ZBA Testimony, Maloomain, 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,

       2                        - - -
       3     Cal No.:  99-1388
       4     Appl. No.:  991119040
       5     Zoning Class:  G-2 IND.
       6     Location:  4320-4368 Main Street
       7     Applicant:  COTTON STREET LANDING
       8     Owner:  CONNELLY CONTAINERS, INC.
                                - - -
      10                 Monday, March 13, 2000
                                 3:00 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                    BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP
                            BY:  MICHAEL SKLAROFF, ESQUIRE
       3                    1735 Market Street - 19th Floor
                            Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
                                 Counsel for Applicant, Cotton
       5                         Street Landing
                           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
      14                        David Cohen
                                - - -
      23              DELCASALE, CASEY, MARTIN & MANCHELLO
                         1801 Market Street - Suite 636
      24               Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103
                                 (215) 568-2211
       1                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  This is on
       2             Calendar 99-1388; 4220-4368 Main Street.
       3             All those who will give testimony, kindly
       4             rise and raise you're right hand.
       5                     ... ALL PARTIES PLANNING TO
       6             TESTIFY, having been duly sworn as
       7             witnesses, were examined and testified as
       8             follows ...
       9                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Yes, Mr. Chairman,
      10             at the last hearing we agreed that we would
      11             come back to the Board with information
      12             regarding the flood study as we received
      13             it.  I think I can be very brief in this
      14             regard based on the testimony in the
      15             previous record and set the stage if I can.
      16             First of all, we have the report of Dr.
      17             Waggle, and I would ask that that be marked
      18             in this case Exhibit A-6.  Now, I think,
      19             Counsel, you already have this?
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  It is exactly the
      21             same, yes, that is correct.
      22                     MR. SKLAROFF:  And so I have four
      23             copies for the Board, and this is entitled
      24             Flood Hazard Analysis for Proposed
       1             Development on Venice Island, Manayunk
       2             Philadelphia, Pennsylvania.  Prepared by
       3             Boles, Smyth, S-m-y-t-h Associates
       4             Incorporated with the address by J. Richard
       5             Waggle, W-a-g-g-l-e, Ph.D., Professional
       6             Engineer.  That's for Exhibit A-6.  That
       7             generated another document, which is a
       8             letter dated January 31, year 2000, from J.
       9             Richard Waggle to Mr. Elmore J. Boles,
      10             Professional Engineer, re: Schuylkill River
      11             Hec-Ras, that's H-e-c, hyphen, capital
      12             R-a-s, Flood Hazard Study Venice Island
      13             Manayunk, and I would submit that for the
      14             record.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I have a copy.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  You have a copy of
      17             this?
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  That's the same?
      19                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I believe it is,
      20             yes.
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Okay.
      22                     MR. SKLAROFF:  So that's our A-7.
      23             A-8 is maybe a document that you don't have
      24             and that's a letter dated -- well it's from
       1             the Federal Government, so it's not dated,
       2             but it's stamped.  Off the record.
       3                     (Discussion off the record.)
       4                     MR. SKLAROFF:  It's stamped
       5             February 8th, year 2000.  From Eric J.
       6             Rouke, Regional Hydrologist, Federal
       7             Emergency Management Agency, Region 3, FEMA
       8             to William Erickson, Project Planner,
       9             Philadelphia Planning Commission.
      10                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.
      11                     MR. JAFFE:  Can I have a copy of
      12             that?
      13                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I need to give
      14             copies to the Board.  If you could share
      15             this, and I will get you a copy.  That's
      16             A-8.  And then A-9 is a correspondence and
      17             data dated February 24, year 2000, Elmore
      18             J. Boles, Professional Engineer to the
      19             Philadelphia City Planning Commission
      20             attention Martin Soffer, enclosing Dr.
      21             Waggle's letter of response, additional
      22             Hec-Ras runs requested by Mr. Rouke, two
      23             floppy discs containing the Hec two
      24             analysis files and a copy of the FEMA
       1             technical bulletin 6-93.  I would ask that
       2             this be marked Exhibit A-9, and you have a
       3             copy of this.
       4                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No.
       5                     MR. JAFFE:  This is the same as
       6             previously submitted?
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I believe that's the
       8             same thing.
       9                     MR. JAFFE:  It's the same thing.
      10                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Yes, it is.
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Fine.  Okay.  I have
      12             that.
      13                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Now, I would recall
      14             Mr. Boles for the purpose of -- would you
      15             step up.
      16                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Name and address
      17             for the on record, sir.
      18                     THE WITNESS:  Elmore J. Boles.
      19             2400 Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, 19103.
      20                     DIRECT EXAMINATION
      21     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      22     Q.      And, Mr. Boles, you testified as an expert
      23     and your credentials were accepted by the Board at
      24     the hearing of December 22nd, correct?
       1     A.      That's correct.
       2     Q.      And you have just testified in the matter
       3     of the Namico site, correct?
       4     A.      That's correct.
       5     Q.      Which is Calendar Number --
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  The Namico site?
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Yes.
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER;  99-1284 and 99-1285.
       9                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Exactly.
      10     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      11     Q.      And you testified at the last hearing that
      12     it was your opinion that there would be no adverse
      13     change to the flood profile for the 100-year flood
      14     at this site which is the Cotton Street Landing
      15     site; is that correct?
      16     A.      That's correct.
      17     Q.      Now, does the documentation that we have
      18     just identified:  A-6, A-7, A-8 and A-9 confirm
      19     your conclusion or not confirm your conclusion?
      20     A.      Absolutely confirms.
      21     Q.      Would you just describe, briefly, what
      22     those documents involve?
      23     A.      The first document, A-6, was the submission
      24     of the Dr. Waggle report to the City Planning
       1     Commission.  The second one, A-7, there was
       2     supplementary data requested by FEMA, additional
       3     cross section and cross-section information backing
       4     up the hydrologic studies.  The third is a letter
       5     of response from FEMA to the City Planning
       6     Commission stating some reservations they had and
       7     questions about the information submitted and
       8     requesting additional information to answer those,
       9     and -- is it A-9?
      10     Q.      Right.
      11     A.      A-9 --
      12     Q.      Which is your letter.
      13     A.      -- is my letter with the Waggle response to
      14     the FEMA letter and the supplementary data discs
      15     and cross section that FEMA requested.
      16     Q.      Now, is there a question that still remains
      17     before the final FEMA approval?
      18     A.      Well, not that I'm aware of.
      19     Q.      Okay.  So are you satisfied at this point
      20     that although FEMA approval may not have been
      21     formerly received, that it will be in due course?
      22     A.      Yes.
      23     Q.      And you recognize as we stipulated that
      24     this application is subject to FEMA approval?
       1     A.      That's correct.
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Now, with your
       3             permission, Mr. Chairman, I would like to
       4             incorporate by reference the direct
       5             testimony and cross-examination of Dr.
       6             Waggle and Mr. Boles at the hearing of this
       7             date in the matters Calender Numbers
       8             99-1284 and 99-1285, so that we don't have
       9             to go through that again.
      10                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No objection.
      11                     MR. JAFFE:  No, objection.
      12                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  So be it.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  That makes good
      14             sense.
      15                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Thank you.  There
      16             ought to be an opportunity, Mr. Krakower,
      17             if you have any further questions of Mr.
      18             Boles that you may ask him at the present
      19             time.
      20                      CROSS-EXAMINATION
      21     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      22     Q.      The only thing that I would ask is if
      23     there's any testimony, if you can recall any, which
      24     would be different because of the differences in
       1     the projects between the -- I think it's called
       2     Cotton --
       3                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Cotton Street
       4             Landing.
       5     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       6     Q.      The Cotton Street Landing project and
       7     the -- we call it the Maloomian project and Mr.
       8     Dranoff's project.  The projects, I think you'll
       9     agree, are not identical?
      10     A.      That's correct.
      11     Q.      Now, as to the differences between the
      12     projects, does that affect or influence any part of
      13     your testimony?  Is there anything different about
      14     this project -- by this I mean the Maloomian
      15     project -- which alters or affects your testimony
      16     that you gave for Mr. Dranoff's?
      17                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Anything materially
      18             different?
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes, that would
      20             affect that testimony.
      21                     THE WITNESS:  Well, there are
      22             multiple levels of parking in this project,
      23             and the Dranoff project only has a single
      24             level of parking, but that's the only
       1             material difference.
       2     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       3     Q.      Well, now, am I correct that this project,
       4     and of course I'm talking about the Maloomian
       5     project, does not contemplate the structures being
       6     up with columns?
       7     A.      No, it does.
       8     Q.      Oh, it does?  Okay.  Are the columns
       9     anticipated to be the same size and the same
      10     distance apart as they would be on Dranoff project?
      11     A.      Yes, they would be about the same.
      12     Q.      Other than the difference in the parking
      13     height, elevations of the parking height, is there
      14     anything else that would be different?  You pointed
      15     out that one difference to me.
      16     A.      No, I think that's the only difference.
      17     Q.      Would you compare the size of the projects
      18     in terms of the number of residential units that
      19     would be involved?
      20                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I think actually
      21             we've already been through this at the last
      22             hearing, and you've had testimony at the
      23             past hearing that the number of residential
      24             unit apartments are 270.
       1                     THE WITNESS:  And 188.
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Right, in the
       3             other.  So we've already had testimony on
       4             the record, and it's not necessary to go
       5             through it again.
       6     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       7     Q.      With respect to the levels of parking, can
       8     you describe how that will influence or be
       9     influenced by the flood level, the levels of the
      10     river during flood stages?
      11                     MR. SKLAROFF:  With all deference,
      12             Mr. Krakower, this was already fully
      13             testified to, asked and answer on December
      14             22nd.  All we did now is to bring to bear
      15             the documents that we didn't have and you
      16             may want to ask him if there's anything in
      17             those documents that has changed his
      18             testimony, but I don't think the Board
      19             wants to go through the testimony again.
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.  I'm just
      21             trying to, since we incorporated that
      22             testimony, make sure there is nothing --
      23                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  We incorporated,
      24             sir, the testimony from the last hearing,
       1             but he's already testified before.
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  And only in his
       3             testimony here to the extent it's
       4             relevant.
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Okay.  All right.  I
       6             have nothing else.
       7                     MR. JAFFE:  Very brief.  Even
       8             though we've incorporated his testimony, I
       9             would still like clarification on a couple
      10             of things.
      11     BY MR. JAFFE:
      12     Q.      Are there any differences in cross-currents
      13     between the Namico project that we just spent the
      14     last couple of hours discussing that we're
      15     incorporating and the project before us now in
      16     terms of water movement across Venice Island in any
      17     high-water situation?
      18     A.      Are you asking me is the water flow --
      19     Q.      The water flow because of --
      20     A.      -- on both sites?
      21     Q.      You're not contrasting or saying that
      22     there's any difference, you're saying basically
      23     it's --
      24     A.      The same.
       1     Q.      It's the same?
       2     A.      Right.
       3     Q.      And that would take account for the
       4     topography on the island, bankage, any development
       5     wouldn't matter?
       6     A.      What was the first word that you used?
       7     Q.      The landscape --
       8                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Topography.
       9     BY MR. JAFFE:
      10     Q.      -- the topography of the island, the banks
      11     there is not a difference?  It doesn't matter?
      12                     MR. SKLAROFF:  A material
      13             difference.
      14                     THE WITNESS:  Well, they are
      15             different heights I mean --
      16     BY MR. JAFFE:
      17     Q.      They are different heights?
      18     A.      Right.
      19     Q.      And you're saying that this difference in
      20     heights has no effect on the cross-currents, so we
      21     can just take what was there on the previous case
      22     and put it here?
      23     A.     Oh, no, no, no.  The hydraulic study
      24     incorporates both a study of the Namico site and
       1     the Cotton Street site.
       2     Q.      Separately?
       3     A.      Separately.
       4                     MR. JAFFE:  And because we've
       5             gotten this report today as we're standing
       6             here having no chance to review it or have
       7             experts review it, which we would like to
       8             put on the record to keep open, so we can
       9             have response to the Board.
      10     BY MR. JAFFE:
      11     Q.      So you're saying it addresses it totally
      12     separately and when we get a chance to look at this
      13     in detail, we will see that?
      14     A.      Yes.
      15                     MR. JAFFE:  And the Board will
      16             allow us to have our experts respond in
      17             writing?
      18                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Yes, we will.
      19                     MR. JAFFE:  Thank you.
      20                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Thank you, sir.
      21                     (The witness was excused.)
      22                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Now, I just have
      23             some others documents.  There's a letter
      24             that I promised to give to the Board but
       1             before I do, if the Board will indulge me,
       2             I would like to put on the testimony of one
       3             witness, who will very briefly testify to
       4             the physical impact --
       5                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Please do sir.
       6                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Dennis Glackin,
       7             please.
       8                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Your name and
       9             address for the record, please.
      10                     THE WITNESS:  My name is Dennis
      11             Glackin.  My business address is 17 Bishop
      12             Hollow Road, Newtown Square, Pennsylvania.
      13                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I have copies for
      14             everyone of his resume.
      15                     DIRECT EXAMINATION
      16     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      17     Q.      Mr. Glackin, very briefly --
      18                     MR. SKLAROFF:  And I ask that that
      19             be identified as Exhibit A-10.
      20     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      21     Q.      Very briefly, Mr. Glackin, would you tell
      22     us what you do for a living?
      23     A.      I'm professional land planner.  I'm
      24     president of my own business, Glackin and
       1     Associates, in Newtown Square.  Our firm prepares
       2     land plans, and we also have an expertise in fiscal
       3     impact studies, as well as landscape architecture.
       4     Q.      Did you say physical or fiscal?
       5     A.      Fiscal.
       6     Q.      F-i-s-c-a-l.
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Do you have any
       8             questions on voir dire?  I'm offering him
       9             as a land planner with an expertise in
      10             fiscal impact studies.
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  At this point, I
      12             don't know what the relevance is of fiscal
      13             impact.
      14                     MR. SKLAROFF: Well the offer.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  That's my concern.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  The offer of proof
      17             will be that when you compare this project
      18             to the current situation, which when this
      19             was filed this was industrial zoning of a
      20             vacant site, the present value impact to
      21             the taxing authorities of the City of
      22             Philadelphia, including the school
      23             district, would present a value in the
      24             excess of ten million dollars, which goes
       1             to public health, welfare and safety.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Then I'm going to
       3             object to that, because the relative tax
       4             benefits of the project, as far as I'm
       5             concerned, is not a matter that the zoning
       6             code indicates and something that the
       7             Zoning Board should take into
       8             consideration.  I object to that.
       9                     MR. JAFFE:  If you were reapplying
      10             under the letter of Barbara Kaplan to L and
      11             I and coming back again possibly then this
      12             would be relevant, but we've been going on
      13             today under much more narrower constraints.
      14                     MR. SKLAROFF:  That's not -- I wish
      15             we were there.  We're not there.
      16                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  That doesn't apply
      17             to this.
      18                     MR. SKLAROFF:  That doesn't apply
      19             to this.  I mean, if you would agree that
      20             we're there, we will withdraw this and
      21             maybe a couple of other witnesses.  You can
      22             have a moment to decide.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I don't know what
      24             you mean by "there. "
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  If you think that
       2             we're in the same situation where the only
       3             issue is the flood study, we would be we
       4             happy not to put --
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I don't believe that
       6             the former applicant was in that position.
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  All right.  I just
       8             wanted to make sure.  This could be very
       9             easy.  I don't want to preclude you.
      10                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I objected to them
      11             taking that position.
      12                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Objection so
      13             noted.  So be it.
      14     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      15     Q.      Now, did you do a fiscal impact statement?
      16     A.      Yes, I did.
      17     Q.      And is that this document?
      18     A.      Yes.
      19                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I ask that this be
      20             marked.  This is Fiscal Impact Statement,
      21             Cotton Street Landing, Glackin and
      22             Associates.  I ask that this be marked as
      23             Exhibit A-11.
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  What is A-10?
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  A-10 was the CV.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.  Fine.
       3                     MR. SKLAROFF:  For you, Mr. Jaffe.
       4     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       5     Q.      What, very briefly, is the methodology that
       6     one applies to determine fiscal impact statements?
       7     A.      The fiscal impact methodology that we used
       8     is one developed by Rutgers University and the
       9     Urban Land Institute in Washington D.C., and
      10     basically it's an averaging approach where it takes
      11     the per capita cost that the city currently uses
      12     per resident to provide the services it provides,
      13     and it projects that to the new development, and we
      14     also take estimates of the proposed project in
      15     terms of real estate taxes, city wage tax, things
      16     of that nature and come up with the revenues that
      17     the city and school district are likely to obtain
      18     and compare the two.  If there's more revenues,
      19     there's a surplus situation.  If there are more
      20     costs to the taxing authority, then it's a deficit
      21     situation that would have to be made up in some
      22     other way.
      23     Q.      And there are accepted formulas for doing
      24     this?
       1     A.      Yes.  There's a published program that does
       2     this and shows what the impacts would be and it
       3     makes estimates in terms of jobs, funds that are
       4     available for spending in the local community, the
       5     number of people living in the community and so
       6     forth.
       7     Q.      And this is relevant, generally, to the
       8     public health, welfare and safety?
       9     A.      Yes, it certainly is relevant to the city
      10     in terms of their decision making and what the
      11     impacts would be from a fiscal point of view with a
      12     project like this or any other project.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Note my objection.
      14             I do not believe that what he indicated in
      15             his response to the question of health,
      16             safety, et cetera, I do not believe that
      17             they relate to finances.
      18                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  So noted.
      19     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      20     Q.      As a land planner, do you generally
      21     consider or does an expert land planner consider
      22     the physical impact in studies of public health,
      23     welfare and safety?
      24     A.      Well, to the extent that the taxes that a
       1     resident is asked to pay and a municipality
       2     collects is part of the, quote, public welfare in a
       3     very broad sense.
       4     Q.      And strengthening the tax base is one of
       5     those things?
       6     A.      I think it's particularly relevant in a
       7     situation like the city where there's loss of
       8     population over the years and projects that are
       9     proposing additional development in a city I think
      10     are very relevant.
      11     Q.      And especially in Philadelphia with, at
      12     least according to the studies, we've lost 170 --
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection, unless
      14             you want to become a witness, Mr.
      15             Sklaroff.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Don't tempt me.
      17     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      18     Q.      Are you aware of the extent of population
      19     loss in the City of Philadelphia over the last ten
      20     years?
      21     A.      I'm generally aware of it as having been
      22     significant since the 1990 census.
      23     Q.      Very briefly, based upon your opinion, your
      24     study and the work you do, do you have an opinion
       1     as to the order or magnitude of the physical impact
       2     of this proposed development, and when I say, "this
       3     proposed development" I'm limiting it to the 270
       4     units, the parking, and the ancillary uses for this
       5     site?
       6     A.      Yes, there are two elements to the fiscal
       7     impact.  There's elements to the city in terms of
       8     the funds they would collect from the real estate
       9     tax and various nonproperty taxes such as the wage
      10     tax, which would come to about a million seven per
      11     year after project completion.  You then take the
      12     cost that the city would be expected to pay to
      13     service these additional residents, even though in
      14     this case it's a redevelopment situation, those
      15     costs are probably not what we're projecting, but
      16     that would be about 845,000 which would be the net
      17     revenue to the city, about 894,000 a year at
      18     completion.  You do a similar calculation with the
      19     school district and between the real estate tax and
      20     other nonproperty taxes such as the liquor tax,
      21     school income, business use and occupancy, the
      22     school district would obtain $756,000 a year, and
      23     there would be few or any children living in a
      24     project like this, so that that is essentially all
       1     surplus revenue.  If you take the city revenues and
       2     the school district revenues, it's about million
       3     650 at project completion, and that's annually
       4     after the project is completely occupied.
       5     Q.      And what was, roughly, the present value of
       6     that income stream to be to the city over a
       7     ten-year period?
       8     A.      That combined with impacts to the local
       9     businesses in terms of additional spending from
      10     residents who would live in the proposed
      11     development would be in the order of about 15
      12     million dollars a year.
      13     Q.      And that would have to be reduced somewhat,
      14     would it not, for the tax abatement that is enjoyed
      15     within the first three years?
      16     A.      That includes that.  It includes the
      17     reduction for the first three years, because there
      18     is no real estate taxes.
      19                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I have nothing
      20             further of Mr. Glackin.
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  If I may, I have a
      22             few.
      23                     CROSS-EXAMINATION
      24     BY MR. KRAKOWER.
       1     Q.      Mr. Glackin, did you take into
       2     consideration the cost to the city of potential
       3     disaster or catastrophe relief that might be
       4     required by floods such as Agnes or Floyd hitting
       5     and causing a disaster or a catastrophe to the
       6     residents there?
       7     A.      In the program, there's no direct cost
       8     shown for something like that.  There are costs in
       9     there for public safety measures, governmental
      10     services, public health on an average basis across
      11     the city, not anything specific to your question,
      12     no.
      13     Q.      Are you familiar with, at all, the kind of
      14     costs that the city incurred in the aftermath of
      15     Floyd last year, last summer?
      16     A.      I am not.
      17     Q.      Are you aware of the kind of damage and
      18     property damage, as well as personal injuries that
      19     were suffered in the aftermath of Floyd?
      20                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Objection.  I think
      21             that is beyond the scope of a fiscal impact
      22             analysis.
      23                     MR. JAFFE:  I think it should be
      24             answered, it talks about how much the
       1             city --
       2                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  So noted.  Do you
       3             know the answer to that question, sir.
       4                     THE WITNESS:  I have no idea.
       5     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       6     Q.      Did you factor in any considerations to the
       7     possibility of insurance costs which the city might
       8     have to provide in the event of either personal
       9     injuries, which somebody might blame on the project
      10     or if there was an abatement in federal insurance
      11     programs?
      12     A.      No.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I have no other
      14             questions.
      15                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Mr. Jaffe?
      16                     MR. JAFFE:  Yes, very briefly.
      17     BY MR. JAFFE:
      18     Q.      Have you considered any costs of gas, oil
      19     or environmental as such clean up that can happen
      20     when you have cars in a basement that's flooded and
      21     the oil and gas that would then move out of the
      22     area, the mediation costs?
      23                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I don't object to
      24             the intent of the question, just the form
       1             of the question.  These are not basements.
       2             In other words -- to the extent that you're
       3             talking about a basement that is a
       4             technical term under FEMA, but if you were
       5             to say were the cars in a parking garage
       6             that will be fine.
       7     BY MR. JAFFE:
       8     Q.      The sub-level parking garage.
       9     A.      No.
      10                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Is it below
      11             grade?
      12                     MR. SKLAROFF:  It is not below
      13             grade actually.
      14                     MS. JAFFE:  Is part of it below
      15             grade?
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  No, it's --
      17                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  It's all above
      18             grade.  No sub-levels.
      19                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Yes.
      20     BY MR. JAFFE:
      21     Q.      And I want it to be clear, the program that
      22     you used takes an average of what the city's costs
      23     are and you projected that to the unit -- in other
      24     words, there's an apartment unit in the building
       1     that I'm seeing behind you in the window and that
       2     has an average cost and you transplanted that to
       3     the average cost of Venice Island?
       4     A.      Over the total expenditure for the city to
       5     all its residents, not that specific apartment
       6     house or any other apartment house.
       7                     MR. JAFFE:  Thank you.
       8                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I have just one
       9             question.
      10                    REDIRECT EXAMINATION
      11     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      12     Q.      So these residents would be sharing in
      13     welfare benefit costs and all the other costs that
      14     come out of taxes, correct?
      15     A.      Yes, we have factored in a certain expense
      16     to the city for all those types of costs.
      17                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Thank you.
      18                     MR. JAFFE:  I want to follow-up
      19             with that.
      20                    RECROSS EXAMINATION
      21     BY MR. JAFFE:
      22     Q.      Have you considered any difference of
      23     whether the expected residents will be moving from
      24     rowhouses or apartments in the city versus coming
       1     from outside of the city?  In other words, is this
       2     going to be an elderly couple from a rowhouse
       3     moving into an apartment?
       4     A.      We assume that a percentage of residents
       5     would be new residents to the city.  20 percent
       6     would be relocating from other places in the city,
       7     and it would be made up of a mix of singles,
       8     elderly, young adults living together, all sorts of
       9     combinations.
      10     Q.      And would your figures change if it was a
      11     50/50 mix?  If it was 50 percent from the city and
      12     50 percent from outside of the area?
      13                     MR. SKLAROFF:  We'll so stipulate.
      14     BY MR. JAFFE:
      15     Q.      You can answer the question.
      16     A.      The city wage tax would certainly change,
      17     yes.
      18     Q.      And it would be much less of a benefit for
      19     the City of Philadelphia then?
      20     A.      It would be less -- it would be less of a
      21     benefit to the extent that those people do not
      22     leave the city.  If they were to leave the city, it
      23     would be a net loss.  In other words --
      24     Q.      But my question is if half the people in
       1     these apartments come from another place in the
       2     city and half come from the outside, your cost
       3     benefit analysis would change quite a bit?
       4     A.      It would change -- the people who were
       5     coming from the city, if it was the 50 percent that
       6     you're saying, if they were coming from the city to
       7     the apartment house, somebody would have to be
       8     coming to their former unit.
       9     Q.      Oh, really?
      10     A.      Well, yes, and so, again, it's very
      11     difficult to figure out where everybody is coming
      12     from all the way down the ladder.
      13     Q.      The immediate --
      14     A.      Can I finish?
      15     Q.      The immediate --
      16                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Let him finish.
      17                     THE WITNESS:  But the point is that
      18             these are new residences in the city.
      19             These are new units that will be occupied
      20             by primarily new people.
      21     BY MR. JAFFE:
      22     Q.      That's the presumption?
      23     A.      Yes.
      24     Q.      And it would change if it were otherwise,
       1     and we'll leave it at that?
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  One question,
       3                    REDIRECT EXAMINATION
       4     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       5     Q.      If these people move from other parts of
       6     city to Venice Island as opposed to moving outside
       7     of the city that would be a plus, wouldn't it?
       8     A.      It's a plus in that the funds that they are
       9     paying now would still be retained by the city as
      10     opposed to Montgomery or Delaware County or
      11     somewhere else.
      12                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Nothing further,
      13             thank you.
      14                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I just have one
      15             question, if I may.
      16                    RECROSS EXAMINATION
      17     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      18     Q.      Would that not then be equally applicable
      19     to any development anywhere in the City of
      20     Philadelphia not just Venice Island?
      21     A.      Sure.
      22     Q.      So even if it wasn't in the floodway you
      23     would still get the same financial benefits?
      24     A.      My study has nothing to do with the
       1     floodway.  It just looks at this new building, new
       2     residents and the taxes they would pay.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.
       4                     (The witness was excused.)
       5                     MR. SKLAROFF:  A-12, which I'm
       6             going to hand up, is letters in support.  I
       7             will not list the letters in support there
       8             are about a half dozen of them or so.  Some
       9             of them from businesses.  The first letter
      10             is dated March 13th, year 2000, from Joseph
      11             Roucher to the Chairman in favor of the
      12             development.
      13                     MR. JAFFE:  Do you have copies,
      14             please?
      15                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I don't have another
      16             copy.
      17                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Finally, at the last
      18             hearing I promised to deliver a letter to
      19             the Board confirming that we were going to
      20             comply with two of the conditions with
      21             those regarding accessible parking spaces,
      22             the dimension being 13 feet by 18 feet and
      23             the minimum court dimension of 12 feet.  So
      24             we submit these to the Board to supercede
       1             or to confirm what we have said on the
       2             record, and I would like to move all of our
       3             exhibits, if I might and ask that they be
       4             accepted as part of the record.
       5                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  So be it.
       6                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Thank you.  We rest.
       7                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Thank you.  Mr.
       8             Krakower?
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.  Thank
      10             you, Mr. Chairman, before I call witnesses
      11             I do have just a couple of things I want to
      12             touch base on with regard to something in
      13             the nature of motions that I want to make
      14             before I put on my case.  I've requested
      15             previously, and I'll do it again,
      16             permission to show a video that we have --
      17             not today at another time -- of flood in
      18             the area of Venice Island at the time of
      19             last year's flooding of Floyd to show the
      20             Board the nature of the moving water, the
      21             extent of water that comes about in this
      22             area.  If we don't want to do it today,
      23             we'll do it at another time, but I'd like
      24             to take ten minutes of time at an
       1             appropriate time and show a video of that
       2             flooding condition.
       3                     MR. SKLAROFF:  If I may ask one
       4             question, Mr. Chairman, of Mr. Krakower?
       5                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Please do.
       6                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Does that show the
       7             area of Venice Island at the Connelly
       8             Container site specifically.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No, it's Venice
      10             Island generally, but I will --
      11                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Then I object.
      12             Venice Island generally is not what we're
      13             here for.
      14                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I submit that we
      15             are.  Then unless you can show some great
      16             difference in that Manayunk Canal area than
      17             where flooding hits in that area and I'm
      18             not talking about 100 years ago, I'm
      19             talking about last year, that it is subject
      20             to that area having vigorous floods, and I
      21             think that the Board should see what that
      22             looks like, whether it's at the Maloomian
      23             site or further down.
      24                     MR. SKLAROFF:  That's not in this
       1             case.  You have three score of photographs
       2             here and not one of them is Venice Island
       3             at the Connelly site, so unless it's the
       4             Connelly site, it's not relevant.
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, I disagree.
       6                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Mr. Krakower,
       7             we're not going to allow the video.  We
       8             don't we allow video.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right if you --
      10                     MR. JAFFE:  Let me ask for
      11             clarification.  Mr. Sklaroff, is your
      12             hydrological study for the whole island?
      13             Is your water study for the whole island or
      14             is it just for the specific land of the
      15             Connelly site?
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I think the study
      17             speaks for itself.  It goes directly to the
      18             Connelly site as well as taking into
      19             account large areas of the Schuylkill
      20             River.
      21                     MR. JAFFE:  You're using Mr.
      22             Waggle's --
      23                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I don't want to get
      24             into an argument.  You can argue for as
       1             long as the Board will let you, but I'm not
       2             going to respond.
       3                     MR. JAFFE:  Just very briefly
       4             Board, the --
       5                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Sir --
       6                     MR. JAFFE:  -- the proponents --
       7                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  -- wait a minute.
       8             Mr. Krakower wants to put some motions on
       9             the record.
      10                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I just want to put a
      11             motion on the record that if my motion to
      12             show the video is denied, I'd like the
      13             Board to note my exception.  I think you
      14             should see it.
      15                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  So noted.  What
      16             else do you have?
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Next, I would make a
      18             motion to obtain and have our expert --
      19             well, I think we have obtained them all
      20             now.  The hydraulic and hydraulic
      21             engineering studies and this --
      22                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  You have them,
      23             right?
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER;  we have.
       1                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  So you don't need
       2             a motion.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  But I would like
       4             some time to have our experts examine them
       5             and submit a response.
       6                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  How much time do
       7             you need?
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Three weeks to go
       9             out and get somebody and hire them and have
      10             them send in a written response.
      11                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Three weeks from
      12             this date.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.  Now, the
      14             other thing I would like to do is have the
      15             Planning Commission submit to us their
      16             final review, so that we can see what the
      17             Planning Commission is going send to the
      18             Zoning Board.  Mr. Soffer has indicated
      19             that he is willing to do that, but I wanted
      20             to make sure that I asked you.
      21                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  I see no reason
      22             why you can't get that.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Okay.
      24                     MR. SKLAROFF:  By the way, I stand
       1             corrected according to Mr. Boles there may
       2             be one photograph there of Venice Island at
       3             the Cotton Street Landing.  I don't want to
       4             leave the impression --
       5                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  I accept the error
       6             of your ways, sir.
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Thank you, Mr.
       8             Chairman.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm going to call,
      10             if I may, as a witness Mr. -- well just to
      11             make sure is Carol Blessing still here?
      12                     AUDIENCE:  She's not.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Kevin Smith.
      14                     DIRECT EXAMINATION
      15     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      16     Q.      Mr. Smith, would you state your -- your
      17     name is Kevin Smith.  Your address?
      18     A.      Kevin Smith.  293 Hermitage Street,
      19     Manayunk 19127.
      20     Q.      Mr. Smith are you a member of or do you
      21     speak for any organizations or civic groups as well
      22     as yourself individually?
      23     A.      Manayunk Neighborhood Counsel.
      24     Q.      All right.  Now, have you prepared any
       1     informational studies regarding the traffic
       2     circumstances surrounding Venice Island, in
       3     particular, ingress and egress off of the two
       4     bridges to and from Venice Island?
       5     A.      Yes, I have.
       6     Q.      Would you recite those?
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Before you do, this
       8             is a factual witness, Mr. Krakower?
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes.
      10                     MR. SKLAROFF:  May I have an offer
      11             of proof?
      12                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes, that the Venice
      13             Island is not able to provide ingress or
      14             egress satisfactory for the number of
      15             residences that are proposed between the
      16             Maloomian project and Mr. Dranoff's
      17             project.
      18                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Well, excuse me, Mr.
      19             Krakower, with all deference.  The question
      20             of two sites together or even one site
      21             separately to accept or to accommodate
      22             traffic is a matter of opinion.  That's
      23             what we have traffic experts for.  It's not
      24             something even within the meaning of
       1             well-intentioned lay witnesses.  So I would
       2             object to anything of this character.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I respectfully
       4             disagree, particularly, when this man lives
       5             in the area and is familiar with it, who
       6             has done a study and can present factual
       7             information to the Board.
       8                     MR. SKLAROFF:  But a study suggests
       9             unless it's merely a factual -- the way you
      10             characterize the ability of the site, he
      11             can't do that unless he's an expert
      12             witness, and you're not presenting him as
      13             such.
      14                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No, I'm not
      15             presenting him as an expert.
      16                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  What is he going
      17             to testify to?
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  To the time that it
      19             takes a vehicle to go across the bridge
      20             from his own knowledge and experience.  In
      21             fact, to other information that he has
      22             gathered as well as his own life
      23             experiences in the community as his own
      24             facts.
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Unless this is
       2             connected to some kind of professional
       3             expertise, the standards of testimony and
       4             the --
       5                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  How much time do
       6             you need with this witness, Mr. Krakower?
       7                     MR. KRAKOWER:  How long do you
       8             think it will take for you to do your
       9             testimony?
      10                     THE WITNESS:  I actually have a
      11             whole range of issues from access and
      12             traffic studies.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  How much time?
      14                     THE WITNESS:  20 minutes.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Considering we have
      16             had two and a half hours, could this
      17             witness give ten or 15 minutes.
      18                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  He'll have five
      19             minutes to put his time on.  Move it
      20             along.  He's not an expert witness.  He can
      21             only testify to what he's seen.  That's it.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  He can testify to
      23             what he knows.
      24                     MR. SKLAROFF:  If it's relevant.
       1                     MR. KRAKOWER:  It's relevant,
       2             okay.  The conditions on and off the island
       3             are relevant.
       4                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Well ...
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Just get started.
       6                     THE WITNESS:  Well, I have a series
       7             of maps and photographs which I'm going to
       8             supply to the Board, which show a series of
       9             problems with the site.  This current
      10             traffic back up --
      11                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I object to that
      12             kind of testimony, problems with the site.
      13                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Sir, you can't
      14             testify to problems with the site unless
      15             you are an expert in that field.  It's your
      16             own opinion of what are the problems with
      17             the site.
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I think the Board
      19             can take notice of what is a problem and
      20             what isn't a problem.
      21                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  I'm notifying your
      22             witness that you put on here of what you
      23             should have done before you got here.  His
      24             testimony is limited to what he knows.  You
       1             know that, Mr. Krakower.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yeah, and what he
       3             knows is a problem.
       4                     MR. AUSPITZ:  You're trapping us
       5             between wanting to hear from a community
       6             and respecting the community and waiting
       7             with open arms to hear from the community
       8             and law, and what he's testifying to is not
       9             law.  He's not an expert.  He might know,
      10             but let him talk briefly about what he
      11             feels or what's coming from the community
      12             instead of trying to pretend.  The time it
      13             takes me to get over the bridge and the
      14             time it takes him to get over the bridge
      15             two might be two entirely different times.
      16             An expert can qualify that difference.  He
      17             can't and I can't.
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  But if a bridge is
      19             six-feet wide --
      20                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Mr. Krakower, he
      21             can testify as to why he objects to the
      22             project.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.
      24     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       1     Q.      Testify as to why you object to the
       2     project.
       3     A.      I don't know where to start.  On the basis
       4     of --
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, he has
       6             prepared a --
       7     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       8     Q.      I think this map is important.  Describe
       9     what the access to and from the island and the
      10     bridges are that shown on that map.  Hold it up.
      11     A.      I have -- I have these -- I have prepared
      12     these packets.  I'd like to submit them with
      13     photographs to all the Board members.
      14                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Wait.  Mr. Krakower,
      15             put some purpose in this.  In aid of what?
      16             Is this traffic surveys?  Is this opinion?
      17             Is this measurements of streets.
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  These are --
      19                     AUDIENCE:  Shut up and listen, and
      20             you'll find out.
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  These are
      22             photographs --
      23                     MR. D'AGOSTINO:  No hollering out,
      24             please.
       1                     MR. KRAKOWER:  -- of the history of
       2             what's been going on and the problems on
       3             Flat Rock Road.  They identify the types of
       4             photographs that are there, they're
       5             conditions, they're photographs, most of
       6             these are.  They're maps and photographs so
       7             the Board can see the physical conditions
       8             that are there, and he has put them in
       9             writing to save time.
      10                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Mr. Krakower, if
      11             these are the conditions, as an officer of
      12             the Court you have an obligation to bring
      13             them forth to the Board.  You're relying on
      14             the emotions of the community to bring them
      15             forth to the Board, and you're making a
      16             serious mistake here.
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  It has nothing do
      18             with emotions.
      19                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  It is emotions.
      20             It's all emotional from the community.
      21             You're preying on their emotions.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  These are facts.
      23                     CHAIRMAN KELLY: No, these are not
      24             facts.  It's the facts as they see it.
       1             It's the facts as the community sees it.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, that's what
       3             they're entitled to.
       4                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Then that's what
       5             you should testify to.
       6                     MR. AUSPITZ:  We want that.
       7                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, there are
       8             facts --
       9                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  You know, now at
      10             this point you want to go out and hire
      11             expert witnesses all on what has been
      12             presented, and now we're going to wait
      13             three more weeks for a study which we
      14             granted you.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Okay.
      16                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  You should have
      17             had one ahead of time.  You should have had
      18             expert witnesses.
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I didn't have the
      20             studies ahead of time.
      21                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  You do your own
      22             studies.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I can't do a study
      24             until I have their study to see what
       1             they're based on.
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  They're based on
       3             studies that are in the record.
       4                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Do you know what
       5             you just said?  You can't do a study until
       6             they have their study.  They can do it and
       7             you can't?  That's what an expert witness
       8             does for you.  You're just going to tear
       9             theirs apart?  You should have one done on
      10             your own.
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Maybe my expert will
      12             say it's perfect.  There's nothing to tear
      13             apart, but he has to see what they are
      14             doing first.
      15                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Those studies are
      16             based upon public documents in the record
      17             done by the Corps of Engineers and others.
      18             Any expert has access to those just like
      19             Mr. Boles has access to those.
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes, but he doesn't
      21             know exactly what you're going to do with
      22             them.  He will now.
      23                     MR. SKLAROFF:  You knew what the
      24             application was.  You knew how many units
       1             and you knew the configuration.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  And we have
       3             discussed --
       4                     MR. SKLAROFF:  For months.
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  We discussed those.
       6             We didn't have these reports until now.
       7             Meanwhile, you want to talk about --
       8                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Sir?
       9                     THE WITNESS:  Yes.
      10                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  You're objecting
      11             to this project?
      12                     THE WITNESS:  Yes, I am.
      13                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  In your own words,
      14             tell this Board why you object to this
      15             project.
      16                     THE WITNESS:  There are three major
      17             problems.  This would create a significant
      18             traffic burden on the community.  The short
      19             of it is it will increase traffic by at
      20             least ten percent in the area based on
      21             traffic counts taken by the Boles Smyth
      22             counts in 1996, which he made available to
      23             us.
      24                     The second major objection is
       1             evacuation egress and ingress.  For
       2             example, cars leaving these units have no
       3             place to go and evacuation is either all --
       4             I was headed out to get a drink of
       5             water -- is either all or nothing.  You
       6             know, you can't just call up and say move
       7             your car.  There's no place in the
       8             neighborhood to go put 500 cars.  Just a
       9             simple example, 214 cars or so they expect
      10             at the Dranoff site.  If you line those up,
      11             that would be 4,000 feet worth of cars
      12             along this.  The only access that doesn't
      13             flood is along Main Street here, which is
      14             illegal parking only 1200 feet long.
      15             Beyond that you have to go up into the
      16             neighborhood, which is a well-documented no
      17             parking anywhere in the neighborhood.  The
      18             same problem down here you have 392 cars
      19             you've got to get rid of.
      20                     MR. JAFFE:  Pointing to the
      21             Maloomian site for the record.
      22                     THE WITNESS: Right.  They're
      23             allowing 390 parking spaces.  The other
      24             part of that is ingress and egress out of
       1             here is one bridge, crossed by railroad
       2             tracks at grade with no controls and
       3             blockage there, say a train derails, which
       4             happens on a regular basis since these
       5             tracks are fairly rickety, could trap every
       6             car in that unit in there.  The second
       7             contention is that how can you evacuate
       8             cars if nobody is there.  Say for example
       9             only 25 cars were left unattended in that
      10             parking lot during a flood event, if it
      11             took two people even just ten minutes to
      12             move each one of those cars over two hours
      13             realistically it would require tow trucks
      14             and probably a half hour round trip that
      15             would be three or four hours just to get 25
      16             cars out of there.  And, again, an
      17             evacuation event is all or nothing.  You
      18             have to tell people to leave the
      19             neighborhood.  You can't just say go move
      20             your car and come back.  So there's serious
      21             problems with that.  The third one is
      22             contrary to Mr. Dranoff's testimony --
      23                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Objection.  We did
      24             incorporate a lot things, but we did not
       1             incorporate Mr. Dranoff's testimony.
       2                     THE WITNESS:  That's fine.  I'll
       3             live that out.  We believe that this will
       4             materially threaten the business at
       5             Smurfit-Stone.  I have pictures in my
       6             packet that show the space requirements of
       7             tractor trailers coming over the Flat Rock
       8             Bridge.  They require the entire roadway to
       9             make that turn. Carol Blessing has
      10             submitted a letter --
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes, she submitted a
      12             letter, but she's not here.
      13                     THE WITNESS:  Their tractor trailer
      14             operations are already limited by overflow
      15             coming from the Arroyo Grill.  Any kind of
      16             overflow from parking or any traffic
      17             problems on Flat Rock Road will severely
      18             limit their tractor trailer access.
      19                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I object to this
      20             testimony and ask that it be stricken
      21             unless this witness says --
      22                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Under
      23             cross-examination you can take care of
      24             that.
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  All right.
       2                     THE WITNESS:  Secondly, I mean, we
       3             believe that this will be an unpleasant
       4             place to live with the tractor trailer
       5             traffic, the industry down the street.
       6             There will eventually be limitations that
       7             will say no tractors after 10:00 p.m., no
       8             tractors between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m.,
       9             and, secondly, Smurfit is served by
      10             railroad traffic along the railroad line
      11             along here that crosses at grade.  This
      12             traffic here is going from almost no cars a
      13             day to 1800 trips a day causing a danger
      14             here at the railroad track, and perhaps
      15             pressure to eliminate that railroad
      16             crossing or restrict railroad traffic
      17             further causing harm of Smurfit-Stone, and
      18             I think these developments will then -- the
      19             three major ones will have a significant
      20             traffic impact.  You can't add ten percent
      21             to the traffic, you can't add 20 percent to
      22             the people in this corridor and not have an
      23             impact.  There's serious evacuation
      24             problems.  You can't get the cars out as
       1             fast as they say and there's nowhere to put
       2             them, and it will impact Smurfit-Stone's
       3             business, one of the largest industrial
       4             employers in the city.  That's the gist of
       5             my testimony.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Anything else?
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No.
       9                      CROSS-EXAMINATION
      10     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      11     Q.      Mr. Smith, let me ask you a question or
      12     two.
      13                     Where is Smurfit-Stone on this map?
      14     A.      Smurfit-Stone is not on this map.  They're
      15     just off the left edge of the map.
      16     Q.      So they are -- if you read the Schuylkill
      17     as going north south for our purposes -- they're to
      18     the north of the Namico site?
      19     A.      Right, they're to the north.
      20     Q.      And how far are they from the Cotton Street
      21     Landing site?
      22     A.      I don't know, a quarter of a mile.
      23     Q.      And is it your position that the approval
      24     of this project on Cotton Street Landing is going
       1     to impact trailers at Smurfit-Stone?
       2     A.      It will not impact the trailers at
       3     Smurfit-Stone, it will impact the rail freight
       4     along this rail line.
       5     Q.      How --
       6     A.      The rail line --
       7     Q.      How will it do that?
       8     A.      It's a slow-moving train.  I think they get
       9     about a train a day.  The train derails
      10     occasionally.  If a train derails, it will block
      11     that intersection.
      12     Q.      I'm asking you -- not talking about how
      13     it's going to -- Smurfit-Stone's rail
      14     transportation is going to affect this site.  How
      15     is this site going to affect Smurfit-Stone?
      16     A.      This -- Smurfit --
      17     Q.      If it is?
      18     A.      This development will create pressure to
      19     eliminate either that rail freight, because it
      20     poses a safety hazard to all the cars crossing that
      21     intersection, and it poses a safety hazard for
      22     evacuation from that site, because it has the
      23     ability to completely block all vehicular access to
      24     that site.
       1     Q.      Is it your view that the Planning
       2     Commission was wrong in its recommendation and City
       3     Council was wrong to make Venice Island a
       4     residential site, and, ultimately, your feeling is
       5     that it may drive out Smurfit-Stone because it may
       6     impact adversely their ability to use rail cars.
       7     Is that what you are saying?
       8     A.      Yes.
       9     Q.      You talked about traffic.  With regard to
      10     this Cotton Street Landing site, have you done any
      11     or has your group hired any experts to determine
      12     whether there will be any change in the level of
      13     service?
      14     A.      No, we have haven't.
      15                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Nothing further.
      16                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Thank you, sir.
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you, Mr.
      18             Smith.
      19                     (The witness was excused.)
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I would like to call
      21             my next witness.  Robin Mann.
      22                     MR. SMITH:  Now, I have this whole
      23             packet with my written testimony and
      24             supporting documents.
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  It's not in.  Just
       2             leave it.
       3                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  No, you can't put
       4             that in.
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  He can't put that
       6             in?
       7                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  No, not at all.
       8             The record's clear.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Again, note my
      10             objection.
      11                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Put your name and
      12             address on record, ma'am.
      13                     THE WITNESS:  My name is Robin
      14             Mann.  I live at 260 Beachwood Drive in
      15             Rosemont, Pennsylvania.
      16                     DIRECT EXAMINATION
      17     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      18     Q.      Robin, are you here --
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Excuse me, for one
      20             second.  I understand that Councilman
      21             Nutter is here and wants to submit a
      22             letter, and we'll be to happy accommodate
      23             the Councilman.
      24                     MR. NUTTER:  You have the lady up
       1             there already, so why don't you continue.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you,
       3             Councilman.
       4     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       5     Q.      Robin, are you here not only individually,
       6     but also a member or spokesman for any
       7     organizations?
       8     A.      I am here as a representative for the
       9     Sierra Club.
      10     Q.      And what is the Sierra Club for those
      11     people who don't know?
      12     A.      The Sierra Club is a national environmental
      13     organization, with members in every state, with
      14     groups and chapters in each of the states.
      15     Q.      Is there a chapter in the Philadelphia
      16     general area?
      17     A.      Yes, there is a southeastern group
      18     representing Philadelphia, Delaware, Montgomery and
      19     Chester counties, and there's a chapter in
      20     Pennsylvania.
      21     Q.      And you're the spokesperson for that
      22     chapter?
      23     A.      That's right.
      24     Q.      Now, have you been involved with and done
       1     work relating to the environmental situation on
       2     Venice Island?
       3     A.      I've had various involvements with
       4     environmental restoration projects, water quality
       5     testing, that kind of thing.
       6                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  At Venice Island?
       7                     THE WITNESS:  Not water quality
       8             testing at Venice Island, no, just in the
       9             Schuylkill watershed.
      10                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  I though you were
      11             asking about Venice Island.
      12                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes, I asked about
      13             Venice Island or in Manayunk.
      14                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  You said Venice
      15             Island.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Would you be good
      17             enough so there is not any excess
      18             questioning by me just to state to the
      19             Board what the proof would be --
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes.
      21                     MR. SKLAROFF:  -- of this witness.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes.  On behalf of
      23             the Sierra Club and from her own knowledge
      24             and involvement in environmental work, Ms.
       1             Mann opposes the proposed development on
       2             Venice Island and believes it would be
       3             environmentally harmful to the Manayunk
       4             area and the Venice Island area and the
       5             area right across the Manayunk Canal and
       6             would be pleased to state her reasons why.
       7             She's also prepared a written letter
       8             stating those reasons why.
       9                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I would have no
      10             objection to a written letter, it can say
      11             whatever it wants.  If she's going to give
      12             opinions, do you have a resume that you're
      13             offering, Mr. Krakower?
      14                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No, not from Ms.
      15             Mann.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  So you're not
      17             offering her as an expert witness?
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm not offering her
      19             as an expert.
      20                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I think the fact
      21             that the Sierra Club has decided to oppose
      22             this can be expressed in a letter.  I don't
      23             think we need to have testimony, because if
      24             we get into testimony, we're going to look
       1             at what studies that a reasonable
       2             environmental expert would make before
       3             coming to a public body and commenting on a
       4             matter of grave importance to the public.
       5             We would get into her --
       6                     MS. JAFFE:  Why don't we just
       7             listen to her testimony.  It is what it
       8             is.  You know this is standard operating
       9             procedure, and you can object.
      10                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I just objected.
      11                     MS. JAFFE:  I understand.  Let's
      12             go.
      13                     MR. SKLAROFF:  And I continue to
      14             object.
      15                     MS. JAFFE:  Fine.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  And I think it would
      17             be better in a letter.
      18                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  You are submitting
      19             a letter, ma'am?
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  There is a letter.
      21             Hand it up.
      22                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I won't even
      23             cross-examine the letter.  I would like a
      24             copy of it.
       1     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       2     Q.      Ms. Mann, would state, in summary, what
       3     your objections are to the proposed developments on
       4     Venice Island and why?
       5     A.      The proposed developments on Venice Island
       6     are antithetical to the position that my
       7     organization takes with regard to floodplain
       8     development.
       9     Q.      Why?
      10     A.      Because in our view, and it is a position
      11     we advocate around the country, we oppose the
      12     placement of people in harm's way, locating people
      13     and residences in the floodplain and most
      14     especially, in the floodway.
      15     Q.      Are there any specific or particular
      16     elements regarding this project that you find
      17     particularly disadvantageous or harmful?
      18     A.      This is a particularly dramatic example of
      19     the concern we have about locating property in the
      20     floodway, because it is separated from the mainland
      21     by limited access, which aggravates the public
      22     safety concerns that we have.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.
      24                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Wait a minute.  A
       1             question or two.
       2                     CROSS-EXAMINATION
       3     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       4     Q.      The policy of the Sierra Club in urbanized
       5     watersheds, is that based upon studies that the
       6     Sierra Club has made?
       7     A.      What kind of studies do you mean?
       8     Q.      What kind of studies do you have?
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm going to object
      10             to that.  You asked her --
      11                     MR. SKLAROFF:  If it's based on
      12             studies.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  What do you mean?
      14     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      15     Q.      Hydrologic studies?
      16     A.      Not national hydrologic studies.
      17     Q.      In Southeastern Pennsylvania your policy is
      18     against building in the floodplain; is that
      19     correct?
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I think she said
      21             floodway.
      22                     MR. SKLAROFF:  No, she said both.
      23                     THE WITNESS:  We discourage
      24             building in the floodplain.  We oppose
       1             definitely building in the floodway.
       2             That's a national policy.
       3     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       4     Q.      Now, are we talking about the 100-year
       5     floodplain or the 500-year floodplain?
       6     A.      Well, in fact, my organization has been
       7     pushing for a number of years for major floodplain
       8     management reform to discourage building in the
       9     500-year floodplain.
      10     Q.      Are you familiar with the City of
      11     Philadelphia?
      12     A.      Yes I, am.
      13     Q.      Do you how much of Center City Philadelphia
      14     is in the 500-year floodplain?
      15     A.      No, I don't know, specifically.
      16     Q.      Do you how many important buildings are
      17     within the 100-year floodplain?
      18     A.      I'm not suggesting that they should be
      19     removed.
      20     Q.      Do you know how much of the City of
      21     Philadelphia at its founding was built in the
      22     floodway of the Delaware River?
      23     A.      No.
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  The floodway of the
       1             Delaware River?
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Yes.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, I'm going to
       4             object to the form of the question.  I've
       5             been advised by an expert --
       6                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  She answered the
       7             question.
       8                     MR. SKLAROFF:  She doesn't know.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  -- that it has no
      10             floodway or floodplain.  I'd object to --
      11                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Well, actually in
      12             the late 1600s the Delaware River did have
      13             a floodway and much of the city was
      14             actually built in the floodway.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  In the 1600s?
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I have no further
      17             questions.
      18                     THE WITNESS:  May I point out that
      19             one of reasons that our reporting is done
      20             is to document lost human life as a result
      21             of being located in the floodway and
      22             floodplain.
      23                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Thank you, ma'am.
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.
       1                     (The witness was excused.)
       2                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Who else do you
       3             have here?
       4                     MR. KRAKOWER:  My next witness will
       5             be Darlene -- Oh, no, Councilman Nutter,
       6             I'm sorry.  Councilman Nutter.
       7                     THE WITNESS:  Good afternoon Mr.
       8             Chairman, and members of the Board.
       9                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Good afternoon,
      10             sir.  Put your name and address on the
      11             record, please.
      12                     THE WITNESS:  Michael A. Nutter,
      13             N-u-t-t-e-r, Councilman for the fourth
      14             district.
      15                     Mr. Chairman, I don't know what
      16             questions may be asked after this because I
      17             have no knowledge of anything taking place
      18             before the 1900s, and I cannot be
      19             questioned on that.  This is a letter to
      20             the Chairman of the Zoning Board.  I have
      21             copies for the Board, and I'm sure Mr.
      22             Sklaroff would like to have one, too.
      23             Dated March 13th year 2000.  Calendar
      24             Number 99-1388.  Dear Chairman Kelly:  I am
       1             writing to state my opposition to the
       2             above-referenced zoning case which is
       3             scheduled for a hearing today.  This
       4             application is for the erection of a four
       5             and five story apartment building with 270
       6             units with a sub-basement and basement with
       7             329 accessory parking spaces, accessory
       8             recreation area and pool for residents only
       9             and for an additional 183 parking spaces.
      10             The site is located on Venice Island and
      11             can only be accessed by the Cotton Street
      12             bridge which is located at the intersection
      13             of Main and Cotton, the central core of
      14             Main Street, Manayunk.
      15                     As this Board knows, I have
      16             continuing concerns about proposed
      17             development in the Manayunk community, in
      18             general, and on Venice Island in
      19             particular.  It was because of the
      20             potential for over-development and
      21             inappropriate growth in these areas that a
      22             planning process was convened by the City
      23             Planning Commission about one year ago to
      24             determine what type of development would be
       1             appropriate and would potentially have the
       2             least overall impact on the surrounding
       3             residential and business community.  That
       4             planning process was fairly extensive,
       5             although not perfect.  Many ideas were
       6             discussed; some were accepted and others
       7             rejected.  The key work product of this
       8             planning process is contained within
       9             Ordinance Numbers 990670, 990671 and
      10             990672, all of which received final passage
      11             by City Council on December 16, 1999, and
      12             were signed into law by then Mayor Rendell
      13             on December 30, 1999.
      14                     I believe that this zoning hearing
      15             and the larger issues of growth and
      16             development in Manayunk and on Venice
      17             Island have generated an environment that
      18             is tantamount to a final stand for the
      19             future of this community.  I have listened
      20             to many people, read a great deal,
      21             personally witnessed the impact of nature,
      22             and tried to balance the interests of the
      23             community, the rights of property owners,
      24             the needs of our great city and the
       1             importance of public safety and respect for
       2             our environment.
       3                     There are many good and appropriate
       4             ideas being discussed and promoted by the
       5             Manayunk Neighborhood Council, the Friends
       6             of the Manayunk Canal, the Central Manayunk
       7             Council, the Wissahickon Neighbors Civic
       8             Association, environmental groups and
       9             others that could promote and maintain open
      10             space, park and recreational uses and
      11             cultural and family venues that would be
      12             beneficial to Manayunk and the entire
      13             city.  I will work with any group on these
      14             projects, as well as work to seek funding
      15             to support these projects, and I would
      16             encourage the Board to request more details
      17             on these concepts from the community and
      18             the developers.  I am mindful, though, that
      19             while government can encourage, promote and
      20             even re-zone areas for certain uses, we
      21             cannot force private property owners to
      22             utilize their property in a manner which is
      23             not viable or which renders the property
      24             valueless.  The government cannot restrict
       1             property to such an extent that it
       2             constitutes a taking without compensation.
       3             The City of Philadelphia is certainly in no
       4             financial position to purchase these
       5             privately-owned properties.
       6                     After numerous meetings, studies
       7             and analysis, the City Planning Commission
       8             recommended a zoning overlay and zoning
       9             classification for Venice Island that would
      10             change the zoning primarily from G-2
      11             Industrial to RC-1 Residential.  This is
      12             based on the Planning Commission's belief
      13             that G-2 Industrial is no longer a viable
      14             or appropriate zoning classification for
      15             this area; and, if development is to occur,
      16             residential is expected to have a lesser
      17             impact overall on the surrounding community
      18             physically than any combination of
      19             commercial, retail or industrial.  While I
      20             remain concerned about the prospect of
      21             residential development on Venice Island, I
      22             am more concerned about the larger impact
      23             that any other combination of development
      24             may have on the current residents of the
       1             surrounding community.  For example, the
       2             original plan that was presented to me by
       3             the developer for the site under
       4             consideration today contained a hotel,
       5             commercial/retail and residential.  This
       6             proposal would have over-developed this
       7             site and completely overwhelmed the central
       8             core of Main Street in Manayunk.  The
       9             latest plan for this site is now primarily
      10             residential, because the applicant
      11             anticipated that this type of development
      12             might have less impact than his original
      13             proposal.  I would encourage the Board to
      14             seek information on the previous proposal
      15             for the purposes of this record.
      16                     I believe that the design,
      17             construction and development criteria
      18             detailed in the recently-approved new
      19             zoning designation and the accompanying
      20             zoning overlay for Venice Island previously
      21             referred to bills represents a
      22             comprehensive guide for any proposed re-use
      23             and development of the previous industrial
      24             sites on Venice Island.  The Board should
       1             be made aware that the applicant is very
       2             familiar with these guidelines as he also
       3             participated in the year long planning
       4             process.  He filed his zoning application
       5             the day after the Planning Commission
       6             approved its recommendation and he and/or
       7             his representatives attended the City
       8             Council hearing on December 8, 1999, at
       9             which the final zoning overlay and controls
      10             were voted out of the Rules Committee.
      11             There is no legitimate reason that the
      12             applicant cannot adhere to the zoning
      13             overlay development criteria in the
      14             recently-approved ordinance.  There are no
      15             circumstances so unique to this property
      16             that would require development beyond the
      17             Planning Commission's recommendations.  In
      18             fact the applicant has already demonstrated
      19             the ability, if not the willingness, to
      20             change his plan as the need or circumstance
      21             may require.  I believe that this applicant
      22             can meet these criteria and any other
      23             applicant should be required to do the
      24             same.
       1                     I, therefore, respectfully request
       2             that the Zoning Board closely review the
       3             development criteria as delineated
       4             Ordinance Numbers 990670, 990671 and 990672
       5             and hold the applicant to the standards
       6             contained in these measures, such as height
       7             limitations, set backs, landscaping and
       8             building density which are not required in
       9             G-2 Industrial, in addition to all other
      10             applicable provisions of Philadelphia
      11             Code -- including floodway and floodplain
      12             controls and development restrictions.  As
      13             you know, this applicant must meet strict
      14             standards, tests and reviews of the Federal
      15             Emergency Management Agency, the U.S. Army
      16             Corps of Engineers, state agencies, the
      17             City Planning Commission and this Board.
      18             None of these regulatory agencies or their
      19             jurisdiction of powers are affected by the
      20             recently-enacted re-zoning or zoning
      21             overlay ordinances.
      22                     In conclusion, my request of the
      23             Board is to refuse the application before
      24             you and to strictly adhere to the zoning
       1             controls and development criteria contained
       2             within Ordinance Numbers 990670, 990671 and
       3             990672.  I ask that the Board exercise its
       4             good judgement and authority to ensure that
       5             Manayunk and Venice Island are protected
       6             from over-development and uncontrolled
       7             growth.
       8                     Thank you for your attention to
       9             this matter.  Please do not hesitate to
      10             contact me if you have any questions or
      11             desire further information.
      12                     This is the original letter.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you very much.
      14                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I just have one
      15             question of the Councilman.
      16                      CROSS-EXAMINATION
      17     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      18     Q.      You do recall the hearing before the Rules
      19     Committee and representatives of the developer
      20     opposed the ordinance to the extent that they would
      21     apply and limit the density?
      22     A.      I'm sorry, was that a question?
      23     Q.      Yes.  The implication here is that they
      24     acquiesced and didn't speak out.  I'm sure you
       1     didn't mean to say that.
       2     A.      No, I don't think there is any implication
       3     of that.  What I said is that they were there.  I
       4     didn't say what did or didn't say.
       5     Q.      It's true that they objected to --
       6     A.      My recollection is that maybe you came to
       7     the witness table and expressed opposition.
       8                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Thank you.
       9                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Under the
      10             ordinance how many units will be allowed to
      11             be built here?
      12                     THE WITNESS:  Mr. Chairman, my
      13             recollection of that is I think either 149
      14             or maybe 150, but the Planning
      15             Commissions's review of that and I neither
      16             support that or contradict that.
      17                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Thank you.
      18                     THE WITNESS:  Thank you.
      19                     (The witness was excused.)
      20                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Mr. Krakower,
      21             anything else?
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes, I still have a
      23             couple more witnesses, if I may.  Darlene
      24             Messina from the Friends of Manayunk.
       1                     DIRECT EXAMINATION
       2     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       3     Q.      Ms. Messina, would you state your name and
       4     address and your relationship to any community
       5     group that have a particular interest in either
       6     Venice Island or the Manayunk Canal.
       7     A.      My name is Darlene Messina.  I live at 169
       8     Cotton Street, Manayunk.  I am the founder and
       9     acting president of the Friends of the Manayunk
      10     Canal.  We are an official Friends Group of
      11     Fairmont Park.  We also have been invited to sit on
      12     Fairmont Park's Citizenry Advisory Council.
      13     Through this position I think we were selected
      14     because of our leadership, or advocacy about park
      15     land and our work around watersheds.  I also would
      16     like to state that we were invited by the
      17     Philadelphia Water Department to sit on their Storm
      18     Water Runoff Education Committee in which watershed
      19     groups such as ours actually advise and advocate
      20     watershed planning and best management practices in
      21     watersheds.  Manayunk is in Schuylkill River
      22     watershed and that should be noted, and if you look
      23     in your folder there, as Dr. Willig had testified
      24     we are in the Schuylkill River watershed.  It's a
       1     span -- a very large span all the way down, I
       2     think, south along the Schuylkill River.  So
       3     there's a map in there about the Schuylkill River
       4     watershed.
       5                     I want to state our objection to
       6     any new development in the floodway for two basic
       7     reasons.  One, I do want to just reiterate the
       8     city's position that any new development in a
       9     floodway adds to the increased risk of local
      10     flooding, and this is something that I think the
      11     city has seen over and over again.  Development
      12     along rivers add to increased flooding.  Now, it is
      13     true that there are existing buildings in Manayunk
      14      -- I mean, on Venice Island, however, our belief
      15     is that the reuse of certain buildings, no
      16     expansion, and limited reuse in terms of it just
      17     being an industrial use or a commercial use would
      18     be far better than residential.  However, we do
      19     take a position in thinking that this island should
      20     be made into a natural floodplain floodway state,
      21     because, in essence, this is the best management
      22     practice for watersheds if you want to keep areas
      23     along river banks open, so they can absorb the rain
      24     waters.  What's interesting about Manayunk is that
       1     its watershed is mostly asphalt and watersheds are
       2     established by the highest point of the land
       3     surrounding a watershed.  The highest point in
       4     Manayunk is Ridge Avenue.  On one side the rain
       5     water goes down into the Wissahickon Creek,
       6     Wissahickon watershed.  We live in the Schuylkill
       7     watershed, the rain comes down off the ridge and
       8     goes into the canal and then into the river.  The
       9     issue with Manayunk, and I'm sure you're aware of
      10     that it's steep bedrock slopes, and it's highly
      11     developed.  It's mostly asphalt, it's a lot of
      12     rooftops, very little green space in Manayunk.
      13     What happens in Manayunk, there are basically
      14     little rivers when it rains and one of the reasons
      15     that Manayunk floods so much is partially because
      16     of the geology of the river but also because of the
      17     density of the housing and the asphalt.  The
      18     river -- the rain water moves so fast down along
      19     slopes of Manayunk that there are literally little
      20     rivers, and it doesn't take much to do this, to
      21     raise the level of the water and the canal.
      22                     I moved to Manayunk because of the
      23     Canal and the tow path.  I have seen that canal
      24     flood now twice.  Actually, Floyd was the day of my
       1     birthday.  Myself and another member took all these
       2     photographs, and it was very, very scary to think
       3     about anybody living in the floodway.  Our belief
       4     is that if people live in a floodway, they're the
       5     last to leave, because they are going back to get
       6     their belongings.  They don't know when they'll be
       7     able to return.  In fact, there's an article in
       8     your package, an; Inquirer article from 1966.  The
       9     flooding there that talks about somebody actually
      10     going through a barricade, knowing that they
      11     shouldn't have gone, going back to get that one
      12     last thing, and that man was found dead.  We have
      13     had conversations with City employees, who work for
      14     emergency evacuation, I won't mention names, but
      15     they also believed that this was not a very prudent
      16     use of the island.  That they envisioned dragging
      17     dead bodies out of cars.  There's no way that these
      18     two projects will be able to handle the kind of
      19     evacuation plan that's necessary.  The other issue
      20     is that basically this is not -- it's not really in
      21     compliance with best management practices for storm
      22     water run off.  Again, I think I've already said.
      23     I just want to call your attention to some of these
      24     photographs, and I have also some copies here.
       1     Some of these are site-specific, some of them are
       2     just along the whole entire island and there's a
       3     picture of actually -- I believe this is East Falls
       4     a little bit lower south of Manayunk, but the same
       5     kind of destruction.  This is actually a dock split
       6     in half that floated down the Schuylkill River and
       7     everybody has seen that tree between the Falls
       8     Bridge.  The waters and the volume and velocity and
       9     the power of the river is tremendous.  This is the
      10     canal -- the canal floods pretty quickly because of
      11     all that storm water runoff.  You really have a
      12     very vulnerable island, I mean, it's subject to
      13     flooding from both sides.  Again narrow bridges for
      14     evacuation, you cannot get off of that island fast
      15     enough, you cannot engineer people's behavior in
      16     the face of danger.  You may be able to build a
      17     building, but you cannot engineer people's
      18     behavior.  These photographs -- this is the
      19     Connelly site here and this one is too.  This is
      20     four hours after -- after the peak.  The peak was,
      21     I think, I'm not -- 1:00 or 2:00 two in the
      22     morning.  These two photographs were taken after
      23     peak.  This truck here is barely above water, and
      24     this is actually at the high point.  The Connelly
       1     site sweeps kind of down below.  These two -- and I
       2     want you to take notice of the businesses on Main
       3     Street that were closed for at least a week in
       4     terms of having to get the operations back up and
       5     running.  So there is substantial impact for not
       6     only economics, and, you know, the -- in terms of
       7     people getting back to their places to go back to
       8     live.  There are a number of issues, but our main
       9     objection is that it's not really following the
      10     best management practices, and we think it's a very
      11     foolish project.  There's a number of attachments.
      12     The City Planning Commission has developed
      13     wonderful, thoughtful plans for Venice Island
      14     there's one on 182, they're all listed as
      15     attachments.  I have one copy for all of you,
      16     because we don't have, you know, large funding in
      17     our budget to make multiple copies.
      18                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  As long as you
      19             show Mr. Sklaroff a copy .
      20                     THE WITNESS:  All the attachments
      21             are listed, and I'm sure the City Planning
      22             Commission can give them to you.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  We'll have to make
      24             copies and get them to him.
       1                     THE WITNESS:  Also I've provided
       2             you with some alternative uses and best
       3             management practices throughout not only
       4             five county region but the State of
       5             Pennsylvania.  We're talking about
       6             watershed planning.  We're not talking
       7             about riverfront dense development any
       8             more.  And I'm really sorry to see that the
       9             City of Philadelphia is considering such a
      10             plan.  That's all I have to say.
      11                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Thank you.  Any
      12             questions, sir?
      13                     MR. SKLAROFF:  No.
      14                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Thank you, ma'am
      15             next witness, Mr. Krakower.
      16                     (The witness was excused.)
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.  Is
      18             Dorothy Burner here?
      19                     AUDIENCE:  No, she couldn't make it
      20             today.
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  May I hand up some
      22             letters?  I have a letter here I believe
      23             from the Clean Air Council of Manayunk.  I
      24             have a copy for Mr. Sklaroff.  That's just
       1             a letter.  That person either couldn't make
       2             it here or had to leave.  Hand up these Mr.
       3             Winters.
       4                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Do you want to mark
       5             them and identify them in the record in
       6             some way?
       7                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes.  One letter is
       8             from Dennis Winters, he's a Transportation
       9             Policy Analyst and Programs Manager for the
      10             Clean Air Council of Philadelphia.  The
      11             others have not yet been identified and
      12             we'll mark that as P-1.
      13                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Why don't you
      14             collect all of them under P-1.  It might be
      15             easier.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I think that's a
      17             good idea, Mr. Sklaroff.  I will do that.
      18                     MR. JAFFE:  I already handed up and
      19             gave a copy to Mr. Sklaroff a letter from
      20             the East Falls Community Council, dated
      21             November 22, '99.
      22                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Excuse me, Mr.
      23             Jaffe, aren't they meeting later this month
      24             on this subject?
       1                     MR. JAFFE:  I don't know about the
       2             meeting.  I just know what was given to me
       3             to hand up to the Board, and that was their
       4             position as of today.
       5                     MR. SKLAROFF:  But wait a second,
       6             is this identified to the Cotton Street
       7             Landing matter?  It just says Venice Island
       8             variance.  I don't --
       9                     MS. MASSINA:  It says right on
      10             there residential on the floodway --
      11                     MR. SKLAROFF:  This --.
      12                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  One at a time
      13             please.
      14                     MR. SKLAROFF:  So this is
      15             applicable to all three, do you think?  Or
      16             don't we know?
      17                     MS. MASSINA:  I really --
      18                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Or maybe two out of
      19             the three.
      20                     MS. MASSINA:  No, I think if it
      21             says no residential in the floodway and the
      22             reasoning behind it --
      23                     MR. JAFFE:  It speaks for itself.
      24                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Certainly, I agree
       1             it speaks for itself.
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I just want the
       3             record to show it's not identifying us.
       4                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Ma'am, put your
       5             name and address on the record, please.
       6                     THE WITNESS:  Liz Turella.  4441
       7             Silverwood Street, Philadelphia 19127,
       8             T-u-r-e-l-l-a.  I'm President of Manayunk
       9             Neighborhood Council, and I'm also a
      10             community representative representing the
      11             community on the Board of Manayunk
      12             Development Corporation.  I've been in
      13             Manayunk since the '50s.
      14                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Okay.
      15                     THE WITNESS: I have a formal letter
      16             here for each of you.
      17                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Okay.  We'll put
      18             your letter in the record.
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm going to mark,
      20             as Mr. Sklaroff suggested, I think it's
      21             appropriate, all of these will be under
      22             P-1, these various letters and then we will
      23             compile them.  I think Mr. Sklaroff has all
      24             of them except for Ms. Massina's
       1             photographs I think are the only things you
       2             don't have.
       3                     THE WITNESS:  I also had two of our
       4             members in five hours collected 300
       5             signatures of opposition.  These are people
       6             from the 21st Ward.  I don't have extra
       7             copies of these, but I'll hand these in.
       8             It says, we the undersigned residents of
       9             the 21st Ward in Philadelphia are opposed
      10             to residential apartments on Venice Island.
      11                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Show that to Mr.
      12             Sklaroff, please.
      13                     MR. SKLAROFF:  That's fine.
      14                     DIRECT EXAMINATION
      15     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      16     Q.      Ms. Turella, would you just basically state
      17     what your opposition is and the reasons for it.
      18     A.      The Manayunk Neighborhood Council takes the
      19     position that, first of all, this is a floodway and
      20     to be honest with you when I first started I didn't
      21     know anything about floodways and have become,
      22     through the efforts of the Friends the Manayunk
      23     Canal and through our own research, more
      24     knowledgable about the floodway.  We do believe
       1     that there should be no construction whatsoever in
       2     the floodway if you follow the code of the City of
       3     Philadelphia; however, should there be development
       4     we are opposed to residential and most people in
       5     Manayunk if you speak to them, they don't know from
       6     here to there just as I didn't know about a
       7     floodway, but they certainly are aware of the
       8     impact that quick and overdevelopment has done to
       9     Manayunk.  You see the buttons that I'm wearing
      10     here.  This particular button is from canal day in
      11     1984 and someone today, I don't know who, mentioned
      12     progress, that this was progress.  It's really
      13     telling because what it says on here from 1984
      14     says, 160 years of progress.  So we had 160 years
      15     of progress and we were doing okay and dealing with
      16     things and then in the past 16 years, in one-tenth
      17     of that time, we have gone from being clean, quiet
      18     and safe to being pretty dirty up in the
      19     neighborhood.  Dirtier then it's ever been in
      20     years, noisier than it's ever been in years and we
      21     used to be the safest place, I think, except for
      22     the tip of 27th all the way to the northeast the
      23     safest place to live in Philadelphia.  That is no
      24     longer true.  So I don't believe that is progress.
       1     That certainly is an issue.  We have the
       2     over-development and we don't think that Manayunk
       3     should have to bear all the burdens of the city's
       4     problems.  I think that when we looked at ten years
       5     of this kind of development, and we're losing -- we
       6     lost 150 or more -- thousands of people, then we're
       7     doing something wrong and that we have to step back
       8     and look at it again.  Besides the consideration of
       9     the noise and all the other stuff, the traffic --
      10     I'm sure everybody in this room if they've ever
      11     been to Manayunk even once knows that it's
      12     terrible.  We were doing leaf letting one morning,
      13     handing out to cars the things about our issues,
      14     when two officers who came from Civil Affairs, when
      15     they got there they said it took them 40 minutes to
      16     get there, and how do you live with this traffic?
      17     And now we're speaking about adding more commuter
      18     traffic.  Anybody who lives in Manayunk, that it's
      19     really not the statistics and things that we're
      20     hearing retail generates this and that.  If you put
      21     those things towards all the retail development we
      22     already have in Manayunk, those numbers would not
      23     work.  When you come to Manayunk you don't drive
      24     in, come back to the store, go back.  You come and
       1     you stay.  Our problem is the commuter traffic.
       2     It's not even rush hour and it's grid-lock hour.
       3     You can't go anywhere.  We're just about getting by
       4     now.  To impact on us with all of this additional
       5     traffic is unfair to the people of Manayunk who
       6     have supported this city since we were incorporated
       7     in 1824.  Another issue that we have are jobs.  I
       8     don't know the situation with Mr. Connelly's site.
       9     I know that Georgia Pacific purchased a lot of
      10     Connelly Container, maybe all of it.  I don't know
      11     if this particular site was offered to them.
      12     Namico went out of business when they did have
      13     jobs, because they did not want to spend one
      14     million dollars to come up to code and stay in
      15     business.  Then we have Smurfit-Stone who is the
      16     largest industrial manufacturer employer in the
      17     city who has 300 to 350 jobs, who paid seven and a
      18     half million dollars to bring themselves up to code
      19     to continue those jobs.  Are we going to say to
      20     them that that doesn't matter?  They run their
      21     tractor trailers seven days a week, 24-hours a
      22     day.  They have between 90 and 100 tractor
      23     trailers.  We have no objection to industrial.  We
      24     would like to see some jobs down there.  We are
       1     losing the base that has kept Manayunk stable, and
       2     we are very, very, very, very, concerned, and we
       3     think that every agency in the City of Philadelphia
       4     has to step back and take a look, have we been
       5     doing the proper thing for the past ten years?  And
       6     if we have, then why is everybody leaving?  And I
       7     do not believe that building these properties are
       8     going to bring anybody into a city that our former
       9     mayor said himself everybody knew he was a good
      10     doctor tending to a dying patient.  So I think that
      11     we have to keep the people who are here, here
      12     before we start talking about building luxury
      13     apartments to entice people to come into
      14     Philadelphia.
      15                     Our concerns, again, to reiterate.
      16     First of all, we don't believe there should be any
      17     construction whatsoever in the floodway, and we see
      18     other municipalities, the State of Pennsylvania
      19     itself, the Federal government and everybody else
      20     trying to take people out of a floodway.  I don't
      21     think it speaks well to the City of Philadelphia to
      22     be putting them into a floodway.  We speak about
      23     evacuation, going over the walkway, who's going to
      24     be driving the cars while people are rushing over
       1     the walkway, and I just want to say, please don't
       2     put another burden on the people of Manayunk.  Help
       3     us to look for alternatives.  Help us find jobs.
       4     Help us expand the recreation center that we have.
       5     The recreation center until recently was a
       6     disgrace, was a disgrace.  Now, things are being
       7     done in Manayunk to help the community and then to
       8     do that and then impact us more doesn't make
       9     sense.  So, please, we respectfully ask as a
      10     representative of the community of Manayunk that
      11     you deny these variances.  That you don't put your
      12     mark on this folly.  Thank you.
      13                     (Applause.)
      14                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I have question or
      15             two.
      16                     CROSS-EXAMINATION
      17     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      18     Q.      You're here representing the Manayunk
      19     Neighborhood Council?
      20     A.      Mm-hmm.
      21     Q.      You're also a member of the Manayunk
      22     Development Corporation?
      23     A.      Yes.
      24     Q.      Are you here representing them as well?
       1     A.      No, because the Manayunk Development
       2     Corporation -- the community representatives all
       3     voted against this development.  It was the
       4     business representatives who approved.
       5     Q.      So it was the Development Corporation that
       6     was in favor of it?
       7     A.      Yes.
       8     Q.      And Councilman Nutter?
       9     A.      Councilman Nutter wrote letters.  I think,
      10     you know, his letter stated his position.
      11     Q.      But he's supporting the residential
      12     development of Venice Island, correct?
      13     A.      He supports the residential development of
      14     Venice Island, and as Councilman Nutter said to me,
      15     he thought that some guidelines were better than no
      16     guidelines.
      17     Q.      Has anyone shared with you the traffic
      18     study that the Manayunk Development Corporation has
      19     recently obtained?
      20     A.      Yes.
      21     Q.      And doesn't that show that as result of
      22     this development that there will not be
      23     unacceptable levels of traffic at peak hours?
      24     A.      Well, not being a traffic expert, I really
       1     don't know how to really interpret that.  I am
       2     familiar with Mr. Boles' study.  When Mr. Boles did
       3     his study in 1996, he said that we were already at
       4     capacity and that to add any more cars would
       5     greatly affect the quality of life of the people of
       6     Manayunk.  I take that to be something.  If we were
       7     at peak capacity in 1996 and there's been
       8     development since then, things have gotten worse.
       9     Q.      Were you here when he testified on December
      10     22nd?
      11     A.      Yes, I've been to every hearing.
      12     Q.      And when he testified, didn't he testify
      13     that there would not be an increase in traffic
      14     congestion as a result of the Cotton Street Landing
      15     development?
      16     A.      Well, that all depends on whether you
      17     believed Mr. Boles then or whether you believe him
      18     now.
      19     Q.      And what about the people who did the work
      20     for the Manayunk Development Corporation?
      21     A.      I really -- I got a copy from Kay Smith of
      22     the Paone Development.  Unfortunately the top that
      23     allowed me to, even as a layperson, interpret what
      24     that meant was too dark to see.  I know that it
       1     said and in fact I asked for more information, I
       2     know that it said that this would bring things from
       3     level A to level B, but I had no way myself to
       4     interpret how those findings -- what they came to
       5     and what exactly were the other things.  All I
       6     really got was a one-page thing, not a study.
       7     Q.      And if we lose another 170,000 people,
       8     we'll all be at level A?
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Sklaroff --
      10                     THE WITNESS:  I don't know how to
      11             answer that question.
      12                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I have nothing
      13             further.
      14                     MR. KRAKOWER:  The Paone report
      15             will be submitted.  We're doing an excerpt
      16             to that.
      17                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I hope you supply
      18             the whole report.
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I may or may not.
      20             It depends on the timing and the space.
      21                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Thank you.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you, Ms.
      23             Turella.
      24                     (The witness was excused.)
       1                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  Are you done now,
       2             Mr. Krakower?
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Chairman, I'm
       4             ready to close.  The problem is --
       5                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  We're done.
       6                     MR. SKLAROFF:  5:00.
       7                     MR. KRAKOWER:  -- one of my
       8             witnesses who testified during the first
       9             proceeding, was not given -- there was no
      10             cross-examination by Mr. Sklaroff.  Her
      11             testimony as to this project would be
      12             pretty nearly the same, it wouldn't vary
      13             from one of these project to another.  So
      14             she wanted to know if Mr. Sklaroff wanted
      15             to cross-examine her or just incorporate
      16             Mr. Kelsen's cross-examination.
      17                     MR. SKLAROFF:  If the Board wants
      18             to take administrative notice of the
      19             testimony, that's fine with us.
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  The only thing we
      21             have, Mr. Chairman, is there were two
      22             expert witnesses who either had to leave or
      23             were not here and what we would do as in
      24             the earlier part, I would simply like a
       1             brief opportunity to bring them back and I
       2             can submit my report testimony in writing.
       3                     MR. SKLAROFF:  The meteorologist?
       4                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No, not the
       5             meteorologist, the hydraulic expert.
       6                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I mean, it's up to
       7             the Board.
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I also have a
       9             mapping expert, who's a consultant for FEMA
      10             who wants to talk about the mapping --
      11                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  How much time do
      12             you need?
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  One hour.
      14                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Excuse me, Mr.
      15             Krakower, I thought you said before
      16             something about two and a half hours.
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  It's been reduced,
      18             because we got more in this afternoon than
      19             I thought we would.
      20                     CHAIRMAN KELLY:  You'll be notified
      21             of the next hearing.
      22              (Hearing concluded at 5:01 p.m.)
      23                        - - -
       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.)
                                    - - -