Okay. Thank you.
Okay, so number, let's see here.
Number seven.
MI 2024-002-077-3940 Baltimore Avenue.
Meredith Verlicker is the attorney.
This is a resumptive hearing.
meredith ferliger is coming in as a panelist morning counsel
chairman could you state your name please and spell for the court sonographer
sure meredith ferliger f-e-r-l-e-g-e-r you swear affirm to tell the truth the whole truth nothing
but the truth i do so this is a resumptive hearing and here's an update that we have from
the last hearing. The applicant provided updated posting photos and a proof of tax compliance.
There's a letter of non-opposition received from Spruce Hill Community Association,
which was the coordinating RCO. There's a letter of non-opposition received from the Woodlands,
the Woodlands Cemetery Company of Philadelphia and the Woodlands Trust for Historic Preservation,
based on changes discussed on 8-15-24. And there's a letter of support now from Council
person Gossier. What we're going to do is you're going to finish your presentation?
Okay. That's correct, Mr. Chairman. Wonderful. Well, I appreciate that you gave all of that
background. You've saved me. Again, Meredith Ferliger of Delworth Paxson, just as a refresher
to the board, my client today is SEPTA, which is a tenant of this property. Before I move into my
second witness. As you will recall, I was only able to get through my first witness during the
last session, but I did want to just take a brief moment to refresh your memory of some of the
testimony that you heard on July 10th. As a reminder, this proposal concerns improvements
to SEPTA's 40th Street Trolley portal located at 3940 Baltimore Avenue. More specifically,
the design and construction of a new DC power substation, which is required as a part of SEPTA's
trolley modernization program. And let me bring up my exhibits. All right. Administratively,
as you mentioned, new zoning posters were timely posted on July 31st, 2024, on both Woodland Avenue
and Baltimore Avenue, and we did include those in the updated exhibit packet at Exhibit 18.
On July 10th, you heard from SEPTA's project manager with the Power Engineering Department, Daniel Lyons.
Mr. Lyons is here today should the board have any questions for him that they did not have an opportunity to ask on July 10th.
Mr. Lyons testified to the technical and diligent studies and investigations that ultimately led SEPTA to select this property for the new substation.
He also testified about the unique challenges that face this property, including its irregular shape, existing structural improvements, and trolley operations.
Mr. Lyons also testified to aspects of the substation in terms of noise, safety, vibrations, traffic, maintenance, and building monitoring.
He is available today should the board need to be refreshed on any of these points more thoroughly.
So, at this point, I'll bring up Brandon Swartley with STV, a representative from our design team, to actually walk you through what is proposed here. So, if Brandon Swartley could raise your hand.
Brandon has been allowed to speak.
Good morning, sir. Could you please state your name and spell for the stenographer?
Good morning. My name is Brandon Schwartley, B-R-A-N-D-O-N-S-W-A-R-T-L-E-Y.
You swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Please proceed, counsel.
Thank you. Brandon, could you just share with the board your position with STV?
I'm the vice president and chief electrical engineer.
Thank you. And what has been your involvement with this project generally?
I'm the STV project manager contracted by SEPTA in charge of the design and the 40th Street
substation project. I also lead electrical and traction power engineering design for the project
and I'm the registered design professional in the Philadelphia Eclipse system and I submitted the
zoning permit application for the project. Thank you. Brandon, I've brought up Exhibit 5 in our
packet uh if you could just very briefly describe the site and focus on on any site-specific
constraints that you were faced with while designing this particular building sure the uh
while designing this particular building sure the uh the existing uses on the site limit the area
existing usage.
for proposed development there's a restaurant north along vulgar avenue trolley portal structure
running west east through the middle of the property in existing trolley tracks in the west
side the passenger waiting areas toward the west in a signal building at the west of the trolley
portal now the proposed construction site is located uh south of the existing trolley portal
along running along parallel woodland avenue it's a it's an odd shaped property it's sort of
shaped like a trapezoid with the west and east sides being different lengths proposes a unique
constraint in that substation buildings are typically rectangular to maximize the width
the building for positioning equipment internally the location of proposed building is best suited
towards the west side of the available property on the south side of the trolley portal the property
sloped downward with an elevation change of about seven feet from the trolley portal to the retaining
wall along the sidewalk it's also sloped downward from the west to the east and the slopes make it
challenging to locate building doors while trying to minimize the grading or any changes to the
existing sidewalk. Existing trolley portals over 21 feet high on the west side and steps down as
it goes to the east. So we limited the proposed substation height to be just less than the
existing trolley portal height on the west side. The proposed building needs access from the sides
from equipment, for an equipment installation perspective and visits for maintenance personnel.
So the property grading, the regular shape, the close proximity to the sidewalk, access requirements, and internal equipment layout requirements are all part of the design criteria for selecting the building area and height.
Thank you.
I'll bring up Exhibit 9, which is the zoning site plan as revised.
We did submit revised plans to board council with a revised plan proviso form.
the changes were extremely minor, and we will address them. So, Brandon, if you could describe
the proposed site improvements, and again, just very briefly touch on the things that have changed
from the original plan, which are by and large not zoning-related issues.
Sure. The substation is approximately 5,500 square feet in size, includes driveways on both ends of
the proposed building. The size of the building is actually very similar to a recently completed
substation project i did for mbta in massachusetts the height of the building is dictated by internal
equipment there's also a parapet running along the top of the building to shield the rooftop
mechanical ventilation equipment from the public view to provide safety barriers for workers on the
roof there's a loading area on the west side of the proposed building the roll-up door to install
the traction power transformers on the inside of the building that door will be rarely used there's
also parking areas on the east side of the proposed building to accept the maintenance vehicles
to park when they visit the substation for periodic equipment to prevent the maintenance
proposed building has been situated along the existing sidewalk with no setback to the sidewalk
the existing sidewalk is 14 feet wide in terms of modifications and really the only modifications to
the zoning plan that is only related is the addition of rear masonry walls to shield the
courtyard and the modification classification one of the heritage trees all the other changes
are street related or aesthetic in response to community discussions okay thank you uh before i
ask this next question i'll just briefly bring up an aerial to sort of set a little bit of context
um so i'll flip back to the zoning plan but if you were to estimate how far the substation
building will be from the closest residence on Woodland Terrace. And just for the board's
reference, in this aerial view that I have at Exhibit 8, Woodland Terrace is to the west end
of the site, which you can sort of start to see in this aerial a little bit. So Brandon, if you
had to estimate from the western end of the building to the closest residence on Woodland
Terrace, about how far is that? It's about 240 feet from their backyard there, one of the nearest
residents on woodland terrace thank you all right turning to sheet l102 which is up on the screen
here uh what does this plan show uh it shows location of existing trees and shrubs and those
that will require removal two heritage trees were originally identified to be removed due to their
proximity to the substation in the parking area however after surveying the site again in the
spring it's found the tree t17 has degraded and therefore that should be removed regardless of
And therefore, that should be removed regardless of this project.
this project
The trees on this plan that are shown to the eastern side of this site are all slated for preservation. Is that correct?
All trees to the eastern parking area to be preserved except for tree T17, which is a heritage tree, and T16, which is also a dogwood tree considered in fair condition.
Tree T1 is now slated for preservation. That's on the west side there that you're showing.
Based on disturbance data, are you anticipating needing to address stormwater management for
the substation improvement? Stormwater management is going to consist of runoff conveyance to the
city stormwater system. Based on the disturbance being less than 15,000 square feet, there's no
requirement for basin or an underground facility i'm going to bring up the renderings it might
quick clicks aren't working um all right so i'm going to bring up the rendering but just in case
the board has questions we do have a sort of colorized site plan rendering as well that i
think is pretty helpful in terms of showing everything but i'll come back to that if the
board has questions i'm going to have brandon walk you through the actual building renderings
uh so brandon if you could talk a little bit about these renderings and touch on
some of the changes that were made since july 10th as a result of the discussions that septa had with
uh community stakeholders sure on the uh the south side so that's the side facing woodland
avenue there the proposed building along woodland avenue has a six foot wide double door and two
ventilation openings for air intake. The west side, on the left, has a large roll-up door for
transporting indoor dry-type rectifier transformers and a single-person door. The east side, which is
on the other side of the building there to the right, that is a smaller roll-up door for transporting
switchgear and other equipment needed during installation, periodic maintenance, as well as
a person door. And the north side of the building, which is along the trolley coil, has just two
ventilation openings uh general facade of the building is going to use a brick veneer
to match the existing style and color of the trolley portal and as a result of community
discussions the building was modified to exhibit more of a residential character with full windows
among some other changes the drainage of the roof is along the north side between the building and
trolley portal. Thank you. Just briefly turning to the floor plans at Exhibit 11, could you explain
to the board roughly what goes on inside of the building? And if you could address a question as
to whether there is significant extra or unused space in the building. Sure. The building contains
electrical equipment, specifically electric traction power equipment related to supplying
and power into the separate trolley system. The floor plans show equipment mounted at floor level
in the building in this plan view. Other equipment you don't see are cable trays and electrical buses
and lights. These are all mounted above the equipment. There's one main area there,
one main room for the traction power electrical and related systems equipment.
There's three ancillary rooms, a battery room, mechanical closet, laboratory,
and there's really little extra space considered
extra unused. There's margin required
during the design period to be sure that vendors can
bid on supplying equipment and not all equipment's exactly the same size
from different vendors, especially the large rectifier transformers.
For traction power project, we usually have a clear space of about 6 feet.
It's considered minimum around the DC equipment.
It's grounded differently than AC equipment.
We follow the National Electric Code, which dictates working space between equipment.
Normally, during operating conditions, there's no personnel required to operate the equipment in the building.
It can be remotely operated from 1234 Market Street.
However, there is periodic maintenance required.
So I want to talk about the actual refusal for a moment,
and I'll bring up the refusal for the board to review while Brandon's discussing.
As you know, we received two-dimensional refusals, one for exceeding maximum occupied area
and one for insufficient front yard setback. Required open area for an RTA one lot would be
50%, where the addition here will increase the occupied area to 63%. Regarding a front setback,
an eight-foot front setback is ordinarily required. If I flip back to the rendered
zoning plan at Exhibit 12, can you, Brandon, please address whether it would be feasible to
Can you, Brandon, please address whether it would be feasible to provide an eight-foot setback here? And if it's not feasible to provide an eight-foot setback, can you explain to the board why it is not feasible to provide any front setback whatsoever?
The size of the building is determined by the interior electrical equipment required by SEPTA's needs to maintain a reliable power source in the trolley system, certainly in Philadelphia.
Factors such as availability during maintenance and redundancy should be equipped and failed at either this substation or others plays a role in selecting the equipment.
The installation of the equipment is based on the physical sizing available from commercial vendors,
codes requiring working clearances, and engineering practices.
That said, the width of the building is similar to other recently constructed tractor power substations.
It is not desirable to reduce the building width, providing only a few feet of setback from the sidewalk.
Trying to reduce the building width to provide a full 8-foot setback
would require rearranging the equipment into an unusual configuration
and significantly extending the length of the building.
Lengthening the building would increase the visual impact from Woodland Avenue
and also require more trees to be removed.
Looking at this rendered plan, how far is the distance between, I guess,
the easternmost corner of the building from the trolley enclosure itself?
And I'll zoom in a little bit, just in this little area here.
Yeah, that northeast corner of the proposed substation building is only about four feet from the existing trolley portal, and that limits moving the proposed building back any farther toward the north, away from the Woodland Island side door.
Now, regarding the open area refusal, is the calculation of the occupied area based just on this small sliver where the substation is going, or is it based on the entire property as a whole, which would include all of the current improvements, such as the trolley cover and the restaurant as well?
It includes the trolley portal and the restaurant.
And I know you've touched on this in great detail, but in your opinion, can this building be reduced in size to reduce the occupied area here while still fulfilling all of the needs of this type of building?
The building has been sized to provide appropriate clearances between equipment to allow workers to safely perform duties and to work aesthetically in the given land area.
Turning to the heritage trees, I know, again, you've touched on this briefly,
but I will also have our arborists come up to address a couple of quick questions, but
can the building be redesigned to avoid the loss of tree T14?
Well, we've positioned the building as far west as practical to avoid impacting the current
except the trolley shelter and related retaining wall the building cannot be practically redesigned
or made smaller to protect one heritage tree attempting to make it smaller reduces working
clearances within the building selection equipments based on septic studies supporting those equipment
sizes and ratings to provide power for the trolley system improvements and increasing availability
and reliability of ridership within Philadelphia. In addition to the applicant's obligation to
establish that the proposal cannot be practically redesigned to protect the heritage tree,
the applicant also has to indicate how it's going to replace the lost tree diameter.
How is SEPTA complying with the tree replacement requirement for this proposal?
And of course, the city code of 14-7051G, the tree replacement requirements, and the code 14-7051C9,
an in-lieu fee is required in addition to the waiver for the tree removals.
For each diameter breast height inch of tree removed, the in-lieu fee requirement was calculated,
and we submitted a waiver request as shown in Exhibit 13.
And I'll bring that up briefly, just so the board can see that we did submit a waiver request that was approved by the City Planning Commission.
I will bring up our landscape architect and certified arborist to explain just very briefly the change to the revised plan.
But Brandon, would you also say that it is accurate that this waiver is actually more encompassing than it needed to be, given the change in determination for one of the heritage trees?
Yes, correct. After the original plans were prepared in June of 2023 and updated to the 30% design level in October 23, we revisited the site.
We revisited the site, we re-inspected the trees, and it was determined that tree T17 is actually in poor condition, as confirmed by our arborist.
We re-inspected the trees, and it was determined that
Last question for you. You were also involved with the preparation of the detailed question and answer form that we've provided at Exhibit 20, which addresses significant points on a variety of subjects that aren't strictly zoning related. Is that correct?
Yes, that is correct.
Thank you. Board members, I'd like to bring up very briefly our landscape architect, and then I will conclude with just some basic arguments. So if the administrator could look for Dorothy Daly, Dottie Daly.
Dorothy Daly has been allowed to speak.