ZBA Testimony, Maloomain, December 22, 1999

Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92

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