HomeMy WebLinkAbout2004-08-03; City Council; 17746; Development Review Process SurveyAB# 17,746
MTG. 8/3/04
DEPT. PLNg
TITLE:
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS SURVEY
DEPT. HD. ww
.I
RECOMMENDED ACTION:
That the City Council RECEIVES THE REPORT regarding the Development Review Process Survey
from City staff.
ITEM EXPLANATION:
In December of 2003 and January of 2004, the Carlsbad Planning Department conducted a
Development Review Process Survey to comprehensively access the City’s development review
process. The City’s primary objective for conducting the survey and completing the assessment was
to: Improve customer service by deleting steps from the development review process that do
not add value, while balancing the opportunities for community input.
The survey addressed the experience of customers familiar with the City’s development review
process, including both external customers (Le. developers, homeowners, consultants, and
contractors) and internal customers (City staff) familiar with the City’s development review process.
External customers were “satisfied” with the City’s development review process, while City staff was
more critical of the development review process and accordingly recommended some specific review
process modifications. The results of the Development Review Process Survey are summarized in
Volume 1, Survey Results, January 2004. The survey results are categorized by the type of change
they represent (Administrative, Code, City Council Policy, or Organizational) and by which affected
City departments would be involved with each potential change.
An expanded team of City staff members very familiar with the City’s development review process
developed a recommended priority list based on the survey results of Volume 1 (Volume 2,
Recommended Priorities, April 2004). The recommended priority list was developed based on the
criteria of: 1) achieving the survey’s objective, 2) the number of multiple survey responses, and 3)
the City ‘s ability to implement a recommendation.
Finally, an implementation plan (Volume 3, Implementation Plan, June 2004) was created to serve as
a tool to guide the City in implementing the recommended priorities identified in Volume 2. Many of
the highest priority recommendations involve multiple departments and will require a collaborative
effort to achieve their implementation.
FISCAL IMPACT:
The implementation of the recommended priorities will result in a commitment of City staff resources,
within the scope of existing budgets.
EXHIBITS:
1. Volume 1, Development Review Process Survey, Survey Results (January 2004), previously
distributed (on file in the City Clerk’s Office)
2. Volume 2, Development Review Process Survey, Recommended Priorities (April 2004), previously distributed (on file in the City Clerk’s Office)
3. Volume 3, Development Review Process Survey, Implementation Plan (June 2004),
previously distributed. (on file in the City Clerk’s Office)
3EPARTMENT CONTACT: Don Neu, (760) 602-4601, dneu@ci.carlsbad.ca.us
k
.- Development Review
Process Survey rc
7
Survey Results
January 2004
r
t
r i Volume I
Development Review Process Survey
Survey Results
January 2004
City of Carlsbad
Goal 403
Planning Department
Team Members:
Don Neu
Chris DeCerbo
Gary T. Barberio
Development Review Process Survev
Table of Contents
Introduction 1
Methodology 1
Internal Survey
Summary Results 3
Key Issues 3 Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Fire) 4
Administrative Changes (Planning/City Attorney/Engineering/Fire) 5
Administrative Changes (Fire/City Attorney) 5
Administrative Changes (PlannindCity Attorney) 5
Administrative Changes (Planning) 5
Administrative Changes (Engineering) 7
Code Changes (Planning DepartmenVCity Attorney)
City Council Policy Changes (Planning Department)
Organizational (City Attorney/Planning) 9
Organizational (Community DevelopmenVPublic WorkslPlanning) 9
Organizational (All Community Development Depts./Engineering/Fire)
Organizational (Community DevelopmenVPlanning) 10
Policy (All Departments) 10
Summary Results 11
Administrative Changes (Planning Department) 11
Administrative Changes (PlanningKity Attorney/Engineering/Fire) 12
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Building/Fire) 12
Administrative Changes (Building) 6
Administrative Changes (All Departments) 6
7
8
10
External Survey
Administrative Changes (Building) 13
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Building) 13
Administrative Changes (Engineering) 13
Code Changes (Planning Department) 13
City Council Policy Changes (Planning Department) 14
APPENDIX A
Development Review Process Survey 15
Internal Survey Questionnaire 16
External Survey Questionnaire 18
APPENDIX B
List of Resources 21
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page i
Develoroment Review Process Survey
INTRODUCTION
This report summarizes the results of the City of Carlsbad Development Review
Process Survey. The survey was conducted to comprehensively assess the City’s
development review process. The City’s primary objective in conducting the survey and
completing the assessment is to improve customer service by deleting steps from the
development review process that do not add value. The survey was conducted by the
Carlsbad Planning Department in December of 2003 and January of 2004.
The survey addressed the experiences of customers familiar with the City’s
development review process. Internal and external customers were asked different sets
of questions, and therefore, their responses are presented separately. The
Methodology section of the report contains a detailed description of the methodology
used to conduct the survey. The Internal Survey and External Survey Summary
Results sections of the report contain the summarized and pertinent results of the
survey. Appendix A contains both the internal and external survey questionnaires, and
Appendix B contains a list of resources utilized in drafting the survey questionnaire
documents.
METHODOLOGY
The Development Review Process Survey was conducted by the Carlsbad Planning
Department in December of 2003 and January of 2004. Two separate surveys were
conducted, one for internal customers and one for external customers. Each group was
sent a different questionnaire with distinct questions. The Internal customers consisted
of City staff members from the Community Development (Building, Economic
Development, Housing and Redevelopment, and Planning) , Fire (Fire Prevention) , and
Public Works (Engineering and Engineering Development Services) Departments who
are experienced with the City’s development review process. The external customers
consisted of private individuals or companies (Architects, Business Persons,
Consultants, Contractors, Developers, Engineers, and Homeowners) who have had at
least one experience with the City’s development review process over the past two
years (2002 and 2003).
Both the internal and external surveys were prepared utilizing various resources, such
as the City of Carlsbad Survey Guidebook, How to Conduct a Citizen Survey, and the
Manager’s Planning Guide to Improving the Development Review System. In addition,
several recently completed surveys were referenced as a guide in compiling the
Development Review Process Survey. The survey documents were also pre-tested by
several recipients prior to the survey being formally distributed to ensure clarity,
understanding and ease of use. A list of resources utilized in drafting the survey is
included within Appendix B of this report.
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 1
Development Review Process Survey
The internal survey was sent in early December 2003 to sixty-two (62) City staff
members. The survey was delivered utilizing both the City’s electronic and internal mail
systems. The electronic mail system was utilized to provide notice to all recipients that
they would be receiving a hard copy of the survey in the next few days through the
City’s internal mail system. In addition, the electronic mail included an electronic
version of the survey attached to the message, allowing recipients the ability to
complete the survey electronically. However, recipients were not able to electronically
return the completed survey, in order to ensure that anonymity would be maintained.
The hard copy of the survey was delivered utilizing the City’s internal mail system and
included a return envelope to, again, allow for anonymity. Recipients were given
approximately two- and one-half weeks to respond. A second email message was
delivered to the internal list. This second message provided a recipient reminder and
an additional two weeks in which to respond. A total of twenty-six (26) responses were
received, for a response rate of forty-two percent (42%).
The external survey was sent in early December 2003 to one hundred twenty-nine (129)
external customers. The survey was mailed to all recipients and included a postage-
paid return envelope to ensure anonymity. Recipients were given approximately two-
and one-half weeks to respond. A second reminder mailing was sent to all recipients.
The second mailing provided a recipient reminder and an additional two-week period in
which to respond. A total of forty (40) responses were received, for a response rate of
thirty-one percent (31 %).
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 2
DeveloDment Review Process Survey
INTERNAL SURVEY
SUMMARY RESULTS
This section provides a complete summary of the results of the internal survey
responses. A total of twenty-six (26) responses were received, for a response rate of
forty-two percent (42%). In general, internal survey respondents were very familiar with
the City’s development review process. Most respondents were able to exhaustively
identify numerous and specific issue areas that will need to be further evaluated to
determine whether or not they add value to the development review process and should
be considered for elimination. Some identified key issue areas are as follows:
KEY ISSUES
Planning
Conditional Use Permits
-consider eliminating extensions and annual reviews
-consider approving some CUP uses administratively
-re-evaluate which uses require a CUP
Critical Dates Calendar/DCC/Staff Reports
-shorten/streamline process
-re-evaluate staff report format
California Coastal Commission/Local Coastal Program
-develop a Categorical Exclusion Order to exempt certain projects from
-consider increasing the monetary threshold amount for administrative
the requirements to obtain a CDP
permits
Resolutions/Files
-consider developing a one-resolution/one file system for multi application
projects
Web Site
-consider putting applications on the web and allow for web filing
Zoning Ordinance
-consider update of zone code to allow more flexibility
-incorporate PD administrative policies and “H” Drive into code
Noticing Requirements
-consider enhancing infill project noticing
-consider “application on-file” notice for all projects
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 3
Development Review Process Survev
- City Attorney's Off ice
-improve timing of project review and coordination with CA's office
Buildinq
- Plan Submittals
-consider developing a checklist of plan submittal requirements
-consider requiring the submittal of multiple plans for plan check
-consider routing redlines and ESGIL comments concurrently
Enqineerinq
- Land Use Review
-evaluate placing Land Use Review section in CD
- Grading
-evaluate the precise grading plan review process
-evaluate the plan check process
- Fire
- Standard CommentdConditions
-develop. and consistently utilize a "standard comments/conditions" list
- Landscape Manual
-evaluate the need to update Fire Protection Sections
A complete summary of all identified internal survey issues are included below:
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (Planning/Engineering/Fire)
Project Processing
1.
2.
3.
Offer regular meetings where developers can sit down with staff in the "Concept" or early phases of a project.
Require that the project planner and engineer visit the site within the first 30-day
review period.
Implement a better interdepartmental scoping process at the beginning of large,
complicated projects. Get commitments from all departments to meet deadlines.
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 4
Development Review Process Survey
Pub I ic I n f o r m at io n (Co m m u n icat i ons Team)
1. Prepare more informative handouts and website information regarding permit
processing requirements, timeframes, submittal requirements, consistency with
the goals of the General Plan, etc.
The applications need to be placed on the City’s web site. A timetable explaining
the discretionary review process could possibly be helpful.
2.
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (Planning/City Attorney/Engineering/Fire)
Conditional Use Permits
1.
2.
Eliminate CUP extensions/expiration dates (1 3).
Eliminate annual reviews of CUPS (4).
AD M I N I STR ATlV E C HANG ES ( Fi re/C ity Attorney)
1.
2.
Fire Prevention should develop standard conditions that are approved by the City
Attorney’s Off ice.
The Fire Prevention Division should consider reviewing all of the comments sent
to the Planning Department so that there is consistency in the comments
provided to project applicants.
AD M I N I STR AT1 V E C H A N G E S (PI ann in g/C i t y Attorney )
Critical Dates Calendar
1. Revise the Critical Dates Calendar so that comments from the City Attorney are
incorporated into the staff report and resolutions prior to the DCC copy being
sent to project applicants.
The Critical Dates Calendar should be evaluated to determine if the length of
time from project scheduling to the Planning Commission Hearing can be
shortened (4).
2.
AD M I N I STR AT1 V E C H A N G E S (PI ann i ng )
Application Forms
1.
2.
Consider developing a single project submittal checklist that addresses all of the
various permit types rather than a separate list for each type of permit.
Put critical datedproject processing calendar into the application submittal/
information package.
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 5
Development Review Process Survey
Public Information
1.
2.
3.
Specific Plans and Master Plans, sign programs, etc. kept at the counter need to
be kept up to date.
Revise the zoning map to identify the boundaries and number of each specific
plan and master plan.
Place a field in Permits Plus that identifies the specific plan or master plan
applicable to individual properties.
Staff Reports
1.
2.
Revaluate the format of staff reports.
Evaluate the staff report review process.
AD M I N I ST R AT1 V E C H A N G ES (B u i Id i n g )
Building Plan check
1.
2.
Additional sets of building plans should be required so that all departments can
be plan checking concurrently (4). Provide the applicant redlines in addition to a brief letter for building plan checks.
However, in order for the redlines to be effective the original must be delivered
back to staff for second review (2).
The Building Department should route ESGIL comments to applicants at the
same time that plan check comments from city departments are sent. ESGIL
should not send plan check comments directly to applicants.
The Building Department should have plan submittal requirements. If plans do
not meet the requirements established they should not be accepted.
Due dates should be established for Building Department plan checks so that the
staff members have a deadline to meet.
3.
4.
5.
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (All Departments)
Permit Streamlining
1. The turnaround time for re-submittals should be quicker than the 30-day
completeness review (6).
2. A small team should be set up to process the projects which could be fast-
tracked (e.g., CUP extensions, Coastal Development Permits, etc.)
3. Empower the front-line Planning and Engineering staff to make decisions.
4. A more effective way of tracking the status of each project is needed.
Volume 7 -January, 2004 Page 6
Development Review Process Survev
Preliminary Review
1. Evaluate the Preliminary Review Process. It might be more timely and effective
to meet with potential project applicants, rather than take in an application and
prepare written correspondence.
Conduct face-to-face meetings with applicants on preliminary review projects. 2.
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (Engineering)
Grading Plans
1. The interdepartmental coordination of grading plans for non-discretionary
projects (i.e. SFD) that involve habitat needs to be improved so that HMPKEQA
is not overlooked and then it becomes a late hit.
Consider eliminating the precise grading plan requirement for individual lots on
approved tracts.
Increase the processing time for Engineering plan checks for other departments
from the present 2 weeks.
2.
3.
CODE CHANGES (Planning DepartmenVCity Attorney)
Conditional Use Permits
1.
2.
3.
Delete the requirement for conditional use permits (CUPS) for minor accessory
structures in existing city parks and facilities.
Make stealth cell facilities in preferred zones an Administrative Permit rather than
aCUP (8).
Review Chapter 21.42 (CUP) to determine if all of the uses listed need a CUP
(7).
Development Permits
1. Evaluate the permits required by the City to determine if any that presently
require a public hearing can be changed to be administrative or ministerial
permits (6).
Evaluate the need for the Special Use Permit for the El Camino Real Corridor.
Combine approvals for multi application projects into a single resolution format.
2.
3.
Public Noticing
1. Public noticing requirements should be evaluated. Adjacent property owners get
frustrated when they receive notice of administrative permits for projects that if
they meet the standards of the code will be approved despite objections from
neighbors.
- Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 7
Deveioipment Review Process Survev
Coastal Permitting
1. The City should pursue obtaining a Categorical Exclusion Order from the
California Coastal Commission to exempt single-family dwellings and minor
additions from the requirement to obtain a Coastal Development Permit (8).
2. The dollar amount for minor coastal development permits should be increased to
reflect current costs.
3. Obtain Coastal Development Permit authority in the Agua Hedionda LCP area.
Zoning Ordinance
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
The Code (Title 21) needs to be updated and reformatted. The update should
address the numerous existing inconsistencies between the chapters. The
reformatting should a) create a consistent general format for all of the various
chapters which have the same basic structure to make it easier to find
information and more readablehseable. The terminology should be evaluated to
be more consistent between the various chapters. Finally tables and other
graphics should be incorporated where they will contribute to better readability
than text (1 4).
Revamp the zoning ordinance by putting lists of permitted uses in a matrix
format.
Eliminate Chapter 21.42 list of conditional uses and place in the individual zones.
Planning Department Administrative Policies and the H Drive’ interpretations
should be incorporated into the code if needed or if no longer applicable deleted
General Plan and Zoning mapping inconsistency issues need to be resolved (2).
Evaluate the need to require a Site Development Plan for Second Dwelling Units
(Include Housing & Redevelopment).
Modify the code so that the City Council does not need to approve the use of
Second Dwelling Units to satisfy the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance (2).
Update the Planned Development Ordinance (e.9. what is the needhifference
between a Condo Permit and a Planned Development Permit)?
There are too many types of discretionary permits. Reduce the number of
permits to one - “Carlsbad Development Permit.” An alternative would be to
reduce the number of different permits to three: subdivision maps, site
development plans, and conditional use permits (1 1).
Revise the Zoning Ordinance to provide more flexibility (5).
Revise the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate standards from other City policy
documents (2).
(2) *
Fire Suppression Zones (Fire/Parks/City Attorney/Pianning)
1 . Reevaluate fire suppression zone requirements and implementation.
’ H Drive is internal to the Planning Department computer directories
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 8
Development Review Process Survey
CITY COUNCIL POLICY CHANGES ‘(Planning Department)
Policy #44
1. Evaluate City Council Policy 44 to determine if a Floor Area Ratio requirement
would better address City Council and community concerns and be easier for
staff to implement.
Project Processing
1. Consider allowing staff to “condition” some issues for resolution versus having to
wait for the applicant to “come around” (2).
Policy
1 . Enhance the in-fill development noticing and public participation procedures and
require developer/applicant/owner to initiate neighborhood outreach prior to
project application.
Reevaluate the need for City Council approval of SDPs over 50 units.
Consider developing an affordable housing project in the Northwest quadrant
where developers can purchase housing credits for small projects. (Housing &
Redevelopment)
2.
3. ,
ORGANIZATIONAL (City Attorney/Planning)
1.
2.
3.
The City Attorney’s Office should be involved in the environmentaVproject review
process prior to the DCC report review (5).
Over-extensive attorney review - let Planning have the final say on our projects.
Attorney comments should not over-rule Planning’s decisions (2).
A clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the City Attorney’s staff in
relation to the roles and responsibilities of the Planning Department staff is
needed. The legal staff should generally be less involved in project decisions
and more involved in proposed code revisions (2).
0 R G AN I2 AT1 0 N AL (Co m m u n it y Develop me nt/P u bl i c Wo r ks/Plan n i ng )
1.
2.
3.
The Land Use Review Section of the Engineering Department should be under
the Community Development Department (2).
Consider increased staffing in the Public Works-Engineering-Land Use Review
Division (3).
Eliminate late hits in the field by doing more complete plan checks.
- Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 9
DeveloDment Review Process Survev
ORGANIZATIONAL (All Community Development DeptsJEngineeringFire)
Permit Streamlining
1. In order to avoid conflicting recommendations, the comments of Planning,
Engineering, and Fire should be discussed and coordinated prior to sending an
issues letter (2).
All departments involved in project review should commit to complying with the
Permit Streamlining Act Requirements (3).
2.
ORGANIZATIONAL (Community DevelopmenVPlanning)
1. Consider hiring another full-time Planning Technician to work at the front counter.
The Building and Engineering Departments employ 3 full-time staff at the
Development Services Counter.
Empower the front counter employees to provide immediate feedback without the
need to take the question to a “Team Meeting.”
Establish regular meetings (quarterly) with the Coastal Commission staff to
achieve a new level of positive interaction.
2.
3.
POLICY (All Departments)
1. Evaluate ways to use “digital technology” more effectively.
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 10
Development Review Process Survey
EXTERNAL SURVEY
SUMMARY RESULTS
This section provides a complete summary of the results of the external survey
responses. A total of forty (40) responses were received, for a response rate of thirty-
one percent (31%). In general, external survey respondents were less familiar with the
City’s development review process and provided less specific responses than did
respondents to the internal survey. Most respondents were generally “satisfied” with the
City’s development review process, with over forty-seven percent (47%) of respondents
indicating they “agree” or “strongly agree”, while only twenty-seven percent (27%) of
respondents indicating they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” (Question #5 of the
External Survey) with the quality of the City’s development review process.
A vast majority, approximately eighty percent (80%), of the external survey respondents
were directly related to the development industry (developer, architect, consultant, or
contractor) and had worked with all of the City departments involved in the development
review process (Questions #1 and #2). No “homeowners” and only two “business
persons” responded to the external survey. Most of the respondents had processed a
large variety and number of permits (preliminary review, discretionary, administrative,
and ministerial) over the past two years (Questions #3 and #4).
A complete summary of identified external survey issues are included below:
ADMlNlsTRATlVE CHANGES (Planning Department)
CUPS
1. Eliminate CUP extensions.
Application Forms
1.
2.
Consolidate application forms to remove repetitive items.
Photo-simulation exhibits should not be required until a final plan is agreed upon.
Project Processing Discretionary Permits
1.
2.
Projects should be assigned to the same planner that did the preliminary review.
Project planner should not require items not in the application form. (2)
Volume 1 -January, 2004. Page 11
Development Review Process Survev
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (PlanningKity Attorney/Engineering /Fire)
Project Processing Discretionary Permits
1.
2.
Do something to minimize late hits on projects.
Improve the timeline to get discretionary permits approved. (3)
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (Planning/Engineering/Building/Fire)
Application Forms
1. Provide a flowchart of the permit process with an approximate timeline.
Phone Calls/E-Mails
1. Establish a consistent policy for returning phone calls and e-mails in a timely
manner. (3)
Perm it Stream I i ni ng
1. Project re-submittals should not necessitate a full 30-day review. (2)
Project Processing Discretionary Permits
1.
2.
Staff should spend more time considering and discussing project issues prior to
sending out an issues letter.
In order to avoid conflicting recommendations, the comments of Planning,
Engineering and Fire should be discussed and coordinated prior to issuing a
project issues letter.
Staff should not just identify problems but should also propose solutions.
The project plannedengineer should schedule a face-to-face meeting with the
applicant to clearly discuss project issues and process timeline after the
distribution of the project issue letter. Staff should be clear in communicating what specific project revisions are
needed or wanted. Where applicable, share examples of how you want things to
look.
3.
4.
5.
Public Information
1.
2.
Tell people more than they ask. Planners, Engineers and Building Department counter staff need to know each
other’s jobs so the public can be properly referred to each department.
Plan Check
1. Consider establishing maximum plan check times.
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 12
Development Review Process Survev
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (Building)
Building Plan Check
1. Consider not outsourcing building plan checks to Esgil. (2)
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (Planning/Engineering/Building)
Inspection
1. Expedite the process for processing project field changes. Rather than requiring
plans to be consistently updated to reflect field changes before inspectors will
inspect for the next phase, allow project revisions to be shown on 8.5 x 11’s.
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES (Engineering)
Grading Plans
1.
2.
3.
4.
Expedite the permit process for small grading plans (c 100 cu/yds) from 2-4
months to 2-3 days.
Expedite the process for single family grading permits (to c 3 mos).
Streamline the precise grading plan review and approval process.
Allow wall permits to be processed before grading plans are approved to save
time.
CODE CHANGES (Planning Department)
Coastal Development Permits
1 .
2.
Eliminate Minor Coastal Development Permits.
Eliminate Coastal Development Permits for a single-family residence.
Satellite Antennae
1. Eliminate Satellite Antenna Permits.
Sign Permits
1. Eliminate sign permits for commercial real estate signs.
CITY COUNCIL POLICY CHANGES (Planning Department)
Policy #44
1. Eliminate Policy 44 architectural guidelines for additions to a single-family
residence.
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 13
Development Review Process Survey
lnfill Projects
.-
1. Require a mandatory neighborhood meeting prior to a PC meeting for infill
projects. (2)
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 14
Development Review Process Survev
APPENDIX A
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS SURVEY
INTERNAL AND EXTERNAL
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRES
Volume 1 -Januaw, 2004 Page 15
Development Review Process Survey
INTERNAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
HELP IMPROVE THE CITY’S
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
Dear Colleague,
The City of Carlsbad is undertaking a comprehensive review of the City’s development review
process. Our primary objective is to improve customer service by deleting steps from the
development review process that do not add value.
Our commitment to quality customer service means we are willing to change the way we do
business to make the process more effective.
-
- The City requests your assistance in assessing our development review process by completing
the following survey, The results of this survey will assist us in identifying measures to improve our customer service. It would be greatly appreciated if you would complete the following
confidential survey as soon as possible. In order for us to consider your input, please return it in
the enclosed envelope by December 19, 2003. If you would like to talk to someone regarding
this survey, please feel free to contact Chris DeCerbo at (760) 602-461 1. We will provide you a
copy of the survey results.
-
-
Thank you for your time and assistance.
- Sincerely’
-
SANDRA L. HOLDER
Community Development Director -
Volume 1 -Januaryl 2004 Page 16
Development Review Process Survey
1. Do you have any recommendations to offer for improving the City of Carlsbad’s
development review process?
2. Specifically, are there any required steps or permits in the City’s development
review process that you believe do not add value, and therefore should be
considered for elimination? Please explain your responses.
3.
4.
What do you feel are some of the obstacles or constraints that keep you from providing more efficient and effective customer service throughout the development review process?
Do you have any additional comments or suggestions relating to your experience with the development review process?
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 17
Development Review Process Survey
EXTERNAL SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
HELP IMPROVE THE CITY’S
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS
Dear Customer,
The City of Carlsbad is undertaking a comprehensive review of the City’s development review
process. Our primary objective is to improve customer service by deleting steps from the
development review process that do not add value.
Our commitment to quality customer service means we are willing to change the way we do
business to make the process more effective.
The City requests your assistance in assessing our development review process by completing
the following survey. The results of this survey will assist us in identiwing measures to improve
our customer service. It would be greatly appreciated if you would complete the following
confidential survey as soon as possible. In order for us to consider your input, please return it in
the enclosed postage-paid return envelope by December 22, 2004. If you would like to talk to
someone regarding this survey, please feel free to contact Chris DeCerbo at (760) 602-461 1.
We will provide you a copy of the survey results.
Thank you for your time and assistance.
Sincerely,
SANDRA L. HOLDER
Community Development Director
- Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 18
Development Review Process Survey
1.
2.
3.
4.
Which City Departments have you worked with? (Check all that apply) 0 Planning . 0 Fire Prevention 0 Engineering 0 Building 0 Housing and Redevelopment - 0 Other -
Check the box for the category that best describes your situation. 0 Homeowner 0 Architect 0 Contractor
Engineer 0 Consultant 0 Business Person 0 Developer 0 Other
Over the past 2 years, approximately how many permits have you processed In
the City of Carlsbad?
What type@) of permit@) did you process in the City of Carlsbad?
Preliminarv Review Application
Preliminary Review
Maior Discretionarv Permits that require approval by the Planning Commission
and/or City Council such as:
0 Tentative Map Conditional Use Permit
Conditional Use Permit Extension 0 Coastal Development Permit 0 Site Development Plan 0 Hillside Development Permit
Variance 0 Redevelopment Permit 0 Planned Unit Development 0 Other
Administrative Discretionarv Permits that require approval by the Planning
Director, City Engineer, or Housing and Redevelopment Director such as:
0 Planned Industrial Permit Minor Subdivision 0 Administrative Variance 0 Lot Line Adjustment
Minor Coastal Development Permit Minor Redevelopment Permit 0 Other
Ministerial Permits that require plan-check approval such as:
0 Building Permit 0 Sign Permit Grading Permit 0 Business License 0 Final Map 0 Encroachment Permit 0 Landscape Plan 0 Other
- Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 19
Development Review Process Suwe y
5. For each of the following statements, please rate the City of Carlsbad’s
development review process by circling the number that best describes your
experience:
Strongly Strongly
Disaqree Aqree
Overall, the development review process was “user
friendly.” 1 2 3 4 5
The process was timely. 1 2 3 4 5
The process was clear and understandable. 1 2 3 4 5
Major issues were clearly identified up front. 1 2 3 4 5
Identified issues were efficiently resolved. 1 2 3 4 5
6. Do you have any recommendations to offer for improving the development review
process?
7. Specifically, are there any required steps or permits in the City of Carlsbad’s
development review process that you believe do not add value, and therefore
should be considered for elimination? Please explain your responses.
8. Do you have any additional comments or suggestions relating to your experience
with the development review process?
Volume 1 -January, 2004 Page 20
~~ -
Development Review Process Survev
APPENDIX B
LIST OF RESOURCES
L
Volume 7 -January, 2004 Page 21
DeveloDment Review Process Survev
LIST OF RESOURCES
City of Carlsbad Customer Service Team. Citv of Carlsbad Survev Guidebook:
Measurinq Customer Service, July, 2001
Van Houten, Therese. How to Conduct a Citizen Survev, American Planning
Association. November, 1987
Arimes, George N. Manaqer’s Planning Guide to lmprovinq the Develooment Review
System. American Institute of Certified Planners, American Planning
Association, 2003
City of Carlsbad Community Development. Your Feedback Helps: Customer Service
Survev.
Social and Behavioral Research Institute. Carlsbad Performance Measurement Survey
Report. March 2002
Social and Behavioral Research Institute. Citv of Carlsbad 2003 Public Opinion Survey
Report. March 2003
City of San Diego Development Services Department. Customer Satisfaction Survev 1
City of San Diego Development Services Department. Customer Satisfaction Survev 2
California Coastal Planners Survey, April 2002
-
Page 22 - Volume 1 -January, 2004
c
c
c-
c
c
c
Development Review
Process Survey
Recommended Priorities
April 2004
Volume 2
Development Review Process Survey
Recommended Priorities
January 2004
City of Carlsbad
Goal 403
Planning Department
Team Members:
Don Neu
Chris DeCerbo
Gary T. Barberio
Development Review Process Survev Recommended Priorities
Table of Contents
Executive Summary 1
Priority 1 3
Administrative Changes (Planning) 3
Administrative Changes (Building) 3
Administrative Changes (Engineering) 3
Administrative Changes (Fire) 3
Administrative Changes (Planning/City Attorney) 3
Administrative Changes (PlanninglEngineering) 3
Administrative Changes ( PlanninglCommunications) 4
Administrative Changes (City Attorney/Fire) 4
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Fire) 4
Administrative Changes (Planning/Building/Engineering) 4
Administrative Changes (PlanninglCity Attorney/Engineering/Fire) 4
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Fire/Building) 4
Code Changes (PlanningKity Attorney) 4
Code Changes (PlanningKity Attorney/Housing & Redevelopment)
Code Changes (Planning /Fire/Parks/City Attorney)
City Council Policy Changes (Planning)
5
5
5 Organizational (PlanninglCity Attorney) 6
Organizational (Community Development/Public Works) 6
Organizational (All Community Development Depts./Engineering/Fire) 6
Priority 2 Administrative Changes (Planning) 7
Administrative Changes (Engineering) 7
Administrative Changes (Engineering/Building) 7
Administrative Changes (Planning/Building/Engineering) 7
Code Changes (Planning/City Attorney) 7
City Council Policy Changes (PlanningKity Attorney/Engineering) Organizational (Community DevelopmentlPlanning) 7
Organizational (Community DevelopmentlBuilding) a
7
Priority 3 Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering) 9
Administrative Changes (Planning/City Attorney/Engineering) 9
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Fire) 9
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Building/Fire) 9
Code Changes (PlanningKity Attorney) 9
Code Changes (Community Development/Planning/City Attorney)
City Council Policy Changes (Housing & Redevelopment)
City Council Policy Changes (Planning/EngineeringlFire) Organizational (Community Development/ Planning) 10
9
10
10
Already Assigned or On-Going Planning 11
PlanninglEngineering 11
PlanninglEng ineering/Fire 11
Planning/Eng ineering/Building 11
Volume 2 - March, 2004 Page i
Development Review Process Survev - Recommended Priorities
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
BACKGROUND
VOLUME 1
Development Review Process Survey
Survey Results
January 2004
In December of 2003 and January of 2004, the Carlsbad Planning Department completed the
Development Review Process Survey. The survey was conducted to comprehensively assess
the City’s development review process. The City’s primary objective in conducting the survey
and completing the assessment was to improve customer service by deleting steps from the
development review process that do not add value, while balancing the opportunities for
community input. The results of the Development Review Process Survey are summarized in
Volume 1, Survey Results, dated January 2004.
The survey addressed the experiences of customers familiar with the City’s development review
process. Two separate surveys were conducted, one for internal customers and one for
external customers. Each group was sent a different questionnaire with distinct questions. The
Internal customers consisted of City staff members from the Community Development
(Building, Economic Development, Housing and Redevelopment, and Planning), Fire (Fire
Prevention), and Public Works (Engineering and Engineering Development Services)
Departments who are experienced with the City’s development review process. The external
customers consisted of private individuals or companies (Architects, Business Persons,
Consultants, Contractors, Developers, Engineers, and Homeowners) who have had at least one
experience with the City’s development review process over the past two years (2002 and
2003).
The internal survey was sent in early December 2003 to sixty-two (62) City staff members. A
total of twenty-six (26) responses were received, for a response rate of forty-two percent (42%).
In general, internal survey respondents were very familiar with the City’s development review
process. Most respondents were able to exhaustively identify numerous and specific issue
areas that will need to be further evaluated to determine whether or not they add value to the
development review process and should be considered for elimination.
The external survey was sent in early December 2003 to one hundred twenty-nine (129)
external customers. The survey was mailed to all recipients and included a postage-paid return
envelope to ensure anonymity. A total of forty (40) responses were received, for a response
rate of thirty-one percent (31 Yo). In general, external survey respondents were less familiar with
the City’s development review process and provided less specific responses than did
respondents to the internal survey. Most respondents were generally “satisfied” with the City’s
development review process, with over forty-seven percent (47%) of respondents indicating
they “agree” or “strongly agree”, while only twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents
indicating they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” (Question #5 of the External Survey) with the
quality of the City’s development review process.
A vast majority, approximately eighty percent (80%), of the external survey respondents were
directly related to the development industry (developer, architect, consultant, or contractor) and
Volume 2 -April, 2004 Page 7
Development Review Process Survey - Recommended Priorities
had worked with all of the City departments involved in the development review process
(Questions #1 and #2). No “homeowners” and only two “business persons” responded to the
external survey. Most of the respondents had processed a large variety and number of permits
(preliminary review, discretionary, administrative, and ministerial) over the past two years
(Questions #3 and #4).
VOLUME 2
Development Review Process Survey
Recommended Priorities
April 2004
In March and April of 2004, an expanded team of City staff members very familiar with the
City’s development review process was convened to develop a recommended priority list based
on the internal and external survey results summarized in Volume 1. The expanded team
consisted of representatives from the Building Department, City Attorney’s Office, Engineering
Development Services, Fire Prevention, and the Planning Department. The expanded team
concluded their work with the development of Volume 2, Recommended Priorities, dated April
2004.
Volume 2 includes a recommended priority list for the combined (both internal and external)
survey results summarized in Volume 1. It is organized utilizing three levels of priority (Priority
1, 2, and 3), with Priority 1 results being the highest priority and Priority 3 results being the
lowest priority. It also includes an “already assigned or on-going” category, into which survey
result areas that the City was already in the process of reviewing were placed. Within each
priority level the survey results were further categorized by the type of change they represented
(administrative, municipal code, City Council policy, or organizational) and by which affected
City departments would be involved with each potential change. Survey results that were
included on more than one survey response form have been denoted in Volume 2 by indicating
the number of multiple responses within parentheses (Le. (2) represents that that particular
survey result was included on two survey response forms).
The expanded team developed the recommended priority list utilizing the stated objectives of
the survey, which was “to improve customer service by deleting steps from the development
review process that do not add value, while balancing the opportunities for community input”, as
criteria in recommending priority levels. The expanded team also considered the number of
multiple survey responses, as well as the City’s ability to implement a survey recommendation.
Many of the survey recommendations involve multiple departments and a concerted effort on
the part of the City’s leadership will be necessary in order to achieve implementation of many of
the survey recommendations.
Volume 2 -April, 2004 Page 2
Development Review Process Survev - Recommended Priorities
DEVELOPMENT REVIEW PROCESS SURVEY
RECOMMENDED PRIORITIES
PRIORITY 1
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
A.
8.
C.
D.
E.
F.
Planning
1.
2.
3.
4.
Projects should be assigned to the same planner that did the preliminary review.
(2) Put critical dates/project processing calendar into the application submittal/
information package.
Streamline the staff report review process.
Evaluate whether photo-simulation exhibits should not be required until a final
plan is agreed upon.
Building
1. The Building Department should route ESGIL comments to applicants at the
same time that plan check comments from other City departments are sent.
ESGIL should not send plan check comments directly to applicants.
The Building Department should have plan submittal requirements. If plans do
not meet the requirements established they should not be accepted.
2.
Engineering
1.
2.
Expedite the permit process for small grading plans (e 100 cu/yds) from 2-4
months to 2-3 days.
Expedite the process for single family grading permits (to e 3 mos).
Fire
1. The Fire Prevention Division should consider reviewing comments sent to the
Planning Department so that there is consistency in the comments provided to
project applicants.
PlanningKity Attorney
1 .
2.
3.
Eliminate CUP extensions/expiration dates. (1 4)
Delete the requirement for CUPS for minor accessory structures in existing City
parks and facilities.
Combine approvals for multi-application projects into a single-resolution format.
Planning/Engineering
1. A more effective way of tracking the status of each project is needed.
Volume 2 -April, 2004 Page 3
Development Review Process Survev - Recommended Priorities
2. The interdepartmental coordination of grading plans for non-discretionary
projects (i.e. SFD) that involve habitat needs to improved so that HMPKEQA is
not overlooked and then becomes a late hit.
G. PlanningICommunications
1. Prepare more informative handouts and website information regarding permit
processing requirements, timeframes, submittal requirements, consistency with
the goals of the General Plan, etc.
H. City Attorney/Fire
1. Fire Prevention should develop standard conditions that are approved by the City
Attorney’s Office.
1. Planning/Engineering/Fire
1.
2.
Project re-submittals should not necessitate a full 30-day review. (8)
Staff should spend more time considering and discussing project issues prior to
mailing an issues letter. In order to avoid conflicting recommendations, the
comments of planning, engineering, and fire should be discussed and
coordinated prior to issuing a project issues letter. (3)
Staff should be clear in communicating what specific project revisions are
needed or wanted. Where applicable, provide examples of how you want things
to look.
3.
J. PlanningIBuildingIEngineering
1.
2.
Additional sets of building plans should be required so that all departments can
be plan checking concurrently. (4)
Consider establishing maximum plan check times.
K. PlanningKity Attorney/Engineering /Fire
c
1.
2.
The Critical Dates Calendar should be streamlined. (4)
Comments from the City Attorney should be incorporated into the staff report and
resolutions prior to the DCC copy being sent to project applicants.
L. Planning/Engineering/Fire/Building
1. Establish a consistent policy for returning phone calls and e-mails in a timely
manner. (3)
A. Planning/City Attorney
1. Make stealth cell facilities in preferred (non-residential) zones an Administrative
Permit rather than a CUP. (8)
Volume 2 - April, 2004 Page 4
Development Review Process Survey - Recommended Priorities
2. The City should pursue obtaining a Categorical Exclusion Order from the
California Coastal Commission to exempt single-family dwellings and minor
additions from the requirement to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. (8)
Review Chapter 21.42 (CUP) to determine if all of the uses listed need a CUP.
Planning Department Administrative Policies and the H Drive’ interpretations
should be incorporated into the code if needed or if no longer applicable deleted.
Modify the code so that the City Council does not need to approve the use of
Second Dwelling Units to satisfy the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. (2)
Public noticing requirements should be evaluated. Adjacent property owners get
frustrated when they receive notice of administrative permits for projects that if
they meet the standards of the code will be approved despite objections from
neighbors.
The dollar amount for minor coastal development permits should be increased to
reflect current costs.
3.
4. (7)
(2) 5.
6.
7.
B Planning/City Attorney/ Housing & Redevelopment
1. Evaluate the need to require a Site Development Plan for Second Dwelling Units.
C. Planning/Fire/Parks/City Attorney
1. Review and update the fire suppression zone requirements and implementation.
CITY COUNCIL POLICY CHANGES
A. Planning
1. Enhance the in-fill development noticing and public participation procedures and
require developer/applicantwner to initiate neighbor-hood outreach prior to
project application.
Require a mandatory neighborhood meeting prior to a PC meeting for infill
projects. (3)
2.
’ H Drive is internal to the Planning Department computer directories
Volume 2 - April, 2004 Page 5
Development Review Process Survey - Recommended Priorities
ORGANIZATIONAL
A. PlanninglCity Attorney
1.
2.
3.
The City Attorney’s Off ice should be involved in the environmentaVproject review
process prior to the DCC report review. (5)
Over-extensive attorney review - let planning have the final say on our projects.
Attorney comments should not over-rule planning’s decisions. (2)
A clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the City Attorney’s staff in
relation to the roles and responsibilities of the Planning Department staff is
needed. The legal staff should generally be less involved in project decisions
and more involved in proposed code revisions. (2)
B. Community DevelopmenVPublic Works
1. Consider increased staffing in the Public Works-Engineering-Land Use Review
Division. (3)
2. The Land Use Review Section of the Engineering Department should be under
the Community Development Department. (2)
C. All Community Development DeptsJEngineeringlFire
1.
2.
All departments involved in project review should commit to complying with the
Permit Streamlining Act Requirements. (3)
Eliminate late hits in the field by doing more complete plan checks.
Volume 2 - April, 2004 Page 6
Development Review Process Survey - Recommended Priorities -
PRIORITY 2 -
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
- A.
B.
C.
D.
Planning
1. Revaluate the formathontent of staff reports.
Engineering
1.
2.
Streamline the precise grading plan review and approval process.
Increase the processing time for Engineering plan checks for other departments
from the present 2 weeks.
Engineering/Building
1. Expedite the process for review and approval of project field changes. Rather
than requiring plans to be consistently updated to reflect field changes before
inspectors will inspect for the next phase, allow project revisions to be shown and
approved on an 8.5 x 11.
Planning/Building/Engineering
1. Provide a flowchart of the permit process with an approximate timeline.
CODE CHANGES
A. Planning/City Attorney
1.
2.
3. 4. Eliminate Satellite Antenna Permits.
5.
Evaluate the permits required by the City to determine if any presently requiring
a public hearing can be changed to be administrative or ministerial permits. (6)
Evaluate the need for the Special Use Permit for the El Camino Real Corridor.
Obtain Coastal Development Permit authority in the Agua Hedionda LCP area.
Eliminate sign permits for commercial real estate signs.
CITY COUNCIL POLICY CHANGES
- A. Planning/City Attorney/Engineering
1. Reevaluate the need for City Council approval of projects over 50 units.
ORGANIZATIONAL -
A. Community DevelopmentlPlanning -
1. Consider hiring another full-time planning technician to work at the front counter.
The Building and Engineering Departments employ 3 full-time staff at the
Development Services Counter.
Volume 2 -April, 2004 Page 7
Development Review Process Survey - Recommended Priorities
B. Community DevelopmentlBuilding
1. Consider not outsourcing building plan checks to Esgil. (2)
Volume 2 -April, 2004 Page 8
Development Review Process Survev - Recommended Priorities
PRIORITY 3
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
A. PlanningEngineering
1. Evaluate the Preliminary Review Process. It might be more timely and effective
to meet with potential project applicants, rather than take in an application and
prepare written correspondence.
B. Planning/City Attorney/Engineering
1. Eliminate annual reviews of CUPS. (4)
C. Planning/Engineering/Fire
1. A small team should be set up to process projects, which could be fast-tracked
(Coastal Development Permits, etc.).
D. Planning/Engineering/Building/Fire
1. Develop a single project submittal checklist that addresses all of the various . permit types.
CODE CHANGES
A. Planning/City Attorney
1.
2.
The Code (Title 21) needs to be updated and reformatted. The update should
address the numerous existing inconsistencies between the chapters. The
reformatting should a) create a consistent general format for all of the various
chapters which have the same basic structure to make it easier to find
information and more readableheable. The terminology should be evaluated to
be more consistent between the various chapters. Finally tables and other
graphics should be incorporated where they will contribute to better readability
than text. (14)
There are too many types of discretionary permits. Reduce the number of
permits to one - “Carlsbad Development Permit.” An alternative would be to
reduce the number of different permits to three: subdivision maps, site
development plans, and conditional use permits. (1 1 )
.
B. Community Development/Planning/City Attorney
1. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to provide more flexibility. (5)
2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate standards from other City policy
documents. (2)
- Volume 2 - April, 2004 Page 9
Development Review Process Survey - Recommended Priorities
CITY COUNCIL POLICY CHANGES
A. Housing & Redevelopment
1. Consider developing an affordable housing project in the Northwest quadrant
where developers can purchase housing credits for small projects.
B. PI ann i ng/Eng i neer i ng/Fi re
1. Consider allowing staff to “condition” some issues for resolution versus having to
wait for the applicant to “come around.” (2)
ORGANIZATIONAL
A. Community DevelopmenVPlanning
1. Establish regular meetings (quarterly) with the Coastal Commission staff to
achieve a new level of positive interaction.
Volume 2 -April, 2004 Page 10
Development Review Process Survev - Recommended Priorities
ALREADY ASSIGNED OR ON-GOING
A. Planning
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
a.
9.
10.
General Plan and Zoning mapping inconsistency issues need to be resolved. (2)
Revamp the zoning ordinance by putting lists of permitted uses in a matrix
format.
Eliminate Chapter 21.42 list of conditional uses and place in the zones.
Update the Planned Development Ordinance (e.g. what is the needdiff erence
between a Condo Permit and a Planned Development Permit).
Revise the zoning map to identify the boundaries and number of each specific
plan and master plan.
Place a field in Permits Plus that identifies the specific plan or master plan
applicable to individual properties.
Specific Plans and Master Plans, sign programs, etc. kept at the counter need to
be kept up to date.
Empower the front counter employees to provide immediate feedback without
the need to take the question to a “Team Meeting.”
Evaluate City Council Policy 44 to determine if a Floor Area Ratio requirement
would better address City Council and community concerns and be easier for
staff to implement. Evaluate guidelines applicable to additions to single-family
homes.
The applications need to be placed on the City’s web site. A timetable explaining
the discretionary review process could possibly be helpful.
B. Planning/Engineering
1. Require that the project planner and engineer visit the site within the first 30-day
review period.
C. Planning/Engineering/Fire
1. Evaluate City Council Policy 44 to determine if a Floor Area Ratio requirement
would better address City Council and community concerns and be easier for
staff to implement.
The project planner/engineer/fire should schedule a face-to-face meeting with
the applicant to clearly discuss project issues and process timeline after the
distribution of the project issue letter.
Offer regular meetings where developers can sit down with staff in the “Concept”
or early phases of a project.
Implement a better interdepartmental scoping process at the beginning of large,
complicated projects. Get commitments from all departments to meet deadlines.
Conduct face-to-face meetings with applicants on preliminary review projects.
Evaluate ways to use “digital technology” more effectively.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
D. Planning/Engineering/Building
1.
2.
Tell people more than they ask. Planners, engineers and building department counter staff need to know each
other’s jobs so the public can be properly referred to each department.
Volume 2 -April, 2004 Page 11
c Development Review
Process Survey c
c
c Implementation Plan
c June 2004
,
c Volume 3
Development Review Process Survey
Implementation Plan
June 2004
City of Carlsbad
Goal 403
Planning Department
Team Members:
Don Neu
Chris DeCerbo
Gary T. Barberio
c
._
Development Review Process Survey - Implementation Plan
Table of Contents
Background Volume 1 1
Volume 2 2
Priority 1 4
Administrative Changes (Planning) 4
Administrative Changes (Building) 4
Administrative Changes (Engineering) 4
Administrative Changes (Fire) 5
Administrative Changes (Planning/City Attorney) 5
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering) 5
Administrative Changes (Planning/Communications) 6
Administrative Changes (City Attorney/Fire) 6
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Fire) 6
Administrative Changes (Planning/Building/Engineering) 6
Administrative Changes (Planning/City Attorney/Engineering/Fire) 7
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Fire/Building) 7
Code Changes (PlanningEity Attorney) 7
Code Changes (PlanningKity Attorney/Housing & Redevelopment)
Code Changes (Planning /Fire/Parks/City Attorney)
City Council Policy Changes (Planning)
8
8
8 Organizational (PlanningKity Attorney) 9
Organizational (Community DevelopmentlPublic Works) 9
Organizational (All Community Development Depts./Engineering/Fire) 10
Priority 2 Administrative Changes (Planning) 11
Administrative Changes (Engineering) 11
Administrative Changes (Engineering/Building) 11
Administrative Changes (Planning/Building/Engineering) 11
Code Changes (PlanningKity Attorney) 12
City Council Policy Changes (PlanningKity Attorney/Engineering) Organizational (Community DevelopmentlPlanning) 12 12
Organizational (Community DevelopmentlBuilding) 13
Priority 3 Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering) 14
Administrative Changes (Planning/City Attorney/Engineering) 14
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Fire) 14
Administrative Changes (Planning/Engineering/Building/Fire) 14
Code Changes (PlanningKity Attorney) 15
Code Changes (Community Development/Planning/City Attorney) 15 City Council Policy Changes (Housing & Redevelopment) 15
City Council Policy Changes (Planning/Engineering/Fire) 16 Organizational (Community Development/ Planning) 16
Already Assigned or On-Going Planning 17
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page i
Development Review Process Survev - Implementation Plan
PlanningEngineering 18
Planning/Engineering/Fire 18
Planning/Engineering/Building 19
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page ii
Development Review Process Suwev - Implementation Plan
BACKGROUND
VOLUME 1
Development Review Process Survey
Survey Results
Januarv 2004
In December of 2003 and January of 2004, the Carlsbad Planning Department completed the
Development Review Process Survey. The survey was conducted to comprehensively assess
the City’s development review process. The City’s primary objective in conducting the survey
and completing the assessment was to improve customer service by deleting steps from the
development review process that do not add value, while balancing the opportunities for
community input. The results of the Development Review Process Survey are summarized in
Volume 1, Survey Results, dated January 2004.
The survey addressed the experiences of customers familiar with the City’s development review
process. Two separate surveys were conducted, one for internal customers and one for
external customers. Each group was sent a different questionnaire with distinct questions. The
Internal customers consisted of City staff members from the Community Development (Building,
Economic Development, Housing and Redevelopment, and Planning), Fire (Fire Prevention),
and Public Works (Engineering and Engineering Development Services) Departments who are
experienced with the City’s development review process. The external customers consisted of
private individuals or companies (Architects, Business Persons, Consultants, Contractors,
Developers, Engineers, and Homeowners) who have had at least one experience with the City’s
development review process over the past two years (2002 and 2003).
The internal survey was sent in early December 2003 to sixty-two (62) City staff members. A
total of twenty-six (26) responses were received, for a response rate of forty-two percent (42%).
In general, internal survey respondents were very familiar with the City’s development review
process. Most respondents were able to exhaustively identify numerous and specific issue
areas that will need to be further evaluated to determine whether or not they add value to the
development review process and should be considered for elimination.
The external survey was sent in early December 2003 to one hundred twenty-nine (129)
external customers. The survey was mailed to all recipients and included a postage-paid return
envelope to ensure anonymity. A total of forty (40) responses were received, for a response
rate of thirty-one percent (31 %). In general, external survey respondents were less familiar with
the City’s development review process and provided less specific responses than did
respondents to the internal survey. Most respondents were generally “satisfied” with the City’s
development review process, with over forty-seven percent (47%) of respondents indicating
they “agree” or “strongly agree”, while only twenty-seven percent (27%) of respondents
indicating they “disagree” or “strongly disagree” (Question #5 of the External Survey) with the
quality of the City’s development review process.
A vast majority, approximately eighty percent (80%), of the external survey respondents were
directly related to the development industry (developer, architect, consultant, or contractor) and
had worked with all of the City departments involved in the development review process
(Questions #1 and #2). No “homeowners” and only two “business persons” responded to the
Volume 3 - June, 2004 Page 1
Development Review Process Survev - Implementation Plan
external survey. Most of the respondents had processed a large variety and number of permits
(preliminary review, discretionary, administrative, and ministerial) over the past two years
(Questions #3 and #4).
VOLUME 2
Development Review Process Survey Recommended Priorities
ADril2004
In March and April of 2004, an expanded team of City staff members very familiar with the City’s
development review process was convened to develop a recommended priority list based on
the internal and external survey results summarized in Volume 1. The expanded team
consisted of representatives from the Building Department, City Attorney’s Off ice, Engineering
Development Services, Fire Prevention, and the Planning Department. The expanded team
concluded their work with the development of Volume 2, Recommended Priorities, dated April
2004.
Volume 2 includes a recommended priority list for the combined (both internal and external)
survey results summarized in Volume 1. It is organized utilizing three levels of priority (Priority
1, 2, and 3), with Priority 1 results being the highest priority and Priority 3 results being the
lowest priority. It also includes an “already assigned or on-going” category, into which survey
result areas that the City was already in the process of reviewing were placed. Within each
priority level the survey results were further categorized by the type of change they represented
(administrative, municipal code, City Council policy, or organizational) and by which affected
City departments would be involved with each potential change. Survey results that were
included on more than one survey response form have been denoted in Volume 2 by indicating
the number of multiple responses within parentheses (i.e. (2) represents that that particular
survey result was included on two survey response forms).
The expanded team developed the recommended priority list utilizing the stated objectives of the survey, which was “to improve customer service by deleting steps from the development
review process that do not add value, while balancing the opportunities for community input”, as
criteria in recommending priority levels. The expanded team also considered the number of
multiple survey responses, as well as the City’s ability to implement a survey recommendation.
Many of the survey recommendations involve multiple departments and a concerted effort on
the part of the City’s leadership will be necessary in order to achieve implementation of many of
the survey recommendations.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 2
Development Review Process Survey - Implementation Plan
VOLUME 3
Development Review Process Survey Implementation Plan
June 2004
In June of 2004 the Carlsbad Planning Department utilized the survey results of Volume 1 and
the recommended priorities of Volume 2 to develop an implementation plan. This work effoit
resulted in the completion of Volume 3, Implementation Plan, dated June 2004.
Volume 3 provides a description of the current implementation status for each item identified in
the Volume 2 recommended priority list. The current status is denoted in italics below each item
in the priority list. In addition, for each recommended priority item categorized in Volume 2 as a
code change, the applicable Carlsbad Municipal Code Chapter, or other appropriate City
document, has also been referenced.
The objective of Volume 3 is to serve as a tool to guide the City in implementing the
recommended priorities identified in Volume 2. It is a “dynamic” document, with the idea that
the status or envisioned course of action for each recommended priority may change over time.
Volume 3 - June, 2004 Page 3
Development Review Process Survev - Implementation Plan
Priority 1
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
A. Planning
1. Projects should be assigned to the same planner that did the preliminary review. (2)
Status: Complete. Added language to the Preliminary Review Application and
implement through management practice.
2. Put critical datedproject processing calendar into the application submittal/
information package.
Status: Complete. Added to application package.
3. Streamline the staff report review process.
Status: Complete. Revised Critical Dates Calendar to streamline/reduce the
staff report review process by I I percent.
4. Evaluate whether photo-simulation exhibits should not be required until a final plan is
agreed upon.
Status: Complete. Revised application submittal requirements such that photo-
simulation exhibits are not required until a project is deemed complete.
B. Building
1. The Building Department should route ESGIL comments to applicants at the same
time that plan check comments from other City departments are sent. ESGIL should
not send plan check comments directly to applicants.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
2. The Building Department should have plan submittal requirements. If plans do not
meet the requirements established they should not be accepted.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
C. Engineering
1. Expedite the permit process for small grading plans (c 100 cdyds) from 2-4 months
to 2-3 days.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 4
DeveloDment Review Process Survev - lmdementation Plan
2. Expedite the process for single family grading permits (to e 3 mos.).
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
D. Fire
1. The Fire Prevention Division should consider reviewing comments sent to the
Planning Department so that there is consistency in the comments provided to
project applicants.
Status: Complete. Current practice of the Fire Prevention Division.
E. Planning/City Attorney
1 Eliminate CUP extensions/expiration dates. (1 4)
Status: To be evaluated with Goal 464 (FY04/05).
2. Delete the requirement for CUPS for minor accessory structures in existing City
parks and facilities.
Status: To be evaluated with Goal 464 (FY04/05).
3. Combine approvals for multi-application projects into a single-resolution format.
Status: Pending action on ZCA 02-03, which will address approval authority for
multi-permit applications.
F. Planning/Engineering
1. A more effective way of tracking the status of each project is needed.
Status: Underway,
trackingproject log revisions.
Planning Department administrative staff is completing
2. The interdepartmental coordination of grading plans for non-discretionary projects
(i.e. SFD) that involve habitat needs to improved so that HMP/CEQA is not
overlooked and then becomes a late hit.
Status: Pending HMP approval and completion of HMP implementation policies
as a part of Goal 469 (FY04/05).
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 5
Development Review Process Survev - Implementation Plan
G. PlanningKommunications
1. Prepare more informative handouts and website information regarding permit
processing requirements, timeframes, submittal requirements, consistency with the
goals of the General Plan, etc.
Status: Complete. All planning applications have been re-formatted and placed
on the City website.
H. City Attorney/Fire
1. Fire Prevention should develop standard conditions that are approved by the City
Attorney’s Off ice.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
I. Planning/Engineering/Fire
1. Project re-submittals should not necessitate a full 30-day review. (8)
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
improvement.
2. Staff should spend more time considering and discussing project issues prior to
mailing an issues letter. In order to avoid conflicting recommendations, the
comments of planning, engineering, and fire should be discussed and coordinated
prior to issuing a project issues letter. (3)
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
improvement.
3. Staff should be clear in communicating what specific project revisions are needed or
wanted. Where applicable, provide examples of how you want things to look.
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
improvement.
J. Planning/Building/Engineering
1. Additional sets of building plans should be required so that all departments can be
plan checking concurrently. (4)
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 6
Development Review Process survey - lmrPlementation Plan
2. Consider establishing maximum plan check times.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
K. PlanningKity Attorney/Engineering/Fire
1. The Critical Dates Calendar should be streamlined. (4)
Status: Complete. Revised Critical Dates Calendar to streamlindreduce the
staff report review process by 1 1 percent.
2. Comments from the City Attorney should be incorporated into the staff report and
resolutions prior to the DCC copy being sent to project applicants.
Status: Complete. Revised Critical Dates Calendar to incorporate City Attorney
comments into staff repott prior to the DCC reports being sent to the applicant. .
L. Planning/Engineering/Fire/Building
1. Establish a consistent policy for returning phone calls and e-mails in a timely
manner. (3)
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
CODE CHANGES
A. PlanningKity Attorney
1. Make stealth cell facilities II I preferred (non-residential) zones an Administrative
Permit rather than a CUP. (8)
Status: To be evaluated as directed by the City Council (Resolution No. 2004-
182) as part of proposed changes to City Council Policy No. 64 and the
Carlsbad Municipal Code (Chapter 2 1.42) and as a part of Goal 464 (FY 04/05).
2. The City should pursue obtaining a Categorical Exclusion Order from the California
Coastal Commission to exempt single-family dwellings and minor additions from the
requirement to obtain a Coastal Development Permit. (8)
Status: To be determined by affected departments (CMC Chapter 21.201).
Planning Department is also tracking the status of a Categorical Exclusion Order
request by the City of Encinitas.
3. Review Chapter 21.42 (CUP) to determine if all of the uses listed need a CUP. (7)
Status: To be evaluated with Goal 464 (FY 04/05) (CMC Chapter 21.42).
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 7
Development Review Process Survev - Implementation Plan
4. Planning Department Administrative Policies and the H Drive’ interpretations should
be incorporated into the code if needed or if no longer applicable deleted. (2)
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
5. Modify the code so that the City Council does not need to approve the use of
Second Dwelling Units to satisfy the lnclusionary Housing Ordinance. (2)
Status: To be determined by affected departments (CMC Chapter 2 1.85).
6. Public noticing requirements should be evaluated. Adjacent property owners get
frustrated when they receive notice of administrative permits for projects that if they
meet the standards of the code will be approved despite objections from neighbors.
Status: To be evaluated with Goal 475 (04/05) and City Council directed Special
Study (SS 03-04) (CMC Chapter 2 1.54).
7. The dollar amount for minor coastal development permits should be increased to
reflect current costs.
Status: To be determined by affected departments (CMC Chapter 21.201).
6. Planning/City Attorney/Housing & Redevelopment
1. Evaluate the need to require a Site Development Plan for Second Dwelling Units.
Status: To be determined by affected departments (CMC Chapter 21.85).
C. Planning/Fire/Parks/City Attorney
1. Review and update the fire suppression zone requirements and implementation.
Status: To be evaluated with Goal 486 (FY 04/05) (City of Carlsbad Landscape
Manual).
CITY COUNCIL POLICY CHANGES
A. Planning
1. Enhance the in-fill development noticing and public participation procedures and
require developer/applicant/owner to initiate neighbor-hood outreach prior to project
application.
Status: To be evaluated with Goal 475 (04/05) and City Council directed Special
Study (SS 03-04) (CMC Chapter 21.54).
Volume 3 -Junk 2004 Page 8
DeveloDment Review Process Survey - Implementation Plan
2. Require a mandatory neighborhood meeting prior to a PC meeting for infill projects.
(3)
Status: To be evaluated with Goal 475 (04/05) and City Council directed Special
Study (SS 03-04) (CMC Chapter 21.54).
ORGANIZATIONAL
A. Planning/City Attorney
1. The City Attorney’s Office should be involved in the environmentaVproject review
process prior to the DCC report review. (5)
Status: Complete. Revised Critical Dates Calendar to incorporate City Attorney
comments into staff report prior to the DCC reports being sent to the applicant.
2. Over-extensive attorney review - let planning have the final say on our projects.
Attorney comments should not over-rule planning’s decisions. (2)
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
3. A clear delineation of the roles and responsibilities of the City Attorney’s staff in
relation to the roles and responsibilities of the Planning Department staff is needed.
The legal staff should generally be less involved in project decisions and more
involved in proposed code revisions. (2)
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
B. Community DevelopmenVPublic Works
1. Consider increased staffing in the Public Works-Engineering-Land Use Review
Division. (3)
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
2. The Land Use Review Section of the Engineering Department should be under the
Community Development Department. (2)
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
Volume 3 - June, 2004 Page 9
Develooment Review Process Survev - Implementation Plan
C. All Community Development Departments/Engineering/Fire
1. All departments involved in project review should commit to complying with the
Permit Streamlining Act Requirements. (3)
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
2. Eliminate late hits in the field by doing more complete plan checks.
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 10
Development Review Process Survev - Imdementation Plan
PRIORITY 2
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
A. Planning
1. Revaluate the formathontent of staff reports.
Status: Ongoing, Under continuous management review and process
management.
B. Engineering
1. Streamline the precise grading plan review and approval process.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
2. Increase the processing time for Engineering plan checks for other departments from
the present 2 weeks.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
C. Engineering/Building
1. Expedite the process for review and approval of project field changes. Rather than
requiring plans to be consistently updated to reflect field changes before inspectors
will inspect for the next phase, allow project revisions to be shown and approved on
an 8.5~ 11.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
D. Planning/Building/Engineering
1. Provide a flowchart of the permit process with an approximate timeline.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 11
Development Review Process Survev - Implementation Plan
CODE CHANGES
A. PlanningKity Attorney
1. Evaluate the permits required by the City to determine if any presently requiring a
public hearing can be changed to be administrative or ministerial permits. (6)
Status: To be evaluated as directed by the City Council (Resolution No. 2004-
182) as part of proposed changes to City Council Policy No. 64 and the Carlsbad
Municipal Code (Chapter 21.42) and as a part of Goal 464 (FY 04/05).
2. Evaluate the need for the Special Use Permit for the El Camino Real Corridor.
Status: To be determined by affected departments (CMC Chapter 21.40).
3. Obtain Coastal Development Permit authority in the Agua Hedionda LCP area.
Status: To be determined by affected departments (Local Coastal Program -
Agua Hedionda Segment).
4. Eliminate Satellite Antenna Permits.
Status: To be determined by affected departments (CMC Chapter 21.53).
5. Eliminate sign permits for commercial real estate signs.
Status: To be determined by affected departments (CMC Chapter 21.4 1).
CITY COUNCIL POLICY CHANGES
A. Planning/City Attorney/Engineering
1. Reevaluate the need for City Council approval of projects over 50 units.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
ORGANIZATIONAL
A. Community DevelopmentlPlanning
1. Consider hiring another full-time planning technician to work at the front counter.
The Building and Engineering Departments employ 3 full-time staff at the
Development Services Counter.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 12
Development Review Process Survev - ImPlementation Plan
C. Community DevelopmenVBuilding
1, Consider not outsourcing building plan checks to Esgil. (2)
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 13
Development Review Process Survey - Imdementation Plan
PRIORITY 3
ADMINISTRATIVE CHANGES
A. Planning/Engineering
1. Evaluate the Prelim,,iary Review Process. It might be more timely and effective to
meet with potential project applicants, rather than take in an application and prepare
written correspondence.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
B. Planning/City Attorney/Engineering
1. Eliminate annual reviews of CUPS. (4)
Status: To be evaluated with Goal 464 (FY 04/05).
C. Planning/Engineering/Fire
1. A small team should be set up to process projects, which could be fast-tracked
(Coastal Development Permits, etc.).
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
D. Planning/Engineering/Building/Fire
1. Develop a single project submittal checklist that addresses all of the various permit
types-
Status: Partially Complete. All Planning Department applications have been re-
formatted and placed on the City website. Further changes to be determined by
affected departments.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 14
DeveloDment Review Process Survev - Implementation Plan
CODE CHANGES
A. Planning/City Attorney
1. The Code (Title 21) needs to be updated and reformatted. The update should
address the numerous existing inconsistencies between the chapters. The
reformatting should a) create a consistent general format for all of the various
chapters which have the same basic structure to make it easier to find information
and more readablehseable. The terminology should be evaluated to be more
consistent between the various chapters. Finally tables and other graphics should
be incorporated where they will contribute to better readability than text. (14)
Status: Ongoing. To be partially evaluated as part of Goal 4 16 (FY 03-04), Goal
472 (FY 04-05), and Goal 464 (FY 04/05).
2. There are too many types of discretionary permits. Reduce the number of permits to
one - “Carlsbad Development Permit.” An alternative would be to reduce the
number of different permits to three: subdivision maps, site development plans, and
conditional use permits. (1 1 )
Status: To be determined by affected depattments.
B. Community Development/Planning/City Attorney
1. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to provide more flexibility. (5)
Status: Ongoing. To be partially evaluated as a part of Goal 416 (FY 03-04),
Goal 472 (FY 04/05), and Goal 464 (FY 04/05).
2. Revise the Zoning Ordinance to incorporate standards from other City policy
documents. (2)
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
CITY COUNCIL POLICY CHANGES
A. Housing & Redevelopment
1. Consider developing an affordable housing project in the Northwest quadrant where
developers can purchase housing credits for small projects.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 15
Development Review Process Survey - Implementation Plan
B. Planning/Engineering/Fire
1. Consider allowing staff to “condition” some issues for resolution versus having to
wait for the applicant to “come around.” (2)
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
ORGANIZATIONAL
A. Community DevelopmentlPlanning
1. Establish regular meetings (quarterly) with the Coastal Commission staff to achieve
a new level of positive interaction.
Status: To be determined by affected departments.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 16
Development Review Process Survey - Implementation Plan
ALREADY ASSIGNED OR ON-GOING
A. Planning
1. General Plan and Zoning mapping inconsistency issues need to be resolved. (2)
Status: To be evaluated as a part of Goal 416 (FY 03/04), and Goal 472 (FY
04/05).
2. Revamp the zoning ordinance by putting lists of permitted uses in a matrix format.
Status: To be evaluated as a part of Goal 416 (FY 03/04), and Goal 472 (FY
04/05).
3. Eliminate Chapter 21.42 list of conditional uses and place in the zones.
Status: To be evaluated as a part of Goal 464 (FY 04/05).
4. Update the Planned Development Ordinance (e.g. what is the needdifference
between a Condo Permit and a Planned Development Permit).
Status: Underway.
Development Ordinance (CMC Chapter 2 1.45).
Planning Department currently evaluating the Planned
5. Revise the zoning map to identify the boundaries and number of each specific plan
and master plan.
Status: Underway. Planning Department currently working towards completing
this task.
6. Place a field in Permits Plus that identifies the specific plan or master plan applicable
to individual properties.
Status: Underway. Planning Department currently working towards completing
this task.
7. Specific Plans and Master Plans, sign programs, etc. kept at the counter need to be
kept up to date.
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
8. Empower the front counter employees to provide immediate feedback without the
need to take the question to a “Team Meeting.”
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 17
Development Review Process Survev - lmdementation Plan
9. Evaluate City Council Policy 44 to determine if a Floor Area Ratio requirement would
better address City Council and community concerns and be easier for staff to
implement. Evaluate guidelines applicable to additions to single-family homes.
Status: Underway. City Council Policy No. 44 currently under review by the
Planning Department and Planning Commission to consider recommending
amendments to the City Council.
10. The applications need to be placed on the City’s web site. A timetable explaining the
discretionary review process could possibly be helpful.
Status: Complete. All Planning Department applications have been re-formatted
and placed on the City website.
B. PlanningEngineering
1. Require that the project planner and engineer visit the site within the first 30-day
review period.
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
C. Planning/Engineering/Fire
1 . The project plannedengineedfire should schedule a face-to-face meeting with the
applicant to clearly discuss project issues and process timeline after the distribution
of the project issue letter.
Status: Ongoing. The current Planning Department Preliminary Review
response letter practice is to offer to schedule meetings with the applicant at their
request.
2. Offer regular meetings where developers can sit down with staff in the “Concept” or
early phases of a project.
Status: Ongoing.
schedule meetings with an applicant at their request.
The current Planning Department practice is to offer to
3. Implement a better interdepartmental scoping process at the beginning of large, complicated projects. Get commitments from all departments to meet deadlines.
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
Volume 3 -June, 2004 Page 18
Development Review Process Survev - Implementation Plan
4. Conduct face-to-face meetings with applicants on preliminary review projects.
Status: Ongoing. The current Planning Department Preliminary Review
response letter practice is to offer to schedule meetings with the applicant at their
request.
5. Evaluate ways to use “digital technology” more effectively.
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
D. Planning/Engineering/Building
1. Tell people more than they ask.
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
2. Planners, engineers and building department counter staff need to know each
other’s jobs so the public can be properly referred to each department.
Status: Ongoing. Under continuous management review and process
management.
Volume 3 - June, 2004 Page 19
4
1 8
m C
aJ
aJ TZI
w -
aJ U > L QI
v)
L
0 w
v) 3 U
aJ > 0 L Q E -
3 : h
Q)
3
z
E Q
QI U 0"
C
'cz QI
U 3 'cz C 0
I
1-
w
U
0 0 nl
L
v)
3
tJ E 0
3 v
\
w
v)
c CF 1
T3 S 6 m 0 0 nl
6 w U
w C
Q E aJ c
0
w
w 0 ’CT aJ U
Q) > aJ v ct
QI -
L
0 w QI L 1-
U LJ
h - 0 z -L
4 - D C s G h
h Q) > L
f
I- - aJ
CG L m
v)
W 0
1- z
c
0
3
CF C
Q)
v) -
L
+.1
S 0 Q 8 L
0 tt
z 3 m w -
0
SY OaJ oov
u
rn rn a# E 3
0 -
3r
Q 3 0 b 3 QI > QI
n QI 'tJ C CF Q X W
I-
L
0
L m I- UD > I= Cr 3 fcm c1
\
d Om
L
83 0 cn C n
0 c1 8- Y
c1
L c1 vl
CG
83 C 8- f P
I- S 3 E
QI 3
rF >
D D
- z 0 U
L (F > 1- 0 II * f * 0 QI
0 3
(F
0 C
0
w 8 E! 0 Q
QI w
L
QI n a Q (F 0
b 0 h QI > L t' E 0 0
3 w OQI *E QI lclr 3Q Q S
I-
-
(F
U
W W W
Q) E 3 1 f
e
v, aJ m C
0 E +Ir I- € b
3
n
aJ -
a
0 W >r U E -1 -1 1 0 CG P aJ f a € 3 m
w E 0 N \ C ct P li ffiu L n
0- OaJ mc U it U ti
€ -1
ct > 0 W c W
\ a rVQ W
\ \
a a
h 9 E € 3
(F
S IF E
C 0
I- I
(F I C dl
II 0
IF 0
- aJ > 0
E L
S aJ € E 0 U aJ L
IF
Q IF
0 U
8 - -
mI= I (F aJ c
c I
I '5
I C
3
CT
E
0 0