for it stands one nation under God indivisible liy jusice all thank you could we have a sunshine announcement please cam yes good evening chairman um today is Tuesday February 6th uh in 2024 this is a Jersey City planning board meeting with a scheduled 5:30 p.m. start time and in accordance with the open public meetings act notice of this meeting has been given to the editor of the Jersey journal the Jersey City Reporter and posted with the city clerk on February 2nd of this year this meeting was also posted on the Jersey City division of City Planning web page and all distribution materials made available to the board were published and available to the public thanks cam could we have a roll call please yes uh Vice chair Dr Gonzalez here um commissioner gangan here commissioner Cruz yeah commissioner stano here commissioner Dr Desai commissioner Torres here okay and chairman langson here okay we have seven Commissioners present we have a quorum thank you uh could we swear on the staff please Mike you guys anytim yes yes thank you all right do we have correspondence cam besides all the adjournments let's just get through skip those okay great they're on the so we just have one agenda okay um so item 13 on the agenda under new business um they have communicated that they are going to request to carry with preservation of notice to February 20th of this year which is our next regularly scheduled meeting okay thanks cim do we have a quarum yet for the 27th um no we have three confirmed attendees um maybe in executive session we could talk about that so let's get right into Old business uh under seven uh item a is case p2023 d004 that's a site plan Amendment for 319 fth Street iuse on the matter thank you Council and Jean um you know the drill with Santo if he recuses you know I'm comfortable going forward but if there at any time we feel like we need to consult with outside Council we reserve that right I understood thank you okay thank you Mr chairman and make sure your mic is on please youo Connell appearing for the applicant um okay briefly uh I just want to summarize where we how we got here um we had some testimony T taken on January 9th and um basically we marked a bunch of photos as A2 at at that time um and I just want to put on the record from the testimony that we gave um the applicant uh approached both planning and historic in in June and July of last year and supplied expert um opinions that the facade was compromised and provided the photos and the expert opinion to that effect the uh his uh planning staff said that we should apply for an amended site plan my client mistakenly not deliberately thought since we was applying for an as spended s plan that he could remove the facade of course he couldn't so we're here tonight my architect is going to testify Jeff Jordan as how we're going to replicate that facade so that's uh how we got here and this is my first Witness thank you um cam I'm sorry I'm I'm looking for the email now I don't have the list of Commissioners that were here at that meeting so yeah I recall the uh five Commissioners that were here were commissioner Torres commissioner ganging commissioner Gonzalez commissioner Langston and commissioner Cruz okay so Dr decide did you have a chance to read the script okay so you would have to recuse on this no um commissioner Stato did you have a chance to look at the uh transcript okay great so you can vote on this Dr Desai you're welcome to I didn't get this sit you want to go in the other room that's fine but you can't no questions and you're not allowed to vote on this one I'm not going to vote for it okay all right okay go ahead Council thank you Jeff you want to get sworn in any testimony tonight GNA be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do can you your name please Jeff Jordan J FF j o r d n Mr Jordan good evening it's good to see you in person finally um we've qualified you in the past a million times your license is current tonight it is okay thank you Sirah you qualified okay thank you chairman so Jeff you basically met with um Maggie O'Neal on about three separate occasions and went over um the replication of the facade and all the materials that you're going to use uh can you just take the board through what was finally agreed to by you and Maggie absolutely and thanks board for hearing us tonight the uh as you'll recall the original plan was to preserve the facade and we had designed the building and Accord accordingly um since we were unable to preserve the facade the the plan really hadn't change in the sense that that the windows were going to be new the siding was going to be new the proportions of all those had been indicated previously and our are as as had been shown what has changed since the original application aside from the new framing behind the facad um is we had met with Maggie and agreed to a 4in Allwood uh lap Sting the existing cornice has been um preserved in large part and will be reinstalled any pieces that they can't reinstall because of their uh condition will be recreated using the pieces they do have and we have a piece here if you'd like to see that additionally um the colors had been changed uh following commentary from the last hearing um and Maggie reviewed those and had approved them uh was comfortable with everything we had shown so um I don't really have anything to add beyond that other than to say that we had worked with Maggie to find materials and colors that were suitable oh one last thing is that the door had changed as well she wanted to change to the uh the appearance of the door so that's all in the drawings I'll take any question questions okay thank you um yeah if you if you have materials we'd love to see it and I appreciate seeing paper in person finally yeah paper plans imagine that they had to go old school since we're love it back in person so this is as you can see the original wood Coral or a coral do you need that and then this would be the sighting it's a cedar siding a 4in exposure this is a prime piece as well thank you sir little termite you have two pieces of side in there the Cedar and the other what are you uh I I haven't picked up you took out the print yet so I just ask you which one of be used from what side they're they're both uh Cedar one has just been primed in advance just to show you yep so that would be the siding material that's going to be the siding material correct all right there is a um there is a design to this old font uh they're not making you match this the SE the design before had like a little are you trying to match that or you yeah so there okay with historic not to yeah there was a shake sighting that had been installed actually within the last 20 years there was a rigid installation behind that and then behind that was the original wood lap siding so we we now had historic evidence of what was that there so the plan had been to try and restore the shake sighting thinking that was the original sighting turns out that was not the original sighting the the lap sighting was the original so that's what we're going to match all right thank you for clearing that up for me yeah because that I would have expected to see something like this when I walk by there but uh absolutely okay thank you um Eddie those are copies of the print that was given to us the last and evidence the last time yeah yeah this is I just wanted to make sure it's yeah I brought it I brought it back with me this for this okay um anybody else any questions okay thank you sir appreciate it Council anything else no okay great uh is there anybody here from the public that wants to comment on this application if you could come on up I have a hot mic for you Mr chair seeing no public I move to close second okay we have a motion made and seconded public is closed uh Liz this is yours yeah um I'll provide comment um from City Planning staff and also um just read into the records some elements from Maggie O'Neal's memo um dated January 23rd 2024 um so this is this is from the memo um HPC staff worked with the applicant at the Chairman's request following the 1924 planning board meeting the applicant revised their plans to show the following items horizontal wood clapboard at the front facade with the dimensions to reveal to match U and reveal to match the documented historic condition reuse of the remaining cornis elements with new elements to be constructed of wood and match the details and dimensions of the historic cornice revised color palette that is more consistent with the style and date of construction of the original building revised front door that is more consistent with the style and date of construction of the original building um so HPC staff believes that the proposal as reflected on the architectural plans um revised on 11224 meet the standards of reconstruction as defined by um City's ldo HPC staff recommends that if planning board votes to approve this project the board adopt the below conditions to ensure the the project is completed in an appropriate manner um HPC staff shall review and approve of construction documents prior to their submission to the division of zoning and construction code official HPC staff shall review and sign all sets of plans specifications and shall be provided physical material samples for their review and approval the applicant shall be guided by the Secretary of interior standards for the treatment of historic properties During the Reconstruction of the front facade the applicant shall provide material samples to HBC at the time of submission of construction documents for review and approval prior to the purchase manufacturer and installation and then the final condition from HPC is that any changes uh to the preservation component of the project prior to or during the course of construction require the review and consultation with HPC staff after written request of the architect of record um so that's the The Memo from from Maggie O'Neal um and then from my staff memo um just our typical conditions um any changes to uh materials color selection need to be run through historic and and City Planning staff um applicant shall provide affidavit from the architect of record representing the construction the construction project is consisted with final approved plans um and the expansion of existing tree P pit shall be fully installed in accordance with Jersey City forestry standards prior to CEO or TCO um and then I'll just add as a matter of redundancy just um everything for Maggie's memo um and with that staff recommend approval okay thank you and Council you're okay with those conditions yes we reviewed them I got copies of both memos and shared with my applicant we agreed to all them excellent thank you all right I'll entertain a motion Mr J i' like to make a motion to approve case p223 d004 is presented to the board tonight second okay motion made and seconded for approval okay Vice chair Dr Gonzalez I uh commissioner gengen I commissioner Torres I commissioner stamato I commissioner Cruz I chairman Langston I and Council thank you thank you for hearing us and and adjusting fire for us we appreciate it motion cares all in favor with conditions all right thank you uh so let's move on to new business finally uh item nine is the review and discussion of artist certification for Olga uh n Shin I had it I had it in my head I apologize uh n Shina um formal action may be taken tonight can you grab Santo for us oh yes um so as always uh staff just reiterates the criteria that have been met by the artist and this artist meets criteria 1 through five and with uh that on the record um planning staff recommends approval okay thanks cim does anybody have any questions we all have the criteria the packet um you know again we we we're not art critics we're just here to strictly go by their criteria and the qualifications they meet for uh artist housing okay no questions all right is anybody here from the public that wants to comment anybody from public Mr chair sign know what public I move to close second okay motion is made and seconded publicly disclosed cam we have your recommendation yes staff recommends approval okay thank you Mr CH I'd like to make a motion to approve uh the review and discussion of artist certification for Olan andina uh and forward to um city council for formal adoption second okay motion made and second uh Vice chair Dr Gonzales I commissioner stamato commissioner Cruz I commissioner Dr Desai I commissioner gangan congratulations I commissioner Torres yeah before I put my vote in I just want to make a comment on record um we're definitely not art critics uh there's a lot of artists in my family uh lately and I've been seeing a lot of different type of Art and really getting into it with the family and stuff um I'm strongly I I don't like what ad Towers come into Jersey City looking for this uh I like to see the judgy City Board residents that were here struggling in the AR community but um looking at this work that she has done and her artwork I'm proud that she chooses Jersey City to be a home a really good work really a great artist and I think it' be very good for having her here from Jersey City in Jersey City so I'm gonna vote a big eye on this one thank you okay and chairman Langston hi all right motion carries all in favor all right thank you let's move on to item 10 is case p2023 d36 is the review and discussion of amendments to the polus hook Redevelopment plan regarding the plan boundaries and creation of block 1166 Redevelopment plan uh this uh was sent to us as part of a council resolution 22- 699 uh petition by kre acquisition Corp and formal action may be taken tonight good evening Council as a moment of housekeeping uh City Planning staff did send email notice to the Hudson County planning board I would just like to uh have our uh Council look at it and so we can mark it thank you Matt I had the opportunity to look at the notice uh does appear to be in order so for purposes of the record we're going to mark it as A1 thank you Council uh uh good evening Mr chairman uh board members Council and staff uh James mccan from the law firm of Connell Foley appearing on behalf of the petitioner K acquisition um this is tonight a proposal for a new Redevelopment plan namely the block 11606 Redevelopment plan and a proposal to amend the paulus hook Redevelopment plan um I think I should probably point out um that K acquisition um is a developer that's been developing property in Jersey City for over 25 years they're very familiar with the Redevelopment process um they have developed some significant projects beginning in 1990 with Grove point and continuing all the way through the present day um with the Journal Square project which I think this board is familiar with I think that's a little bit important when a Redevelopment plan is being proposed by a petitioner um tonight we're here to discuss block 11606 on the tax map of Jersey City um it's on your screen right now that's an aerial photograph of block 11606 we have Mr mccan on our screen we don't I have on try uh pressing your uh green button says view larger display it should now reset yes okay got it and that that aerial photograph has been posted on the planning web portal uh since November so um it's been up there for a while um you can see that um block 11606 is um bounded by Christopher Columbus uh Montgomery Green Street and Washington Street and you can also see that in the middle of that block is um a property that many of you may know it's common known as 17 72 Montgomery Street and it's the batter R viw housing project it has for a very long time provided affordable housing for senior citizens uh in the Jersey City area um The Proposal before you tonight um is to and you can also see that um surrounding that property is a whole lot of ashalt and a lot of surface parking and this project was definitely approved under the Paul hook Redevelopment plan it was constructed in the 1970s and uh that plan was adopted in 1969 um so planning principles urban planning principles were certainly different at that point in time and I think probably this uh project that you see um is not something that the planning board would ever approve today due to all that surface parking um the general proposal before you tonight is going to be um in the Redevelopment plan that's being proposed is to eliminate all or substantially all of that surface parking along green and Christopher Columbus Drive and some along the corner of Washington Street and Christopher Columbus and replace it with publicly accessible open space um now how we have to get there in this situation is um presently the block 11606 is part of the paulus hook Redevelopment plan the proposal is to amend that Redevelopment plan to remove that entire block from the Pauls hook Redevelopment plan and then for the city council hopefully to adopt a new Redevelopment plan that will only apply to that block um and what that Redevelopment plan will then allow for is for the designated redeveloper of the site to subdivide that site into two districts and um can we advance to the concept plan so I'm just going to briefly show you the concept plan this has also been posted on the planning uh portal website for several months now this is in fact the concept plan for the Redevelopment plan that we have presented to you tonight and very simply that concept plan allows for the site to be separated into two districts and two lots via a subdivision approval and then K the designated redeveloper would develop what's referred to on that plan as the East district with a brand new building that would have up to 600 units and would have 15% affordable housing in accordance with Jersey City's inclusionary housing ordinance what would also be mandatory if that development were to occur would be for the designated developer to also develop the area that you see in green which is in the West District which would now be part of a separate lot um with the open space that you see on the screen it would be a minimum of 11,000 square feet of uh Green Space uh along Christopher Columbus there would also be a minimum of 3500 Square ft um of a plaza which you could see on the corner of green and C Christopher Columbus um there would be a new driveway in between the properties um and and essentially that's the development um or that's the proposed development that would occur on this site were this Redevelopment plan to be adopted now just a couple of other things the uh Green Space would be publicly accessible that is codified in the Redevelopment plan it would be operated by the developer of the property in the East District its own cost and expense it of course would be developed at its own cost and expense and we would expect that at some point there would be a developers op a developers agreement that would memorialize the operation of that green space as publicly access accessible Green Space in perpetuity um that's the Genesis of the plan now the parking that's going to be eliminated the surface parking that that you don't see there that's going to be eliminated is essentially going to be replaced by a parking deck constructed in the East District by the designated redeveloper so the residents of um the batter r view uh property would now no longer have to park outdoors in surface parking they would have the option of parking in the parking deck that would be constructed on the East District as part of the new project and I should say a couple of things um K has the full cooperation of the owner of the 72 Montgomery Street project they want this they've consented to this proposal and they want this proposal to happen they believe that it will improve their residents property because their residents will no longer be surrounded by a parking lot but they will have open space right outside their back door or front door um so we have the full cooperation of the owner of the site in this proposal they also um K has also presented this to councilman Solomon who he is also on board with this proposal neighborhood groups they have met with over time um pois hook Association padna um and of course we've been working on the language in this Redevelopment plan and the concept with the planning division for almost a year now um so that's the uh that's essentially what this Redevelopment plan would provide for on this block um you know I have an architect with me and I also have Carol worstell from Dresner as you know an important part of adopting a Redevelopment plan is to have a master plan consistency report so I have the architect to answer questions about the concept plan and I'm goingon to bring Carol up as my only witness to summarize the master plan consistency report which is a report that's in writing and has also been posted on the portal for several months um I'll bring Carol up if the board doesn't have any questions of me any questions anybody so far nope okay thank you Council okay uh Mr relle I do it's Carolyn worell w r s l l Mr worell good evening good to see you one person as well um your license is current tonight it's good current and good standing this evening okay great thank you you're qualified great thank you um so I'm just going to speak very specifically to this master plan consistency um as you was just discussed um by Mr McAn um you know the purpose of this Redevelopment plan was is really to apply contemporary Urban Development standards to this block um to create a better utilization of the site and build out of a mixed use residential development and public open spaces to activate the street front as well as to bring new affordable housing units to downtown so this is really consistent with um numerous um uh elements of the the master plan um and that includes um continued efforts to enhance residential neighborhoods um which is part of the land use principles um you know this project um that principle recognizes mixed uh a mixed of various scales of buildings in Jersey City um and this Redevelopment plan is consistent um it's going to redevelop uh what is a Surface parking lot uh with a highrise mixed use building in the uh City's downtown core just blocks from two PATH stations so it really gets in at that um uh scale of buildings in Jersey City and and Redevelopment of underutilized sites um it ensures the city's available housing is balanced um the master plan states that part of the city's distinctive character stems from the diverse its diverse uh economic diversity um and this plan allows for the existing affordable housing to uh remain on the site as well as requiring Provisions for new affordable housing to be developed um on the site with the new housing um it will improve open space assets and connect them to each other and to into the community um as was discussed there's going to be significant new open um open space uh developed along Christopher Columbus Drive um you know it's going to create uh new sort of pocket parks that will serve both the immediate neighborhood and increase the overall open space Network throughout the downtown uh looking at the open space element um IT addresses uh the gaps uh addresses gaps through new land and improved facilities um so again this this plan is creating um some new open space um in the downtown uh which says um you know daily demand for public open space throughout the week from uh people who work in the businesses um as well as residents in the downtown um and it's making a small scare small scale pocket open space um and a crucial uh part of an overall Network so creating an a space that will connect with the other Open Spaces that are within the downtown area um and it also is consistent with the the goal to link to and invest in Community Resources is close to existing and future Transit stations and stops um this Redevelopment area is 5 minute walk to multiple PATH stations uh the Light Rail station and a ferry terminal um and there's uh recent surrounded by recently implemented protected bite Lanes on Montgomery Washington Warren and Christopher Columbus Drive um so there's a a large amount of Transit within the area um and it's highly accessible from a pedestrian standpoint um it's well connected to other Civic spaces Community facilities as well as the different Transportation networks um so this is an ideal location not only for new high-rise uh density development but also for an additional open space for public use um it's consistent with the circulation element um objective G11 of the circulation element uh recommends development and implementation of smart growth strategies um as well as objective g12 uh which supports Transit dependent growth by creating street level pedestrian friendly environments um so overall this this project meets both of those objectives um again we're developing um uh creating a new zoning to provide for The Pedestrian scale mixed use development um that is going to be uh could be created here in close proximity to Major Transit networks surrounded by complete streets and facilitating the creation of new public facing and uh uh public publicly accessible Open Spaces um along major bike pedestrian veh vehicular corridors um where the current condition is dominated by impervious coverage so I think overall that this um site is consistent with both smart growth principles and to press practices um in both its sighting um and the the type of development that is being proposed here to replace the parking so I think I can conclude that this R development plan is substantially consistent with the goals and objectives of the Jersey City master plan um and is designated are designed to effectuate the master plan uh pursu to the local Redevelopment and Housing law and that's it okay thank you uh any questions anybody don't go don't go okay thank you m worstell appreciate it do you want me so the last component sure to what we're doing tonight I just put up on the screen for you all this is the component that is the amendment to the poliy Redevelopment plan very simply um this map will be part of the Paul hook Redevelopment plan and you could see from the map that it excludes block 11606 from that plan so this is the other component of um what's being presented to the board tonight understood one question question Mr M a question on the uh parking situation you said uh you're going to have a parking lot built in the building uh batter R viw tenants that are going to be using that parket are they going to be paying the rocket rate or is there going to be some type of a scale rate for those uh senior citizens in that building talked about that right so I I don't know the answer to that I don't think there's been a financial model worked out for that yet I um so I I can't answer that question I just know that the spaces will be available um to make sure that every space that is taken as a surface space will be replaced in the parking uh garage and the Redevelopment plan provides a a flexible number of spaces depending on how many spaces are used uh to make to build the open space it's possible to match what they're paying now or I don't know what they're paying right now yeah I'm told by representative K that they're not going to charge the the seniors for the parking in the garage thank you thank you I like I like good neighbors thank you very much I hope that goes I hope that goes through that way thank you so Council we're just picking this up now um if anything's built other than mixed use on that East property is the park still in play does is that still required to be built so without having the Redevelopment plan in front of I believe the only permitted uses on the East District um whatever is built on on in the East District would require the open space to be built I believe that's the arrangement that's what the Redevelopment plan says so if there was no retail they would still have to build the the Open Space Mr mccan on page 12 page 12 East District specific regulations permitted principal uses there's a list obviously that includes residential retail office and then the last category is mixed use of any of the above the way I read that obviously any one of those uses could be developed on the property then when I go back up to the regulation about the open space Plaza required open space on page eight it says as part of any new construction of a new mixed juice Residential Building in the East District so that's I guess that conflict from from our point of view with the verbiage of the Redevelopment plan so the question so the presumption is that if they just built office they wouldn't have to build the open space that's not the inent so I think that if we need to tweak the language before it goes to the city council that I can work with Mr Ward who's been working with myself and my team on this project I think the intent is that whatever is built on the East District would require the open space also but I also think the intent at the present time is to build a residential building there with affordable housing um because that was one of the most important components of this also if I may expand on that go ahead Matt it sounds like any development though in the East District would would be required to provide the open space that's located in the West District to include an open space area of at least 11,500 ft and a minimum of that is uh dog park of 2,500 ft so that that paragraph is specific to any application in the East District resulting in that um and you're on page nine right correct paragraph two on page nine yeah I think just page eight paragraph one has to I think we all agree in concept so Mr Ward and I can look at the language that you're citing and Shore It Up For What the board's intent is Matt do you agree we can uh we can we can use the same um the same phrase that says any development uh and replace the uh the any new construction of a mixed use Residential Building in paragraph one with the same way we do in paragraph two which says any part of any development application okay good very good thank you okay anybody else any questions okay so there was one housekeeping item um since we're talking about language in the Redevelopment plan Matt we had discussed a can Delver provision for the Redevelopment plan um Can can you talk about that as a floor Amendment or do you want me to um I'm I'm happy with you to uh talk about it as a floor Amendment and and staff's reviewed and as fine with the introduction of this so the the applicant had requested um that they get permission to build a canal lever um over the uh the building on the side where Columbus Boulevard is and Matt and I had a couple of back and forth with some language that we Pro proposed by our team and um I think the agreement is in article Roman numeral 8 a7a romanet 1A that we can add language saying a canopy or awning May infringe upon the building's setback requirement up to and along Christopher Columbus Drive property line such canopy or awning shall be can delived with a minimum clearance of 20 feet above grade the idea being simply that where that um Plaza is to allow there to be a canal Liber to possibly in the event of some bad weather to still allow people to be able to sit outside so that and they would get a little bit of coverage from the uh from the elements that's the intent that's in that proposed proposed Plaza area 3500 squ foot Plaza but it would be the can delivery would be attached to the building obviously right so in the site concept that we have on our screen that's that 35 Tower footprint of above on the East District portion yes above on the screen but on the that's on the ground floor that's on that's on the street right it says Tower footprint above yep yep exactly okay does anybody have any questions on that no okay thank you Council thank you and do you have an no another witness uh no I was wondering if Matt he had a staff report yeah okay okay so uh at this time let's open it up for a public comment if anybody's here from the public that wants to comment on this Redevelopment plan change please come on up to the mic Mr chair I seen public I move to close second okay motion is made and second it public is closed all right uh so staff is uh satisfied with the testimony put on the record by their professional planner um in review of uh the this document they proposed amendments for new Redevelopment plan um staff concludes that the proposed amendments are substantially consistent with the master plan and designed to effectuate the master plan staff recommends that the planning board recommend adoption of these amendments to the municipal Council that said I believe we have put on some things about floor amendments also in our uh staff memo dated November 22nd 2023 we also detailed some floor amendments there um which in hindsight we probably should have uh Incorporated in these months that have gone by we probably could have uh but that said I uh uh we would like to involve th include those as well in the recommendation from planning board um those are cleaning up some language regarding uh some of the same paragraphs we talked about tonight the the required open space and then there's also um a minimum lot size change just to to ensure that um uh what's regulated in the plan um moves forward smoothly with a minimum lot size change from 300 uh I'm sorry 30,000 sare fet to 50,000 Square F feet um with that recommend staff recommends approval okay thank you Matt I'll entertain a motion if there's like make a motion nope I'd like to make a motion to approve case p2023 d 0036 as presented to our board here tonight second okay motion is made and seconded for approval on a motion to approve and recommend the city council for adoption uh Vice chairman Dr Gonzalez yeah I I like it I really like this uh removing this uh parking is going to be a good thing for this for this site so I I would I commissioner Gaden yeah I totally agree with um Dr Gonzalez um this amendment is um beneficial to Jersey City as well i v i commissioner Torres thank thanks for being a good neighbor and thanks for working with the senior citizens in that building I appreciate that and U with that I'm going to vote I commissioner Stato v i commissioner Cruz i v i commissioner Dr Desai I chairman Lon yeah I do agree with Mr worstell's uh testimony um the plan is inke keeping with the master plan all the goals and objectives discussed tonight um th this is exactly where we want to be as a city this is uh you know definitely the vision for downtown um so this is an easy eye for me motion carries all in favor on the motion to approve and recommend to staff um recommend to city council for adoption okay thank you you thank you Council uh I am gonna jump one thing up real quick uh this has been on our agenda kicking back and forth on our agenda for a long time now I'm going to move to item 15 if that's okay uh it should be brief uh we're going to call case p2303 99 this is a conditional use for 746 Grand Street oh okay we don't have to text anymore we're kicking at old school as well chairman I do have to recuse on this matter uh as I have a conflict cup of coffee okay and as always Council city building as always Council um I'm comfortable going forward without Council right now uh but if at any time we feel like we need to consult with somebody outside uh we'll Reserve that right and carry the application to a later date sure not a problem thank you so much thank you all right um hi my name is Heather kummer I am representing the backpack boys with a z back boys JC LLC uh this is for for a conditional use regarding uh class 5 cannabis dispensary located at um 746 Grand Street block 18703 lot n you probably have seen this building a while uh I have seen this building vacant probably all ever since I moved to Jersey City since 2010 so I'm very excited that something is being built here and it's being refurbished um renovated so on this my client has already received the Jersey City cannabis board approval on November 14th 2022 they also worked um were addressing any sort of issues with historic but are going to continue having those conversations I'm going to bring up right now who I'm going to refer to as I'm sorry Tom I'm going to refer to you as a triple threat we actually our architect is also a licens engineer and planner so it will be a oneandone witness for us and to respect the board's time because I know you have a a lot of things we want to try to do this as swiftly and efficient as possible so at this time um I'm going to ask Tom to give introduce yourself spell your last name and uh give your expertise before we do that we just should do some housekeeping and seeing that uh our Council has recused um I'll just go on the record as saying that staff has reviewed the the notice and finds it uh in order okay thank you Matt and we'll mark that A1 and Council uh just before you call your Witness obviously the board is more than familiar with cannabis applications at this point um you know we just look at the architecture of it um you know we've been back and forth a million times with these we're just keeping it very simple so really right now and um you know our architect's familiar with that he's just going to explain any sort of the exterior work uh any sort of cleanup since this was a currently vacant building and we'll just uh address it from there uh we'll go very quickly of meeting the conditions and that's and take questions at that point great okay thank you we appreciate it yes sir I do it's Thomas V Ashan a h b a i a n business address is 39 Spring Street Ramsey New Jersey Mr ashv ashv ashb ashb I've heard your vision pleasure Heather talk to you up uh Triple Threat she called you so uh I I don't believe we've qualified you in the past stuff no so I I certainly do have to go through that um graduate Pratt Institute in Brooklyn New York 1976 uh first registered architect 1980 uh registered professional planner 1981 and registered as professional engineer 1983 uh continuous practice as a sole proprietor since 1984 so I'm afraid that's about about 40 years now so I might be the old guy in the room but I'll talk fast um if my credentials are acceptable I'll launch yes thank you sir and congratulations ad qualified by the Jersey City planning board on there and uh the floor is yours thank you very much um and before you start um so your testimony is just we'll cover anything and everything everything may need to be covered but I'll I'll try to make sure that it's complete as possible certainly any questions I'm more than obliged to answer okay thank you sir I appreciate it the building as you probably all too well know is a building that's probably in excess of 10 years old um the building when I saw it for the first time about two years ago has been completely abandoned the building inside is entirely empty um there's doors openings and window openings but as of um up until just a few weeks ago there were no windows at all uh doors were all padlocked uh so the building very much is in need of a a a new life fortunately the building is extremely well constructed I can say that as an architect and an engineer um it is sound uh it's not collapsing inside the brick work of the building both exterior and exterior interior is excellent uh the condition of the brick work is beyond belief really um it's a it's a through withth brick I'm not sure if anybody realizes but it's a it's brick all the way through it's not a brick and then block or brick and and masonry or or frame uh so it's a very very viable building that can be um worked on and brought to New Life building is two stories of course about 1,700 Square ft per floor The Proposal is to have a retail facility on the first floor utilizing the entire perimeter with additional amenities of toilet uh a trash room in a storage room uh the plan is articulated so to say indicating a an average retail situation uh the main entrance will be at the uh Corner sort to say the property is irregularly shaped the building fills virtually the entirety of the triangular shaped property so the public entrance so to say would be here employee entrance here and for purposes of any sort of emergency we have exit that would drop down to Grand could you use the mic please sir if you need to move to the boards there is a hand handheld mic behind you oh just turn it on dude do do you see the switch on it so that's the oh so the first floor is devoted entirely to retail the second floor will be entirely devoted uh to storage of product offices um and any uh attendant uh needs of the retail facility uh there is a basement that really is only across Bas there's there's really no utilization of it for other than uh utilities uh gas water electric uh me uh so the building will be entirely uh renovated on the exterior the the graffiti and any other accoutrements that have been added over the years will be removed all the stone work the brick work will be retained the corners will restored uh Windows have already been installed and we will be replacing all of the doors um we are proposing three signs uh the signs are in full conformance uh there will be a sign that faces Grand one sign that faces Arlington and then a a flag or pendant type sign over the uh entry door all the signs are in in full full conformance with regulations for the NC Zone uh we have added lighting to the to the uh the elevations uh the lighting will produce at least one foot candle uh minimum on the entirety of the perimeter of the building uh facing both Arlington and Grand uh the all the HVAC um equipment will be located on a roof um the parit around the building is is approximately 3 and 1/2 to 4 ft high so there will be no visibility of the equipment uh from the from the streetcape at all uh access to the roof would be entirely interior of the building um as far as the planning uh planning testimony or planning issues U we have provided a zoning data chart which indicates all the particulars of the building uh we are not changing anything that has to do with the shape size or uh height of the building there's no additions there is a provision in your ordinance that tells us that um all the bulk standards um basically don't apply if the property already exists because there are technically some uh non-conformities but the uh planner report has told us that there are no variances um so the building is conforming from a uh a planning criteria uh uh perspective in the NC Zone the conditional um issue that we have to meet is that the property be located at least 10 200 feet from a school and a 600 ft from another facility uh we have provided evidence of the uh the planning your planning board or your planning uh staff that provides that we are in conformance with the minimum setbacks from both of those CR criteria um the per the use is a permitted conditional use and I believe you've covered already the the legal conditions um trash U which was uh called off we were called for uh is being contained inside the building we are not disposing the trash with any sort of dumpster on the exterior trash will have to be regularly taken out on a scheduled um uh scheduled uh pickup it will not be left out in the street so to say um and I believe that's it we've uh reviewed the planning report the last planning report of December 27th uh we commit and I believe there's nothing in there that has been undone by our submissions or not addressed by our submissions and from a architectural engineering planning perspective we would conform with uh any of the recommendations of the staff and any furtherance of my involvement in issuing a uh conforming development uh certificate I think that's it that's it okay thank you um the believe it or not the one question I have um at the well actually two questions um I just want to see how circulation is handled for the retail section so people come in the front entrance they check in is there security only at the check-in desk I knew you were going to ask that so um I actually provided copies the reason why they weren't provided before for the layout um they are confidential but I have enough copies for the board to look at I'm going to enter this in as exhibit just to show just once you enter that though that's public record if you just want to describe it for us I'm fine with that sure so you can see over here there's the counter over here um the entrance over here for it's at the tip over there so uh the check-in is right here Council if you could please just turn the the board a little bit sure with Commissioners we're loaded up with Commissioners tonight so so where Arlington and Grand Street meet that uh that point is going to be where the entrance is the main entrance so people will check in over here of course there's going to be security out in the front they're going to have their IDs check and then checked again to check in then there's a waiting area over here to on the side over here uh and then from there once they get in they will basically almost kind of go around the counter to that space so there'll be like a line over here so it's pretty much it's very much contained um and then they'll be able to exit on the other location as well so it's two different entrances or exit the exits right over here for customer exit sor sorry employee entrance is over here on the other side with Arlington and the the uh customer exit is off of Grand Street okay thank you Council um so my other question is that customer exit um that door shows swinging inward is that a secure door uh it is a secure door um by building code we are are permitted to turn that door in inwards in as much as the occupancy inside the building is low enough okay understood I had egress concerns but also just security concerns yes and and to swing it out would be dangerous to someone who have to use it they they could pitch right out onto the the stair okay understood um just for also the record I submitted these files to Francisco so planning has it as well they have a layout too okay all right anybody else any questionss don't let me uh Li hog this outdoor lighting has been indicated on the perimeter of the building providing uh one average of one foot candle the lights are indicated on the elevations and on the plants on the full perimeter all right anybody else maybe yeah I have a question the uh my question is basically uh you mentioned in your testim that the utilities will be the qu space type or a very low basement area but I don't see any access into that area the this this is basically the basement crawl space and when I say crawl space I'm kind of short I cannot stand up okay okay but there is a stair that actually gets down to it there is a okay now I see that there is a stair W within the crawl space okay 4 foot high an existing stair that's pretty big 4ot fo High you know I've got a tighter spaces than that so indeed I have too and the older I get the L they have they have Utilities in that qu space now yes yes and they're going to remain down there in the Bas yes yes interesting yeah okay okay anybody else all right thank you sir we appreciate council is that your Pres presentation sorry is that your presentation that's our presentation okay thank you uh at this point we'll open it up for public comment is anybody here from public that wants to comment on this application please come on up to the microphone if you are here and want to comment chair c is no more public I would like to close the public portion okay motion is made and seconded public is closed uh uh so Francisco ESP Spinosa is um not here tonight I did review this application um I did prepare the map actually that's um put on the data portal for this application uh Mr espanosa did prepare a staff memo which I've reviewed along with the other materials dated December 27th 2023 he did recommend that in the event of a motion is made to approve his application staff recommended uh seven subsequent conditions um upon my review most of these are um standard with a cannabis uh application um moving on to the map there is a concurrent applicant for class 5 at another corner of grand and communa Avenue uh staff recommends approval okay and Matt just uh for clarity concurrent applicant there's no building permits pulled yet no they uh have an application into us uh for to appear before this board okay thank you and Council uh you've reviewed staff comments yes the only comment um I would like to say for some of the conditions they do say to either work with historic staff or the historic commission um if I am totally we're totally fine with working with historic staff as needed but I do not since it's not in a historic district nor it's a landmark or it's designated as historic building uh we request to leave the commission out of it that's fine I think uh what we meant is is Staff um but we probably would consult with them anyways uh that's that's put on to condition number one if that's reasonable okay thank you thank you all right El a motion chair I like to make a motion to approve case p23 d039 as presented to the board this evening to get to it staff recommendation and conditions second okay motion is made and seconded for approval uh commissioner gengen I commissioner Torres I commissioner staman hi commissioner Cruz hi commissioner Dr Desai I Vice chair Dr Gonzalez abstain man chairman linkston hi good luck thank you so much thank you have a good night thank you thank you uh cam could we bring Santo back in I don't know maybe he's out getting dinner to that's what we okay let's move on to item 11 on the agenda is case p2024 d004 uh this is the review and discussion of amendment to the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan regarding 155 Boulevard uh change in use and permitted height is proposed this was petitioned by Liberty Harbor North Partners LLC and formal action may be taken tonight good evening uh Gregory asadorian from the dtus law firm on behalf of Liberty Harbor North Partners LLC um my client owns the property which is commonly known as 155 Marin Boulevard also identified as block 1590 7 lot 3 qualifier 2 uh we're here tonight on a Amendment to the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan um what we are basically seeking is residential with affordable housing units at the site which is presently vacant I have three Witnesses here tonight um and I would like to start with uh my architect Dean marchetto Mr asadorian let's just take take care of some housekeeping uh we have the notice that was sent to the county with respect to the application so we're going to mark that as A1 for purposes of the record and then Mr Pino is here Mr Pino would you like to place your appearance on the record yes sir thank you good evening Council good evening chairman um my name is Eugene palino uh I'm a partner at Genova Burns and I'm representing lhn uh urban renewal and lhn 2 I think LLC excuse me um I have two uh I'm an objector I represent an objector uh I have two objections that are threshold objections you right at the beginning of this thing uh the first is that there is uh an existing ordinance that was passed amending the Redevelopment plan I have a copy of the amended Redevelopment plan which incorporates the resolution and the the uh approval of the municipal Council so uh I've sent an email uh to I think Mr lampy and and the planning division suggesting that there was an issue here of potential conflicting or ordinances um doesn't sound like it's conflicting but it is it is in the sense that if there's if this board should recommend approval and it goes to the municipal Council Municipal Council approves May approve it in that case I have two valid existing ordinances that uh I don't know what they do in that instance they have a conflict should you say that you uh disapprove of the amendment and it goes to Municipal Council and I agree with you now I have a an approved ordinance and a disapproved ordinance or no ordinance so um I don't know what my client would be faced with in that instance it would have to comply with I guess the ordinance uh that exists and is valid outstanding uh you might respond and I understand this believe me I played it in my mind several times over the last couple of weeks you may say not my problem that's the municipal council's problem the answer to that is really not the case you know that the council relies upon your recom the municipal Council relies upon your recommendations in one case you recommended uh what the outcome would be so what I would suggest you do for all it's worth is to send this back to the municipal Council or the Corporation Council and suggest that they resend the existing ordinance so that we don't have a conflict that's my first objection that's a threshold objection the second objection is a little bit more sensitive to that you know that the general procedure for um any Redevelopment plan uh Amendment or a Redevelopment plan as it is the beginning of a Redevelopment plan is that you have a sponsor and that sponsor could either be uh a uh private party as in this case or it could be a city sponsored jcra sponsored I don't know who you would name it but it would be a publicly sponsored Redevelopment plan um in this case we clearly have um a an amendment that's put forward not by the planning division but it's put forward by a private individual lhn uh LH and part owner I think it's called and uh in in that instance U the promoter sponsor of the plan has to has the duty of persuading you and persuading the municipal Council that that Amendment meets all the requirements of the master plan and the intentions and purposes of the Redevelopment plan um in this case what I see is that there have been um Communications by the planning division in support of the private individual um I don't mean Communications emails I'm not talking about that I'm talking about a matter that was uh uploaded to the portal and it contains a report uh or a PowerPoint I don't know how you would call it and I sent an email to Mr lampy saying that I thought that that needed to be removed from the portal I don't think it was and I believe because I know you folks you probably looked at it and it probably is in your mind now and I can't remove it even if I could remove it right so I have a problem with that um that report as it were and I would ask that that report not be considered At All by this board um you may say that I'm entitled to all of the information that I can get from my planning division I've heard the chairman say that a number of times and I would say the same in your position right you want to get as much information as you possibly can in this instance that's not that's not fair uh you know I I submitted a matter to the portal had it upload uploaded to the portal it was exhibits that um will support my my objections and um the planning division uh submitted a response to my my matters that were uploaded at least it seems that way that's how it happened chronologically and as a result I don't know who my my adversary is is it the is it the city of Jersey City the planning division or is it you know is it my is it a private individual so to make things fair and level the play playing field uh my request threat on the threshold matter is I can't take it out of your mind but I can ask that you not consider it and that that's it thank you those those are the two objections I have as a threshold objection okay thank you Council may I be heard may I be heard uh with respect to what Mr Pino just said of course Council sure a couple things um first thing Mr palino said was that there may be conflict conflicting ordinances that's pure speculation we have no idea what the mayor and council is going to do we have no idea if there's going to be conflicting ordinances or not so that first part of his objection is based purely on speculation um what he also said was that this board send this matter back to the mayor and counsel and them to resend the ordinance um unfortunately this board does not have the authority to direct the mayor and counsel to resent an ordinance so that objection fails the final objection Mr palino made was that this matter is set forth before you tonight on behalf of my applicants on behalf of my client's request however if you take a look at the resolution it's actually at the um corporate council's request to the mayor and Council and the mayor council referred it to this board so this we're not here today as a result of my client's request we're actually here today as a result of Mayor and council's request which that part then negates the rest of his objection concerning this board's uh experts opinion or recommendations um as this board knows every Planning and Zoning Board in the state hears or has review letters which are uh distributed to the board by its experts by its professionals they're normally given to the applicant and to any objector and then this board and a zoning Board of adjustment they then have the right to weigh the testimony and give that testimony that that opinion the weight they deserve or which they think it deserves so you may accept anything that is contained in any of the recommendations you may accept the testimony from my experts or you may accept the testimony from Mr palino's experts or you may recheck them that is in the board's discretion and it's in the board's right so for you to not consider a professional opinion is absurd and it counter it flies right directly in the face of the municipal land use law so with that said I would respectfully request that we proceed tonight and this board not consider or reject Mr Pino's objections chairman I can speak to both objections if the board would like the benefit of my Council uh I am happy to give it as always absolutely please so first Mr pelino thank you uh I appreciate what you would do if you were in my position but I see it a little differently than you obviously uh uh with respect to the issue of what the governing body does or doesn't do in adopting ordinances this body does not legislate we've had this conversation hundreds of times uh amongst ourselves when going through what our role is as the planning board for the city we do not legislate we do not adopt ordinances we are here on a review that was sent to us of the proposed amendments to a Redevelopment plan and our purview is to look at it and determine whether or not there is consistency with the master plan and make a recommendation to the council which as we've discussed numerous times the council does not have to accept they are free to govern they're elected they govern we're appointed we do planning that's what we do we do not make legislation so whe whether or not there's an issue whether or not the council has multiple ordinances that may conflict may not conflict we don't tell the governing body what to do we make recommendations and they do what they do we do what we do with respect to the objection regarding uh the fact that City Planning has reviewed things submitted and has given opinions this is very customary we see this all the time we rely on planning staff to do what planning staff is licensed to do and to help bring forth all of the necessary information so everybody has it everybody's aware of what it says we're going to hear all of the testimony we're going to weigh all of the evidence and we're going to determine uh where we fall on the issue so chairman with that I think the board should overrule the objections they're noted for the record and we should move forward sure thank you Council um before I say anything does anybody have any questions okay um no I I agree with Council uh the objections are duly noted for the record uh we do appreciate Mr palino's time I'm sure it's the last not the last time we're going to hear from him tonight on this application but um I am comfortable moving forward and uh again the objections are on record and um we're here to do the business of the planning department and not write legislation or resend legislation tonight so with that said Council if you want to call your first witness thank you yes I'd like to call Mr Dean marchetto I'll use this Council I think this is going to be between this and cross-examination this might be a lengthy process right now you know we try and give court reporter a break at 7 yeah so chairman for the record I did have the opport speak to both councils uh during the time that I was off the deis and they promised me that it would not take either one of them more than 35 minutes to put on their direct case so uh I think we should give the reporter the break but that is what they promised I I I feel like Jean's answer right now is going to be more than 35 minutes let me see and that's fine that's fine uh I only object to the word promise I I had an estimate all right okay let's give Mike 10 at 654 we'll be back at 704 [Music] everybody all right could we come to order again everybody okay Council the floor is yours thank you youu yes I do yes my name is Dean maretto and it's Dean marchetto is m a r c h t t o Mr marchetto good evening uh We've qualified you as a planner and an architect at this point uh your testifying is what tonight tonight as an architect and okay license is current okay thank you you're qualified okay Mr Pino you don't have any objection to us recognizing Mr Mar chadow good evening board members it's nice to see you all in person for a change it's you um so uh what we're going to be talking about tonight is the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan and for reference purposes I just put the uh the cover page on the slide this is the current Liberty harb North Redevelopment plan um the Liberty Harbor North uh uh plan this is an aerial view of the entire area Santo can we Mark the plan as A2 can you just go back give us the last date on right it's March 23rd 2023 can I proceed yes okay so this is an areal view looking down at the overall Liberty Harbor North uh plan it's a total of 80 acres and zooming into the project area this red square represents block 24 which is the subject matter of tonight's case and then moving in a bit further you see the entire block and then you see the Red Square in the middle which is the site of this particular application well the uh site for this petition is is unbuilt portion of the site it's located uh on South Cove is one name the other street is Avenue E I think it has a few names right now um the site measures 180 ft wide by 85 ft deep and is 35 Acres this map describes the overlay of what's already built on the site um you may know that there are two existing high-rise residential Towers on the site commonly known as Vantage Tower one and Vantage Tower 2 45 stories and then there's a platform around the c-shape of the rest of the site um which is a parking and amenities uh type of platform with a pool deck and a and a roof deck above in the center you'll see the site that's in question tonight and there are two rectangles in there the outer rectangle is the property area the property area measures 180 ft wide um uh by by 88 ft deep as I mentioned for. 35 acres and um then there's an inner box which is shown which is the actual Tower footprint that's permitted it's 160 ft wide by 70 ft deep um and that's that's uh that footprint sits above the base of the building which is the base that contains parking and amenities and lobbies um this is a 3D view of the existing conditions you can see the two Vantage Towers in the center of the image and then that green patch which I'll now identify with this red box is the site that we have in question Council we Mark the Redevelopment plan as to you want to Mark everything as we go individually yeah I was thinking submitted yeah I was thinking the same thing I was going to ask Mr March when he's done if we should Mark them individually or as a packet I submitted it to the portal as one presentation PowerPoint presentation so if if that's fine through each one of those slides I'm going to go through every slide yes okay so let's mark that as A3 purposes of record and Mr moretto how many slides is the presentation you know I never counted them I'd have to get to the end it's probably about 25 slides but I'll know when I get to the end unless I never really counted them thank you okay um so the site is is marked in red and and this image shows the zoning envelope that is permitted on the site currently we can see the bulk of the tower which is 320 ft tall and as you know this is currently programmed for a hotel at 320 uh 320 feet tall um the purpose of my of of of my testimony tonight is to clear up any confusion about height uh as I mentioned the volume is 320 fet tall and it and what you're allowed to put in there is 20 story Hotel you're allowed to put um uh two stories that are 25 ft each 25 and 25 one and two totaling totaling 50 feet of height plus you can have uh um 18 stories at 15 feet each for a total of 320 ft so if you were going to build a hotel here you can build 15 ft floor to floor on top of two base floors which are 25 ft each that total is 320 ft and I made a little exhibit this is this is a scaled version of that box 32 stories now I put a photograph of this in the exhibit which you can see there I couldn't send you this for the portal so I just put a photograph I called them M1 and M2 for model one and model two you can keep these if you like but I I just wanted to use them as an example um so Council we're going to Mark these as A4 a A4 B a4a will be the one that is marked as M1 for model one a4b will be M2 for model just so this in scale which is a scale of 1 inch equal 30 ft is 325 320 ft and it contains this one here is the Hotel M1 and M2 M M1 is a 20 story hotel and you could see in 300 3 well I can do it from here I just stop moving uh 320 ft and this is 20 stories you can count them up now our proposal is to take this volume and instead of putting a 20 story hotel inside this box we want to put a 32 story residential building a residential building has smaller floor to floor Heights we can do a residential building in 10t floor to floor gives you a 9t ceiling which is conventional normal ceiling and so we prepared another model which you can count the floors here there are 20 uh there are 32 floors here and it's the same box I just took the same Hotel box and put a residential building inside of it we didn't increase the volume the menion the height we just wanted to make we just wanted to make this demonstration to show you very clearly that there is no change in the bulk of the building I'll leave these here Mr March why don't you pass them to the to the board council do you want to I know I didn't know I didn't know Council when you wanted me to begin course examining I would think you come I think it's question was do you want to see that do you want to see the models before they get passed to the board members get to the board first well if I see the models you don't want me to ask any questions on them just want look at you'll have your chance to question on them figure we should take advantage of being live and in person and touch the model as opposed to just on the screen that's so just to re repeat same size volume 320 ft this will be 32 stories and um it will contain 300 residential buildings uh residential units the current Zoning for the property is is a hotel the Liberty Harbor North plan was was adopted in 2001 I believe there's no no affordable housing whatsoever in the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan in 22 years we haven't gotten a hotel or an affordable unit there's a housing shortage I do have a question on 20 story and 32 story so what is the height between the floors on both of them in the residential building it's 10 ft floor to floor and in the hotel it's allowed to be 15 ft Flor Flor to floor except the first two floors are required to be 25 ft each so when you add up those Heights it comes to 320 ft that sets the size of the Box we want to put a residential building in the same size box without any increase which means it wouldn't change any effects of Shadows views wind conditions things like that would not change as a result of this modification because the building is the same size we're simply recognizing that there's no call for a hotel after 20 years there's a desperate need for housing certainly affordable housing in Jersey City this change of use from the hotel to the Residential Building provides for 45 units of affordable housing in the project Dean uh I just want to c a couple things we're not actually looking for a change of use we're going to keep the Hotel this is in addition to to the hotel so we're not looking to eliminate the hotel use I want I just want that to be clear it's an additional residential uh and I just want to if I could just address your question with respect to the feet um with the Liberty Harbor North 3 devel plan under the hotel it says the first two floors can be 25t each so that's 50 feet then it says floors 3 to 16 can be 15 ft each then after that you could add four stories of towers and each Tower each story can be 15t so that's another 60 ft then what it tells you is you could build a roof it doesn't tell you how high the roof can be and then it tells you you can add a penthouse on top of the roof and again it doesn't limit the size of the penthouse but assuming if if it's at 15t how the other floors are under the Redevelopment plan a permitted hotel's height is 335 ft plus the roof so I just want to make that clear because I know we said 320 a couple times it's actually 335 plus the roof and what we're proposing today is residential not to exceed what's permitted as the height of a hotel so the at the roof it gets a little bit complicated you have setbacks and pent houses but the basic building to the roof that we're looking for is to be within the height of the hotel which is 320 feet based on those floor T floor Heights um this this slide here is just a description of the units um here you you'll see that we have 300 Apartments proposed 84 Studios 128 are one bedrooms 78 are two bedrooms and 11 10 are three bedrooms that 300 total that fits inside that box very comfortably yields 45 units of affordable housing so this next um exhibit is simply a 3D version in a digital format you see what I'm looking down here on on the plan you see the uh you see the two Vantage Towers here and the proposed building I'm going to Simply tilt this up so you can see the relative proportion of the proposed building versus the existing buildings I'm going to then just twist this around get a little closer you can see in scale the separation between the buildings and the relative height from the other side you could see that the building is separated in between the gap of the other two buildings so it has no effect on views views of the buildings aren't disturbed by our project and then if I turn it around you see it from the other side the front and then down at the base okay so relying on the previous approval on this you may know that there was an approval on this uh back in I guess it was March and we're doing it over again were we to Mark the that the SketchUp model um or views uh that not part of no that's a they could they could send us knowing you were ask me for this I prepared the five scenes I just presented okay on a piece of paper which we can Mark as a separate exhibit all right so we're up to A5 these are five sheets believe it's seven it's seven it's a it's a 3D digital model I can place a date on it put on today's date February 6 so as you may know this was uh this was heard and approved by the city council and the board here back uh in the beginning of last year and as a result of that approval my client hired us to go ahead and prepare the design anticipating we would get to a site plan application so for informational purposes this is the this is the proposed building that uh that the developer uh plans to to submit for site plan approval it's a residential building 300 units 45 affordable housing and this view is a general overall View and this is just a close-up view of the grade um grade level all right Council I don't think we need to go into any more uh projection as to what could potentially come if yeah the amendment was recommended so that's it that really concludes my testimony just in conclusion I would like to say that you know with the housing shortage the affordable housing Insurance why wouldn't we want to put a residential building inside that that box it's a form based code it describes the box we have don't have a call for a hotel but there's certainly a call for housing and especially affordable housing so the idea would be to use that zoning for residential purpose that's the request thank you okay thank you Mr marchetto any questions from the board I just uh one quick question just a clarify when you were talking about the 320 ft height uh on the both boxes that you gave us that is not count anything that's going to be added to that roof yeah there's Mechanicals above that I think there's a penties whatever you decide would be added to the 320 so what was sitting on top of that box that you have now is not part of that number no okay thank you okay anybody else anybody else from the board no Mr Pino yes I question sure M marchetto um you're not a broker are you no no no no um and I'm I'm guessing that you haven't done a study of what the hotel what needs there are of a hotel in the Hudson County or New Jersey have you done a study no but my broker has Oh you talked to your broker he's here he's going to testify oh I didn't understand that okay that that was not part of the part of your testimony today so you're on you're taking your broker's U View and you're just repeating it here and it's common knowledge that there's a housing shortage in the country I didn't ask about a housing Source I asked about a hotel yes I'm taking my Brokers and he's going to testify more clearly on that hotel right we have exhibits for that okay um let's go to affordable housing which you raised before um there's nothing in this Redevelopment plan that calls for affordable housing is there not that I'm aware of no and you're smart enough to know I'm certain of this I know personally that your that the requirement of a affordable housing obligation is a function of an inclusionary zoning ordinance is that right it can be yes well in this case well I'm going to object to to calls for a legal conclusion the legal conclusion was already made when you said there was going to be affordable housing how is that a legal conclusion it's a conclusion Gentlemen let's address all objections to the board and so it'll be ruled can we move to questioning the witness about his specific testimony he testified that there was an affordable housing component in the residential proposal right that's what he testified too and I ask whether or not that component was calculated on the basis of an inclusionary zoning ordinance can you answer the question do you know I calculated it based on 15% which I believe is the okay the rate for this area and fair enough and just to repeat in the re Redevelopment plan there is no requirement for affordable housing that's correct okay let's talk about the Box the two boxes um so when you calculated uh the heights of the buildings is is is that what the heights are set forth in the in the Redevelopment plan what are the heights specified in the Redevelopment plan the first two floors can be 25 ft and the additional floors up to 20 there's 18 of them can be up to 15 feet from floor to floor is that's up to is there a minimum no minimum is it it's not between 10 and 15 it can be it's the maximum 15 I mean under the plan no it says a maximum of 15 ft per floor does not the plan refer to 10 to 15 feet as a floor to ceiling height you can build 10 to 15 but we you asked me how I established the maximum height no no I didn't ask that I thought you did I I'm what I'm asking is does the plan set forth a a span of height that it could be it it does and that's between 10 and 15 feet that's right okay um have you designed any hotels in Jersey City I have not no have you designed any hotels anywhere in New Jersey no okay are you aware of any hotels in which the Florida ceiling height is 15 ft no so what you've done correct me if I'm wrong I don't want to give a misimpression here uh what you've done is you you've taken the maximum amount that the Florida ceiling height could be the maximum amount which is 15 and you've spread it across uh 16 stories plus the additional Tower to come up with a total height 25 25 15 for each of the stories and then 15 for the tower above that right that's right and you get to a full height of what 320 ft okay if you were building a 10 foot ceiling on a residential building would that be about 320 ft it would be lower be lower than 320 feet okay so you've you've you've what you've done is by creating the box as you say is not calculate what a hotel would be but what the the the boundaries of that would be I I calculated what the the zoning allows that building to be as a maximum height and that's the zoning uh top the height that's allowed in the district for you did that by expanding the floor the ceiling on a hotel right but you don't you've never seen a hotel of that size I'm gonna object you've never you've never I'll take the word scen back it was actually expand I'll check I'm sorry expand well you said you took the floor the question you're gonna reor I'll rework I'll re he's making the the calls here uh so you you when you expanded it you expanded it to the maximum amount is that right yes I did same objection the one second Mr Poo Mr Pino one second one second because I don't want to ruin your question Mr March you have to allow to object and allow me to rule on any objection before you answer the question so okay in calculating your height under the Redevelopment plan you utilized a maximum floor to ceiling height the maximum allowable floor a ceiling H yes but you I'm sorry did I interrupt you I was going to say there's no reason you couldn't build a hotel hotel 15 ft at a with a different flooring system and and by the way they wrote this plan 20 23 years ago who knew then that you wouldn't be building hotels with 15 feet ceilings back then right I mean is possible within the next couple years there'll be a reason to build a 15t floor T floor Hotel so I think it's possible I think you can build um a structure out of steel that requires more floor to ceiling space and you could have a design hotel with a tall ceiling height that doesn't make a difference I think the zoning says you this was the envelope that you can build in and so that's what we used as our envelope just bear with me a minute while he does that I have to place an objection on record and my objection is it it seems that Mr palino is attacking the Redevelopment plan that was adopted back in 2001 his arguments are whether a a hotel with 15t floors can be built or cannot be built that was already decided by the planning board and the mayor council back in 2001 he's basically rearguing something that was approved almost uh 23 years ago overruled Council council is cross-examining the witness as to how he set the 320 foot number that he testified to your next question Mr pin what's the uh are you familiar with the the various Heights that are set forth in the Redevelopment plan for buildings generally and and this building is what's called an L building right yes and that's a 16 story building yes there's an XL building yes what's what's the height of that what's the number of stories I think it's 30 I I have to look I believe it's 32 I was hoping I'd be able to give that to you and I will in a second as soon as I see you all be tick tock you said it was in the ordinance this is uh a public record it's the ordinance which you may have marked already the the Redevelopment plan show it to council if I'm not mistaken I believe this was uploaded uh by the city okay show it me it appears to be a portion of another documented by the yes that's correct it was uploaded by staff is it the entire document it appears so yes okay we're going to mark it as 01 Mr Pino I'm G to show you what's marked 01 by mramp so an outclass building which is what the hotel is listed as is a 16 story building and a 32 story building is marked as an XL building is that right that is correct what would be the height of an Excel building but withdraw that question under the Redevelopment plan could an Excel building take advantage of the maximum Florida ceiling Heights that you just just talked about yeah as they specified for the Excel class yes right and if you uh ma if you had calculated if you did your arithmetic and calculated 32 stories at 15 feet for the ceiling how high would the building be I I didn't do that I didn't do that math uh yeah I didn't you want me to give you a calculator would that help Mr lampy his Mr maro's testimony was that the proposed structure will not exceed the height of the permitted Hotel so I don't see how this line of questioning is relevant Council if you do the math Mr maretto can confirm the math that you do but he's not here to do the math for you a 32 story building at 58 at 15 feet from floor to ceiling I uh calculated that comes out to 480 ft very good at a 10-story building how tall would that be at a 10 foot floorida ceiling how tall would that building be on a per story basis do you understand the question I I don't really understand the question had a 40 480 foot tall building with a 10 foot Florida ceiling how many stories would the building be this is not you know this is kind of basic stuff I I still learn understand your question okay if I tell you that the that at 10 feet floor the ceiling for a building that's 480 feet high the average height of the building would be 48 stories is that a question yeah didn't sound like one okay is is is that correct a a 10 story a 48 story building at 10 ft each is 480 ft is that the question yeah okay that yes does that work does it work for who no no no is that correct yes okay 10 * 48 is 480 that's what I was getting at that's what I was getting and and actually um the building that you're proposing under your Amendment could go at least as high as that is that correct no the building we're proposing is 32 stories I I don't mean the building that you're proposing as a site plan project but under the plan with the amendment that you're proposing could at least come up to the same height as that L building could go as high as an XL building is that correct I don't understand the question Mr Pino let's make it that's the problem let's make it clearer is it true do you agree how's that do you agree that an L building and an XL building as under your calculation could be exactly the same height you could you could build a smaller building yes but that's not what we're proposing here with that's not what I'd asked I ask is if if you had an L building and an XL building and you used 15 feet from Florida ceiling on the XL building on the L building wouldn't that equal a 10- foot store a 10 foot height Florida ceiling on an XL building so that functionally an L building and XL building would be exactly the same height Council those aren't questions that's argumentative I keep asking isn't that correct that does they're compound questions so let's I think this is cross it is cross the witness isn't following the Cross C I'm trying to help you let me let me do it again it's easy it's not far hard an L building calculated at 15 ft floorida ceiling would be the same as an XL building calculated at 10 feet floorida ceiling I don't know I'd have to do the math and draw it up before I knew that I haven't drawn that drawing and I haven't designed that building you need to do the math you need to do the math I I did the math I told you what it was okay did you take into consideration or did it come into your consideration that this is a uh this lot is a condo lot I'm going object what's sustain the objection on what on what basis this is outside the scope of direct there was no mention of how ownership to the fee was held not testified to council he he allocated locations on the on a lot he had the Vantage buildings and then the proposed project building he said that those buildings exist yeah yes the general law is that one building per lot so I asked him whether he consider the condominium structure to be Council I don't know what the general law means okay this isn't a debate between you and me so no it isn't and and I think you and I will both agree what the general law is so if you want me to withdraw that question okay thank you I don't think I have any more questions for the architect next witness Council wait wait I said I don't think I do hold on hold on that 35 minutes is not looking good well you're making it longer that's all thank you Council I do have some redirect I don't know if you want me to do it now or if you want to open up to the public no redirect now please okay sure um Mr marchetto Mr Pino asked you questions with respect to knowledge you uh you obtained through a broker um and it dealt with the whether a hotel is marketable at this site could be built forget about any conversations you may have had this Redevelopment plan was adopted in 2001 right yes and it called for a hotel in 2001 correct yes has a hotel ever been built at the site in the past 23 years no is it still vacant yes it is did that the fact that a hotel has not been built as a permitted use over the past 23 years factor into your determination and your opinions that you gave tonight yes Mr pelino also asked you questions about 32 stories at 15 ft is it not true that the proposal is not a 32 story residential at 15 ft but rather a residential structure that shall not exceed the height of the permitted hotel that's exactly correct and Mr Pino also asked you questions about an L building and EXL building and the categories and if you have 10t and 48 St all the stuff but what he didn't ask you was what's the heights of the roofs the Mechanicals Towers the first floor and the second floor because there would be a Lobby those all go into consideration when you design a project do they not yes they do and those can all change the factors and the calculations would they not yes thank you I have no further questions for this witness I would just reserve the right to recall them as a rebuttal witness after the objectives put on their experts understood Council thank you Mr marchetto thank you my next witness is Adam zel to move to the slides just hit to the there's your slide great truth truth the truth yes Adam zel Adam zel Z and Zoo W EI bism boy eel good evening can you please provide the board with the benefit of your educational background sorry yes I I'm a graduate of a undergraduate from University of Michigan uh in 03 and um that's that's all and do you hold any professional licenses yes uh New Jersey real estate salesperson for nearly 10 years and it's in good standing yes and who are you presently employed by uh Hudson Atlantic realy advisers we're a commercial brokerage company uh my partner is Jeffrey a AO and how long have you been employed in that capacity um I started the company about 2 and a half years ago um after leaving my uh the predecessor which I was at for nearly seven years and who was that uh gabro hammer and what were your duties and responsibilities at your prior employment to represent sellers um and connect them with Buyers uh broker transactions uh Market properties and become an expert in um the multif family and um commercial real estate aspects throughout New Jersey and does that differ in any way from your present employment no and if you had to uh estimate how many uh how much money in sales transactions have you closed over 10 10 years uh two to three billion and what about the number of apartment units that were sold how many were you involved in uh upwards of 100,000 and do you hold any industry award Wards um I've been noted as the co-star power broker number of years in a row salesperson the year for my previous company and also um uh 40 under 40 um many years in a row before I turned 40 um and um and then other other just um notori in media throughout um throughout my career so Council we're qualifying this witness as a broker as a uh real estate expert and a market demand okay I think we're satisfied uh you're qualified sir thank youo have you evered before a planning board before no Mr Pino we do need you to speak into the mic please have you ever appeared before a planning board before no um have you ever been have you ever testified as a planner before no he's not a planner are you testifying you said have you testified as a planner before that's right that's my question so it's an objection he's not providing testimony as a planner so right go ahead Mr Pino real estate expert I have no objections okay thank thank you that's what we qualified him as thank you Council let's keep the direct within the scope of that expertise please I have a planner next to will testify to planning um did you did you take uh did you any preparation with uh in respect for your testimony here tonight I did and can you tell us what that entailed um we have access uh to uh co-star which is um up-to-date market research and we ran a number of reports to help support um our our position thank you and did you look at sales um we have not did not look at sales did you do did you examine the demand in the area for hotel versus residential that's correct yes and in the uh in your preparation of your U testimony for tonight did you prepare any documents or exhibits yes I have three documents yes if we could uh bring them up I believe the first one may be up on the board oh looks like they might be out of order okay we'll start with well we could go to order we go to order okay so let's let's start with let's start with this one oh that's Market first um A6 A6 can you describe what that exhibit is yeah so this this shows since 2000 the Jersey City waterfront hotels that were delivered and how many rooms were delivered since then which is 1891 rooms that were built since the year 2000 and delivered so can you just briefly walk the board through this so since 2001 since the adoption of the Liberty uh Harbor North Redevelopment plan is it fair to conclude or is it your testimony that eight hotels have been built since then that's correct and you've identified the hotels here in the list correct correct and you identify the year and how many rooms each one has that's correct and you identify uh the total amount of hotel rooms that have been built since the Liberty Harbor North rone plan has been adopted right that's correct and what is that number 1891 okay so do you have an opinion with respect to the market demand for a hotel as it currently exists at the site versus what it was back in 2001 when the Liberty Harbor North Revel plan was adopted yes um you have a plethora of rooms that um were delivered into a very condensed area um which you can tell by if you look at the last five years on of of hotels that were delivered only two were actually delivered and that only equates to nearly you have the 89 plus 211 so you you have 300 Room 300 of the 1891 were were delivered in The Last 5 Years so it show that in of itself also shows the the slowing um uh Supply that's coming online given the amount of um rooms that had been delivered prior right after the Redevelopment plan so is it your opinion that the purpose of the Redevelopment plan with respect to a hotel at this site and this area has been satisfied by these eight hotels that have been built since 2001 yes and further like I had mentioned before the slowing the slowing onto deliveries since in the last five years is a testament to um the lack of uh demand that's required thank you and did you also perform a demand which with respect to residential units and availability in the area yes I'd like to move to the next slide which is a map that covers 37 properties one second A7 yes A7 property map and list report does this have a date on it um the your 25 slides I have it here we're going to mark it as A7 Council we're going to date it today 2 6 2024 and we'll note for the record that it's contained within the 25 slides that were marked as A3 now Adam you prepared this document I did just as well as the document before that right yes can you please uh briefly walk the board through this document yeah so this shows um a plot of all the of the residential multif Family Properties that have been delivered since only 2010 um and what I found compelling um is is the low vacancy factor that remains um there's you can't get much lower than a 3% actual vacancy factor on a property just from natural tuition and turnover so you're nearly at fully capacity here when it comes to residential when it comes to residential and let's just do some uh quick numbers I don't know if you need to go to next slide or if you um yeah so this this is the this is the plot of the maps and if you go over here this is the list of those actual apartment buildings as well okay if we could a A8 availability and vacancy building list if I understood the witnesses testimony what's shown on the availability and vacancy building list or the actual data for those points identified on the map correct and we'll just walk through some brief numbers and and I'll be done with this witness um quickly there are 36 buildings I believe identified in this document correct yes and out of that correct me if I'm wrong I believe 13 million 77,500 existing rentable square feet exist in the downtown area correct correct out of that only 47,1 78 square fet are vacant am I correct according to the report yes and out of that only 39312 are square feet are available is that not correct correct now what does that vacancy rate come to it comes to it's a it's a very it's a very low vacancy Factor it ends up being close to 3% so out of almost 14 million square feet of existing rentable space in the downtown area only 3% is vacant correct now as a expert in the field of real estate do you have an opinion with respect to market demand for a hotel at the site and as well as an opinion with respect to residential at the site yeah I think the data speaks more or less to itself um it's you could see the amount of um units that were uh rooms that were came online since the Redevelopment plan was enacted um and the tapering off of the deliveries of the room the hotel rooms and as residentials uh towers and and and and buildings were continue to be built in such a in in the same in the same geography um the vacancy Factor remained very very low and continues to suggest that more Supply is needed I have no further questions for this witness I'm sorry I didn't get your last name completely Zell Zell Mr Zell um do you have an opinion on the uh on residential construction in in Jersey City in what capacity as a real estate expert is residential still as hot as it's been before yes okay so if you built a residential structure alone on this location that would be in consistent with your opinion yes would your opinion uh vary if the if the heights of the Residential Building were 16 stories as opposed to 32 stories would it still be as attractive at 16 stories I would I I would say that the the taller is is more is is more valuable if you have you're higher if you higher floors and be less likely to be rented if it's if it's shorter building than a taller building is that what you're saying no I think you probably get higher rents and maybe higher value and and thus higher demand for better views and higher elevation okay have you ever been consulted by the Jersey City Planning division for expertise no has any planning division or Department in New Jersey consulted you for your real estate expertise no um have you ever uh been involved in the creation of a Redevelopment plan no have you ever testified before a planning board for a site plan no you may have answered that one already I think I did I have no other questions than I have nothing further for him okay anybody from the board oh sorry I I apologize anybody from theard sir thank you Mr thank you sir my Final witness is my planner John mcdono truth the whole truth truth yes I do sure hi everyone John mcdna MC Capital do n oou g and I'm the project planner Mr MCD good evening good to see you good evening and uh obviously we've qualified you in the past your license is current tonight as a planner current and good standing yes okay thank you and Mr palino do you have any objection to Mr McDon okay thank you you're qualified sir thank you Mr McDona can you uh tell the board what documents you reviewed in preparation for your testimony this evening sure obviously we reviewed the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan which as you've heard it's been in effect for now 20 plus years we've reviewed the city master plan the 20 uh 20 one land use element we've reviewed the housing element and of course the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment plan itself and the Amendments that are put forth this evening and you're familiar with the site correct correct can you briefly describe the site for the board sure so we're looking at again the southern portion of the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan this particular area involves a single tax lot block 1597 Lot number three as you heard through uh Dean's testimony at the outset it involves a entire city block and I put on some exhibits these part of the overall packet yes yes it was submitted okay A1 No A1 was the notice A3 was A3 was the slides the slideshow okay so A3 we've put together a slideshow and I'm now looking at what I believe is five planning exhibits that we put forth uh for the property location at 155 Marin Boulevard again you can see the dominant feature in the landscape from a pure physical planning standpoint of the 245 story Towers the subject area that's being impacted by these changes is that void that you see in between the two towers the changes would yield a 32 story building which would be smaller than the two towers adjacent to what is immediately south of the subject uh location where we're looking at the Tidewater Basin District that may mandates 30 story buildings mandates 30 story buildings so this is clearly an infill development as you'll see as we advance the screen here we're looking in this view looking to the West away from the water and again we've got the former Canal on the left there uh we've got looking to the East and the Magnificent views one of the reasons why height uh is found here throughout the city and why height makes good planning sense here as an infill development that's going to be surrounded by significant massing and a plan that wants to uh encourage height at this location and then spinning around looking back to the South looking at the marina it is good urban planning to concentrate people around water and around amenities around Parks you've got Liberty State Park immediately to the south of this uh property and uh of course it is it is good planning to concentrate people around these amenities it is a Transit rich area with access to the light rail with access to the ferry as well and of course all of the other mass transit opportunities accessibility walkability um to the many shopping and entertainment amenities in the area as well that is the reason why this area was targeted as a center in the first place importantly the Redevelopment plan comprises 84 Acres it is a massive Redevelopment plan and has not a single drop of affordable housing associated with it we have a redeveloper here that is ready willing and able to contribute to the affordable housing obligation uh that is mandated in your IO um if it's debatable whether that is legally required or not this board certainly has the purview to make that recommendation to your governing body that it gets put in as a footnote uh you have heard a commitment here about a 15% set aside commitment uh which will pull affordable housing into the center of the city we know it is not good planning to put low-income housing out there or persons of low-income out there but to pull and create opportunities for persons of low income to share the same amenities in the same locations as those that can afford market rate housing and that's exactly what this inclusionary Housing Development does it will be the first one in this 84 acre Redevelopment District that provides for affordable housing and we I think that's very significant in terms of the changes that are being proposed to the Redevelopment plan in terms of the two key aspects for the board to consider in terms of impact obviously we're always concerned with neighborhood sensitivity and what these changes would do to the surrounding landscape and the surrounding developed properties I think you have two key pieces of evidence to give the board comfort that this these changes will not cause substantial harm to um any of this surrounding area and also not cause substantial impairment to the intent purpose of your Redevelopment plan and the underlying master plan language as well proof positive number one from a physical planning standpoint you've got those two models over there that Dean maretto put forth that the massing of the proposed building will not exceed what is allowed under the Redevelopment plan currently so from a pure form uh based standpoint there's absolutely no change impact on any of the adjacent properties the second part from the physical is to look at the fiscal impact or the market impact as you've just heard with the saturation of hotels here over the course of now a quarter of a century not manifesting as a hotel here that is contrary to what Redevelopment is supposed to be the essence of Redevelopment the Redevelopment law and the Redevelopment plan is to reverse stagnation this property is sitting there in the bigging biggest construction boom that we've seen um in decades and still sits phow this is an opportunity not to foreclose the opportunity for a hotel there we're not looking to eradicate it but to optimize flexibility to uh accelerate or enhance the Redevelopment potential of this particular piece of property that responds to market demand and a need for housing and most importantly a need for affordable housing inclusionary uh housing here uh where the amenities presently exist from a planning standpoint you've got good common practical physical and fiscal reasons why the board should move favorably or make a a resolution of encouragement to the board to find that you are substantially consistent with the goals and objectives of the Redevelopment plan and the master plan clearly this is going to be an opportunity to reverse stagnation and to revitalize this this vacant site it is also going to be an opportunity to create affordable housing uh which again is a realistic opportunity to create affordable housing at this location certainly an attractive building right overlooking the marina and infill development that is complimentary and compatible with the established area the amendments are substantially consistent with the goals of the Jersey City master plan and the Redevelopment plan if we look at the actual language in your master plan I'm going to take you right to page 176 I think it says it as good as you can say it the city has a significant need for affordable housing as evidence by the lengthy waiting list for public housing and rental assistance this need is further demonstrated by the large number of renters 36% who pay more than 30% of their income for housing the city has made addressing the need for affordable housing a priority in order to promote residential stability the city should encourage the continued development of a variety of housing ranging from affordable to moderate income and market rate units through set aside requirements in new development designation of affordable unit within existing housing stock and preservation of naturally occurring affordable units this is an opportunity here this is a realistic opportunity to advance that goal and purpose of the master plan and that's your 2021 element page 176 likewise the Redevelopment plan itself envisions the revitalization and transformation of this former Industrial Area we've seen that transformation begin this is an opportunity to to continue that Trend and advance that goal of the Redevelopment plan as well and then finally we look at your housing plan which is chockful of references to providing affordable housing again and housing for all persons so we see substantial consistency with the housing plan with the land use element of the master plan and of course in furtherance of the Redevelopment plan this is not going to hurt the Redevelopment plan this is not going to hurt the district but improve the district and create a real IC opportunity to revitalize this site uh with that I think you have good evidence uh to move favorably on the proposal and the petition before the board just a couple of follow-up questions so this site is located one block from the ferry and also one block from the light rail right it is yes and can you tell the board some of the benefits of affordable housing and correct me if I'm wrong but does diversity uh promote a does affordable housing promote diversity yes yes uh one of the fundamental goals of planning in the municipal land use law which is really the Cornerstone of w of why this city and municipalities in New Jersey get to Zone in the first place under njsa 40c 55 d-2 subsection G is to provide for a variety of uses including a variety of housing types according to the needs of all New Jersey citizens and this amendment these amendments are spoton with that fundamental purpose and the lowincome residents to live in areas that they would not otherwise be able to afford is that not correct that's correct yes and here we're providing or proposing 45 affordable units correct that is correct and again these are going to be inclusionary this is not going to be a segregated development it's going to be part of the market rate units sharing within all with all of the amenities that would be in that building and available to all the people who will live in this building and I just want to briefly run through some of the sections of the Jersey City master plan land use element dated November 2021 um Santo I'm not sure if you want to mark this or not it is a the city's master plan the board could take notice of it or I'll be more than happy to mark it it's our document you're just going to have to call out the page numbers absolutely and which element of the plan this is the land use element this is the Jersey City master plan land use element dated November 2021 and I just want to bring a couple sections of this uh plan to the boards and to Mr McDonald's attention so I'm reading from page 52 it says the city's Division of Community Development manages Jersey City's affordable housing inventory and works to preserve as well as increase the affordable housing stock throughout the city Mr MCD do you believe this project would be in compliance with the master plan to in that respect it is spoton with that goal to provide for affordable housing stock throughout the city and on page 79 it provides Redevelopment is a key land use tool in New Jersey to promote revitalization of properties facing issues that are unlikely to be addressed by existing Market forces Mr McDon here this property lay vacant for over 20 years and at minimum 23 years that we know of since the um Redevelopment plan has been adopted correct correct and would allowing residential at this site promote and further the goals of the city's master plan as well as the Redevelopment plan yes pulling people into a center revitalizes that Center certainly uh the current condition of the property is not doing anything to add value or quality to the neighborhood and on page 85 it reads construction of housing is booming but cannot keep up with regional demand do you see that the case here Mr mcdono again I think that only reinforces what you just heard through our our Market testimony uh I think we were heard 3% vacancy rates with residential and I'm just want to take you briefly which I think you um touched upon is the Jersey City housing plan and I'm just going to walk you through a couple sections here on page seven it states the city aims to improve the quality of life for both existing and incoming residents by expanding job opportunities improving access to services and increasing the avail ability of quality affordable housing do you see that yes I do and do would this project further the goals of this section again it's spoton with the goal it is increasing the availability of quality affordable housing which is a written goal of the housing plan and on page nine it states residents of highrises in our super dense downtown live a Transit oriented lifestyle not to own cars do you see that yes now this property as you previously discussed is one block away from the ferry and one block away from the light rail correct correct now would that not go hand inand with the paragraph that I just read it does go hand inand as I said it is good planning to concentrate people around I'll say Urban amenities uh including Transit amenities page 12 Jersey City's lowincome population can be affected by the cost of housing throughout the city in order to implement a strategy with Provisions for affordable housing to allow all of Jersey City's residents and then it goes on do you see that I do and this project furthers that goal as well does it not it does and the the cost of housing hits all income levels I think we all feel it uh this is spot on with the uh with the goal for particularly the stress that's felt on low-income populations and my final page page 16 it talks about the city's newly revised pilot provisions and it states that it's in incentivize development in neighborhoods that require more affordable housing Mr McDon in this Redevelopment area which is 84 Acres how many affordable housing units are there presently zero and the last paragraph Jersey City city is also proactively exploring private sector funding options to support affordable housing located in highly cost burdened neighborhoods Mr MCD is does that not describe describe our project to a t to a t this is a a pioneering project in the in the district is it your opinion as a professional planner that the proposal here tonight furthers the purposes of the master plan and the housing plan and the Redevelopment plan yes I have no further questions thank you councel any questions from the board before cross no okay I assume so Mr mcdna how are you hi Mr Pino um are you familiar with the inclusion area zoning ordinance in Jersey City yes are you aware that the inclusionary the io ordinance is triggered by an amendment to a Redevelopment plan if it adds units residential units not specifically no okay do you know whether or not this amendment compels the construction of affordable housing I'd have to look at specific uh footnotes that are in the plan if it doesn't certainly the board can make that recommendation as part I know that I I know that but I'm what I'm asking you is whether or not the developer must provide affordable housing here I don't know that you wouldn't disagree if I told you the the inclusionary zoning ordinance does require that I won't disagree um and you also know that affordable housing is not a requirement directly of the this Redevelopment amendment is that correct there's a footnote in there I'd have to look and see exactly what that footnote refers to it's on it's on the bottom of the capacity summary it there's a footnote that references a some a settlement I'm not I'm not sure exactly what that settlement you're not familiar with the settlement no do you know whether the settlement requires the construction of affordable housing in this location I'm not familiar with the settlement I don't know if it's folded into that and as I said if it's not there the board could certainly put it in there does the footnote refer to affordable housing I don't know it it refers to to a court case well then I'm confused as to why you refer to it now for in in response to my question as to affordable housing you ask me if it's mandated in the plan and I said it could be under that court case I'm not fam ah so you're just you're guess surmising it might be there yes but you don't know if it's not there it could be there okay could be there could be um you also testify that um by the way uh a 16 story a 16 story not a 32 story 16 story um that could also provide affordable housing and meet all of the policy requirements that you pointed out earlier wouldn't it I don't think so it's less it provides less affordable housing if we God bless you if we have an opportunity to provide more affordable housing in the same mass that could otherwise go there I think that's good planning to optimize the uh the potential but you could of course then you could also ask for a much taller building and ask for an amendment that goes taller and that would provide more affordable housing too wouldn't it again I think the board in sensitivity to the neighborhood can certainly put a cap on the building height absolute terms not to exceed what's permitted under the current plan so so the board could set a a height by lineal feet right rather than stories is that what you're suggesting yes so if there was a lineal height of uh 160 feet L lineal height maximum height of 160 feet and you had a Florida ceiling uh span of 10 feet that would meet the requirement of that such a such a regulation right that would I think that would fly in the face of making an amendment to a Redevelopment plan which lessens the development potential the reason we make amendments to a Redevelopment plan is to increase development potential on a site that has failed to manifest Redevelopment under the current scheme oh we're trying to we're trying to in incentivize development here not de incentivize and you testified that um and your understanding is that for the last 20 years is that is that correct 20 years this project has line lay fow is that correct yes that's that's my term yes nothing no development has taken place correct do you know why that's T that that's happened do you know whether it was some Market issue or some location issue or some other issue I don't know so you don't know whether it what it's caused by all you know is Hotel was was was was uh was spotted for this location and uh you just think that something else would work better than a hotel now all I know is is what I know I look at the site that's been there for 25 years and it's never been developed with a hotel or or anything else a hotel was mandated here it had to be a hotel right we're looking to loosen the rain so that there can be something other than a hotel but not to foreclose the opportunity if if the the golden Hotel comes along sure the I'm sure the redeveloper would consider it an interesting point that you raised um is Hotel uh not a permitted use with this amendment uh no hotel is a is a permitted use where else in the plan would there be a hotel uh I would have to look there's other blocks where a hotel is permitted yeah I'd like you to point it out to me on the on I'm looking at the capacity summary uh I think you you should be looking at the you right well I'm looking at the square footage there's in there's 40,000 square ft in what's identified as block 5.1 well that could be anything right that doesn't have to be a hotel well it says it specifically says 40,000 square F feet for for hotel there's a there's a table of uses in in what in what location again block number 5 .1 is it can you look at the use the regulating height plan yep I'm there does it indicate a hotel as it did for Block 24 yes it indicates a hotel that is incorrect it does not indicate a hotel on block1 there's another icon on there that might cause confusion but you need to go to the legend sir can you restate the question I I asked I think my P my first question was is there another location that has a permitted use for a hotel in this Redevelopment area and as I I read the plan I I'm I'm seeing a table I'd have to go back and look that shows 40,000 square ft in I believe it's block 5.1 and I asked you to look at the regulating Heights and the uses and does it show it I don't see it on that table on that graphic is is it important for a um Redevelopment plan you're a planner right I know that yeah um is it important for a Redevelopment plan to be very clear about its definitions yes so you would agree I take it then if I said U and there's a l building that's permitted and in another location XL building is permitted and in another location an XX L building is permitted that those should be different kinds of buildings or Heights if if L XL and XXL refers to Heights in in my view I'm G to object to the extent that Mr Pino is characterizing height versus stories he's saying he's telling you that a particular category refers to a particular height where in fact if you look at your reone plan it actually talks about the number of stories not height that's what he spent 10 minutes for looking for Pino asked the question it's an appropriate question so I'm going to overrule the objection Mr McDon can you answer the question yes I do not see a height limitation in the regulating plan I see a number of stories limitation well that doesn't I'm now confused I'm not trying to be it's okay I I Know Who You Are uh what I'm trying to ask apparently ineffectively is there's a difference between an l and XL and an XX XXL building is that right yes in terms of the number I'll use I'll use Mr aoran language and the difference is really the number of stories yes which could also be translated into different heights right that's what stories are Heights I don't know that that's necessarily true from from a planning standpoint it from a planning standpoint typically we would classify height by an absolute number number of stories could relate to intensity of use there may be a restriction on the number of stories based on intensity here you're looking at a hotel certain number of stories and comparable residential with more stories so you're saying that if you talk about it in terms of stories it's a little it's a confusing definition is that what you're saying I'm saying it's a different it's a different way of regulating building uh size okay but Mr mcdono when when a a plan sets forth an L building an XL building and an XXL building it means different kinds of buildings right it does mean different building types and the difference here is among other things among other things is the number of stories that is correct and that could translate to Heights apparently it doesn't translate the heights based on the analogy that you've seen here through Mr Marto and that may be the problem right that's not a question I withdraw the question that's my solution I withraw the question that's all I have I have I'll be real quick so with respect to his last line of questioning with Stories versus height let me give you a hypothetical 9 feet could be a story right yes and three stories at 9 feet comes out to what 27 27 feet now 15 feet can also be a story right yes two stories of 15 feet comes out to what 30 so 30 feet so under that scenario two stories is actually taller than three stories right yes so it was it there fair to conclude that Mr Pino's conclusion with respect to stories equals an increase in height is inaccurate it is inaccurate thank you that now I'm really confused oh whoa whoa whoa Mr Pino you don't just get to ask additional questions don't I have cross examination rights he just rehabilitated after your cross you want Circle cross I want I want I want I want Rec sir cross I want no no no no no no I want recross you have to ask for it can I have recross I didn't know I had to ask for it this is trial court it stopped being a trial court may I have recour yes please now now I'm confused Mr McDon I apologize for my confusion you said earlier that definitions make a difference here right they have to be clear in r plan yes so what M Mr asadorian was proposing to you was confusion between different uh definitions or characteristics of buildings based on stories rather than lineal feet right yes and does that not create confusion I it's it's an open-ended question I don't understand it is it confusing in this plan no I think it's I think I think the plan is pretty clear about what they are regulating is the number of stories okay no more questions can I redirect redirect redirect ask him the answer is no and we can move on to the next witness anybody from the board have any followup no sir I have no further Witnesses going to call witnesses I'm sorry okay you want I can do a break now we're we're taking a break Mr Pino okay we'll be back in fiveish but um you know I mean I do I definitely W care and I'm I'm very traditional when it comes to like marriage woman however actually changed that a lot I mean over the last 20 years but um but it's it's things are different now yeah and you know the other thing is like what's his name let's go before these lawyers get M unbelievable unreal sorry um that's a no let's go on the right yeah yeah okay can we come to order please everybody Mr Pino just before you uh call your first witness Mr McDon I need you to go back to the actual proposed amendments to the plan and lay them out we've had all this testimony but I need to see black on white for purposes of the record the actual verbiage that's proposed to change within the document and I'll just say again for the record John mcdunn on recall here it was part of the slide deck I jumped off too quickly but I'll I'll go through it's five pages of changes to the Redevelopment plan I I'll take it from here Dean thank you okay actually uh the first page which is up on the screen now does this have to be marked as a new exhibit Greg or is this under A3 we marked this already all right so this is part of the uh packet that's been uploaded um hold on Mr McDon that's what's marked that's the problem sure you want to do that I made the Chang there's a version that has a red line and that is not what is on the screen everybody step back away from the Das the first page stop OT oh one Mr McDonald what's up on the screen is that part of the slide package yes who's doing that who's controlling the scen I just looking at see how many slides were in the deck that's all there's five go back to what you just had is the cover sheet cover sheet on the screen can I see the bar the the bar the tool bar up on top of the screen this is a slide deck Dean can you help me with this this what you you looking for yep I'm looking at the number of slides 26 all right can you see this Mr Pino Mr Ward can you see it this was A3 yes yes Council yes Mr Ward you can see it I can see it and it looks like there is some red line on the subsequent pages so now on the portal there is also a document that is a five-page document it's identified as the Liberty Harbor North RDP uncore amend M am n D1 17 markup January 2024 that five-page slide or document has that February 2024 in red and that is Mr Pino I believe what you were looking at slide 22 of A3 the 25 slides can you zoom in on that Mr McDon is it right there it's that thing has the March 23rd 2023 ordinance 23-21 date on it do we all agree yes Mr Pino yes Mr Ward yes Mr asadorian yes do we agree or not agree that the red lines that are going to be shown on slide 22 23 24 and 25 are the same Redline changes that are shown on [Music] the five-page document with the February 2024 Redline Mr asid Dorian yes there's been no change I haven't changed it I've got two different documents is my problem Mr asadorian so for purposes of the record it's got to be clear that we all agree what we're looking at I agree I think the only difference is it looks like the date is updated on this one the March 23rd but the red lines I believe are all the same which is what was submitted and uploaded to the portal both of these were uploaded to the portal is is the potential for confusion so go to Mr McDonna go to 22 on the slide this is actually 22 okay go to 23 which is the project description sheet go to 24 go to 25 and go to 26 okay Mr Pino I've reviewed the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan with the February 2024 Red Line against what Mr McDon just showed on the screen with the March 20 23 date on the cover page is that what you're looking at the February 2024 Redline document the the last date indicated on the document was February blank underline 2024 with a blank ordinance number there the date before that is October 8th 2020 so that's the same document that's the same document I mean that's the document that I'm looking at and when I compare it to slides 202 through 25 Mr McDonna yes 22 through 25 of A3 sorry through 26 through 26 22 through 26 five slides and is that what's up on the screen that is what's up on the screen so Mr McDon if you could go back to 203 so that's the second page of what you're holding yeah that that's that's the same we go to the next page yes sir it's why we're doing this this page is the same the page up on the screen is the same page as I'm holding in my hand and that was slide 24 and now I'm advancing to slide 25 the same and then lastly slide [Applause] 26 the same thank you Mr Pino I appreciate not at all you confirming that so for purposes of the record on the data portal there is a document it is identified as Liberty Harbor North RDP underscore amend 17 markup January 20th that particular document has a cover sheet with a revised by city council date of October 8th 2020 ordinance 20- 084 underneath that is in Redline February blank 2024 ordinance 24- blank that document is the same as the document represented on A3 as slides 20 2 2 through 26 with the sole exception being in the a three marking the cover sheet indicates a March 23rd 2023 ordinance 23- 021 and we all agree that the contents of those documents are the same otherwise so now Mr MCD if you can walk through those proposed changes to the plan that are identified in those red lines thank you counselor So the plan changes will impact five sheets the first will be the cover sheet which in this version does not show the redline change because we don't know when the actual adoption would be by city council but it does reflect the last set of changes that were adopted by the by um Council back in March of 2023 under ordinance 23-21 so this cover sheet will need to be changed if the amendments are uh passed and adopted with a new a new date second sheet of change pertains to the project description which is a generalized description of the intent and purpose of the plan and if you look at there are four columns if you look at the one all the way to the right and oh there we go uh there is a notation in terms of the as currently allocated the plan provides for over 600,000 Square ft of shops and approximately 500,000 Square ft of hotel we struck that um and put in 300,000 Square fet as a result of the reduction um or taking away the Mandate for hotel on the subject site that slide sorry I'm on uh [Music] 20 there was other language struck in that third column correct me see if I can zoom in second full paragraph 10th Line down the words and a proposed Hotel Site facing the marina restrick yes okay thank you for that did I read that correctly Mr MC third column striking out uh the the words and a proposed Hotel Site facing the marina yes next slide so the next slide is a graphic that shows the regulating plan as two Heights and this is where we got into the um the building classifications not changing any of the classifications and they range again from 2 to 4 to 6 to 8 to 16 32 and 45 story buildings subject site um again in Red Line we indicate remove the hatch from the area which would denote a class L building um and delete required Hotel graphic that's the box that you see and we strike that in the legend as well and change the building type graphic to XL building 32 stories plus the Koopa so again that language would um AFF effectuate the physical changes that we talked about previously should I stay there or advance advance please okay so now we're going to the last two slides 25 and 26 looks at the capacity summary and then um another summary that pertains to the entire Redevelopment plan and what the plan does is rows that you see going across pertain to the various blocks and then there are columns that look at the district as or the Redevelopment area as a whole in terms of housing in square feet housing in units other uses and then other columns as well we've redlined the changes particular to block 24 which is the subject and um it's hard for me to see here but increase in the I believe the number of units by 300 oh perfect thank you Dean so we'll take it one column at a time under the housing and square footage the first strike through how about I read it to you Mr I got it I okay go ahead 9925 Square ft to be replaced with 1,294 and 900 Square ft did I read that correctly correct second column 9925 Square ft stricken and replaced with 1, 12942 square ft correct moving into the next category column housing in units 900 stricken 1,200 replace yes an increase that's in the other column and then in the total column again 9900 stricken 1,200 replace to 139,000 yes and then the totals below that are changed as well because it's an aggregate do you want me to read the those changes as well the aggregate change changes mathematically accordingly yes note number three the verbiage in the second sentence due to the unique requirement that block 24 must contain a hotel the maximum unit count shall be determined exclusively by the capacity summary chart above that language is proposed to be stricken Yes again striking the language pertaining to a hotel mandate and then note number six the required Hotel on block 24 shall contain a minimum of 150 rooms semicolon and shall also contain a full-service restaurant bar and lounge area comma Retail Services pen including conier and room service and Pen comma meeting rooms and banquet rooms comma fitness center and salon services period did I read that correctly correct and then note number six is proposed to be changed to read development on block 15907 comma lot 3 comma qualifier C 002 pen AKA block 15907 comma lot 17 comma qualifier c002 naren is subject to chapter 187 and chapter 188 should any residential use be proposed period this amendment effective upon the settlement of Jersey City Redevelopment agency comma plaintiff comma V period Statue of Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment urban renewal comma LLC and EFM transfer agent comma LLC comma or its assigns comma defendants pen docket number period h- l-45 5-21 n Pern period did I read that correctly correct yes did you get that Mike and I think that ends that slide and then finally last slide is what's entitled intensity summary and it has a similar table to what we saw uh a similar structure table to what we saw on the prior page Council you want to take it so the category is Max housing number of units total square footage we look at line 24 that 900 has been stricken and changed to 1,200 the 992 comma 500,000 Square ft has been changed to 1 milon 294 comma 900 next column maximum square footage all uses again in line 24 1, 210,000 changed to 1, 39,900 unit acre gross net First Column gross 254 changeed to 339 net 404 changeed to 538 then F gross and net gross being the first column 7.84 change to 8.49 12.46 changed to [Applause] 13.48% Redevelopment plan and what the testimony this evening was based upon sir yes Mr Pino I have aity you go to the capacity summary which is I think the next to last page slide 25 for the record Council can we get you on a microphone please I'll take this come back down to the lower right Corner the red language yes the footnote four lines down from the top you'll see the words this amend Amendment effective upon settlement of so forth the name of the case yes does that mean this entire amendment is subject to that case well there are three asteris so it cross references wherever the three asteris are number six yeah yes and the three asteris that I see in the column all the way to the right of the capacity summary pertain only to the subject block block 24 all the others have two stars so I concur council do you not I I don't I don't that could be the case but that's all we know is that the three asterisk refer to a numbered a number which says the required Hotel on block 24 shall contain a minimum of 150 rooms and shall uh also contain and it goes on so I disagree Council the other asterisks up in the chart are two asterisks the only place where the three asterisks appear is with respect to block number 24 and those three asterisks are what that footnote is connected to no no I don't disagree with you that the footnote relates to number six right the footnote relates to block number 24 in the capacity summary chart only the delineated by those three asteris on the far edge of the table which may appear a little blurry to you Council okay okay I I don't know I'm not I'm not I don't know I'm not objecting to it it the document speaks for itself thank you Mr McDon thank you okay Mr Pino I have just two witnesses and I will now you make me laugh just two witnesses and I'm going to do this as a without question and answer just going to have them go through a PowerPoint that's there so the first witness is um alus H excuse me Caroline woo accompany by alus clath Theos you're GNA have to spell that for the reporter please k l i m a t h i n o s that's how I spelled it I just wanted to see if you were going to spell it that way um Katherine woo Cal Caroline wo yes I do sure Caroline wo c a r o l i n e last name w w thank you um this W by whom are you employed prman are do you have any licensure yes I have been licensed in New Jersey since 2017 as what as architect and um my license is current and in good standing and are you licensed in the state of New Jersey yes I am the are you familiar with the uh Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan yes I am and the proposed amendment for that plan yeah and did you work with anybody with respect to that plan yes I work with alus who is that alus my colleague Al Theos right correct um are we offering her as an expert in the field of architecture her as uh as an expert however I'm asking that she introduce Mr theia CLA Theos to describe a PowerPoint that he worked on with her supervision okay we haven't qualified Miss woo yet and I'm have him here right okay Council yes yeah I I guess I'm a little confused Miss Woo is a licensed architect that's being offered as an architect and maybe just a couple have you ever been sworn in uh and accepted as a expert in New Jersey by either a planning board or a zoning Board of adjustment yes I have been uh testified in other um towns but not the first time in uh Jus City so I have no objection to this Witnesses qualifications thank you Council that's all I wanted to ask guess what I'm just a little confused on is what Gan is proposing we're about to find out Council fair enough and Miss woo thank you you're qualified thank you so um I work closely with alus and who's really familiar with the project is going to uh give a presentation of our an analysis of this um architecture project so Council I suspect that this gentleman is not licensed as an architect in the state of New Jersey is that accurate or inaccurate well I haven't testified but that's accurate okay an architect all I'm just I got a little ahead of you that's all no I know I know um let's swear them in first truth the truth I do alus Kos a k i s first name last name k l i m a t h i n o s so here's what we're going to do Council Mr pelino is going to ask the witness some questions but before the witness starts giving any testimony you can raise all the issues that you have since it's clear to me you have some concerns let's be gentlemen about this Mr Pino can you say that still there's nothing wrong with that right no that's fine okay it's Mr Mr uh catios um can you tell the uh the panel of the board your your background I'm an architect licensed architect in New York um I received my bachelor of architecture in uh at Pride Institute in Brooklyn uh in 1998 and received my masters of architecture at the University of Pennsylvania in 2003 and have you worked on other projects before yes of course you have you have you appeared before a planning board before in New York have you appeared before this planning board no I have not did you work on this project with uh Caroline woo yes I did I'm offering Mr cleam matus to go through a PowerPoint that was prepared by the by by him at the vision of is well I'm still not sure if he's being offered as a fact witness or as a licensed architect being offered as a expert in architecture under the direction of Miss Woo's New Jersey license as he is not licensed here in the state of New Jersey he is licensed in the state of New York and I think that poses a problem I cannot practice law in another state and an architect cannot practice architecture in another state it's axiomatic it's it's self-evident um since Miss Ru is here and since she's a licensed architect why isn't she testify to this he clearly does not qualify why subject this board and everybody else to a possible appeal when you have a witness who's not qualified to provide testimony in the state I don't know why Miss woo can't do it Mr Pino do you want to re I don't know when Mr asadorian took over my case but I can only tell you that U it is a common practice before this board and I've seen it a number of times where as long as a New Jersey licensed architect is supervising another architect licensed or not in the state of New Jersey that architect May testify especially going through a PowerPoint prepared by him chairman that is a practice that we engage in here regularly it is so I see no reason why not let the gentlemen proceed and the board will weigh the testimony I agree thank you Council Mr clas can I call you alus sure sure please do I and I'm sorry for the name and the no don't don't it's your name apologize for your name would you uh uh would you go through the PowerPoint which we are going to mark of course just for I want you to call the witness by his name last name be here we have a 35 minute uh we're p p that um so 02 is your PowerPoint how many slides is it sir 17 with a title page and is there a date on the title page uh January 23rd 2024 thank you 02 alus for purposes of of moving this quickly could you go through the PowerPoint uh just describe what what each shows sure uh actually uh table of contents I'm going to skip through these two pages because or three pages because we all know what where the site is and what we're talking about with regards to the amendment and the site I will settle in this on this page here can everybody see it we can well um there is an excerpt from the uh the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan uh with regards to the story Heights um and it says I can read it out loud but it says that the minimum ceiling height would be 9 ft that's that's allowed and then a maximum floor to floor height of 15 ft it's floor to floor height I should I should underline and underscore uh and a a minimum of 10t floor to floor this is not attributed to any particular type of building so this would be allowable for both Hotel residential office and whatever else the Redevelopment plan calls for um so we've heard a lot about Heights and and stories and hopefully this this graphic puts together some of the stuff that you heard regardless of my argument of all the stuff that has been has been described today um all the way to the left is a um a 20-story building uh under the l-class classification of the Redevelopment plan uh with two floors at the at the bottom first and second floor 25 ft each floor thereafter being 15 ft we've also included a bulkhead to to um to uh graphically depict mechanical elevator overruns and so on and so forth um so that would be what more or less the height give or take a few feet uh overall height of aill building L class with 15 ft floor to floor um if we were to accept this based on the Redevelopment plan if we were to accept this as a um as the height and the allowable floor to floor Heights then one would have to accept also the very one on the right at least from an architectural standpoint the 15t floor to floor is not attributed to a particular type of building so one could arue arue that the Residential Building at 32 stories would also be a much higher building I've heard 480 our our particular um uh analysis with a bulkhead went to about 500 520 ft um so yes if you were to compare the first on the left with a third from the left which is a residential building at 32 stories at 10t Flor floor with a 20ft residential uh 20t ground floor those Heights are are relatively very similar they're about 30 ft from each other uh however as I said if we were to accept the the the the diagram on the left one would also have to accept the diagram all the way to the right uh and just to give a um a particular graphic these are just I will just go through these very quickly so you can see Sor so you can see what that would be so perhaps this particular site is not set for 520 ft but the precedent that an acceptance an acceptance of the 15ft floor T floor on any type of building sets a precedent for this type of building anywhere on the Redevelopment plan having said that um let's go back to that that slide having said that um based on my on my opinion and based on my expert uh call it expert uh experience um I've designed three hotels in the vicinity not in Jersey City one in Hoboken two in in New York and I've been I've been involved in the design of uh a lot of residential high res residential buildings in New York City um having said that um the two middle diagrams that you see the second from the left is what a hotel under my opinion uh and under the the kind of expert experience I've had when designing hotels what Florida Flo Florida floors look like uh we are I am just for graphics purposes I am providing the two floors at 25 ft floor to floor each floor thereafter until you get to the setback floor is a 10 foot6 floor to floor which is a pretty ample height for a hotel made out of concrete um and then every floor above that the tower floors four Tower floors which is allowed by the Redevelopment plan um is a 12ft floor to floor which is an ample height to allow for larger ceilings uh in Penthouse locations or penthouse suite locations and whatnot similarly for the 32 story Residential Building uh every floor is 10t not 10 fo 6 10t we provided a a transfer floor at the podium and that's 15 ft and then a 12T floor to floor at the very top of the building plus the penthouse 15t Penthouse and a bulkhead and that's roughly 374 ft with a bulkhead so that disparity is actually quite quite more uh remarkable and noticeable and and and to be noted in the sense that and again I only speak for my opinion and and what I've experienced um building the two buildings at the very ends regardless if it's a hotel or Residential Building uh are both financially imprac impractical and also infrastructurally impractical um why because there's an addition of structure there's an addition of MEP systems length siiz capacity which in turn uses more utilities infrastructural utilities um there is additional envelope structure and material uh so it financially doesn't make sense to build the two buildings on the very on the two very ends um one thing I'm objecting he's testifying to finance he just did testify to that that's my objection okay sustained you can't give that opinion sir all right that was just my opinion I apologize um so again back to this the two middle middle ones is something that I would I would have done and I've done before in my in my uh previous experience designing hotels and residential buildings with regards to floor to floor Heights amenities Penthouse floors and whatnot um I took you through I took you through the these comparisons um again highlighting the 32 floor at 15 at 15 foot floor to floor um which in this particular case seems like a uh a good comparison Apples to Apples with a 16 foot 16 floor 15 foot floor to floor um but you know my ALS my expert Al my experience also tells me that um to question my experience and go back and look at the Redevelopment plan and see if there's anything in the Redevelopment plan that we missed that perhaps allotted for a difference in height something that would you know uh not necessarily undermine my experience but also talk to what the intent of maybe the Redevelopment PL one again this is my opinion and what how I read High I've read the plan so this is south of our site uh block 24 is a graphic of plan and elevational Heights and sectional Heights for the Tidewater Basin District South right south of block 24 uh and it is called the intent of Bulan Heights so this is the closest thing that we have at least in my I had in my toolbox to look at and try to understand what the intent was um so you can see at the Block 18 at the very left there's this idea of of graduated Heights and graduated stepp you trying to draw a connection between how the heke came to be and the I'm I'm just trying to understand what it is good question what I'm trying to do is understand through because the the the language in the Redevelopment is very flexible and it allows as as we saw 15t floor to floor for residential hotel or whatever it is uh in order to understand the what perhaps the intent of the Redevelopment plan was with regards to Heights and bulks we had to look further down or within deeper into the Redevelopment plan and so I'm trying to make a connection in we've noticed that there is a a graduated height or stepping down in in some of these Graphics that but sir you didn't author the Redevelopment I did not no no and again this is based wen't part of the authoring of the Redevelopment plan this is based pure on opinion so you're now going to look at what the heights are in the Redevelopment plan and then try to testify as to what the intent of the Redevelopment plan is I'm not looking at Council we're not going to allow that testimony I don't know why not what he's what he's saying to you is that if I may what he's saying to you is I don't want you to testify well I'm going to say what I'm going to say you could you could you could you could knock it out you know he is attempting to Divine the intent of the plan that's clear and he can't testify to the intent of the plan he was not an author of the plan he did not participate in the development of the plan he could testify as to the plan says in this diagram 300 ASG I disagree okay you're over you call it but I okay any any expert may look at the full context of the Redevelopment plan he cannot give an opinion as to what the intent of the plan is that's my ruling I disagree I know you do you said that right okay go on to your next uh next uh uh analysis can I just say one thing before I just go on to the next matter I've already stated an objection a title addressed it's a title on the sheet here so it's not um so okay we we really can't testify to this we just want to we want to call out to basic uh the basic uh Redevelopment planning text that says uh they they would like variation in height and use uh and the 16 story uh building or 20 story building with 10 foot6 floor to Floors Plus four floors at the top at 12T floor to floors uh seems to be doing that with regards to the um the the non-uniformity of that's that is that is stated in theed Redevelopment plan a 32 story building uh on on the right uh seems to be more uniform and creates a wall uh in between the two existing Towers any any questions should I can I move on is is that it nope uh so the last last two bits that I will I'll leave you with is um the impacts that a 16 story building with con in my opinion conventional Florida floor Heights would have versus a 32 story building with conventional Flor to four Heights would have based on the Redevelopment plan we did a solar we did a solar and Shadow analysis uh to compare the two in on June 20th where the sun is the highest and therefore the Shadows are the shortest um so as you can see 12:00 p.m. so at 8:00 p.m. we didn't really all in Shadow at 12:00 p.m. The Shadow of the um of the 32-story building is more impactful and substantial on the on the neighboring Terrace uh where as the 16 Story one is not as much uh 2 p.m and I'll only show those two those two uh particular hours because once you get into three and four um it just gets a little bit worse uh the last thing I'll leave you with is wind sheer um having done several high-rise buildings throughout New York and and and Jersey and um and globally obviously the higher the building is the there's a phenomenon called wind shear and down washing and that increases the velocity when with a higher building uh that creates a downdraft on the on that surface but it also then exerts an outward pressure and an upward pressure on the adjacent structures uh this could cause uplift of pavers small objects pets so on and so forth uh so um it's a phenomenon in this particular case I'd like to point out there's three large towers on the site uh and the north the north uh the north wind has really nowhere to go um finally again in this in this line of wind is some a phenomenon called wind Vortex uh shedding at the corners of buildings so remember that these buildings are roughly 4T diagonally apart uh at the corners of the buildings there's a siphoning of of wind and what that does it creates a rocking movement of the towers uh of any Tower or any structure that goes back and forth with the height of the tower that gets Amplified um uh the the the thing that I would like to point out here is that uh the configuration that that exists here of diagonal where these Vortex shedding and Vortex when pressures occur uh can get Amplified with a configuration of diagonal placement that that exists here uh and that could create if not mitigated one way or another it could create a movement of the structure this is engineering I think this architect uh testimony is consistent with architectural considerations sounds like engineering to me sounds like architecture to be so uh if you if you place a uh an object in a certain position it may cause wind effects and what that's what he's saying here I understand what he just said well I'm only pointing out that that is I understood what the gentleman said I'm glad but thank you it seems to me that this falls under the discipline of Structural Engineering or Engineering in light of the Liberty that we've already taken with his lure let's not okay go further into this I think we can I just have a couple of followup or clarifying questions and then we'll I'm done with direct if you go uh Al alus to the to the fourth of fifth Slide the the slide you have up right now as a matter of fact U am I correct that you're saying that the under the present Amendment proposed under the present Amendment proposed a developer could build the building that you show on the far right uh with my opinion and what I've read in the Redevelopment plan well the answer is yes or yes yes could you go to the slide that is about three slides further sure the two buildings that you see in I think it's it's in white those are the existing buildings is that right that is correct do you know what the heights of those two buildings are uh 400 450 ft roughly it's 45 would I be correct in saying it was 440 ft most probably yes okay and the does he know or does he not know apparently he said 450 I and I propose 440 with a bulkhead I was I always have the bulkhead in mind so you want to get the basis for that statement no that's fine I want the basis for the statement of course you want the basis can you give us the basis for the that statement how do you know the height of those buildings um how do I know the Bas how do I know the the height of those buildings well it's it's uh information on Google Earth but um my firm designed these buildings previously and you've looked at those plans I I've looked at the plans I have opin you checked what was built vers the plans that you have on file in your firm and you confirm the height of these buildings at 440 ft plus another 10 or 15 ft for the bulkhead yes yes okay and and and when you previously just just before talked about what was potentially buildable under the proposed amendment you have listed that as 520t that is correct taller than the two buildings beside it that is correct no more questions okay Commissioners any questions I I had a question or two uh on the vortex slide did you use a graphic uh a graphic program to draw that or did you use a program to generate those no it's a graphic program okay and on the shade it is a I did yes yes and on uh do you know what a trellis is absolutely what does a trellis do a trellis covers can cover a a certain area of a floor or outside outside space that can protect from sun or wind did you look at the programming on top of the your client's building uh I have yep and does it have trellises I don't think so okay I have not personally have not been involved in those project and those particular the design of that building uh or those buildings I haven't visited the top what I can tell from floor plans and from from U Google Earth and various images there seem there didn't seem to be any Tres at the moment there there could be though I as I said I haven't been involved in the design of that those buildings so uh that's direct answer thank you I have no further question okay anybody else from the board no Mr asadorian thank you I have a couple of questions you got to get your microphone Mr asadorian I have a couple of questions can you turn to sure this page mhm oh sorry now the wait a minute purposes of the record the witness has been directed to the slide called the comparison of massing of varying floor Heights believe it's numbered five now the first uh depiction that you have for the 340 ft do you see that yes you do not include the penthouse in that correct it was the the no I did not include I I included the four stories of tower on top of but the read of un plan also on top of that allows a penthouse does it not uh I think so I think it was uh either or oh I might be wrong though thank you now the 32 floors the the one old way to the right you have that at 32 floors at 15 ft each right all the way to the right you're talking all the way to the right y yes I uh except for the except for the penthouse oh no so the penthouse is included but for the the ground floor which is 20 foot that's that's as per the Redevelopment plan Heights right you realize this is a rental property right I do and is it common in your field to build 15 foot stories for rental properties that was my point no and were you here when my clients experts testified I was did you hear them say that the height of the proposed Residential Building will not exceed the height of the permitted Hotel yes and yet you still think it's relevant to provide testimony about how the proposed residential is going to be 520 ft when they repeatedly said it's not going to be 520 ft to be very Frank the only um connection I made was to what is allowed per the story height section of the Redevelopment plan right which is not the application here tonight the application tonight is the proposed residential will not exceed the permitted height of the hotel that is the matter before this board do you understand that absolutely but yet you are telling the board it's going to be 200 feet taller than what we are proposing correct no I'm not saying that your Redevelopment plan or your sorry your your particular proposal will be that much higher than than the hotel building it will not be taller than the hotel that is the point do you understand that I do I also understand that you wouldn't build a hotel at 15t floor to floor sir this is very easy questioning my question to you if you take into consideration the applicant's stipulation that the proposed residential will not exceed the height of the permitted Hotel does then then not negate all the testimony you gave here tonight I don't think think so can you turn to the page with the other with the other uh buildings that you had with the tide water basin sure I wasn't supposed to testify in this so I I just have a question for you do you know what district the other buildings are in they're all part of the Tide Water Bas which is a different District than this Redevelopment plan is that not correct but it's part of the Liberty yes it is thank you yes it is do you know who prepared this the sheet that you're looking at uh with the markings or in in without the markings without the markings the company that did the the the the firm that did the Redevelopment plan yeah do you know who that is I I don't recall if the top of my head would it surprise you to know that it's that gentleman right there Dean marchetto okay that's that's great so would you would you agree that he would know the intent of the Redevelopment plan sure sure and I just want you to go to the page with the Shadows yep um which particular one this one mhm now we look at the top left those Shadows are being cast by your buildings are they not yes they are and the bottom left those Shadows are also being cast by your building the bottom left yes it's a yeah it's it's a perspective of the top left it's the same it's the same building just a different perspective right and those Shadows that you're showing are cast by your structures that's correct well my company structures the ones that my company designed right the one to the bottom right where you have the yellow proposed building yep which model is that how many feet are you proposing there for the yellow structure this one to the bottom right so I'll take you back in order to answer that question I'll take you back to that hype diagram so it's it's this structure here at with a bulkhead 374 ft 374 ft with a bulkhead but but you're aware the the proposed building is not going to be 374 ft uh I found that out today yes so that image is now moot right it's not accurate as a as a as it pertains to to the to what I saw today yes it's not accurate thank you I have no further questions for this witness I do want to bring Mr maretto up for a real quick rebuttal unless if Mr palino has redirect I'll say okay can I leave this the PowerPoint on or do we need to PowerPoint do we need unless we're talking about the wind yes yeah just leave on for a second sure Mr marchetto you still on the roof Yes you heard the testimony that was just provided yes do you have any comments the only comments I have is that the witness mentioned that on the caddy Corner between the buildings the wind was shown in the graphic depiction there was a 4 feet difference between the buildings it's over 50 feet that space between the building I think that might have been an error but that's what he said I just want to clear it up for the record it's about it's over 50 feet between the caddy corners and do you have any uh do you have an opinion or any comments with respect to the page that showed the buildings in tide water basin yes so our firm did The Vision study for the um for the Tidewater District up part if you look at the front page you'll see my name on the front page is the author of the document that you have I'm going to object okay if this if the if the ability of my witness was unable to testify as to that particular slide I don't see what what this witness is doing as a rebuttal witness on that issue well you think I didn't hear his testimony yet he was just testifying that he prepared the drawing okay that's as far as he got so far yeah okay and I I didn't want to make mistake fair enough and all I wanted to say was when we drew that drawing it was for the intent of the tide that's the objection we're on it sustained objection sustained thank you Mr can I have a question for Mr Marcel sure and we allow um I'm glad you brought up the wind slide uh cuz I was looking for it looking for the drawers um so you're saying just so I could be clear when they're sh at four feet we're going to have wind bagging North Wind bagging against the building and doing all that movement 50 ft spreads apart each building what is the effect same effect or not I'm not a wind engineer all I'm here to say is that it's 50 ft separated separated yeah what be the same okay thank you and Mr Pino if I just heard your witness he said that he meant to say 40 is well unless I'd like the witness to say that rather than all right he can come up and I was just trying to I appreciate I think it was a slip of the time I said four feet I apologize I I heard myself say 40 4 Z okay thank you um yes but the drawing you show shows it much tighter your graft uh if I go if I go back to that drawing that's a sorry that's a 40 foot Dimension okay thank you I think it's on the it's on the drawing thank you I haven't put the dimension but it it was the Gap is 40 ft thank you and sorry for the for the extension of time I appreciate the opportunity thank you next witness Mr Pina um I call Susan favati f a v a t you any testimony you get tonight it's going to be the truth the whole truth nothing but the truth I do Susan s u an favati f a v a t Susan give us the benefit of your background sure thank you and Mr chairman thank you for letting us have this time tonight um I am Susan favat principal of bfj planning we are a planning consultant firm with more than 40 years of experience in in the planning industry um I myself have over 18 years of professional planning experience I'm a licensed New Jersey Professional planner all my licenses are current in a good standing I'm also a member of the American Institute of certified planners and a member of the New Jersey and the Metro New York chapters of the American Planning Association good okay I will just mention that I have appeared uh before this board uh not in the context of an application but as the principal in charge of the land use element which was adopted as you all know uh the last couple years um I'm mostly going to speak to uh master plan consistency um specific to re development and some of the particular elements of the or portions of the landuse element but I did want to just start um with height because we talked a lot about this and we talked a lot about linear feet floor to ceiling it's a little bit um murky um I just want to kind of go back to try to clarify things a bit um this is an interesting Redevelopment plan in that it doesn't have any linear height limitation um the only way that height is considered in this plan is number of floors and the floor to ceiling or floor to floor Heights so that's really what why we've kind of focused on that um the minimum floor to floor height is 10 ft the maximum is 15 as you've heard and that is the case for all building ypes all uses and that is not proposed to change with the proposed amendment so that's kind of what's what's here now and it's what will stand in the future what is proposed to change is the number of floors on this particular site so what the proposal is that it goes from uh an L building to an XL building so essentially a 20 story building as you've seen with the additional Tower Penthouse Etc uh 20 stories to 32 stories um and what we submit what you saw on the slide that that ala showed is that when you look at the allowable building so the applicant has talked a bit about the proposed building what you have before you is an Redevelopment plan Amendment it is not a site plan you have to consider what the actual Amendment says and what buildings in the future that may come in for a site plan what their allowable building envelope is what their permissible as of right building is so that's why we're showing 15 ft that's the maximum that's what someone could come in if this amendment were approved could come in with the building 15 ft we can argue about whether they would whether there's a market for that Etc but that's the as of right building so that's why we focused on it because that's what could come uh you know under this this proposed amendment so you've heard about well this this there's a stipulation that it won't be any higher but we're saying that it could be higher if you just look at the number of floors and the floor to ceiling height so that's really why we focused on that um and I just wanted to sort of clarify that a bit um but I am going to go back as a planner uh and really talk about planning consistency master plan consistency um you heard a little bit about the uh with the architecture testimony the impacts to the immediate area I'm going to take a bit of a broader view um start with Redevelopment itself and how it's considered in the land use element um how it's talked about I'll talk a little bit about the Urban Design uh chapter of the L use element and then lastly just the overall principles so uh oh there we go okay can you hear me minutes like I lose my glass slipper um we were you know we were the primary authors of the lus element and that includes myself personally um I wrote portions of it um it talked a lot about Redevelopment and it talked about Redevelopment planning and the need for careful consideration when you establish new Redevelopment areas or you amend existing Redevelopment areas and it looked at specific Redevelopment plans in Jersey city which ones should be Revisited which ones uh maybe could be even retired into traditional zoning and which ones could should kind of stay as is and this particular Redevelopment plan Liberty Harbor North um is listed as a plan that should stay as is which generally means it should proceed according to its Redevelopment plan um it doesn't mean that you can't ever change that Redevelopment plan but that it should be fairly modest um and that it's assumed to be valid um you know sort of as is so looking at the Liberty Harbor North plan um we really wanted to start kind of understand what the um the goals of that plan were and kind of what are the overarching features of that plan so the primary goal looking at this plan is to create a quote self-efficient and vital neighborhood that exemplifies the principles of the new urbanism and traditional neighborhood development techniques end quote as we see it this is primarily achieved through three measures one permitting a mix of uses two establishing five building types of various Heights and densities and three laying out those buildings so that the tallest are on three designated large scale streets which are Mars Boulevard Canal Street and Park viiew Avenue and for the remaining streets the buildings are envisioned as as lower in terms of height and density and the intent is to create a variation in terms of height and density step Downs you know graduated Heights providing areas of relief to avoid walls of tall buildings and we talked a little bit about you know tide War Basin um I don't know can I testify to that okay um you know we only looked at that slide uh in a sense to get a an understanding of what perhaps the plan was really going for in terms of the graduated Heights and the one block that we highlighted which is in the adjacent Tidewater District um that's part of this overall Redevelopment plan um is very similar to this particular block block 24 in terms of the heights so it was a kind of a good indication of you have a very tall building maybe two very tall buildings and then they step down within that same block okay so when you look um you know at the overall Redevelopment plan we really do see that the intent is to to put the height at those few streets particularly at corners of blocks as you've seen in this particular block 24 the two 45 story buildings are at the corners and then as you step down within the interior of the block and on those certain those narrower streets you have some relief in terms of height and density which also provides for amenity spaces uh and more light and air okay so when we're looking at this proposed amendment what we see when you look at the maximum allowable Heights which I just talked about the as of right development that could occur at a 15t for to ceiling it really would eliminate the what we see as one of the crowning uh goals of this plan and crowning characteristics is that graduated height you know it's it's a Hallmark of this Redevelopment plan it really blurs the distinction between these these building types and building masses and it introduces a significant Building height on a street and a portion of that street that was specifically designed for lower scale buildings so whereas the existing Redevelopment plan requires a hotel of up to 16 Stories the proposed amendment would provide for an apartment building of 32 stories you've heard arguments that the volume will be the exact same the masing will be the exact same I just don't understand how a person could reasonably argue that a 32 story building is the same height as a 16 story building particularly when there is no change to the maximum allowable Flor floor Heights we we are fearful of the future what this plan would actually do this this proposed amendment to the rest of the Redevelopment area don't forget that there are large areas of this Redevelopment area that have yet to be built so what is to stop other future developers other property owners from asking for similar changes similar reclassifications of these buildings which would essentially you know completely blur and eliminate any distinction between those buildings you would have very similar height buildings really scattered throughout the Redevelopment area and I think that's undermining a key provision of the plan itself and when you look at what the land use element says about Redevelopment it's really exactly this type of situation that on page 179 of the land element it cautions about it notes that one of the issues with Redevelopment planning is that it can create quote an ad hoc approach to land use planning rather than promoting holistic Citywide planning end quote and that the develop Redevelopment process can be seen quote as less predictable for the public and nearby Property Owners end quote I think I may have actually written that sentence but but don't quote me on that I shouldn't say that um but certainly our firm wrote those those elements of the plan we're very familiar with you know what the lanyard sement was really talking about as cautionary you know tales about Redevelopment now as I mentioned the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan it's a long established plan it's decades away from being completed it's very much still in the process of being built out so a lot of the re Redevelopment Provisions in the land use element that talk about transitioning to straight zoning traditional zoning talk about Community benefit agreements They Don't Really apply here but we do note that on page 183 the land use element specifies that any change this is a quote any change to a Redevelopment plan area whether an amendment or a removal of the designation will require negotiation with the affected Property Owners to address the significant potential legal issues involved with changing the existing development rights such adjustments will need to be addressed on a case-by Case basis end quote so we believe that you know that's why we're here tonight is to try to address some of these impacts on neighboring Property Owners so that's sort of Redevelopment as it's discussed in the L use element now another chapter of the L settlement talks about Urban Design framework um in this area the Liberty Harbor North red development plan is designated as planned Waterfront development within that chapter what that category really means it's it's meant to identify areas along the Waterfront that are either fully developed under a planned development or will be so through a Redevelopment plan so for example Port liberte is an area that was you know built out under a plan development um Avalon on the Hudson River or this particular site which is a Redevelopment plan and what that designation is really about the planed Waterfront development is public Waterfront access so again it's not terribly applicable to this property this block 24 I don't think we need to discuss it much more um I think there's been materials uploaded to the portal that talked about neighborhood centers and Transit cores both of those designations for the Urban Design framework um apply to other areas of the city they're really meant to be um in lowdensity areas that are already developed and it's a way to introduce prod mixed use greater activity housing you know increasing walkability in those areas here block 24 this is already a high density mixed use Transit Rich area so while you could see the proposed amendment which facilitates a residential building that that would continue that pattern so would a hotel so it's sort of already mixed use um it will continue to be so so that's Urban Design and lastly I want to speak just generally to the overall planning principles which are in Chapter 3 of the land use element we looked at several of them as potentially relevant um the first one is about continuing efforts to enhance residential neighborhoods we found this actually isn't terly relevant to this site because it's really meant to be about uh areas that are experiencing disinvestment revitalization is needed for these areas here block 24 you know it's already experiencing investment it's got high in housing it's not really relevant to this particular goal however the next one is the next one is promoting the development of a diversified economy and that's really about jobs jobs attracting businesses industry and tourism so a residential building at this site instead of the hotel as is currently required would not further that principle the third one ensure the city's available housing is balanced and meets the needs of all current and future city residents this one's about affordable housing you've heard a lot about that tonight it's obviously a hugely important consideration for the city we talked about it a lot in the landage settlement and the master plan as a whole and it is true that this amendment would result in a 15% affordable housing set aside but so would any significant residential change here that is done through an amendment to the Redevelopment plan it's triggered by your inclusionary zoning ordinance not the Revel development plan itself the Redevelopment plan would continue to have no provision for affordable housing if you accept the argument that you should approve this or recommend its approval by the council because of the affordable housing then what's that really saying is that you should just approve any amendment that that has residential in any in any Redevelopment plan throughout the city regardless of its impacts regardless of planning principles I don't think that that's what the land use ele element excuse me the mask you know it's tough um I don't think that that's what the luse element really contemplated um it's not meant to undercut sound planning principles uh next next uh goal is about walkability bike make it B bicycle Transit friendly walkable um clearly adding a residential use here would further that principle but so would a hotel or a park or an office building almost any type of development that's part of mixed use development is part of this goal to increase walkability and activity here um celebrate and beautify the public realm similarly any development that would be contemplated in mixed use environment in this particular site would have be an improvement over a vacant hole environmental assets protect and restore environmental assets and plan for sustainability I would hope that any development that happened here here would be resilient I don't think that's terribly relevant uh and then the last one is undertake zoning revisions to consolidate districts clarify regulations and address current issues that's really about cleaning up zoning and not really about Redevelopment plan amendments so in summary I think most of the um land use principles are not directly relevant here but the ones that are you know speak to affordable housing which is not a requirement of this Redevelopment plan and that's not proposed to change um and it's really about consistency with the Redevelopment plan so because the proposed amendment really would facilitate development that's inconsistent with the idea of graduated Heights variation and densities um and the land use element you know basically accepts this Redevelopment plan and assumes it's valid we feel that this is inconsistent then with the land use element does that make sense okay I just have I was trying to be quick guys sorry go ahead I just have just a couple of questions just just a couple um the uh drawing you saw you saw the drawings or the the the uh I guess the descriptions that were given in the PowerPoint by Mr by alus right yes that's correct and on the far right of one of the slides there was an indication of a building that was 520t yes the 15 foot FL four that would that would be if this amendment were passed is that right that's the as of right building if this amendment were passed that would be an as of right building there would be no deviation required to get to that height is there anything in the amendment that you see that was provided to to you and to me and to this board that restricts the height of any development that this developer makes or any developer except the regul regulated Heights set forth there in that's correct the the number of floors and the floor to ceiling Heights okay am I correct that if you were to uh if if if you were to uh maximize all of the building Heights in the characteristics buildings the L the XL the XXL that would blur the lines between the the different building types yes if you if you change the building types so that they're more similar within a block as is proposed here you know the current the current Provisions in the Redevelopment plan have several different types of those buildings within this block which is why you see all those different heights that are built already and you also pointed out that the uh that the the um land use element requires of the master plan requires consultation with neighboring adjoining owners is that correct that's correct and are you aware of any consultation are you aware of any consultation I'm not aware I have no allk I guess I'll start I guess I'll start with the last point um you were just asked about consultation with neighboring owners and the Reel plan area where is that what section are you looking at it's page I believe it's page 183 of the L element thank you so I'm going to read this tell me if I'm reading it correctly any change to a Redevelopment plan plan area right correct we are not proposing a change to the Redevelopment plan area correct the sentence continues whether an amendment or removal we'll get we'll get there let's take it one at a time we are not proposing a change to the Redevelopment plan area is that not correct I believe with the intent of this lanus element what the amendment that is proposed would constitute a change I you're reading the language in a literal way that it's you're of course you're not changing the area you're changing the provisions and that's what you wrote it you wrote it therefore I know what it's meant to to say but it's not what it says it says Redevelopment plan area as a as a professional planner what is the definition of a Redevelopment plan area let's start there well it's the area covered by a Redevelopment plan thank you and the area here is not changing the area that's covered by the redone plan is it no so therefore where it says any change to a redone plan area that does not apply to us does it I see a change to the provisions within that Redevelopment plan as constituting this an additional use being permitted not a change to the Redevelopment plan area correct an additional use being permitted as well as changes to the height we are not proposing a change to height we went through this for the last four hours you're proposing a change to the number of stories in the building which therefore changes the height ma'am I'm going to ask that they strike your response as non responsive let's STI to the rment plan area sure is there a change to the rment plan area yes or no no right no thank you then it says whether Amendment or removal of the designation that doesn't apply we're not asking for a removal or an addition of a designation to the plan area so that doesn't apply correct under your reading correct thank you and then it says will require negotiation with the affected Property Owners affected Property Owners is the property owner owner which is my client correct correct thank you your client does not own the property correct our client owns property within the Redevelopment area so do a 100 other people but that language does not say people within the Redevelopment area it says the affected property owner the affected property owner is my client correct correct and I would also argue that the affected property owner is the property owner adjacent to your site which is also within the Redevelopment plan so ma'am we're going to have to keep the yes or no okay answers to yes or no got it so this master plan land use element that you wrote in 2021 it talks exclusively repeatedly about affordable housing does it not correct and it says how it's important does it not yes but yet you glossed over all of that did you not the proposed amendment what I have to say yes or no sir it's a yes or no question you have to answer yes I don't agree that I glossed over it so I can't say yes well would you not agree that the master plan Amendment asks for affordable housing the master plan amendment by virtue of facilitating residential development that exceeds the threshold of the io R do alterate affordable housing and a project that proposes affordable housing would therefore be consistent with the master plan would it not correct thank you now as a planner you would not would you agree with me that developing vacant property especially property that's been vacant for decades is sound planning yes and would you agree as a planner that if you have a revel plan that calls for a specific use and more than two decades have passed and the property Still Remains vacant then it may be time to consider additional uses would that now promote sound planning correct thank you now I believe you also indicated that the homark of this plan is lower scalability if I'm not if I'm not uh incorrect it's the graduated Heights is graduated sorry you're right here we are proposing a building consistent and not to exceed the existing height and my client would stipulate that if this board makes a favorable recommendation to write that in the recommendation therefore if the height does not change would it therefore not be consistent with the Hallmark of the plan the Amendments that I had before me did not include that stipulation so therefore I had to go off of the as of right not the question ma'am you have to answer the question as repat the question please sir yes you said the Hallmark of the plan is graduated Heights correct and if the proposal does not change the height of the existing Hotel then does that not satisfy the hmark of the plan I just I have unclear about certain part of that question could I ask for a clarification you can always say you don't understand the question you don't understand the question and and what you mean by proposal let me ask let me ask you differently the Hallmark of the plan is to have your client's two 45 story buildings right and a 16 story hotel at approximately 320 320 ft correct correct now if the only change to that hmark is the use of the 320t structure from hotel to residential would the scalability then stay the same and the Hallmark thus be satisfied I don't agree that that use is the only change the the building classification is also changing you you just testified about height and compatibility that's why we're talking about correct if there's no change in height then the hmark isn't satisfied is that not right it would be correct but I don't agree that there's no change in height I'm sorry but if you agreed that there was no change in height then then yes so let me ask it this way if as of right a hotel could be 320 ft M and as of right a residential building could be 320 ft would you oppos the amendment the no not on the basis of graduated Heights okay so the use Hotel verse residential is not objectionable to you to you to to me um no your objection is our concern is mainly been height and whether or not the building is the 320 ft that you've calculated a hotel can be built at under this plan that's correct but that but that calculation is also based on the change of the building classification itself from L to XL yes so removing the use question at all there's still this change that's proposed in the classification that would have an impact on height because of the change in number of stories but if the height is the same it's just residental verse Hotel you don't object to that from a planning standpoint no no more questions Council trust [Laughter] me I have to do one last one would you agree that affordable housing is a inherently beneficial use yes I have nothing further go ahead Mr Pino sure of course it's not clear the proposed amendment eliminates Hotel on block 24 is that correct correct and the height of the of the hotel is based upon an L building right correct and that's a how many stories is an L building 16 stories plus an additional four for the tower and does not the amendment want a change from an L to an XL from a large to an extra large correct okay and what's the number of stories in that it's 32 plus Penthouse so it changes the stories from 16 to 32 right correct the base number of stories and in both in instances both in the 16 story building and in the 32 story building the span of floor to height can change from 10 to 15 correct is that right so Apples to Apples there's a change in stories right correct and that may change in to a height yes and as a right height yes that goes to 520 feet Yes okay let's go to this this uh land use element okay that Mr asadorian pointed out the first phrase of it says any change to a Redevelopment plan area any change to a Redevelopment plan area whether an amendment or a removal of the designation is a Amendment or removal of the designation is that a change in the area no so there's a confusion in that very first sentence is that right correct you have you you were worked on this what's the intent of that provision the intent was any change in the Redevelopment plan but that's not what you wrote that's not what the language says the language is confusing is that right is it confusing is it is that a question I'm not sure I'm I'm asking clarification council is it a clarification will require negotiation with the affected property owners are you aware that this is a condominium sustained well let me let me let me place let me give you the basis for saying that this provision says affect Ed property well the affected property here happens to be a condominium I can't get around that it may be it may not be not it may be it is a condominium what's a condominium the affected property sustained move on please Council well the point of it is that it relates to a condominium property here and that's what we have this provision applies to the current application Council that's argument that's not moving on does it apply to this particular property does this provision apply to this particular property which provision the provision the quote that you just read the provision in the land use element of the master plan that's at page 163 I think it's 83 183 I'm sorry yes I believe it applies for legal conclusion the page number point taken done I'm sorry done uh I mean it's maybe hold on maybe I'm done okay thank you thank you thank you Mr Pino chairman for the record the time is 1018 Mr pelino wasn't even close to 35 minutes I don't think there was anybody in the room that believed him at the 35 minute [Laughter] Mark Mr pelino anything else I do not have I'm done okay I've completed my uh objecting objection okay thank you uh commissioners before I open it up for a public comment anything no no okay we're going to need a really yeah we're going to need a quick break not to discuss anything but we're going to need a quick break okay could we come to order please everybody and before we open up for public comment we're going to announce a few housekeeping items uh item 12 case p23 099 is a site plan Amendment Amendment for 17 to 23 parine Avenue uh we are carrying to a date [Music] certain February 20th with preservation of notice item 14 case p23 092 preliminary and final major site plan for 612 to 66 commun Avenue we are carrying to a date certain February 20th with preservation of notice item 16 case p2023 0069 preliminary and final major site plan Amendment uh for 18010 Street 5 43.5 Manila AV and 545 man Manila AV we are carrying to a date certain February 20th with preservation of notice item 17 case p2023 0070 preliminary and final major site plan Amendment uh for 20410 Street 5435 Manila ab and 545 minil AV we are carrying to a date certain February 20th with preservation of notice and last but certainly not least I'm sorry that was it that was it okay thank you everybody thank you for hanging out tonight okay so back to the case at hand okay yeah uh so at this time let's open it up for public comment if anybody's here that wants to comment on this application please come up Mr chair I see no public I move to close second motion is made and second it public is closed uh Matt uh thank you chairman uh Commissioners um so staff prepared a master plan consisten consist consistency review uh it is uh post to the portal but there is a version that I'm going to be presenting here tonight that's dated today uh there are uh there was a couple typos and some updates that we made to some of the slides so I want to enter um enter it as an exhibit uh believe this would be A9 or how do you want to do sento let make it B1 B1 B1 B1 and uh we have copies to hand out oh okay great all right this was on the portal uh this was on the portal but the version I'm presenting here tonight was not so this is a brand new thing still 17 slides including the title but there are some differences from the version that's posted online um Council I'll note your objection for the record okay continue all right so presentation outline uh Liberty Harbor North block 24 and Associated amendments then we'll move into the 2021 land use element Redevelopment plan issues and recommendations chapter 5 Urban Design framework chapter 4 land use principles chapter 3 and I'll uh we'll smize with a conclusion uh Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan and in Block 24 um we in preparation for today looked at uh some of the past zoning on that block as it was enumerated in the Redevelopment plan over the years uh and this site has had inconsistent uh standards from the outset of the adoption of the Redevelopment plan um it was singled out as only Hotel um and it allowed for 1.1 million square ft of Hotel uh as well as originally allowed for accessory uses uh to that that hotel as optional uh the max 16 story height was permitted at the outset of that plan uh in 20 uh 2007 block 24 went from zero residential units permitted to 470 residential units permitted uh in later that year in June 2007 Hotel floor area was set at a Max 530,000 Square ft required programming uh and accessory uses for hotels uh including a minimum of 250 rooms full service restaurant Barn Lounge area retail shops meeting rooms banquet rooms swimming pool fitness center and Salon Services same Amendment also introduced story height exceptions specific to block 24 citing difficulty for fitting hotel programming it actually allowed a height exception of 21 stories and a Max of 240 ft uh then in 2012 uh was the most recent amendment that uh changed uh the bulk in use uh for Block 24 Hotel floor area was further reduced to 202 uh th 100,000 202 20200 202 500 I'll say removed banquet room requirement added retail services including concer and room service as requirement uh the rest of Hotel programming remained in place uh residential density increased again from 470 units to 900 residential units and portions of the block were increased from LCL class similar to tonight where we're starting from a starting point to XXL class 45 stories plus KOA lastly the hotel story height exception was removed uh the reason for this is uh we'll get into it later but there's uh a recommendation in the master plan um master plan as far as consistency goes for redevelopment plans and their uh use and bulk standards and other requirements uh across those Redevelopment areas 2021 land use element something I'm very proud out proud about uh something that I would say my colleagues did a great job on um we participated heavily in the creation of not only the land use element but the open space and Facilities element as well as the visioning document um I would say that uh we our working relationship was great um we did act as a copy editor provided uh substantial Redline edits to the land use document um many of which were Incorporated uh to the final version uh adopted by by the planning board in early 2022 as part of our R Jersey City Master Plan update the land use element has roughly 160 recommendations made in the chapter 5 implementation Matrix and Associated recommendation Maps figures 102 103 104 106 and 107 103 is pictured there on the right the bubbles being recommendations to different areas throughout the city phase one and phase two of the master plan implementation have been adopted ordinances 22- 084 and 23-13 planning board and city council have implemented nearly 40% of those recommendations in the implementation Matrix in the first two years of the 10-year master plan visioning some recommendations were drafted for inclusion into phase one or phase two but removed upon request of council and Resident feed feedback uh resulting in perhaps over 40% of the recommendations either uh being implemented or taken some action uh being no action one of those uh U recommendations that was uh asked to be uh not considered and incorporated into uh uh phase two uh was the R1 District recommendation to consider rezoning areas where it may be appropriate to reflect the existing multif family land use character or the desired development pattern based on the existing context Redevelopment plan issues and recommendations uh this is a subsection in chapter five um by the same name uh that portion of the land use element has five topic areas regarding issues and recommendations in Redevelopment plans these are duration of redev plans in transition to straight zoning consistency across Redevelopment plan areas and transition to residential neighborhoods Community benefits in open space potential new SL revised Redevelopment plan areas and overlay zones for the first topic duration of Redevelopment plans and transition to straight zoning a finding written about in the master plan is that many Redevelopment plans have expiration dates and a number of these dates have already passed expiration dates for redevelopment plan areas create ambiguity to paraphrase the the element about when and how Redevelopment plans can Sunset Liberty Harbor North has an expiration date of May 16th 2051 only about onethird of the Redevelopment plan area has been redeveloped and its remaining buildout includes roughly 18 blocks in addition to numerous public open spaces and public streets there's an aerial to the right from near map dated September 5th 2023 I also indicate the subject site that we've been talking about tonight you can see that a lot of the sites include um vacant land uh surface parking lots um and various states of use and disrepair um by judging by the the strewn about U Vehicles major Milestones of the Redevelopment plan area have not been met the issues and recommend commendations made under this topic are not applicable at this time consistency across Redevelopment plan areas in transition to residential neighborhoods under this topic the land use element States in quote for newly created Redevelopment plans are those that exists but may be amended the language on Urban Design parking and specific use in bulk controls needs to be clear with potential project hurdles discussed and addressed between involved agencies in order to provide strategic strategic guidance for the life cycle of the plan of a plan area another quote the city should consider developing more uniform standards and design guidelines across Redevelopment plan areas based on the Urban Design framework the Urban Design framework is chapter four of the land use element the purpose of the Urban Design framework is to identify Urban Design opportunities and Regulatory issues and to make recommendations for the multiple Urban context in the city the findings and recommendations identified under neighborhood centers and Transit cores can be applied to the context of the Liberty Harbor North and the amendment now specifically talking about that uh note of the Urban Design framework under this topic and uh as it relates to Neighborhood centers in that chapter 4 a key finding is that some neighborhood centers lack critical mass to support surrounding areas the amendment prop promotes appropriate population density to support the adjacent Neighborhood Center currently only about 13 of the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan plan area or Redevelopment area is built out according to the plan block 24 is adjacent to a neighborhood center at the Marin Boulevard Light Rail station where adjacent development blocks are required to provide a minimum of 50% Restaurant entertainment oriented retail Frontage or other Destination type retail compatible retail compatible with entertainment a recommendation for neighborhood centers is that as the neighborhood centers and streets attract New Uses and businesses the city should develop clear guidelines to create a range of affordable and market rate housing that can support a mix of Ages and income groups and that incentive-based density bonuses should be considered to provide affordability and support the mix of housing types and income groups to implement this recommendation the amendment requires that 15% of all residential units developed on the site are dedicated as on-site affordable housing the Redevelopment plan regulations prior to this amendment do not require on-site affordable housing Urban Design framework Transit cores a recommendation for Transit cores and to is to encourage mixed use developments at appropriate densities around Transit course and that based on surrounding context and scale the city should consider rezoning transit cours to support higher densities and a mix of uses the amendment promotes mixed use development at appropriate densities and Scale based on the surrounding contexts that exist and permitted in the Redevelopment plan to expand upon that 38 uh 38% of the blocks in the Redevelopment plan have or are permitted a higher density than block 24 as proposed in the amendment 27% of the blocks have a higher F than block 24 and two blocks have FS above 25 for comparison Journal Square 2060 Zone 1 permits a cap at 25 Liberty Harbor North has FS larger than the core of Journal Square 2060 Community benefits in open space the content of this topic is about creating pooling and linkage of open space across multiple Redevelopment plans and has no direct applicability to the scope of this this amendment however the inclusionary zoning ordinance adopted by the city council on 1215 20121 front-loaded the community benefit of affordable Hing housing ahead of any other community benefit such as open space which this topic largely focuses on the inclusionary zoning ordinance was adopted to effectuate the 2019 housing element and March 12th 2019 master plan reexamination report which recommended adoption of an inclusionary zoning ordinance this amendment includes the community benefit of affordable housing and requires that 15% of all residential units developed on on the site are dedicated as on-site affordable housing this amendment is consistent with the io and the 2019 housing element and and reexamination Report therein apparently didn't get all the typos okay uh potential new SL revised Redevelopment plan areas under this topic of new SL revised uh plans the recommendation is made that the Liberty Harbor North plan remain as is as listed on figure 106 the subtext saying plans that are incomplete so there's an assertion that uh of the area be developed and not prioritized for amendments uh key word not prioritized so remain as is May read remain as is but it's not prioritized that said in the last six month months both uh Council resolution 2378 and Council res resolution 23- 941 uh have been passed by the city council authorizing the planning board to study amendments or revisions to the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan the planning board is carrying out their Duty authorized by the city council resolution uh 29 I'm sorry 23- 941 in studying the amendment holding a public meeting and making a recommendation to the city council the documents attached to resolution 23- 708 are still being studied by staff before we uh we are bringing them to uh overlay zones under this topic is recommended that the city should consider designating F future Redevelopment plan areas as overlay zones to allow Property Owners flexibility to opt in the Redevelopment plan's Provisions the provisions for this site on block 24 are more prescriptive than other development sites in the development plan the site is singled out as hotel with a long list of required accessory uses introducing several project hurdles to overcome the Amendments remove the required accessory uses on this site creating more opportunity for a hotel to be part of a future development the Redevelopment plan is nearly 30 years from expiration and the area is currently only one3 redeveloped it redel plan Amendment and the process by which one is authorized studied and enacted is enumerated in the local Redevelopment Housing law njsa 4A colon 12 A-1 and over the course of a 50-year land use regime while the master plan is only a 10 seeking a Redevelopment plan amendment is the vehicle for a property owner or prospective property owner to opt in to the Redevelopment plan's Provisions a new or for the first time land use principles chapter 3 this chapter is intended to provide the policy foundation for revisions to the ldo and or Land Development ordinance and Redevelopment plans four lenses were identified in our Jersey City master plan uh organi identified in the r Jersey City master plan organized the recommended land use principles connectivity and Mobility econom Economic Opportunity social equity and climate resiliency the scope of these amendments are consistent with four lens with the these four lenses and furthers six land use principles identified in the land use element continue to enhance residential neighborhoods principle one proposed amendments currently is uh proposed amendments currently it's a vacant lot with existing project hurdles imposed by use and bulk standards proposed amendments will eliminate those project hurdles by standardizing the applicable use and bul Provisions two celebrate and beautify public realm currently it's a vacant lot with a without a finished sidewalk in the public realm Manus principle three ensure the city's available housing is balanced and meets the needs of all of all current and future city residents proposed amendments Pro promote social Equity by permitting an appropriate population density and a high opportunity area while also requiring on-site of aable housing land use principle number four make the city more walkable bikable Transit friendly and less res res reliant on the automobile poos amendments promote connectivity and Mobility by permitting residential housing on a site in a highly walkable neighborhood in close proximity to the Hudson BG and Light Rail stations as well as the HUD uh the Hudson river river from walkway and the envisioned uh Morris Canal Greenway land use principles um number five protect and restore environmental assets and plan for sustainability proposed amendment promotes climate resiliency and sustainability by permitting an appropriate density population density on a Brownfield site and a high opportunity area in close proximity to mass transit and job centers last land use principle here undertake zoning uh revisions to consolidate districts clarify regulations and address current issues the proposed amendments lessen or remove project hurdles imposed on the single property by standardizing regulations in The District in addition this project also meets uh an objective and goal of the circulation element objective G1 D1 develop and Implement smart growth strategies that locate new residential development within walking distance bus stops and passenger Rail stations with the highest density zones located within walking distance of Passenger Rail stations goal G1 d a friends lowercase a use zoning incentives and capital Improvement programs to encourage pedestrian scale mix use development and Redevelopment within walking distance of public transportation conclusion the proposed amendments are substantially consistent with the master plan and designed to effectuate the master plan and staff recommend board recommend adoption of these amendments to the municipal Council does anybody have any questions for Matt okay I'll entertain a motion then Mr chair yeah Mr chair I'd like to uh make a motion at this time to approve and accept the uh review and discussion of an amendment to the Liberty Harbor North Redevelopment plan regarding 155 Marin Boulevard case number on that is p2024 d004 and forward to uh city council for formal adoption second okay we have a motion and a second for approval okay on a motion to recommend the city council so for clarification clarification of the record the motion should be to find that the proposed amendment is consistent with the master plan and recommend the municipal Council uh adopt the Amendments correct Dr Gonzalez correct Vice chair Dr Gonzalez thank you for that uh long description and and uh arguments you know back and forth I I really was educated a lot today I've been on the board for a long time but there was a lot of good education here um you know as Matt said this uh proposed the proposed amendment seem to be consistent with the luse principles described by Mr Ward uh tonight um and I I think it's it's good to be able to uh change this uh language and amend this plan uh to look at uh maybe a site that's going to offer affordable housing um and uh everything that uh that is planned to to be done on this site so um I do plan I think as well that is consistent with the master plan so I'm going to vote I Comm gangen Matt thank you so much for that great presentation it's very educational to um all of us us here this evening as well um the amendment meets the goals and the objective of the master plan the Redevelopment plan and the housing plan at the same time we do need more affordable housing here in Jersey City so this will be very very beneficial to Jersey City residents and it will add value to the community at the same time my vote is I commissioner tours per it was very um very interesting um meeting today a lot of information uh you know which is good and um what gets me though is through the whole plan and everything I heard um we're not saying that one day there may not be a hotel in that area you we're just saying that now we need to look at stuff and the last 207 years that has been done there uh um and that's why we're here we need to that's why that's why I like this board we see things we grow neighborhoods change things start to move and we see things develop it's it's places that being born and raised in Jersey City I would have never imagined that they would look the way they do today because of development because somebody had a vision and with that Vision I'm going to vote moving forward and I vote a big eye for this project um and let's keep that up let's keep looking at things differently sometimes out of the box so Jersey City can be better that's what we're here for thank you commissioner stano thank you very much for that presentation um I vote I for this project commissioner Cruz I vote I commissioner Dr Desai that was a long long presentation but it was useful and I think I'm going to v i for that and chairman Lon Dr Desi what was longer that presentation or your flight back from India recently um so that this meets the goals and objectives of the master plan the land use element and I I do agree with my other Commissioners um you know Redevelopment is about changing and and finding what fits and as as long as I remember there's you know been a hotel proposed there I I think this just gives enough leeway to the property owner again you know I don't think it will but this could fail as well before it it gets built we don't know but I I think this gives us enough leeway and gives the developer enough leeway to uh to move forward um Matt brings up a great point that I and you know the fact that there's no sidewalk on that side of the street is um in a a walkable city is something that needs to change um so I'm going to vote I uh to forward this to city council with a positive recommendation um I know what the testimony was tonight Matt I don't know if planning staff uh just to mitigate confusion with city council wants to entertain at city council floor Amendment capping the height in feet uh staff is going to send up the uh amendments as uh they're presented here tonight um we can inquire with the council president if they wish to introduce a floor Amendment and vote on it okay I I just think as as Allowed by the local re of own housing law okay so uh yeah that's my vote I'm an I thank you everybody for coming down tonight uh Mr asadorian Mr palino before you leave tonight the three of us maybe let's uh just have a side bar and uh that's it thank you guys thank you all for your thank you thank you okay so let's move on to I think we're there memorialization of resolutions Please Mr chair I have two resolutions uh tonight first resolution I move I is the following resolutions first one is resolution of the planning board of the city of Jersey City City applicant is 35 Cottage LLC for administrative Amendment approval 35-43 Cottage Street Jersey City New Jersey block 7903 lot 17.01 formally lot 177 18 and 19 case number p23 d104 and the last resolution is the resolution of the city of Jersey City in the matter of 15th in Grove JC llc at 619 Grove Street block 7102 lot 7 P22 d216 is a case 6 2024 memorialized on February 6 2024 application for amended final major Seline with bulk variance second okay we have a motion second Vice chair Dr Gonzalez hi commissioner Stato commissioner Cruz hi commissioner Dr Desai commissioner gangen I commissioner Tores and chairman Langston motion carries all in favor Mr no Mr chair second so moved thank you everybody only always