COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC HEARING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - - Room 696, City Hall Philadelphia, Pennsylvania Wednesday, October 15, 2003 10:20 a.m. - - - - BILL 030483 - An Ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code... 11 BILL 030492 - An Ordinance amending Title 14 of the Philadelphia Code... 12 BILL 030564 - An Ordinance to waive certain conditions, covenants and restrictions affecting the 13 use and development of certain area of land situate in the 58th Ward... 14 BILL 030565 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps... BILL 030566 - An Ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps... PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCIL PRESIDENT ANNA VERNA COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE - - - - 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 I N D E X BILL 030492 PAGE KAREN LEWIS ................................. BILL 030612 Duane Bumb, Deputy Director of Commerce .... 10 ROBERT CATTEL, Roxborough District ......... 11 BILL 030617 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... 11 DON DAVIDAL ................................. 27 12 13 BILL 030483 14 THOMAS CHAPMAN, City Planning Commission .... 18 3 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030492
Good morning ladies and gentlemen. Committee on Rules is now in session. The first bill we will hear today is Bill No. 030492, which is an ordinance amending Title of the Philadelphia Code, relating to 8 "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, 9 entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new Section 10 14-1627, entitled "Yorktown Special District 11 Controls"; all under certain terms and conditions. 12 Please identify yourself for the 13 record. Are you testifying on this bill, Mr. 14 Chapman?
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. This bill 18 has not been considered yet by the Planning Commission, so I really didn't have any testimony for this morning's hearing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, this bill was introduced as a result of some concerns that we've had relating to 4 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030492 Yorktown and the Temple University encroachment, so to speak, in terms of its students and some of the activities associated with some of the housing and the conversion of housing in Yorktown into student housing. What I'd like to do, if at all possible, is ask the individuals who have come down to testify hear their testimony and I will be asking for the bill to be held, because I understand there is a subsequent community meeting that I've been asked to attend so we can have a better sense of what everybody -- to get everybody on the same because I think some people have different views on what we should do. Because people came down, I'd like them to testify, and we'll hold the bill 16 committee.
Anybody here to testify on this bill, please come forward. Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
We have a major consent over 5 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030492 the issues of -- with the bill as it's presented, what I have a copy of. Our ordinance in our area calls for no boarding houses, multi-dwelling homes. But in this statement here it clearly states that beyond your control is the Zoning Commission who can say that someone can come in and do these things in the area. And if they do, then they have to provide for parking and all this other wonderful stuff. And one of the issues on here is garage parking and off-street parking. Well, we already have that problem. That is our major focus. Temple is building monster dorms everywhere there's a piece of grass. We can't park. My car has been broken in four times because people just come through the area. My son-in-law's car has been broken in twice; my husband's once. We have a parking issue. And I think I've expressed that concern Mr. Clarke on several occasions through his office, memos, and faxes and personally as well. One part says that Yorktown can't do it. The Zoning Commission says that they can, so they come in now they're doing it. We just don't want that in the community because will that open up to Section 8 housing as well? 6 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030492
Let me briefly explain what we're attempting to do here. We obviously will talk about it at the community meeting. What we're trying to do is require, through a zoning overlay, that every unit has off street parking. Say, for instance, if we have a building in Yorktown and it's converted into apartments, such as what was done on 13th Street and Oxford. Right now there's only one off-street parking pad for that particular property. What we will require is if that building is converted into three units, it will essentially have to have three off-street parking. Now, you know based on the configuration of that property, there's no way that they can have three off-street parking spaces.
Well, what we're saying is that we don't want it converted. We don't want those single family homes that is in a historical area converted, period.
Let me finish. I understand that. An individual has the ability, the right to go to a zoning board hearing and ask for a variance to change --
I don't think this 7 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030492 individual did. We're going to check further. But I'm pretty sure that both the properties that have been split have not gone through the Zoning Commission.
I understand where you're coming from. If you let me finish. What we're attempting to do is to set the threshold so high that there's no way conceivably that that individual can have a facility that allows multi-family units -- because of the configuration of that unit, there's no way that they can have three off-street parking spaces. It's just simply something that couldn't happen. We're also requiring certain other things in the bill. Basically what we wanted to do is to raise the threshold to make it extremely difficult for people to convert those properties into multi-family units. Trust me, I've heard from you, I've heard from residents in the community. We actually have some other things that we're working with that I'll talk to you about at the community meeting, some arrangement that we tentatively have agreed with Temple University to provide some opportunities for residents for permanent parking in the immediate 8 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030492 area.
We don't want them in our area. When I go home at o'clock, I would like to 5 able to park. Because if something happens off that curb, the City is going to make me fix it.
I understand. But this is America. We can't tell a person they can't park on the street.
I understand that, but I think there should be some type of better control in our area. And going back to the multi-dwelling units, converting those single family homes, those homes have the drive in space, they also have the garage. What's to stop an individual from sectioning off the interior of the house using the front and back part of the basement and use the back door as an entrance and use the garage as a parking space and driveway as the second space and putting two occupants --
You would then take away their ability to make basement area into a unit, which was done on 13th Street. And I don't think it's cost productive to do that.
We would also like you to 9 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030612 check into one of the other properties where the individual has paved it AND made a two car private parking and has also outline it in yellow lines like the City came out and did that, and we know that the City didn't.
Before you leave, you can give that address to Mr. Carter, my legislative assistant, and we'll check on that for you.
Thank you very much. Thanks for coming in. Anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The next bill is Bill No. 030612, an Ordinance authorizing Neighborhood Improvement District Management Associations to provide interest to accrue upon assessment fees levied on property owners within the 10 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030612 Neighborhood Improvement District. If such fees are not paid when due, and authorizing liens to be filed for non-payment of such interest, all under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself.
My name is Duane Bumb, Deputy Director of Commerce. Good morning, Councilman Kenney and Members of City Council. I'm here to provide testimony in support of Bill 030612. This bill would allow Neighborhood Improvement District Management Associations to charge interest on property assessment fees that are not paid when due. To date, the City has authorized the creation of Neighborhood Improvement Districts along East Passyunk Avenue and South Philadelphia along Main Street in Roxborough and within an industrial area in Port Richmond. In each of these districts, the local business community agreed to pay a supplemental levy to designated Neighborhood Improvement District Management Association to fund activities that would enhance the cleanliness, safety, and attractiveness of the neighborhood district. These Neighborhood Improvement Districts 11 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030612 need the assessments to be paid in a timely manner in order to implement a budget that tie services to revenues. The imposition of an interest charge on late payments can be a valuable incentive to encourage taxpayers to make prompt payment. The Center City District and several other Special Service Districts recognize the importance of interest assessments as a cash flow management tool. As a result, these Special Service Districts have already obtained and are actively utilizing the right to charge interest on late payments. The legislation before you today would extend the same management tool to Neighborhood Improvement Districts. I, therefore, urge your support of Bill 030612. Thank you for your consideration. I'll be happy to answer any questions.
Thank you very much. Anyone else to testify on this bill? Please come forward. Good morning. Please identify yourself.
Good morning. I'm Robert Cattel, Executive Director of the Roxborough District, one of the neighborhood improvement 12 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030612 districts that has recently been improved, speaking in support of the bill. We have recently implemented my Neighborhood Improvement District, had invoiced the property owners under the schedule that they had approved, and the assessments were due at the end of August. At this point in October, while most of them have paid, we're still a long ways from what they had agreed. I was speaking with several of the businesses about when they were going to pay and their willingness, and I got several informal discussions from them saying that there's really no 14 incentive for them to pay it all now. It made more sense for them to never pay the assessment, let the liens build up, and when they sell the property in five or ten years after we've made all the improvements and built up the district then they could easily pay it out of the proceeds of the property. I think we need to provide a real incentive for property owners to participate in the Neighborhood Improvement District. When we were discussing the fairness of the assessment, one of the key selling points was that everybody would be 13 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030617 contributing, everybody benefiting. We don't want to end up in a situation where a small number of property owners are able to benefit without contributing. I think charging an interest on outstanding balances is one way to provide that incentive.
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.)
There's none. The next bill is Bill No. 030617, an ordinance amending Title 14 of The Philadelphia Code, relating to "Zoning and Planning," by amending Chapter 14-1600, entitled "Miscellaneous," by adding a new section 14-1607.1, entitled "Special Controls for Chestnut Street," under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the 14 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030617 record.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Committee. For the City Planning Commission, my name is Thomas Chapman. Once again, this bill has not been considered by the Planning Commission, so I don't have any testimony to offer. If Councilman Clarke would like, I could describe what the purpose of this bill is.
This bill would amend the Zoning Code -- this bill extends the special controls for Rittenhouse Row section of the Zoning Code to include properties on Chestnut Street between Broad Street and 20th Street. Currently, these controls regulate properties on Walnut Street from Broad to 20th. This bill would extend those same controls to the same blocks on Walnut Street. The proposed controls would prohibit the following uses from occupying the ground floor of buildings in that stretch of Chestnut Street: Dry cleaning establishment, financial institution, manicure nail salon, retail sell of drugs, sale of general merchandise, retail groceries, sales of 15 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030617 major appliances, sales of optical goods when the use exceeds 2500 square feet in gross floor area, sales of recorded music when the use exceeds 2500 square feet in gross floor area, sales of variety store merchandise, which is a dollar store, shoe repair, tanning salon or spa, tatoo and body piercing establishment, and fortune teller establishment. It's my understanding that the purpose of these amendments is, as was the intent on Walnut Street, to create both higher level of shopping for those blocks as well as to remove some uses from those blocks that tend to close at 5 o'clock so that you have more of an opportunity of shopping at night.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chapman is correct. The other thing that we hope to obtain as it related to the initial overlay was to put the business association, particularly Rittenhouse Row, in a position to have more input in any zoning processes. While there is a substantial number of prohibited uses, we found that during the course of the 16 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030617 implementation of this overlay on Walnut Street, a good number of applicants have been successful, but it was after substantive negotiations with the Rittenhouse Row organization working with the City to ultimately end up with something that was conducive to both parties. So we would like to extend that to Chestnut Street. We found this to be something that has created a sense of vibrancy on Walnut Street, and we hope to add that to Chestnut Street as we continue to grow in Center City.
Thank you very much. Are you going to be offering an amendment also?
Yes, Mr. Chairman. I have circulated an amendment and when we go into public meeting, I'd like to make a motion to adopt that amendment.
Is there any description you think is required for the amendment at this point?
It's essentially relatively technical. We just had to define in terms of the boundaries a little more succinctly in this particular amendment. 17 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030483
Thank you. Any questions for this witness? (No response.)
Seeing none, anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
I would like to make clear for the record that Bills No. 030492, 030564, 030565, and 030566 will all be held at the request of the sponsors. The final Calendar bill on the Calendar today is Bill No. 030483, which is an ordinance 14 amending Title of The Philadelphia Code relating to "Zoning and Planning" by amending Chapter 14-200 entitled "Residential Districts" by repealing Section 14-202 entitled "R-1 Residential District" through Section 14-223 entitled "RC-3 Residential District," and by replacing said provisions of "R-1 Residential" through "RC-3 Residential" in the form of charts and supplementary material, by amending Section 14-224 entitled "RC-4 Residential District," by amending Section 14-226 entitled "RC-6 Residential District," by making certain technical amendments to provisions of Chapter 14-200 entitled 18 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030483 "Residential Districts," by amending Chapter 14-100 entitled "General Provisions" by adding definitions, amending certain definitions and re-numbering definitions, and by amending Chapter 14-1400 entitled Parking and Loading Facilities by making certain technical amendments to Section 14-1401, all under certain terms and conditions. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good morning, Mr. Chairman and Members of the Rules Committee. My name is Thomas Chapman. I'm Director of the Development Planning Division for the City Planning Commission, and I am here today to testify in favor of Bill No. 16 030483. Councilmember Blackwell, on behalf of Council President Verna, introduced this bill on June 12, 2003. I hope you've been handed a package of documents. This would include a twodocument that summarizes why we think the Zoning Code need to be overhauled, a summary of the amendments to the Zone Code that are included in Bill No. 030483, a copy of the bill, as well as full-sized versions of the proposed charts. 19 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030483 This bill is the first step in what we hope will be a series of incremental amendments to revise, update, clarify, and in general modernize the City's Zoning Code. This first bill is primarily a re-formatting of the residential zoning classifications in a form that we hope will be easier to read, easier to use, and easier to understand. A goal of this effort is to come up with a code that a person with a high school education would be able to read and understand. And I think we would all agree, as we sit here today, that our Code, since it's over 500 pages, doesn't meet that. This bill contains only a few substantive amendments to the Code, and these amendments are an effort to clarify some provisions of the Code and to address a number of inconsistencies that were discovered as part of the process of preparing this bill. There are three things we'd like to accomplish in writing a revised Philadelphia Zoning Code, and that is to streamline the Code, to reorganize it, and to modernize it. Why do we think we should do this? Well, the present Code that was 20 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030483 enacted in 1962 was actually drafted and written in the mid to late 1950s. It was written to deal with post World War II development of farm land or undeveloped land. Much of what we do today is redeveloped land, since there's very little land left in the City that hasn't been developed at sometime or another. Since its enactment in 1962, the Code has been amended so many times it's difficult to compile all the changes that have taken place. The Code does not work well when one is attempting to do infield development along existing streets because in many instances in residential districts it assumes 90 feet deep lots. In many of the older area of the City, the street dimension is 120 to 150 feet so when you divide that block down the middle, you don't get lots that are 90 feet deep. The Code falls short in recognizing allowing for modern home occupations. Uses that are virtually obsolete today are permitted in many classifications, for example, hat blocking, assay office, wagon repair. On the other hand, there's little or no mention of things like computers and microchips and even video rentals. 21 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030483 The Code doesn't adequately deal with the uses that are incompatible with each other. For example, there are no Zoning Code restrictions on a body and fender shop business locating right to a residential use. The definitions in the code are inadequate. And definitions help define what is and what isn't permitted, but there hasn't been significant changes to our definitions since the 1960s. The mix of uses permitted in residential zoning districts isn't appropriate. For example, a doctor's office when the doctor resides on the premises is permitted as a matter of right in most residential districts. When these provisions were placed in the Code, a doctor's office didn't have near the impact on adjacent properties that it would now with all the employees that doctors have these days, all the examination rooms, and parking needs of modern doctor's office. Once again, this is an example of how the Code does not recognize the impacts that many uses can have on each other. I'd like to go through some of the provisions of Bill 030483 now.
All of the dimensional requirements of 22 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030483 R-1 through R-10A, the residential zoning classifications that are most commonly used and mapped, are placed in the Code in the form of a chart. The R-1 through R-10A residential zoning classifications are used for more than 94 percent of all residentially zoned properties in the City and account for 33 percent of all zoned land in the City. A few pages of permitted uses, footnotes and abbreviations supplement these provisions. This bill repeals and replaces the R-1 through RC-3 residential zoning classifications in their entirety. The provisions of these districts are then placed back into the Code in either the charts or reformatted text provisions. The dimensional or zoning provisions of R-1 through R-10A are placed in the Code entirely in the charts. And proceeding these charts are the lists of permitted residential uses, non-residential uses, and about two pages of explanatory footnotes and abbreviations. Most of the standard dimensional provisions of R-10B through RC-3 have also been placed in the charts. The provisions of these districts that require expansive detail and 23 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030483 explanation remain in the Code as text. The definitions contained in section 4 14-102 of the Code had been re-numbered and new cross-references have been added. A definition of "floor" has been added and a definition for "story" has also been added. At the request of the Department of Licenses and Inspections, the definitions of "private garage" and "public garage" have been amended. The definition of "side yard" was clarified to ensure that when a property is located on a corner lot, the building must meet the setback requirement of both street frontages. This is not a change in the existing Code requirements. It better states the true intentions of the existing language. In an effort to clarify what most likely is an unintended inconsistency, the R-15 residential district is being amended to allow single-family and duplex dwellings. This district had previously permitted only multiple family dwellings like apartment buildings and condominiums and was the only residential classification in the Code that did not permit single-family dwellings. These amendments to the Code had been 24 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030483 presented to the local chapter of the AIA and real property section of the Philadelphia Bar Association and also have been discussed with various community interest groups like the Coalition of Philadelphia Advocacy Groups and Coalition of Neighborhood Associations. The staff has also met with Council President Verna and members of her staff on a number of occasions and has presented these amendments to representatives of Members of Council at a meeting scheduled by Council President Verna. There's a few amendments to the bill 13 that were recommended to the Law Department that I'd like to offer. There are very minor amendments, but with your permission, Mr. Chairman, I'd describe them read it into the record.
Thank you. There are two amendments that on of the bill. At the very top of the page, we're just inserting the words "in R-5" just to clarify that paragraph that's numbered 5 there. Then right below that the paragraph number 6, the words that you see there in bold are the 25 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030483 words we're adding. And I'll just real that whole paragraph. "In R-6 with respect to new construction for which a building permit application is filed after March 1, 2003, attached..." Then the word "buildings" is being remove and the word "dwellings" is being added right there. So that would read "attached dwellings are permitted in groups of not more than four in the minimum lot width..." and then the words "for all buildings" are added "...shall be feet. 13
I'm sorry. You're 15 correct, "for all dwellings." 16 After the semicolon, all the words after 17 the semicolon are added, and those words are "for 18 all properties, attached dwellings are permitted in 19 groups of not more than 10." 20 On the next page, the only thing that we're adding there is under the cells at the top of the page that you see are marked R-1, R-1A and R-2. If you look down into the third cell, we've added the number 35 next to the words "building height limit, non-dwelling." 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030617 As introduced, those three cells don't have a number in. And the reason that we're adding the number 35 in there so that it's clear that a garage in those districts can't exceed a height of 35 feet. If we leave that space blank there, it kind of leaves that question open. And then the very last amendment on the third page that I've given to you, it's Page No. 26, about halfway down the page on the column on the left you'll see "detached single family or duplex dwelling." The words "or duplex" are being taken out of there. That was a typographical error. That concludes my testimony for today.
Thank you. Any questions for the witness? (No response.)
Seeing no one, we will move back for a moment to Bill No. 030617 for some supplemental testimony. We're concluded with 030483. Would you please come forward? 27 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030617 Good morning. Please identify yourself for the record.
Don Davidal. I'm the ex-President of Rittenhouse Row and also in charge of Government Affairs Committee for Rittenhouse Row.
One of the things that we have actively been pursuing is an overlay for Chestnut Street. As you know, we had passed an overlay for Walnut Street, which our experience is that it has just worked out magnificently, both for the City and both for the businesses in Center City. We always looked at Walnut Street as pretty much an upscale type of street, and what we were concerned about was the fact that we felt that we were starting to see certain types of businesses located in the prime part of Walnut Street which were hampering other businesses from wanting to even come onto Walnut Street. And the idea was that we felt that by having the right mix of businesses that we could generate a much more active Center City area and attract many businesses that would bring in people to Center City and to the prime streets. And we now see that on Chestnut Street 28 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030617 there's been a tremendous movement of real estate purchases and that that particular street has the opportunity to rival Walnut Street in being a productive Philadelphia shopping area. And what we are interested in seeing passed it an overlay very similar to the overlay that we did on Walnut Street to make sure that we have the ability to attract the type of businesses that will make Chestnut Street a great street again, that will make stores and businesses want to come back to Philadelphia, either from the suburbs or out of Center City. The interesting thing about Chestnut Street versus Walnut Street is many of the stores are there on a 30-day lease. Many of the new purchasers have tenants there that are very substandard, who are not taking care of their property, who really and truly will eventually probably disappear. But what we want to encourage is that if somebody is coming into Center City and wants to invest in fixing up a piece of real estate on Chestnut Street that they have the opportunity to have a larger size store, which is available on Chestnut Street and not available any longer on Walnut Street, and will not be forced to say "I 29 10/15/03 - RULES - BILL 030617 don't want to come in because I don't want to sit next to another type of business such as maybe a tatoo parlor or something else that we at Rittenhouse Row do not think is appropriate for the area and that we have found out in our Walnut Street overlay has worked very effectively in attracting the types of businesses that we think will be a positive for the City.
I agree. Walnut has worked well. If you can replicate that on Chestnut, it would be so much better for the City.
Seeing none, that will conclude our public hearing. - - - - 30 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - - Wednesday, October 15, 2003 - - - - Public meeting conducted by the Committee on Rules, held in Room 696, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILLS 030483, 030612, 030617. PRESENT: COUNCILMAN JAMES KENNEY, Chair COUNCILMAN DARRELL CLARKE COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN MICHAEL NUTTER 31 10/15/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now convene a public meeting of the Rules Committee. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion to approve the amendments to Bill 030483.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman I make a motion for the amendment to Bill No. 030483 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030483 will be amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion on the amended Bill 030483 with a rules suspension request.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that Bill 030483, as amended, be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation and request for a suspension of the Rules. 32 10/15/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030483, as amended, reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation. A request will be made for Rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter for a motion on Bill No. 030612.
Mr. Chairman, I move that Bill 030612 be reported out of this committee with a favorable recommendation, and further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next Session. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030612 reported out of this Committee favorably. A request will be made for 33 10/15/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING Rules suspension to allow for first at our next Council Session. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for a motion to approve the amendment to Bill 6 030617.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that the amendment for Bill No. 030617 be adopted. (Duly seconded.)
There are none opposed. Bill No. 030617 will be amended accordingly. The Chair recognizes Councilmember Clarke for the a motion on the amended bill.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I make a motion that bill No. 030617, as amended, be reported out of Committee with favorable recommendation, and a request for a suspension of the rules. (Duly seconded.)
Moved and second. 34 10/15/03 - RULES - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor? (Aye.)
Bill No. 030617, as amended, reported out of this Committee favorably. A request will be made for rules suspension to allow for first reading at our next Council Session. That concludes the business of this Committee. Thank you your attendance. (Council adjourned at 10:55 a.m.) - - - - 35 C E R T I F I C A T I O N I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing proceedings of the Council of the City of Philadelphia of October 15, 2003, were reported fully and accurately by me, and that this is a correct transcript of the same. RE: COMMITTEE ON RULES _________________________ Lisa C. Bradley, RPR