ZBA Testimony, Dranoff/Maloomian, June 12, 2000

Page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50, 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70, 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80, 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90, 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100, 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110, 111, 112, 113, 114, 115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121, 122, 123, 124, 125, 126, 127, 128, 129, 130, 131, 132, 133, 134, 135, 136, 137, 138, 139, 140, 141, 142, 143, 144, 145, 146, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152, 153, 154, 155, 156, 157, 158, 159, 160, 161, 162, 163, 164, 165, 166, 167, 168, 169, 170, 171, 172, 173, 174, 175, 176, 177, 178, 179, 180, 181, 182, 183, 184, 185, 186, 187, 188, 189, 190, 191, 192, 193, 194, 195, 196, 197, 198, 199, 200, 201, 202, 203, 204, 205, 206, 207, 208, 209, 210, 211, 212, 213, 214, 215, 216, 217, 218, 219, 220, 221, 222, 223, 224, 225, 226, 227, 228,

       1                     CITY OF PHILADELPHIA
       2                  ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT
       3                           - - -
       4     Calendar No.  99-1284, 1285
       5     Applicant No.  991018058
       6     Zoning Class:  G-2 IND.
       7     Location:  4601-45 and 4700 Flat Rock Road
       8     Applicant:  DRANOFF PROPERTIES, INC.
       9     Owner:  DRANOFF PROPERTIES, INC.
                                   - - -
      12                    Monday, June 12, 2000
                                  1:00 p.m.
      13                  Zoning Board of Adjustment
                         1515 Arch Street - 18th Floor
      14                  Philadelphia, Pennsylvania
                                   - - -
      15     BEFORE:  THOMAS J. KELLY, Chairman
                      SUSAN O.W. JAFFE
      16              DAVID L. AUSPITZ
                      ROSALIE M. LEONARD
      17              THOMAS D. LOGAN
             ROBERT J. D'AGOSTINO, Administrator
      18     MARTIN T. GREGORSKI, City Planning Commission
                                   - - -
      21             BLANK, ROME, COMISKY & McCAULEY, LLP
                     BY:  PETER FOSTER KELSEN, ESQUIRE
      22               One Logan Square
                       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103-6998
                         Counsel for Applicant
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1     APPEARANCES (Continued):
       3             BY:  MICHAEL SKLAROFF, ESQUIRE
                          JOANNE PHILLIPS, ESQUIRE
       4               1735 Market Street - 51st Floor
                       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19103
                         Counsel for Cotton Street Landing
                     KRAKOWER & MASON
       7             BY:  STANLEY R. KRAKOWER, ESQUIRE
                       2300 Aramark Tower
       8               1101 Market Street
                       Philadelphia, Pennsylvania  19107
                         Counsel for the Manayunk Community
      10                  Neighborhood Council
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1                          INDEX TO TESTIMONY
             WITNESSES                                     PAGE
             Joseph J. Skupien                              12
             Geoffrey M. Goll                               12
             Andreas Heinrich                               87
             Wendy Lathrop                                 118
             Gerald Harrison                               167
             Stephen Miller                                168
                                   - - -
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1                     ...  All potential witnesses sworn
       2             en masse ...
       3                     THE CHAIRMAN:  The first case is
       4             Calendar Number 99-1284, 4601-45 and 4700
       5             Flat Rock Road.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Chairman, if I
       7             may, Stanley Krakower for the Manayunk
       8             Community Neighborhood Council, which is
       9             the lead protestant.  There are a number of
      10             protestants in this matter and we have a
      11             number of witnesses to present today.
      12                     However, I'm going to ask in the
      13             interest, I think, not only of economy, but
      14             even more importantly of being able to
      15             present this in a posture that would make
      16             sense.
      17                     If the two cases -- let me see, the
      18             first one, 99-1284 and 99-1285, and the
      19             other case dealing with Cotton Street, Main
      20             Street, 99-1388, could all be consolidated
      21             for purposes of this hearing.
      22                     Our presentation, our witnesses
      23             deal with Venice Island as an entity rather
      24             than one or the other.  And I don't know if
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1             either of the --
       2                     MR. KELSEN:  I have an objection.
       3             Peter Kelsen for the Applicant, Dranoff
       4             Properties.  That's Calendar Number 99-1284
       5             and 85.  I believe what we did last time
       6             was incorporate the testimony of the
       7             cross-examination of what I'll call the
       8             Namico case into the Connelly case.
       9                     I don't want these cases
      10             consolidated, Mr. Chairman and Members of
      11             the Board, because they are different
      12             applications with different issues and the
      13             Namico case is significantly different from
      14             the Connelly case in terms of
      15             infrastructure and type of developing.
      16                     It will create a record that will
      17             be very difficult to understand if this
      18             matter is appealed, I believe, for all of
      19             the parties.  So, perhaps Mr. Sklaroff will
      20             probably make a statement on that in a
      21             second.  Perhaps what we should do is
      22             figure out a way to perhaps incorporate
      23             some of the cross-examination, but I can't
      24             agree to stipulate to incorporate both
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1             cases or consolidate both cases.
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I think there's a
       3             halfway point here.  I would object to the
       4             consolidation of the cases; however, I
       5             think this hearing can be consolidated so
       6             that, otherwise, we're going to have
       7             everything repeated.  We could have this
       8             hearing deemed to be a hearing both in the
       9             Namico case and --
      10                     THE CHAIRMAN:  You wouldn't have an
      11             ojection if we just put his witnesses on
      12             and let the record show that we have the
      13             same testimony?
      14                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I have to have the
      15             opportunity to cross-examine them.
      16                     THE CHAIRMAN:  They're not going to
      17             be consolidated.  How many witnesses do you
      18             have, sir?
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I have many, sir.
      20                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Excuse me, Mr.
      21             Chairman, but we can use the -- we have an
      22             opportunity to cross-examine now --
      23                     THE CHAIRMAN:  No.  Your case is
      24             second.  We're going to hear this case
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1             first.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  We have six
       3             witnesses, plus I will be making some
       4             statements myself.
       5                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.  I'll tell you
       6             what you have.  You have six witnesses and
       7             ten minutes to examine each and then you
       8             have five minutes to cross-examine them.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Chairman, I
      10             don't think that will be satisfactory with
      11             these witnesses.
      12                     THE CHAIRMAN:  That's all you have,
      13             sir.  We've heard it all.  The Board is
      14             going to hear testimony.  It is the Board's
      15             decision.  Ten minutes on each witness and
      16             the clock is running, sir.
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Chairman, let me
      18             simply note, for the record, that is not
      19             satisfactory and that denies the
      20             protestants due process of law.  We're
      21             having an unconstitutional hearing.
      22                     THE CHAIRMAN:  In your opinion,
      23             sir.
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes, sir.  Let me
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1             first point out that this is not really a
       2             standard zoning case.  It is in one extent
       3             that the hardship standards normally
       4             applied are applicable here.  But, in
       5             addition, you have two specific ordinances,
       6             one, Section 14-1603.1 of the Philadelphia
       7             Code as amended December 1998, and Section
       8             14-1606, the Flood Plan Controls Ordinance
       9             of the City of Philadelphia dealing with
      10             flood controls, and specifically which will
      11             deal with flood controls in a floodway of
      12             which Venice Island, the location of both
      13             of the applications that are before you is
      14             in a floodway.
      15                     And Section 14-1603.1, in
      16             particular, entitled Storm Water Management
      17             Controls, specifically requires the Board
      18             to consider the following criteria and to
      19             insist that the following criteria be
      20             applied, that they are granting the
      21             variance would not create any significant
      22             environmental damage, that the grant of the
      23             variance will not significantly increase
      24             the danger of flooding.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1                     And there are several others, but
       2             those are the two particular criteria that
       3             we submit are relevant here and which the
       4             presentation and the witnesses today will
       5             show that the application does not meet.
       6                     Now, I also want to start by
       7             handing up a summary record from a witness
       8             that testified in March, and I did not hand
       9             up his record.  That was Mr. Hedrickson,
      10             the consulting meteorologist.
      11                     He testified in March but we did
      12             not have his summary at the time, but he
      13             did testify and was cross-examined.
      14                     I also have --
      15                     MR. KELSEN:  Mr. Chairman, let me
      16             object at this point.  If he testified and
      17             we cross-examined him, it's not appropriate
      18             now to put in a summary of his testimony
      19             because we have it in the record.  I have
      20             not had a chance to read this and then
      21             compare it to the notes of testimony.  If
      22             it is different, we won't have a chance to
      23             cross-examine him again.
      24                     I would say that his record speaks
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1             for itself, so I would like to have this
       2             excluded from the record.
       3                     THE CHAIRMAN:  It does.  Sir, we're
       4             going to conclude this.  We're going to
       5             make a decision within a week.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Chairman, note,
       7             again, my exception to that procedure.
       8                     THE CHAIRMAN:  So noted.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  With respect to this
      10             record, many of the applicant's witnesses
      11             have submitted documents and documentation
      12             and summaries and records which are part of
      13             the record.  There is no reason why we
      14             cannot be afforded the same privilege and
      15             play on the same playing field that they
      16             did.
      17                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Sir, you've had
      18             hours of opportunity to cross-examine them,
      19             which you did.  Your witness came in here,
      20             testified on the record and opposing
      21             counsel cross-examined him.  The record is
      22             the record.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  But they also
      24             submitted documentation as well.  That's
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1             the only reason why we have two different
       2             sets of ground rules.  Are we going to
       3             exclude all of the documents and records
       4             that the applicant's witnesses, who also
       5             were examined and cross-examined, have
       6             submitted?
       7                     MR. KELSEN:  Mr. Chairman, let me,
       8             for the record, make it clear that all of
       9             the applicant's case was presented and any
      10             documentation that was entered was given to
      11             counsel and was provided at the hearing on
      12             the subject of cross-examination.  We did
      13             not provide documentary evidence apart from
      14             the cross-examination process.
      15                     THE CHAIRMAN:  And I agree.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Again, note my
      17             exception.  You did receive documents at
      18             the time of the testimony.  At the time
      19             that the testimony was given there were
      20             documents that were submitted in.
      21                     All right, I will move on and call
      22             our first witnesses, Mr. Geoffrey Goll and
      23             Mr. Joseph Skupien.
      24                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Goll and Mr.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
       1             Skupien, would you please come forward.
       2             Please put your name and addresses on the
       3             record.
       4                     MR. SKUPIEN:  First name is Joseph,
       5             middle initial J., last name Skupien,
       6             S-k-u-p-i-e-n.  My address is 141 Mountain
       7             Road.  That's in Ringos, New Jersey.
       8                     MR. GOLL:  My name is Geoffrey,
       9             G-e-o-f-f-r-e-y, middle initial M, last
      10             name Goll, G-o-l-l.  My address is 56
      11             Mulbery, M-u-l-b-e-r-y Court, Hamilton, New
      12             Jersey  08619.
      13                     THE CHAIRMAN:  This is two of six
      14             or one?
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I intend there to be
      16             two.  Primarily the witness will be
      17             Mr. Skupien, but they are both experts in
      18             hydraulics and river flowing, and in case
      19             there is something that comes up that
      20             Mr. Skupien cannot handle, then Mr. Goll
      21             would be able to provide the answers.
      22                     Mr. Skupien, first, would you
      23             state, sir, what your profession is and
      24             your background?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. SKUPIEN:  I'm a licensed
       2             professional engineer and planner in the
       3             State of New Jersey.  I'm also a senior
       4             principal hydraulic engineer for Somerset
       5             County, New Jersey.  I also have my own
       6             consulting firm specializing in storm water
       7             and flood plain management issues.
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Do you have a
       9             Curriculum Vitae?
      10                     MR. SKUPIEN:  Yes.
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  May I have a copy of
      12             it?
      13                     MR. SKUPIEN:  It is in our copy of
      14             our report.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.  Then, do
      16             we have the reports?  I'd like to hand them
      17             up now so that counsel and the Zoning Board
      18             can have those.  The original is on top in
      19             blue.  All right.  One for Mr. Kelsen and
      20             one for Mr. Sklaroff.
      21                     Okay.  Off the record.
      22                     (Discussion off the record.)
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Goll, what is
      24             your professional background and your
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             position with your company?
       2                     MR. GOLL:  I am the Vice-president
       3             of Princeton Hydro.  I'm a civil engineer.
       4             I'm licensed in the State of New Jersey and
       5             the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania.  I am
       6             principally in charge of hydrology at my
       7             firm.  I also specialize in geotechnology.
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Skupien, what
       9             education have you had in the area of
      10             hydrology?
      11                     MR. SKUPIEN:  I have a Bachelor's
      12             Degree in civil engineering from Rutgers
      13             University back in 1973.
      14                     MR. KRAKOWER:  And have you done
      15             any particular work in the area of river
      16             hydrology?
      17                     MR. SKUPIEN:  Fortunately, it is
      18             unusual, perhaps, for my profession, but
      19             I've worked exclusively since '73 since
      20             graduation in storm water and flood plain
      21             management.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  And Mr. Goll, do you
      23             have any expertise in hydrology and river
      24             hydrology?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. GOLL:  Yes, I do.  I serve on
       2             various planning boards for municipalities
       3             and review their storm water applications.
       4             Specifically, I work for Princeton
       5             Township, Montgomery Township, Wayne
       6             Township, Tinicum Township, Bucks County
       7             and several other municipalities.
       8                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Counsel, how
       9             familiar are they with the Schuylkill
      10             River?
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  At my request, have
      12             you examined the site and examined
      13             documentation of the hydrology of the
      14             Schuylkill River?
      15                     THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  And have you
      17             examined the documentation submitted by
      18             Professor Richard Waggle with regard to the
      19             particular application that's pending
      20             before this Board?
      21                     THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  And is your report
      23             that you just handed up deal with that
      24             particular application and with the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             documentation involved in that report?
       2                     THE WITNESS:  The report addresses
       3             both of the two developments proposed for
       4             Venice Island, and one of the specific
       5             things we look at is Dr. Waggle's analysis.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  In looking at that
       7             analysis, did you reach any reasons or
       8             conclusions that differed from those of
       9             Dr. Waggle?
      10                     THE WITNESS:  Our analysis was
      11             hampered a bit.  We were unable to obtain
      12             an actual copy of Dr. Waggle's input model
      13             date.  We could not examine it for its
      14             accuracy and its veracity.  It's based upon
      15             the core of engineers and models of the
      16             Schuylkill that was done in '93 for the '96
      17             flood insurance thing.
      18                     We were able to get a copy of that
      19             and we were able to utilize that model.
      20             So, the questions we have -- the points we
      21             have about Dr. Waggle's model are more
      22             questions than comments simply because we
      23             didn't have the data, and I recommend them
      24             for the Board for their consideration.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     The model establishes -- the poor
       2             model is purported to establish existing
       3             conditions on the river.  What Dr. Waggle
       4             has done before adding the new development,
       5             is added the existing buildings.  That kind
       6             of challenges the veracity of the core
       7             model we did not see addressed in.
       8                     The second point, and I'm
       9             hurrying.  I don't want to exceed the time
      10             limit.  It appears that the new apartments,
      11             and I think everyone can be familiar with
      12             what I'm speaking about, were modeled as
      13             individual piers and to meet a strict
      14             definition of FEMA regulations regarding
      15             flood plain development.
      16                     My concern, though, having
      17             experienced and modeled many, many real
      18             flood events, including Floyd, is that we
      19             expect the piers to be clogged with both
      20             debris and whatever cars may be left on the
      21             island, and will really act as solid
      22             barriers.  We think that we're accurately
      23             analyzing the impacts of the new
      24             development would be to model those piers
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             as a solid mass, you know, to reflect the
       2             probability of debris flow.
       3                     And then the third thing is the
       4             model, again, it was developed to address
       5             the Federal guideline about hundred year
       6             impacts in the floodway, but we're also
       7             concerned about flooding on some more
       8             frequent smaller floods, which were not
       9             analyzed.
      10                     We know that there was flooding
      11             from Floyd upstream.  That was about a
      12             25-year event.  But there's been no
      13             analysis done to see what the developments
      14             would do to that level of flooding.
      15                     Again, it doesn't meet the strict
      16             requirement of the FEMA requirement
      17             regarding hundred year impacts in the
      18             floodway, but we think that these are
      19             issues that should be addressed by, should
      20             be a concern to the City to make sure that
      21             we're not causing, not only a new flood
      22             problem, like constructing on the island,
      23             but either creating new or aggravating
      24             existing flooding problems along the river
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             for the more frequent flood events.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Do you believe as a
       3             practical matter that the assumptions made
       4             by Dr. Waggle with respect to the piers or
       5             the columns on which the elevator
       6             departments will stand and with respect to
       7             the parked cars down on the lower level,
       8             that they are practical in the sense of
       9             what can and should be expected to happen
      10             in the event of future flooding.
      11                     THE WITNESS:  Yeah.  I would say
      12             that more than likely we're going to have
      13             some debris clog.  I think everyone
      14             experienced that.  The public works crew
      15             could probably tell you about the debris
      16             that had to come off the bridge piers and
      17             other items in the flood plain.
      18                     And I think as a practical matter,
      19             if the concern is are we going to increase
      20             flooding because of this development at
      21             places other than this development, then
      22             the pier should be looked at as a practical
      23             way and also looked at more frequent or
      24             different floods, not just a specific
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             hundred year that FEMA requested.
       2                     THE CHAIRMAN:  And you're saying
       3             that because of cars and debris that
       4             Manayunk flooded?
       5                     THE WITNESS:  No, sir, not at all.
       6             What I'm saying is that what Dr. Waggle
       7             modeled in his computer, he modeled the
       8             impact of the piers that would support the
       9             buildings.  The building would be up above
      10             the hundred year flood plain, but in order
      11             to do that we need to have piers, columns
      12             that would hold the building up.  Very
      13             similar to what you have along the river.
      14             And he modeled the piers as individual so
      15             many foot diameter obstructions.
      16                     But we know from real flood events,
      17             and just if you observe the river during
      18             that flood event, the amount of debris that
      19             was floating down the river, and simply the
      20             amount of debris that had to be cleaned off
      21             of bridge abutments and bridge railings and
      22             sidewalks.
      23                     It would be a more prudent
      24             assumption.  The concern is are we going to
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             make flooding worse.  The more prudent
       2             assumption would be that those piers not be
       3             individual obstructions which would
       4             minimize their impact, but as a solid
       5             obstruction which, what is appearing to be
       6             debris?  Based upon the spacing I've seen,
       7             the spacing indeed holds up --
       8                     THE CHAIRMAN:  What was that
       9             spacing?
      10                     THE WITNESS:  I don't know.
      11                     THE CHAIRMAN:  But you are
      12             testifying you --
      13                     THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir, I do.
      14                     THE CHAIRMAN:  But you're
      15             testifying --
      16                     THE WITNESS:  What I'm saying is I
      17             can't tell you --
      18                     THE CHAIRMAN:  You want to make it
      19             solid, but yet you don't know the opening?
      20                     THE WITNESS:  I cannot tell you the
      21             exact spacing of the piers on the plan.  I
      22             couldn't tell you to a per foot.  But to
      23             support a building of the size that you're
      24             proposing, the piers would be certainly
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             close enough for trees and other debris to
       2             lodge on.
       3                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Would a car have to
       4             be coming forward to jam or would it be
       5             wide enough that the car would get through,
       6             but sideways it wouldn't?
       7                     THE WITNESS:  That's an excellent
       8             question.
       9                     THE CHAIRMAN:  I know it sounds
      10             like we're nitpicking --
      11                     THE WITNESS:  Not at all.
      12                     Again, the piers are not a single
      13             row of piers that you would face -- that
      14             the water would face.  It's a matrix of
      15             piers, one at every third chair throughout
      16             the room.  So, it is not like there would
      17             be four, one at each corner or simply a row
      18             on the front of the building.  But there
      19             would be a series of piers all throughout
      20             underneath all of the buildings, so it
      21             wouldn't be just one single pier that could
      22             collect debris.  And if a car is under the
      23             building, most likely it would be upstream
      24             with at least one set of those piers.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     And, again, the question is if
       2             there is a concern about increasing
       3             flooding elsewhere, we feel that that's a
       4             more prudent way to model the impacts of
       5             these buildings during a real flood event.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Skupien, in
       7             addition to the modeling as a solid, solid
       8             piece -- instead of simply as piers, is
       9             there anything else about the piers and
      10             inspection and the safety that's required
      11             of those piers that has not been apparently
      12             addressed by Dr. Waggle which you believe
      13             is important in terms of rescue time, in
      14             terms of warning time, and other factors?
      15                     MR. SKUPIEN:  And, again, I
      16             understand Dr. Waggle's analysis was done
      17             to show compliance with a fairly strict and
      18             well defined Federal regulation.  But we're
      19             looking also in trying to get away a little
      20             bit from the technical, and we run a
      21             technical analysis to do this.  What was
      22             the real impact of a flood on the island?
      23                     What we've looked at is that the
      24             U.S. Army Core of Engineer model that
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             Dr. Waggle based his on, to try to find out
       2             a few things.  One is how frequently might
       3             flooding occur on the island, and what we
       4             find out, and it's difficult to say exactly
       5             what the number is because the ground
       6             surface varies, but we can safely estimate
       7             that between a five- and a ten-year flood
       8             event will begin flooding on the island.
       9             And what that means in probability, these
      10             are random events.  We may get one every
      11             three years and nothing for the next 20.
      12             But on average, for instance, over a
      13             50-year period, you'd expect five or six
      14             flood events.  Over a hundred year period,
      15             we would expect about ten to 12 flooding
      16             events.
      17                     A better way to put that is perhaps
      18             every given year, a hundred year flood has
      19             a one percent chance of occurring, but the
      20             flood that we feel will begin flooding or
      21             cause flooding on the island has about a 15
      22             percent chance every year that you are on
      23             the island.  You're going to face that
      24             probability of a flood occurring.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     The problem is that once the flood
       2             does occur, what we try to do is figure out
       3             what that would look like.  Every flood is
       4             unique.  We took a look at the Floyd
       5             flood.  We got the U.S. Geological survey
       6             data on the river for the gauge in
       7             Philadelphia, which is downstream of the
       8             Wissahickon Creek.  When you have a full
       9             hydrograft flow record of that event, but
      10             also got the hydrograft for the Wissahickon
      11             right at its mouth, right where it joins
      12             the Schuylkill.  So, it wouldn't be too
      13             hard to recreate the hydrograft and flow
      14             rates that occurred at different times.
      15                     We found out some very disturbing
      16             things.  One was to produce that five- or
      17             ten-year flood event, approximately a
      18             seven- or eight-year event, we would need
      19             about 55,000 CFS flowing down the river
      20             CFS.  CFS is just cubic feet per second,
      21             just a measure of the amount water.
      22                     But we found from the hydrographs
      23             from the U.S. geological survey was that
      24             that flow rate occurred between 3:00 and
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             4:00 in the afternoon.  What had us
       2             concerned is that the first official flood
       3             warning of flooding on the Schuylkill in
       4             Philadelphia was issued by the Weather
       5             Service at 3:54 p.m., and we have copies of
       6             all the flood warnings that were issued by
       7             the Weather Service.  They are the official
       8             and only agency that's allowed to issue
       9             such a document.
      10                     So, what we're saying is that what
      11             we're finding from our analysis is that at
      12             the time when flooding would just start to
      13             begin on the island, was the time that the
      14             first flood warning was issued by the
      15             Weather Service.  Now, there were other
      16             bulletins issued earlier in the week,
      17             Tuesday and Wednesday mornings, talking
      18             about the possibility of heavy rain and
      19             high winds, and one even talked about Floyd
      20             moving into Central Pennsylvania.
      21                     The first official -- and advising
      22             people to stay tuned.  We may have more
      23             information for you.  But the first one
      24             didn't go out until just before 4:00 p.m.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             on Thursday, and that's just about from our
       2             estimates using the core model and the GS
       3             data was about when flooding would start to
       4             begin on the island, and a few other things
       5             is that the river did not crest on the
       6             island until one o'clock in the morning.
       7                     It rose about a foot an hour from
       8             my analysis, and I had seen videotapes that
       9             indicate further down it breathed even
      10             faster, but I'll stick with my analysis.
      11             It rose about a foot an hour.  And the
      12             worst happened at about one o'clock in the
      13             morning, and then it receded most likely by
      14             daybreak.  It was down below the flood
      15             stage.  But what concerned us was the
      16             majority of time that the island was
      17             flooded, it was dark.  So, not only do we
      18             have flood conditions, it was dark.
      19                     As you know, and everyone was fully
      20             aware, we were in a floodway, which is the
      21             high velocity zone of the stream.  From the
      22             Core's model and Dr. Waggle's model we're
      23             seeing velocity of about 8 to 10 feet per
      24             second, and that's somewhere between five
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             and seven miles an hour.  That may not
       2             sound like much, but if a tennis ball hits
       3             you, or if a fully loaded garbage truck or
       4             freight train is coming at you at five
       5             miles an hour, you are not going to be able
       6             to resist it.  And at eight feet per
       7             second, we are very concerned.  In fact, I
       8             think, personally, it would be impossible
       9             to get rescue boats with a river moving
      10             that fast. You wouldn't be able to hold
      11             steady --
      12                     MR. KRAKOWER:   If you had to
      13             rescue people, how would you have to do
      14             it?
      15                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.  Is he
      16             testifying as a rescue expert?
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  He can testify with
      18             regard to his opinion --
      19                     MR. KELSEN:  I'm going to continue
      20             my objection.
      21                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Objection so noted.
      22                     MR. SKUPIEN:  The last thing is
      23             Floyd, from the gauge in Philadelphia,
      24             shows that it was approximately a 25-year
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             flood event.  So, again, it was not even
       2             the only event that Dr. Waggle addressed.
       3             It was about a 25-year event, midway
       4             between this threshold flood event, I'm
       5             speaking of, and the hundred year that was
       6             used to meet the regulation.
       7                     The last concern then is as the
       8             river rose again and people were able to
       9             get off, after the flood is over, we would
      10             expect that would have taken about a day
      11             for the waters to recede enough for the
      12             island to dry.  You must remember that you
      13             can't immediately go back and reoccupy.
      14                     First of all, the piers have been
      15             subjected most likely to debris.  That
      16             would increase the hydrostatic pressure on
      17             the piers and also dynamic floating, being
      18             struck by items floating in the river.  I
      19             know from photographs I've seen about the
      20             trailer trucks were literally floating away
      21             from the factory during Floyd.
      22                     So, we're going to have the impacts
      23             of those piers.  I can't tell you what they
      24             are.  The main point is that the piers
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             would have to be inspected prior to it
       2             readmitting any of the residents.  And then
       3             with the high velocities, and particularly
       4             with the debris build up, we're going to
       5             get even higher velocities.  There's a real
       6             distinct possibility of scour along the
       7             base of the piers, very similar to what we
       8             have in bridges, and, again, the
       9             foundations would have to be inspected and
      10             someone would need to certify that the
      11             piers were structurally sound, the
      12             foundation was structurally sound before
      13             you readmit.
      14                     I think that in a time limit,
      15             that's -- that gives you a good thumb nail.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  In examining the
      17             documentation also, do you have an idea or
      18             can you tell from the waters that you saw,
      19             how much time it would take before the
      20             persons could safely return?  Would it be
      21             something like an hour or something like
      22             that or could there be a longer period of
      23             time before people would be able to return
      24             to their apartments?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. SKUPIEN:  Yeah.  Again, that's
       2             going to depend on a number of factors, but
       3             I cannot give you an exact time.  It would
       4             not be as if, let's say you're driving on
       5             one of the City streets and a thunder storm
       6             causes the storm sewer to backup about a
       7             foot or water in the low portion of the
       8             road and we just wait until the water goes
       9             down and the police open the roadway up.
      10                     This would be a major flood event
      11             where we need to go -- someone would need
      12             to be responsible for reentering the
      13             island, and, first of all, making sure that
      14             the bridges that allow you entry to the
      15             island are sound and have not been damaged
      16             or displaced.  And then doing the
      17             inspection and certifying.  It would depend
      18             upon the extent of the damage as to
      19             actually how long, but it certainly would
      20             not be hours, I would not expect, in order
      21             to insure a thorough job that you can
      22             standby and insure nothing would go wrong.
      23                     THE CHAIRMAN:  During Floyd, was
      24             there any permanent damage done or any
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             inspectors went in and inspected after that
       2             before Manayunk opened up or Main Street
       3             opened up?
       4                     MR. SKUPIEN:  There was nothing
       5             built -- the houses weren't built on Venice
       6             Island at that time.
       7                     THE CHAIRMAN:  I'm just saying --
       8                     THE WITNESS:  I understand you have
       9             a recreation center because I walked by on
      10             the island, and I know that was impacted by
      11             Floyd.  And, again, flood waters --
      12                     THE CHAIRMAN:  How was it
      13             impacted?
      14                     THE WITNESS:  Well, again, flood
      15             waters are certainly not the cleanest
      16             waters, particularly the cells carrying all
      17             the sediment.  Sanitary sewers are very
      18             well known to backup and overflow during a
      19             flood event, and then toxic or hazardous
      20             materials that may be in factories, either
      21             on the island or anywhere and storm water
      22             permits because of the unsanitary or
      23             possible toxic conditions, so the sediment
      24             that's left behind would have to be cleaned
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             off and also examined to make sure that
       2             there were no hazardous or unsanitary
       3             materials.
       4                     We're experiencing now in New
       5             Jersey with Floyd flood damage inside of
       6             walls with mold, simply because of the
       7             dampness that's now starting to cause a
       8             health hazard to the people that are
       9             working and living there.  So, the flood
      10             impacts can't simply be put into a Federal
      11             regulation, all of them.
      12                     And, again, we tried not to simply
      13             look at the hypothetical floods, which you
      14             must, that gives us a picture of the future
      15             and it complies with the regulations.  But
      16             we try to go back and look at the real
      17             thing to see what really would have
      18             happened there under a real flood events as
      19             opposed to arguing the hundred year peak
      20             rates for 25.
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  When you did your
      22             report on the island, did you take any
      23             samples --
      24                     THE WITNESS:  No, no.  I'm simply
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             trying to point out that it is simply not a
       2             matter of waiting for the water to go down
       3             before reentering the island.  There are
       4             some things that are needed to be done.
       5             And, in my opinion, it is not a matter of
       6             is this going to flood or not.  It will
       7             flood again, particularly within a fifth
       8             year -- with a seven or eight year capacity
       9             level, unless we have a radical climate
      10             change and all the flow records and all the
      11             historic data we have about the Schuylkill,
      12             somehow radically changed by some
      13             calaminous change in the climate, the
      14             island will flood again.
      15                     So, we just wanted to point out
      16             what that meant, not in terms of modeling
      17             terms of Federal regulations, but since
      18             this is a city interest, what it meant to
      19             the people in the government.
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Excuse me.  To cut
      21             to the chase, which is why we are trying to
      22             keep this thing going, you are standing
      23             here, you are very good and you are
      24             painting a great picture, but it's kind of
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             like running with scissors.  And people run
       2             with scissors all the time, and yet we all
       3             know the danger of running with scissors,
       4             so how dangerous are we?  You know we're
       5             under oath.  What happened previously for
       6             hundred years?  Was there ever a disease --
       7                     THE WITNESS:  That's an excellent
       8             question.  And I think it involves -- and
       9             I'll bring some of my planning credentials
      10             in here and also my experience with the
      11             flood events, and that is we do not have --
      12             we will no longer have, let's say, an
      13             industrial use or commercial use.
      14                     Where you have a single owner, and
      15             most likely from the scope of the buildings
      16             that were there, intime maintenance and
      17             operation staff that can monitor weather
      18             reports, supervise the ground and basically
      19             order employees out.  There's a management
      20             structure and a communication structure and
      21             an organization structure that can keep an
      22             eye out for floods, and then organize some
      23             kind of response in safety efforts and then
      24             evacuation and response efforts.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     Here we're dealing with residents,
       2             which will not be as organized.  It's not a
       3             matter of don't show up at work today
       4             because the foreman called and we're closed
       5             because of the flood.  The flood warning
       6             may be issued at two o'clock in the morning
       7             on a morning in January when it's snowing
       8             out and you are asleep.  The only way you
       9             will know that the warning is issued is
      10             that, well, it happened to come over the
      11             weather radio or weather channel, but you
      12             are asleep and you don't even know that.
      13                     So, the character that changes use
      14             or the character of the island is what has
      15             us concerned as well, that you don't have
      16             an organized and disciplined and
      17             inhabitance, workers there that have some
      18             type of communication and management
      19             infastructure in place.  We have simply
      20             residents living on an island.
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  You're increasing
      22             the exposure?
      23                     THE WITNESS:  It certainly is a
      24             different exposure that has us very
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             concerned.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.  Just one
       3             other thing I want to ask.  I have some
       4             photographs which have been marked P-1.
       5                     MS. JAFFE:  What is the number on
       6             the first submission?
       7                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Let's mark these
       8             P-1.  Today is 6/12.
       9                     MS. JAFFE:  Which ones?
      10                     MR. KRAKOWER:  The ones I'm going
      11             to hand up now.  I don't have those numbers
      12             from the last group.
      13                     MS. JAFFE:  When you just handed up
      14             today?  That should be P-1.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  The report was P-1.
      16             This should be P-2.
      17                     (Photographs marked for
      18             identification as Exhibit Number P-2.)
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  These are marked
      20             P-2, and I would ask you if you can look at
      21             these and tell me if they accurately
      22             reflect, from your experience, the kinds of
      23             debris that come down a river in a case of
      24             flood, and I'm going to particularly ask
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             you to look at the second page.
       2                     If the members of the Board have
       3             any of these?
       4                     MR. CHAIRMAN:  We have them.
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  If you look at the
       6             second page dated January 2, 2000, a
       7             picture taken from an angle of a large tree
       8             wedged underneath the East Falls Bridge.
       9             Do you see that?
      10                     THE WITNESS:  Yes.
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Now, and also in
      12             some of the other pictures, the rest of
      13             P-2.
      14                     THE WITNESS:  The picture on Page 2
      15             is very remarkable that it managed to wedge
      16             itself exactly between to piers.
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  And also on
      18             Page 1 --
      19                     THE WITNESS:  Yeah, that's what
      20             we're speaking of.  These piers are tens of
      21             feet apart, which would allow most of the
      22             debris to pass through them.  Piers that
      23             would be under the building would be much
      24             closer.  And more likely what you see on
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             Page 1 are individual piers that are
       2             collecting individual amounts of debris.
       3                     That would be -- that would be
       4             what's most likely to happen, and debris is
       5             very cumulative.  Once one large piece gets
       6             caught then smaller pieces that would have
       7             made it out can't and they begin to pile up
       8             as well, and the likelihood of debris
       9             accumulation increases as it accumulates.
      10                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Would you look at
      11             the last page.  There's a picture of an
      12             automobile.  Would a flood of the 25-year
      13             category be able to push an automobile
      14             under the water and down the river such as
      15             this indicates?
      16                     THE WITNESS:  Again, depending upon
      17             exactly where on the island, but I've seen
      18             high watermarks at the site of the 4601
      19             Flat Rock Road site, which indicates from
      20             Floyd about five or six feet of water, and
      21             particularly the velocity of the poor
      22             modeling and Dr. Waggle's modeling.  That's
      23             certainly enough to move in that
      24             situation.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     If I can add just one more point, I
       2             know we're running out of time.  In
       3             reviewing the City's own flood plan
       4             regulations, carrying them to the Federal
       5             criteria, Federal regulation, if Dr. Waggle
       6             had to address, I was hard to see in it
       7             your rule and regulations where it said
       8             that it recognized the severe nature of a
       9             floodway, the critical nature of keeping
      10             the development additament, because it says
      11             right in the City's own regulation not
      12             simply that, well, can you build in a
      13             floodway, that high velocity zone, you can
      14             build if you can show no increase, which is
      15             what the Federal requirements say.
      16                     What the City's regulation reads,
      17             as I read it, was that in a floodway, no
      18             development is permitted.  There was an
      19             exception given to utilities, if they can
      20             beat the no increase, because if we can
      21             armor or protect the utility good enough,
      22             you can hopefully prevent it from being
      23             damaged.  But it says any other kind of
      24             development or obstruction is simply
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             prohibited.  And I was hardened to see that
       2             because there is much more at risk or at
       3             stake here with development of floodway
       4             other than simply raising the water
       5             levels --
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Excuse me.  Could
       7             you just briefly give us your professional
       8             definition of the difference between a
       9             floodway and a flood plain or a flood plain
      10             bridge?
      11                     THE WITNESS:  You know, it's very
      12             similar -- FEMA calls it a floodway or a
      13             flood bridge.  The City calls it a floodway
      14             or a floodway bridge, and they're talking
      15             about the same two basic zones of a river's
      16             flood plain.  The flood plain is the entire
      17             area that would be flooded by water up to a
      18             certain level.  And the floodway is the --
      19             let's call it the center portion of that
      20             flood plain.
      21                     That identifies that there are
      22             fringe areas of the flood plain that aren't
      23             really carrying water.  They're wet.
      24             They're below the high water level, but
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             they're out on the fringes of the
       2             velocity.  They're slowing.  They're not
       3             really that vital to for carrying water.
       4             If you are standing there, you'll be
       5             flooded, but the velocities will not be
       6             high. The floodway is mathematically
       7             determined with computer models to be that
       8             portion of the flood plain that's vital for
       9             carrying the flow down.
      10                     Literally what we do is we squeeze
      11             mathematically.  We narrow the flood plain
      12             until the river starts to rise, and we say,
      13             all right, stop.  That zone, the higher
      14             velocity zone that's moving water
      15             downstream, that's the floodway, and that's
      16             a much more critical zone to be in.  It's
      17             much more dangerous.  It's closer or in the
      18             channels so it's deeper, much higher
      19             velocity.
      20                     It's very similar to -- on
      21             Interstate 95, the shoulders of the road
      22             are important for carrying traffic through
      23             the City, but if there happens to be
      24             something happening on the shoulder, then
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             we can close the shoulder for this
       2             morning's rush hour and we'll be okay.  But
       3             the lanes on the highway, that's the
       4             floodway.  If we close the lane, we go over
       5             a flood -- that's a simple distinction
       6             between floodway and flood plain, and
       7             that's why the City's own requirement says
       8             that.  In the fringe, just the --
       9                     THE CHAIRMAN:  The witness has had
      10             a half hour of time.
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I think this is an
      12             important witness, Mr. Chariman.
      13                     THE CHAIRMAN:  We know the
      14             difference between a floodway and flood
      15             plain --
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Are you -- is there
      17             any other area of the Schuylkill River in
      18             the City of Philadelphia that you're
      19             familiar with which has a floodway on which
      20             properties would be erected and which
      21             buildings would be erected?
      22                     THE WITNESS:  If you don't mind,
      23             sir, what I'll do is is I'll turn that
      24             around:  The floodway, right at Venice
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             Island, right through the Manayunk area is
       2             a special type of floodway from what we are
       3             normally used to seeing on many rivers
       4             where the flood plain is very wide and
       5             broad and flat, and the floodway of that
       6             flood plain may occupy the center 25 or 30
       7             percent.
       8                     At the Manayunk neighborhood, right
       9             at Venice Island, we have a very narrow
      10             flood plain.  It's very, very high bend
      11             slopes, behind that.  So, the floodway and
      12             the flood plain are virtually the same.
      13             Because there isn't -- there is not much of
      14             a low velocity zoning there.  Simply
      15             because we're trying to take water from the
      16             broader -- wider flood plains, and we have
      17             to take that same flow rate through a
      18             narrower, smaller area, the water simply
      19             has to go faster.  So, literally the entire
      20             flood plain at that location is the
      21             floodway.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Is there anything
      23             unique about the twisting or curvature or
      24             shape of the Schuylkill River at that
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             location that makes it particularly
       2             dangerous as far as the floodway is
       3             concerned?
       4                     THE WITNESS:  You can always
       5             characterize a bend as being more
       6             dangerous, but I think it's primarily just
       7             the overall geological characteristics of
       8             that valley and the velocities that the
       9             water would have to travel in order to move
      10             that amount through.
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'll ask you one
      12             last question:  From all that you know in
      13             your training and what you've examined, do
      14             you believe that while -- if you concede
      15             that Dr. Waggle's report and opinion
      16             technically satisfy the mathematics of
      17             FEMA's requirement, do you believe that as
      18             a practical matter, they are sound and wise
      19             and something that you would rely on with
      20             regard to whether there will be any
      21             flooding or raising of the river?
      22                     THE WITNESS:  Considering the first
      23             point, that's difficult because I haven't
      24             had the actual input and data -- I see the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             contact numbers.  I cannot comment on
       2             technical aspects.
       3                     But on the presumption that it is,
       4             again, yes.  Flood plain flooding in the
       5             United States is a very, very severe
       6             problem.  That's where the river flood
       7             insurance program came from.  And Federal
       8             government and state governments are
       9             spending millions of dollars in not trying
      10             to lower flood waters, but to move people
      11             out of the flood plains through buyouts.
      12                     New Jersey right now roughly has
      13             had to spend $16 million to move people out
      14             of the river flood plain from the damage
      15             due to Floyd.  It's FEMA's primary concern
      16             to take existing development, get it out of
      17             flood plains.  So that just in that context
      18             building new housing, particularly housing,
      19             not commercial or industrial in a flood
      20             plain, and not only just a flood plain, but
      21             in a floodway, yes, I don't think this is
      22             sound -- sound planning or sound flood
      23             planning management.
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. KELSEN:  Mr. Skupien, is it
       2             fair to say that you have not had a chance
       3             to review Dr. Waggle's full technical data
       4             in making your assumptions?
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I object to the form
       6             of that question.
       7                     THE CHAIRMAN:  So noted.  Answer
       8             the question.
       9                     MR. SKUPIEN:  Yes, sir.  I've seen
      10             all of the output that's been submitted to
      11             all of the agencies and the plots and the
      12             diagrams, and I've seen his summaries and
      13             conclusions in his report.  The only thing
      14             that I have not been able to get a hold of
      15             is, and that is the actual input, every
      16             input number that went into the model.  And
      17             Dr. Waggle took the existing core model,
      18             the official FEMA delineation model and
      19             converted it over.
      20                     MR. KELSEN:  Are you suggesting
      21             that Dr. Waggle's information is not
      22             correct?
      23                     THE WITNESS:  No, sir.  I'm saying
      24             I have not had the opportunity to make that
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             determination.
       2                     MR. KELSEN:  So, your testimony
       3             today is based on some speculation as that
       4             what could happen in a flood situation
       5             based on prior events?
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.  That's
       7             not what his testimony is.
       8                     MR. GOLL:  Our testimony is --
       9                     MR. KELSEN:  Excuse me, sir.  This
      10             is not a tag team match.
      11                     THE WITNESS:  What I've tried to do
      12             is take the exact same core of engineers
      13             model that Dr. Waggle used as his basis for
      14             his study and what he simply did from his
      15             reports is add the existing and the
      16             proposed buildings to it, but he changed no
      17             other characteristic.
      18                     I'm taking that model data, plus
      19             the official flow record recorded by the
      20             U.S. geological survey during Floyd and the
      21             official National Weather Service that were
      22             issued during Floyd trying to recreate what
      23             happened and what would have happened on
      24             the island had -- well, what happened on
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             the island for real and what would have
       2             happened, how that would have impacted any
       3             residents that might have been there.
       4                     MR. KELSEN:  So, you are not
       5             testifying as to whether or not the
       6             calculations with regard to any increase of
       7             the floodway level would be made or not
       8             made as a result of these developments; is
       9             that correct?
      10                     THE WITNESS:  Right.  My suspicion
      11             is that the development is going to raise
      12             flood waters, but, again, without having
      13             the exact input data to compare with it, I
      14             can't confirm those suspicions.  That's why
      15             I've listed them as questions that should
      16             be raised at some point in the analysis.
      17                     MR. KELSEN:  You are aware that
      18             FEMA reviewed this extensively and asked
      19             for additional data and their conclusion is
      20             very clear that this would not raise the
      21             flood --
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm going to object
      23             to that conclusion.  I have a letter from
      24             FEMA.  We'll introduce that.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. KELSEN:  Do you have that
       2             letter, Mr. Skupien?
       3                     MR. SKUPIEN:  Yes, I have it right
       4             here.
       5     BY MR. KELSEN:
       6     Q.      And is it your testimony that the FEMA
       7     reviewers in finding that there will not be an
       8     increase in regulatory flood rate are incorrect?
       9     A.      No, sir.
      10     Q.      Let me ask you this:  You modeled this on a
      11     25-year flood level?
      12     A.      After reviewing the range of flood events
      13     from one thousand CFS flood, which I don't really
      14     have a frequency -- it's too often -- all the way
      15     up to the hundred year flood events, then taking
      16     that data and the flow records from the geological
      17     survey, recreating in the river the Floyd flood,
      18     yes, which was about a 25-year.
      19     Q.      Is a hundred year flood a more severe flood
      20     than a 25-year flood?
      21     A.      Severe in terms of depth and flow rate,
      22     certainly.
      23     Q.      And how is the FEMA model, on the basis of
      24     what scenario, a hundred or a 25-year flood?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     A.      Well, the flood insurance studies that FEMA
       2     does, and there is one for Philadelphia -- I have a
       3     copy of it here.  They actually model four flood
       4     events to try to give the communities that are in
       5     the insurance program some idea of the flood
       6     rates.  There was a ten year flood, which is less
       7     severe than the 25, more likely to occur.  The 50
       8     year, a hundred year and the 500 year, and that's
       9     to give the communities a picture of what those
      10     flood levels might be.  And then when they begin --
      11     when they start to apply the restrictions to
      12     development or require flood insurance, that's
      13     applied to the hundred year flood events only for
      14     flood insurance.
      15     Q.      And a hundred year flood is a more severe
      16     flood than a 25-year flood?
      17     A.      Yes.
      18     Q.      And Dr. Waggle made his calculations based
      19     on a hundred year flood?
      20     A.      Yeah.  Because he was trying to meet the
      21     FEMA regulations.
      22     Q.      Well, it seems to me that from an
      23     engineering standpoint that if you model a scenario
      24     based on a much more severe flood and you calculate
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     any increases and flow rates based on that,
       2     wouldn't you get a worse picture than if you
       3     modeled a 25-year flood?
       4     A.      Not necessarily.  Open channel flow -- I'm
       5     going to say water.  I'll restrict it to open
       6     channel flow is -- how do I say it?  I'm not a
       7     linear relationship between depth and flow.  Things
       8     can happen at one flow level or an impact can
       9     happen at one flow level that later on, because of
      10     the increase in water, increase in available flow
      11     area, the impact is not as severe.
      12                     So, no, the only way you can really
      13     determine if a certain activity won't cause
      14     problems for any flood is essentially not analyze
      15     every flood, analyze a range of them.  A typical
      16     analyses would include a two, a 10, a 25, a 50, a
      17     hundred and then you can interpolate in between
      18     those.  But to simply take a large flood event and
      19     say that would address all impact is not really
      20     correct.
      21     Q.      Is it your testimony that the engineering
      22     analysis that went into Dr. Waggle's study to show
      23     that there would be no regulatory increase may not
      24     be correct as it turns out for 25-year flood?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     A.      Yes, it may not be.  Well, again, I don't
       2     know of a FEMA regulation regarding impacts to a
       3     25, but let's say I'm not sure that with
       4     Dr. Waggle's analysis that we would not see an
       5     increase in a 25-year flood.
       6     Q.      And that would be 25-year increase of
       7     flooding on a 25-year basis on this site that we're
       8     talking about today, Venice Island?
       9     A.      Yes, sir.
      10     Q.      Okay.  Have you looked at the plans of
      11     development for Venice Island as proposed by, on
      12     the Namico site?
      13     A.      Not all of the detailed plans that
      14     obviously are going to be used before the
      15     commissioner that build the site.  I have looked at
      16     the plans that were satisfactory from my analysis,
      17     where on the island and how big and where they
      18     relate to the different models.
      19     Q.      What plans did you look at -- with regards
      20     to the redevelopment of the Namico site, what plans
      21     did you look at?
      22     A.      Primarily the cross-sections in Dr.
      23     Waggle's report and planning, the plan used in his
      24     report that locate the different developments on
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     the island, and most specific or most particularly,
       2     locate the size of the buildings and the location
       3     of the buildings particularly relative to the
       4     cross-sections.
       5     Q.      Were you aware of the amount of obstruction
       6     that would be removed from the Namico site in
       7     forming your analysis?
       8     A.      Yes.  Having visited the island with the
       9     cross-section information in Dr. Waggle's report,
      10     you could see -- well, it was clear to see what was
      11     there now and how it would change.  And Dr. Waggle
      12     made a good -- made a good demonstration in his own
      13     model analysis by presenting those cross-sections
      14     from how that geometry would change.
      15     Q.      Is it your expert opinion that the removal
      16     of the obstructions on the Namico site would
      17     benefit the floodway situation?
      18     A.      Oh, certainly.  We can increase the flow
      19     area of the floodway will certainly make things
      20     better.  I mean, there are some anomalies sometimes
      21     in the computer alberisms that would show a slight
      22     change.  But that's mathematics.  That's not
      23     hydraulics.
      24     Q.      Did you factor in the spacing between the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     piers on the Namico development in making your
       2     determination?
       3     A.      Well, again, I did not model -- I did not
       4     model the new buildings that were being proposed in
       5     the core model.  And I'm simply pointing out that
       6     in Dr. Waggle's analysis of those buildings, he
       7     analyzed the piers as individual obstructions.  And
       8     I can get the spacing off the cross-section data.
       9     I'm saying that if you are interested in finding
      10     out exactly how much of an increase may occur, it
      11     would be more prudent to analyze those piers as a
      12     solid mass.
      13     Q.      But you didn't do that?
      14     A.      Well, again, I did not have his data in
      15     order to change it to see what it would be.
      16     Q.      So, there's no definitive statement that
      17     you can make as to whether or not they would create
      18     problems?
      19     A.      The definitive statement is that it would
      20     reduce the floodway area even more than they would
      21     as individual piers, and it may cause an increase
      22     and it should be investigated.
      23     Q.      Would it cause more of an increase if it
      24     was solid structure as exists now?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I object.  It's not
       2             a solid structure.
       3                     THE WITNESS:  There is no structure
       4             there now.  If there is an existing
       5             building there now, that the apartment is
       6             going to be replaced, obviously not.
       7     BY MR. KELSEN:
       8     Q.      Well, you looked at the site.  What did you
       9     see then?
      10     A.      Well, there are development -- the
      11     footprint of the new buildings and the footprint of
      12     the old buildings aren't exactly the same.  So,
      13     there are portions of the island that don't have
      14     buildings now that will.
      15     Q.      And there are portions of the island that
      16     do have buildings now that won't have buildings
      17     later; is that correct?
      18     A.      Yes.
      19     Q.      So, it's fair to say, basically, that you
      20     didn't really model what's existing now and what's
      21     proposed in terms of its impact on floodway; is
      22     that correct?
      23     A.      Yes, sir.
      24     Q.      Are you a structural engineer?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     A.      No, sir.
       2     Q.      So your testimony with regard to any
       3     potential damage to the pier structure, the
       4     foundations is really speculation; is that correct?
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.
       6                     THE WITNESS:  No, sir.  My
       7             testimony is is that someone will have to
       8             go out and conduct an inspection of the
       9             piers to make sure that they are not
      10             subject to damage.  I'm not saying that
      11             what would you find or how you would
      12             conduct that inspection and that is
      13             standard for the Public Works departments
      14             on any type of road or bridge or building
      15             that is inundated by flood waters before
      16             the road can be open.  Somerset County, New
      17             Jersey, before a road is open after a flood
      18             event, the engineer has to go out and
      19             inspect the bridge and make sure it's safe
      20             to go over.  That's my testimony.
      21     BY MR. KELSEN:
      22     Q.      So, you're basically saying that this is
      23     what happens in the past, but you have no idea as
      24     to the engineering impact that these piers could
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     withstand; is that correct?
       2     A.      Certainly I don't know how they're going to
       3     be.  I'm presuming they are going to be built, you
       4     know, strong to hold the building up.  What I'm
       5     getting at is there's a responsibility that someone
       6     is going to have to undertake to go out and inspect
       7     those piers following a flood to verify that the
       8     buildings are now safe and would allow people to
       9     reoccupy them.
      10     Q.      Do you have any reason to believe that
      11     someone wouldn't do that?
      12     A.      Oh, no, not at all.  Again, pointing out
      13     that that's going to be one of the impacts of the
      14     development to the City.
      15     Q.      Are you aware that as part of the approval
      16     of the Namico project there was, in fact, an
      17     evacuation plan?  Were you aware of that before you
      18     made you're analysis?
      19     A.      No, sir.  I would hope that there is,
      20     certainly.
      21     Q.      Are you aware that at the time of the rise
      22     of Floyd was 15 hours from the start to peak?
      23     A.      Yeah, if I took a look at the hydrographs
      24     here, I could probably come up with an estimate.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     I'm not sure of that number.
       2     Q.      Do you have any reason to believe that
       3     number is incorrect?
       4     A.      That sounds -- again, the majority of rain
       5     from Floyd basically fell -- the first rain shield
       6     moved in about midnight on Thursday.  But about 90
       7     percent of the total rain fell somewhere between
       8     6:00 in the morning and 6:00 in the evening, give
       9     or take a few hours.  And a river the size of the
      10     Schuylkill, it's about 1900 square miles.  That 15
      11     hour rise is a reasonable number.  That would sound
      12     like what the Schuylkill has done in the past.
      13     Q.      Is it your understanding as an expert in
      14     hydrology that rivers don't rise immediately; it
      15     takes them time to rise?
      16     A.      Certainly.  In fact, that was a problem
      17     back in New Jersey, in Bound Brook, if you saw the
      18     flooding in Bound Brook -- by the way, Floyd on the
      19     Schuylkill was about a 25-year flood event.  Our
      20     conversations with the core of engineers and the
      21     U.S. geological survey indicate that the Floyd
      22     flood on the river in Bound Brook was about a 500
      23     year event, and that was simply because there was
      24     more rain over there.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     Now, what happened in Bound Brook
       2     was, is that -- yeah, there is a lag because
       3     unfortunately in Bound Brook the rain was over by
       4     about six o'clock in the evening and people had
       5     been evacuated earlier that afternoon, saw the rain
       6     end.  And many of them were caught in the flooding
       7     because they looked up and saw the rain was ending
       8     and went back to their homes.  The flooding there
       9     hadn't even started yet.
      10                     So, yeah, there is definitely a
      11     lag, and that creates a lot of misunderstanding and
      12     communication problems during a flood.
      13     Q.      Who normally identifies to individuals that
      14     the river is in a floodway situation, in a flood
      15     situation?
      16     A.      The only agency that I know that has
      17     authorization to issue an official flood warning
      18     that uses that terminology would be the National
      19     Weather Service.
      20     Q.      And do they commonly issue warnings about
      21     floods?
      22     A.      Oh, yes.  And, in fact, like I said, in our
      23     report, we have copies of -- it's either four or
      24     five of them.  The four or five that were issued
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     during Floyd.
       2     Q.      You made a statement that you had concern
       3     that this property -- I'm only talking about the
       4     Namico property.  People would get notice that
       5     there would be nobody on site, that they would have
       6     to -- they could be asleep and they'd have to get
       7     radio information.  Do you have any idea how this
       8     property is going to be managed?
       9     A.      No, sir.
      10     Q.      Just speculation that this could happen?
      11     A.      Yeah.
      12     Q.      You're not aware that there could be
      13     anybody on site 24 hours a day giving information
      14     to the residents with regard to any flood
      15     situation, are you?
      16     A.      No, sir.  My concern also would be the
      17     residents that would not be home and wouldn't be
      18     able to --
      19     Q.      Well, if they're not home, sir, what's the
      20     problem?
      21     A.      Again, according to the --
      22     Q.      If their automobiles were left behind and
      23     they're out having dinner or somewhere visiting,
      24     they wouldn't be able to move personal property off
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     the island.  How about towing operations; can
       2     towing operations take cars off the island if
       3     people aren't there?
       4     A.      Given enough advanced warning, yes.
       5     Q.      Any reason to believe there wouldn't be
       6     enough advanced warning on a 25-year flood to take
       7     cars off?
       8     A.      Yes.  Again, from the U.S. G.S. hydrographs
       9     that were reported on the river and my analysis of
      10     them, it appears that the flooding -- that we
      11     reached a threshold level of flooding on Venice
      12     Island during Floyd at about the same hour that the
      13     first flood warning was issued by the weather
      14     service.
      15     Q.      How high was the water?
      16     A.      I would say over the top of the banks,
      17     upstream of the Cotton Street Landing project.  I
      18     can give you exact cross-section numbers.
      19     Q.      How about right where the Namico apartments
      20     are scheduled to be built?
      21     A.      I will profess some ignorance here.  I know
      22     the project names by their names.
      23     Q.      I'm talking about the soap factory?
      24     A.      That would be the 4601 Flat Rock Road.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     That was one of the cross-sections that we found on
       2     the island.  That wound there, 76046, I believe
       3     it's just upstream of where that -- where the soap
       4     factory is.  It was one of the first to have
       5     flooding occur.
       6     Q.      How long did it take for water to reach a
       7     one foot elevation at the area where the Namico
       8     building itself is?
       9     A.      My analysis from what I have available
      10     showed about one foot per hour.
      11     Q.      What I'm asking you is, how long did it
      12     take to reach that point on the building based on
      13     your model?
      14     A.      To rise to that one foot, about an hour.
      15     Q.      No.  Let me ask it again.
      16     A.      Oh, from the beginning of the flood of it?
      17     Q.      That's right.
      18     A.      Well, it would take, you know, once the
      19     rain began and once the stream would rise, if your
      20     15 hour estimate is proper, it would have taken 15
      21     plus one, let's say 16.
      22     Q.      The problem is that we don't know until it
      23     begins to flood whether it's going to flood?
      24     A.      There's a problem --
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. KELSEN:  I have nothing else.
       2                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, sir.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, let him finish
       4             his answer.
       5                     MR. SKUPIEN:  In Bound Brook, and
       6             I'm sure you all watched it on CNN, the
       7             flood stage on the Rariton River in Bound
       8             Brook is about 30 feet.  It's official
       9             stage is about 1,000 feet, but it takes
      10             about 30 feet to begin flooding in Bound
      11             Brook on Main Street.  And the original
      12             flood warnings that have been issued by the
      13             weather service was for about 30 feet, and
      14             that was issued early Thursday morning.
      15                     The final flood warning issued by
      16             the weather service was sometime about 12
      17             hours later, Thursday night at just below
      18             where it had crested, which was 42 feet.
      19             So, the weather service's first estimate of
      20             a flood warning height and ultimate flood
      21             height was 30 feet originally in Bound
      22             Brook, and it wound up 12 hours later being
      23             12 feet higher.
      24                     MR. KELSEN:  We're not talking
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             about Bound Brook.
       2                     MR. SKUPIEN:  So, it's not a
       3             precise science as far as issuing flood
       4             warnings.
       5                     MR. KELSEN:  I think it's very
       6             critical for this record that we talk about
       7             the Schuylkill River, which seems to be a
       8             very different river than the river in New
       9             Jersey that you are referring to.
      10                     How much time in your estimation
      11             would an individual residing within the
      12             Namico property have before the flood
      13             waters reached the elevation of one foot at
      14             the area where the apartment building is to
      15             be created?
      16                     THE WITNESS:  I cannot give you an
      17             exact answer to that simply because I don't
      18             have all the exact plans you have.  Show me
      19             the exact elevation.
      20                     But I would say if you were relying
      21             on past events during Floyd and the timing
      22             and the accuracy of the weather service, I
      23             would say a few hours at the most.
      24                     MR. KELSEN:  I have nothing
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             further.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Can I clarify
       3             something?  Is Mr. Sklaroff going to then
       4             cross-examine Mr. Skupien later?
       5                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Yeah.  I'm not going
       6             to cross-examine him now.  I was not
       7             permitted to -- we aren't permitted to
       8             consolidate.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Now, let me ask you
      10             one other thing, since Mr. Kelsen asked you
      11             about correspondence from FEMA to the City
      12             of Philadelphia.
      13                     I think you made reference to a
      14             letter dated May 15, 2000?
      15                     THE WITNESS:  Yes.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Would you look at
      17             the second paragraph --
      18                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Why don't we mark it
      19             for identification -- we hand the whole
      20             thing up to the Zoning Board, since this is
      21             the critical letter.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I have a copy for
      23             the Zoning Board.
      24                     MS. JAFFE:  Is it the same letter
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             that was attached to your report?
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes.
       3                     MR. KELSEN:  It should be separate,
       4             because I think it's the response the
       5             Zoning Board was waiting for.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  What are you marking
       7             this as, P-3.  I have copies for the Zoning
       8             Board.  It should be four of them.
       9                     And would you just identify in
      10             paragraph 2, the first sentence of
      11             paragraph 2, if you read that, do you
      12             consider this letter to be an approval of
      13             the proposed project?
      14                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection, objection.
      15             The letter speaks for itself, FEMA is not
      16             charged to do projects.  They are charged
      17             with determining whether or not the
      18             engineering complies with the Philadelphia
      19             regulations and FEMA regulations.
      20                     So, it's disingenuous, Stanley, to
      21             have it sent as an approval or disapproval
      22             letter.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  It's what the letter
      24             indicates.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     THE CHAIRMAN:  What was your
       2             question, Mr. Krakower?
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  My question to the
       4             witness was whether the letter from FEMA is
       5             consistent, from your knowledge, with
       6             FEMA's approach to water problems to flood
       7             problems?
       8                     MR. KELSEN:  If he asks that
       9             question, I'll let him answer it.  But it's
      10             not the same question we had before.
      11                     THE CHAIRMAN:  The other question
      12             will be stricken from the record.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I have another
      14             letter which I'm going to mark P-4, and one
      15             from Mr. Kelsen and one for Mr. Sklaroff.
      16                     I'm going to ask him if he's
      17             familiar with the letter from Director Witt
      18             of FEMA to Mayor John Street, which is
      19             marked P-4.
      20                     THE CHAIRMAN:  You're asking him a
      21             question on this thing?
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Oh, on this one.
      23                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you understand
      24             the question?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     THE WITNESS:  Yes.  I would say
       2             that from the letter, it does not give
       3             approval to the project.  It simply says
       4             that the technical requirement of Title 44
       5             of the code of FEMA regulation 60.3(e) has
       6             been met.  Particularly, since the second
       7             paragraph begins with this is not an
       8             approval of the proposed project.  I would
       9             have a hard time saying that FEMA has
      10             approved the project.
      11                     MR. KELSEN:  Do you know if it was
      12             submitted to FEMA for approval?
      13                     THE WITNESS:  I'm presuming that's
      14             what the effort --
      15                     MR. SKLAROFF:  No, that's not the
      16             correct assumption.  I'll cross him again.
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  If I may, I have a
      18             letter marked P-4, which is a letter to
      19             Mayor John Street from the Director of
      20             FEMA, and I'm going to ask --
      21                     MS. JAFFE:  P-5.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  This is P-5 now.
      23                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Off the record.
      24                     (Discussion off the record.)
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. KRAKOWER:  The May 15th is
       2             P-3.  This one dated June 9th, I have down
       3             as P-4.  This is P-4.  It's the letter
       4             dated June 9th.
       5                     And I believe the Board has a
       6             letter dated June 9th to Mayor Street.
       7             Does the Board have that?
       8                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes, we have.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Okay.  Mr. Skupien,
      10             have you seen this letter marked P-4 dated
      11             June 9th?
      12                     THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.  From
      14             your knowledge of FEMA and FEMA's operation
      15             and water, et cetera, do you believe that
      16             the -- that this letter from FEMA's
      17             director is an indication that is positive
      18             or negative with respect to what the City
      19             should do with the current applications.
      20                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection, objection.
      21             I think the letter speaks for itself.  He
      22             is not qualified to get into the mind of
      23             the Director of FEMA.
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I suggest he's
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             qualified --
       2                     THE CHAIRMAN:  What's your opinion
       3             of the letter, sir?
       4                     THE WITNESS:  It's certainly urging
       5             the City to reconsider and not allow it to
       6             happen.  There seems to be two issues
       7             here.  One is FEMA pointing out the efforts
       8             that they are doing, particularly in
       9             Pennsylvania to try to remove houses from
      10             flood areas, talking about how an approval
      11             of a project would move Philadelphia in the
      12             opposite direction than that what FEMA's
      13             trying to accomplish, and also what the
      14             City exemplary flood work is, and I have to
      15             agree is trying to adopt -- is trying to
      16             accomplish.
      17                     And so it says that, from those
      18             purposes, this seems to be counter
      19             productive and also showing -- pointing out
      20             that the City may be liable for whatever
      21             damages.  It then goes onto hit a second
      22             point.
      23                     MR. KELSEN:  Mr. Chairman, I'm
      24             going to object.  He's not answering the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             question.
       2                     THE CHAIRMAN:  We can read the
       3             letter.  What else, Mr. Krakower?
       4                     MR. KRAKOWER:  That's all I have
       5             with this witness.
       6                     MR. KELSEN:  Let me ask one more
       7             question.
       8     BY MR. KELSEN:
       9     Q.      Mr. Skupien, are you saying that
      10     applications in this Namico case were submitted to
      11     FEMA for approval?
      12     A.      Certainly not.
      13     Q.      Okay.  What do you submit to FEMA?  What
      14     did Dr. Waggle submit to FEMA?
      15     A.      I have no idea.
      16     Q.      You reviewed what you did?
      17     A.      No.  I reviewed what Dr. Waggle submitted
      18     to the --
      19     Q.      Isn't that what he submitted to FEMA?
      20     A.      I have no idea.
      21     Q.      So, your testimony today is really just
      22     based on speculation because you're not referring
      23     to anything that may have been submitted to FEMA;
      24     is that correct?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     A.      No, excuse me.  If you were to ask me -- I
       2     apologize.  I thought you were asking me for the
       3     exact approval that Dr. Waggle's analysis -- that
       4     was submitted to FEMA.  I have copies of everything
       5     that was submitted to FEMA.  I thought you were
       6     asking me for the exact statute or degree or
       7     description of the approval that was being sought.
       8     I am very familiar with what Dr. Waggle submitted
       9     to FEMA and what FEMA reviewed and what their
      10     response was.
      11     Q.      And what is FEMA charged with doing on such
      12     an application, such as Dr. Waggle?
      13     A.      To determine primarily -- well, I don't
      14     want to cite the regulation.
      15     Q.      Just tell me exactly what was said.
      16     A.      Any activity, any fill activity in a flood
      17     plain does not create an increase in hundred year
      18     water floods.
      19     Q.      And what did FEMA respond?
      20     A.      FEMA's letter responded back that they
      21     appear to agree with Dr. Waggle's analysis.
      22                     MR. KELSEN:  I have nothing
      23             further.
      24                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Mr. Chairman, just
       2             to, I think move this along at this point,
       3             I've changed my view and I have a request.
       4             If I could ask questions on
       5             cross-examination, I think it would avoid
       6             having it repeated entirely because this
       7             has gone over long.
       8                     THE CHAIRMAN:  So, you will have to
       9             do it in your case?
      10                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Yes.  So, we'll
      11             incorporate the direct and Mr. Kelsen's
      12             cross at this point.
      13     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      14     Q.      You are familiar as well with the Cotton
      15     Street Landing Development?
      16     A.      Yes.
      17     Q.      And you've seen the plans submitted to the
      18     Department of Licenses and Inspection --
      19     A.      I have not --
      20     Q.      Excuse me.  You'll have to wait -- the
      21     reporter is very good but she needs to wait until
      22     the question is asked before she starts taking the
      23     answer.
      24     A.      Sorry.  I apologize.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     Q.      Now, with regard to the Cotton Street
       2     landing, you did review the plans that were
       3     submitted to the Department of Licenses and
       4     Inspections and are now the subject of this appeal;
       5     is that correct?
       6     A.      Not all of the detail plans submitted to
       7     the plain.
       8     Q.      Why not?
       9     A.      I was only interested in the hydraulic
      10     effects of the development, not all of the effects
      11      -- all of the details in the development.
      12     Q.      But insofar it was in your area of
      13     competence, you did look at the plans; is that
      14     correct?
      15     A.      I looked at the plan data that Dr. Waggle
      16     supplied for his analysis.  I assumed that those
      17     hydraulic characteristics from those plans and
      18     Dr. Waggle's analysis was satisfactory to me.
      19     Q.      Now, you said you didn't know whether the
      20     material submitted to the Planning Commission was
      21     the same as the materials submitted by Dr. Waggle
      22     to FEMA; is that correct?
      23     A.      No.  I said that I was not sure that all of
      24     the numbers in Dr. Waggle's model were exactly the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     same where they needed to be with the Army core
       2     model that it was based on.
       3     Q.      No, no, no.  But two minutes ago in your
       4     response to Mr. Kelsen's question, you were asked
       5     whether you knew that whether the materials that
       6     Dr. Waggle submitted to the Planning Commission
       7     were the same materials that were submitted to
       8     FEMA, and you said you didn't know; isn't that
       9     correct?
      10     A.      You have to rephrase the question.
      11     Q.      And your colleague said he did know.  He
      12     thought -- excuse me.  I'm not directing it to
      13     you.  I know this is a little awkward because we
      14     have twin witnesses.  It's the first time I've seen
      15     it, but Mr. Kelsen --
      16                     MR. KELSEN:  First time ever.
      17                     MR. SKLAROFF:  -- is comfortable
      18             with it, joined not at the hip and perhaps
      19             not joined at all, but he corrected you and
      20             you didn't respond.
      21     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      22     Q.      Now, is he right that the materials -- the
      23     materials submitted to the Planning Commission were
      24     the same as the materials submitted to FEMA?  Is
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     your colleague right or is he not right or don't
       2     you know?
       3     A.      I don't know if every piece of
       4     correspondence that Dr. Waggle submitted to FEMA
       5     was, in fact, submitted to the Planning Commission.
       6                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Now, colleague, do
       7             you know the answer to that question?
       8                     MR. GOLL:  As far as my
       9             conversation with Dr. Waggle, the same
      10             information that was submitted to FEMA was
      11             submitted to the City of Philadelphia.
      12                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Off the record.
      13                     (Discussion off the record.)
      14     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      15     Q.      So, now we're sort of on a level playing
      16     field; is that correct?
      17     A.      Certainly.
      18     Q.      You would agree with regard to the Cotton
      19     Street development that all of the residential
      20     units are built above -- that is the places of
      21     habitation are built above the regulatory floodway;
      22     is that correct?
      23     A.      Proposed to be built, yes, sir.
      24     Q.      Proposed, that's what we're talking about.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     And that there is a pedestrian walkway which
       2     communicates between the residential units and Main
       3     Street in Manayunk?
       4     A.      I am not familiar with the pedestrian
       5     walkway, but I would assume it would be there.
       6     Q.      Well, wait a second.  You have -- this
       7     parade of horribles that you establish, this
       8     emergency and so forth, did you -- does that apply
       9     to Cotton Street landing or just to Mr. Kelsen's
      10     client?
      11     A.      No.  Cotton Street landing as well.  If my
      12     car is parked at grade and I need to get it off --
      13     Q.      For a moment --
      14                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Answer the
      15             question.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  We like to do it a
      17             little differently, question and answer,
      18             not question and answer and exposition.  It
      19             will go much more quickly.
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  He can expose his
      21             answers -- he can explain his answer.
      22                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I'll help do that.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No.  He can do that
      24             without your help, Mr. Sklaroff.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       2     Q.      Now, did you have in your mind that there
       3     was a pedestrian walkway communicating or not?  Did
       4     you guess or assume or did you remember seeing it?
       5     A.      As far as a pedestrian walkway goes?
       6     Q.      Yes.
       7     A.      I didn't see where that made a difference.
       8     Q.      And did you see it there, whether it makes
       9     a difference or not, did you understand that there
      10     was a pedestrian walkway?
      11     A.      No, sir.
      12     Q.      Fine.
      13                     Now, let's assume for a moment
      14     there is a pedestrian walkway between residences
      15     which were built above the regulatory floodway,
      16     that pedestrian walkway, is itself above the
      17     regulatory floodway, and Main Street at the foot of
      18     the pedestrian bridge is above the regulatory
      19     floodway?
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm going to object
      21             to this assumption because that assumption
      22             was not put on the record, or no evidence
      23             of that was put on the record at the last
      24             hearing.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Oh, I don't think
       2             that's correct.
       3                     THE CHAIRMAN:  So noted for the
       4             record.  Answer the question.
       5                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Assuming that that's
       6             so, and we will support it, as a matter of
       7             fact, that if we have to put in more
       8             testimony, we will.  But that all speaks to
       9             the safety of the proposed development;
      10             doesn't it?
      11                     THE WITNESS:  No, sir.
      12     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      13     Q.      Oh, it doesn't.  It would be better if this
      14     was within the floodway way?
      15     A.      No.  It certainly adds to the safety --
      16     Q.      That's the only question I asked is that
      17     adds to the safety.
      18                     Now, you talked about regulations
      19     and you talked about practical things?
      20     A.      Yes, sir.
      21     Q.      Is it fair to say when you were talking
      22     about practical things, you were talking features
      23     that would, in your view, be beneficial, but not
      24     required under Federal regulations?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     A.      I would say that in light of FEMA's
       2     response so far, and again, I'll reserve final
       3     answer having not been able to check Dr. Waggle's
       4     data, and I must, I'm sorry, but I must condition
       5     the answer on that, and I'm not expelling it, that
       6     FEMA -- I can't repeat the letter from FEMA that
       7     says his analysis meets their requirement.
       8     Q.      That's what I wanted to know.  That
       9     analysis satisfies the Federal requirements?
      10     A.      Yes, sir.
      11     Q.      And the City code relates back to the
      12     Federal requirements?
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection as to what
      14             the City codes requires.  That's for the
      15             Board to decide.
      16                     MR. KELSEN:  All right.  Then I
      17             move to strike all the testimony from this
      18             witness concerning what the Philadelphia
      19             code required in terms of floodway.
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No, because that's a
      21             different story now.  He knows what
      22             floodway requirements are.  He doesn't know
      23             the relationship requirement.  That's a
      24             legal issue.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I think I've
       2             answered it.  I think the point has been
       3             made.
       4                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Sklaroff will
       5             ask you another question.
       6                     THE WITNESS:  You're asking
       7             about --
       8     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       9     Q.      Now, I know you are not a structural
      10     engineer, but you talked about structure; correct?
      11     A.      Yes.
      12     Q.      Presumably all of this construction of
      13     these residential units will comply with applicable
      14     codes, correct?
      15     A.      That's a good presumption for today, sure.
      16     Q.      Yes.  And isn't it fair to say that those
      17     codes take into account the risks associated with
      18     structural issues such as flooding?
      19     A.      I do not know if there is a structural code
      20     in the City of Philadelphia that will address the
      21     scour of potential at the base of the piers of the
      22     dynamic looting or the debris striking the piers.
      23     Q.      Have you reviewed the structural codes in
      24     the City of Philadelphia?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     A.      Of course not.  I'm simply pointing out --
       2     Q.      So, you don't know one way or the other?
       3     A.      No, sir.
       4     Q.      You made some statements about residential
       5     management, and let me ask this question:  Are you
       6     aware of the fact that the Planning Commission has
       7     required the Cotton Landing Associates before a
       8     certificate of occupancy is issued that there be an
       9     evacuation plan submitted to them?
      10     A.      I'm not aware of it.  I would assume that
      11     one would be required.
      12     Q.      Did you review the plans that were
      13     submitted to L & I and to the Zoning Board?
      14     A.      No.  I said I was not aware that there was
      15     a plan submitted.
      16     Q.      No.  I'm not talking about an evacuation
      17     plan, I'm talking about Plan Z-1, which is the
      18     first plan in the set of drawings that were
      19     submitted to the Department of Licenses and
      20     Inspections?
      21     A.      No, sir.  The only data that I reviewed
      22     regarding those projects was hydraulic data that
      23     enabled me to attempt to review Dr. Waggle's
      24     analysis and then raise these flood issues.  I did
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1     not review the detailed structural or architectural
       2     or plumbing or electrical drawings.
       3     Q.      So, I'm not saying that, but where on the
       4     legend of the first page of the submission, there
       5     is a requirement for the submission of an
       6     evacuation plan, did you read that page or didn't
       7     you read that page?
       8     A.      No, sir, I did not.
       9     Q.      Now, what was your -- you seemed to have
      10     some sense that the residential units, the owners
      11     and tenants of the residential units would sort of
      12     be an independent agent with regard to the
      13     management of the building?
      14     A.      No, of course not.
      15     Q.      So that where you have a management by
      16     experienced people of a very important residential
      17     development with 270 units, would you not think
      18     there would be an opportunity for a serious
      19     evacuation plan with serious monitoring and with
      20     the kind of care that you would expect in a
      21     multi-family development of this character --
      22     excuse me.  Let me finish the questions.
      23                     (Discussion off the record.)
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Now, I'll object to
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             the question, because there has been no
       2             specific evacuation plan submitted, at
       3             least, not that I ever received.
       4                     MR. SKLAROFF:  That's not what his
       5             statement was.  He was saying that for some
       6             reason, in residences you question whether
       7             you could have a serious coherent program.
       8                     THE WITNESS:  Not at all.  I was
       9             simply saying that compared to a plan and
      10             the management structure of a commercial or
      11             an industrial site, that's not inhabited 24
      12             hours a day.  It's simply inhabited during
      13             work hours, and that -- that would be an
      14             easier plan to implement and manage than a
      15             residential plan where you may have sick or
      16             invalid people or whatever who can't move.
      17                     I'm not saying that there is not a
      18             -- there is a problem with the evacuation
      19             plan.  I don't know of any yet.  I'm simply
      20             saying that the change -- the question was
      21             posed in the context of, sir, do you know
      22             that there are existing uses on that
      23             island, and I said, yes.  And I simply said
      24             that those would be -- those would be
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                        Joseph Skupien & Geoffrey Goll
       1             easier to manage and implement an
       2             evacuation in a residential development.
       3     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       4     Q.      So, you think it's easier to deal with
       5     these issues with a residential development above
       6     the floodway as opposed to very intense industrial
       7     use at -- within the floodway?
       8     A.      No, sir, I would disagree.
       9                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Thank you.  No
      10             further questions.
      11                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, sir.
      12                     MR. KRAKOWER:  My next witness is
      13             Mr. Andreas Heinrich.
      14                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Mr. Chairman, would
      15             you have any objection to my
      16             cross-examining and then incorporating this
      17             into our case as well?
      18                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Not at all.
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.
      20                     Mr. Heinrich, could you state your
      21             name and your address.
      22                     THE WITNESS:  Andreas Heinrich,
      23             H-e-i-n-r-i-c-h, 480 Herald Drive, Ambler,
      24             Pennsylvania.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       2     Q.      Mr. Heinrich, what is your profession, sir?
       3     A.      I'm a traffic engineer.
       4     Q.      Now, upon our request, did you make an
       5     examination of the traffic and the traffic in the
       6     neighborhood and the streets in the neighborhood of
       7     Cotton Street, of Lavering Mill Main Street and the
       8     areas and the access bridges to and from Venice
       9     Island?
      10     A.      Well, to characterize what I did, I think I
      11     presented a critique of what should have been done,
      12     yes.
      13     Q.      Did you submit a report?
      14     A.      Yes, I did.
      15                     MR. KELSEN:  Mr. Chairman, I'm
      16             going to make an offer of proof, because I
      17             thought the last time we decided that there
      18             would not be evidence on traffic and that
      19             we would confine our evidence to floodway
      20             issue, which is the only relevant points
      21             that's before the Board today.
      22                     So, I'm a little confused as to
      23             where Mr. Krakower is going with this
      24             witness.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.  Mr.
       2             Chairman, I don't know that we decided that
       3             traffic problems where you are having a
       4             variance were not relevant on the
       5             contrary.  All I know is that last time we
       6             had Mr. Boles testify to --
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Not on Namico and I
       8             think that is the difference.  There is not
       9             a variance proceeding --
      10                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, I think he did
      11             testify to the time it would take to get to
      12             the cars off and on the island.
      13                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Sir, you have ten
      14             minutes for this witness.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Let me submit this
      16             report -- that I marked P-5(a), and P-5 is
      17             the --
      18                     MR. SKLAROFF:  And Mr. Krakower,
      19             you are going to deliver us the Paone
      20             report you promised at the last hearing and
      21             we've been asking for it.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I handed that up
      23             earlier.
      24                     MR. SKLAROFF:  There was a Paone
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1             traffic report that you said you were going
       2             to give us for an excerpt.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I don't remember
       4             stating that.
       5                     MR. SKLAROFF:  On the record.  You
       6             remember there was testimony, I believe in
       7             cross-examination, that the Paone report
       8             found a level -- going from Level A or
       9             Level B.  And you promised that you would
      10             give us that report or that excerpt.  And
      11             Ms. Phillips, my partner has asked you by
      12             letter to give us that report.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm sorry.  I don't
      14             recall promising that.
      15                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Do you have it here?
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No, I do not.  I
      17             have here the testimony -- this is a
      18             traffic analysis right here that we have
      19             from -- that we have from Mr. Heinrich.
      20                     MR. KELSEN:  Mr. Chairman, I'm
      21             going to reiterate my request in the Namico
      22             case to strike this.  It's a generic
      23             traffic analysis detailing traffic impact
      24             which could arise from all three
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1             developments.  And the limitation that you
       2             set, Mr. Chairman, on the Namico case which
       3             was we deal with the issue which is
       4             corrected before the Board and that is
       5             floodway regulation compliance.  And there
       6             is no issue with regard to generic
       7             variances in which traffic would be an
       8             issue.
       9                     If he limits his testimony on the
      10             Namico case solely to his point about how
      11             long it would take to get the cars off in a
      12             flood situation, maybe that's relevant,
      13             although I tend to doubt that.  But in
      14             terms of general traffic analysis, it's
      15             irrelevant.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Chairman, before
      17             this Board approves a project and variance
      18             to put, at this point two developments --
      19                     MR. SKLAROFF:  You can't mix them
      20             together.  You just can't do that.  They're
      21             different issues.  There is no variance
      22             required to develop the Namico site.  We
      23             went through this already.  It's just
      24             confusing the record.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1                     I have, Mr. Chairman, one question
       2             of the witness which may be helpful.  It
       3             seems that this witness is really
       4             critiquing a style or technique of traffic
       5             report not doing a traffic report, but I
       6             would, with the permission of the Chairman
       7             ask one question of this witness.
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Before I ask him any
       9             questions --
      10                     MR. KELSEN:  Before we get to that,
      11             let's just get on the issue of whether or
      12             not that is a traffic analysis or not.
      13                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Counsel, you know of
      14             a memorandum from the -- regarding this
      15             matter dated June 8th?
      16                     MR. KELSEN:  No.
      17                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Let me read this
      18             into the record.  On --
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Are you talking
      20             about June 8, 2000?
      21                     THE CHAIRMAN:  On June 5, 2000 you
      22             requested the above stated application be
      23             reevaluated in light of the recently passed
      24             regulation.  Laura Mitchell zoning examiner
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1             conducted the requested review and attached
       2             a copy.
       3                     The application for 4601-45 Flat
       4             Rock Road on G-2 and classifications, after
       5             reviewing the application and site plan
       6             under RC-1 classification.  I find the
       7             following zoning reviews proposed flood
       8             codes to the residential apartment complex
       9             with the history uses in parking.  Number
      10             one, first floor area of the parcel as
      11             114,000, allowable closed floor area
      12             170,463 and you are proposing 210,977.  113
      13             versus the very 185 percent.
      14                     Number two, distance from lot lines
      15             of structure and building setback, in
      16             addition to where the property line
      17             requires 27 and-a-half feet, and your
      18             proposing plus or minus a foot new addition
      19             to Flat Rock Road 40 feet wide required, 20
      20             feet -- and the new addition from 40 feet
      21             wide required.  Height of building Flat
      22             Rock Road the available 40 proposing 58.
      23             Lower side allowable 20 feet with closure.
      24                     Parking requirements handicapped
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1             accessible spaces required size 8
       2             and-a-half by 18, with five foot wide.
       3             Proposed size 13 feet by 18 feet no access
       4             filed.  The type of spaces stacked parking
       5             not permitted.  17 spaces extending beyond
       6             the property lines not permitted, also
       7             required easement agreement or proof of
       8             ownership.  Number of spaces, compact
       9             spaces allowable 40, provided 43.
      10                     Other pedestrian bridge second
      11             floor level to be used for emergency
      12             evacuation, appears on the plan and extends
      13             from within the property line on to the
      14             public sidewalk.  This you'll note the
      15             property is designated historical and
      16             approval of the historical commission is
      17             required before a permit may be issued.
      18                     The clarification for the 4700 Flat
      19             Rock Road was previously reviewed under the
      20             G-2 investigation has now been reviewed for
      21             RC-1 requirements located under the flood
      22             plain as reviewed by the City's Planning
      23             Commission as required as the review of the
      24             application under the RC-1 classification.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1             By the following beginning with the parking
       2             lot.  The park lot is to be used by the
       3             property located in the 4601 Flat Rock
       4             Road, non-accesory use which is not
       5             presented.  The height of the fence to be 8
       6             feet high, actual allowable height of the
       7             fence to three and-a-half feet at the front
       8             of the front and 6 feet at sides and rear.
       9                     Note if the fence is to be reviewed
      10             as a structure in RC-1, the setback from
      11             the street should be four feet.  From this
      12             point to the rear of the property, it's
      13             maximum allowable height would be no more
      14             than 6 feet.  A total of three handicapped
      15             access parking spaces are required and one
      16             will be provided.
      17                     With regard to your objection, sir,
      18             that's on the record.  You have five
      19             minutes.  Let's move along here.
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.  May I
      21             have a copy of that?
      22                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Make a copy and send
      23             one back.
      24     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     Q.      I am going to give this to Mr. Heinrich and
       2     ask Mr. Heinrich to take a look at that, being an
       3     expert on traffic.
       4                     Mr. Heinrich, take a quick skim of
       5     that.  Have you seen that before?
       6     A.      No, I have not.
       7     Q.      All right.  Mr. Heinrich, would you tell
       8     the Board what you did with respect to this project
       9     and what conclusions you reached with respect to
      10     the traffic impact that the proposed developments,
      11     Cotton Street and the Namico Soap Factory projects
      12     would have on traffic on the island and in the
      13     immediate community surrounding it?
      14                     MR. KELSEN:  I object,
      15             Mr. Chairman.  I think he has to address
      16             the issue of the Namico traffic impact
      17             separately from Cotton Street.  If he did
      18             it as a collective report, that's one
      19             thing, but he can't testify to that
      20             impact.  They are two separate
      21             applications.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Chairman, I just
      23             don't think you can deal with these things
      24             separately.  Each one, they're going to
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1             interact on the other.  If you look at each
       2             one individually, you don't get a picture
       3             of what the public is going to deal with
       4             when both of them are built.  We're not
       5             dealing with one application.  We're
       6             dealing with two.
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  But Stanley, with
       8             all due respect, his report also indicates
       9             the Edison development of 88 units, which
      10             has not been before the Board to my
      11             understanding.  I mean, I don't know if the
      12             Board has even had an application on that.
      13             So, I mean, he's assuming traffic impacts
      14             based on applications before the Board and
      15             maybe before the Board.
      16                     THE CHAIRMAN:  He can testify to
      17             one case, sir.
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  The Nedison
      19             development should not be included because
      20             that's not before the Board.
      21     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      22     Q.      Would you describe the traffic impacts?
      23     First of all, what did you do and then what
      24     conclusions did you reach?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     A.      Well, --
       2     Q.      Before we get to that, maybe you should
       3     tell us what your -- what your qualifications are,
       4     what education you have?
       5     A.      I have a Bachelor of Science and a Civil
       6     Engineering Degree from Drexel University.  I'm a
       7     licensed civil engineer in Pennsylvania.  I've been
       8     certified as a professional traffic operations
       9     engineer and for the last 20 plus years, I've been
      10     practicing as a traffic engineer to do traffic
      11     impact studies and the last ten years as a
      12     principal of my own firm.
      13     Q.      All right.  And you did an examination of
      14     the conditions on Venice Island and to and from
      15     Venice Island?
      16     A.      I made site visits and I was provided a lot
      17     of documentation as I indicated in my letter.  What
      18     was lacking from the documentation was any sort of
      19     traffic impact study for any of the projects
      20     proposed on Venice Island.
      21                     MR. SKLAROFF:  May I have a
      22             question on voir dire?
      23     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      24     Q.      Did you, in the course of your work,
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     perform such studies and make such investigations
       2     and evaluations as would be necessary for you to
       3     make a traffic impact study of the proposed
       4     developments, either singly or together?
       5     A.      I did not do a traffic impact study.  In my
       6     experience, that's usually up to the applicant to
       7     take care of.  I would have reviewed such if one
       8     was submitted.
       9     Q.      But sometimes the public sector does
      10     traffic impact studies and sometimes the private
      11     sector does them and sometimes they do them, they
      12     each do them, correct?
      13     A.      What do you mean by the public sector?
      14     Q.      Well, let us say government, for example?
      15     A.      Very rarely in my experience.
      16     Q.      Well, okay.  But the point of it is that
      17     you did not do what was necessary, and you did not
      18     perform a traffic impact study here, did you?
      19     A.      I did not perform a traffic impact study.
      20                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Why are you here
      21             testifying then?
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  To testify to the
      23             fact that the applicants also did not do a
      24             traffic impact study, and conclusions with
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1             regard to traffic impact that were
       2             testified to were not based on such facts
       3             as could be observed and such analysis as
       4             he could be.
       5                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I object to the
       6             after the fact cross-examination of the
       7             traffic witnesses.  If he has substantive
       8             information to give, fine.  But the after
       9             the fact quarreling with traffic impact
      10             analysis that has already been put into the
      11             record, I think is objectionable.  I object
      12             for the record.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  There were not
      14             complete traffic impact analysis.  What he
      15             is going to testify to is what was in the
      16             record and what he could determine and
      17             couldn't determine.  And he has the
      18             expertise with which to do it.
      19                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Move along, please.
      20     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      21     Q.      Mr. Heinrich, why don't you tell us what it
      22     is that you did and what conclusions you reached?
      23     A.      Well, we examined the information provided
      24     us and found that no traffic impact study has been
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     studied for any of the developments.
       2                     The first part of my letter lays
       3     out the typical steps that are included in a
       4     traffic impact study.  It indicates that the number
       5     of intersections, particularly on along Main Street
       6     in Manayunk that would have been included in a
       7     typical impact study for these types and sizes of
       8     land developments proposed.
       9                     I quantify the anticipated trip
      10     generations for the three projects that I've
      11     outlined in the letter, traffic impact study in a
      12     rezoning sense.  I have also included a comparison
      13     of trip generation of what is proposed versus what
      14     could be developed or used on site in my right.
      15     That, to my knowledge, has not been indicated to
      16     determine whether these developments are going to
      17     generate, more or less or the same amount of
      18     traffic and what could be built there.
      19                     Obviously, there has been no
      20     conclusions and recommendations of any kind of
      21     improvements, either for site access requirements
      22     or the adjoining street network to adequately
      23     accommodate whatever types of traffic will be
      24     generated by the proposed developments.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1                     My letter goes on to discuss,
       2     particularly, emergency access to the sites.  Each
       3     of the properties on the island, basically are
       4     limited to a single access point from a
       5     transportation planning point of view and a traffic
       6     management point of view.  Once you get over 20, 25
       7     units, you have to have a second point of access,
       8     desirably a fully functional point of access, but
       9     in extreme situations, an emergency access will
      10     suffice.  To my knowledge, that is not being
      11     provided to any of these projects on Venice Island.
      12                     It's not hard to imagine a traffic
      13     accident at the intersection of Main and Cotton
      14     and/or Main and Leverington blocking traffic to the
      15     island and a fire emergency -- a fire or medical
      16     emergency occurring in one of the residential
      17     developments.  Emergency response personnel cannot
      18     get to the island in a timely manner to take care
      19     of the emergency.
      20                     And finally, I discussed that, to
      21     my knowledge, there is no emergency evacuation plan
      22     of the island, based on previous testimony, with
      23     the possibility of flooding to occur.  There's
      24     indication that emergency evacuation of the island
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     is addressed; what type of response personnel, City
       2     personnel, any kind of personnel to take care of
       3     that evacuation; what provisions are provided on
       4     the mainland, so to speak, to accommodate the
       5     vehicles.
       6                     It's my understanding some
       7     testimony was provided in terms of how fast the
       8     vehicles could evacuate the island, but it does not
       9     address the Arroyo Grille and their additional
      10     traffic that would --
      11     Q.      Would you describe the Arroyo Grille and
      12     what it is and its impact.
      13                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Can we agree that
      14             this is not part of this proceeding?  Isn't
      15             that the Nedison development adjacent to
      16             that?
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  It's closer, but I
      18             thought we were just going to let him, so I
      19             don't have have to bring him back, testify
      20             regarding the Arroyo Grille.
      21                     MR. KELSEN:  There is no
      22             application.
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No, not the
      24             Nedison.  The Arroyo Grille is immediately
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1             adjacent, I think, to your client's
       2             property.
       3                     MR. KELSEN:  Is he limiting to his
       4             impacts?
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No.  It's going to
       6             be to both, but he is going from one to the
       7             other.
       8                     If you talk about what -- he's
       9             limiting his testimony to what's on Venice
      10             Island that brings traffic.
      11                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Three and-a-half
      12             minutes remaining.  Move it along.
      13     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      14     Q.      Describe where the Arroyo Grille is and
      15     what its traffic impact is.
      16     A.      The Arroyo Grille is an existing restaurant
      17     at the base of the Flat Rock Bridge to the island.
      18     And all I was trying to suggest is the evacuation
      19     of the island has to take into account the existing
      20     uses on the island; also potentially having to
      21     evacuate.  And before I was interrupted, I was also
      22     going to indicate Smurfit Stone and
      23     tractor-trailers that probably have to evacuate the
      24     island, so -- has the emergency evacuation
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     considered the existing uses on the island, in
       2     terms of the total evacuation, not just for the
       3     individual uses proposed.
       4     Q.      Does the Smurfit Stone have its own ingress
       5     and egress to the island, separate from the
       6     developments?
       7     A.      My understanding is they cross the Flat
       8     Rock Bridge to get access -- for vehicular access
       9     to the island.
      10     Q.      And which of these developments will also
      11     cross Flat Rock Bridge?
      12     A.      I believe it's the Dranoff Development.
      13     Q.      And would the Arroyo Grille Restaurant have
      14     its own separate ingress and egress bridge?
      15     A.      For the island, via the same bridge.
      16     Q.      All right.  So are you saying, then, that
      17     the Smurfit Stone industrial plant and the Arroyo
      18     Grille Restaurant and the Namico Soap Factory
      19     development, residential development, would all use
      20     the same bridge?
      21     A.      That's correct.
      22     Q.      And how wide is that bridge?
      23     A.      It's a two-way, two-lane bridge.  I don't
      24     know the exact length.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     Q.      When you say two-way, two-lane, in other
       2     words, one lane in each direction?
       3     A.      That's correct.
       4     Q.      Now, is there a train that uses Venice
       5     Island?
       6     A.      Yes, there is.  There are train tracks,
       7     yes.
       8     Q.      All right.  And do the train tracks cross
       9     or do they block the bridge?
      10     A.      I believe they block Cotton Street Bridge.
      11     Q.      The Cotton Street Bridge.  If a train were
      12     to block the Cotton Street Bridge, would there be
      13     access to and from the Connelly Container Project?
      14     A.      That's the other --
      15     Q.      On Cotton Lane.
      16     A.      Yes.
      17     Q.      Does access require a clearance of the
      18     bridge where the trains would go?
      19     A.      I'm sorry.  Could you repeat the question.
      20     Q.      All right.  Is it necessary that trains
      21     clear the bridge in order to get on or off the
      22     island at the Cotton Street Landing?
      23     A.      At the grade crossing of the Cotton Street
      24     access, yes.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     Q.      Now, with regards to traffic in the
       2     community, as traffic would come off the island,
       3     where would they go; what streets, and what is the
       4     traffic conditions on those streets?
       5     A.      Well, from the Flat Rock Bridge access
       6     point, you come into a signalized intersection of
       7     Main Street and Levington Road where you can either
       8     proceed up into Manayunk, Roxborough or you can
       9     make your turn down Main Street towards the
      10     intersection -- signalized intersection of Main
      11     Street and Green Lane.
      12     Q.      And what are the traffic conditions on
      13     those streets?
      14     A.      Other than my observations during various
      15     times of the day, I don't have a specific
      16     qualification.  But during rush hours and
      17     frequently on Saturday afternoons, there is
      18     considerable congestion on those roads.
      19     Q.      Were you there or did you examine
      20     conditions at the time a party was being given at
      21     the Arroyo Grille on May 5, 2000?
      22     A.      No, I was not there.
      23     Q.      I'll have the person who took these
      24     pictures identify them shortly.  I marked this as
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     P-6.
       2                     And I show you what I marked P-6,
       3     and ask you if the traffic that you see observed on --
       4     actually looking at Page 2, Page 3 and Page 4, if
       5     they are consistent with traffic conditions as you
       6     observed them on any of your trips to the island or
       7     to the area immediately around the island?
       8                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.  This
       9             document itself is characterized by a
      10             traffic jam by a Cinco de Mayo event at the
      11             Arroyo.  I'm assuming that is a very
      12             significant event, although I don't know
      13             what it is.  It's not a fair reflection of
      14             traffic conditions.
      15                     Did he take these pictures?
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No, he did not.
      17                     MR. KELSEN:  Was he there?
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  On that occasion?
      19             Were you there on that occasion?
      20                     THE WITNESS:  I've testified, no, I
      21             wasn't.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Were you there on
      23             other occasions where you saw anything like
      24             this kind of traffic?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1                     THE WITNESS:  Not anything like
       2             this kind of traffic, no.
       3                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Fine.
       4     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       5     Q.      Do you have in your report an analysis of
       6     the traffic generally found on Main Street,
       7     Levington, in that area?
       8     A.      No.
       9                     MR. KELSEN:  I object.
      10                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you have any
      11             questions for him?
      12                     MR. KELSEN:  I have two questions.
      13     BY MR. KELSEN:
      14     Q.      Sir, did you take into account in doing
      15     your traffic analysis the number of cars and
      16     tractor-trailers that had been on the Namico site
      17     on a daily basis?
      18     A.      As I've indicated in my testimony, that
      19     information was not provided.
      20     Q.      So you really couldn't evaluate traffic
      21     impact because you didn't know what was existing as
      22     compared to what's been proposed; is that correct?
      23     A.      That's the point of my testimony.  That
      24     information has not been provided by either of the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     applications.
       2     Q.      So, really, sir, there's no scientific data
       3     that you could give us today on that issue; is that
       4     correct?
       5     A.      That I have, no.
       6     Q.      Thank you.
       7                     Did you also take into
       8     consideration any writ timing or the introduction
       9     of a new civilization at the Green Lane Bridge in
      10     evaluating your traffic impact?
      11     A.      That information would have normally been
      12     provided in a traffic impact study if they had been
      13     submitted with the application.
      14     Q.      But did you contact PennDOT to find out if
      15     they're putting in a new timing device on that
      16     bridge?
      17     A.      No, I did not.
      18     Q.      So, you have no idea how that traffic flow
      19     would impact your analysis; is that correct?
      20     A.      I don't know that it's all that material.
      21     Q.      But did you look at it?
      22     A.      No.
      23     Q.      If I told you that PennDOT is installing a
      24     new timing device that would change the access
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     patterns on that bridge, would that influence your
       2     decision making --
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I object on the
       4             grounds that we have no information
       5             pending.
       6                     MR. KELSEN:  That's my point.
       7                     THE WITNESS:  Can you repeat the
       8             question, please.
       9     BY MR. KELSEN:
      10     Q.      If they change the timing devices on that
      11     bridge, which they intend to do, would that change
      12     your analysis?
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I object to the form
      14             of the question.
      15                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Can you answer the
      16             question, sir.
      17                     THE WITNESS:  I don't think it has
      18             any material effect, one way or the other,
      19             because PennDOT normally looks at the
      20             through flow of vehicles on the bridge, so
      21             I don't think that really affects Main
      22             Street.
      23     BY MR. KELSEN:
      24     Q.      Did you study it?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     A.      No, I didn't.
       2     Q.      When you did your analysis about emergency
       3     evacuation, did you assume that both lanes of the
       4     Flat Rock Bridge would be open for traffic leaving
       5     the island?
       6     A.      I did not make that analysis, but in my
       7     report I suggested that's something that might be
       8     looked at.
       9     Q.      And would that temper your concern about
      10     traffic evacuation?
      11     A.      I don't know.  That's, again, something
      12     that should have been supplied by the application.
      13                     MR. KELSEN:  Nothing further, Mr.
      14             Chairman.
      15                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Just a few
      16             questions, Mr. Chairman.
      17     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      18     Q.      Mr. Heinrich, did you work in preparing
      19     your testimony with Mr. Krakower?
      20     A.      What do you mean "work with"?
      21     Q.      Did you speak with him in preparing for
      22     this testimony?
      23     A.      No, I did not.
      24     Q.      You had no conversation with him about your
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     scope of testimony or your report?
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I am going to
       3             object.
       4                     THE CHAIRMAN:  So noted.
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  That would be
       6             attorney/client privilege.
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I didn't ask what
       8             you said.  I'm just asking whether you met
       9             with him.
      10     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      11     Q.      Is this the first time you've spoken to
      12     Mr. Krakower about your testimony today?
      13     A.      No, it's not.
      14     Q.      Did you meet with him prior --
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Before your
      17             testimony --
      18                     THE CHAIRMAN:  So noted, sir.
      19     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      20     Q.      Did you meet with him?
      21     A.      I had a couple of phone conversations.
      22     Q.      Did you meet with him in person?
      23     A.      No.
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection again.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I'm not asking --
       2                     THE CHAIRMAN:  I don't know what
       3             you're objecting to.  Your objection is on
       4             the record.  I'm telling him to answer the
       5             question.  You're not getting --
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm objecting to the
       7             questions about whether we met, how many
       8             times we met.  Those are not proper
       9             questions.
      10                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Of course they are.
      11             What you may have said to him are not.
      12             They may be privileged.
      13     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      14     Q.      Well, let me ask you this:  I'm not going
      15     to ask you what he gave you, but did Mr. Krakower
      16     give you any information about traffic in Manayunk?
      17     A.      No, he did not.
      18     Q.      He didn't supply you with any information?
      19     A.      I received my information from residents.
      20     Q.      Now, did you receive any information from
      21     Ms. Terella (ph.)?
      22     A.      I don't know the name.
      23     Q.      Did you receive any information from the
      24     Manayunk Development Corporation?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     A.      I don't believe so.
       2     Q.      Did Mr. Krakower make you aware of the fact
       3     that his witness at the last hearing on Cotton
       4     Street Landing, Ms. Terella made reference to a
       5     traffic study that had been commissioned by
       6     Manayunk Development Corporation by the Paone
       7     Organization?
       8     A.      No, I wasn't aware --
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm going to object
      10             to that.
      11     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      12     Q.      Did anyone give you a copy of the Paone
      13     study?
      14     A.      I am not aware of the study.
      15     Q.      Did anyone tell you that there was sworn
      16     testimony at the last hearing of Cotton Street
      17     Landing that there were changes in the level of
      18     service from A to B at Cotton Street Landing?
      19     A.      I am not aware of a study.
      20     Q.      So neither Mr. Krakower nor the residents
      21     shared that information with you; is that correct?
      22     A.      As I've said, I am not aware of the study.
      23     Q.      If Paone had done a report for the Manayunk
      24     Development Corporation, would it have been
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     relevant for you to look at that report?
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.  Without
       3             knowing when it was.
       4                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Assume that it was
       5             current enough for your purposes.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, there is no
       7             indication that a current report was
       8             issued.
       9                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Mr. Krakower, you
      10             promised to deliver the report to us.  So,
      11             tell us when it was done.
      12                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Sir, answer the
      13             question.
      14                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I have no knowledge
      15             of a recent report being done.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Do you have
      17             knowledge to any Paone report being shared
      18             with you?
      19                     THE WITNESS:  No.
      20     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      21     Q.      All right.  Second question:  You said that
      22     there was not a traffic impact study done by
      23     Mr. Boles, correct?
      24     A.      I am not aware of one.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1     Q.      Okay.  Did anyone show you his summary
       2     report, which is Exhibit A-4?  Did anyone show you
       3     that?
       4     A.      I have a copy of that.
       5     Q.      Did anyone show you his update, which is
       6     A-5?
       7     A.      Yes, I've seen that.
       8     Q.      Okay.  Now, third question:  Did you review
       9     the plans for the Cotton Street Landing proposal?
      10     A.      When you say "plans," you mean the actual
      11     blueprints of the building project?
      12     Q.      What has been submitted and is part of the
      13     public record before this Board, before the
      14     Department of Licenses and Planning Commission.
      15     A.      If you are talking about a plan set, no, I
      16     have not.
      17     Q.      So, who told you that there was no
      18     emergency access from the Cotton Street Landing
      19     Development?
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.  Are you
      21             saying there is, because nothing has been
      22             submitted?
      23                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Mr. Krakower,
      24             please, I'm surprised at you.  Let him
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1             answer the question.  I will support what I
       2             say in documents.
       3     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       4     Q.      Did you examine the plans that were
       5     submitted -- you say you didn't examine those
       6     plans; is that correct?
       7     A.      That's correct.
       8     Q.      All right.  Who told you that there was no
       9     emergency access?
      10     A.      I didn't say there wasn't emergency access.
      11     I'm not aware of anything, because that's usually
      12     addressed in a traffic impact study.
      13     Q.      But you didn't even bother to look at the
      14     plans, so you don't know whether there is emergency
      15     access, do you?
      16     A.      That's correct.
      17     Q.      And it would be a good idea if there were,
      18     correct?
      19     A.      That's correct.
      20     Q.      And we would expect to find them right in
      21     those plans, wouldn't we?
      22     A.      Not necessarily.
      23     Q.      You didn't even look?
      24     A.      No.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Andreas Heinrich
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  No further
       2             questions.
       3                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, sir.
       4                     (Witness excused.)
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  My next witness is
       6             Wendy Lathrop.
       7                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Please put your name
       8             and address on the record, please.
       9                     THE WITNESS:  My name is Wendy
      10             Lathrop.  Last name is spelled,
      11             L-a-t-h-r-o-p.  My address is 319
      12             Llandrillo Road.  It's in Bala Cynwyd,
      13             19004.
      14     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      15     Q.      Ms. Lathrop, would you tell us your
      16     background, your education and your area of
      17     expertise.
      18     A.      I'm a professional licensed land surveyor
      19     in four states, including Pennsylvania and New
      20     Jersey, Maryland and Delaware.  I'm a licensed
      21     planner in the State of New Jersey.  I've been
      22     involved in surveying and mapping and flood plain
      23     management since 1974 in various aspects.
      24                     For the last five years I have been
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     involved -- I have been an active member of a
       2     technical mapping advisory council to FEMA on flood
       3     plain maps and issues.  This is a group that was
       4     created by the 1994 Congressional Act to reform the
       5     National Flood Insurance Program to provide
       6     technical expertise to FEMA on improving the flood
       7     mapping.
       8                     And on that council I represent a
       9     group called American Congress and Service in
      10     Mapping, which represents about 7,000 surveyors,
      11     geotologists, cartographers and geographic
      12     information specialists.  In terms of my education,
      13     I have a Master's in environmental policy.
      14     Q.      Thank you.
      15                     I have a copy of Ms. Lathrop's --
      16     and I have two copies for the Board.
      17                     MR. KELSEN:  Can I voir dire?
      18                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Yes.
      19                     MR. KELSEN:  Can I have an offer of
      20             proof before we begin, and I think that
      21             will frame my voir dire, Stanley.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  All right.
      23             Ms. Lathrop is going to testify and has
      24             issued a report on flood plain and flood
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             plain management and protecting of areas
       2             around the flood plains.  We have -- I have
       3             a document marked P-8.  Here is P-8, one
       4             for you and one for Mr. Sklaroff, and we
       5             have one for the Board.
       6                     I also have on flood plains a book
       7             authored by Ms. Lathrop, which is marked
       8             P-9 on flood plain control, flood plain
       9             management, where they are and how to
      10             control them and what to do with them.
      11                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Do you have any
      12             objections to this?
      13                     MR. KELSEN:  I do, and if I could
      14             ask two or three questions, I think I can
      15             frame it.  And I'll do it gently, because I
      16             see she's a third degree blackbelt, so I'll
      17             take it very slowly.
      18     BY MR. KELSEN:
      19     Q.      Are you a hydrologist?
      20     A.      I am not.  I am going to address the
      21     regulatory --
      22     Q.      I didn't ask you that.  I asked you, are
      23     you a hydrologist?
      24     A.      I am not.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     Q.      Are you an expert in hydraulic engineering?
       2     A.      I am not an engineer.
       3     Q.      Are you an expert in geology?
       4     A.      I am not a geologist.
       5     Q.      Okay.  What is your expertise, if you could
       6     characterize it for me, please?
       7     A.      The land use regulations, flood plain
       8     management regulations.
       9     Q.      Are you a surveyor?
      10     A.      Yes, I am.
      11     Q.      Is the work that you do under contract to
      12     FEMA or under a consulting contract to FEMA
      13     Surveying?
      14     A.      Some of it is related to surveying, some of
      15     it is in regards to consistency with the existing
      16     regulations on local, State and Federal levels to
      17     make sure my clients are complying.
      18     Q.      Have you ever participated in hydrology or
      19     flood hazard studies for FEMA or for anyone else?
      20     A.      I have been part of a team, but I have not
      21     done the hydrologic study.  I have done base
      22     mapping upon which the hydrologic studies were
      23     calculated.
      24                     MR. KELSEN:  Mr. Chair, Members of
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             the Board, I would move to strike any
       2             testimony of the witness as it relates to
       3             floodway increases or floodway development
       4             outside of survey issues, because that's
       5             all she's qualified to testify to.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  On the contrary --
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  If I may, I also
       8             have a question or two.
       9     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      10     Q.      I notice from -- and this goes to the offer
      11     of proof -- from glancing at the report, that you
      12     take issue with the Planning Commission's interpretation
      13     of these ordinances of City Council, correct?
      14     A.      That's correct.
      15     Q.      And also do your recommendations conflict
      16     with the letter of the law, as interpreted by FEMA,
      17     in giving -- do your recommendations conflict with
      18     FEMA's decision to approve the submission made by
      19     Mr. Waggle?
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.  FEMA has
      21             not approved the submission.  It's quite
      22             clear from the two letters they've
      23             submitted.
      24                     MR. SKLAROFF:  They haven't
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             approved the project.  They did approve,
       2             did they not, Mr. Waggle's submission, if
       3             you know?
       4                     THE WITNESS:  Which letter are you
       5             referring to, the one from Region III or
       6             the one from Director Witt?
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  No.  The one from
       8             Region III.
       9                     THE WITNESS:  The Region III letter
      10             clearly states in the final paragraph that
      11             this plan would be inconsistent with the
      12             policies of which I care to address, not
      13             the signing --
      14     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      15     Q.      Okay.  So the technical issues of FEMA have
      16     been satisfied, correct?
      17     A.      Right.
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Let her finish her
      19             answer.  Don't cut her off.
      20                     MR. SKLAROFF:  She finished.  Did
      21             you finish?
      22                     THE WITNESS:  Barely.
      23                     MR. SKLAROFF:  To the extent that
      24             this witness is being put on to quarrel
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             with the Planning Commission's interpretation
       2             of the Philadelphia ordinance, or this
       3             witness is asking for compliance which goes
       4             beyond FEMA, this testimony is without
       5             foundation and without relevance in this
       6             proceeding, and therefore, I don't know
       7             what good would come with going further
       8             with this witness.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  This witness has
      10             expertise in the area of flood plains.
      11             There's more to flood plain management --
      12             and this Board has -- than the technical
      13             compliance with FEMA.  Even FEMA has
      14             acknowledged that -- its own director --
      15             that its technical compliance has not
      16             satisfied all of the issues.
      17                     This lady knows more about flood
      18             plain management and FEMA's policies than
      19             most of the other people who have been
      20             here.  The Board should have the benefit of
      21             hearing her testimony.
      22                     MR. KELSEN:  But, Stanley, with all
      23             due respect, throughout these proceedings
      24             you've made it very clear that we're
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             distinguishing between flood plain issues
       2             and floodway issues.  This primer that I'm
       3             looking at deals with flood plains, and
       4             it's contra to the statements you have been
       5             making throughout this proceeding.  And if
       6             it's dealing with flood plains, I move to
       7             strike.
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  It's dealing with
       9             flood plains and floodways.  Maybe the
      10             title was shorthanded, but I'm sure that
      11             Ms. Lathrop --
      12                     THE WITNESS:  Do you perhaps need
      13             to know the purpose of it?
      14                     MR. KELSEN:  Not quite yet.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  But I'm sure she
      16             would be happy to add to the clarification
      17             of flood plains and floodways.
      18                     MS. JAFFE:  At the very least, I
      19             would like to have testimony from her, if
      20             she has seen the letter from FEMA from the
      21             Office of the Director, because I think
      22             there are issues in there that are
      23             certainly relevant to our considerations.
      24                     MR. KELSEN:  That's fine.  And I
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             just want to limit the record to a broad
       2             review of flood plain issues and nine
       3             non-hydrologic engineering issues, which
       4             are relevant for this Board's
       5             consideration.
       6                     MS. JAFFE:  Why don't you let her
       7             start, and we'll interrupt her -- make that
       8             judgment as we go along.
       9     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      10     Q.      At the request of the Friends of the
      11     Manayunk Canal and the Manayunk Neighbors Council,
      12     did you make an examination of the floodway and
      13     flood plain issues surrounding the proposed
      14     development on Venice Island?
      15     A.      Yes, I did.
      16     Q.      All right.  And did you reach some
      17     conclusions with respect to the applicability of
      18     various regulations, State, City and Federal, to
      19     that proposed development?
      20     A.      Yes, I did.  In conjunction with the flood
      21     insurance rate maps for the City of Philadelphia.
      22     Q.      Now, would you first tell us a little bit
      23     about flood insurance and how that factors in. ?
      24                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.  That's
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             irrelevant to these proceedings.
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I submit that it is
       3             not.  For this Board to make a decision
       4             which might jeopardize the ability of the
       5             City of Philadelphia to be eligible for
       6             Federal flood insurance, I think, would be
       7             the height of --
       8                     MR. KELSEN:  Stanley, that is just
       9             not an accurate statement.  The letter
      10             doesn't say that.  The Planning Commission --
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  It says -- it might.
      12             I think the least this Board should do is
      13             hear this witness on the issue of the
      14             City's eligibility.
      15                     MR. KELSEN:  But she's not
      16             testifying on behalf of FEMA.
      17                     MR. SKLAROFF:  There is an
      18             objection.  This is a zoning case.  The
      19             only relevant testimony has to do with
      20             zoning issues, not legal opinions, not
      21             hypothetical speculations about flood
      22             insurance.  That's what we have Marty Soffa
      23             for, the Planning Commission and FEMA for,
      24             Not this Board, with all deference.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1                     MR. KELSEN:  With all due respect,
       2             there was a letter that was submitted dated
       3             June 8th to each one of the applicants from
       4             the Planning Commission.  I don't have a
       5             copy, but it's from William T. Erickson,
       6             which indicates that there could be an
       7             increase in flood insurance as a result of
       8             development in this area, and in insurance
       9             rates; not a prohibition or not an
      10             inability to secure such insurance.
      11                     And therefore, these statements are
      12             disingenuous.  They are setting the wrong
      13             tone and they are not legally correct.
      14                     MR. KRAKOWER:  We do not have that
      15             letter.
      16                     MR. KELSEN:  I just got it myself.
      17                     MR. JAFFE:  If I may, Robert Jaffe
      18             from Councilman Cohen's office.  I have
      19             been sitting quietly as the proponents of
      20             both projects are trying to stop what's
      21             clearly relevant to the Board.  James Witt,
      22             the Director of FEMA, has written a letter,
      23             and to say it's not relevant is --
      24                     MR. SKLAROFF:  It speaks for
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             itself.
       2                     MS. JAFFE:  No, it doesn't speak
       3             for itself.  There needs to be an
       4             explanation --
       5                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Please be quiet,
       6             sir.  Sit down.  What question do you have
       7             for this witness?
       8     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       9     Q.      Where we were, I was asking her a question
      10     when we were interpreted with the objection.  You
      11     were talking about the flood insurance program.
      12     A.      I think we're getting caught up on the idea
      13     of insurance rather than National Flood Insurance
      14     Program, which is a program to protect lives and
      15     property.  The insurance is one aspect of it, when
      16     a community complies with minimum standards as
      17     established by FEMA, Title 44 of the Federal
      18     Regulations, that a community is eligible to have
      19     its citizens, small businesses and home owners
      20     purchase insurance and also be eligible for
      21     disastrous systems.
      22                     What the City of Philadelphia has
      23     done -- the reason that Director Witt wrote this
      24     letter, I would like to say a little bit about
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     this --
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Objection.
       3                     THE CHAIRMAN:  How can you testify
       4             to that?
       5                     THE WITNESS:  Because I spoke
       6             directly with Director Witt about this
       7             issue, and I'm one of the people who were
       8             the --
       9                     MR. SKLAROFF:  You lobbied that
      10             letter.
      11                     THE WITNESS:  I sent him a copy of
      12             the City ordinances and asked him, if, in
      13             fact, those were consistent with the
      14             National Flood Insurance regulations.
      15                     MR. KELSEN:  Did you send him
      16             Dr. Waggle's study at the same time?  Did
      17             you send him the FEMA letter that --
      18                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Would you let her
      19             answer direct questions and then you can do
      20             cross.  You are not giving her a chance
      21             to --
      22                     THE WITNESS:  I sent him the City's
      23             ordinance and asked him for an
      24             interpretation of the City's ordinance in
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             comparison with the Federal regulations.
       2             You already asked me if I was a traffic
       3             engineer, a hydrologist and all these
       4             things, and I said no.
       5                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I would like to
       6             lodge an objection.  This witness has
       7             lobbied the Director.
       8                     THE WITNESS:  I asked him a
       9             question.
      10                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Excuse me, please.
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I object to the term
      12             "lobby."
      13                     MR. SKLAROFF:  She has lobbied the
      14             Director, she has sent him some
      15             information, but not all information.  She
      16             has procured a letter, which she has sent
      17             to the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia.
      18             The letter has been marked into evidence,
      19             and presumably the Board will make it part
      20             of the record.  That's enough.
      21                     For her now to interpret the state
      22             of mind or what that letter means, she has
      23             no more ability to do that than anybody
      24             sitting in this audience.  The letter
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             speaks for itself.
       2                     THE CHAIRMAN:  All four of you sit
       3             down.  Ma'am, you cannot testify to what
       4             was in the Director's mind.
       5                     THE WITNESS:  No, I cannot.
       6                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  It can
       7             only be considered hearsay.
       8                     THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.
       9                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Next question.
      10     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      11     Q.      Are you being paid or compensated to appear
      12     here today?
      13     A.      I am not.
      14     Q.      So you are here on your own cause?
      15     A.      I am a member of the Friends of the
      16     Manayunk Canal.  I am a member of The Sierra Club.
      17     I am a -- I live in Bala Cynwyd, which is an area
      18     that would also be affected by flooding were it to
      19     occur.  River water does not come up --
      20     Q.      I understand that.  But you are not being
      21     compensated to be an expert witness here?
      22     A.      I was compensated to prepare a report at
      23     one point in time, but I am not being compensated
      24     to appear here today.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Would it be correct
       2             to say that you are doing pro se --
       3                     THE WITNESS:  I am doing this pro
       4             bono because I know the organization cannot
       5             afford what my cost is per hour.
       6                     MR. SKLAROFF:  So you are doing
       7             this for them as volunteer professional
       8             work?
       9                     THE WITNESS:  That's exactly what
      10             I'm doing.
      11                     MS. JAFFE:  And were paid -- your
      12             bio on Page 7, is that what you were paid
      13             for in the participation of flood plain
      14             management?
      15                     THE WITNESS:  That's what I was
      16             paid for.
      17                     MS. JAFFE:  Thank you.
      18     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      19     Q.      With respect to the insurance program, the
      20     flood insurance program, would you state what
      21     impact that has and how that's irrelevant to this
      22     Board and the decision it must make with regards to
      23     this application?
      24     A.      The National Flood Insurance Program was
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     first conceived of in the 1950's and first truly
       2     initiated in 1968; funded in 1973, at which point
       3     there was some initial mapping done to identify
       4     flood prone areas, areas that were prone to the one
       5     percent annual chance flood or what we're calling
       6     the 100-year flood defined -- and these were not
       7     done throughout the entire country, but in the
       8     areas where there was the most potential for harm
       9     to lives and property, in other words, the areas
      10     that were most urbanized.  So not the entire nation
      11     was mapped at that particular time.
      12                     There was not insurance available.
      13     It was determined that the most -- the biggest
      14     problem that our citizen group was having was the
      15     inability to buy flood insurance.  This is not
      16     something that's covered in homeowners' policies.
      17     This is not something that's covered by your car
      18     policy should your car flood.  It's a separate
      19     policy, and very few insurance companies were
      20     offering it at anything that our citizens could
      21     afford except for Lloyds of London.
      22                     Our Federal Government decided to
      23     create a National Flood Insurance program to make
      24     flood insurance affordable to our citizens, and in
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     exchange for a community wanting to be able to have
       2     its residents and its business owners purchase that
       3     insurance, that community had to an adopt certain
       4     minimum technical requirements, which I will not
       5     address because I'm not an engineer, but those are
       6     a matter of public record and in Federal
       7     regulations adopted by each of the communities,
       8     therefore, in our own City ordinances to emulate as
       9     a minimum standard, and you may go more stringent
      10     than that, but you may not go below that level.
      11                     When a community agrees to abide by
      12     those minimum standards or exceed those minimum
      13     standards, then all of the people within that
      14     community may purchase flood insurance.  If you do
      15     not belong to the National Flood Insurance Program,
      16     the citizenry cannot buy flood insurance and the
      17     citizenry is not eligible for disastrous systems
      18     should there be a flood.
      19     Q.      Do you know, is there a supervisory
      20     position that FEMA plays with regard to what
      21     communities are eligible and what communities are
      22     not, who makes those determinations?
      23     A.      There is -- this has been evolved over
      24     time, because FEMA would like -- FEMA sees that the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     minimum requirements are not sufficient, and this
       2     is from my experience on the technical mapping
       3     council that we have realized that the minimum
       4     requirements are not doing the job.
       5                     FEMA has come up with several
       6     programs where they provide technical assistance to
       7     communities to help them comply, whether it be
       8     improving the ordinances that they have on the
       9     books or come up with different ways of managing
      10     the engineering for specific projects to allow them
      11     to occur.
      12                     So there is a review process that's
      13     available at a very specific level.  When it comes
      14     to a development such as the proposals here in
      15     Manayunk on Venice Island, the regional office --
      16     we're lucky our the regional office happens to be
      17     right here in Philadelphia -- will look at the plan
      18     and give additional reviews saying if you build it
      19     this way, it looks like it will comply with the
      20     regulations, but we're not giving -- until we see
      21     the final thing and record drawings.
      22                     It's not an approval.  It's merely
      23     a review, and technical assistance is provided at
      24     that time.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     Q.      What would the impact be if Philadelphia
       2     were determined to no longer be eligible for the
       3     Federal Flood Insurance program?
       4     A.      As I said, if the City were found to not be
       5     in compliance, it would risk losing the ability of
       6     every resident, no matter what part of the City,
       7     every business owner, no matter what part of the
       8     City, to lose the ability to either purchase a new
       9     policy of flood insurance or to renew an existing
      10     policy.
      11                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Has that ever
      12             happened?
      13                     THE WITNESS:  Not in Philadelphia,
      14             but in other communities, yes, it has.  And
      15             that's a matter of public record in the
      16             public registry.
      17                     THE CHAIRMAN:  What community?
      18                     THE WITNESS:  I can't tell you off
      19             the top of my head because they are not
      20             communities that I work in, but I know when
      21             I'm reviewing through the Federal Register
      22             to see the areas I've worked in, I see that
      23             they are suspended communities.
      24                     THE CHAIRMAN:  This letter that
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             Mr. Witt sent to the Mayor, it states in
       2             here that the newspaper, The Inquirer,
       3             Crisis on the Coast -- did you inform
       4             Mr. Witt of that article?
       5                     THE WITNESS:  I had provided copies
       6             of it to him.
       7                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
       8     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       9     Q.      Now, with respect to the --
      10     A.      There was one more part.  Aside from losing
      11     the ability to purchase insurance, a flood disaster
      12     would not be available, so that the -- such as the
      13     last disaster, I believe that -- I don't know what
      14     the numbers were for Floyd, but I know that for
      15     January of '96 when we had the snow melt, we got
      16     something like $16 million in disaster assistance
      17     and that would not have been available should we
      18     not be eligible.
      19     Q.      That $16 million went to Federal funds in
      20     the City of Philadelphia?
      21     A.      That's right.
      22     Q.      Now, with respect to the particular
      23     applications that are before the Zoning Board, do
      24     you have an opinion as to whether those applications
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     should be granted?
       2     A.      My opinion now?
       3     Q.      Yes.
       4                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.
       5                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Objection.  That's
       6             for the Board, really, and her standards
       7             are not legal standards.
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  What professional
       9             information do you have with respect --
      10                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Krakower, your
      11             question is out of line.
      12                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm changing my
      13             question.
      14     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      15     Q.      What professional information do you have
      16     with respect to the floodway of the Schuylkill
      17     River at the area of Venice Island that should lead
      18     to the conclusion it would be -- if you have such
      19     an opinion, that it would be ill-advised to grant --
      20                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  If that's your
      22             opinion.  She is here to testify based
      23             on --
      24                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Krakower, you
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             are wasting the time of the Board.  Let's
       2             move along.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I think she can
       4             testify --
       5                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Next question.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  -- about why --
       7                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Krakower, next
       8             question.
       9     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      10     Q.      Do you have knowledge of the location of
      11     the floodway area of the Schuylkill River with
      12     respect to this area?
      13     A.      Yes, I do.
      14     Q.      As a professional surveyor?
      15     A.      Yes.  And having reviewed the maps for this
      16     particular area and having visited the site as
      17     well.
      18     Q.      Are these maps that you have reviewed?
      19     A.      I have seen these maps, yes.
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Okay.  Can I mark
      21             these, one of these --
      22                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Whose maps are they,
      23             and has she done the extreme profile
      24             measurements that went into these maps?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1                     THE WITNESS:  I did not.  These are
       2             from FEMA.
       3                     MR. SKLAROFF:  That's for the Board
       4             to decide.
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  These maps were done
       6             by FEMA?
       7                     THE WITNESS:  Those are photocopies
       8             of the FEMA maps, which I have the original
       9             of, if you need to look at those.
      10                     MR. KELSEN:  I'll stipulate that
      11             they were in the floodway; that's where we
      12             are, we're not moving it.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  But I want the Board
      14             to be able to see the area that's involved
      15             here.
      16                     MALE VOICE:  Mr. Krakower, please
      17             keep in mind that the Board would really
      18             like to know what some of the objections
      19             are to people in that area.
      20                     THE CHAIRMAN:  I think we heard
      21             enough.  Let's move along.
      22                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I think you are
      23             getting very definitely about what the
      24             objections are.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1                     MALE VOICE:  -- I think I'm
       2             asking --
       3                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Mr. Chair, Members
       4             of the Board, this is an editorialized map,
       5             because I don't know where FEMA maps showed
       6             a denied variance on.  If you are putting
       7             in FEMA maps, which Dr. Waggle used in his
       8             report, that's one thing, but if we're
       9             editorializing or overlaying on the maps
      10             editorial comments, I'd have to object to
      11             that.  You can't cross-examine a map.
      12                     MR. KELSEN:  I join in that.
      13                     THE WITNESS:  I have an original of
      14             that map without any markings, if you would
      15             like to see that.
      16                     MR. KELSEN:  I think that would be
      17             perfectly acceptable to have that handed
      18             in.
      19                     MR. SKLAROFF:  To the extent
      20             relevant.
      21                     THE CHAIRMAN:  If you have an
      22             original map without markings --
      23                     THE WITNESS:  We have original maps
      24             without markings that clearly show Venice
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             Island.
       2                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Because what you
       3             have on here is marked:  The library, train
       4             tracks and sole vehicle access.
       5                     Move on.
       6     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       7     Q.      Ms. Lathrop, as a surveyor, what are the
       8     water related risks on Venice island that would
       9     pose be posed, if any, from the proposals?
      10     A.      I believe that relates more to my
      11     background as a planner than as a surveyor.
      12     Q.      All right.  Then as a planner.
      13     A.      As a planner it has always been the utmost
      14     to reserve -- to observe what kind of environmental
      15     restrictions are on a site.  In an area within a
      16     flood plain is one that one must be very careful
      17     with.  One within a floodway is one that you must
      18     keep open.  If there are -- if there are structures
      19     existing, either take them down or do not rebuild
      20     them once they are taken down.  And if there is
      21     nothing there, put nothing there.
      22                     The best use for a floodway in the
      23     view of a professional licensed planner is to keep
      24     that as open space; generally, as passive
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     recreation.
       2     Q.      Okay.  Now, by the way, are you aware,
       3     along the Schuylkill River, whether there are any
       4     other areas in a floodway in which development is
       5     taking place?  I am particularly asking you about
       6     the Locust Point development?
       7     A.      I am familiar with that.  I have examined
       8     the entire set of the flood insurance rate maps for
       9     the entire City of Philadelphia.  The floodway is
      10     the only place within the City of Philadelphia
      11     where the floodway actually covers land that comes
      12     to the surface is Venice Island.
      13                     The balance of the floodway is
      14     contained; it does not cover developed land.
      15     Locust Point is within the flood plain, but it is
      16     not within the floodway.  There is no residential
      17     development within the floodway within the City
      18     limits.
      19     Q.      If the applicants had put on the record
      20     testimony that parts of the Locust Point land were
      21     in the floodway, would that have been inaccurate?
      22                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection to the
      23             characterization of the question.  You are
      24             mischaracterizing the question.  Either
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             reread her back Mr. Boles' testimony or I
       2             move to strike it.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I believe that
       4             Mr. Boles testified that the Locust Point
       5             -- parts of Locust Point Apartments were
       6             within the floodway.
       7                     MR. KELSEN:  I think Mr. Boles
       8             testified that prior to the construction of
       9             certain river improvements, it was in a
      10             floodway, and I think the record will speak
      11             for itself.
      12                     MALE VOICE:  He testified that
      13             other projects would be in a floodway,
      14             including a cogeneration plant that the
      15             University of Pennsylvania is granting.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, within the --
      17             let's get back to Locust Point.  At the
      18             time --  the record will speak for itself.
      19     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      20     Q.      Is Locust point within the floodway?
      21     A.      At the present time, Locust Point is in the
      22     flood plain but not the floodway.  I don't know at
      23     what time it would have been in the floodway.
      24     Q.      Are you aware of any other land in the City
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     of Philadelphia in which there is land, developable
       2     land, that is within the floodway?
       3     A.      That's kind of a trick question, because if
       4     you go by the ordinances, no land within the
       5     floodway is developable, so I'm not sure how you
       6     mean that.
       7     Q.      Well, it physically, physically could be
       8     built upon?
       9     A.      No, there is not.
      10     Q.      Now, are there specific reasons that you
      11     could let the Board know why you have reached the
      12     opinions that you have with regard to the floodway
      13     on Venice Island?
      14     A.      From personal observation I have seen the
      15     water flow through there.  I have -- I lived in
      16     Philadelphia in the early 1970's.  I moved away, on
      17     the other side of the river, on the Delaware River,
      18     where I happened to be right across from the falls
      19     at Trenton and saw many floods through there, but I
      20     moved back just in time to see the January '96
      21     flooding; the effect of the extent of the water,
      22     the speed of the water, and then again, just this
      23     past fall to see how much damage there was, the
      24     rage of the waters going through there.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1                     I have also been in a flood where I
       2     was evacuated on the Ohio River in Paducah,
       3     Kentucky, and it's not a pleasant thing to be
       4     evacuated that way.
       5                     I would worry for anybody who was
       6     placed in a situation where they were basically
       7     given just a few hours to pack up whatever they
       8     could get immediately with them and just leave
       9     immediately.  That's a dangerous situation.
      10     There's a lot of emotion involved.  That's my
      11     personal opinion from personal experience.
      12     Q.      Are you aware of any other communities in
      13     which there are presently plans to do new
      14     developments within a floodway?
      15     A.      I am not aware of any.
      16     Q.      Are you aware of any Federal policy with
      17     respect to such development as to whether it is
      18     something that is looked upon with favor or
      19     disfavor or whether there is a policy, one way or
      20     the other?
      21                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.  I don't
      22             know if she is qualified to answer that
      23             question.
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Are you aware of
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             Federal policies with regard to --
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  If the Federal
       3             policy is not --
       4                     THE CHAIRMAN:  So noted.  Can you
       5             answer the question from your own personal
       6             knowledge?
       7                     THE WITNESS:  Yes, sir.  It's
       8             stated in Executive Order 11-9-88 issued by
       9             Jimmy Carter in 1977, which was to protect
      10             lives, property, and the natural and
      11             beneficial matters relating to flood
      12             plains, to protect other areas, because the
      13             flood plains protect other areas by keeping
      14             the water there.
      15                     And FEMA has been approaching the
      16             development of flood plains as a litigation
      17             approach, meaning let's not go in and make
      18             a Band-aid after we allow something.  Let's
      19             prevent it and avoid the problem in the
      20             first place.
      21                     That's why we're seeing so many
      22             buyouts, and that's why just down the Darby
      23             Creek, Darby Borough is experiencing
      24             massive buyouts for this very reason,
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             getting people out of harm's way.
       2                     FEMA is moving entire towns.
       3             Within Wisconsin, Soldiers Grove, they
       4             moved the entire town just to get people
       5             out of the floodway and the flood plain, so
       6             that they do not have this kind of
       7             problem.
       8                     People behind levees get a false
       9             sense of security.  They are moving people
      10             away from levees in case there is a breach
      11             in the levy and the water comes out.
      12     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      13     Q.      Are you familiar with the problems in Darby
      14     Borough?
      15     A.      Yes, I am.
      16     Q.      Are you familiar with correspondence
      17     from --
      18                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.
      19                     THE CHAIRMAN:  So noted.
      20                     MR. KELSEN:  It's irrelevant to the
      21             proceeding.
      22                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Krakower, let's
      23             wrap it up.
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, this is a
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             letter with regard to similar problems --
       2                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Krakower, let's
       3             wrap it up.
       4                     MR. SKLAROFF:  It will take us a
       5             half-hour to determine whether or not it is
       6             similar.  It's not relevant.
       7                     MR. KRAKOWER:  We have letters from
       8             various --
       9                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Submit your letters
      10             and we'll decide if we're going to put them
      11             into evidence.
      12                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I am going to mark
      13             this P-10.  This is a letter from Mayor
      14             Brown of Darby Borough with respect to the
      15             effects of flooding in her borough being in
      16             a flood plain.  There's a --
      17                     MR. KELSEN:  Again, I'll move to
      18             strike the letter, Mr. Chairman.
      19                     MR. SKLAROFF:  We join in that
      20             motion.
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Now, I won't ask
      22             Ms. Lathrop questions about the letter.
      23             I'll simply submit it at this point and let
      24             it speak for itself.  It's addressed to the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             Zoning Board.
       2                     I have no other questions.
       3                     (Document marked for identification
       4             as Exhibit Number P-10.)
       5                     MR. KELSEN:  May I cross?
       6                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Sure.
       7     BY MR. KELSEN:
       8     Q.      Ms. Lathrop, did you, in obtaining this
       9     letter from the Director, James L. Witt, provide
      10     him with --
      11                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm just going to
      12             object for the record in terms that she
      13             "obtained" it.
      14                     MR. KELSEN:  She admitted on the
      15             record that she was influential in getting
      16             this letter.
      17                     Is that correct?
      18                     THE WITNESS:  I discussed the
      19             matter with him in a professional manner.
      20             We have a professional relationship because
      21             I'm on the council that advises his -- him
      22             and his agency.
      23     BY MR. KELSEN:
      24     Q.      Did you ask for him to send a letter to the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     Mayor?
       2     A.      I asked him -- what I had asked him was to
       3     review the ordinances and to see whether, in fact,
       4     the City ordinances were, in fact, more stringent
       5     than the Federal regulations.
       6     Q.      Did you ask him to send a letter to the
       7     Mayor of Philadelphia?
       8     A.      I did not ask him to send a letter; I asked
       9     him what we could do about stopping development in
      10     this area.
      11     Q.      So you didn't ask him to write a letter to
      12     the Mayor of Philadelphia, did you?
      13     A.      I did not specifically ask him to write
      14     that letter, no.
      15     Q.      Did you suggest that he write a letter to
      16     the Mayor of Philadelphia?
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm going to object.
      18                     THE CHAIRMAN:  It's a fair
      19             question.
      20                     Did you suggest, ma'am --
      21                     THE WITNESS:  It might have been
      22             whatever way he could help us, by either
      23             discussing it on the phone or writing, I
      24             don't know the exact words that I used, but
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             I do know that I asked for his assistance,
       2             his advice and his opinion on the City
       3             ordinances.
       4     BY MR. KELSEN:
       5     Q.      Did you provide him with information,
       6     either oral or written, to advise him that his
       7     local FEMA agency had reviewed and had found that
       8     there would not be an increase in the regulatory
       9     flood rate based on their technical --
      10                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection to the
      11             form of the question.  That's not what
      12             their review said.
      13                     MR. KELSEN:  I'll let you rule and
      14             let her answer the question.
      15                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Answer the question,
      16             ma'am.
      17                     THE WITNESS:  At the time when I
      18             first spoke with him, which was in March,
      19             that letter had not been issued.
      20     BY MR. KELSEN:
      21     Q.      Did you advise him that FEMA, Region III,
      22     was, in fact, looking at this issue and looking at
      23     the hydrology data?
      24     A.      Yes, I did.  I did not know specifically
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     what information Region III had at hand, but I did
       2     let him know that there were plans being reviewed.
       3     Q.      The FEMA letter is dated May 15, 2000; is
       4     that correct, the Region III letter?
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.  It is
       6             what it is.  It says what it says.
       7                     MR. KELSEN:  I agree it says what
       8             it says.  I'm just asking if she's aware of
       9             that.
      10                     Do you have a copy of that letter?
      11                     THE WITNESS:  I don't have a hard
      12             copy of that.
      13     BY MR. KELSEN:
      14     Q.      And the letter that Mr. Witt wrote to the
      15     Mayor is dated June 9, 2000; is that correct?
      16     A.      Yes.
      17     Q.      Is it your testimony that you had not seen
      18     this Region III letter prior to Director Witt's
      19     issuing his June 9, 2000 letter?
      20     A.      I have not seen this particular letter.  I
      21     had seen -- I had known that there was a letter
      22     that had gone out, but I had not seen this form of
      23     this letter to know to whom it was written.  I had
      24     merely heard, because I had been in FEMA's office
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     early in June and had heard -- I was talking with
       2     some of my colleagues that work there -- that a
       3     review had been made.
       4     Q.      But did you ever give Director Witt the
       5     opportunity to be informed that his Region III
       6     issued this May 15th letter before he finalized his
       7     June 9th letter?  Did you have any communication
       8     with him after that letter was issued or when you
       9     had knowledge that there was going to be an
      10     issuance?
      11     A.      I haven't had this letter long enough to do
      12     that.
      13     Q.      You said you had knowledge of it?  Did you
      14     contact Director Witt after --
      15     A.      No.
      16     Q.      Why not?
      17     A.      Why not?  Because the regions act
      18     independently and what the letter says is it's not
      19     on approval, and furthermore, development within
      20     the designated floodway is contradictory to our
      21     agency's admission of reducing the loss of life and
      22     property associated with natural and man-made
      23     disasters.
      24     Q.      But what I'm getting at, I guess, simply is
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     that there is an assumption in this letter that
       2     Director Witt wrote on June 9 that this development
       3     is inappropriate, and you're contacting him, you're
       4     discussing with him and seeking some effort on his
       5     part to address the application before the Board,
       6     yet you neglected to give him the proper
       7     information that in fact --
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.  That
       9             isn't a question, that's a speech.
      10                     MR. KELSEN:  It's cross now.
      11                     THE WITNESS:  There is a technical
      12             point in here that did you not want me to
      13             address technical issues.  I did not
      14             address technical issues here, merely the
      15             policy of the regulations in place.
      16     BY MR. KELSEN:
      17     Q.      But you never thought to let the Director
      18     know that his technical people reviewed the data
      19     and found it acceptable, did you?  That's all I
      20     want to know; yes or no?
      21     A.      I can't recall what I said to him last week
      22     when I saw him face to face, whether or not I
      23     mentioned, in fact, that there had been -- I know
      24     that I had mentioned that Region III had reviewed
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     it, and he knows that there would be.
       2     Q.      Wouldn't you want the Director to have a
       3     full wealth of knowledge before having a letter
       4     like this sent to the Mayor --
       5     A.      But I don't see the relevance of your
       6     question.
       7     Q.      Well, that's not your job.
       8     A.      I know, but I'm not sure how to answer,
       9     because I can't follow your question.
      10     Q.      You don't feel that it was important to
      11     give, as a scientist, all of the information
      12     necessary for a director of FEMA to issue a
      13     response to the Mayor of the City of Philadelphia?
      14     A.      Because his letter was based upon policy
      15     and regulations and not technical issues.
      16     Q.      Well, isn't it fair to say it's based on
      17     the outcome you wanted the Director to write --
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.
      19                     MR. KELSEN:  I'll move on.
      20                     THE WITNESS:  The final paragraph
      21             of this letter from Region III says exactly
      22             the same thing; it has a letter from
      23             Director Witt.
      24                     MR. KELSEN:  But it doesn't say
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             that they comply with the technical
       2             requirements of FEMA in order to build a
       3             floodway, does it?
       4                     MR. KRAKOWER:  It doesn't say that
       5             they don't.  Objection.
       6                     MR. KELSEN:  Do they?  Give me back
       7             the May 15th letter and tell me that they
       8             are the same.
       9                     THE WITNESS:  I will read to you --
      10             the final paragraph there you will see
      11             the --
      12     BY MR. KELSEN:
      13     Q.      No.  Let's read the first paragraph.
      14     A.      Okay.  The wording does not make sense.
      15                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Wait a minute.
      16                     One person at a time can speak
      17             here.  This is not a group event.  The
      18             court reporter cannot take down two people
      19             at the same time.
      20     BY MR. KELSEN:
      21     Q.      Ms. Lathrop, I am going to read you the
      22     first paragraph.  And tell me if this first
      23     paragraph is consistent with the implications of
      24     the statements made in the June 9th letter from the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     Director.  Okay.
       2                     In response to your -- Dear Ms. --
       3     Catherine, this is the May 15th letter, "In
       4     response to your submission of the hydraulic
       5     analysis for the Venice Island area received on May
       6     4, 2000, our office has completed its review.  We
       7     have found that it is acceptable and compliant with
       8     Title 44 of the Code of Federal Regulations,
       9     Section 60.3(d).
      10                     The City of Philadelphia, however,
      11     should make sure that the analysis is signed and
      12     certified by a registered professional engineer and
      13     maintain that certification on file."
      14                     Parenthetically, Members of the
      15     Board, that has been done.
      16                     Does that language appear in the
      17     June 9, 2000 letter from the Director?
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  We'll stipulate it
      19             does not.
      20                     MR. KELSEN:  I would like to hear
      21             -- she said they're identical.
      22                     THE WITNESS:  This letter has
      23             entirely different language, but in terms
      24             of what it addresses, that letter is an
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             approval letter or a review letter saying
       2             you have complied with minimum technical
       3             standards.  But it's a qualified letter.
       4                     There's an opinion that I would
       5             like to express, but I don't know if I'm
       6             permitted to do so, regarding the tone of
       7             that letter.
       8     BY MR. KELSEN:
       9     Q.      Is there any reason to believe that the
      10     City of Philadelphia is not in compliance with
      11     flood insurance regulations at this time?
      12     A.      Not at this point.  But should that
      13     construction go forward, it would not.
      14     Q.      Oh, is it your testimony today --
      15     A.      That's my opinion.
      16     Q.      I'm asking you, is it your testimony today
      17     that if this Board approves the matters before it
      18     and the FEMA analysis is complied with the way it
      19     has been, that the City of Philadelphia would not
      20     be in compliance with its Federal flood insurance
      21     program?
      22     A.      I can't testify as to all the
      23     qualifications about that, but regarding the lack
      24     of adherence to its own ordinances, that is
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     something for which FEMA has the right to review
       2     for suspension from the program.
       3     Q.      That's not what I asked you.
       4     A.      But I can't answer it any other way.
       5     Q.      So, you don't know?
       6     A.      I am not the person that holds the whip at
       7     FEMA; that says, "Yes, I'm cutting you off."
       8     Q.      Did FEMA accept the calculations that are
       9     required under the Federal regulations for this --
      10     A.      According to that letter, it did.  But
      11     you're not --
      12                     MR. KELSEN:  No further questions.
      13             It's irrelevant.
      14                     MR. KRAKOWER:  She can qualify her
      15             answer.
      16                     THE WITNESS:  You said I'm not
      17             permitted to address technical issues, so
      18             I'm not going to talk about the technical
      19             side of it.  I'm merely talking about
      20             professional and regulatory --
      21     BY MR. KELSEN:
      22     Q.      Are you testifying today that these
      23     submissions do not meet FEMA's requirements?
      24     A.      I cannot answer that because I am not
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     qualified to address the technical aspects.  I am
       2     qualified to address the policy on the regulatory
       3     side.
       4     Q.      But we're not here to dicuss the policy.
       5                     MR. KELSEN:  I'm finished.
       6                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Moving on.  Do you
       7             have any other questions for this witness,
       8             sir?
       9                     MR. KELSEN:  No, I do not.
      10                     MR. SKLAROFF:  If you'd give me one
      11             second, I'm checking.
      12                           (Pause.)
      13     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      14     Q.      Is it your policy statement that
      15     compensation should be paid to the owners of
      16     properties that can't be developed because of this
      17     floodway regulation in order to make --
      18     A.      Why are you asking me is it my policy?
      19     Q.      Well, you said that the appropriate use for
      20     these properties would be green space.  I think you
      21     said "passive recreation."  Who is going to pay for
      22     that?
      23                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.  She's
      24             talking about her opinion.  You are asking
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             about her opinion.
       2                     THE WITNESS:  Do you want my
       3             opinion?
       4                     MR. SKLAROFF:  She's the only one
       5             standing up here.
       6                     THE WITNESS:  There are two ways to
       7             use that land.  There used to be existing
       8             buildings in a way that does not contain
       9             residential because it's much easier to
      10             evacuate commercial and industrial than it
      11             is residential.  So reuse of the existing
      12             building or as buildings come down or are
      13             flooded out or whatever -- but that area
      14             should revert to its former space.
      15                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I ask you again, who
      16             will compensate the owners of those
      17             properties for their inability to use them
      18             as a result of floodway regulation?
      19                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Objection.  She
      20             didn't say they'd be unable to be used.
      21             It's not a proper question.
      22                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Can you answer the
      23             question, ma'am?
      24                     THE WITNESS:  That is a legal
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1             question, because in terms of whether or
       2             not people must be compensated to the value
       3             that they believe a property is suitable
       4             for as opposed to having any use, that is a
       5             matter of the Court's decision, and I
       6             prefer --
       7                     THE CHAIRMAN:  You can't answer the
       8             question?
       9                     THE WITNESS:  I cannot.
      10                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  Any
      11             other questions?
      12                     MR. KELSEN:  I have nothing.
      13     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      14     Q.      You've proposed in your report that Venice
      15     Island be recreational, correct, and green space?
      16     A.      That's my preference, but there are other
      17     uses for it.
      18     Q.      And City Council has a different view;
      19     isn't that correct?
      20     A.      Apparently so.
      21     Q.      And you appeared at City Council?
      22     A.      Yes, I did.
      23     Q.      And they disagree with you?
      24     A.      Some of them did, some of them didn't.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     Q.      The majority -- it doesn't have to be, does
       2     it?
       3                     MR. KELSEN:  No.
       4     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       5     Q.      And they changed the zoning.  So you would
       6     disagree with G-2 commercial, you would disagree
       7     with residential?
       8     A.      That's correct.
       9     Q.      Now, just one other question.  You most
      10     recently met with the Director within the past
      11     week?
      12     A.      Yeah -- excuse me, yes.  It was last
      13     Thursday.
      14     Q.      And you have a professional relationship
      15     with the Director?
      16     A.      Yes, I do.
      17     Q.      And you have a professional relationship
      18     with the people in Region III?
      19     A.      Yes, I do.
      20     Q.      Okay.  And your testimony is that you --
      21     did you have any involvement in the preparation of
      22     this letter?
      23     A.      In terms of providing information to
      24     Director Witt?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Wendy Lathrop
       1     Q.      Yes.
       2     A.      Yes.  I provided him with copies of the
       3     ordinance.  There were several ordinances that I
       4     provided to him, and I provided him a copy of the
       5     Inquirer article series.
       6     Q.      But you didn't provide him with a copy of
       7     the May 15th letter?
       8     A.      I did not have it.
       9     Q.      Did you ever provide him with a copy of the
      10     May 15 letter either before June 9th or afterwards?
      11     A.      I did not.
      12                     MR. SKLAROFF:  No further
      13             questions.
      14                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, ma'am.
      15                          (Witness excused.)
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I am going to try to
      17             move ahead here.  First, I would like
      18             Mr. Gerald Harrison to come up.  This is
      19             just simply for the purpose of identifying
      20             some photographs.
      21                     THE CHAIRMAN:  If you would put
      22             your name and address on the record, sir.
      23                     THE WITNESS:  Gerald, G-e-r-a-l-d,
      24             Harrison, two r's.  232 Ripka, R-i-p-k-a
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Gerald Harrison
       1             Street, Philadelphia, 19127.
       2                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Chairman,
       4             Members of the Board, I marked some
       5             photographs P-11.  These have all already
       6             been submitted.  The photographs that I
       7             just marked over, marked Cinco de Mayo.
       8     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       9     Q.      Mr. Harrison, the photographs that I just
      10     had marked Cinco DeMayo, were you present when
      11     those photographs were taken?
      12     A.      Yes, I was.
      13     Q.      And do they accurately reflect the
      14     conditions reflected in the photographs?
      15     A.      They do.
      16     Q.      I have marked some tractor-trailer
      17     requirements photographs marked P-11.  Do these --
      18                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Is this a different
      19             set?
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  They were previously
      21             marked P-6.  Now, I have what's been marked
      22             as P-11, and can you tell me if these
      23             accurately reflect that you were present,
      24             the photographs of the traffic situation,
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Gerald Harrison
       1             the vehicles and trucks, et cetera, at the
       2             locations where indicated?
       3                     MR. KELSEN:  I am going to object
       4             for the purpose of relevancy, and I'm not
       5             sure where these photographs are coming
       6             into this.
       7                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Objection so noted.
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  They show the
       9             circumstances and give the Board the
      10             benefit of physically seeing what the area
      11             looks like, like any photographs do.
      12                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Okay.  Fine.
      13                     MR. KELSEN:  For that purpose,
      14             we'll let it in.
      15                     MR. SKLAROFF:  No objection.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I have nothing else
      17             for Mr. Harris.
      18                     MR. KELSEN:  Thank you, Mr. Harris.
      19                     (Witness excused.)
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Stephen Miller.
      21                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Would you put your
      22             name and address on the record.
      23                     THE WITNESS:  Stephen Miller, and
      24             my address is 78521 Horseshoe Lane,
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1             Potomac, Maryland.
       2     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       3     Q.      Mr. Miller, what is your occupation, sir?
       4     A.      My occupation, I'm a professional
       5     firefighter.
       6     Q.      All right.  And do you have any particular
       7     aspect of your work as a firefighter that uniquely
       8     relates to the matters of flood problems that are
       9     presently or might be presently before this
      10     Commission?
      11     A.      Well, I'm a professional water rescuer.
      12     Q.      All right.  Now, first, before we put those
      13     on, did you --
      14                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Before we get to
      15             that; Mr. Harrison, I did forget one other
      16             thing.  I am going to mark this P-12.  This
      17             is a letter to Mr. Harrison from
      18             Commissioner Harold Hairston, the Fire
      19             Commissioner of the City of Philadelphia.
      20                     (Document marked for identification
      21             as Exhibit Number P-12.)
      22     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      23     Q.      Mr. Harrison, did you have communications
      24     with Commissioner Hairston of the City of
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     Philadelphia with respect to having a Philadelphia
       2     Fire Department official testify before this Board
       3     regarding rescue on the river, on the Schuylkill
       4     River?
       5     A.      Yes, I did.
       6     Q.      Did you receive a letter back from
       7     Commissioner Hairston, which I have marked P-12 --
       8     A.      Yes.
       9     Q.      -- denying your request?
      10     A.      Yes, I did.
      11     Q.      Did Commissioner Hairston give you any
      12     reason for the denial?
      13     A.      No.
      14     Q.      Okay.
      15                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.  I just
      16             wanted that to explain to the Board, how we
      17             went out of town to get somebody to make
      18             this testimony.
      19     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      20     Q.      Mr. Miller, would you testify to your
      21     background and knowledge with regard to flood
      22     rescue or water rescue.
      23                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Stanley, before we
      24             get into this --
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Before we go any
       2             further, Mr. Krakower, we have a denial
       3             from Fire Commissioner Hairston.  Do we
       4             have the letter that you sent him?
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  That he sent him,
       6             no.
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Could we, while
       8             we're waiting for that, have an offer of
       9             proof?
      10                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Yes.  Mr. Miller is
      11             going to testify to rescue problems that
      12             are particularly unique in flooding rivers
      13             where they are residential in nature, as
      14             distinguished from those that may be
      15             commercial or industrial in nature.
      16                     He is going to testify to the
      17             dangers to the rescuers as well as to the
      18             inhabitants of floodwaters in floodways,
      19             and he has been in various parts of the
      20             country, and the expenses that are involved
      21             to the City of Philadelphia that would be
      22             involved in the rescue operations that
      23             would probably be needed.
      24                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Now, just one other
       2             question:  Would you state for us, Stanley,
       3             what he has done to familiarize himself
       4             with the plans, with Venice Island, with
       5             the situation and with the fact that the
       6             residences are all above the regulatory
       7             flood plain.
       8                     MR. KRAKOWER:  He is aware of
       9             that.  He has been to the site, he has
      10             talked to various Fire Department people in
      11             the City of Philadelphia.  He has been
      12             involved in training programs, and he is
      13             familiar with the proposals for -- not for
      14             evacuations plans because we haven't seen
      15             any.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  The point of this is
      17             as follows:  There is a disconnect here.
      18             We have a program, a proposal which
      19             satisfies the technical requirements of
      20             FEMA.  We have residential units which are
      21             built above the regulatory flood plain.  We
      22             have a pedestrian bridge in the case of
      23             Cotton Street, which is above the
      24             regulatory flood.  We have a way out of the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1             bridge at the end, which is above the
       2             regulatory --
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, we haven't
       4             seen that.
       5                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Wait a second.  You
       6             haven't looked at the plans.  They are
       7             there, and the testimony is on the record.
       8             So the only thing that's missing to connect
       9             this is that there is a danger to people.
      10             And you are assuming that once there is a
      11             flood and once people's houses are
      12             inundated, there's no basis for that on the
      13             record.
      14                     I object to this testimony.  You
      15             haven't set a foundation for this kind of
      16             testimony, and it becomes not probative,
      17             it's inflammatory.
      18                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Now, we will submit
      19             that this type of testimony is exactly what
      20             is needed to show the differences between
      21             what's before this Board if this was a
      22             commercial or an industrial reuse of the
      23             Namico Factory or the Connelly Container
      24             Factory as compared to a residential --
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  There is nothing in
       2             this record that demonstrates that there is
       3             other than residential construction above
       4             the regulatory floodway, nothing in this
       5             record which so establishes.  So it is
       6             premature, there is no foundation for
       7             this.  You are assuming that people in
       8             residences are within the floodway.
       9             They're within the water.  Yes, if they are
      10             within the water, it's a dangerous
      11             situation.
      12                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Which they may be
      13             within the water and the potentiality for
      14             them being within the water is what this
      15             Board has to consider.
      16                     MR. SKLAROFF:  There is no evidence
      17             of that.  You're assuming --
      18                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Your objection is on
      19             the record.  We're going to go a question
      20             at a time here.  Move along.
      21                     MS. JAFFE:  Why don't you talk
      22             about the safety issues, just generally
      23             speaking, as they would apply to a variance
      24             case.  That's what's really relevant.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1                     MR. KRAKOWER:  That's what I would
       2             like Mr. Miller to do.
       3     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
       4     Q.      Mr. Miller, tell us what experience you've
       5     had and what are the safety issues that this Board
       6     should consider in determining whether to approve
       7     this project.
       8     A.      Well, I think one issue strongly to
       9     consider is the fact that over 90 percent of the
      10     people that drown during a flood drown in or near
      11     their automobiles.  It's easy to say to them leave
      12     their cars and go back across the bridge and don't
      13     worry about it.  People won't do that.  People will
      14     not evacuate when you tell them to.
      15                     That's why we're in the business --
      16     in the business that I'm in, flood rescuer.
      17     Actually, this whole project is very interesting.
      18     I can't -- with the history of flooding that's
      19     occurred recently and the amount of deaths in North
      20     Carolina and Floyd and everything that's been going
      21     on, I find it very interesting that this would be
      22     considered.
      23     Q.      What specific concerns do you have and what
      24     specific concerns should this Board be aware of
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     with respect to how people --
       2                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.
       3                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Object, and ask that
       4             it be stricken.  This is the problem with
       5             this kind of testimony.
       6                     MR. KELSEN:  There's no foundation,
       7             it's inflammatory.
       8                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Objection so noted.
       9                     Sir, did you look at this project?
      10                     THE WITNESS:  I walked the area.
      11                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Did you look at the
      12             drawings?
      13                     THE WITNESS:  Uh-huh.
      14                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Did see how high
      15             it's going to be?
      16                     THE WITNESS:  Yes.  Well, that's
      17             fine if you are going to tell people that
      18             sit in the building during the flood.
      19                     THE CHAIRMAN:  I said, did you see
      20             how high it was going to be.
      21                     THE WITNESS:  I couldn't tell you.
      22                     THE CHAIRMAN:  I thought you looked
      23             at the drawings.
      24                     THE WITNESS:  I saw the maps that
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1             Mr. Harrison had.  I did not see the actual
       2             site plans.
       3                     THE CHAIRMAN:  So you didn't
       4             calculate the measurements, how high the
       5             building would be up out of the water.
       6                     THE WITNESS:  I'm sure that you can
       7             build something high enough that it won't
       8             get wet.  How long it will stand is another
       9             issue.
      10                     I'm talking about the people that
      11             live there, that -- it's human nature;
      12             they're not going to abandon their cars.
      13             That's why they drown in or near their
      14             cars.  It's a factor.  It's sad, but that's
      15             what keeps us in business.
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Miller, do
      17             people react, in your experience as a flood
      18             rescue person, the same when they are
      19             facing problems in their home and there's
      20             flooding in their home as they do where
      21             they're employed?
      22                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.  Is he
      23             testifying as a psychiatrist?
      24                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No.  As to his
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1             experience in rescuing people in
       2             residential circumstances as distinguished
       3             from commercial or industrial rescues.
       4                     MR. KELSEN:  I reiterate my
       5             objection.
       6                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Mr. Miller, I have
       7             to say, because I don't in any way want to
       8             minimize the pride I have in your
       9             profession, and by doing this, you are
      10             asking him to talk about things and then
      11             the lawyers are all going to tear him apart
      12             and everything else.  I appreciate that you
      13             are here today and I appreciate in an
      14             emergency that you're there and you take
      15             care of business.
      16                     The best part and the most
      17             important part of your job is that you are
      18             the person that takes over and acts right
      19             away and saves the day and helps people the
      20             best that you can.  So every situation is
      21             different.  And because of this or that or
      22             whatever, we can't decide what's going to
      23             happen.  If we could, then you would be out
      24             of business.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1                     So, I just want to make it clear
       2             that you are here and we appreciate your
       3             being here and we have all the respect in
       4             the world for what you do, but this has
       5             nothing to do with the zoning,
       6             Mr. Krakower.
       7                     It's a little offensive to put him
       8             in this position.
       9                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I didn't think of it
      10             that way.
      11                     If I may ask a question; have you
      12             ever trained with the Philadelphia Fire
      13             Fighters?
      14                     THE WITNESS:  No.  Mr. Kurtz might
      15             be able to speak to that.  He is an
      16             instructor.
      17                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Let me just ask one
      18             question.
      19     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      20     Q.      Have you ever provided advice or
      21     information to any other boards, agencies or other
      22     governmental groups, with respect to, particularly,
      23     flood problems and flood evacuations?
      24     A.      Yes.  I've testified before Congress.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     Q.      What Congress?  Of the United States?
       2     A.      Yes.
       3     Q.      And what --
       4     A.      Subcommittee.
       5     Q.      And in what capacity, what subcommittee,
       6     what was the topic on which you testified?
       7     A.      There was the transportation subcommittee
       8     that has oversight on FEMA.
       9     Q.      And what was the purpose of your testimony?
      10     A.      We were discussing national flood response
      11     issues and the lack of national flood respond
      12     capabilities.
      13     Q.      And what was the bottom line, as it were,
      14     with respect to flood responses?  What was your
      15     advice?
      16     A.      The problem right now is not being
      17     addressed on the national level, and that's why
      18     these hearings came about.  And we were trying to
      19     effect some standards and some training and minimal
      20     equipment needs and trying to put together national
      21     flood response teams, public education and some
      22     help with the local rescuers, as far as funding and
      23     equipment.
      24     Q.      Have you prepared -- I don't know whether
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     you prepared or Mr. Kurtz ...
       2     A.      Mr. Kurtz.
       3     Q.      Did you prepare any documentation for the
       4     Board?
       5     A.      I was not asked to.
       6     Q.      All right.
       7                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I have no other
       8             questions.
       9                     MR. KELSEN:  Two questions.
      10     BY MR. KELSEN:
      11     Q.      Mr. Miller, are you aware that the
      12     development of the soap factory, the Namico factory
      13     is going to involve the creation of an emergency
      14     bridge, a structured evacuation route that goes
      15     from the second floor of the building to the bridge
      16     that leads up to Main Street?  Are you aware of
      17     that?
      18     A.      Pedestrian bridge?
      19     Q.      Like an emergency exit?
      20     A.      Yes, I heard that.
      21     Q.      Would that affect your analysis about
      22     people leaving or having the ability to leave
      23     outside the flood waters?
      24     A.      Well, unfortunately, while some people are
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     very sensible, most of them -- a lot of the people
       2     do dumb things around water.  The people wait until
       3     the last possible moment to leave.  At the last
       4     possible moment they try and pack everything in
       5     their cars and leave with their cars.  And that's
       6     what kills a great percentage of people in
       7     flooding.
       8     Q.      But are you testifying that it's been your
       9     experience that creation of these emergency bridges
      10     don't assist the project, they don't help --
      11     A.      I'm not saying they are a bad idea at all.
      12     It's great that you all thought of that.  I wish
      13     other groups were that responsible.  My concern is
      14     the human nature of the people that we see and what
      15     we deal with, taking advantage of that resource and
      16     provider.
      17     Q.      Would you have that same situation, for
      18     example, at the Smurfit Stone Container Company
      19     that employs about 500 people?  They don't have an
      20     evacuation route.  What do you think about that?
      21     A.      They do not have one?
      22     Q.      They do not.
      23     A.      It's irresponsible.  This is my opinion.
      24     And I have seen people die in Florida.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     Q.      It was your testimony, I thought, before
       2     that industrial and commercial properties have
       3     different responses; people differ.  What's
       4     different about those 500 people at Smurfit and the
       5     people that will reside in these residential
       6     apartments with that evacuation bridge if it was
       7     necessary?
       8     A.      I'm sorry?
       9     Q.      What's the difference between --
      10     A.      What's the difference?
      11     Q.      -- the people there and the people --
      12     A.      Generally, the people's first reaction is
      13     to save their home and save whatever, you know,
      14     their family, their labrador, their parakeet,
      15     whatever.  That's what they're going to go for
      16     first.  They readily abandon -- most people would
      17     readily abandon a factory right away.  Let's go,
      18     get out.  This is crazy staying here.  But when
      19     it's your house --
      20     Q.      I guess where I'm confused, and I think
      21     it's not your fault because you haven't seen the
      22     flood plans, and you need to.  But the level of
      23     floodway, even at the 100-year flood elevation, is
      24     well below the occupied floors of the Namico
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     building?
       2                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm going to object
       3             to that.
       4                     THE CHAIRMAN:  So noted.
       5                     MR. KELSEN:  What are they saving,
       6             other than their automobiles?
       7                     THE WITNESS:  That's very important
       8             to some people.  Why do people drive
       9             through flooded streets?  If you can stop
      10             that, you would stop over 90 percent of the
      11             people that die in floods.
      12     BY MR. KELSEN:
      13     Q.      Is there not a level of warning that's
      14     associated with flooding so that people will remove
      15     their cars --
      16     A.      Why don't people leave when you order
      17     mandatory evacuations?  If they do, we wouldn't
      18     need rescue.
      19     Q.      So, your testimony is that no matter what,
      20     no matter who's on that island, it's going to
      21     create flooding issues; is that correct?
      22     A.      My professional opinion would be that at
      23     some point in the future, and I can't speak of a
      24     five-year, a hundred-year, at some point in the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     future someone, will probably drown down there;
       2     it's more than likely as a result of flooding.
       3     Q.      Whether there's a residential development
       4     or not?
       5     A.      Whether it's residential or not; hopefully
       6     it won't be a rescuer.  My duty is to myself first,
       7     my team second and everybody else.  Unfortunately,
       8     a firefighter is four times more likely to die in a
       9     moving water rescue attempt than he is in a
      10     structure fire.
      11                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I would like to ask
      12             one question on redirect on Mr. Kelsen's
      13             questions.  I think Mr. Kelsen is finished.
      14     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
      15     Q.      Mr. Miller, the typical unfortunate
      16     situation where people are found drowned near their
      17     automobiles or in their automobiles, what is the
      18     typical situation?
      19     A.      In or near.  They're either attempting to
      20     get back to their home or attempting to get away
      21     from it, but they won't leave.  They're told to
      22     leave, and they don't want to leave their car
      23     behind, or, you know, the guy's pickup truck,
      24     that's his livelihood, he's got all his tools, and
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     if he loses that --
       2     Q.      And, really, the means of access, if you
       3     are in a single-family home, for example, to get
       4     out of harm's way, is the automobile, isn't it, in
       5     a typical case?
       6     A.      In the typical case, it depends on the
       7     area.  Some areas just can't -- I was stuck on the
       8     Outer Banks one night, just waited until -- this
       9     was years and years ago before I was in the
      10     business.  They ordered a mandatory evacuation, and
      11     that's when I decided to leave, but by then the
      12     roads couldn't handle the traffic.
      13     Q.      And you don't have to be a rocket scientist
      14     to know that on the Outer Banks you have a
      15     situation there that's going to be a problem from
      16     time to time.  But typically in the situation where
      17     people have lost their lives, it isn't a situation
      18     where the houses are built at grade and the cars
      19     are at grade; isn't that right?
      20     A.      Sure.  That's the way most construction is.
      21     Q.      And of course, all across the country, and
      22     it frequently happens in the flood plains, where
      23     creeks and rivers are what they call flashy --
      24     A.      A great deal of death due to flash
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     flooding, right.
       2     Q.      And very few, you would say, would be in
       3     city circumstances where houses are built and the
       4     escape way is built and the access way is all above
       5     the regulatory flood.
       6     A.      I don't know if I can say that.
       7                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I have no further
       8             questions.
       9                     MR. KELSEN:  Very briefly, if I
      10             may.
      11     BY MR. KELSEN:
      12     Q.      You were here earlier, I believe, and you
      13     heard the engineers, Mr. Goll and Mr. Skupien,
      14     speak about the velocity of the water that they
      15     expect to be moving through the island.
      16     A.      I believe he said 8 to 10 miles an hour.
      17     Q.      8 to 10 --
      18     A.      Feet per second.
      19     Q.      And do you have any experience with water
      20     of this type, any knowledge?
      21     A.      Yes.
      22     Q.      And can you tell us, does that pose any
      23     kind of difficulty or hazard in removing people or
      24     objects from this velocity moving water?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1     A.      That poses a tremendous technical rescue
       2     problem.  Basically, with the amount of debris that
       3     will probably be in the water as -- coming down in
       4     the water, as a rescuer, I would have to see the
       5     specific situation to tell you whether or not we
       6     could do a boat and back or a shallow water
       7     crossing, as they call it.
       8                     But down there you are probably
       9     going to be reduced to a lot of helicopter
      10     evacuations, which is about the real high scale for
      11     danger for making a rescue.
      12     Q.      And also, in response to the previous
      13     testimony, they spoke about blockages of the
      14     pillars.  Is there something that people in your
      15     profession call strainers?
      16     A.      That's a danger to the rescuers, yes.
      17     That's what kills rescuers.
      18     Q.      What does that --
      19     A.      It's called a strainer because the water
      20     will flow through, but objects can't.  Trees, chain
      21     link fences create strainers.  The problem down
      22     there would be the trees impacting on the pilings
      23     and building up and building up, and that will
      24     continue until the flood starts to recede.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Just one question on
       2             this helicopter evacuation.
       3     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       4     Q.      What circumstances would lead you to a
       5     helicopter evacuation?
       6     A.      What would dictate that?
       7     Q.      Yeah.
       8     A.      If you cannot get -- safely get safety to
       9     the victims.
      10     Q.      Now, you are not going to lift cars out of
      11     the water with helicopters?
      12     A.      No, obviously not.
      13     Q.      And all the people are going to be leaving
      14     by a pedestrian bridge above the regulatory flood.
      15     A.      You're saying all the people will leave?
      16     Q.      Absolutely.  And assume an evacuation plan
      17     where automobile access is controlled by the
      18     management of the property.
      19     A.      So the manager is --
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I am going to object
      21             to the assumption that he wants.
      22                     THE WITNESS:  If I could say as a
      23             rescuer, I think you are assuming a lot.
      24             You are very optimistic, because from what
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1             I've seen in flooding situations, you are
       2             going to tell me -- and I am speaking
       3             hypothetically -- this building here is
       4             going -- that I'm not going to drive my car
       5             out of here, you'd better get out of my way
       6             or I'll run you over.
       7     BY MR. SKLAROFF:
       8     Q.      Well, you know, maybe --
       9     A.      Whose fault is it they died?  It's their
      10     fault.
      11     Q.      Well, that could all be addressed, the
      12     management of that, in an evacuation plan.
      13                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I'm going to object
      14             to Mr. Sklaroff's testimony.
      15                     I just have one summary question.
      16     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      17     Q.      Mr. Miller, I think you testified that you
      18     could have people drowning with an industrial site
      19     as well as a residential site?
      20     A.      If they don't leave.  That happened down in
      21     Charleston, West Virginia.
      22     Q.      But my question, sir, is, would drowning
      23     problems be more or less likely in a residential or
      24     an industrial location?
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1                     MR. KELSEN:  Objection.  You have
       2             to tell him what kind of residential,
       3             whether it be single-family --
       4                     THE WITNESS:  I can answer that.
       5                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Answer it, sir.
       6                     THE WITNESS:  A high density
       7             residential area; I mean, how many people
       8             are going to be in the factory and how many
       9             people are going to be in a high density
      10             residential area; who's going to leave
      11             first?
      12                     Actually, the factory workers,
      13             they're not going to split.  They can't get
      14             another job.  They're not going to leave
      15             their home.
      16                     MR. KELSEN:  We're talking amounts
      17             of people, how many people will be in the
      18             factories now?
      19                     MR. SKLAROFF:  What if the factory
      20             is within the regulatory flood and the
      21             residents are all above, does that change
      22             your change your answer?
      23                     THE WITNESS:  If they're going to
      24             stay in their apartment during the flood,
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                                Stephen Miller
       1             very interesting concept.  What about the
       2             ones that are driving out, they're not
       3             going to abandon their cars.  That's why
       4             they die.
       5                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, sir.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I have one more
       7             witness, Mr. Kurtz.  Michael Kurtz is here.
       8                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Please state your
       9             name and address for the record.
      10                     THE WITNESS:  It is Michael P,
      11             Kurtz, K-u-r-t-z.  405 Mountainview Lane,
      12             Dauphin, Pennsylvania 17018.
      13                     MICHAEL P. KURTZ, having been
      14             called as a witness, was examined and
      15             testified as follows...
      16                      DIRECT EXAMINATION
      17     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      18     Q.      Mr. Kurtz, what is your occupation, sir?
      19     A.      I am employed full-time by Penn State
      20     University Hospital on the Lifeline helicopter.
      21     Q.      And what specific area of helicopter
      22     service do you provide to Penn State?
      23     A.      Aero medical.
      24     Q.      Okay.  Would you describe in a little more
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1     detail just that is, what is it that you do?
       2     A.      In that position as my full-time career, I
       3     participate in air medical transportation of the
       4     extremely sick and injured.  Part-time, I work as a
       5     ground paramedic on a community life team, which
       6     also includes water rescue.
       7                     I have several different volunteer
       8     positions as a PA Water Rescue Instructor/Trainer,
       9     which basically I teach the teachers, technical
      10     advisor, and help develop programs for the
      11     Commonwealth for their water rescue program.  Other
      12     volunteer positions you can see as documented in
      13     the folders.
      14                     Photographs marked for identification
      15             as Exhibit P-13.)
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  This is P-13.  They
      17             are photos with his qualifications and
      18             background.  Continue.
      19                     THE WITNESS:  Basically you can see
      20             the testimony I have written.  I'm just
      21             really here to share some information with
      22             you folks and the other folks involved, the
      23             developer.
      24                     I was contacted initially by Gerald
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             Harrison to come down and just give some
       2             information in regards to water rescue and
       3             the complications that could be posed.
       4                     As far as --
       5                     MR. SKLAROFF:  For the record, do
       6             you mean Harold Hairston, the Fire
       7             Commissioner?
       8                     Gerald Harrison.  I'm sorry.
       9                     THE WITNESS:  But basically just to
      10             share some information, more or less, on a
      11             local level, State level and a Federal
      12             level.  I've been exposed to water rescues
      13             locally state and Federal, just more or
      14             less for background information for you
      15             folks.
      16                     Throughout history people have
      17             settled to waterways because of advantages
      18             that they offer:  Transportation, commerce,
      19             development, whatever the case may be.
      20             However, floods have caused greater loss of
      21             life and personal property damage than any
      22             other natural disaster combined in the
      23             United States.
      24                     Every year nearly hundred people
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             die from flood-related causes throughout
       2             the United States.  Most recently Hurricane
       3             Floyd claimed 100 lives; 51 in North
       4             Carolina.  I was a part of the Federal
       5             rescue team that was sent to North Carolina
       6             with the Pennsylvania Task Force One, which
       7             has a component of the Philadelphia Fire
       8             Department, Harrisburg Fire Department,
       9             Baltimore County specialized services and
      10             medical group from the Harrisburg area.
      11                     A lot of people remember Hurricane
      12             Agnes; 48 lives lost, just in
      13             Pennsylvania.  Secondary to that storm,
      14             $6.4 billion in damage.  Hurricane Floyd at
      15             one time was the largest storm cell ever
      16             monitored by modern weather equipment.  It
      17             was huge prior to landfall.
      18                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Sir, address the
      19             boards.
      20                     THE WITNESS:  As far as over the
      21             past several years, the warning systems
      22             typically do provide adequate time for
      23             departure.  However, 80 to 90 percent of
      24             the people living along coastal lines,
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             waterways, 80 to 90 percent of those
       2             population refuse, more or less, basically
       3             to leave because they haven't seen storm
       4             cells; more or less just, you know, putting
       5             more risk management for themselves.
       6                     The problem results in a false
       7             impression, you know, that they'll be all
       8             right.  Some storms come in, water recedes,
       9             doesn't come up to the residential areas,
      10             however, we can talk about numerous past
      11             storms that have been later, come in and
      12             claim a lot of lives.  As far as --
      13     BY MR. KRAKOWER:
      14     Q.      I was going to ask you specifically about
      15     in the City of Philadelphia, if you have any
      16     knowledge of the level of training and capacity for
      17     river rescue of the Fire Department of the City of
      18     Philadelphia?
      19     A.      As far as the City of Philadelphia, I am
      20     familiar with two marine units that they have.
      21     They also have several police marine units.
      22     However, their larger boats that are typically down
      23     in larger waterways, larger waterways that
      24     typically take care of the bigger rivers.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1                     As far as accessing a smaller
       2     river-type area around Venice Island, that would be
       3     very difficult for the boats that they currently
       4     have, For the Philadelphia Fire Department, one of
       5     the greatest fire departments in the country, no
       6     doubt.  However, their water rescue capabilities
       7     are very limited in performing the high technical
       8     water rescue.
       9                     THE CHAIRMAN:  How about the Coast
      10             Guard?
      11                     THE WITNESS:  The Coast Guard,
      12             they're fine.  But the issue that I have --
      13                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Are they located in
      14             the same building?
      15                     THE WITNESS:  As far as where the
      16             Coast Guard is located in the Philadelphia
      17             City, I'm not sure.  However, I don't think
      18             they're going to just have one locality to
      19             evacuate, and that's my concern.
      20                     You know, they could be tied up
      21             somewhere else, but as far as the City of
      22             Philadelphia, their capabilities are very
      23             limited right now.
      24                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Can I ask you a
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             question, if I may?  Did you participate in
       2             training with the Philadelphia Fire
       3             Department?
       4                     THE WITNESS:  As far as Hurricane
       5             Floyd --
       6                     MR. SKLAROFF:  In North Carolina,
       7             for example, you mentioned you were in
       8             North Carolina.  Did you train with the
       9             Philadelphia Fire Department?
      10                     THE WITNESS:  Not in North
      11             Carolina.  We received training before we
      12             go there.  That specialized team is
      13             basically set up for heavy duty structural
      14             collapse, i.e., they were developed
      15             secondary to a lot of the terrorists
      16             threatening the United States, so we go in
      17             for the heavy duty-type rescue.
      18                     As far as water rescue, when we got
      19             deployed to Hurricane Floyd, the role
      20             changed.  They didn't see very much
      21             structural collapse.  The big thing they
      22             saw there was inland flooding, and that's
      23             what they had to deal with.  There were
      24             three task forces from the United States
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             that were deployed in there.
       2                     Our team from Pennsylvania, having
       3             already some background, and several
       4             different individuals from Harrisburg area,
       5             Baltimore County area, had some expertise
       6             in water rescue.  We were able to go out
       7             and perform some water rescues that were
       8             above the local and state's capabilities.
       9                     MR. SKLAROFF:  And based upon this
      10             experience, do you have an opinion within a
      11             reasonable professional certainty as to how
      12             long it would take for the City of
      13             Philadelphia to develop sufficient
      14             expertise to do evacuations from the Venice
      15             Island Developments that we been talking
      16             about today?
      17                     THE WITNESS:  My own personal
      18             opinion on that, sure, there is going to be
      19             a costly ball for wages, salary, equipment;
      20             as far as somebody becoming experienced in
      21             water rescue, we don't do that overnight.
      22             It takes, typically, several years to gain
      23             competence and the skills to master to be
      24             able to do the technical water rescue, if
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             they have flash flooding and high-rising
       2             water.
       3                     MS. JAFFE:  Do you ever go into
       4             buildings such as the one that's being
       5             proposed and meet with the residents and
       6             talk to them about the dangers that you are
       7             talking to us about today?
       8                     THE WITNESS:  Public education?
       9                     MS. JAFFE:  Yes.
      10                     THE WITNESS:  We do do some, but,
      11             again, maybe this whole part of the problem
      12             is lack of public education on a lot of our
      13             parts.  Maybe if we did a better job with
      14             public education, a lot of the information
      15             that I don't talk about right now, I
      16             wouldn't have to give.  So I apologize for
      17             that.
      18                     Those packets that I gave you, they
      19             have a lot of basic information in them,
      20             too, even to take outside of this courtroom
      21             and share with loved ones.  But
      22             occasionally we do get out.
      23                     Again, the flood issue's not even
      24             at the top of the realm on the national
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             standard, whereas, we teach children to
       2             drop and roll when they catch on fire.
       3                     For some reason that flooding issue
       4             is not there, and that does claim a lot of
       5             lives per year.  The water rescue is what
       6             we need to remember.  It is one of the most
       7             technical arenas for rescuers to get
       8             involved in.
       9                     Like Steve Miller stated, we're
      10             four times more likely to die in a water
      11             rescue then fighting a fire.  That's a
      12             national statistic.  You may obtain that
      13             information from the National Fire Academy.
      14                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Any other questions
      15             of this witness?
      16                     MR. KRAKOWER:  One more.  Are you
      17             familiar with any lawsuits involving Fire
      18             Departments that you've been associated
      19             with or trained with concerning lack of
      20             training in water rescue?
      21                     THE WITNESS:  As far as lawsuits
      22             pending, no, not at this time.
      23                     MR. SKLAROFF:  No.
      24                     MR. KELSEN:  No cross.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1                     MR. KRAKOWER:  No questions.
       2                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you, sir.
       3                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Thank you.
       4                     THE WITNESS:  May I add something
       5             to the Board members?  If a plan like this
       6             is going to go through, that's the control
       7             of you folks, okay?  Even when I came in
       8             here, I signed this as an interested party,
       9             more or less, not opposing or here as an
      10             expert witness for these folks?  Basically
      11             for public safety education purposes.
      12                     The packets that you have there,
      13             pretty much the formal letter that I
      14             drafted speaks for itself, questions for
      15             you folks to maybe ask before this is all
      16             said and done is, Does the developer have
      17             an evacuation plan, it sounds like they
      18             do.  Are they going to be able to augment
      19             the City of Philadelphia Fire Department
      20             training individuals, getting them
      21             equipment that would be essential.
      22                     We cannot sit here and say that
      23             there will never be a water rescue there.
      24             I think the gentleman at the table would
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             agree.  The possibility would be there.
       2             Are they going to put some safe standards
       3             in to try and eliminate that?  Hopefully
       4             so.
       5                     But I really think if something
       6             like that goes in on an island like that,
       7             it's a small waterway; it will turn into a
       8             gorge, they're going to need some water
       9             rescue capabilities there.  And typically,
      10             we can't depend on the Coast Guard to
      11             provide that.
      12                     And the Philadelphia Fire
      13             Department, they have an excellent
      14             reputation in all the other technical
      15             rescue aspects; I think they're going to
      16             need to be forced to get into the water
      17             arena, and gain some expertise in that.
      18             They have a lot of great folks there you
      19             should depend on.
      20                     (Witness excused.)
      21                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Chairman,
      22             instead of presenting another witness --
      23                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Mr. Maloomian asked
      24             me to make a statement that we certainly
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             agree with this witness on how important
       2             this aspect of life safety is, and we would
       3             be happy, actually, to consult with him in
       4             developing the evacuation.
       5                     MR. KRAKOWER:  If I may, I have one
       6             other witness, but rather than bring him
       7             on, he had prepared his testimony in
       8             written form, Mr. How Shermer CHK.
       9             Mr. Shermer is a real estate agent who's
      10             going to talk about possible alternative
      11             uses as a real estate developer for the
      12             particular land, and I'm ready to just hand
      13             in his documents; one for Mr. Sklaroff.  I
      14             marked these P-14.  One is his Curriculum
      15             Vitae and the other is his report.  And
      16             I'll mark these P-14.  I'm going to do a
      17             very brief summary, if I may.
      18                     (Document marked for identification
      19             as Exhibit No. P-14.)
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Mr. Chairman,
      21             members of the Board, I'm just going to
      22             briefly summarize.  First, I move into
      23             evidence our exhibits that we presented
      24             today.  There are 14, P-1 through P-14.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             And by way of summary --
       2                     MR. SKLAROFF:  Let me note my
       3             objection to all of them, and also my
       4             objection specifically to P-14, which we'll
       5             hear more about, I assume.
       6                     MR. KRAKOWER:  I don't intend to
       7             get into P-14.
       8                     MR. SKLAROFF:  I think it's totally
       9             irrelevant at this point.
      10                     MR. KRAKOWER:  And you know as well
      11             as I do that the boundaries are relevant to
      12             the spread here.  I just want to point out
      13             a couple of specific points.
      14                     First of all, both today and on
      15             March 13th, the applicants failed to show
      16             any standard traditional zoning hardship.
      17             We respectfully submit -- I notice the
      18             disagreements on this, but I want the
      19             record to reflect, we submit that there is
      20             still a need for any variance to show
      21             standard traditional hardship.
      22                     With respect to the two zoning
      23             sections that I made reference to earlier,
      24             14-1603.1 and 14-1606, both of them deal
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             with -- and also the FEMA regulations deal
       2             with the determination by this Board
       3             independent, and, I submit, respectfully,
       4             independent of whether there is technical
       5             compliance with FEMA's technical
       6             requirements, independent of whether those
       7             i's are dotted and the t's are crossed.
       8                     This Board must make a
       9             determination as to whether there is
      10             reasonable safety, as to whether there is
      11             the likelihood that you are going to have
      12             water flooding problems on or nearby this
      13             island if you approve this development.
      14                     We want to point out that certain
      15             things were never presented, at least I
      16             don't have any record of them.  One of them
      17             which was discussed was engineering studies
      18             that would prove the bearing capacity of
      19             the soil.  The columns that would uphold
      20             the Namico Soap Factory apartments in the
      21             air are going to be in the ground.
      22                     Without soil studies to show the
      23             strength of that ground, you really can't
      24             tell whether the number of columns, the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             spacing of the columns or the sizes of the
       2             columns is evident and is satisfactory.  We
       3             did not receive and I have no note of
       4             testimony with regard to the soils analysis
       5             for where these columns are going to go.
       6                     With regard to an emergency
       7             evacuation plan, we've been told there
       8             would be one, but in terms of an actual
       9             specific management emergency evacuation
      10             plan, we have never seen one.  In fact, I
      11             think it's nice, Mr. Maloomian just
      12             comments now he'd be happy to work with Mr.
      13             Kurtz designing one.  But we respectfully
      14             submit that there should be one and one
      15             that's approved and approvable before this
      16             Board grants --
      17                     THE CHAIRMAN:  It was a training
      18             program, sir, a training program for water
      19             rescue.
      20                     MR. KRAKOWER:  Well, then we
      21             certainly still need an evacuation plan, a
      22             specific evacuation plan.
      23                     Another thing with regard to the
      24             particular point of Dr. Waggle's studies as
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             we looked at them, what we disagree with is
       2             that Dr. Waggle's studies failed to factor
       3             in the possibility of debris -- of
       4             objects.  Whether they be cars, trees or
       5             whatever, being caught against or between
       6             the poles that would be holding up the
       7             apartments.
       8                     As we got the testimony from Mr.
       9             Skupien and also from the safety people,
      10             this is an important factor.
      11                     And even though you may not know --
      12             Mr. Skupien may not know exactly how far
      13             apart they're going to be, taking them in
      14             their greatest distance, whether they be 30
      15             feet, 45 feet, whatever, you saw
      16             photographs of the large trees that can be
      17             swept down this river.
      18                     As they come down in that floodway,
      19             and with the straining effect and the
      20             building up -- the domino effect, you wind
      21             up, as Mr. Skupien indicated, that that
      22             should be taken into consideration as if it
      23             was a solid wall, because one day it may
      24             well be a solid wall.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1                     Finally, I would remind this Board
       2             that at least three Councilmen:
       3             Councilman Nutter, Councilman Rizzo and
       4             Councilman Cohen, all have indicated their
       5             opposition.
       6                     And lastly, with regard to the
       7             letter from FEMA -- I'm talking about both
       8             letters.  I know that Ms. Lathrop testified
       9             they were the same.  I don't think she
      10             meant the wording was the same, and
      11             certainly we can see that the May 15th
      12             letter deals with the specific technical
      13             requirements and the technology of
      14             Dr. Waggle's submission.
      15                     But on one respect, both letters
      16             say the same thing. They say, Be careful.
      17             They say that even if there is technical
      18             compliance, there is a danger here, in
      19             essence.  And I think that not only the
      20             letter from Commissioner Witt, that came in
      21             this week, but even the last half of the
      22             letter of the 15th of May to the Planning
      23             Commission makes clear that there is not an
      24             approval, that FEMA has concerns that there
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             are dangers in approving this project and
       2             that it is simply on balance ill-advised.
       3                     We ask you to consider the caveats
       4             and the cautions, and as said on behalf of
       5             the Friends of the Manayunk Canal, the
       6             Manayunk Neighbor Council and other parties
       7             that have entered their -- the Sierra Club
       8             and some of the other clubs that entered
       9             their appearances and submitted documents
      10             at the last hearing as well as today, that
      11             reflection will bring about a rejection of
      12             this proposal for the application.
      13                     MR. KELSEN:  Mr. Chairman,
      14             obviously I'm speaking on the Namico
      15             project.  This project and the application
      16             before the Board which was submitted prior
      17             to City Council's enactment of legislation
      18             confirming that City Council feels that
      19             residential development of Venice Island is
      20             not only appropriate but it is to be
      21             encouraged, and that is why they rezoned it
      22             in a manner to facilitate this type of
      23             development.
      24                     Not only do we comport with the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             spirit and the legality of that
       2             legislation; we also are in full compliance
       3             with Section 14-1802.3 Grant A of the
       4             Zoning Board's own code, which requires
       5             that as long as there is a demonstration
       6             that there will be no increase in flood
       7             levels during a regulatory flood, a
       8             100-year flood, the worst flood you can
       9             have, then the project should be approved.
      10                     The Planning Commission, who was
      11             charged with reviewing this, has indicated
      12             that they support this project and has
      13             indicated that they are comfortable with
      14             the FEMA reviews, which, by the way,
      15             Members of the Board, were painstaking,
      16             extensive and reviewed by at least 15
      17             people at FEMA Region III, the entity
      18             required by Federal Law to review these,
      19             and they have taken all of the data that
      20             Mr. Waggle provided and supplementary data
      21             that Mr. Waggle was asked to provide and
      22             have found that it comports with FEMA
      23             regulations, and it will not increase the
      24             regulatory flood.  That's really the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             seminal issue for this case.
       2                     But, in addition to that, the
       3             Namico project is unique.  I think it
       4             stands apart from the other projects that
       5             are before the Board, and it does so in a
       6             very unique way.  This is an existing
       7             structure that is a historic structure.  It
       8             has been there for over 100 years.  It's
       9             withstood a lot of time and a lot of
      10             flooding.  But most importantly, it's a
      11             structure that is going to be given a
      12             rebirth, a relife, and it's going to have a
      13             new life as a residential facility.  But it
      14             is going to be engineered in a way so as to
      15             reduce the amount of encroachment that
      16             currently exists within the floodway, and
      17             actually better the condition.  And even
      18             many of the protestants' witnesses
      19             reluctantly admitted that it betters the
      20             floodway situation.
      21                     The new portions of the building
      22             will be built on highways, so that there
      23             will be access for the flood water to pass
      24             through.  It will be built in full
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             compliance with all City of Philadelphia
       2             codes and regulations, so that its
       3             foundations will withstand what they have
       4             to withstand, and built on proper soil.
       5             That's not a matter that is relevant to
       6             this Board because it will be handled
       7             appropriately by the construction section.
       8                     It allows for this reuse in a
       9             manner which City Council wanted to see and
      10             in a manner which is consistent with the
      11             Zoning Board's regulations and the Zoning
      12             Code of Philadelphia.  It also allows us to
      13             preserve a very important asset and not
      14             allow it to waste away and become
      15             demolished by neglect, which, ironically,
      16             is what the neighborhood wants to see
      17             here.
      18                     They want to see a green way, they
      19             want to see a passive recreation area.
      20             Well, unfortunately, we can't provide that
      21             for them,  But what we can provide, what we
      22             hope the Zoning Board does grant us is the
      23             ability to create an amenity on Venice
      24             Island which will act to bring life to
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             Venice Island, security to Venice Island,
       2             and in a manner which will be fully safe
       3             and in keeping with the floodway
       4             regulations and evaluation in the unlikely
       5             event that there is a flood.
       6                     We were asked to build in
       7             evacuation plans by the Planning
       8             Commission.  We voluntarily constructed a
       9             pedestrian or access bridges that take us
      10             to the high ground, and we did that right
      11             up front so there would not be any issue
      12             with inability to get our residents off.
      13                     As you've heard time and time again
      14             throughout these proceedings, we are not
      15             going to let people live anywhere close to
      16             the height of the regulatory floodway.  It
      17             is flood proofed to one foot above the
      18             regulatory flood.  That's the 100-year
      19             flood.  And it also will allow people to
      20             live in a manner which is safe and fully
      21             effective.
      22                     And I would ask the Board to
      23             consider that this application be granted
      24             as fulfilling all the requirements of the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             Philadelphia Zoning Code, but most
       2             especially, all of the technical
       3             requirements that have been mandated by
       4             your Planning Commission and by FEMA.
       5                     I thank you for your time and
       6             indulgence.
       7                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Okay.
       8                     MR. SKLAROFF:  These developments
       9             on Venice Island represent a wonderful
      10             opportunity for the City of Philadelphia to
      11             take what are assets that are not really
      12             being used and to turn them into vital
      13             residential units to help repopulate a City
      14             which needs new population, which needs
      15             people.  This is an extraordinary
      16             opportunity as a technical matter; this
      17             application on behalf of Cotton Street
      18             Landing comes at a time before the City
      19             Council has passed the ordinance.  So we
      20             proceeded under the G-2 ordinance, which,
      21             if at the time we had applied, we could
      22             have had a density of five and a very much
      23             larger development.
      24                     Over a period of about a year and a
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             half, in meetings with the community, we
       2             took a mix-ed-use project which had some
       3             much denser development; hotel, retail
       4             commercial and residential, and turned it
       5             into, primarily, a residential
       6             development.
       7                     It is being developed by one of the
       8             most respected names in residential and
       9             commercial development in this region, the
      10             Realen Company.  It is a first rate
      11             development and will be a credit to the
      12             community.  It will comply with all the
      13             codes which have to do with the bearing
      14             qualities of soils and the structural
      15             quality of pilings, and it will be built so
      16             that all the residential units are above
      17             the regulatory flood.  The pedestrian
      18             bridge will be above the regulatory flood.
      19                     There will be a safe place at the
      20             foot of the pedestrian bridge above the
      21             regulatory bridge at Main Street.
      22             Automobile access will be over Cotton
      23             Street Bridge, which was a new bridge built
      24             by the City of Philadelphia, and there will
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             be, as a condition to a certificate of
       2             occupancy, the submission of an evacuation
       3             plan for approval by the Planning
       4             Commission of the City of Philadelphia.
       5                     The flood studies have complied
       6             with the technical requirements, and there
       7             has been no -- not one bit of evidence,
       8             competent evidence, that there is anything
       9             wrong with the study that Dr. Waggle did
      10             and the studies and the computations of
      11             Elmer Bowls, the engineer.
      12                     With regard to traffic, we ask the
      13             Board, since Mr. Krakower promised to
      14             submit at least a part of the Paone study
      15             which was done, we ask the Board to presume
      16             that there is a negative inference that
      17             that study would have validated what Mr.
      18             Boles has concluded time and time again,
      19             that there is not a traffic problem from
      20             the Cotton Street development.
      21                     The testimony at the fist two
      22             hearings established that there is a basis
      23             for variances.  We have withdrawn two of
      24             the variances where we will comply.  There
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             are three variances here, essentially:  A
       2             use variance, and with regard to the use
       3             variance, City Council has approved this
       4             use for Venice Island.  We have a variance
       5             with regard to the size of parking spaces
       6             and a variance with regard to the number of
       7             handicapped spaces -- Excuse me -- compact
       8             spaces.  We will comply fully with the
       9             handicapped spaces.
      10                     With regard to the issue of
      11             density, the testimony has been that this
      12             is a reasonable density for the site, and
      13             together we believe that this project and
      14             the other projects of Venice Island
      15             represent a real advance for the City of
      16             Philadelphia.
      17                     Thank you for your attention.
      18                     MR. KELSEN:  Very briefly, if I
      19             might.  I would like to remind the Board
      20             that on March 13th District Councilman
      21             Nutter came in and gave a letter up,
      22             particularly in opposition to Cotton Street
      23             project, and urged the Court, the Board, to
      24             reject it and to require a strict hearing
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             to the zoning requirements.
       2                     Councilman Cohen agrees with
       3             Councilman Nutter in this letter of March
       4             13th, and I just -- because time has passed
       5             for the hearings, and I wanted to remind
       6             you of that.
       7                     For both projects, the problem is
       8             that there is, really, public risk and
       9             public expense for private gain, and
      10             sometimes it balances out and sometimes it
      11             doesn't balance out.  In this situation it
      12             doesn't balance out, because, we believe,
      13             as the experts of Mr. Goll and Mr. Skupien
      14             showed, that the 25-year flood levels can
      15             be devastating.  We showed that there is
      16             not capacity for competent fire rescue in
      17             Philadelphia; that there are expenses
      18             involved to the City of Philadelphia, to
      19             the taxpayers, and if not for the human
      20             life concern and the sheer budgetary
      21             concerns that were going on at City Council
      22             to pay for other public projects, money is
      23             tight.
      24                     Traffic problems:  We showed that
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             there is not adequate proof -- that there
       2             is not adequate -- that there is not the
       3             traffic problem by the proponents.  Just
       4             simply, as I do appreciate your patience
       5             and your time over these many days, that
       6             there is too much public risk, that there
       7             is not -- there is not enough balance of
       8             public gain, and particularly that the
       9             4320, 4368 Main Street project is even more
      10             of a difficulty.
      11                     Thank you very much.
      12                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.
      13                     MR. GREGORSKI:  Mr. Chairman,
      14             members of the Board, the Planning
      15             Commission's recommendation regarding the
      16             Flat Rock Road properties comes in the form
      17             of a letter dated March 13, 2000, which
      18             reads, "Subsequent to our letter of
      19             November 18, 1999, the Staff of the
      20             Planning Commission has met with
      21             representatives of the applicants to review
      22             and discuss the hydrological study for the
      23             subject proposed development.  The review
      24             of the hydrological study is underway and
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             the final approval is examined shortly.
       2                     The purpose of this letter,
       3             however, is not to discuss the hydrological
       4             study, but another issue raised by
       5             representatives of the developer during the
       6             review process; specifically, whether or
       7             not the above-captioned application is
       8             requiring the Zoning Board review at all.
       9                     We believe that a strong case can
      10             be made, and that because" of subsequent --
      11             "because subsequent to the filing of the
      12             subject applications, City Council and the
      13             Mayor have enacted new zoning and use
      14             regulations for the subject property, as
      15             well as neighboring properties on Venice
      16             Island.
      17                     As a result of the newly enacted
      18             Zoning Code amendments, the type and amount
      19             of development proposed is now permitted.
      20             The only issue before the ZBA is the issue
      21             of the new construction requiring a ZBA
      22             variance after review to determine whether
      23             or not there will be any increase in the
      24             regulatory flood levels.  The question is
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             whether or not the subject application
       2             involves new construction of a lawful
       3             extension of a nonconforming building.
       4                     As the Board knows, Section 14-100,
       5             general provisions, establishes the
       6             parameters under which the various
       7             provisions and regulations which follow are
       8             to be implemented, and the subsequent
       9             sections of the Code do not take precedent
      10             over these provisions.
      11                     Section 14-104 of this chapter
      12             deals with nonconforming structures and
      13             uses.  Since the subject property is
      14             developed and has been developed with
      15             buildings and structures prior to the
      16             enactment of Section 14-1606 flood plan
      17             controls, it is nonconforming in terms of
      18             uses or contains nonconforming structures.
      19                     In either case, the applicant has
      20             some right to expand or modify this
      21             property, either under Section 14-101,
      22             Section 6, Subparagraph C or Section
      23             14-104, Section 8; the applicant is
      24             entitled to modify or extend the building
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             and/or uses.
       2                     It is our opinion that if the
       3             applicant's hydrological study is approved
       4             after review by FEMA and the state, and the
       5             applicant proposes to meet all other
       6             applicable City, State and Federal laws,
       7             they are entitled to do have zoning permits
       8             issued from the Department of Licenses and
       9             Inspections as a lawful expansion of a
      10             nonconforming use or building."
      11                     And that was signed by Barbara
      12             Kaplan.
      13                     And regarding the Main Street case,
      14             the Planning Commission's recommendation
      15             comes in the form of a letter dated
      16             September 22, 1999 which reads, "The
      17             Planning Commission's Staff has reviewed
      18             this application.  While we believe that,
      19             in general, residential development on
      20             Venice Island is appropriate and
      21             supportable, in this case we cannot support
      22             the granted requests of variances.
      23                     The Planning Commission, in
      24             cooperation with City Council, Manayunk
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             Development Corporation and a number of
       2             Manayunk community organizations, recently
       3             completed a comprehensive plan for the
       4             redevelopment of Venice Island.
       5                     This plan is another in a
       6             continuing planning effort in Manayunk that
       7             has been underway for several years.  The
       8             goals of the plan are to recognize the
       9             transition of Venice Island from its no
      10             longer viable and industrial past to a
      11             future that will reinvent the island as a
      12             regional recreational and cultural
      13             attraction with a moderate-density
      14             residential presence on the lower
      15             two-thirds of the island.
      16                     Since the upper third of the island
      17             is occupied by an active heavy use,
      18             industrial, Smurfit Stone, the plan does
      19             not recommend any changes on that part of
      20             the island that would inhibit the continued
      21             viability of the business.
      22                     As a result, in this planning
      23             effort, City Council has recently enacted
      24             on December 16th, ordinances to further the
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             objectives of the plan.  One ordinance
       2             reserves all of the privately owned
       3             property below the Smurfit Stone property
       4             to a newly created RC-1 residential
       5             district.
       6                     The other extends the existing Main
       7             Street Manayunk zoning overlay to encompass
       8             the lower two-thirds of Venice Island.  On
       9             Venice Island the only permitted uses will
      10             be attached, semi-attached and detached
      11             dwellings, group dwellings, private
      12             accessory garages and permitted
      13             recreational uses.
      14                     Parking at a ratio of one space for
      15             every bedroom is required.  The structures
      16             are required to be set back from the
      17             Conrail right-of-way from the Schuylkill
      18             River.  Within the setback, a public access
      19             trail must be provided and be dedicated to
      20             the City; a maximum height of 55 feet and 6
      21             stories is also established.
      22                     Screening and landscaping along the
      23             Conrail right-of-way and the Schuylkill
      24             River are also imposed.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1                     The new RC-1 classification would
       2             permit a floor area of 135 percent.  This
       3             is our area of concern.  While the new
       4             zoning imposes a maximum floor area of 135
       5             percent, the proposed development is nearly
       6             twice the recommended density.
       7                     We reviewed the subject development
       8             plan several weeks ago.  At that time the
       9             plan encompassed most of the
      10             recommendations of the Venice Island plan
      11             and of the expanded overlay.  It proposed a
      12             setback and trail along the Schuylkill
      13             River and over a 25-foot setback from the
      14             Manayunk Canal.  The proposed five stories
      15             of residential development above the
      16             100-year flood level was always consistent
      17             with the plan and the zoning overlay.
      18                     However, the amount of development
      19             proposed is significantly above the 1.35
      20             FAR recommended in the plan established by
      21             the new Zoning Code amendment."
      22                     It says, "The base of this plan was
      23             to permit residential development of a
      24             density that would not create unacceptable
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1             levels for traffic congestion on Main
       2             Street and the nearby streets.
       3                     We feel that the proposed level of
       4             density in this case is sufficient reason
       5             to recommend disapproval of this
       6             application.  We do this while recognizing
       7             the efforts the developer has made to meet
       8             the goals and the spirit of the new zoning
       9             amendments.
      10                     However, if the Board finds the
      11             applicant's case justifies the granting of
      12             the requested variances, we recommend the
      13             Board's approval include a proviso
      14             requiring the applicant to comply with all
      15             the screening, landscaping, setback and
      16             public access requirements contained in
      17             Bills No. 990760 and 990761."
      18                     This is also sign by Barbara
      19             Kaplan.
      20                     THE CHAIRMAN:  Thank you.  We will
      21             make a decision within a week.  And let the
      22             record clearly show that all witness were
      23             given adequate time and testimony, and
      24             Constitutional rights were adhered to.
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207
                               Michael P. Kurtz
       1                     (Hearing concludes.)
       2                               - - -
                      (215) 568-2211     (856) 482-7207