meeting in good faith to help try to address the concerns if you look at the history of this
property. It's always been multifamily property. This lot is 16 by 130. It's over 2,000 square
feet. And what we were proposing for this project is directly in line with everything over on that
block, mostly multifamily units. We went back, we made revisions. We were asked to sign a community
benefits agreement. We basically saying that if they were going to allow us to put units in the
neighborhood that they wanted our help to build units as well, we agreed in a CBA that was
provided to us that we would provide time and expertise, but we're not going to put anything
financial for that ask. We then received a different CBA, which I did provide to the
council office through multiple emails throughout this process. And I can understand if the
correspondents back and forth were confusing. This was an unbelievably complicated and convoluted case
in which we were asked to do things in a community benefits agreement that we did not believe were
ethical or permitted. We then went to the next meeting and made multiple revisions, relocating
trashed, reducing density, changing the location of doors on the property, changing up some of the
aesthetic, providing an ADA unit, providing an affordable unit. And multiple people attended
the meeting. We flired for the meeting. There was posters, as you can see in the packet,
multiple rounds of zoning posters posted on the property. At that meeting, it was stated to us
that there was a vote. It was taken on record of support of given all the changes that we made.
We agreed we would sign a CBA, but it had to be in compliance with what the city allows in their CBA rules that have now been promulgated.
We then provided all of this information to the board.
My team copies everyone that's supposed to be copied in these submissions and then came to the meeting on 9-1.
and the former chair and the members of the board, some of which are here today,
heard out maybe over an hour of testimony, 30 minutes, whatever how long it is,
in which the near neighbors were well aware of the case, well aware of the posting. And most
of their concerns were just about not wanting anything there or thinking the notice was done
wrong with the zoning posters, not germane to the case at all. And like we had mentioned,
we had asked to meet with them, they had said, no, it's actually contained in the RCO meeting
summary that they would not meet with us. We provided revised plans. The chairman and members
of the board heard all of the testimony provided and decided that given Mr. Ali's testimony,
who was responsible for conducting the meeting with Ms. Bernatiner, who was actually also at
that meeting, that the RCO had switched their position after the now, I think it was that
second or third meeting at that point. So that was all stated on record. The chairman heard all
the testimony and granted in support of the variants. There was also another case that went
with us at the same time that had the same comments, same considerations, and was also
approved. We then went back, had another meeting in which we tried to negotiate in good faith.
Again, we were asked to meet with the directly affected near neighbors, which we did.
We actually provided in the packet, there has been a significant amount of vandalism done to this property.
We put fencing around it, which was ripped out. We filed a police report in this case.
And again, still we're trying to negotiate in good faith.
And again, still we're trying to negotiate in good faith.
At this point, when the motion for reconsideration was granted, there was a lot of information
At this point.
provided to the council office that was not verified by us as the applicant.
Things like that multifamily properties cause gun violence.
And that's one of the reasons that they did not want us to build what is a workforce housing
project here.
There is also other information, if you read the documents that were submitted for the motion for reconsideration, essentially saying that the RCO errored, and that although Mr. Ali conducted a meeting at the request of the RCO, that he errored in some way, and yet us as the applicant have penalized the entire process due to things outside of our control when we've continually come to the table,
offer to re-meet with people have requested that a different RCO be assigned if they have an
inability to provide a fair process or if they don't have an ability to be organized and issue
meeting summaries. I did speak with the council office about this and was told that that would
be considered, and then I never heard back on that account. And most of the information that
was provided, which granted this motion for reconsideration, are not based on any new
information that was provided to the board, was not based on a lot of accurate information that
was provided to the council office or the board, and more importantly than anything, was not
verified by the applicant who has attended all of the meetings in good faith and tried to work
through this project. This is a corner lot on the 1800 block of West Venango. It is one of the most
uninvested neighborhoods in the city of Philadelphia. It is a neighborhood that is
in desperate need of quality housing and affordability, all of which this project
offers. And it has been astounding to me that there has not been more support to try to get
a project like this approved, especially given that our city continually talks about wanting
to have affordable housing, especially in disenfranchised neighborhoods, and especially
to support certified women-owned businesses and certified minority-owned businesses that act in
good faith continually through this process. I can belabor the point of hardship. You can see
that from the 9-1 hearing. I can explain how many times we have shown up in good faith for this
project. I can explain to you that the chairman, prior chairman, and this board already heard this
case at length and agreed that this case should be granted, and that I do believe wholeheartedly
the motion of reconsideration, if it was read in detail, should never have been granted because
nothing new came about. It was not the applicant's failure of the RCO or anything that the applicant
did. And this was mismanagement on behalf of the RCO. And again, we were willing and are willing
to make revisions to the project, but we want to be met with fairness and equality on the other
side of it, which has not happened from the beginning of this case. From day one, this case
has been a mess. And like I said, in 10 years of doing this, I have never experienced something
like this. So I would ask the board if they're going to allow for a full rehearing of the matter
where the neighbors can speak, that I would ask that a new RCO be assigned so that we can actually
have a fair process and can make sure that we have all of our ducks in a row before we're making a
decision to shut down an affordable project in the city of Philadelphia near Temple Hospital,
which if you've driven over there, you would know this is well needed, given all the things I've
discussed, all the news you've read, and the reality of economic development in the city of
Philadelphia. So that would be my ask of the board, and that the board fully read the motion for
reconsideration. Because I do believe that if you had in detail, this current board would not have
approved the motion for reconsideration based on the facts that were presented to it.
Thank you. Is Tioga United in the audience?
chair we have i don't know if they're with tayoga united we have tina marie russell
and don stevenson both of them have their hands up
bring out tina marian
miss russell please unmute yourself and wait for the chair
i'm waiting for the chair hi miss russell just state your name for the record you've already
been sworn i'm tina marie russell um don represents tayoga just want to give you a
heads up on that he's representing tayoga united okay so i can wait so after he proceeds no why
why don't you go first go ahead okay so we are one of the rcos assigned to this case um i've
never received anything except for an RCO notification. I've never gotten any information,
any emails, or any data from anyone our RCO has not received. I am under the impression that
um our rco has not received i am under the impression that swamp pool rco sent in a
letter of denial i don't know if that's in the packet um i didn't have any i would have i think
that not only am i one of the rcos but i actually live three blocks away from there i'm not that
would not have been immediately affected but it affects me because in my neighborhood we are so
inundated with group style housing that my car has literally been shot up not once but twice
and because they don't give them their meds correctly etc and it's a lot of activity going
on and i kind of feel resentful that someone is saying that what is good for my neighborhood
because i live here um so i really think that we do need to have a content another meeting i think
the community, from what I've heard, we are not happy because they feel that they've been
duped. And I feel myself the same way because I did not get any notification and I should have.
And therefore, our CO was not able to weigh in on this matter. And we also would like to
have this matter be reconsidered to the community. Thank you.
Chairman, am I able to just address? You can, you can. Okay. So I just want to make it clear,
this is not, we're not providing group style housing. What I had mentioned before was that
there had been folks going around stating, and this is from a near neighbor that submitted a
letter to the council office to this effect, that they were, people were going around saying that
it was a battered women's shelter. This is a multifamily building of originally proposed
six units. So I just want to put that clear on the record. It's not group style housing.
Additionally, Swampoodle is not an affected RCO. So I just want to make that clear whether they
submitted a letter or not. Yeah, they're not an affected RCO. Right. Who's the representative
for Tioga United? Yeah, his name is Don Stevenson. Mr. Stevenson, you can unmute yourself and wait
for the chair please hi mr stevenson could you state your name and spell for the court reporter
yes donald stevenson d-o-n-a-l-d last name stevenson s-t-e-v-e-n-s-o-n and i'm a representative
of tayoga united you swear for him to tell the truth the whole truth and nothing but the truth
i do did you testify at the original hearing uh yes okay so i want you to keep your testimony
tight here you know it's you know if you're representing tayoga united please tell us your
position okay right now my position is a co-rco uh at the time of the original hearing uh i was
in a process of becoming an rco i currently wasn't the rco then so when i spoke on record i actually
spoke on record about the community not being informed of that second meeting that was a week
prior to the hearing um but i have i did attend the first meeting and there was also another
meeting we had with miss pritzker and the owner that was november 18th that was also emailed to
uh council and the zba as well there was a meeting that was conducted november 18th of 2021
with the community as well after the reconsideration so basically that second meeting
that Mr. Jihad Ali signed off on,
none of the community members were even notified.
And there are some things that Ms. Pritzker is saying
that the community doesn't agree with.
And like she said, we have met
and we're told time and time again,
there was never no negotiations
of what the community want.
We were just basically told six units, anything less.
We cannot make any money.
So we're not willing to come down on the units.
the community also had concerns about the structure uh not just the trash but there
was balconies we wanted to keep the community uniform to how it is historically there are no
single family or multi-family dwellings here that have balconies but they insisted on keeping
balconies in their structures they insisted on keeping i think commercial space in a basement
and the community was not for it also i want to comment on miss pritzker saying that her that
this property has been vandalized this is a lot i also mr stevenson listen what's your position
on the project you're against the project yes we are in opposition of what she proposed
the community they're not against an erection of a dwelling there but what she proposed they
are against so okay fine i understand it thank you well we do have your testimony from the
original hearing too. That's why I recognize your name. Ms. Pritzker, go ahead. Thank you,
Thank you, Chairman. I would just, there's no commercial proposed on this project. Some of the features that Mr. Stevenson mentioned, I think, just are not accurate.
Chairman. I would just, there's no commercial proposed on this project. Some of the
Additionally, there, we were open to many conversations around the balconies or removing items and things that was not really been the focal point of most of the meetings, but I appreciate those sentiments. And as I mentioned, we came to the table, you know, in good faith.
And so far as the vandalism is concerned, we have submitted the police report and photos in the packet so the board can look at that at its leisure.
Is Mr. Ali in the audience and does he want to testify?
Hi, Chair. This is Tanya. I just want to acknowledge that the councilwoman has her hands up.
Okay. Councilwoman, go ahead.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just wanted to, you know, I know that you have a lot of hearings and I'm not going to believe the point,
But I do want to make some acknowledgement around some of Ms. Pritzker's comments regarding the community's position and I guess her disappointment that they don't have community support.
And I just wanted to remind Ms. Pritzker that with all due respect that, you know, the folks who live in the community live there.
And so time and time again, we hear developers come in and say how great their development is going to be for someone else, for someone else who lives there, for this community.
They should be grateful to have it.
And so I just really wanted to, you know, really make sure that we are respectful and thoughtful of this community, like every other community in the city of Philadelphia, and that just because there might be some issues and challenges in the community doesn't mean that the residents are not entitled to their opinion and to say that they don't want something in their neighborhood.
I don't believe that people should have anything in their neighborhood that they don't want.
And that doesn't matter whether you live in Chestnut Hill, which I also represent, or Tioga, which I represent.
So people should be able to have a say and be respected in terms of the things that they want in their community and not be somehow vilified as if they're speaking out against people who need help or, you know, people who want to do development or whatever it may be.
So I just I just really felt very strongly about that, Mr. Chairman, and wanted to speak on that matter.
Thank you. Thank you. Councilwoman, I appreciate your sentiments. I'm by no mean trying to state that anybody is vilified or anybody is in the wrong for how they feel. I'm just simply was stating that the way that the process has gone has made it quite difficult to work through some of those concerns, as you know, from the kind of the back and forth.
I think what I'm just asking is for a fair process so that those negotiations can happen. And if those result in people still not wanting a project, I mean, I do this day in and day out as you do. So I'm well aware when people don't want things.
I think my my the challenge that we faced in this project was that I didn't believe it was a fair process.
And I did believe that we were being penalized from just some disorganization that occurred not on behalf of your office, but on behalf of just the RCO and RCO process.
But I appreciate your sentiments and have taken them.
Well, I would, I would agree with you that, you know, in your statement that, you know, this, this, you know, you stated that you believed as well that this should be reconsidered because of the, you know, as you put it, the unethical request from the RCO and their involvement, which was really not representative of the community.
So I think that we are in agreement on that matter that a reconsideration should be considered.
Thank you.
Or should be granted.
Thank you.
So the prior hearing had a lot of testimony from local neighbors. Is there anyone from the RCO leadership that's in the audience wants to testify?
Yes, I would like to testify. Hello, Mr. Chairman.
Yes, sir.
Can you state your name, Mr. Ali, and spell it for the court reporter?
My name is Jihad Ali, J-I-H-A-D-A-R-I, and I am the current co-chair of the Tioga United.
All right. Do you swear, Fern, to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?
Yes, I do.
Proceed.
Well, Mr. Chairman, I think, first of all, I'd like to apologize to the councilperson and to the community, and even Ms. Pritzer.
Because when this first, I was a new chair, I'd asked to come in because our current chair, Vernon Tyner, was relocating, and she needed someone that had some experience to come in and help hold the meeting for her.
We hadn't recruited Mr. Don Stevenson yet, which, as he testified, he joined by November the 18th to be a co-chair from the local perspective.
When we had that initial meeting with Ms. Pritzer, because I was the new chair and I had known Ms. Pritzer from before, but I had asked her about the attendance at the meeting, and she had gave me her word that the notice had went out, and she would send me the mailing.
At the time of the meeting, she didn't have the mailing.
When I was at the chair, there were people there that I wasn't aware of, so I asked her had she been in the mailing.
So I asked her, had she been the mailing?
She said she hadn't, and I asked her to send it to me.
She said she hadn't, and I asked her to send it to me.
She never sent me that mailing.
The meeting went forward, and then later on, after I was informed by the council person's office of the pushback from the neighborhoods,
because I didn't know who was neighbors and who weren't.
And there was another co-organization there at the time, but I had no idea what was going on.
But I do want to point out to you, Mr. Chairman and members of the board,
The key word that Ms. Pitzer said is that she was an interested party in that development deal, as a woman-owned business, a disadvantaged business.
That didn't come out to us as a community until the November 18th hearing, when one of the community members who had did their own research asked Ms. Pitzer that question and her co-investor.
So all along, we were misled because we didn't know that she was actually a participant in the project, which I believe it should have been revealed.
But then the issue was about the density. So, you know, the community and fair right, as this pointed out, it's on a corner lot.
But the community was concerned. There were some neighbors behind that lot where the trash was going to face their their building.
So that was that. And the issue was the density. As Mrs. Don Stevens said, we weren't against development.