LAURA A. CARUCCI, C.S.R., R.P.R., L.L.C.

Transcription

1 0 VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD MAYOR & COUNCIL TUESDAY, SEPTEMBER, COMMENCING AT :0 P.M.... IN THE MATTER OF : TRANSCRIPT OF PROPOSED VALLEY HOSPITAL : PROCEEDINGS EXPANSION PUBLIC HEARING :... B E F O R E: VILLAGE OF RIDGEWOOD MAYOR & COUNCIL THERE BEING PRESENT: KEITH D. KILLION, MAYOR THOMAS M. RICHE, DEPUTY MAYOR PAUL ARONSOHN, COUNCILMAN BERNADETTE WALSH, COUNCILWOMAN STEPHEN WELLINGHORST, COUNCILMAN CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS P.O. BOX 0 SADDLE BROOK, NJ FAX laccsr@aol.com

2 A L S O P R E S E N T: DR. KENNETH GABBERT, VILLAGE MANAGER HEATHER MAILANDER, VILLAGE CLERK A P P E A R A N C E S: 0 MATTHEW S. ROGERS, ESQ. Prospect Street Ridgewood, New Jersey 0 Counsel for the Mayor & Council CERTIFIED COURT REPORTERS P.O. BOX 0 SADDLE BROOK, NJ FAX laccsr@aol.com

3 I N D E X S P E A K E R S: PAGE 0 BLAIS BRANCHEAU CHARLES COLLINS, ESQ. JOHN J. LAMB, ESQ. 0 GENE CORNELL 00 Belmont Road MARTIN SMITH 0 0 Walthery Avenue MARC DREIER, M.D. 0 Richards Road KEVIN O'BRIEN 0 Bogert Avenue CATHY BENSON 0 Fairway Road JEANETTE LaROCCO Bogart Avenue RASHID VADDOURA Heights Road EXHIBITS NUMBER DESCRIPTION (NO EXHIBITS MARKED) IDENT./EVID.

4 0 MAYOR KILLION: Good evening, everybody, welcome to Ridgewood High School Student Center. Call to order, statement of compliance. Adequate notice of this meetings has been provided by a posting on the bulletin board, Village Hall, by mail to The Ridgewood News, The Record, and by submission to all persons entitled to the same as provided by law of a schedule including the time and date of this meeting. Roll call, please. MS. MAILANDER: Councilman -- MAYOR KILLION: I'm sorry. Go ahead. MS. MAILANDER: Councilman Aronsohn? COUNCILMAN ARONSOHN: Here. MS. MAILANDER: Councilman Riche? DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: Here. MS. MAILANDER: Councilwoman Walsh? COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Here. MS. MAILANDER: Councilman Wellinghorst? COUNCILMAN WELLINGHORST: Here. MS. MAILANDER: And Mayor Killion? MAYOR KILLION: Here. Would you please all rise and join me

5 0 in flag salute? (Whereupon, everyone stands for a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.) MAYOR KILLION: Okay. We're going to conduct this as similar to our Regular Council meetings. After the presentation from the experts and questions from the Council, we will open it up to public comment. Again it's public comment, please limit your time to three minutes. A bell will ring and if you're not done, I will ask you to sum it up. Just be cognizant of your neighbor that wish to speak. There's a signup sheet with the Village Clerk, people have signed up to speak, she will call the names out for people to speak. If you do wish to get added onto that list, please see her. Basically, is there anything I missed? Short. We've all been through this. You've been to public meetings at the Village Council. So, everybody knows how it works. So, please, no shouting out from outside, no comments. We're just trying to get through this in a respectable way. Anybody from the Council wish to speak? MS. MAILANDER: Turn off their cell

6 phones. 0 MAYOR KILLION: Please turn off your cell phones, we'd appreciate it. Any other comments? (NO RESPONSE.) MAYOR KILLION: Right now, I'm going to turn it over to Matt Rogers, the Village Attorney, for a summary of issues and legal matters to be discussed. MR ROGERS: Could I have that microphone? MAYOR KILLION: We have one microphone. MR. ROGERS: I don't think, the other microphone -- I don't think the other mike is working, so I need to use this. MAYOR KILLION: Okay. MR. ROGER: Once again, I want to welcome everyone to the first of several meetings for the Village Council's consideration of the recommended amendment for the Land Use Element of the Master Plan adopted by the Planning Board back in 0. There's a few legal matters that I think need to be discussed about this process and the Council's legal authority and obligations concerning

7 0 the Master Plan. Many of you have heard the legal issues about the Master Plan before. Some of you have probably done your own research, I bet, or have become familiar with the Municipal Land Use Law as it pertains to this aspect of municipal planning and development. The Master Plan is a statutorily required document. It's a statement of the municipality's policy of development. The State Legislature and the Courts have made the Master Plan the prerequisite to the exercise by a municipality of its power and authority to zone. Without a Master Plan, a municipality loses the presumption that its zoning regulations are valid, which is a tremendously significant legal benefit, impacting not only the enforcement of zoning regulations, but the authority of the municipality to enact or adopt such legislation. The Master Plan is made up of several elements, one of which is the Land Use Element. The Municipal Land Use Law specifically authorizes the Planning Board to prepare and adopt a Master Plan for the municipality, as well as any amendments to be made to the Master Plan.

8 0 It's within the province of the Planning Board to conduct public hearings in furtherance of its authority to consider potential amendments and make any recommendations for such amendments by resolution. However, the Planning Board does not have the authority to adopt Zoning Ordinances for a municipality, nor can it be done by referendum or the Zoning Board of Adjustment. The power and authority to adopt the ordinances, including Zoning and Land Use Ordinances, is solely that of the governing body. N.J.S.A. 0:(d)-(a) authorizes the Village Council to adopt or amend zoning ordinances relating to the nature and extent of the uses of land, buildings and structures within its boundaries. The Council's empowered to adopt the ordinances that establish the zoning regulations of the Village. It must be noted that in order to have a viable effective and enforceable land use policy, presumed to be valid against any challenge, the adopted ordinances must by substantially consistent with the Master Plan Land Use Element. It, again, must be noted, as there are always exceptions -- I think this mike is dying out.

9 0 The statute I cited earlier also permits the Council to adopt an ordinance that is inconsistent with its Land Use Element of the Master Plan. In such a case, a vote on a resolution adopting an ordinance that is inconsistent with the Land Use Element of the Master Plan must have the affirmative vote of the majority of the full membership of the Council, in the Village's case three affirmative votes. It must be resolved -- it must be done by the adoption of a resolution identifying the inconsistency between the ordinance and the element of the -- Land Use Element of the Master Plan, and stating the reasons for such inconsistency with the Land Use Element, based upon sound principles of zoning and planning. The reasoning for the inconsistent ordinance must also be recorded in the Council's minutes of the meeting in which it was adopted. These procedures are spelled out and defined by statute. It's also interesting that the Municipal Land Use Law does not require the governing body, the Village Council, to take any action on the recommended Master Plan Amendment adopted by the

10 0 0 Planning Board. However, given the circumstances of the importance of this matter to the Ridgewood community and the potential loss of the enforceability of our zoning regulations, it is the Village Council's intent to hold these hearings to determine what it believes to be the right and proper action on this matter. As required by the Municipal Land Use Law, and the statutes governing procedural requisite for an applicant, the Council's required to hold a public hearing if it introduces an ordinance for consideration. That "introduction" of the ordinance is a formal procedure that requires compliance with a number of statutory provisions, including published notice and the second reading. At this time the Village Council has not introduced an ordinance regarding the Hospital Zone. Therefore, it is not required, under the Municipal Land Use Law, to schedule or hold public hearings that comply with the Open Public Meetings Act. The Council decided to proceed at this time with these several scheduled meetings as factfinding or informational hearings.

11 0 The Council also designed these hearings to allow for comments from persons who are interested in the matter at hand. At the end of these scheduled hearings, the Council may decide to take action on the recommended amendments to the Hospital Zone. It may decide to introduce the ordinance; take action to recommend changes to it; take action to resolve and deny or defeat the recommended changes; or even take no action at all. There may be even other options depending upon the way the hearings go. However, the Council needs your compliance with the simple rules discussed by the Mayor to effectively, efficiently and respectfully consider the recommended amendment of the Hospital Zone and make its decision in the best interest of the Village. MAYOR KILLION: Thank you, Matt. And please excuse me for the technical difficulties. We tried to plan and plan ahead, but at the last minute -- I'm just getting a thumbs-up. We don't have technical difficulties any more? Okay. We're going put on our mikes, so it works better. Just give us a moment. Are there any questions from the

12 0 Council to Matt Rogers on any legal issue? (NO RESPONSE.) MAYOR KILLION: Okay. Seeing none. COUNCILMAN WELLINGHORST: Mr. Mayor, I'll have one at the end, but not right now. MAYOR KILLION: You'll have one. COUNCILMAN WELLINGHORST: At the end, but not right now. MAYOR KILLION: When you say the "end"? COUNCILMAN WELLINGHORST: After, when the Council speaks there are a couple of questions I may have. MAYOR KILLION: Oh, okay. COUNCILMAN WELLINGHORST: -- towards Mr. Rogers and Mr. Brancheau. MAYOR KILLION: Okay. We're going to move along to summary of planning and zone issues to be discussed by the Village Council during Valley Hospital's meeting. Blais Brancheau, would you please, our Village Planner, would you please step up to the mike. MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't have a mike -- oh, I do have one. MAYOR KILLION: And the technical

13 0 difficulties continue. MR. BRANCHEAU: Sorry. I'll try to get the right distance here. MAYOR KILLION: Yes. MR. BRANCHEAU: Is there a way to adjust this? MAYOR KILLION: We should have it all straightened out by the fourth or fifth meeting. DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: They'll adjust it. There we go. MR. BRANCHEAU: Good evening. MAYOR KILLION: Good evening. MR. BRANCHEAU: Can you hear me? MAYOR KILLION: Yes. MR. BRANCHEAU: I would like to, tonight, give the Board some counsel, some background of the lengthy process that the Planning Board went through, the issues they faced and considered and what led ultimately to the ordinance that the Planning Board has submitted to the Council. The Planning Board spent the better part of three-and-a-half years considering this issue, upper end of, upper 0s, in the number of meetings it devoted to this matter. Several iterations of Master Plan Amendments were gone

14 through. 0 So, it's certainly something that I can understand the Council needing some background on since it took the Planning Board that long to come to a conclusion of the matter. So, I'd like to basically provide an outline of the process the Board went through, the issues that it considered and why it made the decisions it made in this process so that you can use that going forward in whatever decision you may choose to make. This started at the Planning Board level in the beginning of 0 -- late 0, but the first formal meeting on this at the Planning Board level was on January nd, 0. And at that meeting Valley Hospital presented to the Board its proposal, which was termed the "Renewal Plan". And I will refer to that in my presentation tonight on a number of occasions. But by the "Renewal Plan", I mean Valley's proposal to expand the hospital facility; to upgrade the facility; to make changes to the facility; to, in their words -- or in their presentation to update the hospital to accommodate change in healthcare needs. This has always been presented by the

15 0 hospital not as an expansion to increase the volume of use -- of customer use or patient use at the hospital, but to modernize the hospital to reflect changing healthcare standards; to reflect current overcrowding at the hospital; to provide additional parking, that's already overcrowded; to provide additional space for mechanical equipment; additional space for diagnostic and treatment areas; additional administrative space. And, significantly, to go from double bed rooms to single bed rooms for most of the facility. Significant is number of beds in the "Renewal Plan" were only proposed to increase the number of beds from, which is the current capacity of the hospital, to beds, only a three bed increase. So, this was presented by the Hospital to the Board as more of a modernization, not an expansion. Although, obviously, there is a significant expansion in the volume of the building, as well as other changes, as well. That was presented to the Board at that January nd meeting. Also presented at that meeting were various alternatives that Valley had considered other than "Renewal Plan". And those included what they

16 0 termed the "Green Field Option" which was an option to acquire 0 acres of land in the same general vicinity, recognizing that Valley Hospital is an established regional healthcare institution serving Bergen County and adjacent areas. To significantly change its location would obviously have major impact on its base of services as well as the customers and patients that it serves. So, another location, the same general area was considered by the Hospital. The problem with that was: A, the cost would have been significant to acquire 0 acres of land. It's very hard to find 0 acres of developable, suitable land in Bergen County at any cost. It probably would have involved acquiring an already developed site, demolishing that site and moving the hospital wholesale to that site. And the only properties that were found within a mile radius were cemeteries, which are obviously difficult to acquire, golf courses and Bergen Community College. It would also have required a Certificate Of Need from the State, which is a difficult process to go through. It also would have involved building a

17 0 complete hospital facility, while the current hospital facility was already in operation. So, you essentially would be duplicating two hospitals during a certain transition phase which would involved a significant duplication of effort, as well as a significant transition from one facility to another. It was rejected for those reasons. Also considered was a split campus option by the Hospital, whereby they would split a portion of current or proposed hospital operation to a second site. That could have meant adding an acute care facility elsewhere and having the ancillary support services in Ridgewood or possibly to run two smaller acute care facilities in separate locations. They had similar issues to the Green Field Option that is the issue of where would they find the land in suitable location, in suitable proximity to the current location. It would require another Certificate Of Need from the State. There would have been operational difficulties with duplication of staffing, because every facility needs certain core staffing and operations to function properly. So, it would have increased

18 0 significantly the cost of the hospital's operations to have two smaller hospitals with duplicate core facilities at each, as well as the land acquisition cost and the overall acquisition costs, as well as a similar transitional issues that I discussed with the Green Field Option. It was rejected for those reasons as well. The "Renewal" Option was ultimately what the hospital presented as the best option for the hospital to meet both its needs and the community's needs. That process continued at the January th, 0, meeting where the Hospital discussed the actual zoning issues involved; looked at the zoning history of the Hospital Zone; looked at the history of development approvals which have involved a number of applications before the Board, where significant variance applications were made and in most cases approved. And it was presented to the Board and the Board ultimately agreed that zoning decisions of this nature, of this magnitude, should ultimately be made by ordinance not by their -- it should be planned out ahead, it should be decided. It should not continue. The last Master Plan Amendment for the

19 0 hospital was in. The last Zoning Amendment goes back to the '0s, concerning the hospital. The standards for the hospital, right now, are almost 0 years old. The Board felt at the end of this process that whatever the outcome or, B, that updated standards needed to be adopted; updated policies needed to be adopted, whether they were favorable or not. That the hospital, as it now stands is nonconforming in a number of respects. The current zoning regulations as they exist. And that anything that the hospital would seek to do in the future would involve significant variances, whether it's the "Renewal Plan" or whether it's some other plan. So, the Board felt and agreed with the Hospital that this is something that's best handled as a Master Plan Amendment and a Zoning Amendment, whatever it might be, even if it's only to bring it up to current development of the hospital. This is not best dealt with by the Board of Adjustment by a variance. There were questions by the Board, questions by the Board staff. The Hospital responded to a number of those questions which were presented in May 0 meeting.

20 0 The Board then, I don't want to say took a break for the summer, but it set aside time to look this on its own, staff looked at this as well. And there were no hearings during the summer. In the fall, Concerned Residents of Ridgewood which is a citizen group in the area, presented its reaction to the Hospital's "Renewal Plan". Largely objections, although there were certain agreements by Concerned Residents that this is something that should be done as planned in an ordinance and not left to the variance. But largely the Concerned Residents voiced objections on a number of key points. Those objections were based upon quality of life for the area residents and of preserving the residential character of the neighborhood and the Village as a whole. Those issues related primarily, but not totally: To visual impacts, to traffic impacts, to parking, construction activity, environmental impact, and impacts on property values. The Concerned Residents took issue with some of the statements made by the Hospital. Particularly, in the zoning analysis that the Hospital had presented. One of the things the Hospital had presented was how other towns looked at

21 0 zoning for hospitals. And a number of studies were done and comparisons were made between what Ridgewood Zoning regulates hospitals for and what other community do. Concerned Residents felt that it wasn't a fair apples and apples comparison that there were differences between Ridgewood and between the other communities and between specific context of the hospital in Ridgewood versus the context of the hospitals in other communities. So, those were issues that Concerned Residents raised. Generally speaking, Concerned Residents felt that the restriction should be more restrictive than they are today, not less. When I say -- not "today" I mean today is the time of the proposal, that they felt that the residents needed to be protected more from additional development by the Hospital. There then followed a series of discussions both public comment and questions, as well as Board comments and questions on these core issues which you'll find in my presentation and in the ordinance, repeat, again and again and again. And a lot of time was spent discussing various issues. Both supporters and objectors were present

22 0 at these meetings of the Fall of 0. Then in March of 0 Valley Hospital again made a presentation, restating the Hospital's need for a "Renewal Plan" and the alternatives that they explored. Responding to some of the concerns that were raised by the public and, too, raised by the Board. And there was further discussion on the Board at that time. That continued for several meetings. In May, I presented a status report to the Board outlining the issues as I saw them, what needed to be done to seek resolution of those issues. Additional studies continued. Additional information was gathered. Finally in May 0, this is almost a year-and-a-half into the process, the Board authorized me to prepare a draft amendment of the Master Plan. At that time the Board was not certain of what the final form of that draft would be or should be. However, they felt that it would be best to at least to take a stab at preparing something that tried to address both the Hospital's stated need, as well as the concerns of the residents

23 0 in the area. That way the Board felt it could focus the discussion better and to crystalize the issues and the Board Members own thinking on those issues. That was done. And that was then presented to the Board late in the Spring of 0. Again, for the summer the Board did not hold public meetings on this. However, further study and analysis was ongoing by staff. A number of questions had been raised at prior meetings. And those picked up again in fall, where responses to those questions were raised and there was a discussion. There was a traffic consultant hired by the Board. And he presented in October of 0, issues related to traffic. There were a number of questions, missing information that needed to be gathered and that was continued. The Board continued the discussion since November into January 0. We're now two years into the process. We discussed various issues, including: Floor area ratios, setback, heights of buildings, buffers, parking requirements, drainage requirements. We discussed: Rooftop units, architectural design. We

24 0 discussed traffic issues. We discussed traffic improvements in the area. The whole host of issues were discussed and what the impacts of this would be, how those impacts could be mitigated through regulation and through improvements. And that discussion continued. This continued through the Winter of 0 and into the Spring of 0. In April of 0, the Board's traffic consultant presented, you know, their final report on the traffic issues and summarized by saying that he felt that overall the amount of traffic that would result from the "Renewal" would not significantly be increased over what currently is there. He additionally indicated that with the proper roadway improvements, which included dedicated turning lanes at the intersection of Linwood Avenue and Van Dien that the intersection capacity would be increased and that traffic flow would actually improve from current conditions. That was at the April 0 meeting. At the end of that meeting the Board agreed to accept the draft Master Plan at that time, as far as the draft and the scheduled public hearing on that draft.

25 0 The Board then continued with four public hearings on that draft in June and July of 0. At the end of the July th, 0 hearing, the Board continued the hearing to an uncertain date. I think at that point the Board felt there were enough open issues, enough unanswered questions, that it did not want to proceed further with the plan until further analysis was done. So, there was a gap then in the public meeting process on the Hospital Zone. In October of 0 the Board resumed the process. And during the interim period, the Board had hired both a hospital planning consultant, who was a specialist in hospital planning by the name of Ray Skorupa, as well as a few technical consultants. The hospital consultant was retained by the Board to give it another perspective, additional viewpoint on: A, the need for the facility as proposed by the "Renewal Plan"; and in general for an upgrade to the facility, whether that was another plan or not. And then to provide the Board with -- if that were the case, to provide the Board with an

26 0 analysis of issues he saw, if any, with the "Renewal Plan". And if those -- if he had issues alternative that would mitigate the issues he saw. That was done at that October meeting. In addition the technical consultant was hired to explore subsurface conditions at the hospital. Those included groundwater conditions. It included issues related to excavation, issues related to shoring of excavation, as well as bedrock issues that were present in the area. The special hospital planning consultant came up with a number of recommendations. He did see issues with the "Renewal Plan" and proposed some concept recommendations for the Board's consideration. Those included the following: Putting parking, as much as possible, underground as opposed to surface parking; increasing buffers and setbacks to the hospital buildings; limiting the size of the hospital to a million square feet; limiting the parking to,000 parking spaces; increasing the height of the building to five or six stories. The reason for the height increase was that to increase the setbacks of the hospital facility and to put parking underground something had

27 0 to give. There wasn't enough room to accommodate those other recommendations. So, the consultant recommended that an increase in height was a reasonable tradeoff to a lower height, but lesser setback and more parking above ground. More parking, not just surface parking, but deck parking. So, that was his recommendations only in concept form. The Board then spent several meetings discussing those concepts and how practical they were. As well as the geotechnical consultant's comments on the issue of groundwater, on the issues of soil type, which is a very porous soil that needs to be shored during these excavations, so it doesn't collapse. As well as the need for bedrock excavation and the construction related impacts with all of that soil movement, with all of that, issues related to either what do we do blast the bedrock, that is obviously having an impact on the residents, do we use other methods to remove bedrock to put this parking underground, to accommodate foundation for buildings and things like that. Dewatering issues, there's high groundwater in the area. The Board looked at that. During construction how was that water going to be

28 0 handled as well. Those were issues that the geotechnical consultant addressed. The two consultants' efforts, however, had to be synchronized in that if one consultant was saying we should put more underground, well then underground issues become more prominent. So, it took a while for the two consultants' recommendations and the testimony to be worked out, so that the Board was comfortable that one wasn't working against the other in their recommendations. For example, the more you put underground that provides a benefit of less visual impact to the surrounding area and less apparent mass of the building and parking decks, but it requires more excavation of soil, it requires more intensive construction techniques. Construction activity is one of the main issues that the residents in the area have been concerned about over the years. And, so, there had to be some mediation of those issues, because the more you get one benefit the more you get one detriment if you follow what's going on here. So, the Board took a number of meetings to say to each of the consultants, well, if we do what you say, how is that going to affect this. And

29 0 if we do what you say, how is that going to affect that. And they had to be reconciled. And that followed through February and March of 0. At the end of the March st, 0 meeting, the Board agreed to amend the draft plan and to restart the public hearings on the new draft of the plan. That was done. The hospital planning consultant had presented a series of alternative approaches. Those include different heights, different numbers of stories, how much vertical there was versus how much underground there was. How much parking deck versus above grade, versus below grade. A whole series of different options were explored by the Board during these times. And, ultimately, the Board chose one option and chose to authorize me to prepare a Master Plan Amendment that would reflect that option. Then followed a series of short presentations to the Board in April of 0, which was the last meeting on the draft before formal a hearing. Then followed a series of about nine public hearings on that draft. At which time both the Hospital and the Concerned Residents, as well as the general public, were given opportunities to question and to comment on the plan.

30 0 0 On June st, 0, the Board adopted the Master Plan Amendment, which then led to the ordinance you have in front of you, which the Board believes is substantially consistent with the Master Plan Amendment that it adopted. I would just like to generally say on this whole process that the Board went through, that the Board recognized that this was not an easy decision in any way. Obviously, you spent three-and-a-half years making it. The Board recognized on one hand that the hospital is extremely important, beneficial use not only to the Village of Ridgewood, but to the community at large and the region. The law defines hospitals as an inherently beneficial use. Beneficial to the public that they provide an obvious benefit in essential health care services that we can't do without. And they're limited in number. They don't grow on trees. The State doesn't give out Certificates of Need to anybody who wants to do that. They're restricted in that. So, to a certain extent there's some monopoly that hospitals enjoy, obviously, because they provide those core public benefits and the State regulates that for those reasons.

31 0 The State generally also indicates both in the law and in the interpretation of the law that is enforced that municipalities need to not take into account only their own particular issues within their boundaries, but they must take cognizance of regional issues as well, regional needs as well. So, in planning terms, we refer to a lot of these regional issues as locally unwanted land uses because no one wants -- where do you put landfills? Where do you put major transportation depots? Where do you put certain uses that not every town has, but somebody -- they have to go somewhere. And wherever they go, they are usually controversial because they're big, because they have impacts. The Board recognized that as well, but it also recognizes this is an existing hospital. It's been there for 0 years plus. So, it's different than, say, a new hospital wanting to come in to a community that doesn't have one. The issues are totally different in that situation. So, the Board recognized those factors in its decision-making. At the same time, the Board recognizes that with respect to the residents' concerns that

32 0 were expressed: About the visual impact; about the traffic impact; about the general noise; lights; intensity of use that's going on here; about the lengthy construction period that was envisioned. And the construction period is actually in two phases. One phase took about six years and another phase took about four years of construction. The residents, rightly, had concerns over such a lengthy period. So, the Board in its discussions and its deliberations and ultimately in its decision had to balance what is generally considered a good thing, with what it recognized were unavoidable bad things, that if we lived in a perfect world, we would rather not have. But the Board determined that it was impossible to completely eliminate the negative aspects of this. So, what its focus was partly on mitigating those as much as possible. That's why it went through all the analyses of alternative layouts, alternative approaches of moving more facilities off-site. And on that line, the special consultant hired by the hospital felt that there was only one component that he felt could be moved off, it was relatively minor. He supported the size of the

33 0 facility as proposed by Valley Hospital, although he took issue with the layout proposed by the hospital. So, he said for a 0 bed hospital, the size proposed is not unusual. It's not irregular. It is not oversized, based upon modern standards. He supported that. But he did not support the original layout of that space as recommended by the hospital. And that was something that the Board ultimately went with and chose. So, it was a balancing of not only the broader policy issues of a basic health care need versus basic needs of the residents in the area and the conflict with one another, but also a balancing of different design approaches and trying to find a design approach that provided the benefits while maximizing the detriments. And like I said, with the two consultants, sometimes one design thing provided a benefit and -- but it also provided, simultaneously, a detriment. So, not all of the consultants' recommendations were followed because of that. The Board felt that it had to balance things as best it could with that and that's what ultimately it did. So, what you've been given is

34 0 recognized as an attempt by the Board to balance pros and cons of what had been put before it. MAYOR KILLION: Thank you, Blais. Questions from the Council for either Matt or Blais? We'll start with Bernadette. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Let me make sure my microphone is working. Can everybody hear me? MAYOR KILLION: No. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: It's not working. DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: It's working. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: It's working now? Yes? Okay. AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: No. Blais, maybe I'll take the microphone from you. MAYOR KILLION: This is going to cause feedback. All right. Blais, we're good. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Let me get closer. Does this one work? Le me take Tom's. Tom's is working. Thank you, Blais. MS. MAILANDER: Still not working. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Still not working? AUDIENCE MEMBERS: No.

35 MS. MAILANDER: Hold it closer the your mouth. 0 COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: It's not working. DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: It's only works when you take it off. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: It's only working when I take it off. Now I want to make sure I don't screech everybody out here. Thank you, Blais. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Thank you, Blais. Just to start off, I think -- and I'll speak for myself, but really speak on behalf of the Council in that we want to thank everybody for coming tonight and for giving us the opportunity to ask some questions and to get some clarification because the most important thing for us is that many of us, except for Deputy Mayor Richie, did not sit through every meeting as Blais did, as Tom did, as many residents did. So, when we read the transcript, you know, we had some large books to read. And sometimes when you're not in the moment, it's very difficult to understand what was going on in the questioning. So, I think that the process for us is

36 0 going to be asking questions and really understanding not just from Blais, but from each of the different people that are before us, exactly what was the thinking. So, my questions to Blais, and I've got a lot of notes here, so I just want to try and keep them in some order because you said a couple of other things this evening that I didn't think of. So I just want to start off with the process. And we'll go back to, I believe it was 0 was the first public meeting, correct? MR. BRANCHEAU: I'll try to speak up. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. MR. BRANCHEAU: The first Planning Board meeting discussing this was public meeting, not a hearing, a meeting was January 0. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH. Okay, were there any meetings prior to that with any members of the then sitting Council or Planning Board with how to go forward with the process before they got to the Planning Board? Are you aware of any? MR. BRANCHEAU: I think there was a brief presentation with Council in September of '0. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: September of '0?

37 MR. BRANCHEAU: Yes. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. MR. BRANCHEAU: That's the only one I'm aware of. 0 COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: And in that meeting, were -- can you give me a gist of -- MR. BRANCHEAU: I wasn't at that meeting so -- COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: You weren't at that meeting. Okay. MR. BRANCHEAU: -- I'd be -- I heard second hand that that had happened. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. And That meeting then was really the impetus for setting up the public meetings? That would be a question for you. MR. ROGER: Well, I think there was a decision -- there might have been a decision made at that point as to how to proceed if Valley was going to go ahead with this. And I think the decision was made that since it was looking potentially for a Master Plan Amendment, that the best venue for that would have been starting at the Planning Board. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Starting at the

38 0 Planning Board. Okay. So then the first public meeting we're going back to January of 0. At that meeting the only presenter was Valley Hospital? MR. BRANCHEAU: That's correct. The first two meetings. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: The first two meetings. Okay. Again, reading the testimony, there were a lot of statements made in those initial meetings. Was there any background, I don't want to say, but the statements that were made in those meetings, was there anybody from the Planning Board or from the Village that followed up on some of the statements that were made regarding information that was supplied to the Village or to the Planning Board? Or was it taken at face value? MR. BRANCHEAU: The -- there were questions at this point, I don't believe -- I think the Board wanted to understand what it was being presented with or if it took the next step. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. So then perhaps at the second meeting, the testimony that was given at the first meeting, do you recall anybody asking specific questions based on statements that were made at those beginning meetings?

39 0 MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't have, you know, there were a lot of meetings I don't remember the details -- COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. MR. BRANCHEAU: -- of every meeting. I took some notes, I don't have them in front of me. But I don't know specifically what was asked and what wasn't asked about every aspect. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. At those initial meetings, and again reading from the transcripts and then some of the comments that you made, did Valley define itself as a regional hospital or is that just the statement that everybody seems to be using? MR. BRANCHEAU: There was, at one point, a presentation in graphic from as well as testimony as to the area served by the hospital. There was a map showing where patients come from to Valley Hospital. And that map clearly went to a large portion of Bergen County as well as areas outside of Bergen County and even areas outside of New Jersey. So it was on that basis that I used the term regional hospital. I don't recollect whether Valley used the term or not. But as far as there was

40 0 0 no question that when I used the term regional there was no question that when I used the term regional that there was no disagreement. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. So following on that same question, is there a -- what would define a regional hospital as opposed to a local hospital or specialized hospital? MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, I would consider a regional hospital one that not only serves the region by the demographic and by the travel that patients travel to, but also its range of services and treatment capabilities, that is a smaller hospital typically have a more restricted ability to treat patients. The may be a specialized hospital dealing with one or a few areas of healthcare as opposed to a broader range. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. Now, going back to the number of beds. Initially the number was the number of beds or was that the number of rooms? MR. BRANCHEAU: Beds. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: So, there is beds. Do you recall how many rooms that is? MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't recall whether

41 0 all the beds were two bed rooms or whether there's currently any one bed rooms, I believe that's the case. But, I don't remember the specific number of rooms. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: And then the beds that it would be moving to, do you know how many rooms that would be? MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, if they were all single bed rooms they would obviously have. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. MR. BRANCHEAU: I don't -- again, I don't recollect whether they were going to remain any two bed rooms, but this -- this was on a major change from mostly or completely two bed rooms to mostly or completely one bed rooms. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. You talked about the split campus option. When they presented I couldn't see anything in the testimony that talked about the volume that goes back and forth between Valley Hospital and the Luckow in Paramus. MR. BRANCHEAU: The volume. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: The volume. MR. BRANCHEAU: You mean patient volume or --

42 0 COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Yes. MR. BRANCHEAU: -- or traffic volume? I don't recollect myself what -- I know there was discussion of the various facilities that Valley operates and that where services have been moved from current locations to the other facilities, but as far as numbers of patients, I don't recollect -- COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. MR. BRANCHEAU: -- if that was done. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: When you were talking about moving one element, what was the element that they were talking about, having one element off-site? That was something you said this evening. MR. BRANCHEAU: In the alternatives -- COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Yes. MR. BRANCHEAU: -- that were considered. It was presented by Valley that in addition to a complete removal to a complete new facility elsewhere, they had looked at splitting the current facility into either having the acute care facility off-site and having the current site used for ancillary support services or having two smaller

43 0 acute care facilities, one at the current location and one at another location. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: I know that in the testimony and you talked about it briefly this evening, that -- and this is probably a question for Mr. Skorupa, but when they looked at other communities with hospitals similar to Valley, were they -- the initial hospitals that they looked at were they in our region or were they in other regions? MR. BRANCHEAU: Both. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Both. MR. BRANCHEAU: There were a large number, I think I remember 0 to 0 different municipalities or zones that regulated hospitals were looked at. I'm talking about that Valley looked at. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: Okay. Those are the only questions I have for now, but can I reserve the right? MAYOR KILLION: We are going to reserve the right if the Council feels we'll ask whatever experts back to clarify or to ask more questions. COUNCILWOMAN WALSH: That's all I have. Thank you, Blais. MR. BRANCHEAU: You're welcome.

44 0 MAYOR KILLION: Tom? DEPUTY MAYOR RICHIE: Does this work, let me try this microphone now. MAYOR KILLION: It works. DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: Is this working now? MAYOR KILLION: You're working. DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: Can you hear me? MAYOR KILLION: I can hear you now. DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: Okay. Thank you, Blais. And thank you everybody for being here this evening. I'm not sure it's picking up. Is it picking up? Okay? One of the things that I'd like to discuss is the process, specifically to the other members of the Council, obviously you and I had the benefit of being there for the process. But, speaking personally, I see a pretty clear distinction between the Planning Board process and the Council process. The Planning Board process was specifically looking at an amendment to the Master Plan. And the Council was looking at an ordinance.

45 0 And I see those as two separate and distinct things. But you mentioned something a little bit earlier, and I'd like you to just expand on it if you would. In terms of the Planning Board process or in any land use case whether it just be a simple application for a variance, you talked about the inherent beneficial aspect that's allowed under land use law to hospitals. And I just want you to put that in perspective for us in terms of how that applied or how it applies to any case that a hospital may bring before any board, in terms of, for lack of a better phrase, the checkmarks that they may get during the process that are already in place because of that inherently beneficial status that they get. MR. BRANCHEAU: I'm not sure I fully understand, but I'll try to answer it the best I can. Zoning in general has to promote public purpose. It can't promote the interest a private party to the exclusion of the public interest. Not to say that zoning doesn't ever benefit private parties, of course it does. Businesses would never be able to operate if zoning didn't benefit them. Homes would never be able to be

46 0 built. Homeowners would never be able to build or expand their properties. Private parties benefit from zoning, no question. But zoning is supposed to promote the public first. Sometimes pubic and private group interests coincide. And that's hopefully what you try to do with zoning. You try to do zoning in a way that both meets the needs of the private parties and the development side of the equation as well as any public. Obviously if they're in conflict then someone is going to be unhappy. If you zone in a way that no one would ever build, you wouldn't achieve a whole lot. It would probably be unconstitutional because as you all know we can't regulate in a way that takes away the basic rights and that includes the right to the use of your own property. So you have to promote public interest, but also recognize reasonable private rights and needs as well. So when evaluating zoning we're supposed to look at both, but sometimes it's a difficult decision. And both courts and the law, as spelled out in the Municipal Land Use Law, have tried to make it a little easier by saying certain uses by

47 0 their very nature benefit the public, are in the public interest. And, typically, those are of an institutional nature, not always. But they include not only hospitals but schools, houses of worship and charitable institutions have been found to be inherently in the public interest because of the good they do, because of the basic needs that they meet. Schools meet a basic need of education. There are some other facilities, utilities, transportation, improvements and facilities all meet basic public needs. Then there's an area of gray that certain private uses may benefit the public in certain circumstances, but not necessarily always. And other uses generally are considered, not necessarily in the public interest by their very nature, they're only in the public interest if they -- if both the private development need and the public needs for those facilities coincide in that same location. So there's a -- I won't call it sacred cows, but there's -- we're given a -- a past so to speak and the first step of the process. It doesn't mean, however, that carte blanche, that they can do anything they want.

48 0 Same process we see in the courtesy reviews that the Planning Board entertains from the Council, from the Board of Education, from the County, from the State when they want to do something. Obviously those are all assumed to be publicly beneficial proposals that are out there, otherwise that's -- that's what those entities are in business there for, is to serve the public needs. On the other hand, it's recognized that there can be downsides to any of those public types of facilities. And that's why there's a courtesy review to make sure that those downsides are adequately addressed. And at least a hearing is given to those who service them. So what I'm trying to say by the inherently beneficial use aspect here is that the State in its laws has tried to make it easier and tired to make it clearer for all concerned that certain uses, by their very nature, are to be, at least on the positive side of the equation, presumed to meet a public need. There's a negative side to the equation. And like I said there is a balancing of the process. But the first part of, is this a good thing? Is this in the public interest to even

49 0 consider something like that? I think the inherently beneficial use definition says, yes, absolutely, that this is a facility that meets basic needs for -- I guess, not a -- not an advance to go type thing, it's advance to first base. DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: Okay. Great. Thank you. MAYOR KILLION: Paul? DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: Oh, I'm sorry. MAYOR KILLION: You have one more. DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: Yes. MAYOR KILLION: I'm Sorry. DEPUTY MAYOR RICHE: Cut me off already. MAYOR KILLION: Just trying to move it along. DEPUTY MAYOR RICHIE: Segue a little bit to traffic. You made a statement and, again, I know you're not a traffic consultant, but just generically speaking, you said overall traffic from the "Renewal" would not -- the "Renewal" will not significantly increase traffic based on what the traffic consultant said. Then you also said that the

50 0 0 improvements to the current road conditions would help the flow. Can you just briefly expand on what you meant by improvement to the current road conditions? MR. BRANCHEAU: Well, the consultant was Joe -- I can't think of his name. MS. MAILANDER: Staigar. MAYOR KILLION: Staigar. MR. BRANCHEAU: Staigar. MAYOR KILLION: Okay. We'll get to him too. MR. BRANCHEAU: And his -- and obviously he can speak for himself. But, generally speaking, initially he had questions about it because, you know, he said if something is expanding by that much it would be logical to assume that traffic will expand as well. If not as proportionately at least something closer to what one would think. But further study by the consultant, and looking at the existing hospital facility and discussions with the County, discussions with the hospital's traffic consultant, as well as his own independent further re-examination led him to believe that the expansion was mostly as the hospital has