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.