COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Room 400, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, June 6, 2007 10:25 a.m. - - - PRESENT: COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA C. VERNA, CHAIR COUNCILWOMAN JANNIE BLACKWELL COUNCILMAN DARRELL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DiCICCO COUNCILMAN WILLIAM GREENLEE COUNCILMAN JACK KELLY COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILWOMAN DONNA REED MILLER COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILWOMAN BLONDELL REYNOLDS BROWN BILLS 070002, 070236, 070266, 070342 and 070372 - - - 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 the public hearing of the Rules Committee. Before we begin, I would like to make an announcement concerning the casino-related bills that are scheduled for a hearing this morning. Those bills will be held in Committee today and the hearing on those bills is recessed until next Wednesday, June the 13th at 10:00 a.m. For the record, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of those bills. MR. McPHERSON: Bill No. 17 070006, an ordinance amending Section 18 14-1605 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulated Uses," by adding "Licensed Gaming Facilities" as a regulated use, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 070008, an ordinance 24 amending Chapter 14-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial 3 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Entertainment District," by deleting the provision authorizing the City Planning Commission to approve temporary facilities. Bill No. 070010, an ordinance 7 amending Chapter 14-400 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Entertainment District," by prohibiting districts within one mile of another; providing additional restrictions for gross floor area. Bill No. 070011, an ordinance 14 amending Section 14-1600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 17 entitled "Prohibition on Licensed Gaming Facilities," prohibiting the erection, construction, alteration, or use of licensed gaming facilities and providing that no variance may be granted from such prohibitions, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 070012, an ordinance 25 amending Chapter 14-400 of The 4 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Philadelphia Code, entitled "Commercial Entertainment District," by providing that no ordinance designating a Commercial Entertainment District may be enacted unless a Neighborhood Improvement District has first been created. Bill No. 070264, an ordinance 9 amending Section 14-1624 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "North Delaware Avenue Area Special District Controls," by changing the title and expanding the boundaries to include the area bounded generally by Oregon Avenue, Front Street, the Delaware River and Spring Garden Street, all under certain terms and conditions. Bill No. 070391, an ordinance 19 amending Chapter 14-1600 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new section 22 entitled "Prohibited Locations of Licensed Gaming Facilities," all under certain terms and conditions.
Thank 5 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. you. Again, the hearing on the bills just read are recessed until Wednesday, June the 13th at o'clock. 6 I would ask Mr. McPherson to 7 please read the title of Bill No. 070236. 8 MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to 9 amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by 10 changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by West Jefferson Street, North Mascher Street, West Oxford Street and North Howard Street.
Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. I am Martin Soffer, Division Director of the Development Planning Division of the Philadelphia City Planning Commission. I am here to testify on Bill No. 070236, which was 6 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. introduced by Councilmember Clarke on March 29, 2007. This ordinance will rezone the block bounded by Jefferson Street, Mascher Street, Oxford Street and Howard Street. This 1.7-acre parcel is to be rezoned from G-2 General Industrial to a designation of R-10 Residential. This formerly vacant industrial land is proposed to be developed with 44 residential units. The proposed development will contain 32 single-family units and six duplex units, with all parking being provided by a rear drive. The developer has met with area residents on several occasions, and no 18 objections have been raised as a result of the proposed development. The City Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 19, 2007, considered and approved Bill No. 070236 with a recommendation that this bill be amended to a zoning designation of partly R-10A Residential and partly C-1 7 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Commercial. This amendment is in order to be consistent with the existing pattern of land use surrounding the property and to be consistent with the majority of the proposed developments as single-family units. To this end, I have the proposed amendments for your consideration. This concludes my testimony and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you today and would be pleased to answer any questions you may have.
May I say I'm sure you're well aware of the rules that we have and, as of yesterday, we had not received testimony from the Planning Commission.
We had sent the e-mail again, I believe, yesterday, but I will double-check on that.
Good morning, Madam President. Stephen Pollock on 8 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. behalf of the proposed developer, Oxford Court, LLC. I have with me my client, Mr. George Manosis, who is the Vice-President of the company. This is a block where we are proposing with the amendment -- we've met many times over the past year with the neighborhood, with the Kensington South Civic Association, met with their Design Committee, and the amendment reflects a lot of the different changes that have been worked out with the community with regard to this. We have copies for this honorable Committee as to what we'll be doing. We have 36 lots that will be used for 34 single-family homes, and the reason the switch from the R-10 to the R-10A was to lock in that it would only be used for single-family homes. As you know, R-10 allows for multiple-family uses, so we were trying to limit that, and that's why most of the lot will be designated as the R-10A. 9 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. We have two corner lots. After meeting with the community, the community wanted some commercial vitality and life to this neighborhood also, and so it was decided that the two corner lots, one at Howard and Oxford and one at Mascher and Oxford, would be with C-1 Commercial uses. And with C-1 Commercial uses, again, as this Committee knows, since you all deal with zoning on a daily basis in your districts, it limits the kinds of uses that you're going to be able to put in there. If a restaurant wanted to come in there, it can't. It's going to have to come back and meet with the neighborhood and do all that. So this would also, given the synergy of having 34 single-family homes, these two commercial units that would be commercial on the first floor, about 2,500 square feet each building, and then four condo units up above, so that we get to a yield of about 38 units for this whole 1.7 acres, that we would be 10 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. limiting the kinds of commercial uses but still give the neighborhood an opportunity to have some services as this neighborhood changes in its sort of tone as it becomes more residential. So we have Mr. Craig Deutsch, who is our architect, and he's put up the boards of what's proposed. I don't know if this panel wants to hear anything with regard to this.
You do? Thank you. Mr. Deutsch, why don't you approach and explain to President Verna and the honorable members of this Committee the proposal.
Good morning. I'm Craig Deutsch, the architect for the proposed development of this land here. I'd like to draw your attention to the site plan colored and the way we've actually started laying it out in City Planning. We've put all our houses, 11 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. pulled them front to the street line, keeping an urban context. And then developing the land that would be by right zoning, large lots, over 1,440 and actually only occupying about 50 percent of that lot with a building. Each home would have parking in the rear, a nice large rear yard, and then we're going to provide some driveway easements to allow these people to park, with sidewalk and curbing.
There won't be any curb cuts on the streets, on any of the street fronts, because everybody will have parking.
Correct. We would actually maintain one curb cut that's there and introduce two more on the entire City block here to allow cars to ingress and egress. We're proposing some type of gating system really at the direction of Traffic Engineering, because we don't want people to think that this is a street, even though it would be 12 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. paved as a street. Street lighting, street trees to really bring vitality back to this area. If I can draw your attention quickly to our renderings for elevations here. We've worked with the Design Committee and worked to actually create a facade that moves through the project and down the block and changes as it goes. It would be built in brick with nice materials. We proposed a type of front terrace looking over the street, keeping eyes on the street. They're three-story homes, three bedrooms, two and a half baths. They'll have basements. That's it basically in a nutshell. The commercial buildings on the corners, very typical to our City with commercial entities in areas that are residential. There would be a loft-type building.
Sort of like the old classic zoning where we would always have C-1, the mop and pop stores on the 13 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. corner, so you would have the ability to walk. I used to walk to Murphy's Luncheonette when I grew up in Southwest Philadelphia. So we're hoping that we attract those kinds of commercial tenants to this area, because there's another block -- another property just behind it. It's an existing warehouse there that is also under discussion that will create about 85 condominium units that won't ask for remapping. But with that, plus this proposal, this area has a potential to really become a new hub of residential activity with -- and that building will also have some commercial space, because, again, the community is interested -- because this is right along the El of Front Street, but the community really wants to see this revitalized and also have someplace to walk to and meet other members of the community. (Councilman Kelly talking without microphone.) 14 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
If you look at Z.1 in the packet we've given you, Councilman Kelly, you will see that there are four streets: Oxford, Howard, Jefferson and Mascher. And so on the public streets, you won't have -- you'll just see the facades of the houses. There's going to be parking in the rear. We're creating two private driveways with entrances off of Howard and Mascher that you can get to to the back. Every house has a rear yard, and then the parking is behind that rear yard. So there's going to be attention trying to create green space in this area and try and really, as I say, liven up and create a neighborhood here.
It sounds very, very nice, Mr. Pollock. You tell those great mop and pop stories so well that people up in Bustleton and Somerton actually think you grew up in Bustleton 15 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. and Somerton. You have these great home-spun stories.
-- you weren't in South Philly. But I'm sure it helps your effectiveness. Having grown up in the Northeast as well as Southwest Philly, I'm sure you know that we've had some disastrous results from projects that were built in the '40s, '50s and even '60s where driveways were put behind the homes, garages were built under the homes in the rear, and no one is responsible for the driveway repair. There was no 22 such thing as homeowner associations or escrow accounts and things back then, and it's been a terrible problem. I actually have fewer of those than some of the 16 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. other districts that are in the lower Northeast. But how are you addressing that?
Because everybody is going to have to bear the burden of maintaining those private driveways so people get access to the rear. But, again, as you know, Councilman O'Neill, in a tight area, the idea of providing parking to the rear and not taking up parking spaces along the street becomes a great idea for the neighborhood and creates walkability.
And as you said, 17 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. now that we've gotten more sophisticated, there are vehicles that we can protect the private land owner so that the common good is maintained for the whole project.
Can you tell us what the projected price for these properties will be?
And what is the projected start and completion date for the project?
We think we can start early in September, fall. The hope is that what's been designed as a project that meets the full requirements of R-10A and C-1 so that it will, with this ordinance, if this ordinance were to pass, we would not need any zoning relief 18 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. from the Zoning Board but we would be able to do this, as we always say, over the counter. And if you would, we would ask for a suspension of the rules, if that would be appropriate.
Thank you. Are there questions from the Committee, any questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Thank you very much, Madam President, members of the Committee. Have a great day.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I 19 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. would like the record to reflect that we do have a quorum. To my extreme left is Councilman Kelly, Councilman O'Neill and Councilman Greenlee. To my extreme right is Councilman Kenney, Councilwoman Miller and Councilman Clarke. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the next bill, Bill No. 10 070266. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 12 amending Section 14-1605 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulated Uses," by adding a definition for "Gun Shop" and designating gun shops as regulated uses, all under certain terms and conditions.
Yes. Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is Martin Soffer and I'm here to testify on Bill 24 No. 070266, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco on April 12, 2007. 20 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Bill No. 070266 amends Section 3 14-1605 of the Philadelphia Zoning Code by adding as a regulated use "Gun Store" as defined in the bill. This bill would have the effect of making a gun store a use that would only be permitted in the City under the zoning designation of LR Least Restricted and only if there was no 10 other regulated uses within a thousand feet of that proposed new store. In any other zoning district such a use would require action by the Zoning Board of Adjustment before it could be legally open. The City Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 19, 2007, tabled Bill No. 070266 and has scheduled it for discussion at its meeting of June 19, 2007. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and I'd be pleased to answer any questions.
Thank 21 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. you. Does anyone have any idea as to the number of gun shops that are presently operating in Philadelphia?
Off the top of my head, I can think of about maybe a half a dozen.
Would this prohibit both indoor and outdoor shooting ranges?
It would not. If an existing gun shop discontinued such use for a limited period of time, would this bill prohibit the reuse of that property as a gun shop?
Should this bill be enacted, does anyone 22 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. know where in the City a new gun shop would be allowed?
Least Restricted, that would be areas along the waterfront. Off the top of my head, areas of Least Restricted would also be where the tank farms would be, like in Southwest Philadelphia. They're the areas that are presently zoned Least Restricted.
Are there any questions from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Just one brief question. I'm not sure if you can answer it. In terms of any state preemption on regulated uses as it relates to guns, there are none?
There are none that I'm familiar with, but the staff is still taking a look at that as well.
I'd like to 23 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. know that. Okay. Thank you.
Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 13 070342. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance 15 amending Section 14-1605 of The Philadelphia Code, entitled "Regulated Uses," by providing for Special Regulated Uses, prohibiting such uses in the vicinity of certain residentially related uses and designating overflow storage tanks as a special regulated use, all under certain terms and conditions.
I believe the testimony was taken on this bill on May the 22nd, but that that bill 24 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. had not been properly advertised for 15 days prior to the hearing, as is required for zoning changes, and that it was rescheduled. Because many members of the public had shown up for the hearing, they were allowed to testify. Most of those that did testify on May the 22nd were in favor of the bill, believing that if an overflow storage tank were allowed near their properties, it would have a negative effect on the use and value of their homes. Before we proceed, I would like the record to reflect that Councilwoman Brown has joined the Committee. If you will, are you going to testify?
If I may, the Commissioner from the Water Department would like to testify first.
Thank 25 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. you.
Madam Chair, I actually would like to hear from the Planning Commission first.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. I am Marty Soffer and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 070342, which was introduced by Councilmembers Krajewski and O'Neill on April 26, 2007. Bill No. 070342 amends Section 17 14-1605 of the Zoning Code by adding a section as a Special Regulated Use and indicating overflow storage tanks generally used for storage as such a use. Under the provisions of this bill, no 22 such use would be permitted within 1,500 feet of any residential-zoned district, any Institutional Development District or any lawfully occupied residence, 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. including dormitories. We do have on the board an indication, those areas I believe in red where such a use would be permitted within the City. The passage of this ordinance 8 will make it difficult for the Water Department to maintain and protect the quality of the environment and provide treatment of the sanitary waste of the City. Additionally, this bill would require any septic system to attain a variance from the Zoning Board of Adjustment. Additionally, these tanks are normally considered part of the infrastructure of the sanitary system and generally are not subject to the provisions of the Zoning Code. These tanks represent a use that is in the public good and does not constitute a danger or hazard to the public health and welfare. It would also meet the criteria of good land use planning and represent a positive impact 27 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. to the surrounding land uses in which such tanks are located. This bill does raise some legal concerns, and in response to an inquiry from the Planning Commission, the Law Department had indicated that the 1,500 foot prohibition in this bill would prevent the City from constructing tanks in the currently proposed locations which have been approved by the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection. In addition, it appears that this would prohibit the construction of tanks anywhere they will be effective in controlling such overflow. Therefore, the City Planning Commission, at its meeting of May 22, 2007, considered Bill 19 No. 070342 and recommends that the bill 20 be disapproved. This concludes my testimony and I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you.
Thank you. 28 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. The Chair recognizes Brian O'Neill.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Soffer, 1,500 feet seems to have a big impact on this building of installing these sewage overflow tanks. I can tell by your map. It probably wouldn't surprise you that I'm not married, neither is Councilwoman Krajewski, to 1,500 feet. It was just in the most recent bill we had dealt with with casinos and I understand, I think, about the same time the Planning Commission came in with a similar map to show it. So I ask you -- I'm not going to try to compare casinos to sewage tanks, but a lot of people would put them in the same category. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Can you put a casino right on top of that plant?
What would be the distance that City Planning -- we 29 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. have people sitting here who live very close to this site. What would be a distance that City Planning would recommend the 1,500 be reduced to, or would City Planning not have a problem if it were in someone's backyard, literally that close to their home so there would be a zero restriction? Has the Planning Commission discussed trying to be helpful? I mean, it's easy to throw up a map and say, Oh, 1,500 feet. No one called me and said, Are you married to 1,500 feet, would a thousand, 500. This is the Fairmount Park area. Trees would have to come down. It would totally change the landscape of this neighborhood and this area. Did Planning come up with an alternative that maybe it would be good not to have Fairmount Park ground that is right next to a neighborhood that is one of the main amenities, maybe the only amenity, that the City offers to this 30 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. neighborhood? What was the discussion around both distance and the Fairmount Park aspect of this?
The Planning Commission did have one meeting recently with the Water Department. We had considered a number of ideas, and the ideas seem to be run -- had been governed by -- number one is by grades. For example -- I should defer to somebody that's more --
-- more of an expert than myself. But it works by gravity. There's specific areas of the City where this overflow --
Are you saying, then, that if it were a certain slope, it would be okay to have it right behind a home, but if gravity were different, that then you would -- and 31 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. that's where you're going with it?
I'm talking about absolute -- it's unconscionable to put this kind of a tank, to me and I think to the average person that I've spoken to, right behind a home. I'm not against sewage tanks. I can show you a lot of areas in my district where they'd be fine. The map would have a lot more red in it. What I think is unconscionable, that our only application to the State of Pennsylvania was the easiest, the quickest, the faster and the cheapest, ignoring a community of homes and Fairmount Park ground that is dear to them right next door where their children play, where they recreate, where they walk to the train station, right next to Holy Family University. I want to know what kind of discussion the Planning Commission has had either internally or publicly that 32 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. isn't, We're opposed to this bill, please don't pass it, as opposed to, We would like you to consider some modifications that would allow these tanks to be built but also keeping in mind that we have residents very close to these areas and Fairmount Park ground, which is sacred to all of us, that is close to these areas and how can we find a common compromise, if you will. What kind of discussions have occurred at the Planning Commission, with or without the Water Department being present? Because we rely on you so much that for you to come in representing the Planning Commission -- I'm not talking about you personally -- and just say, 1,500 feet, can't build many of these in the City, forget it. I mean, there's one in Manayunk that I have no problem with. They have negotiated for years. I know Councilwoman Campbell, former Councilman Nutter, I would never have a bill that hurt another district. They're redoing a 33 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. playground. It's a sufficient distance from the nearest home. They've worked on it for years. Totally different situation. This bill will never come out of Committee without protecting that Manayunk project. Planning Commission doesn't talk about any of that. They don't talk about -- tell me what you are for that might help the neighbors in terms of distance and in terms of the park aspect of this. The only reason IDD is in this is because Holy Family University is building dormitories so they can stay in business. There's dormitories right next to this tank location, as well as the homeowners that are here today. I want to hear something proactive from the Planning Commission so they are actually a Planning Commission, because we might as well shut down if they're not.
The Planning Commission had considered this bill, had 34 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. met with the Water Department to discuss a number of alternatives. The alternatives were more engineering. For example, this is totally underground. There's no health impact, the details of which I will defer to the Water Department. Such kind of facilities usually are put underground. It could be in oversized pipes, tanks. There's different engineering methods. This is not opened air.
Are you aware of how many millions of gallons of raw storage are going to be stored in this tank?
Two to three million gallons of raw sewage. Okay. So at what distance do you say that's too close or at what point do you say -- the Planning Commission now, not you personally -- would say, Fairmount Park ground should be off limits? 35 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Because I have a lot of ground in my district that's not -- and so does Councilwoman Krajewski -- that's not Fairmount Park ground and that's not within several hundred feet of homes that might work. It might take a pump to get the -- like Bucks County is doing, I understand, from the Water Commissioner. They're going to pump their sewage to an undisclosed location, but I'm sure they're looking for one that isn't going to destroy somebody's quality of life. So where is the Planning Commission on all this?
The Planning Commission did not come up with a number in terms of 50 feet, a thousand feet from residential areas.
Does the Planning Commission even think that there may be a place -- you've shown all the places that you couldn't build these if this bill passed as is, you couldn't build these sewage tanks. Has the 36 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Planning Commission come up with any areas where you shouldn't be able to build them?
Such facilities are being built throughout the City, whether in a tank form or --
I'd rather just have an answer, have a direct answer. Has the Planning Commission come up with any areas that they would consider off limits?
Okay. You haven't talked about even wetlands or Wissahickon trail or anything? There's nothing where you have talked about? Has Planning Commission gone out and tried to personally experience the potential odors from these tanks?
I'd ask the Commission to take a little ride up 37 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. to Rhawn Street where -- I'm not sure if it's called -- the Neshaminy Interceptor has a vent, has a vent, and you won't want to get anywhere near it, I can tell you that right now. And for the Planning Commission not to be proactive trying to help a community and a City Council with a very difficult issue to me is reprehensible, and I think the sponsor of the legislation changing the makeup of the Planning Commission to a more professional group is in order. I know you're not a member of the Commission, but I welcome you to take back my sentiments. Because all they are is a rubber stamp. They're worthless to the Council. They're worthless to the neighborhoods that we represent. If all they do is say, 1,500 feet, can't build anything in the City, sorry, engineering studies we checked, it all works, like there's no problem here. Well, if the Planning Commission doesn't think there's a problem, it really saddens me that 38 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. there isn't something that you can work on collaboratively with the Council, the Water Department, the neighbors to try to find a solution to this, because we wouldn't be here if this weren't serious. And if they hadn't done such a great job in Manayunk of working out a situation that's entirely different than this -- I've had it explained to me over the last hours, and I will do nothing ever to 12 stop something that's happening in 13 another district where people are in 14 favor of something after long 15 negotiations. But you could have been a 16 lot more helpful in this than just coming 17 in and saying, We say no. It's basically 18 all you said. You don't talk about the 19 Fairmount Park aspects of this. You 20 don't talk about the proximity aspects, 21 if it's not 1,500, it should be a 22 thousand, it should be a hundred. What 23 should it be? There's got to be some 24 area that a planner does not want a sewage storage tank behind someone's 39 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. home, whether it be next to a university dormitory or a single home or whatever or on Fairmount Park ground. To not have had that discussion and just come in here sent by the Commission, it's like everybody is over there just saying, We need the Planning Commission, but it will be a better case if the Planning Commission says don't do it. Well, you know, we've be ignoring most of the Planning Commission's recommendations in this Council for a long time. This is the reason. I'm sure they're wondering why. This is the reason. That's all. There's no 18 discussion, I think, further today that I can have with the Planning Commission. They really have done nothing on this except say no. 22
Thank you, Councilman. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney. 40 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
Thank you, Madam Chair. For the Water Department, how many of these facilities of this size either exists in the City today or are planned to be implemented?
Steve Furtek, General Manager of Engineering for the Water Department. Right now there's a facility planned for Venice Island and a facility here at Holy Family.
This is basically kind of a new engineering attempt at dealing with sewage?
And I understand what Councilman O'Neill is saying and I'm wondering whether or not the issue of septic systems -- I mean, 41 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. they're not generally something -- how many of those are in the City? How many developments get done through a septic system?
New developments, none. But there is existing septic tanks throughout the City.
Councilman, I have an amendment to exclude them. That's really not the issue here.
So there's no issue on new septic systems. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I'm Commissioner Bernard Brunwasser, Water Commissioner. Councilman Kenney, I believe given the number of non-sewer customers that we have, it's probably maybe 16 or 17 hundred septic systems that we're aware of.
So we're really talking about one or two maybe. And how many in the future do you think 42 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. you'd need to put in place?
I know you talked about the one in South Philadelphia, Marconi is possible.
That's right. It's a possible resource to handle flooding in various parts of the City and it's basically a tool in our toolbox for that purpose.
So since it's not that regular or common a practice, why don't we just require an act of Council, an ordinance, to approve them. This way, the District Councilperson would have the authority to introduce or not introduce or to have the negotiations or discussions relative to the building of such a facility, and it would be up to you and the District Councilperson to have that discussion. I mean, it seems like this map would go away, the septic -- although Councilman O'Neill is going to amend it out, the 43 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. septic system issue goes away. It's just these large facilities that need an ordinance. I mean, there's lots of things we need to ordain prior to doing it. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: If I may, Councilman Kenney, I'd like to just summarize my testimony quickly, but in your question about the ordinances, this tank requirement, possible tank requirement here, is in dealing with federal and state law, so in that particular case, I believe federal and state law would trump local zoning bills.
That may be the case, but maybe the federal and state regulators aren't all that obstinate as far as dealing with the community. If the community does have -- I mean, I guess if a federal judge said that it had to go in, it would go in, but short of that, why wouldn't an ordinance be the best way to do it, because it would create a process for discussion and 44 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. negotiation and perhaps compromise as opposed to the blanket -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: We would have liked to discuss this bill 6 before it was introduced, but we did not have that opportunity, so we were not able to amend or influence the way the bill is written. As it's written now, it's very difficult for us.
I'll defer to Councilman O'Neill, but I just think that an ordinance at the request of the District City Councilmember is the safest and most protective way to ensure the community's needs are met, and that's what I would recommend.
Councilman, I think it's a great idea. I thank you for the suggestion. I will begin working on it as soon as this hearing is over as an alternative. I don't think we have any problem with federal or state law in terms of the zoning, because this is one 45 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. option on dealing with it. As I mentioned, the problem happens to be that's occurring -- you'll hear about it -- happens to be right behind these homes next to Holy Family University. They didn't cause it. They're not responsible for it in any way, but it's the cheapest, easiest, quickest solution to the problem. It is not the only solution to the problem. And there would be no federal preemption or state preemption of our ability to direct where these sewage tanks go. So I don't have any problem with the legality, and the Law Department helped work on this and the proposed amendment that I have, so they're pretty confident. I'll let the Commissioner go forward. I thought there might be something more from the Planning Commission than I received. Thank you, Madam Chair.
Thank 46 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. you. Commissioner, please proceed with your testimony. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Good morning, President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. I am Bernard Brunwasser, Water Commissioner. I'm joined today by the Deputy Commissioner for Operations, Debra McCarty, who is sitting to my far left, and Chief Engineer and General Manager for Planning and Engineering, Stephen Furtek, who is next to me on my left. I have prepared written testimony on Bill 070342, which I have previously submitted. I respectfully request that in the interest of time I may summarize that testimony and have the full written testimony entered into the record.
Fine. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Thank you. I respectfully request that the 47 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Committee not support Bill No. 070342 so that the City may continue to have sewer relief tanks as an option for protecting public health from raw sewage overflows and flooding. These tanks are not a public nuisance. Quite the contrary, they are part of the solution to the public health issues of overflows and severe flooding. The proposed bill eliminates the use of sewer relief tanks from anywhere in the City where they would be of benefit to our residents or the environment. If this bill is passed, it will have serious unintended but detrimental consequences to the City. First, the bill will limit the City's ability to protect public health from exposure to raw sewage. Sewer relief tanks are one of the best ways to address raw sewage overflows from a sewer system and are used all over the nation. I have a lengthy list of cities that are some of the cities that use these tanks. 48 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Tanks can be very effective in addressing overflows, but they must be located where they will be effective. They are located in all types of neighborhoods, including neighborhoods with multi-million dollar homes, and they do not cause odor problems. The bill will jeopardize the City's efforts to address storm flooding. Tanks may be the most effective solution for some of the serious flooding problems that we have in the City, and I think all of us are familiar with those. These problems in the older sections of the City are very challenging to solve, and you should not remove this tool from the Water Department's tool chest. Another point, the bill will also jeopardize the City's ability to comply with state and federal laws that require proper maintenance of our sewer system. The City's failure to address overflows could result in multi-billion dollar judicial consent decrees where 49 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. solutions to these local problems would be imposed upon us rather than be solved locally with an understanding of our community's concerns. We need look no 6 further than Pittsburgh to see that we need a full toolbox of solutions to help avoid skyrocketing water and sewer rates as a result of the imposition of consent decrees on us. Pittsburgh has just signed a $2 billion consent decree to upgrade its sewer system. They are smaller than we are, so that will give you some idea of what we may be facing. Many of the large cities have already bitten the bullet and done that. This proposed bill could prevent development and redevelopment in areas of the City that have or contribute to chronic overflow problems. These areas would include parts of --
I'm going to have to interrupt you when you throw out an atomic bomb like Pittsburgh. Do you have information here that you can 50 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. give us immediately so we don't just have the bomb sitting in the room wondering what it really looks like? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: The bomb is real.
No, no. 8 There is information available to us on the Pittsburgh situation, both comparing it and also contrasting it, and I think it is really irresponsible to come in and throw out a Pittsburgh problem as if it were identical to ours when you know it's not. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Sir, it just happened. It just happened.
It's not identical to ours in no way. It is just something that has just happened and has a big dollar tag attached to it. History, facts are not the same. Please, before you bring something like that up -- that just happened -- have the documents, analyze documents, along with the documents 51 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. themselves, but the analysis that shows both how this is similar and how it's different. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: We will provide such information to City Council.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: The areas that would be affected that could prevent development and redevelopment in the City include parts of Roxborough, Manayunk, Northeast Philadelphia, Center City, the river wards and South Philadelphia. The City has budgeted tens of millions of dollars through the Water Department's capital budget and New River City initiative to provide sewer capacity solutions, including tanks. I understand that the bill was introduced to address community concerns. However, I believe we can address all the community concerns without this bill. We are still in the preliminary planning phase for the solution to the Poquessing 52 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Creek problem. Our intention all along was to discuss our plans with the community once we were far enough along to present the community with detailed information. This is what we have done in Manayunk, where there is now broad community support for a tank on Venice Island. We certainly will hold community meetings to share specific plans with the Poquessing tank if that becomes the best alternative available to us and to solicit input from the community. We are now ready to take questions.
Let me start with the last thing you said. I got a pretty good briefing in the last 20 hours on the Venice Island situation, the 21 long history involved, community 22 meetings, development corporation 23 meetings and how it's all come to a good 24 resolution. Councilwoman Campbell, if we had Councilman Kenney's legislation in 53 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. place that he had discussed, would be glad to introduce an ordinance to make sure that happens. But aren't you here today stating that the only regulation you support is absolutely no regulation? Forget 1,500 feet and Fairmount Park issues and all that, community support. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Councilman, we could have discussed this proposed ordinance prior to --
Just answer the question, will you? If you're going to give me smart alec remarks, I can give them back. I don't want to do that. I want to stick to the issues here today. Do you support any regulation or are you really here today to say, Our position is, forget whether it's 1,500 feet, whether it's near a home, whether it's Fairmount Park ground where trees have to taken down, we are against any regulation by City Council of these 54 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. storage tanks? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: We are against this regulation, this ordinance.
And what regulations would you be willing to accept? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That would be up for discussion.
Okay. And if you had not worked things out over many years with the residents of Manayunk and the Venice Playground issue that's involved in it, would you still be building that? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: It's possible that we would be building it because we would have been ordered to do so.
Are sewage overflow tanks such as the one we're talking about here behind Holy Family and the one that has support in Manayunk the only way to deal with this problem of -- 55 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. which you're going to explain the problem in a minute, but I just want to get -- is it the only way to deal with it in the way you're doing it right now? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: No. 7
If I were Katie McGinty and I had said to you point blank, Commissioner, is this the only way you can handle this problem that we've approved, we may approve many other ways, but this is the only way, would you say yes or no? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: I'd say no, it's not the only way.
It's not the only way? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right.
Okay. That's helpful. Can you explain in layman's terms what the problem is that we all agree people in Brookhaven development and Holy Family University had nothing to 56 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. do with that happens right next to Holy Family University where a manhole cover pops off in a heavy storm? Can you kind of walk us through the genesis and the Bucks County sewage treatment and water treatment that we do and all these little townships that send us sewage and rainwater and storm water and how it's gotten us to where we are, where you're proposing this, I'm asking you for an alternative, neighbors are obviously upset and looking for you to have an alternative. But just lay out how we get to this, because it may happen in other areas. I want everyone to understand there is a real problem. I understand that. I'm not against sewage tanks. What I'm against them is being this close to neighbors on Fairmount Park ground. Can you just explain how it happens, how many years it takes to occur, how many years it's been occurring? I know it didn't just start this year, the sewage overflow. 57 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, I will probably turn most of this over to our Chief Engineer, Mr. Furtek, but this problem came to our attention in 2004 when one of our inspectors saw that, I guess, the manhole had been blown out, taken off of the manhole at that location, which is sort of out of the way in a wooded area behind Holy Family University. And I think I'll let Steve take it from there.
The sewer system along the Poquessing Creek known as the Poquessing Interceptor collects flow from both the City and the suburbs. The sewer system can handle --
Excuse me. What's the percentage of collection from the City and what's the percentage of collection from the suburbs?
As far as the overflow issue, two-thirds of the responsibility for the overflow issue is the City's. 58 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
I didn't ask you that. I asked you what percentage of flow both in the water and the sewer come -- what percentage comes from Northeast Philadelphia and what percentage comes from above Northeast Philadelphia? I assume it's Bucks County, but if it's Montgomery County as well, that too.
I'll have to get you that, because I think it varies whether it's dry weather or wet weather, so I am not a hundred percent sure on that.
Okay. A fairly large portion of this comes from Bucks County.
When we look at the responsibility for the overflow during wet weather, we have established that to be one-third suburbs, two-thirds City of Philadelphia.
Did you establish that or the state? 59 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
The sewer system is quite capable of handling both dry weather and wet weather for the majority of storms. We average about six to ten storms a year that inundate the system, that the system cannot handle, and the relief point is the lowest manhole in the system, which happens to be right behind Holy Family.
And can you explain what it is that inundates? We actually have a separate sewage pipe which is about five feet in diameter?
And it's not supposed to have water in it, it is supposed to be a sewage pipe? There's a separate pipe for water?
That's right. Well, there's a separate pipe for 60 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. sanitary flow and a separate pipe for storm flow.
The systems are designed separately, but they're never foolproof. They're never perfectly tight. There's always infiltration and inflow that comes into these sanitary sewer systems. It's just the nature of the beast.
Stop there. I understand how it can come in. Anything can happen like that, but how does it come in and us not be able to do anything about it when it's not supposed to have water in it, it's only supposed to have sewage?
The system can 61 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. never be built fully waterproof, watertight. It's just the nature of this type of workmanship. It's always going to have the potential for infiltration through saturated soil, through proximity to stream bed, which the interceptor is right along the stream bed. There's also inflow issues, where people have maybe connected sump pumps to the sanitary sewer system pumping in storm flow.
Well, there's very little sump pump activity I believe in the City. We're actually talking to Bucks County, and they've disconnected hundreds of them already in an effort to help this situation and help themselves, obviously.
See, I and my constituents believe that Bucks County is a big part of this, because the Water Department is pretty tough on Philadelphia customers when cross 62 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. connections, broken laterals -- you do a good job on it. We went through this many years ago and came up with the Help system and the Help program, all kinds of things. The Water Department agreed to pay for all the cross laterals being straightened out because the sewage was going right in the water, the kind of reverse thing we're talking about here today. You don't have that same kind of control in Township X and Township Y, and a lot of people really think that a big part of our problem is that we're handling Bucks' water and sewer, but we're not responsible for the connections that are made by these builders and whether these townships who don't do water treatment or sewage treatment care that much about whether it's done right or it's not. Can you just get into that a little bit? Because I want to put everything on the table here, and Bucks 63 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. County really stands out as a problem.
As you're well aware, the state has put a moratorium on construction, both within the City and within Bucks County, to all the tributary areas of the Poquessing Interceptor. So they are under equal, if not greater, pressure than we are, because we've actually gotten some leniency from the state to have some moderate amount of connections in the City because of our promise to take care of this problem. Bucks County is still in a full moratorium, so they are under huge pressure to resolve their issues as well. And I think a moratorium is an effective tool to force a municipality to do its due diligence on its system, and I think they are doing that. In addition, Bensalem Township has actually looked very hard at taking their flow, their excess flow, and storing it on their land, which would mean that the majority of the issue -- 64 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. much more of the majority than I even stated earlier would be the City's burden.
Do you think they're possibly looking for an area to place that tank that's not right behind homes on parkland?
I got a feeling that's what they're looking for. I don't think they would spend five minutes on a site and waste engineering dollars on a site that is this close, on parkland or under parkland, to homes and dormitories. I can guarantee you without having -- I've not spoken to Bucks County, but when I do, I know they rejected this kind of thing out of hand. I'm not against you doing what Bucks County is doing, finding an area that you can pump this sewage to, this overflow, store it somewhere. There's a lot of areas that don't bother any homes. 65 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Why we're sitting here today with no 3 regulation versus some regulation or a lot of regulation, it just hits the unconscionable level. That's all.
What I'd like to do is go on record here, though, and say that we have visited tanks in the Detroit area, for instance, where the tanks are located within 200, 250 feet of very exclusive homes, not that that makes a difference, but well-to-do neighborhoods. They're there. People are happy with them. There are no issues with them. They're located under golf courses, under playgrounds with actual gym equipment over the tank.
We looked at that, but it hydraulically doesn't work for us. And that's part of our due diligence process, is that we are looking for areas that actually accomplish the goal, which is to solve the problem of the overflow. 66 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Picking a piece of land that doesn't solve the overflow doesn't do us any good. We have to be able to solve the problem, and so we're looking at land available in the general area that will solve that issue for us, and that's where we ended up in our process.
Isn't this the closest piece of land available to the site?
Well, obviously if you're further away, you got to pump to it, right? Don't you have to pump if it's further away?
Even if it's a low point to a higher point? 67 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Doesn't that hydraulically mean --
Well, you have to pump if you went up. If you created a gravity system further away, you could do it potentially without a pump. So I wouldn't say it's an exclusive arrangement that --
But you're pretty close to the one place where you're at the low point in the system already, this is right next to it, so there's no really pumping involved. You're not going up anywhere in any direction. You're going right next to where it is and depositing the sewage there. It's the easiest, the cheapest, the quickest, let's get this thing done and we're out of here. There are other places that you could pump this sewage to and -- forget hydraulically. That's how the stuff all works when you pump it, you pump it hydraulically. But you find a place that doesn't have a negative impact like this. 68 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. How far along have you gone on this now, the engineering? Would you say you're ten percent, 90 percent? Where are you with this site?
Give me a percentage. Are you just beginning, almost finished?
I just want to know where you are on your engineering with this site. I ask you the question.
Okay. So there are other sites that we might be able to pump to besides this one? Because this one is going to be your best site. Purely engineering, you don't need 69 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. to be an engineer to know that the easiest way to do this is to do it exactly where you're proposing it. It's right next to your low point. You just move it right in there. Forget that it takes trees down, it's on Fairmount Park, forget that the homes are behind you. And anybody that wants to wave their head while I'm talking from the Water Department, that's fine. There's not taken anything into consideration with these neighbors. I just can't get past the insensitivity that I know Bucks County is not having. They are looking for a place that doesn't have this kind of dreadful impact. I wish -- there were some meetings scheduled. Person from the Water Department didn't show up. A whole group of people came. Tomorrow night there's a meeting, nowhere near this site. Holy Family is there, but the meeting happens to be up at Community College about two or three miles away tomorrow night, 70 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. unless these people want to trek up there. They can walk to the Holy Family University site and you would have had Holy Family there as well. That's your first community meeting, the day after the hearing on this bill. I can't understand it.
Councilman, that is strictly coincidental, the timing of those two things.
And in addition, I'd like to put out there that we certainly would want a collaborative effort between yourself, the community and the Water Department to try to resolve this issue.
Okay. So is there any way of reducing the water that gets into the sewage pipe that in these heavy storms creates the problem?
We've had very extensive studies of the sewer system looking for, again, what I referred to 71 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. earlier as infiltration and inflow, which are the two ways water would get into the system.
What equipment do you investigate with? I remember hearing all these -- you have robots and all kinds of things.
But nothing has been able to find the water that gets into this --
We found a few very minor issues, nothing that would account for the volume of water that is coming in in any single source.
And you're up in Bucks County doing the same tests you're doing in the City?
We're asking them to provide us with the results of testing 72 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. that they're doing. So they're in their system going through doing the same kind of due diligence process.
We do all the water and sewage treatment that comes into our system from Bucks County, right? They don't do any of it?
They're testing their pipes. They're not our pipes. They're their pipes. We take their sewage at the gate, basically at the City line. We accept their sewage and treat it. Everything beyond the City line is their system. It's their responsibility to maintain, and that's why we're putting them on the hook for doing their due diligence on their system.
And I assume the same thing is -- is it Montgomery County that would be above Venice, that we treat sewage from 73 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Montgomery County? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: No. 4
That's all Northwest Philly? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Councilman, that's all within the City of Philadelphia.
When do you think your engineering study will be finished?
We're very close to the point where we would entertain meetings with the community.
Well, you said you were five percent into it. The Commissioner had said he didn't want to meet with the community until you were fully finished with your studies. Where are you?
I think we're very near the completion of our study. I think I interpreted your question about percentage of this site. We have no 25 design buildings. We have no design 74 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. tanks. This is a fledgling concept here on this site.
But the hydraulic analysis we're well along and we can sit down in very short order and discuss this in greater detail.
I assume these sewage tanks can be built at different depths, some would be deeper depending on what you need to do, others would be closer to the surface?
Now, is the hydraulic analysis -- you mentioned that's very preliminary. Is that different than the engineering study?
No. They're one and the same. 75 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
We would most likely engage an outside engineering firm for the actual design of the final solution, but for the analysis work of what we need to do is being done in-house.
Okay. And where is the Manayunk project in terms of time and build compared to this project?
That project is much further along. We're actually probably on the order of, let's say, 75 percent design completion on that. So we're much further along on that project.
When do you think you'll complete the design on that?
And you couldn't pull any permits until you have your design completed, right? 76 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
What technology do you use, if you use any, to control the odors?
There are a variety of odor-control systems that can be implemented. In our research, we found that many locations where tanks have been installed -- and there are many, many tanks in this country -- they have installed odor-control systems only never to implement them and never use them. Odors, for the most part that we've been able to discern from these visits, is not an issue. This is highly dilute flow. When this happens on those six or ten events, it is very diluted. It's not pure storm water, but it is very diluted. And so the issue of odors is a very nominal issue. 77 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. The flushing systems that are put into these basins, which basically acts as a final rinse after the tank is emptied, removes the material and, therefore, odors is just not really an issue. However, they have installed odor-control systems of varying types, and we would be amenable to that type of arrangement as well.
That includes refurbishing the playground and doing a real nice job?
I know it's early, but what's your early estimate of the cost of the Poquessing?
Push comes to shove, I'd have to say million right 24 now. It's a little early in the game. 25
And that's 78 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. assuming it's at the site we're all here talking about, next to Holy Family.
Well, we're looking for other alternatives. We looked at several sites, as you know, that may lend themselves to a tank. Definitely this site was the best site.
All three were Fairmount Park sites very close to homes.
Okay. As long as it's clear on the record. That's all. Are you looking at any alternatives other than three Fairmount Park sites that are very close to homes?
We have not -- I don't know of any sites that we've located that have lent themselves to solve this problem. 79 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
Well, I'd ask you to do this, not on my behalf, but on behalf of the neighbors and I think it's good for the Water Department. If I were the incoming Mayor, even though everything is squared away in Manayunk, I would want to know that the Water Department from top to bottom looked at alternatives as if these three Fairmount Park sites very close to homes didn't exist, what would you do? Because they may not exist.
That's what I'm trying to get -- hydraulically I don't care. You guys can create the engineering. It might cost you another $5 million or whatever. You can get, as Bucks County is attempting to do, get the sewage to another location where you can tank it, where you can put it in a tank and hold it. It's going to cost more, we all understand that. We understand that. 80 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. It's going to cost more. But a lot of these people have actually been at State Road and Rhawn Street where -- is that the Neshaminy Interceptor that runs down there?
That you don't want to get anywhere near. It is ugly and awful. It is very hard for them and for anybody to be thinking in terms of this.
Well, Councilman, just for the record, that is a totally different circumstance that we're talking about, and I'd hate to have anybody misled, because they are apples and oranges.
I know. People's sense of raw sewage is not a pleasant one, and having something on 81 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Fairmount Park ground very close to their homes is not a pleasant one, and I would hope that if nothing else after today, you really seriously look as if these three weren't there. I'm not saying you're not going to continue your hydraulic analysis or whatever you have to do, but I don't really think you've looked at alternatives.
We still are. We're still looking at alternatives. As we speak, there are people back at the office still looking at other alternatives, even other than tanks, to see if there's options. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: The staff has been directed to look at other alternatives months ago.
Okay. They may actually have to look at another alternative a little more seriously than they've been looked at up to now. But I have no further questions at this time.
Thank 82 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I'll be brief. I believe the last hearing we had, you described the source of the problem as the pitch. Apparently the sewer pipe is not sufficient enough to create the gravity to move it through the system. Is that inaccurate?
Yeah. That's not quite correct. The sewer system functions by gravity. It's sloped down to the treatment plant in Port Richmond. What happens in these very heavy rains is that the system is just inundated with too much flow, so the sewer system is incapable of moving that volume of water, and what happens is, the actual water level in the sewer system rises up until it reaches a manhole and erupts.
Was there testimony or am I incorrect on the 83 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. testimony at the last hearing, there was some deficiency with the degree of slope, which doesn't allow the water and/or sewage to move quickly through the system? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Sir, Councilman Kenney, are you speaking specifically to some of the South Philadelphia --
No, no. 12 This is the area up around Holy Family. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Oh.
That's not accurate? It's an issue of volume, not of slope?
Well, what happens is, if you had the ability to change the existing sewer system and make it have a larger slope, you could increase the volume of water. However, we're dealing with a built system with a given slope, so it has a given capacity to handle flow.
So you 84 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. can't deal with the slope issue?
Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. No questions. Commissioner, can you send me a status report of the flooding problem from Northern Liberties/north of Girard when you get a chance? I'm not sure if that qualifies for a storm water tank similar to what's being discussed today, but we do have a problem with substantial flooding on an ongoing basis, and if you can kind of give me something. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right. I think the last formal document 85 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. that we've issued was our third interim report on our study of storm flooding in those prone neighborhoods in the City. Obviously we've done more work since that last report came out perhaps four or five months ago, but we will give you the latest that we have.
We're in the season now. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Oh, yeah.
I expect to get a substantial number of calls, so if we can kind of move beyond the analysis and the studying process and get to some implementation of alleviation of the problem, that would be helpful. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Sure. We'll provide that.
Thank you. Councilman O'Neill, did you want to be recognized?
Yes. 86 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Thank you, Madam Chair. Commissioner, could you explain -- some of the Committee members I'm sure are not aware; others wouldn't mind being refreshed -- on how longstanding are agreements are with Bucks County for treating their water and sewer and the details in terms of pricing, where they actually pay less than we charge our customers? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Well, we have a long-term water agreement with Bucks County that was signed in 1966. It runs for 45 years, up until the year 2011, and at that point in time, we will renegotiate or prior to the expiration of that contract.
Have there been any amendments to that agreement? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes. Yes. They now pay -- since the early '90s, they pay a portion of the large distribution mains in the system that assure them of being treated in an equal 87 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. manner to those inside City limits. In other words, we have the ability inside Philadelphia to transfer water from one service area to another service area. It's not a perfect system, but we have three water treatment plants, we have reservoirs and we have pumps. If there was an outage in one section of the City, we, through redundancy and our other ability to wheel water, we could get it there. And the same for Bucks County. They saw something happen on one of the three rivers that serves Pittsburgh in the late '80s, early '90s where there was a major oil spill on the river and they wanted to make sure that they -- if there was a major oil spill on the Delaware, that they would not be left high and dry, that we would service only our people and leave them in the lurch. For that privilege, we got them to agree to pay for a portion of the -- the big transmission lines that permits us to shift water from one plant area to 88 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. another.
We do charge them less than we charge our own customers, right? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: No. 7 We charge them differently. We charge them on a wholesale basis, because they have their whole infrastructure that they have to maintain and collect. They're charged on a wholesale basis, cost of service-based rates.
Which is less. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Our internal -- our inside City customers also pay cost of service-based rates, but they pay on a retail basis, because we bill 475,000 customers every month, we provide sewer maintenance and like cleaning, water distribution, repair. It's a different relationship than you have with a wholesaler. They have to fix their own pipes. They have to bill their own people. In other words, it's a 89 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. different situation. We sell them water in bulk and we sell them sewer service also in bulk. Whatever comes in at the border, we charge them for, and that's -- on the sewer side, it's based on volume and strength of their sewage and capacity that we have reserved for them at our plant and also through pipes that lead to our plant.
Is it safe to say that if there was one-third less sewage going through that pipe at Holy Family University that we wouldn't be sitting here? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: We took a look at that, because I asked that question myself. That's a very good question. And the question is, in terms of what -- in terms of the problems that we have -- remember, we only have a wet weather problem. In terms of the wet weather problem that we have, if they eliminate that excess storm water coming into the pipe, that would not eliminate 90 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. our problem, unfortunately. It would lessen it.
But it's not just storm water that's in that pipe, it's also sewage. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That's right.
It's sewage that's coming out. And if you reduce the sewage by a third -- COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: The sanitary sewage? I don't know how they would do it.
No, if we weren't treating it. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: If they went elsewhere?
If we only were treating our own sewage in Northeast Philadelphia going into that pipe and didn't have Bucks County sewage, just as a hypothetical. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right. Right. Right. 91 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
Actually, we can't shut the sewage switch off with a 45-year deal. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That's the water side. The sewer side is slightly different. We signed a 35-year agreement with them late 1980s. So that has 35 years to run. That doesn't end until, I guess, 2020 something.
And Bucks County does not treat their own sewage, right? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Right.
And problems like this become ours? COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: Yes.
Yes. Thank 92 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. you, Madam Chair. Gentlemen, Commissioner, I just want to follow up with Councilman O'Neill is urging you and requesting you to do, is to look at those alternative sites, sites that don't require any property under Fairmount Park or if it's going to be a detriment to one of our probably beautiful Northeast neighborhoods. This is too close to homes and there's a lot of other problems with it. We want to help you, but we're not going to do it if it's going to be a detriment and it's going to affect a lot of people, especially in that Northeast neighborhood. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: That's why we are continuing to do our due diligence, Councilman Kelly, and I appreciate your advice.
Thank you. COMMISSIONER BRUNWASSER: What I think the key element here that still remains is, we don't believe that a tank 93 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. is a bad solution or a detrimental one. Currently, that area has sewage getting into Poquessing Creek. If I were living there, I would want that addressed, and that's what we are trying to do here.
I don't think it's the tank. I think it's where it's being placed is the problem. Thank you. Thank you.
You're welcome. Are there any further questions from members of the Committee?
I don't know if anyone is testifying again today from the community. There were certain community members here two weeks ago at the first hearing. But if they are, I would ask that the Water Department remain in case there's some --
By all means. Do we have any witnesses that 94 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. would like to testify? MR. McPHERSON: The next witness I have is John Albanese.
Mr. Albanese, why don't you come up to the witness. Are you Mr. Albanese, sir? Is Mr. Albanese here? No? MR. McPHERSON: Yes, he's here.
Mr. Levinson, welcome. Thank you for your patience. Please identify yourself for the record.
Hillel Levinson. I'm President of the Manayunk Development Corporation, and thank you very much for allowing me to appear this morning, Madam President and members of City Council. When we first heard of this ordinance being introduced, a panic went up in Manayunk, because we have spent the 95 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. last two years working with the City of Philadelphia, the Water Department, other agencies, with our community to work out a very satisfactory resolution of the issues that we're dealing with. Manayunk, as you know, is a very old part of the City of Philadelphia. The sewer and water systems there are really not adequate for handling most of the rain problems that exist. On a rainy day in Manayunk, well, in addition to Main Street being shut down, we have other problems there, too. So we're looking forward to this tank being installed. When I heard about it, I called Councilman O'Neill, and he's been very kind and helpful in terms of understanding that the issues that he's trying to address on behalf of his constituents in the Northeast are really unrelated to what we have in Manayunk, and kindly has indicated that -- and I've heard a number of times it repeated this morning -- that whatever comes out of 96 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. these hearings, that Manayunk will -- our situation will be treated and protected in terms of what we've accomplished.
Mr. Levinson, not only will it be protected, but it will be protected in such a way that there's not an overlay for the Fourth Councilmanic District. I know that's the easy way of doing it, but I don't want anybody to get the impression that sewage tanks are okay in the Fourth Councilmanic District and not in other areas. Any amendment will be carved out that clearly enables your project to move forward. Hopefully the Water Department will help us with that as we're working out this other issue. Thank you.
I just also want to say that former Councilman Nutter and Councilwoman Campbell have been very helpful in working our way through this two-year process that we've gone through and made sure that the City has been 97 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. supported. The last comment that I'd like to make and, that is, one of the disappointments is that we were told that this project would start in the calendar year 2007, hopefully the early fall. We have now heard -- and this is grapevine information -- that they may not start until 2009, and we're very upset about that. The community is anxiously looking forward to this project going forward, because a number of the pieces that are involved are community related, improvements to our recreation facility down there, access to the river for boating purposes, other kinds of things. This island is unique in that it is a little piece of land that's situated between the Manayunk Canal and the Schuylkill River. So it really is blocking us being able to make some substantial improvements in the community until we get this tank project completed 98 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. and the surface projects completed also. To whatever degree, members of City Council, you can help us encourage the Water Department to expedite this process, we would really appreciate. And, again, I thank you for the opportunity of addressing you.
It's on Venice Island, yes. It's an underground tank, and it really will --
I can assure you the one in Northeast Philadelphia is on the main land. Okay. Thank you.
Is the Water Commissioner still in the room? (No response.)
Can 99 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. someone address the issue that Mr. Levinson just brought to our attention that the one in Manayunk will not -- thank you. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: Debra McCarty, Deputy Commissioner of the Water Department. We are diligently working on this, and, in fact, I bug our group almost weekly on getting this tank moving along. As Mr. Furtek mentioned earlier, we are in the design stages and we're feverishly working to finish it up. I mean, it's got implications for the community, as we know. It's also got regulatory implications for us, so we are under the gun and are exerting every effort we can to get it done quickly.
When do you anticipate it will be done? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: We're hoping to get construction to begin in spring of '08. So that means design will be finished up in short order and it 100 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. will go through the bidding process and then notice to proceed next spring. So less than a year, about a year. It is a long process, and a lot of it is working with the community, as we fully intend to do with whatever solution we come up with for the Poquessing problem.
With all due respect, the community issues have been resolved a long time ago. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: I'm sorry. I'm not trying to implicate that it was a community issue that is holding it up. I'm just saying it is a process.
But this is the kind of thing that I think Councilman O'Neill was relating to. Part of the whole resolution with the community was a commitment from the Water Department that this would start in the fall of '07, and we heard now '09. Now we're hearing '08. It's very difficult when you're working and trying to hold together a 101 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. resolution of this magnitude for a community like Manayunk to be constantly pushed around and not knowing what the resolution is going to be. I'm still hoping that we can do this in '07 sometime. The Water Department has a lot of, I remember very well, a lot of ability to move these things forward if they put it on an expedited basis, and I still would like to hold them to their commitment to us that they start it back -- they start this in the fall of '07. And I agree with you, Councilman. I think that part of the problem is that you don't get reliable information that you can go to the community with and say this in fact is what's going to happen. We, the leadership in the community, made promises to them. We can't back it up now because the Water Department is backing off from what they said. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: 102 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. For the record, I think that the '07 was something that was discussed in the preliminary stages of our discussions, and it's unfortunate. We'll make sure we work with Mr. Levinson and the others to make sure they're aware of our current schedule. But, I mean, it's not for lack of trying to move this along. I mean, it's a complicated site. Every site is different. We are pushing it along. We do have a consultant that's working with us. We're doing everything we can to get this done and live up to our commitments.
Please remain. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Commissioner, could you tell me how long this is going to take to complete it once it starts? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: I believe it's a two-year process. 103 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
So, in other words, if we start it in 2008, it's going to be 2010 before it's completed.
That's part of the issues exactly. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: Well, understand that this right now, we'll be taking what is an existing parking lot, having to relocate that on the other side, which involves demolition of the rec center and the playground and pool. And then once that new parking is provided, then we go back and build the tank and then we would relocate the parking and get into the parking.
Well, I can understand why -- DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: So there's several stages to this.
-- they're a little upset, because it is going to take some time to complete that. The earlier, the better, I would think.
We understood 104 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. from the beginning that the actual construction phase was going to be a two-year period of time, and everybody has agreed and, in effect, signed off on that, but you're absolutely right, and thank you, the starting date by being put now -- now we're talking about the spring of '08. I don't know what we're really talking about. Maybe now the fall of '08, spring of '09. I would like to get this nailed down so we can go back to the community and say to them this is when the starting date is going to be. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: As I said, we will get back to you with the updated schedule and want to continue working and the good relationship we do have with you and your group.
Ms. McCarty, is this tank similar in size to the proposed one for Poquessing? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: It's smaller.
And we 105 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. need about an acre and a half for the ground for the Poquessing tank? That's the number that I've been -- the amount of ground I've been given, surface area. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: I'm sorry. I don't know off the top of my head.
I think our answer is coming up. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: We don't have --
But the one in Venice Island that we're going to protect at all costs from anything we're discussing here today is on a parking lot next to a playground in Manayunk, correct? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: Well --
And how large is this site? And, Mr. Furtek, I'm just trying to get the dimensions. I was told that the Poquessing tank needs about an 106 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. acre and a half of ground that it would be under. Is that accurate?
Steve Furtek, Manager of Engineering for Water. I don't have the acreage of the site at Venice Island off the top of my head, but it's a similar-sized tank. It's three something million versus four and a quarter. There's some difference in the depth.
So the Planning Commission was only off by three million gallons on their estimate? Planning Commission said one to two million, and it's four and a half million?
They really got into this issue with some detail, didn't they?
I think that indicates that we provide less sewage than the Northeast.
That's right. Well, we have Bucks County. You don't have to worry about that. Okay. But it is approximately an acre and a half of ground, the surface?
Just based on similarity, I would say yes. It's probably very similar to that same footprint.
Okay. Thank you. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: Understand that Manayunk and the Northeast are subject to the same constraints. We've got many reasons to move this along in Manayunk.
I hope I just added some. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: It's always been there. 108 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
Just very quickly. Mr. Levinson or Deputy Commissioner, when was this agreement reached, so I'm clear on the timetable, where you thought it was going to start in 2007, the fall?
We completed -- there's been two years of almost monthly meetings with the community, with the business community, with the City of Philadelphia. They were completed actually late fall, early winter of last year. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: Of '06.
Of '06. And that's when we were told and had the understanding that this project would start in the fall of '07.
And along 109 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. those lines, Deputy Commissioner, that was a number a month ago if that's accurate. Has anything been happening in that time? I know we're going afield from the bill, but I'm just trying to get a feel for the time. It seems like a long time. DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: There's some design issues. We've been trying to work out the design issues, finalize -- I mean, there's the building as well as the tank, and they're two different designers. I mean, as I said, it is a very complicated process. I mean, we did start meeting with folks back in 2003, and at that time, we truly did believe we could get this done by 2007. Unfortunately, we were a little optimistic. We are still trying to move forward and move this project out, because it's important. It's important because there's connection restraints in Manayunk right now for new development or 110 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. if you want to add a bathroom to your home, as is in Northeast Philadelphia. So we're very anxious to move it forward. We're very anxious for the sewage that is now going to the Schuylkill upstream of our drinking water plants to stop.
But just one point, Councilman Greenlee. The last time when we had meetings with the Water Department was the fall of '06, and even at that late date, we were told the fall of '07, not back in '03. In '06 we were still told the fall of '07. And then when we heard '09, I mean, this is what -- and I've asked our Councilperson to get involved in this. I mean, there's too many things that are hanging fire because of this additional delay.
But now you're saying spring of '08 you kind of 111 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. see that starting? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: We believe we should be able to begin construction, yes, sir.
Not '09, '08? DEPUTY COMMISSIONER McCARTY: Correct. And, again, we'll be in touch.
You're welcome. Any other questions from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have any other witnesses that would like to testify? Please approach the witness 112 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. table. MR. McPHERSON: The next --
As I indicated earlier, we did hear testimony from the community at our previous public hearing, so unless -- sir, I don't know whether you were here or not, but unless you have something different to add toward that testimony, I would ask you to be extremely, extremely brief, because there's another public hearing that's scheduled.
I think input from we, the people, is always very important, and too often we don't get the input. I remember waiting to testify for the Comcast hearings. Scheduled to speak at 2:00 p.m., got to speak at 10:00 p.m.
Thank you. Please identify yourself for the 113 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. record.
I'm sorry. I won't read all of this. It's in writing. You'll get that. My name is Joseph Powell. I'm an accountant and a systems expert with significant experiences in the public and private sectors. I've been gathering facts in a hurry on the four-million-gallon tank at Holy Family, and I need more facts, including average and peak gallons of storm water flow. Before the Council comes back from vacation this summer, I'll have additional input. I assume the record will be open for that. It's been obvious to me for decades that the City of Philadelphia should have provided additional lateral storm sewers at multiple locations along 114 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Roosevelt Boulevard to the Delaware River. We've had all sorts of problems because they weren't put in. We might want to save some capital budget dollars that way, but we're paying the price now, and we're going to -- the way the Water Department is moving on this, I predict they're going to have quite a few problems. The best way to predict the future is to create it. What they're creating is more tanks. What are they going to do when Berks County and other counties along the river, they're going to keep changing their zoning, just like we had in Philadelphia. No one would listen to us. They changed the zoning. Now we have more problems. The problem is going to grow with the downriver problems in Philadelphia from all the surrounding counties. And tanks, no tanks -- tanks isn't the way to go. You really have to solve the underlying problems up front. Otherwise -- you're going to put these in 115 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. in '07? In '08, you'll be discussing more tanks, because the tanks you put in won't hold enough. As far as storage goes, we have the City-owned John F. Byrne Golf Course, 3700 Grant Avenue side of the course. It becomes a 16-foot deep lake. I'll confirm that by measuring the top of the trees from pictures I have of that lake, but I estimate it's about feet. And 12 the pictures were taken right after heavy 13 rainstorms. 14 I understand there's no 15 definite plans to install the 16 four-million-gallon tank right away at Holy Family College. Furthermore, I understood that they're talking Eden Hall and then the Crestmont Farms. I think it's disgraceful. They're out on a fishing expedition, upsetting the community all along there. They should have did their homework and solved the problem to begin with. And the problem is, get some lateral lines over to the 116 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Delaware River so you can bypass these tanks with storm water. I understood that the tank may not be needed, but the way they're talking, the tanks are going in. I disagree with that. I think they're setting up some real problems. If the real underlying problems are not resolved, the problems will become much worse in Philadelphia as upstream townships and counties repeat Philadelphia's mistakes by not providing adequate infrastructure to support all planned development. Right now I stopped at a property up in Croydon. FEMA is actually going along the riverbank of the Neshaminy raising homes four and a half feet. FEMA is paying the bills. That means we're paying the bills, we, the people. And these things will keep going on unless we get these things under control and stop development without providing infrastructure. 117 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Here is the original of my write-up for the Council President. I have extra copies for the --
-- other Councilmen. On the bottom I think you should take a look at these pictures. I think the Water Department should do something about that immediately. When the state cuts the grass in the center of the road, take a look at those pictures. It's been going on year after year, and that water ends up in the inlets where this Water Department has to clean them out. The Water Department must see these when they cut the grass. Why didn't they say something about this to the state? And here's some extra colored copies for the other Councilmen. And before you come back from summer vacation, I'll have some other information I think you'll find helpful.
Very 118 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. good. Thank you so much. MR. McPHERSON: The next witness is John Albanese, and then after Mr. Albanese is Hugh Davis.
Madam President, City Council, to all present, good morning. I'm sorry; good afternoon.
My name is John J. Albanese, a resident of East Torresdale. My wife and I have lived in Philadelphia all our lives. We chose to live, work and retire in this great city. We could have moved. We didn't want to. We love Philadelphia. We need Philadelphia to understand East Torresdale is a great neighborhood and we wish it to remain that way. Philadelphia doesn't need a neighborhood heading towards what 119 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. possibly could be a downward spiral because a facility being built. The problem of this sewer storage facility is not a Philadelphia problem. The solution would be to have Bucks County build their own sewer storage facility. That would address the runoff or storage crisis before it even gets to Philadelphia. The residents of East Torresdale want to convey to our City governing body we respectfully request to make it known we do not want the storage tank in East Torresdale. Thank you so much.
You're welcome, sir. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Mr. Hugh Davis.
Good afternoon. My name is Hugh Davis. I'm a resident of the Brookhaven development adjacent to Holy Family University. I've lived there for 34 years, and 34 years ago when I bought my home, the developer had a map 120 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. of the neighborhood and listed the parkland that is in question right now. So far, I'm still waiting for that parkland to be developed. It has never been basketball courts or a playground or benches put down there, just a little path that we could walk to the train station. Now I find out that the Water Department wants to develop it for a storage facility for their excess storage that comes from Bucks County. I believe that's a bad place to locate that tank, because that creek there has flooded a number of times. I've looked on the steam flow gauge that's located several hundred feet below where this facility will go and I found out that since 1965 when that gauge was installed, there have been two one-hundred-year floods that's been recorded down there, one that had a flow of 7,500 cubic feet per second and a height of 14.75 feet. That was Hurricane Agnes in June of 1972. In July of 1982, 121 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. there was a severe thunderstorm which had 9,400 cubic feet per second of flow and a 15.35 height of the flood back there. Since then, there has also been what are classified as four decade floods. They've occurred in 1985, 1990, 1999 and 2005. They had a peak flow of about 5,300 cubic feet per second and a flood level of to feet above flood stage. 11 And this is on a stream that has a lot of 12 the ground that used to be open area 13 that's been developed in the last few years, like the Byberry properties, around the Philadelphia Airport and the Philadelphia Race Track, which now that they have a casino license is even going to further develop in their location. So I believe that this location is a bad spot to put an underground storage tank that's probably going to be flooded anywhere from five to six times in a decade. And I believe the problem to this solution -- the solution to this problem would be to build more storage 122 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. facilities up in Bucks County. And in listening to the testimony here this morning, I don't see why we cannot pump our sewage up to Bucks County so they can store it for us and then send it back down when we don't have this heavy flow. I appreciate your time and concern, and I thank you.
Yes. My name is Lorraine Thompson. I live in Brookhaven and my house would be right across from the storage tank, and this is part of Fairmount Park property. My kids would always go down and play. Now I take my grandchildren down to play. The kids go fishing. They're not catching anything that they can eat, but they have fun fishing, and I don't think it's fair to take that away just because it's a 123 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. problem in Bucks County.
Thank you. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Our next two witnesses are Kerry and Jack Boyce.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Kerry Boyce. This is my husband, Jack Boyce. We live on St. Denis Drive, and we're here to support Councilman O'Neill's bill. We are opposed to having a sewage tank in our backyard. We were already on the fence about leaving Philadelphia, and I believe that if this tank is built, it would be the push that would force us to sell our home and move outside the City. My husband works for Verizon and I'm a registered nurse. We have three children in the Philadelphia public school system, all in the mentally gifted program. I think that we are a fair 124 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. representation of the good people that are being chased out of Philadelphia. Thank you.
Thank you. Thank you very much. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Our next two witnesses are Christine and Andrew Collier.
Good afternoon. I don't have much to say, except for this whole thing is just --
Thank you. 125 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
The only thing I have to say is, this is a quality of life for all of us. This is the only open area in the whole development around the college, like the woman said, where kids can play, and to store someone else's waste is just ridiculous to me. Thank you.
Thank you. You've been very patient. Thank you very much.
My name is Christine, and I would like to say that as a long-time resident of St. Denis Drive, I oppose the construction of this tank and support Councilman O'Neill's bill. I believe that a quality of life issue exists with this tank. Many families will choose to leave rather than face the dangers of waste fumes in their backyards. Other locations could be considered, such as State Road or others which do not impact schools and residential neighborhoods. 126 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Thank you.
You're welcome. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Our next witness is Edward White.
Do we have anybody else after Mr. White? MR. McPHERSON: Yes. We have a Gavin Wolf and a Michael McDonald.
Good morning. My name is Ed White and I'd just like to say I am definitely in favor of the bill 17 being presented by Councilman O'Neill. This tank would adversely affect the quality of life in our area. And after listening to the Water Department this morning, I think they have a lot more homework to do on this about what can be done in looking at a different location. I mean, since I came here, the size of the tank grew about a million gallons or 127 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. more. So who knows what the final result is going to be. So thank you for your attention.
Thank you. (Applause.) MR. McPHERSON: Gavin Wolf and Michael McDonald.
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record.
My name is Gavin Wolf and this is my partner, and we have a business -- this is Mike McDonald -- business right in that direct area, and it's a very big issue with the consumers, the customers that we have. It's not just the whisper in the neighborhood. It's an outcry. And we'd like to applaud Councilman O'Neill for relaying the passion of the neighbors to not having this particular spot. MR. McDONALD: Exactly. I 128 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. agree with Gavin. My name is Michael McDonald. Again, I think Congressman O'Neill -- or Councilman O'Neill -- I apologize -- hit it on the head with the early stages. It's the quickest, cheapest, easiest way to do it right now. I know that something has to be done. Obviously there is a problem there, but obviously there's different avenues I think that could be explored and taken.
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table, if you will, identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
David Stubbs. I'm President of Stubbs Enterprises. Good morning, Council President Verna and members of the Rules Committee. My company, Stubbs Enterprises, was 129 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. established in 2001 and we have worked extensively in the Manayunk, Roxborough area since 2003. We acquired site control of eight acres of G-2 Industrial land along the Manayunk Canal and R-6 line. This property is a brownfield site and was an eyesore to the community for years. We have had this problem under site control since 2003 and have been working alongside the Ridge Park Civic Association and the Fourth District Councilperson to get approvals for the brownfield site, remediate the property and develop it into a transit-oriented condominium development. We have worked diligently to design a development that would benefit the community and increase the value of the neighborhood by getting rid of an eyesore. We were successful in obtaining our zoning approvals and use permit for our development named Umbria Village, but now all our efforts could have been 130 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. thwarted by the bill, if not for the amendment introduced today regarding the overlay. I am one of the developers that have been allowed to develop under the Connection Management Plan, which extended itself until 2011. If this bill 9 is signed into law, the City could not build the tanks as of right since the tanks have now become regulated. Therefore, the CMP is no more. The bill 13 takes the economic feet right from under my development by making the land useless. If the bill goes through, this land becomes underdeveloped and so does other land owners similar to mine. I hope this is not the intention of this pro-development Council. This bill will have an astronomical effect on the community by leaving several undeveloped sites around the City and will cause irrecoverable harm to smaller developers like myself for years to come. Today this is a concern for 131 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Roxborough, Manayunk, Northeast and Bucks County. Tomorrow it could be the same concern for East Falls, Northern Liberties and Center City. I urge you to reconsider moving forward with this bill 7 due to its ramifications and the detriment it places on the growth of our City. I'd also like to thank Councilwoman Campbell and her office for taking time out of their busy schedule to speak with me regarding the issues and the other Councilpeople of Philadelphia. Thank you.
Thank you, sir. Do we have any other witnesses to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Madam Chair, if I could make a request of your good graces. Tomorrow morning if we 132 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. could have a continuance of the Rules Committee for the purpose of having this bill amended. It would probably take until then to get a good amendment done that would cover the Venice Island situation, but also maybe more narrowly cover the Fairmount Park proximity to homes issue. I think 9:45. We shouldn't need more than five minutes, and I know we have many hearings tomorrow.
That would be fine. Thank you. So you all know, you can go out and have lunch now. The hearing is being continued until 9:45 tomorrow morning so that the proper amendments can be prepared. Thank you. Since we have no further witnesses on that bill, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of 133 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Bill No. 070372. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Institutional Development District Master Plan of Temple University by allowing for the construction of a new building to be used for the Tyler School of Art.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. I am Martin Soffer and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 070372. The purpose of this ordinance 16 is to permit the amendment of the Temple University Institutional Development District Master Plan. This proposal is for the construction of a new building that will house the Tyler School of Art. The Tyler School is presently located in Elkins Park. Due to the secluded suburban setting, the Tyler campus has been isolated from the main campus activities. This move would make the 134 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. school a more active and visible member of the University, while additionally giving the students access to a wider range of activities and resources. At the request of the Law Department, I have an amended copy of the exhibit for your consideration. The City Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 20, 2006, approved these revisions to the Temple University Institutional Development District Master Plan. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and be pleased to answer any questions.
Thank you. The attached map that we have is absolutely useless. Do you have another map?
135 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Please. Make sure that the Chief Clerk's Office has a copy, please. Would you make certain that the Chief Clerk's Office gets a copy of it?
Where did you say the proposed new building is going to be located?
It's within the main campus of Temple University at -- hold on. It's between 12th and 13th and Diamond and Morris.
Is the Tyler School of Art currently located in the Temple Ambler campus?
No. It's in Ambler. Tyler is located in Ambler, in the Ambler campus.
Good afternoon. Eileen Quigley on behalf of Temple University. Good afternoon, Madam President. 136 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
At this point, Tyler School of Art is in Ambler. They're going to move the Tyler School of Art. They wanted to bring it closer to the rest of the campuses of Temple's campuses. And they are proposing a three-story building at this time. Initially a two-story building was approved, but they actually needed a three-story building to accommodate all of the classrooms and the other services and laboratories that they needed for this -- or the work rooms that they needed for the art school. So we respectfully request that the Committee does approve this and also that we would ask for a suspension of the rules in this matter.
Just to add, the Tyler School, which I happened to attend, it was in Elkins Park for about 60, 70 years, and temporarily while things were 137 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. in transition, it was temporarily out of Ambler.
How many staff members are located at the Ambler facility, and will these jobs be relocated to the City?
It's my understanding these jobs will be relocated into the City of Philadelphia.
I do not have that information for you, Madam President. Of course, I can get that for you today.
Can you tell us how many students attend the Tyler School of Art and how many students does the new facility intend to educate? Nobody has an answer?
I don't have that answer for you. I can provide that for 138 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. you this afternoon.
For the record, can you tell us what the cost of this project will be?
I'm sorry, Madam President. I do not have the total for that project, but I know it's a very big and important project for Temple University.
Councilman Kelly is asking what exists there now.
At the spot where Temple Tyler will be built, there is an open-air surface parking lot.
So when do they anticipate beginning with this project and what is the completion date?
We anticipate 139 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. starting obviously as soon as possible. When the bill is passed and it's certified, we would go through the process of pulling the permits that we needed and they wanted to break ground as soon as possible.
Any questions from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
I just have a question. You mention that the facility as it exists today, it's going to be built on a parking lot?
Are you going to have suitable parking when you complete this facility?
Yes. Actually, part of that has already been approved and we've been approved through L&I. We have additional parking across the street in another parking lot. So there's 140 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. sufficient parking. We've been approved for that from the zoning.
And that would be sufficient to hold the additional people?
Thank you, Madam President. Are there any City dollars involved with this project?
Any City dollars? That I do not know. I can find that out and let you know that information.
I will confirm that. I will confirm what Mr. Soffer has 141 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. said.
If there are City dollars involved, then there would be required an Economic Opportunity Plan.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Let me kind of update members of the Committee on where we are. The building is actually already under construction, is substantially under construction. The foundation is built. We actually had a groundbreaking ceremony about three weeks ago, quite significant. The purpose of this legislation is that the earlier IDD authorization called for a two-story building. As was indicated earlier, there needs to be additional space because they're going to increase the size of the administrative and some of the classroom space, so we had to do this ordinance to add an 142 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. additional floor. The construction of the building as a result of Temple's traditional policy, Temple has hired Greater Urban Affairs Coalition to monitor and solicit participation for MBE and WBE. So the traditional process is in place. There is an Equal Opportunity Plan. There is in fact a plan as it relates to residents. I believe that there are going to be more than 100 faculty members. It actually may be more. I think it's between 100 and 200 faculty members that will be moving from the Ambler campus to the local campus, along with all of the students. So it will be an entire relocation of all administrative and classroom operations will move to the site. The parking actually of the -- the building is actually being built on the former parking lot at 12th and Diamond. The Temple University purchased 143 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. a parcel adjacent to the site from the Redevelopment Authority approximately a year ago, and the determination was to build a parking lot on that site, because if they had built a building, it would have been a three-story structure directly adjacent to the existing residents from Norris Home. So the parking lot will actually be a buffer from the actual residents. The money that was paid to the Redevelopment Authority for the purchase of the site was actually committed to an affordable housing development in close proximity to the development. I think it's going to be at 10th and Berks. So that's kind of how the transaction worked. I will send my invoices to Temple University.
Any other questions from members of the 144 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Committee of the two witnesses? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? Please approach the witness table, kindly identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Judith Robinson and I'm a resident in the immediate area of Temple University, and I'm happy to know that Tyler Art School is coming to North Philadelphia. That's a really good thing. Years ago I took Saturday art classes at Tyler on Temple's main campus on Saturdays. So I'm really happy to note they're coming to town. However, as Temple expands, I want to just make sure that they understand that the community that surrounds them welcomes them and wants to be a part of all that they're doing. There seems to be a little disconnect, and I'll tell you what I mean. The Draft Horse Restaurant, very 145 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. nice restaurant in the area on Cecil B. Moore Avenue, it closes on the weekends, which is a little strange for a restaurant. So it appears from the community's standpoint that it's sort of like a Temple restaurant or a Temple entity that's not really for the community, because that's strange for it to close on the weekends. Now, as a businessperson, I know if you don't have business, then you cannot stay open just to be there. But if Temple used all of their clout to encourage their residents, their employees, their students to partake in the community like we're all living there together as a neighborhood, I think that we all together could support a restaurant to be open on the weekends. In addition, I know the community has for many years used Temple's facilities, but they're like health clubs and entities like that that I think should be more open to the 146 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. community. Years ago I took dance classes at the student center at Broad and Tioga. I just would like more of that. There's always this health issue. They have this beautiful facility at Cecil B. Moore and 15th Street and maybe there can be some kind of arrangement on off hours or when the student population is not so heavy that the community could use those facilities also. I don't want to get in the way of students, because I understand that it is for the students for the most part, but there needs to be some connectivity to the community so there is not this feeling of them against us, so to speak. Temple students are expanding more and more into the community. That's a good thing. As a property owner, I look to have some of those art students maybe rent my facilities. So it's a good thing.
Thank you. 147 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
But I just want Temple's encouragement. For instance, they could do employee-assisted housing. There is monies from the NTI funds that could assist them in that regard. Temple always cries about not having the endowment that University of Penn does, but just basic marketing and encouragement could be of value. The students seem to be more proactive in intermingling in the community than maybe faculty, because they're more set in their ways, I guess, and I think because the students are there expanding into the community, issues such as safety, cleanliness could be supported community and Temple-wise. So thank you very much for your listening.
Thank you. Thank you very much. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.) 148 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
Seeing no one, I would suggest Mr. McPherson immediately read Bill No. 5 070002. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Orthodox Street, Garden Street, Lefevre Street, Richmond Street, Buckius Street and the Delaware River.
Again, as of 2:30 yesterday, we had not received any testimony regarding this bill.
I will double-check, because we had sent it twice, but I will definitely follow up on that.
I really don't like this practice of we're not getting testimony 48 hours prior to the hearing.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. I am Martin Soffer and I'm here to testify on Bill No. 070002, which was introduced by Councilmember Krajewski on January 23, 2007. This ordinance will rezone the former Philly Coke site, a 78-acre former industrial site that is currently vacant land, from a zoning designation of partly R-9A Residential and partly G-2 General Industrial and partly LR Least Restricted to partly R-9A Residential and partly WRD, that's Waterfront Redevelopment District. The site is located between Orthodox and Buckius Street in the Bridesburg section of the City. The zoning designation requires the adoption of an illustrative site plan as well as a master plan narrative. The proposed development for this site will contain a mix of 150 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. residential units with some commercial development. All of the streets in this plan will be public City streets. A maximum 70-foot setback along the riverfront is being provided that will contain public access to the waterfront and a 12-foot-wide bike path. In addition, public parking will be provided on the north side of Orthodox Street to the east of Delaware Avenue. The plan calls for the development of over 1,000 units that will be located in the west of the former bed of Delaware Avenue. The portion of the site east of the former bed of Delaware Avenue is indicated for future development and will require both City Planning and City Council's approvals at a later date. At the request of the Law Department, a copy both of the illustrative site plan and the master plan narrative are to be added to Bill 24 No. 070002 as exhibits. To this end, I have the proposed amendments for your 151 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. consideration. The Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 19, 2007, considered and approved Bill No. 070002 and adopted both the illustrative site plan and the master plan narrative for the development of this site. This concludes my testimony. I appreciate the opportunity to appear before you and would be pleased to answer any questions.
Thank you. What is the approximate acreage of this property?
Do you have any indication as to what the approximate cost would be for the 152 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. development?
There's different costs for different types of development. I'll defer that to two representatives from the Westrum Corporation.
Madam President, Carl Primavera on behalf of the Westrum. And I also introduce at this time Paul Loney and John Dean. If the question was the total cost to the developer, this is three quarters of a billion dollar ultimate development of investment in the property. With regard to the actual purchasers, I'll let Mr. Loney describe that, but the concept is to provide a variety of housing types at different price points so there will be something available for what we'll call first-time buyers all the way hopefully up for Westrum to people who want to have a more lavish life-style and maybe even on the 153 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. undeveloped portion at a later date when we come back to Council, these people will be closer to the water. So the idea is to create a variety of population, all of whom will benefit from the proximity to the waterfront and also, as Paul will tell you, there is going to be a dedicated walking area along the river for everybody. So, Paul, do you want to go into that?
I'm also going to hand this out. There's three plans for each package. They're not stapled. I'm sorry. But I put them in little groups. Thank you.
My name is Paul Loney, Philadelphia Projects Director from Westrum Development. We've worked very hard over the past year or longer with the community and the Delaware River City Corporation 154 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. to bring a development to this area that everyone would be very happy with. One of the big concerns of the community that they're very proud of in Bridesburg is that the Bridesburg community would continue into this development. So what we had done was nothing higher than a three-story building or a four-story building, which L&I calls it, will be done west of Delaware Avenue. This is all going to be the continuation of the community that the Bridesburg folks have seen, that they're used to and they're comfortable with. That's what they had asked for. And they understand in the future development that this could be a high-rise or different types of mixed-use property out there. But at this point, we're not ready to say what that is. It's still too early. That's probably not going to be developed for another five or ten years. One of the things that the City had asked us, they're constructing this 155 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. greenway along the river. We are dedicating a minimum of 70 feet and a maximum of 200 feet to this greenway, and we will construct the greenway and give public access to that in the first phase of our development. So one of the things that the people in Bridesburg were upset about was that they live along the river, they see the river, but they have no way to get to the river. Well, in the first phase of our development, if it goes through, that's what we're going to do. We're going to give them access to the river. It's for the complete public. They can drive down Orthodox Street, park their car, get their bikes out and go on the bike path. We've met with, again, the community development corporation up there, the business persons association, the civic association. They're all in favor of it. The Councilwoman is completely behind this. And we're going to meet all the zoning qualifications 156 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. that are in the waterfront development district. We're not asking for any variances or anything other than what has already been passed by Council in saying that that's what they feel should be developed up here. So that's all I have at the moment and I'd be glad to answer any questions about this.
Thank you. Any questions by members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill.
I have a couple brief questions. Mr. Loney, the area that we're looking at with the proposed homes, filled-in area, about how many acres is that?
And the 157 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. proposed Delaware Avenue, I'm just trying to figure out, I drive through this area a lot when 95 is clogged up and I'm always looking for another way.
The proposed Delaware Avenue south of Orthodox, what does it connect with?
Well, it connects with -- there's another section of Delaware Avenue that will go all the way down to Wheatsheaf Lane, which is where it ends now. So it's going to connect to that Delaware Avenue, the big wide Delaware Avenue on the other side of the creek.
So I'll be able to go from Buckius all the way to Wheatsheaf Lane on Delaware Avenue?
Yes, you will. And beyond that. You'll be able to go all the way to Allegheny Avenue at this time.
Terrific. 158 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. Will these homes have a brick exterior similar to the neighborhood?
They will. They probably won't be completely brick, but what we'll do is, we'll work as we develop product over the time and, again, we'll go back to the community with that like we did in Schuylkill Falls and say, Is this okay, and different things like that. We're not going to really go too far down the line, because the community and the Councilwoman are very close and we don't need to have our heads ripped off if we're putting ugly things there.
Well, some of the nicest row homes and even singles are being built by, I believe, a small builder, not real large operation, but it's at the foot of Thompson Street going south right where you hit the dead end, so you have to go over to Richmond Street because of the Betsy Ross overpass. And they're all brick -- well, if they're not all brick, they're mostly brick. But 159 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. they're very, very attractive, and there's singles on the side that backs up to the highway. These are row homes I'd put anywhere in my district and be proud of them. I don't care what section of my district it would be. They're that attractive. I think it's called Bridesburg Estates or something.
Betsy Ross Estates. And from what I understand, they're getting very nice prices for them.
Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
We respectfully request if you could suspend the rules as well on this. Thank you. 160 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, this will conclude our public hearing. We will now go into our public meeting, and the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 17 070236.
Thank you, Madam Chair. There apparently has been an amendment circulated for 070236. I move for the adoption of the amendment to Bill No. 070236. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the 161 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. amendment be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 070236 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a request for rules suspension as to allow for reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 20 070236 as amended 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. 162 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. All in favor will please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. The Chair recognizes Councilman Greenlee regarding Bill No. 070266.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 070266 be reported out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 19 070266 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation. All in favor will please say aye. (Aye.)
Those opposed? 163 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. (No response.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Bill No. 070342 is being continued until tomorrow morning, June the 7th at 9:45 a.m. The Chair again recognizes Councilman Clarke regarding Bill No. 10 070372.
Madam President, I move the adoption of the amendment of Bill No. 070372. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment proposed earlier be adopted. All in favor will please say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the amendment is 164 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. adopted. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
I move that Bill No. 070372 as amended be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation and a 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. 14 070372 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended and, 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.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. 165 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 070002.
Madam President, I move that Bill No. 070002 be amended accordingly regarding the testimony. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment as proposed earlier be adopted. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it and the motion carries. Again, the Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I move that Bill No. 23 070002 as amended be reported out of this Committee favorably with a request made for rules suspension to allow for first 166 6/6/07 - RULES - BILL 070002, ETC. reading at our next Council session. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 6 070002 be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation as amended; further, that the rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Council session. All in favor will say aye. (Aye.)
The ayes have it. The motion carries. And that concludes our public meeting. Thank you very much. (Committee on Rules adjourned at 12:50 p.m.) - - - 167 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 June 6, 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.)