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.