COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, December 13, 2006 10:00 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN COUNCILMAN DANIEL SAVAGE BILL 060442 - An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 5th Street, Jefferson Street, Orkney Street and Master Street. BILL 060697 - An ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1700, entitled "Administration and Enforcement"... - - - V A R A L L O Incorporated Litigation Support Services Eleven Penn Center 1835 Market Street, Suite 600 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103 215.561.2220 215.567.2670 2
Good morning, everyone. Please excuse the delay. This is the public hearing of the Committee on Rules, and I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of Bill No. 060442.
Bill No. 060442, an ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by 5th Street, Jefferson Street, Orkney Street and Master Street.
Good morning, Mr. Kramer. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 3 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. 060442, which was introduced by Councilmember Ramos for Councilmember DiCicco on April 18, 2006. Bill No. 060442 rezones a parcel of land bounded by 5th Street, Jefferson Street, Orkney Street and Master Street from a zoning designation of G-2 General Industrial to a zoning designation of C-5 Commercial. The purpose of the zoning change is to allow for a mixed-use development on the site. This proposal calls for a development of approximately 141 single-family residential units on the upper floors of the eight-story structure, with commercial uses occupying the first floor. Using the C-5 Commercial classification outside of the Center City Business core area creates a condition where, due to the lack of a confluence of available public transportation, the allowable density of this classification would create large negative impacts on 4 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. the surrounding community. While the Planning Commission believes that the proposed reuse of this former industrial site is appropriate, the zoning designation goes with the land, not with the project, and in this case, we believe the proper classification should be C-3 Commercial. Accordingly, the Planning Commission at its meeting of July 18, 2006 recommended that Bill No. 060442 be amended to indicate that the zoning designation of the property would be changed to a zoning designation of C-3 commercial and then be approved. To that end, I have copies of the amendment ready for your approval. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee. Thank you.
Mr. Kramer, your testimony is that this property should be rezoned C-3 rather than C-5 due, in part, to the availability of public transportation. 5 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. What are some of the other concerns that a C-5 designation might create?
The density level of a C-5 Commercial classification, you could take the eight-story structure that's there today, demolish that building and replace it with one that is significantly higher. At a minimum, you could have a 12-story structure that would go up in its place. Additionally, it would then allow many more units to go in, which then leads to additional parking requirements and additional traffic and public safety concerns for the community. And if you design it correctly, it could be significantly higher than even a 12-story structure under the C-5 Commercial classification.
Can you specify what the distinctions are for a C-3 zoning designation as opposed to a C-5 designation?
Essentially, the 6 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. difference is in floor area ratio. A C-3 classification allows a floor area ratio of four and a half, or 4.5, and a base classification under C-5 allows for a 12. So there's a significant difference in the floor area ratio. Under the terms of this particular proposed development, they're taking an existing structure, they're taking an eight-story structure. The developers have no intention of demolishing that at this time. However, in the future, that's the other concern, if you let it be C-5, the next developer or the next owners could in fact come in and take this whole thing down and build bigger. The proposal that is being proposed today, which is for the reuse of an existing structure, the use is permitted under C-3 just as it is permitted under C-5. The C-5 would allow for additional development on the site if it were to be demolished and be replaced, 7 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. and that's why we recommended that it be amended to C-3. The C-3 would allow development more in keeping with what is existing on the site, as well as would allow the proposed use -- or the proposed reuse of the existing structure, and that's why we made the recommendation to change it to C-3.
Do you know whether there is a developer with a specific proposal for this property, and if it is rezoned C-3, can you tell us what is the cost of the development and what are the sources of funding?
I would have to defer that to Mr. Patterson, who is their legal representative.
Good morning. My name is Ronald Patterson. I'm a lawyer at Klehr Harrison. I represent the owner of the property, Liberty 8 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. Property. If I may, I just want to put this exhibit up. This property is locally known as the Umbrella Factory building. It was built in the early 1900's and it manufactured umbrellas. It laid vacant and dormant for years in disrepair, 9 but it is a beautiful building. 10 The owners purchased the 11 property and have been sustaining it to 12 be safe. We're proposing to convert the 13 building through private funds in an 14 amount of approximately a $25 million 15 investment, which would refinish the 16 facade and convert the building into 141 17 single-family dwelling units on floors 18 two through ten and also create three 19 commercial/retail spaces on the first 20 floor. The units would range between 740 square feet to 2,000 square feet, ranging from lofts to two bedrooms plus a loft. The sale price is ranging from $179,000 to about $425,000 for the larger 9 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. units. We believe that this conversion will be a catalyst to spark redevelopment here in the area. The property is located in the G-2 General Industrial zoning district, which is designated on my exhibit, which is the purple color, which does not permit residential or commercial. So rather than seek a variance and then have residential remain in industrial, we thought the rezoning would be better. And we're fine with the C-3 proposal, because that allows us to convert the building into the residential and commercial, and we have no intentions on increasing any floors and going higher at this time. We've also submitted a developer's application to the Redevelopment Authority to purchase the adjoining lot so that we can construct a four-level three-story parking garage that would be designed to look like rowhomes that would accommodate the 10 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. residents in the adjoining building. We have met with Councilman Ramos, Councilman Savage and met with Kensington South, and we have their support for the project.
Thank you very much. I believe there are two Councilmembers that would like to be recognized. Councilman Greenlee.
Mr. Patterson, if I understood what you just said, you said you do not have a problem with the City Planning Commission recommendation?
We do not. We're okay with the C-3 zoning. It allows us to do the conversion.
Thank you, Madam President. 11 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. I actually had a barrage of questions, but your latest statement probably eliminates the need, to a large degree, but I just wanted to say for the record, I'm somewhat familiar with this location. Actually on the other side of the street is the district that I represent. This is in actually Councilman Savage's district. I spoke to him last night. He indicated that he was in full support. I know there were a number of community meetings. This project has been up in the air for quite some time, and I understand -- and I know we do have one of the representatives here from the local community -- that after a substantial amount of discussion that everybody is on board with this. This particular neighborhood is in fact in somewhat blighted condition, particularly in this particular area across from Cruz Recreation Center. Although south of Girard Avenue as a 12 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. result of Northern Liberties, there's been a substantial amount of investment, but north of Girard Avenue it's still in the pioneering stage, so to speak. So I think this would be a good addition to that neighborhood and hopefully stimulate some additional development on the northern end. So I'm glad to hear that the C-3 recommendation is not something that would be problematic for the developer.
Do we have any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you. I concur with Councilman Clarke's comments relative to the spurring of activity in this area. I'd also like to compliment you and thank you for saving the building. It's a tremendous adaptive reuse. It's a beautiful building, and to 13 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. see it torn down and replaced with something less important I think would be a crime. So you're doing the best of both worlds by reinvigorating the neighborhood, providing residential opportunities and saving what is a substantial building.
Thank you. We thought it was a beautiful building, and, frankly, it could be designated historic in the right setting, but we wanted to preserve and rehab it so that it comes back to life.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Mr. Kramer, you said you have an amendment. Has it been circulated?
I previously 14 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. submitted it to the Clerk.
If I may, because we've been delayed by turnovers at the Council office, if it would be appropriate to ask for a rules suspension, I would.
Thank you. And we do have a representative from the community group, if you'd like to --
That would be fine. If he would approach the witness table, we'd like to hear from him. Oh, she. I'm sorry. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record. MS. DiDomenico: Good morning. I'm Lois DiDomenico and I'm a volunteer Chairperson of the Zoning Design Review Committee for Kensington South NAC. Yes, we did review the project, I would say, maybe four, five months ago, and as has been stated already today, 15 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. it's a fabulous building. We want to preserve older structures. This is a use that most of the neighbors around there are going to enjoy, and it's going to bring safety to the neighborhood because there's going to be residential use. It's going to have some commercial components. We particularly liked the design of the parking garage, which unlike many of the ugly structures a garage is labeled when you look at it, this one seeks to blend into the surrounding areas, so visually it's going to be a huge plus. And so I'm basically here representing the Review Committee, and so I think that it deserves support and I have written so in our letter. So I don't know if you have a copy, but I have a copy here today.
Thank you very much. Are there questions or comments 16 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Yes. In regard to the parking building, how many vehicles are going to be --
We're proposing 150 parking spaces. It would be four floors, one underground and three above ground.
Mr. Kramer, that would be adequate for that size building?
Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you very much. 17 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC.
Do we have anyone else that would like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Ms. Murray to please read the title of the next bill, Bill No. 060697.
Bill No. 060697, an ordinance amending Title of The 14 Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 16 14-1700, entitled "Administration and Enforcement," by amending Section 18 14-1708, entitled "Procedures for Enactment of Ordinances," under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Madam President, members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. 18 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. I'm the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill 060697, which was introduced by Councilmembers DiCicco and Kenney on September 21, 2006. Bill No. 060697 amends Section 9 14-1708 of The Philadelphia Code by changing the procedure to be followed when enacting ordinances which deal with zoning classifications, reclassifications, conditions, restrictions and any other zoning matter by requiring a notice of public hearing be posted by the party at interest on each street frontage of the premises with which the proposed zoning ordinance is concerned for at least 15 days prior to and including the day of the hearing before the Council. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of October 17, 2006 considered Bill No. 060697 and recommends that it be approved. 19 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee. Thank you.
Mr. Kramer, what is the current posting requirements for the rezoning of a property?
There is not one that I'm aware of. When you read the ordinance, there's a requirement that notice be given of the hearing, but there's not a requirement that the property be posted. The posting issue is usually something that's done at the Zoning Board of Adjustment, and the Planning Commission historically has posted neighborhoods when they are the subject of a zoning remapping ordinance. But in terms of the Code, there was not a requirement that an individual property be posted for a zoning change bill.
I understand that the proposed ordinance 24 provides that the Chief Clerk of Council shall provide for the forms with the 20 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. requisite information stated in the bill 3 and that the ordinance will take effect immediately. I don't know why it suggested that the Chief Clerk's office design the forms subject to its own satisfaction and, if necessary, issue a request for proposals to print the forms and then have the forms printed and available for distribution as to the date the Mayor signs the bill or on the date it becomes law without his signature. Why would we have to do that? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have, I guess, the L&I or another administrative body provide the furnishing of these forms? I don't know that it would be the Chief Clerk's responsibility.
There's a lot of posting that's done and has been 21 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. for years on zoning bills. Traditionally -- and I'm just asking. My memory isn't real good on this. Mr. Kramer, who in the past has provided these things when they've been posted? I think you've actually done some postings yourself.
The answer to your question is twofold. The zoning posters that come from the Zoning Board of Adjustment are coming out of the Department of License and Inspections as part of their Zoning Unit sends out those orange posters that we're all familiar with. The posters that my office uses in terms of posting a neighborhood for a zoning remapping, they come from the City Clerk's office, and they are blank form that then I receive in my office and I fill out all the information, the bill 22 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. number, the boundaries of the location, the time and date of the hearing. The location of the hearing is actually on the poster already. They're a white poster.
Would that form be sufficient to comply with this bill?
I believe it would be, but the party at interest would then have to complete the form.
Right, but I'm just talking about Council President's concern doing RFPs and things like that. I think this wheel has already been --
The posters, I believe, are already something that the Clerk's office has at least blank forms of, because I certainly have several of those in my office and we did receive them from the Clerk's office.
When you do a remapping of an area, the Planning 23 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. Commission does the posting for the perimeter of that area and these are the forms that they use as opposed to the orange forms. What color are these forms?
So it's kind of good zoning. It kind of indicates we're helping. Orange, watch out, caution. White meaning it's neutral or fair or we're not taking sides on this thing, we're just doing -- I don't know what the color thing is, but I do know there's forms, because they've been posting them for years. I've done a slew of remappings over the years, and it was my understanding that the Planning Commission did that. I didn't know where the forms came from, but I think these forms already exist.
The Planning Commission would put the information on 24 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. the forms?
In this case, it would be whoever is doing the posting.
The party at interest should be the person filling it out, with the information regarding the bill number, the location, et cetera.
Now, the party of interest does -- excuse me, Madam President, with your indulgence. In a Zoning Board of Adjustment posting, the person that is asking for the variance picks up or has the forms sent to them. They have to post them. There's an inspection of whether it's been posted. But who fills them out in that case? Because this is like a hybrid right now of the --
The Department of 25 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. License and Inspections completes the zoning poster at their office. That ensures that what's being put on the poster is accurate and reflects the application that was given to the Department. It's part of a package you get from the Department of License and Inspections notifying you what you have to bring to the hearing, the date and the time of the hearing and the rules and regulations with regard to how to put the poster up, as well as the poster itself.
Well, my best take on this would be that this is sort of a hybrid in that the poster, the person doing the posting, would be the party of interest on a bill that changes the zoning of a property, but we wouldn't want that person filling out the form. We would want the Planning Commission to do in the case of a proposed ordinance 23 what L&I does in the case of a proposed variance. And is that something that this bill would cover? Because it would 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. seem to me that we would want to be in charge, the government would want to be in charge, whether it be the Planning Commission in an ordinance or L&I as they do in a variance be the ones that makes sure the correct information goes on that notice rather than trust either the applicant in a zoning case, which we don't do, or the party of interest in an ordinance on a rezoning of their property. So I think it's an easy thing to fix because you just have to make sure it's the Planning Commission that procures the --
Fills out the form and gets it to the person the way L&I does in a zoning variance case.
I don't see why we could not do that, provided we had enough notice on terms of the hearing and the like. It's not specified in the bill 27 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. that we would do that, but it's not something that undoable.
Could we amend the bill to make -- is it easily amended?
The sponsor of the bill is here, and I don't know whether he would have any objection. Councilman Kenney.
Oh, I'm sorry. I didn't know that. Your name is on the bill.
But I'm sure the staff could draft an amendment. I'd be happy to offer it.
It's actually a friendly amendment, I think, just to clarify. The last thing we want to do is start doing RFPs and new procurements and things when we already have the forms.
And at this point, 28 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. the question is who would be completing the form that exists?
The question is should they be white, because this is more -- a remapping is a neutral community oriented. When it's a person's property, it's more akin to a variance that you're doing, and you really want to alert people in a different way. And it may be that those forms have some caution color attached to them, and that wouldn't be a big deal either, it's just the color of paper they're on. Is it written in the Code that the zoning variance zoning notices that are posted be orange?
I don't believe that it's indicated in terms of color. It just says posters.
Well, I would maybe just suggest that this might be, to contrast it with the remappings, but also to compare it more with a variance, because actually you want an 29 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. ordinance done so you don't have to get a variance usually or because it's a larger property than a variance calls for. So it just might be something as simple as making sure they're not confused with a map.
Well, the most recent danger color is optic yellow green.
Anything that would be like that would be good, as long as it wasn't white. I don't think we need to put that in the ordinance, but just so the Planning Commission would know that white is for remappings. Some cautionary color would be --
Since they're coming out of the Clerk's office, the Clerk can be supplying us them in whatever color they want us to, and we can then fill them out, if that's what the Clerk's office would want, so long as we have the contact information for the party at interest, because it, by the 30 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. bill, would still be their responsibility to put the posters up.
I believe that Kathy Murray has suggested an amendment and will have it copied and, I guess, distributed before the hearing is over.
I think we ought to read it so if Mr. Kramer has any question about the amendment.
In 14-1708, Subsection 1 where the amendment starts at the bottom of the pink page where it says "notice of a public hearing, having been completed by the City Planning Commission, shall be posted by the party at interest."
Okay. Councilman Clarke. 31 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Kramer, just from a logistical standpoint, a couple quick questions. When Councilmembers introduce an ordinance to do a rezoning of a parcel, does the Planning Commission then immediately get notification of that bill 10 being introduced?
And the time associated with us having a hearing is, am I correct, three weeks?
Would the 15-day period required under both the hearing and required under this bill, would that give you adequate time to receive the form from the Chief Clerk's, then get it to the developer so they can then post it to comply with the bill, the 15-day notification? I'm a little concerned about the time. 32 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC.
I understand what you're asking me is will there be enough time to get the poster to the party at interest so that they can meet the 15-day requirement?
I don't see why that there wouldn't be. We are notified of the hearing date so long as Council -- the notice is going to be the same, because you already have a requirement for a 15-day notice to be published in the papers for these hearings. Same deal would apply. As soon as the Clerk's office is aware of a hearing schedule date, we are notified via e-mail that that exists, and, frankly, most of -- not all, but most zoning bills are drafted by myself out of my office. So we are aware that they're existing, and we would then have the party at interest and would be able to notify them. As soon as we had the hearing dates, we could -- in most instances, 33 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. we're talking about one or two posters, depending on how many street frontages are with an individual property. So we're not talking about an inordinate amount of work to get done.
You have 15 12 days. Assuming that the Councilmember 13 wants an immediate hearing and that 14 Councilmember has a 15-day advertisement 15 requirement --
It would require at least 17 days before the hearing we'd have to know about it to get the poster to them.
All right. Well, I guess we'll figure out a way to 34 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. work on that, because I can see that days, somebody says, Well, it was actually only 14 days that they were posted.
Who checks 7 it? L&I goes out and takes pictures of 8 that variance. 9
That's what 10 I'm saying. I guess that's an 11 administrative function. 12
That might 13 lead into my remaining question. I have 14 a question, but I'll wait until 15 Councilman's finished.
Thank you. A bell just went off, and I don't have too many of them going off these days, but I remember like it was yesterday now somebody at PIDC telling me -- I won't name names -- but that it was remarkable that through all the years that they had been at PIDC, any time 35 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. there was an ordinance or a proposed ordinance in Council to change the zoning of a property for a property owner, that it had been posted, and I don't know whether the owner posted it, the agency that was dealing with it, whether it would have been PIDC or Planning Commission or somebody posted it. But the Rendell Administration early on, which was very pro development, found that there was no requirement anywhere for that. It had just been done by tradition. And they said, Don't post it anymore. Don't post it. We got a better chance of getting these things through, because usually it's a development bill 18 that involves some kind of development. Mr. Kramer, could you shed any light on that history?
I don't have specifics, but I do remember there were bills. Mr. Greenlee apparently remembers --
He can't 36 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. wait. He's been around here as long as me.
Point of order, if I could. I know when Councilman Cohen was Chair of the Rules Committee, he made every person, every applicant, post. So he basically was doing this law back then. And if you knew, it was easier to deal with him than to fight with him, so --
It was the unwritten Cohen rule, yes. And if you remember, the Rendell Administration coming in was the same time that Councilman Cohen was no longer Chair of the Rules Committee.
It was easier to take Cohen off the Rules than it was to change the rules.
So I think that was the answer. I was 37 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. thinking of that earlier. But I think that's the answer.
Got you. So I think there was a history of doing this, whether it was something that Councilman Cohen continued or not. But this will codify what was being done for a long time up to a certain point.
And it gives neighbors notice and creates a fair situation, and I compliment Councilman DiCicco for this.
Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
38 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. Seeing no one, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 7 060442.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move that Bill 060442 be reported out of Committee -- I'm sorry. I move that the amendment be adopted on Bill No. 060442. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as proposed by the City Planning Commission regarding Bill No. 18 060442 be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. 39 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 060442 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and with a request for a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 14 060442 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that 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 please say aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? (No response.) 40 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC.
Would you please for the record indicate the presence of the members of the Rules Committee just in case someone is counting.
No, but I imagine that certain people might be counting the number of days we spend here, so I want to make sure that the record is clear that we're all here.
Thank you for calling that to my attention. To my extreme right is Councilwoman Miller. Next to her, Councilman Kenney, Councilman Greenlee, Councilman Clarke. To my immediate left, 41 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. to my extreme left is Councilman Savage, Councilman Brian O'Neill, Councilman Kelly and Councilwoman Brown. And pretty soon we're going to have the Committee of the Whole for the Committee on Rules. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 9 060697.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I would like to offer an amendment to Bill 13 060697. I believe that amendment has been circulated.
I make a motion that the amendment to Bill 060697 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as proposed be adopted. All in favor will please indicate by saying aye. 42 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion is adopted. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill 060697 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for a rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 19 060697 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will please say aye. 43 12/13/06 - RULES - BILL 060442, ETC. (Aye.)
The ayes have it, the motion carries, and this concludes our public meeting. Thank you very much. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 10:30 a.m.) - - - 44 CERTIFICATE I HEREBY CERTIFY that the proceedings, evidence and objections are contained fully and accurately in the stenographic notes taken by me upon the foregoing matter on December 13, 2006, and that this is a true and correct transcript of same. ______________________________ MICHELE L. MURPHY RPR-Notary Public (The foregoing certification of this transcript does not apply to any reproduction of the same by any means, unless under the direct control and/or supervision of the certifying reporter.)