.NTczNg.NTczNg

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- - Respe ctfully submitted , @~B~ Colli er B. G ladin Plan ning 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 Model 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 196(, the Planning and Development Committee of the Board of Aldermen sponsored and recommended -- approva I of a resolution establishing the Mode I Cities Executive Board. This resolution was subsequently adopted by the Board and approved by the Mayor on November 20, 1967. The resolution specifically stated that 11 the Mode I Neighborhood Executive Board is hereby created for the purpose of administering the planning phase of (the Model Neighborhood) program. 11 · The Planning Department invested a great deal of time and effort both in preparing the Model Neighborhood Application and subsequently in assisting in developing the Model Neighborhood Plan . In fact, much of the material contained in all the Model Cities reports and applications originated and was refined in the Planning Department by its staff personnel. It was and still is our intention to work closely with the Model Cities staff in assuring the success �r -2of th is program. There appears now to be a lack of unde rstanding on the part of the Model Cities staff as to the role and responsibili ty of the Planning and Development Committee and !he Planning Department. The committee, using the department as its staff arm, is charged with the responsibility of reviewing all plans and programs concerned with urban growth, development, and redevelopment throughout the city. The Model Cities Program, on the other hand, is a special purpose six neighborhood demonstration program primarily concerned with one tenth of the city's residents and less than five per cent of the city's area. For consistency sake, obviously the Planning and Development Committee should review the physical programs, plans and proposals developed by this agency for the Mode I Neighborhood ~rea as it wou Id review plans and programs of any othe r a rea of the city for conformance with ove rall city policy and goals . The Planning Department's conce rn is not control over the Model Citie s Program. Instead, the department is simply exercising those functions for whic h it is re sponsibl e a s staff a rm to the Planning and Deve lopme nt Committee and as se t forth in the Code of the City of Atlanta. The de partmen t, as a ge ne ral plann ing age ncy, must have the opportunity to re view plans . Whe n in the de partmen t's professi ona I judgment inadvisab le proposa ls ha ve bee n a dvoca ted tha t lac k a ny justifica tion in v iew of existing c ity policy , the n th e department must have the opportunity of repor t ing su ch si tuations with positive re comme nda t ions for improve me nt to the Planning and Deve lopme 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 Mode I Cities agency. Unfortunately and frequently, because of conflict commu~ications have broken clown 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 are 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 other agencies, Atlanta was awarded one of the first Mode I Cities Grants in the nation. Perhaps this whole misunderstanding is based on the Model Cities staff's perception of the Planning Department as a I ine department. Planning transcends traditional departmental lines, is a staff function, and established responsibilities as defined in the Code of the City of Atlanta must be met . One of HUD •s underlying goals for the Model Cities Program was to bring into clear focus �-4problems in governmenta I organization. The department has been we 11 aware of such problems in the Atlanta governmental system as witnessed in the PAS report, a product of the Cl P and pl_anning. Tho~gh 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 es tab I ished. It is inadvisable that the alderman ic 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 acceptable ove ral I reform is accomplished. The Planning and Development Committee ex pressed its concern over this problem in its meeti~g of January 17, 1969. Chairman Cook asked the Model Cities director several questions concerning the role of the Planning and Development Committee, other aldermanic committee s, and city departments i n the Model Cities Program . Mr. Johnson took the position that the Model Cities Execut ive Board would re port to the full Board of Ald e rmen through the tw o a ld ermanic membe rs of the Executive Board . Th is proce dure, in effe ct , bypasses the Planni ng a nd De ve lopm e nt Committe e a nd to a la rge extent ignores the alderma n ic standi ng c ommittee conc e pt under which the Atla nta City Government present ly o pe rates. In e ffect, the Mode l Cities area is thus �-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 of 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 a sked 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 responsibl e for all planning activitie s throughout the city, therefore, the Planning and Development Committee has the responsibility to review and evaluate physical plans develope d for the Model Cities area. This pape r deals with a confrontation in res ponsibilitie s be twee n th e Model Cities staff and Executive Board, the Planning De partment and Planning and De ve lopment Committee of th e Board of Alde rm e n. We strongly suspe ct that th e fundam e ntal probl e ms a nd issu es involved he re could spread. Thus, other confrontations could de ve lop be twee n other de partme nts and their a lde rmanic committees and the Mode l Citie s staff and Exe cutive Board . In this li gh t, we o ffe r the fo llow ing recomme ndat io ns: The a dopt ion of a formal re view proce dure by th e Board of Aldermen tha t is consiste nt with the existi ng a ldermanic committee system is warran ted. In oth e r words, e very reso lu tion , ordi nance , e tc . , wh e n introdu ce d into the Board �-6of 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 limit 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 and 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 overal I 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 Manageme nt, 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 responsibl e· to th e Mayor and Board of Aldermen through the Department of Administration. �- EXHIBITS �. [__ ·. 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. ~ .Sec. 32-7. 32-8. 32-9. 32-10. 32-11. 32-12. 32-13. Duti es of planning department. Duties of planning engineer. Determination of phasing and of allocations to be devoted to project areas. Det ermination of locations of projects. Re zoning r ecommendations. Proc essing applications embracing subdivisions, requests for building p ermits. Commitments by builders. Minimum structural r equirements. Va··ying specifications in description of materia ls. · Designation of changes in "description of materials". Restriction on issuance of building permits. 'l'echnical committee. F..eserved. 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 pla nning and development committee. The department of planning shall study the urban renewal requi r ements 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 renewal committee in §§ 32-1, 32-2 and 32-13, pursuant to Ord. of Dec. 21, 1964 abolishing the urba n r enewal committee and transferrin g its functions to the planning and deve lopment 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 c_a ll upon the various departments, agen*Cross references-Minimqm hou sing st andards, § 15-21 et seq.; responsibility of departm ent of · building inspector relative t o demolition of buildi ngs,§ 8-12; director of urban renewal emeritus, § 21-75(y) . State law r efer ence-Powers of municipalities as to urban renewal, Ga. Code, Ch. 69-11. Su pp. No. 5 1617 '\ . �i I I •• J - § 32-2 § 32-5 ATLANTA CODE cies and agents of t he city, as required, to carry out their responsibiiit ies thereunder to include annual revisions for recertifications of the "workable program". The planning engineer shall insure coordination of capital improvement projects with urban renewal project plans in order to obtain the best possible advantage for the city. He shall frequently consult with 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, and shall make recommendations thel'eon for facilitating 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 allocations 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 m ake recommendations accordingly to local F.H.A. officials . .( Cum. Supp., § 56A.4; Ord. of 6-1-64, § 2) Sec. 32-4. Determination of locations of projects. The planning department will study proposed locations for such projects and determine those considered most suitable from the city's standpoint for 221 housing proj ects and shall coordinate thereon with local F.RA. officials. (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 zoning committee for rezoning such areas as it considers appropriate in order to facilitate the 221 housing progrfam. ( Cum. Supp., § 56A.6; Ord. of 12-21-64) Editor's note- Ord. of Dec. 21, 1964 redesignated the planning and zoning committee as the zoning committee. -Supp. No. 5 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 defens e purposes, and to handJ.e all matters in connection therewith. (Code 1953, § 28.11; Ord. No. 19GG46, § 2, 6-20-GG) Amendment note- Ord. No. 19G6-116, § 2, enacted ,Tune 20, 1966, and effective December 31, 19GG, amended § 2-39 to add the provisions codi. fied herein as subsection (b) . Cross referc11ccs-Duty to grant permits to places selling sandwiches, soft drinks, §§ 17-159, 17-1130; duty to formul a t e rules and r egulations for polic e depa rtm en t, § 25-1 (a); duty to pass on permits 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 prepare and repo·r t to the mayor and board of aldermen the an111.1:.1l tax ordinance. (Code 1953, § 28.12) Cross references-Duty of building and electric lights committee to supervise department of building inspector, § 8-3; power of ta x committee to cancel bus iness lic ense penalties and fi . fa. costs, § 17-24; petitions for license to peddle articles not enumerated in annual tax ordinance to be r eferred to finan ce committee, § 17-323. D Sec. 2-40.1. Planning and development colilmittec. (a) Creatiim. A committee of the board of aldermen is hereby created to be entitled the planning and development committee. (b) Membershsi]J. The planning and development committee shall be 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 improY'c'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 aldermen to ·-·D. . Sopp. No. 4 ' 52 ,- - . • ' . ~ - -,~ �·. j § 2-40.1 ADMINISTRATION § 2-41 insure maximum coordination and the highest quality of urban community development. This responsibility shall include the review and evaluation of the ele·ments of the comprehensive (general) plan development by the planning department with guidance from the Atlanta-Fulton County Joint Planning Board; 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 prelimina,ry and project plans, and other related urban renewal mat,t~rs. (Ord. of 12-21-64) Editor's note- Ord. of Dec. 21, 19G4, from which ~ 2-,to.l is derived, did not expressly amend this Code, hence the manner 'Ji codification was at the discretion of the editors. That part of said ordinance abolishing the urban renewal committee and providing for transfer of its functions and activities to the planning and development committee, has not been codified as part 9f 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 Jan. 18, . 1965 did not expressly amend this Code, hence the manner of codificat:'Jn was at the discretion of the editors. The preamble to said ordina:ice recited the f:::t that said committee, pursuant to resolution, is cc~:rdinating urban renewal activities and programs between the city and its urban renewal agent, the housing authority. 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 <;:ontained in Georgia Laws 9upp. No. 5 53 ,- - · - .I • r . �