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,
1
1 BEFORE THE ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
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.
9
- - -
10 Monday, March 13, 2000
3:00 p.m.
11 Zoning Board of Adjustment
1515 Arch Street - 18th Floor
12 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
- - -
13
14 BEFORE: THOMAS J. KELLY - CHAIRMAN
SUSAN O.W. JAFFE
15 DAVID L. AUSPITZ
ROSALIE M. LEONARD
16 THOMAS D. LOGAN
17
18 ROBERT J. D'AGOSTINO, Administrator
19 MARTIN T. GREGORSKI, City Planning Commission
20 - - -
21
22
DELCASALE CASEY, MARTIN & MANCHELLO
23 Ten Penn Center Plaza
1801 Market Street - Suite 636
24 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 568-2211
2
1 APPEARANCES:
2 BALLARD SPAHR ANDREWS & INGERSOLL, LLP
BY: MICHAEL SKLAROFF, ESQUIRE
3 1735 Market Street - 19th Floor
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
4
Counsel for Applicant, Cotton
5 Street Landing
6
KRAKOWER & MASON
7 BY: STANLEY R. KRAKOWER, ESQUIRE
2300 Aramark Tower
8 1101 Market Street
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
9
Counsel for Friends of Manayunk Canal
10
11 CITY COUNCIL OF PHILADELPHIA
BY: ROBERT M. JAFFE
12 City Hall - Room 588
Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19107
13
Representative for Councilman
14 David Cohen
15
- - -
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23 DELCASALE, CASEY, MARTIN & MANCHELLO
1801 Market Street - Suite 636
24 Philadelphia, Pennsylvania 19103
(215) 568-2211
3
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
4
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
5
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
6
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?
7
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
8
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?
9
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
10
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
11
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.
12
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,
13
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.
14
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
15
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
16
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
17
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
18
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. "
19
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?
20
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?
21
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
22
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
23
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
24
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.
25
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
26
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
27
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
28
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
29
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
30
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,
31
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
32
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
33
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
34
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
35
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
36
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.
37
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
38
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
39
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
40
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.
41
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.
42
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
43
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:
44
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.
45
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.
46
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
47
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
48
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
49
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
50
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
51
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.
52
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
53
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
54
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.
55
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.
56
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
57
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
58
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.
59
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
60
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.
61
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
62
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
63
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
64
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.
65
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
66
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
67
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
68
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
69
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
70
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
71
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.
72
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
73
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
74
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.
75
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
76
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
77
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
78
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.
79
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
80
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.
81
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
82
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?
83
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
84
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
85
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
86
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.
87
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
88
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
89
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
90
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?
91
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
92
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
93
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.)
94
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
95
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 - - -
24
96
1 C E R T I F I C A T I O N
2
3 I, Jennifer O'Neill, hereby certify
4 that the foregoing is a true and correct
5 transcript of the proceedings held in this
6 matter, as transcribed from the
7 stenographic notes taken by me on
8 Monday, March 13, 2000.
9
10
11 --------------------------------
12 ÿ Jennifer O'Neill,
Court Reporter - Notary
13 Public
14 (This certification does not apply
to any reproduction of this transcript,
15 unless under the direct supervision of the
certifying reporter.)
16
- - -
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24