COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Tuesday, October 30, 2007 10:25 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 060685, 070366, 070690, 070692 and 070680 - - - 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. This is a public hearing of the Rules Committee. Bill Nos. 060685 and 070692 are being held at the request of the sponsors. At this time, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 070690. While Mr. Kramer is approaching the witness table, I would like the record to note that a quorum is present. To my extreme left, we have Councilwoman Brown, Councilman Greenlee. Councilman DiCicco was going to volunteer to give us a quorum. To my extreme right is Councilman Kenney. Next to him is Councilman Clarke. Good morning, Mr. Kramer. Please identify yourself for the record -- MR. McPHERSON: I need to read the title.
-- 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. and proceed with your testimony. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 4 070690, an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by adding a new Section 7 14-1632, entitled "Convention Center Expansion Area Special District Controls," under certain terms and conditions.
Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Acting Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 18 070690, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco on September 20, 2007. Bill No. 070690 creates a new section of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Convention Center Expansion Area Special District Controls." This bill will establish special land use 4 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. controls for the block bounded by Race Street, 13th Street, Arch Street and Broad Street in accord with the special character of this area in order to permit a large-scale development in the expansion district. This bill creates an overlay adding specific use of convention center to the permitted uses in the district. It further allows buildings on Broad Street to recede at points from the street line in order to create architectural recesses and allows for no 14 setbacks of the building to a height of 125 feet. The bill would also permit loading spaces and trash compactors in an area not totally enclosed, provided the area is located above the first floor of the building and obscured from direct street-level view. The controls would also allow for signage in the amount of 15 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage along a public street line, provided such signage is approved 5 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. by the Art Commission. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of October 16, 2007 considered and approved Bill No. 6 070690, understanding that this ordinance 7 would allow for the expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center, which represents a major investment of both public and private funds. The expansion would further allow the Convention Center to remain competitive in the convention center. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much, Mr. Kramer. Has the Planning Commission seen the proposed development plan for this site?
And do you like what you saw? 6 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
There have been suggestions back and forth. One of the concerns that was raised with the Commission was to make sure that the plans that we saw would allow for the possibility of future connection to the Broad Street Subway Line with a former station located at Broad and Race Street, and that plan, while they don't set up a connection to that station, which is currently not being used, it would not preclude a connection to that station in the future should we decide to reopen that.
Mr. Kramer, you state that the bill would allow for no setbacks of the building to a height of 125 feet. Would you please elaborate on that?
Yes, ma'am. What we're discussing there is, when you have -- at a 65-foot height, normally you 7 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. would have the building step back in order to preserve light and air. What this will do is will allow this building to be one single facade that is only 125 foot height, but won't step back from Broad Street, and that was considered appropriate given the type of building that this is.
Very well. Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Good morning. Welcome.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning, members of the Rules Committee, City Council President Verna. My name is Al Mezzaroba and I am 8 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. the President and CEO of the Pennsylvania Convention Center Authority. I want to thank you for the opportunity to testify on this bill, a zoning planning ordinance establishing special controls for the Convention Center Expansion Area bounded by 13th and Broad Streets between Arch and Race. I would like to thank the Zoning Unit of the Department of L&I, as well as the Planning Commission and the Law Department for working with us to prepare this ordinance. I would also like to thank Councilman DiCicco and his staff for introducing this zoning ordinance to facilitate the expansion of the Pennsylvania Convention Center. As Council is aware, the Pennsylvania Convention Center needs to expand dramatically in size to remain competitive with other major national convention destinations. The General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has budgeted $700 million in 9 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. public funds for this project, which, once completed, will enable the Pennsylvania Convention Center to accommodate the largest conventions and trade shows or host two major conventions simultaneously with one million square feet of saleable space, more than doubling the building's current size. The Center will also feature the largest convention ballroom space on the East Coast and a total of 87 meeting rooms. For customers, this means more available booking dates and flexible space. For the community, this means 2,000 new hospitality-related jobs equaling more than 150 million in regional economic impact annually. The Commonwealth is currently completing the acquisition of the expansion site properties and the demolition of existing buildings in anticipation of construction work on a new Center beginning in the spring of '08. 10 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Council previously passed ordinances authorizing the construction of an overbuild across 13th Street, authorizing the closure of several City streets in the expansion area and authorizing the transfer of City-owned fire station property to the expansion area. The expansion building has been designated to be compatible with the existing Center building and to comply in most respects with the existing C-4 and C-5 zoning districts affecting the site. No general zoning district can reasonably be expected to anticipate all of the special needs of a large-scale development such as a convention center. However, the purpose of the proposed ordinance is to establish a limited set of special controls that allow for a large-scale development such as the Convention Center Building on the expansion area site. First, this ordinance confirms 11 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. beyond question that a convention center with all its accessory components, exhibit halls, meeting rooms, ballrooms, et cetera, is a permitted use on the expansion area. The ordinance also establishes a number of prohibited uses which simply extend the prohibited uses of the Avenue of the Arts North Special District Controls to the entire expansion area site. Additionally, the ordinance 13 permits a limited set of more flexible dimensional controls that apply only to the building on lots with frontage on Broad Street, occupying 50 percent or more of the total area of the block and having 50 percent or more of the street frontage. These narrowly tailored special controls are needed to facilitate the appropriate development of the Convention Center expansion consistent with the comprehensive planning approach to the area surrounding the existing Convention 12 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Center. This concludes my testimony. Madam President, members of the Committee, I'd also like to introduce the gentleman to my left is Anthony Forte, who is a lawyer with Saul, Ewing and helped put together the overlay.
Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Welcome back. Are there any people of color or women involved in the transaction you just outlined, the effort you just 13 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. outlined?
At the moment there is not. We have one law firm, Saul, Ewing, dealing with the actual overlay and it's been done internally through my staff. As far as having a minority and a --
Yes. Minority, women opportunities, we are in the process of putting that together, and, in fact, I had a conversation before I came over here this morning with Ahmeenah Young. She's going to reach out to the Council President's office, and what we'd like to do is start briefing Councilmembers and staff on what our inclusive process and our affirmative action process is going to be, not only for the professional services but for 14 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. construction and what's going to happen after the building is expanded and open and the opportunities that are available.
That's helpful. And when is that scheduled to roll out?
We haven't scheduled it yet. I think we've just really completed. We're in the process of negotiating with the Commonwealth and the Administration on a new lease service agreement. As you may know, the Convention Center currently operates under a lease service agreement between the City of Philadelphia and the Authority. The state now, with putting in the whole $700 million plus, is going to take up a portion of the operational deficit. That lease service agreement needs to be amended, and we're in the process of negotiating that, and that 15 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. will come to Council. And that lease service agreement is what contained the initial diversity and affirmative action plans. So they will be updated as well. But what we'd like to do probably in the next couple of weeks after elections is basically get in front of staff and Councilmembers individually or as groups and give you an update on that as to where we're at.
Thank you. Any other questions? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. I was actually going to ask you a similar question as to Councilwoman Brown, but I just want to clarify this. One, with respect to the City's obligation, did you say the City will no 16 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. longer have any obligation to the operation of the Convention Center?
That's in the process of being negotiated, Councilman, and to be honest, we're negotiating for the Authority with the state. The Administration is negotiating directly with the Commonwealth. My understanding is is that it will be a capped amount, that there will be money paid, but it will be capped at, I believe, $15 million. The details of that I don't really know.
Okay. And the revenue debt required, the 700 million for the expansion, where is that revenue coming from?
Several years ago the Legislature put in the capital budget $700 million for expansion of the Convention Center. This past budget cycle they also agreed to allow $64 million a year for the next 30 years to be taken out of the Economic Development 17 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. and Tourism Fund from the gaming revenues. There's a five percent set-aside inside the gaming revenue law that sets up a statewide fund. Philadelphia will receive for the Convention Center a total of $64 million a year, most of which will be paid to pay off the debt service on the 700 million in bonds, and they'll be in excess of $6 million for any operational deficits that aren't covered by the City or revenues.
You said that the state was putting in the entire 700 million.
But you just said that the City's revenue from the gaming, the 64 million --
It's not the City's revenue. Inside the state legislation there's an Economic Development Fund that's set up on a statewide basis that gets five percent of all -- the gross of all 14 -- I think 18 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. there's 14 -- facilities.
That money will get to be spent throughout the state. Pittsburgh, I believe, got ten projects out of that. Philadelphia's project has been designated to be the Convention Center. So it's statewide funds coming from all venues being put into this 12 fund. And what the Legislature did in 13 this past budget cycle is give the 14 authority to the Governor to spend up to $64 million a year for this project out of that fund.
All right. But Philadelphia's portion goes towards the debt service on the Convention Center?
Philadelphia's portion of that expenditure goes towards the debt service 19 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. of the Convention Center?
I would argue that that is correct, that it's not General Fund dollars, it's gaming fund, that this would have been Philadelphia's portion. That is correct.
All right. In terms of timing, you indicated in your testimony that the likelihood of start of construction is next year, '08, spring of '08?
Spring of '08 we should start coming out of the ground, that's correct.
Based on the earlier discussion about the capital budget, that would not be affected if somehow the casinos revenue doesn't come in in a timely way? We can start?
The Philadelphia casinos? 20 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
That's correct. The way the structure of this deal is that state general obligation bonds are paying the 700 million. As the fund -- I believe it's called Economic Tourism and Development Fund. I could be wrong on the title. But on that state fund, we'll reimburse the Commonwealth at some point later. Like, for example, I believe there's like $22 million or $25 million in the fund as we speak, was the last update I had, which obviously wouldn't pay 64 million. But eventually they expect that to be up to about $170 million a year. Once that happens, they'll begin repaying the Commonwealth for what the Commonwealth has put out. But the fact that the casinos in Philadelphia or anywhere else aren't open yet should not and will not affect us going and starting in the spring.
At what point do you think that the lack of 21 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. revenue generated from the facilities, the proposed facilities in Philadelphia, may affect the ability to pay the debt service?
I can't answer that. I think that's more of a political question, because it's the Governor's call. For the most part, we're in the capital budget, and the capital budget is paid by the general obligation bonds of the state.
The Governor probably would say it's already affected it, if that's the case.
Correct. Because eventually -- and it's not set up whether it's going to be this year, next year or five years from now, the state will begin reimbursing itself for monies that's expended out of the General Fund. But the pledge we have right now from the Administration is that we will be fronted the money out of the regular capital GO bonds. 22 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
Getting back to the earlier question from the Councilwoman, you indicated that, what was it, the lease?
There's some question about whether or not local ordinances, particularly centered around some of the participation goals, can in fact be a part of any legislation dealing with the Convention Center. What's your interpretation with that?
Well, to be honest with you, I don't think it's going to matter to us whether it can or it can't. I think what we're going to do is include and take City Council's advice on it and include it in whatever our program is to be. I mean, I'm not going to take 23 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. a position whether you can or you can't. I think this is a major project within the City. The City has paid for it for almost years, and the City is going to 6 continue to put money into this, so I 7 think City Council should have a say in 8 what our program looks like. 9
Can you ask 10 your legal counsel to look at the fact 11 that we recently passed an ordinance in 12 City Council, it's called Equal 13 Opportunity Plan. 14
And any 16 legislation that deals with a certain 17 threshold -- and this clearly is above 18 that threshold -- in terms of project 19 size or purchase size must have an Equal 20 Opportunity Plan attached to it. So can you ask your counsel -- actually, you have your counsel sitting next to you -- to look at that to make sure that that in fact can be a part of the proposal that will be coming before us? 24 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
Absolutely, and our enabling legislation at the state level also requires us to have an inclusive and a diversity plan, and we've always had one. We've now updated it. We've hired Mason Tillman to do a disparity study so we can set goals for the actual construction. On top of that, we have a small business and non-race or gender-based programs as well. We've actually -- we've gone even a step further -- and, again, I'll wait until we have an actual update, and Ahmeenah knows this a lot better than I do. But we have an apprenticeship program which we feel will be more inclusive to help minorities and women and other people who haven't always had a shot at getting union apprenticeships and jobs into the cycle as well.
The 25 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. Please state again the name of the consultant that's been hired to do an assessment of this whole effort. Mason?
Right. We redid our diversity plan and a part of -- in the last ten years, a lot of the legal precedent that's come down, in order to set goals of any type that are either race or gender-based, you need a disparity study. You need someone that comes in and looks at this section of the state and says, There has been a disparity of X percent for certain groups of individuals. And we hired a company called Mason Tillman. I believe they're out of Georgia. The Commonwealth also had hired them to do a statewide study. But we felt that since Philadelphia is unique, that we needed to do a more in-depth one that's surrounding the five-county area. So that's what we did, 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. and we'd gladly make it -- we'll send it over, if you'd like to see it.
If you could forward that to the President, that would be great.
You learned of them because the state had already used their services?
Correct. We did an RFP and there were two companies, and to be honest, I don't remember the other company, and we chose Mason Tillman to do the study.
Okay. So in the information that you send to Madam President, it will also include background information on that particular company?
You're welcome. Mr. Mezzaroba, is there a need to suspend the rules today?
Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
28 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson then to please read the title of Bill No. 4 070680. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 6 granting permission to The Ivy Hill Cemetery Company to expand their cemetery or place of burial located at 1201 Easton Road.
Thank you. And the record will reflect that Councilman O'Neill has now joined the Committee. Mr. Kramer.
Good morning, Chairman Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Acting Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 070680, which was introduced by Councilmember Tasco on September 20, 2007. Bill No. 070680 allows 3.1 acres of land to be used as a cemetery. 29 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. This property is located adjacent to The Ivy Hill Cemetery Company and represents the expansion of the current cemetery. The land is currently vacant. The Ivy Hill Cemetery Company has met with the area civic association and presented detailed plans on two different occasions. The civic association has offered no objections to this proposal. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission will consider this matter at its meeting of November 20, 2007, with a staff recommendation for approval. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and we'd be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
Mr. Kramer, the property description states that it is a property, quote, "containing 3.1442 acres USS." Does that mean United States Survey? What does that mean?
Yes, ma'am. 30 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. There's a difference between -- as you look at the description, they have 3.14 acres USS --
Right, because of the Philadelphia district standard. It's a survey anomaly, and in Philadelphia, there's a district survey standard that's used. The survey district gentleman would be better able to explain it, but I know that it exists and there's a difference between U.S. standard and Philadelphia district standard. It is the basis why the Planning Commission requires that any survey plans that we get be reviewed by the District Survey Office to make sure that that discrepancy is taken care of.
Very well. Is the approval of this ordinance all that is necessary to allow 31 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. the use of the subject property as a cemetery or does the city or state require any special permits to operate a burial ground?
I am not aware of any state regulations in regards to this either way. The City does require that an ordinance of Council be instituted for any lands to be used as a cemetery. It's in the 14-1600 section of the Code. I believe 1601, if I'm correct.
Very well. Any questions from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.
Thank you, Madam President. Just quickly, Mr. Kramer. You 32 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. said the land is presently vacant. Do you know what it was at one time?
I'm not aware of what it's actually zoned. We didn't look into that at this point, in that when it was considered, regardless as to what it's zoned, with the passage of the bill, the zoning became immaterial.
No. I understand. I was just wondering the background of it; that's all. All right. Thank you.
Did you want to approach the witness table? Do you want to approach the witness table, identify yourself, and I don't know.
This is Sharon Losier, Legislative Aide for Councilwoman 33 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Tasco. There are some witnesses from the cemetery Board that are available for questions with respect to the previous use of the land.
Thank you. Do you mind approaching the witness table? Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Yes. May it please the Rules Committee, my name is Christopher Barber. I'm attorney for The Ivy Hill Cemetery Company, and also up here is David Drysdale, the Superintendent of Ivy Hill Cemetery Company, and Earline Barber, Jr., the President of Ivy Hill Cemetery Company, and we thank Mr. Kramer for his testimony. In essence, what we have here is, the cemetery is running out of space for burial. It's been -- the cemetery 34 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. was established in 1867. There is an ordinance that -- well, the Zoning Code, it's Chapter 14-1602 states that any new land would need to be, past 1886, would need to be approved by ordinance. And there is an adjacent lot approximately three acres in size that butts up right against the cemetery. It would be ideal. It is vacant. I believe it's zoned residential right now. And we have had two community meetings, and Attorney Losier was there as well. There's no 14 objection that we're aware of. They're in full support of it. We have -- if the Rules Committee would like to see a map, I can show them a larger map, and we have a small map we can give to you if you're interested. I'm happy to answer any questions.
You said it was zoned residential. Again, I certainly don't have a problem with this. 35 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. I was just wondering what was there before, if anybody knows; that's all. Maybe it's been too long that nobody remembers.
Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would then ask Mr. McPherson to please read --
Madam President, we would be asking for a suspension of the rules with respect to -- 36 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 9 070366, an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Zoning and Planning," by amending Section 12 14-102, entitled "Definitions," and creating a new Section 14-114 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sustainable Zoning," to require certain buildings to have a green roof, all under certain terms and conditions.
Prior to the start of this particular part of the hearing, I wanted to make sure that the members of the Committee and that the 37 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. people testifying understood that there is an intended amendment that I will be offering, which will change the building square foot area from 90,000 to 50,000 square feet and require that the building be no higher than five stories, and there's some other technical amendments, but the scope of the bill has changed a bit from 90 to 50. And people who are here to support the concept can explain issues relative to height of the building and effectiveness of the green roof as the building gets higher.
Yes, ma'am. Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am William Kramer, Acting Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 070366, which was introduced 38 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. by Councilmembers Kenney and DiCicco on May 3, 2007. Bill No. 070366 creates a new Section 14-114 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Sustainable Zoning." This bill 7 will require buildings that occupy a minimum area of 90,000, to be amended to 50,000, square feet to have a green roof for at least 75 percent of the eligible rooftop space regardless of the zoning designation in which it is located. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission at its meeting of October 16, 2007 considered Bill No. 070366 and recommended that Council table this bill. The Commission fully supports the concept of sustainable development. We believe that green roofs in general will be a valuable tool in helping to curb some existing urban woes such as the heat island effect and storm water management issues. However, it is believed that this bill represents an incremental approach to dealing with such an 39 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. important issue, which should be dealt with in a more comprehensive fashion. There is also a concern that a central location for sustainable development should be created within the Code so that all aspects of sustainable development would be addressed in one location within the Code. There have also been some technical concerns brought to our attention which should be addressed before applying this regulation citywide. Those technical concerns include concerns about the compatibility of requiring this type of roof on buildings containing certain uses, determining if the minimum area required for the placing of green roofs is appropriate, and taking a look at the possible unintended consequences of such an ordinance. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have. 40 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
Mr. Kramer, I don't know if you've seen Councilman Kenney's amendments.
Okay. I was just wondering if his amendments would address some of the technical concerns which you have indicated.
They may. Without having seen them, it's difficult to say for certain. However, recognizing that the square footage size is reduced was certainly one of the concerns that we had. One of the other concerns that was brought to the Planning Commission's attention was by making a requirement for a green roof on all buildings, there are certain industrial uses involved in the food-making process that there was a concern that microorganisms living on a green roof might somehow infiltrate into that process. I'm not the technician to 41 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. answer that definitively, but it was a concern that was raised to the Commission, and we have not had a chance to track that down scientifically to answer that one in particular. Additionally, by a green roof standard, the other concerns on unintended consequences is, this is the kind of thing that would require all roofs be flat as opposed to the Convention Center, which was just here, which is essentially barrel roofs. And there's a number of different options that are open to us, such as solar roofs, which are considered blue roofs, and white roofs, which have some of the same effects in terms of the heat island effect, which may not necessarily help the storm water management, but would in fact help the heat island effect of these types of roofs. To that end, the Planning Commission has in fact been working with a number of different groups that are hoping to set an 80 percent 42 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. reduction in the emissions in Philadelphia by 2050 and using a variety of different high-energy efficient roofing, including the green, white and the solar roofs. We were looking at the building capacity of the regional economy to support high-performance buildings, and we were trying to work with the other civic associations and working groups to increase the understanding of energy investments among the policymakers, the general public and the labor force. And, again, the Planning Commission at their meeting were certainly in support of the idea of having green roofs in the City. We think it's a large component of sustainable development and should be, but it shouldn't be the only thing that we do, and we're trying to put together a comprehensive plan to that end, and that's the reason that the Commission specifically advised me to request that it be tabled. 43 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. With all due respect, all of the recent environmental issues we've been talking about, either in the Committee on the Environment or here at the Rules Committee, the Administration has said they don't want to take an incremental approach. The problem with that is is that, number one, the passage of any of these bills does not prohibit an overall plan coming forward in the future and adjustments to existing legislation that attempts to get us in this direction. Secondly, I mean, I don't know what the Administration has been doing up until recently relative to sustainable designs, sustainable issues and environmental issues, but I haven't seen 44 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. anything coming from the Administration legislatively in eight years for us to consider and pass. So when we are talking about plug-in hybrids for residential use and those kinds of issues, I believe that nothing can't be changed if it's not working out, but in the mean time, if we wait for the overall comprehensive plan, I think you mentioned the year 2050, it's probably the time we'll get it done. So I would like to move forward with it. There's some expert witnesses here today that will talk about some of the issues that Mr. Kramer raised about all roofs having to be flat. That's not the case. Green roof technology has been in place in Europe now for probably 60, 70, 80 years, and in cities like Chicago, who have been at the forefront of this, it has worked very effectively and it's been a requirement for large big-box kind of development buildings. So I think we're way behind the 45 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. cutting edge. We're just kind of catching up here, and rather than wait for this big omnibus bill that's going to deal with all of our LEED and sustainable design issues, I would more like to try to replicate what's been successful around the country and the world rather than waiting for something big coming forward. So with that said, I would ask the panel to keep an open mind relative to our expert witnesses who can address a lot of the issues that have been raised. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Kramer. You'll remain, please.
Thank you. Oh, I'm sorry. Mr. Kramer. The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill. 46 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
Thank you. And I agree with what Councilman Kenney said. The world is passing us by as we are thinking of our big plan. My concern isn't whether we do it incrementally or do it in a more macro way, but that we do it. And the Charter would have never been changed if we were waiting for the big Charter change, since we don't seem to be able to get that done. But I also wanted to know, the one time that this Administration did step into an environmental building debate, I think they left with soot on their face, and I wanted to know if the Planning Commission was involved in that. This is the Comcast building that was held up because they wanted to put in no-flush urinals that had been in New York for several years and some other cities, and the big compromise led by the second floor was that, yeah, you can have no-flush urinals, but you have to put all the pipes in, which defeats the whole 47 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. purpose, so that if they ever don't work, we will be able to flush them. And Comcast had to eat an enormous expense because of that, and I'm sure the word traveled outside Philadelphia very quickly to the Comcasts of the world that want to build large buildings in big cities that we're still living in the last century. Comcast wanted to get that green certification badly enough that they were willing to spend millions of dollars extra, but I thought it was a disgrace for the City to lead that discussion. I just wanted to know what role the Planning Commission played in that.
The Planning Commission, while we did hear the Comcast building as an information only item, there was no zoning variance that I remember the Commission ever having considered. The Commission --
Do you weigh in on issues like this? 48 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Mr. Kramer, back when your Director was here and we were talking about the sewage tank issue up by Holy Family University, I said if we have a Planning Commission, get involved in the planning, weigh in at least, have a say, have a voice, be a Planning Commission. Don't just come and say, We're against this, we're carrying water with a message. We expect more from the Planning Commission to help us and help our citizens make decisions. And here again, I can't imagine the Planning Commission not wanting to put our best foot forward with any green building that someone is willing to offer to do. So you played no role at all?
We approved the plans for the Comcast Center. They came in. I was personally involved in reviewing the plans, and we approved them at the Planning Commission. The subject of the plumbing code and the urinals and whether they were waterless or watered 49 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. was not part of the review that the Planning Commission at that time was doing, because the review by Charter and what we are required to approve is the footprint and we're making sure that they meet the design requirements involved in C-5. As the Code exists today, there are not environmental concerns in the Zoning Code that we could utilize as a tool or a lever to implement the kinds of concerns. And I happen to agree with what you're saying. You're right. But where was the venue for the Planning Commission to make those comments? This was not a subject that was in a venue that the Planning Commission could make a contact one way or the other.
And you're here again with the same limitations. I respect your coming in here to bring a message, but this is an area I think we really have to lead in rather than follow or crawl. If we've got plans like this, we have to really take advantage of them. 50 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. And I understand the position the Planning Commission is often in. You work for a Commission that is appointed by the Mayor and often times takes action or inaction. It's not just this Mayor. I don't want to single this Mayor out in that regard. And hopefully with the new appointments that we'll have under the Charter change, it will have some impact in a positive way on this kind of thing. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Madam President, I don't necessarily have a question of Mr. Kramer and the Planning Commission. I have a couple of issues that need to be addressed representing a district that has a significant number of large-scale 51 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. developments in the planning stages, and as I hear the 50,000 square foot number, the first thing that popped in my mind is that we're in the midst of trying to put together a deal to do a 50,000 square foot supermarket and we have a significant funding gap, and the first thing in my mind is how much is this going to cost, how is it going to impact on that particular development. There are a number of large-scale developments proposed in the Center City portion of my district. How is that going to impact those developments? What's going to be the costs associated with providing green roofs? And I understand that Councilman Kenney on the sidebar told me that there are a number of witnesses to testify on some issues, but I'm a little concerned about that and what the responses would be from some of the developers that are proposing developments in my district, what's their sentiment, what's their 52 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. perspective on how this would impact on them. And I, frankly speaking, would like to have some sense of what -- and I don't know if the Planning Commission -- I assume you all interact on a consistent basis with anybody that comes in and wants to build a big building in Center City or somewhere in the district.
And I'd like to have a sense of what their mind set is as it relates to the impact of this proposal. Conceptually, I'm there. I've been there for a while. I had the pleasure, at the recommendation of Councilman Kenney, actually looking at some of the green roofs in Chicago. I actually looked at the Chicago City Hall, and it was quite impressive to see grasshoppers up on the roof of City Hall and bumblebees and flowers. It was like amazing. 53 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. So conceptually, I'm there, but I'm just concerned without having a clear sense of its impact, particularly financially, on some of these proposals. So it's not necessarily a question to anyone. I'm just throwing it out there, because that is something that I'm a little concerned --
Council, I think, will remember that we had passed the BPT tax credit for developers who put on green roofs, either voluntarily or required. That would be up to percent 19 of the project cost or up to $100,000 in 20 costs that would be covered as a BPT tax 21 reduction. 22 Additionally, developers are 23 now required to deal with state 24 regulations dealing with storm water 25 management. So there are requirements 54 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. that the state has that is imposed upon the developers now to manage their storm water more efficiently. There's a cost associated with that, and the green roof is one of the acceptable methods -- and the Water Department will talk about that hopefully -- one of the acceptable methods of dealing with storm water runoff. So there are state mandates already in place for this storm water issue, and what we're trying to do is to give them some additional tax credit towards complying with state regulations and all the other environmental positive impacts that the green roof would bring. So I just wanted to make sure in the context of the discussion on cost that that was understood. Thank you.
Thank you, Councilman. And, actually, another issue that I may have some concerns about since you reference the storm water management, 55 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. something that I guess the Administration implemented a year or so ago, requirement of storm water management proposal in the City of Philadelphia. We clearly were not prepared in terms of staffing and regulatory process, and it has impacted us dramatically in terms of moving projects through the process in a negative way. And I would like to, if in fact we implement this particular proposal, that prior we do that, we make sure that the necessary regulatory processes and staffing are in place to ensure that we don't end up where we were with this whole storm water management issue. I think recently we were up at the Pennsylvania Housing Finance Agency. We had submitted a significant number of projects to be funded by the state on affordable housing projects, and we were told by the state that Philadelphia was not going to be given any funding in this particular round, and the sole basis for 56 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. that is because of the projects that had funding commitments from prior months and prior Board hearings had not moved. And when we determined what the problem was in terms of those projects moving in a timely way, it all pointed to our inability to adequately move the storm water management process. And so it cost us significant amounts of dollars at the state level for affordable housing. So I would like to make sure that if this program is implemented, that we're in a position to adequately address the requirements as it relates to that.
One other comment on cost. The most cost-effective time to implement a green roof technology is at the construction of the building. It is more expensive to retrofit a building. 57 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. That's what was the reason for the tax credit. But when you are building a new building, it is significantly less expensive to implement that in your design and construction than it is to retrofit. So this particular bill would be for all new constructed buildings. And, again, our experts from the green roof world will kind of illuminate us on all those issues. Thank you.
Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.
Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Kramer, does there currently exist a subcommittee of the Planning Commission that is, in a very strategic or comprehensive way, talking about sustainability and greening and all that that means? 58 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
Yes, ma'am, there are. Part of our Strategic Planning, our Long-Term Planning Division, there are members of that unit that are working not solely by themselves but working with other groups to try to put together a whole energy coalition for sustainable development. Yes, ma'am.
It's at least a year old, maybe a little longer. The gentleman there would know. I'm not certain exactly when they went into play, but at least a year, maybe more.
And when they first sat down, did they put an end date in mind for the completion of a report as such?
I'm not certain of that. I'd have to ask Mr. Haak of our office for that.
He's working in our Strategic Planning Division and he's leading the sustainable development process. He's pretty much our environmental -- one of our environmental long-term gentlemen. He would know the dates. I know that it's an ongoing process. It's not something that they said at the end we're going to have a project or a paper done by 2007, 2008. That's not what they're doing. They're working as a process to both understand exactly what they need to do, determine the best policies to do it and educate and bring everyone along at the same time. And so they do have some long-term goals, but they're long-term goals, not necessarily something for the immediate future.
So I'm 60 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. really trying to make a connect between the Administration's request to push the pause button and the interest and energy of the Environment Committee to move along. Isn't it possible we could have two tracks of activity here while the Planning Commission does what it needs to do, we on the Environment Committee proceed with the interests that we have?
It certainly is a possibility. I would hope that we could work together to do that together.
And by that, you mean what? Inviting us to those meetings or inviting you all to our meetings, or what?
I would think both ways would work. I would imagine I will speak to Mr. Haak when I get back to my office, and I'm certain that he would be willing to extend an invitation to any member of Council for that.
Well, we're going to make a formal request that 61 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. he extends a formal invitation to the Councilmembers who will be interested in those discussions.
You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. On that comment or that request, I would echo Councilman O'Neill's earlier comments, that there are 68 days left in this Administration. There's a Charter change that has substantially changed that will change the makeup of the next Planning Commission, and we could be talking another year at least before we could really start implementing these kinds of policies and these kinds of ordinances, and I'm just really not willing to wait 62 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. that long. And, again, I will reiterate the fact that we can change anything that doesn't work and we can also fold in a comprehensive plan when it comes to the existing things that we're doing now. I don't believe we should actually be waiting and talking some more. I mean, I don't mind continuously talking, but I don't think the talk should hold up what we're trying to do. Thank you.
Thank you. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Gail Harrity from the Philadelphia Museum of Art.
Good 63 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. morning. Welcome. Nice seeing you.
Thank you very much. Good morning. I'm pleased to be here this morning. I'm Gail Harrity, the Chief Operating Officer of the Philadelphia Museum to Art, and I am very pleased to be testifying in favor of Bill 9 070366 introduced by Councilmembers Kenney and DiCicco, and I will also say I'm delighted to be presenting very briefly the Museum's landscaped sculpture garden and parking garage project this morning. I want to make it a point of thanking Councilmembers Darrell Clarke and Bill Greenlee for supporting this project from its conception, and, in fact, thank you to Madam President for your support. This project has been a green project from the start. It was conceived as a green roof project, and it is perhaps the feature of the project, which has transformed a parking garage into an added parkland and a new amenity for the 64 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. neighbors and the citizens of Philadelphia to enjoy. I want to present a few slides on the project just to briefly describe the project, and then I'd be happy to answer any questions. Actually, just beginning here with the history of the project, you see the Museum, the aerial view, and the parking garage site is right here. It has an interesting history in terms of its environmental aspects, because when the Museum was first built in the 1920s, it was built on a reservoir and the excavated rock from the construction in the '20s was reused to create terracing around the Museum. The excess boulders that were excavated were put in this area, creating a man-made hill. So for the last 60 or 80 years, that hill has served the park well. Now, our project is to reexcavate this area, removing the boulders once again, and they will be -- 65 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. when the garage is completed, the boulders, as in the 1920s, will be reused to increase the landscaping around the garage. So we are reusing the boulders and the topsoil from the site. Again, looking at an aerial view, the site of the garage is right here. You can see very -- I hope you can see clearly that what was an extension of Fairmount lot and a surface lot, which previously provided -- was a blacktop part of the park providing surface parking for about 80 cars will now be replaced with a garage that has -- that not only creates additional green space for the park but provides parking for 440 cars. When the project is complete, there will be a net reduction of impervious cover as compared to the original surface lot. The project also significantly enhances the connections between Kelly Drive and the Schuylkill River Park for 66 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. bicyclists and pedestrians, eliminating the surface lot, which was really an impediment for easy access. Bikers and joggers had to run through a crowded parking lot. Going forward, they will be running through parkland. Here is an overview again of the project that are designed by Atkin Olshin Schad and Olin Partners. I hope you can see it clearly. There are two entrances. This is the west facade of the Museum, the Italian Foundation. There's an entrance into the garage from the Italian Fountain and from Art Museum Drive. What you can see a little bit here are these long spaces, which are the ventilation troughs, which allow the project to be naturally ventilated; therefore, using no energy in exhausting the garage. You can see a corner of it here and a long section of the areaway in this location. The majority that -- the roof, 67 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. as you see, is a green roof. It's hard to determine where the park ends and the project begins. The sculpture garden terrace on top of it is officially labeled an intensive green roof, meaning that it has deep soils to support large tree growth and human activity, and the majority of the rain falling on the roof terrace will be absorbed in the soils and will not run into the storm water system. Again, the project then has been very beneficial to storm management.
You'll see here there's a small pavilion and -- it's very hard to see in this picture, but a small pavilion which rises up, giving people using the lot access to the west entrance to the Museum, to the Perelman Building across Kelly Drive or to the future reopened entrance to the Museum, which is part of our future master plan. This slide gives you another image, a section view, of the underground garage. You see four stories of parking 68 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. here and three stories there, and on either side of the garage is a deep trough that allows, as I said earlier, for natural ventilation of the garage. This enables us to have not only a beautiful park setting above, it removes the need for any mechanical equipment, which would either provide noise pollution or just an unsightly aspect of the project, and it's, therefore, respectful of the park setting and of the neighbors, who don't want to overlook that equipment or hear the mechanical systems operating. Again, another close image just again showing you the system right here. And then a few images of the project. Again, you see these huge boulders, which are being reused in the project. And the construction is underway. We anticipate that the project will be complete in the spring of '09, and the hillside will be replanted and richly replanted, restoring the original 69 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. height. And I think that the aspects of the project are really spectacular from our perspective because not only does it transform parkland into revitalized space, but it does add this new amenity of an outdoor sculpture garden for the public to enjoy. I think it also addresses a very significant need by Museum visitors, park users and the neighborhood to provide additional parking and, as I have said, without paving over parkland. It rejoins -- it allows us to rejoin significant elements of the park from the Museum down through the Azalea Garden, and it provides spectacular new views of the river, of the Water Works, the Boat House and the Italian Fountain, Reilly Memorial and the like. So just in sum, I would say we are very pleased with the project. It's running on time and on budget, and it will reduce the runoff of valuable rainwater by removing impervious asphalt 70 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. and providing permeable planted areas. It reduces the size of storm water infrastructure required to carry away any rainwater. It provides a ventilation system through areaways, providing free flow of fresh air, and it reuses the existing boulders to create the planting terraces and the screen, which disguise and prevent from view the open ventilation system. With that, there are just a few renderings of what the project will look like at its completion. Here is a view from Kelly Drive. When trees are in full foliage, you'll see very little aspects of the garage, and, again, it should not alter the view from the Italian Fountain to the Museum. You see the project just ever so slightly here on the left. And, lastly, here is the glass pavilion, which will also have a green roof, that provides access for parkers to the west entrance to the Museum and to the Perelman Building across the street. 71 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. So I could answer any questions, but I'd just like to reiterate we're pleased to present the project before you and pleased to testify in favor of the bill.
Thank you. Well done, as usual. Any questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you very much. MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is the Philadelphia Water Department.
Good morning. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Good morning. Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am Bernard Brunwasser, Commissioner of the Philadelphia Water Department, and 72 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. I'm here today to testify on Resolution 3 No. " With me today on my right is Mr. Steve Furtek, who is our General Manager for Planning and Engineering and also serves as our Chief Engineer, and to my left is Mr. Howard Neukrug, who is the Director of our Watersheds Program. The Council's interest in green infrastructure and sustainability practices is strongly supported by the Water Department. As you know, we are charged with the management of the City's programs for combined sewer overflow, storm water management and source water protection. These programs have been fully integrated into a watershed management-based approach that uses land, waterway infrastructure and sustainability practices to support policies and programs targeted to protect our drinking water supply and the 73 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. propagation and protection of fish and wildlife habitat. Our watershed protection strategies focused on our water resources are designed to complement the region's green development practices, recreation, ecotourism and sustainable riverfront redevelopment efforts. Green roofs help keep storm water out of our sewers by using the building's roof to mimic nature's roles of evapotranspiration, storage and filtration of rainwater. Green roofs provide a green community amenity while supporting our overall goal to eliminate threats of flooding and sewer overflows, and it does so in a manner that limits the cost and disturbance of subsurface tank or pipe solutions to these same problems. Green roofs also provide other significant community and environmental benefits such as urban heat island reduction, air quality improvement, 74 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. reduction of greenhouse gases, improved energy efficiency, habitat improvement and community greening. These goals are well aligned with the City's overall sustainability strategies. Beginning January 1, 2006, the City of Philadelphia began requiring storm water management on any development or redevelopment project that results in an earth disturbance greater than 15,000 square feet. The new rules are complicated, but, in essence, we are looking toward the development community to help return their developed land to as close to natural storm runoff conditions as is practical. As part of our program to encourage green solutions in new building designs, we consider a building with a green roof to have met the base water quality requirements for the project, which typically exempts the project from other provisions of the regulations. As a result of this green light 75 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. on green roofs, we are seeing more and more green roof projects coming to the City for the permit review process. To date, we have approved over four acres of green roofs in the last months in the 7 City of Philadelphia. We expect many 8 more in the coming years. 9 As many of you know, the Water 10 Department will be seeking your support 11 in redefining how we charge our customers 12 for managing the City's storm water 13 runoff. Our new system will calculate 14 for non-residential customers the amount 15 of impervious cover each property has and 16 will use that property characteristic as 17 a surrogate for determining the amount of 18 runoff, reflecting the true cost of service for that property for storm water management. Included in that new charging plan will be an incentive for large impervious land owners to convert to green water storm water management practices. Green roofs are to be an 76 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. important part of this new charging strategy.
In conclusion, the Water Department endorses the concept of encouraging green roofs as part of a larger environmental policy that encourages sustainable strategies for storm water management on all development and redevelopment projects, and recommends installation of green roofs when they are the appropriate technology for the given site conditions. Green roof systems can better replicate the natural hydrologic cycle and have the potential for better long-term function due to the continually growing and self-repairing nature of living systems. The Water Department is strongly supportive of a move toward increasing the green roof canopy in the City of Philadelphia. We have several mechanisms to provide incentives to land owners, city properties and new 77 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. development to consider a transition to green roofing technology. We believe that we will be seeing significant growth in the green roof business in the City of Philadelphia, employing designers, contractors and new roof maintenance companies. Green roofs are not the only vegetated storm water management alternative available for developers. While they are among the better alternatives for a large building with limited property area, there may be alternatives to manage the building's storm water runoff in a vegetated system that would provide a hydrologically and environmentally equivalent solution. In conclusion, we encourage the City Council to continue working in this area, and we look forward to working with Council to encourage additional alternative green approaches to meet our common environmental goals. 78 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Thank you for listening to my testimony. I'm ready to answer any questions you may have.
Thank you very much, Commissioner. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. Let me try to paraphrase what you said about the storm water charging that you're going to begin to implement. Is it fair to say that if I were a developer building a 50,000 or larger five-story or less building, flat roof, just for argument's sake, that the installation of the green roof could potentially save me money in my storm water management charges under a newly implemented menu of charges? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That's correct.
Do we know or have we been able to calculate what 79 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. those new charges might be on a building 50,000 square feet and two stories tall? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: We have not -- we don't have it in that format and we may be able to get an estimate together later, but for an example -- for example, we could say we have two identical parcels and two virtually identical developments and one developer does a green roof and maybe some other beneficial ways of dealing with storm water runoff to the extent that he avoids 50 percent of the runoff of that parcel, and the other parcel theoretically has no special storm water amenities. The first developer will pay 50 percent less in storm water each month than the other one. It's really going to be based on the large parcels in the City, on their potential contribution to our system.
Now, whether it's green roof or not, you've 80 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. also said that the state has required us to enforce their storm water runoff regulations, that they would have to do something anyway to mitigate the runoff. If it's not a green roof, they would have to implement other technologies, underground storage tank, whatever those other options are available, they would have to implement something anyway? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct.
And that the green roof in new construction is probably the most cost-efficient and effective way of handling that problem. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: It may well be. You know, obviously everything -- the devil is in the details. There may be something else that they could do, but clearly when the building itself takes up the vast majority of the parcel, green roof becomes more and more the answer, I think. 81 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
And the other issue is is as it comes to large flat developments, 50,000 square feet or more, they are probably the biggest contributors in a storm situation to the conditions that we find in South Philadelphia, for example. And I have to believe that when there was some impervious empty vacant land on Columbus Boulevard south of Washington Avenue, that a lot of that rain went elsewhere other than in our storm system, and that once the advent of Home Depot, Lowe's, IKEA and so on, that rain that hits those roofs are going directly from downspouts into our storm system. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Councilman, we would have to actually see which way the storm water drains. I mean, theoretically, we know that some of it may drain directly to the river and there may be some that drains into an existing system.
But what 82 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. drains into the river is what hits the ground, not the roof of the building, correct? Anything that hits the roof of the building is going down a downspout into the storm drain? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That's correct, yes.
So if we took the cumulative square feet of the South Philadelphia retail development down there, when all the buildings are completed, potentially many, many more thousands and thousands of gallons are going into the storm drains that need to be managed and cleaned and processed and also potentially backing up into neighborhoods, into residential neighborhoods, west of the development; is that fair? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes. That's true prior to our new ordinance -- I mean, I shouldn't say ordinance. Our new regulations in 2006, yes.
Thank you. Any other questions? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. I just want to make sure I understand this. Currently, under the current storm water management program, you basically give people several options, but at the end of the day, what is it, the first inch of water must be maintained -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes.
-- on the property before it goes into the system? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: On site, yes.
So that could be using tanks, that could be using grass. What are the options? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, infiltration -- go ahead, Howard. 84 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.
There are a whole bunch of methods, whether it's underground storage and release or detention basin or green roof or trees or some combination of different methods of capturing, treating and then releasing or infiltrating the storm water.
All right. So the green water -- I'm sorry. This green is starting to get to me. The storm water management program currently requires you use a number of options to deal with the first inch of storm water, and currently one of those options is green roofs?