ZBA Testimony, Dranoff, March 13, 2000

Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135,

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

      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I just have one
      20             more.  Mr. Hendrickson.  Is he still here?
      21             Would you come forward please.
      22                     DIRECT EXAMINATION
      23     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      24     Q.      Would you state your name and address,
       1     sir.
       2     A.      My name is J.C. Hedrickson, Jr. 204 Downing
       3     Road, Downingtown, Pennsylvania, 19335.
       4     Q.      Mr. Hendrickson, what is your professional
       5     occupation?
       6     A.      My occupation is consultant meteorologist.
       7     Q.      And did you ever have any meteorological
       8     relationship with or in the City of Philadelphia?
       9     A.      Yes, I was head of the National Weather
      10     Service here in Philadelphia for 13 years prior to
      11     my retirement.
      12     Q.      What was that 13-year period sir?
      13     A.      Roughly, 1983 until 1997.
      14     Q.      As a result of your knowledge and during
      15     that period of work -- well, let me ask first, what
      16     is your educational background in meteorology?
      17     A.      I have a degree in mathematics, a second
      18     degree in meteorology and a master's in
      19     meteorology.
      20     Q.      Were you engaged in meteorology before you
      21     were employed by the City of Philadelphia -- or by
      22     the United States Weather --
      23     A.      Department of Commerce, U.S. National
      24     Weather Service.
       1     Q.      National Weather Service, all right.  In
       2     that job with the National Weather Service, what
       3     were some of the areas that were under your
       4     immediate supervision and activities?
       5     A.      Hydrological warning programs, flash flood
       6     warning programs, severe weather warning programs,
       7     all warning and watch programs that were
       8     responsible for saving lives and properties.
       9     Q.      Was that in the City of Philadelphia?
      10     A.      As well as, at times it ranged from 10 to
      11     20 counties in the area as well.
      12     Q.      Okay.  Are you at all familiar with the
      13     place known as Venice Island in the Schuylkill
      14     River?
      15     A.      Yes.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  First, before we any
      17             go any further, do we have any problems
      18             with Mr. Hendrickson's qualifications.
      19                     MR. KELSEN:  Certainly not as a
      20             meteorologist, but I would like to ask a
      21             couple of questions if I could.
      22                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Please do.
      23     BY MR. KELSEN:
      24     Q.      Mr. Hendrickson, are you an expert in the
       1     study of hydrology?
       2     A.      Primarily in meteorology I would say
       3     secondary in hydrology.
       4     Q.      Have you performed any studies involving
       5     the hydrology as it affects floodway development
       6     like the one we're here to discuss today?
       7     A.      Not floodway development.
       8     Q.      Have you ever participated in the review of
       9     floodway impacts in the City of Philadelphia as a
      10     result of the Hec-Ras studies?
      11     A.      No.
      12     Q.      Do you know what a Hec-Ras study is?
      13     A.      No, I'm not too familiar.
      14     Q.      Are you familiar with the regulations that
      15     FEMA has promulgated regarding development and
      16     regulations for floodway uses?
      17     A.      I was involved with FEMA while I was with
      18     the Weather Service, yes.
      19     Q.      Is it fair to say that your expertise is
      20     really in the area of rainfall and flooding and the
      21     results of rainfall and snow melt?
      22     A.      That's correct.
      23                     MR. KELSEN:  I'm going to object to
      24             this witness as an expert in the area of
       1             floodway development and floodway
       2             regulations for the same reason that I
       3             objected to the previous witness.
       4                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  He didn't ask for
       5             him to be seated; isn't that correct?
       6                     MR. KELSEN:  I think as a
       7             meteorologist.
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  He's a
       9             meteorologist.
      10                     MR. KELSEN:  And that's the only
      11             scope of his testimony?
      12                     MR. KRAKOWER:  That affects the
      13             floodways.
      14                     MR. KELSEN:  I'm just asking a
      15             question.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yeah --
      17                     MR. KELSEN:  I've raised my issues
      18             in terms of it, and you'll certify him.
      19                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  We'll seat him as
      20             meteorologist, an expert in meteorology
      21     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      22     Q.      Now, as a meteorologist, do rain storms and
      23     other kinds of storms affect the levels of water in
      24     a floodway and particularly the Schuylkill River
       1     floodway?
       2     A.      Yes, they do.
       3     Q.      As a result of meteorological incidents
       4     which, I'll call them hurricanes, rainstorms,
       5     melting snow, whatever, are you familiar with
       6     incidences in which the water levels and the flood
       7     levels of the Schuylkill have had dramatic changes?
       8     A.      Yes, very familiar.
       9     Q.      All right.  Now, what are some of the ones
      10     in which you are familiar, some of the
      11     meteorological incidents that have impacted this
      12     part of the Schuylkill River?
      13     A.      From issuing flood warnings for the
      14     Schuylkill River that was the responsibility of the
      15     National Weather Service and as head of the office,
      16     I had to be keenly aware of the historical record
      17     of what the river was as well as the most recent
      18     floods.  So one that comes to mind is Agnes in June
      19     of 1972 and the most recent one would be Floyd in
      20     September of '99.
      21     Q.      Now, in those incidence is it possible to
      22     predict with certainly how much advanced warning
      23     you're going to have before the meteorological
      24     incident is reflected in the flood levels?
       1     A.      Depending on the incident it is.
       2     Q.      What are some of the ranges of warnings
       3     that you could get?
       4     A.      Advanced warning notification I would say
       5     on the low end would be three hours.  On the high
       6     end it would be ten hours.
       7     Q.      Now, on the low end, what is it that can
       8     take place, what kind of anticipation do you have
       9     within that three hour span as far as it's effect
      10     on people in large numbers residing in let's say an
      11     apartment dwelling?
      12     A.      Well, simply put, flood warning or flash
      13     flood warning is issuing a warning that you're
      14     going to get more water and the less time that you
      15     have.  So when we're anticipating the bank to be
      16     exceeded, a flood warning goes out.  That means
      17     that when it begins, you may have three hours after
      18     the warning is issued before you get two to three
      19     feet of water start to rise.  It does not mean that
      20     in other words in another four to five or six hours
      21     you might have five or six feet.
      22     Q.      Okay.  Do you believe that the
      23     meteorological incidents and warnings of the floods
      24     is something that has direct impact on people's
       1     living circumstances on residential quality and
       2     safety of residential environment?
       3                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.  It's
       4             irrelevant.
       5                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  So noted.
       6     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       7     Q.      You can answer the question.
       8     A.      Yes.
       9     Q.      All right.  Now, are you at all familiar
      10     with Venice Island?
      11     A.      Not very familiar, but I'm very familiar
      12     with the Manayunk area.
      13                     MR. KELSEN:  I'm going to make an
      14             objection.  He's not familiar with Venice
      15             Island and he testifying as an expert
      16             here.  There's no connection.
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  He said he is
      18             familiar with the Manayunk area.
      19                     MR. KELSEN:  He said he's not
      20             familiar with Venice Island.
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I think he said in
      22             particular.
      23     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      24     Q.      Are you familiar with flooding problems in
       1     the area around the Manayunk Canal?
       2     A.      Yes, very much so.
       3     Q.      Now, to what extent is it your opinion that
       4     a large the number that's involved, I think, is
       5     four to 500 all together residential unit
       6     development on Venice Island poses a potential
       7     problem as a result of meteorological incidents
       8     that may be forthcoming in the next 10, 20, 30
       9     years?
      10                     MR. KELSEN:  I'm objecting to the
      11             question because the application before the
      12             Board is for 160 apartments.
      13                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  It's not 500.
      14             It's for 160 apartments.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, as part of and
      16             on the island with --
      17                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  160 apartments.
      18                     MR. KELSEN:  This is the
      19             application before the Board today.
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Then I will note my
      21             objection if it's going to be severed from
      22             consideration.  If the Board's ruling is
      23             you're going to consider --
      24                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Ask him another
       1             question sir.  On the application before
       2             the Board it's 160 units.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.  And so
       4             it's clear, Mr. Chairman, I'm suggesting
       5             that you cannot make a decision on this 160
       6             unit apartment without also taking into
       7             consideration the other units that Mr.
       8             Maloomian is intending to build.
       9                     MR. JAFFE:  And I would like to
      10             point out -- wait a minute.  Your own
      11             witness Dr. Waggle said that he considered
      12             all the development on the island when we
      13             did our hydrologic studies.  We're just
      14             responding to what you already did, and
      15             that was to consider all the potential
      16             development and the water flow resulting
      17             from all the potential development.  That
      18             was your expert's testimony.
      19                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Let's not try to
      20             have the record reflect that there's four
      21             to 500 units before the Board in this
      22             application.  Rephrase your question and
      23             you can put it on the record.
      24     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       1     Q.      Considering that the total Venice Island
       2     development that is being proposed before the
       3     Board, not just this application but in another, is
       4     four to 500 units -- would you consider four to
       5     five hundreds units on Venice Island to pose a
       6     meteorological problem or would pose a safety issue
       7     with four to 500 apartment units on Venice Island?
       8     A.      Yes.
       9     Q.      Are you aware of what the ingress and
      10     egress situation is on Venice Island?
      11     A.      Right now I understand there's a road, but
      12     I'm not too clear on the actual particulars of that
      13     road.
      14     Q.      Would you suggest in your expertise whether
      15     or not Venice Island is an appropriate location as
      16     matters stand now for development residentially
      17     with four to 500 units?
      18     A.      My concern comes from an expertise of
      19     having to deal with disaster preparedness and what
      20     I'm concerned about is whether you're going to have
      21     enough time to evacuate all the people.  That's my
      22     concern.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.  I have
      24             no other questions.
       1                     CROSS-EXAMINATION
       2     BY MR. KELSEN:
       3     Q.      Just a couple of question if I could.
       4                     Are you aware of the evacuation
       5     plan put forth for the Namico Soap Factory
       6     development?
       7     A.      No, because if I was aware of it, it would
       8     come across my desk when I was still in charge.
       9     Q.      So your concerns are not tempered by the
      10     facts as to how our evacuation plan would operate
      11     in the event of the event that you just described?
      12     A.      My concern is historically in fast moving
      13     floods rapid rise flood situations we lose most
      14     people trying to save their automobiles.
      15     Q.      But, again, you are not aware of the
      16     fact --
      17     A.      That they have a plan in existence?
      18     Q.      Right.  Or the nature of the plan?
      19     A.      No.
      20     Q.      Or the details of the plan?
      21     A.      No.
      22     Q.      Were you also aware of fact that as well as
      23     that evacuation plan there will be a structure, a
      24     bridge, created to get those individuals to higher
       1     ground?
       2     A.      I heard that mentioned, yes, today.
       3     Q.      But you didn't factor that in?
       4     A.      No.
       5     Q.      Did you formulate any opinion as to the
       6     meteorological effect of flash flooding coming from
       7     the reduction of the structure as you heard
       8     testified to today?
       9     A.      No, I didn't, not really, no, I was
      10     basically dealing with time and height above bank.
      11     Q.      So your concerns may or not may not be
      12     tempered by the fact that there would be less flow
      13     on the river?
      14     A.      Right.  It just specifically dealt with two
      15     cases, Agnes and Floyd.
      16     Q.      I see.
      17                     MR. KELSEN:  I have nothing
      18             further.
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  We have a summery
      20             report.  Do you have two of those?
      21                     THE WITNESS:  Yes.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Is one of these
      23             summary reports passed up to the Board?
      24                     THE WITNESS:  I think I sent my
       1             resume up.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Let me make sure
       3             that the Board has one.
       4                     MR. KELSEN:  Mr. Chairman, I'm
       5             going to object to this, because it is a
       6             summary of hydrological records for Venice
       7             Island.  He's admitted he does not have an
       8             expertise in hydrology, and I object to
       9             this being put in as an expert's report on
      10             hydrology.
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  This is information
      12             that he's aware of.  I think that some of
      13             it you don't have to be an expert, you
      14             simply have to --
      15                     MR. KELSEN:  I know you don't have
      16             to be a weatherman to know whether it
      17             rains, but I'm objecting to it.
      18                     THE WITNESS: May I answer that,
      19             sir?
      20                     MR. KELSEN:  Yeah, please do.
      21                     THE WITNESS: There's a relationship
      22             between the gauge sites and the gauge sites
      23             that I was responsible for were Norristown
      24             and Philadelphia.  What I did is I took the
       1             flood relationships between the Norristown
       2             gauge, which is the U.S.G.S., the United
       3             States Geological Survey Gauge, and the
       4             Philadelphia gauge, and then I drew
       5             conclusions between the flood of records
       6             between those two gauge sites to come up
       7             with the information.  Now that was in my
       8             job in working with the Weather Service and
       9             I still feel it's within my ability.
      10                     MR. KELSEN:  I reiterate my
      11             objection, and I leave it to the Board to
      12             decide what they want to do.
      13     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      14     Q.      So that was part of your job at the
      15     National Weather Service?
      16     A.      Yes.
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Okay.  Thank you.
      18                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:   So noted for the
      19             record.  Anything else?  Thank you.
      20                     (The witness was excused.)
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Do I have more
      22             time?  Do I have time for one more
      23             witness?
      24                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  No.
       1                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.  Could we
       2             address the next schedule with regard to
       3             one other particular problem?  The other
       4             application, which I thought we would get
       5             to today as well.  Mr. Maloomian and Mr.
       6             Sklaroff's application.
       7                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  We're going on
       8             right now.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Oh, okay.
      10                     MR. KELSEN:  Members of the Board,
      11             thank you.
      12              (Hearing concluded at 3:25 p.m.)
      13                        - - -
       1                   C E R T I F I C A T I O N
       3                     I, Jennifer O'Neill, hereby certify
       4             that the foregoing is a true and correct
       5             transcript of the proceedings held in this
       6             matter, as transcribed from the
       7             stenographic notes taken by me on
       8             Monday, March 13, 2000.
      11                      --------------------------------
      12                     Jennifer O'Neill,
                              Court Reporter - Notary
      13                      Public
      14                     (This certification does not apply
                     to any reproduction of this transcript,
      15             unless under the direct supervision of the
                     certifying reporter.)
                                    - - -