COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 401, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 16, 1999 3:00 p.m. - - - BILL NO. 990311 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps, by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 52nd Street, Paxton Street, Leidy Avenue, Parkside Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Girard Avenue and Merion Avenue. BILL NO. 990358 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps, by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Hartranft Street, Broad Street, Pattison Avenue and 20th Street. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chairwoman COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - VINCENT VARALLO ASSOCIATES, INC. Registered Professional Reporters Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 (215) 561-2220 2 I N D E X BILL NO. 990311 PAGE RICHARD LOMBARDO, City Planning Comm. ....... 48 ANTHONY PALIMORE, PIDC ...................... 50 BILL NO. 990358 WILLIAM P. HANKOWSKY, PIDC .................. 3 CRAIG SCHELTER, PIDC ........................ 25 RICHARD LOMBARDO, City Planning Comm. ....... 29 3 BILL NO. 990358
Good afternoon. This is the public hearing of the 1Rules Committee. I do want to apologize our lateness because, but because of another hearing, we weren't able to start promptly at the hour that we were supposed to. At this time I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 990358.
Bill No. 990358, an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps, by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Hartranft Street, Broad Street, Pattison Avenue and 20th Street.
Mr. Hankowsky. Good afternoon. Please identity yourself for the proceed and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairwoman and Members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Hankowsky. I am president of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill No. 24 990358. I have previously provided written testimony which I'll be using this afternoon. 4 BILL NO. 990358 This bill authorizes a change of zoning for a portion of the 49-acre parcel of land at the former Philadelphia Naval Hospital from class R-9A Residential and class Recreational to a category of Supports Stadium District in order to accommodate development of a new practice facility for the Philadelphia Eagles. Currently acres are already 9 zoned Sports Stadium District on this site. This 10 bill will increase that amount by 12 acres for a 11 total of 26 acres of which approximately 20 acres is 12 actually used for the practice facility. The one 13 map drawing just next to Councilman Cohen shows the 14 existing zoning and the proposed zoning color coded. Any further changes to the remaining 23 acres, the rest of the site, would require subsequent City Council approval, including any possible legislation necessary, for example, for a new stadium agreement for additional parking on this site. We have requested that this legislation be moved forward in anticipation of an agreement to construct a new practice facility for the Philadelphia Eagles football team. This practice facility -- and for a minute I'm going to supplement my written testimony -- would have an anticipated 5 BILL NO. 990358 cost of about $22 million and would include three outdoor fields, one enclosed field, and a building which would house the Eagles corporate offices, their locker rooms, training rooms, and a NovaCare Sports Medicine facility. Again, I would point to the Committee's attention the illustrative site plan before you which shows this proposed project. This practice facility is part of larger discussions underway with regard to a new football stadium. Those negotiations are, as I think we all know even as recently as the last several days, extremely complex. One of our chief concerns was to have the Eagles locate their practice facility in Philadelphia. If this is done, we would be the only large city in the country to have an NFL team locate their practice facility within the city limits of the city where the team plays, a location which will maximize the tax benefit that can be achieved by having the team not only play here, but practice here in the City of Philadelphia. Therefore, while these negotiations are by no means complete, we wanted to prepare the new location as soon as possible so that the construction and wage tax benefits could be provided 6 BILL NO. 990358 from the practice facility as soon as possible. Also, this will permanent the Eagles to commence work on the practice facility which they wish to have complete by next year, the year 2000. And again, to augment my written testimony, the Eagles believe that this is critical, this schedule in order for hem to continue to be competitive in attracting players, signing people that become free agents so that the practice facility is on an accelerated schedule from any potential stadium solution. Our current intentions are for the Philadelphia Authority for Industrial Development, PAID, to enter into a short-term lease with the Navy. Ultimately we will get a deed this fall, during which asbestos abatement and demolition of certain non-significant buildings would take place on this site. We will enter into long-term lease with the Eagles whereby they would construct this practice facility. And if no agreements are reached on a potential new stadium for the Eagles, they would not be required to go forward with the construction of this practice facility. It would be their option. 7 BILL NO.
990358 We support this legislation so that it would allow the Eagles to begin asbestos abatement and demolition this summer, to develop new grass fields to be completed by early fall, and to begin construction of the actual headquarters facility so it can be completed by next summer. The Sports Stadium zoning category requires a 200-foot setback from streets for any residentially zoned land and a master plan to be approved by the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. Because some definitions are broad in the zoning category, we have been concerned to ensure that the adjacent community is part of the discussion of the actual development plan and that their legitimate concerns are protected with a binding agreement. I should note for the record that whether we had been concerned or not, the Chairperson of this Committee and the President of City Council has made sure that we are focussed on this issue of working with the adjacent committee. And I thank Councilwoman Verna for her consistent and yet, again, interest in trying to figure out how to get something done correctly in Philadelphia. 8 BILL NO. 990358 During this process, therefore, we have consulted with the Packer Park Civic Association to ensure that they were not negatively impacted by this training facility. The Board of Directors of the Association provided us and the Eagles with a list of concerns or requirements they had in 8 order to support this legislation. I'm pleased to 9 report that we've made substantial progress in 10 addressing 20 of these issues. Again, we've had 11 numerous meetings with representatives of the 12 Association, with their executive committee, and as 13 recently as this past Monday evening, a full 14 community meeting at which this entire project and 15 proposal was discussed at length. 16 Let me talk a little bit about what 17 we've agreed to. 18
Excuse me. 19 You omitted to say that it was unanimously accepted 20 by the community. 21
I did because I figured 22 they should provide you with that information, but that is accurate. First and foremost, we have committed and we are paying for an attorney for legal and 9 BILL NO. 990358 planning services for the community, so that not only are we addressing these concerns, but they will be memorialized in a binding agreement between the parties, PAID, Packer Park Civic Association, and the Eagles. Secondly, included, attached to this testimony are the points that both the Eagles and PIDC and PAID are prepared to agree to, to the benefit of the community. And our intent is that that agreement will be memorialized as an exhibit to the lease between the Eagles and PAID and will give certain direct third-party beneficiary rights to Packer Park Civic association so that regardless of who's running the Eagles, who's running PIDC or who's running the City, they will have the capacity to enforce the agreement. Because City Council has only two remaining sessions before the summer recess, I respectfully request approval of this bill and a suspension of the rules and a request for First Reading at your next regularly scheduled meeting of City Council. To summarize, we are asking for City Council support here and indulgence basically to 10 BILL NO. 990358 demonstrate a show of good faith to the Philadelphia Eagles to move a piece of a very complex puzzle along, which is the zoning of this site to allow the preliminary development work to begin as we work through much more complex issues which we'll all be discussing hopefully sometime later this calendar year. I should also note in attendance today are Joseph Banner, the executive vice president of the Eagles, as well as members of his architectural team who would also be prepared to answer any questions that the Committee might have. And at this time I'd be prepared to answer any questions you might have. Again, thank you. We also have photographs available for proof of postings since there was some question as to whether we posted this, which we did. So perhaps I'll just note those for the record also.
Thank you. Mr. Hankowsky, I would like the record to be crystal clear so I'm going to be probably asking questions that you may have to respond to and you may have addressed in your testimony. However, of the 49 11 BILL NO. 990358 acres, how many acres will the Eagles need for their practice facility?
Somewhere between and 5 21 acres will be the site that they will actually 6 lease from PAID that they will have -- upon which 7 they will construct these facilities that they will 8 then operate and maintain. The zoning is a little 9 larger because of the setback requirement, so in 10 effect there's a buffer on the western edge that's 11 within the zoning but is not part of the leasehold 12 that goes to the Eagles. 13
With the 14 remaining portion of that site, it is my 15 understanding the City has agreed to keep the 16 community fully informed as to the use of the 17 remaining portion of the site as well as getting the 18 input from the community before any further action 19 is requested from City Council. Is my understanding 20 correct?
That is absolutely accurate. Even to be slightly more specific, we have agreed with Packer Park to establish a committee that would have representation from the community that would work with us somewhat analogous 12 BILL NO. 990358 to I think our successful Kapar (ph) advisory committee -- that would be a different committee because it's a different project -- to develop and consider how we would develop the remaining portion of the site. That is accurate.
Can you tell what the projected cost of the Eagles practice facility will be.
What happens to the practice facility if the Eagles and the City do not come to terms on a new stadium?
The way we have discussed that, and it will be subject of final definitive agreements, but the intent would be to put in place the lease that I mentioned in my testimony between us and the Navy and then us and the Eagles to begin the work over the summer months and into the fall which would include the asbestos removal demolition site prep, perhaps even beginning to get the practice fields prepared. That will put the Eagles on the schedule they need to be on. We would then hope to be discussing the more complex 13 BILL NO. 990358 issue of stadiums this fall and hopefully collectively decide as a City what we're going to be doing with that in the fall. If a resolution of that question is unable to be reached, that is to say among all the parties involved we can't decide whether we're building a new football stadium with any definitiveness, the Eagles would have the option or the right to simply say "well, then we don't want to put the practice facility here. We're stopping." They could proceed if they elected they would have the right to stop if so we would, but they would have the right to stop. And if so, we would reimburse them up to a number we need to finalize, but some capped amount for the expenditure to clear the site and prep the site, money that w probably would have -- a significant portion of which we have spent ourselves because wind up clearing this site anyhow.
So you can't tell us what the maximum amount of the City's exposure is?
I will give you a number, and respecting that Mr. Banner os in the audience, it's not a number that I'm prepared to 14 BILL NO. 990358 agree with him, but I don't think our exposure will be greater than to million dollars. I hope to 4 get that number down. 5
Why does the 6 Administration want to move forward with the 7 practice facility before the stadium deal is agreed to?
The major reason -- well, it's actually twofold. I think months ago we had hoped -- and when I say we, I think both parties as well as others -- that we might be able to be before you with a practice facility as part of a whole stadium scenario solution. That would have been clearly for everybody sort of a preferential way; you could look at everything all at once. The fact that the stadium situation has become a much more complex and taken much more time than any of us had hoped or wanted, has put us in a situation where the practice facility, which as I mentioned a moment ago, the Eagles would like to have the work begin summer and have it up and operational next year. We really now are at a point where we need to move on that piece of this puzzle via this zoning bill to not lose that time. And so, as I mentioned again in 15 BILL NO. 990358 my testimony, one is we want accommodate as a show of good faith that we're trying to move all this forward with the Eagles, do that in a way that is sensitive to the community, and try to keep these various pieces of this puzzle moving forward until we can solve it ultimately several months from now.
Mr. Hankowsky, if in fact the -- say the stadium doesn't go through, the first phase of the practice facility would be to remove the asbestos and demolish several of the buildings?
And under circumstances, the City would have to do that anyway to make that parcel of ground worth anything.
That is correct. Our intent has always been, and I think again, Council President, you're perhaps most aware of this since this is your district, when we did the original community reuse for this site, we made a determination that the only reuse capacity for the site was to clear it. So this wasn't because of the Eagles we decided to knock the buildings down, we've always been record that we were clearing this site. 16 BILL NO. 990358 It is also, since the Navy has actually has closed the facility, become even a more pressing issue for the immediate community. We now have effectively abandoned buildings across the street from homeowners. They are -- as much as the navy cuts the grass and picks up the trash, the buildings are deteriorating. They are becoming an attractive nuisance for pests of various kinds. And so we have been pressed, as I know your office has, by the community to knock these buildings down now. So both it is our intent from a development perspective and it's a request from the community to get these buildings down.
Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee of Mr. Hankowsky? The chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
First, with respect to the site it's called the Naval Home, is this --
Where is it in 17 BILL NO. 990358 connection with the Naval Homes?
Far away. I'm sorry, Councilman. The Navy Hospital site is at the intersection of Broad and Pattison. It is immediately west of Veterans Stadium. The Navy Home site is along the Schuylkill River on Grays Ferry Avenue. And I'm not happy to say but maybe pleased to say I have nothing to do Navy Home property.
All right. Now, I have difficulty because of my upbringing as an attorney to undertake the risk of committing the City to a heavy liability in the event the stadium deals don't come about. Seems to me that prudence would suggest that we try to bring the stadium deal and everything else to a head at one point before we go into this expenditure. Since apparently we're underwriting all of the expenses. If the stadium deal doesn't go through, will the Eagles have lost anything other than time? 18 BILL NO. 990358
Well, they absolutely will have lost time and effort, and I think they will have lost some cost in this effort that they've committed. I can't sit here today and actually put an absolute number on it. I'd happy to try to do that, but I can't tell you off the top of my head. But we're both taking a risk here. I mean, the Eagles need this facility, and quite candidly -- and they have never -- this has not been the tonality or the flavor at any point in the discussion, but I do want to make one point. Even under the existing stadium situation, the Eagles need a practice facility. We have very old, and in terms of the standards of the industry, very antiquated facilities. The Eagles could put those in the suburbs. Some of you, those are fans may know, for example, the Flyers practice in the suburbs. The mere movement of the practice activity out of the City, which they have a legal right to do today, we would lose about $4 million a year in tax revenue mainly driven by wage tax of the players. So though we may all find it what the players make may be a lot of money that we don't think is right, at least in Philadelphia we get some benefit from that on the 19 BILL NO. 990358 revenue side. So we think it's important, and the Eagles are prepared in good faith to work with us on this to try to keep this facility here, keep those revenues here, we're trying to move this along on a schedule that's sort of compatible with their business desires as we try to figure the rest of this out. So this is not a one-way good faith street, this is a two-way good faith street.
Councilman, while we're talking about revenues, would we not also be generating revenues from this facility with property taxes?
Yes. This facility, because it will be used by a for-profit entity, it will be a ratable which current practice facilities aren't because we, the City, have them inside the Vet, the locker room and all of that. So there are some new revenues plus keeping the current revenues that we get from the practice activity in the city. That's accurate.
But that assumes that everything is going to go along swimmingly and the 20 BILL NO. 990358 practice stadium will be used because it will have been a stadium agreement reached. But in the event there is no stadium agreement, you told us before, unless I misunderstood it, that the Eagles will be under no obligation to utilize the practice field.
So we don't know whether it's going to be used and whether it will produce tax revenues. And I kind of think it's unfair to put the Eagles in a position where we're saying or even suggesting that they may be threatening to move out of the City because, frankly, I'm getting very tired of the City always being in a position where it looks to me like a form of unfair pressure to always threaten. I don't think Philadelphia is so undesirable that people just have to be wooed and bought to com into the City. I think we're a pretty good city. We have problems, like everybody has problems. We're a good city, and I don't think everybody's trying to run out of the City. And I would find it as evidence of bad faith to even consider that the Eagles could move their practice stadium outside the City and maturely want to do it unless we give them all kinds 21 BILL NO. 990358 inducements to keep it inside the City. One inducement I'm not prepared to give them to keep them in the City is if we run all of the risk. And are you're suggesting that they've indicated that they may pick up and move their practice field outside the City?
I had hoped I was clear on that point. Perhaps I have not. I think the Eagles have throughout this entire discussion been extremely professional about this, have never said, you know, threatened to move out. I'm simply making the point. And their interest is to play in Philadelphia, to practice in Philadelphia, to be in Philadelphia a long time. They believe that in order to do that competitively, they need a new practice facility and ultimately they need a new stadium. We haven't figured all that out yet. If that cannot be figured out, they want the ability to have to consider whatever the options are. They're not threatening to do anything. That is not the nature, and I think I did say, that is not the tonality of the discussions.
Well, then why do you raise it? I'm concerned why always we're being met 22 BILL NO. 990358 with the threat that somebody's going to move out of the City as if we're very distasteful place to be in.
I'll try one more time. No one has threaten that. The reason I'm raising it, Councilman, we've been in too many of these hearings together over years. I'm not going to 9 put myself in a position where if things go very bad 10 for whatever host of reasons, and I think last 11 couple days demonstrate there can be lots of things 12 that happen by variables I don't control, that I 13 made it clear on the record here today what can 14 happen and what might happen and what we hope 15 doesn't happen. But I don't want to mislead this Committee when you deliberate later this afternoon. That's why I'm raising it, to be for the right.
I have very great difficulty understanding why it even enters the discussion. Philadelphia is big market. The Eagles leave, some other team will come in. I'm not suggesting that I want to see the Eagles leave; I don't want to do that, but I don't know why we're always painted as a miserable place from which people are anxious to escape because I don't think 23 BILL NO. 990358 that the people in Philadelphia feel that way about the City. I think it's a good deal for the City and it's a good deal for the Eagles to be in Philadelphia. I don't quarrel with the need of a practice field, but I do quarrel with the need why the City has to undertake all the total risk financially. I don't understand that at all.
Well, I've heard your explanation. I said I don't understand your explanation. It would seem to me that if we're both showing good faith, we ought to at least share the risk.
I'm sorry, I was called to the phone, I didn't hear most of the question. But I would certainly think that most of this work has to done anyway.
Whether it be for the Eagles or some developer that comes along. We're certainly not going to be able to have use of that property unless, A, we remove the asbestos, and we demolish the buildings. 24 BILL NO. 990358 How many vacant buildings are there on that parcel?
On the proposed practice facility parcel there are buildings. 6
There's a possibility 9 that two might be retained to be used by the Eagles. 10 Again, for those on the other side, a little bit on 11 the southern side of the site are a couple of 12 interesting buildings right where the gate comes in 13 off of Pattison and there may be a potential to 14 reuse those in the project and that's being looked 15 at now by the Eagles. It might even be like a small 16 day care center or something like that using those. 17 A number of the buildings couldn't be reused by 18 anybody. They are World War II vintage wooden frame structures that are basically literally falling apart at this point.
I think for the benefit of the Committee Members, it would be nice of Craig would come up and explain exactly what is being proposed here on the map.
For the record, my name 25 BILL NO. 990358 is Craig Schelter. I'm executive vice president of PIDC. On this map here, on the right side is Broad Street, on the north is Hartranft Street, on the south is Pattison Avenue. This site runs for approximately 1100 feet west of Broad Street. The major elements of the plan are two practice facilities that are located in the southeast corner of the site, in this location and this location. A third practice facility is proposed in the future at the northeast corner of the site. There is then a landscape buffer all along Hartranft Street. And this is the line of the 200-foot setback required by the zoning code. There is then the office facility for the Eagles staff, the players facility, the weight room, locker rooms, and the NovaCare facility, a small maintenance building and two historic buildings that are being looked at for the possibility of day care facilities, and then an indoor practice facility of about 56,000 square street on the far westerly portion of the site. The site is accessed through an existing gate on Pattison avenue into a parking lot that accommodates, I believe the latest number is between BILL NO. 990358 200 and 210 parking spaces. Access to the main entrance here for the Eagles and access at this point for NovaCare. This map here is drawn at the same scale, and what you see in light cream color are all of the existing buildings that would have to be demolished in order to make way for this facility. It would be the Eagles intent to begin immediately with the demolition of these four buildings here which are either within the footprint of the new building or on playing fields and the gradually move and demolish the buildings along the rear. Probably the most objectional building to the community is this powerhouse building here and maintenance facility. This little circle that you see here is about 150-foot high smokestack, so the community is very interested in seeing that building come down as that one immediately abuts the neighbors across the street. But their intent is they would demolish all these buildings in cream color. The buildings in the darker color have are once that the main structure which would be demolished as part of any actual stadium deal which would come at some point in the future. 27 BILL NO. 990358 And this shows the site, an aerial photograph in context in relation to Broad Street where the existing Vet Stadium is, the residential development on the north side of Hartranft Street, and then this is the remaining portion of the site which stays residential and a portion that says recreational.
The closure decision by the Navy was 1988, and I believe they were out by probably '92-'93. They moved kind of a clinic function to the Navy base until that closed in '95 and then the shipyard in '96.
During Ms. Schelter's explanation he talked of the Eagles demolishing. Who is going to do the demolition work under this proposal.
At this point, as I indicated, the idea is that the overall financing of the practice facility and how that works would be part of resolving the overall stadium question. But should there be a point at which the practice facility were not proceeding with it, then we would basically reimburse them for those costs. So I guess in the worst case, we're paying, as the Chairperson indicated, what we would have paid for anyhow.
Well, we would pay for it anyhow, but it might not be for a year, two years, five years, 10 years. The place as already been vacant a good number years. I'm not arguing to keep it that way, I'm just arguing for what I think is equity in this proposal. And I think the risk ought to be shared.
But that was not the City's property. It was the Department of Navy.
The Navy is only now really in a position where they can lease us the 29 BILL NO. 990358 property and get us a deed, having gone through an excruciatingly complex process that they're required to get a property position for transfer, and so we're prepared to take it. We would be taking the entire property, the 50 acres, not just the 22.
I don't have any objection to any of that. What I'm stating is that I think that there ought to be equity in this transaction the risk ought to be at least equally shared. We're hoping that there won't be any ultimate risk, but if it turns there is a risk, I don't see the City being the one that takes -- being the one that has the responsibility for absorbing the total cost. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank you. Are there any other questions of Mr. Hankowsky? Mr. Hankowsky, would you remain for the remainder of this hearing, please?
I'll be brief given the fact that Mr. Hankowsky has pretty much covered most of this material and the hour of the day and also 30 BILL NO. 990358 other witnesses. As was stated, this bill rezoned, the practice facility additional land, Sports Stadium District. That is a master plan district which basically means that the zoning and ultimate development is embodied in a master plan. The master plan must be approved by the Planning Commission. Any revisions to it, once that plan is approved, would have to come back to the Planning Commission. So there is a public process that would assure that the plan that Council is being shown and the community that is being shown will be the ultimate plan that gets developed, and also a public process that if anytime in the future there's a proposal to change that plan would, again, go through a public meeting at Planning Commission, which our policy, always to notify all parties of any action or item pending before the Planning Commission. For the record, the Planning Commission approved this bill, recommended approval of this bill on June 3, 1999 and is tentatively scheduled to review and hopefully approve the master plan that's meeting tomorrow at o'clock tomorrow. We have 31 1 BILL NO. 990358 been in contact with the community. We are aware of the agreement between the community and Eagles and PIDC and we fully expect that all will be embodied in plan before the Commission tomorrow afternoon. Unless if you any further questions, that's my testimony.
Thank you. Are there any questions for the Planning Commission? Thank you very much.
I believe we have representatives here from the community that would like to be heard.
I'm sorry you've been kept waiting so long. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Barbara Capozzi. I am the president of the Packer Park Civic Association which is the neighborhood of 1300 homes immediately to the north of this naval hospital site and immediately to the west of the three stadiums. In the last three weeks representatives from my association, including Judge Bonavitacola who is on our board and PIDC and Eagles have met 32 BILL NO. 990358 five times in depth, four private meetings and one public meeting the other night. Many questions have been asked and answered. We've compiled a request list of actually 33 items, and the City has given us every consideration, and we thank our Council President for that. Our requests we feel are very reasonable because they protect us not only all the stadium traffic that we absorb, and I could talk about that hours if you want to talk about that, but it also protects us because we have actually lived in fear of what will happen to this 48 acres for the last -- as bill said, since 1988 we knew the facility was closing. And he said it has been not used since 1992, the word we would use is abandoned. It's abandoned. They had a few military dogs, they had one guy that walks around at night and that's it. And we're looking at barracks type buildings for almost the last 10 years in disrepair, and we live in fear of what the possible uses could be. To make a very long story short, we have studied this plan. PIDC has accommodated us at every turn, and that's because they understand what we go through on a daily basis with three fully operating stadiums next to us. The Eagles have been 33 BILL NO. 990358 very cooperative. And we welcome them to our side of Broad Street. At least we welcome the cooperate offices, not the fans to our side of Broad Street. The fans already know where we are. We have an agreement together that's a work in progress that we hope to finalize in the next two or three weeks and will protect us because it will be a part of the agreement. It will be enforceable and any changes will have to come back and at least sit and discuss with us. I think that we've been reasonable and I feel that PIDC and I appreciate their help and their consideration and Eagles have been reasonable also. It's the first step. We have waited for 10 years for the Navy to turn this over to the City, and that process is reaching its final step over the next three months. So this issue is right now. We had a general meeting -- well, first we had two board meetings. Our board unanimously authorized Judge Bonavitacola and myself to continue negotiations. At our general meeting Monday night, which was not only our association, but four area associations, Friends of FDR Park, the two associations on the east side of Broad Street, the 34 BILL NO. 990358 one association that's to the north of us, everyone was represented. Lots of questions lots of answers his. It was unanimously approved that we continue negotiations along the lines set forth in our memo. And we're all very pleased and we certainly do hope it comes to pass because when don't want a shopping center, we don't want a cine-plex, et cetera, et cetera, so we're very happy.
Thank you, Madam Chair. MS. Capozzi, what would be the prospects in light of perhaps not having a Eagles practice facility, of leaving that particular facility in the condition that it's in now for three, five, seven, ten years, what would that do to your community and its future?
I don't really don't know how we have survived and prospered as long as we have considering the stadiums and considering that not only this 48 acres, please remember there there's actually 1500 acres within a half mile of us between navy base, this 48 acres, 27 acres of Kapar 35 BILL NO. 990358 Homes and I don't know how many acres of the Defense Center that surrounds us completely. I don't know how we have survived this long with the fear of all those reuses would be or could be. I hope we've been through the worst of it. As I said, the Army is just turning over the Defense Center now, and through PIDC'S offices we're hoping for good reuses there. Kapar is finally coming to fruition. I have notes that go back to 1989 on the Kapar Homes and what could happen to those. The hospital site is finally in the last -- Judge Bonavitacola and I went to a three and a half hour meeting last week with the Navy. It's finally in its last stages to be turned over. So the prospect of waiting any longer, we'll be out in the streets fighting. This has got to have -- it's ripe now. We've been very, very patient. I think we have been extraordinarily patient, especially in light of fact that on top of all this 1500 acres of questions, we've had the two, now three ongoing fully booked stadiums almost every night. So the prospect of us continuing in this questioning period wondering what's happening, I think we've reached our witt's end. Our group is 36 BILL NO. 990358 very, very cohesive, and that's because of adversity. We really think it's time that we got some progress. And I think that's why PIDC has understood what we've been through, how patient we've been, how many meetings we've gone to, and the time is ripe now. We have to start moving on some of this stuff, and the Eagles have a beautiful plan. The way I calculate it, I believe that at least 80 percent of that acres will remain 11 green open space. We really couldn't ask for more 12 than that. 13
Thank you. 16 Are there any other questions? 17 The chair recognizes Councilman Cohen. 18
Thank you very much. 19 I remember well Packer Park Civic Association, how 20 well it did during the other battle I congratulated you at that time and I congratulate you now on the protection you've gotten. I think it's a wonderful agreement. I only disagreement I have is with respect to the sharing of expenses. I think the plan otherwise seems very fine from everybody's 37 BILL NO. 990358 point of view, but I don't understand why -- and this has nothing to do with the civic association -- why the liability that could face us if the stadium deal doesn't go through for some reason or other that none of us can predict, why the liability should be solely on the taxpayers of the City of Philadelphia. We face problems up in the Northeast because of the sinking homes. We face all kinds of problems throughout the City. Seems to me wrong that City should be the only one suffering liability in the event something happens and the whole problem is not fully resolved. With respect to the plan and with respect to community participation, I think you've done a very great job. I don't know how you put up with it for all the years you have, and I congratulate you in what you achieved.
Thank you. It's my understanding about this property that we have tried and our Council People have tried, I know the Mayor has tried, I believe even the President has tried to get the Nave to pick up part of the tap for this clean-up. That's one of the things that has held up this transfer for 10 years. So that was the only 38 BILL NO. 990358 other person that could pick it up, it was either the Navy or the City. And I think in the City's plan at least half portion of this site they're shifting the burden of that cost to the Eagles. Rightly so because they're obtaining a valuable piece of property, valuable only after everything is demolished. So it's either the Navy, the City, or the Eagles that are going to pick it up. I wish there was some other source.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Good afternoon, Barbara. I think in your testimony you indicated there are 1300 homes in Parker Park?
Do you know what the average real estate taxes for those homes is?
So it averages around 3,000, you think, would that be a fair assessment? JMS. CAPOZZI: Even 2500. 39 BILL NO. 990358
In real estate taxes just out of Packer Park. My point being is that it's tax dollars and it's an issue whether the City of Philadelphia should spend the money which is really generated by way of lots of taxes and part of it is real estate taxes. And in your opinion, speaking on behalf of the 1300 households there, in your opinion, I assume, this investment of tax dollars is well worth it?
Absolutely. And not only is it an investment for our neighborhood, obviously it's a valuable stadium complex that brings in a lot of money for the City. And when you look at that complex on its own on the other side of Broad Street, there's very little green. There's very little green. There's a lot of cars. And this green on the western side of Broad Street will balance some of that and give it some beauty because right now it's just three big concrete buildings. I would lobby for more trees on that side of Broad Street also. 40 BILL NO. 990358 But your point is very good, Councilman DiCicco. The other night at the general meeting, when we told them we were coming here today, at least people came up to me and said, "Make sure 6 you tell them how much taxes we pay. We deserve 7 this." So thank you for bringing that up. It was 8 in my notes and I skipped it. 9
Thank you. 10 The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I just think the record isn't clear, though. The City is not, N-O-T, paying for the cost of demolition unless, as I understand it, the stadium deal itself falls through; is that correct?
I would like say that slightly differently, if I could, Councilman. The cost of the demolition and the practice facility in a scenario where we're doing a stadium and how all that gets paid for will be part of an overall stadium proposal where you'll be seeing very significant dollars coming from the Eagles, 41 BILL NO. 990358 significant dollars from Harrisburg, and significant dollars from us. And to some extent you can say, okay, which dollar went where. So it's very difficult to just pull out the demolition, who's paying that dollar. Because to the degree we pay that dollar, believe me somebody else is paying for something else. But we're looking for a very fair transaction. You're right, though, in the scenario where that falls apart, we would continue --
Let me try to clarify the record because I recognize you want to be precise, but on simpler terms, this development proposal is going through as a result of the Eagles and NovaCare getting together for an Eagles and NovaCare's need, selecting a site and putting $22 million in private development money to do the project?
Again, I just want to careful that we don't say it that way because in the ultimate stadium transaction, we may have be providing the Eagles with two $22 million of value, and you might say that went for the practice, but believe me, they will be contributing significant dollars the other way. So in the big picture, 42 BILL NO. 990358 they're going to be putting a lot of money on the table and we may end up allocated dollars for funding and for financing reasons different places.
But in the worst case scenario, your estimate between 6 and million 7 dollars, our cost, to demolish and clear this blighted nuisance property is something that the community wants anyway, that the community needs anyway, we need to do it in order to develop the land on any circumstances. And ultimately if things move forward the way expect them to, the City won't be paying -- the City won't be on the hook themselves for the improvement of this land.
We will be financing the improvement as part of solving the stadium puzzle.
I mean, we all know, you know, the headlines -- I think the rental car tax is moving in Harrisburg today.
But as an example, there will be other kinds of revenues we may available to solve the question of how do we pay for demolition. 43 BILL NO. 990358 That's a perfect example.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Hankowsky, on the same topic but a different location, I need to get some information on the record. About a year and a half ago you and I and a number of other people have discussions actually about a different site; is that correct?
And that site was proposed for the Roxborough section of Philadelphia prior, I believe, to this site being under discussion; is that faire accurate?
And I think it's fair to say that there were varying levels of either concern if not possible opposition for the Roxborough site that ultimately caused you and/or the Eagles to at least begin thinking about another location; is that correct?
I would say that there 44 BILL NO. 990358 were a series of factors of which that was one. In addition we did testing up there that uncovered not insignificant site cost that would have to be addressed. And in timing problems with that site, we then looked for other options as was mentioned by Ms. Capozzi just a moment ago. The Navy is just about at the end of the process of getting this site available to get to us. Back when we were talking Roxborough, the Navy Hospital, we couldn't say we could have that in a month because we weren't in a position to have that in a month. So both that changed and information we obtained about Roxborough gave us all pause for concern.
And part of the purpose of my question was also to indicate that it is not without a great amount of study and diligence and time and effort that both you and PIDC and the Eagles have been searching for, number one, I believe a site in the City of Philadelphia --
-- that provided the kind of safety, security, privacy, on a footprint that was big enough to accommodate not only the practice facilities and other buildings as well as 45 BILL NO. 990358 NovaCare, but again, first and foremost in the City and obviously at a location that was acceptable to whichever community it was going to be in. Notwithstanding whatever else was going on on the site, the ground, the environmental issues and the like, you wanted to be in Philadelphia and you wanted to be primarily in a place where you were going to have as least resistance, I guess if you will, as possible.
Where the perception would be everybody would be good neighbors.
Exactly. And one, I assume, you believe that you have now found such a site at this particular location?
And should this go forward, at least at this stage, we know that there's potentially another stage tied into the stadium issue which well not discuss, but going forward from today, is it fair to say that all eyes are pointed toward the Naval Hospital site and for that for all intents and purposes we are not looking at the Roxborough location?
I think that's 46 BILL NO. 990358 absolutely fair if the Committee today is favorable because we know we have a glean light. So after your public meeting, I hope I will be able to answered that in the affirmative.
Let me just say for the record that both your efforts and the efforts of the Eagles to secure the Roxborough location, I believe, were done with honesty and fairness and certainly with the best of intentions, not only for the Eagles' purposes of trying to have a safe secure private site that would not impact negatively on the community, but also that PIDC is clear to me used its best efforts to try to accommodate not only the Eagles' interests but be sensitive to community interests. And I greatly appreciate that. I know tat the Eagles had their heart set on a particular site. In the final analysis, this may for a whole host of reasons work out better, not only for the team, but also for the neighbors who are obviously in the Naval Hospital site getting a benefit with some accommodations to go along with the project if it goes forward. And so I want to say thank you to you and to the Eagles for their efforts.
Are there any other questions or comments by Members of the Committee of Mr. Hankowsky? Barbara, could you spell your last name for the stenographer?
Barbara, before you leave I want to publicly thank you and the Judge for all the time, effort, and energy that you have put into this and your calling one meeting after another. I know busy you are and I want you to know how much I personally appreciate it.
Do we have anyone else from the community that would like to testify? Witness.
I know have there are several people here from the community. Will you raise your hands, so we could see you? The record should reflect that four people are present. Others were here that had to leave. Do you have anyone else to testify on 48 BILL NO. 990311 this bill? Seeing none, we will go consider our next Bill No. 990311.
Bill No. 990311, an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps, by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 52nd Street, Paxton Street, Leidy Avenue, Parkside Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Girard Avenue and Merion Avenue.
Good afternoon, Madam President, Members of the Committee. My name is Richard Lombardo of the Philadelphia Planning Commission here today to speak on behalf of this bill. This bill is a rezoning bill that seeks to rezone a parcel of land generally in the area bounded by Parkside Avenue, Belmont Avenue, Girard Avenue, Merion Avenue, 52nd Street, Jefferson, Paxton and 51st Street from partly class R and partly class C2 Commercial and partly class L3 Limited Industrial and partly class G2 Industrial to a designation of Area Shopping Center. The purpose of this bill is to permit the eventual development of this site, which is part of the Parkside industrial area as 110,000 square 49 BILL NO. 990311 foot shopping center. This proposal is a combined effort of the City of Philadelphia, PIDC in connection with the West Philadelphia Empowerment Zone. The bill was introduced and I believe supported by Councilman Nutter on may 6, 1999. The Planning Commission, for the record, on June 3, 1999, recommended approval of this rezoning. Very briefly Area Shopping Center is the classification we used throughout the City for large regional shopping centers that typically include one or more anchor type of uses like a large supermarket and other retail stores. The district would require off-street parking, landscaping, just basically what you would typically expect to find in a regional shopping center. That's basically my testimony unless you have any questions. Tony Palimore from PIDC, I guess, is here to present PIDC's testimony and to answer your questions about the project.
Are there any questions from Members of the Committee. I assume that we do have community support for this?
I believe the community 50 BILL NO. 990311 was waiting for a shopping center to happen someplace in this vicinity of West Philadelphia. And the Councilman could probably address the community's desires in that area.
Madam Chair, there is tremendous support for this particular proposal. I don't know that anyone's standing on 52nd Street right now wondering about the zoning bill, but I think that they are hopefully anticipating buying some groceries out there soon, so there's significant support.
Very well. Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good afternoon, Madam Chairman and Members of the Committee. My name is Anthony Palimore, that's P-a-l-i-m-o-r-e. I'm vice president of the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation. I'm here to testify in support Bill 21 No. 990311. This ordinance rezones 13.5 acres of land on the North 52 Street, South Parkside Avenue from various classifications to a single designation of Area Shopping Center. This rezoning will permit the development of the site with a major shopping 51 BILL NO. 990311 center containing a major supermarket. PIDC has worked closely with the West Philadelphia Empowerment Zone in the City's Department of Commerce with Councilman Michael Nutter and his office to assemble the 13.5 acre site. We are currently demolishing existing vacant dilapidated structures and has issued a request for a proposal to develop this site. The goal of the RFP is to attract a development of over 100,000 square feet anchored by a major supermarket. The RFP was publicly advertised in April of this year, and a pre-bid meeting was held May 14, 1999. We are expecting responses from developers on June 30th of this year or of this month, rather. This site has been assembled using Employment Zone funds to purchase privately owned properties on 52nd Street and Jefferson Street. The Commerce Department and PIDC have agreed to contribute approximately 10 plus acres of the existing West Parkside Industrial Park to create an attractive development parcel. This zoning bill is a necessary part of the public effort to redevelop this parcel and create new jobs and tax ratables. 52 BILL NO. 990311 As the Committee may recall, this project was before City Council December of 1998 as a tax increment financing district. Bill No. 5 980799-A which was approved by City Council and enacted on February 3, 1999. Councilman Nutter has also introduced a City Plan change that will remove a portion of Jefferson Street from the site. This will enable the maximum build out of the site. I ask that the Committee act favorably on this bill and report it out with a favorable recommendation and with the Rules of Council be suspended to permit First Reading at the next regularly scheduled meeting of Council. I will be happy to answer any questions the Committee may have. Thank you.
Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the committee? Thank you very much. Do you have anyone else to testify on this bill. Seeing none, this will conclude our public hearing. 53 BILL NO. 990311 The record should reflect that Bill No. 3 980780 is being held at the request of the sponsor. - - - 54 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Wednesday, June 16, 1999 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 990311, 990358 - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, Chairwoman COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE L. BLACKWELL COUNCILWOMAN AUGUSTA A. CLARK COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN FRANK DI CICCO COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER - - - 55 PUBLIC MEETING
We will now go into our public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding Bill No. 990311.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 990311 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit First Reading at our next session. (Duly seconded.)
It has moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 990311 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit First Reading at our next Session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 990358.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I moved that Bill No. 990358 be reported out 56 PUBLIC MEETING of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request made for Rules suspension to allow for First Reading at our next Council Session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly second that Bill No. 990358 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed?
It will so be recorded. The ayes have it. The motion is carried. And the record will indicate that Councilman Cohen abstained. Thank you all very much. This concludes the public meeting. (Council Adjourned at 4:05 p.m.) 57 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of June 16, 1999, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES ___________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR and Notary Public - - -