my last name is S-M-I-T-H. Right. Do you swear or affirm to tell the truth, the whole truth,
nothing but the truth? Yes, I do. Receive counsel. Ms. Smith, so can you tell the board what your
position is in the community? Oh, sure. I'm a resident of East Parkside. I also serve on the
board of Centennial Parkside CDC, and our mission is to preserve, promote, and revitalize East
Parkside through partnerships with businesses, institutions, and programs that engage our
residents and also create opportunities so we can grow a thriving community.
Back in 2016, did you work on a comprehensive plan for development in your territory?
Yes, we did. We've also, the CDC, have an established real estate committee
Two stakeholders formed a community development board that includes members of the Centennial Parkside CDC, East Parkside Residence Association, and neighborhood residents.
We also hired a consultant with Equitable Innovations to complete a community equitable development strategic plan for our neighborhood.
And to help implement that plan, the CDC onboarded a full-time project manager.
And if I can add, our councilwoman, Jamie Gossier, she really respects our work and the time and effort that the community and stakeholders has put into our development goals and plans.
and that is why we have our support. And did you also work with the previous councilwoman?
Yes, we also work with Jamie, I'm sorry, Janie Blackwell, who,
and the Planning Commission, where we remapped and rezoned our area.
So, Ms. Smith, before we get into this project in particular, could you tell
um the members of the board whether um your cdc has ever supported development projects in your
neighborhood um yes we have um i attend at least 90 of the rco community meetings um and we have
support them um we do ask excuse me i'm sorry i have something oops oh sorry can you hear me
Oh, sorry. Can you hear me? Yes. Oh, glitch there. Yes, we have supported it. We, we are concerned about density. We do have a lot of density projects coming in. And a lot of them, if I must say, have been with Haverford Square.
I'm sorry, a little glitch there.
Sorry.
And we do ask, not just half of a square, we have asked other developers if they can compromise on that or negotiate to decrease some of that density when we want to put too many units in one structure.
Yeah, so we have approved and disapproved some.
Okay. Now, in this project, like I said earlier, this is not the first time that this project came before the RCO. Is that correct?
Oh, no. We've been addressing this project for a really long time. I think it's almost two years. At the onset, we were very hopeful that we would be able to negotiate something with the developer, but unfortunately, in spite of our efforts, the developer, we felt, the community felt that the developer was not open to a reasonable project that best fits our community.
At our first RCO meeting in March, I think, 2021, the majority of residents voted against the project, density again, and because of the developers' continuing resistance to listen to the community, at our second RCO meeting, the opposition grew, and over 100 people, excuse me, unanimously opposed the project.
at. And when you talk about density, are you talking about the number of units that he was
proposing to build? Yes, the number of units. So was your CDC open to any kind of like
accommodation or or compromise um with this developer yes yes um the community was interested
in um it uh the commercial uh at the bottom and i know that um the developer did say that there
was some opposition uh there but the community as whole um did not have a strong opposition to the
to commercial because we we ultimately would like the developer to build uh per the code
right which was a commercial on the first floor and and four units above that is that correct
the community as a whole yes okay um so you've heard the testimony today that the developer
seems to feel that there's a vendetta against him or some kind of a personal grievance.
Is that your understanding? How do you describe what's happened between your organization and
this developer? Well, I was dismayed to hear him say that. This is about the business. It's
nothing personal. This is about the density. This is about what the community is concerned about as
far as number of units that this applicant um proposes and his unwillingness to even consider
or listen to the community over and over about what we've asked for so this is not
personal at all please don't take it that way it's just the business of it are you aware of any
um code violations that this developer has um has received at other properties in your neighborhood
Objection. Objection. Right. Based on his criticism of my presentation, he actually wants us to stay on the property. I see no relevance with the other properties.
Well, well, Darwin, that's that's that's interesting for you to first present all this testimony and charts about other properties.
But then when we talk about other properties, it's now it's now off limits.
So in other words, Mr. Masters, ask your question if she knows.
Sure. Are you aware of any code violations that were received by other properties that Mr. Jakob has in your neighborhood?
Okay, so let's look at some of those in our exhibit binder.
My objection continues, because what does this have to do with the current project?
This is exhibit C in our binder.
we're looking here yes mr masters answer darwin's question
uh so we're trying to to get to the bottom of why um mr
We're trying to get to the bottom of why Mr. Jakob has felt that he hasn't gotten the warm reception from the community that he believes other developers have.
And this is directly relevant to it because the community is not focused, not just on personal animosity, but they are focused on the destructive nature of the destructive things that he's brought into the community with his other properties.
so you were aware of his grievance and you you prepared a response to show
this this was this is how you prepared a response for a grievance that you magically said oh we
didn't know that there was a vendetta but maybe there is one because oh okay so so so there was
There was a lot of testimony that the neighbors did a lot of things with signs and all that
said against your client, Mr. Beauvais.
So, Steve, do me a favor.
Go over this and just present it, but try to move on once we do.
Okay, Ms. Smith, what are we looking at here in 4204 Parkside?
Just hold on.
I have to bring my screen.
Yeah, 4204 Parkside Avenue.
From my understanding, the developer has owned that since 2015, around 2015, and I know that residents have filed numerous-
Objection, how does she know that?
Well, I think that's-
I don't understand.
I looked it up on Philodox.
Okay, are you talking about the Atlas website?
site yes i have a subscription to the philodox um the mortgages okay oh so you're responding to
how you how you know whether whether um mr jacob owns this property is is that what you're
responding to mr smith that's correct okay i believe the um mr jacob's attorney was asking
you how you know that there are violations? Is that your objection, Darwin? No. She said
he's owned the property since 2015. Ah, okay. Okay. Okay. So, Mr. Chair,
she has researched it on public records that Mr. Okay. She answered, I'm fine. Okay.
I'd like to add to that. Whenever we have properties that are major blighters or
problems in the neighborhood that's that we routinely do that. Okay.
Did you also research who owns 4206 Parkside? That's correct. And what did your research
discover? We also, that is also a blighted property. It's been like that for a number of
years. And that's when we, you know, we understand that we trace the owner on that. Okay.
and this is a violation of imminently dangerous on 4206 parkside yes it's in pretty bad shape
and it's for that block for the 4200 block of parkside which is a historic block national
and local registry it's the worst two properties on that block okay i believe we have some photos
also of the that property
but i i i object to all of this this is the well i don't see the relevance i don't see the
connection right what he's showing here is a historic property that has to go before the
board next month. Okay, so I think your client, Mr. Beauvais, testified that these were problem
properties that he had, and it's a problem because he can't get it done, but he identified that this
is the problem that he has because when Mr. Masters talked about a problem, he brought this
up himself. Right. Yeah, so what we're having here is testimony as to why the community may
have some concerns about this developer and projects that he is proposing in their neighborhood
because of his track record of what he actually has done with other projects in the neighborhood.
And I think that's very relevant when we're looking at the third tier of the issues that
this board has to decide is whether there's an unnecessary hardship, whether it meets minimum
variance, and whether this is in the public interest. And the evidence as to a developer
who has a history of maintaining and perpetuating blight
or blight-like conditions, if I'm going to blight it.
or blight-like conditions, if I'm going to blight-ish, something like that, if we're not
going to go into the formal blight certification of the Redevelopment Authority, that's very
relevant to this board deciding whether a variance is justified because of whether it's in the public
and trust. I don't understand how these properties are connected to the variances
that we're seeking. Are you trying to link intent, right? That makes no sense. And I
continue my objection. You are trying to say that other properties are linked to what's before the
board today and i do believe earlier so mr so mr bouvet listen i here's where i i i come down on
this your clients spent a lot of time talking about the neighbors don't like them there was a
you know a whole series of signs put up about them and things of that nature and when we started
mr master started talking about blight he raised these two issues he said hey i have two properties
he said they're in bad shape what he said but i'm trying to correct it so well i and that's
what we're talking about now these two properties are in bad shape so i i think that steve mr
masters you've made your point about he has some properties that need some work right or blighted
whatever we want to call it but i think we're about ready to move on okay i just i these are
the photos that i just wanted to to introduce into the record okay the photos that came in at
8 30 this morning well there were some that were from a couple days ago which is why the most of
these photos have been have been in the exhibit binders since september but i wanted to show that
they continue the blight continues even within days of this hearing but not the first three
the first i believe the first five photos are from are from this this past weekend and then
And this one, Ms. Smith, is this a photo of a property on Viola Street?
This property abuts the property that the developer owns on the 4200 block of Parkside.
I cannot exactly say the address, but it is abut the property that the developer owns
on Parkside.
it sits between 4263 and 4269 um viola street and this has been like this for years
i live up the street i leave up the street from this when you say this has been like this can you
describe what it's been like um people park on it uh people dump on it as you can see it's a tire
um there it's trash there it's it's an eyesore okay
what are we looking at in this photo um that is the properties um owned by mr uh by by the
developer okay and where is this located um i believe um it looks like it's the property
420 um i'm sorry i think it's 4206 or 4204 i mr uh the developer can give you the addresses
if that's not big.
But these are the ones that we were,
the properties that he admitted are in bad shape?
Is this a gap?
Are these Parkside or Viola?
I have no idea.
These are Parkside.
These are 4204, 4206 Parkside.
I have no idea.
We've been staring at this property for a while now, Steve,
and I think we're ready to move on.
All right.
Ms. Smith, do you have anything else that you wanted to add in summation?
Yes. I just want to say, first again, this is not personal. We have no vendetta against
this particular developer, only about the density units. We welcome development. We just say,
if you can follow the zoning code. Let me just say, every step of the way, we have tried to
work with this developer. I was a little put off when he said we weren't. We are not anti-development.
and the community is not unreasonable. We just want to promote and support what is appropriate
and reasonable and keeps within the character of the neighborhood and how we can uplift our
community. Ultimately, our goal is to work with developers and investors who are closely
aligned with our missions and values. But we also understand that we have to compromise or negotiate
on projects that may not align with these goals.
So we just asked the developer work within the zoning code.
So we just asked the developer, work within the zoning code. And that would be that way. I think that would be a great compromise. Thank you.
Thank you. So now I'm going to ask Brian Harris to raise his hand.
Oh, yes. Sorry about that. Mr. Bobak.
Yes. Ms. Smith, you're still there?
Yes, I am.
Yes. So you're the executive director of the CDC?
No, I am not.
I am the interim board president.
You're the interim board president.
Yeah, and I've served since 2015.
Okay, thank you.
When was the last time you met with the applicant?
Actually, I believe I talked to him.
I ran into him this summer.
I'm sorry, let me ask it differently.
When was the last time you convened an official meeting on behalf of the CDC to meet with the applicant?
Okay, I know our counsel was on our behalf, did reach out and tried to set up a meeting with the developer before, I think, before the RCO meeting.
I know a counsel on our behalf was instructed to do that.
So is it safe to say you haven't met with the developer?
I think it's safe to say that the developer did not respond to our request to meet with him.
So the fact is no meeting has taken place.
Yeah, but not on our floor.
That's fine.
That's fine.
I just, I got that.
Now, when it comes to, you mentioned like they were showing all these violations for properties.
Has he ever fixed up a property? Is there a property that you can say that, oh, it was dilapidated before, it was in bad shape, but now it's fixed?
I can't speak to that. Thank you.
So you don't know if that's ever happened.
That's asked and answered.
Proceed. Proceed.
I can't speak to that.
All right. Earlier today, you were saying that as we were going through the process, that he had some opposition, but not all opposition. That was a little bit confusing. Can you explain that to me?
I was thinking about the first RCO meeting we had. There was some residents that did not oppose it. But at RCO meetings, we take a vote. And the majority at the first RCO meeting was no. The second RCO meeting we had, it was unanimously no. And it was more residents at that second meeting.
Okay. So, yeah, I just wanted some clarity. Thanks. So when it comes to the CDC, I heard you mention that you had a comprehensive plan. Was that ever shared with the developer?
Well, I didn't share the comprehensive plan, but I have had email correspondence with the developer. This, I think, was back in August. I think it was 2020. Yeah, where I shared what our community vision was.
I sent him reports done by Brandywine Realty Trust Research Scientist, a fellow from Haverford
Square, and I also sent him to support what I was saying, and also a plan that was submitted
by the University of Pennsylvania.