1 1 HUDSON COUNTY PLANNING BOARD 2 IN RE: ) ) TRANSCRIPT OF 3 PUBLIC HEARING ) PROCEEDINGS: ) 4 _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _) Casino in the Park 5 Restaurant, Lincoln Park Jersey City, New Jersey 6 Thursday, January 20, 2005 10:00 a.m. 7 8 A P P E A R A N C E S: 9 PAUL SILVERMAN, Acting Chairman 10 STEPHEN MARKS, Hudson County, Division of Planning, Director of Planning 11 JANET LARWA, Hudson County, Division of 12 Planning, Executive Assistant 13 MASSIEL MEDINA, Hudson County, Division of Planning, Principal 14 15 Reported By: 16 17 MICHELLE GRUENDEL, C.S.R. 18 19 20 21 22 REPORTING SERVICES ARRANGED THROUGH VERITEXT/NEW JERSEY REPORTING COMPANY, L.L.C. 23 Kabot Battaglia & Hammer Suburban Shorthand Waga and Spinelli Arthur J. Frannicola CSR 24 25B Vreeland Road Florham Park, New Jersey 07932 25 Tel: 973-410-4040 Fax: 973-410-1313 2 1 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Everyone, if you 2 could take your seats. Keith, we're going to start. 3 Good morning, everybody. Good morning. May 4 I have your attention, please? May I have your 5 attention, please? 6 My name is Paul Silverman and I have been 7 asked to be Acting Chairman this morning. Jeff 8 Kaplowitz, our Chairman, has to be somewhere else and 9 our Vice-Chairman is not available, so I have been 10 selected as Acting Chairman to conduct the meeting 11 and I'll serve as same. 12 My name is Paul Silverman. I'm a Developer 13 here in Hudson County representing private 14 businesses. 15 MR. MARKS: Stephen Marks, Director of 16 Planning. 17 MRS. LARWA: Janet Larwa, Hudson 18 County, Division of Planning, Executive Assistant. 19 MS. MEDINA: Massiel Medina, 20 Principal, Hudson County, Division of Planning. 21 MR. KOPEWEIS: Stewart Kopeweis with 22 Hudson County, Division of Planning. 23 MR. HARRISON: Bill Harris, Office of 24 Smart Growth. 25 MS. BUTLER: Kate Butler, Council of 3 PUBLIC HEARING 1 Affordable Housing. 2 MR. HENDERSON: Keith Henderson, 3 Council of Affordable Housing. 4 MR. LAVALLA: Curt Lavalla, Office of 5 Smart Growth. 6 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Fred? 7 MR. MICHAELI: Fred Michaeli, Planners 8 Diversified. 9 MS. ANTCZAK: Shelia Antczak. I'm the 10 Director of Community Development. 11 MS. RANSOM: Jesse Ransom, Bayonne 12 Local Redevelopment Authority. 13 MS. MACK: Susan Mack, Hudson 14 Redevelopment Authority. 15 MR. SALEH: Kamal Saleh, Union County 16 Economic Development. 17 MR. GARCES: Johnny Garces, on behalf 18 of Kennedy Ng, Union City, New Jersey. 19 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Over here. 20 Barbara? 21 MR. DIAZ: Manny Diaz, North Hudson 22 Community Action. 23 MS. NETCHERT: Barbara Netchert, 24 Jersey City Redevelopment Agency. 25 MS. MONAHAN: Joanne Monahan, the 4 PUBLIC HEARING 1 Jersey City Law Department. 2 MR. GREENFELD: Doug Greenfeld, Jersey 3 City Department of Housing and Economic Development. 4 MR. DELISLE: Ben Delisle, JCDC. 5 MR. BIERNE: Jack Bierne, JCDC. 6 MR. RIVERA: Eliu Rivera. 7 MS. TOON-BELL: Darice Toon-Bell, 8 Jersey City, Division of Community Development. 9 MR. FROHWIRTH: Dan Frohwirth, the 10 Jersey City Economic Development Corporation. 11 MR. HIGGINS: Pete Higgins, Harrison 12 Redevelopment. 13 MR. RODGERS: Mike Rogers, Councilman, 14 Town of Harrison. 15 MR. GARRISON: Rob Garrison, Labors 16 International Union. 17 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Great. 18 Today's meeting is being transcribed here, so 19 if you bring any official business, if you could 20 please state your name and your affiliation for the 21 transcriber, and please answer questions with yes or 22 no and not nods of the head so that they could be 23 recorded here. 24 Welcome to Jersey City and Hudson County, our 25 state friends and everyone from the various 5 PUBLIC HEARING 1 Municipalities. 2 I'm going to start with the discussion and 3 comments by Committee Members on the, what's this 4 called, Cross Acceptance Plan, Cross Acceptance 5 Report. 6 Stephen, I'll have you do that. 7 MR. MARKS: Okay. Mr. Chairman and 8 Committee Members, the Hudson County CEDS Committee 9 was designated as the negotiating entity for the 10 Hudson County, the State Plan Cross Acceptance 11 process. We conducted a Public Hearing on June 16th, 12 2004. We've had Jersey City's public meetings in 13 September and in December, 2004. The Division of 14 Planning has reached out to all the Municipalities to 15 furnish information with regard to the State Plan and 16 the Cross Acceptance Report. There was a resolution 17 at the December CEDS meeting endorsing the State Plan 18 and the Hudson County Cross Acceptance Report, which 19 was tabled because of questions and issues related to 20 COAH and other state policies. 21 This meeting today was properly advertised 22 according to the State Requirements and the Open 23 Public Records Act. 24 We're basically here today to take comments 25 and hear from the State Planning Commission folks, 6 PUBLIC HEARING 1 the Office of Smart Growth as well as the Council on 2 Affordable Housing. The issues, the negotiating 3 issues between Hudson County and the State of New 4 Jersey are, are stated in the Cross Acceptance 5 Report, but I think there were additional comments 6 and questions which arose before Hudson County 7 officially accepted the report. 8 Today, at the end of the meeting, the CEDS 9 Committee will entertain a Resolution accepting the 10 report. The Free -- it then gets referred to the 11 Freeholder Board, which will accept or endorse the 12 Hudson County Cross Acceptance Report on February 13 20th of this year, next month, and essentially make 14 the draft report final. From now until, I believe 15 it's February 12th or 11th, which is a Friday, we 16 will be taking additional public comments on the 17 Hudson County Cross Acceptance Report, so that being 18 said, that's my peace. 19 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Okay, great. 20 Now, I don't see any members of the general 21 public here. Is there anyone from the public? 22 No, so the Public Hearing part, do we need to 23 do anything special with that? 24 MR. MARKS: As I said, the meeting was 25 properly advertised. We conducted an evening meeting 7 PUBLIC HEARING 1 at the Hudson County Planning Board meeting last 2 night. This is the daytime meeting, so if members of 3 the general public are not here to speak, then we 4 could perhaps close the Public Hearing portion and 5 continue with the meeting. 6 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: So we'll do that, 7 we'll close that. 8 Do we have comments from those of you that 9 are here on the report? 10 Is it appropriate now for the State to make 11 comments, or any of you with comments on that? 12 Councilman? 13 COUNCILMAN RODGERS: Councilman 14 Rodgers, Town of Harrison. 15 Just, the issues that were raised at the 16 previous meeting about what the -- how COAH -- now 17 COAH requirements are going to tie in with the State 18 Plan and the local redevelopment plans. 19 MR. MARKS: May it be appropriate for 20 the State folks to give a description of COAH? 21 MR. HENDERSON: Keith Henderson from 22 the Council of Affordable Housing. 23 I feel kind of on the spot, because I didn't 24 anticipate that we were going to be doing any kind of 25 presentation or anything, that we were here for, 8 PUBLIC HEARING 1 basically, a question and answer type of scenario. 2 As you may know, as of December 20th of this 3 past year we adopted our new third round rules, which 4 are a pretty strong change from where we were in the 5 past. Our previous rules would assign specific 6 numbers to each Municipality in terms of an 7 affordable housing obligation. We came up with a new 8 approach for our third round that we call Growth 9 Share, where affordable units are to be provided by 10 the Municipalities based on the amount of growth that 11 they incur at the rate of one affordable unit for 12 every eight market rate residential units and one 13 affordable unit for every 25 jobs that are created, 14 and this is, this is a uniform ratio that's being 15 applied statewide. As Municipalities come in and 16 seek certification of the housing element of their 17 Master Plan and the Fair Share Plan, that they 18 produce in order to document how they're going to 19 provide that affordable housing. The growth 20 projections are initially supposed to include either 21 the Metropolitan Planning Organization numbers, that 22 I think are probably what were included in your Cross 23 Acceptance Report, or when the State Planning 24 Commission ultimately adopts a new State Plan, then 25 the cross accepted numbers that are in that document, 9 PUBLIC HEARING 1 and so that would serve as the basis for the 2 Municipalities' plan in terms of how you're going 3 to -- the number of affordable units that you are 4 going to be planning for over the next decade. 5 As growth actually occurs, we'll then go back 6 and look at the third, fifth and eighth year from the 7 anniversary of the date that the Municipality submits 8 its plan to COAH to compare actual growth with the 9 actual production of affordable units, so in a 10 redevelopment area that you've been talking about, 11 you should be talking to your redevelopers about how 12 they're going to incorporate, set aside within that 13 development to accommodate that affordable housing. 14 There's nothing that says that it has to be in those 15 locations. You could, you could make an arrangement 16 with the redeveloper where there's no affordable 17 housing provided there, provided the Municipality 18 provides for that affordable housing somewhere else 19 within, within the town. That's probably not the 20 most cost-effective way of doing it, because, you 21 know, you have an opportunity while something is 22 being built and you have a redeveloper who's there, 23 ready to go. It would seem that it might make more 24 sense to try to incorporate that in the plan, but 25 you're not locked into that. You could do it any way 10 PUBLIC HEARING 1 you want. 2 One of the things that the Municipalities 3 ought to be looking at, especially in areas like 4 Hudson County, where you've got some, some urban 5 Municipalities from days gone by and where you're 6 going to have some significant redevelopment, is to 7 start taking stock of your existing affordable 8 housing inventory. There are a lot of units that 9 were created between 1980 and now that would serve as 10 credit against, potentially against a future 11 obligation, so that will be all part of the plan that 12 you would put together when you come before us, 13 inventory of all your existing units and credit 14 that -- against what you project your growth to be, 15 and then if there's a balance remaining, plan on -- 16 you're going to address that. 17 Does that answer the question? 18 MR. HIGGINS: May I, Chairman? 19 Peter Higgins, Harrison Redevelopment. 20 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Yes. Go ahead. 21 MR. HIGGINS: Just for the record, and 22 I know this is not the format to solve the problem, 23 nor do I think it's a format for the debate on the 24 problem, but with all deference to Keith's comments, 25 the problem that we face in Harrison is that we have 11 PUBLIC HEARING 1 a Redevelopment Plan in place. We have negotiated 2 agreements with the redevelopers that were done 3 before there was ever any concept of Growth Share. 4 There is no, there's no door to be opened within 5 those redevelopment agreements, to go back in and say 6 to the developer, all right, there is Fair Share for 7 the town under the new COAH Regulations, but we need 8 you to cooperate on that. It's just not feasible at 9 this point to do that, and if you look at the 10 existing COAH Regulations that went into effect in 11 December, it places a tremendous burden on a small 12 community like Harrison. 13 For those of you from Hudson County who know 14 Harrison, I will just tell you that a quick review of 15 the new Growth Share requirements would mean that if 16 our redevelopment were to take place by contract, as 17 we have laid it out right now, we would need to 18 provide over, over 1,100 units of affordable housing 19 to offset that redevelopment, which is ludicrous. 20 When you look at the size of the town, the population 21 of the town and the available land, that just can't 22 be accomplished, so what we ask, and we would like to 23 thank the Committee for including the impact that the 24 COAH has on one of the negotiating issues in the 25 Cross Acceptance Agreement, what we ask, just that 12 PUBLIC HEARING 1 the people from the Council of Affordable Housing, 2 and I'm very happy to see the people from Smart 3 Growth here, because we think that our Redevelopment 4 Plan is really a model for Smart Growth, that you 5 look at the possibility of excluding designated 6 redevelopment areas from the regulations or in some 7 way modifying the regulations as they apply to 8 redevelopment areas, and those areas, which, as with 9 Harrison, we're under contract prior to this Growth 10 Share concept. 11 Thank you, Mr. Chairman. 12 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Thank you. 13 Any other comments? 14 MRS. NETCHERT: Barbara Netchert, 15 Jersey City Redevelopment Agency. 16 We have a similar situation. We've got a lot 17 of redeveloper agreements that have been in existence 18 for a while that will be coming on line within the 19 next year or so that will impact us, too, and while 20 Jersey City, I know we make every effort to provide 21 as much affordable housing as we can, but I'm not so 22 sure the numbers under the new COAH regs are going to 23 be able to be met with the budgets that we have 24 coming up. 25 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Thank you. 13 PUBLIC HEARING 1 Keith, any response to that? 2 MR. HENDERSON: Not really. I think 3 that's, you know, tough to respond to. 4 I mean, the concept of Growth Share is 5 something that we have been tossing around for, for a 6 couple of years now. In fact, we had done an initial 7 proposal over a year ago that had the same concept 8 with -- the actual ratios were a little bit 9 different, but the concept was the same, and the, the 10 methodology that was devised to, to create these 11 numbers is based on statewide, a statewide analysis. 12 Any time you start monkeying around with any 13 of the components, in terms of excluding one thing or 14 including something else, it literally changes the 15 ratios that would have to be applied statewide, and 16 if things like redevelopment areas were to be 17 excluded, then the remaining part of the state would 18 wind up having to have their ratios changed. Instead 19 of one in eight, maybe it would be one in six, or 20 something along those lines. As I said before, it's 21 important to note, you don't necessarily have to 22 provide for those affordable units in the 23 redevelopment that's taking place. It would be ideal 24 if you could. That would definitely fit in with the 25 whole Smart Growth concept, but, you know, just like 14 PUBLIC HEARING 1 any developers agreements that have been in place, 2 the COAH rules are also in place, and they're not 3 something that can just be, you know, waived or 4 something like that. 5 At, you know, at a glance, I can't imagine -- 6 I don't know the specifics about Harrison's proposal, 7 but 1,100 seems like an awful lot. I just can't 8 imagine that that could be close, unless you're 9 proposing something really -- 10 MR. HIGGINS: Mr. Chairman, if I 11 might, the plan out, build out is for 6,000 units of 12 housing, three-and-a-half million square feet of 13 office and one-and-a-half million square feet of 14 retail or commercial. 15 MR. HENDERSON: How long would build 16 out take? 17 MR. HIGGINS: 12 to 15 years. 18 MR. HENDERSON: Okay. So we're 19 talking, first of all, about the Growth Share is 20 based on certificates of occupancy, permanent 21 certificates of occupancy that are issued subsequent 22 to January of 2004. All right? So there's a 23 possibility that some of that will be issued 24 permanent CO's during the period of certification 25 that Harrison would be looking at. 15 PUBLIC HEARING 1 I'd have to sit down and look at the numbers 2 and go back and apply the ratios, but it still seems 3 like 1,100 -- you sure you did the calculations? 4 MR. HIGGINS: Well, I didn't do the 5 calculations, Keith. That's what was told to me, and 6 I trust the people who did the calculations. 7 MR. HENDERSON: I mean, that just 8 seems like a very large number. 9 Like, we were looking, for example, at the 10 Xanadu Development, what that might produce, and it 11 was less than 1,100, so I can't imagine that 12 Harrison's plan is larger than that, but, you know. 13 MR. HIGGINS: As I said, I really 14 don't believe, Mr. Chairman, that it's something that 15 will be settled here today, and I, you know, I'm not 16 sure that it's the right form for a debate on the 17 issues. I put that on the table only as a comment, 18 as to what the concerns of the Municipality are, and 19 I think, to a greater or lesser degree, those 20 concerns would be shared by any Municipality that's 21 undertaking this type of a redevelopment. 22 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Thank you, very 23 much. 24 Fred? 25 MR. MICHAELI: Fred Michaeli, Planners 16 PUBLIC HEARING 1 Diversified. 2 In the City of Linden we have a major 3 redevelopment project in what's called a trembly 4 (phonetic) point area, which is the east side of the 5 turnpike as you go -- come up the turnpike. A very 6 heavy industrial area, a very contaminated area. 7 Major, you know, two major brownfield sites. Total 8 acreage that's under contract with the developer 9 comes to 240 acres. 10 The developer's proposal is to build 11 approximately five million square feet of warehousing 12 distribution on that site, subject, in part, to 13 getting a new access road from Carteret interchange 14 across the Rahway River to the site. The site is not 15 at all appropriate for any type of residential 16 development yet. In the City of Linden there is no 17 other vacant land where we could develop anywhere 18 near the required number of housing units. 19 How should we approach that, Keith? That's 20 the question. 21 MR. HENDERSON: Well, I would say that 22 your Planning Board needs to do some, some serious 23 creative thinking to see what you can -- can be 24 worked out. 25 You would be able to extrapolate a fee from a 17 PUBLIC HEARING 1 developer of that site and you could, theoretically, 2 adopt an ordinance that would tie a specific number 3 of affordable units besides those five million square 4 feet. I'm just thinking out loud here. And fix a 5 development fee based on the anticipated affordable 6 housing need that was associated with those five 7 million square feet. 8 MR. MICHAELI: Until we get, say, a 9 million dollars from a developer. 10 MR. HENDERSON: I think it would be a 11 lot more than that, and then start taking a look at 12 areas, other areas of Linden that might be locations 13 where something creative can be done, whether there 14 could be mixed uses added to existing commercial 15 development, apartments up above stores on a main 16 street type of thing, whether there are any other 17 areas where there might be some housing opportunities 18 where Linden could acquire property, make sure that 19 it's up to code and deed restricted property and make 20 it available in that level. There's a couple 21 different mechanisms there, or possibilities. 22 The COAH staff will definitely make 23 themselves available. We plan on going, probably 24 towards the end of February into March we'll be going 25 around and scheduling some, some informational 18 PUBLIC HEARING 1 meetings throughout the state, and then there will be 2 some further follow-up meetings before that for 3 practitioners on a higher level type of thing, where 4 we could talk about creative thinking and new 5 approaches that might be able to, to be used. 6 MR. MICHAELI: I mean, if we had the 7 vacant land, that would be a different issue. We 8 don't have the vacant land. 9 The one site that is coming up is the General 10 Motors plant, which is about 100 acres on Route 1&9, 11 but, apparently, what we understand, Merck is going 12 under contract with GM to buy that. 13 MR. HARRISON: Bill Harrison, Office 14 of Smart Growth. 15 I mean, Linden is coming in, seeking to have 16 a transit village, I mean, so there are going to be 17 development opportunities there. I mean, you have 18 the proposal for the large building and the downtown 19 area, which I don't know what the fate of that is, 20 but, you know, I come from Montclair, which is a 21 fully developed community, and -- but there are 22 development opportunities that come along, that 23 people reusing sites that are currently 24 under-utilized, coming in and finding vacant land 25 where you didn't even realize there was vacant land. 19 PUBLIC HEARING 1 Not big pieces, but, you know, I think this is 2 something where -- what the Office of Smart Growth is 3 trying to do, and I think the Harrison Redevelopment 4 is an example of, we have been working with the 5 developers. There are a variety of stated issues 6 that have come up, access issues, liquor license 7 issues, all kinds of issues that -- we're trying to 8 come up with solutions involving the relevant state 9 agency and to come up with something that works, and 10 I don't -- you know, we're not here to come up with 11 an answer to Harrison's problem or -- I'm not sure 12 why we've got infiltrators from other counties 13 sneaking in, but -- 14 MR. MICHAELI: I'm also the Consultant 15 to the Hudson County CEDS Committee. 16 MR. HARRISON: Linden's here today, 17 but I think what the state is committed to do is 18 working with you and trying to bring all the agencies 19 together and come up with a solution that fits in 20 with -- whether it's a DEP regulation, a DOT, the 21 COAH rules, and try and work on a solution, not just 22 say, here are a bunch of problems, go figure them out 23 by yourself, but we'll work with you and try to come 24 up with something, some solution that works. It's 25 going to be a different answer in Linden than it's 20 PUBLIC HEARING 1 going to be in Harrison and then it's going to be in 2 Jersey City, but we want to work with you and come up 3 with the answers and not just say, here are 4 regulations, it's your problem. 5 MR. MICHAELI: I look forward to it. 6 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Darice? 7 MS. TOON-BELL: Darice Toon-Bell. 8 Keith, you made a statement about the fact 9 that units created between 1980 and now, and I guess 10 for the past 25 years that the Municipalities could 11 receive credit for those affordable units. 12 I just want to make sure I was clear about 13 that. 14 Do you then deduct any units that were 15 counted toward the Municipalities Fair Share 16 obligation? How does that work? 17 MR. HENDERSON: Yeah. Just to use an 18 example, I mean, Jersey City didn't have the 19 reconstruction obligation in the past because of its 20 status, but you've obviously created a large number 21 of affordable units. The ones that have been created 22 with RCA money that you've received from other 23 Municipalities, you can't receive credit for those 24 because the other Municipalities received credit for 25 those, but you still have a large number of units 21 PUBLIC HEARING 1 that you've created since 1980 that were not 2 subsidized with the RCA money. Since you had no 3 previous obligation in our first or second round, 4 every one of those units would be able to be carried 5 forward, what we would call, basically, a surplus 6 from previous rounds that could be used to whittle 7 away future growths as it, as it occurred. If you 8 weren't Jersey City and you had -- you know, your 9 previous obligations for the first and second rounds 10 might have been 100 units, but you had built 200 11 units, you would have 100 unit surplus and that would 12 basically be giving you a leg up on your future. 13 MS. TOON-BELL: Okay. Thank you. 14 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Councilman? 15 COUNCILMAN RODGERS: Mike Rodgers, 16 Harrison. 17 You said you can get credit for affordable 18 housing units that you've built since 1980. 19 In the case of Harrison -- my question is 20 about the one for every 25 jobs. In the case of 21 Harrison, where one -- where a lot of industries 22 abandoned the area, would we be able to get credit 23 for jobs from 1980 to, like, say our working 24 population in 1980? Say there were 20,000 people 25 there every day, they were coming and working for 22 PUBLIC HEARING 1 us. Now maybe it's down to 5,000. Can we get a 2 credit for the number of jobs that we had in 1980 -- 3 MR. HENDERSON: No. 4 COUNCILMAN RODGERS: -- as we would -- 5 no? 6 MR. HENDERSON: No. 7 COUNCILMAN RODGERS: It just applies 8 to the housing? 9 MR. HENDERSON: You can get -- in 10 projecting what your Growth Share obligation is, 11 you'll want to look at your residential growth and 12 your nonresidential growth, and those are net 13 numbers, so, you know, demolitions are reduced from 14 your projection of new CO's to be issued. You can 15 only credit residential against residential and 16 nonresidential against nonresidential, and it can't 17 go below zero. It can't get to a point where you're 18 saying, you know, we've, we've, we've knocked down 19 500,000 square feet of nonresidential and we've only 20 replaced it with 250,000 square feet of 21 nonresidential, so, therefore, we're entitled to a 22 negative number of, of affordable units. It would 23 always be capped at zero. 24 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Does that answer 25 your question? 23 PUBLIC HEARING 1 COUNCILMAN RODGERS: Yeah. 2 MR. HENDERSON: But you can't go back 3 to 1980 to look at that. That only has to do with as 4 you're projecting into your future. 5 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Dan? 6 MR. FROHWIRTH: Dan Frohwirth from 7 Jersey City. 8 I'm just curious about this. For instance, 9 Gold and Sachs moved in 3,000 people on the first 10 floor of 32 stories of their building last year, 11 which would be 124 units of affordable housing, I 12 guess. 13 Is the treasurer checking on new people 14 paying, paying taxes or are we, the City, somehow 15 supposed to report to you or does the Union City 16 Program, which we're part of the report team -- how 17 does this get reported to you guys? 18 MR. HENDERSON: It's based on new or 19 expanded development and it's based on the square 20 footage of that development. There's a conversion 21 chart that was published in our rules that looks at 22 buildings by use group, so different use groups -- 23 for example, warehouses would have a lower, a lower 24 employment rate per square foot. 25 MR. FROHWIRTH: So you're not really 24 PUBLIC HEARING 1 reporting on a single job? 2 MR. HENDERSON: No. It's all based 3 on -- we're not -- the COAH rules are not designed to 4 relate specifically to employment that's created or 5 not, per se. It has to do with the land use 6 regulations underlying the creation of that 7 employment. The zoning opportunities that allow for 8 the creation of nonresidential growth, that's 9 something that Municipalities have control over, the 10 number of employees that are actually associated with 11 something to go up or down. 12 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Any further 13 comments? Questions? 14 MR. HARRISON: Well, Keith, thank you, 15 very much, for your information, and I'm sure we'll 16 all be close, working closely with you. 17 MR. HENDERSON: I just want to, you 18 know, reemphasize something that I said before, too. 19 The COAH staff right now consists of nine 20 planners, and we're in the process of expanding that. 21 We want to make every opportunity available 22 to -- you know, once, once we hit the ground and 23 start getting things up and running, that we're still 24 gearing up for some of that, but once we get up and 25 running, we want to extend every opportunity to 25 PUBLIC HEARING 1 everyone who's interested to, to sit down and talk 2 about finding solutions, working out ways that will 3 provide both the affordable housing and, also, 4 support your economic development efforts. I think 5 one of the things that will be part of that is an 6 education process, to let people really understand 7 what affordable housing is, because some of the -- 8 especially in this region, this is COAH Region One, 9 which consists of Hudson, Bergen, Passaic and Sussex 10 Counties, has one of the highest median incomes in 11 the state, and the value of the affordable housing 12 that is required under our rules is based on the 13 median income within that region, so you may be very 14 surprised to find out what an "affordable housing" 15 would sell for in this area. I mean, a two-bedroom 16 unit at the upper end of moderate income might be 17 considered affordable at 138 to $140,000. I don't 18 know if people really have that in their minds, that, 19 you know, we're not talking about necessarily 20 creating, you know, what some people have in their 21 minds as low income housing, so that's something that 22 needs to be worked in your developer's performance 23 when they're coming before planning boards and needs 24 to be thought about by the planning board members as 25 well. 26 PUBLIC HEARING 1 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Thank you, Keith. 2 Bill, do you have -- did you have another 3 comment? 4 MR. HARRISON: There are a couple 5 hands. 6 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Who else? 7 MR. SALEH: Kamal Saleh, Union County. 8 I just question Keith in terms of the 9 mentioned education. 10 In what form are you going to reach out to 11 Municipalities and the public in terms of educating 12 them based on this process? Because there is a large 13 misconception about what is low to moderate income 14 housing and what it relates to, so -- obviously we 15 have a lot of Municipalities here as well as all over 16 the State that, once they hear, oh, no, low to 17 moderate, they think that, you know, the direction of 18 society is going to be to their town, and that's not 19 the truth. 20 MR. HENDERSON: The low/mod is 21 actually their sons, daughters and teachers. 22 MR. SALEH: Exactly. All people that 23 can't afford the high end of that housing, so I 24 just -- any idea? 25 MR. HENDERSON: Well, as I said 27 PUBLIC HEARING 1 before, we plan on, probably late February and into 2 March, going out to each of the six regions, 3 initially for a very basic introductory, these are 4 the new COAH rules, this is what affordable housing 5 is about, a basic education process, and subsequent 6 to that we'll be having something a little bit more 7 advanced for practitioners, which would be planning 8 consultants, affordable housing attorneys, some, some 9 Municipalities have special council for these 10 matters, those types, and we will always be available 11 on a one-on-one basis with individual 12 Municipalities. In fact, we would encourage 13 Municipalities to come and talk to us before you put 14 together a plan so we can provide some input in terms 15 of some creative thinking and so we can provide some 16 guidance that will help the towns out. 17 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Thank you. 18 Can I have -- can that Jersey City table not 19 be so rowdy over there? 20 MR. FROHWIRTH: We're worried. We're 21 worried. 22 MS. TOON-BELL: Keith, I have a 23 question about RCA. 24 I know in the past Municipalities 25 receiving -- Municipalities would negotiate with 28 PUBLIC HEARING 1 other Municipalities for -- to get those dollars, and 2 I know now money is going to go into a pool. 3 Has COAH decided how they're going to 4 disseminate that or, you know, what your plans are? 5 MR. HENDERSON: They get lost between 6 the first and second proposals. 7 MS. TOON-BELL: Really? 8 What's happening now? 9 MR. HENDERSON: It's still something 10 we would like to consider, because we think it might 11 be, in the long run, a more efficient way to getting 12 some of the dollars out to Municipalities that can 13 use it most effectively. Unfortunately, it's going 14 to require a change for the Housing Act, and we were 15 focusing on getting our rules done first, so it's 16 still something that our council members are very 17 concerned about looking into, but it's going to take 18 a revamping of the Fair Housing Act in new 19 legislation to allow that. 20 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Doug? 21 MR. GREENFELD: Doug Greenfeld, Jersey 22 City. 23 Was the amount of RCA raised? 24 MR. HENDERSON: The minimum amount was 25 raised from 25,000 to 35,000. However, we strongly 29 PUBLIC HEARING 1 encourage Municipalities, if you are going to be 2 seeking some of that money from developers, that you 3 not use COAH's minimum as the minimum in your 4 negotiations with developers. There are many 5 developments out there that can afford to pay more 6 than that, and you may find that it costs your 7 Municipality more than that to provide the units, so 8 you don't want to be creating a shortfall. You need 9 your own little microcosmic economic environment. 10 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: But you don't 11 want to gouge those developers, either, just to 12 balance the conversation, so -- 13 Fred, yes. 14 MR. MICHAELI: Fred Michaeli again. 15 One of the, I think one of the problems with 16 trying to negotiate a higher than $35,000 limit is, 17 there always will be one town in the region that will 18 take it at 35,000. I mean, we found this in the 19 past. 20 I think -- one other comment. I think being 21 able to go back to 1980, claim credit for anything 22 that was built low/mod is really a big plus. I mean, 23 I never thought of that and I didn't realize that was 24 part of the regs, so, to me, that's one of the better 25 things that comes out of the meeting today. 30 PUBLIC HEARING 1 MR. HENDERSON: It has actually always 2 been part of our regs, since 1987. 3 MR. MICHAELI: Okay. That's how smart 4 or dumb I am. 5 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Anyone else for 6 comments? 7 All right. Well, then, if there's no further 8 comments -- 9 MR. HARRISON: Let me just state, 10 since you're moving on to your Cross Acceptance 11 Report, I mean, one thing the State Agency is trying 12 to do is, you know, integrate your planning efforts 13 into our planning efforts and take your views into 14 account. I mean, COAH is one of the examples of 15 that, where they will be giving a presumption of 16 validity to the population in employment projections, 17 and that will be in the State Plan rather than, you 18 know, formally. The first two rounds, the numbers in 19 my municipal view kind of came out of the sky, from 20 Trenton, to what a town's obligation was, and your 21 only chance of input was through the -- making 22 process here through the negotiation process. You 23 can be sure you're comfortable with what those are, 24 and that will be looked at with COAH, by COAH when 25 you come into certification. The ultimate test is 31 PUBLIC HEARING 1 what will be developed in your town, but forgetting 2 the certification, you can rely on the numbers and 3 the State Plan and, you know, this Committee has been 4 very active in developing a Cross Acceptance Report, 5 and I would urge you to continue to be active when we 6 negotiate. There aren't a lot of issues in Hudson 7 County. There may be a few issues that come up in 8 other counties that might have an impact in Hudson, 9 but, you know, participate in that, make sure you're 10 comfortable or jump, you know, up and down and scream 11 if you are not comfortable with where we're heading 12 with the State Plan. 13 There will be -- after the negotiation 14 sessions we'll be doing a draft final State Plan and 15 having formal Public Hearings, but we want to keep 16 you involved in the process and make sure the State 17 Plan that is ultimately adopted by the State Planning 18 Commission, you know, adequately reflects your 19 views. You know, we may not agree on everything, but 20 we want to make sure your input is being taken into 21 consideration, so keep participating. You've done a 22 good job so far. Keep it up for another few months. 23 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Thank you, Bill. 24 All right, then what I'd like to do at this 25 point is entertain a motion to accept the Hudson 32 PUBLIC HEARING 1 County Cross Acceptance Report for the New Jersey 2 Development and Redevelopment Plan, Resolution 3 2005-1-4.1. 4 MR. GREENFELD: I have a couple of 5 questions. 6 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Should we take 7 your questions before the motion or after the 8 motion? 9 Okay. Go ahead, Doug. 10 MR. GREENFELD: Before, because it 11 was -- 12 Well, my question is, what numbers are in the 13 Cross Acceptance Report? Are they based on the MPO's 14 numbers or are they based on the Office of State -- 15 Office of Smart Growth numbers? 16 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Stephen Marks, 17 you have an answer to that? 18 MR. MARKS: On page 13 of the report, 19 basically, there's a -- table one is a comparison of 20 population projections. 21 The first is the State Plan information from 22 1990 and 2000. The second column is the Strategic 23 Plan which makes projections from 1995 to the year 24 2010. The third column is, as was mentioned by Keith 25 before, the MPO, the Metropolitan Planning 33 PUBLIC HEARING 1 Organization, which is, the NJTPA has made population 2 projection items down to the municipal level for 3 2005, 2010, 2015 and 2020. Those are side by side. 4 Then, finally, I believe the numbers which COAH uses 5 are based on the Department, New Jersey Department of 6 Labor, which is in the last column. They don't -- 7 they aggregate the numbers by county. They don't 8 break it down to the municipal level. 9 The 1999 Strategic Plan numbers were endorsed 10 by all the Municipalities during the Cross Acceptance 11 process, and in the late nineties, and it basically 12 compares and contrasts our numbers, which were 13 locally generated at that time with the census 14 numbers, the MPO numbers and State numbers, so it's a 15 compare and contrast for information purposes. The 16 second table, which is employment projections, 17 there's a little bit of a compare and contrast. The 18 first column is the civilian labor force. That's 19 actually the number -- that's not the number of jobs 20 by Municipality, it's the number of people I guess 21 eligible for work by the Municipality. That's just 22 there as a comparison and a contrast, a contrast of 23 the actual number of jobs per town; so the first 24 column is the census number, the second column is the 25 1999 Strategic Revitalization Plan broken down by 34 PUBLIC HEARING 1 Municipality for 1995 and 2010. Again, these numbers 2 were, were endorsed by all the Municipalities in the 3 County during the Cross Acceptance process back in 4 the late nineties. The third column is the NJTPA 5 employment projections for the same years, and then 6 the final column, again, is the New Jersey Department 7 of Labor projections, is aggregated by county, not by 8 Municipality, for the years 2000 and 2010. The 9 numbers, the numbers fluctuate. The numbers aren't 10 necessarily consistent with each other. There's 11 County accepted numbers which have been previously -- 12 there's MPO numbers, and the MPO is a regional kind 13 of federal -- a council of governments, if you will, 14 representing the 13 northern counties in the two 15 cities in New Jersey, and then, finally, you have the 16 State numbers, so it's basically, the tables there 17 are to compare and contrast. 18 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: All right. So 19 may I have a motion to accept the -- 20 MS. MACK: So moved. 21 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Thank you, Sue. 22 Sue Mack -- 23 MR. RIVERA: Second. 24 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: -- and Eliu Rivera 25 for the second. 35 PUBLIC HEARING 1 All right. Any questions on the motion? 2 Comments on the motion? 3 All in favor? 4 MS. MACK: Aye. 5 COUNCILMAN RODGERS: Aye. 6 MR. HIGGINS: Aye. 7 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Aye. 8 Any opposed? Any abstention? 9 So it's passed. 10 Thank you, very much, for your input, your 11 information from the State, questions from the 12 Municipalities and the Planners and Infiltrators. 13 (A discussion was held off the record.) 14 MR. MICHAELI: As the Committee 15 Members know, we submitted a pre-application for 16 Foreign Trade Zone Study to the Economic Development 17 Administration, and that was submitted back in 18 October. On December 22nd the County Exec got a 19 letter from the Economic Development Administration, 20 people asking that we submit a full application. 21 That full application was submitted to them on 22 January 18th, earlier this week, and I would 23 anticipate that we will get the planning grant 24 approved by the Commission's Development 25 Administration in February or March, and then we'll 36 PUBLIC HEARING 1 be able to proceed with that Foreign Trade Zone Study 2 and the actual application to the Foreign Trade Zone 3 Board. 4 Also, as a point of information, Kearny is in 5 the process of filing an application with The Port 6 Authority to expand The Port Authority's Foreign 7 Trade Zone to include some, I guess it was three or 8 400 acres in the South Kearny area. That action in 9 no way conflicts with what the County is looking to 10 do as to Foreign Trade Zones. 11 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Have you 12 consulted to Kearny? 13 MR. MICHAELI: No. 14 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: No. 15 No, I didn't, no? 16 I just, I wanted to see if you had the inside 17 scoop there. No. That's good information. 18 Anyone have any other comments or 19 information? 20 Our Chairman, Jeff Kaplowitz, likes to open 21 up the floor to anyone with news, good news or 22 information or announcements that they would like to 23 make at this time. 24 Councilman? 25 COUNCILMAN RODGERS: Councilman 37 PUBLIC HEARING 1 Rodgers, Town of Harrison. 2 We opened, our hotel opened up on New Year's 3 Eve, December 31st. 4 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Terrific. 5 Congratulations. 6 COUNCILMAN RODGERS: Yup. It's great. 7 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Maybe we can have 8 our next meeting there. 9 Can we do that, Steve? Are we allowed to 10 meet there? 11 Do they have a room that we can meet there 12 in? 13 MR. HIGGINS: I'm not sure. 14 COUNCILMAN RODGERS: They do have 15 meeting rooms. 16 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Find out. That 17 will be a great way to get us over there, either for 18 this or the Chamber of Commerce, so we all get to 19 enjoy the new place. 20 Anybody else? 21 Jersey City, any comments over there? 22 Additions? 23 Let me just point out something for the 24 record. 25 MR. GREENFELD: I just want to thank 38 PUBLIC HEARING 1 the folks from COAH and the Office of Smart Growth 2 for making the effort to come up and talk to all of 3 us today. 4 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Thank you, Doug. 5 For the record, if I wasn't Acting Chairman, 6 I would be at the rowdy table. 7 Our next meeting is on March 16, 2005. It 8 has been on our calendar for a while. 9 If there's no further business, I'll take a 10 motion for adjournment. 11 MR. HENDERSON: I forgot to mention 12 before, we brought some of our new rules with us. 13 They're over here on the table with the yellow cover 14 on it. 15 Thank you for inviting us. It's nice to do a 16 little precursor to our outreach efforts. 17 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: You're welcome, 18 and thank you. 19 So, motion to adjourn? 20 COUNCILMAN RODGERS: So moved. 21 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: So moved. 22 All in favor? 23 MS. MACK: Aye. 24 MRS. NETCHERT: Aye. 25 MR. RIVERA: Aye. 39 PUBLIC HEARING 1 MR. HIGGINS: Aye. 2 CHAIRMAN SILVERMAN: Thank you. Thank 3 you for being here. 4 (At 11:25 a.m., proceedings were concluded.) 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 40 1 2 C E R T I F I C A T E 3 I, MICHELLE GRUENDEL, a Notary Public and 4 Certified Shorthand Reporter of the State of New 5 Jersey do hereby CERTIFY that the foregoing is a true 6 and accurate transcript of the testimony as taken 7 stenographically by and before me at the time, place 8 and on the date hereinbefore set forth, to the best 9 of my ability. 10 I DO FURTHER TESTIFY that I am neither 11 a relative, nor employee, nor attorney, nor counsel 12 of any parties to this action, and that I am neither 13 a relative, nor employee of such attorney or counsel, 14 and that I am not financially interested in the 15 action. 16 17 18 MICHELLE GRUENDEL, C.S.R. License No. XI01905 19 20 21 22 23 24 25