.NTYwNw.NTYwNw

CITY OF ATLANTA PLANNING DEPARTMENT OFFICIAL POSITION PAPER RELATION OF PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE AND PLANNING DEPARTMENT TO MODEL CITIES EXECUTIVE BOARD AND STAFF PROBLEM STATEMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS- - Re spe ctfully subm itte d , ~G~d~~ Planning Dire ctor February 13, 1969 �The ·purpose of this paper is to identify certain problems which have arisen in the comprehensive planning process in Atlanta over the past year. The problem centers around a misunderstanding of the responsibilities of the Mode I Cities Program staff and Executive Board in relation to the responsibilities of Planning and Development Committee and its professional staff arm, the Planning Department. In November 1967, the Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen sponsored and recommended -· approval of a resolution establishing the Model Cities Executive Board. This resolution was subseque ntly adopted by the Board and approved by the Mayor on November 20, 1967. The resolution specifically stated that 11 the Model Neighborhood Executive Board is hereby created for the purpose of administe ring the planning phase of (the Mod e l Neighborhood) program . 11 The Planning Department invested a great deal of time and effort both in preparing the Model Ne ighborhood Application and subse quently in assi sting in de ve loping the Mode l Ne ighborhood Plan. In fact, mu ch of the mate rial c ontained in al I the Model Cities re ports and applications originate d and was refined in the Pla nni ng De pa rtmen t by its sta ff personne l . It was and st i ll is our intention to work c lose ly wi th the Mode l C it ies staff in a ssur ing the success �-2- of th is program. There appears now to be a lack of understandi ng on the part of the Model Cities staff as to the role and responsibility of the Planning and Development Committee and !he Planning Department. The committee, using the department as its staff arm, is charged wi th the responsibility of reviewing al I plans and programs concerne d with urban growth, development, and redevelopment throughout the city. The Model Cities Program, on the other hand, is a spe cial purpose six neighborhood demonstration program primar ily concerned with one te nth of the city's residents and less than five per cent of the city's area . For consiste ncy sake , obviously the Planning and De velopme nt Commi ttee should review the physical programs, plans and proposals developed by this age ncy for the Mode I Neighborhood area as it wou Id review plans and programs of any other are a of the city for conformance with ove rall city po li cy and goals . The Planning Department's concern is no t control over th e Model Citie s Program. Instead, the department is simply exercising those functions for whi ch it is respo ns ibl e a s sta ff a rm to the Pl anni ng and Deve lopment Committee and as set forth in the Code of the City of Atlanta. The depar tme nt, a s a ge ne ral planning age ncy , mu st have the opportunity to rev iew plans. When in the de partmen t 's professiona I judgme nt inadv isab le proposa ls have bee n a dvoca ted that lack a ny justific ati o n in view of ex isting city po lic y, the n th e department must have the o pportunity of reporting such situations with positive re comme ndations for improve me nt to th e Planning and Deve lopm e nt Committee �-3and eventually the Board of Aldermen. We had assumed at the beginning that conflicts could be resolved through a close inter··staff relationship between the city planning agency and the Model Cities agency. Unfortunately and frequently, because of conflict commun_ications have broken down and th is has not been achieved. The source of conflict has been a disagreement over the necessary degree of conformity between Model City plans and programs and City overall goals and objectives. The Planning Department has attempted to explore and resolve this problem with the Model Cities staff. However, the Model Cities staff seems to interpret this action as a Planning Department attempt to run their program. An analysis of their lack of understanding indicates no apparent realization of the fact that the planning effort for a portion of the city should be coordinated with the city's overall planning effort. It is important to point out here that we ore not attempting to stiffle the Model Cities Program or to prevent innovative approaches to problem solving. To take such a view ignores the fact that through the leadership and effort of the Planning Department, with much assistance from oth er agencies, Atlanta was awarded one of the first Model Citi es Grants in the nation. Perhaps this whole misunderstanding is based on the Mode l Cities staff's perception of the Planning De partme nt as a I ine department. Planning transcends traditional departmental lines, is a staff function, and established responsibilities as de fined in the Code of th e City of Atlanta must be met. One of HUD 's under lying goals for the Mode l Cities Program was to bring into clear focus �-4problems in governmenta I organization. The department has been we II awa re of such prob le ms in th e Atlanta gove rnm e ntal system as witnessed in the PAS report, a product of th e Cl P and pl.anning. Though that report found fault with the governmental system, it indicated that the present system has worked very well, primarily on the basis of mutual trust and cooperation. In order to avoid further conflicts it is imperative that such a cooperative atmosphere be established. It is inadvisable that the aldermanic committee system be used at times and ignored at others, depending on which happens to serve one's purpose best at a particular time. It is difficult enough to make the system work now. The proposed approach being offered by the Model Cities Program (which is to ignore the aldermanic committee system} would invite chaos, unless a suitable and acce ptabl e ove ral I re form is accomplished. The Planning and Development Committee expressed its concern over this problem in its meeting of January 17, 1969. Chairman Cook asked the Model Cities director several questions concerning the role of the Planning and Development Committee , other aldermanic committees, and city departments in the Model Citie s Program. Mr . Johnson took the position that the Mode l Ci tie s Executive Board would report to the full Board of Aldermen through the two alderman ic membe rs of the Exe cutive Board. Th is procedure , in effect , bypasses the Planning and Deve lopment Committee and to a large extent ignores the a ldermanic standing commi ttee conc e pt unde r which the Atla nta City Government presently operates. In effect, the Model Cities area is th us �-5treated as a separate entity, apart from the total city. It offers no opportunity for the Planning and Development Committee to review Model Cities plans and to make recommendations to the Board ol Aldermen concerning plan conformity with city general plans. Chairman Cook further indicated that the Planning Department had certain reservations about physical plans for the Model Cities area and asked what role would be played by the Planning Department in further testing plans for the area. Mr. Johnson stated that he felt the physical plans for 1969 required no change. Here lies the crux of the problem. Mr. Cook stated that the Planning Department was responsible for al I planning activities throughout the city, therefore, the Planning and Development Committee has the responsibility to review and evaluate physical plans developed for the Mode I Cities area. This paper deals with a confrontation in responsibilities between the Model Cities staff and Executive Board, the Planning Department and Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen. We strongly suspect that the fundamental problems and issues involved here cou Id spread. Thus, other confrontations could develop between other departments and their aldermanic committees and the Model Cities staff and Executive Board. In this light, we offer the following recommendations: The adoption of a formal review procedure by the Boa rd of Aldermen that is consistent with the existing aldermanic committee system is warranted. In other words, every resolution, ordinance, etc ., when introduced into the Board �-6· of Aldermen meeting, must be referred to a standing committee of the Board of Aldermen unless such a rule of procedure is waived by majority vote of the full Board of Aldermen. A time I imit on the period of review by the standing committee of the Board of Aldermen could be specified. As with all issues concerning the city, the matter will eventually be resolved on its merits by the full Board of Aldermen. The value of such formal review procedure by the Board of Aldermen should be fairly apparent. It keeps the appropriate aldermanic committees end department staffs informed of proposals and offers an opportunity for reviewing, making recommendations and achieving coordination. As mentioned earlier, to ignore the aldermanic committee system is to invite chaos, unless a suitable and acceptable overall reform is accomplished. A second alternative approach to the current situation would be to immediately move toward es tab I ish ing a Department of Administration in the Mayor's Office as recommended by the PAS Report. Such a department would include the following functions: Planning, Budgeting and Management, Personnel, Public Information, and Data Processing. The Model Cities Program, with its innovative approaches and demonstrations, would serve as a testing vehicle for administrative and technical purposes and would be responsible to the Mayor and Board of Aldermen through the Department of Administration. �- EXHIBITS �. f -·. J - I ~ Chapter 32 URBAN RENEWAL* Sec. 32-1. Sec. 32-2. Sec. 32-3, Sec. 32-4. Sec. 32-5. Sec. 32-6. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. Sec. 32-7. 32-8. 32-9. 32-10. 32-11. 32-12. 32-13. Duties of planning department. Duties of planning engineer. Determination of phasing and of allocations to be devoted to project areas. Dekrmination of locations of projects. Rezoning recommendations. Processing· applications embracing subdivisions, requests for building permits. Commitments by builders. Minimum structural requirements. . Varying specifications in description of materials.

D~signation of chang es in "description of materials".

Restriction on issuance of building permits. · Technical committee. Reserved . "'- .Sec. 32-1. Duties of planning department. Urban renewal activities of the city shall be conducted in the department of planning under the general supervision of the mayor and board of aldermen through the planning and development committee. The department of planning shall study the urban renewal requirements of the city, to determine ways and means for their accomplishment, and to promote and facilitate timely coordination and orderly development of urban renewal plans, projects and other related activities throughout the city. (Cum. Supp., § 56A.3; Ord. of 6-1-64, § 2; Ord. of 12-21-64) Editor's note-The planning and development committee has been substituted for the urban r enewal committee in §§ 32-1, 32-2 and 32-13, pursuant to Ord. of Dec. 21, 1964 aboli shing the urban r enewal committee and transferring its functions to the planning and development committee. Sec. 32-2. Duties of planning engineer. The planning engineer shall devote p·a rticular attention to the requirements and commitments of the "workable program", as defined in the National Housing Act of 1954, as amended, and shall call tipon the various departments, agen*Cross references-Minimum housing standards, § 15-21 et seq.; responsibility of department of -.building inspector relative to demolition of buildings,§ 8-12; director of urban renewal emeritus,§ 21-75(y). State law reference-Powers of municip·a Jities as to urban r enewal, Ga. Code, Ch . 69-11. Supp . No. 5 1617 .. ... •

�',, § 32-2 . § 32-5 ATLANTA CODE cies and agents of the city, as required, to carry out their responsibilities thereunder to include annual revisions for recertifications of th~ "workable program". The planning engineer shall ins ure coordination of capital improvement projects with urk.n renewal project plans in order to obtain the best possible advantage for the city. H e shall frequently consult wit h the mayo:;: and chairman of the planning and development committee of the board of aldermen and keep them informed as to urban renewal requirements and the state of development of the city's urban renewal plans, a nd shall make recommendations thel'eon for facilita.ting progress of urban · renewal in the city. ( Cum. Supp., § 56A.3; Ord. of 6-1-64, § 2; Ord. of 12-21-64) Note-See editor's note following § 32-1. Sec. 32-3. Determination of phasing and all allocatior:~. to be . devoted to project areas. The planning department, in coordination with the housing authority of the city, will determine the phasing considered desirable for construction of F.H.A. 221 housing allocations and what portions thereof, if any, should be devoted to urban renewal project areas, and shall make recommendations accordingly to local F.H.A. officials . .(Cum. Supp., § 56A.4; Ord. of 6-1-64, § 2) r . ' .,,.,., I Sec. 32-4. Determination of locations of projects. The planning depa1tment will study proposed loca tions for such projects and determine those considered most suitable from the city's standpoint for 221 ho•.1sing projects and shall coordinate thereon with local F.RA. offi cials. (Cum. Supp., § 56A.5; Ord. of 6-1-64, § 2) Sec. 32-5. Rezoning recommendations. The Atlanta-Fulton County joint planning board will make timely recommendations to the zon ing committee for rezoning such areas as it considers appropriate in order to facilitate the 221 hous ing progn1m. (Cum. Supp., § 56A.6; Ord. of 12-21-64) -:·, Editor's note- Ord. of Dec. 21, 1964 r edesignated the planning· and zoning committee as the zoning committee. ·Supp. No. 5 J 1618 '\ • �·• J - § 2-39 ATLANTA CODE § 2-40.i recommendations with references to civil defense ; to supervise the expenditure of appropriations made to civil defense by the city for civil defense purposes, and to hand]€ all matters in connection therewith. (Code 1953, § 28.11; Orel. No. 19GG46, § 2, G-20-GG) Amendment note-Ord. No. 19G6-46, § 2, enacted ,Tune 20i I96G, an_d effective Dc,cember 31, 19GG, amended § 2-39 to add the prov1s1ons codlfied herein as subsection (b). Cross references-Duty to grant permits to places selling sandwiches, soft drinks, §§ 17-159, 17-lGO; duty to formulate rule? and re_gulations for police departm ent, § 25-l(a); duty to pass on pernuts and licenses, § 25-l(b). Sec. 2-40. Special duty of finance committee relative to annual tax ordinance. In addition to the powers, duties and authority set forth in sections 2-29 and 2-31, the finance committee shall ·prepa re and report to the m ayor and board of aldermen the anm1ai tax ordinance. (Code 1953, § 28.12) Cross references-Duty of building and electric lights commi~tee to supervise department of building inspec tor, § 8-3; power of t2:c committee to cancel business license penalties and fi. fa. costs, § 17-24; petitions for license to peddle articles not enumerated in annual tax ordinance to be referred to finance committee, § 17-323. . . ~ D - Sec. 2-40.1. Planning and development committee. (a) Creatio·n. A committee of the board of aldermen is hereby created to be entitled the planning and development committee. (b) Me1nbershs-i1J. The planning and development committee shall l;>e composed of six members and a chairman (total of seven) to be appointed by the mayor. The mayor shall appoint the planning and development committee so that a representation is obtained of alctermanic committees concerned with community development, redevelopment and impro v"'ments. ~ (c) Functions, responsibilities. This planning and development committee shall have the primary responsibility to review and coordinate the long range plans and programs of all city efforts in the fields of community development, redevelopment, facilities and improvements, and to make suggestions to other appropriate aldermanic committees or recommend actions and policies for adoption by the board of alciE:rmen to Supp. No. 4 52 • �·• J - § 2-40.1 ADMINISTRATION § 2-41 insure maximum coordination and the highest quality of urban community development. This responsibility shall in~ elude the review and evaluation of the ele)11ents of the comprehensive (general) plan development by the planning department with guidance from the Atlanta-Fulton County Joint Planning Bo~rd; this comprehensive plan to be composed of at least a land-use plan, a major thoroughfare plan and a community facilities plan with public improvements program. The committee shall further be responsible for developing policy recommendations on all other matters concerning the planning and coordination of future city developments including, specifically, the community improvements program (CIP), the 1962 Federal Highway Act, the workable program for community improvement, urban renewal preliminary and project plans, and other related urban renewal matters. (Ord. of 12-21-64) Editor's note- Ord. of Dec. 21, 19G4, from which ~ 2-40.1 is derived, did not expressly amend this Code, hence the manner of codification was at the discretion of the editors. That part of said ordi!!ance abolishing the urban re newal committee and providing· for transfer of its functions and activities to the planning and development committee, has riot been codified as part of this section. Sec. 2-40.2. Urban renewal policy committee; membership. There . is hereby established a standing committee of the board of aldermen to be known · as the urban renewal policy committee, to consist of five (5) members of the board of aldermen, to be appointed by the mayor, including the chairman, the vice-chairman and one other regular member of the planning and development committee, and two members to be appointed by the chairman of the Housing Authority of the city. (Ord. of 1-18-65) Editor's note- Ord. of J a n. 18, . 1965 did not expressly amend this Code, h ence the manner of codifica~:on was at the discretion of the editors. The preamble to said ordinance recited the f ;:~t that said committee, pursuant to resolution, is c::::::rdinating urban renewal activities and programs between the city and its urban renewal agent, the housing authority. I , Sec. 2-41. Duties of zoning committee. The duties of the zoning committee shall be to hold any public hearing required to be held by the provisions of the Zoning and Planning Act of the General Assembly of Georgia approved January 31, 1946, and contained in Georgia Laws Supp. No. 6 53 • �