CITY OF NEW BRUNSWICK PLANNING BOARD JANUARY 11, 2021 MINUTES

Meeting Location Remote Teleconferencing City Hall, Third Floor 78 Bayard Street 7:00 PM

I. ROLL CALL

Jeff Crum (Chairperson) Manuel Castaneda (Vice Chairperson) X George Chedid X John Petrolino X Robert Cartica X Diana Lopez X Ryan Berger (Class I) Chris Stellatella (Class II) X Suzanne Sicora-Ludwig (Class III) X Matthew Ferguson (Alternate #1) X Yelitssa Checo (Alternate #2)

II. PUBLIC ANNOUNCEMENT

Dan Dominguez (Director, Department of Planning, Community and Economic Development, and Board Secretary): Please be advised that the notice requirements of the Open Public Meeting Act have been complied with and satisfied, and that the annual notice which gives sufficient notice of the time, place, and conduct of all public meetings of the Planning Board of the City of New Brunswick has been filed with the city clerk and placed on an appropriate bulletin board and posted in the back vestibule of City Hall, visible to the public through the windows and the lobby of City Hall New Brunswick, New Jersey, and has been transmitted to the official newspaper for the City of New Brunswick, namely the Home News Tribute and Star-Ledger. Additionally, a special meeting notice of the time, place, and manner of conducting this meeting has been made by the board secretary as required by law. It is also posted in the back vestibule at City Hall visible to the public through the windows and the lobby of City Hall New Brunswick, New Jersey, and has been transmitted to the official newspaper of the City of New Brunswick, namely the Home News Tribune and Star-Ledger. New Jersey Governor, Phil Murphy, has issued executive orders limiting the size of public gatherings of individuals until further notice. Furthermore, the CDC has issued guidelines to limit gatherings of groups. The City Planning Board attempts to meet on a regular schedule and will meet the guidelines of the Open Public Meeting Act by utilizing teleconferencing systems. Public participation at public meetings has been revised, and the public may participate through a conference call or video system. The public is encouraged to call into the conference call system through the phone numbers and access codes transmitted in the above notice to the Home News Tribune and Star- Ledger and posted in the back vestibule of City Hall visible to the public through the windows. Board professionals will also be available on the conference call and video during this meeting as well. All parties on the conference call will have the opportunity to hear the Planning Board meeting. During the potions of 1 | P a g e

the meeting that are not open for public comment, all callers from the public will be muted, and the board will not be able to hear any public comment through the conference call system. During the public comment periods, I will first read public comments issued to the board. Then those on the call-in lines who have an interest in addressing the board will be first organized by last name and called up on to speak. After all organized members of the public speak, the process will happen again until all the public has had an opportunity to speak once and for no more than five minutes in any given public meeting position. A timer will chime at the completion of each five-minute period, and I'll notify that your time is expired. Public meeting assistance access for the call-in number should call the Planning Department at (732) 745- 5050.

III. SALUTE TO THE FLAG

IV. PUBLIC HEARINGS

A. HARDENBERG STREET REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES LLC / 24 HARDENBERG STREET / BLOCK 51, LOTS 5, 6, 27, 28, 29, 29.02, 31, 31.01 (PB2020-12) Preliminary and final major site plan application to construct a parking garage structure with approximately 975 spaces, a central utility plant and a loading dock and area to serve the proposed Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey Cancer Pavilion. No variances are requested. The site is located in the Healthcare Research Pavilion Redevelopment Plan area. (Charles B. Liebling, Esq.)

Suzanne Sicora-Ludwig (Acting Board Chairperson):And before I turn it over to Mr. Liebling, I just want to go through the process of this meeting. Tonight, the applicant will give the board and any interested members of the public the benefit of the entire application presentation. Once the presentation is complete, the public will have an opportunity to comment on this application only, each person, one time only, for no longer than five minutes. If you have comments unrelated to this application, you will have an opportunity to address the board later in the evening before we move to adjourn. And with that, the floor is yours, Mr. Liebling.

Charles Liebling (Applicant’s Attorney): Thank you, Madam Chair.

Aravind Aithal (Board Attorney): Mr. Liebling, before we start - this is Aravind Aithal, the board attorney - I just wanted to confirm. Mr. Chedid, are you with us this evening?

Maroun Chedid: Yes, I am.

Mr. Aithal: And, Mr. Chedid, I believe that you'd indicated that in a prior application that there was an employment relationship that previously existed between a family member and Rutgers University; is that correct?

Maroun Chedid: I'm sorry. Could you repeat?

Mr. Aithal: This is George Chedid, correct?

Maroun Chedid: Are you talking to George Chedid or to Maroun Chedid?

Mr. Aithal: Yes.

George Chedid (Board Member): Hi, Arvind. This is George Chedid. I'm sorry about that.

Mr. Aithal: George. I'm sorry. If I may, George, you'd indicated in the past that you've had an - your family member had an employment relationship with Rutgers University; is that correct?

2 | P a g e

George Chedid: Right. That's correct.

Mr. Aithal: Okay. Rutgers University is not an applicant in this matter. But there is a proposal that a portion of the building will actually be touching upon a previously approved portion. I would respectfully ask, unless you feel strongly otherwise, that you recuse yourself this evening.

George Chedid: Yes. I would like to recuse myself.

Mr. Aithal: (Indiscernible)

Mr. Liebling: No. Thank you for taking care of that. It was important, Counselor. Yeah. As the chairperson stated, I'm Charles Liebling, Windels Marx Lane & Mittendorf of New Brunswick on behalf of Hardenberg Street Redevelopment Associates. This garage application before you is to satisfy the 624-space parking requirement for the adjacent Cancer Pavilion that the board recently approved. And the remainder of the spaces in the building - in the garage would be used for public parking. The application is fully conforming with the healthcare and research pavilion redevelopment plan, and you'll be hearing from our civil engineer, our architect, and our traffic engineer establishing that further. As was the case with the recent application for the Cancer Pavilion, the board's review of the site plan application is for the sole purpose of determining its conformance with the redevelopment plan, and after you hear the testimony of our witnesses, I'm confident you'll be able to reach that conclusion. Those witnesses are: Chris Roche, our civil engineer from Langan; our architect from Tim Haahs & Associates, Todd Helmer; and our traffic engineer, also from Langan, Dan Disario. With that, unless the chair or counsel have any questions, I'd like to bring up Chris Roche.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: No. Please bring him up.

Mr. Liebling: Okay. All right. He's virtually brought up. Chris, can - can Chris (indiscernible), please.

Mr. Dominguez: I need to swear him in. Mr. Roche, can you please state your name and spell your name for the record.

Christian Roche (Applicant’s Engineer): Sure. It's Christian Roche, R-o-c-h-e.

Christian Roche, Sworn

Mr. Dominguez: The floor is yours.

Mr. Liebling: Thank you. Mr. Roche, before we go any further, what is your role in this project that's the subject of the application?

Mr. Roche: I am the civil engineer of record for the application.

Mr. Liebling: Okay. And could you - you've testified before this board on other occasions, correct?

Mr. Roche: I've testified before this board on many, many occasions previously.

Mr. Liebling: Okay. Do you still hold your New Jersey professional engineering license?

Mr. Roche: I do.

Mr. Liebling: Okay. Madam Chair, in lieu of going through the qualifications of Mr. Roche, I'd like to suggest that given his prior appearances, he be accepted as an expert in the field of civil engineering.

3 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Of course, so accepted.

Mr. Liebling: Okay. Thank you. Okay. The Chris is yours and the screens.

Mr. Roche: Great. Mr. Dominguez, would you mind pulling up Exhibit A1.

Mr. Dominguez: Sorry. Sure. Give me one second. I'll pull it up.

Mr. Roche: Take your time.

Mr. Dominguez: Is the screen sharing? There is it. Okay.

Mr. Roche: Thank you. The project site we're going to talk about tonight is comprised of eight properties identified as Block 51, lots 5, 6, 27, 28, 29, 29.02, 31, and 31.01 on the City of New Brunswick tax map. The area is approximately 1.45 acres. It's bound by Hardenberg Street to the east, residential uses to the north, Division Street to the west, and existing Lincoln Annex School to the south. The site is currently occupied primarily by residential, some of which are utilized by RWJ Barnabas Health office space currently. As Mr. Liebling mentioned, all eight properties are within the healthcare and research pavilion redevelopment plan, and we're not seeking any variances from that redevelopment plan here tonight. We're fully conforming. Mr. Dominguez, for the last time, if you could go to A2. That's the last exhibit I'll be using tonight. (Pause) Thank you. Exhibit A2 is a rendered or colored version of the proposed site plan we submitted with our site plan application. What the appellant is proposing on site is a nine-story parking garage with a footprint of approximately 40,000 square feet. Within that garage, we're proposing 975 parking stalls. Of those stalls, we anticipate that 624 will be dedicated to the proposed Cancer Pavilion project as part of its application to be located south of the site. Those 624 parking stalls will meet the redevelopment plan parking requirements for the new Pavilion building. We anticipate that the remaining 351 parking stalls will be made available for public use. I will also note that there's 42 bike parking stalls proposed within the garage, and again, this is to aid in the Pavilion project meeting its overall bike demand. For the redevelopment plan, the Pavilion is required to have 52 biking parking stalls. We're parking 42 of these within the garage, and as testified to as part of the separate application, we're providing 10 additional stalls around the exterior of the Pavilion building. We are proposing a connection between the parking garage and the proposed Cancer Pavilion. This will be a pedestrian bridge which will connect from the southern face of the garage to the northern face of the Cancer Pavilion. The purpose for this bridge, it will allow visitors and patrons to park their cars within the parking garage, utilize the bridge, and get into the Pavilion building without having to go outside. Access to the parking garage is proposed off of both Division and Hardenberg Street. We are proposing a one-way entrance drive off of Hardenberg, which has the ability to queue approximately eight cars, and then also accessible from Division Street utilizing the one-way access drive, which is proposed between the parking garage and the Pavilion building. This access drive has the ability to queue approximately 20 cars while still maintaining a drive-through lane at the same time. Loading and unloading for the garage as well as the Cancer Pavilion building will take place at the low-grade level of the parking garage, which is accessible from Division Street. One of the key elements we looked at when designing this loading area is we wanted to ensure that all reverse or back-up truck movements would be internal to the garage building. We didn't want to have any trucks backing up into public right-of-way, crossing any crosswalks, which could create a dangerous scenario. So, we've designed the loading area in conjunction with the architect so that all truck movements, reverse movements, are done interior to the garage space. The loading docks have been designed to handle a maximum truck size of WB-67 vehicles. However, we'll note the vast majority of trucks utilizing the loading area will be significantly smaller. We had testified to at the Cancer Pavilion hearing a few weeks back that we anticipate deliveries within the loading area will be on the order of 10 to 12 trucks on a daily basis. Out of those, we anticipate maybe 1 to 3 of the larger size trucks and the remaining being more box trucks, UPS, FedEx-type vehicles. From a landscaping and streetscape perspective, we are proposing all new concrete sidewalk, new ADA ramp, street trees, and LED light fixtures along Division and Hardenberg Streets. The light fixtures will be 14-foot high new PSE&G LED light fixtures, which have been located to meet the city 4 | P a g e

lighting requirements. The street trees will consist of a mix of red maple, green zelcova (phonetic) trees, and American hollies, which are evergreen trees. I will note that there was a comment we received from the board and their professions about potentially adding additional trees along the northern garage face and along the western garage face. The applicant is fully willing to conform with the requirement, meaning that we will be adding trees north of the garage and also on the west side of the garage. From a storm water management perspective, the proposed development will not increase the pervious coverage compared to existing conditions. So as a result of that, we're not providing any type of retention on site. However, we are proposing a storm water conveyance system, which will convey runoff from the garage down Hardenberg Street in a pipe network and eventually connecting to the City-owned system within (Indiscernible) Street. Utility services will be primarily provided off Hardenberg Street with the exception of our sanitary sewer, (indiscernible) lateral, which will end up traveling west down Division Street. Additional site features we're proposing are an oxygen tank area in the southwest corner of the site. This will provide oxygen service to the Cancer Pavilion. The area will be fully enclosed with an eight-foot high enclosure fence as well as significant landscaping surrounding the enclosure for screening purposes. There is also a below-grade fuel tank proposed to the west of the garage. This will be completely below grade. The only component of this above grade will be fuel port fill, and this will be located directly next to the loading ramps. I'll note that all service for both this oxygen tank area as well as the below-grade fuel tanks will be done from the loading dock ramps. We're not proposing any type of service to these facilities within the public right-of-ways. And I'll also state that the frequency of service for both the oxygen area as well as the below-grade fuel tanks is rather rare. We're talking only a few times per year. So I'll close the brief overview by stating we did receive comments from the City and their professionals, and we have no objection in complying with those comments in those review letters.

Mr. Dominguez: Mr. Roche, are you done with the exhibit?

Mr. Roche: I am.

Mr. Dominguez: All right.

Mr. Liebling: I was on mute. I apologize. Jesus. Does the board have any questions for Mr. Roche?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: First, I'll ask, do any of our professionals have any questions for Mr. Roche?

Bob Cartica (Board Member): I have - this is Bob Cartica. I have some questions.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Bob, one second. Let me just finish. I'm just trying to do this in order.

Mr. Cartica: Okay.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: So, do any of our professionals have any questions for Mr. Roche?

Mr. Cartica: Oh, I'm sorry.

Todd Bletcher (Board Planner): This is Todd Bletcher. I do not have any questions.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay. Thank you very much. Now we'll go to the board members. Go ahead, Mr. Cartica. You can go first.

Mr. Cartica: Just - I have questions about the deck, but I'm not sure who to direct them to. Could you reiterate who - what other professionals are going to be making statements?

5 | P a g e

Mr. Liebling: Sure, sure. We have the garage architect, who will be able to speak to the design features of the garage as well as its appearance. And we have our traffic engineer, who will be able to discuss traffic generation resulting from the garage.

Mr. Cartica: Okay. I don't - I think I'll - I have one question about traffic, and I think I'll - I think the other questions perhaps I would address to you, Mr. Liebling, and maybe that would take place later on in the evening.

Mr. Liebling: Okay. Fine. Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Is that all, Mr. Cartica?

Mr. Cartica: That's all for now. Yes. Thanks.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you. Do any other board have any questions for Mr. Roche? Hearing none, if you'd like to move to your next witness, please.

Mr. Liebling: Actually, before I move to the next witness I wanted to just explore for a moment and provide, you know, as a courtesy to the board, some background informal about the Pavilion utility plant. Mr. Roche is not an expert. The operation and the system of the utility plant isn't really something for - that's part an approval. But as a courtesy to the board, we wanted to at least give you some background as to what it consists of and what's involved, assuming that, yes, it's of general interest to board members as well as to the general public. So, Mr. Roche, you're a civil engineer. You're not an expert with respect to the mechanics and the operation of the CUP. But could you just provide an overview for the board members of these - of the Pavilion utility plant in the context of the two buildings.

Mr. Roche: Sure. There is utility plant proposed within the lower or below-grade level of the parking garage. The plant will provide thermal and electric service to the new Cancer Pavilion building and to the parking garage itself. Specifically, it will provide steam, chilled water, electric, and emergency power services. I just want it to be clear that at this point in time the plant is only providing these services to the Pavilion building as well as to the parking garage. There were previous iterations where things were discussed of the plant providing services to existing hospital facilities on the opposite side of Somerset Street. That is no longer being construed. It's just providing services to the building. Relative to the location of the proposed Pavilion utility plant, the objective is to place the plant in a below-grade level of the parking deck rather than trying to squeeze in significant amounts of mechanical equipment within the Pavilion building itself. In order to do that, we would have lost some highly valuable resource space, highly valuable medical space, and in addition, we were able to get a much more highly efficient layout in the below-grade level of the parking deck. The reason the plant is so compelling a project is the significant amount of resiliency and redundancy that it provides for thermoelectric operation. So for example, even if we were to have significant power outages from a regional perspective, if PSE&G services went down, we have multiple ways that we can still maintain 100 percent operations on the thermoelectric side with the plant functioning. And the last point I'll make, Mr. Liebling, is that there are state requirements for these type of plants specifically relative to noise standards and emission standards. And this design will be fully compliant with those strict standards.

Mr. Liebling: Great. Thank you, Mr. Roche. I hope that information is just helpful generally to the board. Given that, I'd like to move to our architect, Tom Helmer. Okay. I see you. Mr. Helmer - Dan, could you please swear him in.

Mr. Dominguez: Mr. Helmer, can you hear me?

Todd Helmer (Applicant’s Architect): Yes, I can.

6 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Mr. Helmer, can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record.

Mr. Helmer: Todd Helmer, last name H-e-l-m-e-r.

Todd Helmer, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: The floor is yours.

Mr. Liebling: Todd, could you describe for the board who you work for, what your roll on this project is, and your professional qualifications.

Mr. Helmer: Sure. I'm a principal with Timothy Haahs & Associates. I've been with the organization over 25 years. I have approximately 30 years of experience in engineering and architecture. Of those 25 years or so, it's been in parking planning and design. Licensed in the state of New Jersey amongst other states and a graduate of Georgia Tech.

Mr. Liebling: Madam Chair, I submit Mr. Helmer as an expert in the field of architecture.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes, so accepted.

Mr. Liebling: Thank you. Todd, I'll leave it to you to present.

Mr. Helmer: Okay. Great. May I ask to have a sheet pulled up on the screen, please?

Mr. Dominguez: Certainly. What would you like?

Mr. Helmer: A1.2. It's the parking garage plan, and I can start off with that.

Mr. Dominguez: Hold on one second.

Mr. Helmer: Okay. Great. That's helpful. Thank you. Appreciate that. Yeah. It's drawing A1.2. Yeah. If I could just start off, first and foremost, Mr. Roche had explained the - you know, the siting of the structure. The footprint of the parking structure represents a fairly compact footprint, you know, with the length. It is very functional and efficient in design. The total number of spaces in the parking structure is 975 spaces. The height is approximately 9 levels. All of the spaces are striped out 8-foot-6 by 18, and it provides one- way circulation throughout. As mentioned, there are 624 spaces to accommodate the needs of the Cancer Pavilion regarding the redevelopment. Regarding ADA spaces, we have a total of 54 ADA spaces within the parking structure, 9 of which are at the grown tier and to accommodate van-accessible spaces. And the ground tier has a floor height of 12 foot, which will accommodate the 8-foot-2 van clearance. As you can also see, there is a main entry/exit to the parking garage as you go up the ramp. The entry/exit is designed such that it's three lanes, but it does have a center reversible lane; so that can be utilized during the peak times, so you can have two in and two out at specific times. The intent, obviously, is to maximize the throughput through the gated access. In terms of visitors, visitors will most likely use pay on foot machines. The pay on foot machines will be located in very convenient locations for the pedestrians, as they're passing through from the parking structure to the Cancer Pavilion. There also may be an opportunity for patrons to have an option to pay in lane as well. So that design is moving forward. In terms of identifying how many spaces are in the garage, it's contemplated that an occupancy space counting system will be utilized so that it will form the users and the patrons as they enter the garage, how many spaces are available within the parking structure as well. If I can - can I ask that you go to another drawing, please, 1.3 - A1.3 would be helpful. Great. Thank you. As you can see, you know, one of the things I wanted to point out was that the design that we've implemented here, the functional aspect of it, it's very intuitive. It offers a one-way traffic flow and circulation, which is a very friendly type of design. And the intent there, obviously, is to minimize 7 | P a g e

any type of internal vehicular contacts as well, so it's very, very intuitive. You know, what we will employ is an internal signage package. It will have specific instructions to the users and directions, you know, for parking as well as informational signage to the Cancer Pavilion. You can see that in the southwest corner is the main stair/elevator tower. That's the main pedestrian vehicular circulation - or pedestrian circulation. It was mentioned earlier about the pedestrian bridge that's currently located at the third level of the garage. So that will be connected within that stair/elevator tower. We're accommodating two elevators in that corner. To accommodate code-required means of egress, you can see in the upper right, we do have a secondary stair for that. So those are the two means of egress from the parking structure itself. I mentioned that the height is nine levels. The ground to the first supported level is 12 feet. It does provide for 8-foot-2. The floor-to-floor heights on the levels above is 10 foot-6, and that accommodates a minimum 7-foot-2, which we target for parking industry standards. Mr. Roche also mentioned that the Pavilion utility plant is located in the garage. It is in the basement. It is in the below-grade level of this, and that was definitely intentionally designed to do so. One of the things that we were looking at doing here is trying to mitigate any type of on-grade impact to the area and to improve aesthetics. So, it certainly made sense that, that would be included in there for that purpose. Another use that is within the parking structure - and if I can ask just to slide to the next drawing, please, which if you could do - well, it's the - it's the cooling tower on the top level. I'll communicate that better when I get to the - when I get to the rendering. But essentially, the intent of the cooling tower at the top level - it's going to be at the north end. And what we're looking to do right now is we're looking to make that as much internal as possible and incorporate screening around that as well. From a lighting perspective, you know, one of the things we certainly want to employ is to maximize passage security within the structure from a lighting point of view. We do have LED lights within the parking structure. We do have also occupancy sensors that will essentially dim the lights in the evening, so that would mitigate light spillage outside of the parking structure into the adjacent area and neighborhood. So that's definitely something that we want to put in there. The other thing is: the lighting that is on the outside bays, we're definitely going to have cutoff shields at the perimeter lighting so it minimizes spillage as well. Also from a lighting point of view, which I'll show on the aesthetic on the façade perspective, is the 42-inch high parapet spandrels, which will essentially hide any type of headlights. So that's 42 inches above finished floors, so that's another aspect of that. Security, from a security perspective, I have measured that we incorporate as much passive security as possible. The expectation is that the garage will be open and staffed 24/7. Also, that we will have cameras, CCTV, located within the structure at appropriate locations per industry standards, which are essentially around the stairs, elevators, entry/exits, and so forth. Also, from a security point of view, it's important that we maximize sightlines internally. So, we try to minimize internal walls, utilize those on the exterior, enhance the lighting, opening up the lobby of the main stair/elevator tower, as I mentioned, and also have glass-back elevators and maximize glazing around those stair/elevators corners. So, from a security point of view, those are some of the design elements that we are employing. If I can ask to bring up the architectural rendering, if you have that available.

Mr. Dominguez: That's on a different - I'll stop sharing, and I'll pull it up.

Mr. Helmer: Okay. Thanks.

Mr. Dominguez: The three-dimensional rendering?

Mr. Helmer: It is. Thank you, Mr. Dominguez.

Mr. Dominguez: Just a second. Where's the share button? There it is.

Mr. Helmer: Yeah. That's great. Perfect.

Mr. Dominguez: All right.

8 | P a g e

Mr. Helmer: Thank you. So, what you see here is a view - is a perspective at the corner of Hardenberg and the access road, you know, with the Cancer Pavilion to the left. Just generally speaking, the architectural facade is made up, as well as the entire structure, is made up as precast concrete construction. It has a mix of design element, and you can see within this visual that there's, you know, light-colored architectural concrete is envisioned with some articulation in an attempt to break up the facade. So, one of the main design components to this is you can see there's some vertical walls with punched openings in it. And I had mentioned a few minutes ago that we had moved the sheer walls to the outside for a couple reasons. One is to use those to break up the verticality of the garage and to increase the visibility and sightlines internally, also to maximize any operational aspects to the Pavilion utility plant, which is below, which really can't be disrupted too much. Also, you can see some vertical striations. What we were looking to do there is design inform liners, basically reveals, which would also break up some of the larger pieces of the vertical panels. Also, what that does is provide shadow lines. So, we were trying to incorporate that as well. And those walls that I had just mentioned, those are going to not be in the same plane as the facades, so you'll see some shadow lines with that as well. The form liner also will bring some pattern in related to the terracotta that is on the Cancer Pavilion. You can see that this particular elevation is horizontal in nature. The Hardenberg elevation is essentially - is really the primary street elevation as we see it, and we wanted to make sure that was represented as horizontal. So, the ramping system is actually on the interior and not on the façade. I had mentioned a few minutes ago about the horizontal aspect of the parapet walls. Parapet walls are 42 inches high, which will essentially wrap around. Again, those attempt to mitigate the visual aspect of vehicles as well as the headlights from the vehicles as well. You can see that at the top level - and I had mentioned a couple minutes ago related to the cooling tower - we are in the process of taking that cooling tower, designing it such that it is smaller in nature, and it's going to be inboard as much as possible. So, you won't necessarily visually see it to that extent. Obviously, you can see the pedestrian bridge is located at the third level of the garage and connecting to the second level of the Cancer Pavilion. One of the aspects that we certainly want to do is we want to soften the streetscape as much as possible. Right now, there is landscaping, you know, planting bed that is along the elevation, the extent along Hardenberg Street with a sidewalk and then another buffer of landscaping. So, there's approximately 20 feet from the curb back to the garage elevation. And as you can see in the bottom right hand portion of the perspective is a solid wall. That is required to conceal the Pavilion utility plant, which is essentially at that position and lower. But what we do intend to do is we do intend to implement, you know, a historic mural or artistry aspect to that, so that we can make that walk very pedestrian friendly and pleasing. And you can see that the landscape also does wrap along the southerly elevation as well. I think that just about covers the architectural intent, and that's what I have.

Mr. Liebling: Thank you, Mr. Helmer.

Mr. Helmer: Thank you.

Mr. Liebling: Mr. Helmer is available for any questions of the board. Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you. Do any of the professionals have any questions for Mr. Helmer? Hearing none, do any of the board members have any question for Mr. Helmer? Hearing none, Mr. Liebling, you want to proceed?

Mr. Liebling: Sure. Thank you. Our next witness is Dan Disario, traffic engineer from Langan. Mr. Disario.

Dan Disario (Applicant’s Traffic Engineer): Yes, sir.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Can you please state and spell your name for the record, your last name.

Mr. Disario: Certainly. My name is Dan. Last name is Disario, D-i-s-a-r-i-o.

Dan Disario, Sworn

Mr. Dominguez: The floor is yours. 9 | P a g e

Mr. Liebling: Mr. Disario, you testified recently before this board as a traffic engineer and were qualified -

Mr. Disario: Yes.

Mr. Liebling: - for that reason? And you've testified before on other occasions, correct?

Mr. Disario: I have.

Mr. Liebling: Yeah. Okay. You still hold your engineering license from the State of New Jersey?

Mr. Disario: I do.

Mr. Liebling: Okay. Chair, based on his prior qualification, I submit Mr. Disario as an expert in the field of traffic engineering.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: So accepted.

Mr. Liebling: Thank you. Okay. Dan, the floor is yours.

Mr. Disario: Thank you. Good evening, Madam Chair and board members. As you are aware, we submitted a traffic study as part of this site plan application dated December 4, 2020. I will give you an overview of the highlights of that study as it relates this application and the associated traffic impacts with respect to the proposed parking garage. As you heard from earlier testimony, the parking garage will contain approximately 975 parking spaces; 624 will satisfy the parking requirement for the Cancer Pavilion itself as part of the redevelopment plan requirements. That would essentially leave 351 approximately additional parking spaces available for use by the general public. As outlined in the traffic study of December 4, 2020, we did a very comprehensive analysis of the area traffic operations consisting of the following. We did traffic counts at eight intersections surrounding the site. Those intersections extend from Easton Avenue, west to Division Street, and along Hamilton Street, as well as Somerset Street. Those counts were conducted in April of 2019, luckily, pre-COVID situation, so they are more than representative of existing traffic volumes in the surrounding area. Those counts were specifically done from 6:00 to 9:00 in the morning and 2:00 to 6:00 in the afternoon to not only account for activity associated with Rutgers University but also to get a good understanding of the medical campus activity as well. Typically, you do counts from 7:00 to 9:00 and 4:00 to 6:00, but we extended those count times to include starting at 6:00 in the morning and starting at 2:00 in the afternoon We established no-build conditions, assuming a 2024 completion year for this proposed parking garage as well as the Cancer Pavilion. By increasing the existing traffic volumes by a growth rate of one percent per year for a total increase of five percent over those five years, which means that every single movement at every single intersection that we did counts at, we increased by five percent to create the no-build volumes. The no-build volumes we added site generated traffic that would be attributed not only to the Cancer Pavilion but also to the additional available parking in the garage over and above what would be required by the Cancer Pavilion. So, the Cancer Pavilion essentially consists of two components, inpatient care and an outpatient care. The inpatient care will be estimated traffic generation for that portion based on the 96 beds that are proposed. And for the outpatient care, we modeled another cancer center in New Jersey that is operated by Memorial Sloan Kettering. For the Cancer Pavilion inpatient as well. portion, based on published trip rates, we would estimate approximately 150 vehicles would come in to the garage and 60 would leave in round numbers for a total two-way of 210 during a weekday morning peak hour. For the outpatient portion of the Pavilion, we would estimate, again, in round numbers, 185 vehicles would come into the garage and 15 would leave for a total two-way volume of 200 trips. And for the additional parking that will be in the garage that is non-Cancer Pavilion allocated - so again that would be approximately 351 parking spaces - we used published trip rates for a park-and-ride parking lot. So, a park-and ride parking lot assumes that there is some type of mass transit availability for somebody that is coming to that parking garage. So not only do you capture people 10 | P a g e

that would be parking in that parking lot itself, but you would also account for people that get dropped off by someone else; and then the person that would be dropping off would leave. So, using park-and-ride trip rates to estimate trip generation for the additional parking inside the garage, in my opinion, is conservative and overestimates what will actually occur. But based on those published rates for a park- and-ride lot, and again based on the 351 additional parking spaces, we would estimate in round numbers 115 vehicles would come in, 30 would leave, for a total two-way of 145 two-way trips during the weekday morning peak hours. So that is one hour in the morning between 7:00 and 9:00 in the morning. So, the weekday morning peak hour total estimated traffic generation for this parking garage, which, again, includes traffic for the Cancer Pavilion as well as the additional parking spaces that are proposed in the garage that are not associated with the Cancer Pavilion, in round numbers, weekday morning peak hour total trips 450 coming in, 105 exiting, for a total two-way volume of 555 trips. Similarly, for a weekday evening peak hour on the Cancer Pavilion, in terms of the inpatient care, we would estimate 50 coming in, 130 leaving, for a total two-way of 180. The Cancer Center outpatient care, 20 would come in, 135 would leave, for a total two way of 155. And then for the additional parking in the garage, 40 would come in, 115 would leave, for a total two-way of 155 trips. So, for the weekday evening peak hour total traffic estimate generation - and again, that's one hour between 4:00 and 6:00 in the afternoon - we would estimate 110 vehicles coming in, 380 leaving, for a total two-way of 490 trips. Now this parking garage and the Cancer Pavilion benefit immensely from its location. As the board and the public is aware, there are numerous streets that surround this particular site, which will allow traffic to distribute in many directions. If you're coming from Franklin Park, you would be coming from either Hamilton Street or Somerset Street. If you were coming from Highland Park, you likely would come up Easton Avenue either to Somerset Street or Condict Street to get into the parking garage. So, because of the location and because of the extensive street network in New Brunswick, the traffic generation that is attributed to Pavilion and the parking garage will be able to disburse in many directions and, thereby, minimize the traffic impact at any one single location. We would estimate, consistent with what was testified to for the Cancer Pavilion, that approximately 22 percent of the traffic would be oriented to and from the west along Somerset Street; 5 percent would be oriented to and from the east along Somerset Street; 31 percent would be oriented to and from the south along Easton Avenue; 20 percent would be oriented to and from the east along Hamilton Street; 12 percent would be oriented to and from the west along Hamilton Street; and the balance, which is 10 percent, would be oriented to and from the north along Easton Avenue. So based on those percentages, I would respectfully submit that you can see that the traffic would be distributed in many directions and, thereby, lessening the impact at any one particular intersection. If you apply those percentages that we did in the traffic study to the traffic generation estimates that I just testified to, what you would see is that as it relates to the very conservative estimate of traffic that we've put forth, that along any intersection approach of the eight that we looked at as part of this study, at most during peak hours, there would be one to two additional vehicles along any approach during either the morning or evening peak hour. We've conducted a very extensive analysis of what that traffic generation means in terms of impacts to the overall intersections surrounding the site, and we've concluded that the traffic impacts associated with this application are not significant; and that if you were to observe traffic operations out there today and you would be inclined to grant this approval and go out in the future with both the Pavilion and the parking garage constructed and fully operational, I would respectfully submit to you that you would not be able to notice or discern any noticeable changes in those area traffic operations. I would point out that, again, we've done a very conservative analysis, not only in terms of how we've estimated traffic but also based on the fact that we've assumed the Cancer Pavilion is a standalone facility and does not interact with the rest of the medical campus. We have not accounted for the fact that there's pedestrian bridges that not only connect to the Cancer Pavilion but also to the overall medical campus. We've not taken any discounts in terms of the estimated traffic for mass transit usage. As everyone is aware, not only is the hub city served by rail, but it also has bus service that is nearby to the site as well. So, we did not take any credit for mass transit. And frankly speaking, we did not take any credit as it relates to traffic from the existing uses that will be removed as part of not only the parking garage but the Cancer Pavilion as well. So overall, again, I believe the traffic impacts of this application will not be significant. We did evaluate not only the surrounding intersections but also the specific driveways, both to the parking garage as well as the Cancer

11 | P a g e

Pavilion, and we've concluded, based on the analysis of those access points, that they will operate safely and efficiently. And with that, I would be happy to answer any questions that anyone has.

Mr. Liebling: Thanks, Dan. Madam Chair?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes. Thank you. Do any professionals have any questions for Mr. Disario? Hearing none, do any of the board members have any questions for Mr. Disario?

John Petrolino (Board Member): Madam Chair, John Petrolino here.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Cartica, did you have a question before for him?

Mr. Cartica: I do. I've been trying to unmute myself. But -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: It's okay.

Mr. Cartica: - John, if you want to speak first, go ahead.

Mr. Petrolino: Yeah. Thanks, Bob. So just a quick question for Mr. Disario. I appreciate the testimony. If there were an area - and this is speculative. But if there were an area where we could anticipate potentially traffic outside of what you've estimated it to be, if there was any condition that could be ameliorated in advance that we could take as perhaps a condition, let's say, if traffic ultimately exceeded what you expect it to be, is there anything that you could recommend to the board that we should be considering at this point? Because as much as I appreciate the art of traffic analysis, it is still an exercise in prognostication. So, you know, my concern is and has been that the traffic conditions downtown are going to become untenable. I'd appreciate it if you could provide me some insight as to what, if any, extra steps could potentially be taken if things were to be more congested than you're anticipating.

Mr. Disario: I think that's a good question. And I think in my opinion, in knowing the area as I do, we're dealing with an urban environment where most structures are right up on the right-of-way. So, from a practice perspective, you're not going to be able to widen roads and create additional lanes to carry more traffic. So, with that as a constraint, I respectfully submit to you, there's not a lot that you can do to improve traffic operations other than at signalized intersections, you can tweak timing to better apportion green time based on changes in traffic volumes that may occur. And if there was a situation where you wanted to achieve more capacity at a particular intersection, in my opinion, the most practical way to achieve that will likely be to remove onsite parking so that you can free up some pavement area to stripe additional lanes. Now given that the availability of on street parking is particularly sensitive not only throughout the city but particularly in the neighborhood that surrounds this site, I don't necessarily know if that is a feasible option to be considered.

Mr. Petrolino: I appreciate the commentary there, and I would suggest you're probably right. There's not, I guess, a lot of appetite for removing what's there in order to make way for something new. But I appreciate the feedback and certainly will take it into consideration.

Mr. Disario: Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you. Do any other board members have any questions?

Mr. Cartica: Bob Cartica. Very similar question. In the event that your projections don't turn out to be accurate, let's say, and traffic ensues in a particular location, who would be responsible for the mitigation of that situation? Who would it fall upon to address that? Would that be something the City would need to address?

12 | P a g e

Mr. Disario: I'm going to defer to our attorney because I think that's more a legal question than an engineering one.

Mr. Liebling: Thanks, Mr. Disario. Mr. Aithal, is that something you want to respond to, or do you want me to?

Mr. Aithal: Mr. Cartica, the conditions - the traffic conditions that are outside of the site itself that don’t involve ingress and egress, the board, as you know, has limited jurisdiction to consider those things. If it was a non-permitted use that's in the zone, the board could certainly opine about how that non-permitted zone might impact traffic in the surrounding areas. This is part of a redevelopment plan that specifically contemplates this use with a parking garage of this size and the development as it's proposed, the scope of the development. So, this board is limited in terms of its ability to either approve or deny an application because it believes that the outside traffic that's going to be generated might be different than what the expert feels would be the case. But more importantly, as to whether this board has jurisdiction to bind the applicant or some other party to undertake some sort of abatement in the future to public cartways, unfortunately, that is not something this board can consider. Mr. Liebling, unless, you know, your client wants to undertake the Herculean task of trying to improve roads. (Indiscernible)

Mr. Cartica: This is Bob Cartica. I hear what you're saying, and Mr. Liebling maybe can weigh in on that. I'm not - I'm just trying to determine when - generally speaking if these things go wrong, you know, who has - you know, who bears the responsibility to address them? You know, for example, if it was determined in the future that traffic at a particular intersection is very, very bad and that kind of light is - you know, a control light is needed at that intersection, you know, who would that fall on? What entity would that fall to?

Mr. Aithal: I think all - Mr. Disario, you might be able to clarify this point - but I believe all of the surrounding streets are all City streets. We don't have any county or state highways that touch upon this property; is that correct?

Mr. Disario: Correct.

Mr. Aithal: Yeah. So, it would be - Mr. Cartica, it would be the City that would be responsible for improvements. And certainly, if the City wished to - wished to have a special assessment, which I'm not suggesting that - this is not something the board would consider. But obviously, one of the remedies the City would have would be to have special assessments for the cost of those improvements.

Mr. Cartica: Well, I think that answers my question. Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you, Mr. Cartica. Do you have any other questions?

Mr. Cartica: Not at this time.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you. Do any other board members have any other questions?

Mr. Bletcher: Madam Chair, this is Todd Bletcher, if I may.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes, of course.

Mr. Bletcher: Okay. Thank you so much. Just a couple of very quick questions that I brought up in the plan report for Mr. Disario, and maybe he could just walk me through a couple intersections that I just had some concerns over. I just want to make sure that those are going to function properly, okay. So, on Hardenberg Street - can you hear me Dan?

13 | P a g e

Mr. Disario: I can.

Mr. Bletcher: Okay. So, on Hardenberg Street, we had just pointed out that there is right now, what I would call a key intersection between Hardenberg and Condict. And that's an existing intersection, and at that intersection you are proposing an inbound driveway for the parking deck. So, I just wanted to make sure from a traffic engineering point of view really more of a level of service point of view for that - what I'm really thinking of is a new four-way intersection that we're going to have vehicles stacking on Hardenberg going sort of northbound waiting to make a left turn into the parking deck at some point, and we're going to have traffic traveling north and south on Hardenberg. And we're also going to have the Condict Street intersection intersecting with all those movements. I just wanted to make sure from a traffic point of view that you're comfortable that that's going to function properly.

Mr. Disario: As I referenced earlier, we did do a new traffic study for the garage dated December 4, 2020. And referring to Table 3 of that report, the intersection that Mr. Bletcher has identified in terms of the question, all the levels of service are As and Bs, which is indicative of favorable operations with little delays. So, I don’t have any concerns with respect to the entrance drive into the garage being located at that intersection.

Mr. Bletcher: Okay. And there will be ample room on Hardenberg Street if vehicles are stopped waiting to make a left into the parking deck? The stacking that's going to occur there, is that going to impede vehicles who are leaving the parking deck and trying to make a left onto Hardenberg Street to go northbound? Do you follow what I'm saying?

Mr. Disario: Yes. If a vehicle is momentarily delayed turning into the parking deck off the Hardenberg entrance to the deck -

Mr. Bletcher: Right.

Mr. Disario: - then anyone that's coming out of the access drive between - from between the Pavilion and the deck, yes, has to yield to that vehicle waiting on Hardenberg.

Mr. Bletcher: Okay. And does your study project, you know, how many vehicles could be stacked up there waiting to wait for a gap to make a turn, or how do we know that there's sufficient space between those two driveways to make sure that all of the intersections work properly?

Mr. Disario: Well, then northbound left turn movement into the deck off of Hardenberg operates at a level of service A. I can give you what the anticipated queueing, but I'd have to refer to the technical analysis. But I can tell you that the queue for that movement will be less than one vehicle.

Mr. Bletcher: Okay. Okay. So, from a circulation point of view, you're comfortable that the - what I'm calling the new intersection of Condict, Hardenberg, and the entrance driveway is going to function adequately? And that also the new - I'll call it a three-way or a T intersection - that's Hardenberg and the new driveway between the Cancer Pavilion and the parking deck - is also going to function properly?

Mr. Disario: Yes. Both of those new intersections will operate efficiently, and I have no concerns with respect to their locations or how they will interact with each other.

Mr. Bletcher: Okay. That's all I wanted to verify. Thank you so much.

Mr. Disario: You're welcome.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you. Mr. Liebling, do you have anything else?

14 | P a g e

Mr. Aithal: You're muted, Chuck.

Mr. Liebling: In an effort to be polite, I mute myself. Madam Chair, I apologize. That completes our direct testimony and, you know, prepared to move on.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay. Thank you. We'll now open up the portion of the meeting to the public. Dan, will you please read the announcement and prepare a list.

Unidentified Speaker: Excuse me.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes.

Unidentified Speaker: I had some questions for Mr. Liebling not related to engineering or traffic if that's okay.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes.

Unidentified Speaker: And again, Mr. Aithal can weigh in on this if these questions are not relevant or if the board should not be considering this. But can you indicate whether the exercise of eminent domain would be used with regard to any residents or businesses that are located on the footprint of this parking deck.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Aithal, can you please explain to the board the difference between the powers of eminent domain between land use and what is available with this project?

Mr. Aithal: Sure. I'll speak in general terms initially. First, the - this is an area that's a redevelopment area, and generally when there is redevelopment, there can also be a redevelopment with or without eminent domain, and that’s under the municipal land use law that's located on Title 40:55(d). So, this board has powers that are authorized under 40:55(d) including the consideration of applications, in this case a site plan application. It also has powers to review and to approve, upon referral from the governing body, the redevelopment plans that are submitted or the areas that are designated as areas in need of redevelopment or rehabilitation. This has been an area in need of redevelopment for some time, and this came before the Planning Board and at that time was presented as an area that would be a redevelopment area without condemnation and that eminent domain would not be utilized to acquire private property. There wouldn't be a public taking of private property authorized under the municipal land use law.

Mr. Dominguez: Mute yourself.

Mr. Aithal: I'm sorry. Can you still hear me, board members?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes.

Mr. Aithal: Okay. Under the municipal land use law, the consideration that this board has is to determine whether the site plan itself fits the plan for development that is envisioned in the municipal land use law and under the redevelopment plan. Now that's not to say that other entities may or may not be able to exercise eminent domain. For example, if the Army Corps of Engineers felt that this was the perfect location to build a public improvement or a project for public improvement, they could certainly undertake eminent domain, but that's not part of the redevelopment plan. This application is going forward under the redevelopment plan, and under that plan eminent domain is not permitted under 40:55(d). I cannot opine about whether any other entity, whether it's state, federal, or other municipal authorities or entities would exercise their own powers of eminent domain. And I would respectfully submit to the board that this board cannot consider what other entities may or may not do.

15 | P a g e

Unidentified Speaker: Thank you. That answers my question.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you. Do any other board members have comments before we move forward or questions?

Mr. Cartica: Yes, me. I do. Again, this is Bob Cartica. Reviewing the project costs for this facility, I noticed it was something like - well it was 47,000,800 for the garage, 60,000,900 for the utility plant, and $17,000,700 for the loading deck, the ramp, and these other related structures. Will this be a New Brunswick Parking Authority deck? And what entities will bear the costs of construction associated with this? I'm trying to determine - if this isn't a New Brunswick Parking Authority lot, you know, where is the funding going to come from for the construction?

Mr. Aithal: Madam Chair, if I may. Mr. Cartica, let me just add one point of correction to my last answer.

Mr. Cartica: Okay.

Mr. Aithal: I stated 40:55(d) is the municipal land use law is what governs the board. What I also want to impress upon the members of the board is that Title 40A governs the redevelopment housing law, and how the local government can exercise eminent domain. As to your question about funding or operation of this garage, we see many application that appear before this board. For instance, we may have a multi-family residential structure that's being planned, and it's certainly proper to ask who is going to be operating that. If they have the answer to that, they can certainly answer that question. But it would be improper to ask who is going to be financing it. This board - or who will be ultimately operating it in the end. As this board may well be aware, there are many plans for development that start off with one developer, but the project can be sold multiple times before a shovel is finally put into the ground. So, for that reason, it would be inappropriate to ask who is going to be the ultimate operator or, more importantly, the ultimate financer for a project like this.

Mr. Cartica: Is it - thank you. Is it appropriate to ask whether this - the citizens of New Brunswick would be paying for the construction of this facility?

Mr. Aithal: I don't know that Mr. Liebling has the answer, but I mean, you can certainly ask that question.

Mr. Cartica: I mean, I'm just assuming, for example, if this were - it seems like these ought to be questions that are answerable. If this were to become a New Brunswick Parking Authority lot perhaps they site these facilities. You know, obviously, there is a - there is a facility next door that is going to lease 600-plus spaces in there, and perhaps that provides a sufficient business model to ensure that the parking authority is able to recoup the costs of, you know, financing for this, for example. So, I'm just - I'm trying to get at, you know, whether the - really, ultimately, I'd like to know whether the New Brunswick taxpayers are going to be funding the construction of this parking deck in any way.

Mr. Aithal: Yeah. Maybe, Mr. Liebling, you might want to chime in on this, but at this point I would say that the application itself does not involve the New Brunswick Parking Authority in terms of the four corners of the application itself. So, I don't know what their involvement would be beyond this point, nor do I have, as I've advised the board already, a question as to whether how financing is going to be done for the project would be an appropriate question to ask. But certainly, Mr. Liebling, it would be your prerogative if you know whether the parking authority is or isn't going to operate the parking garage, or if you'd like to - if you know and if you'd like, you can certainly present that information as to who might be financing this. But again, it's not something that we can mandate that you answer.

Mr. Liebling: Yeah. And - I'm sorry. I stepped on you, Madam Chair.

16 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: No. That's okay. I was just going to say we shouldn't consider who is financing this when we're making our decision for this application. That's outside the purview of what we're supposed to base our decision on. Is that correct, Mr. Aithal?

Mr. Aithal: That's correct. It would be almost the same as, you know, we would look into a development and say, well, who's the bank that's going to be financing it. And then you start getting into a slippery slope about knowing the terms of the finance company. It's certainly -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes. That's not in our scope for determination. I just wanted to make that clear to everybody. But, please, Mr. Liebling, go ahead if you had an answer.

Mr. Liebling: Sure. The applicant is reviewing various options for the financing and operation/ownership of the garage. Those may be unified. They may be separated, and we're in the process of going through those inquiries now. Regardless, the parking garage will have the required number of spaces for the Cancer Pavilion as well as provide the public parking. Obviously, we need to finish this garage. We're the redeveloper charged with construction of the garage. It needs to be finished in order for there to be parking available for the Pavilion. The Pavilion is underway at this point. The property has been transferred. Development agreements have been signed. Dollars have been deposited for the construction of a replacement school. So, it's very much off to the races. The garage is the tail here, the Pavilion being the dog, and you know, given the track record of this - of this redeveloper and the, you know, relative insignificance of the garage compared to the - compared to the Pavilion itself, I think that - I would offer that you can be comfortable that it's going to get built.

Mr. Cartica: Yes. Thank you. I understand that. I appreciate that, but again, I guess my concern is - and I may be making an invalid assumption in here; and I apologize for my ignorance in this regard. But I - you know, I'm trying to determine whether under any circumstances the City would be footing the bill for the construction of the lot. Can you provide any comments on that? And again, you know, I hope I'm not overstepping my bounds in terms of asking this question.

Mr. Liebling: I can't answer that. That will be a decision of the City Council.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any other questions, Mr. Cartica?

Mr. Cartica: Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Any other board members have any questions? Okay. Hearing none, at this point we're going to move forward to public comment. Dan, if you would make your statement and prepare a list.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you, Madam Chair. At this point we are preparing to open the meeting to public comment on this hearing, on this application for five minutes per person in order to assure that the Planning Board can hear the interested public, and the public can hear public comments. I will organize the speakers in order by last name. In a moment I will unmute - no. You will unmute yourselves with the little microphone if you're on a computer or with star-six if you're on the phone. At that time I will ask that those with the last name starting with A to provide me your last name, first name, and home address. I will confirm the information is correct and move on to the next person alphabetically from A to Z. Upon completion of asking for all last names from A to Z, I will ask one more time for anyone who would like to be placed on the initial list of speakers. We'll move through the list by calling the person by name and permitting them five minutes. Once we complete the list, we will once again check to see if anyone would like to comment, and then I will close the public comment portion. Please be mindful that your voice is being telephonically transmitted and to speak slowly and clearly for the benefit of all. I will ask that you please remain silent while folks are initially unmuting themselves, so we can hear each other and begin the speaker registration process. Now I will ask that members of the public that would like to comment on 17 | P a g e

this specific application with the last name starting with the letter A, please state your full name and home address. A.

Charlie Kratovil: I have a clarifying question. Is this public comment, or is this questioning of the witnesses?

Mr. Dominguez: It is both to my knowledge.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: It's public comment for this application only.

Mr. Cartica: Okay.

Charlie Kratovil: So, there will not opportunity for people to comment from the questions?

Mr. Dominguez: No.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: No.

Charlie Kratovil: Okay. What about the folks that want to make a case as (indiscernible)? When do we get to make our case?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: That's a question for you.

Mr. Aithal: Certainly. Mr. Kratovil, are you an objector in this case who would like to make a case?

Charlie Kratovil: Yes, please.

Mr. Aithal: Okay. Do you have any witnesses?

Charlie Kratovil: I do not have any witnesses.

Mr. Aithal: Okay. So, you would be making comment?

Charlie Kratovil: I'd like to make a case under Rule 2:2-3 for presentation makes it clear, Section D. Upon conclusion of the presentation of the application, any objectors wishing to present a case in objection to the relief sought may do so in such order as may be recognized by the Chair and may call any witness for - and introduce any documentary or other evidence upon which (indiscernible) will rely. And I submitted a number of evidences to you. So, I'd just like (indiscernible) clear from this that the time limit on public comment does not apply to the objector cases. So, I just want to make sure that I exercise my right, as I've stated from the very beginning, that I want to fully object to this application.

Mr. Aithal: Madam Chair, as -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Aithal.

Mr. Aithal: I'm sorry. Madam Chair, may I?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes, please.

Mr. Aithal: Mr. Kratovil has indicated that he does not have any witnesses. My advice to this board would be that it would be public comment. He can certainly introduce documents. He can certainly provide any testimony that he wishes, since he's going to be his own witness. So, therefore, there's no need to have a separate section of unlimited duration for Mr. Kratovil. 18 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay. Go ahead, Mr. Kratovil, you'll have five minutes. Well, you will have five minutes when -

Charlie Kratovil: Point of order. Does that apply to all the objectors who either emailed Dan or Mr. Aithal prior to the beginning of this meeting?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes, it does.

Mr. Aithal: Yeah. I don’t recall getting any emails. So -

Charlie Kratovil: I did email Dan.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Dan, you want to go ahead and prepare that list.

Mr. Dominguez: Of public commenters?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes, please.

Mr. Dominguez: Alrighty.

Charlie Kratovil: We need to sort out the objector issue first. Are you going to follow the rule, or are we going to be denied the right to plea our cases?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: As stated, they can be heard during the regular public comment portion along with anyone else. Is that correct?

Mr. Aithal: It's wordplay to state that this would be an objector's case when there are no witnesses; there are no expert witnesses; there are no fact witnesses that are being presented besides the speaker, him or herself. And the documents that will be introduced, as Mr. Kratovil has indicated, he's already presented them for consideration by the board. He can certainly comment on those during the public portion. He can certainly cross-examine any of the witnesses, any of the three witnesses that have been presented on this application. He's not in any way prohibited from speaking, from cross examining, and from stating his point on the record.

Charlie Kratovil: Except I have to do all of that in five minutes.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes, sir.

Charlie Kratovil: To make a case with seven documents of evidence and also to question the three witnesses that we heard from tonight is not enough. I put it in writing that I would like to be an objector, and (indiscernible) why my rights are being restricted now.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Your rights aren't being restricted. You're out of order now. We told you, you can speak during the public comment portion, and that's when you will have your turn just like everybody else. Dan, can you please prepare a list.

Charlie Kratovil: Objection, the counsel is breaking its own rules. Can you cite where a witness is necessary? Point of information. Where is it codified that this isn't allowed?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Dan, do we have the ability to mute the (indiscernible) at this point?

Charlie Kratovil: Well, I have to object. 19 | P a g e

Unidentified Speaker: This is going against the rules of the board.

Unidentified Speaker: Once again.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: If the public does not mute themselves and they continue, we're going to mute everybody, and we're going to halt the meeting until everybody can remain in order. We can't conduct this meeting - I want everybody to have the opportunity to speak.

Unidentified Speaker: In order to be in order, you have to follow your own rules.

Mr. Dominguez: Madam Chair.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes.

Charlie Kratovil: You put work into these rules. You changed the rules recently.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes.

Charlie Kratovil: I put work in to read the rules, study the rules and -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Dan, can you please mute the public?

Mr. Dominguez: Madam Chair, I couldn't hear what you said. I apologize.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I was asking you to, please, is there any way to mute the public so that we can continue this meeting in an orderly fashion.

Unidentified Speaker: The public has the right to raise objections.

Unidentified Speaker: You're going to have to unmute us to hear who wants to speak anyways. So, this is just not - pointless.

Unidentified Speaker: It's an attempt to silence the public, who has the right to raise the objections they're raising.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do we have any way to mute the public?

Unidentified Speaker: Ma'am, will you at least go on the record and say that you're ignoring the rights of the public to raise objections?

Unidentified Speaker: Why won't you let anyone speak for the length of time they need to speak for? We're all willing to wait for them to do so.

Mr. Liebling: Aravind, you're muted if you're talking.

Mr. Aithal: I was talking. Madam Chair, under the rules, the Chair has the prerogative to asks folks to - who are disorderly, give them a warning. If they continue the disorderly behavior, they do not let the meeting proceed, then the Chair does have the authority to remove that person from the meeting. I think that we - it would be probably best to unmute the individuals, go through the alphabet, see who would like to speak.

20 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes. That's what I've been trying to do. People are not giving the opportunity to proceed in that manner. Dan, if we could try once again to unmute the public and prepare a list for public comment.

Mr. Dominguez: Sure. So again, the public will need to unmute themselves with the little microphone button or with star-six, if you wish to speak. And once again, I will begin with your direction, Madam Chair, to start the list.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes, please.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. A, B -

Lindsey Bushong: Lindsey Bushong.

Arthur Bucco: Arthur Bucco.

Mr. Dominguez: We need addresses on the record.

Lindsey Bushong: Lindsey, and mine is 50 Robinson Street.

Arthur Bucco: Arthur Bucco, 86 Louis Street.

Mr. Dominguez: C?

Ed Chapman: Ed Chapman.

Elizabeth Ciccone: (Indiscernible) Welton Street.

Ed Chapman: Ed Chapman, 13 Hardenberg Street.

Mr. Dominguez: Elizabeth. All right. D?

Riley Denbow: Riley Denbow, Townsend Street.

Mr. Dominguez: Is that Riley?

Riley Denbow: Yes, Riley.

Mr. Dominguez: Okay.

Mr. Aithal: Your address for the record.

Riley Denbow: Townsend Street.

Mr. Aithal: Is there a number?

Riley Denbow: 61.

Mr. Aithal: Thank you.

Mr. Dominguez: E, F?

Nishad Datta: I'm sorry. I forgot to put my name in for D. I'm sorry. Nishad Datta, 50 Robinson Street. 21 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: Okay.

Nishad Datta: Apologies.

Mr. Dominguez: That's fine. I think we were on F.

Lilia Fernandez: F, yes. Lilia Fernandez, 11 Cotter Drive.

Mr. Dominguez: 11 Cotter, all right.

Unidentified Speaker: (Indiscernible)

Mr. Dominguez: I'm sorry?

Unidentified Speaker: Nothing. That's fine.

Mr. Dominguez: G?

Juan Gonzalez: Yes. Juan Gonzalez, 11 Cotter Drive.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you, Mr. Gonzalez. H?

David Hughes: Yes. David Hughes, 11 Stone Street.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Let's see. I? J? K? L? M?

Matthew Meoni: Yes. Matthew Meoni.

Mr. Dominguez: Matthew.

Charlie Kratovil: Charlie Kratovil.

Mr. Dominguez: Mr. Meoni, your address? Charlie, I got you.

Charlie Kratovil: Thank you.

Matthew Meoni: M-e-o-n-i. My address is Metuchen, New Jersey.

Danielle Moore: I don't know if you got me. Danielle Moore.

Mr. Dominguez: Yes, I did, Danielle.

Danielle Moore: Thank you.

Mr. Aithal: Mr. Meoni, your street address, please?

Matthew Meoni: The address is 160 East Chestnut Avenue, Metuchen, New Jersey.

Mr. Aithal: Thank you.

Matthew Meoni: Come by any time.

Mr. Dominguez: N? 22 | P a g e

Martin Olson: Yes. It's Martin Olson, esquire. And I speak on behalf of my client, Maroun Chedid, who owns property at 28 and 30 Hardenberg Street. Mr. Chedid resides at 4 Hidden Lake Drive in North Brunswick.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you, Mr. Olson.

Mr. Aithal: Madam Chair?

Mr. Dominguez: P?

Michael Pedersen: Pedersen.

Mr. Dominguez: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that?

Michael Pedersen: Michael Pedersen.

Mr. Dominguez: Address, sir.

Michael Pedersen: 24 Mogue Drive.

Mr. Dominguez: Q?

Jim Puskas: We're still on P. Jim Puskas, 16 Hardenberg.

Mr. Dominguez: Q? R?

Arly Rubens: Arly Rubens.

Mr. Dominguez: I'm sorry?

Arly Rubens: Arly Rubens.

Mr. Dominguez: Arly -

Arly Rubens: 123 Louis Street.

Miguel Romero: Also, Miguel Romero.

Mr. Dominguez: Okay. Miguel Romero. Address, sir?

Miguel Romero: 331 Somerset.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. S?

Linda Stork: Linda Stork, 12 Park Boulevard.

Mr. Dominguez: Linda Stork. T? U? V?

Victor Vaughn: Victor Vaughn, 10 Landing Lane.

Mr. Dominguez: Victor Vaughn. W? X? Y? Z? Did we miss anyone?

23 | P a g e

Ming Jia: Yeah. I'm sorry. Ming Jia, 120 Nielson Street.

Mr. Dominguez: 120 Nielson. All right, Chair - Madam Chair, we have a list. And the - the first speaker is Arthur Bucco.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Bucco, you have five minutes.

Mr. Dominguez: I need to swear him in. Can you just please state your name and spell your last name for the record.

Arthur Bucco: Arthur Bucco, B-u-c-c-o.

Arthur Bucco, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: All right. You have five minutes.

Arthur Bucco: All right. So basically, the point that I would like to make is that this is - this entire plan is contrary to the health and the safety of the community. I think there are very pressing reasons why the school should not be demolished, and we should try and halt the waste of taxpayer money, the really gross misuse of taxpayer funds in building pointless parking garages that are going to take decades to pay back. And it's huge (indiscernible) cost for the time and money of both the municipal government and the people that live in this area. I don't see how this benefits anybody. There's a very good school in the New Brunswick like community that a lot of people send their kids to, and it's one of those schools where you walk your kids to school every day, you know. There's a great community for that school, and you're going to destroy that if you move the school across town to a former chemical waste dump. And it is going to be so harmful to these kids to uproot them from this place in their community and put them in a warehouse that, you know, they're not going to be able to go outside for recess. It's going to be in an unsafe and unhealthy environment for these kids. They're not - you know, they're not going to be able to get to class on time, get to school. It's going to be terrible, and there are also -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Bucco -

Arthur Bucco: Yes.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: - if I may interrupt just for one second. I don't know if you're aware, but the board of education in New Brunswick does not own that school anymore. So, it's - that is not a point of contention with this project. It is no longer - it's no longer our property.

Arthur Bucco: I appreciate that.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I just wanted you to know that.

Arthur Bucco: Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay.

Arthur Bucco: Then I guess moving forward, the role of eminent domain in the acquisition of nearby properties to build the parking garage and the cancer center, I think, just on its own shows that this entire project is contrary to the well-being of the local community. Because at the end of the day, people are going to be forced to sell their property, and that is, you know, something that's being forced. It's against the wishes of the community. It's pointless. We don’t need more parking. There's already public transportation. I heard somebody prior to this meeting say that it was going to take 25 years to pay back the cost for constructing this parking garage. That's an incredible amount of money for a municipal parking 24 | P a g e

authority that already had significant issues and already is in like enormous debt. I don't see how it's reasonable or even feasible for the City of New Brunswick to shell out millions of dollars to build a new parking garage when it's not going to make -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: If I may one more time. I don't mean to keep interrupting, but I don't believe the New Brunswick Parking Authority is part of this project either. I think they're still searching avenues for finance. So, I just don't want you to assume that it's a New Brunswick Parking Authority project.

Arthur Bucco: Would a private parking company potentially be involved?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: This is a private development right now.

Arthur Bucco: Wow. I just - that's very shocking to me that we would be forcing people to - potentially force them to sell land to a private parking garage and just like hand over this money to these gentrifiers and like these big corporation finance money and rip out, you know, a vital part of the community just for people to park their cars. Like really? This is - wow. I'm not a fan of this, going to be honest. I'm done. Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Who's next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Lindsey Bushong.

Mr. Aithal: Do you want me to -

Mr. Dominguez: Yes, Mr. Aithal. Please.

Mr. Aithal: Thank you, Ms. Bushong. If could raise your right hand. Could you please spell your last name for the record?

Lindsey Bushong: Lindsey Bushong, B-u-s-h-o n-g.

Lindsey Bushong, sworn

Mr. Aithal: And, Ms. Bushong, you have five minutes to ask questions or make comments.

Lindsey Bushong: Cool. Thank you so much. Thank you, everybody for your time tonight. I really appreciate it. So, before today's meeting, like sort of in preparation, I just wanted to do some very basic research. I literally did this in like an hour, just crunch some numbers in what's currently going on with the parking in New Brunswick because it sort of feels like we already have tons of parking, and this feels redundant. So, I looked at the basic downtown. There are over 15 parking garages in New Brunswick with a total of 8200 spaces, and that doesn't include any of the street parking. And of those parking garages, nine of them are parking decks that are owned by the New Brunswick Parking Authority, which is currently $1 million in debt. So, it kind of leads one to believe that parking is not a very lucrative business in New Brunswick with the main proprietor of all the parking in the city not being able to make ends meet. And sort of based on some simple calculations for the entire city, if all the garages were full on the 262 working days in 2020, it would be about $60 million in revenue, and for only the New Brunswick Parking Authority garages, that's going to be about 33 million. If you include weekends, it's almost 47 million. And I'm sure you guys already know, but New Brunswick Parking Authority was reported - reported like $1 million in debt or something last year. I looked at the number. I have it somewhere. But - so it really seems 25 | P a g e

like we don't need any more parking in this city, and there's already plenty of garages that are there. And if this was to be built, it's just not going to be a good investment. So also, I heard that the cost would be around 47 million, and I did a little digging and found that the average parking garage in the United States costs about 9.75 million for 150,000 square feet. And the site plan says it's going to be 340,000 square feet, which would be about 22 million. And if it's supposed to cost 44 million, I grossly underestimated the cost of this. So, if you think about all of the - if you think like even if it's two-thirds full at 731 spaces at $180 a month, that's only going to be about $1.5 million in revenue a year. So, if it costs 22 million and it makes between 1.5 and $2 million per year, it's going to take over 25 years to pay off, and it's going to cost 47 million, which is twice that. So, what, it's going to take 50 years to pay off this parking garage based on like, just, you know, being two-thirds full if it's not being utilized? And so, I just - I don't really understand why a parking garage is necessary. It just seems like a very terrible use of land and something that's not really required right now. I know you said for the parking pavilion, 624 spaces need to be there, but I don't -

Mr. Aithal: Two minutes.

Lindsey Bushong: - know why those spaces couldn't be delegated out to like the RWJ parking deck or other - other nearby - like in less than a mile, there's 15 parking garages. So, it just seems totally unnecessary, and I think it's both not needed and would cause more congestion, which it just doesn't make any sense. It's not going to be profitable. And especially if taxpayer dollars are going into this, and we're not going to see any return. And just another big issue is that when we were talking to the architect, they were like, oh, it's the Cancer Pavilion. It's going to be beautiful, and it's supposed to make people feel safe and happy when they're going through cancer treatment. But for nine - the first nine floors they're going to be staring at what looks like a county jail. So, I don't understand how that is going to be helpful to those who are receiving treatment and how you can argue that the Cancer Pavilion is going to be sort of this nice lofty place -

Mr. Aithal: One minute.

Lindsey Bushong: - and be some place that people are going to be enjoying themselves when they're literally going to be, for the first nine floors, staring at a parking garage. It just doesn't - there's a lot of pieces that don't add up here. And just, as a resident, I'm super concerned that decisions are being made before like a full financial analysis is done, before a larger and maybe more in depth traffic study is done. It just - it feels like this is being pushed along without really any care to what the public thinks, especially because we've done so many of these calls and so many people have spoken out.

Mr. Aithal: Thirty seconds.

Lindsey Bushong: And - I'm done. I yield the rest of my time. So, thank you.

Mr. Aithal: Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you. Who is next on the list?

Mr. Dominguez: I'm back. Next up is Ed Chen.

Mr. Aithal: Ed Chapman.

Mr. Dominguez: Oh, wait.

Mr. Aithal: Chapman.

26 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: I thought I had Chapman put down somewhere else on my - yeah. I think I was scribbling too quick, and I -

Mr. Aithal: That's fine.

Mr. Dominguez: Ed Chapman, can you please state your name and spell your name for the record.

Ed Chapman: Ed Chapman, C-h-a-p-m-a-n, 13 Hardenberg Street.

Ed Chapman, Sworn

Mr. Dominguez: Five minutes.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Chapman, the floor is yours.

Ed Chapman: My first question, I believe, is to the civil engineer. I would like to know where the generating station exhaust vents, where's the carbon monoxide and such? Is it venting at street level? Is it venting up above, above the parking deck?

Mr. Roche: The short answer - it's venting at the northwest corner of the parking garage at the upper level, so not at the ground level.

Ed Chapman: Okay. Thank you. Is there a plan for solar panels on the rule to mitigate fossil fuel consumption, as in many other parking decks in New Brunswick?

Mr. Roche: At this point in time, there's no plans for solar on the roof.

Ed Chapman: Okay. A question to the architect: the MCIA presentation of July and other publicity documents show the parking deck with a terracotta façade that matches the Cancer Pavilion. What we've been shown now is a white facade that will probably be reflecting sunlight into neighboring residences. I was wondering why that change was made.

Mr. Helmer: The parking structure architectural design intent has always been precast in nature of the color that you've seen, gray in context utilizing form liner as well. So, I don't know that it has changed upon what has been submitted, but that's the design intent of the garage facade.

Ed Chapman: And do you think it will reflect glare into the neighboring residences across the street?

Mr. Helmer: I don't believe so. No.

Ed Chapman: Okay. And a general question. I'm not sure who to direct this to. Will there be residential permit parking spaces alongside the parking deck? Does anyone know this?

Mr. Liebling: I don't believe it's a question that the experts can answer.

Ed Chapman: Okay.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: And if there are permits on the street now, I don't know why they would be alleviated. I don't - I don't know if anybody has the answer to that. Aravind, would you know that? Or even Dan. Dan, do you know if - there's no intent to get rid of any of that parking, is there?

Mr. Disario: I've not heard anything to that effect.

27 | P a g e

Ed Chapman: Yeah. It looks like we're going to be losing spaces regardless. So, I'm wondering if there's a way for the New Brunswick Parking Authority to make up for missing spaces and also, to deal with alternate side of the street parking that's going to be eliminated. But I would like the board to consider that. Thank you. That's it for me.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you very much for your comments and questions. Who is next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Next up is Elizabeth Ciccone. Are you there?

Elizabeth Ciccone: Yes, I'm here.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Can you please say your name and spell your last name for the record?

Elizabeth Ciccone: Elizabeth Ciccone, C-i-c-c-o-n-e.

Elizabeth Ciccone, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: Five minutes, begin now.

Elizabeth Ciccone: I'm very concerned about the construction of massive fossil fuel power generating station right next to residents - residential homes, particularly in terms of the exhaust. I'm also concerned with the long-term effects of using fossil fuels whatsoever when we're attempting to be a green city, and there isn't even solar panels for the roof of this thing, when that would be a simple easy fix to do. I'm extremely concerned that this board has never taken anything into account that the public says, and I'm concerned that you've always cited with every developer that's ever come before your board. I'm very concerned that that really implies a conflict of interest. I'm very concerned that your lawyer never recommends to side with the people. He only ever recommends to side with developers. There's a lot to be concerned with here. I'm also concerned that the City hosts meetings during the day that make it difficult for the public to attend, that these discussions with developers are made in essentially closed door settings, and the decisions are essentially hashed out well before you go before the public. And in that being the case, this is just a kangaroo court type of show that you like to put on to pretend you're giving lip service to the public when, in fact, you don't really care. You've already decided before you've walked into the room. I'm really kind of ashamed to live in a city that's based in that type of political climate, you know. New Brunswick is a - could be a very nice place to live, but not if you tear out all of the neighborhoods to put in giant buildings that no one actually wants. And I will yield the rest of my time.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you for your comments. Who is next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Sorry about that. I was muted. I apologize. Nishad Datta, are you there?

Nishad Datta: I'm here. Hi. Thanks. And first of all, I'd like to start by giving a thank you to -

Mr. Dominguez: I need to swear you in. If you could please say your name, spell your last name for the record, and then I'll swear you in.

Nishad Datta: My name is Nishad Datta. Datta is spelled, delta, alpha, tango, tango, alpha. What else did you need from me? I'm sorry.

Nishad Datta, sworn

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: An address, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: We have him down at 50 Robinson. 28 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay. Great.

Mr. Dominguez: He provided it when we did the list.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay. You have five minutes.

Nishad Datta: Thanks very much. And I'd like to start just real quick by saying thank you to Bob Cartica for being a member of the board, who at least gives the public of New Brunswick a fighting chance. I was going to present this as a case, but I'm just going to use this portion of my time now. So, Lincoln Annex is a fine school and a future-ready school. A lot of the information that has been put out by the applicant on the state of the school relies on the assumption that because it occupies the same building as the former St. Peter's High School that it must be the same entity, which is completely untrue. It ignores the fact that before it opened in 2016, $22 million of taxpayer money was put into renovating the school. There are roughly 700 students that go to this school, and the reason why I'm presenting my case is because it is not an isolated incident. It is something that continues to happen with certain alarming patterns across the city and with each subsequent school displacement. Let's look at -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Sir?

Nishad Datta: I'm sorry.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: You are aware that the City of New Brunswick - the board of education no longer owns that property. The property was sold. The land deal was settled on Friday.

Nishad Datta: Yeah. Can I actually ask a question providing clarification on that?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: If I can answer, I will.

Nishad Datta: Yeah. Why is that allowed, if the approval of the site plan for the Cancer Pavilion was contingent upon this portion of the plan's approval?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Well, this board is charged with approving a plan for building. It really doesn't have anything to do with the land sale. I mean, they can buy the - you know, someone can buy the property, and it has nothing to do with this application. We are only here for the site plan.

Mr. Aithal: Madam Chair, this is Aravind Aithal, the board attorney. The board does not have the authority to stop a private transaction for the sale or purchase of a property.

Nishad Datta: So, what happens if the site plan doesn't go through and the property has already been transferred?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: It belongs to whoever owns it now, and they may choose to do something else with it or whatever - whatever. It belongs to them.

Nishad Datta: So, what -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: It doesn't belong to the board of education any more. I'm sorry. I'm not trying to cut you off.

Nishad Datta: No, no, no. Please finish.

29 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: It does not - it does not belong to the board of education anymore, so it's no longer a school in our system. And that is - that has nothing to do with these plans. So now these are the plans we're going - looking to either approve or deny for the application for the parking garage tonight. And then we still have to go back to the Cancer Pavilion. And our board is only charged with looking at the site plan applications. It has nothing to do with the financial deal or the school deal. That was a board of education decision. But please go ahead. I just wanted to try to clarify a little bit.

Nishad Datta: No. Thank you, Madam Chair, for providing clarification. In terms of public entities like the board of education making sales like that, I mean, perhaps this is irrelevant, but what option for recourse does the public have?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I'm not sure I'm qualified to answer that question. Mr. Aithal, do you have any direction to that question?

Mr. Aithal: Yeah. To answer Mr. Datta's question, I don’t agree with him that it's irrelevant. Certainly, it's relevant enough for him to have brought it up. But unfortunately, this board does not have the ability to say this is what your next recourse is, you know. We're not an advisory board in that regard.

Nishad Datta: Thanks for the information, Mr. Aithal. I guess my only option here is to yield my time, but thanks for giving me the opportunity to speak.

Mr. Aithal: You're welcome.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you for your comments.

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Riley Denbow. Are you there?

Riley Denbow: Yes.

Mr. Dominguez: Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Riley Denbow: Yes. It's Riley Denbow, D-e-n-b-o-w.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you.

Riley Denbow, sworn

Riley Denbow: Okay. Thank you very much. Well, I'm a daycare worker. I'm working with the kids who have been displaced, apparently. And I've been to a couple of these meetings and never spoken before, but I just want to say that overwhelmingly I've seen that everyone present from the public has been speaking against it. And it seems like the board has already come to a decision before they brought it to the public. I've also noticed that there's been intimidation used by the board. I think it's very telling that there is no space for objection. That even - that you're taking addresses and really like making it clear that you've written it down, and you have our information before we're allowed to speak that - Another thing that's changed is now that we're sworn in, which wasn't a practice before.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I believe that that's always been our practice. Since - I've been on this board for probably 15 years, and we've always done that. We've always taken addresses and sworn people in for testimony with this particular board. I know that - ma'am, I know other boards in the city may operate differently, but the Planning Board has done this for as long as I can remember. So, it's certainly not a new practice. I just wanted to make you aware of that.

30 | P a g e

Mr. Aithal: All the witnesses, Madam Chair, are asked to put their names on the record and also their addresses. We don't ask for a home address. We ask for an address, and that's because they're providing sworn testimony.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Go ahead.

Riley Denbow: Yes. Excuse me. I do remember the last meeting that I was at I was only asked for my street address and not my specific home address. I also noticed that the attorney was very diligent in reminding people of their time. I don't think I'll be needing a four-minute, and a three-minute, and a one-minute, and a 30-second warning. It's kind of cutting into what I have to say and is intimidating. Yeah. I'm kind of shocked but not - you know, I've been told to expect this. I see that the board has valued short-term profit over the long-term health of the community, and I cede the rest of my time.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you for your comments.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Who is next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Lilia Fernandez.

Lilia Fernandez: Yes. I'm here.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Lilia Fernandez: Lilia Fernandez, F-e-r-n-a-n-d-e-z.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you.

Lilia Fernandez, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: Your five minutes begin now.

Lilia Fernandez: First I'd like to begin by asking this board to dispense with the arrogance, condescension, and dismissive attitude which it displays towards the public. We are intelligent people, and we are taxpayers, more importantly, in the city of New Brunswick. Secondly, I want to echo Ms. Ciccone's comments. I agree with them completely. Everything she said is absolutely right on point, and it really is - it really does appear - and I would ask the board to swear, you know, under oath whether or not they have already met ahead of time and decided their position on this matter before even having this public meeting, as Ms. Sicora is on record supporting this all the way back to June 2019.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Ma'am, I just have to tell you something. This board does not meet outside of this purview. We're not allowed to, and we do not do that.

Lilia Fernandez: Well, exchange emails, or conversations, or whatever. But I would also point out Ms. Sicora with the very peculiar coincidence of the timing. You keep referring to the fact that the school board no longer owns this property. That's right. Because they just sold it last week, just a few days ago, very conveniently at the same moment when the judge threw out part of our court case and kept the rest of it lingering so it was stalled for God knows how much longer. Nevertheless, I want to ask two questions, very important questions. One to the experts who have testified today. How can the parking plan, the assessment that these experts have done, not consider patients at the rest of the hospital, at the rest of RWJ who will supposedly be using the pedestrian bridge to go back and forth between the facilities when this was the very justification for why RWJ and (Indiscernible) absolutely had to build this freestanding 31 | P a g e

cancer institute on the site of Lincoln Annex? So how do you not take into account the people who are going to be in the rest of the hospital moving back and forth and who may park at this new parking facility? I'd like to know I the experts have any comments on that?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Liebling, is this something any of your experts can answer?

Mr. Dominguez: Mr. Liebling, you're muted.

Mr. Liebling: Mr. Helmer, is that an operational question that you can respond to? I'm not - I don't 100 percent understand the question, but -

Lilia Fernandez: The question is: how can the experts not take into account the patients at the rest of the hospital who will be traveling back and forth purportedly by the pedestrian bridge over the street who may be parking in this new parking garage, which you are considering this evening, when that was the whole justification for tearing down Lincoln Annex and building the freestanding center there; that it was going to give patients access to both buildings?

Mr. Liebling: And it will. I guess I still don't understand. If people - people in this - people in this (indiscernible) can cross to the new building. There's a pedestrian bridge.

Lilia Fernandez: Right. So then shouldn't you account for more traffic, more cars parking in that garage if they may be visiting not only the cancer center but also the main hospital?

Mr. Liebling: Well, we don't think that this is the most convenient parking for the main - for the main hospital. In any case, there can only be as much traffic as there are spaces, and we dealt with the - we have testimony about the number of spaces in the (indiscernible). When they're full, they're full.

Lilia Fernandez: I'm not referring to the number of spaces necessarily, but to the traffic that this will produce from people coming to Hardenberg or that other side street to park there.

Mr. Liebling: I'll let Mr. Disario respond then. He's the right person.

Mr. Disario: We've accounted for traffic associated with all 975 spaces. So regardless of where the ultimate person that parks in the garage is destined to, we've accounted for their traffic.

Lilia Fernandez: All right. The other question I have is for the board. How exactly - and particularly to Ms. Sicora-Ludwig, who made the statement, how exactly is the cost and financing of this project beyond the purview of this board or irrelevant to your deliberations here? No one goes and buys a house without knowing how it's going to be paid for. And I'm not talking just about the financing of what bank, whether it's going to be PNC or Chase who is going to lend the money. But who is going to be paying for this, just as people have asked earlier? Will it be the taxpayers? Will we be paying the bill for this parking garage?

Mr. Aithal: Madam Chair, this is -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Of course.

Mr. Aithal: And I think that's -

Lilia Fernandez: Please enlighten us.

Mr. Aithal: Yeah. I think that's an excellent analysis if you're buying a house. You're going to add to that house, then you would probably have to come back before this board and get a site plan approval for that additional footprint of your - the house that you're building. This board ought not to be asking you out of 32 | P a g e

privacy where you're going to get the money to build this house. I think it would be inappropriate for the board to ask, but it's not just what I think. It is what the municipal land use law permits this board, by its limited jurisdiction and its limited authority -

Lilia Fernandez: Excuse me.

Mr. Aithal: (Indiscernible) and people are upset because they think that this board is a ubiquitous government and that the board can do anything that the government can do. But it's limited by Title 40:55 alpha - I'm sorry - 55(d), the municipal land use law. So -

Lilia Fernandez: Mr. Aithal -

Mr. Aithal: You can't - I'm sorry. I didn't mean to cut you off. Go ahead.

Lilia Fernandez: But excuse me, Mr. Aithal. If I were to privately buy a house, it's not going to be paid for by the taxpayers of New Brunswick. So, it's not exactly a perfect analogy. What I'm saying is that whenever anyone buys a property, whether it's a private owner or a public entity, you have to know where the money is coming from. And you know, the city - taxpayers are not going to pay for my house if I can't pay for it.

Mr. Aithal: I'm not disagreeing with you. I'm saying that this board, under the municipal land use law, does not have the authority to inquire and make its decision based upon public or private financing. It can't do that. I cannot advise the board as its legal advisor to do something that is illegal.

Lilia Fernandez: So, could you tell us then, please -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Dan, is the time up?

Lilia Fernandez: Could you tell us who has the authority then to comment on the financing?

Mr. Aithal: I'm at a loss. I don't know.

Mr. Liebling: If a public entity ends up financing this, it would be that entity.

Mr. Aithal: There would have to be public -

Mr. Liebling: Announced at a public hearing.

Lilia Fernandez: This is exactly why we're asking these questions now as the public, as the taxpayers of the city of New Brunswick. Because we want to know if we're going to be footing this bill down the road.

Mr. Aithal: I appreciate that, and I hope you can understand it's not - we're not trying to obfuscate, it's just that I don't have an answer to provide you. And I've got to keep in mind my job as the board attorney is to make sure that the board does not inquire into areas where it is not permitted to inquire. And I appreciate your question, and I think, as Mr. Liebling says, if there's public financing that's going to occur, there must be - it sounds like a public hearing that has to occur before that public financing is approved. So, there would be an opportunity for the public to know that.

Lilia Fernandez: Okay. I think -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I think your time is -

Lilia Fernandez: There's another gentleman who has been asking to speak. He didn't get to sign up earlier.

33 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay.

Mr. Dominguez: We'll get him when we ask at the end for whoever we missed. We'll go through the list and add him at the end. So, thank you, Ms. Fernandez. Next up is Juan Gonzalez. Are you there?

Juan Gonzalez: Yes, I'm here. Can you hear me?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes, I can. Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Juan Gonzalez: Juan Gonzalez, G-o-n-z-a-l-e-z, 11 Cotter Drive, New Brunswick.

Juan Gonzalez, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: Your clock begins now.

Juan Gonzalez: Okay. I just want to state for the record that it's amazing that Mr. Dominguez and Mr. Aithal are the ones swearing us in to tell the truth and nothing but the truth when these are the very two people in the Planning Board who have misled, and I think, consciously lie to the public in these very public meetings. Mr. Aithal, you just stated recently in this meeting that it is impossible, to quote you, "to opine," whether eminent domain will be used by some other governmental body in relationship to this project. When you -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Gonzalez?

Juan Gonzalez: Yes.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Gonzalez, do you have any - this is a portion where you can ask questions pertaining to this application. We will have another public -

Juan Gonzalez: Wait. No, no. I thought you were telling everyone that they would be able to speak and ask questions. Now you want to change it again. Okay.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Not at all.

Juan Gonzalez: Let me speak, please. I will ask questions.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Excuse me, sir. I am not changing anything. This is the comment or question portion on the application, and then as always, at the end, if you have general comments, that will be before the -

Juan Gonzalez: These are question and comments on the application. All right. Let me finish, all right. Don't interrupt me all the time. All right. As I was saying, back in March, Mr. Aithal specifically said that this was a project that would not use eminent domain, that this was an are in need of rehabilitation where eminent domain could not be used. He knows very well that Middlesex County Improvement Authority last summer approved a redevelopment agreement that authorizes the use of eminent domain. There are still, as I understand it, four property owners in the footprint of this garage that had not sold their properties to RWJ. One of them - the lawyer for one of them I think is going to testify tonight, and yet he claims he knows nothing about the use of eminent domain. Mr. Dominguez, I asked you specifically in March how many parking spaces will the new garage take up. Check the minutes of your own meeting, Mr. Dominguez. You said, to quote you, between 2- and 400 parking spaces. Then it morphed to 650 parking spaces for the cancer center and now another 325 for the general public. Why the hell do we need 325 more parking spaces than even the cancer institute needs? Why all these parking spaces? What are they needed for, if not for some developer to make some more money? Mr. Disario, you just testified that there will be no significant impact from the more than 500 cars in the peak morning hours of this project 34 | P a g e

that will be coming in and out. Well, I read your report, Mr. Disario. Let me quote to you from your report. It says that cars traveling northbound on Hardenberg Street and making a left turn will go from the present 22.8 second delay or a C rating to a 148.1 seconds. That's a two and a half minute delay per car, an F rating. Your own report says cars traveling southbound on Hardenberg Street and making a left turn will go from 19 seconds delay to 47.4 seconds delay, more than double, going from a C to an E rating. You don't consider that significant delays, especially when you're dealing with an additional 500 cars. Finally, there's the issue with the power plant. We've heard almost nothing about the power plant. What kind of power? What kind of pollution? What's the potential health impacts on residents? Why was the power plant included in a plan for a garage? Was it so RWJ's private for profit investor partners could rake in some federal tax credits for new power plants? Finally, to Mr. Liebling and Mr. Paladino because I know you're both listening, you and your clients may feel relieved that you finally got to purchase the Lincoln Annex, and then you continue to ram your plans through. Even you will admit you've never seen the kind of massive and relentless public opposition.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: One minute.

Juan Gonzalez: And you've awakened an entire community, and we're not done yet exposing your slavish, racist, gentrifying fallacies. Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Who is next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is David Hughes. Are you there?

David Hughes: I'm here.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

David Hughes: Yes. David Hughes. That's H-u-g-h-e-s. I'm the treasurer of the Rutgers AAUP faculty union at 11 Stone Street.

David Hughes, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Your clock begins now.

David Hughes: Our union, representing 6,000 people, opposes this plan from top to bottom. It represents an insult and assault on the students of the Lincoln Annex School and their families in the entire neighborhood. I am going to stick though to the micro matter at hand here related to the parking lot. Mr. Roche, could you show your second slide again? I'd like to make note of one particular aspect of it. I don't want this fussing around to count against my time. So, if he could put up that slide, I'll draw everybody's attention to one aspect.

Mr. Roche: I believe Mr. Dominguez can pull that up momentarily.

David Hughes: Okay. Please stop the clock. All right. Very good. Thank you. So, if you see where Division Street meets this new access road - maybe enlarge it a little bit - the angles on that intersection are not right angles. They are curved in order to facilitate cars entering and exiting at higher speed than really is ideal. In fact, what I'm looking at is not the access road but just north of it. I'm looking at - I don't know how you describe this - but the east to west running street that goes straight into the middle part of the parking lot. Those are very - that's a very generous curve, which would allow cars to swing through it I'm not sure at what speed, perhaps 10 miles an hour, perhaps 15. And you can see that the crosswalk is much longer than it needs to be. I wonder why you haven't gone with right angles? And I say this in the interest of my 6,000 members who walk through this neighborhood and, of course, tens of thousands of students, and not to mention, as I mentioned, the assault of people of this neighborhood. You could design this very 35 | P a g e

differently if you cared. You could put right angles, and you could have a sidewalk that was even all throughout. You could have a speed bump. You could have stop signs. Remember, this is a residential neighborhood where children play. So, I wonder why you're so keen. And perhaps Mr. Helmer explained that to me when he talked about the way in which this plan would maximize the throughput of cars. Yes. This is a plan. This is like a freeway entrance designed to maximize the throughput of cars. So, I would suggest that you redesign this micro aspect in a way that actually demonstrates concern for the people and the pedestrians in this neighborhood. And let me just ask why you have not done it that way already? Why are there not right angles in the interest of pedestrian safety rather than this very generous curve? Why?

Mr. Roche: The short answer is this is for the loading area entrance, and the large radii required to accommodate the truck turning movements into and out of this area. We did put thought into the safety of this location. I tried to touch on it through my testimony. The number one thing we wanted to avoid for getting trucks into the garage was we didn't want to have reverse movement of the trucks backing up within a public right-of-way. It's never a good situation if you have that, especially if they're crossing sidewalk. So, in order to do that, we've done all our loading movements internal in the garage as far as the back-up movement. But to rehash my first statement, the reason we have the large radii there and a slightly longer crosswalk area is to accommodate the vehicular movements required to get the trucks in and out safely.

David Hughes: I see. Yes. You explained the trucks would be very long. Why don’t you make the sidewalk - rather than having a curb cut there, why don't you make the sidewalk even so that vehicles have to go up and down, which will slow them down?

Mr. Roche: A driveway apron. Is that what you're suggesting?

David Hughes: Yeah. Like a residential driveway?

Mr. Roche: I have no objection to a driveway apron. I think it's a similar type condition. It would still allow truck movements to move in. If the City professionals also feel like that's a good idea, that doesn't seem like an insurmountable thing to me.

David Hughes: Right. Let me just make sure we're talking about the same thing. I'm saying that the pedestrians would have no grade change. They would just walk along the same elevation. The trucks would have to go up and down. Are we talking about the same thing?

Mr. Roche: You still may have a slight drop for ADA ramps coming down at the location. It could be less pronounced. And we still could have - we've done this at several other locations in New Brunswick – when I'm referring to a driveway apron, it's the vehicles coming into that driveway will rise up slightly, you know, on the order of three or four inches. The sidewalk would be level the entire way, and once they go to the sidewalk, then they begin their approach downwards into the loading lane.

David Hughes: Just so long as the sidewalk is straight across where there's no up and down for the pedestrian, then that's much safer for them, more wheelchair accessible, and allows the vehicles to - it creates a speed bump effect for the vehicles, right?

Mr. Roche: It does.

David Hughes: Okay. Good. If I have more time, let me repeat - concern about the power plant.

Mr. Dominguez: Time.

David Hughes: I mean - 36 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: Time.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Your time is up, sir.

David Hughes: All right.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Who is next on the list, Dan?

David Hughes: Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you.

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is - and I always say this wrong, and I'm sorry - Ming Jia.

Ming Jia: You got close every time.

Mr. Dominguez: Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Ming Jia: Yeah. Ming Jia, J-i-a.

Ming Jia, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: Your time is on.

Ming Jia: Alrighty. The demolition of the Lincoln Annex School could be called many things, an assault on the community of New Brunswick - it is best identified as an assault on the community of New Brunswick. It is only natural that a school servicing (indiscernible) predominantly a black or brown community of our city would be seen as a small expendable cost to build a cash machine with so few community support that we already had a marathon meeting that went into 2:00 a.m. going to force a vote. It is only natural that the disjointed sneaky mechanisms and the changing rules and the constantly shifting frameworks of these public comments and meetings riddled with obscure inaccessible language used to confound, exhaust, and bewilder the public into silence - are utilized to confound, exhaust, and bewilder the public into silence. It is only natural that the organs of education that service our community are seen as expendable. It is only natural that our children and the resources that are utilized for their growth and learning are seen as expendable. Another speaker who spoke before me identified the contradiction here, that those in power value short-term profit over the long-term health of our community. Our children and family structure are expendable to them in the age of COVID because of the profits that this project would yield and the luxury they'd buy with that profit means more to them. Racist and gentrifying practices, rooting of the public resource to black and brown communities (indiscernible) -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Sir - sir, do you have any comment that's relevant to this application?

Ming Jia: Oh, absolutely. I'm making them. So, on behalf of the citizens of New Brunswick, I implore you to find local organizations to fight for our community, and for our community to (indiscernible) community dignity because obviously these routes have met us with nothing but condescension. It would appear that the route that are supposed to like derive legitimacy through representation of the people, in fact, utterly lack that and therefore lack legitimacy in the eyes of the public. That would be crazy. And anyway, for the people in power who allow this atrocity to pass, the community opposition that your callousness has engendered and will continue to gender, it will make the 2:00 a.m. marathon call feel like a paradise. And I really hope that the vacations that your profits buy were worth it because we're watching. We're always watching, and we're taking note; and we don't forget when you hurt our kids.

37 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Dan, who is next on the list?

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Charlie Kratovil. Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Charlie Kratovil: Charlie Kratovil, K-r-a-t-o-v-i-l.

Charlie Kratovil, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Charlie Kratovil: Before you start the clock, I just want to clarify I'm only going to get five minutes to cover my exhibits and any questions that I have for the witnesses?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes, sir.

Charlie Kratovil: Okay. Will you pause the clock while the witnesses are answering my questions?

Mr. Dominguez: No. We will not.

Charlie Kratovil: Okay. So, I'm going to have to forego a lot of questions, and a lot of discussion that would normally come forth will not. But maybe they could just tell us at least what kind of fuel this power plant is going to burn and how much pollution it will emit.

Mr. Liebling: Madam Chair, the operation of the power plant is not a subject of this board's review. It's not before this board.

Charlie Kratovil: How will it create the electricity that you spoke about in your presentation? How will that electricity be created?

Mr. Liebling: I repeat, Madam Chair. We gave the best information we could. We don't have experts. It's not the subject for this board to review.

Charlie Kratovil: There you go. You've got a good reason to deny this application. They did not have the appropriate experts. They do not have the appropriate answers, and they want to build a power plant in the middle of a residential neighborhood without those answers and those experts. So that's an open and shut case. I will, you know, try to cover some of the issues with this. Juan Gonzalez hit the nail on the head. What was presented to this board in March is a far cry from what we're hearing about now. The project was done all backwards because Robert Wood wanted this done. You guys passed a redevelopment plan that narrowly passed, and kudos to the two members who voted it down. But that redevelopment plan is not even being followed. The eminent domain is illegally in Exhibit B-7. You can see that for yourselves in my exhibits, and of course, the size of the parking deck has grown astronomically, even as the parking business has collapsed and failed and is hurting New Brunswick right now. So to build another parking deck at this point is real, you know, not in touch with reality or present day. And I am just going to share my screen here so that I can put another exhibit on the record. This one was not able to be put on the record in time for it to be on the website. Can - Mr. Dominguez, can you give me permission to share the screen?

Mr. Aithal: Hold on just a second. Mr. Kratovil, what is it that you'd like to put up? Because those documents needed to be presented prior to the meeting. And I think Mr. Liebling might want to take a look at it before -

Mr. Liebling: Are these documents already posted, Mr. Kratovil? 38 | P a g e

Charlie Kratovil: No. I came across one more that I wanted to share, and this is a post from the chairwoman of the board.

Mr. Liebling: Okay. What's good for the goose is good for the gander. My exhibits were in on time.

Charlie Kratovil: Okay. So, is that an objection?

Mr. Liebling: I'm objecting. You have plenty of exhibits you submitted, which I reviewed.

Charlie Kratovil: Sure. I just want to point out for the record that Ms. Sicora-Ludwig, who is chairing this meeting, attended the announcement of this project for 2019 and made a supportive Facebook post afterwards where she talked about how this is being developed through yet another public private initiative and a determined group of individuals. And among the dynamic speakers were our own Mayor Jim Cahill and Chris Paladino, President of DEVCO. So, it seems like she's already made up her mind on this project and had done so more than a year ago. So I would -

Mr. Liebling: Mr. Kratovil is free to say what he wants. I object to the inclusion of that exhibit in the record.

Charlie Kratovil: Okay.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: And for the record, I did attend an announcement, and I live in the city. I'm allowed to attend things that are going on in the city.

Charlie Kratovil: Right. And I'll cite -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: And at that - and at that presentation, there were no specifics of any projects that are going on tonight, and that's all I'm going to say.

Charlie Kratovil: Okay, great.

Mr. Aithal: How did you get control of the -

Charlie Kratovil: If you're all going to talk and take up my time, you need to give me more than five minutes, okay. So is it my turn to speak or not?

Mr. Aithal: How did you get control of the screen?

Charlie Kratovil: I'm sorry. What?

Mr. Aithal: How did you get control of the screen?

Charlie Kratovil: I hit share, and then I shared the screen.

Mr. Aithal: Okay. Mr. Kratovil, we were still talking about whether you could introduce it, and you went ahead and tried to introduce it. I will say this: that is not something that has been provided to the public prior to the meeting, as is required. So, I understand that you're saying what's good for the goose is good for the gander. I fail to see how that really applies here because the rules are -

Charlie Kratovil: Actually, sir, I didn't say what's good for the -

Mr. Liebling: I said that. 39 | P a g e

Charlie Kratovil: So, if I could just finish my remarks. I just want to point out. There's a case H.D. Summerhill versus Township of East Brunswick (Indiscernible). The mayor of the town lost his vote on the Planning Board for a particular application because he had already taken a public position on the application. That's what just happened here. Ms. Sicora-Ludwig should not be voting on this, should not be chairing the meeting, and ultimately, you know, the choices she has made have been choices that have rushed through this and the other application against wishes of the community. And in many cases silencing us and violating your own rules. If you didn't want to have objectors be able to make a case, you shouldn't have created a rule for objectors to be able to make a case. I brought this up before because I don't - I wanted to still be able to have every right to make the case. I've been bringing it up every time, and you should have been prepared for it. And it seems here, you're not. You have rules that you're not following. You have members with conflict of interest. I've already brought up the Mayor's representative still being here despite his role. And I didn't hear whether the other members of the board were even asked if they have conflicts of interest. (Indiscernible) step aside. But did the other members get asked if they have conflicts of interest with regard to DEVCO or Rutgers?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Kratovil, just for the record, the first time I saw this application was when I received it through my Planning Board packet. So, there was no way for me to support this application prior to that. That's all I'm saying. How much time is left, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Twenty seconds.

Charlie Kratovil: My question is: do any of the other board members have conflicts of interest with respect to DEVCO or Rutgers?

Mr. Aithal: Mr. Cartica did - I'm sorry, not Mr. Cartica. Mr. Chedid did, and he was removed. He was recused.

Mr. Dominguez: It's time.

Charlie Kratovil: Okay. Is Mr. Vickers still on the board, or has he been replaced?

Mr. Dominguez: Mr. Vickers retired from the board at the end of the year.

Charlie Kratovil: Okay. And his replacement has a conflict of interest or no? Okay.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Your time is up, Mr. Kratovil. Next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Next on the list is Matthew Meoni. Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Matthew Meoni: Matthew Meoni. That's M-e-o-n-i.

Matthew Meoni, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: All right. You're on.

Matthew Meoni: Thank you. So, I got a few questions pertaining to the application that I would like to ask, a few for sure. This one is pertaining to the actual - where did that go? Oh, the actual like - let's see here. Sorry I have a few questions I want to get through. All right. So, on the civil site plan (indiscernible) adjacent property owners are listed. Have they been notified that their properties are going to be considered to (indiscernible) get knocked down due to this application?

40 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I do know everybody within 200 feet of the project was notified of the application.

Matthew Meoni: And did they agree to have -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: They were given notice.

Matthew Meoni: They were given notice? Okay. So, the plan is using eminent domain, correct?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I'm not stating that. I'm stating they were given notice of this application.

Matthew Meoni: Oh, this application isn't to use eminent domain to take away their house?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I am not making any statement as to that. This board doesn't have the authority to do that. We did not allow it under our redevelopment plan. That is something that may be in MCIA, but not with

Matthew Meoni: Okay. But it's a possibility -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: It's a whole separate entity.

Matthew Meoni: It's a possibility though is what you're saying?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I don't know what their agreement is.

Mr. Aithal: We just determined -

Matthew Meoni: We can move on. No need to interrupt me. I appreciate. I got a question, another question. Why were the plans for the application being approved if the funding for it hasn't been determined yet?

Mr. Liebling: I can answer that question. That happens more often than not. It's - people work on a project in various - various steps at the same time in parallel lines. So, you propose while you're working on your design, while you're identifying your financing, while you're identifying your tenants. That's the development process.

Matthew Meoni: I appreciate the answer. And since my time is being counted against me with you answering, I'm going to have to cut some of your answers off just to make sure I get my time in if that's okay. So I'm not trying to be rude. I just wanted to put that out there. Oh, I also wanted to state as well that all the objections that were raised before the public comment about us only getting five minutes to cross-examine the witnesses and have our public comment (indiscernible), definitely should have been heard. They all were relevant. The cases should have been allowed to make. It doesn't state specifically that you have to have witnesses in order to make a case. It's not sufficient time to put into (indiscernible) witnesses. It's just amazing how rushed it really is. Clearly the public is not in favor of this plan. At this very minimum, the public is just looking and asking for more time and consideration and more of a thought process put into this because clearly it hasn't been considered. Clearly, Charlie just showed right before me that the chair of this board has a clear conflict of interest. She may have not seen the plans before they were, you know, made public to the rest of the board, but if you're at the event where they announce the plan - the site being approved with the company the contract being negotiated and accepted, I mean, at the end of the day, we know where you're going to stand.

Mr. Dominguez: One minute warning.

41 | P a g e

Matthew Meoni: That's not a question. It's just a statement because you said we - it's public comment and questions rolled into one. So, I'm going off of what you said. So no problem. I appreciate the clarification, but that's just what you said. So I'm going off of what you said.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: No, no. I didn't say anything. The meeting that I was at was a public meeting. It was not a private invite meeting.

Matthew Meoni: Okay. Just because you're answering cuts into my time. So, I don't want to cut my time short. I apologize if I cut you off.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay.

Matthew Meoni: If it didn't factor into my time, I would definitely let you speak and answer properly, but at this point I'm not really allowed to, unfortunately based off the rules that you arbitrarily instituted today, which has never been enforced in any other meeting prior to this. It is a little rather ridiculous, if I do say so myself. But, yeah, one final question because I know my -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: That's fine.

Matthew Meoni: - time is ending soon here. Does anyone on the board realize that the kids started school today in the warehouse? They actually got moved?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: That has nothing to do with this board, sir.

Matthew Meoni: Oh, it's part of the actual –

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Time, Dan?

Matthew Meoni: - plan though.

Mr. Dominguez: Yeah. Time is up.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Time is up, sir.

Matthew Meoni: Anyone have an answer to my -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: No. I will answer to the best that I can, but this board has no jurisdiction over the school board education, the board of education. We have no jurisdiction over what they do.

Matthew Meoni: Oh, you can only buy -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: We don't buy it. We have nothing to do with the purchase. We have nothing to do with that at all. This board has nothing to do with it.

Matthew Meoni: You just approve the plans after the school is bought under a secret deal?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: We are not even allowed to consider that when we're making a decision on the plans, and your time is up, sir. I just wanted to try to give you a little answer for that. Thank you for your comments.

Matthew Meoni: Thank you for yours too.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Next one, Dan? 42 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Danielle Moore. Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Danielle Moore: Yes. Can you hear me?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes.

Danielle Moore: My name is Danielle Moore, M-o-o-r-e. I live at 272 Hamilton Street. I just moved from 323 Somerset Street.

Danielle Moore, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Danielle Moore: Ms. Sicora - excuse me - Ms. Ludwig, do you live anywhere near Somerset Street.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I do not.

Mr. Aithal: This is an opportunity for members of the public to comment on the application or ask some questions.

Danielle Moore: You do it every time. Can you do not interrupt me talking to kill my time like you did last time, please? I have the right to ask questions, and the reason why I'm asking is because I realize Ms. Ludwig where she's leading the board - other board members on her decision, telling them, oh, you have to vote now. You have to do this, where you're saying that you have nothing to do with this. This is a board of education decision. That's a lie. You have every right to vote no to say you're against this. How you keep saying you don't have a part of this to try to make - no. This is all about you, where you can cancel this, vote no. And you're in charge of this. Where you keep leading your other board members, oh, yes, vote yes, yes, at every meeting and every -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I have never -

Danielle Moore: Please do not interrupt me. Please -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I know but you're making -

Danielle Moore: Please, would you stop interrupting me, Ms. Ludwig. You do it every time when you hear the truth. And please, please stop it. Because like I said, wow, you're making a big mistake for someone who doesn't live on Somerset, nowhere near Somerset Street to see what goes on with traffic and all. This is going to be impossible to do out of all the projects, like I said, that are coming up. That's where you have another building by Rutgers - Robert Wood Johnson built on the corner of Plum Street and (Indiscernible) Streets, another high rise building where it's too much with the traffic due to where you don't attend traffic meetings, what types of roads that will be redone. (Indiscernible) to (Indiscernible) Street. That's going to have to be slowed down, delayed for alternate turning. Wow. Another project on Frank and Easton Avenue has to be done. You're not focusing due to where you don't see the amount of flow of traffic in the area, and it's going to be - with all these cars, it's going to be very bad. And like I said, with this route, honestly, it's sad to see due to what Mayor Cahill said the reason with knocking down Memorial Parkway was because he didn't want any high rise building. And what do you see? Rutgers Robert Wood Johnson, DEVCO building all these high rise buildings just to where it was. This is no longer the city of New Brunswick. This is what the city of Rutgers, Robert Wood Johnson, DEVCO taking over our schools. And it's very sad. I hope you other members do not really let Ms. Ludwig lead you into voting yes, how she's been doing at every meeting. I'm glad to see that it's on record, and it's very shameful due to where - I don't understand how you said at the last meeting that Somerset Street is not going to be blocked off at no time. It will be 43 | P a g e

always will be available for the ambulance due to COVID-19. Wow. Like I said, I live right over here. Do you know how many ambulance keep going back and forth to the hospital and all the fire trucks in the area? That's going to mess it up, and like I said, it's already a situation with traffic. And like I said, it's a shame that - I wonder, what, do you have cancer, or does somebody in your family have cancer due to where you're just so ready - really wanting to vote yes without having all the stuff on paper, full detail. And it's sad to really see how you're doing that, Ms. Ludwig. It's really shameful because I'm still trying to see - like I said, another high rise from Robert Wood Johnson going on (Indiscernible) Street. This one - I don't see how due to Robert Wood Johnson this time built a new helicopter - a helicopter station over the emergency room to where you're (indiscernible) with the helicopter for trauma. That's not true. I don't see how you're going to build a bridge connecting from Rutgers to other campus centers to Robert Wood Johnson where that goes right over Somerset Street; where you're saying that Somerset Street is not going to be cut off at all, due to, what, you still have to knock down the building? How is that going to be with a bulldozer? What? It's impossible for you to keep Somerset Street open while doing this project where I was told, what, this is going to take three years to build? Come on. This is outrageous. And like I said, I hope the rest of your board members really pay attention to what's going on due to where this is not just Ms. Ludwig's decision. This is yours too, and it's all about safety. And believe me, Mayor Cahill - anyone can tell you that, oh, I'm one of the most residents and even Ms. Ludwig can tell you that I know more of the traffic issues than she does.

Mr. Dominguez: That's time, Danielle.

Danielle Moore: Be for real. And like I said, wow, whenever you hear the truth, you always want to cut somebody else. I know good and well that wasn't my five minutes, but like I said -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Time is up, Ms. Moore. And before you go on, Dan, I'm just going to make a statement. I want it on record that I never ask or direct any board members to vote in the affirmative or the negative. Each member of this board makes evaluation of the facts on their own. That's all I'll say to that, and we'll go on to the next person for commenting.

Danielle Moore: (Indiscernible) At the last meeting they had to hurry up and put their vote in. It's on record. You can't say that you didn't tell them that, okay, we can't hold off on this meeting.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Dan, do we have the next witnesses or next -

Mr. Dominguez: Yes. Next up is Thomas Olson. Thomas Olson, are you there?

Thomas Olson: I'm here. Good evening, everyone.

Mr. Dominguez: Aravind, as he's an attorney, do I have to swear him in?

Mr. Aithal: He's acting on behalf of his client, so -

Thomas Olson: No. I'm not testifying. I just have a few questions on behalf of my client. If it's okay, I'll proceed.

Mr. Dominguez: Run the clock or -

Mr. Aithal: Go ahead.

Mr. Dominguez: All right.

Thomas Olson: Yeah. I'm not going to take five minutes. I am here on behalf of 28 Hardenberg Street, LLC, and 30 Hardenberg Street, LLC. My name is Thomas Olson of the firm of McKirdy, Riskin, Olson, and 44 | P a g e

Dellapelle. Those entities own Block 51 lot 27 and 28, 28 Hardenberg Street and 30 Hardenberg Street. Maroun Chedid is the principal of those entities. Those structures contain residential buildings, and as I indicated, they're owned by Mr. Chedid. I have a couple of questions for Mr. Liebling. Mr. Liebling, in order for your client to build the project that is the subject before the Planning Board tonight, you would need to acquire these properties, correct?

Mr. Liebling: Yeah. That's correct.

Thomas Olson: Okay. Now, will your client be contacting my client to discuss acquisition of those - of his property or -

Mr. Liebling: My understanding is that contact has been made through Robert Wood Johnson to all the property owners.

Thomas Olson: Okay. I'm not sure that that has happened yet, but perhaps it will. But Robert Wood Johnson would be conducting the negotiations?

Mr. Liebling: That's - that's my understanding. I mean, my client can certainly, you know, become involved in that, but to date, that has not occurred.

Thomas Olson: What would be the timing of this project? When would the actual - you actually would need my client's properties in order to begin construction?

Mr. Liebling: Right now, the schedule calls for construction to start mid-year.

Thomas Olson: Mid-2020 - 2021.

Mr. Liebling: Mid-2021.

Thomas Olson: Okay. And this next question, I guess, is for Mr. Aithal. Mr. Aithal, I think you have indicated previously that the redevelopment area under which this project is proceeding is an area in need of rehabilitation and eminent domain would not be available, correct?

Mr. Aithal: Not under the municipal land use law. No.

Thomas Olson: Okay. All right. And in closing I just want to indicate that, again, this is my client's property. It's his private property, very important and valuable to him. He just wants to be treated fairly. We just want to be treated fairly. So, we look forward to hearing from you again. Thank you very much, and we'll see what happens. Thanks again. Good evening, everyone.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you, sir. Who is next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes. All right. So next on the list is Michael Pedersen. Michael Pedersen, please state your name and spell your last name for the record.

Michael Pedersen: Can you hear me?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes.

Michael Pedersen: Cool. Michael Peterson, P-e-d-e-r-s-e-n.

45 | P a g e

Michael Pedersen, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Michael Pedersen: Awesome. So, I have a traffic question. Reading the traffic report - I think it's on page 14, this is a direct quote, I believe, "Under the first building condition without the inclusion of the 351 parking spaces in the garage, all movements are expected to operate at LOS D or better during the weekday morning peak hour and LOS E or better during the weekday evening peak hour. The exception is the northbound during the weekday evening, which is expected to continue to operate at LOS F while the parking - while the project delay exceeds the 50-second threshold for level of service E operations. A maximum of three additional vehicles is projected to be added to the queue from the no-build condition. Additionally, the analysis does not suggest the northbound approach queue will block the downstream intersection at Condict Street? That's the Hardenberg Street and - well, you know. So, I just - how is that acceptable?

Mr. Disario: I testified during the Cancer Pavilion, that approach will experience additional delay, and the only option to better operations would be to remove onsite parking, so that you could stripe two lanes. And I don't think the City has the appetite to remove onsite - or on-street parking in this area. So, we are left with a constrained situation in terms of additional delay because of additional traffic with no way to provide additional lanes. This is not isolated to this particular intersection. There are many intersections across New Brunswick with similar conditions, and as it relates to stop-controlled intersections, particularly those that are near the center business district area, these are typical operations.

Michael Pedersen: Okay. Now this is - I don't think this is a question for you, so we're going to move on. I was looking at the sewer report also. So, in the sewer report it compares the average sewage flood rate for residential properties and the parking garages. Is this done because the project does intend to knock down residential properties in the area?

Mr. Roche: Correct. The current location of the garage as proposed, there are several existing residential structures that are in place. Those would be demolished as part of the construction of the garage. So that's why they were included in the sewer report in tabulating the overall anticipated sewer flood from the project. What we did was we calculated the anticipated flow from the garage, and then we subtracted out the flow from the residential properties, which will be removed to get an overall net decrease in flow. And the reason I say it's a net decrease is the existing flow is higher than what was being proposed for the parking garage.

Michael Pedersen: Okay.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any further questions, sir?

Michael Pedersen: More of a comment. You know, I work in New Brunswick, and I'm not a big fan of this. Obviously, the traffic is going to get worse. We heard the traffic is going to get worse. You plan to knock down residential structures. You're most likely going to try to use eminent domain because, let's be honest, that's what you people do. It's just not right. Throwing kids in a warehouse? It's just not correct. If any of your kids were going into a warehouse, you would be pissed. And so it's just - it's very wrong. I yield my time.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you, sir. Next on the list.

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Jim Puskas. Are you there?

Jim Puskas: Yes, yes. Here I am.

46 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Jim Puskas: Jim Puskas, P-u-s-k-a-s.

Jim Puskas, sworn

Jim Puskas: I do. I live at 16 Hardenberg Street. And Thomas Olson expressed the same concerns I had. So, I really don’t have anything further to say.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you.

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Arly Rubens. Are you there?

Arly Rubens: Before you start my time, I want to make it clear that this is my commentary, I won't be asking questions, so interjections won't be necessary.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Arly Rubens: Arlene Rubens, R-u-b-e-n-s.

Arly Rubens, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Arly Rubens: As it's been stated several times over the course of this meeting that the parking garage is specifically tied to the larger Cancer Pavilion project. It's relevant to discuss the conflicts of interest present in the project as a whole. Some of us may know that three Planning Board members have recused themselves from this process due to conflicts of interest, but that doesn't mean that all conflicts of interest have been eliminated. Planning Board members are appointed by the Mayor, not elected by the public, so while Mayor Cahill isn't voting in these proceedings, every member who will be voting has been placed on the board by the Mayor himself. It's not a stretch to imagine that boards selected by the Mayor might share some of his political goals and interests, but there are also some concerning signs of (indiscernible) politics. Multiple board members have donated hundreds to thousands of dollars to Mayor Cahill's reelection campaigns, including Mr. Stellatella, Mr. Dominguez, Mr. (Indiscernible), and Mr. Carley. Perhaps the most alarming contributions come from Ms. Sicora-Ludwig, who in addition to donating and receiving payment as a “campaign manager" during the past campaign, serves as vice president of the New Brunswick Democratic organization, a group openly tied to Cahill's Mayoral candidacy that donated nearly $11,000 to his (indiscernible). (Audio breaking up) (Indiscernible) Cahill have also received money from and given (indiscernible), and some in egregious cases, developers who are also RWJ. As (indiscernible) attempted to recuse himself at one meeting because he serves as a representative for Mayor Cahill, (indiscernible) rest of the board wouldn't be considered (indiscernible). One of these friends of Cahill is developer Robert Wood Johnson, the developer that will service (indiscernible) Lincoln Annex students. (Indiscernible) student in the past, and Robert (Indiscernible) profits from every instance of student displacement in the city of New Brunswick. Personally, through this development company with companies and through some of his 46 shell companies, Robert Paulus has donated thousands of dollars to Mayor Cahill's election funds, and the money goes both ways. Friends of Jim Cahill, his reelection pack paid one of Paulus' LLCs for hosting an urban Mayor's meeting at a restaurant that didn't exist at the time. And New Brunswick today was unable to trace any basic information about the event. The Cancer Pavilion development project feeds directly into these unethical dealings by creating another profitable displacement for a friend of Jim Cahill. Jack Morris, CEO, of Edgewood Properties, Inc. has donated one of his Jersey ag properties to serve as the site of the new school. What looks like a generous donation on the surface is actually yet another conflict 47 | P a g e

of interest because Morris also happens to be a Robert Wood Johnson trustee, who stands to profit from this development. (Indiscernible) for the Cancer Pavilion are RWJ (indiscernible), but Jack Morris is the Chair of the board of trustees at the RWJ (indiscernible). Coincidentally, Morris' donation also skims a bit off the top of RWJ's bill for this development. I also want to acknowledge throughout the (indiscernible), who since 2011 has received over $20,000 in campaign donations from Developers PAC, a fundraiser arm of a developer’s association, which includes our good friend on the call, Mr. Palatino, the CEO of DEVCO as a member. While Mr. Aithal cleared himself of any conflicts of interest at a previous meeting, it's absurd and insulting to suggest that he should not be associated with his law partner or his firm's history when he's appearing at this meeting under the name Bob Smith & Associates. To conclude, a board appointed by the (indiscernible) RWJ trustees (indiscernible) to consider the interest of the public over the same trustees and developers. These proceedings are a product of a huge web of conflicts of interest. This is unethical, and if the board continues to deny, legal action is the only option for people of New Brunswick to be seen and heard by the people who are meant to represent them. Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you. Dan, before you get your next person, just for the record, I would like to clarify that I have never served as vice president of the New Brunswick Democratic Organization.

Arly Rubens: That's weird because your name appears on the website. So that's -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: My name may appear on their website as vice counsel - as vice president of City Council but never the New Brunswick Democratic Organization. I think you just -

Arly Rubens: That's okay. I'll drop the link the chat referring to that.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: All right. All right. Next, Dan.

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Miguel Romero. You there?

Miguel Romero: Yes. Can you hear me?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes, I can. Can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Miguel Romero: Last name is Romero, R-o-m-e-r-o.

Miguel Romero, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Miguel Romero: Okay. So, I'd like to start out by asking a little bit of clarification on the procedure because it was a little bit confusing that at the beginning you were saying that you were going to put both the comments on the specific issue of the parking deck and general comments into one five-minute session. So, I would like to have some clarification on that.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: No. There is public - this is the comment portion for the application, and then as always, after the application is finished, there is public comment before we adjourn the meeting.

Miguel Romero: Okay. Thanks. I have a question. Are the board members' addresses available publicly online?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I don't believe so.

Miguel Romero: Okay. So, I think it's a little bit weird that we're asking for every commenters' home address as part of asking questions about the parking garage. My next question is: so, when - why was it 48 | P a g e

not a good idea or when did you think that disclosing that you were going to have a fossil fuel power station as part of the parking garage, when did you think that was going to be a good idea to disclose that information? Why is it only being disclosed so late into the process?

Mr. Liebling: Chris, maybe you can respond. It's been on the plans for a very long time.

Miguel Romero: I'm sorry. I couldn't hear you. Could you repeat that again?

Mr. Liebling: Yeah. There's some echoing. Chris, maybe you can (indiscernible). It's been in the plans for a long time. Chris Roche.

Mr. Roche: I had a little trouble hearing you over the echo, Chuck. But I think the question was not necessarily about the plant but just the timing on when the information on the plant was going to be released. To my knowledge, this is not the first time the pavilion utility plant was mentioned. There's been discussions at public meetings previously regarding the plant.

Miguel Romero: So, the plan for this parking garage was not disclosed until much later. We've been going to Planning Board meetings, City Council meetings, and this parking garage with a very important component, which is the power plant aspect of it, was not disclosed like, what, one meeting or two meetings ago. So, I want to know who - like how is that determined, and why is it being disclosed? So, what happens if like the power plant aspect of the plan does not get approve for very obvious reasons? So, what's going to happen with the rest of the plan?

Mr. Liebling: First of all, the plans for the garage were submitted simultaneously with the plans for the pavilion. That was a number that was a number months ago. So, it was - that information was available then. In any case, if it doesn't get approved, we would have to come back to the - this board and seek revisions to the site plan for the Cancer Pavilion in order to accommodate the utility functions that the utility plant in the garage would have otherwise been furnishing, and that would, you know, result in additional costs, inefficiencies, whatever. But that is what we would have to do.

Miguel Romero: I see. To my understanding, that did not happen. The first time we heard from this fossil fuel power station was not until one or two meetings ago, so this is not - this is not something that has been brought up to the community with sufficient time or with sufficient openness to be able to be discussed. I would like to ask: what is the estimate of how many greenhouse gases are going to be emitted to the community with this fossil fuel power station?

Mr. Liebling: We don't have any witnesses that can answer that question.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any other questions, sir?

Miguel Romero: I do. So, do you also not have an estimate of what the impact of these greenhouses gases are going to be to the residents of New Brunswick?

Mr. Liebling: There's a permitting process that takes place with the Department of Environmental Protection for facilities such as this. We will be required to go through it. We will be required to submit all that information. They will review it, and they will approve it, deny it, modify if in accordance with state law. It's not - it's not a matter for the Planning Board.

Miguel Romero: It's not a matter to the Planning Board, even though that power station is going to be in the garage that you're proposing to build currently?

Mr. Liebling: Correct. It's within the garage. The Planning Board is reviewing the site plan. It is placed within the garage and, therefore, it is the building itself and its footprint that the Planning Board is 49 | P a g e

reviewing. And I'll certainly - I don't mean to be stepping at all on Mr. Aithal's privilege here to respond to that type of question.

Mr. Dominguez: If we can find a way of just putting that into the record.

Mr. Aithal: Yeah. Mr. Liebling, the issue really is whether your client will be able to comply with the - let's try this again. I'm sorry - the NJDEP regulations, the oversight over the power plant, the utility plant I should say. So, if they, in fact, cannot comply with it, NJDEP will not issue the enabling permits, and you won't be able to construct the utility portion in the parking garage. And you would have to come back for a revised site plan to locate it someplace else. But the condition, if this board were to approve, certainly would be that you obtain outside agency approval that have jurisdiction over a number of things, including the NJDEP, who is the approval authority over the permit.

Mr. Liebling: And we actually understand and accept that, and that is the, you know, typical and customary process for dealing with these kinds of issues.

Miguel Romero: So, one of the reasons I bring that up is because famously, the City Council and the board of education and all these different bodies were saying that not a cent of taxpayer money was going to be spent to have a new school built and to have all this kind of stuff built. But now it turns out that Middlesex County is going to spend $25 million to build a private entity, not even an entity that's going to be providing a true public service because universal healthcare is not the law of the land yet. So basically, the reason why the community is questioning it is because why is it so disorganized? Why are you - why are the people in power saying one thing, and then one (indiscernible) saying something totally different or coming out with a new issue that was not -

Mr. Dominguez: So, I called time maybe a minute ago. So we'll need to go to the next person.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I'm sorry. Okay. Your time is up, sir. Who's next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Linda Stork.

Linda Stork: Hi, everybody. Good evening.

Mr. Dominguez: Ms. Stork, can you please state your name and spell your last name for the record?

Linda Stork: Linda Stork, S-t-o-r-k, 12 Park Boulevard.

Linda Stork, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Linda Stork: All right. So, yeah, the power plant is a big concern. That's a huge concern. It's hard to believe that in this day and age we'd be replacing a solar panel building with a fossil fuel power plant, which we're not even being told what kind of fossil fuels.

Mr. Liebling: It's natural gas. It's just not relevant to the Planning Board's review. That was the source of my reluctance to get into it. It's a natural gas power plant.

Linda Stork: Thank you.

Mr. Liebling: Sure.

50 | P a g e

Linda Stork: I really want to get to this traffic situation because this is absurd. I mean, I'm just looking. I'm looking through the level of the - you know, the level of service going in some cases from B & C to C and - you know, with the building of the parking deck goes to C & C. And then with then with the additional parking spaces, it goes down to D and F. I want to echo my fellow citizens: how is that okay? The - well, the parking is horrible too, but the traffic situation in this city is horrendous. So, you know, I'm looking at the breakdown of - and it's hard for me to believe that, you know, another almost 500 cars coming out in the peak hour. And when you say "peak hour," so the study was done over two hours, but the peak hour is just in that one hour. This table refers to one hour. It says weekday p.m. peak hour, 376. I don't know why the figures he was reading were slightly different, but I'm looking at Table 1 on the website. And it says a total of 487 additional cars coming out during that hour. Anybody that lives or works in the neighborhood and has tried to get anywhere during rush hour knows - common sense would tell you, another 500 cars would be a nightmare. It's horrible already. The traffic gets gridlocked at - see, these particular intersections, I don't go through. But when you're coming across town, if you have to come, as I often do, from the area by St. Peter's Hospital over to the public library during the evening rush hour, you have to pass, you know, first on Louis Street and then, you know, Suydam Street going over. So, you're passing all these intersections. You have to pass Hamilton Street, you know. You start on Easton Avenue, horrible traffic, and they're saying a certain percentage of the traffic is going to go over to Easton Avenue. Great. Then you have to come across the intersection at - it's at Hamilton Street, which is going to get worse. It's already horrible. You sit through multiple lights at these intersections. Somerset Street, another horrible one. Front Street, horrible. You sit through multiple lights, and sometimes the traffic gets gridlocked with the cars coming the other way. And I can't even imagine what happens at the intersections that don’t lights. I won't go on them because I know you're just going to get stuck there, and you have to be really aggressive to even ever get out. So, I don't like to be aggressive, so I just go with the lights. But it is a horrendous situation already - I mean, not right this minute because Rutgers isn't in session, and you know, a lot of people aren't driving to work right now but just in general. Like from the time this was done, I can't believe how they came to the conclusion that it wouldn't make a significant difference. It would make an already terrible situation significantly worse. And how is that okay?

Mr. Dominguez: Minute warning.

Linda Stork: Yeah. That's not okay. And I believe it was referred - like so if, in fact, this situation became so intolerable that it needed to be remediated, it was said - so these are city streets, so the city would have to do something. And it was referred to a public assessment. That sounds like taxes, correct me if I'm wrong. A public assessment to pay for the remediation of the totally unnecessary problem that's being created by throwing up this huge newly expanded parking deck? Public assessment refers to taxes. That means taxes, right? Could the person who referred to a public assessment to remediate the traffic problem please clarify that public assessment refers to taxes?

Mr. Dominguez: That's time.

Linda Stork: Nobody is going to tell me if that's what it means.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Your time is up, Ms. Stork. Who is next on the list, Dan?

Linda Stork: And nobody is going to clarify that comment about the public assessment to fix the traffic problem?

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Victor Vaughn.

Linda Stork: Apparently not.

Victor Vaughn: Yeah. I'm here.

51 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: Victor Vaughn, can you please state your name and spell your last name?

Victor Vaughn: Yeah. V-a-u-g-h-n.

Victor Vaughn, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Victor Vaughn: Okay. So, who is going to answer that question about public assessment coming out of taxes?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Can you ask the question, please?

Victor Vaughn: Yeah. Somebody made a statement about a public assessment in case remediation would need to be made, right. If the study that was done during COVID, when everybody is working from home, and everybody is back out on the road, and suddenly, you know, like your whole traffic assessment is wrong. And something has to be fixed. I believe someone did state that it would take, you know, a public assessment that would come out of taxes for the City to fix that.

Mr. Aithal: Madam Chair, this is -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I don't believe the City would be charged for the traffic report. Is that what you're referring to, if they have to do a new report? We wouldn't be charged for that.

Victor Vaughn: Okay. I have a follow-up question.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Go ahead.

Victor Vaughn: What's your address?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Excuse me?

Victor Vaughn: What's your address?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I don't have to -

Mr. Aithal: Madam Chair, that's not - that's not relevant to the application.

Victor Vaughn: So how is my address relevant to me speaking?

Mr. Aithal: Because you're being sworn in.

Victor Vaughn: All right. And you can't list your address or give us your address?

Mr. Aithal: We do public disclosures, and I think that's still not relevant to the application itself. I'm not trying to cut you off, but you might want to focus on the application.

Victor Vaughn: Okay. Do you feel any sense of remorse for the lives of the children that have been disrupted due to this? I'll take your lack of -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Who are you asking, sir? Who are you addressing that comment to?

Victor Vaughn: The entire board. So, you can go first if you want to answer. 52 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: The board has no role in what the board of education does. That's my comment.

Victor Vaughn: I'm not asking about that. I'm asking if you feel any sense of remorse for it.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I have no comment on that.

Victor Vaughn: So that's a no. Anybody else on the board?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: It's not a no. It is a no comment.

Victor Vaughn: It sounds like a no.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: You can proceed if you have further questions.

Victor Vaughn: Would I be able to give my time to Charlie Kratovil?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: No.

Victor Vaughn: So, you were never the head of the board for the democratic, whatever the hell that thing was?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: If you can give me the name of the board, I can give you an answer.

Victor Vaughn: Let's see here. Suzanne Ann Sicora-Ludwig, community involvement in the New Brunswick Democratic Organization.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I have been involved with that organization.

Victor Vaughn: (Indiscernible) District 4 for the Middlesex County Democratic Organization in 2007 and reelected each term to date. Appointed to the Planning Board of the City of New Brunswick over 10 years, elected to positions of vice chair and chair by her peers.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes.

Victor Vaughn: So that information that was given before was not inaccurate?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: It absolutely was inaccurate. She stated that I was vice president of the New Brunswick Democratic Organization, and I have never held an office in that organization.

Victor Vaughn: Right.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I'm not sure how this is relevant to the matter at hand.

Mr. Aithal: Madam Chair, it's really not.

Victor Vaughn: Nobody asked you, Bob Smith & Associates.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any questions relevant to this application?

Victor Vaughn: I literally just wanted an answer for like if any of you felt any sense of remorse for your involvement or -

53 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: One minute warning.

Victor Vaughn: - willing to give any kind of, you know, answer towards like, you know, if the reassessment of the traffic plan would come out of the City in taxes.

Mr. Aithal: Madam Chair, if there are no other questions, maybe we should move on to the next speaker.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any other questions, sir?

Victor Vaughn: Yeah. Can I get the Google Doc?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: What kind of Google Doc? Is there anyone on the line still?

Victor Vaughn: Sorry. How are you adding vehicles to the queue yet increasing time of service operations?

Mr. Dominguez: Time.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Your time is up, sir. Who is next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: I believe the last person is - we missed on the first go is John Luke Bourget.

Unidentified Speaker: There are speakers who would like to be added to the list who did not have a chance at the beginning of the meeting to be called on.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: (Indiscernible)

Mr. Dominguez: I believe it's John Luke Bourget.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Are you there, sir? Mr. Bourget? Is there anyone else on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: There is no one else on the list.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Should we close the public portion of the meeting.

Unidentified Speaker: Yeah. There are other members of the public who would like to speak who didn’t have a chance to be called on in the beginning.

Unidentified Speaker: Hello.

Mr. Aithal: If I may, Madam Chair, we went through -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes.

Mr. Aithal: - the entire alphabet, and we asked several times if there was anyone that wasn't called. Chair's prerogative, if there's a motion to close the public portion.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yeah. We did. We asked three times, and then we just stated again -

Unidentified Speaker: Hello. Excuse me. I'm in the same room as Mr. Bourget, and I'd like to pass the mic to them so they may speak.

John Luke Bourget: Hello. Members of the board. I'm sorry. I've been experiencing technical difficulties tonight. May I still have my time to speak? 54 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes.

John Luke Bourget: Thank you. All right. I have several questions.

Mr. Dominguez: Will you spell your name and spell your last name for the record. I'm sorry. I was muted.

John Luke Bourget: Yes, sir. Sorry. John Luke Bourget, 116 Louis Street, New Brunswick.

Mr. Dominguez: Can you spell Bourget?

John Luke Bourget: Yes. B-o-u-r-g-e-t.

John Luke Bourget, sworn

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

John Luke Bourget: All right. So, in the water report submitted in December, how was the gallons per day, GPD, estimate water usage peaking factor based on for the parking garage?

Mr. Roche: Water demands are calculated in accordance with straight criteria. The New Jersey Administrative Code dictates projected water demands depending on what the use of a property is. It's different for residential uses or parking garage uses, and I believe we estimated it based on the anticipated number of employees within the parking garage.

John Luke Bourget: I see. And what sort of facilities will be used or will use water in the parking garage?

Mr. Roche: We're still finalizing the design of the parking garage. There may be a bathroom facility in that area.

John Luke Bourget: I see. There may be. All right. Current estimated usage for the proposed site as it is stands at 3675 gallons per day, GPD, estimated use for the project is only 450 GPD, a net loss of 3225 GPD. How will this decrease in water usage benefit the City and where would that be directed, if it would?

Mr. Roche: It's similar to the sewer question someone had asked previously about the calculated demand. The way we did it is we calculated what the existing demand is onsite with the residential structures, and then we calculated what the proposed demand would be for the parking garage. In both cases, you end up having a decrease in demand. To answer your question: what would it do for the City? It's a slight decrease in the amount of water being utilized by those properties from the city water department.

John Luke Bourget: I see. Sorry. New Brunswick has a history of difficulty with water. Since water usage is estimated to be greatly decreased, why does the existing six-inch water main in the Hardenberg Street need to be upgraded?

Mr. Roche: The main driving factor in upgrading the size of that line wasn't necessarily the parking garage itself. It was really the Cancer Pavilion project as well.

John Luke Bourget: Oh, I see. I thought this comment section was just relegated to the parking deck. Are you acknowledging that these projects are inexorably linked?

Mr. Roche: I misunderstood your question. I was trying to answer your question from a technical perspective of why a waterline was being increased in size.

55 | P a g e

John Luke Bourget: Right. I'm terribly sorry. I hope I did not come across as rude.

Mr. Roche: Not at all.

John Luke Bourget: I do have a few more questions. The revised and original water report say they refer to drawing CU-101 for plans such as the Hardenberg Street water main. However, the page containing CU- 101 is almost cut off by about half in both submissions. What is the plan for that, and how can it be justified that the Planning Board move forward with this plan when a submission document had a significant page that was cut off by almost half?

Mr. Dominguez: One minute.

Mr. Roche: I don't know what you're referring to. There's the PDF plan set and the hard copy plan sets. The plan we submitted were full size sheets that included the entirety of the plan.

John Luke Bourget: In the copy provided to the public on the City of New Brunswick website, the water report has its last page which contains CU 101 cut off by almost half. How can (indiscernible) proper commentary on a project like this (indiscernible) all of the (indiscernible)?

Mr. Roche: To clarify your question, you're talking about the water report itself, the PDF you looked at?

John Luke Bourget: Yes, yeah.

Mr. Roche: Okay.

John Luke Bourget: It's grossly incomplete.

Mr. Roche: There's a separate PDF that is part of the site plan set.

Mr. Dominguez: This is Dan Dominguez jumping in real quick. Did you say the utility plan CU-101 is half cut off?

John Luke Bourget: Yes. The water report. I can look up the date for it.

Mr. Dominguez: It's an aerial site plan application?

John Luke Bourget: No. This is the water report submitted on - no. Originally submitted August (indiscernible).

Mr. Dominguez: So, I think - I think the issue is that since the PDF is very large, it didn't load. I'll share it right now just to prove that it actually worked.

Unidentified Speaker: And I was able to download it.

Mr. Dominguez: Fully loaded and it's CU 101. So, it's just very large files. So, it even took my computer a very long time to upload it. So that's -

John Luke Bourget: (Indiscernible) I see. And several of the notes -

Mr. Dominguez: Your time has expired, sir. So -

John Luke Bourget: I see. Thank you, City Planning Board for your time. May we continue to better serve the glorious city of New Brunswick. 56 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you for your comments, sir. Now, I'll ask for a motion to close the public portion.

Unidentified Speaker: Hello? Is it too late to ask a question?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: At this point in the meeting, yes, it is. There's another point for public comment coming up.

Unidentified Speaker: You're not going to give me five minutes.

Unidentified Speaker: All members of the public are entitled to five minutes of their public comment section. If they didn't have the chance to get signed up - they can call at any point for their five minutes.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do I have a motion from the board?

Mr. Cartica: I want to just ask - this is Bob Cartica. Just a question prior to forwarding a motion on this - on this application.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Can you do it after we close the public portion, Bob?

Mr. Cartica: Oh, yes. I thought it was closed.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: No. I'm asking - I'm asking for a motion to close the public portion of the meeting.

Mr. Cartica: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Go ahead.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yeah. So, I'm not asking for a motion to move the - to move the application, just to close the public portion.

Unidentified Speaker: Will you put on the record that you're denying someone's right to speak?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Is there a motion from the board?

Unidentified Speaker: There is a member of the public who would like to speak.

Unidentified Speaker: I'm so sorry. I have a question, ma'am.

Mr. Aithal: Dan, we might need to mute the public.

Unidentified Speaker: Excuse me?

Unidentified Speaker: Are you really silencing us.

Unidentified Speaker: Ma'am, I have a question, please.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do I have a motion from the board?

Unidentified Speaker: Did you not say earlier there was going to be a comment and a public comment section?

Unidentified Speaker: Motion to close the public comment.

Unidentified Speaker: This is anti-Italian discrimination. 57 | P a g e

Unidentified Speaker: You don't have any motions to do anything, but you do have members of the public who would like to speak who are entitled to that right. You have no motions from the board, but you do have members of the public who are requesting their five minutes that they are entitled to.

Mr. Dominguez: I'm muting as you go. What's the check on motion, by the way?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes.

Unidentified Speaker: This is illegal. There will be a lawsuit.

Unidentified Speaker: I'll put my contact in the chat.

Unidentified Speaker: There was a member of the public who was wanting to speak.

Mr. Dominguez: Are there members of the public that are willing to speak?

Unidentified Speaker: I would like to speak.

Unidentified Speaker: We need to speak. This is incredibly (indiscernible).

Unidentified Speaker: Hello? I'm sorry.

Unidentified Speaker: This is really important. People need to be having a right to speak.

Unidentified Speaker: So, you're just denying -

Unidentified Speaker: So, you're just muting whoever is going to try and stop - oh, my God. You're really - you're going to stop anyone who tries to - you're going to stop members of the public from having their rights, which they're legally already entitled to. That's going to come up in lawsuits. I'll tell you right now that you'll hear about the fact that members of the public are being denied by this counsel that they had.

Unidentified Speaker: Very evidently, we have interested members -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay.

Mr. Dominguez: I muted everyone but you right now.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay. Can we unmute the board members?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Let me know when we have them.

Mr. Dominguez: I'm working through them.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you.

58 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: Chairwoman Sicora-Ludwig, I believe that I have unmuted or requested unmuting of all members of the board. They would need to manually unmute themselves with the request that I sent them.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay. Do I have all board members present?

Ryan Berger (Board Member): This is Ryan Berger.

Yelitssa Checo (Board Member): Yelitssa Checo.

Mr. Cartica: Bob Cartica. I'm here.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Anyone else? You need to unmute yourselves. Who else is still on the call, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Just going through it. Hold on.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you.

Mr. Aithal: Madam Chair, while we're waiting for the board members to reconvene, I note that the time is almost 11 - or I'm sorry, 10:30.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes. I want to reconvene, just close this portion and then I was going to make a statement that we're going to be continuing. You know, continuing the application tomorrow.

Mr. Dominguez: I've submitted requests to John Petrolino, Diana Lopez, and Matt Ferguson. So, if you guys need to unmute -

Matt Ferguson: I'm here and unmuted. Matt Ferguson.

Mr. Dominguez: Okay. Thank you. Diana? You're on the phone, it's star-six. Let me go back. Where is she.

Mr. Aithal: Dan, if you could also unmute the - attorney for the applicant.

Mr. Dominguez: Yeah. Just give me one second. I'm still looking for - for Diana.

Mr. Petrolino: Petrolino here.

Mr. Dominguez: Okay. Thank you, John. All right, so John's -

Mr. Petrolino: Yeah. Sorry. I was taking (indiscernible).

Mr. Dominguez: Diana Lopez, I sent her again. And where's Chuck? There's Chuck. I sent Chuck a -

Diana Lopez (Board Member): This is (indiscernible), I'm here.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Hold on. Ryan. Ryan, where's Ryan? Ryan muted himself.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I think we have everyone, right?

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Now I think - yeah. We may have. Diana, did you say something? Is Diana here?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I think she is.

Mr. Dominguez: Yeah. I thought she - I thought I heard her. 59 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: So now we had a motion to close the public portion. Who made that motion?

Mr. Dominguez: Yelitssa Checo.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Was there a second?

Mr. Berger: Ryan Berger.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Ryan Berger. So, we have a roll call vote on that, please, Dan.

Mr. Dominguez: On the motion to close?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: On closing. Just for closing the public portion. So yeah.

Mr. Dominguez: Okay. Yelitssa Checo.

Ms. Checo: Yes.

Mr. Dominguez: Matthew Ferguson.

Mr. Ferguson: Yes.

Mr. Dominguez: Suzanne Sicora-Ludwig. Suzanne.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes.

Mr. Dominguez: Ryan Berger.

Mr. Berger: Yes.

Mr. Dominguez: Diana Lopez. Diana may have been disconnected. Don't - don't see her.

Unidentified Speaker: Dan, does this need to be a unanimous consent in order to move?

Mr. Dominguez: No.

Unidentified Speaker: Let's just go with the majority.

Mr. Aithal: Just the majority.

Unidentified Speaker: All right. So, can - let's maybe just proceed if we may (indiscernible).

Mr. Aithal: Yes. (Indiscernible) now.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: All right. So, the public portion of the meeting is closed. Now, Bob, you had a - did you have a question you wanted to address?

Mr. Cartica: Yes. And I apologize if I'm being redundant. I'm sure I am. But I just want to clarify - and it's consideration of this site plan - this question for Mr. Aithal. It would be inappropriate or perhaps illegal, as I understand it, pursuant to municipal land use law, for board members to consider the - the lack of information that we've received with regard to the financing for this parking deck in its consideration for this application. Is that correct? 60 | P a g e

Mr. Aithal: That's correct. It's not within the powers that are delegated to the board in terms of what they can consider in determine whether an application should be approved or denied. The municipal land use law lays out those - those items that you're supposed to look at in terms of a site plan application and include the financing of the project, whether it's a publicly financed or privately financed, or how that financing is going to come about.

Mr. Cartica: Well certainly, I agree. And if you - if you so direct, I will follow your direction. But you know, quality of life, of course, is an issue. It seems like that is related. Yeah. It seems that this is related in that regard. And one other question, just - there are no variances requested, correct?

Mr. Aithal: This is a variance-free application. That's correct.

Mr. Cartica: Okay.

Mr. Aithal: And not to cut you off, Mr. Cartica, but Ms. Ludwig, if you - as the time is now 10:30, a little bit past 10:30, if there was ever a natural time I guess to - a natural break, this might be it.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes. I was just going to ask if Mr. Liebling would like to do his closing tonight and we could pick up with more discussion tomorrow, or if he would like to save his closing for tomorrow.

Mr. Liebling: I will leave that to you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: If he has a preference.

Mr. Liebling: Yeah. I - I mean, it's not lengthy. I can - I can certainly do it now and then I guess that would leave tonight to move towards discussion of whether or not the board is going to approve the application. So, it just - it's up to you, Madam Chair.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: And I - I just want to ask the other board members, would they - are they available to listen to the closing argument? And we still have to do public portion. That's - that's regardless. But would you prefer to hear? I'm going to say, I'd like to hear your closing arguments now if they're not lengthy. And then we can pick up on your application with board discussion tomorrow. So, if we can proceed that way.

Mr. Liebling: Sure. That's absolutely fine. Okay. Certainly, we greatly appreciate your efforts and your patience and your consideration of this application tonight. Unfortunately, so much of it, your time, was - was taken up with commentary that really didn't have - doesn't have anything to do with what a planning board does. And you've heard - there have been questions about it, and Mr. Aithal has made that clear. I don't doubt the passion of the members of the public who were asking these questions. But the board has a limited jurisdiction. I want to assure you that whatever was said, any use of power of eminent domain by any governmental authority with the authority to use it will be exercised in full accordance with the law, as it must be. The power plant is a permitted use under the redevelopment plan. It lies within the footprint of the building. How its operated and what it's composed of is - are technical matters that don't go before the board any more than the - you know, the plumbing or the electrical information about a building. This - these are things that are reviewed by code officials. And particularly with respect to a power plant, requires DEP permitting. All those necessary permits will be required. And they will be included in your resolution, undoubtedly. You know, it goes beyond what a planning board does, and you know that. Continued questioning about the need for a parking garage, the parking garage is required by the redevelopment plan. And what's more, what we're proposing in addition to meeting the requirement, is permitted. So, you know, you can understand how to evaluate the objections to that. It's not really something that we can - we can address. The - there are people who are asking the board to turn down the application because you're supposed to feel remorse, or a given objector doesn't like it, or whatever it might be. We know what the law says. The standard review is that if the applicant is able to show that the site 61 | P a g e

plan complies with the redevelopment plan, it's entitled to an approval subject to reasonable conditions. We believe we've made that showing. We therefore request that you approve the application subject to all those conditions. And again, we thank you for your patience and your consideration.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you for your time tonight, sir. And we will continue with board discussion tomorrow when we pick up at 7:00 p.m. for your application.

Mr. Liebling: Thank you.

Mr. Petrolino: Madam Chair, John Petrolino. I'm making a -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you. And now

Mr. Petrolino: - motion to adjourn and continue tomorrow.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: No. We cannot do that because we have to have public - a public comment portion for every meeting. So now we're going to move into the public comment portion of our meeting.

Mr. Petrolino: All right. So, Madam Chair, for point of clarity. So, we now must go through public comment in order to close tonight's meeting, which was scheduled to end at 10:30, correct?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Yes.

Mr. Petrolino: Well, as I advised the board, I have a hard stop at 10:30. So I'll be back for the vote tomorrow, but I will not be participating in the public comment portion at this point. So, sorry.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay. Thank you.

Mr. Petrolino: Thank you.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you, John.

B. CANCER PAVILION REDEVELOPMENT ASSOCIATES LLC / 165 SOMERSET STREET / BLOCK 51, LOT 2.01 (PB-2020-11) Final major site plan application to construct an 11-story, 519,500 gross square foot building (“Rutgers Cancer Institute of New Jersey Cancer Pavilion”) to house outpatient and inpatient care, research facilities and administrative space associated with RWJBarnabas Health and Rutgers. No variances are requested. The site is located in the Healthcare Research Pavilion Redevelopment Plan area. (Charles B. Liebling, Esq.) Carried to January 12, 2021 meeting V. MINUTES OF THE BOARD’S NOVEMBER 9, 2020 AND DECEMBER 14, 2020 MEETINGS

Carried to January 12, 2021 meeting

VI. DISCUSSION ITEMS

None

VII. OTHER MATTERS OF INTEREST TO THE PUBLIC

62 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay. We're now preparing to open up the meeting to public comment. And Dan, if you would unmute and take a list.

Mr. Dominguez: Sure. Just give me one second to grab a piece of paper. Great. Where is he. Aravind, were you trying to say something? I hit the - yeah.

Mr. Aithal: Yeah. I just wanted to make sure that we maintain quorum. I know that Mr. Petrolino -

Mr. Dominguez: We - we do still have quorum. We have six.

Mr. Aithal: So, if the record can just reflect that - I think this is now 10:41, Mr. Petrolino excused himself from the meeting.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Okay.

Mr. Aithal: The quorum is maintained.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Let's - all right. So, I'll read the (indiscernible) and then - and I'll work on a name - the public.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you.

Mr. Dominguez: That's the wrong app. All right. Excuse me. At this moment, we are preparing to open the meeting to general public comment for five minutes per person in order to assure that the planning board can hear from the interested (indiscernible) public, can hear public comments. I will organize the speakers in order by last name in a moment. I will unmute the public call-in. At that time, I will ask that those with a last name starting with A provide me your last name, first name, and home address. I will confirm that the information is correct and then move on to the next person alphabetically from A to Z. Upon completion of asking for all last names from A to Z - are you - are you saying something to me, Aravind?

Mr. Aithal: No. Sorry.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. I'll ask one more time for anyone who wants to be placed on an initial list of speakers. We'll then move through the list of speakers by calling the person by name and permitting them five minutes to speak. Once we complete the list, I will then close the public comment portion. Please be mindful that your voice is being telephonically transmitted and speak slowly and clearly for the benefit of all. I'll ask that you please remain silent when I initially unmute the phones so you can all hear each other and begin the speaker registration process. And to that effect, those members of the board who are currently unmuted, if you could mute yourselves it'd be helpful for the purposes of feedback. I would appreciate it. So just give me one second to unmute the lines. Yeah. So, this is, I believe, I’m going to hit unmute all. I don't know if it's a - I think everyone will have to manually unmute themselves. But I unmuted the call-in line, and I will ask that any member of the public who would like to comment, general public comment, to - with a last name starting with A, please state your full name and home address. I have unlocked the muting and you'll need to use either the microphone button or star-six to unmute yourself if you're on the phone versus on the computer. So, I'll begin going through the alphabet now. A, B, C -

John Luke Bourget: B. B for John Luke Bourget, 116 Lewis Street.

Mr. Dominguez: Noted, Mr. Bourget. Thank you. C, D, E, F, G, H, I, J, K -

63 | P a g e

Unidentified Speaker: Can you hear me?

Mr. Dominguez: No. Well, I can hear you now.

Unidentified Speaker: Okay, sorry.

Unidentified Speaker: Okay. C.

Unidentified Speaker: We have one for C and D.

Mr. Dominguez: Okay. C first.

Nicole Chevalier: Hi. Chevalier. I live at 50 Jones Street.

Mr. Dominguez: Chevalier, 50 Jones. All right. Thank you. There was a D?

Mika Deitch: Yes. Mika Deitch, D-e-i-t-c-h, 50 Jones Street as well.

Mr. Dominguez: D. D-e-i-t-c-h. Was that Mika Deitch (phonetic)?

Mika Deitch: Yes.

Mr. Dominguez: Okay. Thank you. All right. So then I think we were on K.

Elizabeth Ciccone: Elizabeth Ciccone.

Mr. Dominguez: Elizabeth Ciccone. All right. All right. So now back to K.

Charlie Kratovil: Charlie Kratovil.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Address, Mr. Kratovil.

Charlie Kratovil: 143 Suydam Street.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you.

Charlie Kratovil: Second (indiscernible).

Mr. Dominguez: Okay. H, I, J, K, L.

Danielle Moore: Danielle Moore.

Mr. Dominguez: That's on M, but I'll get you, Ms. Moore. Is there anyone for L? All right. Danielle Moore, I have you for M. Anyone else for M?

Matthew Meoni: Matthew Meoni. Thank you.

Mr. Dominguez: Matthew Meoni. N, O, P, Q, R.

Arly Rubens: Arly Rubens.

Mr. Dominguez: Arly Rubens. S.

64 | P a g e

Miguel Romero: R for Miguel Romero.

Mr. Dominguez: Okay. Miguel Romero. Okay.

Ms. Stork: (Indiscernible) Stork, S-t-o-r-k.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Got you, Ms. Stork: T, U, V.

Victor Vaughn: Victor Vaughn, V-a-u-g-h-n.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Victor Vaughn. W - T, U, V, W, X, Y, Z. All right. So the first person up is John Luke Bourget. Let me just get a timer going. And you're on.

John Luke Bourget: Hello, once again, esteemed members of the planning board. I would just like to say that I think there has been more than enough evidence presented to the board to plant seeds of doubt in your minds about various topics. Various issues have been raised tonight about the dubious aspects of this plan. Many aspects are still uncertain, and I - you keep saying that it is the duty of the planning board to only approve applications and what-not as presented and submitted. I have a hard time believing that it is not also part of your duty to think about the implications of these plans. I was ready to present a case tonight under New Brunswick rule, but that opportunity was cut down. The bulk of what I was going to present was about the traffic impacts that will be had on our city beyond the scope of the traffic report. For example, as it's - since the Lincoln Annex School currently is part of a thriving neighborhood. It only needs about two to three short buses to meet its students needs for transportation. New Brunswick, the New Brunswick Public School System, provides transportation to students who reside more than 2 miles away for grades K through 8th, and 2 1/2 miles away for grades 9 through 12 for their assigned schools. And in accordance - this is in accordance with state law 18a:39-1. The project site is 1.7 miles away from the temporary school facility at 40 Van Dyke Ave. This will doubtless lead to a huge increase in the amount of school transportation resources that will be needed to transport the (indiscernible) student body at the Lincoln Annex School, since the vast majority of the Lincoln Annex School is all outside of these outlines, which will create an enormous traffic issue around the (indiscernible) Van Dyke Ave (indiscernible). Because 40 Van Dyke Ave (indiscernible) small street. And Jersey Ave, as doubtless we all know, is just a two-lane road that cannot reasonably handle that amount of traffic. Because the scope of this student relocation is unprecedented in the history of New Brunswick school relocation, which New Brunswick is no stranger to. This has happened multiple times before. This will create the - this huge traffic bottleneck at the intersection of Van Dyke and Jersey Ave, which will back up towards French Street and into the surrounding roads. Because the intersection of Jersey Ave and French Street is already massively (indiscernible).

Mr. Aithal: Mr. Bourget, just so you're aware, the board is not considering that application tonight. And the applicant has already signed off. The board is not going to hear additional comments about that application. If you have other -

John Luke Bourget: I find it suspicious, then, that this plan was pushed by the planning board despite the fact that the three projects - the pavilion, the power station, and the parking deck - are all inexorably linked. They cannot exist without the other. And the planning board, as esteemed as I hold you in regards, you keep saying this again and again. But the projects are inherently linked together. So how can you say that when the fate of the parking deck is the fate of the rest of the project? So, these impacts are still relevant to the entirety of the project.

Unidentified Speaker: That's time.

John Luke Bourget: These issues must be considered.

65 | P a g e

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank -

John Luke Bourget: Thank you for your time.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you, sir. Who's next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Aithal: Dan had to take - step away from his computer for just a moment. The next person I have on the list is Chevalier.

Nicole Chevalier: Chevalier, hello. My name's Nicole.

Mr. Aithal: Nicole.

Nicole Chevalier: Yes.

Mr. Aithal: Okay. You have five minutes. I know that Dan's been swearing in, but this is public comment portion, not testimony.

Nicole Chevalier: I understand.

Mr. Aithal: So, you may comment. You may comment on anything, and understand of course, that the application that's still pending before the board or applications that are yet to come before the board, the board is not to consider those. So I'd ask you not to comment on those.

Nicole Chevalier: Oh, of course.

Mr. Aithal: But your time starts.

Nicole Chevalier: Okay. Wonderful.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Your time starts now.

Nicole Chevalier: Oh, okay. Thank you. So, I'm coming in actually as someone with expertise on child development. That's what I studied in college. That's what I got my degree in, specialization. It actually started when I was 15. I worked at a camp and so I actually have this experience where I helped a four- year-old who was having a panic attack because one of our staffers said that they would call his father and his mom to tell him that he was misbehaving. And he had a full-blown panic attack. Because he actually has PTSD from the time that his dad beat him and his twin sister near to death. So, then I made that my profession and now I work with traumatized children full-time. So, I'm really accustomed to seeing children, you know, ripped from their families and being put into terrible situations by a system that unfortunately really prioritizes profits over you know, children. And more often than not, let's call it what it is. It's racist. It's a racist system. So, this is my question. Because I've spent years like helping nursing babies that were addicted to heroin, you know, teenagers that were sexually assaulted by the mother's boyfriend. How much is your salary? Because -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: The board?

Nicole Chevalier: Because I - I have never made above minimum wage. So, what I'd like to know is, at what point, once my paycheck goes up, do I get to start being okay with giving these babies cancer? My second question, do you think your ancestors would be able to forgive the blood you have on your hands?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any other questions?

66 | P a g e

Nicole Chevalier: I feel like those are pretty good.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: This board is voluntary. They are not paid.

Nicole Chevalier: Oh -

Mr. Aithal: Just so you're aware, this is - this is for public comment -

Nicole Chevalier: Damn. Okay. No offense, but hold you all selves to higher esteem, you know. They said, well this - Jesus was sold for what, 30 pieces of gold? You all just out here doing it for free? Lord. And they say the devil works hard.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any other comments?

Nicole Chevalier: All - I mean, my mom's real Catholic. I'll ask her to pray for you all. Keep you all in my thoughts and prayers. Dear lord, get well soon. Whoof, idle hands and all that, I guess.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any other comments?

Nicole Chevalier: That'll be it.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you.

Nicole Chevalier: Have a lovely evening.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: You too. All right. Who's next on the list, I - D? I think D. Aravind.

Mr. Aithal: Ciccone.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Aravind. Oh, Elizabeth Ciccone.

Mr. Dominguez: Yeah. I'm back. I'll run the clock on this if she's -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay.

Mr. Aithal: Sorry for the mispronunciation.

Mr. Dominguez: Okay. Are you here?

Elizabeth Ciccone: Hello?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes.

Elizabeth Ciccone: I am still here.

Mr. Dominguez: You may begin.

Elizabeth Ciccone: Thank you. I think that it's very concerning that the applicants are given all the time in the world and are even coached by the board's attorney, and yet the public is being cut off left and right in every possible way. They're being given less and less time to question the applicants. They're being given less and less time to speak. They're being interrupted by the board. They're being cut off by the board. They're being cut off by the other people's attorney. They're being cut off by your own attorney. When is it going to be okay for people to take - to be able to tell the board what they want, instead of the board just 67 | P a g e

thrusting on us what DEVCO wants? When will the time come that the public will be treated fairly? How come I'm - how come I'm the voter and the taxpayer, and the mayor gets to appoint you? And how come if the mayor gets to appoint you, then why is the entire board stacked with people who are going to favor what the mayor wants? When are you going to put some people on the board that actually favor what the people of the city want? And what they don't want is a giant cancer pavilion with a giant fossil-fuel burning power station and parking lot that will force you to tear out homes of people that want to stay there. This is a very unreasonable and disturbing approach to things. I think there's an outlandish amount of conflict of interest here, yet no one wants to recuse themselves or even acknowledge that there could even be a problem. All you want to do is gloss over it and shut people down. It's tiresome and disturbing. When will you stop? That is my question.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any other comments?

Elizabeth Ciccone: That was a question. Are you going to answer it?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: I have no comment. Do you have any other questions?

Elizabeth Ciccone: No, thank you. I just wonder how you all sleep at night.

Mr. Dominguez: All right.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any other comments? Dan, can we have the next speaker?

Mr. Dominguez: The next up is Mika Deitch.

Mika Deitch: Hi.

Mr. Dominguez: I don't think we - you didn't speak before. Aravind, do we need to swear her in, or -

Mr. Aithal: Public comment. She can speak.

Mr. Dominguez: Yeah. All right.

Mr. Aithal: No need to swear her.

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Mr. Aithal: Just - wait. Just tell your name for the record.

Mika Deitch: Mika Deitch. So, I want to thank everyone for the great work they're doing tonight. I'm sure everyone on the board, I am someone who has a great interest in local politics. I'm sure you guys once were very excited to be in local politicians' positions. I know you care, must care greatly about the local government and the people of this neighborhood. And I want to thank you for that initial optimistic goal towards government. I know you can't answer questions during this time because this is comment. But I have been wondering about when, along the way, did you start getting tired of actually helping people and start moving more and more towards lining your own pockets? Because local government is about the people. And I know corporations are legally considered people, but they don't vote or pay - no, they do pay taxes, don't they? Hmm. Okay. Well, I just think that it's great that you guys had such a great interest in public government that you are doing this for free out of the goodness of your hearts. And because I know there's goodness in your heart, I know it must be weighing on you that you can't do anything to stop these children from being sent to a cancer hole of trailers instead of a good school with the solar panels and one of the best ratings in the state. I know it must be weighing deeply on your consciousness, consciences, that you can't do anything to stop this. Because the only option you have in front of you is to pass along this 68 | P a g e

paperwork that because you're told you're supposed to. And I just want to know if you guys care about that, if you've ever thought for a second, what if I actually went back to my roots? What if I went back to caring about the people and the politics and the town that we all love so dearly? What if we thought about the interests of the people who can save this world, of the next generation, of children, who are being educated in our own amazing public school system? Don't we want to give them the best chance possible? Maybe one day they'll solve cancer. Maybe we don't need this fancy cancer pavilion that's only actually give more cancer to children. And instead, we can help the people that actually live here. And I just know, because I know local politicians work so hard, that I know it does affect you. And you do care about it. And I know it's tough that you have to pretend like it doesn't, and to hear people disagreeing with you. But just consider what it would be like to live by your morals instead of by policies written by people who only want to get richer. And that probably, statistically, won't even include you. That's all. Thank you so much. Have a great night. And solidarity to everyone who's made this night hell.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Next up is Charlie Kratovil. You there?

Charlie Kratovil: Yes. I am here. Good evening, members of the board. I've got to say, this is not how it's supposed to work, in more ways than one. First of all, in a normal city the board of education would have the interest of the children and families first. But we don't have that. We have a system where Mayor Cahill has never let go of his strangle hold over the board of ed. He didn't want to have elections for the board of ed, and he still controls all of the board members, even those who switched to an elected board because that's what the voters wanted. And so, I'm calling out Mayor Cahill for being a coward and not showing up to defend this scheme. He has a seat on this board. And if he truly thought this was in the public interest, he would show up here and he would defend it and he would support it in that manner. But he's hiding, for the better part of a year now, ever since he unveiled this scheme. And I know that a lot of people must be disappointed and demoralized that so many things didn't go our way so far. And it's (indiscernible) that the proposal is moving forward, maybe not as fast as the developer wanted it to. But I just want to point out that we have scored some victories along the way. The biggest one is right off the top, the lawyer who would normally be representing DEVCO in - the king of conflicts, Tom Kelso - is no longer representing DEVCO in this matter. The planning board knows that he's usually DEVCO's attorney. Well, they knew that that was too fishy to try that this time, so Kelso is maybe you know, not getting paid off of this one. Also, the mayor's original crazy plan was to build a new school at a super-contaminated site at 131 Jersey Avenue. That also didn't fly, because our movement said no way, that is not acceptable. It's not an acceptable location. And the location that is being pursued is maybe not the best, but it is closer and will require less remediation than the one that Mayor Cahill callously proposed in his original proposal. And finally, the NBPA will not be participating in this scam. They will not be doing the developer's work for them and providing parking at the taxpayer expense, partly because they can't afford to but also partly because of the pressure that this movement has been building against the NBPA. And I think we've got a real - a number of crises on our hands: corruption; the climate crisis; and our failing democracy at the local level and all the way up to the federal government. We're going to keep fighting. We're not going to give up. Because this progress we've made is only the beginning. And there will be legal cases. There already are some legal cases that are still alive, but unfortunately this board has given us more ammunition to bring to the court with the way that these hearings have been conducted, the manner that - giving deference to the developer and you know, crapped all over the public. And so, we're going to bring forth legal cases. We're going to bring forth ethics complaints. We're going to potentially bring forth criminal complaints because fraud is a crime, racketeering is a crime. And people who are criminals do get caught once in a while. Ron DiMura is one of them. He was the mayor of Middlesex Borough, and he brought in your attorney to be the town attorney there before he got caught being a thief, stealing from people in a Ponzi scheme and stealing from campaigns where he was the treasurer. He was the mayor of Middlesex Borough until recently. He got busted. And we're going to bust some more people ourselves if we keep this up. And I guarantee you -

Unidentified Speaker: One minute warning.

Mr. Dominguez: Charlie, just letting you know. 69 | P a g e

Charlie Kratovil: Thank you. And we are going to stop this natural gas power plant. We are not going to allow this in our neighborhood. We're going to abolish the NBPA and that whole regime. And we're going to ultimately remove Mayor Cahill, the kingpin of the corruption. This is only the beginning. This is only one fight along the way. But all of us are starting to learn, these bigger issues, and see how they affect our government which we own and how it's perverting and you know, subverting the way it's supposed to work. So, I encourage you all to think about what I said tonight and think about what kind of city you want to live in, whether you want to live in a democratic city, or whether you want to live in a city where people don't have democratic rights and where fossil fuel projects are being built in the year 2021. We're done with it. The people have had enough and we're going to keep fighting this nonsense until it ends. Thank you.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you, Mr. Kratovil. Who's next on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Matthew Meoni. Are you there?

Matthew Meoni: Uh-huh (affirmative). I'm here.

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Matthew Meoni: Thank you. Yeah. Pretty hard to follow that up. I think Charlie is on top of all the major things here. I want to just echo pretty much everything he said. If anyone's really curious, you know, if you go to the planning board meeting applications and supporting documents on the City of New Brunswick dot org website, you check out application exhibit - you check out the documents submitted by the public under 24 Hardenberg Street, Exhibit B-1, you know, submitted by Charlie, he lays out all the conflict of interest specifically with the lawyer from Bob Smith who is constantly interrupting this entire meeting, constantly interrupting people, the public trying to make comments. And clearly being biased, and you know, a lot of what he said is probably going to be taken off. And a lot of this is going to be - need to be examined by a third party and realized for the blatant corruption, and blatant trying to push this through without actually getting any examination by the public and shortening the time down to only five minutes to examine three witnesses and make a case. I mean, it's pretty obvious what's going on here. And yeah, like Charlie said, it's already in the courts and it's going to continue to be. And I'm definitely looking forward to see how that progresses, because it's going to progress on that front, that's for sure. That's for sure. And I'll (indiscernible).

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do you have any other comments, sir?

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Daniele Moore. Are you there, Danielle?

Danielle Moore: Hi, yes. Can you hear me?

Mr. Dominguez: Yep. You're on.

Danielle Moore: Yeah. Yes, first I would like to start off where I know Ms. Ludwig says that about, okay, the school is sold already. Okay, but still, you can still vote, you know, on the project tonight. And what, maybe the board of education can buy to make a (indiscernible) school put back to where - like I said, you don't live nowhere over here, over this way, to really see what goes on. Just like how you said no money would come out of the taxpayers regards to this. What, the City of New Brunswick is paying so much money to try to redo the park over there by Walgreens, right next to where 50 Jersey Avenue is, just to where that's where they plan to build the new school. Please, what the police are picking up drug users, what, using K-2 space three times a day. How many overdoses over there? That center is - center's been - that parking's been gated up for two months now, where the city - the city council thinks it's going to slow the gathering down. It's still not slowing down. And I'm still saying, I'm pretty sure Ms. Ludwig, 70 | P a g e

(indiscernible) you're on Facebook just as much with your stories. I'm pretty sure you happen to see my stories of how many pictures and videos that I'm showing to put up there. That is not an area for a school to go. And just like how the county road has - how many crashes keep taking that guardrail down on French, 27 and Sandford. What, on Alexander and French it says, "do not cross," due to where you do not have any crosswalk, any sign. The city is going to have to do all that. So, you keep saying no, the city's not going to pay anything from the tax dollars. It's a lie. And like I said, Ms. Ludwig and the rest of you, if you do vote yes, God forbid one thing happens to these - to these kids and you'll feel the pain for the rest of your life. Because what you're doing is putting these kids at danger, what, from getting cancer or dealing with the traffic. And like I said, Mr. Dominguez and Ms. Ludwig, due to where you know, I'm a pro with the traffic authority and the city council when saying something is unsafe. And believe me, how many times have I warned you? And wow, with none of you listening, how many people have gotten killed or injured? And like I say, believe me, I hope you do. You can vote no, other board members. Just because Ms. Ludwig is president, head of the board meeting, you can still vote against her, say no to where this is going to cost too - cost too much and cause too many problems regards which state the issue, how you're putting these kids at risk. Come on. Be for all. You keep saying this is all the board, this is all the board. No. This is on you just as much as the board, because if you - because they can't do this project without you saying yes. So you can say no. You are a big part of this, and I hope you do say no without doing this because like I said, you are putting these kids in danger. Because Jersey Avenue is so black - I'm not scared to go down any other road except Jersey Avenue due to where it's jet black and the street lights are always off. Like I said, so many people have so much to say due to where you do not live over here. You do not know what goes on. And like I said, with this building, do to what COVID-19, how many ambulance pass through Hamilton Street, Somerset Street, French Street. And you saying this will not upset the traffic, and it's going to take three years to build this? That's a lie. That is a total lie. And like I said, other board members, I hope you really think due to where stop letting Ms. Ludwig lead you into, oh, you have to do this, you have to do that. And I mean it's really sad. And like I said, I'm furious. Do you have cancer, Ms. Ludwig? Or do someone in your family have cancer? Because wow. I feel sad, but I'm not going against anyone who has cancer. My grandmother died from lung cancer. It's a hurt, but believe me, I still know what's right and wrong to do something. And where you're putting these kids in danger, like I said, did any of you take the time to go sit - sit in the school at 40 Van Dyke? Has any of you went over to 50 Jersey Avenue to see what it's like? Sexual assault, drugs, it's not safe at all over there. Next to the railroad tracks. Who's going to pay for a border so the kids won't go across the tracks? (Indiscernible) never said anything about paying for that. How many people have gotten killed, hit by a train within the past three months? At least two to three deaths.

Mr. Dominguez: That's time, Ms. Moore.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you for your comments, Ms. Moore. Who's next on the list?

Mr. Dominguez: Sorry, I was muted. Next up is Arly Rubens. Are you there?

Arly Rubens: Yes, I am.

Mr. Dominguez: The floor is yours.

Arly Rubens: I'd just like to say that the (indiscernible) and level of condescension in this meeting is pretty outsized for people on the planning board of New Brunswick, New Jersey. I don't know what has you convinced that the livelihoods of yourselves and your children are so much more important than those of the working families of the city, but a spot on the planning board of New Brunswick, New Jersey doesn't really cut it. You're not even lining your own pockets, at least not directly. I just want to (indiscernible) at 11:00 on a Monday night to make money for already filthy-rich people who probably wouldn't give you a second look. It's pathetic. And if you don't feel any shame, I at least hope you're a little (expletive) embarrassed by where you ended up. I'll echo a sentiment from another member of the public. It's incredible that you people do this for free. With the rest of my time, I'd like to list out the dollar amounts 71 | P a g e

planning board members paid for their board appointments in the form of donations last election cycle. First, we have $2,000 from Mr. Bignell and his consulting firm; $500 from Ms. Sicora-Ludwig; $500 from Mr. Dominguez; $1,000 from Mr. Stellatella; and $1,250 from Mr. Carley's Delaware (indiscernible) and Engineering. Good night and thank you to our incredible neighbors who have dedicated themselves to the site. And to the rest of the board, I hope you lose sleep.

Unidentified Speaker: I hope you get a clue.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Do we have anyone else on the list, Dan?

Arly Rubens: Sorry, who was that?

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Miguel Romero.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: (Indiscernible).

Arly Rubens: To a member of the public?

Unidentified Speaker: Come on. Fess up. Who said it? Where are your big balls, man?

Mr. Dominguez: Next up is Miguel Romero.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Anyone else - that was Miguel?

Mr. Dominguez: No, no, no. I'm saying, next up is Miguel Romero.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Oh, okay. Mr. Romero, are you there?

Miguel Romero: Yes. I am here.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. You're on.

Miguel Romero: Okay. So basically, I just wanted to continue a bit of the comment that I was saying before I got cut off previously, that Robert Wood Johnson is not a public entity. They're a private company. And Middlesex County is about to spend $25 million of taxpayer money not for the benefit of the public. Because again, this company is not a public company. They're not - there's no public health insurance for anybody to go, for anybody to be able to use it freely. The board members of - the board members of Robert Wood Johnson make hundreds of thousands of dollars, and meanwhile the median household income in New Brunswick is around $42,000. There are a lot of people in New Brunswick and New Jersey that cannot afford to pay for insurance and they have to make life-and-death decisions based on not being able to afford insurance to be able to get a surgery or something like that. And basically, the reason why I'm bringing this up is because, again, even though I - most of the people agree that a cancer would be a good idea, it's not a good idea to build it in the place that they're trying to build it. And it's not a good idea using the excuse of Robert Wood Johnson providing some kind of public service, because they're not. They're a private entity. If you look at the emails that Charlie posted in that PDF, you can see that the - one of the board members of Robert Wood Johnson, Barry Ostrowsky, and Chris Paladino and all these different - all these different - all these different people that are making thousands, hundreds of thousands of dollars, they had been planning in advance to make this happen without letting the public know. Not only that, they're looking at this per beds. So, it looks like - it looks like we are going to figure out how to make the school site work, and we'll have the beds. Like they're not really looking at this through like a public service, as they appear to be. They're really looking at it from the perspective of making more money for their own preparation. So, I just wanted to - I just wanted to reiterate that. And I think it's really irresponsible that the developer of this plan has not proposed this plan in a coherent manner. They're getting some parts of it approved and 72 | P a g e

some parts of it they're pushing for, like for example, the Lincoln Annex being sold. And they have not disclosed all the information on the parking - the parking deck that they're trying to build. They have not disclosed all the information on the power station that they're trying to build. And it just makes me think, if these parts - if these parts of the plan do not get approved, then the whole plan, you know, gets messed up. And you know it gets destroyed. So, it just - it just really puts, you know, into question like the ability for these people to be able to plan something as large as, you know, they're doing now. And yeah. That's all I have to say about that.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you, sir.

Mr. Dominguez: All right. Next up -

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Anyone on the list, Dan?

Mr. Dominguez: Yes. Next up is Linda Stork. Are you still there, Linda?

Linda Stork: Yes, I am.

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Linda Stork: Yeah. Okay. So - and I would - you - somebody had said before, when Miguel mentioned the parking application not being ready at the same time that the - well, I specifically remember that. They were not presented. And when - when we were in the meeting where you were considering the application for the cancer center, the parking plan, the parking deck plan, power station plan, could not - was not available. It had been put up briefly, but pulled down from the site. So that is not true, that they were both available at the same time to the public, anyway. And I would just like to reiterate something that Ms. Ciccone also said, since her first comments about - about the neighborhoods in New Brunswick, since this is for more general comments. Because every time it seems that we bring something up, it's that oh, the scope of that's beyond the purview of this board. The scope of the board is so - it's been - you know, everything's been chopped up in little pieces and everywhere we go. Because it's not like this is the only place that we've protested this whole plan. And it's not like we just started yesterday. They were keeping it secret for a long time, and acting like we were crazy and paranoid to see this coming. And it's about the neighborhood. It's about - we need so many things to make New Brunswick better, to make them improve the quality of life. And you know what we didn't need? We didn't need to lose a really good neighborhood school with energy efficient solar panels on the roof and a high rating and - and well-liked by the families, and successful academically, and to gain a cancer center. Nobody that lives in New Brunswick would have told you that we needed a cancer center. Because why? Because we already have two. I can walk to two cancer centers within a few minutes of my house. Two, which are both by all accounts very good. Everybody that I know that got treatment at either one of them was more than satisfied. So, this isn't really about, you know, a service to the community or any kind of benefit to the community. This is about, you know, a huge - bringing in the research dollars and having this whole multi-million-dollar thing going on. This isn't the place for it. Yes, cancer research also needs to be done. But you can't just plop something like that down in the middle of a neighborhood. All these streets are two-lane streets going in and out, in every direction. Common sense would tell you, you can't build an almost 1000-car parking deck there and not create worse problems, because there already are problems. It's already a quality of life issue that you just can't go certain places at certain times. And you know, another percentage of the traffic, they said, will head over the bridge into Highland Park. Well, good luck with that. You guys know that traffic backs up to go over that bridge, down Route 18, and back up the other way through New Brunswick. That's just a fact already. So, it doesn't matter that they're saying, "Oh, you know, only 15 percent of the 500 cars are going to head that way.” No. No. Not acceptable. This is - this is just a terrible plan. And the terrible plan was made on the back of the school kids which is just unconscionable to me, you know. Having been a teacher in this city for so many years and living in the neighborhood, and I just - it's just so bad on so many levels. 73 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: One - one minute warning, Linda.

Linda Stork: It's just not what the community - what the community needed.

Mr. Dominguez: Just letting you know.

Linda Stork: So, what I would like to, you know, going forward, I would like to see the planning board actually make a plan for the city with community input so that we can get what we need to make our city a better place to live. That's all. Thank you, and goodnight.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Thank you, Ms. Stork.

Mr. Dominguez: Thank you, Linda. Next up is Victor Vaughn. You there.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Vaughn?

Mr. Dominguez: Victor?

Victor Vaughn: Yeah. I'm here.

Mr. Dominguez: You're on.

Victor Vaughn: All right. So, one of the Friends of Cahill is developer Robert Paulus, who owns a warehouse that will serve as a temporary school for displaced Lincoln Annex students, 40 Van Dyke Avenue has been also used as a holding place for groups of displaced students in the past. There is no evidence that he has any experience with properties for educational use, but Robert Paulus profits from every instance of student displacement in the city of New Brunswick. The warehouse at 40 Van Dyke Ave has basically become a replacement school on standby, which the City can use whenever it likes. It is so readily available and so frequently used, sets as an awful precedent by making student displacement not only effortless but profitable personally through his development company, Wick companies, and through some of his 46 registered LLCs and shell companies. Robert Paulus has donated thousands of dollars to Mayor Cahill's election funds, and the money goes both ways. Friends of Jim Cahill, Cahill's reelection PAC, paid one of Paulus’ LLCs for hosting an urban mayor's meeting at a restaurant that did not exist at the time, and New Brunswick Today was unable to trace any basic information about the event. The Cancer Pavilion development project feeds directly into these illegal dealings by creating another profitable displacement for a “friend of Jim Cahill." And since all of you are so completely and utterly tied to Jim Cahill, I'm just wondering like, you know, are they going to pay for like your lawyer fees and shit when like, you know, all these kids that are moved into this warehouse, you know, inevitably end up with some kind of condition, and - you know, I'm hoping that like, you know, parents just, you know, go the route, legal route of like getting lawyers and stuff. Because like I don't have kids, but I can't imagine the kind of pain that would come from like, you know, my child being diagnosed with something that was totally avoidable if they had been able to go to a school with like solar panels and has been characterized one of the best schools in the state, you know. But because a bunch of people felt the need to sell their kids like up the river for free apparently, you know - I don't know, man, but that's not what I would do. I mean, I would try and find like another job, anything else but this, you know, especially if it like, you know, can't pay for even like basic shit like hair plugs or, you know, getting plastic surgery so you don't look like you got a (expletive) (indiscernible) or like, you know, any of the basic (expletive). I don't know. You know, I hope that you have no shortage of, you know, sacrifices to like the dark god of (indiscernible) or whatever the hell it is that like, you know, you all do this for. That's it. Peace out.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Mr. Dominguez, is there anyone else on the list?

74 | P a g e

Mr. Dominguez: There is no one else on the list.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Did you say no?

Mr. Dominguez: Yeah. There's no one else on the list.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Can I have a motion to adjourn?

Mr. Cartica: Bob Cartica, I'll move.

Mr. Berger: Ryan Berger, I'll second.

Mr. Dominguez: Right.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Roll call again?

Mr. Dominguez: No. It's not roll call. It's just favor, right?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: Okay.

Mr. Dominguez: All opposed?

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: That's fine.

Mr. Dominguez: All right.

Ms. Sicora-Ludwig: See you tomorrow night.

Unidentified Speaker: We don’t need (indiscernible) 30 years' lifetime. We need to get rid of him.

VIII. ADJOURNMENT

75 | P a g e