with those problems because we understand the teams need to build what they have planned here. What we are saying is that this is an unnecessary intrusion, very close, right up against the community, for which you can't really create the kinds of protection -- 00181
No, I'm talking about the second tower in the northwest corner of that parking lot.
I don't know that a location has even been mentioned about the second. Did I miss some statement?
The issue is the Phillies' contention here before this Council that they have the right to site the second tower anywhere they want within the district. And it our fear that the most logical place, having heard that being their position, is the northwest corner of the North Lot, right up against the homes. And that they are not prepared today to say that they will not do that is, we view, unacceptable. It shows gnat neighbors' fears will be realized, that they will come and propose a second theme tower, an advertising billboard right there, and the neighbors will be stuck with it or involved in long litigation, none of which should be the way this matter is resolved.
At the same 00182 token, I believe that Mr. Martin has indicated that the leases conform with the terms sheets. Is that what I understand of you to say?
So if we change this one issue, where does that put us?
Well, I certainly don't think that the Administration would suggest that there should be a change. Mr. Hardy used the phrase "for the first time" in his comments a couple minutes ago. Well, it's not for the first time. When the terms sheets are presented to this Council in the first week of December, the basic ballpark elements were described to include, among others things, quote, exterior message boards, video displays, walkways and open spaces and theme towers, including the existing theme tower of the North Parking Lot adjacent to Veterans Stadium. This is not the first time these elements of the proposed development have been before the body and in the public purview, going back seven weeks or so. And I think that the concerns articulated by the neighbors are understandable, 00183 and I think that the Phillies' suggestion, which is the ultimate location be reviewed in the context of the plan as a whole and going through the administrative process required by existing law is consistent with the terms sheet, consistent with the lease and, I think, consistent with the spirit of the discussions we've had up till now.
And I know that last week at the briefing, we were told that we could not make any changes, and this would have to be voted up or down. I think that was stated at least three or four times. This indeed would constitute a change, would it not?
Council President, there is also pending before City Council, or certainly will be, this zoning ordinance, Bill --
And that is the vehicle by which the teams -- and it was their desire that 00184 this ordinance be amended, this is the zoning for the Stadium District, be amended in a way that made clear that that which they had the right to do under the lease uses would be specifically approved by that zoning provision. And we had worked out language and that was submitted to your office.
Which at that point in time, we found acceptable, that would guarantee that they would have the zoning for that which they had the right to, provided that there was no violation of the use and scheduling rules, the agreement that the neighbors got with the teams. This issue, now that we see that they have a different view as to what would be allowed to be done under the lease, this issue that we are dealing with could be addressed in that zoning ordinance without affecting -- without changing one word of the leases. And that zoning ordinance 22 could say "except you may not construct a theme tower or a similar structure in the geographic area which is the parking-only and the limited- activity parking zones." 00185 And so the Council could vote the leases without any change if the teams and PAID not willing to voluntarily, as they have done with these other issues by way of clarification, if you may, say we will not do certain things. If they're not willing to do that with respect to this theme tower issue, it can be addressed by City Council by making the amendment to specifically provide that they may not do that, they may not site a second tower in that area that's adjacent to the neighbors.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just need one question clarified. As I read the agreement, it indicates that -- it says outdoor message boards or outdoor display towers, tower or towers, including the existing tower. Does the potentiality exist for three?
No. It is two, one of which may be the existing one, or I believe it would also be consistent with the reading of the lease that they could eliminate the existing and 00186 build two new owns that, although doesn't seem to be economically advantageous.
Do you see any prohibition to three? Not that it's their intention, just -- I mean, it is plural. It says tower and in parentheses towers, you know "tower or towers," and it specifically says "including the existing tower."
That is the language -- the "towers," plural language, is what is included in the terms sheet. Then the lease provides more detail and I think if you give me a second. . . Section 15.2.1, a list of advertising opportunities available to the Phillies and the relevant language about ten lines into that subsection, Councilman, says "two theme towers (one of which may be the existing theme tower on the North Lot)."
You understand of course, Councilman Kenney, that there are similarly two 00187 theme towers on the Eagles area. And they're actually sited in that lease right adjacent to the stadium.
Where are they intending to site them, in the back? (Unintelligible, parties talking over each other.)