<>
POINT ONE: CONCURRENCY: The consultant should be directed that the
Concurrency provisions already in the UDC are to be preserved or even
strengthened. There are two types of concurrency requirements - -
external and internal.
.
Within
the UDC (Chapter 40 of the New Castle County Code) Article 5 focuses
intensely on Site Capacity and Concurrency. The underlying philosophy
expressed there and in other sections of the UDC, for instance at
Article 5 Section D "Public Infrastructure,". is, in effect, to assure
that if the public facilities and services necessary to properly serve
the needs of any intensification of land use will not be in place when
those needs present, the intensification of land use won't be in place
either. That's an EXTERNAL concurrency requirement.
.
Internal
concurrency applies to Mixed Use developments. A Mixed Use development
is usually a combination of commercial (sales), office, and residential
uses on the same parcel. Occasionally, there could also be light
industrial use. Though not usually categorized as mixed use, residential
land uses that mix "market price" dwelling units with "affordable
housing" dwelling units present the same concurrency issue - - the need
for a control scheme to assure that for instance all the box stores
don't get built and occupied before any of the office or residential
space is even started.
.
<>
POINT TWO: LIMITS ON TRANSPORTATION SYSTEM IMPACT: The consultant
should be directed that transportation system impact requirements of the
UDC are to be preserved. Article 11 of the UDC says that without a
showing via a Traffic Impact Study (TIS) that the Level of Service (LOS)
on affected elements of the transportation system will be no worse than
the "D" LOS, building permits for any part of new major development
(with or without a rezoning) must not be issued.
.
Effectively
this is another Concurrency requirement but it is separately imposed
for several reasons: 1) Relevant State law speaks to the issue (Title 9
Del. C. Section 2662 and related provisions); 2) County law with
essentially that effect was already in place before the UDC became law;
and 3) Since traffic congestion is more readily related to public safety
(via personal injury and collision frequency) than, say, library
service, the requirement can be more forceful.
.
<>
POINT THREE: RESTORE AN EARLY PUBLIC HEARING OPPORTUNITY DURING THE
LAND USE REGULATORY PROCESS: The consultant should be directed that a
public hearing opportunity is to be created - - resurrected, actually - -
very early in the land use regulatory process. Until nearly a decade
ago, we did indeed have an early public hearing, before the County
Planning Board, which hosts its hearings in the evening. In a
developer-advocated effort to "streamline" the regulatory process, the
early hearing was eliminated so that by the time the public gets its
first official view of a development proposal, it is already so far
along that it's practically chiseled into marble and the public's
involvement is vastly diminished..
..
Long
before the Sept 2013 arrival of the present General Manager, I
suggested to the County Executive (and others) that a Planning Board
Hearing be established to review the results of the "Scoping Meeting"
required under UDC Section 11.122 to define the scope of the Traffic
Impact Study for every major development application. The PB should be
authorized to recommend increasing the scope if it so chooses, but not
reducing it. Such a formal requirement could be established by Executive
Order since the PB's enabling legislation (at the state level)
authorizes PB investigation of any aspect of Land Use regulatory
practices that the PB chooses to examine. The Executive deferred that
thought to the new General Manager, who chose to deal with the UDC in
one fell swoop rather than piecemeal. So we're still waiting. .
.
<>
POINT FOUR: DESCRIPTION OF PROGRESS SINCE AWARD OF CONTRACT: There
should be convincing evidence - - draft work products - - indicating
that something already exists beyond the SOW.
.
My
remarks at the Jan 21 CLNCC Board Meeting were purposely incendiary to
assure that they would reach the LU General Manager. ,It wasn't a
surprise that she telephoned before the end of the same week. The
surprise was her reason for calling: she asked me to arrange a meeting
for her with people interested in Route 141, at very short notice - - at
some point between Jan 26 to Jan 30. Perhaps she had NOT heard of my
remarks at the CLNCC meeting, or perhaps she was initiating a
diversionary maneuver.
.
Via
a Jan 26 e-mail, I advised that I had referred the request to Charles
Stirk, who has been involved with Route 141 for decades and knows
EVERYBODY who shares that passion. And I conveyed his finding that a Jan
26 to Jan 30 meeting isn't possible, but that Feb 2 or Feb 9 are
workable alternatives. Via a 9 am Jan 27 e-mail, she accepted the Feb 2
date but then, in a conversation with Charles Stirk, she backed out,
suggesting a long postponement.
.
Having
been subjected to a run-around, I responded with an e-mail on Feb 5
contemplating my visit to Land Use on Feb 10 to look at a data dump
itemized as follows:
.
<> The RFP (request for proposal) sent to candidate
. . . . consultants for updating the UDC
<> A list of candidate consultants that the RFP was sent to
<> SOW (statement of work) contemplated in RFP
<> Selected Consultant's response to RFP, including
. . . . exceptions (if any) to SOW in RFP
<> Contract and performance schedule
. . . . for UDC update consultant's activity
<> Correspondence (or other documentation, including telecon
. . . . summaries) between LU and the UDC update consultant
. . . . regarding features of the present UDC to be preserved in
. . . . the update.
<> Same regarding features of present UDC to be changed
. . . . in the update, and description(s) of the change(s)
<> Correspondence (or other documentation, including telecon
. . . . summaries) between LU and the public (individuals,
. . . . organizations, companies, etc.) suggesting changes
. . . . to the present UDC to be considered in the update.
.
During
the Feb 10 visit, only the RFP SOW and the successful bidder's response
was available, and confirmation that nothing else on the list would be
offered for my examination. Nothing in either the RFP SOW or the
successful bidder's response addresses anything in the above four
points. Indeed, several statements in the SOW suggest an effort to
WEAKEN the controls already in place in the UDC.
.
Therefore,
I completed a FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) request form including
the above itemized data dump, and submitted it formally on Feb 10..