Is anyone else going for a suspension of the rules? 52 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC.
Is that good or bad? May I please have a suspension of the rules?
We got the message. Thank you. Thank you all very much.
I would ask Mr. McPherson to please now read Bill No. 060342. And before he does so, I would like to acknowledge the presence of Councilman O'Neill and Councilwoman Brown. Mr. McPherson. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an 53 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. area bounded by Delaware Avenue, Columbia Street, Delaware River and Shackamaxon Street.
Yes. Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060342, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco May 4, 2006. This bill will rezone property in an area bounded by Delaware Avenue, Columbia Street, the Delaware River and Shackamaxon Street from a current zoning designation of G-2 General Industrial to a designation of C-3 Commercial. The property in question is known as Piers 49 and 50. The purpose of the change is to allow for the development of the property in a residential capacity. 54 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. The Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Bill 060342 at its next scheduled meeting June 15, 2006. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you very much. Mr. Kramer, can you tell us what type of residential use is proposed?
We just received the breakdown of the proposal yesterday morning. This does call for two different -- two towers, two residential towers, providing condominium use.
And did I hear you say they will be for condominiums?
Yes, ma'am, you did. And the condominium size is varying from 790 square feet to 1,950 square 55 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. feet, and all would feature balconies. I'm looking for the exact number of units. It has been designed so it would be in two phases. The first phase would have an easternmost 36-story tower with an attached garage that would have 271 units with 428 enclosed parking spaces.
Two hundred seventy one units with 428 enclosed parking spaces. At first there will be an additional 116 parking spaces available, surface parking, that will be abandoned when they do the Phase 2 construction. The Phase 2 construction adds an additional 36-story tower with an additional 246 units and an additional 298 parking spaces in a garage. So the total parking --
Do we have any indication as to what the cost of the condominiums will be? 56 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC.
I do not have that within the information I've been given. Their attorney is here and may be able to answer.
I actually do not have their name. Their attorney was represented by Mr. Primavera. He should be able to --
Please identify yourself for the record and perhaps you could answer some of the questions.
Carl Primavera. I'm here representing the developer. With me is Sharon Suleta, my colleague. Bruce Schmidt --
I'm sorry. You turned your head. 57 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC.
It's Dario Patrungalo is the representative. They have created a family partnership. Probably many of you know them from their core business, which is A&P Construction. They do work for the City, for PennDot. They've been involved in the construction business for many years. And Dario is here today representing that development partnership. We also have Bruce Schmidt from BLT Architects who has plans and materials that, if you would like, we can set up similar to the first presentation to give you a better idea of what the project hopefully will look like.
Just by way of 58 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. additional background to what Mr. Kramer said, the property is zoned industrial. There's a warehouse operation there. That's been a tenant. The property is owned by Mr. Philip O'Godden. He's been a long-term owner of industrial properties on Delaware Avenue. As you'll see once our rendering is there, it's an interesting statement about Philadelphia that this may be considered modest compared to what you just saw. A few years ago something like what you're about to see would have been considered dramatic, but it's now considered to be what we expect, I guess, in terms of the new development. This site is on the waterfront. It is impacted by the so-called moratorium, and we'll get into that in a little bit, because we do need the riverbed lease from the State. So we are talking to the State on those issues. We have met with the Fishtown Civic. We're going to meet with them 59 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. again. Interestingly enough, because we're on the river side, there's no 4 adjoining community next to this. So obviously that makes it easy for us. We don't have to worry about some of the things that would happen if you're right up against existing homes. And also we're on the east side of 95 and most of the residential development is on the west side of 95. So people are pretty pleased to think that instead of the industrial site which is currently there representing the G-2, we would now see a residential development.
What are the proposed costs and completion date if this is approved?
Well, at this point, as Mr. Kramer mentioned, the thought is that they would build the first tower, the one closest to the river, because ultimately the market is going to probably have to digest all these new projects. Unless there's 60 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. especially broad interest, we would envision doing the first tower. We envision about $150 million per tower when you add up the rising cost of materials. I know there's new union contracts in place, energy costs. So most of these things reflect an attitude that there will be price escalation in the construction. The cost factor, obviously the penthouse units are always going to be the most expensive, but we're hoping to be in the 450 to 500,000 a unit range, which is expensive, but given other product, we think that we will be competitive. The fact that we have easy access from Delaware Avenue, 95, we think that will be attractive to people. And, again, as the earlier presenters said, the views from the waterfront are spectacular.
Won't the Governor's moratorium on the riverfront development determine when a 61 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. project may proceed?
Yes. We thought we were well on the way to having that concluded by the summer recess in Harrisburg, but then -- I know the Governor says not to call it a moratorium, but suspension of approvals, whatever the term is, we have been impacted. We have spoken to GSA. We have spoken to the Governor's office. They say that there are two issues driving the process. One is, they are trying to come up with a new formulation on how to value the riverbed leases. Before it was nominal consideration given the fact that the leases are not something that anybody other than the adjoining property owner could use, but they're reevaluating appraisals. The other thing is, they want to make sure that there's waterfront access for the public, which we will provide as well, and our Planning 62 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. Commission has also been asking for that. So they're the two issues. It's pretty apparent that the process -- we'll work over the summer and then hopefully we'll have it resolved when they come back in the fall. But that process runs independent of the zoning process, so we thought if we could get the zoning done and then just basically have it ready to go for the riverbed lease, then once that's done, we'd be ready to start. But you're right, Council President Verna, without the riverbed lease, we can't get started. We can't get financing.
Thank you. The Chair recognizes Councilman Kelly.
Yes. Thank you, Madam President. Mr. Primavera, I just want to know something. On the left of this, 63 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. there's a park. Is that Penn Treaty Park?
On this side, what is this vacant land? Is there any --
That's an interesting question. I think that's the proposed, is that called, Sugar House site? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: That's correct. It's adjacent to the Sugar House.
So we're immediately to the north of that site. So obviously nobody has a crystal ball. We may end up having a casino there. We may not. Interestingly --
I don't know. 64 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. We don't have any relationship to them. We're not part of any casino team or anything like that. It will be interesting to see. And similar to the earlier presentation, some people think that gaming will help the residential market because people want to be close to it. Other people think it may not. But we've decided we're kind of gaming neutral. We don't do gaming.
I just had a question about parking. How many parking spaces are you contemplating?
Well, the total is going to be for both 908 garage spaces, but let me just go through the --
We're talking about Phase 1, which is 271 units and 428 parking spaces, and that's the one that we think the market would immediately embrace. And then if we go to Phase 2, that's another 246 units and another 298 65 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. garage spaces. So if the whole thing gets built to that maximum, it would be 517 units and 726 parking spaces. So the extra spaces would be in surface parking if we need it. So we have plenty of parking for the site. We think that that's going to be obviously one of the attractive things about it, people will be able to park and have easy access to their cars. We don't have any other traffic that's immediately impacting us. Casino traffic, we've taken the position that I'm sure that the casinos are going to have to figure out their own traffic and their own parking.
The one thing I'm concerned about, though, is 512 units and the cost of these units are probably, what, 400, 500?
With the type of person that's going to be 66 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. purchasing these condos, I would think they would have more than one car, and that's of a concern. In other words, if a lot of these people have two and three cars, it could be a problem.
We have the ability to add another level of garage parking if we wanted to. It's being built to handle that, because that's a good point, but, quite frankly, we think that we have -- I mean, we exceed a lot of the ratios that people are looking at now. And also we hope at some point there will be some public transportation along Delaware Avenue, which would be great, whether it's a tram or bus. But you're right, we have to make sure that we have enough parking on site so that people, whether they have one car or two, will be able to park on site, because it's not a site where you would go off site to park and then come back.
Then you 67 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. could expand the parking, then?
Yes. So it's being designed to accommodate another deck if we need it.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions from members of the Committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Kenney.
Thank you, Madam President. I was out of the room for a few minutes. Is that a marina that I see associated with it or no?
Well, it's artistic license. We would like to have a small marina. That would all be subject to State approval, because it doesn't exist. It would not be a commercial marina, because we don't have 68 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. the space for it, but what we said is, it would be no frills and we would have a space where both the public and people who live in the condominium would be able to tie it up. But we don't have room for a boat repair or any type of amenity. So it's bare bones, but we still think it would be nice to have.
Similar to what you have at Pier 9 and 11 near La Veranda in the back there, kind of just residential use or rental?
That's not 9 and 11. That's 5 and -- 3 and 5. I'm sorry. Is that an Army Corps issue? Is there approval there, too?
We believe that we are okay with the Army Corps in terms of the existing pier, because it was approved previously. Anything we do with the marina is both Army Corps and the 69 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. State. So we show it because that's where we want to have it, but we have to get through those approvals.
We think it would be nice. We actually would like to have a restaurant in Building 1 like La Veranda, because C-3 allows us --
No. It would be at the -- well, that's not a bad idea, but it would be at the water's edge, and then people would be able to arrive, tie up.
I would love to have seen the Comcast building have something like that, some kind of observation deck or restaurant on top, similar to the Rainbow Room in New York. 70 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC.
And also I think a lot of the profit in these buildings is in the penthouse units, so they kind of use that to leverage a lot of the other -- you hate to say $400,000 is a moderately priced unit.
Well, these days. And people from New York and other places think it's cheap.
That's where we think a lot of these people will be coming from. I think that we're still drawing people from outside the area who want to be in Philadelphia, they want to be in a new building, they want to have waterfront views.
That's another important issue when it comes to this development, because, again, trying to grow the City, we're not going to -- a 71 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. lot of people who live in the City are not going to be buying these. They're going to be people who are new residents. And the commute from New York, from Manhattan, to Philadelphia is nothing anymore. You can see what's happened up in Bucks County. I think that's just starting to come down more and more, which I think is a wonderful opportunity to gain new residents with some spending power.
I think it's funny to say, but we're almost becoming a bedroom community for New York.
Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.) 72 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC.
Thank you. We would ask to suspend the rules, if you would so incline to do that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, if I may. On the suspension, I will ask for the suspension of rules, but for the record, the Fishtown Neighborhood Association will have a full Board meeting on the 14th of this month, and not anticipating any objection to this, but should there be, then I will hold up on second and final reading, but absent any objection from the community, then I will call it up on the 15th.
That's fine with us, and we also want to thank Councilman DiCicco. We went to Fishtown. The zoning committee heard the presentation. There were no objections, but apparently, and perhaps wisely, they now have a process where if it's what 73 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. they call community-wide development, they want to bring it to their Board. And we tried to get them to meet earlier, but they couldn't allow for that. So the timing works for us and we're happy to work with that time frame.
Councilman DiCicco, I'm just rather curious. How far is this development from the previous proposed development that we heard earlier? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Two blocks maybe.
That previous development was in between that. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The previous development is a little south of it, a couple blocks. And just for the record, when they mentioned the Brownstone property, that is -- remember the 8th Floor? 74 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC.
That's what we were talking about, the 8th Floor. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I meant to mention it earlier. When they talk about the Brownstone project, it's the building, the old warehouse, where the 8th Floor, the club, used to be located. That's the site, which is right about in here. So the previous development will be generally in this area and the Brownstone piece would run somewhere in here. It's about 1,100 units. We already did the legislation on that several months ago. About 1,100 units all together, with mid-rise and townhouse development.
Thank you. Do we have anyone that would like to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson 75 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. to please read the title of Bill No. 3 060344. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by Delaware Avenue, Penn Street, Ellen Street, the Delaware River and Spring Garden Street.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060344, which was introduced by Councilmember DiCicco May 4th of 2006. This bill will rezone a portion of an area bounded by Delaware Avenue, Penn Street, Ellen Street extended, the Delaware River and Spring Garden Street 76 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. extended. This bill will rezone a portion of this block from its current designation of C-3 Commercial to a designation of G-2 General Industrial. This bill reverses the provision of Bill 7 No. 040937, which was signed into law January 25, 2005. The City Planning Commission is scheduled to consider Bill No. 060344 at its next scheduled meeting June 15, 2006. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you. Mr. Kramer, your testimony is that this bill will rezone a portion of the block from its current designation of C-3 Commercial to a designation of G-2 General Industrial. However, looking at the maps attached to the bill, it appears that the zoning change is from a designation of G-2 to C-3. Can you tell us which is correct? Is there a development proposal for this property, 77 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. and, if so, can you elaborate? Do you have a copy of the pink bill?
I do not have a copy of the pink bill. I have a copy of the original bill that was given to us by the Clerk's Office after introduction. This was, as I said in my testimony, the reversing of a prior bill. So what was done was the switching of the titles on the bill. I don't know if there was a subsequent error or not, but the bill I was given indicates that it does shift this from C-3 Commercial to G-2 General Industrial. And originally back in 2005, this was doing the reverse, changing it from G-2 to C-3. So there is no 19 development proposal that I am aware of at this point in time. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Madam President, if I may.
Yes. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: The site that we're speaking to is the site of the 78 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. much-touted Trump Tower. Unlike the two previous developers who were here this morning, but for one very short community meeting, there have been no follow-up meetings with the Northern Liberties Neighborhood Association. There have been a number of announcements and preliminary ribbon cuttings, or whatever you want to refer to them as, about this tower, but what I'm asking is that we go back to G-2 Industrial. That would prohibit any development of a residential tower or any type of residential development on that site, and this is a way of ensuring that the developer is then required to go back to the community and work through my office and the community. So that's really why I'm asking for this to go opposite of what we do with the other two bills, going from G-2 to C-3 or 5. We're asking that this go back to industrial use.
There's a problem with the map in the 79 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. pink bill. Mr. Kramer, we have a copy of the pink bill. Perhaps you should -- MR. McPHERSON: I gave it to him.
I've seen it. The way this is written is actually incorrect and the map should actually be inverted. Map A should be Map B and vice versa. Map B should be Map A. I believe we can draft this as an amendment to this bill 15 to make it do what it wants to do. Currently, the proposed Map B in the bill as printed in the pink copy is what exists. It's currently zoned C-3 Commercial today. So we do have to amend the bill, I would imagine.
Councilman DiCicco -- 80 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: It's just the way it was printed. It was printed in reverse order.
But one of the things that concerns me is, we can fix this here by amendment, according to the Planning Commission. Under the current circumstances without the change, does the developer have the ability to go in and get a permit? The way it is right now, would they have the ability to go get a permit? COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: When you say "the way it is" --
The way it is before our change. Not the way it is in the mistaken bill, not the mistakes in the bill. The current zoning of the parcel, would it allow them -- COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.
It would allow them to get a permit? One of the things that I would suggest, even though we're going to amend this bill and fix 81 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. it, is that L&I be put on very clear notice, because we just had this situation the other day where a guy got approval from the Zoning Board and had his property condemned two weeks later, because nobody talks to each other. I would be concerned that some developer would go in there, this or some other, try to get a permit across the desk, we have never told them that we fixed it or changed it and now we're stuck in some mess, especially when the record is going to be a little confusing as to which map is which. I'm just concerned about communication with L&I. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: I understand.
I will be in touch with the Zoning Unit at L&I when I get back to my office. I will let them know.
Yes, ma'am. I'll 82 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. have to draft it, but, yes, we can amend the maps correctly. I can have them to you this afternoon. I don't have them physically here, unless -- Mr. Abernathy is going to make his copies --
Are there any other questions or comments from members of the Committee on this bill? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
The next bill to be considered, it would have been Bill No. 060312. However, that is being held at the request of the sponsor. Also, Councilman DiCicco, it is my understanding that Bill No. 060442 is also being held at your request. 83 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. COUNCILMAN DiCICCO: Yes.
I would, therefore, ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060444. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Philadelphia Zoning Maps by changing the zoning designations of certain areas of land located within an area bounded by the Montgomery County Line, Pine Road, Bloomfield Avenue, Verree Road and Red Lion Road.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I am the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060444, which was introduced by Councilmember O'Neill May 18, 2006. This bill is a zoning remapping 84 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. bill for the Bustleton area of the City. It covers approximately 450 acres of land bounded by the Montgomery County Line, Pine Road, Bloomfield Avenue, Verree Road and Red Lion Road. The area is predominantly a residentially zoned area with a mix of zoning designations from R-1 to R-4 throughout. There is an industrial park located along Red Lion Road that will retain its G-2 zoning designation and a commercial property located at Red Lion and Verree that will retain its C-2 Commercial designation. This bill will rezone a majority of the residential properties to a designation of R-1 or R-2 in order to restrict their ability to be subdivided as a matter of right. This bill is scheduled to be considered at the Planning Commission's next meeting of June 15, 2006. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank 85 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. you. Mr. Kramer, do you know how many existing property owners will be affected by these changes?
I do not have an exact total, but it would number several thousand. I would imagine we're talking in the area of 2,000 to 3,000 homeowners in this entire area. This is a very large area. As I said, 450 acres. It covers quite a number of homeowners.
I see that Councilman O'Neill had put his light on.
Okay. Are there any proposed development plans that would be adversely affected by these changes?
The Chair recognizes Councilman O'Neill. 86 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC.
Mr. Kramer, is it fair to say that this is an upgrade of the zoning of the area from a residential perspective? We're not downgrading anything to allow more development. We're actually restricting future development, where people would need a variance rather than as a matter of right if they tear a house down and put two or more up on the same lot.
And in this particular area, while it's very large, and the three maps required indicate that, a lot of these homes in this remapping as opposed to some of the other that we've done already are existing developments where there really isn't tear-down opportunities. In terms of a percentage of the 450 acres, the tear-down opportunities are much less than in previous remappings, because we had so many developments built in the '50s, '60s, '70s that conformed to the 87 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. zoning and there's really not tear-down opportunity to put more than one on the map.
Thank you. Any other questions or comments by members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of the next bill, Bill No. 060445. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to 88 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. amend the Institutional Development District Master Plan of Temple University by allowing for the construction of a new building to be used for the Fox School of Business and Management.
Good morning, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I'm the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060445, which was introduced by Councilmember Clarke May 18, 2006. This bill will permit an amendment of the Institutional Development District Master Plan for Temple University. The amendment is for the erection of a seven-story, 220,415 square foot structure to be used as the home for the new Fox School of Business and Management, which currently occupies Speakman Hall directly adjacent to the site. This new complex will house 89 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. lecture halls, general use classrooms, student and administrative offices, student lounges and the Fox School academic departments. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of March 16, 2006 reviewed and approved the proposed changes to the Master Plan of Temple University. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 060445 be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank you, Mr. Kramer. Currently, the business school occupies Speakman Hall, which is adjacent, I understand, to this site. Are the numbers of people who will be using the new site be approximately the same number as occupy the current site of the business school? If more will occupy the new property, will parking for the area be sufficient? 90 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC.
I believe that the number of students to be using these halls will be pretty much the same. The architect, Mary Winston, is here that designed all this and may be able to better indicate that. I believe that Temple would like us to believe that there will continue to be more students on campus, and that's a constant growth issue. I don't know that this particular project is going to generate that growth, and they already do exceed the amount of parking required on campus. The numbers currently provide 2,902 parking spaces, and by Code requirements are required to have 1,104 spaces. So obviously they well exceed the amount of required spaces in the district, more than double what's required.
Which I would assume would indicate they're doubling the amount of parking.
Madam 91 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. President, I don't think that there's a person that lives in that community that believes that Temple has adequate parking spaces on the facility for their students, but that's not something that we can resolve today.
Okay. While you're there, was there any indication as to what will become of Speakman Hall? Do you know?
That's fine. Please introduce yourself and proceed with your testimony.
My name is Mary Winston. I'm Director of Special Projects, Facilities Management, Temple University. I am the Project Architect for this project working in conjunction with the designer. Speakman Hall will be occupied as the Fox Business School and will 92 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. attach to the new Alter Hall, which is the addition. There will not be an increase in student population.
This is essentially a replacement of class space. We've recently demolished a building called Curtis Hall. So we are replacing some facilities that were lost across campus.
Although the map is difficult to read, it does indicate provisions for future surface parking and for a future -- everything is future -- parking garage. Any indication as to how many additional parking spaces are to be provided and exactly when they would be available?
The map that you're looking at encompasses two projects. It encompasses the Tyler School of Art, which is relocating existing parking and creating future 93 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. parking in an adjacent lot off of 12th and Norris Streets, if that's the area that you're referring to.
Yes, it is. All right. The Chair recognizes Councilman Clarke.
Thank you, Madam President. Good morning. What's the time line on the construction of the facility?
We anticipate to start construction, if we receive all of the approvals, by this fall, with occupancy for September of 2008.
It's a State-funded project, so we have a construction manager on the project, which is Driscoll.
In terms of participation, who do you have monitoring that? 94 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC.
Yes. We will have more than 33 percent participation. We are just beginning the bid process on this project.
Thirty-three percent across the board? Can you break it down?
If I could respond. For the record, Tabb Bishop, Deputy Chief of Staff, Executive Office of the President for Temple University. The University for all of its 95 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. projects in this specific area of minority participation, we hired GPUAC, Greater Philadelphia Urban Affairs Coalition, and they will work with us in terms of monitoring that and making sure that we reach our goals. Thirty-three percent actually is something that the University has some successes in reaching on a consistent basis and we don't see that this would be any deviation from that path.
Actually, there have been. Yes, we've exceeded that. There's an ambulatory care facility, which is actually a Temple University Hospital project, but there was a lot of the Temple University facilities staff that were managing that process, and they reached, I think it was, 40 percent, if my memory is right.
Forty-two percent. Do you have an idea what the breakdown was, MBE, WBE, DBE?
In terms of your goals, do you identify your goals by category or you just say generally the participation goal is 33 percent, or do you break it down MBE, WBE, DBE?
This is Mary Winston again. We target based on the trades and we target based on MBE, WBE and DBE with our aspirations on what we have historically seen on projects and what we can anticipate to see.
That doesn't make me feel comfortable. If you want to talk about what you historically see as it relates to participation in the 97 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. City of Philadelphia, that doesn't make me feel comfortable at all.
No. I'm sorry. Not with the City of Philadelphia. What we, Temple, have historically seen on projects. Typically we've done better than 33 percent on most of the projects that we've worked on.
Is there the possibility that we can get a little more aggressive? In a project in proximity to Temple University Avenue north, we set a goal of 50 percent, and while we didn't get there, we got over 40 percent, which was unprecedented in that type of project. I'm just a little concerned, if you continue to have a 33 percent threshold, the likelihood that you'll go far beyond that is improbable. So I'm wondering at some point in time -- I understand the history of the developments that have taken place on the campus, but if we don't raise that threshold, the likelihood that we'll 98 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. continue to get higher numbers is improbable. So I was wondering if we can start looking at possibly increasing the ante.
Yes. Councilman, I should say that we would be honored with the opportunity to work with your office on that particular area. It's something that there's a high sensitivity on the University side of equation. We realize that we have to do more. So we are proud that we've been able to get over 40 percent on the past several projects, but we realize that the work doesn't stop there. One of the reasons why we use that 33 percent, because we feel that that's a number we can as close to guarantee as possible, but our goal is always to get beyond that. So it's just --
But it's the last two you got 40 percent. Then you probably should do 40 percent, right, 99 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. because that's the most recent history?
Exactly right. And we feel like we can more than likely continue that. We're going to be faced with a situation with a lot of the other developments taking place across the City, so there's always going to be a push to try to bump that number up. But we're very committed to that, Councilman. In fact, even in that regard, we have created an Office of Multi-Cultural Affairs, which there's a component of that which deals with the vendors and contracting aspects of what the University does. So it's related to construction, but it also goes beyond the area of construction at the University as well. So there's a commitment there from the administration.
Will there be any additional long-term jobs as a result of the new facility?
And has 100 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. there been a plan in place to possibly utilize the local community for some of those job opportunities?
Yes. We've been working a lot with -- two things we've done also -- this is another recent initiative with the University. There's the Office of Community Outreach in hiring, which is out of our Human Resources Department. One of the things we're trying to do is to make sure there's an increase in the number of people who are able to apply for jobs when they become available, and the idea being -- the focus is really, for us, the immediate neighborhood. So this is not just talking about other parts other than the area surrounding the main campus or the Health Sciences Center. So we have a major effort underway to try to make sure we increase the numbers of people who are employed from those communities.
Thank you. One last question. Well, actually, I'll 101 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. ask it on the second part of your request.
Any other questions or comments from members of the Committee? (No response.)
Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Seeing no one, I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of -- we didn't get a request for a suspension.
Yes. I'd like to respectfully request suspension of the rules.
Thank you. I would ask Mr. McPherson to please read the title of Bill No. 060446. MR. McPHERSON: An ordinance to amend the Institutional Development District Master Plan of Temple University by allowing for the construction of a new 102 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. building to be used for the Tyler School of Art.
Good afternoon, Madam President and members of the Rules Committee. My name is William Kramer. I'm the Senior Zoning Planner in the Development Planning Division of the City Planning Commission. I am here today to testify on Bill No. 060446, which was introduced by Councilmember Clarke May 18, 2006. This bill will permit an amendment of the Institutional Development District Master Plan for Temple University. The amendment is for the erection of a two-story, 255,000 square feet structure for use as the Tyler School of Art, which will be linked to the existing Presser Hall. This new complex will house all of the academic programs presently located at the Tyler campus in Elkins Park, Pennsylvania. These programs include ceramics, fiber/fabric design, foundation, glass, 103 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. graphic and interactive designs, metal/jewelry, painting and drawing, photography, printmaking, publications, sculpture and exhibitions. The Tyler School of Art has been located at the Elkins Park campus for approximately 60 years. This somewhat secluded suburban location has left the campus isolated from the activity of the main campus and this move will make the school a more active and visible member of the University while additionally giving the students access to a wider range of activities and resources. The City Planning Commission at its meeting of April 20, 2006 reviewed and approved the proposed changes to the Master Plan of Temple University. Accordingly, the Planning Commission recommends that Bill No. 060446 be approved. I would be happy to answer any questions of the Committee.
Thank 104 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. you, Mr. Kramer. Your testimony is that the new facility will allow for the relocation of the Tyler School of Art from its present location in Elkins Park to Temple's main campus. Can you tell us how many students and staff will be relocated, and is there sufficient parking in the area to accommodate, and, if not, what are the plans for providing parking?
I do not know how many students will be relocated to the campus. I would let Mr. Bishop answer that in a second. As regarding parking, the proposal does require an additional 65 parking spaces for the district, which raises the required parking by Code from 1,107 to 1,172 parking spaces. While this proposal doesn't call for any additional parking that I'm aware of for this particular aspect of the amended Master Plan, it does exceed the Code requirements for parking, except I would 105 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. add that, as Councilman Clarke would indicate, that even though it meets the Code-required parking, which is the basis for our decisions, there may certainly be a parking need at the University level. It's one of the, shall we say, shortcomings of the district that only requires a parking space for every 3,000 or 4,000 square feet of building under the Code, which is not to say that that's going to provide adequate parking, and it's usually a market-driven number. That's because the universities and the institutions have much more of a need for parking than is required under the Code. I don't have the means at this time to change that, and even if I did, I'm not certain that it would require the institutions that currently exist to then subsequently meet it, owing to non-conforming provisions within the Code. But Mr. Bishop was going to answer with the students. 106 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC.
Thank you very much. There are about 800 students that we expect would come down from the Elkins Park campus and about 100 to 120 staff members, and that will include faculty, teachers and staff. For us, the parking issue is a challenge even before the Tyler School was coming down. I think we are -- it was a subject we've been wrestling a lot with. And I've been at the University now for about three and a half years and there's not been a week that's passed since I've been there that we've not sat down and tried to figure out ways of providing more parking. We're a bit landlocked in terms of trying to find the right opportunity to do so, but we're really wrestling with this trying to find the best way to do 107 6/6/06 - RULES - BILL 060290, ETC. so. In fact, what we tried to do is to sensitize some students so that they're not -- they're being very thoughtful in terms of parking in the neighborhoods. We figure that's one of the ways that we can kind of help to provide more parking spaces directly. We can kind of work to sensitive the students so that they're being more thoughtful in terms of where they park in the neighborhoods.