transcript 8.18.10 traffic experts klein dolan

7/31/2019 Transcript 8.18.10 Traffic Experts Klein Dolan

1/140

SUPERIOR COURT OF NEW JERSEYLAW DIVISION, CIVIL PARTUNION COUNTY, NEW JERSEYDOCKET NUMBER: UNN-L-0140-08A.D. NO.:___________________

LEHIGH ACQUISITION, ET AL,:Plaintiff, :

: TRANSCRIPTvs. :

: OFTOWNSHIP OF CRANFORD, :

: TRIALDefendant. :

Place: Union County CourthouseTwo Broad StreetElizabeth, New Jersey 07207

Date: August 18, 2010

BEFORE:

HONORABLE LISA F. CHRYSTAL, J.S.C.

TRANSCRIPT ORDERED BY:

CARL R. WOODWARD, III, ESQ. (Carella, Byrne,Cecchi, Olstein, Brody & Agnello)

APPEARANCES:

STEPHEN M. EISDORFER, ESQ. (Hill Wallack LLP)Attorney for the Plaintiff

CHARLES R. WOODWARD, ESQ. (Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,Olstein, Brody & Agnello)

Attorney for the Defendant

BRIAN FENLON, ESQ. (Carella, Byrne, Cecchi,

Olstein, Brody & Agnello)Attorney for the Defendant

ELIZABETH MCKENZIE (Special Master)

DARCEL D. HARTAUTOMATED TRANSCRIPTION SERVICES

P.O. Box 2230

Laurel Springs, New Jersey(856) 784-4276


2/140

2

I N D E X

August 18, 2010

WITNESSES

Direct Cross Redirect Recross

Mr. Klein 4 32 52 63Ms. Dolan 64 75Dr. Kinsey 78 118 134

EXHIBITS Ident. Evid.

D-108 Ms. McKenzies report 9D-112 Mr. Kleins report 8 31D-112a Revised Trip Generation Summary 17 31D-157 Survey of property 28D-176 NJ State Development/Redevelopment

Plan 137D-177 Mr. Kleins Curriculum Vitae 7 31D-178 Ms. Dolans report 32

P-34 July 2009 certification ofDr. Kinsey 107

P-39a Plaintiff's drawing of property 30P-63a Plaintiffs concept plan 14P-66 State Plan 136

P-76 Dolans Curriculum Vitae 66 67P-77 Dept. Of Community Affairs RSIS

clarification 69 74P-78 Climate Change Workshop 87P-79 Final Report on Greening Newark

Workshop 88P-80 Photo of various portions of West

Windsor taken aerially 98


3/140

Colloquy 3

THE COURT: So, the next witness?1

MR. WOODWARD: Yes, Your Honor. Just before2

we call our parking expert, Mr. Klein, --3

THE COURT: Okay.4

MR. WOODWARD: -- a bit of housekeeping. At5

the beginning of the trial, we had sent the Judge a6

letter objecting to a late received report which we got7

from the plaintiff's traffic expert, Ms. Dolan. The8

basis of our objection was that the report was received9

on the eve of trial. The plaintiffs -- the Township10

had submitted their traffic report within -- parking11

report within ten days of receipt of the Special12

Masters report in January of this year, and our expert13

was deposed on February 2nd. We believe that that was14

a, a late filed report.15

We have had the opportunity to review Ms.16

Dolans report. And just for purposes of the record,17

the Township will, subject to her being admitted as an18

expert by the Court, we will not be objecting to the19

consideration of her testimony.20

THE COURT: Oh good. Thank you. You're21

withdrawing your objection?22

MR. WOODWARD: Correct.23

THE COURT: So I dont have to rule on it?24

MR. WOODWARD: You dont have to rule on it.25


4/140

Klein - Direct 4

THE COURT: You just want to place it on the1

record. Thank you very much, because I'm searching far2

and wide for your letter objection. And in this3

massive tsunami of paperwork, I'm having trouble4

locating it. So, that's a very welcome bit of5

housekeeping. Thank you. So, Mr. Eisdorfer?6

MR. EISDORFER: I believe it's -- I think7

we're on the, we're back to the defendants case.8

THE COURT: Oh. Okay. So you're calling9

your --10

MR. FENLON: Yes, Mr. Klein.11

THE COURT: -- your witness first.12

MR. FENLON: Yes.13

THE COURT: Okay. Very well.14

MR. FENLON: So the Township calls Lee Klein15

to the stand.16

L E E K L E I N, DEFENDANTS WITNESS, SWORN17

THE OFFICER: Please state your full name.18

THE WITNESS: Lee, middle initial D as in19

Daniel, Klein, K-L-E-I-N.20

THE OFFICER: Thank you. You can be seated.21

DIRECT EXAMINATION (VOIR DIRE) BY MR. FENLON:22

Q Good morning, Mr. Klein.23

A Good morning.24

Q Could you tell the Court where you're25


5/140

Klein - Direct 5

presently employed?1

A I'm presently the Traffic Group Manager at T&M2

Associates, 11 Tindall Road, Middletown, New Jersey.3

Q And, could you briefly describe your4

educational history?5

A I have a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering6

from Rutgers University, and I am a licensed7

professional Engineer in the State of New Jersey as8

well as Pennsylvania, New York, and Delaware. I am9

also a nationally certified Professional Traffic10

operations Engineer, which requires me to take11

continuing education classes to maintain that12

certification.13

Q And, can you briefly describe your work14

history starting with your employment in T&M15

Associates?16

A Sure. I've been employed at T&M Associates since17

May of 2004. And during my, my 20 -- almost 24, over18

24 years of experience, I've been associated with19

preparing traffic impact studies, parking analysis,20

traffic signal design, highway access permits; all21

things related to traffic engineering for developers as22

well as on the other side, reviewing those for Planning23

Boards and Zoning Boards throughout New Jersey,24

approximately 30, 30 plus municipalities.25


6/140

Klein - Direct 6

Q And, could you tell me where you were1

employed before T&M Associates?2

A Prior to T&M Associates, I was employed at Volnar3

(phonetic) Associates which is now known as Stan-Tech4

(phonetic). And that was from 2000 to 2004 --5

Q And --6

A -- or 2001 to 2004.7

Q And what type of professional services did8

you perform during your tenure at Volnar?9

A Similar services as well; traffic impact studies,10

traffic analyses, parking analyses, also for developers11

as well as for, for private sector -- for the public12

sector for Planning Boards and Zoning Boards.13

Q And during your career, have you designed14

parking layouts for residential developments?15

A Yes, I have.16

Q And, have you designed parking layouts for17

mixed use developments, --18

A Yes, I have.19

Q -- including residential and retail?20

A Yes, I have.21

Q And, have you ever been accepted as an expert22

witness before any Planning Boards or Zoning Boards of23

Adjustment in New Jersey?24

A Yes. I've been accepted as an expert witness both25


7/140

Klein - Direct 7

for an applicant and for the Board in over 30 Planning1

Boards throughout New Jersey and Zoning Boards2

throughout New Jersey.3

Q And have -- during your career, have you ever4

been accepted as a expert witness in any matters5

pending in the Superior Court?6

A Yes. In Bergen County Superior Court for Judge7

Harris, and also in Middlesex County.8

MR. FENLON: And, Your Honor, at this time I9

would ask the Court to accept Mr. Klein as a expert in10

professional engineering with an emphasis on traffic11

planning and parking analysis.12

MR. EISDORFER: No objection, Your Honor.13

THE COURT: So he will be so qualified in14

this court.15

MR. FENLON: Thank you.16

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. FENLON:17

Q Now, Mr. Klein, just for the purpose -- I ask18

you if you could identify this document which has been19

marked D-177 for identification?20

A Yes. That's my resume.21

Q Curriculum Vitae.22

A -- or professional Curriculum Vitae, right.23

Professional --24

(side discussion)25


8/140

Klein - Direct 8

BY MR. FENLON:1

Q Now, Mr. Klein, did there come a point in2

time in January of this year that you were asked to3

prepare a report in this matter for the Township of4

Cranford?5

A Yes.6

Q Could you tell me how that came about?7

A Stan Slachetka from my office was already working8

on various reports. And it came about that someone was9

asked -- they asked us to look at traffic and parking10

for the application. So, I was asked by Stan to look11

at that. And I believe it was very early January to12

look at traffic impacts and trip generation, parking13

numbers.14

Q And did you prepare a report on your findings15

and conclusions?16

A Yes, I did. I prepared a letter report dated17

January 14, 2010.18

Q Let me show you what's been marked as defense19

Exhibit D-112 and ask you if you can identify that20

document?21

A Yes. That's the report I prepared.22

Q And, what data or information did you review23

and assess in report D-112?24

A I reviewed concept plan, similar to the one here,25


9/140

Klein - Direct 9

what is that P-63a?1

Q P-63a, the one on the board?2

A Right; similar to that. I looked at the parking3

numbers that they provided based on the number of units4

and the number of breakdown of bedrooms of each unit.5

I also looked at the traffic volumes that would be6

generated by the site, and also looked at the traffic7

volumes and estimated the traffic volumes along8

Birchwood Avenue.9

Q Did you review any other documents in10

connection with the preparation of your report?11

A Yes. In order to prepare the trip generation, I12

looked at the Eighth Edition of the Institute of13

Transportation Engineers Trip General Manual. In14

order to look at the parking, I looked at the15

Residential Site Improvement Standards for New Jersey.16

I also looked at the third Generation of -- the Third17

Edition of the Parking Generation also by the Institute18

of Transportation Engineers.19

Q And did you review the recommendation report20

that was issued by Ms. Elizabeth McKenzie, the Special21

Master in this case?22

A Yes, I did.23

Q Let me show you a document which has been24

marked Defense Exhibit D-108 and ask you if you could25


10/140

Klein - Direct 10

identify that document?1

A Yes, that's the report that I reviewed by Ms.2

McKenzie dated January 4, 2010.3

Q And, did you review any reports that were4

issued by the, any planning experts of the plaintiffs?5

A Yes. Well, there was information in Ms.6

McKenzies report that referred to Dr. Kinseys report.7

I don't recall if I actually looked at Dr. Kinseys8

report or just reviewed the information that was in Ms.9

McKenzies document.10

Q And, did you make any visits to the site in11

question, which is 215 and 235 Birchwood Avenue, and12

the surrounding neighborhood?13

A Yes. I visited the site on three occasions, back14

when I was preparing my letter report. One was15

January 7th, the other date was January 11th, and16

January 12th. And I visited the site during the17

morning peak period of the schools. There is a school18

on Bloomingdale Avenue, and a school on Orange Avenue.19

And I was there during the, the peak rush between the20

one school and the other -- from Bloomingdale towards21

Orange Avenue school.22

Q Okay, Mr. Klein, let me take you through your23

report which is D-112.24

A Sure.25


11/140

Klein - Direct 11

Q Do you, is there a standard under New Jersey1

law which governs parking requirements for a2

development such as the one proposed by the plaintiff?3

A Yes. The Residential Site Improvement Standards.4

Q And, do you have an opinion as to whether the5

RSIS parking standards as set forth in the New Jersey6

Administrative Code should govern the calculation of7

parking units for this project?8

A Yes, it should govern it.9

Q And what's the, the reason for your10

conclusion in that regard?11

A Well, in the RSIS they, they give you12

alternatives, alternative reasons why youd want to13

deviate from that, from those standards. And I don't14

believe that this site is suited to meet those15

standards. There is not mass transit within the16

proximity of the site. There is really not any17

alternative parking in the area to be able to, to put18

some people off the site. And it's in a suburban19

setting. It's not really an urban setting.20

Q And, did you, do you have an understanding of21

the number of units, parking spaces, excuse me, which22

the plaintiffs are currently proposing?23

A The number I have was 673. But now I see this one24

says 671. So it's in the 670 range.25


12/140

Klein - Direct 12

Q And, under the standards in the RSIS, do you1

have a, do you know whether what the -- what --2

MR. FENLON: Withdrawn.3

BY MR. FENLON:4

Q Do you know what the number of parking units5

would be required by applying the calculations in the6

RSIS?7

A The numbers that I used, I ended up calculating a8

number of 819. I think there's another way you can9

calculate it depending on the numbers of bedrooms, you10

get a 12. So it depends on the, the bedroom count.11

But it's certainly above 800 parking spaces.12

Q And can you briefly tell me what the parking13

requirement numbers are that were set forth in the14

RSIS? Let me just show you the RSIS parking which is15

set forth in N.J.A.C. 5:21-4.14, it's right in table16

4.4 of the regulations.17

A Well, this is a midrise apartment, by definition,18

by, at least by the Institute of Transportation19

Engineers definition. And midrise apartment uses the20

garden apartments numbers. For a one bedroom, it's21

1.8 parking spaces per unit. For a two bedroom, it's22

two parking spaces per unit. And for a three bedroom,23

it's 2.1 parking spaces per unit.24

Q And to get the total number of parking spaces25


13/140

Klein - Direct 13

required, you calculate the number of -- or how do you1

reach number?2

A You, you take the, I think the numbers that I had,3

it was 144 one bedroom units. I multiply that by 1.8.4

Then I think the total was about 262 two bedroom units.5

Multiply that by 2. And I think it was 13 units that6

were three bedrooms. Multiply that by 2.1. Add those7

all together, and think I ended up with 819 total8

parking spaces, according to our RSIS.9

Q And, are you familiar with the term banked10

parking?11

A Yes.12

Q Could you briefly describe that term, and13

what that term means --14

A In, in my experience --15

Q -- in parking planning?16

A Excuse me. In my experience in, in both preparing17

and reviewing residential sites as well as other site18

plan applications, we use a term called banked parking.19

In a situation where a particular user for a particular20

use thinks that they can deviate from a parking21

ordinance or a parking standard, they can show in22

their, on their site that they can meet the ordinance,23

but that they dont want to build all the parking24

spaces. So they usually put off to the side an area,25


14/140

Klein - Direct 14

usually at grade because it's easy to build if they1

have to, of parking spaces that meets that number.2

So, in other words, in this case, the3

difference between 819 and 671 or 73, would be an area4

that, the easiest way to do would be to put it at5

grade. And if they need that parking, then they can6

build it. And if it turns out that the calculations7

that they thought they were going to use for parking8

turn out, then they dont need to build it. But at9

least it's there just in case.10

Q And, did you reach a conclusion as to whether11

there was sufficient area on the 2 sites at 215, 23512

Birchwood Avenue, --13

A I --14

Q -- for banked parking at grade?15

A I looked at this exhibit P-63a, and I saw where16

the, the flood lines were, the flood hazard lines. And17

it really looks like, other than where the building is18

located, there's not much other area on the site for19

banked parking at grade.20

Q In connection with your report, you were21

reviewing an earlier iteration of the plaintiff's22

concept plan which he prepared in September of 2008.23

This particular plan, P-63a, I think was dated24

July 30th, if I'm not mistaken. Based upon your review25


15/140


16/140

Klein - Direct 16

about 100 spaces. So they're still short of the RSIS.1

Q And it's your conclusion that a development2

of this nature should completely satisfy the RSIS3

standard, correct?4

A At least be able to show that they could, if and5

when they do need to get to that level of parking.6

Q Now, in your report, did you reach a7

conclusion as to the vehicle ownership on a pro8

residence basis that would take place if this project9

were completed and occupied?10

A Well, given the fact that it's , I think it's11

about a mile and a half to the train station, I don't12

believe there's any public transit within a quarter13

mile within reasonable walking distance of the site.14

It's a suburban area. Thats all the reasons why you15

would stick with RSIS numbers. So, Id have to say16

that it needs to provide the amount of parking thats17

dictated in RSIS.18

Q And did Ms. McKenzie reach a conclusion or an19

assumption as to the number of cars that would be owned20

per residence.21

A I believe Ms. McKenzie had indicated in her report22

that she thought it would be the type of location, the23

type of site that would be two people living in a place24

that would have two vehicles.25


17/140

Klein - Direct 17

Q And you concur to that assessment?1

A I agree with that.2

Q And, (pause) did you actually during one of3

your inspections, measure the width of Birchwood4

Avenue?5

A Yes.6

Q And what was the width thats measured by7

you?8

A In the proximate location of where the site shows,9

the site plan is showing, it's approximately 36 feet10

from curb to curb.11

Q Let me show you a document thats been marked12

Defense Exhibit 112a.13

MR. FENLON: Your Honor, heres a copy of14

that. I don't believe you have that one.15

THE COURT: Thank you.16

BY MR. FENLON:17

Q Now, Mr. Klein, if you would, were there18

tables that were attached to your January 14, 201019

report?20

A Yes.21

Q And could you briefly describe them?22

A D-112a that you handed me are the, are similar to23

the tables that I had in my report. However, during my24

deposition, I was asked to show the formulas or the25


18/140

Klein - Direct 18

average rates that we use to come up with the trip1

generation number. So the smaller type face within2

the table shows either an average rate, .14 times the3

number of beds. Thats the way I calculated the trip4

generation for the assisted living. The average daily5

traffic number for instance, 2.66 times the number of6

beds gives us the, the daily traffic generated by a 1807

bed assisted living.8

So it's the trip generation table, but it9

shows how -- so you could take out a calculator and10

double check my math if you wanted to.11

Q And the initial tables one and table two,12

trip generation summaries that were next to your report13

did not show the calculations?14

A They didn't, thats correct.15

Q And you provided my office with Exhibit16

D-112a, which are essentially charts, but they have the17

formula?18

A Thats correct.19

Q And the formulas for a trip generation that20

you utilized were taken -- how did you arrive at them?21

A I used the Eighth Edition of the Trip Generation22

Manual prepared, published by the Institute of23

Transportation Engineers to determine trip generation.24

Q And did you reach a conclusion as to the25


19/140

Klein - Direct 19

approximate number of vehicle trips that would be1

generated during morning peak hours by the 419 unit2

project proposed by the plaintiff?3

A Yes. On Table Two, there's different formulas for4

different times of day. The first row shows the peak5

hour of the generator. The second row shows the trip6

generation rate during the 7:00 to 9:00 peak hour and7

the 4:00 to 6:00 evening peak hour. And then the third8

row shows an average rate that I would use for the9

number of units to come up with trip generation.10


approximate number of vehicle trips which would be12

generated by this proposed project if it was13

constructed for evening peak hours?14

A Right. During the evening peak hour would be15

approximately 211 trips in and out in one peak hour.16

And in the morning, the peak hour would be proximately17

179 trips both in and out total during one peak hour in18

the morning.19


approximate amount of additional cars which would be21

utilizing Birchwood Avenue as a result of these22

calculations that you undertook?23

A On a daily basis, the 419 units would generate24

approximately between 2100 and 2650 daily trips on25


20/140

Klein - Direct 20

Birchwood Avenue.1

Q And during your -- well, when did you2

undertake your site visits to 215 and 235 Birchwood3

Avenue, what dates?4

A January 7th, January 11th, and January 12th.5

Q And what traffic conditions did you observe6

on Birchwood Avenue during your visits, and at what7

time?8

A I was there approximately, I believe it was 8:15.9

Between 8:15 and 8:30 is when the, the peak period10

between the parents dropping kids at the Bloomingdale11

and heading -- either leaving or heading over to the12

Orange Avenue School to drop their older children off.13

Q And during those inspections, did you observe14

any traffic lineups?15

A Yes, the three days that I was there, the traffic16

queued up from Orange Avenue back past the site, Id17

say probably half to three quarters of the length of18

Birchwood Avenue for about a 10 or 15 minute period.19

Q Now, did you, in connection with preparing20

your report, did you undertake to reach an estimation21

of what the, the, current traffic on Birchwood Avenue22

was in January of 2010?23

A Yes, I did.24

Q And how did you do that?25


21/140

Klein - Direct 21

A Well, we didn't have enough time to, to go out and1

do daily traffic counts, so I contacted the Township2

Engineer to find out how I would -- we get the number3

of beds at the assisted living facility. He gave me a4

number of somebody to call, and I found out that there5

were 180 beds there. And then, Rick Morrison6

(phonetic), the Township Engineer and I estimated,7

based on an aerial photograph, the square footage8

roughly of what the Verizon building across the street9

would be.10

And then I did the trip generation of both11

the, what we call assisted living, the healthcare12

center, and the single tenant office building across13

the street, Verizon, to come up with the trip14

generation numbers for those, and estimated that the15

daily trips for the assisted living with 180 beds would16

be approximately 479 trips per day. And for the single17

tenant office building of approximately 62,500 square18

feet, the daily trip numbers would be approximately 89919

trips per day.20

I added those trips together and thats21

approximately 1380, 1378 trips. And that would be the,22

roughly the estimate of the daily trips along Birchwood23

Avenue just associated with these two uses; not just24

associated with just residential traffic driving along,25


22/140

Klein - Direct 22

and people going back and forth from the different1

schools.2

Q And, turning your attention back to Exhibit3

D-112a, Table Two, you reached, or you did three4

calculations as to what the total ADT would be if this5

project was actually completed. Is that correct?6

A Yes.7

Q And could you just tell the Court what does8

ADT stand for?9

A ADT is average daily traffic.10

Q Okay. And in the far right column, you have11

numbers 2,108, 2,646, and then again, 2,646. What do12

those numbers correspond to?13

A Those are based on different formulas in the trip14

generation manual. Those are different results of the15

daily trip numbers based on 419 midrise apartments.16

Q And did you reach an estimate of what the17

average daily trips would be if the plaintiffs proposed18

419 unit development was constructed?19

A Right. If I took the 1378 trips from what I20

calculated based on the healthcare facility and the21

Verizon building across the street, and I add either22

2100 or 2600, I end up with over 4,000 trips, I23

believe, per day.24

Q In your report, you could take a look at page25


23/140

Klein - Direct 23

two, paragraph seven. In that report you indicated1

that the trip generation for 419 midrise units would be2

2,305 vehicle trips.3

A Yeah, I believe I averaged the two numbers, the4

2108 and the 2646.5

Q From, from Table Two on --6

A Thats correct. From Table Two, thats correct.7

Q And do you have an opinion as to whether or8

not Birchwood Avenue would be, would constitute a9

residential street under the RSIS if this project is10

actually constructed?11

A Well, Birchwood Avenue, even though there are non12

residential uses along Birchwood Avenue, it conveys13

residential traffic, people going to and from different14

neighborhoods, people just getting around in Cranford.15

So, to me it's a residential street. It conveys16

residential traffic. It's not an industrial street.17

There's not a lot of trucks. There's people going to18

work that happen to be located here. There's people19

that are going to work that drive past here from a20

residential neighborhood. So, to look at the street as21

a residential street, I thought this was, was perfectly22

adequate to do that.23

So I looked at the width of the street, the24

amount of traffic on my estimate of the daily traffic,25


24/140

Klein - Direct 24

and determined that it's a minor collector street,1

based on the AD, based on the ADTs, the width of it.2

Q Could you tell me what a minor collector is?3

A A minor collector street, according to RSIS, is a4

street that carries less than 3500 trips per day. It5

allows parking on both sides; approximately 36 feet6

wide. And it's eight foot parking or seven foot7

parking lanes on either side. So it sort of, again,8

meets the definition of that type of street.9

Q And are you familiar with the term major10

collector?11

A A major collector would be the next category12

higher that would carry more than 3500 up to I believe13

7500 trips per day.14

Q And, what's the difference besides the number15

of vehicle traffic between a minor collector and a16

major collector?17

A Once you move up to a major collector, because18

it's carrying that much more volume, you wouldnt19

permit parking on a street, even if it's 36 feet wide.20

Q And, do you have an opinion as to whether the21

RSIS standards for a street would apply if this22

particular 419 residential unit was constructed?23

A Certainly. It's the numbers I calculated on Table24

One, which are the non residential trips of 1300,25


25/140

Klein - Direct 25

almost 1400. Then you add in the, depending on which1

number you use from Table Two, 2600, 2100, or the2

average of them; then you're actually putting in more3

residential traffic on this street, then there would be4

non residential traffic. So then it would definitely5

become a residential street.6

And then it would become a residential street7

with more than 3500 daily trips. And therefore, it8

would be a street that you wouldnt put parking on. It9

would be a major collector.10

Q Now, are you aware that under the RSIS11

standards that there is a provision for diminimous12

exceptions?13

A Yes.14

Q And assuming your calculation of 812 parking15

spaces would be the RSIS requirement, and the parking16

spaces presently offered by the plaintiffs of 671, that17

would be approximately 138, 39 --18

A In that range.19

Q -- reduction of those spaces. Thats20

approximately 17 percent --21

A Thats correct.22

Q -- of the parking. Do you have a23

professional opinion as to whether a reduction in24

parking of that magnitude would constitute a, or fall25


26/140

Klein - Direct 26

within the RSIS diminimous exception.1

A To me that would be a larger deviation from2

parking rather than a diminimous. To me, diminimous is3

more in the range percent. To me, anything over ten4

percent would be a major change. For instance, in the5

site plan, if you're making a change of greater than6

ten percent, youd have to submit a new site plan.7

Q And, is there a provision in the section of8

the RSIS specifically dealing with parking that allows9

for a, an alternative calculation or a downward10

reduction of parking under certain circumstances?11

A Right.12

Q And I think you previously testified that one13

of those would depend upon whether the site was in an14

urban setting or a suburban setting, and if it was in15

a --16

MR. FENLON: Strike that.17

BY MR. FENLON:18

Q If it was in an urban setting, would that19

militate in favor of a parking reduction?20

A Yes. Typically, an urban setting would have21

alternatives to the single occupant vehicle. Youd22

have buses and trains. So thats, thats why urban23

would be -- would allow you to reduce the amount of24

parking versus suburban.25


27/140

Klein - Direct 27

Q In a suburban setting, most likely1

alternative services would not generally be available?2

A Thats correct. And in this case, they're not3

available.4

Q Is one of the other standards that would5

militate in favor of a downward reduction in parking6

under the RSIS be the availability of mass transit?7

A Thats correct.8

Q And you visited the site. Is there any mass9

transit stops in the immediate vicinity of this10

particular property?11

A Not within the typical quarter mile distance. I12

think the train station is about a mile and a half.13

Q And, is one of the other, I think you14

mentioned that one of the other factors that can be15

reviewed by the Court in recommending a downward16

reduction of parking would be available off site17

parking. Is there any available off site parking in18

the immediate vicinity of this particular property?19

Are there any public garages or the like?20

A No.21

Q So, would it be your professional opinion22

that none of the factors that would warrant a downward23

reduction exists in connection with this proposed24

development?25


28/140

Klein - Direct 28

A That would be my opinion, yes.1

Q Okay. Now, Mr. Klein, let me show what has2

been previously marked and is in evidence as Exhibit3

D-157, which is the survey, Alpha (phonetic) survey4

that was secured by the plaintiffs when they purchased5

the property. And it's dated June 11, 2008.6

THE COURT: Which, which --7

MR. FENLON: D-157, Your Honor, in evidence.8

BY MR. FENLON:9

Q And this depicts the property as it existed10

in June of 2008, and I think it essentially depicts it11

as it stands today. Yesterday, I asked you to review12

the survey and see if you could determine the number of13

parking spaces, which currently exist on site.14

A Yes.15

Q And did you, in reviewing the survey, reach a16

conclusion as to what the current number of spaces17

provided on the site are?18

A Yes. On the survey in little triangles, they19

indicate the number of parking spaces in each little20

grouping. I added up all the numbers in all the21

triangles and came up with 372 parking spaces.22

Q And, if the project was constructed with the23

parking requirements of the RSIS of approximately 81224

units, that would represent a more than doubling of the25


29/140

Klein - Direct 29

existing parking on site, correct?1

A Thats correct.2

Q And, therefore, if it was full occupancy,3

would represent, or more than double the number of4

cars, --5

A Correct.6

Q -- that would be on site, correct?7

A Correct.8

Q And, even at their, the plaintiff's proposed9

number of 671, that would still be almost, represent10

almost a doubling of the existing parking spaces and,11

and number of vehicles assuming full occupancy.12

A Yes.13

Q And, I, I think you made reference in your14

testimony that one of the sources that you reviewed was15

the Institute of Transit Engineers Parking Generation16

Publication.17

A Thats, thats correct, the Third Edition.18

Q Okay. And, do you have an opinion as to19

whether the information contained in that particular20

publication is comprehensive or authoritative enough to21

be utilized in designing the parking requirements for22

development of the size that was proposed in Exhibit23

P-63a?24

A Not in New Jersey because we have the RSIS for25


30/140

Klein - Direct 30

parking.1

MR. FENLON: Just one minute, Your Honor.2

(Pause)3

BY MR. FENLON:4

Q Now, Mr. Klein, I'm going to show an exhibit5

thats in evidence which is Exhibit P-39a, which is an6

exhibit prepared by the plaintiffs engineering expert7

which basically delineates the property as it currently8

exists, and then calculates the extent of the floodway,9

which is this darker blue in between the solid red10

lines, and then the flood hazard area, which is a11

little bit lighter blue. And it's in between the solid12

red line in the middle of the property and then the13

dotted red line to the right of that. Do you see that?14

A Yes.15

Q And, it also depicts Birchwood Avenue.16

A Yes.17

Q And, is it fair to say that essentially the18

entire frontage of the properties at 215 and 23519

Birchwood Avenue are situated either within or20

neighboring a, a floodway? This is 235, and this 21521

Birchwood Avenue.22

A Yes.23

Q And in your professional opinion, would it be24

appropriate or sound parking planning to propose to25


31/140


32/140

Klein - Direct 32

copy of Elizabeth Dolans July 29, 2010 report?1

A Yes.2

Q Okay. And did you review it?3

A Yes.4

Q Let me just show you what's been marked5

Exhibit D-178 for identification. Tell me if you could6

identify that document?7

A Yes. This is Ms. Dolans report.8

Q And, in that report, Ms. Dolan indicates that9

she undertook actual traffic calculations. Is that10

correct?11

A Yes, thats correct.12

Q And she reached a, or her calculations or13

counts determined that there was approximately 1,90014

vehicle trips on the days that she took counts. Is15

that correct?16

A Thats what it says. The automatic traffic count17

data revealed a daily volume of approximately 190018

vehicles.19

Q And that number is significantly in excess of20

the approximately 1380 number that you estimated in21

preparing your report, correct?22

A Thats correct.23

MR. FENLON: I have no further questions,24

Your Honor.25


33/140


34/140

Klein - Cross 34

A No.1

Q You didn't do any counts at all?2

A Thats correct.3

Q Now, so, so you made observations of how much4

the traffic stacked on, on Birchwood Avenue at the5

corner of -- of what corner?6

A Well, it came, the traffic stops at Orange7

Avenue --8

Q Okay. So at the corner of --9

A -- and then it backs up towards Bloomingdale.10

Q Okay. At the corner of Orange and Birchwood.11

Now, you made that observation during the period of12

8:15 to 8:30. Is that correct?13

A I was out there from before 8:00 until after 8:30,14

but I noticed that the peak was between 8:15 and 8:30.15

Q And, did -- how, how steep a peak was it?16

A It was within that 15 minute period.17

Q Well, did -- was it just a little tiny peak,18

or a was it a big peak?19

A A big peak.20

Q A big peak.21

A Yes.22

Q So the amount of stacking you got was very23

much greater during that, during that period than24

before or after?25


35/140


36/140

Klein - Cross 36

A Some -- one hour between 4:00 p.m. and 6:00 p.m.1

Q Okay. So a different period from when the,2

when the peak school traffic would be?3

A Correct. But, my table doesnt have the, the --4

when I did my trip generation, --5

Q I'm just trying -- it's a different --6

A It's different, -- yes, it's a different,7

different period.8

Q -- different period of time.9

MR. FENLON: Objection, Your Honor. Hes10

badgering the witness.11

THE COURT: Why dont you just go ahead12

with --13

MR. EISDORFER: Okay.14

BY MR. EISDORFER:15

Q And, what's, what's the peak a.m. period you16

used?17

A Between 7:00 a.m. and 9:00 a.m.18

Q Okay. So, so, only 15 minutes of that period19

is, is the peak school period?20

A According to my observations, yes.21

Q Now, you can't tell us what, anything about22

what the actual volume, based on, on your analysis of23

what the actual volume of traffic on the street is?24

You didn't do any counts?25


37/140

Klein - Cross 37

A I did not do any counts personally.1

Q And so you can't tell us, you can't tell us2

what percentage increased in the volume of, of traffic3

that would go onto the street from, from this project4

that's filled out in accordance with this concept, the5

concept on P-63a?6

A Ms. Dolan --7

Q Well, I'm asking for your observations.8

A Oh, based on observations, no.9

Q No. So you said that, that you can't tell us10

that. Incidentally, in doing your, your traffic11

generation data, did you subtract the traffic that12

would be generated by the, the office buildings on the13

site?14

A No, because I was just determining what the 41915

apartments would generate, what the Verizon building16

might be generating and what the healthcare center17

might be generating. I wasnt trying to, to recreate18

the existing volumes. I was just trying to estimate19

what the daily numbers might be on Birchwood Avenue.20

Q Okay. So, you can't tell us what the net21

impact would be?22

A Thats correct, I can't, right.23

Q Now based on, based on your traffic, your24

trip generation analysis of -- well, let's go back just25


38/140

Klein - Cross 38

a minute. Okay. So, in, in doing your trip generation1

analysis for, for this site, the CDA project, you used2

the IT -- ITE Trip Generation Manual?3

A Thats correct, the Eighth Edition.4

Q Okay. And let me just understand, because5

I'm seeing this for the first time now, D-112a.6

MR. FENLON: Just for the record, Your Honor,7

that was produced to Mr. Eisdorfer in May personally by8

me, --9

MR. EISDORFER: Okay. Very, very well.10

MR. FENLON: -- by his request.11

MR. EISDORFER: Very well. Thats, thats12

fine.13

BY MR. EISDORFER:14

Q Let me just understand what youve done here.15

I'm going to ask you to look at Table Two of D-112a.16

Now, first of all, I noticed that here you didn't use,17

you didn't use the ADTs in the RSIS? RSIS has ADTs for18

different kinds of uses. You didn't use those?19

A Thats correct, I, I did not.20

Q And so you didn't use the RSIS ADTs. You21

used the ADTs from the, from the International22

Transportation --23

A The Institute of Transportation Engineers Eighth24

Edition of the Trip Generation.25


39/140

Klein - Cross 39

Q -- instead of the RSIS?1

A Thats correct.2

Q Okay. Let me, let me ask you to look at the3

first set of numbers. And, tell me what, what the4

formula, what that formula signifies? Look, it says,5

and further, and then youve got .46. What is .46?6

A Thats the average rate per unit, average trip7

rate per unit.8

Q And, and where does that number come from?9

A From a series of studies that are a compilation of10

the, what's in the Institute of Transportation11

Engineers Trip Generation.12

Q Now, did you independently verify those13

studies?14

A No.15

Q No. The, the Traffic Engineers, the people16

who do traffic planning rely on that data as, as17

reliable data?18

A Right. It's data from actual counts from various19

studies that have been done. And then they compile it20

together and mathematically come up with an average21

rates and formulas so that others could use it to22

develop similar trip generation for similar type uses.23

Q Do you know how many studies were involved in24

this?25


40/140

Klein - Cross 40

A Off the top of my head, no. But, I believe the1

res -- something like residential, I think there's2

hundreds of studies; residentials, offices.3

Q But this, but this is midrise, midrise4

apartments.5

MR. FENLON: Your Honor, hes interrupting6

the witness continuously.7

BY MR. EISDORFER:8

A Well, Id have to look in the book to see if we9

did --10

Q You, you dont know?11

A -- 20, right, 20 studies or 100 studies; I'm not12

sure.13

Q You dont have any idea how many studies14

there were?15

A Correct. But there's no other way of determining16

trip generation other than using the ITE.17

Q Okay. Now, you opined, if I understand it,18

that, and I'm looking of paragraph 5 of P-112; --19

A Yes.20

Q -- that, that during the, during the peak21

hour based on your analysis, based on the ITE data,22

that that would add approximately -- put three23

additional cars on Birchwood Avenue every minute?24

A On average, correct.25


41/140

Klein - Cross 41

Q Okay. Now, did you make, did you make a1

determination as to what the impact of that would be on2

the functioning of Birchwood Avenue?3

A Yes.4

Q Did you make a determination of what the5

impact of that would be during the 15 minute peak, the6

peak period of school traffic between 8:15 and 8:30?7

A I didn't include it in my report, no.8

Q Did, did you make a determination?9

A Well, in talking about it now, if somebody was to10

try to make a left out of the site, and there's that11

long queue, it may be difficult for them to get out12

there in that 15 minute peak.13

Q Now, and, and are there -- when this kind of,14

kind of situation occurs, are there, are there15

improvements that one could make to, to the16

intersection that would mitigate those tests?17

A Typically not for a 15 minute spike in, in18

traffic. Youd normally be looking at traffic signal19

warrants, and multi-way stop warrants, the manual20

uniform traffic control devices to determine if there21

is something that you could to mitigate.22

But it's, majority, I think, of the people23

are trying to make a left turn from Birchwood onto24

Orange, and they have to wait for the Orange traffic,25


42/140

Klein - Cross 42

gaps in the Orange traffic in order to make that left1

turn.2

Q Well, suppose it weren't 15 minutes, suppose3

it were hours, --4

A Right.5

Q -- are, are there, are there engineering6

things that one could do to, at that sort of7

intersection?8

A Yes.9

Q What sort of things?10

A They could widen the approach of Birchwood at11

Orange to put in an exclusive left and an exclusive12

right turn lane. They could do the, the warrants to13

see if a traffic signal is warranted. Multi-way stops14

might be a way to do it; a roundabout. There's several15

different ways.16

Q Are these issues that would typically be17

dealt with at the local Planning Board review?18

A During the design and the preparation of all the19

plans and, and reports, yes.20

Q Now, but, but you said that for the a 1521

minute, a 15 minute period, it simply wouldnt be worth22

doing those things?23

A Not that it wouldnt be worth it; it's just that24

there wouldnt be -- there's not enough volume to25


43/140


44/140

Klein - Cross 44

It's the same in, in residential. You can do1

the same type of thing with residential. If for2

whatever reason, if a tenant says, well, I know that3

I'm going to have senior housing. And I know that4

these people aren't only going to have one, one and a5

half cars, not two, then you can say, well, if we were6

to meet the ordinance or meet RSIS, we would build all7

this parking, but because of what we think our tenants8

are going to be like, we're only going to build, let's9

say, three-quarters of the parking.10

So we -- as they are starting to occupy the11

building, they realize, oh, guess what, they really are12

coming in with two cars per unit. We've got to start13

to fill in the parking, they can go ahead and build the14

rest of the parking.15

Q So the premise of the banked parking is that16

actual utilization might turn out to be lower than the17

standard?18

A That's correct.19

Q Now, in, in -- now, did you review the ITE20

Parking, Parking Generation Report to determine what21

the actual utilization for midrise apartments would be?22

A Yes. I don't have it handy in my head. But I did23

look at that and there are ranges that are 8724

percentiles, 95th percentiles, maximums. There's a25


45/140

Klein - Cross 45

whole, a lot of different data to look at.1

Q Okay. You think it's lower than the New2

Jersey RSIS?3

A I don't recall if they were lower or close or how4

much lower. Id have to look at the book again.5

Q Okay. So, but did that make any impact in6

your analysis?7

A When I do resident -- no. When I do residential,8

I use the RSIS in New Jersey.9

Q Um-hmm. Okay. Now, did you, did you take10

into account any features of the demograph -- in11

assessing the alternatives, the possibility of12

alternative parking standards, did you consider13

demographic characteristics of the residents of this14

project?15

A No.16

(Pause)17

Q Now, from the point of view of safety, would18

it be unsafe to have parking, on-street parking on19

Birchwood Avenue?20

A If the site were to be fully developed, according21

to RSIS, street --22

Q I'm ask -- I'm asking for --23

A I'm getting to that.24

Q Okay.25


46/140

Klein - Cross 46

A I'm getting to that. RSIS wouldnt recommend,1

recommend not putting on-street parking on a street of2

this width with an ADT greater than 3500. And that's3

what the ADT would end up being if you fully develop4

the site. So the answer would be it would be unsafe to5

put on-street parking.6

Q We're going to talk about the RSIS in just a7

moment. But do you have a professional opinion as a8

Traffic Engineer whether it would be unsafe to put9

parking on that site?10

A Well, based on the flood information, I would say11

that it's not a good location to park. If I'm going to12

park on the street, and it -- I get flooded once, I'm13

going to know not to park there anymore if it's going14

to rain. So, as far as flooding goes, I would say it's15

not good parking, a good parking location.16

Q But, in terms of public safety, do you have17

an opinion on that?18

A I mean, Birchwood is wide enough to have an 8-foot19

lane -- I'm sorry, two 12 foot lanes and two 7 foot20

parking lanes. So, physically, it could fit.21

Q And how many parking spaces would fit on22

either side?23

A I think they took the full length of 800 and24

divided it by 25, but I don't think they included the25


47/140

Klein - Cross 47

space for the, the driveway. So, the calculation I1

think I saw somebody said was 32 parking spaces. It2

would probably be a little bit less than that, maybe3

28.4

Q Okay. It's 28 on either side?5

A No, no. Oh, on either side of the street? Right.6

That's correct?7

Q Okay. Now, is it your opinion, is it your8

opinion that as a matter of law, the RSIS governs the9

use of existing public streets?10

A I really wasnt using it in that way. I was just11

saying that it's a residential street. We're building12

something new on that street. So I went to the RSIS to13

look at ADTs and the design of that cross-section.14

Q But does it govern the use of existing public15

streets?16

A In my mind, even if it didn't govern it, it was a17

good guidance. So, --18

Q Does it govern them?19

A I don't know.20

Q You dont know. You dont know.21

MR. FENLON: It's a question of law, Your22

Honor; objection.23

BY MR. EISDORFER:24

Q Well, does the RSIS prohibit, prohibit25


48/140

Klein - Cross 48

parking in Birchwood Avenue?1

A Today it doesnt, no.2

Q Okay.3

A Correct.4

Q Would it prohibit it if the project were5

built as proposed?6

A I'm not sure if it's prohibited or if it's as7

guidance, or if it's the standards. I'm not --8

Q Are you sure --9

A I think if it's standards, I'm saying it would10

prohibit it.11

Q Are you sure it has any application at all?12

A (No verbal response from the witness)13

Q Have you seen any documents issued by the14

Department of Community Affairs that addressed this15

issue?16

A Only the document in the back of Ms. Dolans17

report.18

Q Okay. And, and then did you, did you read19

that?20

A It had something to do with a cul-de-sac as I21

remember. But I don't remember it having to do with22

the particular, this type of a street.23

Q Okay. Now, do you have an opinion as to24

whether it would be feasible to add an additional, an25


49/140

Klein - Cross 49

additional level to the parking garage?1

A I'm an Engineer, but I'm not an Engineer who2

designs parking garages. To me, while you're adding3

that extra level, it seems like for safety reasons,4

youd want to empty the parking garage. So, I'm not5

sure how long it takes to add the level, weeks, a6

month, months, I'm not sure. But during that time, I7

would think at a minimum, youd have to at least empty8

out the garage.9

Q So, there might be some, some temporary, some10

temporary disruption?11

A Temporary, that's the way to put it, sure.12

Q A month, not years?13

A I would say, yeah, I would say months not years,14

right. Correct.15

Q Well, let me just ask you one more question.16

A Sure.17

Q Did you -- while you were there, did you look18

at some of the cars that were in the Verizon parking19

lot?20

A No.21

Q Could you tell whether it was full?22

A I don't think the parking lot was full, just23

remembering just glancing over.24

Q How about the parking lot at the healthcare25


50/140

Klein - Cross 50

facility?1

A That I couldnt see while observing.2

Q Okay.3

A I just drove past. I don't remember that being4

there.5

Q So we can assume that the number of spaces in6

the parking lot is the actual number of cars that would7

actually park there, can we?8

A You're saying can we assume --9

Q Can we assume that the number of spaces equal10

the number of cars that would be parked there?11

A Not always. There's usually, you know, there's12

people on vacation. They're out to meetings. But at13

some times theyll be, you know, 90, 95 percent14

occupancy.15

Q Well, actually in well designed parking lots,16

there's always a few extra spaces, isn't it?17

A Sure.18

Q You always to have, have fewer cars there19

than you actually have spaces. Isn't that right?20

A That's correct.21

MR. EISDORFER: I have no further questions.22

THE COURT: Okay. I think well take a break23

and then well have --24

(Judge handles another matter)25


51/140

Klein - Cross 51

(Tape off - tape on)1

MS. MCKENZIE: Your Honor, I have no2

questions of this witness.3

THE COURT: Okay. Very good. Okay.4

Anything further anyone else?5

MR. FENLON: Yes, Your Honor. Just a few6

questions on redirect.7

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. FENLON:8

Q Now, Mr. Klein, on cross-examination, I think9

you indicated that you didn't make any actual traffic10

counts on Birchwood Avenue. Is that correct?11

A That's correct.12

Q And when you were preparing your report in13

January of 2010, you were asked by the Township of14

Cranford to turn that report around in a fairly quick15

timeframe. Is that correct?16

A That's correct.17

Q And is it your understanding that there was a18

time, a trial scheduled in this matter for19

April 19, 2010?20

A I believe that was the date, yes.21

Q And, let me ask you this. We discussed it a22

little bit the, Institute of Transportation Engineers,23

Trip Generation Publication. I think in your direct24

examination, you indicated that that was a publication25


52/140

Klein - Redirect 52

that is utilized in the traffic planning field within1

the State of New Jersey. Is that correct?2

A Yes.3

Q And do professionals in your field rely on4

that publication in calculating and estimating vehicle5

trips?6

A Yes.7

Q Now, Id like to show you Exhibit P-112a8

again, which is in evidence. And that's the revised9

Trip Generation Summary that shows the calculations?10

A Yes.11

Q And, in May of this year, I actually sent you12

a request from Mr. Eisdorfer for certain documentation13

that he requested at your deposition. Is that correct?14

A That's correct.15

Q And you prepared this document at my request.16

Is that correct?17

A That's correct.18

Q Now, in calculating or estimating the average19

daily trips for Birchwood Avenue, you calculated the20

number of trips which would be generated by the21

assisted living facility, which is on the, to the east22

of the 215 Birchwood Avenue site. Is that correct?23

A That's correct.24

Q And the Verizon property which is directly to25


53/140

Klein - Redirect 53

the north of the site. Is that correct?1

A That's correct.2

Q And those are the only two current uses that3

you used to estimate. Is that correct?4

A That's correct.5

Q And there are other present uses on the site.6

You did not calculate the average daily trips of the7

existing office building on 235 Birchwood Avenue.8

A That's correct.9

Q And that office building is currently10

occupied, correct?11

A From -- during my observations, I remember seeing12

cars parked in that parking lot, yes.13

Q And you didn't calculate the traffic or trip14

generated by the property to the west of the site,15

which is a construction area, correct?16

A Correct, yes.17

Q All right. So you, basically you reached a18

very conservative estimate of what the current traffic19

on Birchwood Avenue was from in order to prepare your20

report.21

A A low number based on just a couple of uses along22

the street, not, not taking into account traffic that23

would be just be using Birchwood to cut across.24

Q And that number doesnt, did not include25


54/140

Klein - Redirect 54

school traffic --1

A School traffic, correct.2

Q -- or other residential traffic.3

A That's correct.4

Q And, and we're aware now, because of the5

counts prepared by, undertaken by Ms. Dolan, that in,6

at least at the end of July, the average daily trips7

were approximately 1900, correct?8

A That's correct.9

Q And that's significantly an increase of your10

estimation, correct?11

A That's correct.12

Q Now, I think Mr. Eisdorfer asked you on13

cross-examination whether flooding was a, a safety14

consideration.15

MR. EISDORFER: Objection. No such, no such16

question was asked.17

MR. FENLON: Well, Your Honor, I think the18

record will reflect he asked whether, he asked19

questions related to the public safety relating to the20

street, and one of them pertained to flooding.21

MR. EISDORFER: I did not ask any such22

question. The question goes beyond the question.23

MR. FENLON: Well, it's on-street parking.24

THE COURT: Okay. Ill allow him to testify25


55/140

Klein - Redirect 55

about the on-street parking that you did cover.1

THE WITNESS: On-street parking; safety of2

on-street parking.3

MR. FENLON: This is related to on-street4

parking in terms of --5

MR. EISDORFER: I didn't ask that question6

either. I asked about public health and safety. I7

didn't ask about flooding.8

THE COURT: I don't think the question now is9

flooding. I think you did ask him about on-street10

parking and the recommendations of RSIS with reference11

to on-street parking.12

MR. EISDORFER: Okay.13

MR. FENLON: Let me ask it this way, Your14

Honor. Ill disregard the inquiry and the record will15

reflect what it is.16

BY MR. FENLON:17

Q From your professional opinion as a traffic18

and planning expert, parking expert; would a street19

that is partially in a floodway and partially in a20

flood hazard area present a public safety issue when21

you are considering whether to site on-street parking22

on that street?23

A Yes. And also just to add to that, access from24

the site in and out of this flood area is going to be25


56/140

Klein - Redirect 56

problematic. I've seen -- well --1

Q I think on cross-examination Mr. Eisdorfer2

asked you whether you had calculated the average daily3

trips under certain standards that are contained in the4

RSIS. Is that correct?5

A That's correct.6

Q And, I had previously asked you on direct7

where you, or how you reached the number of 2,3058

vehicle trips per day, which is referenced on page --9

paragraph seven of your January 14, 2010 report, D-112.10

A Correct.11

Q Is that the number that, of daily trips that12

would be reached if you had calculated using the RS --13

standards set forth in the RSIS?14

A Yes, the standard for midrise apartments is 5.515

trips per unit. And that works out to be 2,304.5. I16

rounded it off to 2,305.17

Q Now, let me ask you another question.18

Assuming the, the RSIS standard would, of minor19

collector or major collector did not apply to an20

existing street, if you took the average daily trips21

counted by Ms. Dolan of 1900 and you added to them the22

average daily trips that you have calculated using the23

ITE Trip Generation formulas and the RSIS, those24

numbers would, the average daily trips, if this project25


57/140


58/140

Klein - Redirect 58

residential development be greater in number than an1

office building?2

A No. You're not talking about parking. You're3

talking about trip generation or your talking about --4

because, the parking ratio for -- it's per unit for an5

apartment regardless of the square footage. It6

would -- if it's a two bedroom or three bedroom, the7

square footage would be probably bigger. But it's8

really -- parking is per unit for residential. And9

it's per thousand square foot for an office. The trip10

generation characteristics are different.11

Q And, how would the trip generation12

characteristic be different?13

A Typically for an office, youve got people coming14

in at a certain time. They may go out at lunchtime,15

come back at lunchtime and then leave at the end of the16

day. If the site is residential, youve got people17

coming and going all different times of the day.18

So that's why when you look at the daily19

numbers, you know, for 419 units, youve got 230520

trips, according to RSIS, or anywhere up to 2600 trips21

from the ITE. It's because people have a lot of22

different things to do throughout the day; go to work,23

pickup children, go shopping, run errands. There's a24

lot more trips associated with a car parked at a25


59/140

Klein - Redirect 59

residential site, then there is a car parked at an1

office.2

Q One final question. During your cross-3

examination, Mr. Eisdorfer asked you if you had4

assessed demographic characteristics with respect to5

this proposed project, and I think your testimony was6

that you had not.7

If I was to represent to you that the8

plaintiffs are, had indicated that they intend to9

market this as a luxury apartment complex to empty10

nesters, or, or young couples without children, would11

that change your opinion as to the fact that you12

believe that the occupants of these residences will13

have two cars?14

MR. EISDORFER: I object to, to the question.15

This is asking for an opinion that, that is not in the16

witness' report. And, and he has testified that he17

hasnt, hasnt formulated, something that he hasnt18

formulated. (phonetic)19

MR. FENLON: Your Honor, this is an area that20

Mr. Eisdorfer brought into question on direct21

examination. On direct, Mr. Klein testified that he22

reached a conclusion that the occupants of these23

residences would have two vehicles, and that he agreed24

with Ms. McKenzie in that regard. He has asked a25


60/140

Klein - Redirect 60

question about demographics, and I think it's fair to1

ask that question.2

THE COURT: You know, what's the question3

about demographics.4

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, the question I5

asked was had, had he considered demographics, and his6

answer was no.7

THE COURT: Okay. Was there any kind of a8

follow-up question? I mean, you didnt specifically go9

into the --10

MR. EISDORFER: No.11

THE COURT: All right. I'm going to allow12

you -- if you want to ask a follow-up question on13

demographics, Ill allow you to rephrase your question.14

But, I don't know what -- you're actually giving him a15

hypothetical question eventually?16

MR. FENLON: Well, I, I -- it's a17

hypothetical question based on the representations of18

the plaintiff as to what this development is going to19

be.20

THE COURT: All right. Ill allow you -- why21

dont you rephrase your question.22

BY MR. FENLON:23

Q Mr. Klein, am I correct in indicating that on24

your direct testimony, you -- and in your report, you25


61/140

Klein - Redirect 61

reached a conclusion that the occupants of these1

residences which the plaintiffs are proposing would,2

each would own two vehicles. Is that correct?3

A Right. My number three in my January 14th letter,4

in my last sentence it says ownerships two adults5

living, two adults living in a unit could very well own6

two cars.7

Q And, if, if these units were occupied by a8

couple with no children, would that change your9

assessment?10

A No. And, and can I add one thing? We were11

talking before about the alternative parking standards.12

To me, the more important ones are mass transit and13

urban suburban, because those are the, those are the14

factors I believe in my opinion that would make it more15

likely for someone not to have a second car in a, in a16

two adult home.17

In other words one per -- we're living in18

this location because one of us takes a train to work19

and the other one drives to a suburban office, so20

that's why we want to live here.21

In a location like this, it's difficult for,22

just thinking personally, if I'm going to take the23

train to New York City from this location, I'm either24

going to have to get some kind of transportation to the25


62/140


63/140

Klein - Redirect 63

people to be able to find a spot while other people are1

leaving. You can't just have exactly the number of2

parking spaces that you theoretically think you need.3

You do need a little extra for overflow for peaking4

when there's, you know, spikes in usage, whether5

someone in the developments going to have a party, a6

lot of visitors coming; things like that. Youd need a7

little bit of extra.8

And I believe RSIS includes in their numbers,9

for each of the different bedroom counts, a half of10

space per visitor is included in those numbers.11

MR. FENLON: No further questions, Your12

Honor.13

THE COURT: Anything else?14

MR. EISDORFER: Just a few questions.15

RECROSS BY MR. EISDORFER:16

Q Now, is it your understanding that the flood,17

the flood hazard area shown on this map represents a18

hundred flood event?19

A Actually I'm not sure. I just know that it's a20

floodway limit, and the buffers that go along with the21

other floodway areas. I'm not sure what the frequency22

of the flooding is.23

Q Okay. So you dont know what, what frequency24

it is.25


64/140

Klein - Recross 64

A That's correct.1

Q Does frequency, does frequency make a2

difference in terms of your assessment of whether it's3

good or bad parking?4

A Sure.5

Q An event that occurs once in a lifetime is of6

different significance than an event that occurs every7

third day?8

A Sure.9

MR. EISDORFER: I don't have any further10

questions.11

THE COURT: Okay. Anything else, Ms.12

McKenzie, no?13

MS. MCKENZIE: No. Thank you, Your Honor.14

THE COURT: Okay. So we will break for15

lunch. And well see you ...16

(Judge handles another matter)17

E L I Z A B E T H D O L A N, PLAINTIFF'S WITNESS,18

SWORN19

THE OFFICER: Please state your full name.20

THE WITNESS: Elizabeth Dolan, D-O-L-A-N.21

THE OFFICER: Thank you.22

(Pause - Side discussion)23

DIRECT EXAMINATION (VOIR DIRE) BY MR. EISDORFER:24

Q Ms. Dolan, would you state your full name?25


65/140


66/140

Dolan - Direct 66

circulation.1

Q Do you have any professional memberships?2

A I am a member of the American Society of Civil3

Engineers, and the Institute of Transportation4

Engineers.5

Q I'm going to show you a document that we've6

marked as P-76, and ask you to identify that document.7

A This is a copy of my professional profile that8

summarizes my education, experience, and license in New9

Jersey as well as Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New York.10

Q At, at page 3 of P-76, there is a list of11

some municipalities. Could you tell us what that list12

is?13

A That is a list of municipalities for which I have14

reviewed traffic studies, parking studies, DOT15

permitting for Planning and Zoning Boards. So, when16

the applications are filed, the Board then would retain17

me to review the traffic parking aspects of the18

application.19

Q On page, page five of your CV, there's20

another list of municipalities?21

A This is a list of municipalities where I have been22

accepted, qualified as an expert in traffic23

Engineering. It's roughly 150 or so municipalities24

throughout New Jersey where I've testified.25


67/140

Dolan - Direct 67

Q Have you also testified in Superior Court?1

A Yes, I have, in Ocean County.2

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, I would offer3

P-76 into evidence.4

THE COURT: Any objection?5

MR. WOODWARD: No objection, Your Honor.6

MR. EISDORFER: And I would offer this7

witness as an expert in Civil Engineering, and8

particularly in traffic and parking matters.9

MR. WOODWARD: The Township has no objection,10

Your Honor.11

THE COURT: Okay. Very well. P-76 in12

evidence. And she will so qualified in this court.13

(Pause)14

DIRECT EXAMINATION (CONTINUED) BY MR. EISDORFER:15

Q Ms. Dolan, were you present this morning when16

Mr. Klein testified?17

A Yes.18

Q And did you hear the opinion that, that he19

expressed concerning the applicability of residential20

site improvement standards to parking on Birchwood21

Avenue?22

A Yes.23

Q Is that a matter on which you have a24

professional opinion?25


68/140

Dolan - Direct 68

A I do.1

Q Would, would you tell us what your2

Professional opinion is?3

A Yes. In my reading of the Residential Site4

Improvement Standards, the minor collector roadway that5

was discussed this morning, that definition in RSIS is6

applicable only to local residential streets. That's7

from RSIS.8

The minor collector is further defined in9

RSIS as limited to motorist in the immediate area, and10

a minor collector does not carry regional traffic. So11

my opinion is that the classification does not apply to12

Birchwood, because the land uses along Birchwood would13

certainly cater to regional traffic, not local14

neighborhood traffic. And they are uses, of course,15

along the street, which are not residential.16

Q Now, do you have an opinion on whether the17

RSIS regulates parking on existing public streets?18

A The existing conditions do not come into play19

where the new application is using the existing street.20

So the RSIS would apply in this particular case to the21

parking, but it would not apply to the street, to22

Birchwood.23

Q So it applies to parking onsite?24

A That's correct, onsite parking.25


69/140

Dolan - Direct 69

Q But not to parking on the street?1

A That is correct.2

Q Now, let me show you the document that we've3

marked as P-77. Now, can you tell us what P-77 is?4

A P-77 is from the Residential Site Improvement5

Standards. It's entitled Clarification on Development6

Proceeding June 3, 1977, RSIS. This is a statement7

that explains that RSIS standards do not require that8

developments built before the rules became effective9

need to be improved to meet the standards, which is10

what I was saying a moment ago; is that this11

development would not require any modification to the12

existing street.13

If we were extending the street, the RSIS14

would be applicable to the extension of the street15

only. So the existing street is not part of the RSIS16

review in the new application. However, we could be17

able to use on-street parking if it's proximate to our18

development.19

Q Now who, do you know who issues, who issued20

P-77?21

A This is approved by the State Improvement Advisory22

Board. And I believe it's through the Department of23

Community Affairs.24

Q And do you know what the State Improvement25


70/140

Dolan - Direct 70

Advisory Board is?1

A Not specifically?2

Q Okay. Is this, is this a document that3

Traffic Engineers rely on professionally?4

A This is a appended clarification within the RSIS.5

So it is something that, yes, I've been familiar with6

for a couple of years now.7

Q Now youve heard, youve heard Mr. Kleins8

testimony, whether in his professional opinion he9

thought it was appropriate or inappropriate to have on-10

street parking on Birchwood Avenue. Assuming that this11

were guest parking for a development on 215, 23512

Birchwood Avenue, do you have an opinion as to whether13

it would be appropriate or inappropriate to have, from14

a professional point of view, to permit parking on15

Birchwood Avenue?16

A I believe --17

MR. WOODWARD: Objection, Your Honor. This18

line of questioning is beyond the scope and contents of19

Ms. Dolans report.20

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, Mr. Klein in his21

testimony testified differently than he testified in22

his deposition. In his deposition, he said there were23

no public health and safety issues. He has now24

testified differently. We're entitled to respond to25


71/140


72/140

Dolan - Direct 72

THE COURT: All right. And your objection1

is?2

MR. WOODWARD: My objection is that Mr. Klein3

indicated that flooding was a public safety condition.4

And that was brought up by Mr. Eisdorfer on cross-5

examination.6

THE COURT: Well, Ill make the conclusions7

about what the testimony was. So, I'm going to allow8

this, Ill allow the question. I mean, given that I'm9

the fact finder, Ill conclude what it was that his10

testimony was.11

MR. WOODWARD: Understood, Your Honor. And12

the Township did not object to this witness being13

presented to the Court or to a report. But I think, in14

fairness, her testimony today should be limited to what15

she opined on in her report. Mr. Kleins report was16

issued on January 14, 2010, and we served it17

immediately upon the plaintiffs. And he was deposed.18

And we got this report. They had six months to respond19

to Mr. Kleins report and to his testimony.20

MR. EISDORFER: As I've indicated, we have21

had different testimony today than we had during the22

deposition.23

THE COURT: Okay. For that reason, Ill24

allow it. And, also, I thought you withdrew your25


73/140

Dolan - Direct 73

objection to Ms. Dolans testimony. So, --1

MR. WOODWARD: I did. But, --2

THE COURT: I think I understand the nature3

of your objection, --4

MR. FENLON: Thank you, Your Honor.5

THE COURT: -- Ill allow it.6

BY MR. EISDORFER:7

Q Ms. Dolan, do you have a, do you have a8

professional opinion as to whether it's appropriate or9

inappropriate to permit on-street parking on Birchwood10

Avenue?11

A I believe it was a 36 foot paved width that on-12

street parking can be provided. Parallel parking along13

the curb can be provided, yes.14

Q And, do you have an opinion whether that15

would impact public health and safety?16

A I don't believe there would be any negative17

impact. A 36 foot roadway could actually accommodate18

parking on both sides. And so the 22 foot cartway19

which RSIS says, does say it's appropriate for two-way20

traffic flow.21

On-street parking also helps to reduce speed,22

because the drivers are visually seeing a narrower23

cartway, so it can have a benefit of helping to keep24

the speeds at an appropriate level.25


74/140

Dolan - Direct 74

Q Now, do you have an opinion as to, as to the1

impact as to the effect of, of this being in a hundred,2

hundred area -- hundred year flood hazard area on the3

appropriateness of on-street parking?4

A I don't know that I necessarily have an opinion5

with regard to the, the potential for flooding. I6

think if there is a potential for flooding, it's going7

to impact any user or user groups whether they are8

parking on a site or on the street.9

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, I have no further10

questions.11

THE COURT: Cross-examine.12

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, let me offer, let13

me offer P-77 into evidence.14

THE COURT: Any objection?15

MR. EISDORFER: What is P-77?16

MR. EISDORFER: That's the RSIS17

clarification.18

MR. WOODWARD: I think it might be better for19

the Court if, if Mr. Eisdorfer admitted her report into20

evidence.21

MR. EISDORFER: I'm not intending to do that.22

MR. WOODWARD: If that's the standard23

permitted by the, or created by the Department of24

Community Affairs, I have no objection to it.25


75/140

Dolan - Cross 75

THE COURT: Okay. P-77 in evidence.1

(Pause)2

So P -- we have P-77 in evidence, if I didn't3

already say that. Yes, you can proceed.4

MR. WOODWARD: Yes.5

CROSS-EXAMINATION BY MR. WOODWARD:6

Q Ms. Dolan, I just have a few questions for7

you on cross-examination. I think you just testified8

that it was your opinion that the fact that the9

frontage on 215 Birchwood Avenue and 235 Birchwood10

Avenue is situated near a flood hazard or a floodway11

would not effect your conclusion that on-street parking12

for, for this proposed development could be placed on13

Birchwood Avenue. Is that correct?14

A That's correct.15

Q And, are you aware of how often this16

particular street is required to be blocked off by the17

Police Department of Cranford on a yearly basis due to18

flooding?19

A No.20

Q Now, I think it was your testimony that21

because the RSIS standards do not apply to Birchwood22

Avenue because it's an existing street. Is that23

correct?24

A That's my testimony, yes.25


76/140

Dolan - Cross 76

Q And, you believe that Birchwood Avenue is1

presently a minor collector?2

A No. I did not say that. We had been3

discussing -- Mr. Kleins testimony this morning talked4

about the minor collector definition from RSIS. And I5

provided further definition from RSIS that that would6

be a roadway carrying residential traffic from the7

immediate neighborhood, not carrying regional traffic.8

Q And your opinion that this particular roadway9

carries regional traffic?10

A I would think with offices that we are having11

vehicles from outside of the immediate neighborhood.12

So, yes, I would think that this would not meet RSIS13

definition of a minor collector, which is a residential14

street.15

Q And, did you undertake any traffic counts16

with respect to Birchwood Avenue?17

A Yes.18

Q And what were the traffic counts that you19

secured?20

A We performed an automatic traffic recording to21

correct hourly and daily traffic flows, and we recorded22

approximately 1900 as the total average daily volume to23

a flow on Birchwood. We also performed manual counts24

at the intersections to the north and south, and at the25


77/140


78/140


79/140

Kinsey - Direct 79

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. EISDORFER:1

Q Dr. Kinsey, welcome back. Now you have, you2

heard the testimony of Mr. Slachetka3

A Yes.4

Q Mr. Slachetka gave us extensive testimony on5

the meaning of the term sound land use planning?6

A Yes, he did.7

Q And did you hear that?8

A I did.9

Q Now put that in context. Are there different10

kinds of planning tests that Planners perform at the11

municipal level?12

A Yes.13

MR. WOODWARD: Your Honor, I'm going to14

object. Your Honor, I'm going to object to any15

testimony on sound planning. Mr. -- Dr. Kinsey16

testified about sound planning on his direct. He had17

plenty of opportunity to explain it then. This is not18

rebuttal. This is just a restatement of his direct19

testimony.20

MR. EISDORFER: Your Honor, this -- we had a21

whole, we had hours and hours of idiosyncratic22

testimony on the subject. I think we're entitled to,23

to rebut that.24

THE COURT: I didn't --

transcript 8.18.10 traffic experts klein dolan

Documents