STATE OF NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES

IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19 FROM A DECISION OF THE CITY OF NEWARK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND VARIANCES NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 230/26/13kV SWITCHING STATION (McCARTER SWITCHING STATION)

: : : : : : : : : : :

BPU DOCKET NO. ____________________

PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY P-7 Direct Pre-Filed Testimony of David G. Roberts, With Supporting Exhibits DGR-1 to -2

STATE OF NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION OF PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY PURSUANT TO N.J.S.A. 40:55D-19 FROM A DECISION OF THE CITY OF NEWARK ZONING BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT DENYING AN APPLICATION FOR PRELIMINARY AND FINAL SITE PLAN APPROVAL AND VARIANCES NECESSARY FOR THE CONSTRUCTION OF A 230/26/13kV SWITCHING STATION (McCARTER SWITCHING STATION)

: : : : : : : : : : :

BPU DOCKET NO. ____________________

TO THE HONORABLE COMMISSIONERS OF THE NEW JERSEY BOARD OF PUBLIC UTILITIES: 1 2 3 4 5 6

I.

BACKGROUND

7

Q.

Please state your name and business address.

8

A.

Mr. David G. Roberts and I work for Maser Consulting, 331 Newman Springs Rd.,

PRE-FILED DIRECT TESTIMONY OF DAVID G. ROBERTS ON BEHALF OF PUBLIC SERVICE ELECTRIC AND GAS COMPANY IN SUPPORT OF THE McCARTER SWITCHING STATION PROJECT

Red Bank, NJ 07701.

9 10

Q.

By whom are you employed and how long have you been so employed?

11

A.

I am a Senior Associate at Maser Consulting, where I provide planning and landscape

12

architectural services to numerous municipalities and a variety of private clients. I have

13

been with Maser Consulting for four years, within which time I have served as the

14

Township Planner for Berkeley, Plumsted and Borough Planner for South Toms River.

15

I have also served as planning consultant to Toms River Township and Bay Head

16

Borough in Ocean County, Township Planner for Mahwah in Bergen County, Planning

1

Board Planner in Hoboken in Hudson County, Borough Planner for Belmar Borough,

2

Zoning Board Planner and City Planning Consultant for Long Branch in Monmouth

3

County, Borough Planner for Roselle, Township Planner for Scotch Plains and

4

Planning Board Planner for Fanwood Borough in Union County. Prior to joining Maser

5

Consulting I was a Principal at Schoor DePalma (later CMX, Inc.) where I was

6

involved in the following redevelopment planning efforts on behalf of the City of

7

Newark (the “City”):

8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30 31 32 33

1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. 8. 9. 10. 11. 12. 13. 14.

Pabst Brewery Redevelopment Investigation and Redevelopment Plan (1998) Mulberry Street Redevelopment Investigation Report (2004) Mulberry Street Redevelopment Plan (2006) White Chemical Brownfield Site Redevelopment Investigation & Plan (2002) Airport Support Zone Redevelopment Area Investigation Report (2005) Airport Support Zone Redevelopment Plan (2005) Lister Avenue Brownfield Redevelopment Expansion Investigation Report (2004) Urban Renewal Plan (UR-121) Map No. 3, Revision No. 1 (Fairmont Chemical Brownfield Site) (2005) Urban Renewal Plan (UR-121) Map No. 3, Revision No. 2 (Dupont Brownfield Site) (2005) Urban Renewal Plan (UR-6) Map No. 3 Revision (2005) Symphony Hall West Redevelopment Area Investigation Report (2005) Symphony Hall West Redevelopment Plan (2006) Kent-Brenner-Springfield Redevelopment Areas Investigation Report (2005) Newark Port/Airport Support Redevelopment Investigation (2007 to 2008) – Project Manager and principal author for the City and the Port Authority of New York and New Jersey on a redevelopment investigation of six (6) potential redevelopment areas around Port Newark and the Newark Liberty International Airport.

-2 -

1

II.

EXPERIENCE AND EDUCATION

2

Q.

Please describe your professional experience and educational background.

3

A.

I am a licensed professional planner and landscape architect in New Jersey. I specialize

4

in redevelopment and sustainable planning and design, having become one of the first

5

design professionals in New Jersey to become a LEED Accredited Professional

6

(“LEED AP”) with specialties in both Neighborhood Development (“ND”) and

7

Building Design & Construction (“BD&C”). I have a BS in Environmental Planning &

8

Design from 1978 and a Masters of City and Regional Planning (MCRP) from 1981;

9

both were attained from Rutgers University. I have been licensed in New Jersey as a

10

Professional Planner since 1984 and as a landscape architect since 1988. I have also

11

co-authored two (2) editions of The Redevelopment Handbook for the NJ Department

12

of Community Affairs (“DCA”) and was the creator (1997) and principal instructor of

13

“Principles of Redevelopment,” a seven (7) contact hour course on redevelopment that

14

is a required class provided by the Rutgers Center for Government Services for all

15

appointed commissioners and executive directors of New Jersey redevelopment

16

agencies and commissioners and executive directors of any New Jersey housing

17

authorities acting as redevelopment entities. I am also a Past President of the New

18

Jersey Chapter of the American Planning Association and the New Jersey Chapter of

19

the American Society of Landscape Architects.

20

Q.

Utilities (the “BPU”)?

21 22

Have you ever provided testimony previously to the New Jersey Board of Public

A.

No, I have not.

-3 -

1

Q.

in the State of New Jersey?

2 3

Have you ever testified as an expert in connection with municipal land use hearings

A.

Yes. I have testified before local planning and zoning boards in the State of New Jersey,

4

including the City’s Central Planning Board (regarding the redevelopment area

5

investigations and plans listed earlier) and the City’s Zoning Board of Adjustment

6

(“ZBA”), specifically regarding the McCarter Switching Station (the “Project”) on

7

behalf of Public Service Electric and Gas Company (“PSE&G”). The ZBA qualified me

8

as an expert witness. I have been accepted as a planning expert before planning and

9

zoning boards since 1990 in Cape May, Atlantic, Burlington, Cumberland, Salem,

10

Hunterdon, Camden, Ocean, Somerset, Monmouth, Middlesex, Mercer, Morris, Essex,

11

Bergen, Hudson and Union Counties, as well as in the Superior Court in Monmouth and

12

Ocean Counties.

13

III.

PURPOSE OF TESTIMONY

14

Q.

Are you familiar with the site selected for the Project as well as the Project itself?

15

A.

Yes. I am.

16

Q.

Please describe the purpose of your testimony.

17

A.

The purpose of my testimony is to discuss the Project from an overall planning

18

perspective. I will address the history and zoning of the property and will discuss the

19

Fairmount Neighborhood Strategic Plan as well as the City’s Master Plan.

20

testimony will also address stations in other neighborhoods within the City. Finally, I

21

will discuss PSE&G’s site plan and variance application to the ZBA below (the

-4 -

My

1

“Application”), the standard of review there, and the conclusion of the case, which led

2

to PSE&G’s Petition to the BPU.

3

Q.

Are you sponsoring any exhibits?

4

A.

Yes. I am sponsoring a presentation that I provided to the ZBA, which is provided

5

herewith as Exhibit DGR-1. Additionally, I am sponsoring Exhibit DGR-2, which is

6

the resolution issued by the ZBA denying PSE&G’s Application.

7

IV.

PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND ZONING

8

Q.

Please describe the site selected for the Project.

9

A.

Looking at the City’s tax map, the site selected for the Project is described as Block

10

1830, Lots 10 and 101 (the “Property”). Former Lot 102 was absorbed into Lot 101,

11

which has resulted in there no longer being a Lot 102. The Property is bounded by

12

South Seventh Street to the west, Eleventh Avenue to the south and Littleton Avenue to

13

the east. West Market Street and Central Avenue are located north of the Project but

14

adjacent to the same city block. The Property is located in the City’s West Ward,

15

within the Fairmount Urban Renewal Area. Pages 1 through 4 of Exhibit DGR-1 are

16

images of the Property taken from the tax map, a key map, and the City’s zoning map

17

as well as an aerial view.

18

Q.

Please discuss the Fairmount Urban Renewal Plan.

19

A.

In 1965, the City adopted the Fairmount Urban Renewal Plan (the “FURP”). The

20

FURP designates the Property as an Industrial Service District. Permitted land uses in

21

the Industrial Service District are limited to “manufacturing of finished metal products

22

including necessary supporting facilities such as offices, parking and landscaping.” In

-5 -

1

addition to the land uses it identifies, the FURP also modifies the Zoning Map to locate

2

the Property within the Second Industrial Zone District (“I-2” or “2I”). As was fairly

3

common of the City’s urban renewal plans of that time, the FURP was intended to

4

enable certain land acquisitions by the City of Newark. On Page 5 of Exhibit DGR-1, I

5

have highlighted the Property in red so that one can see that a portion of the site was

6

intended for acquisition, clearance, and redevelopment by the City. Page 6 of Exhibit

7

DGR-1 shows the changes to the Zoning Map following the adoption of the FURP.

8

Q.

Has any other zoning replaced the Fairmount Urban Renewal Plan?

9

A.

No. Although the City’s Master Plan indicates that certain older urban renewal plans

10

should be terminated, that termination would take formal municipal legislative action,

11

which has not occurred. Therefore, the FURP still stands.

12

Q.

Renewal Plan.

13 14

Please provide a historical setting for the Property and the Fairmount Urban

A.

In 1966, one year following the adoption of the FURP, historic aerials show that the

15

Property was actually separated into two (2) separate blocks by the then existing Sixth

16

Street. The Property was developed with residential and commercial buildings. Along

17

Sixth Street, you can see significant development, which is the original J. Cooper Wiss

18

factory, which was initially constructed in 1848 and formed one of the first structures in

19

the neighborhood. J. Cooper Wiss manufactured straight razors and other steel blades

20

and tools. Looking forward to 1969, you can see that the two (2) blocks had been

21

consolidated and most of the buildings along Eleventh Avenue and South Seventh Street

22

had been cleared for a parking lot. Sixth Street is hardly visible. The only structure

23

remaining on the Property is the J. Cooper Wiss factory. The block to the east had

-6 -

1

been cleared of all buildings, which was consistent with the FURP’s intention of

2

clearing certain properties for redevelopment and rezoning the Property for

3

manufacturing of finished metal products, which was the business of J. Cooper Wiss.

4

The Property’s zoning has not changed since that time. Page 7 of Exhibit DGR-1

5

contains two (2) historic aerials showing the property in 1966 and 1969.

6

outlined the Property in yellow for reference. Page 8 of Exhibit DGR-1 contains an

7

aerial image of the Property in 1970. The factory is clearly in operation in the 1970

8

view, which shows a full parking lot resulting from the clearing of the other properties

9

due to the FURP. Also on Page 8 is an image of the Property in 1979, which shows

10

the Georgia King Village residential towers overlooking the J. Cooper Wiss industrial

11

site, which is essentially the same view that remained for the Georgia King Village until

12

2013 when PSE&G completed demolition of the building in advance of its construction

13

of the Project.

I have

14

Q.

Is a public utility use authorized on the Property by the FURP?

15

A.

No. The I-2 Zone does not authorize public utility uses. The FURP also does not

16

envision public utility uses on the Property.

17

authorizes public utility uses is the Third Industrial (I-3) Zone. PSE&G does have a

18

station in the I-3 Zone, the Essex Switching Station, but it has been subject to flooding.

19

Since Superstorm Sandy, the flood hazard zones were substantially expanded by FEMA

20

so that most, if not all, of the I-3 Zone is now located in flood hazard areas.

-7 -

Within the City, the only zone that

1

Q.

flooding?

2 3

Is it good planning to limit the location of utility infrastructure to areas prone to

A.

No, it is not good planning to limit utility infrastructure to flood hazard areas. Critical

4

infrastructure is required throughout the City and locating such structures in areas

5

prone to flooding ensures that there will be times when those structures will not be

6

functional. As a result, the zoning would ensure that – at times - the City lacks the

7

energy it needs to function as a modern urban area. Additionally, all of the hazard

8

mitigation and post-disaster recovery and resiliency planning efforts occurring around

9

New Jersey have specifically sought to limit and/or protect critical resources such as

10

energy, water-wastewater, transportation and community facilities from future exposure

11

and vulnerability to major storm events.

12

V.

Q.

STRATEGIC

PLAN

AND

NEWARK

Are you familiar with the Fairmount Neighborhood Strategic Plan (the “Neighborhood Plan”)?

15 16

NEIGHBORHOOD

MASTER PLAN

13 14

FAIRMOUNT

A.

Yes, I am familiar with the document prepared by the residents and stakeholders of the Fairmount Neighborhood in March 2011.

17 18

Q.

Is the Neighborhood Plan zoning law?

19

A.

No, the Neighborhood Plan is not zoning law. It has not been adopted in total by the

20

City as a zoning ordinance.

The City’s Master Plan, adopted subsequent to the

21

completion of the Neighborhood Plan, does not fully endorse all provisions of the

22

Neighborhood Plan.

-8 -

1

Q.

Does the Neighborhood Plan address the need for energy infrastructure?

2

A.

No, it does not.

3

Q.

Can you please briefly discuss what elements of the Neighborhood Plan were incorporated into the Master Plan?

4 5

A.

The City adopted a new Master Plan in 2012. The Neighborhood Element of the

6

Master Plan includes goals and strategies from the Neighborhood Plan, such as

7

reducing crime and enhancing public safety; strengthening the community,

8

neighborhood and families; expanding economic development and employment

9

opportunities; enhancing education and job training; and improving land use and quality of life. The Master Plan’s specific recommendations for Fairmount are:

10

8.1

11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22

8.2 8.3 8.4 8.5 8.6

Support Central and South Orange Avenues as neighborhood-serving and regional corridors; Support the rehabilitation of housing; Expand neighborhood open space opportunities by converting vacant lots to community gardens and playgrounds; Create a development strategy for the United Hospitals Site and other large scale development sites in the neighborhood; Leverage community resources, such as the Urban League of Essex County, to provide additional services to the community; and Support community participation in protecting the neighborhood (such as block watches, neighborhood policing, safety cameras and targeted police patrols).

23

Q.

How does the Master Plan address infrastructure?

24

A.

The Master Plan speaks specifically about a need for critical infrastructure in an

25

adequate state of repair such that it may effectively and efficiently accommodate the

26

City’s expected population growth and economic growth.

-9 -

1

Q.

How does the Master Plan envision the use of this Property?

2

A.

The Master Plan recommends that several urban renewal plans that date back many

3

years be terminated, including the FURP. Instead of the I-2 zoning, the Master Plan

4

recommends the entire block, including the Property, for zoning as Regional

5

Commercial, which authorizes the development of commercial uses that serve a

6

regional need, including big box retail stores such as Walmart, Wegmans, wholesale

7

warehouse stores, and home improvement centers. However, such uses generate a

8

significant amount of customer traffic, require deliveries by large trucks and generate

9

noise. The impact of a regional commercial development would be contrary to the

10

community’s goals of improving the quality of life and improving public safety as

11

memorialized in the Neighborhood Plan.

12

Q.

the City?

13 14

Does the Master Plan propose to modify the zoning relevant to public utility uses in

A.

No. Public utility uses, such as the Project, would continue to be limited to only the I-

15

3 Zone, which is plagued by issues of flooding. However, it is very significant, in my

16

view, that the Master Plan was adopted on September 24, 2012, almost a month to the

17

day before Superstorm Sandy hit New Jersey with historic levels of damage that has

18

thrown the entire State into a period of disaster recovery planning. Superstorm Sandy

19

exposed the extensive vulnerability of the City’s low-lying areas around Port Newark

20

and Newark Liberty International Airport, which is predominantly located in the I-3

21

Zone. The City could never have anticipated these events in its Master Plan. First

22

announced in June of 2013, the Department of Community Affairs has provided

23

significant Community Development Block Grant (“CDBG”) funding for recovery

- 10 -

1

planning, which includes updates to master plans and zoning ordinances. The City is

2

eligible to apply for a portion of these funds to update its Master Plan.

3

Q.

specific implementing ordinances?

4 5

Do the recommendations of the Master Plan govern without the adoption of

A.

No, they do not. The Municipal Land Use Law clearly refers to the Master Plan as a

6

land use policy document. Actual land use regulation can only be implemented by

7

municipal legislation (ordinance).

8

power to adopt land use regulations that are inconsistent or contradictory to the Master

9

Plan provided they do so by the majority of the full authorized membership and state

10

their reasons for doing so. At this time, no legislation has been adopted that would

11

terminate the FURP, implement the Neighborhood Plan, or otherwise implement the

12

Master Plan. The Property’s zoning remains as it has been since 1965.

The municipal governing body has the specific

13

VI.

POWER FACILITIES IN NEIGHBORHOODS

14

Q.

Are you familiar with any other PSE&G electric facilities in the City?

15

A.

Yes. I am familiar with the Federal Square Substation and Newark Switching Station, which are both located in the City.

16 17

Q.

development within the surrounding neighborhoods?

18 19

In your opinion, have these stations in the City had a detrimental impact on

A.

No.

In fact, on pages 26 and 27 of Exhibit DGR-1 you can see that residential

20

development has continued across the street from PSE&G’s Federal Square Substation,

21

which was constructed in 1999. The enclosure, as well as the residential properties

22

facing it, are visible in a street view image provided on Page 27. Similarly, proximity

- 11 -

1

to the Newark Switching Station has not impacted the Teacher’s Village Redevelopment

2

Project in that neighborhood.

3

Q.

incorporated into the City’s Master Plan?

4 5

Does the Project address any of the concerns of the Neighborhood Plan as

A.

Yes.

Although the Neighborhood Plan addresses socioeconomic needs of the

6

neighborhood (crime and safety, education, economic development & job training)

7

rather than the physical planning focus of the Master Plan (land use, transportation,

8

housing and infrastructure), the Project included substantial public environment

9

(streetscape) improvements along the entire block frontage of Littleton Avenue,

10

Eleventh Avenue, and the South Seventh Street frontage of the Property, as well as an

11

architecturally enhanced enclosure to provide a solid visual screen and enhanced sound

12

attenuation. In the Master Plan, Neighborhood Priority 8.1 includes an objective “to

13

establish a streetscape and façade improvement program” and Neighborhood Priority

14

8.3 includes the objective to “clean and green vacant lots.”

15

improvements will include street trees and carefully designed plantings of trees, shrubs

16

and groundcovers that will frame and soften the architectural enclosure without

17

becoming a maintenance burden on the neighborhood. These improvements proposed

18

by PSE&G as part of its Project would be the first of such improvements in the

19

immediate neighborhood.

- 12 -

The streetscape

1

VII.

APPLICATION TO THE ZBA.

2

Q.

Please discuss the Application to the ZBA.

3

A.

PSE&G applied to the ZBA for two (2) variances from the City’s Zoning Ordinances.

4

Specifically, PSE&G sought a “d-1 use variance,” which is a variance that would

5

authorize “a use or principal structure in a district restricted against such use or

6

principal structure” under the Municipal Land Use Law, N.J.S.A. 40:55D-70d(1).

7

Here, PSE&G sought the d-1 variance because a Public Utility, Electrical Switching

8

Station is not a permitted use in the Second Industrial Zone. PSE&G also sought a “c-2

9

variance,” which is a variance that would authorize a variance of the maximum

10

fence/wall height requirement of six (6) feet under the City’s Zoning Ordinances, as the

11

architectural enclosure, while defined by the City as a “fence,” is intended to provide

12

both security and visual scale along the block more comparable to one or two-story

13

buildings.

14

Q.

Is it unusual for an applicant to seek such variances for a development?

15

A.

Although there is a legislative presumption favoring zoning by ordinance, rather than

16

by variance, PSE&G’s Application is not an unusual request to be heard by a zoning

17

board. Indeed, the law envisions situations where variances would be necessary and

18

provides for their approval. The need for variances is especially typical where the local

19

zoning ordinances relegate the use to only one portion of a city. Here, as discussed

20

above, the City has only authorized public utility infrastructure in the I-3 Zone, despite

21

recognizing a need for infrastructure to address population and economic growth in the

22

Master Plan. Therefore, where this infrastructure is critical to respond to the growing

23

energy needs of the City’s residents, it is reasonable that PSE&G would seek the

- 13 -

1

necessary variances to allow it to fulfill its statutory purpose of providing safe,

2

adequate, and reliable service to its customers.

3

Q.

What is the standard of review for a use variance at a zoning board?

4

A.

A d-1 variance, as requested by PSE&G, may only be granted in particular cases and

5

for special reasons. It is the applicant’s burden to show that it has “special reasons”

6

(known as positive criteria) for the variance and that the variance can be granted

7

without substantial detriment to the public good and will not substantially impair the

8

intent and purposes of the zone plan or zoning ordinance (known as the negative

9

criteria). Approval of a d-1 variance, even when the project is inherently beneficial, requires an affirmative vote of five (5) of the seven (7) members of the ZBA.

10 11

Q.

deemed inherently beneficial.

12 13

Please discuss the standard of review at the zoning board for projects that are

A.

Where a proposed use is determined to be “inherently beneficial” to society, the

14

positive criteria is presumptively satisfied by the automatic benefit to the public health,

15

safety and welfare that the proposed use provides, irrespective of where it is located.

16

In addition, the negative criteria requirements are resolved by balancing the benefits of

17

the project against any detriments, considering whether any detrimental effect can be

18

reduced by imposing reasonable conditions, and then determining, after weighing the

19

positive and negative factors (as ameliorated by the conditions), whether the grant of

20

the variance would cause a substantial detriment to the public good. The New Jersey

21

Supreme Court outlines and discusses the balancing standard for an inherently

22

beneficial use variance in the well-known case of Sica v. Wall Board of Adjustment.,

23

127 N.J. 152 (1992). The proponent of an inherently beneficial use variance must

- 14 -

1

address the statutory negative criteria and prove that, on balance, the public benefit

2

outweighs any impairment to the zone plan, zoning ordinance or any detriment to the

3

neighborhood.

4

Q.

In your opinion, does the Project qualify as inherently beneficial? Please explain.

5

A.

Yes. To be inherently beneficial, the use must be universally considered of value to the

6

community, because it fundamentally serves the public good and promotes the general

7

welfare. The provision of safe, adequate, and reliable electric service is recognized as

8

serving a public good, which is a fundamental reason for the regulation of such

9

companies as public utilities. With regard to this Project, reliable energy infrastructure

10

is critical to the City’s continued growth and redevelopment. This Project, as discussed

11

in other testimony, is critical to the continued reliable delivery of electric service to the

12

City, in general, and the area around the Property, including the Central Business

13

District, the Fairmount Neighborhood and the University Heights neighborhood, which

14

consists of NJIT, Rutgers, Essex County College, and the Rutgers Medical School

15

(formerly UMDNJ). Other projects in need of reliable energy infrastructure are noted

16

on Page 20 of Exhibit DGR-1. In addition, the hard lessons learned from Superstorm

17

Sandy are also addressed by the Project in that it provides needed redundancy, which

18

would allow energy loads to be shifted from the aged Newark Switching Station in an

19

emergency.

- 15 -

1

Q.

beneficial.

2 3

Please discuss the ZBA’s conclusion as to the Project’s status as inherently

A.

The ZBA concurred with PSE&G’s position that the Project qualifies as an inherently

4

beneficial use. The ZBA’s Resolution, adopted on January 23, 2013, draws the legal

5

conclusion that the use is inherently beneficial. See Exhibit DGR-2.

6

Q.

explain.

7 8 9

In your opinion, did PSE&G’s Application satisfy the negative criteria? Please

A.

Yes.

PSE&G’s Application and supporting testimony at the ZBA addressed the

negative criteria and walked the ZBA through the Sica balancing test.

PSE&G

10

discussed, at length and with several witnesses, the particular suitability of the Property

11

for the Project. PSE&G addressed how the Project would further the purposes of

12

zoning, identified the public interest at stake and the potential detrimental effects that

13

could ensue from the grant of the variance. PSE&G then addressed whether any of

14

those potential detrimental effects could be mitigated by imposing reasonable

15

conditions. PSE&G explained that the proposed architecturally detailed enclosure and

16

rehabilitated streetscape around the facility will improve the visual quality of the site

17

from the vacant and abandoned appearance of the previous structure.

18

identified that the only potential detrimental effect would be the overhead visual from

19

the Georgia King Village residential towers, which had looked down on the industrial

20

site of the J. Cooper Wiss factory since their construction in the 1970s. At the street

21

level, PSE&G proposed the attractive enclosure wall and landscaping to mitigate any

22

potential visual impact of the site. Moreover, the inherent benefits of the Project,

23

which were discussed at length by other witnesses, far outweighed the limited visual

- 16 -

PSE&G

1

impairment. Pages 21 through 25 of Exhibit DGR-1 discuss PSE&G’s testimony on the

2

Sica balancing test.

3

Q.

What were the ZBA’s findings as to the negative criteria?

4

A.

The ZBA’s adopted Resolution claims that PSE&G failed to meet the negative criteria “specifically as to the proposed siting of the use with the design and size proposed.”

5 6

Q.

What was the ultimate conclusion of the ZBA on PSE&G’s Application?

7

A.

Although three (3) members of the ZBA voted in favor of the Project, the Application

8

was denied by four (4) members voting against the Project. As noted previously, the

9

grant of a use variance requires the affirmative vote of five (5) out of the seven (7) members of the zoning board. PSE&G was denied the use variance by two (2) votes.

10 11

Q.

before the BPU as the Petition.

12 13

Please summarize your position as to the merits of the Application, now pending

A.

It is my position, as a planner, that the Project is inherently beneficial to support the

14

City’s projected population and economic growth, especially in the Newark Load

15

Pocket, which includes the Central Business District, St. Michael’s Hospital and several

16

major universities including the recent merger of Rutgers University and UMDNJ. In

17

addition, the Property is particularly suitable for the use based on its sufficient size in a

18

city where parcels of sufficient size for the Project are rare outside of the vulnerable

19

areas of the Port, as well as the Property’s location and proximity to the Newark Load

20

Pocket. It is also my opinion that the Application mitigates, to the greatest extent

21

possible, any adverse impacts to the neighborhood and that the need of existing and

22

future large users of electricity, such as the universities and corporations in and near

23

Fairmount and the Central Business District be supported by the Project, thereby

- 17 -

1

increasing job opportunities for the City’s residents. The testimony presented to the

2

ZBA adequately supported a finding that PSE&G satisfied the Sica balancing test and a

3

variance should have been granted for the Project, which will provide a significant

4

public benefit to a city that needs to upgrade its infrastructure to support continued

5

development. The BPU should consider the need for and inherent public benefit of the

6

Project, which the ZBA conceded, as well as the particular suitability of the Property,

7

when rendering its decision.

8

Q.

Does this conclude your testimony?

9

A.

Yes.

- 18 -

Exhibit DGR-1

Exhibit DGR-2