Prior to today had these experts, new or old, contacted the Planning Commission with their views?
I believe they have. 363 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 They're here, some of them are here today, and that certainly can be asked of them.
As recently as day before yesterday, I believe, the Planning Commission had another meeting, and I believe Councilman Nutter, you were present.
At that meeting, however, there was no input or opportunity for input from the people I'm talking about who are here with expertise to try to show the Planning Commission the error of their ways.
Let's be fair to the record, though, Mr. Krakower. First, you were not at the meeting; is that right? 364 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Second, don't leave the impression that -- and I don't know who you're talking about. But if anyone didn't have any input at the Monday meeting, it can only mean that they weren't at the Monday meeting, correct.
Because anyone who was at the Monday meeting certainly had a full opportunity for I think a couple hours to have input, right,?
Well, I was there, and anyone who was there had an opportunity to speak, respond, criticize, review or anything else, so let me just state that for record.
Let me at least put into the record just so my colleagues have some context. Most people generally don't run around with copies of Philadelphia Code or the 365 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 classification section. In G-2 Industrial today as a matter of right, a person could come to L & I and apply for permits to do things such as have a heliport, the killing, dressing, packing and canning of poultry, rabbits and other small game including cleaning, packing, grading, drying, and freezing eggs; the manufacturer of aircrafts, including component parts and axiliary equipment; fire arms, guns, mortars, military tanks, and components, torpedo tubes, Y-guns, flame throwers and other ordinance except the manufacture, use, handling, or storage of explosive in any forms. Mr. Krakower, were you here for some of the discussion about a Planning Commission and the Law Department on the issue that has been debated back and forth on whether or not you can build in a floodway or a floodplain?
Well, so have I. And is there any disagreement from your perspective on --
Because as I read Section 1606, and I read it differently than the Members of the Planning Commission do or than the representative of the Law Department. I believe that the language is clear that as you read it, I don't think it's as difficult as they would make it.
Building within the floodway is distinguished from building within the floodplain. I think that's the problem. You can build in the floodplain; you cannot build in the floodway. That's why I started with that distinction.
All right. Why don't you bring your folks on. Your testimony is you disagree with the City Planning Commission and City's Law Department on this particular issue.
Let me just state why. Because I believe they are not distinguishing between the floodplain and the floodway.
What I'd like to do, if I can, is ask Mr. Krakower to remain at the table as the counsel to this group, and if you could just 367 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 move to the side what I'd like to do is bring up people in threes.
Yes, Councilman Kenney, that's exactly what I'd like to do. Sally Willig.
This is the order that your group is interested in? I was given another order. And I have no preference.
Because of the hour and certain people have a need to leave, I'd like to be able to change that order so I can get people who must go and get them on.
This is in no way means to limit the scope of your testimony, you're free see whatever you want about whatever you want. If you could just for our sake and for rest of us kind of stay on issues that haven't been discussed before. So if one person brings up one issue, if you could either elaborate or go to another issue so we're not being redundant. But if you feel the need to say whatever it is you want to say, please go right ahead. What I had like to do is ask you to 368 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 please identify yourself for the record and then proceed with your testimony. We'll let everybody testify first and then we'll have questions. Thank you.
My name is Kathy Tomaski. I'm the former president of the Manayunk Neighborhood Council. Manayunk Neighborhood Council is the recognized civic in the Green Lane corridor. When I was president last year, we had 163 members, exclusive of approximately 40 members counted as one. So if you were three in a family, you were counted as one. I volunteered to work with Mary Tracy on the cigarette billboard plight in the corridor. I am also a democratic committee woman for the last 13 years in the 4th Division of the 21st Ward bordering the Main Street corridor, which by the way, all of you were carried by my division. I am a devout activist in the Philadelphia unemployment project, the Mt. Valley, Instrumental in Pennsylvania social problem solvings. I am awardee of several various honor of community activism. Last, but not least, I am a widow having 5 children, 15 grandchildren, 10 of whom live in the Manayunk area bordering the canal. They attend a 369 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 local school such as Roman Catholic High School, Roxborough High School, St. John's Elementary, two headed toward Hallahan, St. Josaphat's, Green Lane Nursery, and Jenks in Chestnut Hill. We are true Philadelphians and true Manayunkers. Therefore, I people qualified to give testimony here today. I had a conversation with Tom Connolly when I was president a few years ago and I asked him to please get involved in what was happening in the Main Street corridor and he, quote, told me he didn't want to get involved with the Manayunk Development Corporation and only dealt with the Catholic charities in the Manayunk are. So I'd like to give my testimony so the others can go on. A few days ago, I read an article in the Philadelphia inquirer concerning ambitious proposed Bill 300 commonly known as "Growing Greener." The expenditure was estimated a $500 million dream, but apparently other members of the State Senate had their own take on the proposal. Whenever the decision, it is certainly a start in the right direction. I believe the suburban sprawl of developments has hit a nerve in the densely republican counties such as Chester, Delaware, 370 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Montgomery, and Berks. They are all saying no. 3 They want to keep their green space. Isn't that why they're willing to create green bond issues? In the meantime, back in Philadelphia the City commonly known as "it's not what you know but who you know," the community has absolutely no 8 say in policies that adversely affect te health, welfare, and safety of our family, friends, and neighbors. After losing in court on highly publicized apartment complex in the heart of dense Manayunk, a Dan Edison property, we lost hope and faith in the powers that we elected to represent the community of Manayunk in the 21st Ward. Also, the thoughts of one so-called group, Central Manayunk Council headed by John Tiegs and Vince Esposito have not a clue as the zoning overlay is decided here today as they touted development. The Manayunk Neighborhood Council, along with other credible organizations, have done the research proving that the whole island off Main Street in Manayunk would be in serious danger of a catastrophe if the development is approved. Wasting gasoline could run into the Schuylkill River and the environment. 371 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 I used to be a believer that the residential development at the canal wouldn't be so bad, but Floyd has been a sign from God saying no. 5 Does the City of Philadelphia want to risk a class action lawsuit for promoting and approving a catastrophe? Now, the FEMA issue comes into play. If FEMA is willing to cover million dollar complexes, what's left for the real victims? So tax abatements, flood insurance at taxpayers' expense is a slap in the face of the taxpayers of Pennsylvania. Please take my testimony into consideration and act responsibly. Kathy Tomaski.
Thank you very much for your testimony. Ma'am could you pleas identify yourself for the record. MS. Willig: Yes. I'd like to give each of you a handout to look at while I am talking.
Good afternoon, Councilmembers, I appreciate your hearing us at this time of day. This is very important issue, as 372 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Stanley Krakower has indicated, that should not be done with haste. I live near Poenixville in Chester County, Pennsylvania. I earned a PhD in Geology in 1988 from the University of Pennsylvania, and since that time have been teaching there on a part-time basis out of the Departments of Earth and Environmental Science and Landscape Architecture and Regional Planning. I teach a number of different courses including wetlands, environmental geology, regional field ecology. An underlying goal of all of these courses is to increase students' understanding of ecosystems processes and functions so that they can make wise land-use decisions. In looking at case histories of various natural disasters, it becomes clear that when humans fail to understand and respond to recurring destructive landscape processes such as flooding, tragedy is inevitable. As you consider the future land-use of Venice Island, you must not ignore the well-documented history of periodic severe floods submerging Venice Island and Manayunk. Less than three months ago, rainfall from Hurricane Floyd began falling in the Schuylkill 373 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 River basin early in the morning, and over the next hours up to 10 inches of rain fell, 10 inches of 4 rain fell at Valley Forge. This led to dramatic 5 flooding along Schuylkill. 6 If you would turn to the first 7 attachment, you can see information from the 8 Delaware River Basin Commission, a summary of 9 Hurricane Floyd, and in ther it says parts of 10 Manayunk and Venice Island were submerged. 11 If you glance at the photos here in 12 front of you, you can see ones taken by both 13 residents of Manayunk and by the Philadelphia 14 Inquirer showing the submerges and the dangerous 15 conditions that were produced. 16 I'd like you to look at this hydrograph 17 to see a very important point. Hydrographs are 18 graphs of rise in water level, change and discharge over time. What you will see, there is time along the bottom. The upper diagram shows discharge, the lower one shows rise in water level. The water level rose extremely quickly. According to the proprietors of Little Wood Dies at Shurs and Manayunk Lane, they've there, there's four generations, they've seen many floods; this one rose 374 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 faster than any they had ever seen, faster than Hurricane Agnes. That makes for very difficult evacuation of areas. A little more three years ago in January of 1996, three feet of snow rapidly melt and we had unprecedented flooding throughout Pennsylvania including on the Island of Manayunk. " The 50-year flood of Philadelphia was Hurricane Agnes in June of '72. The FEMA report of 1996 for the City of Philadelphia has a little exert based on "Philadelphia Evening Bulletin" accounts, and it says, "Manayunk was hard hit by the flood with some houses swept away and all its factories closed leaving approximately a thousand workers temporarily unemployed. " The hundred-year flood on record occurred in 1869. Again, "Philadelphia Evening 375 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Bulletin" accounts give you some feel for it. "Two canal boatmen were drowned when their canal boat was overturned in the Manayunk area. Property damages were estimated to be a million dollars for the Manayunk area alone. Ice from the Pennsylvania Ice and Coal Company, innumerable barrels and hogsheads, canal boats, numerous freight cars and every other movable object from the Pennsylvania Rail Yards. " So that's just to give you a sense of the scale of flooding that has taken place and could take place again in the area of Manayunk. Why does it flood so severely at Manayunk? There is a reason of this. It's a combination of both the natural configuration of the Schuylkill River Valley in that area and human modifications at the time to the floodplain in a hydrologic cycle.
If you take a look at the next 376 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 attachment, the pull-out, it shows a section from a report by Alter, a USGS report in 1967.
You're going to have to continue to use the microphone. You can pick it up.
The main think I want to show you is from the Conshohocken Curve all the way down to Venice Island, a distance of some three miles is straightaway. There's a steep narrow valley cut in the hard Wissahickon rock and the water low flow conditions is impounded somewhat by the Flat Rock Dam to create lake-like conditions. But at high flow, it is not a flood control structure. The water comes raging down through here. It's essentially a chute and hits an area of naturally exceptional hard rock, a constriction, at the northern end of Venice Island. You're familiar with the Flat Rock Tunnel, the on-ramp to the Gladwyne, right in that area, and the water is forced through there and it rises to a more dramatic degree below there from Flat Rock Dam down to mile marker 14. If you look at Attachment Figure 6, this shows the rise in water level from Conshohocken down 377 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 to the Falls Bridge. Are you able to find that? And this was based on high water marks by significant floods up to 1967. And this is probably the most important thing I want you to walk my talk here today is that Venice Island is unique. It floods more dramatically at Venice Island than it does upstream or downstream of Venice Island along the Schuylkill River. And you can see that by the significantly higher rise in surface water elevations. For the 1933 flood, water rose feet 12 at the Green Lane Bridge; that's pretty significant. 13 Additional impacts to the hydrology 14 there are storm sewer inputs to the Manayunk Canal. 15 There are five six-foot diameter storm sewer 16 outfalls into the canal, so that just exacerbates 17 the problem when there's severe flooding. 18 So finally, if you look to the future 19 use of Venice Island, you've got many options. 20 You're thinking about one here today. What is 21 another consideration is extension of the greenway 22 that Philadelphia now has south of the confluence 23 with the Wissahickon along the Schuylkill River 24 Drive. It would promote the recreational use of the 25 island which is great at the moment in its current 378 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 condition where there's not great access to many parts of the Island. It would also promote natural habitat there. In conclusion, I strongly oppose Bills 990760 990762 which would rezone portions of the island to residential and have the City of Philadelphia knowing place its citizens in harm's way. I urge you to be thoughtful in your decision-making and understand that you have a legitimate basis, that Venice Island periodically floods severely, for saying no to rezoning to residential. Thank you.
Mr. Krakower, I'm sorry, this is not a courtroom. Testimony is given, and we ask questions. Please identify yourself for the record.
Hi, my name is Liz Terella (ph) and I'm president of the Manayunk Neighborhood Council and I'm a board member on the Manayunk development corporation. I have a short little 379 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 letter that I want to read to you and then it looks like stack but I'll only be pulling a couple things out of here that I've noted in my little my book here that has to do with some errors and omissions and inaccuracies. Madam Chairman, ladies and gentlemen, thank you for the opportunity to speak today. Although the neighborhood had hoped this would not be necessary to speak on this matter in the particular manner that we must. We had expected that consensus could be reached in regard to Venice Island before we would be speaking to you. We were promised by the City Planning Commission and our Councilman Mr. Nutter that the community's input would be considered. That has not happened. And so here we are today. I have spoken here before about the fact that my grandchildren can say they have roots in Manayunk that go deep, over 100 years and plus. All well and good, but that's the past, and we speak of the future. In light of the fact that if you call it whether the last year of the old millennium or the first year of the new millennium, we are entering a new age. This should call for us to look 380 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 at lessons learned and some things differently. The Senate of Pennsylvania and other speak of municipal cooperate, and we see in the plans Venice island little of that. By rushing so quickly for residential, have we spoken Lower Merion Township about this development? As a member of the board of Manayunk Development Corporation, I know it has taken a long time and great effort and the hard work of Representative Kathy Manderino and others to finally get something moving in changing the traffic sequence at I-76. This was done through MDC and these other factions, thinking that the sequence would help the problem on the Green Lane Bridge. Have we mentioned to them the plans for Venice Island and all the commuter traffic it will generate? Is this our good faith effort? In that same vein, has the City of Philadelphia put forth the type of effort for other options from Venice Island that we have taken in regard to other areas similar issues. We are asking for time. What is the rush? To give patent approval to this zoning overlay so that we would not have to face the same developers in court and therefore take the risk of losing seems ridiculous. We are currently 381 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 developers 3, neighborhood 0, but we're still standing and would rather take our chances with an informed constituency, which is what we're currently doing, than give up our rights. The good people of Manayunk, whom I love and respect, have endured enough. We are not against development, but we have become a regional destination without regional infrastructure. The numbers for planning analysis as used in the Commission's draft plan are incorrect and do not match the numbers from the traffic engineering study. In the draft plan they said they used planning analysis numbers, not actual engineering numbers, but I have the numbers from the traffic study. The problem is commuter traffic, not commercial trips. And if I may make an aside, they mentioned that commuter trips are much more trips for square footage, et cetera. Manayunk is not a place -- they're using those commercial numbers are used for suburban trips, you run out to the hardware store, you run out here and there. Manayunk is not that kind of place. You come and you park. They're not trips back and forth because you can't park so you come once and stay and walk around. We need a 382 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 breather. The Civics neighborhoods bordering the island and river Umbria Street neighbors, Manayunk Neighbors Council and Wissahickon neighbors are all opposed to the zoning overlay.
But since that time Wissahickon neighbors community, they went to them and they said no opposition, although I do have a letter stating their reservations about the manner in which this plan was drafted with no community input. As I said, Manayunk Neighborhood Council, we're opposed to the zoning overlay at this time, and you good people should be also. Philadelphia is called the city of homes and they speak about the density of Manayunk and you can see that small island and you've see the little place where they would be building. That will encompass the same number of homes as the 4400 block of Baker Street, 4500 block of Baker Street, 4400 block of St. David's, 4500 block of St. David's, 4500 block of Richie, 4500 of Smith, 4400 block of Mansion, 4300 block of Silverwood, 4400 block of Silverwood, 100 block Green Lane, 100 block of Conarroe, 100 block of Carson, 100 block of Day 383 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Street, 100 block of Maiden, 100 block of Grape, 100 block of Levering, 100 block of Cotton, 100 block of Rector, and 100 block of Roxborough Avenue, and will take our section of Manayunk from one that has one of the highest incidents of owner occupied properties in the City to one of the lowest by virtue of apartments. I have recently worked on a project with MDC. They've gotten a grant and other things to promote single family home ownership in Manayunk. Mr. Netison has brought in over 200 apartments, and we're speaking now of 700 more. That's 900 apartments, not counting the illegal rentals that we speak about. We will no longer be a community of homeowners. Another thing that one thing that was said today was that we want to leave the island G-2. That is incorrect. We were invited to a meeting on September 9th that came about because we entered a motion MDC that MDC write a letter to the planning commission requesting that they please sit down with the community because our request for the planning commission to sit down to the community went unheard. There actually had to be a motion entered 384 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 and seconded, and then we were invited on September 9th to meet with the Planning Commission. 35 based on comments made at the meeting with the community representatives. Michael Nutter, Councilman Nutter and others were there Kathy Manderino, that was not a working meeting, that was an information meeting where we went in and they gave us the draft plan. And the only questions or comments we had were clarification. That was not a working meeting. We were asked to go form a task force and form our own draft development plan for Venice Island, which we did. In ours we said that we acknowledged that Venice Island almost entirely falls within the floodway of the Schuylkill River. We firmly support the local, state, and federal floodway regulations that prohibit new construction or development in floodway. However, to protect the interest of the community, should those regulations be ignored, we present the following development plan. In our plan we ask for commercial, recreational, cultural, technical, and light industrial. And I won't go into our plan. We presented our plan, faxed it on 385 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 November 17th. In another letter I have from Barbara Kaplan, she states, "No one is leaving the community out of this process. " We presented this on November 17th and I have the minutes from the Planning Commission meeting the next morning where this recommendation was put in, the next morning. How much thought was given to our recommendation? 5. Our meeting was October 23rd. 35 with a couple days' notice.
FAR is the foot area ratio. For example, if a lot is a thousand square foot, you can put a thousand square foot building.
In their own draft plan at 1.0 ratio, they state that traffic is at peak capacity. Then they said that if they were able to go to 1.35 because they eliminated the commercial. The only commercial that was in the original plan was accessory to the apartments, not commercial that would have generated these so-called so, so many trips. Also in the letter from Barbara Kaplan she wants to say, "In closing, I would to remind you that any zoning legislation must have the support of both the residential and business segments of the community in order to be enacted by City Council and the Mayor." In the traffic survey that was done by Boles Smyth Associates and was directed by Councilman Nutter's office, the Mayor's office, the Philadelphia City Planning Commission, SEPTA, the Philadelphia Streets Department, the Philadelphia Parking Authority, PIDC, business and community representatives, Manayunk Development Corporation and Manayunk Neighborhood Council. The study was contracted through PIDC. Their findings say regarding quality of life and economic viability, "The parking" -- now, this goes to refute what was 387 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 said here today, that the infrastructure is enough. "The parking and access infrastructure is currently inadequate to effectively accommodate the increasing demands which in turn impact the overall quality of life in Manayunk." This study was done April of 1997, and we've had more development since then with no changes in the infrastructure. Also, in speaking about one of the highest traffic times, it was said that Saturday is the time of most commercial activity and therefore residential would be good. Here, these counts showed Friday to be the heaviest travel day of the week. On the Green Lane Bridge, Wednesday and Friday were equal. Also, their own studies here say that on Friday there were 1300 cars going up the street at 6:00 p.m. a Friday here at 5:00 p.m., 480 -- over the bridge, I'm sorry. 1300 going over the bridge. But Friday at 5:00 p.m. there were only 480 cars, and at noon on Saturday 430. Less. It states that commuter traffic. I don't have it with me today, but I also have a letter that I thought I had where Mr. Tom Connolly wrote a letter to Manayunk Neighborhood Council saying he didn't understand why we had a 388 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 problem with commercial development since anybody who knows Manayunk knows that all the problems are commuter traffic and that Main and Green Lane is nightmare. I will send that you. I have a letter from Umbria Street Neighbors speaking about it. I have a letter to the Zoning Commission that deals with the traffic, the floodway issues, and the fact that we are trying to promote home ownership. There is was also something said here today that I personally took a little bit of umbrage to, and that was that Manayunk people, you know, it's a class thing. Fifteen years ago I was giving seminars at North Light called Yunkers and Yuppies. I believe that people have the same rights if they've been in a place a hundred years or a day and a half. If I moved to New Jersey tomorrow, I expect to have the same rights as anybody who's ever been there. There was something said there that our problem is with the class of people, and that was said by Mr. Ed Weiner. This is an E-mail that when I saw it, I want Mr. Ed Weiner off the committee for the task force. And if I might read it. "I believe 389 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 lots of people have hopped on to the floodway bandwagon" --
First of all, as temporary Chair of the Committee, we're willing to listen to issue relative to floodways, flood fringes, traffic, but I'm not going to allow a personal attack or personal argument. It's not germane.
I don't want it in the public. I don't want it in the record.
I will do that because what was said today here was not true.
He has an opinion and you have an opinion, and you're both expressing it.
But here he gives his 390 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 opinion of Manayunkers.
It's not between me and him, sir; it's between this Council, too. This is our City Council. I'll make copies. What I want to say is I also want to show -- this is something else. Am I allowed to say? I won't go into that either. I'll give you copy where some things that were said today are quite different that what was said there. Also I guess I'll wrap it up-- oh, wait a few more things. The "Review," the local newspaper has editorials speaking about the folly of building in a floodplain. They are opposed. They end by saying, "We say again no matter what developers tell us about the strength of proposed buildings on Venice Island, their plans will some day dissolve into river silt if they were are allowed to build in the floodway. We say again, City Council must take a strict stand on floodway development." And they actually had three editorials. And my final thing is, as I had said to 391 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Councilman Nutter, I was going to read this. This was Councilman Nutter's position on the Dranoff proposal before the Zoning Board. "The members of the Zoning Board are probably familiar with the events of September 16, 1999, when the City experienced extremely heavy rainfall resulting from Hurricane Floyd. This led to severe flooding in many locations in Philadelphia and especially in the vicinity of Venice Island and Main Street Manayunk. The application before you was a site which suffered serious flooding and which is located within the floodway. I, therefore, question the wisdom in converting this former factory building into apartment units. Local, state, and federal laws and regulation prohibit certain structures and expansions of existing structures in floodways. Furthermore, these laws and accompanying regulations specifically encourage actions which reduce flood loss and minimize the impact on health, safety, and welfare if flooding occurs. Given the most recent event and location of this property, the Board should deny this application." And then, of course, as he says, he did say that if they were to do it, there would be provisos. 392 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 I have taken enough time. Thank you very much for your time and attention.
Thank you. Darlene Macina, Robin Mann, and Wendy Lathrop.
Hi, Rules Committee. Thank you for taking the time all day to listen to us. It's been very painful for us, too, over the last four months. My name is Darlene Macina. I'm with Friends of the Manayunk Canal. I established the organization. We are Friends of Fairmount Park Group. I moved into Manayunk, bought a house 14 years ago because of the Manayunk canal towpath and 15 access to the river. I'm a rower and waterways are 16 very important to me and pedestrian access as well. 17 I want to ask if you can acknowledge the package that I sent to your office on last Friday and had on some time to look at it. There are a number of articles from various papers, specifically the "Inquirer," which I think really bring home the fact of what Floyd did in Manayunk. We are stewards of a modest park land. Our area focuses a narrow band of land adjacent to Venice Island and the Manayunk Canal which is 393 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 parallel to the Schuylkill River. Our members represent a broad array of park-users, both local and regional. They are of all ages, incomes, and colors. They come from North Philadelphia in Center City, they come up from the cliffs of Manayunk. They com from Montgomery County, they come from Westchester. Manayunk is a center for -- is a destination for the region, and we like that. Our members are users of the Schuylkill River, the Manayunk Canal, and towpath. They are active and passive users such as bird-watchers, kayakers, rowers, joggers, runners, cyclists, and fishermen and women who sit along the canal for hours. All of our members support smart economic development which is sustainable and beneficial for the entire region. We all benefit from smart growth and development. We encourage projects that compliment and enhance the existing community. I also would like to mention that FMC was nominated to the Fairmount Park Residential Citizen Advisory Board and we serve on that committee because of the work we do and the kind of research and reports that we have submitted. In additions, we have received grants and in-kind 394 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 services which amount to thousands of dollars and some of that work you can see here today. Through these efforts, we have produced professional reports and research about Venice Island and our park land. In fact, I think we are the experts of this area which we're talking about today. And I hope you do have the time to read some of the reports, and they're all on our web site if they're not in your packet. We have distributed our reports to MDC, Philadelphia Planning Commission, Councilman Nutter, and other groups. Our reports have been cited a number of times. We come to you today to state our opposition to the two bills 990760 and 990762 and I would like this testimony to apply to tomorrow's hearing at well. We have met as a group on this issue of land use in the floodway on an average of once a week for three hours for about four months. We're tired. Our dedication and commitment is rooted in our personal lives and professional lives. That's why we've been here today since 9 o'clock. We don't get paid for this. We have tried to look at the broad picture of economic development for the City 395 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 of Philadelphia as well as the quality of life and the quality of experience in neighborhood for both ourselves and the guests of our community. We've tried to look at the economic viability and cost expenditures of new construction in the floodway and environmental repercussions of construction in the Schuylkill River floodway. Our conclusion is as follows: We find that development along the Schuylkill River in Manayunk will lead to increased flooding thereby endangering the loss of property and life, creating health and safety hazards and cause the wasteful and unnecessary expenditure of public funds for protection and disaster relief efforts.
To prevent such adverse conditions and consequences, it would seem necessary to impose restrictions and regulations for development on Venice Island. I want you to know what I just read, that last couple of sentences, was pulled exactly from the City Code; that actually wasn't my text. I would like to call your attention to a letter in your packet which I dropped off, members of us, we dropped it off on Friday, from the Delaware River Basin Commission, which was signed by 396 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Carol Collier, Execute Director. I believe a copy of this was sent to Commissioner Margaret Taglioni (ph) and it was addressed to members of both the House and Senate urging them to consider buy out in conversions of floodways and doing so to consider this as a part of the planning process as opposed dealing with these types of lands and disaster responses. Lastly, I want to say that we strongly support the mechanism of the zoning overlay. The zoning overlay is the basic approach many municipalities have used to regulate floodplains to comply with the federal flood insurance program. However, we feel this important issue of the future of Venice Island, the floodway, should be given more careful consideration and time. We do believe there is an alternative plan and we ask you for that time and to work more closely with the stakeholders that you see here today and the experts. Thank you for your time.
Madam Chairman, Members of the Rules Committee, I'm Robin Mann. I'm speaking on behalf of the Southeastern Group of the Sierra 397 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Club, f which I serve as chair of the wetlands and water quality committee. I'm speaking to express our strong opposition to bill 990760 and 762 to amend the City's Zoning Code. The Sierra club is a national organization with chapters active in all 50 states dedicating to promoting the protection of our natural heritage for present and future generations. The Southeastern Group has approximately 8,000 members residing in Philadelphia, Montgomery, Delaware, Chester Counties. Many of our members are actively involved through the club and other conservation initiatives in efforts to improve water quality and restore watersheds in the Delaware Valley. The Sierra Club is not opposed to all growth and development. We are opposed to poorly planned development that is wasteful of scarce resources. Our current national anti-sprawl campaign is aimed at highlighting the positive steps the communities and state governments can take to promote smart growth. We encourage open protection, land use, and transportation planning, and urban revitalization, all of which can help to limit 398 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 environmental impacts of development and to promote livability. We do oppose new development in the wrong place. And especially oppose new development in floodplains. The protects of undisturbed floodplains from development, the prevention of more intensive redevelopment in the floodplain and the restoration of floodplains through mitigation measures are important, not only for the range of environmental benefits they provide from flood surge protections to water quality improvement, but also for the benefits in terms of protection of life and property. Bill Nos. 990762 and 990760 would allow new residential development in the floodway of the Schuylkill River by rezoning the southeastern portion of Venice Island for low-density residential use. We firmly oppose this measure because it would put more people in harm's way directly in the path of future flooding. It would aggravate the problems that Manayunk must handle in times of flooding emergencies. And it would increase the already-heavy burdens on city, state, and federal taxpayers for flood damage relief and related public spending. 399 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 We also oppose this measure because it would forfeit the very significant opportunity that the City presently has to find a creative forward-thinking and broadly supported solution regarding comprehensive planning for the island. In our view, such a plan would be respectful of the island's location in the floodplain of the Schuylkill River by providing for restoration of substantial portions of the floodplain and expanded dedicated open space, not just a 5 foot ribbon along the riverbank. Twenty years ago a forward-thinking city government adopted restrictions on the types of development activities that could occur in the floodplain and in the floodway for the expressed purpose of insuring proper protection of the citizens. I won't reiterate. Darlene just quoted from the code. Now, so soon after the major flooding brought on by hurricane Floyd is not the time for the City to abandon that commitment. Approving Bill No. 990602 would do exactly that. Over the last quarter century, other municipalities around the country have taken measures to opt out of the flood-and-rebuild cycle 400 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 and improve their flood protections. I have listed a number of cities that have taken measures and have learned the hard way to move their citizens to higher ground. You can read them in the text. In short, cities are moving the residents to higher ground out of, not into, the path of floods.
Around the country we are seeing a growing appreciation of the need for floodplain protection and restoration and a growing recognition that more extensive development in floodplains is foolhardy and dangerous. In the present instance, Philadelphia is facing developers' pressures to make a short-sighted decision that would benefit private inters and place added long-term burdens on the City's resources and limited state and federal relief funds. Approving this rezoning would be a step backwards for Philadelphia, not forward progress. Thank you the opportunity.
My name is Wendy Lathrop, and I have some photos and a copy of my testimony I'd like to also hand forward.
We will make a copy of your testimony available to the stenography 401 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 and it will be included in the transcript. (Testimony attached to transcript.)
My name is Wendy Lathrop. I'm a land surveyor and planner with years of 6 experience and mapping and land-use regulation. I 7 have significant amount of experience particularly 8 with floodplains, the wetlands. At this point in 9 time I have been serving as an advisor to the 10 Federal Emergency Management Agency on a flood 11 mapping program since 1995. On that particular 12 Council, I represent the American Congress in 13 Surveying and Mapping, which is an organization of 14 approximately 7,000 surveyors, cartographers, and 15 geodesists throughout the country. On that Council 16 we make recommendations to improve the 17 implementation of mapping and regulations to 18 protect lives and property from the hazards of 19 flooding affecting our citizens throughout this 20 country. It's in relationship to that particular 21 background that I wish to make my testimony. 22 More directly and personally, I'm also 23 very familiar with Manayunk area. I just recently 24 moved back to the area. I live just across the 25 river on the Bala Cynwyd side which, to me, means 402 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 that I am directly affected because water, when it rises, does not rise only on one side of the river. It will effect my side as well. I'm a frequent visitor to Manayunk, both to visit friends and to travel along the towpath. I can't say that I do a tremendous amount of shopping there because I'm not the shopping type, but I do spend quite a bit of time along the towpath. I do want to make some clarifications regarding some of the testimony that was made a little bit earlier regarding floodways and flood fringes. And I also want to address directly the terminology that the City Planning Commission has written in regards to its recommendation to change the zoning of the island to residential. In its preamble it talks about preserving the constraints to development are significant historical past environmental constraints, traffic constraints, and location entirely within the floodway. It then goes on to say that they should only permit development that will complement the existing constraints and then at the conclusion for some reason instead of saying how to best implement that, it merely says that the use would cause the least amount of traffic 403 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 would be residential. It does not say that this is the best use for the area; it merely says that this is one that will cause the least vehicular traffic. There is a big difference between them. And at this point, I'd like to refer you to some of the photographs that were taken directly after Hurricane -- actually at the point that it hit Philadelphia, it was downgraded from a hurricane to a tropical storm. If these photo are not sufficient, you can take a ride down Kelly Drive and look at the tree that's stuck in the bridge down by East Falls about 12 feet above the water level. If you think in terms of what kind path the water is taking, I can't see from this side, but one of this photographs is from front page of the Philadelphia Inquirer that shows tractor-trailers smashed up against each other from the path of water. Now, this was not the hundred-year flood. If the water is moving tracor-trailers to this extent, and this is only considered a 25-year flood, that's one-quarter the strength of what is considered a 100-year flood, which is really a misnomer. It's not in terms of it happens once every 100 years; it means it has a percent opportunity per year of 404 1 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 occurring and every year it has that same 1 percent chance. That's why in 1996 in January of 1996 which was when I moved back to the area, I was privileged to experienced another flood just three years ago, also not a 100-year flood but also causing significant amount of damage. The difference between a floodway and a floodplain. The floodplain entire area that is covered by water at some point in time.
A flood is considered the covering of land by water where land is not normally submerged. And floods come in different frequencies and intensities. We refer to 100-year or 1 percent annual chance of flood as the one that is the trigger mechanism for regulations. There are other floods that are calculated when development is planned. 2 percent chance of occurring a year, a 50-year flood, which has a 2 percent chance, a 10-year flood, and a 25-year flood. But the one that is considered the trigger to make regulations go into place according to the Federal Emergency Management Agency and thereby through the states and the communities that participate in the national flood insurance program 405 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 is the 100-year flood. We have not experienced a 100-year flood for a significant amount of time, yet we have seen water raging through our streets and causing significant damage much more frequently than that. We are looking at areas that will cause significant damage to property as well as endanger lives. A person cannot walk through water like that. A floodplain covers the area -- at this point we're talking about the hundred-year floodplain or the regulatory floodplain. A floodplain covers the entire area. Within it is an area called the floodway which carries the greatest volume of water at the greatest velocity. The purpose of reserving the floodway as free from obstruction from water is to allow that water to get out of there so the water can then go back down and return to pre-flood levels. It is important to keep that area free from obstructions or we get situations such as this with tractor-trailers. If we put something in the way such as a building -- let me back up a bit and talk about the floodway down by the Locust Point Development. There is a misstatement by Mr. Lombardo 406 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 that floodways only occur in areas that are non-tidal. The Schuylkill River is tidal below the Fairmount Dam. And in fact, the floodway of the Schuylkill is contained entirely within concrete walls at the area where it goes by Locust Point. However, that area, the terrain is very different from what it looks like in Manayunk. In that area we have a very flat -- we have a contained channel that water is basically contained in concrete walls and then we have a flat area. So when the water comes up, it can go a significant distance at a shallow depth and not travel as great a velocity nor causes much damage. As when it's constricted in a very narrow steep-sided valley, as we do have in Manayunk, in the situation such as Manayunk, the water has nowhere to o but directly up and up very rapidly. And that means that we have a significant increase in damages to property and danger to lives. Another problem is that in the area of Manayunk, the river is coming down a straight path so it has a chance to build up velocity. As it approaches Locust Point, it has taken several bends. As it goes by the art museum it takes a bend, for instance. When you have meanders such as that, that 407 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 makes the water slow down. So that, again, the floodway is more able to be contained. Talking about obstructions in the floodway, there are none in the area near Locust point. That part of the water is completely open with exception of the bridge as that crosses through there, the one near the Walnut Street Bridge, South Street, all those. Those actually are obstructions when the what we call the base flood elevation or the level to which water rises in a flood is reached, that calculation is based upon there being no obstructions to water flow. In other words, they calculate what opening is in the bridge to allow the water going through, but don't take into account the fact that a car may be getting washed away or a tree such as the one that's stuck in the bridge down by East Falls. That's a pretty dramatic reminder of what happens.
The base flood elevation is dependent completely upon there being no obstructions. When the developers that we've heard earlier today talk about improving the flow of water, they are talking about taking buildings out and putting new elevated buildings in. There are several objections to this. Number one is it is 408 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 better to take buildings out, but when you constrict water from the sides and leave it open to travel through, water travels in a much different manner than if you put certain pilings or stilts in there, then you create a situation called scour or vortices which cause swirls and the water will travel in a different way. Things will no longer go in a straight path; they'll start swirling around. That's a totally different kind of a damage. I am not a hydraulic engineer and I cannot give you specific figures on that, but I will tell you that I have observed that. I have been caught in the floods in midwest in 1997. I was evacuated from Paducah, Kentucky, when the rivers crested there, so I know what it looks like. I also wanted to mention -- I hope that I've clarified to you the difference between the floodway and flood fringe at this point. On the maps, I believe there's one of the Namico site here, the floodway on the flood insurance rate maps that are issued by the Federal Emergency Management Agency, the dark gray area along here -- there are two different kinds of floodplains shown on here. 2 percent 409 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 opportunity of the water reaching that level in a year. The dark gray is the regulatory flood zone or the 100-year flood zone. And you'll see within that there is an area that is shaded. That shaded is the floodway. You'll see that all of Manayunk, with the exception of a large boulder area up in the north end of it, is entirely covered by floodway. It has the policy of the Federal Emergency Management Agency to promote, not only proper regulations to control existing hazards in the floodplain and the floodway, but they are using the approach called mitigation which is not only to fix things after they have gone wrong, but to prevent future damages and in 1997 came up with a plan called project impact. " And I would predict that this particular situation would be a similar disaster rebuild disaster cycle with vehicles crashing into the stilts on the elevated buildings or the cars going down and getting stuck on the openings of the bridges down stream, essentially causing an obstruction and further raising the floodwaters. In the guidelines for project impact for 410 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 residential mitigation, the first plan that they have is if there are existing buildings, get them elevated or demolish them. In regards to new construction, the answer is don't put it there. And I ask that this City Council also take that same approach to mitigation and prevent damages. We have a problem with residential versus other kinds of uses. When you have a commercial or industrial use, you can close the doors and send people home. If you have residential use there, going home is not an option. Those people must be evacuated. I don't know if any of you are familiar with exactly how tight those four accessways are to the island. They are not inter-connected. In other words, if you will be on one part of the island, you cannot exit by another bridge. You must go out the same way that you came in.
I believe Councilman Kenney has a question he would like to ask.
Just so I can try to understand two things. Number one, do you work for FEMA?
I am not speaking on behalf of FEMA. I am speaking as a concerned citizen with floodplain management knowledge.
Give me some examples what would be acceptable on Venice Island in your opinion. Residential seems to be the big bugaboo here so I'm wondering whether or not --
The reason is because of safety issues, the evacuation is much more difficult when you have residents. You cannot force a resident to leave his or her home. You can force an employee to leave.
You would have to evacuate them both, but somebody who is working in a retail or industrial site, they're willing to go home.
They're happy to get out of work, you mean. 412 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
I'm just trying to get an idea as to what type of development is acceptable. I'm confused. If this is such a treacherously dangerous plot of land, what is acceptable in any kind of development there?
Well, every time we come up with ideas, we're immediately debated. So I guess I would want to reserve our answer unless someone else wants to come forth, because I do think that with, you know, thinking out of the box, feeling like our back's up against the wall, we have to go with residential because we don't have another alternative because the Zoning Board's not going to protect us, and that's our only recourse. Well, I'm not so sure. I think that there are other alternatives, and, you know, we've thrown around some ideas. I mean, one thing for sure is Manayunk was a textile center, and it's possible to get some manufacturing back. I mean, the City has been able to build incentives for different kinds of use like the navy yard and like other sites in Philadelphia. We don't know.
The only incentive 413 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 you can give to textile manufacturing would be the slave wages that they pay in the far east. I mean, I don't how we can compete with.
I would offer the observation that the City Planning Commission itself two times in 1982 and in 1983 wrote reports in which it said that as industry left the island that that area open and returned to recreational due to the high hazard of building in that area.
The problem that we face here is, is that somebody owns that land. I don't know whether you can take a person's private property that they purchased --
We are not taking property. If somebody buys a piece of property and those regulations are on the books, that is not a taking. Public notice is made as soon as -- those regulations have been on the book for years. 20
My question was as to what's acceptable development there, if any.
Obviously, Smurfit still thinks it's acceptable. In fact, it's one of the successful industries in Philadelphia. So it is acceptable to possibly think that that is a 414 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 potential use, to continue to have industry there. Now, I guess don't want to debate the issue because I'm not looking to fill those spaces, but I don't think it's very fair to say to us that residential is the only use and that we have to make a decision right here and today to have a vote on this bill. I think what you've heard today is that we think it's not a good public safety decision.
My own opinion is that on one hand it's unsafe for residents, but on the other hand I'm being told that it's not unsafe for other types of development which would bring employees or other people there. It's either unsafe or it isn't, and I don't know if I necessarily want to work or live in a place that is most likely to be swept away by a raging flood.
I agree with you. I would have to say that I would not want to either live nor work in an area that was going to be threatened by water. In terms of safety -- I also have a dispute with you regarding the flood insurance later on, because I think you have misunderstanding there.
I never mentioned flood insurance. 415 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
What I mentioned was that people would be unlikely to lend a developer money to develop --
If you are required by the government to have an insurance policy, does it matter to you whether you get the money from the person you lent it to or from the insurance agency? I think not. You're getting your money back.
So in other words, First Union Bank would lend any developer money to build a residential development in an area that's likely to be swept away by a raging flood.
As long as they had that flood insurance, yes. I have talked to bankers about this, too. We have bankers on our advisory council.
Well, we tend to disagree on that. We will wil disagree on that. I think that's a little silly a position, actually.
I do believe, and I think it would be hard to argue that when you have a home where you put your head on the pillow to rest and you keep your personal belongings, if you are not 416 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 there during the time of evacuation or in the middle of the day and there's a traffic jam on the Schuylkill Expressway and the trains are not moving very fast, you still want get home and get your things. People, when they're personal property is at risk of damage or being lost, people act irrationally. I think the risks are much greater when you're talking about places where people live as opposed to where they're employed. People pretty much leave the job pretty quickly if they're getting let off work early. I think that would be hard to argue.
I just want to get an idea as to the dichotomy of public safety issues when talking about development, bringing people onto this area.
I think there's a great difference between where people live and where people work. I think people act irrationally about their personal belongings, whether it be an animal -- I mean, this has been recorded.
Thank you. I believe Councilman Cohen has a question or would like to be recognized. 417 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
I'd like to be recognized. I don't know whether it's a question; it's a concern. I share in Councilman Kenney's concerns. I'm not sure really what we're talking about. Are we concerned -- I'm talking of those who came here in opposition and expressing that opinion. Are we concerned about the safety of people coming or are we concerned about what development of Venice Island does for those who already live in other parts of Manayunk? I mean, what is the issue that's being raised? I can see there's a difference between residential and business. At least a worker at a plant, if he or she is in a dangerous place is there only for 8 or 10 hours, and people who live there may be there for 24 hours, young kids, parents who are taking care of the young kids. I see those differences. But I'm not sure what we're talking about. If this place is going to be developed, everything I've been reading recently with all the floods moves in the direction of saying it's foolish to develop a place that is likely to have problems. We have problems in Philadelphia with the singing homes and they're create chaos and where there are lots of row houses in different parts of the City 418 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 today we're concerned about the fact that homes are beginning to sink there, we're not exactly sure why. The 5700 block of Kimball Avenue, nobody knows why suddenly one home right in the middle of the block began to sink. We know there are all kind of little creeks and other things underground. We don't know whether we're going to have sinking home problems all over the City. Seems to me strange to be talking about development of any kind on this area. But then again we here proposals that maybe something else could be developed there.
Well, if we said to you we think that those private properties should be demolished and managed as increased park space -- in fact, this was in a City Plan Commission on recreation along the Schuylkill riverfronts in Philadelphia in 1986 or so. It talked about increasing park space on Venice Island as the private businesses left and land acquisition. But if I said that to you today, you would -- and we have sort of said this, but we kind of think nobody is going to accept that, people are going to laugh in our face if we say convert it to park space and create it as a University Pennsylvania environmental 419 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 ecology site. I mean, have the University of Pennsylvania buy it. I can't tell you how many students I've met there looking at the unique qualities of the island. There are other uses, and I think there are maybe other options for acquisition and there should be enough time to look into these other options.
I was going to ask Councilman Nutter how long has this been the subject of discussion in the community? Councilman Nutter, may I ask you a question? I notice in material we have, there's a letter to you from the Zoning Board, November 22nd of this year which indicated opposition, I assume to this proposal, or was it some proposal?
There's a particular application currently pending in front of the Zoning Board of adjustment, Councilman, generally referred to as the Carl Dranoff property. That application is still in front of the Zoning Board. There were three issues that I outlined in my letter. One was the community wanted a continuance, and I asked the Board to grand a continuance which they chose not to. I then said to the Board that I was opposed to 420 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 the -- I was concerned about this proposal in the particular area and I was out the day after Hurricane Floyd and I continue to have concerns about development in this area. I did state opposition to the application based on those concerns, but I also recognize that according to the code development can take place in these areas. And with that mind, what I said to the Board, and I'll read this part into the record, it was not read in earlier, "If the Board after full review of the testimony decides to grant the request of variances, however, then I strongly recommend that the Board consider including the following provisos: "One, applicant shall prepare engineering studies which demonstrate that the proposed development will not result in any increase of the flood levels and will not increase danger of flooding. Such studies shall be submitted to the Planning Commission for its review and approval prior to construction. "Two, applicants shall secure any and all permits or authorizations required by the Federal Emergency Management Agency and the Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protects 421 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 for the proposed development prior to construction. "Three, applicants shall prepare in consultation with the City's Emergency Management Office, police and fire department, an emergency evacuation plan prior to occupancy." That's rest of the letter.
Councilman Nutter, may I interject, sir, that I am not aware of this ordinance having any of those requirements in it; none. So that's point number 1. This ordinance has no such requirements as any of those three provisos. The second problem with regard to Councilman Cohen's prior question is that my clients here are not prepared candidly to answer the question "If we don't do this, what else can we do?" The problem is that we have not been afforded a real opportunity to address that proactive response. We have been given the position by the Planning Commission that they have a developer or two developers that have three that have their own plans which those developers have formulated they make a profit based on those plans and that's what they want the City to do, 422 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 period. And before we can respond, "We want this instead," first we must at this 11th hour of the 59th minute of the last day hope to preclude the waiver of the rules by this Rules Committee an enactment by City Council of the present ordinance 7 without having had full opportunity to explore the very things that we are talking about today. I know Councilman Nutter asked, do we want to do nothing. No, we don't want to do nothing. We want the following: First, that this ordinance should be tabled. We realize that means it will picked up by the next Council, but I believe everyone in this room will be on that next Council. That secondly, we are ready to work with the Planning Commission, but with the Planning Commission also considering the testimony of people like Dr. Willig and Wendy Lathrop and the other experts. These are people that have worked with FEMA, advised FEMA, who are engineers. And let us also in at the table when these plans are going on to discuss alternatives. We believe that similar to the stadium bill for the Phillies and the Eagles that within reasonable time in the spring we can come up with active alternatives, but first the door 423 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 must be open. If the door is closed and there's already a determination that the business community, and that's who met with the Planning Commission, the business community and three developers and the Planning Commission have said, "This is what we want to do," then there's no way we can possibly make alternative suggestions unless we can do it, not in this atmosphere of the doors closing, but rather in an atmosphere of mutual collaboration where we don't have this kind of time pressure.
Mr. Krakower, let me respond. Let me just respond to one issue that the gentleman raised. Mr. Krakower, you made a statement that the present bill does not contain the requirements that I had articulated as proposed provisos in my letter to the Zoning Board of November 22nd. The only problem with your statement, Mr. Krakower, is that some of the issues that I was referring to are also issues that are covered presently by the Zoning Code in Sections 14-1606 and in Sections 14-1801. They are not being amended by this particular bill, and all of those provisions are in effect still, even with the passage of this bill. The one has nothing to do 424 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 with the other. They don't need to be in this particular bill; they're already in the Philadelphia Code.
Councilman, one of my concerns, however, is I believe that enactment of this ordinance will in effect have affect on Section 8 1606.
Because there are parts of this ordinance which contradict Section 1606 or appear to raise internal conflict. I believe that that matter --
I believe that permitting this particular ordinance with respect to this locale can be interpreted, and a court eventually would probably wind up doing so -- though no means am I giving you an opinion right off the cuff. But I think it could raise the question as to whether there is a conflict between that provision of 1606 which says there should be no construction in a floodway, again, not plain, but floodway.
Which is then incorporated by direct reference and then superseded 425 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 by 14-1801, Item No. 3 that reads, "Where the property in question is situated within areas subject to flooding as provided in Section 14-1606." That means the entire 14-1601 is now brought into and subject to all the powers and controls of 14-1801(3), which continues to say relating to floodplain controls "The Zoning Board of Adjustment shall consider the following criteria when granting a variance under 14-1801(1)(c)." That is the conflict here. People are not reading the statute or the section of the Code to understand that if you only want to read 14-1606 by itself, you could be correct. We had that testimony on the record. When you read 14-1801, it references everything in 14-1606 and makes it subject to 14-1801(3).
14-1801 only comes up if the matter goes to the Zoning Board. If you enact this new change into 16-16 and the applicant such as Mr. Dranoff and the others go to the L & I, they can get permits over-the-counter, don't have to go to the Zoning Board. They can get their permits without going to the Zoning Board.
So is your testimony now that they are then subject to no controls 426 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 whatsoever and they don't have to deal with FEMA, they don't have to deal with hundred-year flood levels? Is that your testimony?
I don't see where they would, that's correct. At this point another problem is at this point if they go to the Zoning Board, they are asking for approval from the Zoning Board without these engineering studies. They want to submit them later. So far, not a single study of the kind that you mentioned or have been in this proviso that you would suggest --
They have indicated they do not. They are proceeding without them. And what they want to do is get a Zoning Board to say, "We will approve this subject to your subsequent approval by these other agencies. The problem there is that there's an implication. If you go to FEMA and you go to the State later and you go with in hand a document says the Zoning Board has given you preliminary approval, there's an implication that you already have the favorable pat on the head from the Zoning Board. 427 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Don't you still have to do all the hydrological studies and the like to be able to be able to convince FEMA and the Department of Environmental Resources or EPA that you can in fact prove that you're not going to increase the 100-year flood level? Don't you still have to do that?
You still have to do it but this would make it a lot easier to persuade those people, would give them a leg up.
So your testimony is that FEMA really cares one way or the other whether someone has a zoning permit in their hand?
I think it has some influence. It gives them a favorable imprimatur.
Go with me on assumption. Let me address it to the attorney, Mr. Krakower. Assuming that Council passes the bill in its present form, does the developer then go at some later time to the Zoning Board or does that finish everything up? What's your understanding? 428 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Technically, particularly Councilman Nutter's provisions are not part of this bill. I believe that the implication is that the developers no longer have to go to the Zoning Board at all. They may have to go to the Zoning Board for building permits, but they are entitled to zoning permits. And I'm making the distinction between the zoning permit and the building permit. They're entitled to the zoning permit from L & I. Now, once they have the zoning permit, they next have to go get a building permit. That may require that they obtain some of these engineering studies. But once they have a zoning permit in their hand, there is an impact on the next level that you go to.
The question I'm trying to get at is, is it that they are trying to change the rules under which they would go to the Zoning Board? I'd like a view from both of you.
I believe they are. They very much would be changing the rules under which they have to go to the Zoning Board. Now they have to go for a variance.
Mr. O'Neil, I see you shaking your head. Did you want to be 429 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 recognized?
The difference is now they need a variance. With this they will not need a variance.
Excuse me, please. I think we have Mr. O'Neil from the Law Department here. You were shaking your head. Are you in agreement or disagreement with what was said?
First, Council President, I apologize. I didn't realize that I was shaking my head and, as I said, I apologize. That's impolite and perhaps a little unprofessional.
That comes from us being lawyers and thinking about something. Go ahead. 430 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
In any event, the answer is they still have to go to the Zoning Board.
Did they have the option? Why is this bill here -- could they have gone to the Zoning Board right now and requested a variance to encompass all the things they hoped to get by this ordinance?
Rich Lombardo from the Planning Commission. I think there's been sort of like a shell game going on here. This ordinance is not an environmental ordinance. It's not a floodplain ordinance.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. You're going to have to play by my rules when I ask a question because I want to be able to understand the answer. Just speak a little bit slower. Now, did they have to go City Council or did they have the option? As in many cases applicants have the option of going either to City Council or to the Zoning Board. Was that option here or does this come here because it has to come here if the applicant wishes the kind of relief they're seeking?
This is coming here, not because applicants are seeking relief. This is the 431 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 end result of a many-year planning process to look at what is the future of Venice Island. This is not a floodplain ordinance. It is an ordinary to change the land use from industrial to residential.
It has nothing to do with any developers seeking any kind of use in the land?
There are developers out there -- I want to put this clear on the record. There are developers out there seeking variances from the Zoning Board. We did not confer with any of those developers in terms of developing these controls. These controls were developed strictly, as I stated beginning of my testimony, based an analysis, the background traffic and the impact of development on the traffic situation in Manayunk and along Main Street. The fact of the matter that some development may meet these regulations and some development may not is not an issue of ours. We were basically calling it this is what we think is the best level of development. All of the development, if you pass this bill or don't pass this bill, still has to go to the Zoning Board because of the flood regulations. Those flood 432 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 regulation are not being changed by this legislation. And it's disingenuous for Mr. Krakower to say that you would be changing them because the way it works on practical matter is that all the zoning maps of the City show the floodway boundaries on the maps. When someone walks into L & I with the plan in that area, before the L & I examiner even reviews their application, they send them over to our environmental unit, Marty Soffer, to begin review under the federal and state and city floodplain regulations. Marty will not even release the plans back to the examiner until a basic level of information as well as the developer being made aware of their need to do an engineering study as taken place. At that point, it then goes back to the examiner for any other either issuance -- not issuance but any other refusals or review the L & I examiner to do. Now, I think to make it sound like the City will willy-nilly now just ignore federal and state flood regulations and issue permits because we have a bill that says you can now do residential development on the island rather than commercial and industrial development is being unfair to this Committee and unfair to the people in 433 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 this room. That is not what this is all about. And to s spend all this time talking about flooding and the flood regulations when there is not one thing being proposed today that change those floodplain and flood regulations. Everyone will still have their opportunity to argue before the Zoning Board and to argue before the Planning Commission in a public foreman of a public hearing their opinions about whether or not things should proceed in the floodway of the Schuylkill River. And that is all I would like to put on the record.
From your point of view, the passage of this bill does not improve the position of these developers before the Zoning Board; is that what your conclusion is?
It improves it to the degree that they are no looking for a variance from the underlying industrial zoning. They would now would not -- at least a variance for use. They may still need variances for setbacks or for legal other issues, but they will not be looking for a variance for use. The use will become residential instead of commercial and industrial. So to the degree that they have a residential development would help them. 434 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 It would remove that use refusal from the zoning variance process.
See, the reason I think there's a lot of confusion, this bill comes to us the way normal zoning applications come to City Council. A District Councilmember generally introduces -- when I say generally, I mean 99.9, maybe a hundred percent of the time. It's the District Councilmember who introduces zoning legislation, and the rest of the Council is not involved. Generally speaking, we expect the District Councilmember to carry out all the discussions with people and to then make a recommendation to the Council, which we nearly always honor. It's very rare that the Council as a whole does not honor the recommendation of District Councilman. I came here today expecting a normal problem. To me, this is becoming a very major environmental issue, and I have spent my years in Council working very hard and I never knew that there was any environmental issue, and I don't know why the Planning Commission did not communicate with other people in City Council, you know, why they didn't, for example, even inform me that they're 435 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 dealing with a major environmental issue like this seems to be, and that's the reason I'm so concerned. I thought we were just dealing with normal issues that we deal.
We are changing the rules that apply to the environmental issue. Those rules are unchanged. They were mandated upon us by the federal government; we being the City, not the Planning Commission. We are still going to enforce those regulations. One other thing I want to point out. We were involved -- I was personally involved at the time we adopted those regulations. The federal government was were very clear. When they did not want us to allow something, they made us put the word in "prohibited." They went so far as making us put in language that would not allow the Zoning Board to grant variances from some of the regulations. In this particular area, they did not make us prohibit the use; they made us allow for a public hearing before the Zoning Board of Adjustment as a method of determining whether proper engineering had been done. The proper engineering is being done to prevent environmental problems. 436 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
Yes, but what you're asking to us to do at the close of the day when we're winding up our session, you're wanting us to take on good faith everyone else's advice. I was not at all prepared to consider when Mr. Krakower and Councilman Nutter debated an legal issue. I can't comprehend that legal issue and evaluate it and say, "Let me check out something first." I think this represents a lot of environmental issues. We may wind up with a conclusion that you have after we consider them, but I just think it's inappropriate to ask City Council to take action on this matter. This is not a simple zoning matter. And I think if you feel that it needs quick action, we're going to be back in session very soon. The new Council is going to be sworn in on January 3rd. I'd like to know what I'm voting on, and I would like to be able to make a decision. I tried to follow you, Mr. Krakower and Councilman Nutter. Councilman Nutter is not a lawyer, but he sure sounds like one and a very good one.
The two of you were 437 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 discussing something and I was struggling, and I think I'm a pretty good lawyer. I'm concerned that follow that. I have questions I would like to ask of Ms. Willig at great length, but we've got a heavy schedule ahead of us still. There's a 1 o'clock meeting that hasn't even started yet today. So I think this should have been brought to the attention to the whole Council long before the final day for getting bills passed.
Not at this moment. COUNCILMEN KENNEY: Unless there's some issue to raise, we still have a list of witnesses that need yet to testify on this bill.
Councilman Cohen, I really recognize what you're saying, and I think you're absolutely right, this should not necessarily take place here and we haven't had the time or the opportunity to really discuss this in debt with all the stakeholders. In fact, I actually think that there's been maybe motivation to keep us out because we are a group of experts, that we'd like to bring this information forward to the community. We've 438 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 had public forums. We've invited different people to attend. In fact, I think many of City Council were invited at different times where we had experts out there. And so I do think that this should given more time and consideration.
Thank you. We will break for the stenographer. (Brief recess.)
We are back in session. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony. Again, I just want to caution on one area, that if the issue has been already discussed, we can it either break some new ground or be assured as we can with issues that already have already been talked about on had record. Thank you.
My name is Ernest Cohen. I've been a registered professional engineer in Pennsylvania since 1974. I have a Doctorate in Electrical Engineering, primarily because I want to apply system engineering to nonmilitary areas. Before I came engineer, I was also a mathematician and computer programmer. I looked at an interesting question, 439 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 what is the true probability for flood. Ms. Lathrop has given the information that there were floods 4 dating back to 1757 to just a few months ago. So to 5 spread it out a little bit to 250 years and 20 6 floods, this is an average of one flood every 12 and 7 a half years. But my question was, what is the true 8 probability of a flood? And based upon this, it's a 9 very technical thing, and the equations are written 10 down. You can check them out with any statistician. 11 The probability of a flood is not exactly ever one 12 every 12 and a half years. Remember, this the 13 flooding of Venice Island itself. The hundred-year 14 flood level, how the water is rising in Manayunk is 15 another story. 16 Now, it may be that we have a low 17 probability of flood and they've just been very 18 unlucky these last 250 years, in which case we're 19 talking about a flood every about 22 to 30 years. 20 And maybe they've been very lucky and have had fewer floods than the true probability, in which case the probability of a flood is about every eight years. So we're not sure where it is in between, but both of these assumptions, the range of probability of floods is between 8 and, let's say 30 years. 440 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Now the question, of course, is the future. And this is just a probability. And there are a few things. One is -- it's not conclusive by a long shot, but in the first hundred years they had eight floods. And in the last hundred years of this period they had floods. So it appears probable, 8 it's not inconsistent to say that the flooding is 9 increasing. 10 Now, the EPA who is dealing with various problems like this has been worried about global warming. They had a conference about two years ago on the effect of global warming of Pennsylvania. Basically it said there's going to be more precipitation, more rain, but it's not going to be lots of drizzly days; it's going to be more --
Mr. Cohen, I don't mean to interrupt you. And I know that everybody's been extremely patient, they've been here since 9 o'clock this morning, but we do have two other public hearings that have been scheduled and people have been waiting since o'clock this afternoon to testify. I know that you're talking about flooding. Can you talk about the bill before us? Are you in favor or opposed to it? 441 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761
I am opposed to it because -- I'll put it bluntly. If they hadn't built things in Venice Island back a hundred years or so ago when the canal was an important way of moving industrial and coal particularly, they would not be allowed to build on it today. However, things have been built. And the question is what do you do about it. And there is a legal loophole through which changes can be made to an area that's already been developed. On the other hand, you have to ask whether it's wise to do it or whether, as other people talked about, 10 to 15 years ago when they said "Well, maybe when the factories close, they should just revert to nature. This doesn't say close down the factory that exists and is running. But if they abandon the property, don't build because under FEMA rules they would not be allowed to build today from scratch. I mean, that's very simple. So the question now is do we try to use a legal loophole to push development there or do we do what should have been done in the first place and not build on the flooded area, areas subject to flood.
Thank you, Mr. 442 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 Cohen. Our next witness is Dorothy Berner.
My name is Dorothy Berner. And for the stenographer, my last name is spelled B-E-R-N-E-R. I am a Professor Emerita in biology at Temple University. I'm Philadelphia born and bred and have lived my whole life in the Schuylkill River watershed. My area of expertise is in working with small fresh water animals that are generally included in what you call zoa plankton, and some of these animals are particularly sensitive to pollution, flooding, siltation, and so on. I have served as a consultant to the US Environmental Protects Agency in the development of their short-term biological test for toxicity of effluence. That test is probably used by our sewage plant here and many industries around Philadelphia. Because of my concern about water quality, I became a member of the Riverkeepers Network. And I am now on the advisory board for Schuylkill Riverkeepers, which is a field office of Delaware Riverkeeper network. Today I am speaking in the place of Chari Towne who is the director for Schuylkill Riverkeeper because she was unable to attend. And 443 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 you have the statement that she wrote in front of you. I am going to skip through parts of that because of the time constraints. One thing I would like to have on the record is that Schuylkill Riverkeeper did write to the Planning Commission, knowing this Venice Island issue was coming up, and asked to be able to attend their meetings and speak on this issue. They received no reply from the Planning Commission, so here I am today. We are concerned -- I would just like to add for those who don't know, that Riverkeeper is a private, nonprofit environmental organization with over 6,000 members throughout the Delaware watershed. From the Schuylkill office, Riverkeeper works to protect and restore the Schuylkill River, its tributaries, and habitats. Most of its work is done by citizen volunteers. It has a very small office staff. We are concerned for the future of Venice Island and the impact to the Schuylkill River that will result, should the zoning change currently proposed be approved. Riverkeeper opposes the use of the floodway for residential development and urges you to protect the Schuylkill River as well as 444 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 public health, safety, and welfare by denying any proposal that encourages new residential construction in the floodway. There are two environmental impacts associated with such development. Firstly, parking areas associated with residential development will threaten water quality with increased impervious surfaces and associated stormwater runoff. This is an issue that hasn't been discussed today. Urban stormwater is polluted with oil and antifreeze leaked from motor vehicles, weathered paint and wood preservatives, fertilizers, pesticides and litter dropped on sidewalk, streets, and parking lots. Would the runoff from these new parking areas be properly treated or would it go directly through storm drains into the Schuylkill? Would the addition of residential units result in increased litter, soda cans, plastic bottles, food containers in the river? Riverkeeper is concerned about these impacts to water quality. Secondly, the most significant environmental impact of new construction maybe its impact upon the floodway, that area of land carrying the bulk of floodwaters during a significant rain event. I am going to skip the next two and a 445 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 half paragraphs because I reiterate what has already been said today concerning floodways and things that can impact on them. Recent flood associated with Hurricane Floyd clearly made the case against living in the flood fringe, let alone the floodway for many residents of the Darby and Neshaminy Creek watersheds. Other communities are working to reduce flood losses by acquiring flood-prone lands, relocating people from harm's way and utilizing these lands for parks, recreation, and open space. " This is speaking specifically of Manayunk.
Certainly, the addition of residential development to the floodway increases the identified damage potential. The Corps study was particularly concerned with the difficulty in getting emergency 446 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 rescue equipment to the Manayunk area. The interests of the river and public health, safety, and welfare would best be served by efforts that increase awareness of the existing flood threat rather than by dismissing flood impact with proposals for elevated walkways for evacuation or car catchers that will in reality impede flood flows. On behalf of our members, volunteers, and the river, we urge you to reject any proposal that would encourage the construction of new residential development in the floodway but to seek alternative zoning for Venice Island. Open up the floodway to protect the Schuylkill River and its surrounding urban community. You will be protecting public health, safety, and welfare in the process. Thank you.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen.
In your statement right at very end you suggested different zoning. Could you be more specific? Just in your very last few sentences.
I don't know all the zoning 447 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 possibilities in Philadelphia. I would just support what other people have said and say that rather than assuming that new construction is the only way to go, that from the Riverkeeper point of view, open land is the best situation to have in a floodway if you can manage it. How that would be effected for Venice Island, I wouldn't want to conjecture at this point.
Thank you very much. Any other questions from Members of the Committee? - - -
Thank you. Are there any questions from members of the committee? This concludes list of witnesses that we have on the two bills. My understanding is there is written testimony submitted regarding bill 990760 and 990761. We will make it part of the record and give it to the stenographer. (Testimony attached.)
The Clerk will 448 BILL NOS. 990760, 990761 read the title of Bill No. 990846. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. At this time I will ask for the withdrawal of the bill.
Thank you. This concludes the public hearing of the Committee on Rules. - - - 449 COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PHILADELPHIA PUBLIC MEETING COMMITTEE ON RULES - - - Wednesday, December 9, 1998 - - - Public Meeting conducted by the Committee on Public Property and Public Works, held in Room 401, City Hall, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on the above date, to consider action on the following: BILL NOS. 960064, 990331, 990673, 990678, 990719, 990729, 990760, 990761, 990812, 990817, 990844, 990847, 990848, 990849 PRESENT: COUNCILWOMAN ANNA C. VERNA, Chair COUNCILMAN DAVID COHEN COUNCILMAN JAMES F. KENNEY COUNCILMAN MICHAEL A. NUTTER COUNCILMAN FRANK DICICCO COUNCILMAN BRIAN J. O'NEILL COUNCILMAN DARRYL L. CLARKE COUNCILMAN W. THACHER LONGSTRETH - - - 450 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING
We will now begin the public meeting. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney regarding Bill No. 990064.
At the request of the individuals who requested this bill who had an opportunity to be heard over the last four years, I have requested that the Committee withdraw this bill. With that Bill No. 26 at my request with the understanding of the people involved in its original request is withdrawn.
Thank you. Bill No. 26 has been withdrawn. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco regarding Bill No. 990331.
I move the adoption of the amendment read in the record earlier today on Bill 990331. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted.
I think you were 451 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING out of the room at the time. Mr. Ackelsberg testified that there is an agreement. We will have it in a draft or a written form between now and time the bill is voted on next week. There is an understanding, and a memorandum will be coming forward.
It has been moved and seconded that the amendment be adopted. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman DiCicco.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the adoption of Bill No. 990331, as amended, be reported had out of this Committee with a favorable recommendation and that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at the next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and properly seconded that Bill No. 990331 be reported out of Committee with a favorable 452 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye.
I want to thank Councilman DiCicco for his persistence. I think it is very good mark for City Council. I think this Committee ought to recognize Councilman DiCicco.
I would echo the gentleman. Job well done. All those in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter regarding bill 990673.
Thank you, Madam Chair. I move the adoption of the amendments read into the record during the public hearing for which I have additional copies if members would like. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that the amendments be adopted. 453 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Madam Chair, I move that Bill No. 990673, as amended, be reported out with a favorable recommendation, and a further recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next session of Council. (Duly seconded.)
It has been moved and seconded that Bill No. 990673, as amended, be reported out of Committee with a favorable recommendation, also a recommendation that the Rules of Council be suspended so as to permit first reading at our next meeting. All in favor will signify by saying aye. Those opposed? The ayes have it. The motion is carried. The Chair recognizes Councilman Cohen regarding Bill No. 990678. 454 COMMITTEE ON RULES - PUBLIC MEETING