Hoboken411.com

Below is a memo of comments on the August 2008 Western Edge

Redevelopment Plan(RP). I discussed this memo with the

Council Subcommittee on September 10, 2008. Thereafter, a

new draft of the Redevelopment Plan dated September 2008 was

prepared.. I have compared the two drafts and made notes in

bold on the original memo as to the changes. Where no bold

notes appear, no changes were made to the RP in response to the

memo.

COMMENTS ON THE AUGUST 2008

WESTERN EDGE REDEVELOPMENT PLAN

At the request of the Hoboken Planning and Zoning Committee, these comments are

submitted in response to the “August 2008 Western Edge Redevelopment Plan” prepared

by Phillip Preiss Shapiro (PPS) regarding the proposed Redevelopment Plan for the

Western Edge redevelopment zone (RP). Comments also reference the Hoboken Master

Plan adopted in April, 1994 (MP) prepared by PPS.

A redevelopment plan should be viewed as one of the most important documents in the

redevelopment process. It defines the development and sets the parameters for developer

proposals, developer negotiations and agreements, development permitting and approvals

and build-out. Fundamentally, the more specificity that is in the document, the more

control the City will have over the project. The ability to maintain City control is the

benefit of doing redevelopment rather than simply rezoning. If the language in the

redevelopment plan does not establish that control, it will hinder control in all subsequent

documents and actions. Quite simply, if the redevelopment plan does not state the City’s

terms, conditions and demands for the project, the City will be at a serious disadvantage

at the negotiating table with the developer and thereafter. As the redevelopment agency,

the City Council will be held accountable for the project and thus control by the City

Council is critical.

I. INCONSISTENCY WITH MASTER PLAN

A. Predominantly Residential Development

Hoboken411.com

2

The RP calls for predominantly residential development. Of the over 1.4 million square

feet of development, only 25,000 s/f (2%) will be devoted to non- residential

development. It should be noted that this is 5,000 s/f less commercial development than

the amount that was presented at the June 25, 2008 public meeting. There is no

explanation for this 20% reduction in non-residential use.

This high density residential development is not consistent with the Master Plan which

specifically calls for office development in the Industrial Transition Area on the westside.

This Western Edge area is designated as an “Industrial Transition Area”. The MP states:

“Limited industrial uses will continue to be permitted in these areas

with public facilities and office development permitted as well. (MP - p. 158).

In addition to this clear statement of intent for office development, the Master Plan

specifically states that:

“The land use mix in Hoboken is skewed towards residential and other non-

commercial uses. Even with recent growth in office space, it appears that the

office market in Hoboken can accommodate additional office space.” (MP- p 74)

Most significantly, the MP expressly recommends, “smaller scale offices around the

light rail stations” (MP- p.74). Since the western edge directly abuts the 9th

Street light

rail station, it is inconsistent with the Master Plan to ignore the recommendation for

office uses that would stimulate new businesses and jobs for Hoboken.

The Master Plan also recognizes that Hoboken has a tradition of mixing uses and that a

wide range of uses can coexist in even a small geographic area such as Hoboken. The

Master Plans specifically recommends that Hoboken should continue to “maintain an

appropriate mix of land uses.” (MP- P. 32) A predominately residential development is

inconsistent with this recommendation.

No discussion is provided in the RP as to why office development and the taxes revenues

from such development are not as capable as residential development of underwriting

some of the park land costs. There is no discussion in the RP with respect to the

increased tax burden that results from residential development. Recent press suggests

that the police department is outgrowing its space yet again. That growth is directly

related to the increase in population due to new residential development. Consideration

should be given to examining the tax impact of the existing NW Redevelopment zone.

Even, the NW Zone more commercial density than is being proposed for the Western

Edge. Commercial neighborhood services are seriously lacking for the new residents of

the NW Zone. The minimal retail proposed in the RP for the Western Edge does nothing

to alleviate this problem.

The effect of this RP is to create a residentially dominated development which will over

the long-term create an increased demand for City services that will outpace the tax

revenue it generates. It also provides no opportunity to for Hoboken to expand its tax

Hoboken411.com

3

base to non-residential uses which would generate higher revenues per City services

required and create new jobs.

While some may say the office market is soft, that is also now true of the residential

market. Hoboken should not make its long term development decisions on the basis of

short term market demand. If this is truly the last frontier before Hoboken reaches full

build out, then Hoboken should provide for its land use needs rather than providing what

the short term development market desires to build.

B. Height

The 400% increase in building heights proposed by the RP( existing zoning 4 stories RP

zoning 16+ stories) is inconsistent with the MP. A review of the MP reveals that most of

the discussion of height in the MP is contained in the description of the exiting land use

regulations (MP – p.19- 20). Immediately following this existing height discussion, are

the recommendations. (MP- p. 22 -25) No where in those MP recommendations is there

any mention of a goal to increase height for Hoboken.

The MP map of the existing permitted building heights demonstrates that Hoboken is

predominately a low rise community consisting of mostly two to five stories (MP- p. 20

and 29, Table II-2). Pockets of higher buildings have come to Hoboken only after many

growing pains. Ten years of litigation and two voter referendums preceded the

construction of the south waterfront buildings; four years of appeals and litigation

preceded the Shipyard development. The failure to adopt zoning regulations for almost

five years after the adoption of the MP has led to major variance approvals of

controversial high-rise condominium projects (101 Marshall and 900 Monroe).

Page 9 of the proposed RP states that one of the goals and objectives is to “allow for

taller buildings in exchange for open space”. It should be noted that there is no mention

of this “height for open space exchange” in the goals and objectives in the MP Land Use

Recommendations for the West Side. (MP. p.124-126) :

“Hoboken is in need of additional open space and community facilities. To the

greatest extent possible, new development –particularly in this section of the City-

should contribute to the provision these elements”. (MP, p. 125)

There is no economic information in the RP nor any information provided at the public

meetings to substantiate the enormous height increase (400% of the existing height) in

exchange for open space. Thus, there is no way for the public or the City Council to

evaluate the trade-off.

The City should first consider what is an acceptable height and density for the long term

viability of the City. This decision can not be made without appropriate economic

Hoboken411.com

4

information as to the cost and benefits of development. Such cost benefit analysis should

be done with the assistance of a qualified financial consultant.

C. Palisades

The RP proposes enormous height increases for the westside from the existing 4 stories to

as high as 16 stories. The RP states:

The goal is to keep the overall building height below that of the top of the

Palisades”

No where in the MP is there precedence or support for creating buildings the height of the

Palisades. It coincidently appears that the rationale for height in the RP comes straight

from the site plan application to the zoning board submitted by Tarragon to support its 12

story development on 900 Monroe. (RP. p 29 and 31, Figures 11 through 13). This calls

into question the rationale that the public has been presented that the height is driven by

the necessity to generate revenue to subsidize open space.

The RP recommendation for up to 16 stories also ignores the MP limitation on height for

the area bounded by the Palisades. The MP specifically recognizes the “visual relief”

that the cliffs of the Palisades provide to Hoboken, which is a “densely developed

community with limited open space resources.” The MP expressly recommends

“limitations on height” to protect the view of this natural resource from Hoboken. (MP –

p. 22).

The RP proposes that “buildings taller than five stories be oriented east/west so as to

preserve views through to the Palisades and also maximize views of project residents”.

(RP- p.30) Contrary to the MP, the RP language expresses more concern for protecting

the views of the project residents than that the views of the public. Nowhere in the MP is

there mention of protecting “project resident views” as a goal or recommendation. This

is clearly a developer goal. Certainly, the public is not interested in accepting higher

density development for the benefit of creating views for a select few.

D. Park and Recreational Space

Another clear mandate in the MP for the western area is park land. The MP clearly

identifies the critical lack of open space in Hoboken no matter what park standard

applies. (MP – pp. 41-44) It also specifically recognizes that the applicable park standard

is 2.0 acres of active recreational space per one thousand people. Thus, with Hoboken’s

current population in excess of 40,000, and estimates of well over 50,000 when built out,

Hoboken should be looking to acquire and develop more than 100 acres of active

recreational space. Hoboken has only 40 acres of such land, which includes both existing

parkland and that presently owned and being constructed but not yet on line. That

represents a 60 acre open space deficit which needs to be addressed.

Hoboken411.com

5

With each new building built in Hoboken, we add new residents without providing new

open space and increase the park deficit. Many of the new developments in Hoboken

have not provided any open space. For those developments which have, much of the

open space is not active but passive space such as building plaza areas. The amount of

open space most often does not even meet park-to-resident ratio open space standards to

satisfy the increase in population from the development alone, never mind reducing the

deficit. Recognizing this significant problem, the MP specifically states:

“The City should aggressively pursue the creation of new parks and recreational

facilities.” (MP – pp. 41-47 and Map 4)

Map 4 identifies 6.53 acres of park along the light rail between 9th

and 12th

Streets

(Blocks 92, 93, 97, 101 and 105) as proposed new park land.

At both the first and second meetings on this proposed RP, the public clearly expressed

its desire for information which would justify the conclusion that it is economically

infeasible to create the MP park land as suggested in the MP on the Western Edge. No

data has been provided in response to that request by the public to date. Instead, the

public has only been repeatedly told that it must accept large-scale development of

undisclosed height and density in order for the public to receive any park land.

If the City sincerely demonstrates the economic basis of its decision to dispense with park

land on the Western Edge, as called for in the MP, it may very well be that the public can

accept that decision. But without any substantiated financial data, the public should not

be expected to simply accept the loss of MP proposed park land. Presently, the public is

being told that a developer paid a great deal of money for the land and that it is too

expensive to develop as park. Factual information about actual land values and zoning

variance changes should be provided to the public if that is in fact the justification for of

the City’s decision to diverge from the clear intention of the MP park recommendations.

II. VISION AND GOALS (RP p. 9)

Although the RP indentifies the goals of the plan as open space, additional retail and

affordable housing (RP p 9), the RP is written predominately to meet a different goal

which is residential. This residential portion of the plan has the most detail in the

language of the RP. Eleven pages are devoted to detailing building bulk standards. Only

two bullets are devoted to affordable housing, one paragraph to the community center and

just two and one half pages are devoted to open space and recreation. (RP 18-21)

III. OPEN SPACE AND RECREATION (RP p18)

Although the RP lists open space and recreation as the first key element of the plan ( RP

p. 1), the language of the RP lacks mandatory specificity and does not assure the parks

Hoboken411.com

6

will be built nor assure the City Council will have control over park design or function.

At the very least, the RP should specify when in the course of the development the

community benefits will be completed so that those improvements are not built last.

Language should be included to enforce this by conditioning the issuance of certificates

of occupancy for the buildings on the completion of the community center, parks and

green circuit.

A. 4.4 Acres Open Space

The RP states that two large parks (3.2 acres), a green circuit (1.23 acres) and a 30,000 s/f

community center are key elements of the plan ((RP- p 1). The acreage sited in the RP

for these public amenities appears inconsistent with the overall acreage of the

redevelopment area. Under the RP, the acreage for the four properties totals 10.94 acres.

The RP also states that the acreage for the parks and green circuit totals 4.4 acres (RP p

1). The inconsistency occurs when the RP defines the” Building Zones“

(RP p 23) which is the area for residential and mixed use development. When one

subtracts the total redevelopment zone acreage (10.94) from the building zone acreage

(8.65 acres), it appears that there is only 1.99 acres left for parks and green circuit, not

4.4 acres.

B. Open Space and Recreation (RP p 18)

The RP lack detail as to parks other than to provide a general location for the parks. (RP

p 18) Missing from the language of the RP is any reference to the requirement that the

parks be “public” other than the reference to the public pool and in the “mews”

definition. Thus there is nothing in the RP regarding how the title to the land will be held

and who will be responsible for the operation and maintenance of the park land and

community center. Without this detail in the RP, any developer proposal and pro-forma

will be incomplete in its understanding of the cost of the project.

The RP states that the following types of open space be provided:

“At grade, publically accessible open space (parks, playgrounds, plazas, trails,

green circuit, etc shall occupy at least 40% of the total area of the redevelopment

area, i.e. +- 4.4 acres, excluding public streets” ( RP p 18).

This definition is profoundly vague and may explain the discrepancy in the purported

open space acreage described in these comments above. Under the language of this

definition, open space can include any and all of the following - public sidewalks, public

rights of way, building entrance plazas, light rail buffer bushes, building setback areas

and even the truck easement and building plaza space from the 900 Monroe zoning board

approval. Thus, there is enormous latitude in what the developer can include in the

calculation of open space. Because the acreage is described as “plus or minus 4.4 acres”,

even the amount of open space is uncertain. Without a specific description in the RP of

Hoboken411.com

7

the actual amount and location of the land devoted to open space, there is no assurance of

any amount of acreage.

CHANGE PG 18.

A NEW PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN ADDED TO THE DEFINITION OF

WHAT IS INCLUDED AND NOT INCLUDED IN MEETING THE 40%

OPEN SPACE.

INCLUDED IS:

“PEDESTRIAN CIRCULATION SPACES” (I ASSUME THIS INCLUDES

PUBLIC SIDEWALKS)

“AT GRADE PUBLICLY ACCESSIBLE PLAZAS AND COURTYARDS”

“PEDESTRIAN - ONLY MEWS” (THE DEFINITION OF MEWS SAYS IT

INCLUDES ENTRANCES TO THE BUILDING UNITS)

“BUFFER PLANTNGS ALONG THE LIGHT RAIL”

EXCLUDED IS:

MEWS THAT ALLOW DAILY VEHICULAR USE (THUS I ASSUME

MEWS WITH VEHICULAR USE LESS THAN DAILY WILL COUNT AS

OPEN SPACE)

PARKING OR ACCESS TO PARKING

LANDSCAPED ROOFS

DRIVEWAYS AND DROPOFFS

BUILDING SETBACKS FACING PUBLIC STREETS (THUS IT APPEARS

BUILDING SETBACKS ALONG LIGHT RAIL WILL COUNT AS OPEN

SPACE)

3FT PLANTER AREAS ADJACENT TO PARKING GARAGES

THE NEW DRAFT REMAINS VERY GENEROUS WHEN IT COMES TO

INCLUDING NORMAL BUILDING IMPROVEMENTS (SUCH AS

BUFFFER PLAINTINGS AND SIDEWALKS) AS OPEN SPACE.

Hoboken411.com

8

THE DEFINITION OF MEWS IS FOUND IN TWO DIFFERENT

FOOTNOTES (PGS.18 AND 19). ONE SAYS MEWS IS “PEDESTRIAN –

ONLY” AND THE OTHER SAYS THEY” MAY ACCOMMODATE

VEHICULAR TRAFFIC”. ONE SAYS THE MEWS SHOULD BE 25 FEET

IN WIDTH, THE OTHER SAYS IT SHALL BE SHALL BE ATLEAST

25FT IN WIDTH. ALSO, THE USE OF SHOULD AND SHALL IS

INCONSISTENT.

More disturbing is that all of the park land in the RP is referred to as “Passive Parks”.

(RP p18) The recent creation of passive parks by developers has been a serious problem

for the residents who have been anxiously awaiting new baseball, basketball and soccer

fields which have not materialized despite enormous development. Clearly, developers

have demonstrated their desire to prohibit active parkland adjacent to their residential

buildings (e.g. Maxwell Place and Toll 15th

Street). The RP does not address this, thus

ignoring the MP’s call for active recreation in this area.

CHANGE PG 18

WHILE THE ABOVE CONCERN REGARDING PASSIVE PARKS IS

NOT ADDRESSED, NEW LANGAUGE HAS BEEN ADDED TO

DESCRIBE THE LOCATION OF PARK BLOCKS 1 AND 2. THE

LANGUAGE NOW INCLUDES THE LOTS AND BLOCKS THAT

COMPRISE THE PARKS. UNFORTUNATLEY, PARK BLOCK 1 HAS

BEEN REDUCED IN SIZE FROM +-1.4 ACRES TO 1.03 ACRES. PARK

BLOCK 2 HAS BEEN REDUCED IN SIZE FROM +- 1.73 ACRES TO 1.56

ACRES.

A NEW PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN ADDED TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT

PARK BLOCKS 1 AND 2 DO NOT ADD UP TO 4.4 ACRES AS RAISED

IN THE COMMENTS. IT STATES THAT THE MISSING 1.81 ACRES

MUST BE PROVIDED AS PART OF THE GREEN CIRCUIT OR WITHIN

BUILDING ZONES. WITHOUT MORE SPECIFICITY BEING PUT

INTO THE PLAN, THE LOCATION OF OVER 40% OF THE OPEN

SPACE IN THE PLAN IS LEFT TO THE DESCRETION OF THE

DEVELOPER. BECAUSES THE GREEN CIRCUIT IS ONLY DEFINED

AS A 25 FOOT PATH ALONG THE LIGHT RAIL( PG 20), THERE IS NO

INFORMATION IN THE PLAN AS TO HOW MUCH ACREAGE A 25

FOOT PATH WILL PROVIDE PARTICULARLY IN LIGHT OF THE

FACT THAT OPEN SPACE INCLUDES THE BUFFER PLANTINGS

ALONG THE LIGHT RAIL.

Hoboken411.com

9

The City Council should pay close attention to the repeated references to the words

“may” and “should” in this open space section (RP p. 18 and 20). Whenever those words

are used, it is not a mandatory requirement for the developer and the City gives up

control. That is because the language of the RP that occurs as early as page 2 where the

word should is first defined as follows:

“Should means that the developer is encouraged to comply but not required to do

so. If the exact recommendation can not be met, the planning board will entertain

any modification that meets the underlying spirit and intent of the regulation and/

the Redevelopment Plan.” (RP p. 2)

NO CHANGE PAGE 2,

THIS LANGUAGE WAS DISCUSSED IN SOME DETAIL AT THE

COMMITTEE. WHILE THE REVISED PLAN CHANGED THE WORD

FROM “SHOULD” TO “SHALL” INCERTAIN PLACES, THIS

PARAGRAPH REMAINS AND CREATES A SEROUS SHORTCOMING

IN THE AUTHORITY OF THE CITY COUNCIL AS THE

REDEVELPOMENT AGENCY.

This language creates a very broad loophole for the developer in the document. The

Council must look very closely at all instances in the RP where the word “should” is

used. In any instance where the term is used, it is not a mandatory requirement. More

significantly, any place where the term “should” is used, the Council’s control over the

development is ceded to the developer and planning board.

One example of this is the use of the word “should” in describing the mews. Even

though the RP show pictures of the mews as a community benefit, the actual language

about the mews does not mandate them:

“Either a mews or circular hardscaped plaza should be provided at the end of

each of the numbered streets to provide a sense of arrival to the open space as

well as a to provide a terminus along the streets” (RP p 18)

CHANGE PG 18.

“SHOULD” IN THIS PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN CHANGED TO

“SHALL” IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT.

“SHOULD” WAS NOT CHANGED TO “SHALL” IN THE FOLLOWING -

“PARKS SHOULD BE LOCATED AT GRADE OF THE SIDEWALK,

WITH BARRIER FREE ACCESS”. THUS, A DEVELOPER CAN

PROVIDE A PARK THAT IS NOT AT GRADE PROVIDED THE

PLANNING BOARD ALLOWS IT. THIS DISCRETION IS PROVIDED

Hoboken411.com

10

TO THE PLANNING BOARD BY THE LANGUAGE ON PG 2 OF THE

RP (SEE DISCUSSION ABOVE)

“SHOULD” WAS ALSO CHANGED TO “SHALL” IN THE GREEN

CIRCUIT SECTION. THE GREEN CIRCUIT SECTION RAISES A

QUESTION BECAUSE IT STATES ( PG 20) THAT “A PORTION OF THE

GREEN CIRCUIT SHALL BE BUILT ALONG THE HBLR”. THERE IS

NO EXPLANATION ABOUT WHERE THE REMAINING PORTION IS

OR WHERE IT WILL BE LOCATED IN THE PROJECT. THE WIDTH

OF THE CIRCUIT IS STILL UNLCEAR. IS THE 3 FT BUFFER NEXT TO

BUILDINGS AND THE 5 FT BUFFER NEXT TO THE HBLR INCUDED

IN THE 25 FT WIDTH CIRCUIT? IF SO, THE PEDESTRIAN PATH IS

ONY 17 FT WIDE. BUILDING LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT

ENCROACH ON THE 25 FT PUBLIC WAY.

Because of the word “should” in the language above, the developer and the planning

board have the discretion not to require the mews in the development. (RP p 2)

In both the definition of open space (RP p 18) and the design guidelines for the park

blocks (RP p 20), the RP uses the word “may” in describing the park amenities. The only

mandatory element for the new park area is a dog run and tot lot. The effect of this

language is that the City gives up control over the design of the community benefit and

has the potential to get no more than grass, bushes and two fenced in areas for tots and

dogs. Certainly, the public expects more then this in exchange for three blocks of up to

16 story buildings.

C. Community Center and Pool (RP p 21)

Perhaps the most significant example of non-mandatory language problem in the RP is in

the description of the location of the community center:

“The Plan requires the development of a community center with an outdoor

public pool that may be developed on or off-site” (RP p. 18)

CHANGE PG 18

THE LAST 7 WORDS OF THE ABOVE SENTENCE HAVE BEEN

DELETEED IN THE REVISED RP. THE LOCATION OF THE POOL

AND COMMUNITY CENTER REMAINS UNKNOWN AND IN THE

DEVELOPER’S DISCRETION pg 21). THIS IS THE MAJOR AMENITY

BEING OFFERED FOR THE PROJECT AND YET THE RP CONTAINS

ALMOST NOT DETAIL. IT IS UNCLEAR WHY THE POOL IS

DESCRIBED AS “PUBLIC” BUT NOT THE COMMUNITY CENTER.

Hoboken411.com

11

In effect, the language fails to establish any location for the community center and leaves

that decision to the developer. Curiously, the one thing mandated in this section is that if

the community center is to be located off-site, it must be within 500 feet of the

redevelopment zone. There is no explanation for this odd requirement other than it is an

attempt to refer to the location of the land next to the electrical transformer substation

without mentioning the transformer substation. Most worrisome is that the RP puts the

control over the location and design of the community benefit in the hands of the

developer not the public.

The community center is a very important element in this plan. It is critical that the

location of the center be determined by the public and the City based upon the location

that is most beneficial to the residents not based upon whatever land is left after the

developer fulfills its desired FAR building ratio. The one paragraph description of the

community center in the RP (RP p21) is not the level of detail needed to assure the public

and inform the developer that this time they will get a community center. A question also

exists as to whether the City Council can require a community center to be built outside

of the redevelopment area without properly zoning such land for that use.

When referring to the community center, the RP states that the facility shall provide for:

minimum 2 story 25,000 square foot building designed to accommodate. gymnasium space with basketball courts; men’s and women’s locker rooms, arts

and craft and dance studios, a computer lab; offices; and an outdoor swimming

pool and kiddie pool”( RP p 21)

This language can be construed to mean that the only thing the developer must build is

the shell building of 25,000 square feet that would “accommodate” the amenities.

CHANGE PG 21

THE WORDS “DESIGNED TO ACCOMMODATE” HAVE BEEN

DELETED IN RESPONSE TO COMMENT

There is no language which expressly provides that the developer must build the

amenities listed. There is also no reference to the land ownership. Even thought there is

more detail as to the amenities for the community center than for the parks, there has

been no public process to design the facility. Among other things missing from the detail

is how many basketball courts and what size the pool will be.

The City must be informed of the operation and maintenance expenses anticipated to be

incurred annually for the community center so that the expense related to the facility can

be properly budgeted. While it has been presented that a developer would pay for the

construction of the facility, no information has been provided about the operation and

Hoboken411.com

12

maintenance expenses of such a facility and who would be responsible for such ongoing

expenses. The RP should include specific language as to what the developer’s financial

responsibilities are with respect to both construction and ongoing maintenance so that any

developer pro-forma submitted in response to the RP addresses the same.

Under an appropriate redevelopment plan process, the residents, with the assistance of a

professional landscape architect, not the developer, would decide what community

benefits should be provided and where. Such a process would allow the community to

decide if it is appropriate to locate a community center next to an electric transformer

station and to provide design input on park facilities. The RP should contain language

that specifies this design process and indicates that not only will the developer be

required to pay for the design process the developer will be required to build the results

of the design process. Developer proformas must reference this budget to be considered.

D. Green Circuit (RP p 20)

The RP again uses the word “should” throughout the section describing the green circuit.

Mandatory words are only occasionally used such as with respect to the location of the

green circuit along the light rail and the requirement for trees to mask the tracks. In

describing the width of the green circuit the RP states:

The green circuit should be no less than 25 feet in width at any point and should

include a landscaped buffer of between 3 to 5 feet abutting the HBLR tracks and

the building zone.” (RP p 20)

CHANGE PG 20

WHILE THE WORD “SHOULD” HAS BEEN CHANGED TO “SHALL”,

THE WIDTH OF THE CIRCUIT IS STILL UNLCEAR. THERE

REMAINS A QUESTION AS TO WHETHER THE 3 FT BUFFER NEXT

TO BUILDINGS AND THE 5’ BUFFER NEXT TO THE HBLR ARE

INCUDED IN THE 25’ WIDTH OF THE CIRCUIT THUS MAKING THE

PEDESTRIAN PATH ONLY 17 FT WIDE FOR PEDESTRIAN TRAFFIC.

BUILDING LANDSCAPING SHOULD NOT ENCROACH ON THE 25 FT

PUBLIC WAY. SINCE THE RP ONLY STATES THAT A “PORTION OF

THE CIRCUIT SHALL BE HARDSCAPED”, THE ACTUAL WIDTH OF

THE HARDSCAPED PORITION OF THE CIRCUIT IS NOT SPECIFIED

AND MAY NOT BE WIDE ENOUGH FOR BICYCLING.

Benches and lighting should be provided along the green circuit (RP p 20)

CHANGE PG 20

Hoboken411.com

13

“SHOULD” HAS BEEN CHANGED TO “SHALL” IN RESPONSE TO

COMMENT.

Again, significant City control is given up by the use of the word “should” in the above

description of the width of the green circuit. Although the RP states that a “portion of the

green circuit shall be hardscaped so as to allow to provide barrier free paths and to

allow cyclists”, the RP fails to delineate the width of the hardscape. Thus because the

width of the entire greenway is not a mandatory 25 feet (RP p 20), there is no guarantee

that the hardscape will be a functional width for bicycling.

From the rendering of the green circuit, it is unclear where the right of way for the light

rail ends and the proposed path begins. For example, a portion of Block 92 (Lot 00002)

and Block 97 (Lot 00001), which border the light rail and amount to 13,276 sq/ft of land,

are owned by NJ Junction Railroad. It is unclear if this land is being included in PPS’s

calculation of 4.4 acres of open space. In addition, all of Block 101 (8,034sq/ft) and

Block 105, Lot 1.2 (9,391sq/ft), are shown on PPS’ rendering as part of this path. This

property is owned exclusively by NJ Transit. The RP must include more clear and

specific delineation of the land devoted specifically to the green circuit.

IV. LAND USE, HEIGHT BULK AND PARKING (RP p. 23)

A. Building Open Space Ratio (RP p. 18 and 23)

According to the RP, the total building area is 8.65 acres and the total acreage of the site

is 10.94 acres. If these numbers in the RP are accurate, the total non- building area is

2.29 acres. Accordingly, it appears that of the 4.4 acres of open space referenced in the

RP, only 2.1 acres of space is not associated with the buildings. There are also various

references to “building plaza areas” in the definition of building setbacks for all zones

(RP- p 30). Thus the RP appears to include the building plaza setback areas in the

calculation of the of 4.4 aces of open space.

CHANGE PG 23

THE BUILDING ZONES LANGUAGE ( PG 23) HAS BEEN

CHANGED TO STATE THAT PARKS AND OTHER OPEN

SPACES ARE PERMITTED IN THE BUILDIONG ZONES. THIS

CHANGE WAS NECESSITATED BY THE FACT THAT 1.8

ACRES OF OPEN SPACE WAS NOT ACCOUNTED FOR IN THE

PARK AREAS BLOCKS 1 AND 2 IN THE ORIGINAL RP. ALL

REFERENCES TO THE TOTAL ACREAGE OF THE BUILDING

ZONES HAVE BEEN DELETED IN THE REVISED RP.

B. Parking (RP p 32)

Hoboken411.com

14

The RP states that if the non residential uses in Building Zones 1, 2 and 3 total less than

30,000 s/f, no parking is required. This amounts to an incentive to developers to reduce

the non-residential uses in the development to the minimum (which is 25,000 s/f) in order

to avoid producing parking. Thus the RP contains a disincentive to produce even the

minimum level of non-residential use and assures that the development will be

predominately residential contrary to the MP. The RP states that because Hoboken is a

walkable City parking is not required for open space and recreation uses. Consideration

should be given to the fact that the pool and community center may need parking to

function appropriately. At the very least there should be a provision for some sort of

family drop- off area.

CHANGE P6 32

A NEW PARAGRAPH HAS BEEN ADDED REGARDING CAR

SHARING:

In order to use garage space efficiently and make it convenient for residents to own fewer or no cars, development is encouraged to explore with car-sharing services such as Zipcar the possibility of dedicating one or more parking spaces for shared vehicles.

C. Non-Residential Yield (RP p26)

Under the RP, a minimum of 25,000 square feet of residential development is to be built

at 900 Monroe. Thus, the only location where non-residential development must occur

will be at the southernmost portion of the entire development site. This small amount of

non-residential use will unfortunately minimize street activity in this redevelopment zone

and will not solve the problem already expressed by residents of the westside that retail

services are sorely lacking. The RP should have a major increase in the required amount

of commercial development.

Notwithstanding the clear mandate for office space in the MP for this area, the RP does

not even list office space as a secondary permitted use (RP p 24). In fact, the only use

akin to office use is the reference to banking and financial institutions. There is no

language or goal mentioned in the RP for the creation of jobs.

D. Green Space and Open Space Frontages (RP p 26)

During the public meeting, residents expressed much concern that the green circuit would

amount to dead space behind the back of the development next to the light rail. The

language of the RP does not to fully address the concern. The RP simply state that:

Adjacent to the green circuit and other open spaces, primary and secondary uses

are recommended, but not required along the first level of buildings” (RP p. 26)

Hoboken411.com

15

This non-mandatory language allows the developer to place parking next to the greenway

and open space frontages. Again, the RP creates an incentive to do less not more. The

greenway is also further compromised by the fact that the RP requires the off-street

parking loading spaces to be located at the rear of the building away from street facing

frontages and thus next to the greenway. Under this language it is most likely that the

greenway predominantly abut parking garages. (RP p 24).

E. All Building Zone Heights (RP p. 28)

As discussed earlier in these comments, no where in the MP is there precedence or

support for creating buildings the height of the Palisades. The RP calls for 120 feet for

all three building zones (RP p 28) and thus simply duplicates the 900 Monroe zoning

board approvals for all the building areas. Despite the MP’s call to protect the Palisades,

the RP exempts rooftop appurtenances (18ft) and rooftop screenings from the height

restrictions.

F. Building Setbacks ( RP p 28)

The RP provides that “along the light rail tracks the building should be set back 40 feet”.

(RP p 28) . This width of setback is insufficient for a greenway and the language in the

RP does not even assure this width. In fact, it is possible under this language that there

will be no greenway provided at all because of the use of the word “should” in this

language. In effect, the developer is simply not required to comply with this setback and

it can be changed by the developer and the planning board. In order to assure the public

that a greenway will be built, much more detail needs to be provided in the RP mandating

the exact location and widths of the greenway.

CHANGE P6 28

SHOULD CHANGED TO SHALL IN RESPONSE TO COMMENT

The language in the RP also creates the potential that the 40 foot width will be

compromised and much narrower in reality. The RP states that the setback areas “shall be

landscaped and may provide fencing, gates or walls not to exceed three feet in height

along the front of the setback area”. (RP- pg28) This language has the potential to

interfere with publically useable width of the greenway. Without more specificity with

respect to the exact dimensions and location of the public greenway, the public’s use will

be compromised. In addition, because the light rail right of way is not clearly delineated

as part of the RP, it is entirely unclear whether any portion of 40 foot setback for the

green circuit is possible.

A greenway without mandates and left to the discretion of the developer will result in

nothing more than a building setback. Without more detail, the greenway will function

more as a shield for the lower floor residents from the noise and view of the light rail

tracks than as a public greenway amenity. Perhaps an alternative should be explored to

Hoboken411.com

16

push the backdoor of the development closer to the tracks and create a more appealing

green circuit in front of the buildings.

G. Screening (RP 36)

While there is language in the RP attempting to screen the green circuit, it is insufficient.

The RP states that “large areas of blank, solid walls are prohibited along street-facing

parking areas” (RP p 36). This language would not apply to parking areas facing the

green circuit because the green circuit is not defined as a “street”. Thus, the benefit of

the screening does not apply to the green circuit and the public’s concern over the

“backdoor” feel of the green circuit is not addressed.

CHANGE PG 36

THE DELETION DOES NOT ADDRESS THE ISSUE. INSTEAD, THE

PROHIBITION SHOULD HAVE BEEN EXPANDED TO MAKE SURE

THAT BLANK WALLS ARE PROHITED ALONG BOTH STREET-

FACING AND GREEN CIRUIT- FACING PARKING AREAS.

Moreover, there is a requirement that façade of any exposed parking structure shall

include a three foot deep landscaped area to soften the appearance of the parking garage.

(RP p.36) As indicated above, the City Council should determine how much useable

greenway will remain if three feet is taken up by building landscaping. While

landscaping is appropriate, there should also be mandatory width requirement preserved

for the greenway. Most importantly, building landscaping should not be included in the

4.4 acres calculation of the acreage of open space.

The RP also states that the screening of parking structures with active uses is one of the

key elements of the RP (RP p 2). Nevertheless, this screening is not required “except

along public streets” which means that the greenway will not benefit from active uses in

front of the parking garages unless the greenway is defined in the RP as a street.

H. Building Transparency (RP p 39)

The MP recommends avoiding the monolithic structure of the NW Zone yet the RP

appears to allow that type of development. In the lower buildings, front stoops are only

required every fifty feet. This is much less than the average stoop distance for Hoboken.

In fact, the 50 foot stoop distance is also the same distance that the RP uses for retail

entrances. (RP- p 39)

It is unclear how this development will differ from the monolithic feel of NW Zone.

More problematic is the effect on the green circuit. The RP states that, “ancillary

entrances are encouraged along the green circuit and other park spaces and open

spaces” (RP- p39). That means that they are not required. Without a mandate for

entrances from the buildings to the green circuit, the buildings will not provide any

interplay with the greenway. Thus, it is highly likely that the border to the green circuit

Hoboken411.com

17

will be parking lots walls with ornamental window holes. This is precisely what the

public criticized in the plan when it was presented at the public meetings.

I. Materials (RP p 40)

While the RP states that one of the redevelopment goals is “high quality building design”

(RP p 10), the RP contains little in terms of building material mandates to assure this goal

is met. One of the most important things that a redevelopment plan can do is allow the

City to regulate building design detail. The RP creates a laundry list of possible materials

for facades yet uses word such as “should” and “preferred” throughout the language

undermining the effect. No mention is made of LEED in this section. No mention is

made of the use of energy saving and recycled materials. Of particular concern is the fact

that none of the language on the façade materials applies to the green circuit side of the

building. This means that the materials used on the building side that abuts the public

greenway are not mandated and could be of a lesser quality (RP- p 40)- Again the use of

the word” should” when describing the ornamental grillwork, etc. means that the

developer is not required to provide it.

CHANGE PG 40

CHANGED SHOULD TO SHALL IN ONE SENTENCE REGRARDING

FASCADES. UNCLEAR WHY THE LANGUAGE WAS NOT CHANGED

THROUGHOUT SECTION.

J. Green Design and LEED Certification and Site Design (RP p 41)

Hoboken has the opportunity in the westside to do what it has lost the opportunity to do

in the last ten years of development. Hoboken can create a 21 century city that embodies

the latest thinking and technology. If Hoboken simply sits back and allows a developer

to design this project, Hoboken will get buildings based upon short term returns and

cookie cutter architecture. Hoboken deserves better. Hoboken will not achieve better

unless it demands better. We are fortunate. Hoboken has enormous real estate values

even in a down market (location, location, location) and unique natural resources

(Palisades and Hudson River). For Hoboken to diminish this value by allowing less then

excellence in development unacceptable. If Hoboken allows a developer to determine the

level of green building, the developer’s twelve month investment revenue- return mindset

will deprive Hoboken of its 21 century city.

The RP devotes only one page to a topic that is of extraordinary interest to the residents

of Hoboken and has been mentioned repeatedly in the public meetings- green building.

As was pointed out by the City’s planning consultant at the NJ Transit redevelopment

area meeting, Hoboken developer’s can achieve a certain level LEED rating by simply

building in the location of Hoboken. Thus, if Hoboken expects to achieve true LEED

benefits for its residents, Hoboken must be very specific about LEED certification and

requirements. The RP does not contain the specificity required. For example, the RP

uses words such as LEED “qualified” rather than “certified” when referring to the green

Hoboken411.com

18

roofs. (RP p 41) It does not require LEED at all if the developer provides decks to

residents on 25.1% of the rooftop and simply landscapes the rest. As with other sections

of the RP, the language in RP contains an incentive to produce less. Much research and

engineering exists with respect of green roofs. Just over the River and around the country

initiatives are underway to green roof many buildings that are new and old. Hoboken

must adopt specific regulation to achieve a standard that is more than just landscaping on

a roof.

While the RP states that site design shall “minimize environmental damage and reduce

energy use” it provides no teeth for these lofty goals. (RP p 41) The RP simply defaults to

existing NJDEP storm-water regulations which the developer would be required to

comply with anyway. (RP p. 41) There is no language about building configuration to

maximize solar energy. There is no requirement for recycling of storm water and building

grey water. Hoboken needs to look no further than uptown for lessons in green

development.

CHANGE PG 41

THE ROOFTOP LANGUAGE HAS BEEN CHANGED TO REFER MORE

SPECIFICALLY TO LEEDS. I AM NO EXPERT ON THIS SO HAVE NO

IDEA IF THIS IS GOOD LANGUAGE (PG 41 TOP). IT ALSO ADDS

LEEDS FLOODING LANGUAGE WHICH AGAIN I AM NOT ABLE TO

COMMENT ON.

K. Signage (RP p 42)

In order for the greenway and other park areas to be successful proper signage both in the

open space areas and directional signage to the areas must be provided by the developer.

The existence of the greenway if located in back of the buildings will not be readily

apparent to most of the public. The RP makes no mention of this signage.

V. AFFORDABLE HOUSING (RP p.26)

The RP only requires 100 units of affordable housing. Since the RP does not specify or

impose a limit on the total number of units allowed in the development, there is no way to

determine how much of a deficit of affordable unit the RP creates. The casual reference

in the RP to the rules of the Council on Affordable Housing is insufficient. Specific

reference should be made to the ratio of units required by the regulation. The regulations

provide that for every 5 units of market rate housing constructed, one affordable unit

must be constructed. Reference should also be made to the fact that the developer shall

be responsible for providing any increase or decrease in units that may be caused by

further regulation until site plan approval is obtained. This issue will inevitably be raised

by the developer in negotiations and thus the City’s position on the issue should be clear

in the RP.

Hoboken411.com

19

As of June 8, 2008, the NJ Department of Community Affairs adopted final regulations

for affordable housing. There is a requirement for the City to provide a growth share

obligation regardless of how many units of affordable housing already exist in the City.

The obligation is imposed based upon new units constructed which receive a Certificate

of Occupancy as of January, 2004.

The RP also lacks specifics requirements for bedroom count for the units. This effects not

only the ability of the City to impose the bedroom counts for affordable housing but it

also does not give the City control over the number of bedroom that the units will

provide. If the City desires to provide more family units, there should be a specific

requirement for the same in the RP.

The RP states that affordable housing is required but fails to provide detail as to how it

will be provided. There is no requirement in the plan that the affordable housing will be

constructed at the expense of the developer. There is also no reference to whether the

City will entertain a tax abatements and whether tax abatements would be limited to

financing only the affordable units. The issue will most definitely be raised by the

developer in the development agreement negotiations.

Without a specific reference in the RP to the affordable housing obligation being

undertaken by the developer, the City is at risk of falling short and having the overall,

City-wide obligation imposed upon the taxpayers elsewhere in the City. Without an

explicit reference to the number of affordable units in the redevelopment plan, developers

responding to a request for proposals may not properly account for the obligation in their

pro-formas. The RP should explicitly address the affordable housing obligation so that

there is no question when the designated developer’s site plan is submitted to the

Planning Board that the affordable housing obligation will be a condition of site plan

approval. This will assure that the financial burden of producing the units will not fall to

the taxpayers

VI. OUTLINE OF PROPOSED ACTIONS (RP P 45)

A. New Construction (RP p 45)

The RP makes only a casual reference to the selection of a developer. This section should

be much more specific with respect to the process and criteria for developer proposals

and selection. If such a process is not included, the City risks site owners and developers

proceeding to the planning and zoning board to seek approvals without being the

designated developer. The RP is the fundamental document which defines the terms and

conditions of project, future developer negotiations and the developer’s agreement. Thus

the RP should be as specific as possible about the expectations regarding the developer

qualifications and profromas.

Hoboken411.com

20

The RP states that the developer’s agreement will stipulate “precise nature and extent of

the improvements to be made and their timing and phasing” (RP p45). While certainly

those things must be in the agreement, it is also appropriate for the City to specify its

expectations regarding the development in the RP. For example, if the City has a

timeframe within which is desires the community benefits to be produced and the

development to be completed, it should say so in the RP so as to alert the potential

developers to address the same in their proposal.

B. Other Actions (RP p 45-47)

This section refers to other actions that may be taken by the governing body to further

goals of the plan. It lists infrastructure improvement, public utilities and environmental

remediation without details. This language can be interpreted to mean that the City will

undertake environmental remediation. At the very least, language should be clarified to

indicate that the City does not intend to undertake any expense in investigating or

remediating environmental issues in the redevelopment zone.

C. Site Plan and Subdivision Review (RP p. 49)

This section requires the submission of site plans for approval by the planning board prior

to commencement of construction. No where in the RP is there a requirement that the

developer present its development plan to the redevelopment agency. This is a serious

omission in the RP which deprives the City Council of the control that is so fundamental

to redevelopment. City Council approval of the final plan for the development must be a

precondition to the developer submitting any plans to the planning board.

CHANGE PG 47

A CHANGE WAS MADE IN RESPONSE TO THE COMMENT TO

REQUIRE CITY COUNCIL APPROVAL OF SITE PLAN PRIOR TO

REVIEW AND APPROVAL BY THE PLANNING BOARD. FURTHER

CONSIDERATION SHOULD BE GIVEN TO CLARIYING THAT ANY

CHANGES IN SITE PLANS MADE AFTER INITIAL REVIEW BY THE

CITY COUNCIL MUST COME BACK FOR REVIEW BY CITY

COUNCIL TO DETERMINE IF SAID CHANGES COMPLY WITH THE

REDEVELOPMENT AGREEMENT.

This is critically important because it is the City Council, not the planning board, which

executes the redeveloper agreement. The conditions of that agreement will not be known

in detail by the Planning Board. The City Council must have the opportunity to assure

itself that the benefits it bargained for are addressed in the development project. While

the RP does require that developer to provide the City with “all application to federal,

state and county agencies”, it does not require the City Council be provided with any

local applications (RP p. 47-48). To maintain control, the City Council must be given an

Hoboken411.com

21

opportunity to thoroughly review the development plan prior to the developer proceeding

to the planning board.

D. Deviation Requests (RP p.48)

This section creates very board powers for the planning board to deviate from the RP.

Essentially this language can be interpreted to allow the planning board to award any and

all C variances to the project without any prior approval from the City Council. Thus

increases in height and changes to bulk standards can be done without oversight by the

City Council. This language combined with the very loose language about planning board

authority on page 2 of the RP leaves very little control in the City Council. Under the RP

language, only “changes to the uses in the Redevelopment Are shall be permitted by an

amendment to the Redevelopment plan by the governing body” (RP p 49). Thus the City

only has control over changes in land uses (D variances). This creates a very significant

loophole for the developer. The RP should be changed to require all changes to the plan

to be pre-approved by the City Council. Under no circumstances should the RP language

deprive the City of the sole discretion to determine whether there will be variances.

E. Escrows (RP p.49)

While the RP appropriately includes a provision regarding developer escrows, much

more detail should be provided in the RP as to the types of requirements that the City will

expect. This will assure that developer proposals and proforma reflect the overall cost and

responsibilities and that developer are not surprised by the City demands. Such

provisions should include:

1. Developer selection process and provision to assure that all developer

proposals provide detailed project pro-formas and consent to evaluation of

developer financials by a financial consultant retained by the City;

2. Determination of whether the redevelopment area can be divided for

development by more than one developer;

3. Specification of affordable housing unit count and the process to assure that

construction of these units will proceed at a proportional pace as other units being

built in the development;

4. Provisions specifying the nature and types of conditions that will be required

in any redeveloper agreement, including financial due diligence, developer parent

guarantees, a comprehensive project schedule, requirements and specifications for

public amenities, assurance of funding for completing public amenities, school

impact analysis and fees, project oversight process, how any environmental

liability will be addressed, property assemblage, statutory covenants, transfer

provisions, termination and penalty provisions for non-performance, and any

other provisions the City deems necessary.

Hoboken411.com

22

F. Infrastructure (RP p 49) The RP should be specific in requiring the developer to provide “underground utilities”

and new road paving throughout the redevelopment. In connection with road

improvement, the RP and Hoboken’s land use ordinances in general should address the

ongoing problem of repaved road opening that collapse and pose a hazard to pedestrian,

bicyclists and vehicles. Specifications should be adopted to assure that the fill used to

refill any road opening is of the density and composition to prevent sinking and collapse.

These specifications exist in other town and should be adopted by Hoboken to apply

City-wide,

Submitted by Leah Healey