Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92
1
1 CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
2 ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
- - -
3
APPLICANT: : Calendar
4 COTTON STREET LANDING : No. 99-1388
:
5 IN RE: :
4320-4368 MAIN STREET :
6
7 - - -
Wednesday, December 22, 1999
8 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- - -
9
10 Hearing of the ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT,
11 held at 1515 Arch Street, 18th Floor, on the above
12 date, beginning at approximately 2:10 p.m., before
13 Tara L. Wachowski, Registered Professional Reporter,
14 Commissioner of Deeds.
15 - - -
16 APPEARANCES:
17 BOARD MEMBERS:
Thomas J. Kelly, Chairman
18 David L. Auspitz
Thomas D. Logan
19 Oliver Thornton
20
21
22
23 DELCASALE, CASEY, MARTIN & MANCHELLO
1801 Market Street - Suite 636
24 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 568-2211
2
1 APPEARANCES (Continued):
2 BALLARD, SPAHR,
ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, L.L.P.
3 BY: MICHAEL SKLAROFF, ESQUIRE
1735 Market Street
4 51st Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
5
Counsel for Applicant
6
7 MASON & KRAKOWER
BY: STANLEY R. KRAKOWER, ESQUIRE
8 2300 ARAMARK Tower
1101 Market Street
9 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
10 Counsel for Protestants
11
CITY COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA
12 BY: ROBERT M. JAFFE, ESQUIRE
Room 588, City Hall
13 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
14 Counsel for Councilman Cohen
15
16 ALSO PRESENT: Kay Smith,
Manayunk Development Corporation
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
3
1 INDEX TO TESTIMONY
2 WITNESSES Direct Cross Redirect Recross
3 John E. Thrower 10, 12 -- --
4 Voir Dire - Page 12
5 Examined by Mr. Krakower 26
Examined by Mr. Jaffe 45
6
Elmore J. Boles, Jr. 47, 58 -- --
7
Voir Dire - Page 53
8
Examined by Mr. Krakower 70
9 Examined by Mr. Jaffe 81
- - -
10
INDEX TO EXHIBITS
11
APPLICANT'S EXHIBITS MARKED
12
No. 1 Resume of John E. Thrower 11
13
No. 2 Plan 20
14
No. 3 Resume of Elmore J. Boles, Jr. 48
15
No. 4 Summary report 61
16
No. 5 Computer analysis 63
17
PROTESTANTS' EXHIBITS MARKED
18
No. 1A Ranking from Fairmount
19 Measuring 91
20 - - -
21
22
23 DELCASALE, CASEY, MARTIN & MANCHELLO
1801 Market Street - Suite 636
24 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 568-2211
4
1 MR. KELLY: Counter 99-1388, 4320-68
2 Main Street. The application is for the
3 relocation of lot lines to create one lot
4 from three and demolition of existing
5 structures with erection of a four and five
6 story structure and one, four and five
7 story structure with a subbasement and
8 basement garage located below the floor
9 line as part of a 270 apartment building
10 with 392 existing parking spaces, accessory
11 recreation area and pool for residents only
12 and 183 public parking spaces. This
13 construction is in the floodway, and no new
14 construction is permitted in the floodway.
15 Open court minimum width requires 12
16 feet, and you're proposing 8 feet, 8
17 inches. On the use the application is for
18 the erection of two structures to be used
19 as 270 dwelling units with a total of 392
20 existing parking spaces, a recreation area
21 for residents only and 183 parking spaces
22 for public parking for a total of 575
23 spaces. Proposing 8'6" by 18' parking
24 spaces, 12 accessible spaces 12' by 18' and
5
1 48 compact spaces, whereas dwelling units
2 are prohibited in the district, and parking
3 spaces are required to be 9' by 18';
4 accessible spaces are required to be 13' by
5 18', and compact spaces are not permitted
6 in the district. Two zoning refusals,
7 three use refusals.
8 Note to the Zoning Board, issuance of
9 a permit is contingent upon City Planning
10 approval, Streets Department approval and
11 Water Department approval. A complete plot
12 plan showing and dimensioning the one story
13 portion of this proposal will be submitted
14 prior to the hearing before the Zoning
15 Board of Adjustment. Sir.
16 MR. SKLAROFF: Mr. Chairman, Members
17 of the Board, my name is Michael Sklaroff.
18 I'm the attorney for Cotton Street Landing
19 Associates, the applicants.
20 MR. KRAKOWER: Mr. Chairman, my name
21 is Stanley Krakower. I'm the attorney for
22 the Friends of Manayunk Canal and the
23 Manayunk Neighborhood Council and some
24 other individual protestants.
6
1 MR. JAFFE: I'm Robert Jaffe. I'm
2 here on behalf of Councilman David Cohen in
3 opposition.
4 MS. SMITH: I'm Kay Smith, Manayunk
5 Development Corporation here in
6 opposition.
7 MR. KELLY: Mr. Sklaroff.
8 MR. SKLAROFF: Mr. Chairman, this
9 application is both a request for variances
10 based upon refusals that the Chairman has
11 read into the record as well as a challenge
12 to the validity of the G-2 zoning. So it
13 is both a validity challenge and a request
14 for variances.
15 Of the five items that can be
16 considered to be variances in the opinion
17 of the Department of Licenses and
18 Inspections, with regard to accessible
19 spaces must be 13' by 18', that's
20 handicapped access, we are going to
21 comply. We state that for the record.
22 With regard to the court dimensions, where
23 12 feet is required and 8 feet, 8 inches is
24 proposed, again, we will comply with that
7
1 requirement.
2 With regard to construction in the
3 floodway, this project will not increase
4 the 100-year flood level, and this will be
5 demonstrated in a study that will be
6 submitted to Martin Soffer of the City
7 Planning Commission, who is the enforcement
8 officer for the City of Philadelphia under
9 the Federal Emergency Management Act. So
10 we consider that we will be complying with
11 that. We are not asking for a variance
12 from that requirement, and that will be
13 submitted to Mr. Soffer in the ordinary
14 course.
15 So with respect to variances or
16 validity challenges, we are here on use,
17 that is residential use, because this is a
18 G-2 industrial district, and although it
19 permits many interesting things, it does
20 not permit residential development. And,
21 secondly, we're here to request
22 modifications of the 9' by 18'
23 requirement. We're asking for the parking
24 to be 8' and a half by 18', which is
8
1 consistent with the standard for
2 residential and also to ask for compact
3 spaces. This will be both an accessory
4 parking facility and a parking facility for
5 the community, and we submit that it should
6 be treated exactly like other modern
7 parking facilities in the community.
8 So having said that, on especially
9 the use and the project, I would ask
10 Mr. John E. Thrower, T-h-r-o-w-e-r, to
11 testify. I would submit -- ask him to
12 testify as an expert architect and land
13 planner. And, Mr. Thrower, would you state
14 to the Board your professional affiliation.
15 MR. KELLY: Before you start --
16 MR. KRAKOWER: Before you begin, may
17 I get an opportunity to be heard in a brief
18 statement.
19 MR. KELLY: All of the statements you
20 made, sir, regarding what you're going to
21 comply with, you'll put that in the form of
22 a letter to us?
23 MR. SKLAROFF: Absolutely.
24 MR. KELLY: Thank you. Mr. Krakower.
9
1 MR. KRAKOWER: With respect to the
2 study that's being provided to Mr. Soffer,
3 I respectfully submit for the record that
4 does not comply with the requirements of
5 the Zoning Code. The indication and the
6 proof that there'll be no increase in the
7 regulatory flood level is to be done here
8 in person under oath and subject to
9 cross-examination. And unless we're going
10 to have that, then I would submit
11 immediately, right off the bat, that
12 there's noncompliance with the legal
13 requirements of Section 1802(3) of the
14 Zoning Code.
15 MR. SKLAROFF: That's wrong. It's
16 assuming that there's a variance. What the
17 Code says is that you are permitted to do
18 this work so long as you don't increase the
19 flood profile, and that, under our system,
20 is a function of the Planning Commission's
21 Martin Soffer under the Federal Emergency
22 Management Act.
23 MR. KELLY: If you'll submit that to
24 him and at that time we'll find out if
10
Thrower - direct
1 you're correct or not.
2 MR. SKLAROFF: Correct.
3 MR. KELLY: Your argument is on the
4 record. Please proceed, Mr. Sklaroff.
5 ... JOHN E. THROWER, having been
6 previously sworn as a witness, was examined
7 and testified as follows ...
8 DIRECT EXAMINATION
9 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
10 Q. Mr. Thrower, would you state your
11 professional affiliation.
12 A. I'm a professional architect working in
13 Philadelphia. I'm a member of the American Institute
14 of Architects.
15 Q. How long have you been an architect?
16 A. 34 years.
17 Q. And have you been involved in or are you
18 involved in residential projects similar to the
19 current project?
20 A. I am currently involved in about a dozen
21 residential projects, three on the Schuylkill River,
22 three on the Delaware River.
23 Q. And in connection with your architectural
24 work, are you familiar with and do you have expertise
11
Thrower - direct
1 in land planning and comprehensive planning issues?
2 A. Yes, sir, I do.
3 Q. And your educational background.
4 A. I have both a Bachelor's and a Master's of
5 architecture from the University of Pennsylvania.
6 Q. And Bower, Lewis, Thrower is one of the
7 architectural firms in the city that works on major
8 projects of civic importance; is that correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 MR. KRAKOWER: I'm going to object to
11 the term civic importance.
12 MR. KELLY: So noted.
13 (Document marked for identification
14 as Exhibit No. A-1.)
15 MR. SKLAROFF: I would submit as
16 exhibit A-1 the resume of Mr. Thrower, and
17 I would offer his credentials.
18 MR. KELLY: Do you have any
19 objections to his credentials?
20 MR. KRAKOWER: That depends on the
21 question, not for the purposes of
22 architectural questioning, no.
23 MR. SKLAROFF: Well, he's being
24 submitted on architecture and land planning
12
Thrower - direct
1 issues.
2 MR. KRAKOWER: May I just ask him a
3 question.
4 VOIR DIRE
5 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
6 Q. Mr. Thrower, do you have any expertise in
7 hydraulics or hydraulic engineering?
8 A. No, sir, I don't.
9 MR. KRAKOWER: Thank you.
10 MR. KELLY: Please proceed.
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
13 Q. Mr. Thrower, would you explain to the
14 Members of the Board the project.
15 A. Yes. Here to the left is an aerial
16 photograph of the site as it exists today in
17 Manayunk. This is the Connelly property here.
18 Immediately in back of that is the canal and Main
19 Street and in the foreground the Schuylkill River.
20 The project that we are proposing is a residential
21 development with accessory parking below it that is a
22 series of buildings that are one, four and five
23 stories high. It's accessed at two points by
24 pedestrians and vehicles at the existing Cotton
13
Thrower - direct
1 Street bridge and by pedestrians from Main Street at
2 the north end of the site over an existing bridge
3 that was designed for pedestrians as well as
4 utilities crossing the canal.
5 Here is a cross section through the
6 project showing the building in yellow, the
7 residential portion at its low and high
8 configurations, one and five stories high, two levels
9 of parking below that, the Schuylkill River to the
10 left, the Manayunk Canal to the right and in the far
11 right Main Street. What you're looking at here is an
12 elevation of the project as it would be seen from the
13 Schuylkill Expressway across the river. On the far
14 right on that easel is a plan of one of two parking
15 levels at the lower portion of the project. Here's
16 the pedestrian bridge. Here is Cotton Street
17 extension out to the river; vehicle access for
18 automobile parking and truck service to this lowest
19 level; access for residents via a lower lobby at the
20 south end. And at the upper level, this shows the
21 residential configuration in these L-shaped, U-shaped
22 buildings, center loaded corridors with apartments on
23 either side.
24 We're proposing a total of 270
14
Thrower - direct
1 apartments. Approximately half of those are studios
2 and one bedrooms, approximately half are two
3 bedrooms. We're providing a total of 575
4 automobiles. That's one automobile for every bedroom
5 in the community, plus 83 cars left over for general
6 community use and visitors.
7 We are proposing along the river side
8 an extension of the river walk that the Planning
9 Commission has been planning that will pass entirely
10 in front of our project and connect presumably to the
11 parcels on either side. We are proposing to improve
12 the towpath along the canal both as a pedestrian and
13 bicycle amenity for the community in general as well
14 as an access way for emergency vehicles to our site.
15 Q. In what way is this development sympathetic
16 or not sympathetic with its context?
17 A. Well, the parcel is now zoned G-2, which is
18 totally inappropriate for a little pocket of land
19 like this so closely involved with a historic,
20 small-scale community. So we're proposing that it be
21 a residential use, which we believe is completely
22 compatible and appropriate for its surrounding uses.
23 It's also important from our point of view, since
24 part of the island is certainly going to be
15
Thrower - direct
1 residential -- I mean recreational, to propose
2 residential uses on the island so that there are
3 people living there.
4 Q. You mentioned the towpath which you
5 proposed to improve along the canal and the river
6 walk along the Schuylkill River. In addition to
7 those efforts, would you say that the scale of the
8 development is consistent with the surroundings as
9 well?
10 A. It indeed is. The actual volumetric
11 density of what we're proposing is less than half of
12 what would be allowed under industrial G-2 zoning and
13 is less, in fact, than the volumetric density, as I
14 understand it, of the buildings along Main Street.
15 Q. And the river walk which is planned, is
16 that a walk which will be limited in enjoyment to the
17 residents of this community, or will it be available
18 to the residents of the larger community?
19 A. That's for the larger community.
20 Q. And currently, actually, and since this
21 property became first used in the early 1800's, has
22 there been public access along the Schuylkill River?
23 A. Not to my knowledge.
24 Q. So this is the first time, at least in
16
Thrower - direct
1 recent memory, that there will be access?
2 A. Other than the recreational center to the
3 south.
4 Q. But along this property, the former -- or
5 the Connelly property, this is the first time in
6 memory that a river walk will be available; is that
7 correct?
8 A. That's correct, to my understanding, yes.
9 Q. What are, if you can recall, the mix in
10 bedrooms? Is there a mix of one bedrooms, two
11 bedrooms and studios?
12 A. I recall that approximately half of the
13 units are studios and one bedrooms and approximately
14 half are two bedrooms.
15 Q. Now, let's talk a little bit about the G-2
16 zoning, which is the current zoning.
17 MR. SKLAROFF: I would state for the
18 record that G-2 is current zoning, although
19 there is now, although there was not when
20 this application was filed, a pending
21 ordinance to rezone the property. So I
22 think the Board should be made aware of
23 that.
24 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
17
Thrower - direct
1 Q. But with regard to the G-2, which is the
2 governing zoning at the time this was filed, would
3 you say that was a relevant and vital zoning
4 classification?
5 A. I think it's a complete anachronism, given
6 what Manayunk is today. I mean, what would be
7 allowed under the G-2 zoning is ridiculous, all sorts
8 of manufacturing. You could even put a parcel
9 delivery service terminal under the present zoning.
10 Q. So under the current zoning, you could put
11 a United Parcel facility, if one would want to go
12 there, correct?
13 A. That's right.
14 Q. You could have a freight terminal, correct,
15 if you could get one to go there?
16 A. Yes, sir.
17 Q. You could have a 1,300 foot digital
18 television tower, if you could get one to go there?
19 A. I believe so.
20 Q. And you could kill chickens; is that
21 correct?
22 A. I believe, yes.
23 Q. So that now this is now an anachronism, and
24 has it been an anachronism in the '90's?
18
Thrower - direct
1 A. It certainly has. Industrial has no
2 business on the island now. There's no way to move
3 goods and raw material in and out. There's one
4 rickety rail line there. The canal is inoperative.
5 The streets are totally inadequate for handling big
6 truck rigs.
7 Q. Now, its last use there with Mr. Connelly
8 involved the storage of baled wastepaper; is that
9 correct?
10 A. As I understand it, yes.
11 Q. And that's a use that is permitted under
12 the G-2 zoning?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Is the storage of baled wastepaper a use
15 that is consistent with the way Manayunk and Main
16 Street of Manayunk has developed over the past three
17 years?
18 A. Certainly not, in my estimation.
19 Q. Is this proposal consistent with the
20 development of Manayunk over the past several years?
21 A. Absolutely.
22 Q. As a general matter, from a city planning
23 point of view, if the goal of the city, among other
24 things, is to repopulate the city, which has been
19
Thrower - direct
1 losing population over the last number of years, does
2 this represent, in your view, an appropriate way to
3 help repopulate the city?
4 A. It's one of the most appropriate ways, in
5 my estimation, to take pockets of industrial activity
6 that are no longer appropriate and to change those
7 over to residential activity.
8 Q. Now, as part of your involvement in
9 Manayunk, are you involved in other projects for
10 residential development on Venice Island?
11 A. I am actually, yes.
12 Q. And is it fair to say that the projects
13 that are now proposed, there are two to the north of
14 this site and this project, fall within the category
15 of moderate density residential development?
16 A. To the best of my understanding, they all
17 do. I'm very familiar with one of them and somewhat
18 less familiar with the other.
19 Q. So this is neither high density, which
20 might be a high-rise apartment, correct?
21 A. That's correct.
22 Q. Nor low density which might be single
23 family, detached houses in R-1 or R-2?
24 A. It could be fairly characterized as
20
Thrower - direct
1 moderate density, yes.
2 MR. SKLAROFF: Now, I'm not sure how
3 -- there is an application, a plan,
4 Mr. Chairman, which is Z-1, which was
5 submitted with the application. Does the
6 Board have that? It's a rather extensive
7 plan.
8 MR. KELLY: No, we don't, sir.
9 MR. SKLAROFF: We would offer this,
10 the plan which has all of the dimensions,
11 which is a Z-1 and ask that it be marked
12 Exhibit A-2. This plan is not sealed, but
13 the one that has been submitted with the
14 application is sealed.
15 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
16 (Document marked for identification
17 as Exhibit No. A-2.)
18 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
19 Q. Now, Venice Island at this site is below --
20 is within the floodplain; is that correct?
21 A. That's correct, sir.
22 Q. And it's within the floodway, correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 Q. We'll hear more about that from Mr. Boles
21
Thrower - direct
1 when we get to that testimony. In case it wasn't
2 clear, where would the residential units occur with
3 respect to the floodplain and floodway?
4 A. Well, the development, as we have designed
5 it, is designed in such a way that parking in a
6 concrete structure occurs partially below grade and
7 entirely within the area that would be flooded for
8 the 100-year floodplain. Our residential development
9 is, as required, I believe it's a foot and a half at
10 a minimum above the 100-year flood line.
11 Q. So this proposal assumes compliance with
12 the requirements of FEMA; is that correct?
13 A. Absolutely.
14 Q. And the current building which you referred
15 to in the aerial is a fairly large building, correct?
16 A. That's right. It is approximately 48,000
17 square feet out of the site area of approximately
18 122.
19 Q. And that is to the -- at the north end of
20 the site?
21 A. That's correct, sir.
22 Q. To some extent, that extends out over the
23 Schuylkill River, correct?
24 A. A portion of it does indeed.
22
Thrower - direct
1 Q. And when you compare the amount of square
2 footage within the flood profile at the current
3 condition and the amount in the new condition, do you
4 have any understanding as to what the volume
5 difference would be?
6 A. Yes, sir. As I said, the existing
7 buildings occupy a footprint of approximately 48,000
8 square feet. If we were to add up all of the
9 structure, the fire towers, elevator shafts, lower
10 access lobbies in our project, they would add up to
11 approximately 4,000 square feet, a little less than
12 one-tenth of the existing area.
13 Q. Now, of course, subject to the actual
14 submission of the flood study, one would think that
15 that's an advantage?
16 A. One would think so, but we haven't gotten
17 the results from the flood study yet.
18 Q. Now, going through the section of the code
19 that relates to the granting of variances, I would
20 ask you whether the configuration of the site, its
21 location between the canal and the river, the contour
22 of the site and the fact that the site is within the
23 floodway, are those specific characteristics that are
24 peculiar or unique to this site?
23
Thrower - direct
1 A. Yes, sir.
2 Q. And are they characteristics which give
3 rise to the need for variances?
4 A. I believe so, yes.
5 Q. Is there any concern that there would be
6 any injury permanently or substantially or otherwise
7 to adjoining properties?
8 A. Absolutely not.
9 Q. And this situation with the uniqueness of
10 the site, that did not result from the actions of
11 Mr. Connelly or the applicant?
12 A. No, sir.
13 Q. Based on what you know, will this grant of
14 variances substantially increase congestion in the
15 streets?
16 A. Based on what I know, no, not
17 substantially.
18 Q. Will there be any increase as a result of
19 this project danger of fire or otherwise a danger to
20 the public safety?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Will the proposed density of residential
23 units overcrowd the land or create any undue
24 concentration of population?
24
Thrower - direct
1 A. In my estimation, absolutely not.
2 Q. Will there be any impairment of light and
3 air to adjacent properties?
4 A. No, sir.
5 Q. When you say adjacent properties, can we
6 include in that not only individual landowners but
7 public properties and waterways?
8 A. Yes, sir.
9 Q. Is there any adverse affect on
10 transportation or water, sewer, school, park or other
11 public facilities?
12 A. Not to my knowledge.
13 Q. In any other way will the grant of the
14 variances adversely affect the public health, safety
15 or general welfare?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. Will the granting of this variance be
18 consistent with the spirit and harmony of the
19 Philadelphia Zoning Code?
20 A. In my estimation, absolutely.
21 Q. When you look at the plan and you look at
22 the G-2 zoning, do you have an opinion as to whether
23 the current zoning classification is consistent with
24 the comprehensive planning principles?
25
Thrower - direct
1 A. No, sir, in my estimation, it's not to
2 place industrial use in this location, and, as I
3 said, the volumetric density that we are proposing is
4 less than half of what would be allowed under current
5 industrial zoning.
6 Q. Given all the circumstances, does this
7 represent, in your mind, a reasonable density and
8 reasonable measures given the uniqueness of the site?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 MR. SKLAROFF: If the Board will just
11 indulge me for a moment.
12 (Pause.)
13 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
14 Q. Just for the record, you said, Mr. Thrower,
15 that there would be 83 parking spaces available to
16 the public. Did you mean 183?
17 A. I meant 183 if I said 83.
18 MR. SKLAROFF: Thank you, Mr.
19 Thrower.
20 MR. KELLY: Mr. Thrower, do you know
21 anything about this site when it belonged
22 to Connelly?
23 THE WITNESS: Only what I know from
24 having been through the property when it
26
Thrower - direct
1 was in operation.
2 MR. KELLY: And how long has it been
3 since it's been in operation?
4 THE WITNESS: It has not been in
5 operation for six or eight months, to the
6 best of my knowledge.
7 MR. KELLY: At the height of its
8 operations, how many employees were
9 employed there?
10 THE WITNESS: I don't know, sir.
11 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
12 MR. KRAKOWER: May I?
13 MR. KELLY: Sure.
14 CROSS-EXAMINATION
15 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
16 Q. All right. Mr. Thrower, you're talking
17 about there being 275 cars for the residents of these
18 apartments?
19 A. No. 392 cars for 275 apartments.
20 MR. SKLAROFF: I think we're talking
21 about spaces. Can we agree?
22 MR. KRAKOWER: Yes, we're talking
23 about spaces.
24 MR. KELLY: Parking spaces, not
27
Thrower - cross
1 necessarily cars.
2 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
3 Q. There's anticipated that that number of
4 spaces is there because there may be that many cars
5 that will be using that in that area?
6 A. It's a very conservative judgment to
7 provide one parking spot for every bedroom.
8 Q. So it would be fair to say that it could
9 well be that there could be 392 cars on that lot?
10 A. It could well be.
11 Q. Now, do you know the volume of space taken
12 up by 392 cars?
13 A. Offhand, no, sir, I don't.
14 Q. Do you know the amount of fuel that would
15 be in a normal time stored in 392 cars?
16 A. No, sir.
17 Q. Do you know what the hydraulic resistance
18 to rushing water would be of 392 cars?
19 A. No, sir. I stated earlier I don't have
20 expertise in hydrology.
21 Q. Mr. Thrower, are you familiar with the
22 accounts of the relatively recent flooding in the
23 Carolinas as a result of Hurricane Floyd? Have you
24 seen any of the photographs, et cetera?
28
Thrower - cross
1 A. Yes, sir, I have.
2 Q. Now, would you agree that, for the most
3 part, the most seriously injured areas were
4 residential areas in the Carolinas?
5 MR. SKLAROFF: May I object. I think
6 we're going a little far afield. This is
7 not the Carolinas.
8 MR. KRAKOWER: I submit,
9 Mr. Sklaroff, that rushing water and
10 families being swept out of their homes
11 wouldn't be any different in the Schuylkill
12 River than they would in the Carolinas.
13 MR. KELLY: Sir, if you have an
14 answer, you have an answer. If you don't
15 have an answer, you don't have an answer.
16 THE WITNESS: I don't really know the
17 answer to that. No, I don't know where the
18 damage was centered.
19 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
20 Q. Now, you talk about there being less
21 volumetric density. What exactly or what to the best
22 of your evidence is the volumetric density that would
23 be involved if this were developed G-2, as it has
24 been? It's been G-2?
29
Thrower - cross
1 A. It has been G-2. We're approximately
2 310,000 square feet in our project. G-2 zoning would
3 allow something close to 650, more than double that.
4 Q. Do you know what the density is of the
5 Connelly operation?
6 A. No, sir, I don't. I only know the
7 footprint that is the shadow of one floor is 48,000
8 square feet. There are many portions of that
9 property, of course, that are multiple floors, but I
10 don't know what they all add up to.
11 Q. So you don't know that information from the
12 Connelly operation?
13 A. No, sir.
14 Q. By the way, you say 650,000 square feet
15 would be allowed in G-2. Did you take into
16 consideration restrictions that would be applied here
17 because it's in a floodway and that some of the -- or
18 many of the G-2 uses permitted elsewhere would not be
19 permitted in a floodway?
20 A. I was not talking about uses. I was
21 talking merely of floor area ratio, which is spelled
22 out very clearly in the code, a ratio of 5, meaning
23 you could put 500 percent of the site area on this
24 site.
30
Thrower - cross
1 Q. Is that equally true in the floodway?
2 Doesn't the floodway provide restrictions to that?
3 A. I'm not aware of that.
4 Q. In Section 1606?
5 A. I don't know that.
6 Q. Now, you talked about the river walk
7 running along the side. Are multiple apartment uses
8 the only way to have a river walk?
9 A. No, sir.
10 Q. Couldn't you have a river walk if you had
11 industrial use or entertainment use or recreational
12 use? There are many uses you could still have a
13 river walk, couldn't you?
14 A. Any --
15 MR. SKLAROFF: I object to the form
16 of the question. First of all, the
17 commercial uses aren't at issue here. If
18 the question is can you have a river walk
19 at the same time you have a parcel post
20 distribution center or a commercial
21 slaughterhouse or even to dry eggs, if
22 that's the question, then he can answer
23 that question.
24 MR. KRAKOWER: That's not the
31
Thrower - cross
1 question.
2 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
3 Q. First of all, under Section 1606 of the
4 Code and under the restrictions applicable to a
5 floodway, could you have any G-2 use that you want
6 that would otherwise be permitted in G-2?
7 MR. KELLY: Do you know an answer to
8 this, sir?
9 THE WITNESS: No, I don't know the
10 answer.
11 MR. KELLY: That's all you have to
12 say then.
13 MR. KRAKOWER: May I have just a
14 moment.
15 MR. SKLAROFF: For simplicity of the
16 record, maybe this helps, Mr. Krakower, the
17 Code speaks for itself, and the storage of
18 certain chemicals would be prohibited in
19 proximity to the floodway under the Code.
20 I think that's a point of argument. Now,
21 we'll concede the Code says what it says.
22 But you can still kill chickens and gather
23 parcels.
24 MR. KRAKOWER: But my question is of
32
Thrower - cross
1 Mr. Thrower, not of you, Mr. Sklaroff, and
2 it's a question is Mr. Thrower familiar
3 with the limitations in 1606 and the
4 prohibited uses in 1606.
5 MR. SKLAROFF: Why don't we show him
6 -- would you like me to show him?
7 MR. KRAKOWER: No, I'm asking before
8 we show him, maybe we will, maybe we won't,
9 if he's been qualified, does he know these
10 things for himself?
11 MR. SKLAROFF: He said he didn't.
12 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
13 Q. Now, did you take those various limitations
14 into account in determining what uses you thought G-2
15 would allow?
16 A. I did not dwell on what uses G-2 would
17 allow. Our proposal has been for residential use.
18 Q. With respect to the fact that this is in a
19 floodway and I think you mentioned something about a
20 floodplain, and I may have asked you this question in
21 another proceeding, forgive me if I did, are you
22 familiar with the difference in definition in the
23 Zoning Code between the floodway and the floodplain?
24 A. Yes, sir, I am.
33
Thrower - cross
1 Q. Now, would you briefly state -- would you
2 agree -- would it be fair to say that the floodway is
3 the heart of where the flood goes, where the water
4 and the river moves fastest and deepest; whereas the
5 floodplain encompasses any areas including the fringe
6 that would be gotten wet or would be in some way
7 subject to some flood?
8 A. That's generally my understanding, yes,
9 sir.
10 Q. And am I not correct that Venice Island is
11 entirely in the floodway as distinguished from the
12 floodplain?
13 A. That's my understanding.
14 Q. Now, are you familiar with any other
15 projects in the City of Philadelphia which are
16 located wholly or even primarily within the floodway
17 of the Schuylkill River?
18 A. Well, all the projects on Venice Island
19 are.
20 Q. I'm talking outside of Venice Island. Let
21 me strike that. Let me ask it this way: Are you
22 familiar with any residential projects which are
23 located either wholly or primarily in the floodway of
24 the Schuylkill River?
34
Thrower - cross
1 A. Not offhand, sir. I can't say that's not
2 the case, but I'm just not familiar.
3 Q. None that you know of?
4 A. That's correct.
5 Q. Now, with regard to the dangers to persons
6 that might come about from flooding, did you consider
7 that an industrial use or a recreational use would be
8 less likely to be dangerous to persons in the case of
9 serious flooding on Venice Island?
10 A. I guess I don't believe that's the case.
11 Q. Did you think about it? Did you consider
12 danger potentiality in deciding that residential use
13 was what was appropriate here?
14 A. Yes, sir, we did.
15 Q. Did you consider the experiences in other
16 locales, such as the Carolinas, or other places in
17 which residential uses have been developed in the
18 path of a floodway?
19 A. We considered the dangers and we took what
20 we believed to be prudent measures and safeguards to
21 ensure the safety of the residents, and that's by
22 providing a stable structure below that can take the
23 water, by building all the residences above the flood
24 line and providing an emergency egress way from our
35
Thrower - cross
1 residential use to high ground.
2 Q. Now, with regard to what can take the water
3 below the surface, do you have hydraulic studies with
4 regard to that issue that verifies the ability of
5 those structures to withstand the water?
6 A. I do not. We have engaged a structural
7 engineer, and we've developed a reinforced concrete
8 structure for our garage, which will certainly meet
9 the requirements for flooding.
10 Q. I didn't think you were qualified to make
11 those statements.
12 MR. SKLAROFF: Wait a second. He
13 said he's received a study.
14 MR. KRAKOWER: Okay.
15 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
16 Q. By whom is that study?
17 A. No, I have not received the study. I said
18 we've engaged in a study.
19 MR. SKLAROFF: He's commissioned a
20 study.
21 THE WITNESS: And we are now in
22 conceptual design. When our project is
23 completed, it will certainly meet all the
24 requirements for the hydrological issues.
36
Thrower - cross
1 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
2 Q. Do you anticipate then to complete the
3 project before you do the hydrological studies?
4 A. Absolutely not.
5 Q. Maybe I misunderstand what you just said.
6 I thought you said when the project is completed, it
7 will satisfy the hydrologic --
8 A. When the design is completed, the hydrology
9 studies will be available, and our design will comply
10 with the requirements.
11 Q. That's, of course, before you get permits?
12 A. Absolutely.
13 Q. But those are not ready right now?
14 A. No, sir, I don't believe they are.
15 Q. At this moment, has there been any approval
16 by FEMA for any of the flood requirements or flood
17 issues on this project?
18 A. Not to my knowledge.
19 Q. Have there been any approvals by the
20 Commonwealth of Pennsylvania --
21 A. No, sir.
22 Q. -- as of this time? With regard to the
23 flood problems in that area, are you familiar with
24 -- I'm going to show you a photograph. It's the
37
Thrower - cross
1 first page of the Philadelphia Inquirer of Saturday,
2 September 18th, 1999, showing a group of trailers on
3 Flat Rock Road. I'm going to show Mr. Sklaroff this,
4 if he hasn't seen it before. It's from the front
5 page of the Inquirer, and I'm going to ask you if
6 you're familiar with either the photograph or the
7 conditions that that photograph represents?
8 A. Yes, sir, I am.
9 Q. Now, knowing that potentiality on -- that
10 is Venice Island, isn't it, that that photograph
11 shows?
12 A. Yes, sir. It's not this location.
13 Q. Not this location, but it is on Venice
14 Island?
15 A. Okay.
16 Q. How far is it from this location, less than
17 a mile?
18 MR. SKLAROFF: Excuse me. I ask
19 Mr. Chairman that there will be an
20 opportunity -- lifting up of signs and
21 impairing the view of people here is
22 inappropriate.
23 SPECTATOR: They were on the side.
24 There's no impairment of view, sir.
38
Thrower - cross
1 MR. KELLY: There's no argument in
2 here. Please keep the signs down. We'll
3 see them as you bring them forth. Thank
4 you.
5 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
6 Q. I think I was asking you, Mr. Thrower, if
7 you can estimate the distance from where those
8 trailers were flowing down the street to the project
9 that you're talking about here?
10 A. I'd say a mile.
11 Q. Now, would it be fair to say that this site
12 -- pardon me if I refer to it as the Connelly site
13 because of years of considering it the Connelly site
14 -- that the Connelly site is subject to flooding as
15 severe as, equal to that which is shown in that
16 photograph?
17 A. I don't know whether it's subject to
18 flooding as severe. We are six or eight feet below
19 the 100-year flood line, so there could certainly be
20 that much water on the site.
21 Q. Now, do you assume or believe that a
22 building which is in the floodway which is taller
23 than the height of the regulatory flood height that
24 the upper part of that building is outside the
39
Thrower - cross
1 floodway, even though the lower part is within it?
2 Is that your understanding?
3 A. That's my understanding.
4 Q. So that would it be fair to say that you do
5 not believe that if a building is in the floodway, it
6 is within the floodway if its footprint stands in the
7 floodway no matter how tall you make it; you don't
8 agree with that?
9 MR. SKLAROFF: I object to the form
10 of the question.
11 MR. KRAKOWER: Maybe it is a little
12 confusing. I'm going to withdraw the form
13 of the question. I'll try to state the
14 same question a little differently.
15 MR. SKLAROFF: I think really,
16 Stanley, it's more a matter of argument
17 than cross-examination, but go ahead.
18 MR. KRAKOWER: I want to get
19 Mr. Thrower's opinion.
20 THE WITNESS: If what you're saying
21 is that this building which is in two parts
22 a residential portion sitting on top of a
23 garage, if you're considering that all one
24 building, yes, the building is within the
40
Thrower - cross
1 floodway. However, my understanding of the
2 requirements are that no habitable space,
3 and that is all the apartments, can be
4 within the floodway, and there we complied
5 by being a couple of feet above the
6 100-year flood line.
7 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
8 Q. Well, if the regulatory flood comes as --
9 do you agree that these regulatory floods
10 periodically come to Venice Island?
11 A. Yes, sir. I don't know on what frequency.
12 Q. Well, would you agree one came within the
13 year 1999?
14 A. Yes, sir.
15 Q. If your project existed, the garage was
16 relatively full of cars and the apartments were
17 relatively full of people and you had the regulatory
18 flood, do I understand your position to be that all
19 of the residents would be above the flood level?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Would the bottom floor of the lowest
22 residence be above the flood level?
23 A. Yes, sir.
24 Q. Now, what about the automobiles?
41
Thrower - cross
1 A. The automobiles in the garage are within
2 the floodway, and certainly part of the management
3 program, the evacuation program for the building will
4 be for residents to leave and to move their cars to
5 high ground.
6 Q. If they do not have time to leave and move
7 to high ground or they're not home or it's in the
8 middle of the night or whatever, what will happen to
9 those automobiles; they'll get swept down the river?
10 A. Well, I can't speculate as to what the
11 management policy will be for the building. If I
12 were managing, I would require the residents to keep
13 a copy of their automobile keys in the safe in the
14 office just for such an emergency.
15 Q. Now, are you familiar with the bridges or I
16 think it's one bridge going -- connecting this
17 project, Cotton Street project to the mainland?
18 A. There are two bridges. One is a vehicle
19 bridge, and one is a pedestrian bridge.
20 Q. I'm talking about vehicles.
21 A. Yes, sir.
22 Q. I'm back to the situation in which the
23 regulatory flood hits while these people are in their
24 apartments and the cars are in the garages, some 200
42
Thrower - cross
1 -- let's say it's not 392. Let's say only half the
2 people are home, 200 cars. Have you done a study as
3 to the speed with which 200 cars could cross that one
4 automobile bridge, a one vehicle bridge that you
5 referred to, to get off the island and on to the
6 mainland?
7 A. No, sir, I haven't done such a study.
8 Q. So you don't know how much time these
9 people would have to get out of there before their
10 cars were floating down to the Art Museum? You don't
11 know how long that would take?
12 MR. KELLY: He said he doesn't know.
13 Let's move it along.
14 MR. SKLAROFF: Again, this is
15 argument.
16 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
17 Q. Have you done a study or has a study been
18 commissioned with respect to the timing of that?
19 MR. SKLAROFF: Timing of what?
20 MR. KRAKOWER: How long it would take
21 200 cars to get --
22 MR. KELLY: Have you done that, sir?
23 THE WITNESS: No, sir.
24 MR. KELLY: He hasn't done that.
43
Thrower - cross
1 Let's move it along.
2 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
3 Q. Are you familiar with FEMA and state
4 requirements as to what you can store in the floodway
5 and particularly storing of petroleum products?
6 A. Not specifically, no, sir.
7 MR. AUSPITZ: When you have a moment,
8 it's very important to me to hear why the
9 residents are out here today. I understand
10 their concern and they're worried about the
11 new tenants losing their cars down the
12 river, and I won't in any way impede you
13 from making your case or your argument.
14 There seems to be something about making a
15 case and an argument for a future appeal
16 rather than in front of people who are
17 extremely interested what can happen to
18 help build the city and build the
19 neighborhood in Philadelphia. So if you
20 could somehow work in along the way, I'm
21 sure there were community meetings. I
22 would like to know what happened there.
23 I'd like to know if people are against the
24 residential project. I'd like to know
44
Thrower - cross
1 things like that so that we can work on the
2 decision.
3 MR. KRAKOWER: Maybe since I'm
4 cross-examining him, we're not putting on
5 our case yet, Mr. Auspitz. We will, and
6 all those things will come out. I can
7 summarize by saying that the people -- most
8 of the people -- the people I'm
9 representing who are here believe this is a
10 dangerous project that has not been thought
11 through, not been engineered, and to all
12 the commissioners, we're not looking for an
13 appeal. If you have watched what's been
14 going on with flooding around the world, in
15 the Carolinas, in Venezuela or anywhere
16 else, this is an ill-conceived project in
17 our point. I must first cross-examine
18 their architect, their engineer and make
19 sure that it's clear on the record as to
20 what they're saying, and then we'll bring
21 our own people on, including experts.
22 MR. KELLY: Why don't we get to your
23 people. He's answered what he can answer.
24 MR. JAFFE: I'd like to ask --
45
Thrower - cross
1 MR. KELLY: Wait a minute.
2 MR. KRAKOWER: I'm going to stop my
3 questioning then and let Mr. Jaffe ask some
4 questions.
5 BY MR. JAFFE:
6 Q. Just very briefly, could you tell me in
7 what capacity you're here today?
8 A. As the architect for the building.
9 Q. So you're not here as an expert then. Do
10 you have a vested interest in this project, sir?
11 A. You mean a financial interest?
12 Q. Is your company a designing entity of this
13 project?
14 A. Yes, we are.
15 Q. So it would be correct to say that you're
16 not here as an independent expert, as an independent
17 architect without a vested interest in the program?
18 A. That's fair to say, I guess.
19 MR. JAFFE: That's all.
20 MR. KELLY: He's the project
21 architect.
22 MR. JAFFE: But he's been brought to
23 us and I'd like to suggest and then go back
24 and object to what Mr. Krakower said
46
Thrower - cross
1 originally that this gentleman is here as a
2 fact witness not as an expert.
3 MR. SKLAROFF: No, no. This is a
4 frivolous statement on your part. Please.
5 MR. KELLY: There are no objections
6 to him being -- his credentials were
7 presented. He is what he is. He's an
8 expert in the architectural field, and this
9 is his job.
10 MR. KRAKOWER: We would only ask and
11 I would only ask, however, that the Board
12 also take into consideration he is not an
13 unbiased expert.
14 MR. SKLAROFF: We have disclosed that
15 he is the project architect.
16 MR. KELLY: Mr. Krakower, the
17 witnesses for you are not unbiased either.
18 MR. KRAKOWER: No.
19 MR. KELLY: We know what the
20 witnesses are.
21 MR. SKLAROFF: He has the practical
22 knowledge.
23 MR. KELLY: Let's cut to the chase
24 and hear the case.
47
Thrower - cross
1 MR. SKLAROFF: I have no other
2 questions.
3 MR. KELLY: Thank you, sir.
4 MR. SKLAROFF: Our next witness is
5 Elmore J. Boles, Jr., professional
6 engineer.
7 ... ELMORE J. BOLES, JR., having been
8 previously sworn as a witness, was examined
9 and testified as follows ...
10 DIRECT EXAMINATION
11 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
12 Q. Mr. Boles, would you state for the record
13 your professional affiliation.
14 A. I am president of Boles Smythe Associates,
15 and I'm vice president of Delta Group, an urban
16 design firm.
17 Q. I would offer Mr. Boles' resume, and, very
18 quickly, Mr. Boles, tell us about your -- you can
19 refer to a copy of the resume -- your educational
20 background.
21 A. I have a Bachelor of Science in civil
22 engineering, a Master of Science in civil engineering
23 and a certificate from MIT in highway engineering. I
24 have a certificate from Northwestern University in
48
Boles - direct
1 urban transportation, and I have a certificate in
2 urban planning from MIT.
3 Q. And are your qualifications set forth in
4 detail on the exhibit which we would mark as Exhibit
5 A-3?
6 A. It doesn't list the 450 projects I've been
7 involved with.
8 Q. I'm not saying it's complete, but what is
9 on here is accurate?
10 A. That's correct.
11 (Document marked for identification
12 as Exhibit No. A-3.)
13 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
14 Q. And you have 40 years of experience in
15 civil and transportation engineering and urban
16 design; is that correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Have you been involved in projects similar
19 to this?
20 A. Yes, I've been.
21 MR. KRAKOWER: I'm going to object to
22 the term "similar to this" without knowing
23 similar in what regard.
24 MR. KELLY: He'll answer that, sir.
49
Boles - direct
1 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
2 Q. Let me ask you this: Have you been
3 involved in projects built in the Schuylkill
4 floodway?
5 A. Yes, sir, I have.
6 Q. And more than one?
7 A. Yes.
8 Q. And more than Venice Island?
9 A. Yes.
10 Q. Would you tell the Board what those
11 projects are.
12 A. I'm going to recite my experience with
13 respect to the Schuylkill River. At the present time
14 we are consulting engineers for PIDC for the
15 redevelopment of the infrastructure at the Navy Yard,
16 which is both in the floodway and substantially on
17 the floodplain. It's just north of that we have
18 completed the police criminal investigation
19 impoundment lot, just south of the Platt Bridge,
20 which is entirely in the floodway. Just north of
21 that, on the west bank of the river, we are now
22 building a $69 million chiller plant for the
23 University of Pennsylvania and an NCAA baseball
24 stadium. Diagonally across the river, we just
50
Boles - direct
1 completed Locust on the Park, which is 50 percent in
2 the floodplain and survived the Floyd --
3 MR. KRAKOWER: Is it in the
4 floodway?
5 THE WITNESS: No, it is in the --
6 MR. KELLY: Mr. Krakower, he's giving
7 testimony. Don't interrupt him.
8 THE WITNESS: It's in the floodplain.
9 MR. KELLY: Sir, testify to the
10 Board.
11 THE WITNESS: In addition to that
12 project, which is at Locust Street on the
13 east bank of the river, we have for the
14 past 30 years been the designers of
15 Schuylkill River Park, which formerly was
16 in the floodway and is now just in the
17 floodplain. We recently completed a study
18 of the marketplace lower level, which Quest
19 is moving into with their equipment in the
20 floodway -- in the floodplain. I'm sorry.
21 We last May completed the construction of
22 the bulkhead for the east side of the
23 Schuylkill River from just north of Locust
24 Street to just north of Vine Street, and
51
Boles - direct
1 we've been working on that project for
2 about 15 years. In addition to that, we
3 have designed the existing part of
4 Schuylkill River Park, which is from Taney
5 Street up to Locust Street. It's three
6 separate park projects which have been --
7 the last one of which was completed about
8 four years ago.
9 In addition to that, the work we have
10 done for the west side of the river
11 consists of the Lower Merion -- I'm sorry
12 -- the Upper Merion Township extension of
13 Route 23 along the west bank of the
14 Schuylkill, all of it in the floodplain.
15 In addition to that, we have done
16 projects in Birdsboro. We did the Haig
17 Creek main burg project, which is a
18 floodway project in which we removed 300
19 homes and built the park and borough
20 activities in the floodway.
21 In addition to that, we have been the
22 consultants for the City of Reading on the
23 Model Cities I project, which is in the
24 floodplain and partially in the floodway in
52
Boles - direct
1 the lower part of Reading. We have
2 completed the Schuylkill project for the
3 City of Reading for the development of both
4 park space and the Penske Trucking
5 facilities, which are in the floodplain and
6 floodway in the City of Reading and worked
7 on additional waterfront facilities along
8 the river. That's my experience on the
9 Schuylkill River.
10 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
11 Q. Have you also been involved in traffic
12 engineering studies in the City of Philadelphia?
13 A. Yes, I have. We do a substantial number of
14 projects for the City Streets Department, and for
15 PIDC and the Street Department jointly I am the
16 coauthor of the Manayunk Traffic and Parking Study,
17 which was done in '96 and '97.
18 MR. SKLAROFF: We would offer
19 Mr. Boles as an expert on civil and
20 transportation engineering and urban
21 design.
22 MR. KELLY: Any objections?
23 MR. KRAKOWER: Yes, for the record I
24 object.
53
Boles - direct
1 MR. KELLY: So noted.
2 MR. KRAKOWER: Do I get a chance to
3 cross-examine Mr. Boles on his expertise?
4 MR. KELLY: You've already objected
5 to him.
6 MR. KRAKOWER: I've objected, and I'd
7 also like an opportunity --
8 MR. SKLAROFF: On his credentials,
9 Mr. Krakower?
10 MR. KRAKOWER: On his credentials,
11 that's correct, at least on one aspect of
12 his credentials.
13 MR. KELLY: Go ahead, sir.
14 VOIR DIRE
15 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
16 Q. Reviewing the list of projects in which,
17 with all due respect, I believe you have interjected
18 floodway and floodplain as seems to be the tendency
19 for so many people to do.
20 MR. SKLAROFF: Object to that.
21 Please ask a question.
22 MR. KRAKOWER: I think the Board has
23 heard that interspersing of floodway and
24 floodplain. The record will show.
54
Boles - voir dire
1 MR. KELLY: Mr. Krakower, he made it
2 clear to you what was floodway and
3 floodplain.
4 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
5 Q. My question is this, sir: According to my
6 notes, you have not made reference to a residential
7 project being developed in the floodway, a
8 residential project in the floodway of all the
9 projects you have named. If I missed any --
10 MR. SKLAROFF: You want to ask him a
11 question.
12 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
13 Q. Yes. Did you make any reference to -- my
14 notes missed it -- is there a residential project
15 not in the floodplain, not on the fringe, but within
16 the floodway with which you have been involved?
17 A. Yes, I believe the Model Cities 1 project
18 in Reading at Bigiman Street was in both the
19 floodplain and the floodway. You have to recall that
20 projects built along the Schuylkill are subject to
21 varying conditions, mostly those created by the corps
22 of engineers. When we did that project and when we
23 did the Penske project in the city of Reading, they
24 were both in the floodway. But since that time, the
55
Boles - voir dire
1 '80's, the corps constructed the Maiden Creek
2 Project, the Blue Marsh Project and the Haig Creek
3 floodway improvements, substantially reducing the
4 floodway, especially in the City of Philadelphia.
5 When we began the projects for
6 Schuylkill River Park back in 1978, the FEMA plans
7 extended the 100-year floodplain all the way to 21st
8 Street at that time. If you look at the new corps of
9 engineers 1995 determination of floodway and
10 floodplain, you will see that it is entirely
11 contained throughout that area within our bulkheads
12 that we built.
13 Q. Now, I still didn't get an answer. Is
14 there --
15 MR. KELLY: He gave you a pointed
16 answer, sir.
17 MR. SKLAROFF: He answered it.
18 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
19 Q. -- that there is a current project that's a
20 residential project. You mentioned the Penske
21 project. That's not a residential project?
22 A. No, it's not.
23 MR. SKLAROFF: He didn't say it was.
24 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
56
Boles - voir dire
1 Q. The Schuylkill River Park is not a
2 residential project. I'm trying to get a direct
3 answer.
4 MR. KELLY: Mr. Krakower, he gave --
5 MR. SKLAROFF: He gave you a direct
6 answer.
7 MR. KELLY: Please, Mr. Sklaroff.
8 Listen, he gave you an answer. Do you have
9 any other questions?
10 MR. KRAKOWER: I understand then the
11 answer is no. I did not --
12 MR. KELLY: It's not an answer is
13 no. He gave you a project in Reading.
14 MR. KRAKOWER: That is a residential
15 project in the floodway?
16 THE WITNESS: Yes, it is. It's a
17 residential project at the end of Bigiman
18 Street in the City of Reading, the Model
19 Cities I.
20 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
21 Q. What river is it in?
22 A. The Schuylkill.
23 Q. Are there any in or near Philadelphia,
24 within the city limits of Philadelphia?
57
Boles - voir dire
1 A. Well, the Locust on the Park project at
2 25th and Locust Streets was under the previous FEMA
3 mapping in the floodway. It is now only in the
4 floodplain.
5 Q. At the time it was constructed, was it in
6 the floodway?
7 A. No, it was not.
8 Q. That's what I wanted to know. I'll ask
9 this one more question. I promise I'll stop. Is
10 there a project to which you can refer which is
11 residential which is in the City of Philadelphia and
12 which was constructed in the floodway?
13 A. You mean a project that we did, our firm?
14 Q. With which you're personally familiar, that
15 you know of.
16 A. My office is in the 2400 building, which I
17 can assure you is in both the floodplain and the
18 floodway and had six feet of water in it on September
19 16th.
20 Q. Was it in the floodway when it was built?
21 That was my question.
22 A. I'm pretty sure that it was. It was built
23 back in the middle '70's. I'm pretty sure it was in
24 the floodway then, and it was in the floodway on the
58
Boles - voir dire
1 16th of September. We took about 6 to 6 and a half
2 feet of water in the building in the parking
3 structure which is below the building. It's a 33
4 story high-rise.
5 MR. SKLAROFF: Mr. Chairman, we're
6 now getting beyond credentials. I mean,
7 it's far afield.
8 MR. KELLY: This is why I didn't want
9 to go there with -- Mr. Krakower, are you
10 done with him now on his credentials?
11 MR. KRAKOWER: Okay.
12 MR. KELLY: Any questions,
13 Mr. Sklaroff.
14 MR. SKLAROFF: Yes, I do, not on
15 credentials.
16 MR. KELLY: We know that.
17 MR. SKLAROFF: Yes, we do have
18 questions.
19 DIRECT EXAMINATION (Continued)
20 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
21 Q. Would you, Mr. Boles, describe the work
22 that you did with regard to civil engineering of the
23 proposal?
24 A. For this project?
59
Boles - direct
1 Q. Yes.
2 A. We are in the process of establishing both
3 the footprint geometry, the utility services
4 necessary to service the project on Venice Island,
5 and we did an investigation of the traffic concerns
6 for the use of the garage facility.
7 Q. And this goes beyond the traffic and the
8 flood considerations, correct?
9 A. Yes, sir.
10 Q. In other words, you are generally doing the
11 civil engineering for the project; is that correct?
12 A. That's correct, including we are doing the
13 hydraulic study for the HEC-RAS which is necessary to
14 satisfy the Code of Federal Regulations, FEMA, the
15 state of Pennsylvania and the City of Philadelphia
16 Code.
17 Q. HEC-RAS, so we have it clearly in the
18 record, off the record would you spell that for the
19 reporter.
20 (Discussion off the record.)
21 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
22 Q. And when that is completed, will that be
23 submitted to Mr. Soffer at the Planning Commission?
24 A. That's correct. We had indicated on the
60
Boles - direct
1 zoning plans, Z-1, you see our requirement that we
2 will complete a hydraulic analysis of the river and
3 the impact that our construction will produce with
4 regard to the floodway, which is a federal
5 requirement and a state and a city requirement. You
6 cannot build unless you improve the floodway
7 condition. There is no question, we have to improve
8 the passage of the floodway flow for us to build
9 anything.
10 Q. And if we're not going to do that in this
11 project, are we going to ask for a variance on that
12 requirement?
13 A. No, we're not.
14 Q. So this is conditioned, this application is
15 conditioned upon the compliance of this project with
16 those federal standards, correct?
17 A. That's an absolute requirement. We don't
18 have any options. We must improve the floodway
19 conditions. That's a requirement.
20 Q. Let's talk about the traffic conditions.
21 You have done, as you said, a study several years ago
22 for Manayunk; is that correct?
23 A. That's correct.
24 MR. SKLAROFF: The next number I
61
Boles - direct
1 think is it A-4 or 5? I think it's A-4.
2 I'll just mark it A-4.
3 (Document marked for identification
4 as Exhibit No. A-4.)
5 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
6 Q. Now, I don't want to get into the specific
7 details of A-4, but would you just tell the Board
8 generally what A-4 represents?
9 A. A-4 represents a summary report of an
10 analysis of the entire Manayunk area from Domino Lane
11 south to the Ridge/Main intersection. We did traffic
12 counts and turning movement counts on all the
13 streets, all of the principal flow streets in
14 Manayunk and came up with a series of recommendations
15 for improving traffic flow and for improving
16 intersection capacity.
17 Q. Were you personally involved in the
18 preparation of this report?
19 A. I'm the coauthor of that report.
20 Q. And was the technical work done either by
21 you or under your supervision?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. And what was the conclusion of this
24 report? What was the -- let me ask you this: What
62
Boles - direct
1 was the purpose of this report?
2 A. The purpose of the report was to convey to
3 the Streets Department and to PIDC and the community
4 how traffic flow movements could be improved in
5 Manayunk.
6 Q. And this report says on it's face that it
7 was prepared for PIDC; is that correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. Was it also used by other agencies, city
10 agencies with respect to their activities?
11 A. The Streets Department and the Planning
12 Commission who participated in the study with us.
13 Q. Was it shared generally in the community?
14 A. Yes, certainly.
15 Q. To your knowledge?
16 A. Certainly.
17 Q. Did you also recently prepare a traffic
18 study of the effects of the proposed development on
19 the capacity of the streets in Manayunk?
20 A. Yes, we did. We looked at the exit paths
21 of this facility to Main Street and the distribution
22 to other streets in Manayunk.
23 MR. SKLAROFF: And I ask that a
24 document be marked Exhibit A-5, which is
63
Boles - direct
1 three sheets, and we have some extras for
2 the Board.
3 (Document marked for identification
4 as Exhibit No. A-5.)
5 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
6 Q. And, Mr. Boles, would you tell us what A-5
7 is.
8 A. A-5 is a computer analysis of the
9 intersection at the location of Cotton and Main
10 Street in the no build situation and a.m., p.m. peak
11 flows on a weekday and a determination of what impact
12 it would have there, and we looked at adjacent
13 intersections to see what the impact would be there.
14 The important thing is Cotton Street, which is at
15 Cotton and Main, which a signalized intersection,
16 presently has almost no traffic on it since Connelly
17 is the only occupier here and the recreation center,
18 which has very little traffic, and we superimposed on
19 existing traffic flows in the a.m. and p.m. peaks
20 what would be generated by this project. This
21 project which has 270 apartments and 575 parking
22 spaces would generate 1,850 trip ends a day on a
23 weekday. In the a.m. peak hour it would generate 150
24 trip ends in the a.m. and approximately 175 p.m. peak
64
Boles - direct
1 total. The change in the level of service as a
2 result of those peak hour flows is that in a no build
3 situation where we have -- if you look at the first
4 sheet here -- a composite level of service A at that
5 intersection, obviously it has a level of service A.
6 It has practically no intersecting traffic, if you
7 look at the numbers.
8 If you look at the a.m. peak and the
9 p.m. peak hour where we generate 150 vehicle exiting
10 movements in the morning, the level of service is
11 reduced to a level of service B, and the delay
12 periods for all those vehicles are listed there.
13 Level of service B is an adequate traffic flow
14 situation. C is accepted for most project
15 developments. In the p.m. peak hour on sheet 3, you
16 notice the level of service has been reduced from A
17 to B as a result of the trip ends that we are
18 generating. It's still an acceptable level of
19 activities.
20 And the opportunities at Cotton
21 Street permits you to move either onto Main Street or
22 to continue through to Cresson Street, which has a
23 lower flow, which gives you also those opportunities
24 if Main Street were even jammed, you could still
65
Boles - direct
1 leave the site on the green cycle and go through the
2 Cresson Street intersection.
3 Q. Now, there is a parking situation at Green
4 Lane and Main Street that is currently problematic;
5 isn't that correct?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. Is it fair to say that that problem will
8 not be substantially helped or harmed by this
9 development?
10 A. It will neither help nor harm in general,
11 and the opportunity here to not use Main Street but
12 to use Cresson or continue on Cotton gives you the
13 opportunity leaving this site to avoid the problem
14 that exists at Green Lane and Main Street, which is a
15 problem which we are trying to help PennDOT and Lower
16 Merion Township resolve, since it's created in Lower
17 Merion Township by the intersection of Green Lane,
18 which becomes Belmont Avenue as it crosses the river
19 and intersects with the Schuylkill Expressway. The
20 a.m. peak problem which begins at 10 after 7:00 each
21 morning is created by the fact that the ramps coming
22 down onto Belmont Avenue in Lower Merion create a
23 situation where the green time on -- the westbound
24 traffic on the bridge does not have adequate storage,
66
Boles - direct
1 and it cannot clear the intersection on the green
2 time that now exists. Everyone recognizes that,
3 PennDOT, Lower Merion. We've met with them. We
4 would like to add 10 seconds of green time to the
5 ramp -- to the intersections at the ramp so that the
6 storage on the bridge can move out on Belmont Avenue
7 and clear the intersection at Green Lane and Main
8 Street, which is what the problem is.
9 We put that traffic signal at that
10 location in 1981. It had a level of service B for
11 the traffic flows that go through that intersection.
12 The level of service for that intersection would
13 still be b if we could clear the traffic off the
14 bridge in Lower Merion and move the traffic on
15 Belmont Avenue. That's not able to be done at the
16 present time because the traffic controllers that
17 Lower Merion uses at the location are two cycle
18 controllers. They have an off peak and on peak
19 situation. I've been out there, Lower Merion
20 Township. We would like to add ten seconds of green
21 time going westbound across the bridge. That would
22 clear the storage. They won't do that because if
23 they change the a.m. peak controller, it
24 automatically changes the p.m. peak controller and
67
Boles - direct
1 would create even a worse problem that they would
2 have.
3 At this time PennDOT is working on a
4 program to put a multifaceted controller at that
5 intersection and the next in Lower Merion to
6 substantially reduce the traffic congestion in
7 Manayunk. This project does not add to that
8 congestion, and all the drivers have the opportunity
9 to avoid that location.
10 Q. One further question, Mr. Boles. Is it
11 fair to say that this project -- actually two
12 questions. Is it fair to say this project will not
13 substantially increase traffic congestion in the
14 streets?
15 A. No, it will not.
16 Q. One other question, originally this
17 project, is it not, was a development proposed hotel,
18 retail, commercial and residential?
19 A. That's correct.
20 Q. Now, by eliminating the hotel and retail,
21 commercial as a result of meetings in the community,
22 did that improve or not improve the traffic
23 situation?
24 MR. KRAKOWER: I want to object to
68
Boles - direct
1 the form of question, which implies that
2 these changes were made as a result of
3 meetings with the community, and I do not
4 believe that to be the case. If changes
5 were made, fine, but attributed to the
6 community --
7 MR. SKLAROFF: Unless you know,
8 Mr. Boles.
9 MR. KRAKOWER: I'm not disputing what
10 changes are made.
11 MR. KELLY: Let him answer.
12 THE WITNESS: The problem is I met
13 with the community leaders on a number of
14 projects here, and I'm not sure whether the
15 reduction on this site was a result of
16 their comments. I know on the other sites,
17 I know that that's the case. The community
18 asked for a reduction in units, we lowered
19 the number of units. I don't recall
20 whether the community commented here, but
21 the development has been substantially
22 reduced, and the traffic congestion that
23 would have resulted from the commercial,
24 which is a peak hour situation, and the
69
Boles - direct
1 hotel have been eliminated.
2 MR. SKLAROFF: Thank you, Mr. Boles.
3 MR. KELLY: Mr. Boles, are you
4 familiar with Connelly Container when it
5 was at its peak and the number of
6 employees?
7 THE WITNESS: How many, I think they
8 had about 18 employees there, but the
9 important thing is they had anywhere
10 between 20 and 40 tractor-trailers of paper
11 bales going in and out during the day. And
12 I was in a restaurant in July in which a
13 trailer left the site on a Wednesday
14 afternoon, and when I came out of that
15 restaurant two hours later, that trailer
16 was -- the tractor and trailer were still
17 stuck in the intersection because they
18 could not make that turn because it was a
19 over 55 foot unit.
20 MR. KELLY: That's what they did,
21 they loaded bales of paper?
22 THE WITNESS: That's right. They
23 loaded chopped paper, large bales of
24 chopped paper.
70
Boles - direct
1 MR. KELLY: Thank you.
2 BY MR. SKLAROFF:
3 Q. So the way the configuration of Cotton
4 street makes difficult the use of the site for at
5 least those industrial uses that require
6 tractor-trailers?
7 A. Obviously both Cotton Street and Main
8 Street provide for two lanes of through traffic, one
9 lane directional. In addition Main Street, of
10 course, has parking on both sides, which makes
11 tractor trailer turns from Cotton Street almost
12 impossible.
13 MR. SKLAROFF: Thank you, Mr. Boles.
14 MR. KELLY: Any questions of this
15 witness?
16 MR. KRAKOWER: Oh, I sure do. May
17 I?
18 CROSS-EXAMINATION
19 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
20 Q. Mr. Boles, do I understand, first of all,
21 that your comment is that they were still moving
22 paper in July, this past July, five months ago, four
23 months ago?
24 A. Yeah, I think so. I think they closed
71
Boles - cross
1 about three months ago.
2 Q. About three months ago. Do you know for
3 how many years they functioned there?
4 A. Almost all of this century. I'm not sure
5 how -- it began early in the century.
6 Q. Now, you've indicated that commercial use
7 would have generated more traffic to the area. Is
8 that your opinion?
9 A. Commercial use on this site --
10 Q. Yes.
11 A. -- would have generated more traffic to
12 this site. It was commercial use in addition to the
13 residential use and additional for the hotel
14 operation.
15 Q. Isn't there a study -- I don't know
16 whether it's yours or somebody else's -- that
17 indicates that the traffic problems in the area are
18 not due to people coming to the area as much as
19 people going through the area?
20 A. That's a substantial part of the problem.
21 One of the major problems in Manayunk is in the a.m.
22 peak hour when traffic comes down Umbria Street and
23 Leverington and turns on to Main, comes south on Main
24 and gets to the Green Lane Bridge, and there's no
72
Boles - cross
1 possibility of making the right turn there because
2 the bridge is filled with vehicles. That's the
3 principal problem in Manayunk. It creates all kinds
4 of reflections at other locations.
5 Q. Are you telling us that with that given
6 situation adding maybe 575 cars on to this island
7 right there at that location is not going to worsen
8 the situation, not going to worsen the congestion?
9 Is that what you're saying?
10 A. Well, listen to what I have to say.
11 Q. Maybe first you just tell me yes or no.
12 MR. SKLAROFF: Let him answer the
13 question.
14 MR. KRAKOWER: I think I'm entitled
15 to a yes or no first.
16 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
17 Q. Is that the basic --
18 A. The answer to that is it all depends on
19 what paths the vehicles take in leaving the site.
20 You can obviously avoid that intersection completely
21 by simply going up Cotton Street to Cresson.
22 MR. SKLAROFF: The test, as you know
23 is, Mr. Krakower, not whether traffic
24 increases but whether congestion
73
Boles - cross
1 substantially increases.
2 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
3 Q. But in determining whether congestion
4 increases, we first look at whether traffic
5 increases, and I think the question is if you have
6 the same situation. I'm not talking about
7 infrastructure improvements. That would be wonderful
8 under any event, with or without this development,
9 would you agree with that?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. So assuming the same infrastructure
12 improvements or the lack thereof, if you add 500 and
13 some automobiles to this island, and they have to get
14 off on the one or two vehicle bridges that connect
15 the island to the mainland, are you saying that if
16 all other factors remained the same, there will not
17 be an increase in both traffic and congestion?
18 A. Well, answering the first part of your
19 question, vehicles crossing the two -- actually, only
20 this bridge which leaves this area, we're talking
21 about Cotton Street, which has no other traffic on
22 it, except vehicles leaving or entering this site,
23 we're talking about 150 -- I'm sorry -- 126 exiting
24 trips here in the a.m. peak hour. There is no way
74
Boles - cross
1 that the new Cotton Street bridge would constrict a
2 flow of 126 cars in the a.m. peak period. That's not
3 the case. The control for this location is this
4 signalized intersection.
5 And in answering the second part of
6 the question, if the 126 vehicles leaving here turned
7 left and went to the Green Lane bridge, there would
8 be a very substantial increase in traffic congestion
9 in the peak hour, because the left turn on to the
10 bridge is one of the most difficult turns. It is
11 obvious that any driver coming to this location and
12 seeing a backup here has the option to go to Cresson
13 Street and use Cresson Street as an --
14 Q. Is it equally obvious that any driver that
15 knows about that condition that's coming from
16 somewhere else, like down Leverington Road, would
17 just avoid Manayunk altogether?
18 A. Correct.
19 Q. I mean, if the drivers were all looking to
20 avoid congestion, they wouldn't go on Main Street
21 between Leverington and Green Lane at all, but have
22 you been there in the morning lately?
23 A. I've been there often.
24 MR. SKLAROFF: They're two questions
75
Boles - cross
1 at once. The rule is you only get one at a
2 time.
3 THE WITNESS: It depends. When the
4 SEPTA repairs are being done to the bridge
5 and the Green Lane westbound traffic was
6 reduced from two lanes to one, very quickly
7 people learned not to come that way, and
8 traffic dramatically decreased on Green
9 Lane going westbound. The problem is that
10 those people on coming down Leverington or
11 Umbria do not have the option to go
12 elsewhere. There's only one bridge across
13 the river at this location. It's the Green
14 Lane bridge. They don't have an option.
15 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
16 Q. If somebody lived in one of these
17 apartments and wanted to go onto the Schuylkill
18 Expressway west, let's say, to the Pennsylvania
19 Turnpike, wouldn't they go right here and make this
20 left turn and go across the roadway --
21 A. They certainly wouldn't. They'd go south
22 and go onto City Line Avenue and enter at that
23 location, where there isn't congestion at that ramp
24 location. The problem is the ramp location in Lower
76
Boles - cross
1 Merion.
2 Q. Well, or if they wanted to go to City Line
3 Avenue, west of City Line Avenue, you mean they
4 wouldn't go down that way? Are you saying -- let me
5 strike that last -- are you saying, sir, that you can
6 control how people freely are going to drive to
7 improve traffic; that that's your solution to improve
8 traffic?
9 A. I can't, but the driver can.
10 Q. The driver can?
11 A. Absolutely.
12 Q. So you're assuming the good sense of
13 drivers will avoid the congestion?
14 A. Absolutely. We know that that is the case,
15 and I can cite a number of locations in Philadelphia
16 where we've made changes like that and people have
17 avoided that location.
18 Q. By the way, where is the basis for the 126
19 trip count? Did you make an actual count for that,
20 or did you do a computer model? I mean, there's no
21 construction on that. I don't know where you got
22 that number.
23 A. That number is from the Institute of
24 Traffic Engineers Trip Generation Tables for
77
Boles - cross
1 apartments, which I can provide for you, if you want.
2 Q. But it's not from any actual counts?
3 A. It's from hundreds of counts. The trip
4 generation tables are from hundreds of counts done by
5 the Institute of -- I'll tell you how many hundreds.
6 Q. I'm not asking you that question. I'm
7 asking you if there was a count of vehicles done in
8 Manayunk to determine how many vehicles are making
9 given trips?
10 A. Making given trips from the Connelly plant,
11 the answer to that is yes. They're shown on the no
12 build solution to the highway capacity manual
13 intersection capacity.
14 Q. Were there trip counts made along Main
15 Street?
16 A. Absolutely. They're in the traffic
17 report. We took counts on all the main flow streets
18 in Manayunk. They're all shown in the traffic
19 report.
20 Q. Now, did you also -- who did the count, by
21 the way? I don't mean the persons, what
22 organization? Did your company do the counts?
23 A. We subbed the turning movement counts to a
24 minority firm, Hunt Engineering Company, who we use
78
Boles - cross
1 all the time for traffic counts, and the tube counts
2 on all the major streets was subbed to Tristate
3 Engineering, which is a traffic counting firm.
4 Q. This A-5 study, who paid for that, the
5 summary report and the HCM summary results, who paid
6 for that?
7 A. PIDC.
8 MR. SKLAROFF: The A-4.
9 THE WITNESS: The traffic report was
10 paid for by PIDC.
11 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
12 Q. Who paid for the HCM summary?
13 A. Who has paid, or who will pay?
14 Q. Well, give me both, if you can answer.
15 A. The developers of the three sites on Venice
16 Island are participants in our studies.
17 Q. Now, getting to the hydrology studies and
18 the floodway condition studies, I believe you made
19 the statement that you have to show that you're
20 improving the floodway condition in order to get
21 approval to build this project?
22 A. That's the federal regulation. It's called
23 the no rise regulation.
24 Q. To whom do you make that showing, and when
79
Boles - cross
1 and where?
2 A. We make that presentation to Mr. Soffer of
3 the City Planning Commission who refers it -- who is
4 going to refer it, according to a memo I have from
5 him, to FEMA and the corps of engineers.
6 Q. It doesn't get shown here to this Zoning
7 Board?
8 A. It's not in the program at the present
9 time. If they want to see it, they certainly are
10 entitled to see it.
11 Q. My question is are you aware of a
12 regulation in Section 14-1802(3) that provides that
13 you must get approval and show this Zoning Board that
14 there is no increase in the floodway?
15 MR. SKLAROFF: Well, object. If you
16 want to argue that, fine. This is not a
17 witness to argue points of law with. You
18 can argue that with me. You can present it
19 to the Board. You have your choice.
20 MR. KRAKOWER: Well, I want to ask
21 this witness.
22 MR. KELLY: When you get the study,
23 sir, submit it to the Board.
24 THE WITNESS: Sure.
80
Boles - cross
1 MR. KELLY: That issue is closed.
2 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
3 Q. Last question, who is doing the hydraulic
4 study? I think you referred to them as HEC-RAS
5 studies.
6 A. That's right.
7 Q. Who is doing those?
8 A. Professor J. Richard Weggel at Drexel
9 University is doing it. We've selected him. He's a
10 former student of mine. I spent 11 years teaching at
11 Drexel. He is a head of hydraulics and hydrology
12 unit at Drexel. We selected him because, one, he's
13 independent of us, and, more importantly, he has
14 conducted HEC-RAS studies on the Schuylkill at this
15 location for the Water Department, for their use of
16 the Manayunk Canal, for the supply systems of the
17 Green Lane reservoir, and he also did the HEC-RAS
18 study for the Cotton Street bridge at this location.
19 Because of that, he has been given by Montgomery
20 County their HEC-RAS information, and the corps of
21 engineers has provided him in the past week with
22 their entire HEC-RAS of the entire Schuylkill River
23 end to end. He has all the geometry, all the cross
24 sections, and he is producing that study based on
81
Boles - cross
1 their information, not information that we developed.
2 Q. To the best of your knowledge, when is that
3 study expected to be completed?
4 A. He thinks January 15th.
5 MR. KRAKOWER: Thank you.
6 MR. JAFFE: May I, Board. I'll be
7 very brief.
8 BY MR. JAFFE:
9 Q. In trying to help answer Board Member
10 Auspitz' question of the concerns of the community
11 and concerns of Councilman Cohen, if I may say, the
12 concerns are, among others, with the cars, that cars
13 are going to be stuck partially on the island,
14 partially in the river causing pollution of gasoline,
15 oil and other problems.
16 A. Why would that happen? We're required to
17 provide an emergency management plan. We certainly
18 have had in every one of the floodings that have
19 occurred in the past 30 years on the Schuylkill, two,
20 three, four days advance notice of what the rise was
21 going to be and the water profile. Any kind of
22 management organization that's running a residential
23 unit should provide a storage of keys so that those
24 cars can easily be removed. We have no intention of
82
Boles - cross
1 washing the cars down the river.
2 Q. So you can then tell us how long it will
3 take for 575 cars to exit from this complex?
4 A. About 45 minutes.
5 Q. And how long will it take to go off the
6 island? In other words, it will take 45 minutes to
7 get out of the garage altogether, and then how long
8 will it take to get off the island?
9 A. It's 300 feet. A couple of minutes.
10 MR. KELLY: Six seconds.
11 THE WITNESS: It's 300 feet.
12 BY MR. JAFFE:
13 Q. And the evacuation plan of 45 minutes is
14 not counting people getting their car, getting to
15 their car, notifying people, getting the staff to
16 move --
17 A. It does not include that time. I'm talking
18 about --
19 Q. Who's going to be moving 575 cars, given
20 what you say is true? There's going to be staff
21 hired for an evacuation emergency?
22 MR. KELLY: Mr. Jaffe, do you think
23 that 575 people are going to leave their
24 cars there and just leave? I'm sure that
83
Boles - cross
1 the drivers are going to take their cars
2 out. People that don't have -- that are
3 not there, they will have the keys, and
4 they'll have staff to take them out; is
5 that correct?
6 THE WITNESS: That's exactly correct.
7 MR. JAFFE: Chairman, the concern of
8 the councilman, the community that there's
9 below level parking and that this is going
10 to get flooded that as pictures -- the
11 newspaper picture that we saw earlier,
12 there's going to be vehicles stranded.
13 MR. KELLY: That newspaper picture
14 that you saw, what was that of, sir? What
15 was the hurricane?
16 MR. KRAKOWER: This is --
17 MR. KELLY: It's a simple question.
18 What was the hurricane?
19 THE WITNESS: Floyd.
20 MR. KELLY: The name? You.
21 MR. JAFFE: We've heard the name
22 Floyd. I'll repeat what I heard.
23 MR. KELLY: So it's Hurricane Floyd.
24 How far in advance did you know that the
84
Boles - cross
1 hurricane was coming, two to three days,
2 four days?
3 MR. JAFFE: But --
4 MR. KELLY: No, I'm asking you a
5 question.
6 MR. JAFFE: I don't mean to argue
7 with you, sir, but --
8 MR. KELLY: It's not an argument.
9 How far in advance were we notified?
10 MR. JAFFE: People don't like leaving
11 their property. People don't like
12 abandoning to the last minute.
13 BY MR. JAFFE:
14 Q. Sir, can you tell me in the 1900's how many
15 times there's been water elevation of approximately
16 14 feet or more?
17 A. 14 feet above.
18 Q. Gauge height.
19 MR. KELLY: At this site?
20 THE WITNESS: Well, on the river
21 itself.
22 MR. JAFFE: On the river, if you want
23 to be measuring --
24 THE WITNESS: It's about six or eight
85
Boles - cross
1 times.
2 MR. JAFFE: Eight times.
3 MR. SKLAROFF: He said six or eight
4 times.
5 BY MR. JAFFE:
6 Q. I'm aware of eight times, so that's eight
7 times. Would you agree, then, that there's eight
8 times in this century if that would be repeated into
9 the future that people will have a crises of moving
10 their vehicles and exiting this in an emergency
11 evacuation style?
12 A. Do I expect that there would be an
13 elevation of water that would inundate the garage
14 sometime in next century; is that what you're asking
15 me?
16 Q. 14 feet would -- do you -- would the 14
17 feet that it has risen the eight times in the 1900's
18 have flooded the basements, 14 feet above gauge sea
19 level?
20 A. The basements of what?
21 Q. Of the garage of the facility?
22 A. Yes, sure, certainly.
23 Q. It would have certainly flooded. So just
24 what we know that if this had existed through the
86
Boles - cross
1 past century, the past 100 years, that we would -- we
2 know for certain that at least eight times it would
3 have been totally flooded?
4 A. No, I don't think all of these were 14 foot
5 floods. I recall from the diagrams that they were
6 varying elevations. I think only one of those, the
7 26, was at that level. All the others were below
8 that, including Floyd on September 16th.
9 MR. JAFFE: I only have this one
10 copy. I'll show it to Michael. This is
11 the ranking from -- it doesn't have 1999
12 yet -- from 13.36 through --
13 MR. SKLAROFF: This is not at Venice
14 Island.
15 MR. JAFFE: This is where the
16 measuring is, which is at the Fairmount
17 Measuring.
18 MR. SKLAROFF: Let's show him the
19 document.
20 BY MR. JAFFE:
21 Q. Would you agree with that? And the
22 points --
23 A. Agree with what?
24 MR. SKLAROFF: Wait. Agree with
87
Boles - cross
1 what?
2 MR. JAFFE: Please. I'm just trying
3 to go quickly for the convenience of those
4 after us.
5 MR. SKLAROFF: Is the question does
6 he agree whether that information is
7 accurate?
8 BY MR. JAFFE:
9 Q. Is it accurate, one?
10 A. Sure, but it's not meaningful because the
11 river has substantially changed since some of these
12 floods occurred. The Maiden Creek Dam wasn't there.
13 The Blue Marsh Dam wasn't there. The Haig Creek
14 flood improvements weren't up stream. These are
15 historical and anecdotal. They're not applicable
16 today. They're certainly not analysis of the river
17 conditions now which we are doing based on the corps
18 of engineers study of the river as it is now. These
19 are different conditions.
20 Q. So this is just historical data of the
21 eight times that it would have flooded the basement?
22 A. That's correct.
23 MR. JAFFE: That's my point. Thank
24 you.
88
Boles - cross
1 MR. SKLAROFF: Anything further?
2 MR. JAFFE: No.
3 MR. SKLAROFF: That's all we have,
4 Mr. Chairman, Members of the Board. We
5 would move our Exhibits A-1 through A-5 and
6 rest our case.
7 MR. KELLY: How many witnesses,
8 Mr. Krakower?
9 MR. KRAKOWER: Eight or nine. Before
10 we begin, however, I would ask for the
11 Board, without our even putting on a case,
12 to vote on the grounds that there must be a
13 no vote to any variance being sought here
14 on the basis of Philadelphia Zoning Code
15 Section 14-1802(3)a that says that when
16 property is situated within areas subject
17 to flooding as provided in 14-1606, which
18 is this area, within a floodway, no
19 variances may be issued, repeat no
20 variances may be issued which would result
21 in any increase in flood levels during a
22 regulatory flood. Clearly, it is the
23 burden of the applicant to show that there
24 would be no increase in flood levels during
89
Boles - cross
1 a regulatory flood. There has been no such
2 showing. We have had both Mr. Thrower and
3 Mr. Boles say they don't think so. They
4 expect to have plans to show that there
5 won't be, but, Mr. Chairman, Members of the
6 Board, the law requires this Board to deny
7 any variance unless it is shown that there
8 will be no increase in the flood level, and
9 they haven't shown that, and they must show
10 that first as a legal requirement.
11 MR. SKLAROFF: Let me say this, if
12 the language of the Code was as you had
13 stated, you still wouldn't have a strong
14 argument. The point of this is no
15 variances may be issued which would result
16 in any increase in flood levels during the
17 regulatory floods. That's the
18 requirement. We have noted it on our
19 plan. We have proposed it as a proviso.
20 It is subject to federal regulation through
21 Mr. Soffer, who is delegated for that
22 purpose under the Federal Emergency
23 Management Act. This Board can comfortably
24 feel if it wishes to grant the variances
90
Boles - cross
1 that this project will not result in any
2 increase in flood levels during the
3 regulatory flood for the same reasons that
4 Mr. Boles has so eloquently stated.
5 MR. KELLY: Motion denied. We're
6 going to continue this case. How much time
7 do you need to put on your case?
8 MR. KRAKOWER: Roughly two to three
9 hours.
10 MR. KELLY: We'll give you a new date
11 as quickly as possible. Thank you.
12 MR. SKLAROFF: Thank you,
13 Mr. Chairman.
14 MR. KRAKOWER: Just so the record is
15 clear, Mr. Chairman, I submit that the
16 Board may not abandon its duty to
17 Mr. Soffer or anybody else.
18 MR. KELLY: We're well aware of our
19 duty, sir.
20 MR. JAFFE: I want to put in the
21 record Protestant's 1A, which is the chart
22 that Mr. Boles was referring to in his
23 discussion of historical data.
24 MR. SKLAROFF: We have no objection.
91
Boles - cross
1 (Document marked for identification
2 as Protestant's Exhibit No. 1A.)
3 - - -
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
92
Boles - cross
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3 I, Tara L. Wachowski, hereby certify
4 that the foregoing is a true and correct
5 transcript of the proceedings held in this
6 matter, as transcribed from the
7 stenographic notes taken by me on
8 Wednesday, December 22, 1999.
9
10
11 --------------------------------
12 ÿ Tara L. Wachowski,
Registered Professional Reporter
13 and Commissioner of Deeds
14
15 (This certification does not apply
to any reproduction of this transcript,
16 unless under the direct supervision of the
certifying reporter.)
17
- - -
18
19
20
21
22
23
24