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, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,
1
1 BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
2 - - -
3 Cal Nos.: 99-1284, 99-1285
4 Appl. Nos.: 991018058, 991029016
5 Zoning Class: G-2 IND.
6 Location: 4601--45 Flat Rock Road
4700 Flat Rock Road
7 Applicant: DRANOFF PROPERTIES, INC.
8 Owner: DRANOFF PROPERTIES, INC.
9
- - -
10 Monday, March 13, 2000
1:00 p.m.
11 Zoning Board of Adjustment
1515 Arch Street - 18th Floor
12 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- - -
13
14 BEFORE: THOMAS J. KELLY - CHAIRMAN
SUSAN O.W. JAFFE
15 DAVID L. AUSPITZ
ROSALIE M. LEONARD
16 THOMAS D. LOGAN
17
18 ROBERT J. D'AGOSTINO, Administrator
19 MARTIN T. GREGORSKI, City Planning Commission
20 - - -
21
22
DELCASALE CASEY, MARTIN & MANCHELLO
23 Ten Penn Center Plaza
1801 Market Street - Suite 636
24 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 568-2211
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 BLANK ROME COMISKY & McCAULEY, LLP
BY: PETER FOSTER KELSEN, ESQUIRE
3 One Logan Square
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103-6998
4
Counsel for Applicants, Dranoff
5 Properties, Inc.
6
KRAKOWER & MASON
7 BY: STANLEY R. KRAKOWER, ESQUIRE
2300 Aramark Tower
8 1101 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
9
Counsel for Friends of Manayunk Canal
10
11 CITY COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA
BY: ROBERT M. JAFFE
12 City Hall - Room 588
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
13
Representative for Councilman David Cohen
14
15 - - -
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
DELCASALE, CASEY, MARTIN & MANCHELLO
23 1801 Market Street - Suite 636
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
24 (215) 568-2211
3
1 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The Zoning Board
2 of Adjustment will now come to order. All
3 those that will give testimony kindly rise
4 and raise your right hand. Do you swear to
5 tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing
6 but the truth so help you God. We're here
7 on Calendar 99-1284 4601-45 Flat Rock Road.
8 MR. KRAKOWER: Good afternoon, Mr.
9 Chairman, Stanley Krakower for protestants
10 Friends of Manayunk Canal.
11 MR. JAFFE: Robert Jaffe for the
12 office of Councilman David Cohen,
13 protestant.
14 MR. KELSEN: Mr. Chairman, Peter
15 Kelsen for the applicant. As the board
16 knows this is a continuation of a hearing
17 that we held on a previous date, and I
18 believe that this was the applicant that
19 was continuing their case in chief. But
20 before I call my first witness of the day,
21 I would just like to give the Board a
22 little bit of background. Since we were
23 here in the past there have been
24 significant changes in the zoning landscape
4
1 affecting this application, and this is the
2 application for the Namico Soap Factory
3 site. On December 30, 1999, the mayor
4 signed three zoning ordinances; ordinance
5 number 990760 and ordinance numbers 990761
6 and 990762, and I'll hand those up to the
7 Board. And what theses ordinance did,
8 members of the Board, is to effect a
9 rezoning of a property known as Venice
10 Island or the majority of Venice Island and
11 most specifically it rezoned a parcel upon
12 which the Namico Soap Factory is located to
13 a designation of R C-1 and made residential
14 use a permitted use. You'll recall that
15 the variance that we had before you the
16 last time was because from a use
17 perspective Namico is G-2 and residential
18 use is not permitted. It is now a
19 permitted use. It also allowed for group
20 dwelling development or apartment dwelling
21 development, which is exactly what the
22 Namico application is all about, and it
23 also allowed for the bulk and area
24 configuration as proposed in the Bower,
5
1 Lewis, Thrower development plan, as of
2 right. So the only issue, members of the
3 Board, before you today is really the
4 appropriateness of a development which
5 includes some new construction to be
6 located within the floodway of the
7 Schuylkill River, and I submit that the
8 testimony will confirm, as I said to you
9 before, that this is appropriate for that
10 development. Both the standards of review
11 that the Zoning Board is charged with
12 pursuant to Section 141802 of the Code is
13 whether there will be an increase in the
14 regulatory floodway, and we will submit to
15 you that the hydrology testimony that
16 you'll hear today confirms that there will
17 be, in fact, a decrease and not an
18 increase.
19 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Before you go any
20 further, I would like the Planning
21 Commission to read this letter into the
22 record.
23 MR. GREGORSKI: This is a letter
24 dated March 13, 2000. An addendum to our
6
1 letter of the 11/18/99. Which reads: Dear
2 Chairman Kelly, subsequent to our letter of
3 November 18, 1999, the staff of the
4 Planning Commission has met with
5 representatives of the applicant to review
6 and discuss the hydrological study for the
7 subject proposed development. The review
8 of the hydrological study is underway and
9 final approval is expected shortly.
10 The purpose of this letter,
11 however, is not to discuss the hydrological
12 study but another raised by representatives
13 of the developer during the review
14 process. Specifically, whether or not the
15 above-captioned applications require any
16 Zoning Board review at all.
17 We believe that a strong case can
18 be made because subsequent to the filing of
19 the subject applications, the City Council
20 and the Mayor have enacted new zoning and
21 use regulations for the subject property as
22 well as neighboring properties on Venice
23 Island. As a result of the newly-enacted
24 Zoning Code Amendments the type and amount
7
1 of development proposed is now permitted.
2 The only issue before the ZBA is the issue
3 of "new construction" requiring a ZBA
4 variance after review to determine whether
5 or not there will be any increase in the
6 regulatory flood levels. The question is
7 whether or not the subject application
8 involves new construction of the lawful
9 extension of a "nonconforming building."
10 As the Board knows, Chapter 14-100
11 General Provisions establishes the
12 parameters under which the various
13 provisions and regulations which follow are
14 to be implemented and the subsequent
15 sections of the Code do not take precedent
16 over these provisions. Section 14-104 of
17 this Chapter deals with nonconforming
18 structures and uses. Since the subject
19 property is developed and has been
20 developed with buildings and structures
21 prior to the enactment of Section 14-1606
22 Flood Plain Controls, it is nonconforming
23 in terms of usage or contains nonconforming
24 structures. In either case, the applicant
8
1 has some right to expand or modify this
2 property. Either under Section 14-104,
3 Paragraph 6, Section C or Section 14-104,
4 Paragraph 8 the applicant is entitled to
5 modify or extend the building and/or uses.
6 It is our opinion that if the
7 applicant's hydrological study is approved
8 after review by FEMA and the state, and the
9 applicant proposes to meet all other
10 applicable City, State and Federal Laws,
11 they are entitled to have zoning permits
12 issued from the Department of Licenses and
13 Inspections as a lawful expansion of a
14 nonconforming use and/or building.
15 MR. KRAKOWER: May I ask who is the
16 signer of that letter?
17 MR. GREGORSKI: It's Barbara
18 Kaplan, Executive Director.
19 MR. KRAKOWER: May I respond?
20 CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, I'm going to
21 say something first. This is what we're
22 going to take testimony on today. It's
23 limited to this, okay.
24 MR. KELSEN: Wait, wait, wait,
9
1 wait, wait, Mr. Chairman, are you telling
2 me that you're only going to take testimony
3 on the nonconforming structure and not the
4 hydrology studies today?
5 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The hydrology,
6 sure, regarding the zoning.
7 MR. KELSEN: Yes.
8 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We don't want
9 lengthy discussions on things that aren't
10 pertinent anymore.
11 MR. KELSEN: Let me perhaps frame
12 my case to make it much easier for
13 everyone. My next point in discussion was
14 exactly what was read into the record --
15 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
16 MR. KELSEN: -- by the Planning
17 Commission. We believe that we are
18 permitted to develop the site under the
19 nonconforming use structures provisions of
20 the Code 14106 C, and we will submit that
21 we believe that as a matter of right. We
22 will put on today conformation of hydrology
23 studies by our two experts to confirm to
24 the Board that based on our studies there
10
1 will be, in fact, a decrease in the
2 floodway elevation as opposed to a negative
3 or, in fact, no increase and that will be
4 the focus of our testimony today, because I
5 think that is the only issue.
6 CHAIRMAN KELLY: That is the only
7 issue.
8 MR. KELSEN: And we're not going to
9 expand the record with all the other issues
10 that we covered as of right.
11 MR. KRAKOWER: May I respond for
12 the record?
13 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sure.
14 MR. KRAKOWER: First of all, the
15 letter from Barbara Kaplan was never made
16 available to us until this moment. Number
17 two --
18 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Nor to us until
19 this moment. I just received that, sir.
20 MR. KRAKOWER: Number two, I
21 respectfully submit that it is legally
22 without authority. This still is a
23 matter -- Zoning Board has to get a
24 referral, review or approval by the
11
1 Department of Licenses and Inspections. We
2 submit, for the record, as a matter of law,
3 that Barbara Kaplan does not have the legal
4 authority under the laws of the City of
5 Philadelphia to make this kind of
6 determination. If anything, the applicants
7 should resubmit their application to the
8 Department of Licenses and Inspections, and
9 then see what L and I produces by way of
10 referral, refusal or approval. Rather than
11 having the Planing Commission do this.
12 Since they have not done so, there can be
13 no retroactive effect from any subsequent
14 matter. This matter is before the Zoning
15 Board of Adjustment. So we submit that the
16 procedure would be, if this is to proceed
17 without consideration of the zoning
18 variances, for the applicants to go back to
19 L and I and file an application again and
20 get whatever approval, referral or refusal
21 is generated.
22 MR. KELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I
23 believe what the Zoning Board is going to
24 do today is to have a hearing to render a
12
1 decision on the issue of 141802 floodway
2 regulation.
3 CHAIRMAN KELLY: You're going to
4 back to L and I and submit an amended
5 application?
6 MR. KELSEN: No, I am not. I am
7 here before the Board for this body to make
8 a determination on the floodway issue.
9 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
10 MR. KELSEN: We believe that
11 Barbara Kaplan's letter is correct as a
12 matter of law. The application is before
13 you, and it is your duty and your mandate
14 to review the floodway testimony and make a
15 decision whether or not this development
16 comports with the regulations requiring a
17 demonstration of no increase in floodway,
18 and I submit --
19 CHAIRMAN KELLY: How are you going
20 to get your permit, sir?
21 MR. KELSEN: Once the Board makes a
22 determination on the consistency of that
23 issue, then we will have a decision that we
24 can take to L and I and L and I can issue a
13
1 permit.
2 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Fine.
3 MR. JAFFE: I would like to go on
4 the record for Councilman Cohen. The
5 attorney for the City of Philadelphia is a
6 city solicitor and City Council has their
7 technical staff also as counsel. This
8 letter is not an official City opinion and
9 this should go back and get consideration
10 by the City Solicitor's Office and the
11 applicant should reapply at L and I under
12 the new considerations. That's the first
13 point. The second point is that the
14 protestants have not received any of the
15 hydrologic engineering studies. In fact,
16 if you look at the --
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're going to
18 hear them right now.
19 MR. JAFFE: We had no chance to
20 review them. We've had no chance to have
21 our experts look at it. In fact, I
22 personally --
23 MR. KELSEN: You should have asked
24 for it. No one has asked us to provide
14
1 that information.
2 MR. KRAKOWER: We did.
3 MR. KELSEN: Stanley, with all due
4 respect, if you asked for it --
5 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay, we going to
6 stop this right now.
7 MR. JAFFE: It has not been --
8 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Bring your first
9 witness up.
10 MR. KELSEN: We call Elmore Boles
11 to testify.
12 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Name and address
13 for the record, sir.
14 THE WITNESS: Elmore J. Boles,
15 B-o-l-e-s, 2400 Chestnut Street,
16 Philadelphia 19103.
17 DIRECT EXAMINATION
18 BY MR. KELSEN:
19 Q. Mr. Boles, I'm going to ask you to keep
20 your voice up if you don't mind.
21 Mr. Boles, you have testified
22 before the Zoning Board recently; is that correct?
23 A. Yes, I have.
24 Q. On an unrelated matter; is that correct?
15
1 A. Yes, I have.
2 Q. But on a property that was located on
3 Venice Island?
4 A. Yes.
5 Q. Mr. Boles, I'd like you to tell the Board
6 your professional qualifications if you will.
7 A. I'm a registered professional engineer in
8 Pennsylvania and a registered licensed surveyor in
9 Pennsylvania. I'm also a registered professional
10 engineer in 13 other states. 12 states and the
11 District of Columbia. I have practiced civil
12 engineering as an engineering consultant since
13 1955.
14 CHAIRMAN KELLY: He's been before
15 the Board before.
16 MR. KELSEN: Can we stipulate to
17 his -- did you cross?
18 MR. KRAKOWER: I believe I did.
19 MR. KELSEN: They'll stipulate as
20 to his --
21 MR. JAFFE: I have questions before
22 we continue. I'll be brief.
23 BY MR. KELSEN:
24 Q. Did you bring your resume?
16
1 A. I did.
2 MR. KELSEN: While Counsel is
3 preparing, I'm going to hand up Mr. Boles'
4 resume to the Board, and I'll ask to have
5 that incorporated into the record, Mr.
6 Chairman.
7 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So be it.
8 BY MR. JAFFE:
9 Q. Mr. Boles, are you hired for your expert
10 testimony on this case solely?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you have a vested interest in this
13 project, financial interest?
14 A. No. Financial -- other than being a
15 consultant to the developer?
16 Q. Is your engineering firm part of the
17 development team for this project beyond the
18 testimony of today?
19 A. Yes, I have contract to perform site
20 engineering for the Flat Rock Road project.
21 Q. Well, I would submit then that you're
22 really a fact witness, because you're part of the
23 case. You're not an independent expert.
24 MR. KELSEN: Objection.
17
1 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted. Please
2 proceed.
3 THE WITNESS: I'd like to answer.
4 MR. KELSEN: Please do.
5 THE WITNESS: For the reason that
6 you just stated, we at Boles, Smyth and
7 Associates went out and hired an
8 independent consultant to do the flood
9 study, so that we would not be suspected in
10 anyway of influencing that, and we've hired
11 probably the most reputable hydrology
12 engineer in the region to do that. He went
13 to Drexel --
14 Q. Is he you ex-student, sir, that you hired?
15 MR. WAGGLE: I think I took
16 surveying with you in 1963.
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Put your name and
18 address on the record.
19 WAGGLE: My name is Richard Waggle,
20 67 Rodman Avenue, Jenkintown.
21 THE WITNESS: Yes, he is a former
22 student.
23 MR. JAFFE: I'd like to put on the
24 record that I think this is an incestuous
18
1 relationship, not an objective --
2 MR. KELSEN: Objection.
3 MR. JAFFE: Not an objective expert
4 opinion for the Board.
5 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted. Please
6 proceed, sir.
7 BY MR. KELSEN:
8 Q. Mr. Boles, are you familiar with the
9 property that is before the Zoning Board today?
10 A. Yes, I am.
11 Q. And that property is known as the Namico
12 Soap Factory?
13 A. That's correct.
14 Q. Are you involved in performing civil
15 engineering studies for that project?
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 Q. And can you detail the scope of the work
18 that you are performing for that project, Mr.
19 Boles?
20 A. Yes. We have worked for Dranoff Associates
21 before on projects like Locust on the Park to
22 develop the site work and the stability
23 organization for the residential site that is
24 proposed.
19
1 Q. As part of your efforts with the Dranoff
2 organization, were you involved with civil
3 engineering for 2400 Locust Street?
4 A. Yes, I was.
5 Q. And did that project have a
6 floodplain/floodway component?
7 MR. KRAKOWER: Objection. There's
8 a difference between floodplain and
9 floodway. I don't think that the two terms
10 should be used in conjunction with each
11 other.
12 MR. KELSEN: The project in the
13 floodplain.
14 BY MR. KELSEN:
15 Q. And did you perform special engineering
16 studies in order to develop that project because of
17 its location in the floodplain?
18 A. We developed the project so that the lower
19 floor is entirely a parking floor and the
20 residential development does not occur until the
21 second floor.
22 Q. Mr. Boles, have you had in your experience
23 in civil engineering done engineering work for
24 other projects in Philadelphia that are located
20
1 either in a floodplain, floodway or floodend?
2 MR. KRAKOWER: Objection to the
3 meaningfulness of the question. There is a
4 big distinction between a floodplain and a
5 floodway.
6 MR. KELSEN: I think that the Board
7 can figure out the distinction.
8 MR. KRAKOWER: Well, that's not the
9 point. The way that the question is --
10 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Objection so
11 noted. Please answer the question.
12 THE WITNESS: Yes, we are presently
13 or have formerly worked on projects from
14 the mouth of the Schuylkill River all the
15 way up to the northern terminus of the City
16 of Reading. We are presently doing the
17 site engineering for development of the
18 Naval Business Center at the mouth of the
19 river where it joins the Delaware. And
20 continuing up on the west side of the river
21 in the floodway we have recently completed
22 the development of the police criminal
23 impoundment lot at the Platt Bridge.
24 Several thousand feet up the river we are
21
1 now doing a 69 million dollar plant for the
2 University of Pennsylvania on the west bank
3 of the river. We have completed Locust on
4 the Park diagonally opposite in the
5 floodplain for the location on the park
6 project. We have done a flood study for
7 the market place, which is at Market Street
8 and the river. We have done flood studies
9 for the Schuylkill River Park, which
10 extends from Locust Street to Vine Street.
11 We are about to bid the fourth contract of
12 that work. When we began it was in the
13 floodway and subsequent to the 1983 study
14 it was in the floodplain, and it is now not
15 in either since we built bulk heads along
16 the east side of the river to restrain the
17 flooding conditions. North of that we're
18 doing the Venice Island projects. For
19 Upper Merion Township we're doing the
20 extension of Route 23 which is in the
21 floodway on the west side of the river. We
22 have done the Hay Creek studies for the
23 Corps of Engineers in Bird Bourough. We
24 have constructed the Model City One project
22
1 and the Schuylkill River project for the
2 Pensky organization for the City of Reading
3 at the northern end of the river in Berks
4 County.
5 MR. KRAKOWER: May I just interject
6 for the record an objection to Mr. Boles
7 answer in its entirety in that it fails,
8 except for maybe one or two instances, to
9 distinguish floodplains from floodways and
10 of the many sites or references that were
11 given, I think only two of them were
12 identified as to whether they were floodway
13 or floodplain projects.
14 BY MR. KELSEN:
15 Q. Mr. Boles, is that correct that you've only
16 done two projects in a floodway?
17 A. No, the Navy Yard is clearly in the
18 floodway. The Schuylkill Park Project which we
19 have been working on for the City of Philadelphia
20 for 34 years has been in the floodway, the
21 floodplain, and it is now removed from both,
22 because of improvements we made to the river.
23 Building bulk heads along the east side of the
24 river precluded that from happening. The three
23
1 Venice Island projects are all in the floodway.
2 Beyond that the Hay Creek project was in the
3 floodway. The Model City One project in Reading
4 was partially in the floodway and fully in the
5 floodplain. The Schuylkill River project in
6 Reading is partially in the floodway and fully
7 within the floodplain.
8 Q. Mr. Boles, in so doing those projects, have
9 you developed an understanding of the regulations
10 they affect floodway development?
11 A. Absolutely.
12 Q. Can you describe to the Board what those
13 regulations are as that effect only the floodway?
14 A. Okay. The federal regulations, the FEMA
15 regulations, the State of Pennsylvania regulations
16 and those within the City Zoning Code require that
17 any construction within the floodway must create a
18 situation in which there is no rise or a decrease
19 in the statutory flood, which is the 100-year flood
20 in the Philadelphia Code.
21 Q. Is it your experience from an engineering
22 standpoint that development is permitted to occur
23 in the floodway?
24 A. Yes, it certainly is. All we need to do is
24
1 to comply with the regulations that say there shall
2 be no rise in the flood --
3 MR. KRAKOWER: I'm going to
4 object. I do not believe that Mr. Boles is
5 qualified to answer that question, because
6 that is a legal question.
7 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted.
8 MR. KRAKOWER: He's not a lawyer,
9 so I believe that's outside of his
10 qualifications.
11 BY MR. KELSEN:
12 Q. Mr. Boles, you're familiar with the
13 development that's before the Board today in terms
14 of the reuse of the Namico Soap Factory; is that
15 correct?
16 A. Yes, I am.
17 Q. I'd like you to tell the Board why that
18 development is consistent from an engineering
19 standpoint with the development that would occur in
20 the floodway within that envelope of all those
21 regulations that you just talked about.
22 A. Yes, that project is designed so that the
23 lower level is at grade level in the existing
24 conditions and is entirely devoted to parking over
25
1 the entire site. The first habitable location is
2 at the second floor, which is 14 feet above the
3 existing ground plan.
4 Q. Mr. Boles, will the development plan
5 incorporate demolition of existing structure?
6 A. Yes, we are retaining the historic
7 structure and building a new structure in addition
8 to that with some demolition of existing buildings
9 that are not historic.
10 Q. What will be the impact of the demolition
11 of the existing --
12 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Before we go any
13 further, what's defined up there in the
14 green color?
15 BY MR. KELSEN:
16 Q. Mr. Boles, do you want to describe --
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: For the record, so
18 that it's on the record.
19 THE WITNESS: We have existing
20 buildings that are historic and will
21 remain.
22 CHAIRMAN KELLY: They are in the
23 green color there?
24 THE WITNESS: Yes.
26
1 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The rose color,
2 what's that for?
3 THE WITNESS: That's an in-fill
4 building to connect these two existing
5 historic buildings, and the remainder here
6 is to be new construction in conformity
7 with the historic conditions for the
8 existing historic structures.
9 BY MR. KELSEN:
10 Q. Mr. Boles, let's just make the record as
11 clear as we can. The structures which are shown in
12 pink on this plan, you describe them as
13 infrastructures. Is anything there currently?
14 A. Yes, all of the green area is there and has
15 been there for 100 years.
16 Q. Will the pink area require demolition of
17 the existing structure that's currently on site in
18 order to make it happen?
19 A. Yes, it would.
20 Q. How about all the area that's shown with a
21 crosshatching in this area here as indicated. Is
22 there a structure there now?
23 A. There is a structure, a loading platform
24 that's along this area which will be demolished and
27
1 some minor building structures at this location we
2 are extending those to make the residential
3 development economically viable.
4 Q. To create the parking area that you just
5 described, will there be any structure demolished
6 in order to level the site? In this area here?
7 A. In this area here, yes, the loading
8 platform there will be demolished.
9 Q. And what will be there in its place, the
10 loading platform?
11 A. There will be new construction above and
12 parking at the grade level.
13 Q. And you testified before that the elevation
14 of the first floor, as you described as the first
15 habitable floor, will be what elevation?
16 A. About 38.
17 Q. 38 feet above grade?
18 A. Yes. The second floor level will be at
19 42.8. The floodplain level is at 38 -- the level
20 shown by that line.
21 Q. And what will be below that 42.8 level?
22 A. Just parking.
23 Q. Will there be any physical structure in
24 that area where the parking is?
28
1 A. Yeah, the historic buildings will remain as
2 they are.
3 Q. No, what I'm referring to is on the new or
4 the in-fill piece, what will be in that area?
5 A. Just parking.
6 Q. Open on all four sides?
7 A. Open on three sides.
8 Q. From an engineering standpoint, will there
9 be a lessening of the amount of structure that is
10 currently on site after the development proceeds?
11 A. Yes.
12 Q. Approximately how much less structure will
13 be on site, if you can calculate that for the
14 Board?
15 A. I think it's around 30 percent less than
16 what's there now.
17 Q. About one third less structure than what is
18 there now. And what would be the impact on the
19 floodway, regulatory floodway if you take that
20 structure down?
21 A. The resistance that the building formerly
22 provided will be substantially reduced.
23 Q. What will the impact be of a flood if there
24 is a flood as a result of that lessening of
29
1 resistance?
2 A. Well, there will be no rise and
3 considerable decrease.
4 MR. KRAKOWER: For the record, I
5 just want to object again to Mr. Boles'
6 qualifications as to this series of
7 questions.
8 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted.
9 BY MR. KELSEN:
10 Q. Mr. Boles, as part of your engineering
11 review, did you commission a hydrologic study to be
12 performed to ascertain the exact impact this
13 development would have on this floodway?
14 A. Yes, I did, I commissioned a hydrologic
15 study do be done by Dr. J. Richard Waggle of Drexel
16 University.
17 Q. Is that study required as part of the FEMA,
18 Federal Emergency Management Agency, review of this
19 project?
20 A. Yes, and by the Philadelphia City Planning
21 Commission also.
22 Q. To the best of your knowledge, has that
23 study been finalized from --
24 A. Yes, it has.
30
1 Q. -- from your perspective? Will the
2 construction after it's completed conform to FEMA
3 codes and regulations if it is built in the way
4 that it is described today?
5 A. Yes, it will.
6 Q. Will it also fulfill all of the
7 Philadelphia City building code requirements for
8 construction in the floodway?
9 A. Yes, it will.
10 Q. And will it meet the City of Philadelphia's
11 Planning Commission regulations for floodway
12 construction and development?
13 A. Yes, it will.
14 Q. Will it be consistent with the zoning code
15 provisions governing floodway and floodplain
16 development in 141606 of the code?
17 A. Yes, it will.
18 MR. KELSEN: Now, Mr. Boles is
19 available to testify as to the lack of
20 traffic impact that this development will
21 have, and I'm not sure we're going to go
22 there right now in light of the Chairman's
23 message, so I'd like the opportunity that
24 if it becomes a relevant issue to bring him
31
1 back, because he did perform a traffic
2 study.
3 Mr. Boles, that's the end of my
4 direct. I may ask you a few questions
5 after my colleagues have a few moments with
6 you.
7 CROSS-EXAMINATION
8 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
9 Q. If I may, Mr. Boles, would you state that
10 the studies that you are talking about, the
11 hydraulic engineering studies, et cetera, have you
12 received notice that they have been completely
13 approved by FEMA?
14 A. Not completely approved. FEMA asked a
15 series of questions which we have responded to, and
16 I believe satisfactorily.
17 Q. Well, have you been advised that your
18 responses are satisfactory?
19 MR. KRAKOWER: The reason I'm
20 asking the question and I'll state that as
21 an officer of the Court is that as of this
22 morning, I was told by Martin Soffer (ph.)
23 that review is still under way and not yet
24 completed. Now, I want to know if Mr.
32
1 Soffer gave me incorrect information,
2 because maybe we should subpoena Mr.
3 Soffer.
4 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
5 Q. Have you been advised by Mr. Soffer or
6 someone from the Planning Commission that the
7 review is complete and is satisfactory?
8 A. I have been advised by Mr. Soffer as of
9 Friday morning that all of the requested
10 information and responses to FEMA's questions have
11 been provided to FEMA and he was awaiting their
12 response.
13 Q. But he has not yet received a response from
14 FEMA?
15 MR. KELSEN: Objection, that is
16 hearsay, Mr. Soffer can be called in, and
17 he can tell you exactly what the response
18 was.
19 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted.
20 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
21 Q. What about with regard to the Planning
22 Commission itself, is that the same status?
23 MR. KELSEN: Objection.
24 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
33
1 Q. That is that the information which you
2 provided in response to questions by the Planning
3 Commission is still under review as of this moment
4 that we speak?
5 A. I thought the letter stated their position
6 exactly.
7 Q. Well, that letter, I think -- shall we read
8 it -- stated that the matter is still under
9 review.
10 A. By FEMA.
11 CHAIRMAN KELLY: By FEMA.
12 MR. KRAKOWER: By FEMA, and I
13 believe by the Planning Commission as
14 well.
15 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
16 Q. Have you been advised --
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: I don't think so.
18 MR. KELSEN: That's not correct,
19 Counselor, read the letter. I believe that
20 the Planning Commission has given a letter
21 of support for this project that was
22 brought to the Board at the last hearing.
23 MR. KRAKOWER: I will read it for
24 the record, so that it's clear. It says
34
1 the review of the hydrological study is
2 underway and final approval is expected
3 shortly.
4 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
5 Q. Now, everybody can read what that means,
6 but expected shortly, as far as I'm concerned isn't
7 here yet.
8 A. I believe that refers to the FEMA response.
9 Q. Well, I'll read the beginning of it again.
10 The staff of the Planning Commission has met with
11 representatives of the applicant to review and
12 discuss the hydrological study for the subject
13 proposed development. So the review that, as I see
14 it, is the Planning Commission's review.
15 A. Well, you'll have to ask them.
16 MR. KELSEN: I going to object to
17 Mr. Krakower's making a distinction between
18 the Planning Commission and their staff.
19 The Commission has voted to support any
20 variances, to support this development.
21 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Krakower, you
22 led us believe that you didn't have that
23 letter earlier.
24 MR. KRAKOWER: I didn't. I spoke
35
1 to Martin Soffer.
2 CHAIRMAN KELLY: You stated here
3 earlier that you did not have the letter.
4 MR. JAFFE: You just handed it to
5 us.
6 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Who us?
7 MR. KRAKOWER: The Planning
8 Commission representative handed it to me a
9 few minutes ago, and I did not know about
10 the letter. But I will state on the record
11 that I spoke to Martin Soffer this morning
12 at about 10:00 a.m.. That's what he
13 advised me.
14 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The letter speaks
15 for itself. Continue on with the
16 testimony.
17 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
18 Q. Now, with respect to the indication that
19 after the project was done there would be less
20 structure providing obstruction to the water. Is
21 that your testimony?
22 A. That's correct.
23 Q. How about the automobiles themselves that
24 will be parked there, wouldn't they provide an
36
1 obstruction?
2 A. If they were there when a 100-year flood
3 occurred, yes.
4 Q. And if they were there when a 30 or 40-year
5 flood occurred, would they not provide obstruction?
6 A. I'm not sure if a 30-year flood covers the
7 parking area. I would have to go back and look at
8 that.
9 Q. If it did, if there were flooding on the
10 parking area, would not the automobiles provide an
11 obstruction?
12 A. If the automobiles were there, they would
13 provide an obstruction.
14 Q. Now, there's also, I believe in your plan,
15 an expectation that you're going to erect the
16 residential portions up on stilts or poles of some
17 kind; is that correct?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. How far apart will these poles be? I asked
20 you the question in December and you didn't know
21 the answer then. Do you know the answer now?
22 MR. KELSEN: First of all you
23 didn't ask him, because he didn't testify.
24 MR. KRAKOWER: I asked somebody
37
1 else then.
2 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
3 Q. How far apart will the poles be?
4 A. Approximately, between 30 and 35 feet.
5 Q. All right. Now, if there were matter
6 coming down the river in a flood, have you
7 anticipated the possibility that debris coming down
8 the river might get caught on the poles and provide
9 obstruction?
10 MR. KELSEN: I object.
11 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
12 Q. Well, I'm asking -- Mr. Waggle will
13 testify -- I expect Mr. Waggle is going to testify,
14 but I'm asking the question of your own knowledge.
15 Did you anticipate the potentiality for matter
16 coming down the river to get caught and hooked on
17 these poles?
18 A. Did I?
19 Q. Yes, did you?
20 A. No, I did not.
21 Q. All right. Did you anticipate the
22 possibility or provide for the possibility that
23 large objects, perhaps 30 feet or greater in size,
24 might get caught between the poles and block the
38
1 flow of water between poles?
2 A. The fact that we've reduced the
3 cross-sectional area of opposition to flow, sure we
4 did.
5 Q. Is that shown on your plan that that
6 consideration was given in determining the effect
7 of a 100-year flood?
8 A. Are you asking me is the impact of a
9 100-year flood shown on the site.
10 Q. No. I'm asking you, sir, if there is a
11 100-year flood and matter gets caught between or
12 around these poles, did you consider the effect of
13 that type of obstruction?
14 A. That type of obstruction would produce the
15 condition that exists now. There are walls
16 obstructing the river flow, which were removed.
17 Q. I'll ask it one more way. Did you consider
18 the potentiality that matter coming down the river
19 being caught either on or between the poles would,
20 in effect, replace, once again, obstructive walls
21 in the river?
22 A. The analysis, which is the predevelopment
23 analysis, considers there is full obstruction of
24 the river flow by the existing building. We're
39
1 removing the walls of those buildings, so if
2 there's an obstruction it would be no worse than
3 the existing condition. It would be a no rise
4 situation.
5 Q. What size objects did you consider in
6 making that determination that they would be no
7 worse than the existing walls?
8 A. Well, in the predevelopment condition it
9 can't be any worse than the existing walls which
10 extend entirely across the property.
11 Q. And what is the -- let me just take a look
12 at that. Does your study reflect a degree of
13 reduction due to the lesser reduction of those
14 walls due to the fact you're going to have less
15 walls?
16 A. Does the study incorporate the reduction in
17 cross section as result of the construction?
18 Q. Yes.
19 A. Yes, of course it does.
20 Q. I have to explain, we have not seen those
21 yet.
22 A. Okay.
23 Q. With respect to the questions that were
24 asked by --
40
1 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Mr. Boles, the
2 columns are 30 to 35 feet?
3 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
4 CHAIRMAN KELLY: 32 feet from the
5 ground to the bottom decks of the first
6 floor and second floor.
7 THE WITNESS: No, it's about 28
8 from the ground to 42 where the first floor
9 begins.
10 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. So that's
11 opened?
12 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
13 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Now, where you
14 have solid walls you have columns that are
15 30 to 35 feet apart and you have an
16 opening; is that correct?
17 THE WITNESS: That's correct.
18 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. I'm clear
19 now.
20 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
21 Q. Mr. Boles, did you do studies or have
22 studies done with regard to the composition of the
23 soil in which the poles would be inserted?
24 A. I don't believe all of the soil analysis
41
1 have been completed as yet.
2 Q. Did your soil analysis reveal to you that
3 much of the soil of Venice Island is artificial
4 fill?
5 A. Yes, we knew that beforehand.
6 Q. Did you take that into consideration in
7 determining the depth and the support that these
8 poles would require in order to hold up the
9 buildings?
10 A. Of course the Philadelphia Building Code
11 would require that we do that. There's no question
12 about that.
13 Q. You say that study has not been completed
14 yet?
15 A. We haven't designed the buildings as yet.
16 We don't have zoning approval.
17 Q. Well, I'm talking about the study with
18 respect to the composition of the soils. Has that
19 been done yet?
20 A. I don't believe the soil analysis has been
21 completed yet.
22 Q. That's what I'm asking about.
23 A. No.
24 Q. Are you doing that yourself, or have you
42
1 subcontracted that out to somebody else?
2 A. That would be subcontracted out by the
3 structural engineer for the project.
4 Q. Do you know to whom that was subcontracted?
5 CHAIRMAN KELLY: He can answer the
6 question if he knows. If you don't know --
7 MR. KRAKOWER: If you don't know,
8 you don't know. I'm just trying to see if
9 you know.
10 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
11 Q. Now, you had indicated that the 2400 Locust
12 project that you had worked on, you indicated that
13 it was not in the floodway; is that correct?
14 A. That is correct.
15 Q. All right, but the Namico Soap Factory is
16 in the floodway; is that not correct?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Now, you also indicated that you worked on
19 some projects in or around the Delaware River?
20 A. We're doing it now, yes.
21 Q. All right. Am I correct that the Delaware
22 River unlike the Schuylkill has no official
23 floodway?
24 A. No, you're not correct.
43
1 Q. I'm not correct?
2 A. Absolutely not. FEMA has provided flood
3 panels for all the streams in Southeastern
4 Pennsylvania including all the minor streams.
5 Q. Now, with respect to the Schuylkill River
6 Park, at the present time you're working on a
7 project with the Schuylkill River Park, correct?
8 A. That's correct.
9 Q. At the present time, the project you're
10 working on is not now in the Schuylkill River Park
11 floodway; is that correct?
12 A. It's neither in the floodway or the
13 floodplain anymore. When we started, it was in the
14 floodway.
15 Q. Okay.
16 A. That was 34 years ago.
17 Q. But there is no construction that you're
18 planning now which would be put into the floodway;
19 is that correct?
20 MR. KELSEN: Objection. I think
21 we've covered this. He's answered it twice
22 already.
23 MR. KRAKOWER: Well, I just want to
24 make it clear that the current plan --
44
1 MR. KELSEN: I withdraw my
2 objection. Keep going.
3 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
4 Q. The current plan, would it be fair to say
5 that it does not contemplate new construction in
6 what is now the floodway in the new Schuylkill
7 River Park?
8 A. Well, that's not correct. We're putting a
9 contract out, probably next month, for a bikeway
10 from just south of Locust Street to just north of
11 Vine Street, and I believe the area just north of
12 Vine Street is still in floodway.
13 Q. Where the bike path will go?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. One last question about the Schuylkill
16 River Park. Am I correct that Mr. Dranoff who has
17 engaged you for this project is on the board of the
18 Schuylkill River Park?
19 MR. KELSEN: Objection. It's
20 irrelevant.
21 THE WITNESS: I don't know if he
22 is.
23 MR. KELSEN: Why don't you ask Mr.
24 Dranoff whether he is. He'll testify
45
1 shortly.
2 THE WITNESS: We are not doing the
3 project with the Schuylkill River Park,
4 we're doing it with the City of
5 Philadelphia.
6 MR. KRAKOWER: I have no other
7 questions.
8 MR. JAFFE: I have a few questions,
9 if I may.
10 BY MR. JAFFE:
11 Q. If you remember, I think we spoke on
12 December 22nd on kind of a sister project, the
13 Cotton Street Project, and we spoke briefly if you
14 recall about eight historical contemporary floods.
15 A. That's correct.
16 Q. And I'd like to ask again today, you're
17 familiar that and you agree that there have been
18 eight modern time floods involving the Schuylkill
19 River floodway?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. And that the rising water was to a level of
22 I think, like, 23.7 or 24 feet just about above
23 grade level, I believe, for the highest. Would you
24 agree with that?
46
1 A. There were gaging stations where that
2 information was arrived at, yes.
3 Q. And if I remember, you've spoken before
4 under oath before the Board that this was just
5 historical data?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And does this historical data now have you
8 considering these floods in your studies and the
9 subcontracting work that you have done of the
10 hydraulic problems that would occur?
11 A. Have I considered those floods?
12 Q. The floods, the amount of water rise of a
13 historical nature?
14 A. No, because the water conditions have
15 changed because of upstream work by the Corps of
16 Engineers at the Blue Marsh Dam, the Maiden Creek
17 Dam and the Hay Creek improvements all of which are
18 after those historic floods.
19 Q. Would you tell me when the Maiden Creek Dam
20 was built?
21 A. That would have been about '82.
22 Q. Maiden Creek was '82?
23 A. I'm guessing it was in there.
24 Q. And Blue Marsh, do you have any idea?
47
1 A. '84, somewhere in there.
2 Q. And the Hay?
3 A. Hay Creek work, it would have been '83
4 or '84, I guess the Hay Creek work.
5 Q. But wouldn't you agree that demographics
6 would show the suburban areas developed
7 significantly over this period of time from 1982
8 1983 and '84, that the surrounding counties have
9 shown considerable development?
10 A. Absolutely.
11 Q. That there's an increase in concrete, would
12 you agree with that, in the suburban areas?
13 A. Since when?
14 Q. Since 1982, '83 the time of the HAY, the
15 Blue and the Maiden Dams?
16 A. Yeah, but the Corps of Engineers' study of
17 the Schuylkill River Valley was done in 1996 not in
18 1982.
19 Q. And so that --
20 A. All the information we used was from that
21 study.
22 Q. From '96?
23 A. Yes.
24 Q. Would that include what happened recently
48
1 with the Hurricane Floyd concerns?
2 A. Would what?
3 Q. Hurricane Floyd.
4 A. Yeah, I'm familiar.
5 Q. Just recently.
6 A. Would the Corps of Engineers --
7 Q. Would your hydraulic studies consider what
8 problems Venice Island and the surrounding areas
9 had just recently with Hurricane Floyd?
10 A. Well, sure.
11 Q. And are you familiar with the water
12 problems that have happened just north of this
13 proposed development in Swarmonth Company?
14 A. Yes.
15 Q. And was there flooding there?
16 A. Yes.
17 Q. And are you familiar with the problems it
18 caused to personal property and life during this
19 period of time?
20 A. Yes, it left all kinds of trailers all over
21 their parking lots, so the flood moved them down
22 Venice Island.
23 Q. We'll hear testimony, possibly later, about
24 the concerns, but you're aware that people were
49
1 stranded on the island and couldn't get off for
2 nearly 24 hours because of this flooding that
3 occurred really after this Corps of Engineers
4 study?
5 A. The Corps of Engineers' study is a
6 generalized hydraulic study of the river itself.
7 It does not take into account specific storm
8 events.
9 Q. And so specific storm events could cause
10 incidents in spite of the Maiden Creek, Blue Marsh
11 and Hay Creek Dams then?
12 A. Sure, a 1,000-year frequency storm could
13 occur tomorrow. It could cause problems for more
14 than Venice Island.
15 Q. And what happened with Floyd just recently
16 would be an example of one of these incidents?
17 MR. KELSEN: Is that a question?
18 MR. JAFFE: Yes, that's a
19 question.
20 THE WITNESS: Yeah, sure.
21 BY MR. JAFFE:
22 Q. Yes? That was a, yes?
23 A. Yes.
24 MR. JAFFE: Thank you very much.
50
1 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything else?
2 MR. JAFFE: No, sir.
3 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything else?
4 MR. KELSEN: A couple of very quick
5 questions and then we'll call Dr. Waggle.
6 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. KELSEN:
8 Q. Mr. Boles, is there any question in your
9 mind that the placement of the columns would have
10 to meet Philadelphia construction code before the
11 plans for that placement are approved?
12 A. Absolutely.
13 Q. So you have no question in your mind from
14 an engineering standpoint that it will be sized to
15 work?
16 A. Absolutely.
17 Q. What is the dimension of the column
18 itself? You talked about the spacing of the
19 columns? How wide are these columns?
20 A. Usually, around two feet square, but they
21 can be less than that.
22 Q. Can you estimate how much existing
23 structure is there that will be demolished and
24 opened up with new construction?
51
1 A. Well, all of the structure that is on the
2 north side of the property by the Manayunk Canal
3 will be demolished. It's presently open-loading
4 platforms and a new building structure will be
5 provided in this area.
6 Q. What's the linear footage of that structure
7 that's going to be demolished? What I'm trying to
8 find out, Mr. Boles, is how much is going to be
9 opened up at grade or not obstructed at grade on
10 the new construction?
11 A. The entire property will be open grade.
12 Q. How much footage is that?
13 A. About 81 feet will be completely opened
14 that is now occupied.
15 Q. So 81 feet of obstruction will be removed?
16 A. That's correct.
17 Q. Under this plan; is that correct?
18 A. Yes.
19 Q. You were asked a question about automobiles
20 being left in the parking area. Does that concern
21 you, Mr. Boles?
22 A. Not at all, because of the NOAH information
23 that is provided in the event of flooding
24 conditions of the Schuylkill River and the
52
1 emergency plan would incorporate vehicles owned by
2 the residents or the operator of the property.
3 Q. Are you aware that as part of this
4 development a commitment was made to have an
5 emergency evacuation plan?
6 A. That's correct.
7 Q. And are you aware that the Planning
8 Commission noted that as a requirement for their
9 approval?
10 A. That is correct.
11 Q. Mr. Boles, in preparing the hydraulic study
12 we're going to call it the Hec-Ras study that Dr.
13 Waggle performed, how did you get the data in order
14 for that study to be effected?
15 A. We purchased the information from Newberry
16 and Davis, who are the contractors for the Corps of
17 Engineers for the study of the Schuylkill River.
18 MR. KELSEN: I have nothing further
19 of this witness.
20 MR. KRAKOWER: I just have one or
21 two questions.
22 RECROSS EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
24 Q. Of the 81 feet that you mentioned that were
53
1 obstructions going to be removed, afterwards how
2 much of that 81 feet will then become a parking
3 lot? Can you give me an idea of the percentage
4 that will be used for parking?
5 A. Almost all of the 81 feet.
6 Q. Okay. Almost all of the 81 feet. All
7 right.
8 A. Approximately 70 feet.
9 Q. Pardon me?
10 A. Approximately 70 feet.
11 Q. 70 of the 81?
12 A. Yes.
13 Q. About 80 to 90 percent of it?
14 A. That's correct.
15 Q. So that if that parking lot were full of
16 cars, you would have just about as much or almost
17 as much obstruction as you have now?
18 A. That's correct.
19 Q. With regard to an emergency evacuation
20 plan, did you personally have anything do with
21 designing that plan? Is that within the sphere of
22 your engagement?
23 A. No, that's the architects purview, but I
24 had discussions at length with the architect.
54
1 Q. Okay. Does that plan assume a certain
2 amount of warning time between when a flood might
3 be getting ready to commence and when people would
4 be notified?
5 A. It's not written as yet, but it will
6 include that kind of advanced information to the
7 residents and to the operator.
8 Q. But you don't know how much time they will
9 have as of right now, whether they'll have a half
10 an hour, four hours. That information is not
11 available?
12 A. It's not been written yet, but we can
13 select from any of those. I would expect to have a
14 minimum of four hours, hopefully 24 hours.
15 Q. But do you know yourself, yet, a basis on
16 how much time you're going to get?
17 A. No, we have not developed that plan, yet.
18 MR. KRAKOWER: All right. Okay. I
19 have nothing else. Thank you.
20 MR. JAFFE: Nothing else.
21 MR. KELSEN: Thank you, Mr. Boles.
22 Does the Board have any questions
23 of Mr. Boles?
24 CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, sir.
55
1 (The witness was excused.)
2 MR. KELSEN: Dr. Waggle.
3 Let me hand up copies of the study
4 that was performed by Dr. Waggle together
5 with responses. I have extra copies for
6 the Board, and what I am providing the
7 Board with is the study itself as well as
8 the responses from the Planning Commission
9 and FEMA and the responses back and the
10 data back.
11 DIRECT EXAMINATION
12 BY MR. KELSEN:
13 Q. While we're doing that, Dr. Waggle, please
14 state your name and address for the record?
15 A. My name is John Richard Waggle. I live at
16 627 Rodman Avenue in Jenkintown, Pennsylvania.
17 Q. By whom are you employed, Dr. Waggle?
18 A. I'm a professor of civil engineering at
19 Drexel University.
20 Q. How long have you been in that capacity?
21 A. Since 1983.
22 Q. And as a professor of civil engineering at
23 Drexel University, would you describe to the Board
24 your area of responsibilities and expertise?
56
1 A. I teach primarily hydraulic engineering
2 courses. I used to teach the hydrology courses
3 until we got someone who is formerly a
4 hydrologist. My training is in the area of
5 hydrology and hydraulic engineering and recently
6 coastal engineering.
7 Q. And prior to taking on that position at
8 Drexel, did you have any other work experience in
9 hydrology and hydraulic engineering?
10 A. I started my career on the faculty of the
11 University of Illinois after having received my
12 Ph.D. After several years I moved on to the Army
13 Corps of Engineers and worked with the Corps of
14 engineers for 13 years until 1983 when I came to
15 Drexel.
16 Q. How many projects have you been involved in
17 in which you conducted hydrology studies or
18 development within the floodway?
19 A. Actually, none involved with development in
20 the floodway, although I have been involved with a
21 number of studies having to deal with floodways and
22 with the hydrology in the floodplains and
23 floodways.
24 Q. Are you familiar with the regulations
57
1 propagated by FEMA as they relate to any
2 development in the floodway?
3 A. Yes.
4 Q. And how are you aware of those regulations?
5 A. From having read the regulations and having
6 read the documents put out by the Corps of
7 Engineers as well as FEMA.
8 Q. Are you licensed as a professional engineer
9 in any other state other than Pennsylvania?
10 A. I'm licensed in the State of New Jersey and
11 in the State of Illinois.
12 Q. As part of your expertise in the area of
13 hydrology, have you published any articles?
14 A. A few, yes.
15 Q. About how many articles would you say you
16 have published in that area?
17 A. A total of probably 60 or 70 papers, plus,
18 probably another 100 consulting reports.
19 Q. If I asked you to give me an estimate of
20 how many articles that appeared in professional
21 trade journals that dealt with floodway and
22 hydrology and floodway could you give me an
23 estimate of how many a year?
24 A. Perhaps eight or ten.
58
1 MR. KELSEN: I would like to hand
2 up and have incorporated into the record
3 Dr. Waggle's resume. It consists of
4 approximately 30 pages of information, and
5 we will provide a copy to Counsel. Do you
6 want to see that first before I hand that
7 up?
8 MR. KRAKOWER: Okay. Well, I'm
9 ready to accept Dr. Waggle.
10 MR. KELSEN: Will you stipulate --
11 MR. KRAKOWER: Yes.
12 MR. KELSEN: -- so we don't have
13 to go through all this? Let me hand this
14 up. I'd like to incorporate this record
15 in.
16 BY MR. KELSEN:
17 Q. Dr. Waggle, you have been certified as an
18 expert today, and I'm going to ask you a couple of
19 questions about a report that you prepared
20 analyzing the floodway as it affects Venice
21 Island. Are you aware of that report?
22 A. Yes, I am.
23 Q. Can you tell the Board what you were asked
24 to do in preparing that report and analysis?
59
1 A. Fundamentally, I was asked whether or not
2 the proposed development intended for Venice Island
3 would in anyway increase the flood level on the
4 Schuylkill River in that particular reach of the
5 river.
6 Q. And the developments that you were asked to
7 look at, I want you to describe them to the Board
8 if you will?
9 A. One was at 4601 Flat Rock Road, which I
10 believe is termed the Namico Project, I guess, is
11 the one that we are discussing today. Another one
12 that I referred to as the Venice Island Apartments,
13 which is a little further downstream and then also
14 another one called Cotton Street Landing which is
15 on the site of the current Connelly Container
16 Corporation property.
17 Q. Doctor, you evaluated all three
18 developments in reviewing the hydrology effect on
19 Venice Island; did you not?
20 A. That's correct.
21 Q. Why did you do that take all three projects
22 and look at them at one time?
23 A. Well, it makes more sense to look at what
24 the effects are on an entire reach of river rather
60
1 than looking at each project here and a project
2 there, and so it made more sense to look at the
3 entire stretch all the way from the Wissahickon
4 Creek all the way up to Flat Rock.
5 Q. Is it fair to say that by including all of
6 the proposed developments that you get a better
7 picture of the hydrology that would affect the
8 island?
9 A. Well, the bottom line is that I probably
10 would have had to look at that entire stretch of
11 river for each one individually, as well as all of
12 them collectively, so it made not only hydrologic
13 sense but also financial sense on the part of the
14 proposed developers.
15 Q. In looking at the site conditions affecting
16 Venice Island did you factor into your analysis
17 existing structures that are located on the Island?
18 A. Yes. In fact, it was a three-step process
19 of developing the study. The first was to
20 calibrate the model, and that was calibrated
21 against the results that were published in the FEMA
22 report, and there were some downstream boundary
23 condition adjustments in order to get the water
24 level to agree with the water levels that are
61
1 published in the FEMA study. The second step was
2 to augment those cross sections by including
3 additional cross sections to result in a better
4 definition or better resolution of conditions in
5 the vicinity of the three projects, and then the
6 third phase was to run those conditions with the
7 postdevelopment conditions.
8 Q. Did you look at the existing configuration
9 of Smurfit-Stone when you did your analysis?
10 A. Of?
11 Q. Smurfit-Stone which is a large industrial
12 property.
13 A. The one that is upstream of this particular
14 property?
15 Q. That's correct.
16 A. That's included in the model, certainly.
17 The effects of that building are part of the
18 original model that was done by the Corps of
19 Engineers for FEMA. I didn't specifically make any
20 changes to the model there. In fact, it would
21 provide false results if I were to do that.
22 Q. So tell us what you did? You got data from
23 the Corps of Engineers that models the river?
24 A. The data that I purchased from Newberry and
62
1 Davis is data that was used by the Corps of
2 Engineers for an original flood study for the
3 Schuylkill River.
4 Q. And what's the date of that study?
5 A. I believe it's 1996, although it
6 maybe '94. The dates the on data I believe
7 are '94.
8 Q. What did that data include, sir?
9 A. The data included cross sections, that is
10 the elevation, distance across the river. It
11 included floodway determination boundaries,
12 floodway boundaries. It included hydrologic data
13 that gave the discharge for the various levels. It
14 included hydraulic configurations that the Corps of
15 Engineers used. All of the information that they
16 needed in order to conduct the study, institute and
17 calculate their figures back for the Schuylkill
18 River.
19 Q. Describe for a layman what that study tells
20 you? What did it tell you?
21 A. Well, I guess my first comment was why do
22 you really need to do a study like this? It's sort
23 of -- I hate to use the term no brainer, but what
24 you're doing is fundamentally removing obstructions
63
1 from the floodway. The only obvious answer to that
2 is that the water levels -- the back water effect
3 of those obstructions is going to be reduced, but
4 the feeling was that a study needed to be done in
5 order to, I guess, answer certain questions that
6 have been raised.
7 Q. Okay. Now, let's go into detail about what
8 that study is.
9 A. Okay.
10 Q. I'd like you to tell the Board and the
11 public step-by-step and meticulously what did you
12 perform, what did you analyze in putting together
13 what we're going to call this Hec-Ras or this
14 hydrology study for Venice Island.
15 A. Fundamentally, it's back water
16 computation. Basically, what you do is you model
17 the cross section, put in the cross section
18 information, any obstructions in there, you put in
19 any buildings that are present or anything that
20 might result in a change in water level when a
21 flood comes down the stream. You look at the
22 100-year flood since that's the regulatory flood
23 that determines the floodplain or what the flood
24 levels are, and you also look at the floodway,
64
1 which is essentially moving an obstruction from the
2 outside shoreline toward the center of the river,
3 so that you do not result in a water level increase
4 of more than a foot and that defines the floodplain
5 and distinguishes the floodplain from the floodway.
6 What I did was take that data,
7 supplement it with additional data in the vicinity
8 of these three properties, that would do a better
9 job of defining the conditions, run that for the --
10 that's for the existing conditions -- run that for
11 the 100-year flood, which is the regulatory flood,
12 determine what the water levels are and that
13 becomes the base against which I compare the
14 results that are the postdevelopment. Then I go
15 back into the model. I modify the cross sections
16 where there is going to be some change. For
17 example, this particular location we reduced the
18 obstruction from approximately 165-feet wide to
19 130-feet wide to model the effect of having to
20 remove part of that building and yet still
21 retaining the part that's about 130-feet wide.
22 Rerun the model and compare those water levels with
23 the water levels that were computed prior to any
24 modification to the model to reflect the
65
1 development and that comparison demonstrates that
2 there is no increase in water level due to those
3 developments.
4 Q. Did that demonstrate that there will be a
5 lessening of water level on the Namico site as a
6 result of this development?
7 A. Actually the water level changes caused by
8 the proposed development are very, very
9 negligible. The changes are so small as to be
10 almost inperceptible in the models. The
11 postdevelopment water levels were identical to the
12 predevelopment water levels.
13 Q. So what you're basically saying in your
14 expert opinion, is that there has been
15 demonstration that there will be no increase in
16 floodway impact as a result of the Venice Island
17 development?
18 A. That is correct. I mean, one knows that
19 the water levels are going to go down, but the
20 amount that they went down was so small as to not
21 be noticeable.
22 Q. Will there be a change in the quality of
23 the water flow as a result of the demolition of the
24 structures?
66
1 A. In what sense do you mean quality, water
2 quality?
3 Q. I don't mean the drinking quality of the
4 water. The quality of the flow, will there be less
5 back water impact as a result of the changes to the
6 structures?
7 A. Certainly.
8 Q. Will that have a positive affect?
9 A. It'll have an effect of lowering the water
10 level upstream, although very small.
11 Q. Any modeling done of whether or not the
12 parking area -- where cars will be parked on the
13 parking area -- will create any floodway resistance
14 problems?
15 A. No, I have to make a distinction here.
16 There are two kinds of studies. There are design
17 studies and there are studies to determine whether
18 you are within regulations. The study that I
19 performed was one that would determine whether or
20 not the design of these developments would make
21 flooding worse, and the bottom line is they do
22 not. In fact, if anything, they improve the
23 conditions. The design problem is one that has to
24 be addressed once the design is finalized and then
67
1 certainly one would take into account probably the
2 fact that this thing is going to have automobiles
3 there or that there might be debris building up or
4 compiling that sort of thing. That's a design
5 problem, and that doesn't demonstrate -- in taking
6 that into account -- it doesn't demonstrate whether
7 or not this project complies with regulations or
8 not. You're comparing apples to apples rather than
9 apples to oranges.
10 Q. In your expert opinion has FEMA ever
11 required or requested in this context an analysis
12 of whether or not parking cars would create
13 water-flow obstruction?
14 A. There is no way that they could do that put
15 it into a general regulation. There is no way that
16 you could factor in any of these kinds of effects
17 in a regulation. You could certainly, in a design,
18 take them into account but not in a regulation.
19 Q. In your expert opinion do you think that
20 the fact that there maybe cars parked in that
21 parking area, will that have a negative impact on
22 floodway?
23 MR. KRAKOWER: I'm going to object
24 only on the grounds that from what I've
68
1 heard Dr. Waggle did not take that into
2 consideration.
3 THE WITNESS: Well, I mean, you can
4 give an expert opinion without having done
5 that calculation. As long as the water
6 level is below the level of the parking
7 lot, obviously any flood -- the automobiles
8 are not going to have any affect on the
9 flood.
10 BY MR. KELSEN:
11 Q. Did you take a look at the impact of Floyd
12 when you did your Hec-Ras studies?
13 A. Actually, no, but I had looked at the
14 effects of Floyd during the flood along with the
15 discharges associated with it, and it was
16 significantly -- not significantly, but somewhat
17 lower than the discharge of a 100-year flood. I
18 believe the discharge in Fairmont Dam, which is
19 downstream, was in the order of 96 or 95,000 cubic
20 feet per second; whereas, the discharge used in my
21 study was 109,000 cubic feet per second and that
22 was the upstream of the Wissahickon Creek.
23 Q. So is it fair to say that your model
24 included higher stream velocity than were
69
1 experienced in Floyd?
2 A. Yes.
3 Q. Now, you submitted your original analysis
4 to FEMA; is that correct?
5 A. No, I submitted them to Mr. Boles, and he
6 distributed them to whomever had to review it.
7 Q. Did you recall at any time additional
8 information that was requested by FEMA or by Mr.
9 Boles to supplement your original report?
10 A. The person at FEMA who was doing the review
11 requested that I provide computer outputs from the
12 model to him, and I did that.
13 Q. Was there any other questions raised by
14 FEMA as a result of your report that you responded
15 to?
16 A. Well, there was one issue that was raised
17 and that was a one sixteenth of an inch increase in
18 water level in the vicinity of this particular
19 project which paradoxically rises because one takes
20 an obstruction out of the floodway or out of the
21 floodplain. In this case the floodway, which I
22 have since had discussions with the Corps of
23 Engineers, and they realized that this is a
24 paradox. If they were ever to enforce that it
70
1 would be illegal to ever remove anything.
2 MR. KRAKOWER: Objection. That's a
3 legal conclusion, a legal opinion. Dr.
4 Waggle has no expertise in that area.
5 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted.
6 BY MR. KELSEN:
7 Q. Did you formulate a conclusion after you
8 did all your modeling and your revisions to your
9 models, Dr. Waggle, as to whether or not this
10 development would be in keeping with the
11 regulations that FEMA promulgates for floodway
12 development?
13 A. Yes, it's certainly within the regulations
14 to satisfy FEMA's regulations.
15 Q. And in your expert opinion do you see this
16 development from a hydrological standpoint as
17 constituting a betterment of the floodway
18 situation?
19 A. In that it removes obstructions from the
20 floodway, certainly it is an improvement.
21 MR. KELSEN: I have no further
22 questions. I would ask the Board to
23 incorporate Dr. Waggle's report and the
24 supplements to that report into the Board's
71
1 record. I believe you have one copy.
2 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So be it.
3 Do you have any questions of this
4 witness?
5 MR. KRAKOWER: Yes I do.
6 CROSS-EXAMINATION
7 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
8 Q. Dr. Waggle, let me make sure I understand
9 something. Would it be fair to say that in making
10 comparisons on obstructions, you did not take into
11 consideration the use that the building would make
12 as to whether it would generate additional cars or
13 additional people? You simply took the buildings
14 themselves and compared those; would that be fair
15 to say?
16 A. That's correct, yes, because that's what
17 the regulation or satisfying the regulation
18 required.
19 Q. In your interpretation?
20 A. I think the interpretation -- not just my
21 interpretation, but that of people who deal with
22 regulations and those that formulate it.
23 Q. Would you say it would be possible for
24 someone to disagree with that opinion?
72
1 A. I am certain that you could disagree with
2 it, but, you know, you can come down here to
3 Chestnut Street, and say someday I'm going to park
4 a car down here, and what's that going to do to run
5 off on Chestnut Street. Obviously, if your doing a
6 design you're not going to take that into account.
7 Q. But you're talking about a parking lot.
8 Would you consider it unusual to take into account
9 that cars may be parked there in the parking lot?
10 A. What am I doing? Am I doing a design or am
11 I doing a determination as to satisfy the
12 regulations?
13 Q. Let me -- what I understand you to do is to
14 make a determination as to whether there is likely
15 to be an increase in the river's level, taking into
16 consideration changes not only in the structure but
17 in the use of those structures?
18 A. That's not what the regulations require.
19 That's not what the regulations require. The
20 regulations determine -- or require that I compare
21 apples with apples and that is, I take the
22 conditions that were used to base the original
23 flood levels and I compare any changes to that
24 base, so that's what we've done.
73
1 Q. But the original use that you start off
2 doing is an industrial building, and there are no
3 people residing there and you're going to replace
4 it with apartments in which hundreds of people are
5 going to reside. That difference in your view
6 makes no difference; is that correct?
7 A. No, I'm saying that that's makes no
8 difference to the FEMA regulations. Now, certainly
9 the people who govern the Zoning Board here, these
10 folks here make that determination.
11 Q. Okay.
12 A. As long as it complies with the local
13 regulations, certainly.
14 Q. Now, I'm going to ask you one other
15 question. You indicated that someone at FEMA
16 requested that you turn over actual computer data?
17 A. That's correct.
18 Q. Did you do so?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Do you know the name of the person that
21 made that request?
22 A. I don't recollect -- Rouke.
23 Q. Eric Rouke (ph.)?
24 A. Yes.
74
1 MR. KRAKOWER: Thank you. I don't
2 think I have anything else, but let me just
3 make sure.
4 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
5 Q. Well, I'll ask you the question I asked Mr.
6 Boles if I may. Did you take into consideration in
7 determining obstruction the potentiality for
8 objects coming down river getting caught either on
9 or between these poles that are going to be
10 erected?
11 A. Certainly not. It has nothing to do with
12 regulations. There's no way you can predict that;
13 therefore, there is no way you can include it in
14 the regulations.
15 Q. Therefore you didn't make any consideration
16 or allowance that this may happen?
17 A. No, but if I were doing the design, I would
18 certainly do that during the design. At this
19 particular stage, you can't do that.
20 Q. So you treated it as equal to simply being
21 open river with nothing there?
22 A. No, I took into consideration the
23 obstructions that are there now, and projected what
24 the obstructions were going to be after part of the
75
1 building was removed.
2 Q. Let me rephrase the question. In
3 projecting the future obstructions, those areas in
4 which the apartments are going to be more than 40
5 feet above the river level and which are going to
6 be held by poles, columns of some kind, you treated
7 those the same as if there were going to be no
8 apartments and no poles in those areas?
9 A. No, I included the poles in the area.
10 Q. You --?
11 A. They're included, but unobstructed, I mean,
12 that's the postdevelopment condition is the
13 presence sense of these pilings.
14 Q. The presence of the pilings as two foot by
15 two foot or something in that approximate?
16 A. About that.
17 Q. Approximately?
18 A. I think I had spaced them at in 20 feet,
19 which would be more critical which would be even on
20 the safe side.
21 Q. But what you did not do is make any
22 allowance for the possibility that something might
23 get caught either on or between the poles?
24 A. No, because in the present condition, it's
76
1 more likely that that material might get caught in
2 front of the existing building, rather than being
3 carried back into the piling support part of the
4 building. Essentially, what we're doing is
5 removing an obstruction which would make it less
6 likely for that kind of debris to build up.
7 Q. But not totally unlikely?
8 A. No, but less likely.
9 Q. Less likely than it is now?
10 A. Yes, but it's going to have to -- the
11 condition now is worse than the condition it will
12 be after part of that building is removed. So
13 essentially what you're saying is leave the
14 building there and --
15 Q. No, I'm not saying anything.
16 A. That's the bottom line though.
17 Q. I asking you simply, Dr. Waggle, what you
18 took into consideration? What potentialities you
19 thought about? What potentialities are measured
20 into your determination as to the height the river
21 level after the project is completed?
22 A. Bottom line is the columns are included in
23 the postdevelopment runs of the model. The build
24 up of debris against those pilings is not. Just as
77
1 build up of debris against the existing building is
2 not include in the analysis.
3 Q. Thank you. That answers my question.
4 MR. JAFFE: Briefly if I may.
5 THE WITNESS: Sure.
6 BY MR. JAFFE:
7 Q. Did you make any adjustments in the model
8 for the development in the suburbs over the last
9 six years since the FEMA data was developed?
10 A. No, and the reason I didn't was I was
11 comparing my results to their results, and their
12 results were base on 109 cubic feet per second of
13 water coming down that river, and I'm not going to
14 change that to 120 cubic feet per second. That
15 would be comparing apples to oranges. What I want
16 to compare is I want the run before development
17 compared to the run after development for the same
18 level of flooding. For the same discharge in the
19 river.
20 Q. Even if the same flooding would have the
21 additional water flow from the --
22 A. Then it wouldn't be the same discharge. It
23 would be a different discharge. The discharge
24 would go up. You're asking me to arbitrarily throw
78
1 another 10,000 --
2 Q. I'm just asking whether you considered the
3 change or increase in water flow over the last six
4 years with --
5 A. No.
6 Q. Wait a minute --
7 A. No, because there is none. The chances are
8 that the discharge in the river, the flooding in
9 the river will probably go down because in recent
10 years good management practice has required the
11 detention basins to be built so that whenever a new
12 development is put in, detention basins are put
13 in. I did a study on the Delaware River --
14 Q. I --
15 MR. KELSEN: Let him finish. You
16 opened the door.
17 THE WITNESS: I did a study on the
18 Delaware River. I gave my students
19 100-year flood data, and I told them to
20 look at the first 50 years and to look at
21 the second 50 years. I very much expected
22 that the floods during the second 50 year
23 period would be much higher than they were
24 at the beginning, because of urbanization.
79
1 The bottom line is they're not, I was
2 surprised, in the last 50 years, the floods
3 on the Delaware are lower than they were 50
4 years ago, the first 50 years. That's
5 because of flood control projects that have
6 been built on the dams. All the dams built
7 on the tributaries of the upper Delaware
8 have reduced flooding in the Delaware. I'm
9 assuming the same thing has happened in the
10 Schuylkill. You talked about the three
11 dams --
12 BY MR. JAFFE:
13 Q. You presume, and let me ask you, isn't it
14 correct that the Blue Marsh Dam is the only flood
15 control dam of the three dams that we have
16 mentioned, the HAY, the Maiden Creek and the Blue
17 Marsh?
18 A. It doesn't matter. Every dam will provide
19 flood control whether it was intended as a flood
20 control dam or not, because it will not be
21 completely full, when a flood comes in, and even
22 when it's completely full when a flood comes in it
23 will still reduce the feet in the hydrograph.
24 Q. I'm sorry, I didn't hear an answer to my
80
1 question. Isn't it true that the Blue Marsh Dam is
2 the only flood control dam that relates to the
3 Schuylkill River?
4 A. It is not the only dam --
5 Q. Of the three that we have mentioned: The
6 Hay, the Maiden Creek --
7 A. Let me finish my answer. It is not the
8 only dam that provides flood control on the
9 Schuylkill River.
10 MR. KRAKOWER: That's not the
11 question though.
12 THE WITNESS: That's my answer. I
13 answered.
14 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Keep going.
15 MR. JAFFE: I'm trying to get an
16 answer to my question not what you feel
17 like answering.
18 MR. KELSEN: I think he's answered
19 it, but you just don't like the answer.
20 MR. KRAKOWER: No, I want an answer
21 to the question.
22 THE WITNESS: That may be the only
23 one that has flood control benefits in the
24 economic analysis of a dam, but it is not
81
1 the only dam that has flood control
2 benefits. It may be the only one that had
3 benefits included in the analysis.
4 BY MR. JAFFE:
5 Q. So the answer would be yes then, do I
6 understand you --
7 A. No.
8 Q. -- in direct flood control I asked you?
9 MR. KELSEN: Objection. He
10 answered it three times. If he doesn't
11 like the answer, we can answer it four
12 times. The answer is not a simple yes or
13 no.
14 MR. KRAKOWER: For the record I
15 just want the record to reflect that he
16 didn't answer it all, and we'll let an
17 appellant court decide that.
18 CHAIRMAN KELLY: He answered it.
19 Is that it?
20 MR. KELSEN: That's it.
21 MR. JAFFE: I have one more.
22 BY MR. JAFFE:
23 Q. Have you looked at other, alternative
24 development uses for Venice Island?
82
1 A. No.
2 Q. You've not?
3 A. Actually, I don't know -- I might --
4 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Alternative uses?
5 Are we deviating from what we're supposed
6 to hear?
7 MR. KELSEN: It's cross, so it's
8 not my question, Mr. Chairman.
9 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Your question,
10 what would it have to do with what this
11 hearing is about?
12 MR. JAFFE: We're going to show
13 that it was his claim that this improved
14 and there have been other community groups
15 suggestions that would allow for even
16 better water level improvements than we're
17 seeing here.
18 MR. KELSEN: I'm objecting because
19 none of those proposals are before the
20 Board today.
21 THE WITNESS: I can't answer that, I
22 mean, I have no idea.
23 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Anything else?
24 MR. JAFFE: No, thank you.
83
1 MR. KELSEN: I have one more quick
2 question, Mr. Chairman.
3 REDIRECT EXAMINATION
4 BY MR. KELSEN:
5 Q. Dr. Waggle, you were asked a question about
6 whether you modeled your flood data on the parking
7 of automobiles on the apartment site; is that
8 correct?
9 A. That's correct.
10 Q. Did you take into account the existence of
11 the tractor trailers that are currently on in the
12 industrial sites in modeling?
13 A. No.
14 Q. And you didn't make any determination as to
15 what their impact is or the obstruction of those
16 tractor trailers on the floodway as it currently
17 exists, did you?
18 A. No.
19 MR. KELSEN: I have nothing
20 further.
21 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir.
22 (The witness was excused.)
23 MR. KELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I would
24 call Karl Dranoff at this time.
84
1 DIRECT EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. KELSEN:
3 Q. Mr. Dranoff, would you state your name and
4 address for the record, please.
5 A. Karl E. Dranoff, 124 Booth Lane, Haverford,
6 Pennsylvania.
7 Q. Mr. Dranoff, are you involved in the
8 proposed development of this property?
9 A. Yes, I am. I'm the developer.
10 Q. Do you have any experience in this type of
11 development, Mr. Dranoff?
12 A. Yes, I do.
13 Q. Do you want to tell the Board a little bit
14 about your development history.
15 A. Yes, for the past 20 years I have
16 renovated/rehabilitated 67 historic buildings in
17 the Philadelphia region, approximately 20 buildings
18 throughout the country going as far west as
19 Minneapolis, a total of 67 structures have been
20 renovated by my company or my affiliates.
21 Q. Mr. Dranoff, why do you want to redevelop
22 Namico?
23 A. Well, the buildings are blighted, vacant
24 buildings currently. I believe they are excellent
85
1 adapted redevelopment candidates. If they are not
2 renovated, they will sit there and continue to be
3 vacant and blighted, and I'm offering to clean
4 those buildings up and bring activity and life back
5 to those building as I have done elsewhere.
6 Q. Are you aware of fact that City Council
7 rezoned this property for residential use?
8 A. Yes, I am aware.
9 Q. Were you a part of that process?
10 A. Yes, I was. I advocated for residential
11 redevelopment. I believe that's the best use for
12 this property. Had the site not been rezoned it
13 could have been used for any number of industrial
14 or commercial uses which I believe would not have
15 been appropriate.
16 Q. Why do you think the residential reuse of
17 this property would act to benefit the Manayunk
18 Canal and the surrounding area?
19 A. Well, I believe it will bring residents
20 back into the area, and I think it will make it
21 safer. It will be eyes and ears that will be close
22 to the canal and all of the recreational
23 developments along the canal. I think in terms of
24 use, it's a very benign use. I believe that there
86
1 will be less peak-time traffic developed. I think
2 the buildings will be beautiful buildings. What
3 I'm doing is preserving the historic buildings.
4 I'm adding new buildings that are very much in the
5 character and architectural vernacular of the
6 existing buildings and will be very compatible with
7 what exists in Manayunk today, and I think it will
8 be an asset to the community as have my other
9 projects.
10 Q. Did you make provision in your development
11 plan for upgrades of a bike path area along the
12 canal?
13 A. Yes. We reserved space along the
14 perimeters of our development for recreation.
15 Q. Did you also create an area on the plan
16 which could be used a river walk access point?
17 A. Yes.
18 Q. Why did you do that? Why did you do those
19 two things?
20 A. To provide continuity to infrastructure
21 that was going in and to enhance it.
22 Q. As part of your development program, did
23 you have meetings with community and civic leaders
24 to discuss this project?
87
1 A. Yes, we had meetings with all of the major
2 groups in Manayunk over an extended period of time
3 for at least -- at least a year in duration.
4 Q. As part of the evolution of those community
5 meetings, did you retool your plan in response to
6 certain questions or comments made by certain
7 community members?
8 A. Yes, when we first presented our plan,
9 which I believe was in the early spring of 1999 or
10 excuse me '98, we had a density of approximately
11 188 dwelling units with approximately 160 or 170
12 car parking and throughout my meetings with
13 neighborhood groups, I was persuaded that we should
14 reduce our density and increase our parking and
15 that's exactly what we did. In fact, we reduced
16 our apartment count from 188 to 160, and we
17 substantially increased the amount of parking that
18 was requested of us, which is now at 214 parking
19 spaces.
20 Q. In fact, Mr. Dranoff, did you not size your
21 development plan in keeping with the City Council
22 legislation that was promulgated for the Venice
23 Island Development?
24 A. It was suggested to me that one parking
88
1 space per apartment would be appropriate. It was
2 suggested by the Planning Commission and others and
3 we complied with those suggestions.
4 Q. As part of this process, did you create a
5 floodway evacuation plan for your residents?
6 A. Yes, we certainly did.
7 Q. How did you become aware of the need to
8 provide that or the desire on the part of someone
9 to provide that?
10 A. Well, first of all I have developed many
11 properties in floodplains and the most recent one,
12 which I believe was described as Locust on the Park
13 at 25th and Locust, it's in a floodplain. We make
14 provisions for the fact that there are cars parked
15 on our lower level at Locust on the Park, and we
16 make provisions during a flood. You almost always
17 have some advance warning of a flood. We have
18 detailed tenant profiles of phone numbers, we
19 contact people, we ask them to move their
20 automobiles and during Floyd, case in point, we
21 were down on the site consistently and continuously
22 for 24 to 48 hours prior to the flood and we were
23 successful in contacting people and virtually
24 everyone decided to move their car to higher
89
1 ground, but some people chose not to.
2 Q. Did you have any flooding problems at 2400
3 Locust?
4 MR. KRAKOWER: Objection. It's not
5 relevant. It's a floodplain not a
6 floodway.
7 THE WITNESS: No, we did not.
8 BY MR. KELSEN:
9 Q. Is part of the evacuation plan that you
10 prepared for the Namico site, did you also make
11 provision for a residential bridge to be erected
12 over the --
13 A. Yes, in addition to the removal of
14 automobiles, we provided for an evacuation plan so
15 that an occupant in the building wouldn't have to
16 get wet in the event of a flood. Point in fact, we
17 designed a small bridge that connects our second
18 floor corridor to the Leverington Avenue bridge
19 which is on higher ground.
20 Q. As part of your leasing activity will a
21 flood or emergency evacuation plan be included in
22 the lease?
23 A. Positively.
24 Q. In the event that -- by the way, at 2400
90
1 Locust do you have outside parking as well as
2 internal?
3 A. Yes, we have internal parking. We have
4 outside parking. The outside parking, part of it
5 is on higher ground and other parts are in the
6 floodplain, so when we notify people they are able
7 to move their cars to higher ground if they chose
8 to.
9 Q. Mr. Dranoff, in addition to your
10 development expertise, you're a civil engineer,
11 aren't you?
12 A. Correct.
13 Q. Where did you get your degree?
14 A. Drexel University.
15 Q. And how long ago did you get your degree?
16 A. I received my civil engineering degree in
17 1970.
18 Q. And have you practiced in the area of civil
19 engineering?
20 A. Only insofar as it's part of my development
21 expertise.
22 Q. How many projects have you developed over
23 the years? You said that before, but I'm just
24 asking you to repeat it.
91
1 A. I have completed 67 projects.
2 Q. Is there any doubt in your mind that in
3 order for this project to come to completion, you
4 will have to meet all Philadelphia applicable
5 building codes?
6 A. Absolutely.
7 Q. Is there any question in your mind that
8 this project would not be fully code compliant with
9 any floodway regulations?
10 A. It will be fully code compliant in every
11 conceivable way.
12 MR. KELSEN: I have no further
13 questions of Mr. Dranoff at this time.
14 MR. KRAKOWER: May I?
15 CROSS-EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
17 Q. Mr. Dranoff, would you put your own
18 personal family in the path of floods where lives
19 might depend on an emergency evacuation scheme?
20 A. I would have my family live at Namico
21 because they wouldn't be in any danger, yes.
22 Q. What would happen if the emergency
23 evacuation plan didn't work exactly right?
24 A. Well, my family wouldn't be in danger,
92
1 because as I mentioned, the apartments start at a
2 level above the floodway line, and there is
3 emergency evacuation built into our building to
4 provide egress during a flood to high ground
5 without getting wet.
6 Q. There's never --
7 A. There's no danger.
8 Q. How much advanced notice are you assuming
9 you would get?
10 A. It wouldn't matter. You could have 30
11 seconds advanced notice and you could still get out
12 of the building without getting wet.
13 Q. That assumes if everything works right?
14 MR. KELSEN: Objection. He's
15 answered.
16 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted.
17 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
18 Q. Did you consider any other use besides this
19 residential use in determining whether you wanted
20 to acquire or would acquire this piece of real
21 estate?
22 MR. KELSEN: I would object,
23 because the only issue before the Board
24 today is the floodway issue as of-right
93
1 development.
2 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted.
3 MR. KRAKOWER: Well, that's of
4 course in dispute as well as. It wasn't an
5 of-right development when the application
6 was made last fall.
7 MR. KELSEN: Stanley, I know you're
8 not going to stand on that one. If you're
9 telling me now that residential use is not
10 permitted at this site.
11 MR. KRAKOWER: It wasn't always,
12 no.
13 MR. KELSEN: Well, that's where we
14 are now.
15 MR. KRAKOWER: Well, okay, I've
16 already made my argument. I think it
17 requires an amended application to L and I
18 but that's neither here nor there.
19 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
20 Q. Did you consider a nonresidential use? I
21 think that's a fair question.
22 A. No.
23 Q. Have you concluded that the residential use
24 that you're contemplating is particularly
94
1 profitable?
2 MR. KELSEN: Objection. It's
3 irrelevant to the testimony we're here for
4 today.
5 MR. KRAKOWER: Well, I don't -- Mr.
6 Dranoff has indicated that he made this
7 decision to help the community. I'm
8 wondering if he didn't consider
9 profitability.
10 MR. KELSEN: I'll even stipulate to
11 the profitability issue. Come on,
12 Stanley.
13 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
14 Q. Now, in order to have a bike path or a
15 river walk that you're talking about, is it
16 necessary that only residential uses could have
17 those types of amenities?
18 A. I can't answer that question.
19 Q. I'll ask you one last question. You talked
20 about reducing the density, weren't those density
21 reductions required by the City?
22 A. No, this was done voluntarily before there
23 were any regulations promulgated by the City. The
24 City, at that point, hadn't determined what the use
95
1 or the rezoning of Venice Island would be at that
2 point.
3 Q. But when the rezoning legislation was
4 enacted late last fall, your density had to be
5 reduced in order to comply with that legislation?
6 MR. KELSEN: That's not correct.
7 That's a misstatement. His application did
8 not have to be reduced, because it was
9 submitted before the legislation was passed
10 and it already incorporated the down size
11 of the density in the constant discussions
12 with the neighbors. That's not a fair
13 statement.
14 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
15 Q. That reduction, however, also took into
16 consideration the contemplated legislation
17 rezoning; did it not?
18 MR. KELSEN: Objection. Again, it
19 was done before the rezoning bill was even
20 introduced into Council.
21 MR. KRAKOWER: Okay, fine.
22 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
23 Q. Also it was done before the zoning
24 permitting residential use was accomplished; is
96
1 that correct?
2 A. The plan that we have was developed and the
3 density was developed in conjunction with
4 suggestions made to me by certain community groups
5 as well as suggestions from the Planning
6 Commission, which at that time was developing
7 regulations or reuse possibilities for Venice
8 Island. So we listened to everybody and we ended
9 up with the plan that is before the Zoning Board.
10 MR. KRAKOWER: All right. I have
11 no other questions.
12 MR. JAFFE: I have a few
13 questions.
14 BY MR. JAFFE:
15 Q. I'd like to ask you some questions
16 concerning the pubic interests and public welfare
17 of Philadelphia. Are you familiar with
18 Smurfit-Stone, a neighbor of yours?
19 A. Yes.
20 Q. Are you familiar with how many unionized
21 jobs they have there?
22 A. Approximately.
23 Q. How many, sir?
24 A. 350.
97
1 Q. And how many local unions represent these
2 people?
3 A. I have no clue how many unions.
4 Q. You're aware that they're totally
5 unionized, and they pay fair wage?
6 A. Well, all of my developments are totally
7 unionized, and I pay a fair wage. So what's the
8 question?
9 Q. Is your development going to threaten the
10 viability of Smurfit-Stone?
11 A. No, of course not. We have nothing to do
12 with Smurfit-Stone. We are an adjoining neighbor,
13 and we will be a good neighbor. We don't threaten
14 them at all.
15 Q. You're aware of the tractor trailers --
16 A. Of course.
17 Q. -- that come in there?
18 A. Of course.
19 Q. You're familiar with the flooding problem
20 that has occurred during Floyd and problems with
21 the trucks and trailers?
22 A. Of course.
23 Q. And their use of trains, trucks and
24 trailers?
98
1 A. Sir, I have a train in front of my building
2 at Locust on the Park. There is a major
3 freightliner that goes right in front of my
4 building. So it's -- I'm an urban developer. I've
5 done over 20 buildings in the City of
6 Philadelphia. I think that we take into account
7 the surrounding buildings when we come up with the
8 development plan. In no way will we adversely
9 affect them in my opinion.
10 Q. Are they going to adversely affect you?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Are you going to --
13 A. We will peacefully coexist. They're there,
14 and we hope that they'll stay there, and we see no
15 problem with their being our neighbor.
16 Q. What considerations have you given to
17 entrance and exit of train, truck and trailer
18 traffic in where it is going in and out of
19 Smurfit?
20 A. Namico is no different than any other urban
21 property. There are buses, trains, ambulances,
22 fire engines and all other kinds of vehicles that
23 traverse city streets, and Namico is no different
24 than the street in front of us. There are tractor
99
1 trailers that go in front of all of our buildings
2 as I mentioned the train line in front of our door
3 at Locust on the Park. That is what you deal with
4 when you are an urban developer such as myself.
5 Q. So you're on the record, stating under
6 oath, that you would not attempt to injury your
7 neighbor by any conflicts that would occur between
8 what's a legal industrial use and the residential
9 use that you propose?
10 A. I'm not sure what the question is.
11 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're getting far
12 away from where we're supposed to be on
13 this hearing, on the issues.
14 THE WITNESS: Could you restate
15 it?
16 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Stick to the issue
17 of why we're here, sir.
18 MR. JAFFE: I think part of the
19 issue is the public welfare.
20 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The issue here at
21 this hearing is exactly what was eluded to
22 in the Planning Commission's letter.
23 THE WITNESS: I think that an issue
24 of public welfare is the existing condition
100
1 of the buildings and the fact that they are
2 going to be cleaned up and not left to rot
3 and be vacant, and they are historic
4 buildings. They are on the national
5 register, and I think they have no future
6 unless they are rehabed, so make your
7 choice. They can either be neglected and
8 fall down eventually, or they can be
9 renovated. I think that's a public purpose
10 BY MR. JAFFE:
11 Q. So you're saying that there have been no
12 other community suggestions such as a more
13 recreational area such as open space plans for
14 this?
15 MR. KELSEN: Objection. That's not
16 what we're here for.
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir --.
18 MR. JAFFE: He answered it. He
19 opened the door, sir.
20 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Sir you're an
21 officer of the Court. Abide by the
22 decision of this Board.
23 Do you have any other questions of
24 this witness?
101
1 MR. JAFFE: No, thank you, sir.
2 Oh, one more brief question.
3 BY MR. JAFFE:
4 Q. Can you tell me what happened to the cars
5 at Locust on the Park that weren't moved out during
6 Hurricane Floyd? You said that some people didn't
7 move.
8 A. Nothing, because the flood waters did not
9 go beyond the banks of the Schuylkill at Locust.
10 Q. So it didn't flood then?
11 A. We tried to be cautious and err on the safe
12 side, but the water did not rise that high.
13 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, sir,
14 nothing further.
15 (Then witness was excused.)
16 MR. KELSEN: I have Mr. Boles, who
17 is prepared to testify on the issue of
18 traffic. I'm going to defer him as a
19 witness because it is not relevant to this
20 proceeding at all, but I would like to
21 request that if the issue of traffic comes
22 up that Mr. Boles be permitted to respond
23 appropriately, but, again, I defer that
24 because the envelop that we worked in today
102
1 has been covered by the applicant, and I
2 would now rest our case. Thank you.
3 MR. KRAKOWER: For the record, let
4 me note that I believe that the issue of
5 traffic is extremely relevant. That this
6 Board's function of determining whether or
7 not to permit this project requires
8 consideration of traffic. That for
9 example, we've heard about all these cars
10 that are going to be removed in an
11 emergency evacuation without knowing
12 anything about the traffic ability of that
13 surrounding community to take these cars.
14 I ask the question, where are these cars
15 going to go if we have 300 or 400 cars, we
16 don't know anything about the traffic
17 conditions. For them to say that the cars
18 are going to get off the island, if it's
19 not possible for the cars to get off the
20 island. If it's only one 14-foot wide
21 bridge to get off the island. These are
22 very relevant considerations that the Board
23 should consider, with all due respect,
24 instead of waiting until we have a
103
1 potential catastrophe and somebody says,
2 why wasn't that brought up when this matter
3 was before the Zoning Board in March of
4 2000? So I respectfully submit that the
5 traffic conditions the ingress and egress
6 of automobiles and trucks is extremely
7 relevant. Not withstanding the letter of
8 the Planning Commission, and I would hope
9 that we would have to take that into
10 consideration.
11 CHAIRMAN KELLY: The evacuation of
12 cars that's the only issue?
13 MR. KRAKOWER: Of trucks too. They
14 do also have trucks.
15 CHAIRMAN KELLY: They all have four
16 wheels on them, you're correct and maybe
17 little red wagons, too.
18 MR. KRAKOWER: Okay.
19 MR. KELSEN: We rest our case.
20 Obviously we'll redirect and rebut as we
21 proceed.
22 MR. KRAKOWER: If I may begin?
23 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're done at
24 three o'clock. We have another hearing at
104
1 3:00.
2 MR. KRAKOWER: I know it's at
3 3:00. Time flew right by us. May I? I
4 have some housekeeping.
5 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Before you get
6 started on that, how many witnesses do you
7 have?
8 MR. KRAKOWER: I have 11 all
9 together. I don't have all 11. I have
10 eight here today and three others that
11 aren't here who would submit written
12 memorandums.
13 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay. Of your
14 witnesses, how much time do you need?
15 MR. KRAKOWER: I anticipate needing
16 about two to two and a half hours.
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Okay.
18 MR. KRAKOWER: I'm just advised,
19 Mr. Chairman, I have two of these witnesses
20 that are hired, paid witnesses who came in
21 today and will not take very long. I
22 wonder if we could.
23 CHAIRMAN KELLY: How long is not
24 long?
105
1 MR. KRAKOWER: Ten minutes each.
2 Maybe 15 minutes at the most. These are
3 paid, professional witnesses.
4 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Put your name and
5 address on the record, ma'am.
6 THE WITNESS: My name is Sara
7 Anderson Willig, and I live at 190 Sycamore
8 Lane, Phoenixville, Pennsylvania 19460.
9 DIRECT EXAMINATION
10 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
11 Q. Dr. Willig, what is your professional
12 background?
13 A. I am a lecturer at the University of
14 Pennsylvania in the department of urban
15 environmental science, formerly the geology
16 department, and the department of landscape
17 architecture and regional planning. I received my
18 Ph.D. from the University Pennsylvania in geology
19 in 1988, and I've been teaching there on a
20 part-time basis since that time.
21 Q. Have you written out a report for your
22 testimony today?
23 A. Yes, I have.
24 Q. Could you summarize it --
106
1 MR. KELSEN: I'm going to object
2 here. I would like to have a little voir
3 dire, if you don't mind, as to her
4 expertise.
5 MR. KRAKOWER: Sure.
6 BY MR. KELSEN:
7 Q. Is it Dr. Willig?
8 A. Yes, it's Dr. Willig.
9 Q. Dr. Willig, are you a hydrologist?
10 A. No, I am not a hydrologist.
11 Q. Do you have any expertise in hydrologic
12 studies?
13 A. As far as I teach environmental studies
14 which deals extensively with hydrology, and also
15 I'm a certified wetland delineator, which means
16 that I've spent quite a bit of time in floodways.
17 I've seen evidence of flooding, and I am familiar
18 with hydrology with regard to that.
19 Q. Have you ever worked with FEMA in terms of
20 floodway reviews?
21 A. No, I have not.
22 Q. Have you ever performed or participated in
23 the Hec-Ras study?
24 A. No, I have not.
107
1 Q. Do you know what a Hec-Ras study is?
2 A. We just went through it in great detail
3 with Dr. Waggle. Yes, I've heard of it before.
4 Q. You've heard of it?
5 A. Yes.
6 Q. Have you ever done one?
7 A. No, I have not.
8 Q. Have you ever reviewed one?
9 A. No, and I'm not here to dispute Dr.
10 Waggle's testimony at all with regards to that.
11 MR. KELSEN: I'm going to make a
12 motion, then, that witness be certified as
13 a fact witness, but not as an expert
14 because she's not an expert in the issue
15 before the Board today and that is
16 hydrologic studies. She's a geologist.
17 MR. KRAKOWER: I believe that would
18 also be true then of Mr. Boles, who was
19 also not a hydrologist.
20 MR. KELSEN: I would be happy to
21 put him back on again.
22 MR. KRAKOWER: No, I think he's
23 completed his testimony.
24 MR. KELSEN: I've made my point,
108
1 the Board will rule on it.
2 MR. KRAKOWER: We spent two hours
3 with Dr. Boles and Dr. Waggle.
4 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Do you have
5 questions of your witness, Mr. Krakower?
6 She will not be seated as an expert
7 witness.
8 MR. KRAKOWER: She will not or
9 will?
10 CHAIRMAN KELLY: No.
11 MR. KRAKOWER: Will not? Note my
12 exception for the record.
13 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
14 Q. Just read your report then if you will.
15 A. What I'd like to make clear to the Board
16 and the public here today --
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: To the Board.
18 Ma'am, summarize your report and address
19 the Board only.
20 THE WITNESS: Okay. What I would
21 summarize my report to say is that I
22 strongly oppose the proposed residential
23 development on Venice Island, because there
24 is a well-documented history of this island
109
1 periodically flooding dramatically as it
2 did in September of 1999 during Hurricane
3 Floyd, which was rated a 25-year flood
4 based on discharge data at the Fairmont
5 Dam, and, therefore, it is quite simply
6 wrong to encourage or permit people to live
7 in what we know to be an extremely
8 dangerous environment.
9 As you consider the future land-use
10 of Venice Island, you must not ignore this
11 well-documented history of dramatic
12 flooding. Hurricane Floyd in September of
13 the 1999 resulted from approximately
14 upwards of ten inches of rain falling into
15 the Schuylkill River watershed beginning in
16 the early morning hours of Thursday
17 September 16th and continuing over the next
18 18 hours. There was a very dramatic rise
19 in the water level which did submerge
20 Venice Island, and I'd like to refer you to
21 the attachments I have in this report.
22 There's a hydrograph that shown as the
23 first attachment, which shows the very
24 rapid rise of the water level, also know as
110
1 stream discharge, for Hurricane Floyd. The
2 core issue here today is evacuation. How
3 much warning will people have to evacuate?
4 That seems to be a critical element of the
5 this development, and there was a very
6 dramatic increase in the crest that
7 occurred in middle of the night. The
8 stream
9 discharge -- the flood stage was over three
10 feet at the Fairmont Dam, so that was a
11 very recent flooding, fresh in everyone's
12 mind, quite dramatic.
13 In 1996, late January, we had three
14 feet of snow that fell, unprecedented high
15 temperatures, rapid snow melt, we had
16 another dramatic flood that inundated the
17 Venice Island area and Manayunk. I have an
18 excerpt from the Philadelphia Inquire
19 there, that I won't take the time to read,
20 but it quite dramatically emphasizes that
21 the hardest hit in the city was Manayunk
22 along Main Street. There is a pattern that
23 emerges as you start to look at floods
24 through time. Manayunk is severely hit.
111
1 Hurricane Agnes in June of 1972 was rated
2 as a 50-year flood. Quick excerpt based on
3 the Philadelphia Evening Bulletin is that
4 Manayunk was hard hit by the flood. Some
5 houses swept away, all factories closed,
6 leaving approximately thousands of workers
7 temporarily unemployed. Manayunk's Main
8 Street, which is at a higher elevation than
9 Venice Island and River Road were so deeply
10 flooded they had to be evacuated and
11 guarded against looting. The greatest
12 flood of record is October 4, 1869, flood
13 and at that time they talk about property
14 damage, loss of life, two canal boatmen
15 were drowned. They talk about the
16 tremendous amount of debris. I think a
17 point that's trying to be emphasized is
18 that there is debris that the river carries
19 in addition to water. There is concern
20 about obstructions that can result behind
21 solid, stationary objects. For comparative
22 purposes, I've listed the peak level
23 discharges at the Fairmont Dam, and these
24 two floods of recent memory, the 1999 Floyd
112
1 flood and the 1996 January flood rate in
2 terms of discharge at both six and ten. So
3 these are two floods of recent memory that,
4 you know, are less than previous floods. A
5 few reasons for the flooding that's so
6 dramatic at Venice Island. If you look at
7 the topography map of the area, there's a
8 straight for the Conshohocken curb on the
9 Schuylkill Expressway down to the upper end
10 of Venice Island through hard rock. If you
11 look at the -- there are no meanders to
12 dissipate energy. There is Flat Rock Dam,
13 but that's not a flood control structure.
14 At low stream levels it impounds the water
15 to create lake-like conditions, but it
16 doesn't hold floodwaters back. There is
17 constriction there. If you look at map
18 figure seven, it's a map of that area, a
19 topographic map, there's constriction there
20 where the Flat Rock Tunnel is. The water
21 comes coursing through that three-mile
22 straight way, hits that constricted area
23 and passes through and rises very
24 dramatically in the area of Venice Island.
113
1 If you look at figure six, you can see a
2 mapping of flood levels done in 1976. This
3 is before Agnes before the recent floods.
4 As you can see this is from the
5 Conshohocken area of Plymouth Dam all the
6 way down to Falls Bridge and Venice Island
7 is in the area below Flat Rock Dam down to
8 mile fourteen. You can see there's a more
9 dramatic rise in the flood waters there
10 than elsewhere, and this is based on high
11 water marks, the marks to which water
12 levels rose. So we've got information that
13 points to the pattern of very dramatic
14 flooding there on Venice Island.
15 Additional considerations are the
16 many storm sewer fall out into the Manayunk
17 Canal, which further exacerbates the
18 flooding there on the island. You have a
19 rise in the river, you also have a rise in
20 the canal. So in summary it's both the
21 natural configuration of the Schuylkill
22 River Valley and the human modifications to
23 the floodplains and hydrologic site through
24 urbanization that contributes to this
114
1 dramatic rise of water levels through
2 severe floods along Venice Island. And as
3 we look to the future, I would like to
4 encourage you to consider alternative land
5 uses and not knowingly place people in
6 harms way.
7 Finally, I strongly oppose the
8 issuance of zoning variances that would
9 allow residential development here on
10 Venice Island when we know of this dramatic
11 flood history, and I encourage you to be
12 thoughtful in your decision making. Thank
13 you.
14 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you.
15 CROSS-EXAMINATION
16 BY MR. KELSEN:
17 Q. Doctor, are you a resident of the City of
18 Philadelphia?
19 A. I am not.
20 Q. Where do you reside?
21 A. In Chester County south of Phoenixville,
22 190 Sycamore Lane, in the Schuylkill watershed and
23 I am aware of the urbanization that has been
24 alluded to earlier.
115
1 Q. I have no doubt that you do.
2 A. Okay.
3 Q. Are you aware of the fact that there is
4 going to be a significant amount of structure
5 removed from the present Namico Factory?
6 A. Yes.
7 Q. And did you factor that removal of
8 structure into your analysis of flood impact?
9 A. My great concern here is the inability to
10 control people's behavior during a flood, during a
11 catastrophe. Whenever you read these flood
12 accounts, people are always going through
13 barricades. People behave very differently with
14 residential areas than they do with industrial
15 areas. The urge is to get back home and take care
16 of things at home, take care of loved ones, get
17 your car out of there. You can't control people.
18 Q. So is it fair to say that you're concern,
19 as voiced today, is really with regard to the
20 evacuation and the residential use of the site?
21 A. It's welfare.
22 Q. I see, as opposed to the increase in the
23 floodway that may or may not occur as a result of
24 this development?
116
1 MR. KRAKOWER: I'm going to object
2 because that makes a dichotomy out of --
3 makes two alternatives which are really
4 one.
5 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted. Can you
6 answer the question, ma'am?
7 THE WITNESS: I'm concerned about
8 both. I think it's very difficult to know
9 with certainty through calculations that
10 are done under ideal circumstances, and I
11 would not contest anything that Dr. Waggle
12 said with his tremendous experience. I
13 think it's difficult to model the natural
14 environment. We do it and that's all we
15 can do, but I don't think you can totally
16 rely, I think we also have to consider
17 other factors.
18 BY MR. KELSEN:
19 Q. So it's really fair to say that the
20 evacuation issue is what's troubling you mostly not
21 necessarily the development; is that fair to say?
22 A. There are a number of different issues.
23 That is one issue, there are other issues as well.
24 Q. Well, if you could rank those issues on a
117
1 scale of one to ten, how does residential
2 evacuation rank?
3 MR. KRAKOWER: I'm going to
4 object. I don't think it's appropriate for
5 her to rank them.
6 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted.
7 MR. KRAKOWER: She has concerns
8 with all of them.
9 MR. KELSEN: I just want to
10 understand and crystallize her testimony as
11 to what her concerns are about this
12 specific development.
13 THE WITNESS: Okay. I think we
14 just had Hurricane Floyd where we saw the
15 submergence of the island. We saw cars,
16 vehicles washed, and I would have to say
17 that concern for human life is a number one
18 issue. They had trouble evacuating people
19 up in Conshohocken. There is similar
20 floodplain situations. There was a Septa
21 train that was stalled there, you know, all
22 those people washed into the river. So
23 human life is of great concern to me here.
24 BY MR. KELSEN:
118
1 Q. Are you aware that as part of the proviso
2 that the Planning Commission put on their approval
3 of this project is that a detailed evacuation plan
4 had to be in place including a bridge?
5 A. Yes, I've heard allusion to that.
6 Q. Were you aware of that before you made your
7 testimony today?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. You were aware of it?
10 A. Yes.
11 Q. Does that have any impact on your testimony
12 at all?
13 A. Again, I think under ideal circumstances,
14 but, you know, having read newspaper accounts and
15 being involved in flooding, I think it's extremely
16 difficult to control people's behavior and control
17 other variables involved, and I think --
18 Q. What would you like to see happen to this
19 site?
20 A. I'd like to see the extension of the
21 greenway that Philadelphia is fortunate enough to
22 have now on Kelly Drive south of the Wissahickon.
23 I think the area is starved for open space, and I
24 think it would be a benefit to the communities, the
119
1 businesses that are in that area to offer more
2 natural views of the floodplain area and also
3 highlight its great historical significance that
4 was critical to the growth of the textile industry
5 in Philadelphia, and I know many of the community
6 groups feel that way too.
7 Q. So no development at this site?
8 A. I'm not saying no development. I have a
9 very difficult time accepting residential
10 development knowing what we know.
11 Q. But you just said that you would like to
12 see greenway?
13 A. I'd like to see greenway at least in part.
14 I think that's one of the things we should look at.
15 MR. KELSEN: I have nothing
16 further.
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Thank you, ma'am.
18 (The witness was excused.)
19 MR. KRAKOWER: I just have one
20 more. Mr. Hendrickson. Is he still here?
21 Would you come forward please.
22 DIRECT EXAMINATION
23 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
24 Q. Would you state your name and address,
120
1 sir.
2 A. My name is J.C. Hedrickson, Jr. 204 Downing
3 Road, Downingtown, Pennsylvania, 19335.
4 Q. Mr. Hendrickson, what is your professional
5 occupation?
6 A. My occupation is consultant meteorologist.
7 Q. And did you ever have any meteorological
8 relationship with or in the City of Philadelphia?
9 A. Yes, I was head of the National Weather
10 Service here in Philadelphia for 13 years prior to
11 my retirement.
12 Q. What was that 13-year period sir?
13 A. Roughly, 1983 until 1997.
14 Q. As a result of your knowledge and during
15 that period of work -- well, let me ask first, what
16 is your educational background in meteorology?
17 A. I have a degree in mathematics, a second
18 degree in meteorology and a master's in
19 meteorology.
20 Q. Were you engaged in meteorology before you
21 were employed by the City of Philadelphia -- or by
22 the United States Weather --
23 A. Department of Commerce, U.S. National
24 Weather Service.
121
1 Q. National Weather Service, all right. In
2 that job with the National Weather Service, what
3 were some of the areas that were under your
4 immediate supervision and activities?
5 A. Hydrological warning programs, flash flood
6 warning programs, severe weather warning programs,
7 all warning and watch programs that were
8 responsible for saving lives and properties.
9 Q. Was that in the City of Philadelphia?
10 A. As well as, at times it ranged from 10 to
11 20 counties in the area as well.
12 Q. Okay. Are you at all familiar with the
13 place known as Venice Island in the Schuylkill
14 River?
15 A. Yes.
16 MR. KRAKOWER: First, before we any
17 go any further, do we have any problems
18 with Mr. Hendrickson's qualifications.
19 MR. KELSEN: Certainly not as a
20 meteorologist, but I would like to ask a
21 couple of questions if I could.
22 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Please do.
23 BY MR. KELSEN:
24 Q. Mr. Hendrickson, are you an expert in the
122
1 study of hydrology?
2 A. Primarily in meteorology I would say
3 secondary in hydrology.
4 Q. Have you performed any studies involving
5 the hydrology as it affects floodway development
6 like the one we're here to discuss today?
7 A. Not floodway development.
8 Q. Have you ever participated in the review of
9 floodway impacts in the City of Philadelphia as a
10 result of the Hec-Ras studies?
11 A. No.
12 Q. Do you know what a Hec-Ras study is?
13 A. No, I'm not too familiar.
14 Q. Are you familiar with the regulations that
15 FEMA has promulgated regarding development and
16 regulations for floodway uses?
17 A. I was involved with FEMA while I was with
18 the Weather Service, yes.
19 Q. Is it fair to say that your expertise is
20 really in the area of rainfall and flooding and the
21 results of rainfall and snow melt?
22 A. That's correct.
23 MR. KELSEN: I'm going to object to
24 this witness as an expert in the area of
123
1 floodway development and floodway
2 regulations for the same reason that I
3 objected to the previous witness.
4 CHAIRMAN KELLY: He didn't ask for
5 him to be seated; isn't that correct?
6 MR. KELSEN: I think as a
7 meteorologist.
8 MR. KRAKOWER: He's a
9 meteorologist.
10 MR. KELSEN: And that's the only
11 scope of his testimony?
12 MR. KRAKOWER: That affects the
13 floodways.
14 MR. KELSEN: I'm just asking a
15 question.
16 MR. KRAKOWER: Yeah --
17 MR. KELSEN: I've raised my issues
18 in terms of it, and you'll certify him.
19 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We'll seat him as
20 meteorologist, an expert in meteorology
21 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
22 Q. Now, as a meteorologist, do rain storms and
23 other kinds of storms affect the levels of water in
24 a floodway and particularly the Schuylkill River
124
1 floodway?
2 A. Yes, they do.
3 Q. As a result of meteorological incidents
4 which, I'll call them hurricanes, rainstorms,
5 melting snow, whatever, are you familiar with
6 incidences in which the water levels and the flood
7 levels of the Schuylkill have had dramatic changes?
8 A. Yes, very familiar.
9 Q. All right. Now, what are some of the ones
10 in which you are familiar, some of the
11 meteorological incidents that have impacted this
12 part of the Schuylkill River?
13 A. From issuing flood warnings for the
14 Schuylkill River that was the responsibility of the
15 National Weather Service and as head of the office,
16 I had to be keenly aware of the historical record
17 of what the river was as well as the most recent
18 floods. So one that comes to mind is Agnes in June
19 of 1972 and the most recent one would be Floyd in
20 September of '99.
21 Q. Now, in those incidence is it possible to
22 predict with certainly how much advanced warning
23 you're going to have before the meteorological
24 incident is reflected in the flood levels?
125
1 A. Depending on the incident it is.
2 Q. What are some of the ranges of warnings
3 that you could get?
4 A. Advanced warning notification I would say
5 on the low end would be three hours. On the high
6 end it would be ten hours.
7 Q. Now, on the low end, what is it that can
8 take place, what kind of anticipation do you have
9 within that three hour span as far as it's effect
10 on people in large numbers residing in let's say an
11 apartment dwelling?
12 A. Well, simply put, flood warning or flash
13 flood warning is issuing a warning that you're
14 going to get more water and the less time that you
15 have. So when we're anticipating the bank to be
16 exceeded, a flood warning goes out. That means
17 that when it begins, you may have three hours after
18 the warning is issued before you get two to three
19 feet of water start to rise. It does not mean that
20 in other words in another four to five or six hours
21 you might have five or six feet.
22 Q. Okay. Do you believe that the
23 meteorological incidents and warnings of the floods
24 is something that has direct impact on people's
126
1 living circumstances on residential quality and
2 safety of residential environment?
3 MR. KELSEN: Objection. It's
4 irrelevant.
5 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted.
6 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
7 Q. You can answer the question.
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. All right. Now, are you at all familiar
10 with Venice Island?
11 A. Not very familiar, but I'm very familiar
12 with the Manayunk area.
13 MR. KELSEN: I'm going to make an
14 objection. He's not familiar with Venice
15 Island and he testifying as an expert
16 here. There's no connection.
17 MR. KRAKOWER: He said he is
18 familiar with the Manayunk area.
19 MR. KELSEN: He said he's not
20 familiar with Venice Island.
21 MR. KRAKOWER: I think he said in
22 particular.
23 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
24 Q. Are you familiar with flooding problems in
127
1 the area around the Manayunk Canal?
2 A. Yes, very much so.
3 Q. Now, to what extent is it your opinion that
4 a large the number that's involved, I think, is
5 four to 500 all together residential unit
6 development on Venice Island poses a potential
7 problem as a result of meteorological incidents
8 that may be forthcoming in the next 10, 20, 30
9 years?
10 MR. KELSEN: I'm objecting to the
11 question because the application before the
12 Board is for 160 apartments.
13 CHAIRMAN KELLY: It's not 500.
14 It's for 160 apartments.
15 MR. KRAKOWER: Well, as part of and
16 on the island with --
17 CHAIRMAN KELLY: 160 apartments.
18 MR. KELSEN: This is the
19 application before the Board today.
20 MR. KRAKOWER: Then I will note my
21 objection if it's going to be severed from
22 consideration. If the Board's ruling is
23 you're going to consider --
24 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Ask him another
128
1 question sir. On the application before
2 the Board it's 160 units.
3 MR. KRAKOWER: All right. And so
4 it's clear, Mr. Chairman, I'm suggesting
5 that you cannot make a decision on this 160
6 unit apartment without also taking into
7 consideration the other units that Mr.
8 Maloomian is intending to build.
9 MR. JAFFE: And I would like to
10 point out -- wait a minute. Your own
11 witness Dr. Waggle said that he considered
12 all the development on the island when we
13 did our hydrologic studies. We're just
14 responding to what you already did, and
15 that was to consider all the potential
16 development and the water flow resulting
17 from all the potential development. That
18 was your expert's testimony.
19 CHAIRMAN KELLY: Let's not try to
20 have the record reflect that there's four
21 to 500 units before the Board in this
22 application. Rephrase your question and
23 you can put it on the record.
24 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
129
1 Q. Considering that the total Venice Island
2 development that is being proposed before the
3 Board, not just this application but in another, is
4 four to 500 units -- would you consider four to
5 five hundreds units on Venice Island to pose a
6 meteorological problem or would pose a safety issue
7 with four to 500 apartment units on Venice Island?
8 A. Yes.
9 Q. Are you aware of what the ingress and
10 egress situation is on Venice Island?
11 A. Right now I understand there's a road, but
12 I'm not too clear on the actual particulars of that
13 road.
14 Q. Would you suggest in your expertise whether
15 or not Venice Island is an appropriate location as
16 matters stand now for development residentially
17 with four to 500 units?
18 A. My concern comes from an expertise of
19 having to deal with disaster preparedness and what
20 I'm concerned about is whether you're going to have
21 enough time to evacuate all the people. That's my
22 concern.
23 MR. KRAKOWER: Thank you. I have
24 no other questions.
130
1 CROSS-EXAMINATION
2 BY MR. KELSEN:
3 Q. Just a couple of question if I could.
4 Are you aware of the evacuation
5 plan put forth for the Namico Soap Factory
6 development?
7 A. No, because if I was aware of it, it would
8 come across my desk when I was still in charge.
9 Q. So your concerns are not tempered by the
10 facts as to how our evacuation plan would operate
11 in the event of the event that you just described?
12 A. My concern is historically in fast moving
13 floods rapid rise flood situations we lose most
14 people trying to save their automobiles.
15 Q. But, again, you are not aware of the
16 fact --
17 A. That they have a plan in existence?
18 Q. Right. Or the nature of the plan?
19 A. No.
20 Q. Or the details of the plan?
21 A. No.
22 Q. Were you also aware of fact that as well as
23 that evacuation plan there will be a structure, a
24 bridge, created to get those individuals to higher
131
1 ground?
2 A. I heard that mentioned, yes, today.
3 Q. But you didn't factor that in?
4 A. No.
5 Q. Did you formulate any opinion as to the
6 meteorological effect of flash flooding coming from
7 the reduction of the structure as you heard
8 testified to today?
9 A. No, I didn't, not really, no, I was
10 basically dealing with time and height above bank.
11 Q. So your concerns may or not may not be
12 tempered by the fact that there would be less flow
13 on the river?
14 A. Right. It just specifically dealt with two
15 cases, Agnes and Floyd.
16 Q. I see.
17 MR. KELSEN: I have nothing
18 further.
19 MR. KRAKOWER: We have a summery
20 report. Do you have two of those?
21 THE WITNESS: Yes.
22 MR. KRAKOWER: Is one of these
23 summary reports passed up to the Board?
24 THE WITNESS: I think I sent my
132
1 resume up.
2 MR. KRAKOWER: Let me make sure
3 that the Board has one.
4 MR. KELSEN: Mr. Chairman, I'm
5 going to object to this, because it is a
6 summary of hydrological records for Venice
7 Island. He's admitted he does not have an
8 expertise in hydrology, and I object to
9 this being put in as an expert's report on
10 hydrology.
11 MR. KRAKOWER: This is information
12 that he's aware of. I think that some of
13 it you don't have to be an expert, you
14 simply have to --
15 MR. KELSEN: I know you don't have
16 to be a weatherman to know whether it
17 rains, but I'm objecting to it.
18 THE WITNESS: May I answer that,
19 sir?
20 MR. KELSEN: Yeah, please do.
21 THE WITNESS: There's a relationship
22 between the gauge sites and the gauge sites
23 that I was responsible for were Norristown
24 and Philadelphia. What I did is I took the
133
1 flood relationships between the Norristown
2 gauge, which is the U.S.G.S., the United
3 States Geological Survey Gauge, and the
4 Philadelphia gauge, and then I drew
5 conclusions between the flood of records
6 between those two gauge sites to come up
7 with the information. Now that was in my
8 job in working with the Weather Service and
9 I still feel it's within my ability.
10 MR. KELSEN: I reiterate my
11 objection, and I leave it to the Board to
12 decide what they want to do.
13 BY MR. KRAKOWER:
14 Q. So that was part of your job at the
15 National Weather Service?
16 A. Yes.
17 MR. KRAKOWER: Okay. Thank you.
18 CHAIRMAN KELLY: So noted for the
19 record. Anything else? Thank you.
20 (The witness was excused.)
21 MR. KRAKOWER: Do I have more
22 time? Do I have time for one more
23 witness?
24 CHAIRMAN KELLY: No.
134
1 MR. KRAKOWER: Thank you. Could we
2 address the next schedule with regard to
3 one other particular problem? The other
4 application, which I thought we would get
5 to today as well. Mr. Maloomian and Mr.
6 Sklaroff's application.
7 CHAIRMAN KELLY: We're going on
8 right now.
9 MR. KRAKOWER: Oh, okay.
10 MR. KELSEN: Members of the Board,
11 thank you.
12 (Hearing concluded at 3:25 p.m.)
13 - - -
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
135
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3 I, Jennifer O'Neill, 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 Monday, March 13, 2000.
9
10
11 --------------------------------
12 ÿ Jennifer O'Neill,
Court Reporter - Notary
13 Public
14 (This certification does not apply
to any reproduction of this transcript,
15 unless under the direct supervision of the
certifying reporter.)
16
- - -
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24