Councilman DiCicco, I respectfully acknowledge your proposal, but I would that you would accept a committee selected by the community to represent their concerns. My house isn't about to be taken, although I would love to be a part of the process. But we have people here who are about to lose their homes, and I think it not fair for me to select someone else or somebody else. I think that we as a community could come together and would -- 129 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 (Applause.)
What I thought I said was, either you can select or the residents on every block within the designated area can choose one person --
-- to be their representative. I don't want to pick the person.
And if you could be a part of the process, that's fine. I'd like you to be because you've been involved in the task force from the beginning.
But we will create a new task force made up of one resident from each block chosen by the residents of that block. (Applause.)
Okay. Can I just say, do you all agree with that? (Addressing audience members.) 130 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 (Applause.)
And then we'll discuss any -- if we need additional people, we'll work that out.
I think that in order to move forward that, we can accept that proposal, and that if we can meet to work out the details, that would be helpful.
If you're willing to, you know, accept us meeting to work out the specific details, I think that, you know, that's all we ask for. All we've asked for all along is an opportunity to participate in the process.
I need to start somewhere. And with your permission, I would like to meet with you so that we can develop a 131 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 strategy.
Reverend, you and I are going to meet and we're going figure this out.
-- that the members of the task force which we've met with already -- Franny and Bob, as well as Olivia Adams who represents a lot of the community --
Reverend, you and I will speak in the next couple of days, and we will discuss it that. Thank you. I'm going to hold the bill.
I want to be able to walk down 12th Street and I want to be able to walk down 13th Street.
But if you would 132 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 respectfully accept our recommendation that the community would meet and select some representatives and then we could come together, I think that that would be amenable to both sides.
Let me just say we thank the committee and Madam Chair for the opportunity to present our side to you today.
Thank you very much. You all heard the Councilman say that the hearing is now being postponed until sometime in September, hopefully, and that in the interim, he will be forming a community group to work through this process. If anyone here has something to add to what already has been said, we'd be more than happy to hear you but if it's just going to be a repetition of what has already been said, we do have other business. 133 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 Is anyone here that wants to be heard to add something? Please approach the table. Thank you. Reverend, thank you very much. And may I just thank all of you. I think you've all been extremely patient, and we're certainly very appreciative of that. Thank you. (Deacon Clarence Everett comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record. DEACON EVERETT: Good afternoon, Madam President and distinguished members of the Council. My name is Deacon Clarence Everett, and I am a member of the New Mt. Zion Baptist Church, which is located 917-927 South 13th Street. I'm going to be brief. Mt. Zion is, at present, in the process of building on the lot that they propose to take. This lot has already been incorporated in the church that has been standing for many, many years. I think one picture is worth a thousand words. 134 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 I have something for the Council, if you please. These packages have been put together for the Councilmen. But for the sake of moving that along, I'm going to read from my notes. We simply oppose the -- and we contest the ordinance No. 990254 for eminent domain, and we do it because we have -- we have just presented to you and for examination, which will clearly define our intent for both those properties, that's 917-927 South 13th Street. I also have a set of prints here for the construction of an annex building to be erected on the lot at 917 South 13th Street, and our total investment is in excess of $210,000. That's -- which we feel will add at to the City's planning for revitalization. And we're asking that our property be removed, but we're also asking that the community, for the community, renovation, not elimination. What we would like to see done, if you will, is to examine those and let us know if we can continue with our building. If we have to wait, that means that our building is delayed 135 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 another two years. We just recently received our zoning from the City. If you go to the second page, it lists everything that's in there, in that package that I just gave you, and we're waiting for an appeal to a variance which is due June the 10th. And anytime thereafter, we can start building. We just had the site cleaners in there, and that cost us $10,000. So I see no reason why this should be delayed. It is a part of God's house, it is a part of the church.
Deacon, I'm sure if you communicate with Councilman DiCicco's office, he will be more than happy to work on this with you. DEACON EVERETT: Thank you. I appreciate your time.
You're welcome. Would the next witnesses to testify come forward. If there are many, I'm going to ask that you limit yourself to two minutes please because we do have other business that we must 136 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 take care of. (Joseph Anderson comes forward.)
My name is Joseph Anderson, and my property is at 1205 Christian. It is on the list. I had a prepared statement and I believe that you all have copies of it. I will pass on reading it, even though I do feel that the community should know what I have to say, but I want to comment on some of the things that I have heard today. I've heard numerous individuals get up and announce a partnership with the Housing Authority, a partnership with the developers, a partnership with the Planning Commission, but I have not heard one individual stand up and say they want to have a partnership with the community. And my concern is, I have looked at this regentrification, and while I am very much in favor of regentrification in this community, because it is my wish to be a permanent part of this community, I have invested time in this community. My daughter previously graduated from the old CAPA, Creative and Performing Arts School, 137 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 and received the highest honor bestowed by that school, the Creative and Performing Arts Award. I have spent time trying to develop a property there. But my concern is that the measurement that the developers have made of the property and how they would assess it is wrong. And also, their approach to regentrification will affect not only the individuals that are concerned about the 231 properties that are mentioned in that list but all properties surrounding it. Because the -- the location, the way that the rehab is set out, it will affect the tax base of all the properties surrounding that, to the point where eventually, regentrification will cause individuals in this community not to be able to pay the taxes on the houses that they presently occupy. (Applause.)
And I am concerned about that. And one of the things that I'd like to -- I mean, if the City Council is concerned about the community, maybe one of the things they might consider is having a future moratorium on the amount of taxes that individuals within this 138 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 community will pay for those homes that they occupied and pioneered to occupy long before any of this regentrification was even thought of. I'm sorry, I'm not angry, but I do speak with great passion. And I think that the measurement, again, of these developments -- of these developers is wrong. In a case in point, when I went to acquire property in this area, the real estate brokers considered it by location, location, location. Every one here has spoken about how they want to give back to the community dollars not based on location, the type of construction, because not one of those developers could put that amount of bricks back in any location comparable to this in any major city in the United States. If you -- if you are speaking about comparable replacement, then I want to be comparably replaced in a house within the proximity of the central-most point of the city as we are now, and that is not being proposed to occur right now. If you are speaking about comparable replacement, this community is a community that is 139 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 slated for as much development as this one. (Applause.)
If you are speaking about comparable replacement, take into account all those things that an insurance company would take into account if they talked about the replacement cost of these properties. If it burned down, the replacement cost would not be $23,000, the relocation money would not be $26,000. So that is my concern in addition to all the things that are personal. These are things that affect every single individual here and many that are not in this room, and it will affect -- this regentrification will affect people for many, many years to come. When these properties are assessed, as historically, the Spring Garden area, the South Street area, the North Central area, and many other areas have been reassessed, the individuals here have been so overtaken by taxes that they have sought with great pains to get rid of their property because they say, I just can't take paying these high taxes. 140 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 So, strategically, the way that this rehab and regentrification and clearance is designed, it's designed to not only exclude or eliminate those 231 openers of these properties, but most of the residents within the South Central Urban Renewal Area. (Applause.)
I challenge the City Council and every one of these developers to examine the history of this city, of most major cities, of Atlantic City, of anywhere that this type of regentrification has occurred. I challenge them to prove to show to me and to the individuals within this group that this did not occur. I have at my back the pioneers of this community long before, long before I stepped up to the plate. I am a new pioneer, but I want to make this my home. And it is my concern that the reason why I want to make this my home will be gone. I have a feeling for the residents within this community. I have sought not only on this side of the city, on the South Central side 141 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 of the city but on the northern side of the city to remove a lot of the crime. It is -- I have been an advocate for getting rid of some of that crime in this city. And now that there have been actions to remove that and many other concerns, suddenly, the individuals that pioneered, doing all that, that braved this frontier, cannot enjoy the benefits. (Applause.)
If there is legislation or if there is anything passed by the City Council, let it be with the concern, the long-range concern of the community, not the short-term concern to put a few dollars in a few people's pockets. (Applause.)
One more thing, and I will be done. The amount of money for acquisition, if you took a look at it from a business standpoint, purely from a business standpoint, it is equivalent to less than $7,000 per property mentioned on that if you average it out. I cannot buy an empty lot in that community at the present 142 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 time, not after the Martin Luther King Towers are dropped, which, we all will agree, will increase the value of the property in that community. I cannot buy an empty lot for $7,000 now. So now the fact of the matter is that you -- that what they are proposing to do is to make a windfall acquisition of property so that they can make a windfall profit. (Applause.)
Now, if anyone in this room has a calculator, challenge my average because I don't think that it is wrong. And I don't think that it is right for them to take federal funds, state funds, local funds, and the support of established officials of this city, take that along with them and attack the community. I thank you very much for your time. (Standing ovation.)
To the last speaker and to everyone else, there will be Councilmembers very much concerned about the issues that were 143 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 just raised. They will also be considered over the summertime while this bill is held. Thank you. (Applause.)
Madam Chair, I thank you for the opportunity. I think that this is effective community interaction with this government, and I think that the last two speakers that I heard raised the kinds of issues so that when we come back in September, we are addressing the real property and not a solution in search of a problem. I think that when this record is fully transcribed, you will see that you have laid down the right questions and you are then in a position to evaluate the answers that you hear. We in government do not believe that we have all the answers. That's why we have public hearings on bills before the final act is taken. You keep telling us what you need to hear, keep framing the question; we who understand your 144 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 question will translate it at the right level. I thank you for coming. (Applause.) (Lisa Gregory comes forward.)
Good afternoon. Please identify yourself for the record and proceed.
Good afternoon. My name is Lisa Gregory. I'm also a resident, at 902 South 12th Street. And I just want to say this one very thing: To all you Council that are sitting here at the table, I thank God day for you all, and I just want to say, before you make the decision of our community, I ask that each and every one of you, that you pray that God will give you the mind to make the right decision and the wisdom concerning this choice and this matter. Because like you say, all of us are here, and the only thing I can say is to truly ask God the give you all the mind that we will come out to benefit from this. Because we as a people need our community built up. We as a people need to see that there love in the city of 145 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 Philadelphia. (Applause.)
We as the people need to know, we are raised -- this city here is raised as a brotherly love so that we can just our authorities show us that brotherly love in our community. We don't want seem like we divided. We pray for our government, we pray for those in authority, that we may have a peaceable life and a peaceable land. We want our children to live better. We don't want to just have things, you know what I'm saying? So I ask as a favor that you guys will pray before you make your decisions, that God will give you the mind that you are looking out for the people in this community. Thank you.
Thank you. Unless you have something different to add. (Audience member indicates wish to testify.) 146 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254
Unless you have something different to add, please -- as I said -- UNIDENTIFIED PERSON: I will be very brief.
-- we do have other business so please confine yourself to five minutes.
My name is Claudia Gordon. I live on Webster Street. So first of all, City Council, I'd like to thank you for postponing whatever it is that you're postponing 'cause I really don't quite understand. I wrote a long speech, but like you said, is it going to add anything? No. 17 But I ask one thing, and it's throughout my -- I had to write down the words to make sure that I didn't forget anything. Aren't we worthy of all the changes and all the great things that have happened? That's all I ask. Aren't we worthy of being able to take advantage of the growth and development and to have a safe and viable community that we for so very long persevered through all the headaches, 147 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 through all the crimes, through all the drugs. Aren't we worthy of that? (Applause.)
This is very sensitive to me because I just purchased a home on that block. I just renovated that home so that I could -- I had a dream of having Webster Street have life again. That's my dream, that's my -- so I feel as though somebody's trying to steal my dream. So my question to you is, aren't we worthy or is some other group of people worthy of reaping those benefits? We understand that we have valuable property. I have been telling people this for years, you have valuable property, understand it. So I ask you again, aren't we worthy of keeping it? (Applause.)
There is nothing new I can say, but I'd like to just read a list of the Webster Street residents.
I'm sorry, 148 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 sir. Excuse me, sir.
The noise level is too high in here. You're going to have to identify yourself for the record, please.
My name is Ronald Watson, and I'm a resident of Webster Street. All I want to do is read a list of the residents and the time they've lived at the houses. I can't put too much more information in. Alexander Johnson, Marguerita Johnson 10 years. Ronald Watson, 1333 Webster Street, 12 years. Brenda Hill, 1333 Webster Street, 34 years. Umar and Yasmeen El, 1316 Webster Street, 52 years. Amy Gordon, the mother of Claudia, 38 years each. 149 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990254 Evelyn Seabrook, my next-door neighbor, 45 years. Betty Davis, 49 years. Hayward Patterson, years, 1322 6 Webster Street. 7 Mattie Davenport, 12 years, 1338. 8 Tyrone Telefrano, 12 years, 1337. 9 Betty Washington, 1312 Webster Street, 10 30 years. 11 Martha Thomas, 1310 Webster Street, 10 12 years. 13 Whitefield, 1327 -- who's that? 1327? 14 Who lives at 1327? Who? Oh, Jacqueline, 13 15 years. 1328, we know what we talking about. Horace Jackson, 1328, 37 years. Earnest and Cheryl Reed, 15 years. All of these people have been complete homeowners of these houses and have fought to keep the structures up. And that's all I have to say. (Applause.)
Thank you, thank you very much. 150 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 Again, I will announce that this hearing will be continued until sometime in September. (Applause.) - - -
The clerk will please read the title of Bill No. 990255.
An ordinance amending an ordinance approved August 15, 1969, as amended, which approved the Amended Redevelopment Proposal, the Amended Urban Renewal Plan, and the amended Relocation Plan of the Redevelopment Authority of the City of Philadelphia for the redevelopment of Pennsport Urban Renewal Area by approving the Fifth Amendment of the Redevelopment Proposal and the Fourth Amendment to the Urban Renewal Plan, which provide inter alia for the additional land acquisition of approximately 17 properties and provision of certain relocation services as required by law for the individuals, families, and business concerns which will be displaced.
Is Mr. Eisenstat still here, is Mr. Eisenstat still in the room? 151 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 (Noel Eisenstat comes forward.)
All right, Mr. Eisenstat, the title of Bill No. 990255 was just read. We are now ready for your testimony.
Good afternoon, Council President and members of the committee. My name is Noel Eisenstat, and I'm the Executive Director of the City' Redevelopment Authority, and I'm here to give testimony on Bill 990255, which is the Fifth Amendment to the Pennsport Redevelopment Plan and the Fourth Amendment to the Pennsport Urban Renewal Plan. The Pennsport Urban Renewal Area is generally bounded by Washington Avenue on the north, Snyder Avenue on the south, Water Street on the east, and South Fourth Street on the west. This bill authorizes the Redevelopment Authority to acquire 17 predominantly vacant and vandalized lots to remove blight from the east side of South Fourth Street, from Federal Street to Reed, to support the adjacent Jefferson Square housing development. The properties will be acquired for the development of a combination of rehabilitation of 152 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 new-construction, affordable housing unit for low-, moderate-, and middle-income families. The acquisition consists of buildings and vacant lots. There are currently only two properties occupied that are occupied; they are owned by the Philadelphia Housing Authority. And the Redevelopment Authority will work with the Housing Authority so that these individuals are relocated into other PHA property. This bill is a companion bill to another bill that has been introduced separately for a larger taking associated with the Jefferson Square Housing Development. Representatives of the Jefferson Square CDC are here today as well. And do you have any question?
So the community has been fully briefed on this urban renewal?
There have been numerous -- this is an activity where the Authority has been actively involved. There have been lengthy community meetings running numerous hours. There is some opposition to the taking. I personally attended two lengthy 153 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 Planning Commission meetings where the acquisition issues were fully discussed with the community. There is some acrimony between certain residents about this, but I can assure you in this transaction, where the Authority was much more directly involved rather than serving as an agent on behalf of the PHA and the other developer, we have met with the community, there have been numerous meetings. I have attended some, Mr. Brown has attended. Herb Wetzel, who supervises our relocation, has attended our meetings as well. And I would be happy to forward to you minutes of the recent Planning Commission meetings so that you can see the length and the deliberation and the amount of community discussion that is already gone on about this. It's not -- there's not a consensus about this. The next urban renewal -- the next bill that will move in later June in hearing, we will be coming forward to relocate with a taking that requires the relocation of certain families.
But the bill 25 before us today -- 154 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255
No relocation but for two PHA units. However, this -- there are two -- this bill is contemplating -- its passage corresponds to a second bill which has been introduced in Council by Councilman DiCicco.
And that's the Jefferson Square Revitalization plan?
That is correct. This basically deals with the edge of that area and the properties noted in the map. In this taking, as I said, just two PHA properties. In the other taking that will be back in about two and a half weeks, there will be, again, I think -- I forget the exact number. I 17 don't know if it's 29 -- there are 2 elements to 18 -- 48 occupied units. 19 As proposed today, some of that site 20 will be utilized to assist in a new developer taking over the development of the vacant Mt. Sinai Hospital, and surrounding that a residential development as well. And I'll forward to you minutes of the Planning Commission so that you can see that the 155 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 community's more than advised of what's going on here, although they may not be in agreement with it.
Fine. Are there any questions from the committee? The Chair recognizes Councilman Nutter.
Thank you, Madam Chair. Mr. Eisenstat, I'm still -- I'm still a little confused as to this particular bill and this particular proposal, which, listening to your testimony, sounds like it is separate but possibly a part of a larger development in the same area.
Okay. Well, I guess, explain to me the separateness, and then explain to me the part of the whole and where this all leads to.
Okay. The part of the whole is that the Pennsport Urban Renewal Area is adjacent to the Jefferson Square Urban Renewal Area.
The difference is, 156 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 Pennsport is an existing urban renewal area and, therefore, from a procedural standpoint, this area did not need to be certified as blighted, so we were able to adopt a plan at the Authority and forwarded it to the Planning Commission. And, therefore, you see it today. Conversely, the major -- and this is adjacent to and part of the larger Jefferson Square activity that has been going on with Mt. Sinai and the residential development proposed by the Jefferson Square CDC.
Yes, it does. The reason why these bills -- although the process at the Redevelopment Authority started simultaneously, the distinction was, the Jefferson Square area had never been blight-certified by the Planning Commission. Therefore, while both activities were generally initiated at the same time, the blight certification by the Planning Commission has meant that the arrival of the bill 24 to be introduced in City Council on Jefferson Square lagged by about two or three weeks. 157 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 And what I did earlier was to describe to you all was that you will see that bill with a scheduled hearing of June 15th. And in that bill, there is substantial relocation contemplated.
And is that bill 7 also the bill in which this blight certification, should that bill pass, that will confirm the blight certification as laid out by the Planning Commission? Is that the concept?
Okay. Are the two proposals stand-alone, or is one dependent upon the other?
In -- as proposed by the redeveloper, being the Jefferson Square CDC, and considered by the Planning Commission, you would connect them together. Although I would -- this is really a -- this is a smaller piece of a larger portion. Clearly, these parcels contemplated would not impact on the Mt. Sinai Hospital revitalization element, but it would impact on the residential component of the overall plan.
Because the plan, as laid out, requires a certain amount of blight clearance, that the -- and the plan also anticipates a certain scale or a number of housing units to be developed. And if the larger parcel was to proceed and this was not, you would be decreasing the overall size of the residential area of the development.
You said earlier that there was some dispute within the community about some of the relocation issues. I assume that they're probably somewhat similar to what we experienced on the bill earlier today. Is that for this particular bill or is that a -- or is that dispute or consternation a part of the larger development of Jefferson Square Revitalization Plan to be heard in June?
I think that the dispute is -- specifically relates to those who do not want to be relocated. In this bill, there are only two families that are PHA-occupied units. I don't know if there's anyone here to speak on this bill or to speak about the broader Jefferson Square issue. 159 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 The distinction between today's activities and the activities of Jefferson Square is that, in fact, although not before this committee, there has been sizable public discussion, particularly at the Planning Commission on at least two occasions, where the discussion about the need for relocation was fully exhausted for a time length equal, if not -- almost of approximate of today on two occasions, as well as a series of community meetings surrounding the dates of those Planning Commission meetings where property lists were fully detailed and reviewed with the community.
Last question in this area. What is the impact of if, for instance, this bill were to go forward, in June we get to Jefferson Square, whatever happens in that hearing happens. But if something adverse were to happen, what's the end result of that?
The end result if this bill passes and the other bill doesn't, I would not be able to -- I mean, that's the result. I --
You would have one bill 3 that passed and one bill that didn't.
I don't believe that -- I don't know -- if you're asking the question, what would you then do if this passed bill? probably not a whole lot. You wouldn't move forward on these acquisitions without the acquisition of the other parcels under the plan, as contemplated today.
I think I've made -- there is a -- I think I've indicated that there is a --
Yeah. If for some reason, the larger bill did not proceed and this bill were to pass --
-- I wouldn't see a reason why we would acquire the parcel -- we would 161 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 proceed with this. You'd kind of have two legs of a dog without the body and the front two paws.
I'm having great difficulty hearing you when the mouth and the microphone move apart from each other.
I apologize. If this bill were to pass and the other bill did not, the Authority would not see any rationale basis to acquire these two parcels without the others. And they are connected. And as I said earlier, the only reason why they ended up traveling through the system separately was because one did not need a blight certification of the Planning Commission, and hearings were scheduled separately for whatever reason.
Wouldn't logic indicate that if we recessed the other matter until September, that this also is to be recessed?
No. This is something different. 162 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255
Councilman Cohen, I think that the nature of -- each urban renewal project is different; they're in different neighborhoods, they've had different histories. I believe that although there's this opposition to some of the broader taking here, the level of community involvement, the level of community detail -- I will also forward to you the minutes of the Planning Commission -- are two distinct situations, and I would not connect these two in any way whatsoever. I believe that now is the -- that this session before now in June is the appropriate time to move on both bills.
Well, let me pursue that a minute. Maybe it was when the relationship I discussed before was at its furtherest (sic) apart that you had made the statement, and maybe I didn't hear it clearly. I thought I heard you indicate that if for any reason the bill we finished earlier this morning died for some reason, that there would be no purpose to --
Councilman, it's a 163 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 future bill.
So this has no 9 relationship at all to the hearing we held before.
All right, that clears up this matter. Okay, this other matter is a mystery to me, but at least it's a different mystery. Now, how many relocations are involved in what it is we're talking about?
This specific bill 21 envisions two properties that are occupied today that are PHA units. The CDC, the Councilman and his office, and the Redevelopment Authority will have initiated work with the Housing Authority to relocate these two families. 164 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 That is all the relocation that is envisioned in this bill today.
Separate bills, separate bills. I now understand that, but they're 51.
Now, tell me, the two owners -- say, in the 51 homes in the other bill, how many of them affect minorities and how many do not?
The Authority has not undertaken an analysis -- does not, in its analysis, both preliminary to urban renewal bills or after urban renewal bills pass, quantify statistics that relate to race. So I couldn't give you any analysis, nor would I be permitted to 165 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 undertake that analysis.
Well, I'm concerned because racial profiling is today becoming something that we didn't understand about before. And I assume that in New Jersey when they began making inquiries that we were also told that we don't keep statistics like that. But isn't it a fact that from my observation, overwhelmingly, the number of families that are being relocated in the earlier matter were minority families, from what I judge by the appearance in the chambers.
I can only speak to the fact that the Redevelopment Authority undertakes relocation in a series of neighborhoods, and it does not in any way quantify those issues that you have discussed.
All right. Well, I hear your answer. And we'll deal with that maybe at a later time hope more fully. Thank you, Madam Chair.
You're welcome. Are there any other questions? 166 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 (No further questions at this time.)
Mr. Eisenstat, thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill. (Unidentified man raises hand.)
Please approach the witness table. (David Knapton comes forward.)
Please identify yourself for the record and proceed with your testimony.
David Knapton from the Philadelphia City Planning Commission.
Excuse me. Pull the microphone closer to you please.
I'll speak more loudly. I am here to testify for the bill you just heard, the redeveloper's agreement, the redevelopment proposal in the Pennsport urban renewal area. 167 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 On May 6, 1999, the Planning Commission reviewed and approved that redevelopment proposal for, as you have now, properties for 5 acquisition. That was a public meeting with input 6 from the community. Mr. Eisenstat, from the 7 Redevelopment Authority, explained in some detail 8 the relationship of these properties, which are 9 basically the eastern border of a larger 10 development proposal, to Jefferson Square, which 11 we haven't yet come to, and I won't speak to 12 that. 13 The Planning Commission approved this 14 on May 6th. 15
I think we've 16 been sitting too long. 17 They approved Bill No. 990255?
Okay, which will take in two properties that are owned by PHA?
Period. And we're not talking about 17 properties.
In this bill? In this bill before us, we're talking about properties, all told? Or are we talking about 5 two properties that are owned by PHA? 6
Out of Noel 9 Eisenstat's testimony, I read 14 buildings, 3 10 vacant lots -- I guess that gets you to 17 -- and 11 then 2 properties owned by PHA. Is that the total 12 of the 19? 13
Thank you for that clarification. Are there any questions from members of the committee? 169 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255
Noel, you're really confusing us all today. Is this clarification of --
I apologize. As DiCicco Councilman DiCicco knows, it's my mother who's the problem here. Let me be clear that it's a total of 11 units. The 2 occupied units are within the total 12 of the 17. 13
A total of 17 -- for 16 the purposes of clarifying the record, there are 17 17 parcels, 2 of which are occupied by PHA. It's 17 units in total, not 19.
What about the 17 units? Are they occupied or unoccupied?
All the parcels are 170 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 privately owned but for the two PHA-owned properties.
Thank you. Do we have anyone else to testify on this bill? (No response.)
Thank you. I believe at this point in time. . . Mr. Lombardo, it's my understanding we will be considering the Institutional Development District Amendment. And does everybody have a copy of that? (Richard Lombardo comes forward.) Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. I know the hour is late and you've been here a long time, so I'll try to be real brief and to the point. This is actually not a bill; this is a zoning code requirement that, in the Institutional Development District, that the Planning Commission and the City Council both have to approve any change to the master plan. 171 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 This particular item is the master plan of the University of Pennsylvania. This does not involve any relocation or condemnation or acquisition of any property; it is purely University of Pennsylvania wanting to reuse a portion of its property for another use.
Well, what's been relocated is the bookstore, and it's already been relocated, it's already gone. The bookstore is now, at 34th and Walnut. What this site is, we're talking about a 30,000-square-foot site, formerly the site of the University of Pennsylvania bookstore at 38th and Walnut at along Locust Walk -- Walnut Street, 38th Street, and Locust Walk. What is proposed is an expansion of the Wharton School. There will be a 309,000-square- 172 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 foot building, several buildings -- two buildings containing classrooms and offices, meeting facilities, outdoor improvements, all as part of the Wharton School of Business. And that's a $90 million project. The architects are Tom Pederson (ph.) & Fox. This whole project, like I said, is for permitted uses within the Institutional Development District. It is here because the master plan currently shows this site being a bookstore of 39,000 square feet, and it is proposed to replace it, as I said, with 309,000 square feet of development. For the record, the Planning Commission, at its meeting of April 15, 1999, reviewed this project and recommended that it be adopted -- that the master plan be amended to permit it to move forward. There are representatives of the university here, and I believe they have discussed this matter with Councilwoman Blackwell prior to this hearing before the committee. If you guys have any other questions, I'll end my testimony. 173 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255
Mr. Lombardo, is this the site that's generally going to be known as "Huntsman Hall?"
Mr. Huntsman was, apparently, a very large benefactor to the University of Pennsylvania. And, Councilman, when you put your dollars up, I'm sure the university 174 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 will be pleased to name a building after you, and I look forward to the --
I look forward to the Rules Committee hearing where we approve the site in your name.
I just wanted to make sure they didn't touch Houston Hall.
Do we have anyone from the university to testify or add to what has already been stated? (University of Pennsylvania representatives come forward.)
Thank you for your patience, gentlemen. Good afternoon.
Good afternoon. I'm Glenn Bryan, Assistant Vice President, Penn's Director of City Community Relations. And as was stated, we're -- we got a major donor in excess of 40 million. Robert Huntsman has done that for Penn, and we're willing to move. 175 5/25/99 RULES - BILLS 990255 I think you -- do you have copies of the testimony?