Well, I think this is a negotiated process and I can't really say when the negotiations stop.
From your perspective, they have started? 151 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738
Okay. Do you have any sense -- one of the parties at least has established what sounds like a fairly firm deadline for what they'd like to get done in their part of the process. Do you have any such deadline for the rest of the process?
I think we've been told, at least on the 44-acre site that you own outright, and whether it's this bill, an expanded bill or any other Bill, Ikea, Lowes, Best Buy -- at least the Ikea folks. We haven't heard from, I think, the other two -- would like to see action taken by December 19th. I think Mr. Cuorato in his -- it wasn't in his testimony, but in response to questions, said that he'd certainly like to see various agreements of sale, letters of intent, appropriate nod, winks, or secret handshakes or any other form of appropriate communication between, I guess, CSX and the port by or around 152 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 that same time. He's tried, I think, within his jurisdiction to establish a bit of deadline on that part, the second part. So I'd like your perspective on that.
I think it's possible to come to some agreement with the port that's a win/win situation for CSX and the port within that time frame.
Is it in your interest to have such a transaction take place?
Yes, it is. CSX and Norfolk Southern and Conrail all benefit from traffic that's generated through the port.
To a certain degree, as I said, it's a negotiating process. We've heard from the port in terms of what they feel is necessary. We've responded once. We will respond again. I think it's --
I think the main obstacle is -- I'm not sure that there is a main 153 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 obstacle. I think that it's just a --
It's a question of each party recognizing the needs and requirements of the other party and then coming to some mutual agreement.
Well, I think CSX needs to have -- as we are a public company and responsible for shareholders, we need to receive fair market value for whatever property we are going to be conveying to the port.
Do you have a ballpark figure? MR HURLEY: I don't really know.
Mr. Cuorato said he had heard certain figures when we were asking earlier questions. Have you heard any figures 154 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 about your property?
Mr. Hurley, I have to admit to you, I'm not sure if my life depended on it at the moment I would know where any of these properties are. I'll be looking for the big box with a name on it is the only way I'm going to find any of these properties. I don't know where any of that is down there. It's just so far out of my universe.
The Snyder Avenue property is the one that's subject to rezoning right now, in blue. And we had it appraised for commercial uses and it appraised in the ballpark of what our current contract with Goldenberg Group is. We did not have it appraised as industrial --
Obviously, I don't have a copy of that contract. What are you talking about?
I think the Councilman had indicated that the value of the property commercially was around $20 million. It wasn't 155 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 the Councilman. I think it was Mr. Cuorato.
That was one of the numbers he had heard. And the other properties you're having appraised now?
Okay. So your needs are to get fair market value for properties that you don't necessarily have a figure on at the moment?
Mid-January. Mr. Chairman, if you would accommodate me one last time and then I'll go away, because my oatmeal is wearing off. Could I have Mr. Cuorato and Mr. 156 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 McDermott at the table with Mr. Hurley? What I'd like to ask the three of you -- and I'd like each of you to answer the same question. One, have all three of you been in the same discussions about the matters that are in front of us today at the same time?
And when do you anticipate next having further discussions?
I was hoping today. We had a meeting last night and there was supposed to be a response from CSX. Unfortunately, all they were able to get to us is essentially a memo of what yesterday's meeting accomplished. We have not heard back officially, I don't believe, from the offer that you've all heard here today.
What CSX provided to the port yesterday was a proposal that we were willing to make to the port as to address some of their needs, which involved discounting the properties that CSX owns and the portions of the 157 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 property that Conrail owns that CSX has a vested interest in. We have been told that that's not acceptable to the port and we are reevaluating that situation.
I have obviously no idea what is ultimately going to happen with this bill. I guess any number of things can happen between now and sometime Thursday when Council's in session and we receive a report potentially from this Committee, or not receive a report from this Committee. Does it add anything to the discussion if all the various parties potentially understood that -- I mean, it appears to me that the City's overall interest -- Mr. Cuorato, I'll ask you to respond to this directly -- is the City's overall interest best served by having this work out in some way, shape, or form as it's been laid out on the diagram in front of us and based on the various comments and discussions by all of the various parties, whether it's the port, CSX, the ILA union, the City's position? I mean, is it your position that there is a win all the way around 158 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 the board for all the parties involved if this kind of transaction is put together?
Does the legislation in front of us -- forget about the size of the parcel and how many acres and the like. I mean, we have a legislative matter in front of us. We have basically a couple days before a report would be made to Council. Is it of any interest to anyone that this Bill could serve as the vehicle that forces the various parties to wrap up, in their best interest, these negotiations to make a win for the entire City of Philadelphia and that the fate of this Bill 16 ultimately determines what happens here?
Mr. Cuorato, let me ask one last question and then I'll relinquish. If it's true that the Port Authority has the authority that the statute would seem to indicate, and this particular bill goes forward, 159 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 let's say it was even for the expanded area that you've requested, let's say it was for the entire 44 acre site, what is your perspective on the possibility that Ikea, Lowes, Best Buy and anybody else that wants to show up, that that would actually happen if the port exercises whatever authority the port believes that it has? What happens then?
Well, I believe -- and this is in contrast to the testimony that was presented earlier by Senator Fumo. I believe that if there is a further delay in this process, we will lose Ikea. Mr. Smith can testify or can answer that question for himself and for his company. But based upon the discussions we've had, I believe that we will lose Ikea. And as I testified, this all may come tumbling down. And I've tried to make the point, Councilman, that we support expansion of the port and we're working to try to get this resolved. But by the same token, I'm sitting here today bringing you a project that will create 1,000 new permanent jobs, over 300 construction jobs and $4 million a year in new 160 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 City tax revenues. That is a real project that's right here in front of us. And I'm not saying we shouldn't put pressure on the parties so that this becomes a win/win for everyone, but I don't want us to lose sight of that fact.
I understand that and I would agree with that. But I will not take it that your last statement means that you're willing in any way, shape, or form to walk away from, turn your back on or discount the presentation as made by Mr. McDermott with regard to what the port has on its drawing board. I mean, do you feel that those ideas, interests, concepts are any less real or represent any less value to the City of Philadelphia or represent less jobs or represents less economic development? Aren't they both important?
They are. And I testified very clearly that they're both important. And as I said during my testimony and in response to questions, these are not mutually exclusive goals. The port can be accommodated and this development should be accommodated.
I understand 161 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 that. But what I'm hearing today, and based on the action that we're being asked to take, I'm left with the impression that the result of our action could quite possibly result in mutual exclusivity; isn't that correct?
Are you just trying to buy more time or you just want me to rephrase the question? I'll give you another question. Do you want another question? I'll give you another question. From your perspective, is it possible for the port to do what the port proposes to do if we take the action that we've been requested to take? Are you saying that there is no impact whatsoever on port proposals, as laid out to us this morning or this afternoon, if the full action is taken that you requested?
There's no 24 negative impact to the port; that's your statement? 162 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738
As far as the land use for this site, I think the port will agree to that. I'm saying the answer is yes and I think the port will say that as well. The issue is not the use of this site. The issue is their ability to acquire all the remaining parcels that we've been talking bout this morning.
Well, how does today's action help or hinder that interest? Are they in a better position to acquire this site if this goes forward by itself, or are they in a better position to get what they need if their acquisition opportunities are tied to this?
I think they're in a better position to acquire those properties dependent upon what happens with this legislation. But Mr. Hurley, who is sitting right here to my left and can, again, speak for himself, is not saying that CSX is not willing to negotiate a fair price and sell these parcels to 163 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 the PRPA. I mean, we're all saying basically the same thing. It's just a matter of nailing down a purchase price. And what Mr. Hurley has said, is that his company has shareholders that they have to answer to and he needs to get fair market value. I think if we can be in a situation -- and I think I referenced this earlier -- where CSX can agree to sell these properties to the port at fair market value, I think we're there.
Mr. McDermott, let me get your perspective on that and then I'm finished.
As I testified earlier, fair market value, from our perspective, is something we already have. We have the condemnation powers to purchase at fair market value. What we're being asked to do is give up forever and a day 44 acres of land that you can all see is within 150 yards of at the active marine piers. And forever and a day we're giving up that land. This is our plan. This is a plan we came up with to accommodate CSX's abilities to sell that land and to attract Ikea. 164 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738
I look forward to hearing about tonight's discussions between the three of you.
Thank you very much. What I'd like to suggest, with the approval of all the parties, is that we allow Mr. Primavera to make his presentation and then recess this hearing tomorrow to 10:00 a.m., which is a scheduled Streets and Service Committee hearing that the chairman, Councilman DiCicco, has indicated he would recess his hearing in order for us to do this with the hopes that over the course of the evening we could come back with some mutual agreement that we can move forward with. Mr. Primavera had asked to be able -- because we have a gentleman from Whitman doing the Whitman Chocolate site here waiting and we'd like to conclude that business. Give you guys an opportunity to speak over the evening and have Mr. Primavera make his presentation. If there's no -- Councilman DiCicco. 165 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738
The reason for the recess until tomorrow morning as opposed to later today is that -- and this speaks to Councilman Nutter's question -- in addition to the three gentlemen that are here and Senator Fumo and myself, there are other entities that need to be part of that discussion, Conrail, Norfolk Southern, to name a few. And those are the people we had the conference call meeting with State Representative Keller last night, as well. So it's not just three guys, putting them in a room, working it out. There are other people that we need to reach out to, and I think by tomorrow we can do that.
Basically, what I look for tomorrow at 10:00 a.m. is a status report on whether the deal can be done or not. I'm not looking for a document tomorrow morning at 10:00. But if tomorrow morning at 10:00 the parties, after a lengthy discussion this evening, come back and say, "You know what, we're just about there," we can get this thing done before Thursday.
And I think, 166 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 Mr. Chairman, that we all left yesterday's meeting -- actually, we left last week's and yesterday's meeting with the feeling that the concept of what we've been talking about today is something that is palatable to everyone. Fine tuning it, getting to issues of the appraisal values and other things were the things that we just couldn't do in an expeditious time to have that answer today. What we were looking for -- and I'm optimistic -- is that some sort of a memorandum of understanding, at the very least, will be produced for this Council Committee to look at and make a decision on this Bill or any amendments to this Bill or a different Bill 17 entirely. But that's basically what we've been trying to do, and it's really only over the course of the last three weeks. I think our first meeting was the week before Thanksgiving. So all this other talk about the 14 months, really it came down to the last three weeks. And before we recessed this -- and Mr. Primavera I just want to take this opportunity, and Mr. McDermott, Jamie, to thank 167 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 you. I know you are in a position and could be in a position, if you wanted, to be very difficult, given the history of other issues that you had to deal with the port before I came here that were spoken to by Councilman Kenney and Senator Fumo. And I really appreciate your patience and your professionalism in understanding that this has a much more global impact on the citizens of this City and development of the port and bringing high-end retailers like Ikea here. You didn't throw your hand down and say, "It's either my way or no 14 way." You have been extremely patient. I want to take this opportunity to thank you and your board members for your professionalism. Thank you.
Just one quick question for Mr. McDermott. Mr. McDermott, the map ends -- on the right-hand side of the map -- and, again, unless you count the Frankford Creek, I don't know a whole lot about the port either. I know it flows into the river and that's about 168 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 it. But I think Councilman Nutter or Councilman Clarke talked about this a little. Where the homes are, the naval homes, I'm familiar with that there. On the right-hand side is the rest of the Navy Yard, correct?
Now, not being an expert on the Navy Yard or the port, that all belongs -- the previous speaker spoke -- all the good port facilities there for the defense to start was kept by the Navy; is that correct?
Just a real quick question on that. The United States Government does a deal with the PPA to ship the stuff out here in case we go to war instead of using what the Navy Yard has?
That's correct. They'll use -- Packer Avenue has been the designated facility in Philadelphia to move the military cargo.
I don't expect you to answer for the Department of Defense, but I just want to say this, I wonder why they 169 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 wouldn't use what they already have. Are they saving that for something else?
Well, first of all, they've got a lot of old naval vessels laid up down there for dismantling. And, secondly, this is an active terminal with container cranes and an active terminal operator and stevedore here, with longshoremen. It has the capability of doing this kind of work.
Thank you very much. If there's no objection from Members of the Committee, what I'd like to do is ask Mr. Primavera to -- he tells me he has five minutes to do, and without interruption.
No, I'll suffer interruption. I get as good as I give, I hope. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and Council President Verna and Councilman DiCicco. This has been one of the hardest things that I've been involved with for two reasons: One, its complexity. But also we have what I would call friendly adversaries. We have people like Jamie McDermott, who had been good 170 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 friends; like Bill Keller, who has been a wonderful friend; like the Councilpeople. It's just a matter of trying to get everything lined up in the same direction. I'm confident we'll get there. But I just want to, rather than reading a narrative, just address some of the questions that were raised and put them to bed. And then, hopefully, we'll come back and have some good news to report, or at least some better news than we currently have. My involvement in this started when CSX, having completed its $20 million investment in the intermodal yard and having spent the $10 million for Kvaerner, along with Norfolk Southern spending an additional $10 million, realized that it had surplus property, meaning property that was sitting fallow, vacant, not being used. We did an appraisal to show highest and best value and it turned out that that was really commercial. Plus, the community was very anxious to see commercial use rather than industrial use. So we went through a process where we decided that we would have a rezoning 171 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 opportunity. That happened, I guess, with an ordinance a year and a half ago which Councilman introduced for the whole site, but it was held back because port interests started to raise their head. We had previously been to DRPA, PIDC, Commerce, Planning Commission and other groups. And everyone at the time, going back a year plus, was very much in favor of our rezoning. Unfortunately, the PRPA, with which I was then unfamiliar but now which I am intimately familiar, hadn't surfaced as a, quote, player in my mind although they had been doing wonderful things. I just didn't think of them in the zoning world. So having gotten off to a very fast start, we realized that were some issues to be addressed. Then through just confluence of events, a developer was selected, the Goldenberg Group. So having an agenda, mainly changing the zoning, CSX as the seller and the Goldenberg Group as the buyer, work together. That's why I'm again in the picture. Then through a series of events, Ikea 172 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 wanted to come to town. I was representing them at Bart's site and then at the incinerator. It was only through mere happenstance and perhaps good fortune that they found through process of elimination that the last site will hopefully be the best site, which is the CSX yard. So there's no mystery in how the parties are working together. They're all working together through one counsel to get this rezoned. They have a myriad of other lawyers who are doing their deal work, either in-house or outside counsel. I think Senator Fumo, who I would love to have a better sense of his ethics, he seemed to be willing to share that with all of us. I would love to think that the reason he is unhappy with me representing all three is he can't kind of cut and separate and kind of do the rope-a-dope. But the good news for Philadelphia is we have three parties on our side of the deal that all want to make this thing happen, the seller, the buyer and the lead tenant. Also, we have Lowes. That would be the big story, except for the fact that Ikea came in. And they're 173 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 really the Super Bowl of all retailers. There's a lot of goodwill and a lot of momentum to make this deal happen. With regard to the port, they came to us and said, "We're having very little success in working through the railroad's bureaucracy," because the railroad really reflects CSX, Norfolk Southern and Conrail. " Well, the wish list was put together.
We brought the Administration to the table with James Cuorato, who worked through the, quote, City issues, which were very important. And then we started to work through the rail issues. Kevin Hurley has been working nonstop bringing the other players to the table. Once the assets had been identified and we determined who owned them and what shape they were in and starting an appraisal process, it then became very clear that the port would like to have them, as you would expect, for as little as possible. So it's really not just about making them available, but it's trying to find a financially viable way for the port to 174 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 acquire them without digging into their own pocket. They do have the power of condemnation. I think if they had the money, they would have condemned us, but they didn't. So this is a convenient way for them to get assets which they covet at a price that they can afford. The zoning supersession is a myth. They have preemption. I know Councilman Nutter, who's a zoning expert, was testing that issue. What happened is this: If City Council would bow to residents and rezone property, which the port is using residential to stop port activities, then their supersession would work. It's really a preemption the way the federal government could come in and ignore local zoning. But in no way can the port tell private property owners what they can do with their property when City Council speaks and zones the property. So the reality is that the port has very strong powers, but they have to exercise them through eminent domain. They then have to pay fair market value. Fortunately, for the port, our needs for rezoning come at a time when there's strong interest in our property also 175 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 surfaces. So I firmly believe that the public will benefit, because they're going to get these properties for far less than fair market value. It will not be the dollar that they originally wanted to give them a hundred acres. The shareholders would sue CSX. Because if you're a shareholder and you own property and you see it given away, you would be upset. But we will find a way to make the numbers work. Senator Fumo was right. The auditing and accounting is very, very arcane, but it's not the surprise in the world of Enron that we on the CSX side have to be responsible. And we can't allow a feeding frenzy of people trying to, you know, grab what they can, even if it's for the public good. We still have to do things in a viable business fashion. So our commitment really is to provide the public benefits which are in your package, which are a thousand jobs for this location, the $100 million construction investment, the taxes, taking property which is currently unused, 44 acres, and taking it and 176 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 putting it to a viable use. We haven't talked about the community. We won't because it's almost a given that the community loves this project. I have not been in any commercial development of this size -- and I'll look again to all the Councilmembers here -- where we have such strong community support. They love it. This is the best thing that happened. So I'm excited for them. We take it as a given. But I just thought, for the record, that we really would put that together. So I am very pleased that, despite some very, I think, difficult questions being asked and the fact that private enterprise is being put in the middle of a public debate over assets and the fact that this CSX property is, in fact, CSX property. It's one thing if Ikea said, we would like to condemn some Public Property for our store. This debate might make more sense about replacing it. But this is private property. And I know that we're in America and private property is private property. And if every time we go to zone a property we're looking 177 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 at what the other guy is getting, that's a very, very dangerous way of trying to put a cost on zoning.
And I know that's not what's intended here, but I don't think that that's really what it's all about. It's really about a way of finding goals which we hope are going to all be complementary of being satisfied so that CSX can sell the property, which helps the City because it's a good development, and then find a way to not only identify and make available port property, but also through this other process finds a way to facilitate the compensation. Because if we had all the money in the world, it would be easy for the PARPA to come and say, "Here's our checkbook. " But because they are not financially secure at this point in time, we are going to try to find a way to make that happen. But it can't be for one dollar. It would be something between the one dollar that they would like and the X dollars that it would appraise at. So with that, we hope to come back. 178 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 We hope to have a memo of understanding, or at least a betterment of position, and we hope to take something which really should be good news and tout it as good news, rather than have it kind of caught in a controversy.
Mr. Primavera, I just want to clarify your position. Part our problem here is that we're -- I understand the private property rights issue and I understand that it's a very strong right. However, the government here is being asked to take action which would obviously create an opportunity for Ikea, but also increase the value of the land. So I think that we also have a civil responsibility to the citizens and taxpayers, that when we take this action and allow this development to go forward and increase the value of the land, that we have a responsibility to look at the other interests, too. It's not simply one property owner versus the other. If this was zoned appropriately for this development, you wouldn't be sitting here.
So when the 179 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738 government is being asked to do something, I think we have to look at all of the extraneous factors and all of the other dynamics that goes into it.
I would agree with that. I would say this: What we all want is the highest and best use because that allows the property to generate taxes and to create jobs. And we're asking you to zone it up. So you would not get Ikea and Lowes but for your action. So you're being rewarded by the development and the resultant improvements. But you can't look backward and say, every time I zone a piece of property, what is that owner getting in his pocket. That's going to be a slow or slippery road to be into.
I understand the highest and best use standard is different from a person who is driving a Volkswagen off of a ship into the Poshelot (ph) as opposed to a person who needs a job working at Ikea or the developer that wants to do it. So the highest and best use standard, I think, varies based on where you stand. 180 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020738
I would say this, Councilman -- and you're making a lot of important points. I think that for reasons that we don't need to get into, if this was critical port property, then that would be a better analysis. But the properties that we're going to make available are to the south and are actually far better for port purposes.
I think that's all in agreement. I think Councilman O'Neill had a question.
We're in a recess until tomorrow. If you can, Mr. Primavera -- I would assume that you'll be the spokesperson for the rest of the group -- let me know either by 9:00 a.m. tomorrow. You have my pager number. And if you don't, I'll give it to you again, not publicly. I will give it to you privately, so I have a sense of what I need to do for the 10:00 Streets and Services Committee, do 181 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 I need to announce for those folks to come in later or whatever. That would be helpful.
That would be great. And I would hope that maybe we can even before we leave -- I see Mr. Blackburn and Jamie, that maybe we could even put together a conference call or a meeting for later this afternoon.
And I am available, as you know, for that conference call, as the Senator is, and we'll make ourselves available. Thank you.
Thank you very much. And please, Members of the Committee, do not leave. We have this poor gentleman waiting here. He's been waiting for hours to deal with this issue. The next bill on the agenda is Bill 19 No. 020684, which is an Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Roosevelt Boulevard, Grant Avenue and Blue Grass Road. Identify yourself for the record and proceed. 182 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman and Members of City Council. My name is James Cuorato and I'm City Representative and Director of Commerce for the City of Philadelphia. I'm here today to testify in support of Bill No. 020684, which would change the zoning for a parcel of land located at 9701 Roosevelt Boulevard. This location is the site of the former Whitman's Chocolates' factory. This 37-acre site has been vacant for the past 10 years. The proposed rezoning of this site would permit a commercial development by the Goldenberg Group. The Department of Commerce takes very seriously the issue of converting industrial-zoned land to commercial use. We believe that one of the strengths of our economy is its diversity in that many different sectors of employment are presented here. By no means have we turned our back on manufacturing and industrial-based jobs. To the contrary, we have undertaken a number of initiatives to increase and enhance our manufacturing and industrial 183 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 base. In order to maintain this strategy, we believe that it is important to have, as part of our inventory, an adequate supply of industrial land. Therefore, for any proposal to convert industrial land to commercial use, the City and the Philadelphia Industrial Development Corporation undertake a very careful analysis based upon a policy that guides our decision making. Basically, the criteria in this policy include the existing condition of a site, the attempts to market the site for an industrial use, the potential for industrial development on the site and any proposed new use which would replace the industrial use. After having conducted an analysis of the Whitman site, we have concluded unequivocally that the commercial development that has been proposed would be the best use for this site. As I mentioned, the site has been vacant for approximately 10 years and attempts to market the property for industrial use have not been successful. The site is presently under 184 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 agreement of sale to the Goldenberg Group, a retail commercial developer who has experience in developing large commercial projects. The proposed project for the Whitman site is a 450,000-square-foot retail center. This complex would include potential tenants such as Lowes Home Improvement store, Wal-Mart, Barnes and Noble, Pier 1, Famous Footwear and stores like that. The proposed complex would bring a new high quality retail development to this area of Northeast Philadelphia. As a lifelong resident of the Northeast -- I live less than five minutes away from this site -- I know firsthand that a development such as that which is being proposed has the potential for great success. Although the Northeast already has a number of shopping centers, there are certain uses which do not presently exist. For example, I have on several occasions noted that if I want to take my two sons to Barnes and Noble, I have to drive to Willow Grove. The proposed tenants for the shopping complex will fill a need in this area of the Northeast which is not presently being met. 185 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 The proposed commercial project will generate 1,125 new permanent jobs. Based on similar projects, 75 percent of these employees will be full time. In addition, the project will create 236 construction jobs. 8 million per year. All of this will take place on land that is currently lying vacant and unused. We will replace an existing vacant industrial site with a vibrant commercial development that will serve the neighborhood. We have been pleased to work with Councilman Brian O'Neill's office, and we thank Councilman O'Neill for introducing this legislation. We also have been working with the Greater Bustleton Civic League, which has indicated its support for this project. Traffic circulation is a very important element for any proposed project in this area.
As you may be aware, the Roosevelt Boulevard and Grant Avenue intersection has been cited as one of the most dangerous intersections in the region. The developer has committed to a comprehensive traffic study for this area that 186 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 will include recommendations for improvements to this intersection. In any event, the traffic flow into and out of the new Whitman Square Shopping Complex will be handled in such a way as to minimize any potential problems. For these reasons, we wholeheartedly support the passage of Bill No. 020684 and respectfully request a waiver of Council Rules that would permit first reading this next Council session and final approval on December 19th. I'd be happy to answer any questions that Councilmembers might have.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Councilman O'Neill.
Mr. Cuorato, again, Jim, I want to thank you for all your help with this and also for creating what I thought was a pretty good record, that we don't just go in if somebody wants to change industrial to commercial, because I've had some other requests for this, that we have a consistent policy that if something has been tried and failed over a period of years, it's just no longer viable as 187 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 industrial. And there is some good public policy involved in it, not just who wants it or what they want it for or who, you know, the parties are. You can say to another party, you know, a mile away, that is a good industrial property. It's been industrial. While it may also be attractive commercially, there's no reason to change it. And I appreciate you putting that on the record. The other thing I'd like to do is really thank the Bustleton Civic League and also the Goldenberg Group, particularly Mr. Robert Freedman. Bob's here. They worked really long and hard and I believe did everything possible to meet the community's wants and needs and concerns under some pretty difficult circumstances, because this wasn't built on a corner, this Whitman Chocolate site. It's near the third worst intersection in the country, not just -- or the second. I'm sorry. The second worst. Red Lion and the Boulevard is the third worst. I'd hate to see that place in Florida that's got number one. But when I introduced this, I 188 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 introduced it with the understanding that a landscaping plan would be worked out between the developer and the City through the Planning Commission before hearings were held, and that was worked out and this was listed. I would ask that the Planning Commission or the developer testify to that, put it on the record. And I would also ask, not because I'm concerned about Mr. Freedman or his company, but because a future owner may not feel so committed, that the very excellent development agreement between the developer and the Civic Association be amended over the next nine days before final passage so that the landscaping agreement can be an addendum incorporated into the agreement. I'm sure the developer won't have any problem with that. I think it kind of ties all the strings on this that need to be tied. It's truly been a real serious, arduous and good faith process. And Mr. Harry Abberkern (ph), the Zoning Chairman for the Bustleton Civic League, is here. I know they're in favor of it. He has a letter from the league outlining their agreement, including the development agreement 189 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 that I am asking be -- have an addendum attached to it so we can move with this. I think it's a great project. And I don't know if Lowes is a declared participant, but I know the community is very hopeful that they are, and all the other possible tenants so far that have been mentioned have been very well received. And I know the developer went the extra mile, because at one point, it seemed impossible to accomplish the different things needed from a traffic standpoint on the Boulevard. And they just went and did it. They're to be commended for that.
Thank you very much. Do you have anything to add, sir? Would you like to be recognized? Please.
My name is Robert Freedman. I am with the Goldenberg Group. Mr. Chairman, President Verna, Members of the City Council, I appreciate the opportunity to be here today. We are a real estate development company and requesting the rezoning of the 36-acre property at 9701 Roosevelt Boulevard, the 190 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 property that we are the equitable owner of. We've been working on the design, development, and leasing of this project for almost two years and believe it has turned out to be a very good civics lesson as to how a private developer, community association, and government agencies can work together to address everyone's needs and desires. And I'll just summarize these very quickly. From our standpoint, we're pleased to have the opportunity to bring some very strong national tenants to this area, such as Lowes Home Improvement Warehouse, Wal-Mart, Barnes and Noble, Linens and Things, Pier 1, Cracker Barrel Restaurant and some others. And some of these tenants are a bit shy about going into a large City like Philadelphia. So we're very pleased that we've been able to entice them to this location. From the neighbors' standpoint, we've worked closely with the Greater Bustleton Civic League and obtained their support by providing them with a binding agreement committing to landscaping, storm water controls, traffic 191 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 improvements, union contracts, employment opportunities and supporting some local community programs. Much of our effort, as Councilman O'Neill indicated, was working out the access to the site to avoid cars going through residential areas. From the City's standpoint, we were pleased to work with the Councilman's office, the Commerce Department, the Streets Department and the Planning Commission to make this project successful from everyone's standpoint. Of course, there's the taxes. We believe over $2.8 million additional taxes annually, over 230 construction and a thousand permanent jobs. But we've also worked with the Planning Commission to create a program of design elements and site amenities that we think will make this a very special project for the City. We've handed out a booklet indicating the site plan and some other ideas, and we have some boards if there are any questions. In summary, we respectfully request City Council consider this property for rezoning from industrial to area shopping center so we can 192 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 create a project that this developer, the community association, and the City can all be proud of. Thank you very much.
Thank you. Are there any questions from Members of the Committee?
Again, I'd like to thank Mr. Freedman personally for what was involved in this and his cooperation with the community.
Thank you, Councilman. I know the gentleman from the Greater Bustleton Civic League has been waiting patiently.
Yes. We're going to recognize him. Thank you. Thank you so much for your patience. Our next witness is Mr. Thomas Chapman.
Good afternoon, Mr. Chairman, Madam President and Members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I am the Director of the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I'm here today to testify on Bill No. 020684. 193 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 This bill was introduced by Councilman O'Neill on October 21st of this year. This bill amends the zoning maps by changing the zoning designation of a parcel of land located in the block bounded by the Roosevelt Boulevard, Grant Avenue and Blue Grass Road. This bill 8 would change the zoning of the property from the existing L2 limited industrial to the designation, area shopping center commercial. The purpose of this change is to facilitate the development of the site with an approximately 440,000-square-foot shopping center. The center would also include approximately 2,100 parking places. The developer, the Goldenberg Group, plans to bring a Lowes and a Wal-Mart to this location as anchor tenants. This would be the first Lowes in the City of Philadelphia. The staff of the Planning Commission have met with representatives of the developers on several occasions, and the developers have committed to implement a number of design features as part of the development of this shopping center. I believe that the developers 194 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 in these negotiations recognize the importance of this site and sees the opportunity to create a real special environment for this shopping center. And along with Councilman O'Neill, I would commend the effort that they have put into site improvements -- proposed site improvements for the plan. I am in receipt of a letter from Mr. Robert W. Freedman, Vice President and General Counsel of the Goldenberg Group, who testified earlier, outlining these features and would ask that it be incorporated into the record.
Mr. Chapman, I hope, if needed, you would help facilitate that addendum to the agreement between the developer and the Civic Association.
Okay. Thank you. Any questions for Mr. Chapman? (No response.)
This Committee 195 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 will stand in recess -- Do you want to testify? Please identify yourself for the record, first. MR. ABBERKERN (ph): I'm not a winded person. This is the first time I've ever been to a Council meeting. My name is Mr. Abberkern, Harry Abberkern. I am the Chairman of Greater Bustleton Civic League Zoning Board. Between Brian O'Neill's office and the Greater Bustleton Civic League, we have met with the Freedman group, which is the Goldenberg. Very, very impressive. They were professional from the first time we met with these people. I wish and hope that the earlier session has been as easy as ours. We have really gotten very involved for the last 14 months. Everything that we proposed and asked for the Goldenberg Group has given us. Pertaining to everything to your -- well, your literature there and so forth and also with Mr. Freedman and his Group. Their landscaping is superb. I can only hope that every shopping center follows this pattern in the City of Philadelphia.
Thank you very 196 12/10/02 - RULES - BILL 020684 much.
They have been very good to us. And like I said, I wish the Goldenberg Group success, and the Greater Bustleton Civic League has backed them 100 percent.
This Committee will stand in recess until 10:00 a.m. tomorrow. Thank you. (Council adjourned at 1:50 p.m.) - - - 197 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 December 10, 2002, 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