June 27, 2012

To the Editor:

A deal is a deal. The hospital, the Borough, and the neighborhood that surrounds the hospital’s old site on Witherspoon Street, agreed to a deal in 2006. Re-zoning was done specifically for the hospital’s benefit, in a way that would allow it to receive a good price for the site. In exchange, the hospital agreed to requirements that would benefit the neighborhood and the community.

The new zoning is still in place. The Borough and the neighborhood are not challenging it. The hospital has a tentative buyer for the site and has received the benefit of that part of the deal. But AvalonBay, the hospital’s tentative buyer, is not adhering in any significant way to the agreements the hospital made that would benefit the neighborhood and the community.

I was interested to read a recent letter to the editor from the hospital’s CEO. I expected him to deny that the agreements exist. Interestingly, he did not deny them. Instead, he did not mention them. He ignored their existence.

Ignoring the agreements will not make them go away. Community members will continue to remind everyone of them. The Planning Board is fully aware of them. Everyone knows that a deal was made in good faith.

The hospital needs to uphold its part of the deal. It needs to require the buyer of the site — whether AvalonBay or some future buyer — to fulfill all the requirements in the agreements. A deal is a deal.

Anthony C. Lunn

Hawthorne Avenue

June 13, 2012

AvalonBay, the developer under contract to build a rental community at the site of the now-empty University Medical Center of Princeton, has filed a site plan with the Regional Planning Board. Details of the plan, which was revised after meetings of an ad hoc subcommittee made up of representatives of local government, the developer, and a citizen representative, were the topic of often heated discussion at a meeting of Borough Council last week.

Ron Ladell, senior vice president of the AvalonBay company, told those gathered that while he knew it would not please everyone, he hoped that the changes to the plan would be acceptable to most. The company filed the site plan last Friday, two days after the meeting.

Residents of the neighborhood have expressed repeated concerns about scale, access, sustainability, and other issues related to the 280-unit community targeted for the site, which was vacated by the hospital for a new building in Plainsboro last month.

The ad hoc design committee, which included Mr. Ladell, Borough Mayor Yina Moore, Council members Jenny Crumiller and Kevin Wilkes, resident Joseph Weiss, Princeton Environmental Commission member Heidi Fichtenbaum, and Site Plan Review Advisory Board (SPRAB) member Bill Wolfe, have met during recent weeks to try to address residents’ concerns. “We’ve come to some point of progress,” Mayor Moore said at the meeting. “We continue to seek the kinds of improvements that would make for a better community, if this developer seeks to continue with the application.”

Now that the application has been filed, the zoning is locked in under the “time of application” rule that exempts it from any further changes.

“The zoning is in place. We are not going to change it,” Mr. Ladell said. “We expect to file a conforming site plan imminently, and we look forward to site plan hearings at the Planning Board as soon as possible so that the empty hospital building will not have to remain and we can start our work as soon as possible. We appreciate the time and effort put forth by the ad hoc committee over the past many weeks and we look forward to our full site plan presentation and further input from the community.”

There was plenty of input at the meeting. Numerous neighborhood residents lined up to ask questions and offer comments about the amendments to the plan, from how demolition of the current building would proceed to whether asbestos would be properly removed.

Changes to the design of the complex to rise in the hospital’s place include a lower building height and reduction of the mass of the building, as well as the addition of an archway to be built at the front of the complex on Witherspoon Street. While a few people expressed support for the revised plan, most continued to voice opposition, saying the changes were not enough.

One particular sticking point was AvalonBay’s intention to build a pool in the courtyard. When one person suggested putting in a community garden instead of a pool, especially in light of the fact that the newly renovated Princeton Community Pool is blocks away, Mr. Ladell responded that all AvalonBay communities have pools. “It is very valued, it is very prized, and people expect it,” he said.

In response to complaints that the property will be a gated community, without access to the surrounding neighborhood and in conflict with Borough code, the ad hoc committee added the 20-foot-high, 25-feet-wide archway and opened up an interior courtyard to the public while reserving a second area for residents of the complex. The height of the building was reduced in some areas by two stories and other areas by one. Those heights make the building similar in scale to Lambert House, which is currently on the site. The developers are allowed seven stories, with up to 67.5 feet in height. The plan calls for heights ranging from 32.5 to 48 feet. The existing hospital building is 119 feet high.

Architect Jonathan Metz of Perkins Eastman Architects said nothing on Henry Street, including the parking garage, will change as part of the plan. The Witherspoon Street and Franklin Terrace first floor units will have front porches, and be accessible directly without entering the main building. Those apartments located on the side will have terraces or decks, also providing direct access to residents. All of the street facades will have sidewalks and green plantings.

The building’s facades will vary in style, according to suggestions made by the ad hoc committee. The massing will be different due to varied heights, architectural elements, and stairwells.

Resident Mary Clurman asked Mr. Ladell not only about why there is a plan for a pool, but also why Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) standards are not being used in the complex. As he has said in the past, Mr. Ladell replied that the company uses the less-stringent but common standards known as Energy Star, and that will not change. Current zoning guidelines do not require LEED.

Other residents expressed dissatisfaction with the revised courtyard design, saying it only provides one way in and out and that neighborhood residents should be able to walk through.

Sandra Persichetti, executive director of Princeton Community Housing, praised the project for its inclusion of 20 percent affordable housing units. “I have 500 people on a waiting list for affordable units. Instead of worrying about the color of siding or the width of an archway, think about those 500 people without homes,” she said.

Resident Daniel Harris, a member of Princeton Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods, responded that no one in the room was opposed to affordable housing. He added that the group wants a list of sustainable elements to be submitted to the Planning Board not later than three weeks after AvalonBay files its site plan.

The revisions do not change the status of the homes on Harris Road that are included in the AvalonBay deal, Mr. Ladell said.The buildings at 281 and 277 Witherspoon Street were retained by the hospital and will remain.


May 23, 2012

As the University Medical Center at Princeton vacated Princeton Borough for its new home in Plainsboro this week, residents of the neighborhood surrounding the hospital’s old home on Witherspoon Street continued to express concern about the plans for a rental community to be built in its place.

AvalonBay Communities is contracted to build 280 units at the site of the old hospital building, which is to be demolished. While the company last month withdrew its request for fewer affordable housing units in exchange for higher density, residents remain worried about what they say is a lack of public open space throughout the complex and connected to the public sidewalks, the proposed design, and the type of environmental building standards the developer wants to use.

Early this month, Princeton Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods wrote a letter to the UMCP and its Board of Trustees expressing its concerns. “We request UMCP to honor its own commitments to the Princeton community, expressed in the consensual Master Plan and in the Princeton Borough Code [including design standards]. The hospital must push AvalonBay, or any developer, towards a design that fully reflects the hospital’s own goals,” the four-page letter reads. “UMCP cannot ethically allow devastation to follow in the wake of its departure from the Witherspoon campus.”

On Tuesday, UMCP’s Princeton Healthcare Systems responded with the following statement:

“Princeton HealthCare System cares deeply about the communities it serves and we are closely following the events surrounding the re-use of our former Witherspoon Street campus. Our contract with AvalonBay Communities (ABC) for the sale of the Witherspoon Street property gives them the right to seek governmental approvals as they deem appropriate. A process exists and is underway to evaluate ABC’s proposal. We believe the process should be allowed to follow its course and to do its work. Based on our many years of experience working with the Borough and the Township on our hospital replacement project, we are confident that the officials and the staff in both communities, working with ABC, will reach a good outcome.”

Alexi Assmus, who co-wrote the letter to the hospital, said members of the group had met informally with a hospital representative and were cordially received. “We would like to have a meeting with Barry Rabner [the hospital’s CEO] to discuss the details in the letter regarding the fact that the plans for the AvalonBay site do not follow Borough code or the town’s master plan, and that the master plan was created by the hospital along with municipal representatives and neighborhood representatives and the greater Princeton community between 2004 and 2006,” she said. “What we’d like to know is how the hospital can meet that commitment to that, given where we are now. And we’d like to discuss the details of what was actually understood and written up in the Borough code and master plan.”

Ms. Assmus said Princeton Citizens for Sustainable Neighborhoods is seeking independent legal counsel to get an opinion on whether the division of the Borough code which applies to design standards is enforceable or not.

Meanwhile, an ad hoc subcommittee including Council members Kevin Wilkes, Jenny Crumiller, and Mayor Yina Moore; William Wolfe of the Site Plan Review Advisory Board (SPRAB), Heidi Fichtenbaum of the Princeton Environmental Council, and neighborhood resident Joseph Weiss has met to discuss the issues and will reconvene next week. Mayor Moore was scheduled to deliver a progress report at the meeting of Borough Council last night.

“We met first only as a subcommittee, and then we met twice after that with the developer,” Mayor Moore said Tuesday. “We’ll have another meeting next week. I think with the good will of the landowner, the prospective developer, and citizens who are interested in contributing to the formulation of positive ideas and a spirit of cooperation, we can get somewhere.”

Ron Ladell, AvalonBay’s Senior Vice President of Development, said meetings have been “incredibly productive and positive. There are quite a few members of that committee and they represent a diverse group of interests and backgrounds. That’s very helpful to us as a developer, and we think the interaction will result in a project that will be designed in a manner Princeton residents will appreciate.”


March 21, 2012

To the Editor:

The Princeton Borough Council’s decision at its February 28 meeting approving the request by the developer AvalonBay to increase the density of the Hospital site was given in spite of the strong opposition to the developer’s petition expressed by several Princeton community organizations and individual residents and, before receiving impact reports on traffic, waste disposal, water usage and various other municipality services from the developer.

Borough Council members chose to ignore the arguments presented against approving the petition to rezone the site. With the notable exception of Jenny Crumiller, the Council was more interested in facilitating the implementation of AvalonBay’s business plan than in the passing of legislation for the benefit the neighbors and the town.

As elected officials, Council members should examine the arguments of the people they represent, while ensuring that existing legislation, such as the amendments introduced to the Master Plan in 2007 requiring that all new and remodeled buildings use sustainable building designs, are upheld.

Antonio Reinero
Carnahan Place

February 29, 2012

To the Editor:

It was good to see a creative and thoughtful discussion regarding affordable housing at the hospital site during the February 14 Council meeting. This discussion should be part of a larger conversation on Princeton’s housing policy. Future policy decisions must be informed by good data and should ultimately be driven by identified needs.

The rezoning of the UMCP site has always called for a 20 percent set-aside for those making less than 80 percent of the area median income. Avalon Bay has requested that they be allowed to both build more units and reduce the percentage of affordable units. If Princeton wishes to grant the developer a density bonus, it should only be done in exchange for a commensurate benefit to the town. One possibility worth considering is that they be required to provide additional units for a slightly higher income range — so-called ‘workforce housing’.

Princeton has been losing its middle class residents since the 1970s. According to the 2010 census, households earning between $75,000 and $100,000 now make up only 7 percent of the population of the Borough and Township while a quarter of our households have incomes over $200,000. This imbalance is neither healthy nor sustainable.

The affordable range (paying no more than 30 percent of earnings) of housing costs for area median-income households is between $1,714 (for a one bedroom) and $2,376 (for a three bedroom). According to Avalon Bay, rents in the development will range from $1,600 for a studio to $3,200 for a three-bedroom unit. This indicates an affordability gap — the three bedroom units will be affordable only to those making 135 percent of the median.

The 2010 census also shows us that existing gaps in housing affordability range widely. 100 percent of owner-occupied households in the Borough earning less than $20,000 are paying more than 30 percent of their income. Significantly, an average of 69 percent of all households making below $75,000 are paying more than 30 percent of income towards their housing costs.

Because the biggest need for affordable homes exists in low-income families, it makes sense that we continue to provide units for that population, even in the absence of state mandates. We should also be encouraging a greater diversity in our town by making units affordable to residents whose incomes fall outside of the range that typically benefits from housing subsidies.

For the developer to request both a density bonus and a reduction in the required affordable percentage is audacious, to say the least. Avalon Bay should be compelled to provide 20 percent of the total number of units as set-aside for traditional affordable units and 20 percent of the bonus units should be designated as affordable to households earning between 80-120 percent of the area median.

I hope that the current negotiations with Avalon Bay will lead to a discussion about overall goals for affordability and diversity in our housing stock and what can be done, on a policy level, to reach those goals.

David Schrayer

Spruce Street

To the Editor:

When Princeton Hospital moves to its new site in May 2012, it is widely anticipated that AvalonBay, the nationwide developer of residential rental housing, will sign on to develop the present site: Princeton surely needs rental units.

But it’s critical that AvalonBay (www.avalonbay.com) generate designs that represent to the fullest extent possible the real future needs of the new consolidated Princeton. This site is possibly the last large tract to be developed in our downtown: its effect upon Witherspoon Street and surrounding neighborhoods will be dramatic. Princetonians are entitled to know what AvalonBay plans to do; we are equally entitled to have our voices heard as plans evolve.

Important issues include the following:

First, the site plan itself should be compatible to the fullest extent with present neighborhoods and their future needs; this matter includes both the height and the appearance of the buildings that will have frontages on Witherspoon Street and Franklin Avenue.

Second: AvalonBay must commit to a full complement of units (20 percent) to be marketed to/for low- and lower-middle income housing. It is essential that Princeton be able to draw into the community a truly diverse population that includes the young, the non-affluent, seniors, and others who contribute to our local workforce. Present zoning calls for 20 percent affordable housing on 280 units; I understand that AvalonBay will seek a variance to build 40 additional units WITHOUT affordable-housing constraints. AvalonBay’s likely request for such a variance should be scrutinized carefully.

Third: AvalonBay must “build green” to the fullest extent possible. AvalonBay’s website advertises that its headquarters is LEED-certified at the Silver level — no mean achievement. The developer should feel equally responsible for making comparable commitments to meeting these or similar standards (e.g., Energy Star) in the development project itself. Building green includes managing storm water, developing an integrated approach to optimizing energy and water use, installing renewable energy sources including solar panels, using non-toxic materials, and installing the most advanced infrastructure for managing construction waste and the waste produced by occupants. (AvalonBay will then of course be able to advertise itself as a “green developer” when it seeks to develop projects elsewhere: Princeton can be their first exemplar of the green intelligence in city planning that we all need.)

Finally, AvalonBay should be invited to present one or more public information sessions for all proposals, and the Princeton community should be welcomed by AvalonBay to provide feedback. While the public may provide input at Borough Council and Planning Board meetings when AvalonBay’s proposal is on the agenda, less formal information sessions would be a more community-friendly way for Avalon to learn about and address community and neighborhood concerns. Such sessions might be sponsored and organized by either Sustainable Princeton or Princeton Future (as both bodies are non-partisan). Mayoral candidates should also be asked publicly to state their views of the AvalonBay proposals.

Daniel A. Harris

Dodds Lane