Option 2 is correct because it addresses the root issue—the inflexibility of the existing ordinance—in a transparent and equitable manner. Creating a clear, by-right process (like a density bonus) or a discretionary special permit with defined criteria ensures the city can secure public benefits while maintaining predictability and avoiding arbitrary, case-by-case variances that can be legally challenged. This approach is proactive, plan-based, and establishes a fair framework for future projects.

Option 2 is correct. While capital costs and one-time revenues/fees are relatively concrete, the long-term, recurring costs of municipal services are highly sensitive to assumptions about service levels, household characteristics, and inflation. Debates often center on the marginal cost of serving new residents, the allocation of fixed costs, and the reliability of per-capita cost multipliers. This uncertainty makes the net fiscal impact a central point of contention in development reviews.

Option 1 is correct. Form-based codes (FBCs) are predicated on the idea that compatible building forms (massing, placement, frontage) create a predictable public realm, and that a mix of uses is desirable for vibrant, walkable areas. Use conflicts in such environments are typically issues of operational management (noise, odors, hours) best addressed by performance standards or general municipal nuisance laws, not by prohibiting uses outright. An FBC aims to foster the very mix that the council member is wary of, which is a feature, not a bug, of traditional downtowns.

Option 3 is correct. The cornerstone of the Uniform Act is informed participation. The initial informational notice (often called a “General Information Notice”) is crucial because it must be provided early—before negotiations—and must clearly explain the entire process, the residents’ rights to relocation assistance and advisory services, and the basis for acquisition. This empowers residents with knowledge and access to help, setting the stage for a fair process. The other options describe later steps or incomplete actions.

Option 2 is correct. Scoping is an early and open process required for an EIS. Its principal goal is to engage the public, agencies, and stakeholders to determine the range of actions, alternatives, and impacts to be considered. This ensures the EIS is a concise, focused document analyzing truly significant issues, avoiding unnecessary detail on trivial matters, and identifying reasonable alternatives. It is a critical step for defining the scope and depth of the upcoming analysis.

Option 2 is correct. The regulatory barrier is the city’s own blanket parking mandate. The most direct, equitable, and plan-consistent solution is to change the underlying regulation. A targeted zoning amendment (e.g., reducing or eliminating minimums in transit-rich areas, for small lots, or for certain housing types) removes the obstacle proactively for all qualifying projects, providing predictability and reducing the need for discretionary variances. This implements the comp plan by right, rather than through ad-hoc exceptions or subsidies that address symptoms, not the cause.

Option 1 is correct. A robust, data-driven prioritization for property acquisition (buyouts) relies on objective evidence of risk and cost. The official FIRMs define the Special Flood Hazard Area, while NFIP claim data—specifically for Severe Repetitive Loss (SRL) and Repetitive Loss (RL) properties—provides concrete, financial proof of chronic flooding. This combination identifies not just where flooding *might* happen, but where it *repeatedly does* happen at significant public and private cost, making a compelling case for using mitigation funds to permanently reduce risk.

Option 0 is correct. The ‘Fair Share’ concept, as developed through New Jersey’s Mount Laurel decisions, is a judicial doctrine that holds every municipality in a housing market region must provide a realistic opportunity for its fair share of the present and prospective regional need for low- and moderate-income housing. It is aimed at overcoming exclusionary zoning practices that concentrate affordable housing in certain towns, thereby promoting economic integration across a region.

Option 1 is correct. A core principle of TOD planning is to shift the evaluation metric from automobile-only Level of Service (which can induce demand for driving) to multimodal person mobility. Standard trip generation manuals (like ITE) are often based on suburban, auto-dependent development patterns and do not accurately capture the trip reduction effects of density, mix of uses, and high-quality transit access. A proper TOD analysis would use adjusted rates, consider internal trip capture, and evaluate pedestrian, bicycle, and transit mode share to assess the project’s true impact on the transportation network.

Option 2 is correct because it addresses the root issue—the inflexibility of the existing ordinance—in a transparent and equitable manner. Creating a clear, by-right process (like a density bonus) or a discretionary special permit with defined criteria ensures the city can secure public benefits while maintaining predictability and avoiding arbitrary, case-by-case variances that can be legally challenged. This approach is proactive, plan-based, and establishes a fair framework for future projects.0