Planning Board Public Meeting Minutes 20160404

 

The following minutes are a summary of the Planning Board meeting of April 4, 2016. Interested parties may request an audio recording of the meeting from the Board Secretary for a fee.

Call to Order & Statement of Compliance with the Open Public Meetings Act: Mr. Nalbantian called the meeting to order at 7:40 p.m. The following members were present: Mr. Nalbantian, MAYOR ARONSOHN, COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN, Mr. Joel, MR. THURSTON, MR. REILLY, and MS. DOCKRAY. Also present were: Katie Razin, Esq., Blais Brancheau, Village Planner; and Board Secretary Michael Cafarelli. Ms. Bigos, Ms. Patire, Ms. Altano, Mr. Abdalla, Gail Price, Esq., Board Attorney, and Christopher Rutishauser, Village Engineer were not present.

Public Comments on Topics not Pending Before the Board – No one came forward.       

Two Forty Associates, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 150-174 Chestnut Street, Block 2005, Lot 38 – Public Hearing continued from December 20, 2016 –

Ridgewood/Dayton, Preliminary and Final Major Site Plan, 100/152 South Broad Street, Blocks 3707/3905, Lots 5.01/1.01- Pubic Hearing continued from November 15, 2016 – Following is the transcript of the meeting, prepared by Laura A. Carucci, C.C.R., R.P.R.:

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Good evening, ladies and gentlemen. Before we begin our agenda, I just wanted to point out again certain issues of safety that involve all of us. First of all, please note the fire exits along this wall, should there be an emergency. We also have members of the police department, and, soon to come, a member of the Fire Department for everyone's safety.

One of the concerns we have is capacity in this room. So a member of the Fire Department is going to come to help manage what the limit is in this room. What we've done, if there's a crowd larger than what the capacity is, we have a live beam going down to the senior center downstairs and people can observe. And when it comes time for public comment, when it's their turn to speak, we'll allow the signer downstairs and people can come up from downstairs to make comments. So we're waiting again for a member of the Fire Department to help us manage the capacity in this room tonight. I think that covers the safety issue, so at this time I'd like to call this Special Meeting of the Ridgewood Planning Board to order, this Monday, April 4, 2016.

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: In accordance with the provisions of Section 10:4‑8d of the Open Public Meetings Act, the date, location and time of the commencement of this meeting is reflected in a meeting notice, a copy of which schedule has been filed with the Village Manager and the Village Clerk, The Ridgewood News and The Record newspapers, and posted on the bulletin board in the entry lobby of the Village Municipal Offices at 131 North Maple Avenue, and on the Village website, all in accordance with the provisions of the Open Public Meetings Act.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Richard.

Will everyone please stand for the flag salute.

(At this point in the proceeding all rise for a recitation of the Pledge of Allegiance.)

1. CAFARELLI: Ms. Patire?

(No response.)  

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Michael.

If you notice, on the agenda we have an executive session next, which is something that came up very recently. We're going to leave and excuse ourselves for that session. I'm not sure how long will would take.

1. WARREN: What?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: But what I wanted to do is emphasize that we will begin public comment tonight. There is a signup sheet, I don't know if everyone has seen that or assigned their name to it. We're starting over today. There was a signup sheet last week, in case we started public comment. So if your intention tonight is to make public comment, please be sure to sign up while we're gone, take note of your number, because we'll actually go through that process in that sequence. I'll begin after executive session with the procedure this evening and also the rules.

So before I do anything further, I'd like to read a motion. Whereas, the Open Public Meetings Act permits the exclusion of the public from a meeting in certain circumstances. And, whereas, this public body ‑‑

1. WARREN: I object. I'm sorry. Before you vote, hear me out. Some of us work, we had a 7:30 meeting, nowhere did it say anywhere that there was going to be an executive meeting beforehand. So all of a sudden this comes in. So a group that is here tonight has to hang out, you can't tell us how long?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Unfortunately we cannot proceed ‑‑

1. WARREN: "We can't answer questions. We can't tell you."

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We can't proceed without that, I apologize. Thank you. I apologize.

1. WARREN: This is wrong, absolutely wrong.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Be it resolved by the Planning Board of the Village of Ridgewood, County of Bergen, State of New Jersey, as follows:

The public shall been excluded from discussions of the hereinafter specified subject matters. The general nature of the subject matters to be discussed is as follows:

Anticipated/pending and threatened litigation including but limited to the Valley Hospital Inc. vs. The Village of Ridgewood Planning Board and the Village of Ridgewood, Docket No. BER‑L‑9305‑14, personnel matters. It is anticipated at this time that the above matter will be made public upon the completion of any litigation including any appeal of the law. This resolution shall take effect immediately.

Is there a motion on the floor?

VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to move to closed session.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Is there a second, please?

1. REILLY: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Michael, please call the role

1. REILLY: Yes.
2. CAFARELLI: MS. DOCKRAY?
3. DOCKRAY: I'm comfortable keeping the topic in public session, so my vote is no.

FEMALE AUDIENCE VOICE: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you very much for your patience.

1. CAFARELLI: MR. THURSTON?
2. THURSTON: Yes.
3. McKENNA: Can I ask a simple question, what happened to the people who signed up last time?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We're starting fresh, Peter.

1. McKENNA: That would have been nice to know.
2. WARREN: A lot of things would have been nice to know.
3. McKENNA: I didn't sign in, and now I'm going to be down at the bottom of the heap.

Mr. Mayor, We need a leader right now.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ladies and gentlemen, I mentioned that at the last meeting at the end of the meeting and also at the beginning of this meeting, so, again, my apologies.

1. WARREN: At the beginning of this meeting ‑‑

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ma'am, you are out of order.

1. WARREN: No, you are out of order. You mentioned that you're leaving, I don't care about your order, you're out of order.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you very much. Excuse us.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: I just wanted to ask a question of procedure. Since our colleague, Wendy Dockray, requested that this be in open public, is that something that's not an option?

1. RAZIN: We're going into executive at this time, and then if there's a need for public session, we'll come out of executive.
2. WARREN: So this cannot be held in public?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We are moving into executive session. Thank you.

1. WARREN: Because it can't be moved to the public or you won't?

MALE AUDIENCE VOICE: It's time to find a new leader.

1. WARREN: How about that? Does anyone see any difference between what was and what is?

AUDIENCE VOICES: No.

1. WARREN: So at three and a half percent difference these people ‑‑ we will vote you out. We will make you leave. You are all ‑‑

(Whereupon, Executive Session is held.)

(Back in session at 8:07 p.m.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, everyone.

Before I ask for a motion to open again, we have a number of open seats or a small number of open seats. If everyone can please find a seat, so we can maximize the capacity in this room. We have a member of the Fire Department, the Fire Chief is here. If we reach that capacity, which is somewhere around 120 people, we're going to be asking people to go downstairs to the senior room where they can watch with the live video stream.

Is there a motion to come back to public, please?

VICE‑CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion to come back to public.

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Michael, please call the role

1. CAFARELLI: MAYOR ARONSOHN?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Yes.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Nalbantian?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you all for coming and, again, my apologies for having you sit here. Thank you very much for your patience.

Welcome to tonight's meeting, which has been convened for the purpose of continuing the board's Whispering Woods hearing to consider a proposed amendment to the Village of Ridgewood Master Plan pursuant to settlement terms reached with Valley Hospital following litigation which commenced in 2014. For those of you who were not here at last week's hearing, I'll again briefly review for you the relevant history and where we are in the process. I'll also repeat the rules that have been set forth for tonight's proceedings.

Here's a brief recap of how we got here. At the conclusion of the Planning Board hearings held in 2013 and 2014, the board voted against adoption of a Master Plan Amendment that would have revised the 2010 plan. Since a further amendment was not adopted by the Planning Board in 2014, in 2010 Master Plan Amendment remained in place. Subsequent to the board's action to reject the proposed 2014 Amendment, legal actions were filed with the courts, and, subsequently, the board engaged in a mediation process that was recommended by the court late in 2015.

During that process, which occurred over several months, terms of a settlement were reached between the Planning Board and the Valley Hospital. The basis of those terms, by the way, when the board considers that, it looks at the broader picture, it looks at the impact on the Village, what benefits we can from settlement versus allowing it to be held in the hands of a court. I would like to remind everyone that the board is proceeding under the guidelines of the remand order that was issued by the court. The order establishes a framework for the settlement, with specific procedural requirements and timelines for these hearings, which we must strictly continue to follow.

During the previous two meetings last week, the board attorney, Katie Razin, to my right, walked through the key elements of the court's remand order, including the legal highlights of the proposed settlement and Valley Hospital's attorney, Jon Drill, also made introductory remarks regarding their intended testimony. The board then heard testimony from the Village Planner, Blais Brancheau, as to the proposed 2016 Master Plan Amendment document that was drafted, and, in the context of revisions to the previously proposed 2014 Master Plan that came about as part of the settlement terms reached with Valley Hospital. Both the board and the members of the public had opportunity to cross‑examine Blais on his testimony, and now that process is complete.

Next, the board heard testimony from Maria Mediago, Vice President of Facilities Management at Valley Hospital, who is responsible for property acquisition and planning, design, and construction of capital facility projects for Valley. Her testimony included a review of the proposed changes to the project, including the building height and sizes, and proposed architectural and landscape design features as compared to the 2014 amendment. Several exhibits were also reviewed as part of Ms. Mediago's testimony. The presented exhibits have been posted on the Village website.

Following and during Valley's testimony, which extended over two nights, and which included follow‑up testimony, both the board and members of the public had opportunity to cross‑examine the testimony and ask questions. That process was completed last Thursday night. So tonight, the board will begin the process to hear public comment on this matter. Let me review the rules and procedure again.

When you arrived here this evening, you were asked to sign up for public comment. If you signed up last Thursday night, you must sign up again tonight, since we did not begin public comment on Thursday. So I hope everyone has signed in on the sheet here. I think there's also a sign‑in sheet downstairs, so for those of you who are downstairs, please sign in. When the time comes for you to come upstairs, you will be called. Tonight's signup list will be the one used for the order of public comment speaking, and you should have signed in and taken note of your sequence number on the signup list. When I announce that the hearing is open for public comment, we will call the names in sequence from the list and in order. So if you wish to speak and have not signed up, please do so before your term. There will also be a signup list for those of you who are participating from the senior center downstairs, as I stated. When your name is called, you will be asked to move immediately to the microphone and slowly say and spell your name and street address for the record. You will also be sworn in at that time, since all comments must be made under oath. If you change your mind about speaking when your name is called, simply indicate "pass," and we will move on to the next person. Please note that if you pass, your time will not be donated as extra time to another speaker.

Each speaker will be given five minutes to speak. There will be a timer indicating when one minute is left and again when each speaker's time is completed, and we ask that you respect that timer to allow for everyone to get their chance to speak. The five‑minute time will begin only after the speaker has provided his or her name and address for the record and has been sworn in. We ask that each speaker strictly observe the time limit, so that everyone is given the opportunity to speak. You may read a written statement into the record, so long as it does not exceed the allotted five minutes.

At the four‑minute notification, please finish your statement within the remaining one minute, so that the next individual in the sequence can have their chance. As directed by the court's remand order, everyone who wishes to comment will be given the same five‑minute time period. I will call on everyone who is in line, only once, until everyone on the list has had their five‑minute opportunity to comment, and we will try to get to everyone who signed up on speaking tonight.

Please keep in mind while the board will attempt to hear from everyone who wishes to speak, there's no obligation under the law or the remand order to entertain repetitious comments. After members of the public have had the opportunity to comment on the proposed plan amendment and the matter has been concluded, the board may then take action to approve the amendment or decline adoption of the amendment, but this is something we will discuss at the end of the evening, based on how things proceed tonight.

Before we begin public comment, let me say again that not everything that is said during public comment is likely to be agreeable to everyone. And, therefore, there is a level of patience, respect and cooperation that must be maintained throughout the process by all of us. When a speaker is at the microphone, please don't interrupt, shouting, applause, insults, or other disruptions are not permitted.

Also let me again remind everyone that attorneys who represent an interested party may interject with an objection‑assertion during public comments. Please know that such objection‑assertions should not be perceived by the public to be disrespectful or a rude thing, it's simply a necessary procedure for allowing attorneys to promptly note objections to the record. Remember, that you can speak either in favor or against the proposed agreement and the changes to the amendment.

FEMALE AUDIENCE VOICE: May I ask a procedural question?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Sure.

FEMALE AUDIENCE VOICE: What if you're signed up on the list, and it gets past 11 and you can't stay past 11, are you going to be able to speak tomorrow evening?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: How many do we have on the list? I'll try to address the question.

1. RAZIN: So right now we have 22ish and four downstairs right now.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Let's try to get through everybody this evening, if we can. We'll see what time it is at that point. Please stay, if you can, it's only 8:40 now.

1. DeVITA: Would you give a time when you plan to stop comment?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think at this point with roughly 25 people, what is that, two hours, right? So at 10:30ish, 11:30, it's roughly 11:30. So it's likely that, if we can proceed efficiently, it will probably be around 11:30.

1. DeVITA: More people might choose to speak after.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We have to play that by ear.

1. DeVITA: I'll come back after the game. Go Villanova!

(Applause and shouting.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. So ladies and gentlemen, why don't we begin. The first person on the list this evening is Ms. Paul Smith. Please come forward.

Hi, MR. SMITH.

1. SMITH: Hello.

P‑A‑U‑L S‑M‑I‑T‑H.

Address, 231 Burnside Place, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. SMITH: I do. First, thank you for the opportunity to speak this evening. I'll try to stick with the issues related to the redline portions in the plan. I'll save the vim and vigor for the council meeting.

But, starting at the intensity of use, yes, the final total of hospital floor area represents a decrease as well as the above enclosed upper grade area, but at the same time, the limit of the above grade coverage increases by about 23,000 square feet to approximately 311,000 square feet. Tying that to the reductions in maximum height inclusive of rooftop mechanicals, it appears more of a height versus breadth and depth scenario.

Then for the improvement coverage, coverage by buildings and pavement now increased by about 12,000 square feet to, I guess, around 480,000 square feet, which is exclusive of other impermeable surfaces, such as sidewalks and patios. While that is trivial, there is a bit of a difference in ground total. But, overall, what we're talking about the difference being is probably half the size or less than half the size of a women's softball field, and for people that don't know that, that's about 31,000 square feet. So picture like that area being spread around the perimeter.

My last concern with the redline portions of the plans with regard to the existing trees along the rights‑of‑ways. It is stated that if trees can be removed, they should be replaced in a manner similar to better and function at maturity. What would be the timelines associated with the plantings from inception to maturity. It sounds like the looming building views would not be mitigated to the maximum degree by these plantings for several years.

Overall, I truly empathize with everyone on the board. I've been in participation in numerous mediation sessions and regulatory negotiations myself, including the fiduciary rule coming around on Wednesday. So, yes, to a degree I to understand the difficulties in mediating this issue, but by the same note and my opinion, the amended plan is not much of a compromise. We have switched height for breadth and depth. In my opinion that is more window dressing, if you look at square footage in the overall picture. However, I do realize that the Planning Board has to make a decision to align with judicial mandates and timelines. Plus, what was said by her Honor, Lisa Perez‑Friscia, who stated the term: "Public interest demands that a municipality look beyond its own borders in determining whether its legislative act serves the public interest in general."

So I guess it makes it official that Valley is regional for the greater good, but I think it's absolutely in every resident's best interest for the town government to manage expectations based on her honor's specific quote, as well as the fact that this has been a long, long, journey so far and it is likely there will be yet a much longer journey to this end result, if the board says no. And I am willing to support that no on the longer journey any way I can. So with that, thank you for listening, and I want to thank everybody on the dais, the planner, for their efforts, and thank Valley counsel for their transparency and professionalism. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MR. SMITH.

Lisa Paterson.

1. PATERSON: Hi. I live at 307 Graydon Terrace.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. PATERSON: Yes. Many of you know who I am and some of you don't, so I'd just like to tell you a couple of brief things what I'm known about in this town. One is, I'm a mother of twins, one of which has a very significant disability and you may hear him, he's waiting for me out in the hallway there very patiently. I'm a 9/11 widow, and I have a long career as a teacher, an advocate, and a volunteer with children, from the inner city streets of New York, to the suburbs of New Jersey. And I'm a licensed school counselor and currently the director of a very hip writing studio for teens in Ridgewood. My late husband and I picked this town back in '98, because of the obvious reasons, it felt peaceful and friendly, a lovely place to raise our twins. And we did appreciate the comfort that Valley Hospital was nearby, and which really helped us when Wyatt began having seizures.  

When the terrorists murdered by husband, it was this very Village that rallied around my family and me and to help me pick up the pieces. Many of them are in this room right now, and many of them have been at your meetings. I have not been to any of your hearings yet, this is my first time. Quite frankly, I haven't been because I have been showing up for my children as the only parent, and I have been trying to secure Wyatt's future, which is a herculean effort to help the intellectually disabled after 21. But I'm here tonight and I come with a different perspective.

The issues that are being proposed on this overexpansion are so personal and paramount to me for all the children of Ridgewood, so that's why I want to speak. The problem is not having this bigger hospital, the problem is all the complications that will and can come from expanding it. We really need to stop and understand this from a kid's perspective. As a former BF teen told me, it would be completely distracting if I had to watch construction or hear it going on. Aren't kids wise?

As I mentioned, I currently work with teens, and they're from all over Bergen County, based right here in Ridgewood. Some are affluent, some are middle class, and others are from a group home in the foster care system. I listen to kids. I know that kids, what they need to excel academically, socially and emotionally. They need space and an environment that is calm, quiet, and safe. Okay. So you want to go wider and not taller? Is it really better to bring the hospital with construction even closer to BF, closer to the sidewalks where the children walk? Who will suffer from that expansion? Our children.

Our kids live in a world of unrest, turmoil, and unpredictability already. Do you want to add to that or do you want to nurture them from their core? It's hard enough to get them focused and excited and engaged in learning. They don't need distractions. I've worked in many schools, and I know that schools serve as inherently beneficial uses. I know the kind of work environment that is crucial for teachers and staff that have to show up for their students. When I work with the kids, the setting must have a vibrant learning culture with little interference. I know how easily kids could be distracted.

So why would you or anyone knowingly put a child at risk? We all know that construction sites are very dangerous places. People have stood here, I've heard, and told you their concerns, the dust, the racket, the traffic, the commotion, the accidents, and, yes, the cliché of the leering looks that some of these workers do present. And they're so right to be distressed, uneasy and fearful. I've heard that you have a plan for keeping kids safe. Really? Because we all know that we can make those plans, but we can't always keep everyone safe. So why would you force away a child's right for a peaceful, safe, and fun childhood? My neighbor recently told me, it's so good to see ‑‑

 

1. CAFARELLI: One minute remaining.
2. PATERSON:  ‑‑ Lucy and Wyatt doing so well.

I remember when you used to walk them to school and Wyatt was crying for this daddy, and you held him and soothed him while keeping Lucy engaged. I had no choice but to walk them through their grief to school, but you all have a choice. Why force this overexpansion on all the kids in this town? There's been so much added and unneeded stress put on these families because of this issue. It comes down to respect, to those that are teaching at BF, to the families living here, and, most importantly, to the future of our children. So if I were going to come and look at this town with this expansion with my late husband, and I saw it, I'd drive right through. And that saddens me, because I love this town.

So you all have an extraordinary chance to be proactive and expand in a different way. I don't want one child hurt or any parent to lose a child through this expansion, that would be the worst. If just one child is irreversibly affected by this expansion, that's one too many, so the solution is in your hands. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

I think it's a gentleman, Dan Gioia. There's no number next to your name, so why don't we have you come next so that we can then resume.

1. GIOIA: Dan Gioia, G‑I‑O‑I‑A, 447 Fairway Road.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. GIOIA: Yes. As you see, I don't have a speech prepared. I'll give you about five arguments over this past ten years or so this is been going on. But I'm glad I followed Lisa, because that's why I'm here. You know, I live far enough away from the hospital, where it's not going to matter, as far as the size and what I see. What matters is how it affects my kids going to BF. How it affects every other kid, all the other kids going to BF, kids going to Travel, kids going to the high school walking past BF and the hospital. That to me is the most disturbing piece. I don't exactly understand why we think, you know, a three percent reduction is a compromise. I would look at that as a 97 percent increase, not a three percent reduction.

I'm not exactly sure, and I don't know if I can say this or not, but I'm not exactly sure how you got to that point, but it's pretty pathetic from my perspective and I'm sure a lot of other people's perspectives here too. We're putting up trees, we're putting up vegetation to cover penthouses. That's a joke. This compromise is a joke. It's not even something we should be talking about. We got a judge who basically sets a rule and says what we can and can't do, how long you have to talk about it, how long we have to debate about it. Please, it's a total joke. Being here, take the responsibility that Lisa talked about, it's about the kids. It's about the neighborhood and the kid walking past there for the schools. It's your responsibility to keep track of these kids with respect to the Hospital Zone and what can and can't be built there. The monstrosity that you've negotiated, if you call that a "negotiation," you know, just is something that it shouldn't even be on the table. So with that, I'll accede to the next person.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thanks.

Brigid O'Brien.

1. O'BRIEN: B‑R‑I‑G‑I‑D O‑B‑R‑I‑E‑N, 227 Bogert Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. O'BRIEN: MR. REILLY's words at the last vote still ring in my ears, "It's just too big." So I missed that meeting, so I'm not sure if I'm repeating, but I definitely am repeating some other people saying that it is just too big. I pulled out some old notes and I looked at the ‑‑ this is from the Master Plan of 2013, and I realize there was something wrong with what we were presented with at the original, at the first meeting. And I see these buildings are all broken up. And then I looked at this and I realized what was wrong. Everything is all pushed together. We have a massive clump of buildings.

So me, as a resident, I'm walking down the street, just getting past the North Building and the West Building, it's more than a six breadths of an average house. There's no measurement here of the breadth and there's no measurement here of the breadth, so we're just facing a humongous set of buildings along the road as one walks. And not only that, it's just far too close to the street. And I'm just supportive of what other people have said, it's far too close to the street to the people walking by. And I just want you to consider that clump of buildings as being entirely too big and unattractive, and not fit to be in the Village of Ridgewood in a residential area, houses on three sides and a school and children walking to Travel, to BF, and students coming out from the high school. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thanks, Ms. O'Brien.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Brian Ward.

1. WARREN: What number are we on?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We're number four on the list.

Number five is Kevin Mattessich.

1. WARD: B‑R‑I‑A‑N W‑A‑R‑D, 35 Coventry Court.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. WARD: Yes. My name is Brian Ward. I have lived in Ridgewood since 2004, but grew up in nearby Franklin Lakes for much of my childhood. The Ridgewood community has been part of my life since 1978, and I actually learned how to swim at the Ridgewood Y.

There are very good reasons why my wife and I chose to live and raise our children in Ridgewood. We love this town, its people, and the wonderful things it offers. I work for a large financial services company, we're on the global head of corporate and U.S. head of Delta 1 trading. Within my scope of responsibility, I manage $3 billion portfolio, as well as price and negotiate multimillion and billion dollar deals. I tell you this, because I have extensive experience in negotiating complex problems, but the negotiating counterpart is very smart and very determined. I'm an expert in complex risk management, and, as you can imagine, know my way around securities law. The ability to compromise is a key skill in negotiation. The strategy one needs to employ and the level of aggression you're willing to use with any negotiation will depend on several factors.

One of the most obvious factors for any group or person to consider is your future relationship with the other party. Will I intersect with this group or person in the future? And, if so, is it important that we all walk away from this process with a clean respect for one another and will I be in a position that may require more negotiation about this topic or some unrelated topic down the road? Valley's inability to truly compromise and then its shortsighted decision to employ extremely aggressive and, quite frankly, bullying tactics has disturbed me a great deal. There has been a relentless campaign that has cost this town a tremendous amount of both time and money. Money that could have been used to give our first responders a pay raise, hiring more teachers for our children, or adding new school programs to assist families with two working parents.

Valley Hospital has full‑time staff dedicated to accomplishing this outrageous expansion in our east Ridgewood neighborhood, and probably have been quite surprised by how organized our local response has been, given that most of us are working full‑time. I have come to the conclusion with regard to Valley, and, given their aggressive legal action against this Planning Board and the Village, they have declared war on Ridgewood. This is not going out without a game. You cannot simply pick up your hospital and move it to another neighborhood. What you have done is starting to become permanent. You are destroying relationships with your direct neighbors, and you are making incredible miscalculations. The price for using this miscalculation will only be determined over time. You may need us for something down the road, and, who knows, you may be looking at a future Ridgewood mayor.

1. WARD: To our elected and appointed officials: Change is good. Change is inevitable. We cannot stop progress, nor should we want to. None of us on the other side of the table have never said Valley can't expand, Valley can't stay modern. Anybody who does have this view is simply not reasonable and would not be welcomed or helpful at any negotiating table. What has troubled me is the lack of leadership that I would expect, particularly from our mayor. These issues have torn a wedge between not only private citizens, but the citizens and institutions of which we should all be respecting, like our hospital. What I equally find disturbing is the appearance of backdoor dealings and cozy relationships, and I hope I'm very wrong about that.

The details of the mediation process are under seal. I'm not a lawyer, so don't know when these details would emerge or why a remand order was put in place at all. I suspect there may be some embarrassing details there. I do hope when this information is none, and it will be known at some point, all persons involved in these negotiations will be proud of their actions.

To conclude, no single person or single entity should be big enough to push this town around. Our town strategy with regard to Valley needs to change. We are in constant defense against relentless people who have clearly shown us all that their business and financial interests come first and at all costs, including the extremely high cost of destroying relationships within an entire community. The town needs to have its own strategy, which includes an offensive strategy. Whenever in the boardroom and the playground, and I have experience in both, there is only one way to deal with a bully.

To Valley: Sometimes you come across people and groups of people, and you should not have treated or you should have treated with more respect. You still have time to re‑think this path you are on and rebuild your relationship with the people and the community that wants to rebuild things with you. There is a compromise here and it's really up to you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I would ask if you can hold your applause so we can allow everyone and not have to stay too late.

The next person is Kevin Mattessich, number five.

1. MATTESSICH: Good evening. Kevin Mattessich, 836 Morningside Road.

M‑A‑T‑T‑E‑S‑S‑I‑C‑H.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. MATTESSICH: I do. I'd like to clarify what the procedures are going forward in terms of further public debate. I think issues were raised this evening that I don't feel I'm at liberty to address fully at this point in time. I may as a private citizen make a motion with respect to the manner in which this proceeding has gone forward and with respect to issues that have been raised outside the context of the public meeting that I feel totally undermine the process. Now, we can go about that in two ways. We can wait until the decision of this body is made and then engage in further legal proceedings, or we can try to get those issues out in the open now.

I'm not in a position right now to consider what I'm able to say or not say or how to further address the issue. I'd like to do some research on it. There's obviously time considerations, time considerations imposed by the judge. And perhaps we need to go to the judge and say that there are citizens concerned about certain very central core, you know, crucial and determinative issues that are not being put into the public realm at this time and possibly need to be addressed. Alternatively I can go forward as a private citizen tonight and raise those issues for what they're worth, but I don't feel that would be a service to the community or to the board, if I simply speak off‑the‑cuff without having the opportunity to further research.

So I'd like to know when our next hearings are, how we're going to proceed, and whether they'll be additional opportunity. I do frankly think that we are in a position to go back to the court and say that the timeline imposed is simply unrealistic, unfair, and deprives the community and this board of the right of due process, as well as Valley. Because, at the end of the day, if the issues that are raised are not properly addressed now, are not addressed with due process, and are not brought forth to light, then they're going to come back and haunt us all later, and that's going to be years and years of more hearings, years and years of more litigation, which is just, we've been torn too far apart by this proceeding already. So that's my question.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: This is the time for comment. I'll acknowledge your statement. I think a lot will depend on what transpires over the course of this hearing in terms of the continued public comment and then the deliberation of this board. But, depending on what that is, there are a variety of avenues that you might want to comment on.

1. RAZIN: I'm not sure exactly what you're referring to, if you're referring to ‑‑ I mean I'm not sure if you're at liberty to say.
2. MATTESSICH: I'm referring to the fact that there's a conflict issue that's looming out there with respect to your firm, and it's my personal belief that your firm should be recused at this point in time. And, in fact, your law firm may have jeopardized that. You've asked me and so I've told you.
3. RAZIN: If you let me finish my sentence.
4. MATTESSICH: Oh, I'm sorry. Go ahead.
5. RAZIN: Well, this board took action in closed session earlier this evening. I don't know, I think you were aware of that. Correct?
6. MATTESSICH: Correct.

FEMALE AUDIENCE VOICE: It was in closed session, nobody was aware of anything.

1. RAZIN: So I'm not sure if it's appropriate for you to be commenting right now.
2. MATTESSICH: That's my question.
3. RAZIN: Actually it wasn't your question, your question was on the timeline and I was going to respond as to whether or not we were going to proceed this evening or tomorrow evening and continue this matter. Right, that was your question?
4. MATTESSICH: That was my original question, but I understood you asked me something substantively and I responded to it.
5. RAZIN: Okay. So we haven't decided if we're going to proceed tomorrow evening, it's going to depend on how far we get this evening. If you have legal matters that you feel are necessary, I think you better speak as a ‑‑ you're entitled to raise them as a private citizen, just as anybody else as a private citizen is entitled to raise legal matters.

However, if you're speaking of matters that were raised in closed session, then that's a real serious issue, because you may or may not know certain issues, and that's a real serious issue that you might want to discuss with me offline.

1. MATTESSICH: And that's my point, and I haven't raised that ‑‑ I raised my point with a preface.
2. RAZIN: So ‑‑
3. MATTESSICH: So what is procedure going forward?
4. RAZIN: So the timeline question is, right now we're going to proceed as far as we can this evening. Depending on how far we get, we may open and continue public hearing tomorrow night and the board may carry this matter to tomorrow night. We've indicated, each night, as we have before, that we're going to continue this matter and the board may take formal action, but we are going to continue to see how that goes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: I think, with the number of people we want to hear tonight, I don't think our interest would be to begin deliberation at a very late hour. So if that mimics or confirms Katie's comment. I would like at this point to stick with the comment portion, and that's why you're here. So if you wouldn't mind taking your time to make public comment.

1. RAZIN: If you'd like to come speak to me separately at the break, I'd be happy to speak with you about the separate issue.
2. MATTESSICH: Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: So I take it that was your comment, Kevin? No comment then.

1. MATTESSICH: I have no further comment.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you.

Elizabeth Clothier. Did I get that right?

1. CLOTHIER: Yes.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: State your name, spell your name and provide your address.

1. CLOTHIER: Elizabeth Clothier, C‑L‑O‑T‑H‑I‑E‑R, 462 Overbrook Road.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. CLOTHIER: Yes. Dear Planning Board members, thank you for the opportunity to address the board and for your continued efforts. This has been an interesting learning process for all of us, and I appreciate your diligence. I had a similar learning process and experience this morning, when I suggested to my seventh grade daughter that we walk together to BF. I wanted to experience for myself what it was like to walk along Van Dien on the way to school.

Much like this process, there was a presentation of facts, lengthy negotiations, my husband stepping in as the judge to mediate, the rendering of a solution, and ultimately my capitulation to walk with my dog. I learned there are boundaries to our relationship. And as I prepared my presentation for this evening, I referred back to a statement I wrote to the Planning Board dated April 2, 2013, about "inherently beneficial uses."

Valley and BF both share this land use classification, but there is a huge disparity in the services offered by each to the residents of Ridgewood. And to me, that is the heart of the issue. At current BF enrollment rates, 745 Ridgewood residents receive the inherently beneficial service of an education. Past testimonies indicate that less than 10 percent of the patients receiving Valley services are Ridgewood residents. Mr. Brancheau has acknowledged that the Valley Hospital expansion would cause detrimental effects on adjacent land uses. Those being impacts from increased intensity of use; loss of light, air, open space; and increased visual impacts related to height, building mass, setbacks, buffer and building design.

The proposed mediation changes are nominal and diminutive in their scope, nor do they come close to addressing or reducing the enormity of the proposed project. Further, this proposal will subject two generations of BF students to a constant barrage of construction vehicles and compromised learning environments, and thereby dramatically reducing BF's ability to offer its inherently beneficial use to Ridgewood residents.

Good planning is balanced, and this proposed settlement is completely unbalanced. It tips the scale away from an inherently beneficial use offered by a Ridgewood institution for Ridgewood residents, and compromises BF's ability to contribute and uphold Ridgewood's educational system tradition of excellence. BF and beneficial uses it provides for Ridgewood students should come first. Accordingly, the Planning Board should deny Valley's application and these proposed changes. Thank you for your consideration.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Leigh Warren.

1. WARREN: No one can hear you with your microphone, just saying.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: How's that?

1. WARREN: Much better.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you for pointing that out.

1. WARREN: L‑E‑I‑G‑H W‑A‑R‑R‑E‑N, 140 Washington Place, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

30. WARREN: I do. I don't know why we're here. So, my big thing is, I'm not sure why we're here. I know that I was told to come at 7:30, so I switched plans, switched a job, to be here at 7:30. If you all want to have a meeting behind closed doors, when you've called a meeting at 7:30, I suggest you make every effort to come at 6:30 and do it then. We had children here that wanted to speak. We had children that wanted to tell you how they feel, so you know from them. As a teacher, they shouldn't be here past 7:30. So for them to be here was great. But they're gone now, because they have to go to bed. A lot of people don't come to these, because of this kind of shenanigans. You tell us to come, we come, you go away. You need to re‑think that. I'll get to wondering why we're here.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

1. WARREN: Three percent, really? Big change. Not really.

Has it changed any of the problems that the previous councils and previous Planning Boards had said no to? Did it really change any of those problems? It doesn't. I think Valley should really think about their neighbors, think about the people who are here. I've lived here for over 20 years. Not once when I was considering moving here was I like "Oh, yeah, hospital." Never once. Don't know anyone here who does that. We have open space laws here. We voted open space. We acquire open space. Why? If we're just going to let the space we have be built up. I think it's kind of hypocritical. I'm a teacher. I teach in New York City. When we have these tests, like the PARCC test, we have ELA, during that time in our school, no one plays gym, no one goes outside, so the kids can focus because they're so easily distracted. You're going to have how many years of construction going on? That's not fair to those kids. It's not fair to anybody. It's not fair to the teachers. It's not fair to that neighborhood. Sure, traffic, yeah, "No, there won't be a problem."

But I think there will be a problem. And during the years of building Valley Hospital too big for its location, that traffic is all going to switch. So it just goes to Linwood over to Ridgewood or to Glen, making those two arteries in and out of town even worse. We have a problem coming from the west side to the east side because of a new sign, new bike lanes. Things just seem to be thrown up. You all need to think about what these things, the impact they have. And I hope that you're paying attention and listening to people. And, yes, why are we here? We already said no. It's our Village. It's not Valley's Village.

Thank you.

(Applause.)

1. WARREN: One last thing and this will help you. Don't clap, because it will take too long, if you do this, that means you agree and they can see it (indicating).

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Kelly Nakasone.

1. NAKASONE: Hi. Kelly Nakasone, K‑E‑L‑L‑Y N‑A‑K‑A‑S‑O‑N‑E, 321 N. Pleasant, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. NAKASONE: Yes. As I was leaving tonight, my eight‑year‑old wanted to know why I was going to another meeting. And he said, "What's this one about." And I said, "Oh, Valley wants to build a bigger hospital." And he was like "What?" He was like, "Valley is already so big." And I was like, "Okay, yeah," because for an eight‑year‑old it probably is already so big. And I said, "I know, but they do want to build a bigger hospital," because he did not believe it. And then he said, from an eight‑year‑old, "Well, that's going to ruin BF."

And we walk through BF to get to school. We walk around that block. We ride our bikes around that block. It's already crowded. It's already crazy. It's already viewed as dangerous. So my eight‑year‑old is already concerned. He also knows at eight that three percent is not a compromise. When him and his sister fight over who gets more TV time or who gets to watch their show and she tries to tell him at five that she gets to watch 25 minutes and he would get to watch five, he knows that's no good. And that would even be more than three percent. But he knows that that's not a compromise. So I hope you would consider this from an eight‑year‑old's perspective that he knows and that he can see that it's dangerous and he would worry that it would impact his career at BF. If he's worried about it, I'm more than worried about it. So please think about not just what Valley wants, but what all the residents and the kids want in this town.

Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Jill Feeney.

JILL FEENEY, SWORN.

1. FEENEY: F‑E‑E‑N‑E‑Y. 525 Stevens Avenue.

Hi. I didn't come with anything prepared, and I wanted to thank the board for their time. Probably it's my lapse, but I had likely thought that this was already asked and answered and the answer was no, that the expansion was just too big and too much of a disturbance for the BF middle school students and the Travel students and the neighbors.

I'm here, because I do not understand why we are allowing this massive expansion to possibly go forward. Valley is a regional hospital. They do own several commercial properties within 10 minutes of their hospital here in town, and I would like to try to understand why the Luckow Pavilion or the newly acquired children's pavilion are not considered sites for their expansion. They are off of 17, which would make them more convenient to other communities who come and use the Valley Hospital. They already are zoned commercially. They will not disturb any residents, because they are in a commercial zone, and they can build a sky high hospital with a sky high parking garage, and not disturb the school kids at BF middle school. The same problems that occur, that were spoken about years ago with air quality, noise distractions, will still exist today. Nothing has changed. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Feeney.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: JAMIE MILLER.

1. MILLER: J‑A‑M‑I‑E M‑I‑L‑L‑E‑R, 254 Steilen Avenue, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. MILLER: I do.

I don't really have much more to add, except that I second everything he said, she said, she said, she said, he said. I think this is repetitious, and I do hope that the board sees to ‑‑ I'm sorry, I'm terrible at public speaking ‑‑ I hope that you do serve your Village and not Valley. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: JENNIFER TESSEYMAN.

1. TESSEYMAN: JENNIFER TESSEYMAN, T‑E‑S‑S‑E‑Y‑M‑A‑N, 222 Steilen Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. TESSEYMAN: I do. First, I want to say is I think when people hear that I live on Steilen Avenue, they're like, well, of course she's against Valley Hospital. Two things about that. I bought my house knowing that there was a hospital behind me. So I'm one of the residents that knew what was behind me. I knew what I was getting myself in into. My bought my house, it was built in the 1920s, that was there before the hospital. It's beautiful, I fell in love with it. My husband and I said we're going to have a family here, and I still love it to this day.

What I didn't think was going to happen was that they were going to build a new hospital behind me that was going to take 10 years of construction, and I think that's where I have an issue. I have three young children that I picked this house, because they could walk to their schools, they could walk to the middle school, they could walk to the elementary school with me, they could walk to the high school, they could walk to town. That's why I picked my house. And I don't think it's fair that now they can have the possibility of going through 10 years of construction and never be able to enjoy the fact that they could have walked to their schools.

I also have a child that has an attention disorder, and for him I worry because although Valley's claiming that it's not going to be disruptive and the construction is not going to bother anybody, I don't understand how that really could be taken seriously. My son is taken out of the classroom to take a math test with 30 questions, and he's given extended time.

Now, if he's in class and there's trucks driving by, giant construction trucks for 10 years, I don't see how that's not going to affect him and his education. I moved to Ridgewood, because it has a great education system, and I just don't think it's fair. Like everyone else has said here, it's not that I didn't think Valley was going to change or renovate or get up‑to‑date. I don't want a dilapidated hospital behind my house, I don't, but I don't think it's fair that I have to live through it for 10 years, and then wait and then live through it again. Ten years is just way too much time. My kids, that will be their entire education in Ridgewood at this point. So I'm against the proposal, obviously, and I hope you consider the families and the children. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thanks, MS. TESSEYMAN.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: The next person is Melanie McWilliams.

1. McWILLIAMS: Melanie McWilliams, M‑C‑W‑I‑L‑L‑I‑A‑M‑S, 431 Bogert Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. McWILLIAMS: I do. I live close enough to Valley Hospital that I walked to give birth to my fifth child. That should tell you right there who the neighbors of the hospital are and what they use it for. I love that story. I think that's fantastic. But I don't want to send those five children to school next to a facility that could so quickly stop thinking about them and their needs. Three percent of a decrease in what was asked for from Valley is not a compromise in any way. Go back to the drawing board.

I know this has gone on for years and everything that seems to be going on in this town at this point seems to be, well, we've been talking about it for years so we just have to do it. If things were easily fixed, they would be fixed quickly. If there were quick solutions, things would be solved quickly. Go back to the drawing board, come back to your neighbors and understand who they are. You as the board have a responsibility to your neighbors, to understand that this three percent is not a compromise. And should you vote to pass this, you have to understand why your neighbors will look at you and question and wonder why. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

Pete McKenna.

Peter.

1. McKENNA: Peter McKenna, M‑C‑K‑E‑N‑N‑A, 420 Meadowbrook Avenue, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. McKENNA: I do.

To start with, I am the president of Concerned Residents of Ridgewood, but tonight I am speaking as a private citizen. We are keeping our legal coffers for other reasons, it appears, so here is my statement. We have endured 10 years of this. And I, more than anyone, want this to end, but don't rush to judgment on the basis of the court order on our behalf. The taxpayers who opposed Valley tripling in size made the costly decision to initiate a lawsuit regarding this very issue. We knew we were paying for both sides of the fight and committing our time, but we persisted. It was necessary, as we felt our rights to a fair process were violated by the 2010 decision.

We were willing to settle that case in exchange for an opportunity to have a fair process in front of this board. We got that chance. And after a year of hearings, common sense prevailed and this body rejected the 2014 amendment by a 5/2 vote. Both yes votes came from the members that voted for the 2010 amendment and were still on this body. Every member of this board who was hearing the evidence for the first time decided that the 2014 plan was inappropriate for this sensitive location in Ridgewood and they rejected that 2014 amendment. I see that fact pattern as vindication that our concerns about the 2010 process had merit. That rejection, combined with the 2011 rejection of council, should have compelled Valley to finally work with the community to come up with a modernization that would be acceptable. Instead, Valley initiated their lawsuit to overturn the reasonable actions of this board and the council. This proposed settlement de facto reverses the settlement that CRR reached with this body in 2013. So what fairness and justice has CRR received, if this amendment is approved by you?

We have never been unreasonable. We think that modernization at this site is possible, even if it involves some demolition and construction. The 400,000 square feet above grade or space in your face we currently have is the result of decades of hard fought negotiations and was repeatedly viewed by the Board of Adjustment as the most bulk this site could handle. This proposal still has the million square feet of space in your face, two and a half times the previous limit, materially the same as the plan you rejected in 2014. So you are left with a very difficult decision. You can accept this version of the rejected 2014 plan or you can reject the amendment, put it back into the court process, where it may go anyway.

Paraphrasing MR. DRILL's opening statement, you can accept this amendment and retain local control of the Master Plan or you can reject it and let the courts decide what is in our Master Plan. You decided in 2014 to reject this applicant's attempt to change our Master Plan in this way. This proposed amendment is no better for Ridgewood than the one you rejected. Please don't accept it for the appearance of retaining local control.

I request that this body reject this amendment and force the applicant to go back to court to get their way. Even if they prevail in court, we will all know that whatever actions they take will be in direct opposition to the actions of reasonable people in positions of authority. Entrusted with the protection of their values that Ridgewood holds dear, we, the residents, the taxpayers, want you to maintain the high standards that have made Ridgewood the place it is, a place we love enough to fight this hard for it. I repeat my closing sentence from 2014, we won't know how creative Valley can be until you say no to them.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thanks very much.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Ladies and gentlemen, we are switching our court reporter, so we're going to give them about five minutes. So if you just bear with us, we'll take a five‑minute break, resume at 20 minutes of.

(A short recess is held.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: It's 9:45. We're going to take roll again. We have our new court reporter. We're about halfway through and we've had the addition of a few names. And it looks like we will continue this tomorrow. So if there are children that are here that need to leave, we will hear their comments tomorrow.

Michael, please call the roll.  

1. CAFARELLI: MAYOR ARONSOHN?

MAYOR ARONSOHN: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Nalbantian?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: Mr. Joel?

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Here.

1. CAFARELLI: MR. REILLY?
2. REILLY: Here.
3. CAFARELLI: MS. DOCKRAY?
4. DOCKRAY: Here.
5. CAFARELLI: MR. THURSTON?
6. THURSTON: Here.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Michael.

Before I begin, let me just remind you there's a five‑minute timeframe, Michael will notify you after about four minutes. Try to please focus your comments on the changes that were made to the 2014 plan.

So having said that, Marla Sherman is the next person on the list.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Can you tell us what number we're on, please?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes. We are somewhere around number 14.

1. DRILL: Fifteen.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: No, we skipped 14 and Peter was 15, then we had one additional, so Marla was 14. After Marla we're going to go to 16 which is Ann Walsh.

1. SHERMAN: Okay. Marla, M‑A‑R‑L‑A, Sherman, S‑H‑E‑R‑M‑A‑N, 449 Beverly Road. Good evening.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. SHERMAN: I do. Thank you. Good evening. When I was thinking about this process, I couldn't get over the absurdity of why it is that we're here again. The only thing that I could compare it to is the Donald Trump campaign. In this comparison the role of Donald Turnip will be played by Valley Hospital with all the same ridiculous assertions. And I can't do a Donald Trump impression, but you can just put it in your own mind, but the whole, We love Ridgewood, isn't our plan terrific? And, Yeah, we're going to build a wall. In fact, we're going to build two. But we're going to hide them behind hypoallergenic shrubs so that those pesky kids from BF and those lowly homeowners on Steilen won't sneeze on our 1.2‑million‑square‑foot building.

Now sure, it'll take 10 to 20 years for these shrubs and bushes to get to maturity but heck, it'll be worth it; right? Because we're going to be the best hospital in the world right here on these 15 acres. So here's what we're going to do. We're going to ask the Planning Board to change their Master Plan and they're going to do it because I say so. And if they don't, well we'll just sue. So if Valley is The Donald, then you the Planning Board members, the ones that actually sat in a room with a mediator and Valley Hospital's representatives and agreed to move forward with this less than 3 percent reduction or compromise, then that makes you guys Trump supporters and us out here the residents are like Megan Kelly and the Republican National Committee trying everything that we can do to have a contested convention. So please, vote no and make Ridgewood great again. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Next is Anne Walsh. Good evening.

1. WALSH: Good evening. Anne Burton Walsh, A‑N‑N‑E, B‑U‑R‑T‑O‑N, W‑A‑L‑S‑H, 112 South Irving.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. WALSH: I do. This will be much, much less funny than the last set of comments. I'm a parent at Somerville School with three children in fifth, third and first grades. I believe that the proposed 2016 H‑Zone Amendment to Ridgewood's Master Plan may result in chronic and terminal illness as well as vehicular injuries and death in our student population.

It would be much easier right now to just trust that if the expansion goes forward, Valley will use advanced methods for containing asbestos, cement dust and other pollutants during demolition and construction. However, I can't assume this for two reasons. One, my understanding of Valley as a neighbor in this town is that Valley has made promises to residents, including on Steilen Avenue, regarding noise mitigation and other buffers and has not lived up to those promises. Two, I know because of my work as a defense attorney on behalf of property owners whose contractors used asbestos that inhaling even a few fibers can cause scar tissue in the lungs and later cause tumors to form; i.e. mesothelioma. I assume that Valley will provide masks to its workers, and if Valley believes that it's in the best interest of our middle schoolers to wear masks, Valley must notify us immediately.

If the town joins ‑‑ the Village Council joins the Planning Board in approving this settlement, I am asking that Valley set up and fund a one‑ to two‑month health study of as many children whose parents give consent as we can get. Such a study would track the health outcomes of our children for the next 15 or 20 years into adulthood, it might require another ten years, and I believe that hundreds if not thousands of parents whose children will be affected or subjected to this will be willing to give consent. By comparing this data to data from otherwise similar population of young adults, there will be evidence of whether this exposure has caused a disproportionate number of cancers and other illnesses among our children. This will provide us and our children legal recourse for the future.

I also request that the town begin providing a regular report to Ridgewood residents on traffic safety in the vicinity of Valley if they don't already, and continue to do so if construction is approved and through the construction period. This will track the injuries and fatalities that will likely flow from thousands of children walking and biking past this construction site every day for up to three years each. Over a course of six years, CRR estimates that there will be 132 truck trips back and forth in front of BF daily. It goes without saying that no parent would ever choose legal recourse over the health and safety of his children. Still, these two studies should be done and is the least that Valley and the town could do, given that Valley is choosing to expand on this scale in a residential walking and biking neighborhood right next door to a school.

I recognize that Valley provides great emergency medicine and other services and is therefore very valuable to our community. I also recognize that it's an aging facility and must renovate. However, this expansion plan goes far beyond that. I urge the Village Council to not change course, but instead continue to vote against this expansion in every form. If this settlement is approved, however, I request that the data collection on health and vehicular safety begin as soon as practical. Thank you very much.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Walsh.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Meegan Shevlin.

1. SHEVLIN: Hi, it's Meegan, M‑E‑E‑G‑A‑N, last name is Shevlin, S‑H‑E‑V‑L‑I‑N. And I live at 512 Van Buren Street.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

2016. SHEVLIN: I do. Valley Hospital expansion was wrong for Ridgewood in 2010, was wrong in 2014 and is still wrong in 2016. This so‑called neighbor has come back with a mediated settlement that has no significant difference from the proposal that was soundly defeated in 2014 and is insulting again to residents. The roof is now 56 feet plus the rooftop mechanicals of 24 feet equals 80 feet. That's only 14 feet shorter than the, quote, stop 94 slogan from 2014. Plus, there is now a standalone smoke stack that is 90 feet, only four feet lower than the stop 94 slogan. How can Valley claim to be a good neighbor while continuing to sue both the Planning Board and the Village Council for a huge hospital that has clearly been rejected by the majority of residents and continues to insult our intelligence?

And don't be fooled by the lower heights. Most of their square footage is just moved around. The North building is now only 40 feet at its closest to the BF property line. That's right, 40 feet only. The first phase, first phase only, will last six years. That is two generations of kids at the BF middle school that will only know a learning experience damaged by construction noise, dust, pollution, et cetera. The hospital will tower over BF. We all want Valley to modernize. Yes, we want private rooms. And no, I don't want to walk to a trailer behind the emergency room to get my frequent PET scans. But this is not the right location. And the Village Council told Valley this decades ago. They said you have to figure out a way to move your services to different sites. Decades ago.

Valley has very successfully opened several off‑site centers including Luckow, which has the breast center and two MRI centers in the Bolger Center. Valley has land it can develop on Nagle Avenue and other places to move ‑‑ to further move services off‑site so it can renovate and modernize and not have to go so big. This is not a compromise at all, it is insulting to all residents, and it is a danger to the learning of all the children that attend both Travell and BF. It's just too big.

(Applause.)  

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MS. SHEVLIN. Walter... Walter Balbosi? Linwood Avenue? No?

Kelly Gazzini.

1. GAZZINI: Kelly Gazzini, K‑E‑L‑L‑Y, Gazzini, G‑A‑Z‑Z‑I‑N‑I. 523 Lotus Road.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. GAZZINI: I do.

Thank you, Planning Board, for the opportunity to speak this evening and for the countless hours you've invested in the research and dialogue on this matter. As a licensed professional within the medical industry, I can fully appreciate the need for Valley to evolve within today's changing healthcare standards and technologies. However, that being said, the expansion proposed within this amendment is in no way acceptable within the framework of a residential community and neighboring middle school occupying 747 children and 92 employees.

Within your amendment to the Master Plan you state on page 4: "Given the scale of the hospital buildings and the location of the site in a single‑family residential neighborhood, the visual impact to the surrounding area resulting from the mass of the hospital buildings and parking decks should be minimized." For this reason you based your recommendations, which were the following: Your amendment proposed an actual increase in land lot usage of 33,000 square feet, going from square footage of 288,000 square feet in the Master Plan concurrent to 311,000 square feet in this proposed amendment, in addition to bringing the structure even closer to Benjamin Franklin Middle School property line at 30 feet.

In regard to building height, principal buildings are amended to 56 feet, but this excludes the rooftop mechanical penthouses or the 24‑foot mechanical screen, which brings the structure to a total of 80 feet. The current building facade as we know it to be 48 feet, this is an increase of 66 per zone. Total square footage: In 2014, Valley proposed an expansion total of 995,000 square feet. Negotiations settled at 961,000 square feet, a reduction of 34,000 square feet. This is only a mere 3 percent reduction in size from what was voted down in 2014. In addition, it proposed a five‑story garage at 245,000 square feet, which will bring the total size of the project to 1,206,000 square feet. This is more than double, nearly tripling the size of Valley's current square footage of 105,000 square feet. I ask the members of this Planning Board, how can you settle on this proposal telling the residents of this community that this is an acceptable compromise? We're more than doubling the scope of the current structure in square footage, increasing in size by 66 percent and bringing it even closer to our middle school property line and increasing the land lot usage by 3 percent from the Master Plan.

Having attended countless meetings on this plan in 2014 and standing here once again two quick years later fighting against such an outrageous amendment is incomprehensible to me. This is a far cry from an acceptable compromise within any stretch of the imagination, and I honestly cannot believe that this community is being asked to withstand this once again.

In your final deliberation of this amendment, I implore the board to please consider the negative impact a project of this scope will have on our children and the residents' health and safety due to the inevitable air pollution, noise and increased vehicular traffic over the course of six years during the Phase I demolition and construction. Moreover, Valley's expansion of such tremendous proportion will have a permanent urbanizing effect on our village, the likes of which were not envisioned when homeowners initially chose to settle here and may likely be a deterrent to future home buyers.

Thank you for your time and attention.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MS. GAZZINI.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Tom DeVito.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: He left.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Kelly Gioia.

1. GIOIA: Yes. Am I the last one? No? That's all right. I was excited for that.

Kelly Gioia, 447 Fairway Road, Ridgewood. G‑I‑O‑I‑A.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. GIOIA: I only have two things ‑‑ well, maybe three, three things to say. I want to thank Pete and CRR for fighting a good fight, and I want to say once a bad neighbor, always a bad neighbor. I was the last president at Travell and the hospital could give a rat's bum about us. And I have one other thing to say, stop the madness. Stop the madness. It's all about the money, money, money.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Marisol Romero.

1. ROMERO: Marisol Romero, M‑A‑R‑I‑S‑O‑L, R‑O‑M‑E‑R‑O, 258 Steilen Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand.

1. ROMERO: Sure.

THE COURT REPORTER: Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

1. ROMERO: Yes, I do.

Can I give out my pictures now.

1. RAZIN: Yes, you have exhibits that you want to enter?
2. ROMERO: Yes, I do. I have two pictures.
3. RAZIN: Do you have exhibits you want to enter? I just want to use the mike.
4. ROMERO: Oh, I'm sorry. Yes.
5. RAZIN: No, that was me. I didn't use the mike.
6. ROMERO: Okay.
7. RAZIN: How many exhibits do you have?
8. ROMERO: I have two pictures. This is the ‑‑
9. DRILL: Can I just see them?
10. RAZIN: Yes. Can I just get them? Okay.

Did you ‑‑ there are two pictures, did you take the photographs yourself?

1. ROMERO: Yes, I did.
2. RAZIN: And can you just tell us approximately when the photographs were taken?
3. ROMERO: On my birthday, March 31st, 2016.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Happy Birthday.

1. RAZIN: And you were here?
2. ROMERO: Yes. And I was here. Somewhere around here.
3. RAZIN: They were taken from your property.
4. ROMERO: Yes, they were taken from my backyard of my house.
5. RAZIN: And what do you ‑‑ what do they represent?
6. ROMERO: They represent the view of the hospital from my backyard.
7. RAZIN: Okay. If you could just show them to MR. DRILL and if he has no objection. You have enough copies for the board?
8. ROMERO: Yes, I do.
9. DRILL: Yes, no objection.
10. RAZIN: Okay. I'm just going to mark these as ‑‑ I'll mark them together as O ‑‑ I'm going to mark them, since they're yours, I'm going to mark them, from the same person, as O‑1A and B.

(Whereupon, Two Photographs are received and marked as Exhibit O‑1A and O‑1B for identification.)

1. ROMERO: And a quick thank you to the Village Police and Fire Department for helping to make things run smoothly.

All right. Good evening.

1. RAZIN: Want to just give us ‑‑ let me just ‑‑ give me one second.

(Applause.)  

1. RAZIN: Marisol, can you just send Michael by e‑mail ‑‑ do you have e‑mail available?
2. ROMERO: Yes, they're on my iPhone.
3. RAZIN: Okay. Can you send Michael ‑‑ after tonight could you send Michael the originals?
4. ROMERO: Yes.
5. RAZIN: That would be great, thank you very much.
6. DRILL: Which one is O‑1A?
7. RAZIN: I marked O‑1A this one and O‑1B this one.
8. ROMERO: Oh, this is A.
9. RAZIN: A and B.
10. ROMERO: I'm sorry, okay. Good evening. I would ask the Planning Board to rescind the expansion plans that Valley Hospital wishes to proceed with. The hospital cannot guarantee that the air and noise pollution caused by its renovation will not dramatically impact the health of our residents, including our children. Likewise, I am very doubtful that the hospital will be able to seamlessly blend into the Village skyline. As evidence of this last statement I am submitting two pictures, which I just did, taken from my backyard. The first picture, which I believe you said was ‑‑ well, the first picture I'm going to talk about is this one. This is B, picture B. Was taken from my second‑story bathroom window and clearly shows the hospital, even with trees, which by the way are trimmed back continuously every year, so that when the tree does bloom it looks pretty, still ‑‑ I can still see the hospital. I mean, it looks pretty bare because they keep trimming back the limbs all the time.

The second picture, which is A, was taken in the earlier evening hours and shows the office lights on shining visibly through the trees and making the hospital visible not just during the day, but at night to Steilen Avenue properties. So basically 24/7 we're looking at the hospital in one way or the other. So I ask you, with the expansion plans, how would the hospital be able to camouflage its building when it does such a poor job of it now? If the expansion plans are allowed to proceed, the health and sanity of my three young children are at stake, one of which has special needs which includes severe inattention issues and he has severe allergies. Ironically and sadly, the same hospital which helped to bring into this world my beautiful, healthy, three‑month‑old daughter Sophia will now potentially contribute to any health problems she, along with all the children in our village, will now have if these plans are allowed to go through. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Denise Angeles? Denise Angeles?

Patricia James?

1. JAMES: Right here.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Come on up.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please state your name for the record.

1. JAMES: Patricia James, P‑A‑T‑R‑I‑C‑I‑A, James, J‑A‑M‑E‑S, 61 Warren Place in Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Is that Warren Place?  

1. JAMES: Warren, W‑A‑R‑R‑E‑N,

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. JAMES: I do. Having moved to Ridgewood two years ago this month, I've spent my free time over the last fortnight trying to educate myself on the proposed expansion of Valley Hospital. I have been looking through the media reports and reading the information on the website with fresh eyes, and of course I can't see because my Internet is ‑‑ I have without ‑‑ I don't have the knowledge base that many of the residents who spoke here tonight possess, but that also provides me with fresh eyes to look at everything without the influence of the history either for or against the expansion.

With that being said, I am concerned about two main points that I would like to focus on this evening: Construction duration and the compromised total size. The construction duration is currently scheduled to take place, as I understand it, in two phases; Phase I lasting six years and Phase II lasting four years with a ten‑year break between the two phases. This means that the total construction duration of the project will last 20 years. And frankly, 20 years is giving the construction timeline the benefit of the doubt because I don't know any project of this magnitude that finishes on time.

That being said, the proposed timeline is going to span a generation. For the children entering kindergarten of the year construction actually starts, it will not be completed upon their graduation. Or, to look at it from a different perspective, the kids today attending neighborhood Benjamin Franklin Middle School will likely have graduated, gotten married and had their own children entering the school system before this project is completed. The impact for our community, especially our school‑age community members, is the greatest, and it is not fair to ask them to carry the largest portion of the burden.

This leads me to my second main point: Compromise total size. From 2014 to 2016, the square footage has decreased from 995,000 to 961,000 square feet, which is a reduction, as said so many times tonight, of approximately 3 percent. A compromise of 3 percent is not a compromise where each side has come to the table to find a reasonable agreement. Noting the project's proximity to Benjamin Franklin Middle School is a grave concern to the community residents. I would have hoped that the compromise would have increased the buffer depth from a minimum of 12 feet to a minimum of at least 20 feet along the school's property line which was noted in the proposed March 15th, 2016, Amendment to Land Use Plan, a 20‑feet minimum buffer depth would have been aligned with the surrounding avenues, which I still think is too short, but at least it would have given the same respect to the reference that you've outlined. I would like to see a minimum buffer depth of equal distance or greater where the hospital borders the middle school, which is not only a school to the students that attend there, but is host to many events throughout the community and surrounding communities. This compromise does not demonstrate a true compromise.

I am not against development for the sake of development. Valley Hospital does provide a benefit to Ridgewood and its surrounding communities, but it's a delicate balance between what the hospital needs and wants and its home community, especially the neighboring school. This has not been found in its current proposal. I thank you for taking the time to listen to my comments and your litigation. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Jiffy Vermylen.

1. VERMYLEN: Good evening. V‑E‑R‑M‑Y‑L‑E‑N. Jiffy Vermylen, 241 North Walnut.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please spell your fist name?  

1. VERMYLEN: J‑I‑F‑F‑Y.  

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. VERMYLEN: I do.

My family and I relocated from California to Ridgewood almost two years ago. I was seven months pregnant at the time, and Valley Hospital's excellent reputation for maternal fetal medicine and labor and delivery certainly made purchasing a home less than a mile ‑‑

THE COURT REPORTER: I'm sorry. Please speak a little slower.

1. VERMYLEN: Do I get extra time?

THE COURT REPORTER: If you want it on the record I have to be able to hear it. Labor and delivery?

1. VERMYLEN: And delivery certainly made purchasing a home less than a mile from the hospital quite attractive. Indeed, about eight weeks after we moved I had a wonderful experience with the birth of my second child and as you can see, I'll be there again in six to eight weeks with the same intent and high expectations. Less than two weeks after my son's birth, however, I had the opportunity to experience another side of Valley. He became ill on day twelve of life and was admitted for a nine‑day stay in the pediatric unit. We were told our immuno‑compromised newborn would not be guaranteed a private room. No parent with a child in a vulnerable state should have to add germ transfer from a roommate to an already long list of concerns.

So I get it. I understand Valley's need to modernize in order to provide a higher level of patient care. In the competitive healthcare market, top notch facilities attract top notch physicians. We, as patients, deserve high quality care from high quality doctors and Valley's proposed changes will help facilitate this public good for our community. I support modernization and expansion, but not at the proposed scale of this particular location. In light of the numerous other properties owned by Valley, I'm shocked by the need for such a voluminous project. I realize we are not privy to the details of the mediation process, but it appears on the surface as though the village has conceded too much.

I would urge further negotiation on total size and more specificity regarding the conditions outlined in last week's testimony. A 3.5 percent decrease in square footage just isn't significant movement from the 2013‑'14 plans, especially considering the transfer of the fifth floor to a new ground level space not included in '13‑'14. In the event of eventual construction, I'd like to share some perspective from my career in the fields of sustainability in the built environment. I've worked for a large general contractor and for Stanford University. I've been a LEED accredited professional for ten years and I'm currently chair of Ridgewood's Green Team Advisory Committee. I have documented experience in managing high performance design and construction projects, including ample time spent working in trailers on job sites. Construction is a messy process and adjacent properties are always affected.

In this case we have three vulnerable routes worth noting: The public schools, residential neighbors and the patient population. I've seen firsthand how owners promise sensitivity and best practices during construction and how the integrity of that promise degrades with each transfer of information from the owner to the GC, the GC to the subcontractors and finally, from the subs to the actual construction workers. I heard the testimony from Valley regarding the conditions agreed upon for construction, but there is much more detail that should be specified. I ask the Planning Board and Valley, please do more to ensure the safety and well‑being of our entire community.

I suggest frequent demands, site‑specific mitigation that is well in excess of the, quote, industry standard referenced in public documents. These measures should minimize dust, noise, vibration, storm water degradation and other adverse effects. California has excellent models that can and should be referenced by all parties. Adopting a green building in construction standards as a minimum requirement to obtain building permits for projects in the village, as many New Jersey communities have already done, would be a small starting point, but a step forward nonetheless. Ridgewood is behind in this regard relative to its peers.

I recommend that all parties revisit the site plan and further decrease the percentage of impervious surfaces, require the new buildings to meet high performance standards from both the material and operational perspective. Testimony on March 30th referenced seeking LEED points, but is unclear if the village will require or whether Valley will actually pursue formal LEED certification. Revisit the construction duration. A six‑year project with more than three years of outside work might be decreased by the use of more innovative methods and technologies. Again, a more significant decrease in the total project scope would decrease construction duration.

1. CAFARELLI: One minute.
2. VERMYLEN: Valley recently joined Project Green Help, a national organization committed to increasing its members' operational efficiency and environmental stewardship, but I see little mention of how Valley will use the available resources with respect to sustainable design, engineering and construction.

Instead, Valley's on‑line sustainability presence focuses on meatless Mondays, waste management and some limited efficiency improvements. These are hardly substantive efforts and are not exactly cutting‑edge practices. Consideration of low or no‑VOC paint is mentioned as being considered when it should be standard in a hospital setting.

Reference is made to reducing Valley's carbon footprint but where's the baseline data? No emissions inventory has been made public and from that I can only conclude that nothing official has been calculated or recorded. Nowhere could I find a listing for a director of sustainability and the vice president of facilities testified she is not a LEED AP.

1. CAFARELLI: Time is up.
2. VERMYLEN: I welcome more evidence of Valley's commitment to sustainability and responsible construction management. Who will actually be in charge? I have no doubt many things will be promised to the community with regard to construction practices, proper use of smoking areas for tradesmen, background checks and so forth, but professional experiences make me skeptical of the follow‑through and execution.

The list of conditions should be expanded and made more explicit. I'd feel much more comfortable seeing all details along with enforcement procedures prior to any final agreement on project scope. My sincere hope is that the Planning Board pushes for the same and rejects the current amendment.

Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Janet Daly. Good evening.

1. DALY: Hi. Janet Daly, D‑A‑L‑Y. 386 Ponfield Place. P, as in Peter, O‑N‑F‑I‑E‑L‑D.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. DALY: I do.

I have lived in Ridgewood 43 years and I have been involved in the Planning Board and Village Council meetings regarding the Valley Hospital for maybe ten years, I don't know, I lost track. I know you ‑‑ you've been here, too. I'm so happy to hear from all the people who spoke tonight. I was at the Planning Board meeting in 2014 when the Planning Board voted against the Valley Hospital expansion. Since there was little change between 2014 and 2016 Master Plans, I really don't see any reason to go through with this, to vote for this plan. The North building may be down one level, but it is still over 300 feet long from North Van Dien to Steilen Avenue. In other words, it's a four‑story building that's bigger than a football field will be running along the border of BF Middle School. Can you hear me? Is this working right? Okay. It will only be 40 feet from the border. Recently I applied for a permit to put central air in my house. I was told that the compressor had to be 40 feet from my property line and if it wasn't, I would have to get a variance. How can a municipality require that my compressor, which is about 3 feet high, it's about that high, and 3 feet wide, be the same distance from my property line than Valley Hospital's 80‑foot‑high, 300‑foot‑wide North tower is planned to be? I was a village resident when Village Council told Valley that they could not build any more on the 15 acres on North Van Dien and Linwood Avenues. And I believed them. I believe that. I still believe in it. But I believe that was true. I was also a village resident when Valley requested permission to expand their ER and Valley Hospital agreed to take down another building in order to stay within that required size restriction. And I thought great, that's the way to do it. Work together and stick with the requirements that were set down by the village.

I am against this Monmouth expansion for several reasons: The size, the traffic, the noise, the air pollution, not being able to sell your houses. Remember all the signs that were up the last time we were going through this and people couldn't sell their houses, they had their houses on the market for years. The reason that I got involved is because of the children who attend BF Middle School. That was my ‑‑ the original reason. And my main concern is for the health and safety of the children who will be adjusting to a major demolition and construction project for ten years.

I am concerned with their exposure to the air pollution, especially the diesel particulate, no one's mentioned that, from the many trucks passing by. I am also concerned for their safety as they walk or bike back and forth to school with all the additional truck traffic. And I ask you to stand up to Valley again, you did it before, please do it again, and vote no. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Daly.

Antenette Lam.

1. LAM: Hi. My name is Antenette Lam. First name is A‑N‑T‑E‑N‑E‑T‑T‑E. And the last name's L‑A‑M. My address is 276 Eldon Court, E‑L‑D‑O‑N.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. LAM: Yes. Okay. Thank you for giving me the opportunity to share my concern regarding Valley Hospital expansion. I actually never speak up in such a big crowd before and ‑‑ but I feel very passionate to speak up for the right reason. I understand the Valley Hospital claim that they will do the background check on the construction workers and however, who will be the police for this? How can Valley Hospital guarantee every single person that they hire will conduct a background check? Will the residents be able to review those records? Will Valley Hospital do background check every single year? Will we have additional police presence to ensure our children's safety?

One of the main reason why I am against the expansion is because of the Ridgewood childrens that will attend the BF and the children's that will attend the Travell Elementary School. Growing up in New York City I saw a grown man masturbate in front of me while I was in a park with my friends. He was watching us and once he realized that we try to leave he chased us, after us. And I was also a victim of robberies in my own home, held at gunpoint and tied up. I never wish upon this on anybody. So we decided, once my husband and I got married we decided to move out of New York City. We move from New York City to Fort Lee and from Fort Lee to Ridgewood because we felt that Fort Lee is too crowded and too busy to raise our two daughters. I still remember like it was yesterday, we park our car at downtown Ridgewood, my husband and I walk around the downtown and we both knew that this was the right place for us to raise our children, because Ridgewood offered an excellent education system and a safe environment for our children.

By expanding the Valley Hospital I no longer feel safe for my children. There will be over a hundred trucks drive by BF each day and a hundred more strangers in town. How do we know the workers are not watching the residents' schedule? Spending six to ten years in the same place and watching the same people and the girls walk by, the workers will pick up the residents' pattern. I'm sure the construction workers know that this is a pretty wealthy town. How do we know there's no other alternative motive? How do we know our girls would not be harassed by the workers? Several times when I walk to pick up my daughter at Travell Elementary School the landscaper make some comments to me while they were sitting outside during the break. Things like this happen everywhere. It doesn't matter if it's New York City or Ridgewood. Our daughters and our children's and our town don't need this kind of trouble. I guarantee you by allowing the Valley expansion, our daughter will endure these unpleasant experience and they will not know how to protect themselves.

Please don't forget about the air quality as well. If expansion do happens, our children would have to wear mask to school everywhere and they will ‑‑ and they go ‑‑ everywhere that they go, and they will not be able to avoid air pollution and this will affect everyone's health. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Lam.

Lisa Baney?

1. BANEY: Good evening. Lisa Baney at 136 Brookside Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. BANEY: Yes. So I don't know how, like, a 3 percent smaller reduction in the size of the above ground size of this project and, you know, adding some, let's see, green roofs, ivy, plantings and water features and little things like that really makes this a more palatable amendment, and I guess the best word I have been able to come up with for what happened is capitulation. Capitulation, not really a mediated agreement. And something that makes me very sad and ‑‑ and I have to say I can't really stop thinking of this as my ‑‑ that image of it is that the Village was basically put over a barrel and, shall I say, has been violated by a bully. And ‑‑ and ‑‑ any why? Because I think that the ‑‑ the litigious party in this case that's suing a very, very careful Master Plan processed quasi‑judicial super serious restrictive process has an unlimited war chest of, last time I looked at a balance sheet, over $800 million in short‑term assets, and how can the Village of Ridgewood really be in this situation of going to litigation? And I have a lot of compassion for the members of the Planning Board and for the village because I think that it was kind of an impossible situation. But somehow or other, it has to be held firm.

And I have been involved for so many years, you know, with so many, so many people and just to go back, I mean, literally, let's say, I've been to hundreds and hundreds of hours of meetings. And let's see, a party, for example, with my husband and all of his friends from the Dad's Night Band and all the other musicians that he, you know, so many of them playing at a party in the backyard, raising money so we could hire a good planner who comes to talk about why this is not good land‑use planning and what happens? Well, the hospital unfortunately throws out the best part, frankly, of what we paid for with all our donor moneys which was an example of what a reasonable Master Plan ‑‑ what a reasonable expansion might look like, what reasonable land use might look like. And it got thrown out because they said that if we had wanted to present that information, we should have to apply for our own Master Plan in order to be able to present that example of what might be reasonable. So I mean, just process has just been, you know, evidence thrown out and so forth.

So, but I think there is a fundamental problem that is the artifice that ‑‑ well, there's a couple things. First of all, when I read the lawsuit my heart sunk and I said, well, the pressure is going to be for our government to settle. It was obvious because, you know, the threat of the litigation costs. But two things gave me hope. One was the main premise of the lawsuit was that the Planning Board had decided on behalf of a small number of, I forget if the word was residents or neighbors, instead of the regional beneficial, or regional benefit of ‑‑ litigation ‑‑ beneficial use.

And first of all, I don't know how any judge or jury, you know, with all due respect, could say that it was a small number of residents. What, they were people ‑‑ hundreds of hours of testimony, you know, just hundreds of people speaking who were from all over ‑‑ all over ‑‑ all over town, at least some from the west side, from almost all parts of the east side, not an immediate number of neighbors, so I thought that meant a lot. Okay. Secondly, half the kids in Ridgewood coming up through the school system are going to be going to BF, so how can that be a small number of residents? That's just hellacious. Secondly, it was ‑‑ every Planning Board ‑‑ first of all, this term of inherent beneficial ‑‑ inherent beneficial use is a great piece of vernacular. I understand it's code, it's a term, and it's a legal term. But how far are we going to take the absurdity of it would be like ‑‑

1. CAFARELLI: One minute.
2. BANEY: ‑‑ just think of something is the university or a hospital, what, in theory it can just keep expanding forever and ever and ever and ever because it's a regional beneficial use? So ‑‑ and then there are also municipal land use laws that says the Planning Board can use its own best judgment in determining if the local detriments exceed the regional benefits and there's broad latitude and the board went to great detail saying that ‑‑ acknowledging both and most of the members ‑‑ all the members who voted against felt that the detriments exceeded the benefits because that's their purview.

Finally, there's the circular argument and an artifical box that construes everything that goes in this, which was the Planning Board said we can't discuss alternatives, which I asked about in the nicest voice for years, years and years, like ten years practically, and they would say, well, we can't discuss alternatives if they're outside the confines of Ridgewood, so maybe doing something over by the beautiful new Luckow Pavillion where there's all this open, commercially‑owned property that's much more accessible to the rest of the region because it's on highways, without being in a residential or school setting ‑‑

1. CAFARELLI: Time.
2. BANEY: Just one more sentence. We can't discuss it because it's outside the jurisdictional realms of the Planning Board, and then the hospital would have to go beyond saying it was too expensive and outside their vision because they didn't have to discuss their personal business. So it was an artificial box and that is not even logical. So here we are getting sued, over a barrel and recapitulating everything that the Planning Board worked so hard. Thank you. And I just think it's really wrong.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Baney.

Is there another list of folks that just signed? While that's coming up, there are a couple of people that I called before, Walter, is he here? Did Tom DeVito return? If there are people downstairs ‑‑ I think most people are up here, but if there are people downstairs that have signed or if they're downstairs and they would like to speak, please come upstairs in the courtroom.

Denise Angeles, is she here? Okay. So we have on this current list Jeanette LaRocco.

1. LAROCCO: Jeanette LaRocco, J‑E‑A‑N‑E‑T‑T‑E, LaRocco, L‑A capital R‑O‑C‑C‑O.  

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. LAROCCO: Yes.

THE COURT REPORTER: Your address please?

1. LAROCCO: 454 Bogert Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: And please speak slowly and clearly?

1. LAROCCO: Yes, I know. I will. Thank you. I had to do this over ten years. I haven't missed many meetings. I missed the last two and I had not planned to speak so I didn't have anything written down, but I have a unique perspective. The reason, ironically, why I wasn't here, my husband had elective surgery Tuesday, he was there till Friday, so I made some observations. He had full knee replacement, we were in the Cheel building, fourth floor, and had a unique perspective of seeing Steilen Avenue from the windows. So certain things I observed. One, I do agree that certain things have to be renovated. Last year my daughter was in the ER and yes, it woefully needs to be modernized; also, I'm sure the surgical rooms, I'm sure the operating rooms, et cetera.

However, certain observations that I made, one was my husband's surgery, two of the things that they consider big issues are what can happen is you can develop an embolism or you can then develop an infection. Now, he didn't develop an infection; in fact, he's at CareMark getting rehab and he wouldn't be allowed to if he was sick because you're not allowed to have elective surgery if you're ill. And he had no patient in his room, co‑patient, until Thursday and he was there until Friday, and the reason is because that patient had back surgery, also elective, did not have an infection. And the other thing I noticed was the nurses. By the way, we had fabulous ‑‑ we were fabulously taken care of, a professional service by this staff, all the staff. Now, the nurses, some of them had gloves, some didn't, and I was concerned, but then I realized one of the rehab people was using it outside and that's why I couldn't tell, there were outside and inside hand sanitizers. So that was one observation.

Another was seeing the building. From the perspective, my building, seeing Steilen, and the short wall. Now, I didn't realize until I read the transcript on the weekend, some of it, I didn't get to see both because the second one came out today, and I've been visiting my husband back and forth, but one thing I realized, 20 feet, you know what it reminds me of? Three possibilities: One, the wall's on the highway to prevent the people from seeing the highway who have homes, one, a prison to keep the prisoners in or the third one, a zoo to keep the animals in. It's not an attractive prospect. And even at 20 feet, when your building is going to be ‑‑ the Cheel building is 45 feet and even with the setback of 70, that's not good enough. These poor people, when they moved into those houses, had no clue that's what they were going to see.

Now, the other thing I realized was that the parking, one of the things in the transcript was moving the employees. Now, I saw a few employees who were parking in not the employee area going into the building because you could see their clothing. So ‑‑ and one entered from the side, that employee only entrance. So I realized, why not, from now on through eternity, take people ‑‑ take the employees, have them park somewhere else and then shuttle them? Because one of the problems with employees' individual cars is they have certain times of their shifts, like the nurses, they work certain shifts, so they're going back and forth, back and forth, so you get a lot of traffic. I also got the perspective because not only did I drive there but I also walked there, and so you could see ‑‑ I could ‑‑ my daughter ‑‑ how difficult it was, how certain times of the day we were often ‑‑ and afternoon and dinnertime and I could see how many cars were constantly pulling in and out. And in order for employees to get in and out quickly, it would make more sense if you have ‑‑ it would be safer for the children and anybody else crossing.

Now, also there have been other solutions ‑‑ like single rooms. Since my husband did not get an infection, as a friend mentioned, certain people need to be isolated, why not only build some rooms as single rooms, because this is supposedly why we need so many buildings, and some keep them two people in a room and modernize it ‑‑ I'm not saying you can't modernize it, but I'm saying there's no reason ‑‑ there's no less of an infection risk for certain patients.

And what else did I want ‑‑ there was one more thing. I guess that's ‑‑ oh, I guess that's it except for saying that 3 percent is not a compromise in any way, shape or form. I have been doing this over ten years. I've seen so many different things going on. And I am far enough even though I'm on Bogert, still I won't be affected, I may move some day when my children are grown, what about those other children?

My children have all ‑‑ I have three children that went to BF, they went through all the school system, and I can't imagine ‑‑ I could see ‑‑ I was there at times when the crossing guards were there and cars going in and out and I thought to myself, I pray that no child will ever get struck by a car. When there are trucks and there are so many people going back and forth that possibility is always there and it's a concern for me. And so I'm not doing this for myself, I'm doing it mainly for the other people who are going to move into Ridgewood, the people on my street who have many children, one of them is Melanie McWilliams, so that's my concern, and I want you to please think about it and please vote against this and make them compromise. There ‑‑ oh, one other thing.

Why don't we take all outpatient services ‑‑ most surgeries today are outpatient, one day. Why don't you move all those services out? You'd have room to build without building to the extent that you want to go all those thousands of feet, hundreds of thousands. It would be more tenable. Then I think we would object less to that and buildings wouldn't have to be as wide because that is a problem. You may shorten the buildings but if you're spreading them out that way, they're getting too close to the school, too close to the neighbors, and I think we should think about the residents. We'll be here a long time. We'll always be residents of Ridgewood and I think we're most important. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. LaRocco.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Paul Hogan.

1. HOGAN: Hi. I'm Paul Hogan, H‑O‑G‑A‑N. I live at 93 Sherwood Road in Ridgewood. Before I lived at 207 Emmett Place in Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. HOGAN: I do.

I'd like to thank the board for allowing me the opportunity to speak. Like some of the other folks here I wasn't planning on doing it but I was ‑‑ I felt compelled to do so since I'm a long‑term resident of Ridgewood. My parents bought our house here in 1960, so I'm ‑‑ I guess I'm dating myself in that regard, and for all the reasons that have been mentioned here, the fantastic schools, the great community, the great people, professionals, all types of people, all walks of life. I play with a ton of great musicians, I am one of them I like to think, fantastic arts here, fantastic place to live and grow up. My father always told me one thing about Valley Hospital; Valley Hospital was always, always intended to be a local hospital. And that rings in my ears every day when I'm going through this. This was not supposed to be a regional hospital, especially with other options, other lands, other places. You already have facilities in other places like Waldwick and other places that you can I think safely do the things that you need to do.

To be frank, I am astounded we're back here yet again. I know you folks have put in a lot of time and I do appropriate that, but I'm always astounded ‑‑ and I've come to a bunch of these meetings, and even though we don't live as close to the hospital as we used to, we care very deeply for our neighbors and for this town. And I am very, very astounded that the passion and the caring of your constituents, your constituents that you are hearing, hundred to one, hundred to zero, are saying the things that we're saying and this is still being debated. Something of this size.

As I said, we now live on Sherwood Road. We moved there about three years ago. We needed the room. But I would be lying if I didn't say that Valley Hospital was a consideration when we moved. It was always in the back of our minds that this day could come. I have always felt and my wife has always felt and our children have always felt solidarity with our neighbors. This is about the health of children. This is about the learning of children. The future of this town. The health of the children should be paramount to everyone in this room, let alone the fact that the property values around the hospital will be destroyed. Don't kid yourself. Along with the apartment proposals that are going on, this town one day might actually become less than desirable, something my parents and my family would never, ever even think about.

Renovation may be needed. Some things need to change. Understood. But not to this scale, given the fact there's other locations to be leveraged. The overwhelming responses of these witnesses, your constituents, should tell you all you need to know. I'm curious to know here how many of you have children of school age that go to Travell and BF and I wonder what you'd be thinking right now if you knew an active construction site would be there for decades to come. I also work in commercial real estate and construction and I can tell you assuredly that all is not well on some of these construction sites and what goes on. This is about the children and the children and the children. Your vote can either free them or potentially subject them to a slow death sentence. You folks got it right in 2014. Please get it right again and do the right thing. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Mr. Hogan.

Diane Palacios. Good evening.  

1. PALACIOS: Good evening. Diane Palacios. Diane, D‑I‑A‑N‑E, Palacios, P‑A‑L‑A‑C‑I‑O‑S. 342 North Van Dien Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. PALACIOS: Yes. As far as ‑‑ as I ‑‑ I wasn't planning to speak but a few days ago last week there was something in the newspaper about Valley Hospital that made me realize that they really share our values. They share my deepest values for how I want to live my life. And that is if you remember or if you read when they found out that Teterboro Airport was changing the route and it was going to be a ‑‑ a limited operation of jet planes going over Valley Hospital and making some noise, my goodness, their objections, you could hear it throughout Ridgewood. They had a fit.

But yet ‑‑ so then I thought, well, if they're ‑‑ they understand noise, so maybe they will revise their hospital plan and realize that the neighbors too don't want noise pollution, traffic; that they will understand that we're people, not just objects to be used at their will. So, but they ‑‑ no, no, they propose a ‑‑ basically a cataclysmic, virtual cataclysmic destruction of our peace and quiet for the foreseeable future. Now, is that being a good neighbor? So, but anyway, I don't want Valley Hospital to be in harm's way with those jet planes, those few jet planes of the limited operation of Teterboro. Also, I live near it too, but I'm not worried about that. What I am very concerned about is living right in front of BF, Benjamin Franklin. And I just love the kids. The kids are perfectly quiet. I've lived there since 1978, never had a problem with a kid. But the idea of all those trucks going by my house ‑‑ and I am a musician. I practice the piano all the time and I value quiet. That would be very disruptive to my way of life.

So I have a suggestion for Valley Hospital. Keep them out of harm's way. Build a smaller hospital. Have your private rooms but make it smaller so that you can have what you want in a smaller scale. Don't build so high and then you won't have to worry about those jet planes because you won't be high like Hackensack. You won't be high like those apartment buildings next to Hackensack. The Hackensack Hospital people were saying that when the jet planes went over that they thought they were going to hit them. Not only couldn't they hear their own thoughts.

And then I have another point. I ‑‑ last time at the last hearing was a few years ago when we were at Benjamin Franklin and what I've read in the newspaper, if I have this information correct, one of the reasons Valley wants to expand or renew or get larger is that they want to prepare for people like me, senior citizens, I'm 72 years old, and they foresee me using the hospital and they want me to have a hospital to use. Well, I have to answer honestly since I am in this venue of being honest and I have taken the oath to tell the truth and express my deepest feelings. Now, I don't mean this as any insult to Valley. It is a great community hospital and it should remain that way. But as a senior citizen from the age of 65 on, I have had two conditions that were kind of rare and could have been devastating. I don't want to talk about it in detail, I don't have time for that.

1. CAFARELLI: One minute.

THE WITNESS: And I consulted a Valley doctor and they weren't sure that they could help me, so I went to a major hospital in New York City and I was cured. So as a senior citizen if I have to take a cab if I can't get a ride I am going to do all my health care in New York. I mean, I have one of the ‑‑ Valley Hospital's concerned about my health insurance, I have a great plan and I budget for it. It's expensive. I'm not wealthy, I'm a poor musician. But I know when I'm 75 it's going to go up $50. It's the Horizon Blue Cross/Blue Shield standard. And when I'm 80, 85, it's going to go up. And it goes up more and they say because they're helping you. So I care about my health. I am budgeting it but please, don't save a room for me.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, Ms. Palacios.

Lee Nun? He's not here? And Say Soon Nun? They're both gone? Is there anyone here that was downstairs and needs to speak or did I miss anyone that signed the list?

1. REYNOLDS: Can I speak?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, come on up. Good evening, Lorraine.

1. REYNOLDS: Good evening, Charles. Here we are again. Ten years later. I think you're the last man standing. You've been here for ten years, I've been here for ten years.

Lorraine Reynolds, 550 Wyndemere Avenue.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. REYNOLDS: Yes. Obviously I didn't plan to speak tonight. I'm flabbergasted that we're even here talking about 3 percent. I really just don't understand it. This is no different from the 2014 plan that you voted down. It has to be voted down again. All of the reasons why it was voted down in 2014 still exist. There ‑‑ it's just unbelievable to me that they can ‑‑ Valley can believe that a 3 percent reduction in square footage could be a compromise.

When I started, my main concern was I didn't want my kids to be going to BF when this construction was going on. I'm past that, my youngest child is a freshman in high school. But I fear for all of the upcoming children, all of my neighbors, it's ‑‑ it's going to be devastating. It really is. And for a school which I feel is inherently beneficial, a hospital is inherently beneficial, the school has to come first in my opinion. There's too many kids that will be affected by this for years to come. So many people spoke very eloquently tonight all of the reasons why this should be voted down. I don't need to repeat them, they're on the record. But I urge you to listen to you ‑‑ you know, yourselves, listen to the people that voted in 2014, all of the reasons they voted no in 2014 still exist today. Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you, MS. REYNOLDS.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I have a comment.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Please come up to the board.

Just a show of hands, is there anyone else this night that would like to speak?

AUDIENCE MEMBER: I know that people were under the impression that you were going until tomorrow.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: We are.

AUDIENCE MEMBER: Okay, thank you.

1. DALONZO: Hi.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: State and spell your name.

1. DALONZO: Sure. Gil Dalonzo, G‑I‑L, Dalonzo, D‑A‑L‑O‑N‑Z‑O. 170 Walthery Avenue, Ridgewood.

THE COURT REPORTER: Please raise your right hand. Do you swear or affirm the testimony you're about to give in this proceeding is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth?

1. DALONZO: Yes, I do. So these are unplanned comments. I didn't plan on coming here to speak tonight so I don't have anything prewritten, but I just want to share some thoughts and maybe some things both with you all and also with the group. So I'm relatively new to the neighborhood, only about 14, 15 months in now at this point. My kids are into their second year of school here and we moved from about 90 minutes south on the Turnpike up into the Ridgewood area. And moved here because of everything we heard about the community and how great Ridgewood was and so far up until this point, that has lived up beyond my expectations.

The schools are amazing. The community is unreal. When I tell people about, hey, what was it like for the move, do you like where you are, they tell me yeah, I love where I am actually, it's unbelievable. The schools are great. They have this thing called Dads' Night, which I know you're aware of, and thanks for being a part of it this year in your way.

A little disappointed though in some of the things that I've heard tonight to be honest with you, and I think what Dads' Night does is it speaks to the level of commitment and the kind of stick‑togetherness that the community has. And I was so impressed with the number of people that were here tonight. I only heard about this honestly within the last week and started doing some research on my own and was just blown away at what had transpired. I just couldn't believe it. I live three blocks away from the hospital and I think what's concerning, I have three daughters. One's in fifth grade this year and will be going to BF next year and my other ones are in third grade, they're only a couple years away, it's like, I don't know, seven, eight years of this where they're going to have to walk to school from where I live. They'll walk the three blocks.

And what's concerning is the only viable thoroughfare I see for the kids to walk to school is through Van Dien. If they go through the neighborhood and they go through Flynn they're passing through all the areas where the trucks go. And if the estimates are true, the 132 trips a day by the trucks, I did the math, 12 hours a day, which is more than the school hours that exist or more than a normal working hour, even at 12 hours it's basically a truck every ten minutes going down the street. And they're not going to work 12 hours a day, these guys are going to compress all those trips into normal working hours I would assume, maybe a little bit stretched. That's horrific to me. That scares the shit out of me. To be honest with you, I've got three young girls that have to go up and down that street walking back and forth to school? Never mind car traffic and people dropping off, I think it's just terrible. It's awful.

And I would just say to the community and to everybody else we've heard, you know ‑‑ and by the way, my daughter broke her arm last year, we went to Valley Hospital because it was the closest place, they did a nice job. But I've also heard a lot of stories tonight about elective surgeries and elective things that the community can do in terms of decisions as to where they get their healthcare and I think as much as we stick together and we rally on that point, we also have a choice as to where we become customers to hospitals in the area. We have a choice as to where we want to have our babies. We have a choice as to where ‑‑ maybe not so much of a choice in an emergency situation, but we have many opportunities where we can make choices as to where we go for our care and I've got to tell you, this goes down the way it's going, I will make every effort possible to get my care somewhere else.

(Applause.)  

1. DALONZO: And I think also, we had a Trump example earlier. Love him or hate him, a lot of commentary has gone to the power that he's had to social media. We have ‑‑ I'm a media professional by trade. We have television, we have radio, we have Internet, we have advertising. We have ways that we can create our own campaigns, all the way up to protests or other things if we need to. Anyway, I just think it's a sad situation and I do feel like we're kind of bowing over and we shouldn't be doing that at the expense and safety of our children. We have choices to make as a community. That's all I would say. Thank you.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Thank you.

(Applause.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: If there is no one else this evening ‑‑ last call. I would say at this point what we'll do is continue here tomorrow. We'll begin at 7:30 p.m. here in the courtroom. There will be additional folks who I know will be here to comment if you haven't tonight. Again, everyone is permitted one set of five minutes. Also, please note that after comment is concluded, the board may take action. We'll know more tomorrow when we get to that point.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: Will there be an executive session tomorrow as well?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Not that I am aware of.

FEMALE AUDIENCE MEMBER: If there is can you post it at least two hours before the meeting?

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Yes, transcripts will be posted as quickly as possible. I believe Michael has been doing a very good job with that. Okay. That concludes tonight's meeting. We will carry again to tomorrow at 7:30.

Is there a motion to adjourn?  

VICE CHAIRMAN JOEL: Motion.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Second?

COUNCILWOMAN KNUDSEN: Second.

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: All in favor?

(Whereupon, all board members respond in the affirmative.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Any opposed?

(No response.)

CHAIRMAN NALBANTIAN: Okay. Thank you.

(Whereupon, this matter will be continuing at a future date. Time noted 11:04 p.m.)

The meeting was adjourned at 11:04 p.m.

Respectfully submitted,

                                                                                                Michael Cafarelli

                                                                                                Board Secretary

Approved: June 6, 2017