Jason

DeSalvo 36 Prospect Avenue Montclair, NJ 07042 Jason.desalvo@comcast.net Resident since 1997 I am here tonight to thank you for your admirable efforts in trying plan a future for our town that combines best practices for both Land Use and Circulation. This is progressive thinking and is to be applauded. Unfortunately, the most basic assumptions made in the March 21, 2013 draft of the Unified Land Use and Circulation Element of our towns proposed Master Plan (hereafter referred to as the Master Plan), as well as many of its conclusions are fundamentally flawed. The assumed growth in Montclairs population in the coming 25 years and the resultant need for higher density construction are (a) unsubstantiated by any specific analysis related to Montclair, (b) contradicted by the study cited (NJTPAs Plan 2035), (c) contradicted by trends in Montclairs population, (d) contradicted by the consequences of Montclairs density trends over the past twenty years and last but not least, (e) contrary to the choice that most residents have made to not live in densely populated urban centers. In short, while the effort made to plan our future land use through combining form-based code and circulation principles is desirable and appreciated, the currently proposed Master Plan is based on flawed assumptions, comes to conclusions contradicted by its own cited sources, is contradicted by Montclairs population trends in all relevant time periods and contrary to the plainly evident preferences of virtually all current residents. Assumed Population Growth and Citation of NJTPA Plan 2035 is Flawed Much of the Master Plan appears to be gearing us up to think about a fairly massive and necessary increase in the density of development for our Town. Given that we have actually seen a decline in our population by roughly 14% since 1970 and a nearly stable population since 1990, shouldnt we be questioning the wisdom of basing our Master Plan on the assumption of significant population growth and necessary increased density when no demand for it seems to exist? In Appendix 2, the proposed Master Plan cites NJTPAs projections that our town will add 6,931 new residents by the year 2035 and yet no specific forecast actually exists within NJTPAs Plan 2035 to support this most basic and critical assumption. Furthermore, and even more startling, NJTPAs Plan 2035, the document on which all of the demographic assumptions used for revising our Towns Master Plan have been based, is a completely transportation-centric document dealing with the very diverse 13 county region of Northern New Jersey as a whole no attempt has been made to predict anything specific to Montclair. And yet, our consultants have chosen these generalities on which to base their recommendations for our towns future. Delving into the data found in Plan 2035, on page 5, 16% region-wide growth in population is projected over the next 25 years. Presumably it is this broad number

that was used to forecast the need for significantly increased development density here in Montclair. However, on page 22 of Plan 2035, when discussing where growth has come from in the 13-county region between 2000 and 2008, the authors state the following, the population increase in recent years has occurred most rapidly in suburban and outlying counties, notably Ocean (11.4%), Somerset (9.1 %), Warren (7.3%) and Hunterdon (5.8%). From 2000 to 2010 (a fairly similar period of time), our own population here in Montclair actually declined by 3.4%. I believe that we should be highly suspect of applying the population projections for our planning region as a whole to Montclair. The regionally general nature of Plan 2035 is underscored by the fact that a search of the entire 160-page document for Montclair yields only one instance where our town is specifically mentioned in supporting document SD-12 and then only in a manner completely unrelated to anything contained in the Master Plan. Lack of Relevant and Vital Citations To this point, there is a major lack of footnotes and factual references made throughout the Master Plan. Shouldnt we be demanding demonstrated, documented best practices upon which we base some of the most important forward looking decisions we have to make as a community? I would go further to propose that all of the conclusions made by our consultants in the Master Plan should be called into question given that they have failed to research in any meaningful way the most critical assumption upon which all of their recommendations have been based, that of population. A Question of Who We Are and Who We Want to Be How we should we, as a community, define sustainable development given that we are essentially a fully-built town? How much can we realistically further develop our town without changing many of the things that made us want to live here in the first place? I have been a partner in the redevelopment of both Montclairs first LEED Certified building (Greenworks on Grove Street) and the recent redevelopment of Hillside Square two projects that significantly increased our Towns tax base while preserving and/or hopefully improving the areas in which they are located. So I am most definitely not anti-development, but I do believe that development needs to be consistent with the core values of our Town and its sense of place. Over and over again the draft Master Plan proposes increased density as being vital to our Towns future. Shouldnt we stop and seriously debate if this should, in fact, be the case? On what basis has increased density been determined to be a good thing? The words urban environments are repeatedly used throughout the first several sections of the proposed Master Plan to describe what we should become and multiple areas of our town are proposed for additional development to ensure that they are active 24/7. How have the consultants preparing this document been led to believe that this is what we want for our Town? This is why we have chosen to live near, but not in, New York City.

 No Proof that Increased Density Results in Improved Municipal Financial Performance The conceptual argument has been made both within the proposed Master Plan as well as at numerous other Town Council Meetings that development of housing should be done as densely as possible thereby placing less of a burden on the Towns infrastructure especially our already over-crowded schools. However, the proposed Master Plan does not cite one (let alone multiple) in-depth studies or analyses that support this thesis in a setting such as Montclair. Please consider the following: 1. From 1990 2010 the number of housing units in Montclair increased by 5.6% (i.e. we have increased our housing density) while our population remained essentially flat, resulting in our average household size falling from 2.52 to 2.47. With both of these statistics moving in the direction that everyone would lead us to believe will solve our fiscal problems, we would assume that our real estate taxes should have declined during this period. We all know how that has turned out. 2. Montclairs Average Household Size is presently 2.47. The proposed Master Plan envisions our Town becoming increasingly urban and yet New York Citys Average Household Size stands at 2.59 or 4.9% higher than Montclairs. So, what assurances do we have that the economic benefits we are being promised will actually materialize if we go forward with this wild experiment of increasing density in an attempt to drive down household size? Several places throughout the proposed Master Plan cite the lack of affordability of Montclairs housing stock. In my personal experience I believe that our residents are referring to our real estate tax burden as much or more than the actual cost of the houses themselves. Quality of Life More Important than Development On page 21 of the proposed Master Plan it states,[Current] Zoning does not permit the quality or quantity of growth residents expect to see over the next 20 years. However, in my personal conversations with many friends, neighbors and work associates in Town, I have not once heard anyone say that we need to increase the quantity of development in town in a manner that remotely resembles what is being proposed here. Yes, we most certainly want smart Re-Development in a manner that increases our tax base but also maintains our Towns core identity and charm. We also want our Township and its leaders to deliver a higher quality living experience like roads without potholes, signage in downtown areas, better mass transportation and the like. But the way in which this statement was made in the proposed Master Plan appears to be misleading at best. Although I could go on citing many additional examples of the lack of basic research and flawed logic contained in the proposed Master Plan, I would like to leave

everyone to ponder how their personal experiences of finding parking in any of our business districts compares with the statement made on page 22 of the Master Plan that states, Developers are [currently] overbuilding Parking. The same people that wrote that statement are those whose vision of our Town involves densely packed 7 story buildings in Upper Montclair and up to 100% coverage of the Bloomfield Avenue Corridor with 10 story buildings. Please reflect on these issues and send a strong message to our leaders to go back to the drawing board so that we may better plan for a future that makes those of us that have sacrificed so much to move and live here, actually want to stay here.