Generally - What is the single biggest criticism you have about the existing LUC and related documents with respect to its organization and format?

Organization/Formatting/User Friendliness

1. Do you have trouble finding applicable provisions? Does staff hear complaints from the public about the Code?

2. Does the division of land use regulations into several documents - the LUC, Development Standards, procedures, and the design manual - cause any problems? Are there advantages to this division of relevant regulations and procedures?

3. What type of graphics (e.g., flow charts, illustrations, tables) would improve the LUC's usability?

4. Are there certain provisions (e.g., submittal requirements) that could be removed from the LUC and placed in an administrative manual to reduce the length of the document?

5. Is it easy to find relevant procedures and standards that govern a particular type of application? Why or why not?

6. Are decision-making responsibilities clear?

7. Would improved indexes, table of contents, and cross-references improve the LUC's user-friendliness? Give specific examples if possible.

8. Are certain procedures particularly troublesome (e.g., amendments to the text of the Code, conditional uses)? Are reviews actually conducted as they are described in the ordinance, or does actual practice differ from the text of the ordinance?

9. Is input received in a timely fashion from interested parties? Are changes needed in notice requirements or time allocated for reviews?

10. Does the Code strike a good balance between the need to process applications quickly and the need to keep the public informed and give them opportunities to comment on proposals? If not, what could be done to strike a better balance?

11. Are there steps in the process that could be consolidated? Eliminated? Is the review process viewed as being too slow? Too fast? How can the process be made more effective as well as efficient (i.e., speed vs. quality of reviews)?

12. How are administration and enforcement working? Are enforcement provisions clear and well organized?

13. Are standards and definitions in the Code sufficiently clear and specific? Is it clear to a reader of the Code what criteria are supposed to govern the approval or denial of different types of development applications? In not, which types of development approvals do not have specific approval criteria? Are policies from general plans and other documents utilized in project reviews?

14. Are substantive requirements coordinated with substantive requirements of other city/county codes/regulations (e.g., annexation policies)?

15. Are there existing standards or procedures that are so integrally tied to the current organization and structure of the LUC, Development Standards, and Section 23A that they will need to be revised, moved or deleted as part of the reformatting project?

16. Are there other Codes in Arizona or elsewhere that you have used or are familiar with that you would like Clarion to review as possible models in developing a format for a revised Tucson LUC?

Miscellaneous - Going beyond organization and formatting, what are the one or two most serious issues you have with the LUC's procedures? Substantive standards?