Issue: SW Redevelopment Plan
The SW Redevelopment Subcommittee Meeting went better than expected. HSPC decided not to bring in their hired planner for this meeting since it was the first meeting and the committee was still hearing public comments. The next meeting will be a technical meeting as requested by Chuck Latini from Heyer Gruel (the City’s planning firm) and HSPC. There will probably be several planners there if property owners choose to bring in their own experts as well.
Subcommittee meetings are generally not public, but Councilman Cammarano chose to make this a public event.
SW Plan Subcommittee:
Councilman Peter Cammarano
Councilman Nino Giacchi
Councilman Ruben Ramos
The Council President also attends these meetings, but in the last council meeting, Council President Del Boccio requested that Councilman Campos take his place.
Additional People:
Fred Bado
Gordon Lippman
Elizabeth Vandor, City’s planner
Chuck Latini (Heyer Gruel planner)
Without dictating the 2.5 hours of dialogue, here’s a quick summary:
Traffic Study
The first issues were about the bypass road and a traffic study. Hank Forrest from the Planning Board stated that the resolution that the Planning Board passed was flawed and that a comprehensive traffic plan was omitted from the plan. Cammarano wants the council to insist on a traffic study at which point the City’s attorney, Gordon Lippman said the developers will fund the traffic study. Campos took issue with this saying that residents don’t trust developers to a do a traffic study so he suggested that the developers fund the study but that an independent agency implement the study. Cammarano summed it up: the traffic study will be done after the redevelopment plan is written. Once passed, the plan can be amended to reduce density if the traffic study calls for it.
Note: While this is possible, it is extremely difficult for the council to legislate and amend a plan after it has been voted into “law.”
The Redevelopment Plan is Law, it’s not a Concept
HSPC, Leah Healey, and the treasurer for the Skyline all brought up this fact. The council has been stating that this plan is a concept only and details will follow. That is not true. What the city presents to us is the actual plan, therefore, the details for development, buildings and park, must be written out with all necessary specifics now and not later when it’s too late.
Adding more Residential Buildings to the Plan
The property owners for HBC (Hoboken Business Center) brought their planner who tried to convince the committee to change their designation on Blocks 5 & 4 from an MUB (Mixed Use Business) to an MUR (Mixed Use Residential). The owners claim that their property is barely viable and the only way for them to do well is to keep their business center but also add condos. Vandor disagreed with them as did most of the committee, saying that an MUB designation allows for multiple uses, but if they add residential, the residential always eclipses the businesses. Latini said that the economic driver for the area is residential development but that this is the City’s call. Campos and Cammarano stated they’d consider residential for that area if it was 100 % affordable housing units and/or senior housing. Bado added that he feels they’ve (the City) created tremendous value by allowing businesses, retail, a hotel, and a movie theater as potential development for those blocks. HBC owners disagreed.
Building Heights and Developer Givebacks
A concept that HSPC presented to the committee is a 6/6 plan: 6 contiguous acres of park land at street level with 6- story LEED certified buildings with givebacks. Our contention is that since the city has not done any analysis into the costs of parks and development, how can they say we need 12 story buildings to pay for a park? HSPC provided documents to the committee stating: The current zoning in the area is 2 stories with 60% lot coverage. Under the the City’s new SW plan, the zoning goes from 60-100% lot coverage with 6 stories with absolutely no givebacks from developers. The City is giving developers a major increase (4 additional stories and 40% more lot coverage) right out of the starting gate without demanding anything in return. The community has been told throughout the last year that we will only get something in return when the developers get to go from a 2 story building to a 12 story building, and then whatever open space we do get is plunked down on top of buildings and parking structures. HSPC said this is unacceptable.
The committee considered these statements and Cammarano asked Vandor if we can get a 3-4 acre park with only 6 story buildings. She said it’s possible. They agreed that the language in the plan needs to be clarified that if a developer does x, y, and z, then they can go to 6 stories.
*Cammarano stated that it makes senses to put this language in the redevelopment plan because this is a legal document, you’re changing zoning. He also said “Sometimes Redevelopment Plans are used to slow down development.”
Closing Paterson Plank Rd.
Cammarano has spoken to Jersey City and County officials in regards to closing Paterson Plank Rd. which would entail re-routing traffic behind the SW area. He said while they are not at the level of legislating it, the discussion has been agreeable to all parties involved.
The Next Subcommittee Meeting
The next meeting will occur in about two weeks. This will be a technical meeting in which Leah Healey, a land use attorney, and our professional planner will be able to have a detailed discussion with the City’s planners to hopefully generate more positive changes into the plan, especially when it comes to defining a large park. Most likely some property owners will have their planners present as well. Peter Cammarano will organize the meeting and send out the e-mail notice.
