!3456789 *:47;:

!"#$%&'( )*&!+,# -

+!&./01*# '1"2&$&1+

!3456789 *:47;:<54 3<; #539:=>?;:@4

"44:44A:<5 #B@C:DE

!"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#!"#$%&' ()*+

This report contains the results and analysis of the Eastwick Residents and Stakeholders Assessment Survey conducted as an important first step of a comprehensive planning process. It is hoped that the results from the survey will help guide the process of shaping critical decisions for Eastwick’s future.

!"#$%&'( )*&!+,# -+!&./01*# '1"2&$&1+

!3456789 *:47;:<54 3<; #539:=>?;:@4

"44:44A:<5 #B@C:DE

!"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#!"#$%&' ()*+

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

F@:G38:

!3456789H F:<<4D?C3<73 74H ID ;:G7<757><H 3< !<C7@><A:<53? JB4578: '>AAB<75D

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

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

"?? F:<<4D?C3<73 @:47;:<54 =3C: 5=: '><4575B57><3? *7K=5 5> 3 =:3?5=D :<C7@><A:<5

The struggle for a healthy environment has been difficult for “we the people” - with governments exercising their power, or failing to exercise it, in ways that acknowledge, acquiesce, and even invite environmental harm regardless of the impacts on present and future generations of people. The harm done to the environment has damaged and devastated health, destroyed and diminished the quality of our lives, degraded the decency of people to respect all life on earth (not just human life), diminished the quality of formal and experiential learning, and has taken from generations, those here now and those yet to come, the majesty and qualities that healthy environments provide.

On December 19, 2013, in response to a legal action brought by the Delaware Riverkeeper Network and seven towns, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court raised up the truth about a healthy environment – that it is an inherent and indefeasible right of all people, a right that should be demanded, and a right that should be fought for because it is a right not just for those who are here on earth today, but a right that we have an obligation to pass to future generations undamaged. The Pennsylvania Supreme Court Chief Justice made clear that here in Pennsylvania Article 1, Section 27 of the state constitution mandates that every government official, at every level of government, must protect these rights.

This Supreme Court decision, issued in Robinson Township, Delaware Riverkeeper Network, et. al. v. Commonwealth of Pennsylvania should inspire those of us in Pennsylvania to demand and defend our environmental rights more passionately.

The Pennsylvania Supreme Court decision should and will inspire a new generation of environmental protection in Pennsylvania – inspiring strong environmentally protective legislation by newly emboldened and empowered legislators, and supporting strong litigation when industry dollars are used to drive bad legislation and bad political acts.

But it should also inspire other states, and even the federal government, to construct their own social contracts, their own strong constitutional provisions, promising pure water, clean air, and healthy environments for present and future generations.

To learn more visit the Delaware Riverkeeper Network www.ForTheGenerations.org website and Facebook page, www.facebook.com/forthegenerations.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

"89<>6?:;KA:<54Eastwick Friends and Neighbors Coalition (EFNC) is pleased to acknowledge and thank the following people, organizations and valued partner institutions for their time and expertise in the development of this report:

F3@5<:@ &<4575B57><4

Audubon Pennsylvania Darby Creek Valley Association Delaware Riverkeeper Network Eastwick Action Committee Friends of Heinz Wildlife Refuge at Tinicum

Keystone Conservation Trust Pennsylvania Sierra Club

F@> 0><> 2:K3? #BLL>@5

Dechert LLP Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia

#B@C:D ,:47K< $:3A

Debbie Beer Michael Nairn

#B@C:D $:3A

Carolyn Moseley Earl Wilson

Joanne Graham Leonard Stewart

Ramona Rousseau-Reid Terry Williams

,353 #>@57<K $:3A

Deborah Jefferson Fred Stine

Jeannette Guess Joanne Graham Leonard Stewart

Michael Nairn Ramona Rousseau-Reid

Robin Mann Terry Williams

Earl Wilson

F=>5>K@3L=D

Malcolm Graham

'>C:@ ,:47K<

Ifeanyichukwu H. Eze

*:L>@5 "B5=>@

Joanne Graham

";;757><3? #BLL>@5

EFNC extends its sincere appreciation to residents of Eastwick who participated in this project.

v

$3I?: >G '><5:<54

#:857>< F3K:

D'&?-"& CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC,,,8"14$/7&3@&9&4#.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC,-

,M&":#0;& 5:99-'<CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC-,,

I4#'$3:"#0$4 CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC.!;&';0&/ -43 !%J&"#0;&CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC/N&#6$3$7$@<CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC0O&< P04304@. CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC12&"$99&43&3 H&M# 5#&A.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC2

5&"#0$4 *C Q&;&7$A9&4# $? #6& *(R 8"'& D-'"&7CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC..2&.03&4# -43 5#-1&6$73&' I4A:# 04 #6& Q&;&7$A9&4# D'$"&..CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC.3S6& Q&;&7$A9&4# $? T$:.04@ 8. D'$A$.&3 CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC.4U6-4@&. #6-# V$:73 N-1& #6& D'$A$.&3 Q&;&7$A9&4# 8""&A#-%7&CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC.2D'&.&';04@ #6& *(R 8"'&. -. - P7$$3 N0#0@-#0$4 5<.#&9CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC35D'&.&';04@ #6& *(R 8"'&. -. !A&4 5A-"&CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC34

5&"#0$4 (C ,"$4$90" Q&;&7$A9&4# CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC/.U$99:40#< ,"$4$90" Q&;&7$A9&4# CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC/3W-"-4# 5#$'&?'$4#. CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC/5S<A&. $? X:.04&..&. -43 5&';0"&. H&&3&3 04 ,-.#/0"1CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC/2S$:'0.9 -. - 5#'-#&@< ?$' ,"$4$90" Q&;&7$A9&4# CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC53

5&"#0$4 YC P7$$304@ -43 P7$$3 I4.:'-4"& CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC5/5-?&#< $? ,M0.#04@ 2&.03&4#. CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC55U$99:40#< 5:AA$'#&3 P7$$3 N-4-@&9&4# D7-4CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC508 P:43 #6-# 5:%.030K&. P7$$3 I4.:'-4"& D'&90:9.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC54

5&"#0$4 +C 80'A$'# ,MA-4.0$4CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC5180'A$'# -43 U$99:40#< X$:43-'0&.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC5680'A$'# 8""&..$'0&. 2&.03&4#. V$:73 P043 8""&A#-%7& CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC52Z0;04@ V-@&.B X&4&?0#. -43 S'-0404@ -# #6& 80'A$'# CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC0.2&L:0'& #6& 80'A$'# #$ U'&-#& V&#7-43. $4 #6& *(R 8"'& D-'"&7CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC0/

5&"#0$4 [C D'0$'0#0&. $? 5:';&< 2&.A$43&4#. ?$' I9A'$;04@ ,-.#/0"1 CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC002&.03&4#.\ H:9%&' !4& D'0$'0#< ?$' I9A'$;04@ ,-.#/0"1 CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC[]

5&"#0$4 ]C U$4"7:.0$4 -43 2&"$99&43-#0$4.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC4.U$4"7:.0$4 -43 2&"$99&43-#0$4. CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC](

5&"#0$4 ^C 8AA&430"&.CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC408AA&430M *= 5:';&< I4.#':9&4# CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC418AA&430M (= 5A$#70@6# $4 I77&@-7 Q:9A04@ CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC10

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

S60. A-@& 04#&4#0$4-77< 7&?# %7-41C

vii

!3456789 *:47;:<54 3<; #539:=>?;:@4 "44:44A:<5 #B@C:DE

*:4B?54 3<; "<3?D474

!M:8B57C: #BAA3@D

The Eastwick neighborhood, located in southwestern Philadelphia, has long been a peacefully-integrated, culturally-diverse community. However, Eastwick has also been subjected to economic, environmental and social injustices over many decades. In the 1950s, the Philadelphia Redevelopment Authority condemned and seized land in Eastwick by eminent domain. Residents of the condemned land resettled elsewhere, while new homes were built on wetlands filled with silt, cinder, and river dredge spoils. The homes built on filled land have subsided due to unstable foundations, and residents report, among other environmental concerns, significant and consistent flooding.

When residents of Eastwick learned in 2012 that a massive, high-density housing project was proposed for land that currently serves as a natural barrier against flooding, concerned citizens joined together to formed the Eastwick Action Committee (EAC). The EAC was soon joined by the Friends of Heinz Refuge (FOHR). Together, they establish the Eastwick Friends & Neighbors Coalition (EFNC).

EFNC was formed with the intent of keeping the community aware of development concerns and to avoid a repeat of historic injustices. The members of this community group advocate for equitable and meaningful participation by local residents and the Refuge in any planning for the future of the Eastwick neighborhood.

To this end, EFNC undertook the Eastwick Resident and Stakeholders Assessment Survey in 2012. The survey reflects the sentiments of 93% (244 of 250 qualifying Eastwick residents). The Eastwick Residents and Stakeholders Assessment Survey, the first such survey of the Eastwick community ever, provides important insights into community opinions regarding development and other issues.

87% of respondents oppose the development currently proposed (722 units of multi-family rental housing and 1,034 parking spaces on 35 acres).

82% of respondents would support the use of federal money to purchase the 128 acre development site for preservation as a park or an extension of the Refuge.

90% of respondents agreed that Eastwick needs more resources for community and business development.

93% of respondents agreed that, prior to approving any new development, the City of Philadelphia should prepare a community-supported flood management plan.

91% of respondents are concerned about having a voice in planning for the neighborhood’s future.

The Eastwick Residents and Stakeholders Assessment Survey represents a significant resource for community planning, and it should be viewed as the foundation for developing actionable strategies for solving long-term problems. Most importantly, the survey should influence decision-making by Philadelphia’s City Council regarding the Eastwick neighborhood.

___________________________________________________________________________________________

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

S60. A-@& 04#&4#0$4-77< 7&?# %7-41C

1

&<5@>;B857><

In February 2012, ten concerned Eastwick residents met to discuss two recent home invasions that threatened the quality of life in their quiet Southwest Philadelphia community. From that initial meeting, bimonthly meetings were quickly established where the group began to address a host of community concerns. They contacted agencies responsible for tackling such issues as chronic illegal dumping, insufficient lighting at the local rail station and the need for increased policing in targeted areas. The committee of ten also encouraged their neighbors to get involved and to become more aware of activity in the community that appeared questionable or suspicious.

It was this increased vigilance that prompted one of those concerned residents to question surveying close to his home in late April. Upon doing so, he learned that the area being surveyed was the location of a proposed one hundred million dollar residential development project, as well as potential expansion of the Philadelphia International Airport (PHL), all on a 128-acre undeveloped parcel adjacent to John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge. Further inquiry revealed that, unbeknownst to the community, Philadelphia City Council was poised to approve a rezoning bill in June 2012 that would allow the developer to begin the 5-year project to build 722 apartments with parking lots to accommodate 1,034 vehicles—on 35 of the 128 acres, which is currently zoned for single-family homes and also partially designated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) as a Special Flood Hazard Area.

Stunned that such a massive, high-density project was about to take place on land currently serving as a natural barrier against flooding, the ten concerned residents quickly formed the Eastwick Action Committee (EAC), and joined with the Friends of Heinz Refuge (FOHR) to establish the Eastwick Friends & Neighbors Coalition (EFNC).

EFNC immediately mounted strategies to halt the proposed development until the community could be fully apprised of the developer’s and the City’s plans. EFNC’s goal was to ensure that no development in the targeted location would result in harm to current or future residents or to the habitat at the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge. EFNC swiftly gained the support of notable environmental groups including Delaware Riverkeeper Network, Keystone Conservation Trust and the Pennsylvania Chapter of the Sierra Club, as well as pro bono legal representation by the Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia and Dechert LLC, and the support and technical guidance of University of Pennsylvania Urban Studies Program. The community was soon spurred into action, circulating a petition door-to-door, engaging the media with press releases, and mobilizing volunteers for next steps in the process to oppose the rezoning bill at an upcoming City Council hearing.

On June 12, 2012 members and supporters of EFNC provided passionate and fact-based testimony that resulted in City Council tabling the proposed rezoning bill that would have given the developer’s project the green light. On November 20, 2012, Councilman Kenyatta Johnson, who had previously supported the proposal, pulled the rezoning bill, denying the developer’s request to rezone the 35 acres to build the massive apartment complex. Councilman Johnson stated that the community had spoken “loud and clear” and deserved a say in what happens in their community.

EFNC celebrates this victory with the understanding that the future remains uncertain for the 128-acre parcel. Armed with this knowledge, EFNC has seized the opportunity to launch a comprehensive community education, engagement, and visioning process that will allow residents, business owners and stakeholders, who are open to new growth and development, but in a sustainable and ecologically responsible manner, an opportunity for meaningful and equitable dialogue and participation to ensure

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

that when future development does occur residents are safe, localized and catastrophic flooding impacts are addressed, and environmentally sensitive lands, wildlife, and green spaces are protected. This community assessment report, which reflects the sentiments of 93% (244 of 250 qualifying Eastwick residents) who live in the area immediately adjacent to the 128-acre parcel, is just one step in that direction.

3

1C:@C7:6 3<; 1IN:857C:

This document summarizes the findings of the Eastwick Resident and Stakeholders Assessment Survey (the survey) conducted by the Eastwick Friends and Neighbors Coalition (EFNC) from July 2013 through October 2013. The purpose of the survey was to gauge residents’ and stakeholders’ opinions about environmental, economic, and social issues affecting their community and most importantly, their views concerning any plans for future development in Eastwick. The survey was precipitated by an announcement made by Philadelphia City Councilman Kenyatta Johnson on November 20, 2012, that he was pulling a rezoning bill that would have allowed for the development of a 35-acre apartment complex in an area of Eastwick zoned for single-family housing. This announcement spelled victory for Eastwick residents and stakeholders who opposed the rezoning bill during City Council hearings on June 12 and October 9, 2012. Residents’ and stakeholders’ opposing testimony raised the following concerns:

A large portion of the proposed 128 acre development site is located in an area designated by FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) as a Special Flood Hazard Area meaning that there is a 1% chance annually for flooding to occur;

The area is adjacent to the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge (Heinz) and its development would have huge impacts on the wildlife and habitat of the Heinz, a unique and critically important urban refuge in the national refuge system, which also provides environmental education opportunities to thousands of urban and suburban children and economic benefits through tourism for the Greater Philadelphia region;

Presently the 128-acre area, which is targeted for residential development and likely airport expansion, is comprised of dredge material and other fill covered with naturalized vegetation that intercepts precipitation before it hits the ground and encourages infiltration, helping to prevent excess runoff that contributes to dangerous conditions during times of flooding. Under the proposed development, this vegetated open space would be replaced by acres of impervious surfaces, including parking lots, streets, rooftops and even lawns, which, due to compacted soils, studies have shown creates almost as much runoff as pavement. Replacing soil with impervious surface, in an existing flood prone area, will likely exacerbate flooding;

There was a lack of information from the developer or the City about how storm water runoff from roofs and parking lots would be managed and concerns that development could significantly compromise the health, safety and welfare of current and future residents by adding more people to an area that has limited flood evacuation routes;

Increased traffic would be a major problem and would exacerbate existing unstable streets and sinkholes once construction on the 5-year project began and occupancy increased;

Property values may decrease after the 5-year development project is complete;

Much concern was raised about the proposed future of the entire 128-acre tract bounded by 85th Street, Mario Lanza Boulevard and Lindbergh Boulevard. Ninety-three of those 128 acres would be targeted for airport expansion under the proposed plan, although there is presently no specific, detailed information offered about potential uses;

Also, ample testimony centered around the fact that city officials never attempted to gauge the community’s needs but instead used confidential settlement negotiations to agree to a development with major implications for residents and the Refuge.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

The residents’ victory at City Council was a pivotal juncture in the history of the Eastwick community and fostered a newfound sense of community empowerment. Members of EFNC seized this opportunity to develop the Eastwick Resident and Stakeholders Assessment Survey, to provide residents a means to express their feelings and concerns about any future development and other important issues that impact their quality of life. Concurrently, EFNC has continued to raise awareness about the health, safety, and environmental justice issues in the neighborhood, convening numerous community education events and bringing many public officials and technical experts and advisors to engage with and provide information to residents.

5

O:5=>;>?>KD

#B@C:D ,:47K<E The survey process was intended to serve a dual function—to educate and engage residents while assessing their knowledge and opinions about pertinent community issues. The survey consisted of five pages. The first page served as a cover page, with two paragraphs at the top half of the cover page explaining the purpose of the survey:

The remaining 4! pages of the survey contained 22, 3-point rating Likert scale questions and 5 open-ended questions. The questions were divided into the following five sections:

Development of the 128-Acre Parcel

Economic Development

Flooding and Flood Insurance

Airport Expansion

Priorities of Survey Respondents for Improving Eastwick

This survey was the first attempt to gather from Eastwick residents and stakeholders a set of comprehensive data that could potentially be used for planning purposes to inform decisions about future building projects and economic development in Eastwick. No other agency, including the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), FEMA (Federal Emergency Management Agency) or the Philadelphia Water Department (PWD) has ever attempted this type of targeted assessment in the Eastwick community. It was a concerted effort on the part of concerned residents and stakeholders that gives voice to the community’s calls for environmental justice.

#B@C:D F>LB?357><E All 277 single residential properties south of 84th Street, in the Eastwick section of Southwest Philadelphia, were targeted for the survey. Of that number, 27 properties did not participate in the survey because either: 1) the residence was vacant (i.e., the property was for sale or the owner lived at another location); or 2) the residence was occupied by renters (renters were encouraged to participate in the survey, but some renters expressed they had no long-term investment in the community and refused participation on that basis).

,353 '>??:857>< F@>8:44E From July2013 through October 2013, six members of EFNC, who also reside in Eastwick, served as community education and engagement coordinators and delivered the five-page survey door-to-door to qualifying residents in the targeted area. The survey coordinators answered residents’ questions about the survey and other pertinent community issues and offered to assist residents with completing the survey by clarifying any items contained within the assessment. In three instances, two members of a household (husband and wife) asked if they both were permitted to complete the survey. On one occasion, a husband, wife, and adult child all requested that they be allowed to complete a survey. The entire survey process lasted approximately 30 minutes, during which time the coordinator preferably waited for the survey to be completed, or made arrangements to pick up the survey at a later time, depending on respondents’ preference.

!M5@3>@;7<3@D !GG>@54 ID !)+' 4B@C:D 8>>@;7<35>@4E About 60% of respondents required a second or third visit for their surveys to be retrieved. In the end, survey coordinators’ diligence in encouraging community-wide participation paid off when a total of 244 completed surveys were obtained from 233 of the 250 eligible households, providing an overall response rate of 93%.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

27A75357><4E The use of the terms “Support” and “Do not support” as designated responses to the Likert scale questions, lead to some confusion by the survey participants and, in some instances, may have skewed the data results if survey coordinators did not clarify with the survey participant how these designated responses should be interpreted. It would have been more appropriate to use the terms “Agree” or “Do not agree” throughout the survey instead of “Support” or “Do not support.”

Extrapolating data from the open-ended questions presented the greatest hurdle to the completion of this report. Whereas each of the 22 Likert scale questions yielded a predictable total of 244 responses — equaling the number of respondents completing the surveys, the total number of responses from each of the five open-ended questions varied and were 311, 395, 394, 256 and 279, respectively. This disparity in the number of responses for open-ended question resulted from there being no limits imposed on the number of items survey participants could list in response to each question, whether to itemize their responses, or write them out in a sentence or to compose a paragraph. Therefore, commitment to maintaining the integrity of each response required that individual charts be developed where data from each of the five open-ended questions, could be individually sorted into categories and sub categories.

Although analyzing the data from the open-ended questions was very time consuming, taking the time to sort the data in this manner yielded more tangible results and allowed the sentiments expressed by each respondent to be more clearly articulated. Data from the open-ended questions also provided rich commentary that went hand-in-hand with the closed-ended responses and the Likert scale questions.

7

(:D )7<;7<K4

!3456789 74 8><8:@<:; 3I>B5 L@>L>4:; ;:C:?>LA:<5E

The vast majority, 87% of respondents, who would be most impacted, do not support the development of housing, as currently proposed (722 units of multi-family rental housing and 1,034 parking spaces on 35 acres);

A significant number, 61% agreed that the proposed development would have a negative impact on their property values;

About 85% of all respondents would support preserving the 128-acre parcel to help lessen catastrophic flooding and sea level rise in Eastwick if such a system could help lower flood insurance rates; and

If federal money could be found to purchase the 128 acres to preserve it as a park, or an extension of the Refuge, 82% of respondents would support the purchase.

!3456789 <::;4 :8><>A78 ;:C:?>LA:<5E

About 90% of respondents agreed that Eastwick should have an effective local community/economic development organization(s) and 86% supported having an active business development program to encourage and support existing and new businesses; and

90% of respondents agreed that the Eastwick community needs a solution to the expressed need for more resources for community and business development and to address vacant storefronts, specifically, the vacant storefronts in the PennRose Plaza Shopping Center.

!3456789 <::;4 4>?B57><4 5> G?>>;7<KE

91% of respondents agreed that the safety, in terms of flood mitigation, reduction in insurance costs, and better emergency response and evacuation, of existing residents must take priority over property development for new residents, and that no new development should be contemplated in Eastwick until a community-driven and supported emergency response and evacuation plan is adopted;

93% agreed that, prior to approving any new development; the city should prepare a community-supported flood management plan that supports safety for the whole watershed.

!3456789 4::94 3 C>78: 7< 8@3G57<K 754 GB5B@:E

Regarding future development in Eastwick, 90% of respondents agreed that residents and stakeholders should have input into the future development on or near the publicly owned 128-acre parcel being considered for development and for airport expansion; and

The overwhelming majority (91%) of respondents are concerned about having a voice in planning for the neighborhood’s future. Residents want to have input in development and are concerned about changes in zoning, density, and the preservation of open space.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

!3456789 74 8><8:@<:; 3I>B5 :<C7@><A:<53? =:3?5= 3<; :PB75DE

The survey provided a wealth of data on Eastwick residents’ and stakeholders’ opinions about prospective development in their community and other issues that impact their quality of life.

By and large, respondents do not want the proposed high-density apartment construction project to take place on the 128 acres and feel that it would adversely affect their community;

Many residents identified environmental health and safety concerns that were outside of the scope of the survey, but of critical importance to the community, including polluted landfills, air quality, cancer rates, illegal dumping, etc.;

Further, the survey results articulate specific community concerns and opinions residents have held for years - but that have gone unresolved - including polluted landfills, poor air quality that many attribute to high asthma and cancer rates in the area, illegal dumping, a lack of support for community economic development and most importantly, residents feel that their opinions don’t matter to developers or city officials; and

Respondents also expressed ill feelings over the loss of “the old Eastwick” and the displacement of former residents under the guise of blight certification and urban renewal.

9

*:8>AA:<;:; +:M5 #5:L4

The survey provided a wealth of data regarding the opinions of Eastwick residents and stakeholders on prospective development in their community and other issues that impact their quality of life. By and large, respondents do not want development as proposed to take place on the 128 acres and feel that it would adversely affect their community. Furthermore, the survey results articulate specific community concerns and opinions residents have held for years but that have gone unresolved including polluted landfills, poor air quality that many attribute to high asthma and cancer rates in the area, illegal dumping, a lack of support for community economic development and most importantly, residents feel that their opinions don’t matter to developers or city officials. Respondents also expressed ill feelings resulting from unkept promises made by Eastwick’ s primary developer over 50 years ago, and a lack of trust for city officials who many believe helped to destroy “the old Eastwick” as well as the lives of former residents under the guise of blight certification and urban renewal (http://harvardcrcl.org/wp-content/uploads/2011/09/449_Cahn.pdf).

Only 38% would support housing development if an on-site storm water management system could be designed to significantly mitigate flooding, not just for on-site residents, but for those living in the surrounding area.

Over half of respondents indicated that they would only accept development if housing was built in accordance with the existing single-family zoning.

Results from the Eastwick Resident and Stakeholders Assessment Survey can provide significant guidance for community planning purposes and should be viewed as the foundation to actionable strategies that help solve problems long-term in Eastwick. Most importantly, the survey results should be used to influence City Council’s future decisions about any proposed development on the vacant 128-acre parcel, which has remained undeveloped green space for 50 years, serving to mitigate flooding in the area. These results should also be used to strengthen ongoing advocacy efforts and stakeholder engagement.

Equally as important, as indicated by the number of “I don’t know” responses and the number of unanswered questions, the results of the survey should be used to address the need for continued community education and engagement. Focus groups with targeted community residents and stakeholders are recommended to help determine the issues deemed most important. Once participants have prioritized the issues, it is recommended that they be given the opportunity to offer suggestions for how their concerns could be most effectively addressed. The data from this survey and qualitative data from future resident and stakeholder focus groups should then be combined to help develop goals and identify strategies for attaining each goal toward achieving the community vision.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

S60. A-@& 04#&4#0$4-77< 7&?# %7-41C

11

-".&,/( 01

2"3"%/45"(& /6 &7" 089 *.:" ;':."%

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

*:47;:<5 3<; #539:=>?;:@ &<LB5 7< 5=: ,:C:?>LA:<5 F@>8:44

This section of the Eastwick Resident and Stakeholders Assessment Report describes (in both charts and tables) how respondents, who live south of 84th Street and Lindbergh Boulevard, feel about potential development in close proximity to their homes and to the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge.

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,RE *:47;:<54 3<; 4539:=>?;:@4 4=>B?; =3C: 7<LB5 7<5> 5=: ?>8357><H 5DL: 3<;

<BAI:@ >G B<754H L?3<<7<KH 3<; ;:47K< >G 3<D ;:C:?>LA:<5 5=35 >88B@4 >< 3<D '75D K>C:@<:; L3@8:?4

7< !3456789S

When asked if residents and stakeholders should have input into the location, type, and number of units as well as the planning, and design of any development that occurs on any City-governed parcels in Eastwick, the overwhelming majority, 91% (221 of 244), of respondents, supported this statement. Nine percent (9%) did not support this statement.

The table below displays Survey Question D1 data street by street. !"#4/(#"#

#5@::54

-$44/:& 2/ </&-$44/:&

</& -$:" </!"#4/(#"

=/&'% >+-&:""&

X':4./0"1 D7-"& *` * ()U'-4& 5#'&&# [ [U'-#04 D7-"& ` `Q0"1. D7-"& () * (*a0%%. D7-"& Y) ( Y(a0%.$4 D7-"& ^ ( * *)Z043%&'@6 X$:7&;-'3 ` Y *(Z:#6&' D7-"&B T-'7&< D7-"& b ,-.#/0"1 8;&4:& ** * *(Z<$4. D7-"& [+ ] ])N-30.$4 D7-"& *Y Y *]5$:#6 R]#6 5#'&&# () * (*5:??$71 D7-"& (+ ( (]$>53? ((* (* * * (++

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

13

O3L " TI:?>6U

O3L "E Visible in Map A (above) is the current Eastwick, PA residential community south of 84th Street and Lindbergh Blvd built by Korman Residential beginning in the 1960’s. Also highlighted are the 128 acres discussed throughout this report. The parcel is divided into two sections. The smaller section is the 35-acre parcel on which Korman Residential has proposed to construct 722 additional rental units. The remaining 93-acre parcel has been designated for some form of airport expansion.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

O3L 0 TI:?>6U

O3L 0E Displayed here, and outlined in yellow on 35 acres of the vacant 128-acre parcel, is a mockup of the apartment complex proposed by Korman Residential Properties, adjacent to the John Heinz National Wildlife Refuge.

15

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,VE *:47;:<54 3<; 4539:=>?;:@4 4=>B?; =3C: 7<LB5 7<5> 5=: ?>8357><H 5DL:H 3<;

<BAI:@ >G B<754H L?3<<7<KH 3<; ;:47K< >G 3<D ;:C:?>LA:<5 5=35 >88B@4 >< >@ <:3@ 5=: RVW 38@:

L3@8:?S

When asked if residents and stakeholders should have input into the location, type, and number of units as well as planning, and design of any development that occurs on or near the 128-acre parcel, the responses were nearly identical to those in D1 which concerned development that “occurs on any City-governed parcels in Eastwick. Ninety percent (219 of 244) of the survey respondents agreed that residents and stakeholders should have input and only 9% did not agree. Less than 1% was not sure or did not respond.

The table below displays Survey Question D2 data street by street. *:4L><4:4

#5@::54 -$44/:& 2/ </&-$44/:&

</& -$:" </!"#4/(#"

=/&'% >+-&:""&

X':4./0"1 D7-"& *R ( ()U'-4& 5#'&&# [ [U'-#04 D7-"& ` `Q0"1. D7-"& () * (*a0%%. D7-"& Y* * Y(a0%.$4 D7-"& ^ ( * *)Z043%&'@6 X$:7&;-'3 ` Y *(Z:#6&' D7-"&B T-'7&< D7-"& b ,-.#/0"1 8;&4:& ** * *(Z<$4. D7-"& [+ ] ])N-30.$4 D7-"& *Y Y *]5$:#6 R]#6 5#'&&# *R ( * (*5:??$71 D7-"& (+ * * (]$>53? (*` (( ( * (++

Residents and stakeholders overwhelmingly want to have a voice in the planning process of any development that takes place in Eastwick.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

Responses from residents who live on blocks directly adjacent to the 128-acre parcel (where the proposed development of 50 new apartment buildings and airport expansion would occur) were compared with responses from residents who live in close proximity to the 128 parcel, but not on blocks that abut the area of the proposed development and airport expansion. Though there were slight variations in the responses, these variations revealed no correlation between direct or close proximity and survey participant’s responses. The vast majority of respondents on each block agreed that residents should have input in any proposed development in the area.

$=: ,:C:?>LA:<5 >G />B47<K 34 F@>L>4:;

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,XE ,> D>B 4BLL>@5 5=: ;:C:?>LA:<5 >G =>B47<KH 34 L@>L>4:; >< 5=: RVW 38@:

L3@8:? TYVV B<754 >G AB?57 G3A7?D @:<53? 3<; RZX[ L3@97<K 4L38:4 >< X\ >G 5=>4: 38@:4U]

87% of the survey respondents do not support the housing as proposed on the 128-acre parcel. Nine percent (9%) do and about 4% were undecided.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

17

Some long-time residents pointed to quality-of-life issues and broken promises — such as unfinished lots, promised amenities that were never delivered, and homes that are now susceptible to flooding, shifting and sinking — as reasons for opposing the proposed development.


#5@::54 -$44/:& 2/ </&-$44/:&

</& -$:" </!"#4/(#"

=/&'% >+-&:""&

X':4./0"1 D7-"& *` *`U'-4& 5#'&&# ( Y [U'-#04 D7-"& + [ `Q0"1. D7-"& () * (*a0%%. D7-"& + (^ * Y(a0%.$4 D7-"& * ] Y *)Z043%&'@6 X$:7&;-'3 *( *(Z:#6&' D7-"&B T-'7&< D7-"& b ,-.#/0"1 8;&4:& * ** *(Z<$4. D7-"& [ [Y ( ])N-30.$4 D7-"& * *[ *]5$:#6 R]#6 5#'&&# Y *R (*5:??$71 D7-"& ( (( ( (]$>53? (Y (** ` ) (+Y

Other respondents provide some of the following reasons for not supporting the proposed development:

Building more apartments may increase flooding conditions and make the community unsafe to live in for new and current residents;

Over 1,000 more cars would create too much traffic on Lindbergh Boulevard and Lyons Place—the only two access roads for the proposed development;

The area would lose its serene quality—the reason some moved here in the first place;

More apartments would make property values go down since renters may not care as much for maintaining the community;

Several of Korman’s apartment buildings [in Eastwick] have vacancies. If Korman can’t fill those vacancies why build new apartments?

Some streets in this area already have sinkholes, heavy construction trucks during the building process and hundreds of new residents’ vehicles will weaken the community’s infrastructure that much more.

1,500 new transient apartment dwellers may increase criminal activity in the area;

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,[E $=: ;:C:?>LA:<5 >G =>B47<KH 34 L@>L>4:; >< 5=: RVW 38@: L3@8:? TYVV B<754 >G

AB?57 G3A7?D @:<53?4 3<; RHZX[ L3@97<K 4L38:4 >< X\ >G 5=>4: 38@:4U 67?? =3C: 3 <:K357C: 7AL385 ><

AD L@>L:@5D C3?B:4S

The majority of respondents, 63%, agreed that the development of housing, as proposed, on the 128-acre parcel (722 units of multi-family rental and 1034 parking spaces on 35 acres) would have a negative impact on their property values. About 20% did not support this statement and 11% were not sure. The remaining 6% did not provide a response.


#5@::54 -$44/:& 2/ </&-$44/:&

</& -$:" </!"#4/(#"

=/&'% >+-&:""&

X':4./0"1 D7-"& *` * ()U'-4& 5#'&&# ( * ( [U'-#04 D7-"& [ + `Q0"1. D7-"& *( [ * Y (*a0%%. D7-"& (* Y R Y(a0%.$4 D7-"& ] * ( * *)Z043%&'@6 X$:7&;-'3 ^ Y ( *(Z:#6&' D7-"&B T-'7&< D7-"& b ,-.#/0"1 8;&4:& ^ ( Y *(Z<$4. D7-"& Y` *[ + ( ])N-30.$4 D7-"& R Y * + *]5$:#6 R]#6 5#'&&# *[ * + * (*5:??$71 D7-"& *( ` + * (]$>53? *[Y +R (] *^ (++

)

()

+)

])

R)

*))

*()

*+)

*])

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

19

About 30% of all respondents expressed some ambivalence about the response options for this question. They felt that, in this instance, the designated response options (“Support” or “Do not support”) were incongruent with “agree” or “do not agree” and that checking “support” might be interpreted to mean they support actions that may have a negative impact on their property values. After receiving clarification, respondents always selected the “Support” option. Overall, respondents who selected the “Do not support” option were among those who completed the survey without the benefit of a surveyor coordinator present to provide clarification. Even in those instances when a surveyor returned to retrieve a completed survey, clarification of that item tended to yield a “Support” response.

'=3<K:4 5=35 6>B?; O39: 5=: F@>L>4:; ,:C:?>LA:<5 "88:L53I?:

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,\E %=35 8=3<K:4 6>B?; D>B <::; 5> 4:: 5> 5=: L@>L>4:; ;:C:?>LA:<5 G>@ 75 5> I:

388:L53I?: T:SKSH ?:44 ;:<475DH 47<K?: G3A7?D =>B4:4H 4:<7>@ =>B47<KH A>@: ^:8> G@7:<;?D_ ;:47K<U]

) [) *)) *[) ())

X:073 T$9&. D&' U:''&4# c$404@

H$ U6-4@&.

I9A'$;& d:-70#< $? U$99:40#< Z0?&

D'&.&';& 8. !A&4 5A-"&

!#6&'

Q$4\# O4$/

H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

When asked what changes they would need to see to the proposed development for it to be acceptable, 244 respondents provided 311 varied responses to this open-ended question. The table below displays Survey Question D5 data by numbers and percentages.

*:4L><4: <$5?": `

X:073 T$9&. D&' U:''&4# c$404@ *]] [YC+eH$ U6-4@&. [] *RC)eI9A'$;& d:-70#< $? U$99:40#< Z0?& *R [CReD'&.&';& 8. !A&4 5A-"& ** YC[e!#6&' Y *C)eQ$4\# O4$/ Y *C)eH$ 2&.A$4.& [+ *^C+eS$#-7 Y** *))e

Fifty-six respondents (18%) responded that no changes to the proposed plans would make the development acceptable. Many respondents even wrote the following compelling statements to express how strongly they felt about the proposed development:

^+> 8=3<K:4S 2:3C: 34 74S_

^+><:S +> A>@: IB7?;7<KS_

^+><:a F?:34: ?:3C: B4 3?><:S_

^+> 8=3<K:4S & ;> <>5 4BLL>@5 75S_

^+><:S ,> <>5 ;:C:?>L >< 5=: RVW 38@:4S_

^+> 7<8@:34:S & ;> <>5 4BLL>@5 75 35 3??S & 5=7<9 75 67?? =3C: 3 <:K357C: 7AL385S_

For those willing to consider some form of development with conditions, responses were grouped together resulting in four categories: 1) Build Homes Per Current Zoning; 2) Improve Quality of Community Life; 3) Preserve As Open Space; and 4) “Other.”

Slightly over 53% of the total survey responses were in support of building homes under the current single family zoning on the 35-acre parcel, however, many qualified their opinions:

^& 6>B?; @35=:@ <> IB7?;7<K IB5 7G 5=:D =3C: 5>H IB7?; 47<K?: G3A7?D =>A:4S_

^2:44 ;:<475Db:8> G@7:<;?DbB?57A35:?D <> ;:C:?>LA:<5 35 3??S_

^#7<K?: G3A7?D =>A:4H <> 35538=:; =>A:4S_

^& 5=7<9 4>A: 47<K?: G3A7?D =>A:4 3@: >9H IB5 <> 3L3@5A:<54a_

Six percent (6%) of the responses would support using the space to improve the quality of community life for Eastwick residents, and 4% were in favor of preserving the area as open space. One percent (1%) was in support of development of the parcel conditioned on “Other” services to help improve the quality of life for Eastwick residents.

An additional 1% checked “Don’t know.” Interestingly, 17% did not respond to this question at all, and when a select number of those respondents were asked why they left this item blank, they provided a range of responses including:

^+>5=7<K 4=>B?; I: IB7?5 I389 5=:@:S_

21

^& 3?@:3;D 8=:89:; 5=35 & ;><c5 4BLL>@5 3<D ;:C:?>LA:<5S_

^& 83<c5 5=7<9 >G 3<D 8=3<K:4 5=35 & 6>B?; G7<; 388:L53I?:S_

^& A>C:; =:@: G>@ 5=: >L:< 4L38: 3<; & ;><c5 63<5 5> 4:: 3<D5=7<K IB7?5 5=:@:S_

^$=:Dc@: K>7<K 5> ;> 6=35 5=:D 63<5 3<D63DS %=35 ;>:4 75 A355:@ 6=35 & 5=7<9]_

Ongoing community education and engagement may help to further clarify respondents’ feelings on this issue.

The overwhelming majority of survey respondents do not support development in the 128-acre parcel. However, when asked what changes would be needed for any proposed development to be acceptable, 166 respondents supported building homes per the current zoning. Ninety-four (94) of those responses (57%) were in support of building single family homes, while 18% favored eco-friendly homes, and 8% preferred less density development.

*:4L><4: 0@:39;>6<E #B@C:D QB:457>< ,\ b 0B7?; />A:4 F:@ 8B@@:<5 d><7<K

The table below further breaks down the most common response (Build Homes Per current Zoning) to Survey Question D5.

*:4L><4: <$5?": `

504@7& P-907< `+ []C]e,"$ P'0&437< Y) *RC*e5&40$' T$9&. (^ *]CYeZ&.. Q&4.0#< *+ RC+eQ0.-%7&3 T$:.04@ * )C]eS$#-7 *]] *))e

The remaining respondents supported housing for seniors (16%) and housing for people with disabilities (1%). These responses were also in support of housing under the current zoning — single family homes.

)

*)

()

Y)

+)

[)

])

^)

R)

`)

*))

Q0.-%7&3 T$:.04@ Z&.. Q&4.0#< 5&40$' T$9&. ,"$ P'0&437< 504@7& P-907<

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

Again, as single family homes are of lower density than the proposed development of apartment buildings, it can be concluded that all 100% of the responses in this category were in support of the same thing: if there is to be any development in this area it should be lower density, eco-friendly development.

Improving the quality of life was the condition some respondents required for accepting development on the 35-acre parcel. About 56% (10 of 18 respondents) of the responses in this category were in support of a swimming pool in this location as a means to achieving that objective. Another 17% (three of 18 respondents) favored a community recreation center/gym. Six percent (6%) supported having a playground in the community and 6% favored having a restaurant. Another 6% (one of 18 respondents) opted for a senior center at Pepper Middle School while an additional 6% supported having a walking trail. Six percent (6%) also indicated that having a welcome center in this location would make the proposed development acceptable.

The responses in support of preserving the 128-acre parcel as open space were sorted into three additional groups. Forty-six percent (five of 11 respondents) supported “Use as Open Space,” 36% (four of 11 respondents) favored “Use for Refuge” and the remaining 18% (two of 11 respondents) preferred that the land be designated for “Use as Wetlands.”

The remaining three responses supporting development of the parcel conditioned on “Other” services to help improve the quality of life for Eastwick residents” also speak to the need for more education and resources targeted at flood mitigation, and for more environmentally and ecologically sound development practices.

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,eE %>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 5=: ;:C:?>LA:<5 >G =>B47<K >< 5=: RVW 3@8: L3@8:? 7G 3< ><

475: 45>@A635:@ A3<3K:A:<5 4D45:A 8>B?; I: ;:47K<:; 5> 47K<7G783<5?D A757K35: G?>>;7<KH <>5 NB45

G>@ >< 475: @:47;:<54H IB5 G>@ 5=>4: ?7C7<K 7< 5=: 4B@@>B<;7<K 3@:3]

)

()

+)

])

R)

*))

*()

Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

23

The table below displays Survey Question D6 data by numbers and percentages.

*:4L><4:4 <$5?": `

Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# *() +`C(e5:AA$'# `Y YRC*eH$# 5:'& (^ **C*eH$ 2&.A$4.& + *C]eS$#-7 (++ *))e

When asked if they would support the development of housing on the 128-arce parcel if an on-site storm water management system could be designed to significantly mitigate flooding for on-site residents and for those living in the surrounding area, about 49% of respondents would not support development at this location even with added flood mitigation measures in place.

Around 38% of the respondents would support development under these conditions and 11% were not sure if they would support development on the 128-acre parcel even if an on-site storm water management system could be designed to significantly mitigation flooding. About 2% did not respond.

As many as 53% of the respondents would not support development of houses or apartments in an alternative location north of 84th Street, even if that would reduce density of or eliminate development on the 128-acre parcel.

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,YE %>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 ;:C:?>LA:<5 >G =>B4:4 >@ 3L3@5A:<54 7< 3< 3?5:@<357C:

?>8357>< >< C383<5 L3@8:?4 ?>835:; <>@5= >G W[5= #5@::5 7< !3456789H 7G 5=35 6>B?; @:;B8: ;:<475D >G >@

:?7A7<35: ;:C:?>LA:<5 >< 5=: RVW 38@: L3@8:?]

Nearly 32% would support development in an alternative location and about 13% were not sure. The remaining 2% did not respond.

)

()

+)

])

R)

*))

*()

*+)

Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# *Y) [YCYe5:AA$'# ^^ Y*C]eH$# 5:'& Y( *YC*eH$ 2&.A$4.& [ (C)eS$#-7 (++ *))e

F@:4:@C7<K 5=: RVW "8@:4 34 3 )?>>; O757K357>< #D45:A

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,WE %>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 L@:4:@C7<K 5=: RVW L3@8:? 5> GB<857>< 34 3 <35B@3? G?>>;7<K

A757K357>< 4D45:A 5> =:?L A757K35: 835345@>L=78 G?>>;7<K 3<; 4:3 ?:C:? @74: 7< !3456789 7G 4B8= 3

4D45:A 8>B?; =:?L ?>6:@ G?>>; 7<4B@3<8: @35:4]

Of the 244 respondents who completed this survey, 207 (85%) would support preserving the 128-acre parcel to function as a natural flooding mitigation system to help mitigate catastrophic flooding and sea level rise in Eastwick if such a system could help lower flood insurance rates.


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# ()^ R+CReQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# (+ `CReH$# 5:'& ` YC^eH$ 2&.A$4.& + *C]eS$#-7 (++ *))e

Around 10% of the respondents would not support preserving the 128-acres for flood mitigation even if it could help lower flood insurance rates. About 4% were not sure and 2% did not respond.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

25

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,fE %>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 L@:4:@C7<K 5=: RVW L3@8:? 5> GB<857>< 34 3 <35B@3? G?>>;7<K

A757K357>< 4D45:A 5> =:?L A757K35: 835345@>L=78 G?>>;7<K 3<; 4:3 ?:C:? @74: 7< !3456789 7G 4B8= 3

4D45:A%1g2, +1$ =:?L ?>6:@ G?>>; 7<4B@3<8: @35:4]

When asked if they would support preserving the 128-acre parcel to function as a natural flood mitigation system if such a system WOULD NOT help lower flood insurance rates, 50% would support a flood mitigation system even if it did not lower their flood insurance rates, 39% would not support a flood mitigation system that would not lower their flood insurance, 9% were not sure and 2% did not respond.


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# *(Y [)C+eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# `+ YRC[eH$# 5:'& (Y `C+eH$ 2&.A$4.& + *C]eS$#-7 (++ *))e

While most residents are aware of flooding conditions in Eastwick and how climate change and development may exacerbate these conditions, some respondents expressed that they needed to have more information about the impacts of climate change and development on existing and future flooding conditions in the area to make more informed decisions about any development at all. Others seemed unaware that they should even be concerned about future projections of sea level rise and the possibility of increased flooding in their community. These responses point to a need for on-going community education and engagement about critical issues that could impact the community’s future.

)

()

+)

])

R)

*))

*()

*+)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

F@:4:@C: 5=: RVW "8@:4 34 1L:< #L38:

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,RZE &G G:;:@3? A><:D 8>B?; I: G>B<; 5> LB@8=34: 5=: RVW 38@:4 5> L@:4:@C: 75 34

>L:< 4L38: h :SKS G>@ 3 ?3<; 5@B45 3 L3@9H >@ 7< 8><NB<857>< 675= 5=: *:GBK:b675= 47K<7G783<5 LBI?78

388:44 5> 5=: ?3<;H 6>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 5=: LB@8=34:]

If federal money could be found to purchase the 128 acres to preserve it as open space – e.g., for a land trust, a park, or in conjunction with the Refuge -- with significant public access to the land, 82% of respondents would support this action. Approximately 10% would not support it, 7% were not sure and 1% did not respond.


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# *`` R*C]eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# ([ *)C(eH$# 5:'& *^ ^C)eH$ 2&.A$4.& Y *C(eS$#-7 (++ *))e

)

()

+)

])

R)

*))

*()

*+)

*])

*R)

())

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

27

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,RRS %=35 8=3<K:4 5> 5=: RVW 38@: L3@8:? 6>B?; I: <:8:443@D G>@ D>B 5> 4BLL>@5

5=: >L57>< >G L@:4:@C7<K 5=: RVW 38@:4 34 >L:< 4L38: T:SKS I:55:@ A37<5:<3<8:H @:45>@357>< >G

6:5?3<;4H LBI?78 388:44H 8>AAB<75D K3@;:<4H G:<87<KH :58SU]

The table below displays Survey Question D11 data by numbers and percentages. As with all open-ended questions, analyzing the data can be quite challenging. Survey Question D11 was no exception. Reading the nearly 400 responses was time consuming, but also rewarding as several trends began to emerge. These trends, or ideas, in response to the question, “What changes to the 128-acre parcel would be necessary for them to support the option of preserving the 128 acres as open space (e.g., better maintenance, restoration of wetlands, public access, community gardens, fencing, etc.)” were sorted into 10 categories as shown in the chart below.

*:4L><4: <$5?": `

I4"'&-.& D:%70" f U$99:40#< 8""&.. *YY YYC^eX&##&' N-04#&4-4"& ^^ *`C[eF.& -. V&#7-43. ]Y *[C`eP&4"04@ YY RC+eH$ U6-4@&. (^ ]CRe,M#&43 2&?:@& ] *C[e5&":'0#< Y )CReI9A'$;& I''0@-#0$4 * )CYeQ$4\# O4$/ Y )CReH$ 2&.A$4.& +` *(C+eS$#-7 Y`[ *))e

Of the 133 respondents who selected “Increase Public/Community Access,, 48% (64 respondents) would like to use some of the space as a community garden. Over a quarter (26%) were nonspecific, indicating only “Community/Public Access” as their preference. A “Park/Walking Path” was preferred by 19% while 2% would like to have a welcome center in this location. Other suggestions by individual

) () +) ]) R) *)) *() *+)

I4"'&-.& D:%70" f U$99:40#<8""&..X&##&' N-04#&4-4"&

F.& -. V&#7-43.

P&4"04@

H$ U6-4@&.

,M#&43 2&?:@&

5&":'0#<

I9A'$;& I''0@-#0$4

Q$4\# O4$/

H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

respondents included using the space for better traffic flow, a dog park, an education center or as single-family homes, the latter indicating that the respondent may not have understood the question.

The chart and table below illustrate further break down of the most common response (Increase Public / Community Access) to Survey Question D11.

*:4L><4: 0@:39;>6<E #B@C:D QB:457>< ,RR b &<8@:34: FBI?78 i '>AAB<75D "88:44

*:4L><4:E &<8@:34: FBI?78 i '>AAB<75D "88:44 <$5?": `

U$99:40#< a-'3&4 ]+ +RC*eU$99:40#< f D:%70" 8""&.. Y[ (]CYeD-'1 f V-7104@ D-#6 *` *+CYe2&"'&-#0$4 f U$99:40#< U&4#&' R ]C)eV&7"$9& U&4#&' Y (CYeX&##&' S'-??0" P7$/ * )CReQ$@ D-'1 * )CRe,3:"-#0$4 U&4#&' * )CRe504@7& P-907< T$9&. * )CReS$#-7 *YY *))e

When reviewing the different “Public/Community Access” uses suggested by respondents, most (87%) point to preserving the 128-acre parcel as open space. The 1% of “Don’t Know” responses and the 12% of “No Responses” are the only tentative responses. Even the 7% of “No Changes” responses speak directly to maintaining the 128 acres as open-space by leaving the area just the way it is.

) () +) ]) R)

U$99:40#< a-'3&4

U$99:40#< f D:%70" 8""&..

D-'1 f V-7104@ D-#6

2&"'&-#0$4 f U$99:40#< U&4#&'

V&7"$9& U&4#&'

X&##&' S'-?0" P7$/

Q$@ D-'1

,3:"-#0$4 U&4#&'

504@7& P-907< T$9&.

29

#B@C:D QB:457>< ,RVS %>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 5=: LB@8=34: 3<; L@:4:@C357>< >G 5=: RVW 38@:4 34 >L:<

4L38:H :C:< 7G 5=74 >B58>A: A7K=5 I: 7< ?7:B >G >5=:@ <:K>5735:; I:<:G754 5> 5=: 8>AAB<75D G@>A

(>@A3<]

Just over half, (51%) of the survey respondents, support the purchase and preservation of the 128 acres as open space, even if this outcome might be in lieu of other negotiated benefits to the community from Korman Residential Properties. 24% do not support the purchase and preservation

)

()

+)

])

R)

*))

*()

*+)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

of the 128 acres as open space, even if this outcome might be in lieu of other negotiated benefits to the community from Korman Residential Properties. An additional 24% were not sure whether to support or not to support the purchase and preservation of the 128 acres as open space, even if this outcome might be in lieu of other negotiated benefits to the community and 1% did not respond.


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# *(+ [)CReQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# [R (YCReH$# 5:'& [` (+C(eH$ 2&.A$4.& Y *C(eS$#-7 (++ *))e

When reviewing the overall data for this report, all indications point to respondents overwhelmingly being in support of preserving the 128 acres as green space. In addition to the those respondents who placed a strong value on preserving the 128 acres for green space and/or a mechanism for flood mitigation in the questions above, a full 51% support doing so irrespective of any other gain that might result from negotiating with potential developers. However, nearly half of the respondents express caution or uncertainty about preserving the 128 acres in its entirety when other benefits to the community might be at stake. These responses indicate both a deep concern for the wellbeing of the community and the need for additional community education and engagement to help residents and stakeholders hear from each other, build consensus, and make more informed decisions about the future of their community.

31

-".&,/( 81

@./(/5,. 2"3"%/45"(&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

'>AAB<75D !8><>A78 ,:C:?>LA:<5

#B@C:D QB:457>< !RXS 1B@ 8>AAB<75D 4=>B?; =3C: 3< :GG:857C: ?>83? 8>AAB<75Di :8><>A78

;:C:?>LA:<5 >@K3<7j357><T4U @:4L><47I?: G>@ :8><>A78H 4>873?H =>B47<K ;:C:?>LA:<5H 3<; >5=:@

744B:4 3GG:857<K >B@ 8>AAB<75DS

The table below displays Survey Question E13 data by numbers and percentages.

*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# (() `)C(eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# *] ]C]eH$# 5:'& ^ (C`eH$ 2&.A$4.& * )C+eS$#-7 (++ *))e

Over 90% of all survey respondents see a great need for their community to have effective local community and economic development organizations responsible for addressing economic, social, housing development, and other issues affecting the Eastwick community. Only 7% did not see a need for community economic development in Eastwick and 3% were not sure if Eastwick needed any community economic development at all. Less than half of 1% (0.4%) did not respond.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

33

#B@C:D QB:457>< !R[S $=: 8>AAB<75D 4=>B?; =3C: 3< 3857C: IB47<:44 ;:C:?>LA:<5 L@>K@3A 5>

:<8>B@3K: 3<; 4BLL>@5 :M7457<K 3<; <:6 IB47<:44:4 34 6:?? 34 5> 344745 <:6 IB47<:44 675= 5=:7@ 453@5

BL 744B:4S


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# (** R]C[eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# *` ^CReH$# 5:'& ** +C[eH$ 2&.A$4.& Y *C(eS$#-7 (++ *))e

About 87% of survey respondents support having an active business development program to encourage and support existing and new businesses as well as to assist new businesses with start-up issues. Eight percent (8%) do not support having a program to encourage and support new and existing businesses and nearly 5% were not sure. Less than half of 1% (0.4%) did not respond.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

#B@C:D QB:457>< !R\S *:537? ;:C:?>LA:<5 4=>B?; :AL=347j: 3 ?>83? :8><>AD 675= ;7C:@4: IB47<:44:4

7<45:3; >G 5=: 8B@@:<5 G>8B4 >< 4BIB@I3< 45D?: A3??4 675= L@7A3@7?D ?3@K: 8=37< 45>@:4 3<; G345 G>>;

@:453B@3<54


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# *^] ^(C*eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# +( *^C(eH$# 5:'& ([ *)C(eH$ 2&.A$4.& * )C+eS$#-7 (++ *))e

When asked about diverse businesses versus the current mall setup, 72% agreed that retail development should emphasize a local economy with diverse businesses instead of the current focus on suburban-style malls with primarily large chain stores and fast food restaurants. Around 17% do not support changing the current business arrangement to a more diverse model. About 10% were not sure and less than 1% did not respond.

k383<5 #5>@:G@><54

There is significant concern in the Eastwick community about vacant storefronts in the PennRose Plaza shopping center.

)

()

+)

])

R)

*))

*()

*+)

*])

*R)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

#B@C:D QB:457>< !ReS !3456789 <::;4 3 4>?B57>< 5> C383<5 45>@:G@><54S


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# ((( `*C)eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# *) +C*eH$# 5:'& *) +C*eH$ 2&.A$4.& ( )CReS$#-7 (++ *))e

An overwhelming 91% of the survey respondents agreed that there is a need for a solution to vacant storefronts in Eastwick, while 4% did not agree. Another 4% were not sure and about 1% did not respond.

While this survey does not attempt to determine the underlying causes for the number of vacant storefronts, it does acknowledge that this is a substantial problem in Eastwick’s PennRose Plaza Shopping Center with approximately 50% of the storefronts currently vacant.

Some residents believe that storeowners are charged excessively high rents, which prohibits startup businesses from opening up in PennRose Plaza, or being able to sustain themselves for any considerable length of time, and that even large chain stores like Kmart eventually succumb to the weight of high rents against low profit margins.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

39

$DL:4 >G 0B47<:44:4 3<; #:@C78:4 +::;:; 7< !3456789

#B@C:D QB:457>< !RYS &< D>B@ >L7<7><H 6=35 5DL: >G IB47<:44:4 3<; 4:@C78:4 ;> <>5 :M745 7< !3456789

3<; 4=>B?; I: 3 L@7>@75D G>@ 5=: <:7K=I>@=>>;]


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

2&#-07 ^^ *`C[eU$99:40#< 843 U:7#:'-7 !'@-40K-#0$4. [R *+C^ea'$"&'0&. -43 ,-#&'0&. [^ *+C+eX:.04&.. 5&';0"&. +( *)C]e2&"'&-#0$4 -43 P0#4&.. ([ ]CYeN$;0& S6&-#&' *` +CRe,M0.#04@ a$;&'49&4# 5&';0"&. S$ X& I9A'$;&3 *[ YCReI9A'$;& U709-#& P$' 59-77fZ$"-7 X:.04&.. *[ YCReQ$4\# O4$/ [ *CYeH$ U6-4@&. ( )C[eH$ 2&.A$4.& R) ()CYeS$#-7 Y`[ *))e

Despite the abundance of vacant storefronts, 308 (78%) of the 395 responses to this survey item were in agreement that Eastwick could benefit from additional businesses and services that do not currently exist in the community. Slightly over 1% was unsure of any types of businesses and services the community may need and only 2 (0.5%) of the 395 responses were for “No Changes“. Approximately 20% did not respond.

The 308 (78%) responses in support of the idea that certain priority businesses and services do not exist in Eastwick, were sorted into the following eight corresponding categories: “Retail,” “Community

) () +) ]) R)

2&#-07

U$99:40#< 843 U:7#:'-7!'@-40K-#0$4.a'$"&'0&. -43 ,-#&'0&.

X:.04&.. 5&';0"&.

2&"'&-#0$4 -43 P0#4&..

N$;0& S6&-#&'

,M0.#04@ a$;&'49&4# 5&';0"&. S$ X&I9A'$;&3I9A'$;& U709-#& P$' 59-77fZ$"-7X:.04&..Q$4\# O4$/

H$ U6-4@&.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

and Cultural Organizations,” “Groceries and Eateries,” “Business Services,” “Recreation and Fitness,” “Movie Theater,” “Existing Government Services to be Improved,” and “Improve Climate for Small/Local Businesses.” With the exception of the “Movie Theater” category, the remaining seven categories were further categorized to reflect the varied types of businesses and services respondents felt were lacking in their community.

A total of the 77 (20%) of the 308 responses for businesses and services in Eastwick were in support of more Retail Stores. This category was further divided into two smaller groups to reflect the specific types of retail stores respondents felt the community lacked.

Thirty-nine percent (39%) of those in favor of more Retail in Eastwick support having a Specialty store that carries a wide variety of products. About 14% support having a large home improvement store in the community and 14% agreed that an apparel store is needed.

Ten percent (10%) would like to have a major department store in the community that carries high quality merchandise, while 8% support having a bookstore in the immediate vicinity. Approximately 5% of the responses were in favor of having a shoe store and 9% of the responses were equally divided in support of an auto shop, a fabric store and a furniture store. The remaining 1% supported having a florist in the community.

Of those responses that were in support of having more community and cultural organizations in Eastwick, 72% supported having more youth and community center resources, 26% supported having a senior center in the area and 2% would like to see a culturally based organization in Eastwick.

Healthier food options was the theme that resonated among the responses grouped in the groceries and eateries category with 54% of the responses in support of more family-style “sit down” restaurants that serve healthier meals. These food choices were in direct contrast to the fast food restaurants so prevalent in Eastwick’s PennRose Plaza and immediate vicinity.

Having access to healthier food options (whether in restaurants or health food stores), that did not require traveling outside of the community, was important to 23% of the respondents. About 16% were even in favor of having a farmer’s market in Eastwick. Three percent (3%) supported having a bakery in the community. Access to an ice cream shop was supported by 2% of respondents, as was access to a coffee shop.

The above grouping of 42 responses (which is 11% of the total 395 responses for businesses thst residents felt were lacking in Eastwick), were in support of a wide range of services. This variation in responses is further indication that residents could benefit from community education and engagement to help assess which services are actually needed and can be adequately supported by local residents, particularly in light of the many vacant storefronts in the PennRose Plaza Shopping Center.

41

Twenty-five (25) responses were in favor of recreation and fitness in Eastwick. Of that number, 15 (60%) of the responses were in support of a park and walking trail. Six responses were in favor of a gym and a single response was in support of a pool, yoga studio, skating rink, and fitness studio.

Of the survey respondents who agreed that the Eastwick community could benefit from additional businesses and services, 15 supported improvement of existing government services. Two supported the creation of a pedestrian crossing on 84th Street and two additional responses were in favor of services to mitigate flooding. An additional two responses were in support of a police station or security in the area and two responses supported trash removal and street cleaning.

One respondent each expressed their support for: extended library hours; identifying an alternate non-residential driving course; improving city services; localized municipal service; a post office; and preservation of existing homes and social services.

There were a total of 15 responses in support of “Improving the Climate For Small/Local Business.” These responses were sorted into 10 categories that further illustrate the community’s need for economic development, while also underscoring the fact that there are widely divergent views as to how this can be achieved.

For instance, three responses were in support of “Career Resources/Job Training Facility,” and there were two responses each in support of “Counselors For Small Businesses,” “Create Eastwick Business District,” and “Small Businesses.” The remaining six responses were equally divided among the remaining six categories (Bank, Economic Development Corporation, Get Rid of Kmart, Land Ownership, Lower Rents for Businesses, Minority Businesses), which respondents supported as the types of business and services they felt were needed in Eastwick.

Although many responses throughout this survey point to some of Eastwick’s most pressing needs, the responses to Survey Question E17 in particular offer the most compelling evidence of the need for community education and engagement to offer residents and stakeholders an opportunity to build consensus around the available resources that already exist in the community and to accurately assess and prioritize gaps in services.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

$>B@74A 34 3 #5@35:KD G>@ !8><>A78 ,:C:?>LA:<5

#B@C:D QB:457>< !RWS $>B@74A =34 I::< ;748B44:; 34 3 45@35:KD G>@ :8><>A78 ;:C:?>LA:<5 3<; =>I

8@:357>< 7< !3456789S $=: ,:L3@5A:<5 >G '>AA:@8: >@ >5=:@ :<575D 4=>B?; 4L><4>@ 3 G:347I7?75D 45B;D

>< 5=: L>5:<573? G>@ 8>AAB<75D I34:; 5>B@74A 7< !3456789S


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# *]] ]RC)eH$# 5:'& Y^ *[C(eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# Y[ *+CYeH$ 2&.A$4.& ] (C[eS$#-7 (++ *))e

Tourism has been discussed as a strategy for economic development and job creation in Eastwick, and when asked if the Department of Commerce or another entity should sponsor a feasibility study on the potential for community-based tourism in Eastwick, 68% supported this idea. 15% did not support a feasibility study on the potential for community-based tourism, 14% were unsure about the possibility of a study to determine how tourism might be able to spur economic development and job creation in Eastwick and 2.5% did not respond.

)

()

+)

])

R)

*))

*()

*+)

*])

*R)

5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$ 2&.A$4.&

43

-".&,/( A1

B%//),(C '() B%//) D(#$:'(."

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

#3G:5D >G !M7457<K *:47;:<54

#B@C:D QB:457>< )RfS $=: 43G:5D >G :M7457<K @:47;:<54 AB45 539: L@7>@75D >C:@ L@>L:@5D ;:C:?>LA:<5

G>@ A>@: @:47;:<54S +> <:6 ;:C:?>LA:<5 4=>B?; I: 8><5:AL?35:; 7< !3456789 B<57? 3 8>AAB<75D

;@7C:< 3<; 4BLL>@5:; :A:@K:<8D @:4L><4: 3<; :C38B357>< L?3< 74 3;>L5:;S

The table below displays Survey Question F19 data by numbers and percentages.

*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# ((Y `*C+eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# R YCYeH$# 5:'& ` YC^eH$ 2&.A$4.& + *C]eS$#-7 (++ *))e

Over 91% of the residents in the targeted area (233 out of the 244 who responded to the survey) agreed that the safety of existing residents must take priority over property development for new residents and that no new development should be contemplated in Eastwick until a community-driven and supported emergency response and evacuation plan is adopted. Only eight (3%) of the 244 respondents did not agree and 4% were not sure. About 2% did not respond.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

45

'>AAB<75D #BLL>@5:; )?>>; O3<3K:A:<5 F?3<

#B@C:D QB:457>< )VZS F@7>@ 5> 3LL@>C7<K 3<D <:6 ;:C:?>LA:<5H 5=: 875D 4=>B?; L@:L3@: 3

8>AAB<75D 4BLL>@5:; G?>>; A3<3K:A:<5 L?3< 5=35 ?>>94 35 43G:5D G>@ 5=: 6=>?: 635:@4=:;S


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# ((R `YC+eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# ` YC^eH$# 5:'& ( )CReH$ 2&.A$4.& [ (C)eS$#-7 (++ *))e

The majority of residents, 93%, also agreed that prior to approving any new development, the city should prepare a community-supported flood management plan that looks at safety for the whole watershed. About 4% did not agree, 1% was not sure and 2% did not respond.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

" )B<; $=35 #BI47;7j:4 )?>>; &<4B@3<8: F@:A7BA4

#B@C:D QB:457>< )VRS "<D ;:C:?>LA:<5 4=>B?; I: @:PB7@:; 5> 8><5@7IB5: 5> 3 GB<; 5=35 4BI47;7j:4

G?>>; 7<4B@3<8: L@:A7BA4 6=:@: )!O" 3<; A>@5K3K: 8>AL3<7:4 4=3?? @:PB7@: G?>>; 7<4B@3<8:S


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# (*[ RRC*eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# *Y [CYeH$# 5:'& ` YC^eH$ 2&.A$4.& ^ (C`eS$#-7 (++ *))e

88% agreed that any new development should be required to contribute to a fund that subsidizes flood insurance premiums where FEMA and mortgage companies require flood insurance. While 5% of all survey respondents did not support this potential measure, 4% were unsure and 3% did not respond.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

47

-".&,/( E1

*,:4/:& @F4'(#,/(

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

"7@L>@5 3<; '>AAB<75D 0>B<;3@7:4

#B@C:D QB:457>< "VVS $=: #!F$" "7@L>@5 ?7<:H 03@5@3A "C:<B: 3<; & f\ 4:L3@35: 5=: "7@L>@5 G@>A 5=:

@:47;:<573? 8>AAB<75DS $=:4: I>B<;3@7:4 4=>B?; I: @:4L:85:;

The table below displays Survey Question A22 data by numbers and percentages.

*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# ((] `(C]eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# ] (C[eH$# 5:'& ^ (C`eH$ 2&.A$4.& [ (C)eS$#-7 (++ *))e

While no specific plan for expansion of airport accessory uses has been shared publicly, as of the printing of this report, the transfer of 93 acres of open space to the City of Philadelphia for use by the PHL was proposed in 2012. Nearly all of the survey respondents (93%) believed that the boundaries between the Eastwick community and the Airport, which consist of the SEPTA Airport line and Bartram Avenue as well as I-95, should be respected and that no Airport expansion should extend beyond these borders. Only 3% of the survey respondents did not agree, 3% were not sure and 2 did not respond.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

49

"7@L>@5 "88:44>@7:4 *:47;:<54 %>B?; )7<; "88:L53I?:

#B@C:D QB:457>< "VXS "@: 5=:@: 3<D 5DL:4 >G "7@L>@5 388:44>@D B4:4 5=35 D>B 6>B?; G7<; 388:L53I?:

5> L?38: 7< !3456789 T:SKS 47<K?: 45>@D L3@97<KH AB?57 45>@D L3@97<KH 83@ @:<53?H 4=7LL7<K G387?757:4H

=>4L753?75DU]

) () +) ]) R) *)) *() *+)

H$4&

T$.A0#-70#<

D-'104@

U-' 2&4#-7

560AA04@ P-"070#<

5&';0"&.

2&.#-:'-4#

S$:'0.9

Q$4\# O4$/

H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

H$4& *(( +^C^eT$.A0#-70#< (] *)C(eD-'104@ ** +CYeU-' 2&4#-7 ] (CYe560AA04@ P-"070#< [ (C)e5&';0"&. + *C]e2&.#-:'-4# * )C+eS$:'0.9 * )C+eQ$4\# O4$/ R YC*eH$ 2&.A$4.& ^( (RC*eS$#-7 ([] *))e

Nearly half, 122, of the 256 survey responses in this category, indicated that there are no Airport accessory uses that would be acceptable to place in Eastwick. Twenty-six of the responses were in support of some form of hospitality services. Eleven responses were in support of some form of parking facility and, even among that small number who did support parking as an Airport accessory that they would find acceptable, five responses were only in support of services that would improve Eastwick SEPTA Rail Parking and safety monitoring on Mario Lanza Boulevard for individuals who use the SEPTA Rail.

Only three responses were in support of multi-story parking as an acceptable Airport accessory and 2 responses were in support of single-story parking. Only one response supported off-street parking as an acceptable Airport accessory to be placed in Eastwick.

Of the 256 responses for or against any types of airport accessory uses in Eastwick, a total of 3 responses supported services in the form of Jobs/Business Opportunities for Residents and one response was in favor of an airport shuttle.

51

27C7<K %3K:4H 0:<:G754 3<; $@37<7<K 35 5=: "7@L>@5

#B@C:D QB:457>< "V[S !)+' 4=>B?; 3??D 675= K@>BL4 4B8= 34 F1%!* TF=7?3;:?L=73<4 1@K3<7j:; 5>

%75<:44 !AL>6:@ 3<; *:IB7?;U 5> 8>AL:? 5=: "7@L>@5 5> @:PB7@: ?7C7<K 63K:4 3<; I:<:G754 34 6:?? 34

5@37<7<KH 6>@9G>@8: ;:C:?>LA:<5H 3<; 388:44 5> N>I4 35 F/2S


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# *`Y ^`C*eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# *+ [C^eH$# 5:'& YY *YC[eH$ 2&.A$4.& + *C]eS$#-7 (++ *))e

At the time that the survey was being conducted, the interfaith group Philadelphians Organized to Witness Empower and Rebuild (POWER) had recently initiated its campaign to raise wages for airport employees. When asked if EFNC should ally with groups such as POWER to compel the PHL to require living wages and benefits as well as training, workforce development, and access to jobs at PHL, 79% agreed. Only 6% did not agree, 14% were not sure and 2% did not respond.

)

()

+)

])

R)

*))

*()

*+)

*])

*R)

())

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

#B@C:D QB:457>< "V\S #>B5=6:45 @:47;:<54 4=>B?; =3C: G7@45 L@7>@75D G>@ 3<D N>I4 >@ N>I 5@37<7<K

L@>K@3A4 5=35 3@: 8@:35:; 34 3 @:4B?5 >G 37@L>@5 :ML3<47><S


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# ()` R[C^eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# () RC(eH$# 5:'& *Y [CYeH$ 2&.A$4.& ( )CReS$#-7 (++ *))e

86% of respondents also agreed that Southwest Philadelphia residents should have first priority for any jobs or job training programs that are created as a result of airport expansion. About 8% did not agree while 5% were unsure and 1% did not respond.

)

[)

*))

*[)

())

([)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

53

*:PB7@: 5=: "7@L>@5 5> '@:35: %:5?3<;4 >< 5=: RVW "8@:4

#B@C:D QB:457>< "VeS $=: F=7?3;:?L=73 &<5:@<357><3? "7@L>@5 74 @:PB7@:; 5> 8@:35: <:6 6:5?3<;4

I:83B4: 5=: :ML3<47>< >G 5:@A7<3?4 3<; @B<63D4 67?? ?:3; 5> 6:5?3<;4 ;:45@B857><S $=: "7@L>@5

4=>B?; 8@:35: 3 L>@57>< >G 5=>4: 6:5?3<;4 7< 5=: RVW 38@: L3@8:?S


*:4L><4: <$5?": `

5:AA$'# *^) ]`C^eQ$ H$# 5:AA$'# Y* *(C^eH$# 5:'& +) *]C+eH$ 2&.A$4.& Y *C(eS$#-7 (++ *))e

Since PHL is required to create new wetlands because the expansion of terminals and runways will lead to wetlands destruction, 70% of the survey respondents supported having the Airport create a portion of those wetlands in the 128-acre parcel, 13% do not support this idea and 16% were unsure. One percent (1%) did not respond.

)

()

+)

])

R)

*))

*()

*+)

*])

*R)

5:AA$'# Q$ H$# 5:AA$'# H$# 5:'& H$ 2&.A$4.&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

S60. A-@& 04#&4#0$4-77< 7&?# %7-41C

55

-".&,/( G1

-$:3"+!"#4/()"(&#H;:,/:,&,"# 6/: D54:/3,(C@'#&I,.J

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

*:47;:<54c +BAI:@ 1<: F@7>@75D G>@ &AL@>C7<K !3456789

When combining 45% of the responses in support of “The Environment” in the following chart, with the 10% of responses in support of “Promoting Environmentally and Ecologically Safe Development,” it is clear that the majority of respondents, 55%, cite environmental concerns as their number one priority for wanting to improve their community.

#B@C:D QB:457>< FVYS OD <BAI:@ ><: L@7>@75D G>@ 7AL@>C7<K !3456789 74E

Twenty-seven percent (27%) of the survey respondents cited “Community Development” as their number one priority for improving Eastwick. Eighteen percent (18%) checked “Don’t know” in response to this question and 1% did not respond.

The table below displays Survey Question P27 data by numbers and percentages.

*:4L><4: <$5?": `

S6& ,4;0'$49&4# *([ ++CReU$99:40#< Q&;&7$A9&4# ^] (^C(eD'$9$#& ,4;0'$49&4#-77< -43 ,"$7$@0"-77< 5-?&Q&;&7$A9&4# (^ `C^eQ$4\# O4$/ ( )C^eH$ 2&.A$4.& +` *^C]eS$#-7 (^` R(e

) () +) ]) R) *)) *() *+)

S6& ,4;0'$49&4#

U$99:40#< Q&;&7$A9&4#

D'$9$#& ,4;0'$49&4#-77< -43,"$7$@0"-77< 5-?& Q&;&7$A9&4#

Q$4\# O4$/

H$ 2&.A$4.&

57

Of the 125 respondents that listed the environment as their number one priority, 36% of them stated that “No Development/Preserve as Open Space” was their overall objective for wanting to improve Eastwick.

*:4L><4: 0@:39;>6<E #B@C:D QB:457>< FVY b $=: !<C7@><A:<5

Flood mitigation garnered 31% of the responses under the “Environment” category and 27% of the responses were in support of greater efforts made to control pollution in the area.

Xe`

XR`

VY`

e`

H$ Q&;&7$A9&4#fD'&.&';& !A&4 5A-"&

P7$$3 N0#0@-#0$4

U$4#'$7 D$77:#0$4

5#$A I77&@-7 Q:9A04@

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

The table below further breaks down the most common response (The Environment) to Survey Question P27.

*:4L><4:E $=: !<C7@><A:<5 <$5?": `

H$ Q&;&7$A9&4#fD'&.&';& !A&4 5A-"& +[ Y]C)eP7$$3 N0#0@-#0$4 Y` Y*C(eU$4#'$7 D$77:#0$4 Y+ (^C(e5#$A I77&@-7 Q:9A04@ ^ [C]eS$#-7 *([ *))e

The remaining 6% of respondents who expressed that the environment was their number one priority for wanting to improve Eastwick stated that they want to stop illegal dumping, which has plagued parts of Eastwick for decades (See Appendix 2: Spotlight on Illegal Dumping).

*:4L><4: 0@:39;>6<E #B@C:D QB:457>< FVY b '>AAB<75D ,:C:?>LA:<5

XZ`

Vf`

R\`

R[`

RV`

I4"'&-.& 5-?&#<

,??&"# !:#"$9&. #6-# ,46-4"& d:-70#<$? Z0?&

I4"'&-.& 2&"'&-#0$4 P-"070#0&.

D'$9$#& S$:'0.9

,4"$:'-@& U$99:40#< ,"$4$90"Q&;&7$A9&4#

59

The table below further breaks down the second most common response (Community Development) to Survey Question P27.

*:4L><4:E '>AAB<75D ,:C:?>LA:<5 <$5?": `

I4"'&-.& 5-?&#< (Y Y)CYe,??&"# !:#"$9&. #6-# ,46-4"& d:-70#< $? Z0?& (( (RC`eI4"'&-.& 2&"'&-#0$4 P-"070#0&. ** *+C[eD'$9$#& S$:'0.9 ** *+C[e,4"$:'-@& U$99:40#< ,"$4$90" Q&;&7$A9&4# ` **CReS$#-7 ^] *))e

The category of respondents that was most concerned with community development felt that this objective could best be achieved by increasing safety (30%), effecting outcomes that enhance quality of life (28%), increasing recreation facilities (15%), promoting tourism (15%) and encouraging community economic development (12%).

In addition to being a major eyesore, residents fear that large tractor-trailers left parked illegally in Eastwick, often for weeks at a time, can present a safety issue. There is a strong concern within the community that these vehicles may be used as decoys to commit robberies or other crimes against pedestrians, particularly after dark.

Those respondents who were interested in promoting environmentally and ecologically safe development as their number one priority for improving Eastwick were divided into five groups. The majority of respondents in this group, 41%, were most concerned with insuring that if building were to occur, it should be private residences (single-family homes)—as per the current zoning. Thirty percent (30%) supported single-family homes as an environmentally and ecologically safe development option, while 11% supported building senior housing. The remaining 4% wanted respect for the community’s input into the decision-making process for any development that would take place in Eastwick.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

61

-".&,/( K1

L/(.%$#,/( '() !"./55"()'&,/(#

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

'><8?B47>< 3<; *:8>AA:<;357><4E

Overwhelmingly, the survey respondents want the City of Philadelphia to engage in a community-wide, long-term economic redevelopment and land use planning process, where the community is actively involved and lead by someone Eastwick residents trust and in whom they have confidence. This process would also include ongoing community education and engagement initiatives to help facilitate an information exchange process. These initiatives could be in the form of community focus groups, regularly scheduled public meetings, social media and other forms of informational outreach.

As a critical part of the aforementioned planning process, the future expansion plans by the PHL for the portion of the 128-acre parcel or other parcels in Eastwick that could impact flooding and quality-of-life, must be clarified and discussed. However, any long-range planning must be shared with Eastwick residents so that the community may have a meaningful voice in what might occur in the future. There must be a mechanism or process established between the airport expansion entities and the community so that community land use planning is not left up to chance in Eastwick.

The survey respondents want to be full partners in the afore-mentioned planning process. The Philadelphia City Planning Commission has not created a plan for Eastwick since the 1957 Eastwick Urban Renewal Plan, which, one can assume, did not include community input as it called for the displacement of the majority of residents. Fifty years later, Eastwick residents are nervous that the City may not do what is best for the residents. The survey respondents feel strongly that they were blind-sided by the City in the distant past and again in the recent past. They do not want to be in a position where residents became aware that new projects by happenstance, as was recently the case, when a resident happened upon a land survey crew. The residents that participated in this survey, which include members of the EFNC, as well as EFNC-partnership organizations, have collectively spent tens of thousands of hours organizing and building relationships with the greater community, City, state and federal officials and agencies. This commitment of time, which could have been spent with family or earning a living, represents a huge investment on the part of Eastwick residents and supporters in a more economically sound and environmentally healthier Eastwick.

If an unbiased planning entity, along with full and open input from the community, deems any portion of the 128-acre parcel able to contain residential development, the only option that appears acceptable to respondents would be separate, single family units that are designed to be ecologically sustainable and that do not contribute to local flooding. However, many respondents prefer that the 128-acre parcel be preserved for use as green space and/or flood mitigation projects, particularly if those projects could make people safer, thus, reducing flood insurance rates.

The importance and priority the residents place on protecting the ecological and quality-of-life values of the 128-acre parcel from development, a substantial portion being located within the FEMA designated Special Flood Hazard Area, is supported by City and state officials and stormwater experts. The Philadelphia City Council finds that:

“…development along the existing rivers and creeks has led to increased flooding, thereby endangering the loss of property and life, creating health and safety hazards, and causing the expenditure of public funds for protection and relief. To prevent such adverse conditions, it is necessary to impose restrictions and regulations on development along rivers and creeks that are subject to flooding.” (

)

63

Pennsylvania Department of Environmental Protection affirms that floodplain protection is important, stating:

“Floodplains in their natural form are beneficial for a number of reasons: a) reducing the number and severity of floods, b) minimizing non-point source water pollution, c) filtering storm water, d) providing habitat for plants and animals, and e) aesthetic beauty and outdoor recreation benefits.” ( )

And StormwaterPA.org finds that:

“To minimize stormwater impacts, land development should avoid affecting and encroaching upon areas with important natural stormwater functional values (floodplains, wetlands, riparian areas, drainageways, others) and with stormwater impact sensitivities (steep slopes, adjoining properties, others) wherever practicable. This avoidance should occur site-by-site and on an area wide basis. Development should not occur in areas where sensitive/special value resources exist so that their valuable natural functions are not lost, thereby doubling or tripling stormwater impacts.” ( )

As residents felt strongly about protecting the environment, resolving the localized and catastrophic flooding and preserving open space, it is recommended that a community-wide ecological assessment and restoration plan be conducted to determine how flooding, open space preservation and other environmental quality-of-life issues can be effectively addressed.

+>6H A>C7<K G>@63@;H !3456789 4::94 5=: G>??>67<KE

Economic resources to establish an organizational presence that can serve as a comprehensive communications link throughout the Eastwick community;

Support from the City of Philadelphia and elected officials to engage with Commonwealth of Pennsylvania’s Insurance Department and other appropriate state and federal insurance agencies to assess the equity of rising flood insurance premiums throughout Eastwick;

An assessment, by the City’s new flood task force, regarding how Eastwick residents would benefit from FEMA’s Community Rating System (CRS). The CRS program increases public and property safety, and participation by the City could further its resiliency to floods, storm surges and sea level rise, especially in the flood-prone area of Eastwick;

A community-wide public health assessment to discern any potential linkages between pollution sources and community health issues, such as, but not limited to, respiratory and cancer related conditions;

A community-based participatory planning process, in partnership with city agencies and elected officials; and

A floodplain restoration assessment for the 128-acre parcel to determine the added flood mitigation protection capabilities and community benefits that would come from a fully-restored and naturally-functioning floodplain.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

65

-".&,/( M1

*44"(),."#

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

67

"LL:<;7M R

-$:3"+ D(#&:$5"(&

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

S60. A-@& 04#&4#0$4-77< 7&?# %7-41C

69

!"#$%&'( )*&!+,# - +!&./01*# '1"2&$&1+,-.#/0"1PHUg@9-07C"$9 P-"&%$$1f,-.#/0"1PHU///C,-.#/0"1P'0&43.C/$'3A'&..C"$9 S/0##&' g,-.#/0"1PHUDC!C X$M *]`R[ D607-3&7A60-B D8 *`*+(

!"#$%&'( *!#&,!+$# "+, #$"(!/12,!*# "##!##O!+$ #g*k!l

!"#$%$&'()*%#$%+,)%-++.%+/%01,*%-"1-%2#..%3)%&$)4%-+%").5%4)-)'0#,)%-")%6+,-),-$%+/%1%$)-%+/%,)7+-#1-)4%+&-6+0)$8%#,(+.(#,7%-")%9&--)'%:40#,#$-'1-#+,%;-")%<#-*=8%-")%>"#.14).5"#1%?)4)().+50),-%:&-"+'#-*%;>?:=8%1,4%@+'01,%?)$#4),-#1.%;@+'01,=8%-+%3),)/#-%A1$-2#6BC%D,%E)5-)03)'%FGHF8%')$#4),-$%1,4%$-1B)"+.4)'$%/#..)4%+&-%1%$&'()*%-+%4)-)'0#,)%-")%#$$&)$%-"1-%')$#4),-$%1,4%$-1B)"+.4)'$%/).-%2)')%0+$-%#05+'-1,-C%!"#$%$&'()*%3&#.4$%+,%-")%')$&.-%+/%-")%5')(#+&$%$&'()*C%

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

>.)1$)%1,$2)'%-")%/+..+2#,7%R&)$-#+,$%3*%6#'6.#,7%+,)%+/%-")%6+'')$5+,4#,7%')$5+,$)$%+'%1,$2)'#,7%#,%-")%$516)%7#(),C%

LAMANS>QA9!%S9%!TA%HFUV:<?A%>:?<AN%*:47;:<54 3<; 4539:=>?;:@4 4=>B?; =3C: 7<LB5 7<5> 5=: ?>8357><H 5DL: 3<; <BAI:@ >G B<754H L?3<<7<KH 3<;

;:47K< >G 3<D ;:C:?>LA:<5 5=35 >88B@4 >< 3<D '75D K>C:@<:; L3@8:?4 7< !3456789S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

*:47;:<54 3<; 4539:=>?;:@4 4=>B?; =3C: 7<LB5 7<5> 5=: ?>8357><H 5DL:H 3<; <BAI:@ >G B<754H L?3<<7<KH 3<;

;:47K< >G 3<D ;:C:?>LA:<5 5=35 >88B@4 >< >@ <:3@ 5=: RVW 38@: L3@8:?S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

,> D>B 4BLL>@5 5=: ;:C:?>LA:<5 >G =>B47<KH 34 L@>L>4:;H 5=: RVW 38@: L3@8:? TYVV B<754 >G AB?57 G3A7?D

@:<53? 3<; RZX[ L3@97<K 4L38:4 >< X\ 38@:4U]

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

$=: ;:C:?>LA:<5 >G =>B47<KH 34 L@>L>4:;H >< 5=: RVW 38@: L3@8:? TYVV B<754 >G AB?57 G3A7?D @:<53? 3<; RZX[

L3@97<K 4L38:4 >< X\ 38@:4U 67?? =3C: 3 <:K357C: 7AL385 >< AD L@>L:@5D C3?B:4S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

%=35 8=3<K:4 6>B?; D>B <::; 5> 4:: 5> 5=: L@>L>4:; ;:C:?>LA:<5 G>@ 75 5> I: 388:L53I?: T:SKS ?:44 ;:<475DH

47<K?: G3A7?D =>B4:4H 4:<7>@ =>B47<KH A>@: ^:8> G@7:<;?D_ ;:47K<U]

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

%>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 5=: ;:C:?>LA:<5 >G =>B47<K >< 5=: RVW 3@8: L3@8:? 7G 3< >< 475: 45>@A635:@ A3<3K:A:<5

4D45:A 8>B?; I: ;:47K<:; 5> 47K<7G783<5?D A757K35: G?>>;7<KH <>5 NB45 G>@ >< 475: @:47;:<54H IB5 G>@ 5=>4: ?7C7<K

7< 5=: 4B@@>B<;7<K 3@:3]

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

%>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 ;:C:?>LA:<5 >G =>B4:4 >@ 3L3@5A:<54 7< 3< 3?5:@<357C: ?>8357>< >< C383<5 L3@8:?4 ?>835:;

<>@5= >G W[5= #5@::5 7< !3456789H 7G 5=35 6>B?; @:;B8: ;:<475D >G >@ :?7A7<35: ;:C:?>LA:<5 >< 5=: RVW 38@:

L3@8:?]

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

%>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 L@:4:@C7<K 5=: RVW 38@: L3@8:? 5> GB<857>< 34 3 <35B@3? G?>>;7<K A757K357>< 4D45:A 5> =:?L

A757K35: 835345@>L=78 G?>>;7<K 3<; 4:3 ?:C:? @74: 7< !3456789 7G 4B8= 3 4D45:A 8>B?; =:?L ?>6:@ G?>>; 7<4B@3<8:

@35:4]

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

%>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 L@:4:@C7<K 5=: RVW 38@: L3@8:? 5> GB<857>< 34 3 <35B@3? G?>>;7<K A757K357>< 4D45:A 5> =:?L

A757K35: 835345@>L=78 G?>>;7<K 3<; 4:3 ?:C:? @74: 7< !3456789 7G 4B8= 3 4D45:A%1g2, +1$ =:?L ?>6:@ G?>>;

7<4B@3<8: @35:4]

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

&G G:;:@3? A><:D 8>B?; I: G>B<; 5> LB@8=34: 5=: RVW 38@:4 5> L@:4:@C: 75 34 >L:< 4L38: h :SKS G>@ 3 ?3<; 5@B45H

3 L3@9H >@ 7< 8><NB<857>< 675= 5=: *:GBK: 675= 47K<7G783<5 LBI?78 388:44 5> 5=: ?3<;H 6>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 5=:

LB@8=34:]

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

%=35 8=3<K:4 5> 5=: RVW 38@: L3@8:? 6>B?; I: <:8:443@D G>@ D>B 5> 4BLL>@5 5=: >L57>< >G L@:4:@C7<K 5=: RVW

38@:4 34 >L:< 4L38: T:SKS I:55:@ A37<5:<3<8:H @:45>@357>< >G 6:5?3<;4H LBI?78 388:44H 8>AAB<75D K3@;:<4H

G:<87<KH :58SU]

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

71

%>B?; D>B 4BLL>@5 5=: LB@8=34: 3<; L@:4:@C357>< >G 5=: RVW 38@:4 34 >L:< 4L38:H :C:< 7G 5=74 >B58>A: A7K=5

I: 7< ?7:B >G >5=:@ <:K>5735:; I:<:G754 5> 5=: 8>AAB<75D G@>A (>@A3<]

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

A<S9SQD<%LAMANS>QA9!%1B@ 8>AAB<75D 4=>B?; =3C: 3< :GG:857C: ?>83? 8>AAB<75Di:8><>A78 ;:C:?>LA:<5 >@K3<7j357><T4U @:4L><47I?:

G>@ :8><>A78H 4>873?H =>B47<K ;:C:?>LA:<5H 3<; >5=:@ 744B:4 3GG:857<K >B@ 8>AAB<75DS

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

$=: 8>AAB<75D 4=>B?; =3C: 3< 3857C: IB47<:44 ;:C:?>LA:<5 L@>K@3A 5> :<8>B@3K: 3<; 4BLL>@5 :M7457<K 3<;

<:6 IB47<:44:4 34 6:?? 34 5> 344745 <:6 IB47<:44 675= 5=:7@ 453@5 BL 744B:4S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

*:537? ;:C:?>LA:<5 4=>B?; :AL=347j: 3 ?>83? :8><>AD 675= ;7C:@4: IB47<:44:4 7<45:3; >G 5=: 8B@@:<5 G>8B4 ><

4BIB@I3< 45D?: A3??4 675= L@7A3@7?D ?3@K: 8=37< 45>@:4 3<; G345 G>>; @:453B@3<54]

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

!3456789 <::;4 3 4>?B57>< 5> C383<5 45>@:G@><54S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

&< D>B@ >L7<7><H 6=35 5DL: >G IB47<:44:4 3<; 4:@C78:4 ;> <>5 :M745 7< !3456789 3<; 4=>B?; I: 3 L@7>@75D G>@ 5=:

<:7K=I>@=>>;]

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

$>B@74A =34 I::< ;748B44:; 34 3 45@35:KD G>@ :8><>A78 ;:C:?>LA:<5 3<; N>I 8@:357>< 7< !3456789S $=:

,:L3@5A:<5 >G '>AA:@8: >@ >5=:@ :<575D 4=>B?; 4L><4>@ 3 G:347I7?75D 45B;D >< 5=: L>5:<573? G>@ 8>AAB<75D

I34:; 5>B@74A 7< !3456789S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

JNSSLD9W%:9L%JNSSL%D9EK?:9<A%$=: 43G:5D >G :M7457<K @:47;:<54 AB45 539: L@7>@75D >C:@ L@>L:@5D ;:C:?>LA:<5 G>@ A>@: @:47;:<54S +> <:6

;:C:?>LA:<5 4=>B?; I: 8><5:AL?35:; 7< !3456789 B<57? 3 8>AAB<75D ;@7C:< 3<; 4BLL>@5:; :A:@K:<8D

@:4L><4: 3<; :C38B357>< L?3< 74 3;>L5:;S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

F@7>@ 5> 3LL@>C7<K 3<D <:6 ;:C:?>LA:<5H 5=: 875D 4=>B?; L@:L3@: 3 8>AAB<75D 4BLL>@5:; G?>>; A3<3K:A:<5

L?3< 5=35 ?>>94 35 43G:5D G>@ 5=: 6=>?: 635:@4=:;S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

"<D ;:C:?>LA:<5 4=>B?; I: @:PB7@:; 5> 8><5@7IB5: 5> 3 GB<; 5=35 4BI47;7j:4 G?>>; 7<4B@3<8: L@:A7BA4 6=:@:

)!O" 3<; A>@5K3K: 8>AL3<7:4 4=3?? @:PB7@: G?>>; 7<4B@3<8:S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

:D?>S?!%AX>:9EDS9%$=: #!F$" "7@L>@5 ?7<: 3<; 03@5@3A "C:<B: 34 6:?? 34 & f\ 4:L3@35: 5=: "7@L>@5 G@>A 5=: @:47;:<573?

8>AAB<75DS $=:4: I>B<;3@7:4 4=>B?; I: @:4L:85:;S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

"@: 5=:@: 3<D 5DL:4 >G "7@L>@5 388:44>@D B4:4 5=35 6>B?; D>B G7<; 388:L53I?: 5> L?38: 7< !3456789 T:SKSH 47<K?:

45>@D L3@97<KH AB?57 45>@D L3@97<KH 83@ @:<53?H 4=7LL7<K G387?757:4H =>4L753?75DU]

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

!)+' 4=>B?; 3??D 675= K@>BL4 4B8= 34 F1%!* TF=7?3;:?L=73<4 1@K3<7j:; 5> %75<:44 !AL>6:@ 3<; *:IB7?;U 5>

8>AL:? 5=: "7@L>@5 5> @:PB7@: ?7C7<K 63K:4 3<; I:<:G754 34 6:?? 34 5@37<7<KH 6>@9G>@8: ;:C:?>LA:<5H 3<;

388:44 5> N>I4 35 F/2S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

#>B5=6:45 @:47;:<54 4=>B?; =3C: G7@45 L@7>@75D G>@ 3<D N>I4 >@ N>I 5@37<7<K L@>K@3A4 5=35 3@: 8@:35:; 34 3 @:4B?5

>G 37@L>@5 :ML3<47><S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

$=: F=7?3;:?L=73 &<5:@<357><3? "7@L>@5 74 @:PB7@:; 5> 8@:35: <:6 6:5?3<;4 I:83B4: 5=: :ML3<47>< >G 5:@A7<3?4

3<; @B<63D4 67?? ?:3; 5> 6:5?3<;4 ;:45@B857><S $=: "7@L>@5 4=>B?; 8@:35: 3 L>@57>< >G 5=>4: 6:5?3<;4 7< 5=:

RVW 38@: L3@8:?S

5:AA$'#Q$ 4$# .:AA$'#Q$ 4$# 14$/

OD <BAI:@ ><: L@7>@75D G>@ 7AL@>C7<K !3456789 74E

___________________________________________________________________________________________

___________________________________________________________________________________________

73

& ?7C: 675=7< 5=: G>??>67<K j7L 8>;:E ______________________________

__________________________________________________________________________________F@7<5 ";;@:44 /:@:

__________________________________________________________________________________+3A: >G R45 188BL3<5 5> 8>AL?:5: 3 4B@C:D

__________________________________________________________________________________+3A: >G V<; 188BL3<5 5> 8>AL?:5: 3 4B@C:D

__________________________________________________________________________________+3A: >G #B@C:D "44:44>@i'>??:85>@

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

S60. A-@& 04#&4#0$4-77< 7&?# %7-41C

75

"LL:<;7M V

-4/&%,C7& N( D%%"C'% 2$54,(C

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

S60. A-@& 04#&4#0$4-77< 7&?# %7-41C

77

#L>5?7K=5 1< &??:K3? ,BAL7<K

Eastwick residents have made numerous phone calls to the City oh Philadelphia’s 311 hotline to report regular illegal dumping of large items such as sofas, mattresses and chests-of-drawers (see photos below and on the following pages). However, even after these items are removed by the City’s Sanitation Department, more of the same soon appears. Residents believe the only solution to this problem is for cameras to be installed in the area and that heavy fines should be imposed (equivalent to what it costs taxpayers to clean up the debris) against anyone found guilty of dumping in the area.

Despite ongoing phone calls to local authorities, and even local media reports, Eastwick has been the recipient of debris from other parts of the City, Delaware County, and even New Jersey as indicated by the license number on the boat (see photo p. 80). The boat and trailer were dumped in the community in September of 2013 and remained there for several weeks until Fox News stepped in and contacted City officials on behalf of Eastwick residents.

While investigating this problem, Fox News revealed that piles of debris dumped in Eastwick on Crain Place were brought into Philadelphia from Holmes, Pennsylvania — five miles away in Delaware County.

Tires frequently dumped in Eastwick also present a major problem for local residents. Dumped tires and other debris are major eyesores that detract from the natural beauty of the heavily wooded area along Mario Lanza Boulevard. Individuals, who come into the community to use the lightly trafficked areas as a driver’s training course, also set up tires in the street to create parking obstacles. When they have finished practicing parking, the tires are left in the street, and become a potential safety threat to local pedestrians and drivers. This practice has been taking place for many years, despite the complaints of local residents.

Many residents would like to see cameras installed along Mario Lanza Boulevard not only to deter illegal dumping but also to discourage graffiti and littering in these secluded areas of the community.

,-.#/0"1 2&.03&4#. -43 5#-1&6$73&'. 8..&..9&4# 5:';&<= !"#$%&# '() *('%+#,#

!3456789 *:47;:

Documents