Committee Hearing, October 30, 2007

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?

Yes, we have.

And do you like what you saw? 6 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.

Yes, ma'am.

Okay.

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.)

Thank you, Mr. Kramer.

Thank you.

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.

Good morning. Welcome.

Good morning.

Are there any questions or comments from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.

Good morning. Good morning.

Good morning, Councilwoman. How are you?

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?

The overlay effort?

Yes.

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 --

And/or a woman.

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 --

The sit-down with Madam President.

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 very much.

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.

They are.

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.

Right.

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?

I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.

Philadelphia's portion of that expenditure goes towards the debt service 19 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. of the Convention Center?

Correct.

So we are in the mix.

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.

Yes.

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?

Service agreement?

Service agreement. That comes before City Council?

Yes.

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

Yes. 15

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.

Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

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.

Yes.

So they're out of Georgia and --

I believe they're out of Georgia, yes.

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?

Sure. 27 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.

Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. Mr. Mezzaroba, is there a need to suspend the rules today?

Yes, there is.

Thank you. Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Thank you very much.

Thank you, Madam President. Thank you.

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 --

There's a discrepancy in the amount of acreage.

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.

So with the passage of this ordinance --

Is required for any land to be used as a cemetery.

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?

No, sir, I do not.

Do you know what it's zoned?

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.

There are some witnesses that are --

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.

Nothing. There are just trees and woods.

But it's zoned residential. Okay.

Okay. Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Gentlemen, thank you very much.

Thank you.

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.

And we'll be happy to consider it. Thank you.

Thank you.

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.

Madam President?

Yes. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

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.

Very well. Mr. Kramer, are you testifying?

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.

No, ma'am, I have not.

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.

Yes, ma'am.

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.

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.

Anywhere in the City, yes, sir.

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 --

Madam President, point of information.

Yes, sir.

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.

Madam President, just one other comment.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

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.

How old is that committee?

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.

Mr.?

John Haak, 59 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. H-A-A-K.

And he is the?

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.

That would be fine.

Okay. Thank you.

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.)

Mr. Kramer, thank you.

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.)

Again, thank you very much, Gail.

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. 83 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.

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?

That's correct. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct. And, Councilman, you had made mention earlier about the length of time it takes to get storm water approval. I know we've spoken on the issue many times for various projects. It is --

Is Progress Plaza okay, by the way? Are we okay 85 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. about Progress Plaza? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I believe so. They tell me it's fine. But you can understand that in many cases, some of these parcels have a difficult time in meeting those regulations, because they are pretty tough compared to what we used to have, and it takes us in some cases, on the very complex projects, a very long time, many engineering hours to review these things to see whether the architect or engineer on the project has properly handled the storm water, and that's what's been keeping things from moving very speedily along. Some projects go through very quickly. And also there's been a learning curve since the new regulations came in. And some engineering firms out there that do this work, they're relatively new to it and others are very experienced and understand what we need to see when we see their plans. 86 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.

Right. So, in effect, if this bill passes and gets implemented, anything above 50,000 square feet, you will basically have to do green roofs for storm water management, five stories or less and 50,000 square feet or more. Then that will essentially eliminate all of the other alternatives, because it doesn't make sense, from my perspective, if I have to do a green roof, why would I do a green roof and a tank or some other infiltration system. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right. I mean, we would have to look at each project individually to make sure that it meets our need. I mean, you could have a 50,000 square foot roof but have a parcel of six acres or something, and that would go a long way to helping you meet your burden, but perhaps not entirely. So it all depends on the individual project.

So you could conceivably have to do two types of 87 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. systems to accommodate -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes, I believe that is conceivable, because we've had projects that have used porous paving, for example, but still had to do something about the roof.

So we currently deal with multiple types of strategies for some projects? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Correct.

Okay. This is an interesting issue. I just want to make sure I understand it.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.

Commissioner, did you say, as I understood in your testimony, that where appropriate, in an appropriate development -- and I believe the appropriate development at this point is a 50,000 square foot building, five stories or less -- that the green roof is 88 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. the most direct and cost-efficient way to meet those standards as opposed to underground tanking or anything else? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I don't think we can say without exception, but it certainly would probably be that way. You know, I'd be glad to cede it to either of my colleagues here.

Well, I can't really answer your question directly, but I can say that the green roof certainly provides other benefits beyond storm water, that to the City of Philadelphia it may be beneficial to consider this legislation for green roofs because of other things in addition to the storm water management. If you place storm water management as the sole reason for doing this, then you may be able to find other cost-effective -- more cost-effective ways to approach this, but if you consider everything, green roofs and the legislation does make some sense.

Again, I 89 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. believe we're being fair in this regard because we have provided the tax credit for the BPT, which is a substantial amount of money, one hundred thousand dollars. It will go a long way to cover a lot of the cost of the green roof. So I think we're not trying to put the burden on the developer entirely. But thank you for your testimony.

The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.

Thank you, Madam President. "Where appropriate" is a big term. So what becomes the factors or criteria that drive the decision to do the green roof in addition to the specs outlined by Councilman Jim Kenney? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well I mean, without getting into the bill, what I would say is that the Water Department is not in the position to direct people as to which way to meet 90 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. their storm water burden. So it is up to them to figure out how they capture that first inch of rainfall, and then we have to go through all their calculations and all their factoring and make sure that their plan will do that. We don't want to impose ourselves into -- as the Water Department, we don't want to impose ourselves into how a developer does this. As long as they do it in a legal manner, a proper manner and it has the end result of reducing storm water flow off of their property, then we're generally happy.

Okay. So then you're saying, then, that the role of the Water Department is to ensure that whatever the developer has outlined clearly meets the test of sufficient or adequate storm water management? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Exactly.

All right, then. Thank you for your testimony. 91 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.

Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)

Thank you very much, Commissioner. MR. McPHERSON: Our next panel of witnesses are Vince Muller, Mark Masters, Jeff Jabco, Charlie Miller, Melissa Muroff.

Good morning. Welcome. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.

I guess I'll go first, Madam. My name is Vincent Muller. I'm the Executive Director of the Friends Center located at 15th and Cherry Street, and we're very happy to be here today testifying in favor of this bill. Would the other members like to identify themselves first.

I'm Mark Masters. I'm the owner of the Fencing Academy of 92 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Philadelphia on Lancaster Avenue, and I am enthusiastically testifying for this bill, and I believe I am the owner of the oldest green roof in Philadelphia. If not, perhaps one of the older ones in the whole country, covering a large flat area. It's not as large as this proposal. It's about a little over 3,000 square feet. But I have ten years now of having had a green roof.

I'm Jeff Jabco. I'm Director of Grounds at Swarthmore College. I'm in charge of sustainability issues for Swarthmore College, and presently we have two green roofs and two more in the planning stages.

I'm Melissa Muroff. I'm one of the principals of Roofscapes. We're a green roof engineering firm and green roof provider.

Who is going to testify first? Please do.

So far, the focus 93 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. of the discussion seems to have been on the storm water management issue. I have found since I've had my green roof -- and I couldn't give you exact numbers -- a definite reduction in air conditioning costs. The roof covers my building. Fencers work hard when they're training, and having that roof protect the facility inside has definitely made it cooler. My apartment actually overlooks my green roof. So my green roof is my backyard. And the kind of sunlight that's normally reflected off of a green roof would be heating up my apartment in the summer, and once I had the green roof, it dramatically reduced the amount of heat that was reflecting into my apartment. My building was not built to have a green roof. It was a retrofit two years after the construction. The owner of Roofscapes came to me. His daughter was at my academy and said, I'd like to do this so we could have some place to 94 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. begin to show America what can be done with a green roof. I heard about it for a long time. I took the chance that this was something that would work, that could be done, and I've been promoting it and testifying and touring people in my green roof sort of ever since. I think we should move as quickly as possible. Eight years ago I was down in Washington to testify before a Senate subcommittee hearing on putting green roofs on federal buildings, and we know how many federal buildings have green roofs. So anything we can do to move it forwards. One particular observation that I have that, again, nobody has discussed in the construction costs or anything like that is, I've been able to compare the cost of maintaining my green roof and the cost of maintaining a regular flat roof, which I have on my apartment, which is about 1,500 square feet. In the last ten years that I've had my green roof, 95 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. I've had to spend close to $10,000 just in normal maintenance for my apartment's flat roof. I have spent no money maintaining my green roof and 3,000 square feet, and that's another issue. The roof is protected by the green roof. So the under-membrane, which is normally abused by weather, sun effects and all that kind of thing, it's much cheaper. So even if there's a greater initial cost in the installation, it's going to be recouped over a period of time in reduced maintenance costs on the roof itself. And any chance of making that BPT tax a little retrograde?

Thank you. Councilwoman Brown, did you want to ask --

Just one. Where are you located on Lancaster Avenue?

3519 Lancaster, maybe a half block up from the CEC. 96 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.

Sure. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. Our next witness.

Vince Muller again from Friends Center. Friends Center is a three-building complex located between 15th Street and Mole Street on the west and between Race and Cherry Street on the south, Race Street on the north, Cherry Street on the south. We're about to embark on a huge renovation of two of the three buildings on our complex. One of them is a newer office building from 1972 and one is the national historic landmark Meeting House from 1856. Both buildings are the object of the renovation. And the vegetated roof of 9,500 square feet that we've installed, which I believe is the biggest one in Philadelphia now, was installed only in June. So we haven't had a lot of experience with it yet, but our main 97 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. reasons for installing a vegetated roof were to help out with Philadelphia's storm water management problem, which we're all aware of the single pipe issue and what that means. But also part of this installation of the green roof was prefaced by installation of a brand new weather roof, which cost us almost $390,000, and that's not something that we want to have to replace in years. 12 We'd rather replace it in 75 years. And 13 that's what putting a green roof on top 14 of a conventional roof can do, a new 15 conventional roof. 16 The folks who we consulted with 17 have explained that we can expect up to 18 three times the life of our new roof as a 19 result of putting a vegetated roof over 20 top of it. So although that's hard to quantify from year to year in the short term in dollars and cents, down the road that is going to save the owner quite a bit of money. Also, the vegetated roof 98 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. provides a very positive insulation effect. Now, again, we haven't had it long enough to be able to evaluate our heating bills and our cooling bills, but we expect the combination of the new weather roof and the vegetated roof on top of it would only enhance the insulation capabilities of our building. We found that the vegetated roof costs about $85,000 to install. So it's somewhat less than $10 a square foot. And I imagine as you install the weather roof on -- or the vegetated roof on larger surfaces, that price will go down. Somebody want to ask a question?

Yes. We were kind of chatting here about cost and then you said it and I kind of missed it. You said it was like $10 a square foot?

Or less. Our roof was about 9,500 square feet and the total cost was 87,000 and change. So I think 99 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. that works out to less than $10 a square foot.

And you've been advised that the larger the roof gets, the more the price goes down?

Well, I haven't been advised to that effect, but that would seem to be only reasonable to assume, because you're going to have economies of scale in the installation process with a larger roof that you don't have with a smaller one.

Thank you.

If you have any questions, I'll be glad to answer them. (No response.)

Thank you. Our next witness to testify.

Once again, I'm Jeff Jabco, Director of Grounds at Swarthmore College. I do have some images of our green roof if you'd like to look at them while I give testimony. 100 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC.

Please.

At Swarthmore College we presently have two extensive green roofs. Our first one was an experimental 630 square foot storage building installed in 2002 and the second one, a 5,000 square foot roof of a student residence hall that was installed in 2004. Both of these roofs were installed on new construction to accomplish multiple goals that many of them have already been outlined. Reducing storm water runoff by providing peak rate reduction and storm water volume reduction; Improving quality of storm water that does run off, which would have the effect of reduction in the acid rain effect. That is, our rainfall tends to be fairly acidic and after the rainfall does pass through a green roof, it's close to neutral; Energy savings in summer on the 101 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. cooling costs for the residence hall. This is our first residence hall that we're planning on using all through the summer, so we wanted to have energy savings from the green roof on that; The cost savings because of prolonging the life of the roof's waterproof membrane. The membrane that was installed on the roof would have a guaranteed life of to years, and we 12 feel that we should be able to get three 13 times the life of that roof. So already 14 the cost of the green roof should pay for 15 the reroofing that we would not have to do. And one of the things that goes along with that is, we would have less waste deposited in landfills or the incinerators by reducing the roof replacements or the frequency of roof replacements. There also is a reduction in urban or suburban heat island effect due to the transpiration of the plants on the roof and the evaporation from the growing 102 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. media. You would also have filtration of airborne pollutants from a green roof that you wouldn't have on a traditional roof. Also, by having more green plants, they help to tie up the excess carbon dioxide that's generated from burning of fossil fuels, which is really important in our cities and suburban areas. An increased song bird and insect habitat, and then purely the beauty of the green roof as opposed to looking out onto a roof membrane. We also have the additional benefits at Swarthmore College that we have students who are interested in learning about environmental issues and environmental technology that they have direct access to the roofs for study and further research. Green roofs are now part of Pennsylvania Storm Water Best Management Practices Manual, which is published by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection's Bureau of 103 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Watershed Management, and they're accepted as part of the required storm water management plan by many local municipalities. Swarthmore College's residence hall green roof cost $10 a square foot, and that was for design, purchase and installation of the roof. The plants on the green roof are six species of sedum; Allium, which is flowering onion; Dianthus, which are carnations; ornamental grasses; asters; and ice plant. Estimate maintenance requirements are slightly more than the DEP's listed amount of three manhours per 1,000 square foot annually, and that is because of really maintaining this roof as a showplace and a garden, almost every week we have tour groups of architects, engineers and potential end users of green roofs coming to see our green roofs. Because of the environmental and aesthetic benefits, as well as the 104 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. economic benefits, Swarthmore College hopes to construct two more green roofs in the next two to three years, one on the second phase of the new residence hall, which is under construction now, and we hope to install that roof next summer, and another green roof on our existing Performing Arts Center, which was built in 1991. We would retrofit a green roof on that. And built in 1991, the roof is beginning to fail.

The membrane is beginning to fail on it, so it needs to be reroofed, so we would hope to do a green roof on that one, and that one is about 29,000 square feet. We always welcome visitors onto our green roof, and we would invite any of you to contact me to come and see our green roof, and we also give monthly tours to the public of our green roofs. Thank you.

You're welcome. The Chair recognizes Councilman 105 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. Kenney.

I thought I heard you say that the annual maintenance requirements is three manhours per year?

Three manhours per thousand square feet, and that's the estimate from the DEP in their manual.

Okay. Thank you.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you. I actually wanted to ask a question around maintenance, because I have a backyard that I have tried everything imaginable to keep the weeds from growing. I mean, I put the tarp down, I put the mulch on top of it, and it keeps coming through, and I'm out there every Saturday with my weed whacker. How do you maintain this? How do you keep the grass or the weeds from growing? Do you physically have to have 106 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. somebody out there?

Well, one of the nice things about a green roof, because of the engineered soil that's in it, it's a very porous light soil mix, so it holds a certain amount of water, but also is free draining. And the plants that are selected for it can handle those types of conditions and are very good at taking up rainfall when it comes. But the roof is essentially self-weeding, so any dry spell that we have, any of the weed seeds that blow into it, essentially those young weeds would die because they can't handle the dry conditions that the roof would get, but the sedums are just fine with that.

So there is a process that I can use in my backyard other than a weed whacker that will help kill the weeds; is that what you're telling me?

Yup. It all depends on the soil, the soil getting 107 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. very dry in between the rainfalls, and that would kill the weeds.

All right.

I don't really do any maintenance on my roof.

How does that work?

Whatever blows in I let grow there. I've had trees start, and, well, okay, let's take those out, because we don't want a tree growing on the roof, but that's five minutes. Grasses blow in. My air conditioners drain on top of the roof, so where I get air conditioner draining, it's like you're in the desert and you'll find a spring, which has taller grasses by it. And I don't really worry about any maintenance. When the roof was first installed, I had an aphid problem. By the time the installer could get a solution for the aphid problem, ladybugs had already arrived and taken care of the 108 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. aphids. I just leave it as a natural environment.

You have to excuse my ignorance on this issue. I live in the section of town, they have these little things called Philadelphia trees, and some people may know what I'm talking about. They just like -- I don't know where they come from. They grow up. They start out like little things. You just ignore them, and a year and a half later, they're like a tree. Is it something in the soil or can you aerate it that will prohibit those? Because I'm saying, I'm sure you don't want to have a tree on your roof. It's one thing to have grass. I just honestly don't know.

Councilman, on, I think it was referred to, as a thin green roof, there's only about three and a half inches of aggregate to grow in, so a large tree is not going to sprout up up there. And Roofscapes, who we also 109 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. worked with in the design of our roof, allowed for about $2,400 a year in various kinds of maintenance, which might include weed removal, if necessary, or Philadelphia tree harvesting, if necessary. But it's not a lot of work, believe me. I don't think -- I mean, that's the cost of the contract, but I'll be surprised if we don't do better on a time and materials basis, because there's really not much to do.

All right. I hear you, but I -- you may not know what I'm talking about, but I've literally seen trees growing out of the side of buildings and they started out as these little weeds.

Especially in alleys.

In alleys. And it's like cement and it's like a little crack, and the next thing you know, it comes up and it's like Jack and the Beanstalk. And you're suggesting 110 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. that because of the minimal amount of soil, there's no likelihood of this growing?

You can't support a large roof system.

And if they're growing out of the side of the building, the roots are getting to somewhere where they're getting soil and moisture. In a green roof, with the thin layer and the very porous mix, you may have a tree like that germinate, begin to grow, but it's not going to last. It will die because it just gets too dry.

Okay. I hear you. Okay. Thank you. Thank you, Madam President.

You're welcome. Is someone else going to testify?

Madam President, if I could request -- because I think she may know the answers to a lot 111 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. of the issues that were raised from the Planning Commission relative to having to have flat roofs, which we don't have to have. If you could just talk about -- I would appreciate if you could take some of the criticisms or some of the speculation that it's not a good thing or that there's problems or that it's difficult to maintain or difficult to install, just kind of talk about the benefits of it and try to debunk, if you can, some of the other issues.

Sure. Thank you. I think one of the issues --

I'm sorry. Re-identify yourself.

I'm sorry. This is Melissa Muroff and I'm with Roofscapes. I was asked to come today to be available to answer some questions if need be. I think one of the first questions that came up and that you 112 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. referenced again is the issue of flat roofs and the extent to which roofs with a pitch are appropriate. In fact, for the thin profiles that these gentlemen have been describing; that is, green roofs that have three to five inches of soil or aggregate, actually having a little bit of a pitch is much preferred. So typically it is true that what you tend to see on thin green roof profiles are roofs that are pitched slightly to the drains or the scuppers, what-have-you. However, having said that, roofs with pitches that are quite steep, like 30 percent inclines, are suitable for green roofs. The difference is that appropriate slope stabilization has to be incorporated into the design, and then with that, it goes without saying, there is an additional cost. But roofs up to a 2-on-12 pitch need no additional slope stabilization and are suitable for green roofs. 113 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. I think one of the other questions that came up pertained to height. Lower roofs are logistically easier to -- green roofs on lower buildings are logistically easier to install and, therefore, are going to be less expensive in that regard. There's nothing -- green roofs on skyscrapers; for example, high rises, 52 stories, a hundred stories -- well, whatever, 50 let's say stories, are certainly doable and there are many that have been installed around the country. They introduce additional issues, such as more extreme wind uplift pressures that have to be addressed, but they certainly can be. I think the point that you may have been getting to regarding high buildings is that they will likely be less effective in reducing the energy costs to cool the building in the summertime because the ratio of wall area to roof area is going to be much greater, 114 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. so you're not going to be -- you don't have as much surface area to work with to actually cool the building inside. So just relatively speaking, it's not going to be as an effective energy tool. You asked about cost. I mean, I think --

Yeah. I think a lot of that has been covered. I mean, I have no other questions. I've kind of like been on this green roof education process for a while, so I kind of know this stuff. But if there are any questions, I'm sure that she would be willing to answer them.

I think the issue of cost is of concern. Excuse me. What did you say it cost you to retrofit your roof?

Both of ours so far were new construction. So that was $10 a square foot, but what I budgeted for the retrofit is about $11 to $12 a square 115 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. foot.

And I believe somebody testified that they paid $2,500?

Well, we were asked to consider support contracts, maintenance contracts, for the roof, which run about $2,400 a year, and because this is our first year's experience with it, we purchased one, but if experience during the first four months of ownership is any indication, it may be cheaper just to maintain it on a time and materials basis, because there's really not too much to do. Early on you have some plant replacement. Not all the plants thrive, so some of those have to be replaced.

I believe you indicated what it cost you.

Yes. Our 9,500 square foot roof cost 87,000 and change. So I believe that works out to something less than $10 a square foot. And I would 116 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. have to think that if you were doing 50,000 square feet or more, that you'd be looking at economies of scale, which would bring that cost per foot down, but I don't know that for a fact.

Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilwoman Brown.

Thank you. In addition to green roofs, since you are the experts in many ways, are there other alternative avenues that provide the same or similar result?

Well, in addition to our green roof, another methodology that we're installing, which I as a building manager am equally excited about, is our recapture and reuse program. We have a very large sloped roof on the historical Meeting House, and our engineers have calculated that just based on normal Philadelphia rainfall, with a 20 percent loss factor, we'll be 117 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. able to collect enough rainwater off that roof and then reuse it in our office building to practically eliminate 85-plus percent of our potable water bill. It would literally reduce our use of fresh water down to hand washing and fountains, water fountains. All the water used currently to flush urinals or toilets would be gray water pulled off the roof of the Meeting House. So for us, I mean, our water bill -- we're a small operation, so our water bill is somewhere between $20,000, $22,000 a year, but we should be able to eliminate in excess of 90 percent of that just by collecting water off the Meeting House roof and storing it in cisterns in the basement of the building and then repiping it as gray water back over to the office building. And these are old buildings. These are not -- we don't have the benefit of building brand new. We have to retrofit all this stuff, and I believe the cost of what I just explained 118 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. will be under $230,000. So that's a lot of money initially, but if you're saving anywhere from $17,000 to $19,000 a year in your water bill, you're going to make that up in a hurry and then it's all money in your pocket.

Madam President.

Yes.

The issues on cost -- and, Melissa, if you could comment on what I'm going to say, I would appreciate it. There is no doubt that there is an initial cost in doing this, and, again, I will reiterate that we are trying to defray that cost with a tax credit on the BPT. But can you talk about the difference between new construction and retrofit? Because I think what's getting somewhat complicated is that these, for the most part, are retrofitted buildings. The new construction costs are 119 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. substantially different than the retrofit building, because it's being designed into the project and built at the same time. The roof doesn't have to be torn up, a new roof put down and the thing put on there. Also, the issue of the length of time the roof lasts. If you don't have to replace this roof for 30 years and you're talking about a 50,000 square foot building, that's a substantial savings in the life of the building, because those roofs are very, very expensive. If you could just talk -- because I know cost is an issue and the issue of cost relative to maintenance, which I think all these things, in my opinion, are all outweighed by the benefits to the property owner, the savings in heat and air conditioning, the savings on the -- the other issue was when the Water Department implements its new formula for storm water management 120 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. charges, a building that's 50,000, 60,000 square feet flat roof is going to pay an awful lot of money to manage that storm water that can be reduced substantially by the use of the green roof. So as we're looking at the square foot costs stepping into the building or getting the building up, I think we really have to be fair and look at all of the other costs that are saved over the life of the building by the property owner. And I think what happens with developers is they say, Oh, my God, look at the cost that it's going to cost me right up front, without looking at the end user, who is going to obviously benefit for 30, 40, 50 years as a result of its installation and maintenance. So if you could just talk about that a little bit.

And I would also add -- and I have to defer to the Water Department on this, of course, but it has been our experience in working with 121 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. clients that are designing green roofs into their projects that they have expedited -- is this right -- expedited review of their project in order to get their building permit. And that actually does add up to dollars and cents for them as well early in this design and construction process. To the Councilman's point regarding the capital investment or the capital cost of the green roof as a new construction versus the capital cost of the green roof as a retrofit, the capital -- I'm not sure for those of you who have retrofits you were also referencing the cost of demolition of the old roof when you talked about the cost of the green roof. But I can say that for a sizable green roof that's over 50,000 square feet, I would suggest that it is well within reality to expect that the installed cost of the green roof, a thin profile, three or four inches of media or soil, would be in the ballpark 122 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. of $7 to $9 per square foot. For what it's worth, there's a project similar -- a big-box store in the City of Chicago, where -- again, this is obviously anecdotal, but it involved union wages and perhaps a similar construction environment. The contractor submitted his price proposal for $6.50, and that was for a 72,000 square foot vegetated roof on a big-box store. So that was a new construction. That might provide -- I haven't heard lower than that, so I might suggest that's probably likely to be a low end, but that's probably within reason for a new construction on a big-box store.

Just on top of that, could you talk -- and I'm sorry. I don't mean to interrupt, Councilman O'Neill.

You may be asking my question.

When you have a large flat roof that's made from 123 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. asphalt and the rain hits it, it is picking up the elements of the asphalt roof, which are toxic. That stuff is going into our storm water system and needs to be treated, which is an additional cost to the Water Department to do that. In addition, it's going to be an additional cost to the property owner because they're going to have to pay the new charges based on the new fee schedule. So I don't really see a down -- I really don't see an economic downside at all to any of this when it comes to buildings of that size. So I'm sorry, Councilman.

We've been hearing back and forth. Council President asked a question about cost. I think what she was talking about, if I picked it up right, is comparative cost, and maybe I missed part of that testimony, but whether it's 6.50, 7.50, 8.50, 9.50, if somebody is building a 124 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. 50,000 or bigger square foot building in Philadelphia and they hire a union roofing company with union roofing employees to do it, I don't know if that cost is a dollar a square foot or 7 dollars a square foot. I'd like to leave 8 this hearing at least knowing what we're 9 talking about. 10 Can somebody testify as to what 11 that cost is? I have no idea. 12

Well, I know from 13 our new construction project of the 14 residence hall, essentially if the cost 15 of the new roof is A amount, then the 16 cost of the green roof was an additional 17 A. So it's essentially twice the cost of 18 the roof if you're going to vegetate it. 19

So we're 20 going to be requiring people -- and I love green roofs, but I also love not using trans fats and all that, but we don't -- we do cut breaks to people based on certain issues. And what I just want to know, we're going to be requiring 125 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. somebody to pay twice as much for the roof in their building. Is that --

I wouldn't agree with the gentleman on that. We put a pretty expensive weather roof on -- we were due for a new roof. Our roof was over 30 years old and it was leaking. So we needed a new roof. Now, we put a very state-of-the-art expensive roof on and it cost $390-some thousand. For slight -- for less area, we spent only 84,000, 87,000 on the vegetated roof. So I don't see it as a --

Did you say slate?

No, not slate. I said slightly less area, because the vegetated roof didn't cover as much area as the weather roof. But we still spent only 84,000. So I don't think it's double the cost of a new roof. But if you are going to put a vegetated roof on your building, it doesn't make much sense to me to put it over an old roof, 126 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. because you --

I just want to limit -- I think the question was new construction, when we're requiring people -- what people do electively with retrofits, I mean, it's noble and everything, but I don't think we're requiring that. I'm just trying to elicit the information. It's roughly double the cost of new construction. That's fine. I just wanted to get the information on the record to make a judgment when we get attacked by the union roofers or whoever it is that -- Council President asked the question. The answer is now on the record.

The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee.

Thank you, Madam President. If any of the witnesses on the panel can talk about Chicago and how they've done this. Does anyone know, 127 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. getting back to this whole cost issue, what questions were raised there, what the differences are? I mean, you folks are sort of estimating. In answer to Councilman O'Neill, you thought it might be double. Is there any statistics, Councilman, that you know dealing with --

No. I just really believe that when it comes to large box construction, which is primarily what we're talking about, and we don't require them to do it, they're going to get kicked in the rear end when it comes to their storm water management charges monthly, and at that time, it's going to be probably impractical to put one on after the building is constructed. So we may be trying to keep the developer from having to spend an additional amount of money going in, but when those new fees go into effect and they haven't mitigated, they're going to get rocked. Besides all the other 128 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. environmental benefits, the greenhouse effect, the warming effect, the savings on heating and air conditioning, the savings on us treating the water, all of that stuff, there is certainly a cost you need to pay to get there, and if we're going to continue to be concerned about the up-front costs, even though we're giving a hundred thousand dollars potentially towards the project, then we'll probably never get there. But then we're going to have to deal with the effects of what happens with the storm water management, because I think those monthly fees are going to be a killer.

Can I just -- I'm sorry. If I can just ask on the question of the tax credits, just so I'm clear on this. How is that done now?

It's up to percent of the project or $100,000 23 would be credited to your business 24 privilege tax, I think, in that -- I 25 don't have the bill in front of me, but I 129 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. think in the over five-year period, I believe it was. So I recognize that this is virgin territory for us, but as I said earlier in the discussion, this has been going on in Europe for how long?

About 50 years.

50 years. And in Chicago for quite a long time with success. Developers will howl practically about anything, and if you gave the developers the opportunity to do nothing, they would do nothing, including mitigating neighborhood concerns or anything else. So we kind of force them to do things now. I really do believe that this technology and this is cutting edge for us that will be a tremendous advantage going forward, but if initial cost is always going to stop us, then I don't think we'll ever get there.

I just want to reiterate again that I would hate to see 130 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. the Committee leave here thinking that the cost of a vegetated roof is the cost of the under-roof all over again. It just isn't. I mean, the vegetated roof was installed in less than two weeks by about five guys. It took several months to install the new weather roof, the under-roof on our building. There's just much, much more involved, much more expense, much more materials, much more labor, and it doesn't make any difference whether it's a retrofit roof or a new roof. There's just no way a vegetated roof is going to cost what a weather roof costs. Somebody is going to have to explain that.

I support the bill. I'm not sure we have all the testimony in front of us that we might want to have. And I don't care if we report it out, get it. I'm not really concerned with that. I'm concerned with the side that's not here to comment, and even the tax benefit. I mean, I'd like 131 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. to know what it would be uncapped for larger buildings so they're not sort of punished in a relative way as opposed to being rewarded the same just because they have a bigger building than a smaller building. The concept is terrific. The cost questions, it seems like most of them will be made up one way or the other, whether it's maintenance, energy efficiency, the Water Department. But I also think that it would help to have the Water Department come in here with a full briefcase full of information to put on the record so when I talk to developer or building owner X that you're going to in the future have a reduction, which they obviously should, that I can give them something real specific. I mean, the Water Department knows what they're going to do with that regulation. They should be able to calibrate it to a 50,000 square foot building, a 75, a hundred, whatever it might be, so we have a whole 132 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. list of things that are going to offset whatever -- and this is not meant in any way towards the witnesses at the table. I think I would like to know what it really is. It might be different on a skyscraper. It might be different on different kinds of buildings. Just what the range of differences and what impacts that. I'm prepared to vote for this bill. I just think that the Water Department should be helping us here with specifics. We have a sheet that shows, yeah, you're paying here, but look what you're going to be saving, since that regulation is not in place yet, and we should be pretty exact about it and also with the differential cost, and it seems like in different buildings there's going to be a different relative cost to a conventional roof versus a green roof. And I don't care how we get the information, whether we get it another hearing, whether we report the bill out 133 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. and get it, but I think we might want to be ready for those kind of things. Is this something that we can lay out in a clearer, more concise form to explain to people? Because I think we're doing good work here and it's kind of exciting actually to be involved in it, but if we don't have the answers, we should have them. And whether it's at this point or not, I'll leave it to the Chair and the sponsor, but I'm ready to go either way with it.

Thank you.

I'll hold it.

Any other questions? (No response.)

Okay. Thank you. Thank you all very much for coming in to testify. Do we have anyone else to testify on the bill? 134 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. (No response.)

Do we have anyone else to testify? (No response.)

Seeing no one, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting. Do you want to amend it now?

No. 12

Bill 13 No. 070366 is being held at the request of the sponsor. We will now consider Bill No. 070690, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 19 070690 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 135 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. 070690 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? (No response.)

Madam President, I need to abstain due to the fact that the firm I'm associated with is part of the team designing the new expanded Convention Center.

Very well. The ayes have it and the record will indicate that Councilman Kenney abstained from voting. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? 136 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. (No response.)

The ayes have it and the motion carries. We will now consider Bill No. 6 070680. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.

Madam President, I move that Bill 070680 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and request for rules suspension as to allow reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)

It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 17 070680 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)

Those opposed? 137 10/30/07 - RULES - BILL 070366, ETC. (No response.)

The ayes have it. The motion carries. This concludes our public meeting. Thank you all very much. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 12:30 p.m.) - - - 138 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 October 30, 2007, 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.)