.NTk2.NTk2

.------ - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - --- .July 18, 1969 (',.__ A meeting of the Planning and Development Committee was held in Committee Room

2, Second Floor, City Hall, at 2 :00 P. M., Friday, July 18, 1969.

@ ...... Committee members present: ~ Rodney Cook, Chairman Q. V. Williamson Jack Summers John Flanigen ~ ~ ......~~ w (/) < w Committee members absent: c· Gregory Griggs Char.li e Leftwich George Cotsakis Hugh Pierce ....!.. c~:

2:

J

cc 0 0 co Edwin Sterne, ) Frank Etheridge ) Housing Authority The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: 1 I • A r-'\ • PUBLIC HEARI NG - ANN EXA. TIOI'-! PETITION BY JULIUS SCHNEIDER MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC., COLUMBUS UNION CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST AND EUGENE A. ANDERSON. Charl es Watkins, First National Bank Building, was present representing the three property owners involved. Two other persons were prese nt in support of the annexation. There wa s no opp:isition. @ .,.. "" ~ ·O "-111 ...... w ,£,,, (/) ( '-..._., tat'( LiJ The staff presented a deta il ed report to each comm ittee member present re lati ve to this petition , certifying that it meets a ll requirements set forth by the State Enabling Legi slation and applicab le c ity ordinances , and recommended its approve!. The property in question lies in Land Lot 29 of the 14th District of Fulton, former ly Fayette County, and involves 69. l acres; of the total acrea ge, 46.6 acres is zoned A- 1 apartments; 17 acres is zoned R-3 and a sma ll er C-1 tract li es in Fulton County. Mr. G ladin e·xplained the c ity wou ld be annexing this property under the zoning most c lose ly related to the ex isting county z oning, which in this instance is practi ca ll y ide ntical to the county' s. All city services to the area are available, or can be provided upon req uest (letters to this effe ct from the appropriate city departments are included in the report) . In answer to que stioning by Mr. Summer~, Mr. Watkins stated the owners wish to come into the c ity for the services that are ava il ab le and to make their land more marketable for housing and sa le of apmtments. !l. c::i-< , . ., "'-::: 1:!. ...

J

Q:'. 0 0 u - -' �Minutes · Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Two '·...__ ... I The committee expressed its concern about a tract immediately to the north lying in unincorporated . Fulton County which, upon approval of this annexation petition, would become landlocked and asked if it could be included along with this petition. Mr. Gladin explained this is one type of problem you incur in the petition route and it could not be legally included, but could be brought up at the next filing period in May, 1970. The committee felt this would be highly desirable and should be encouraged at that time. Mr. Eugene Anderson, part-owner of the tract which would become appeared speaking for himself and Mrs. Schneider, also part-owner, be willing to have their property annexed; that, however, he could for Mr. Steinmetz, another owner, but Mr. Steinmetz had told him to be annexed. landlocked, stating they would not officially speak he would be willing In answer to questioning by Mr. Cook, Mr. Anderson stated the C-1 zoning approved by the · county was done so as part of an overall Medical Complex proposal which subsequently fel I_ through much to their regret and loss, and there is no commercial development in the area presently. There being no further discussion, the_ matter was referred to Executive Session. In Executive Session, upon unanimous vote, this petition was approved by the committee.

1 . B. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION PETITION BY JOHN E. LIVADITIS GARMON ROAD. There was no opposition present. A detailed report relative to this petition certifying its compliance with State Enabling Le gislation and app licabl e city ordinances was presented to ea ch committee member pre sent and the staff recommended approva l . The property li es in Land Lot 177 of the 17th District and is approximately 2 acres in si z e. Mr. G ladi n stated the property is presently zoned R- 1 (Reside ntial) a nd would be annexed as R-1; that all services are available, or can be provided upon request (lettersto this e ffect are a part of the report). (- ,, Mr. Li vaditis was present a long with his representative, Robert Smith . Mr . Smith acknowledged the y were aware of the fact there a re no existing sewers to the property and . the present plans are to use two septic tanks, but the y are hopeful of working out an easement agreement with the adjoi ning property owner to connect with an outfall �Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Three sewer 150 feet from Mr. Livaditis 1 property line. Mr. Cook called to Mr. Smith's attention a letter in the report from the Public Works Department stating that sanitary sewer is not available for the property to be annexed on Garmon Road and would not be available until approved by the property owners along this section. Mr. Smith stated they realized securing the easement would be difficult but were still hopeful it could be worked out, and in the meantime, the septic tanks are an alternative. Mr. Smith stated Mr. Livaditis is ready to begin bricking the house and doesn't have any water; since there is a charge to tap onto the water fo r property outside the city, he wanted to know if final approval of this petition by the Board of Aldermen would be expedited to relieve him from having to pay this charge. A check with the Water De partment indicated that if this committee approves the annexation peti t ion today, they would not charge Mr. Livaditis to tap onto the water prior to final approval of the petition. Messrs. Smith and Livaditis expressed their appreciation to the committee. The matter was then refe rred to Executive Session, and upon unanimous vote, this petition was approved by the committee.

2. STATUS OF RECERTIFICATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM Pie rce Mahon y explaine d tha t the Planning staff is progressing rapidly toward completion of work fo r recerti fi ca t ion of the Wo rka ble Prog ram for a two- ye a r period, ra t he r than one ye a r which has been approve d in the past . He stated the re have bee n considerable revisi ons in the req uire me nts of the p rog ram fo r recert ification, mak ing it much more diffic ul t to pu t toge ther a nd committi ng us to a much more sol id app roach . He comme nted brie fl y on some o f the new aspe c ts of the progra m, such a s the housing and re loca ti on element and the departme nt's antici pa ted part icipa tio n in the HUD 701 p la nning p rog ra m. He explained a federa l requireme nt fo r particip ati o n in the 701 progra m is that one portion of the p lanning studies be a housing study; further, the person ne l situation throughout the city , especia lly in the te ch nica l and p rofe ssiona l leve l', is getting' serious and the Planning Department ho pe s to so lve some o f its prob lem s by hiring tempo rary personnel on 701 planning programs w ho coul d move into permanent planning vacancies as they occu r. He went on to say these new requirements, particularly housing planning fo r low and moderate income families, points up the critical need for the Urban Information System �c. Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Four for the city, because of the various and sundry data which can be obtained from it on immediate notice, and he urged the committee's support in implementation of this system. He presented a draft of "Workable Program Five-Year Goals II and stated the city wi II be committed to these goals and emphasized the need to begin considering an advance two-year budget. Considerable discussion then ensued about the status of the Mayor's Housing Program. Colonel Jones of the Housing Resources Committee stated that the city is about halfway through the initial five-year program. He cited figures for the two and one-half year period, stating we have under construction and completed approximately 8,000 units, and we have in the pipeline more units than the original goal of 17,000. He sta ted, however, a lot of !re units in planning are being lost because we do not have properly zoned locations to put them on. Mr. Cook asked on what basis units are classified as being in the "planning stage". C·. .• Mr. Jones explained they are put in this category when a rezoning application is filed and a proposal is submitted; if the zoning is denied, they are taken out; that more zonings for this purpose have been denied than approved. He cited the loss of 21,000 units through recent rezoning denials . Mr. Cook state d this doesn't concur with figures he obtained from the Planning Department. Mr. Gladin explained the staff analysis referre d to was done about a ye ar ago and at that time the zoning approvals were running about 80-90%; that the staff is in the process of p reparing an up-to- date analysis o{ the housing program . Mr. Cook ds ked for and was furnished with a copy of Mr. Jones' late st housing report. Afte r a cu rsory examination, Mr . Cook expressed conce rn ab out the disc repancy in fi g ures contai ned in the repo rt and those sta ted ora lly by Colone l J ones. Being a me mbe r of the Zoning Committee, he state d he was tired of charges being made that the ci ty's housing goa ls we re not be ing me t because of rez oning de nial s as he did not be li e ve this to be the case, a nd he finds it very confusing and frustating to be unable to justify his positi on whe n he is unabl e to secure re li ab le statis tics; that he would Iike statisti cs differen ti a ting wha t pe rce ntage of the 8,000 uni ts quoted by Colone l J ones is ac tually low and moderate income housi ng . Mr. Kennedy stated he ha d ve ry strong rese rvations that this perce ntage was q uite low , that as stated by Mr. G ladi n , the Plann ing staff is in the process of ana lyz ing the Housing Program for the la st two and one- ha lf years a nd he fe lt this report would produce the type statistics Mr. Cook is looking for. C. �( _ Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Five -: Mr. Gladin stated he realized the problems in working with the housing figures, and again this points up the need for good management procedures, which need to be standardized, and the Urban Information System for quick delivery of these statistics over a period of time. He also commented on the need for more emphasis on the city's total housing needs. Mr. Cook directed the staff to prepare a letter for his signature to Colonel Jones requesting clarification on the following: l. Is the actual number of units under construction and completed for the last two and one-half years the 8,000 oral figure given by Colonel Jones, or the 12,000 figure in his report of May 15, 1969; 2. What percentage of this figure is for low and moderate income housing; 3. The method used for determining what is low and moderate income housing, the name of the projects and the number of units in each project. He stated that in looking at the May 15 report and oral figures by Colonel Jones, it would appear we a re moving backwards and this prompted Mr. Flanigen to remark he had no doubt but what the program is "slipping". _p.?) ~ it: it 1to.~1 '

w if) ~ w n. With additi anal reference to the housing question, Mr. Mahony stated that at the last meeting of the Housing Resources Committee, the Legal Panel discussed the need for establishing a Housing Planning Agency within the city government to relieve the Housing Resources Commi t te e membe rs who are present ly spending an inord inate amount of time doing su rveys and research in the field of housing . He stated the logical place for such a housing function would be in the Planning Depa rtment, particularly in light of the 701 planning p rogram; that the staff would like the committe e's support; and he prese nted a le tter for Mr. Cook 's signa tu re as Chai rman of the Planning and De ve lopmen t Commi ttee supporting the department's position . Colone l Jo ne s sta ted tha t the Legal Panel has been studying this matter, but the y have no t subm itted a posi tion report to Mr . Ale xander a nd he does not kn ow what type of report w il I be subm it te d if and whe n it is, and he felt any action by t his committee on this matter would be pre mature a t t his ti me . ~ ~ ~ Q:: 0 0 c·-~ C!) M r. Gladin stated the letter does not request an y fina l a ction; tha t it mere ly makes a recommendation for the Ho using Re sou rces Committee t o consider in making their recommendation. Colonel Jones stated he sti II felt the letter was in anticipation of something and prematu re. �Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page · Six Mr. Mahony commented that the Planning Deportment fee Is very strong Iy about this and consequently wanted to take a positive approach, rather than waiting for a proposal from the Housing Resources Committee and reacting. The committee unanimously approved the letter and Mr. Cook appended his signature thereto. Referring back to the status report on the Workable Program, Mr. Gladin stated the staff hopes to present the final draft to this committee July 28, 1969 for review, and will request committee approval at a meeting on August I, 1969; it will then be forwarded to the ne x t meeting of the Board of Aldermen where, hopefully, it will be finally approved and hand delivered that same afternoon to HUD. This will give HUD ample review time prior to the October expiration date for last year's recertification.

*** *** **

Mr. Mahony explained the City of Mountain View, Clayton County and the City of Atlanta have common problems in the Plunkettown area which require joint study and action to solve. The following Resolution to initiate such action was approved: - (~ A RESOLUTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMM! TTEE WHEREAS, the City Planning Department is presen t ly studying the Plunkettown neighbo rhood for inclusion in the Atlanta 1970 Neighbo rhood Development Program, and WHEREAS, the Plunkettown neighborhood extends south of the Atlanta City Limits i nto t he City of Mountain View and Clayton County, and WH EREAS, Clayton County, Mountain View, and the City of Atlanta face common problem s in this area . NOW, THE REF O RE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor a nd Boa rd of Alde rmen o f the City of Atlanta that Mayor Iva n Allen , J r . reque sts the Boa rd of Comm issione rs of Clayton County and the Mayor and Coun ci l of the City of Mountain View to porti cipate in a joint stud y designed to slove the probl e ms of the Plunkettown neighborhood. (~ The committee heard from Charles Stinson, President of t he Federation of South\A.Elst Clubs, a report on the first phase of the Southwest Community Study, being done for the Federation by graduate planning students from Georgia Tech. A copy of the first study phase was presented to each committee member present for information and no action was requested .

�Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Seven ( ,; @) Mr. Gladin informed the committee members that the Sign O rdinance had been approved by the Zoning Committee and he anticipated submitting it to the full Board of Aldermen for approval Monday, July 21, 1969, and would like this committee's support at the Monday meeting. He further informed them we wi 11 be working toward recruiting personnel to implement the ordinance, that he has requested by letter that Mr. William H. Wofford, Building Official, and the Personnel Board prepare a joint study on such personnel needs. .... <>• i "'... w CJ)

** *****

Mr. Gladin stated he had received a communication from the BOND (Bass Organization for Neightorhood Development) Community req~esting to appear before the committee to discuss being included in the 1970 NDP program; that he felt they should have this opportunity and he would like authorization to notify them to appear at the next meeting of the committee. <( w 0.. aj ~ ,,. --- '- 0 0 ( In answer to Mr. Flanigen, Mr. Gladin stated the freeway ramp question in the BOND area had not been resolved, but there are continuing discussions with Ray Nixon and the State Highway Department on the matter and he felt it could be worked out. .....I ~ The committee concurred for the BOND group to appear at the next meeting. m

.***** ****

There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned.

****

Approved : Rodney1500k, Chairma n Respectfully submitted: Joanne Parks, Secreta ry @) ~ / ( '- i ... "' u.J CJ) <( (J.J a.. ,."'( - -

1 • �·J AGENDA ZONING C0r1MITTEE Meeting, Thursday, July 24, 1969 Aldermanic Chamber, Second Floor , Ci ty Hall, 2:00 P. M. 1/U-69-34-S An Application f or a Special Use Permit for a church to be located at MACON DRIVE, f ronting 40 feet on the east side of Macon Dri ve, S.W., beginning 31 6 .5 f e~t north from the corner of Bromack Drive, S.W. Depth appro x i ma t ely 624 feet. Land Lot 70, 14th Di strict, Fulton County, Georgia. Mrs . Thelma Lois Mo r gan, Owner New Hope Baptist Church - Appl i cant Propos ed Use - Church (Planning Board, adverse r ecommenda t ion) WARD 4 iffaZ-69 - 93-S An Ordi nance to r e zone from A-1-C (Apartme nt-Conditional) Di strict to C-1 (Commerc i al) Di s tr i ct, prop ert y located at the Northeast corne r of OLD HAPEVILLE ROAD a nd CLEVELAND AVENUE , S. W., fronting 200 f ee t on the nor th s ide o f Cleve l a nd Avenue, S .W., beg inning 0 fe e t fro m t he nor theast c orne r of Old Hapeville Ro a d. Depth 456 fe e t . Are a 92,00 0 square fe e t. Land Lot 69, 14th Di strict, Fulton County, Georgi a . · Dr . Rob e rt B. Hodgson, Owner-App l i cant Proposed Us e - Off ice & Se rv i c e Sta tion (Plann i ng Boa r d, advers e r e commend ation) WARD 4 iffaZ-69-91 - S An Or d i na nc e t o re zone from R- 4 (Re si dential) District to A-1 - C (Apart me nt- Conditiona l) Di s trict , pro perty loca t ed at 2965 BROHNS MI LL ROAD, S .E. , fr onti ng 78 . 2 f e et on the west s i de of Browns Mi l l Road , begi nni ng 930 fe e t fro m the s out hwest corne r of Spri ngside Dr i ve . De pth 1,024 feet . Area approximat~ly 78 ,0 00 square fe et . La nd Lot 61 , 14th Di stri c t, Fulton County , Georgi a. William T. St anfie ld , Owne r Robert A. Young - Appli c a nt Proposed Us e - Apartment s WARD 4 (Planning Board, adverse r.e commendat_i on) · An Ordinance to rez one fr om R-4 (Residential )D i s tr i c t to A-1 (Apar t ment) Di strict, property lo cated at 311 6 BROHNS MILL ROAD , f r on ti ng 251. 5 feet on t he northeast side o f Browns Mill Road , beg inning 500 . 7 feet from the no r theast co r ner of Humph r ies Dr ive . Depth va r ie s . _Area 23 . 3 ac r e s . Land Lot s 35 & 62 , 14t h Di s t r i ct , Fult on County , Georg i a . Ruby All e ne Brooks & W. T . Atkinso n, Owne r s B &. H Compa ny - Applican t Propo s ed Us e - Apa rt me nt s (Planning Board, adve r s e recomme ndati on) WARD 4 1/Z- 69-89-S �ZONING COMMITTEE AGENDA Page· 2 July 24, 1969 ifrZ-69-84-s ·An Ordinance to rezone from A-1 (Apartment) Di strict to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at J ONESBORO ROAD, fronting 652.5 feet on the southwesterly side of Jonesboro Road, beginn i ng 707.06 feet f ro m the southwe st corner of Macedonia Road. Depth 1048.43 feet. Area 16.4 acres . La nd Lot 34, 14th District , Fulton County, Georgia. The Mi litary Corpo r ation, Owner Theodore G. Frankel - Applicant Proposed Use - Shopp i ng Center & Office Park (Planning Board, favor able recommendation as amended to C-1-C) WARD 4 ifZ-69-80-S An Or dinance to r e zone f rom R-4 (Re s i dent ia l) District to A-2 (Apartment) District, property loca ted at 2946 & 2954 HAPEVILLE ROAD, S.H. , f r onting 192 feet on the east side of Ha pevi lle Road, S. W. , beginning 389 fe e t from the northeast corner of Mt. Zi on Road. Dep th 293.4 f eet . Ar ea 56,208 s quar e fee t. La nd Lot 68 , 14 th Di st rict , Ful to n County , Georgi a . Benj ami n F . Ma rti n, Owner-App lica nt Pr opo sed Use - Apartme nts (Planning Boar d, adverse recomme ndation) WARD 4 !IU- 69- 30- S An Applica t io n fo r a Spe c ia l Us e Permi t fo r a Day Nur s ery to be located at 3825 ADAMSVILLE DRIVE, S.W. , fronting 100 f ee t on the no rth s i de of Adams vi lle Dr i ve, S.W . , begi nni ng 393 . 7 fe e t east f rom the cor ner o f Woodstock Drive. Depth 200 feet. La nd Lot 14 , 14th FF Dis t ric t , Fulton Count y, Georgi a. Emma Hunt (Renfroe), Owner Doris Stri ck land - App l icant Pr opos ed Us e - Day Nu rsery (Planning Board, favor able r ecommendation) WARD 7

U-69-31-C

An App l i cat io n f o r a Spe c i al Us e Permi t f or a Nur sing Home to be located at 120 LINE ROAD, S. W. , fr onting 252 feet o n the e ast side of Li ne Roa d, be ginni ng 680 f eet no r th from the co r ner o f Br anch Dr ive. D~pth 698 fe et. Land L6t 13, · 14 t h Dis t ric t , Ful t on County , Georgia ABDEC , I nc . , Owner- Appl icant Propos ed Use - Nursi ng home (Pla nning Boar d, favorable r ecomme ndation) WARD 7

Z- 69 - 85 - S

An Or dinance to rezone from R-5 (Res ident ial) and A- 1 (Apartment) Di s t r icts to C- 1 (Commercial) Di stri ct, prope rty l ocate d at STEWART AVENUE, fronting 131 fe et on t he e a s t s ide of Stewart Avenue , b egi nning O feet from t he north c orner o f Grant Stree t . Depth 218 feet . Area 14,25& swuare f eet . La nd Lot 90, 14t h Dist r i ct, Fulton County, Georgia . Carrie Blake, Ow ner C. M. Mcche s ney ,- Appl i ca nt Proposed Use - Service Station WARD 4 (Planning Board , favorab l e recommendation) �ZONING.COMMITTEE AGENDA Page 3 July 24, 1969 ffaZ-69-83-S An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 1955 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, fronting 260.7 feet on the north side of Campbellton Road, beginning O feet from the northeast corner of Honeysuckle Lane. Depth 212.1 feet. Area approximately 66,000 square feet. Land Lot 168, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Perry Boulevard, Inc., Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Service Station (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 ffaZ-69-94-S An Ordinance to rezone from C-L (Commercial-Limited) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2860 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S.W., fronting 120 feet on the south side o f Campbe llton Road, beginning 293 feet from the east corner of Naxwe ll Drive. Dep th 340 feet. Area 33,000+ · square feet. Land Lot 218, 14th D~strict, Fulton County, Georgia. Ellis Maloof, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Car Wash (Planning Board, favorable recomme ndat i on) WARD 7 ffaU-69-33-S An Application for a Specia l Use Permit for a Car Wash and Service Station, to . be located at 2360 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S .H., fronting 120 feet on the south side of Campbel lton Road , beginning 293 f ee t east fro1:1 the corne r of Maxwe ll Drive. Depth 340 feet. Land Lot 218 , 14th Di s trict, Fulton County, Georgia. Ellis Maloo f, Owner-Appli ca nt Proposed Use - Car Wash & Servi ce Station (Planning Board , favo rab l e recommendation) WARD 7

Z-69-96-S

An Ordi nance to re zone from R-4 (Residential) Di5trict to A-1 (Apartme nt) District, p r operty located at FAIRBURN ROAD, S.W., fronting 100 feet on the west side o f Fairburn Road, beginning 720 feet ,ram the . south ~orne r of . qarrison Drive . De pth 800± feet. Area 236,013 square feet. Land Lot 8, 14th FF District, Ful ton County, Georgia. D. E. Norr is, Owner E. Lane Brown-Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 7 �AGENDA ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY --JOINT PLANNING BOARD Meeting, Wednesday, November 12,1969 Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall, 2:00 P.M. i!Z-69-154-N An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to C-1 (Corranercial) District property located at 1265 BOULDERCREST DRIVE, S.E., fronting 231 feet on the West side of Bouldercrest Drive, beginning 175 feet from the northwest corner of Eastland Road. Depth 175 feet. Area 40,425 squ are feet. Land Lot 143, 15th District, DeKalb County, Georgia. Alford M. Williams & Ellis A. Maloof, Owner Ellis A. Maloof, Applicant Proposed Use - Foor store & dry cleaners WARD 2 i!U-69-68-N A~ Application f or a Special Us e Per mi t for a Chu~ch to be locate d at 1323 S. PONCE DE LEON AVE NUE , N. E., f ronting 182 feet on t he south side of Ponce de Leon Ave., N.E. beginning O fe et east from the corner of Springdale Road, N.E. Depth 240.4 feet. Land Lot 241, 15th District DeKabl County, Georgia. Elmer D. Lill ey, Owner Church of God of Prophe cy, Applicant Proposed Use - Church WARD 2 i!U-69-65-N An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Dent a l Fr a t ernity-Boarding House, to be located at 1315 PONCE DE LEON AVENUE N.E., f r cnt ing 15 2 . 4 fee t e n t he s outh side cf Ponce de Le on Avenue, beg i nning 170 feet wes t f rom the corner o f Springda l e Road. Dep th 220 fee t. Land Lot 241, 15th District, DeKalb County, Georgia. Delta Sigma Delta House, Inc., Owner Cliffor d Ox f ord , App l ican t Proposed Use - Dental Fra ter ni ty - Boarding House WARD 2 ( i!Z - 69 - 172 - C) An Oi dinance to r ezone f r om A- 2 (Apar tment) Dis t rict t o C- 1 (Commercial) Di s t rict proper t y located at 493,497 , _ 503,507 EAST AVENUE and 298 , 302 1 304 ~.ACKENZIE , fronting 180 f e e t on t he s outh s ide of East Avenue, begi nning 210 fee t f r om t he s outheast corner o f Bou levard . Depth 30 .5 fe et . Area 1 . 30 acres. Land Lot 46, 14th District , Fulton County, Georgia. Caduceus Properties, Owner Carl Cofer , Applicant Propos ed Us e - Park i ng Lot WARD 6 �ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12 1 1969 - Page 2 /FU-69-66-G An Application f-0r a Special Use Permit for an Apartment above a store, to be located at 979 PIEDMONT AVENUE, N.E. fronting 45 feet on the easterly side of Piedmont Avenue, N.E., beginning 92.8 feet southwest from the corner of Tenth Street, N.E. Depth 175 feet. Land Lot 106, 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Augusto Silva, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Apartment WARD 5 f!U-69-69-C An Application for a Special Use Permit for Parking to be located at 1230 & 1236 PIEDMONT AVENUE, N.E.,fronting 236.7 feet on the northwest side of Piedmont Avenue, beginning 250.5 feet southwest from·the corner of South Prado, Depth approximately 160 feet. Land Lot 55, 17th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Morton Realty Company, Owner,Applicant Proposed Use - Parking WARD 5 f!Z-69-174-N An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to 0-I (Office-Institutional) District, property located at 3783 ROSWELL ROAD, N.E., fronting 202 feet on the east side of Roswell Road, N.E., beginning 2,257.5 feet form the northeast corner of Ivy Road. Depth 835 feet. Area 70,700 square feet. Land Lot 97, 17th District, Fulton County, Geor gi a, Jeannette M. Prince, Owner,Applicant Proposed Use - Office & Apartments WARD 8 f!Z-69-183-N An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to C-1 (Connnercial) District, property located at 2114 thru 2126 DEFOORS FERRY ROAD, front _ing 633 feet on the south side of DeFoors Ferry Road, beginning 698 feet from the northwest corner of Collier Road. Depth 422 feet. Area 174,428 square feet, Land Lots 185,186,&194, 17th District Fulton County, Georgia. H.W. Dunn, et al, Owner Initiated by Alderman G. Everett Millican Proposed Use - Service Station/Retail Uses WARD 3 f!Z-69-169-S An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 · (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 2905 SPRING DALE ROAD, fronting 206 feet on the west side of Springdale Road, beginning 990,7 feet from the southwest corner of S. Fredell Circle. Depth 665 feet. Area 3.7 acres. Land Lot 100, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia, William H. Cook, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 4 �ATLANTA-F1JLTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Page 3

Z-69-175-C

Z-69-176-C

An Ordinance to rezon~ from R-9 (Townhouse) District to C-1 (Commerc~al) District, property located at PEYTON ROAD, fronting 325.0 feet on the east side of Peyton Road, beginning 340 feet from the southeast corner of Gordon Road. Depth 165.8 feet. Area 1.265± acres. Land Lot 205, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Peyton Center, Inc., Ovmer - Applicant Proposed Use - Not stated WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to A-L (Apartment-Limited) District, property located at LYNHURST DRIVE, fronting 381.09 feet on the west side of Lynhurst Drive, beginning 595.9 feet from the northwest corner of Hiawasee Drive. Depth 1,485± feet. Area 22.72 acres. Land Lot 236, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia, R.T. Griffith, Owner - Applicant Pr.oposed Use - Apartments WARD 7

Z-69-171-C

An Ordinance t6 rezone form R-5 (Residential) District to & 3401 SCOTT ST., S,W., fronting 497.3 feet on the North side of Scott Street, beginning O feet from the northeast cor ner of Brownlee Road. Depth 100 feet. Area 1.01 acres. Land Lot 245, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Therori & Jackie Bolton, Owner Theron Bolton, Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 3335

Z-69-180-C

An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) Di s tr i ct to A-1 (Ap ar tmen t ) Di s trict, prop erty loc a t ed at SEWELL ROAD s.w., f r onting 570,2 fee t on the north s id e o f Sewell Road, beginning 1450 fee t from the nor theas t cor ne r o f Fairbur n Road. Depth 1,930 feet. Area 74.3 acre s. Land Lot 245, 14th District, Fulton County , Ge orgia. Blaclock Machinery, Owner Thornton Properti es , I nc., App l i cant Propo sed Us e - Apartments WAR,D 7

Z-69-178-S

An Or di nance t o rezone from A- 1- C (Apartment -Conditional ) Distr i ct to C- 1 (Conuner cial) Distri ct, property lo cated at 2440 FAIRBUR~ ROAD , s. w., f r onti ng 60 feet on the east side o f Fai rbur n Road . S.W. , beginni ng 104 9 fe e t from the southe a s t corner of Campbellton Road, S .W ., Depth 792 fe e t. Area 4 a cres. Land Lot 5, 14th District , Fulton County, Georgia. Maude H. Wai ts , Owner David D. Warren, Applicant Proposed Use - Office Building WARD 7 �ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Page 4 ifZ-69-170-C An Ordinance to rezone for ·R-3 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property .1 .ocated at ADAMSVILLE DRIVE, S.W.,fronting 100 feet on the south side of Adamsville Drive, beginning 152 feet from the southwest corner of Gordon Road. Depth 197 feet. Area 25,672 square feet. Land Lot 14, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. J.I. Kingloff & Mildred L. Kingloff, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Not stated WARD 7

Z-69-177-C

An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 125 FAIRBURN ROAD, N.W., fronting 102.8 feet on the east side of Fairburn Road, beginning 811.9 feet from the northeast corner of Gordon Road. Depth 838.2 feet. Area 3.611 acres. Land Lot 243, 14th Distr ict, Fulton County, Georgia. Rosa G. Washington, Owner Kfng & Spalding, Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 fFU-69-67-C An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Day Care to be located at 633 HIGHTOWER ROAD, N.E., fronting 50 on the east side of Hightower Road, beginning 515 feet from the corner of Oldknow Drive. Depth 196.4 feet Lot 208, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Mrs. Julie C. Ogletree, Owner-Applicant . WARD Proposed Use - Day Care Center 4/Z-69-179-C Center feet north Land 3 An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) Di strict, property located at 2138 ,2098 & 2094 BANKHEAD HIGHWAY, fronting 75 & 133 feet on t he south side of Bankhe ad Highway, beginning O & 330 f ee t from the southeast corner of Alta Place. Depth 243 feet. Area 50,544 square feet. Land Lot 176, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Initiated by Zoning Committee Proposed Use - Not stated WARD 3 �.) CITY OF .ATLANTA May 29, 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DE PARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Dir e c cor Mr. Johnny Robinson Community Development Coordinator Mayor•s Office City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Johnny: Certification of Atlanta 1s Workable Program for Community Improvement expires on October I, 1969. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that we make our submission by August I, 60 days in advance of the expiration date . Last year, we made our submission on time; we wou Id Iike to repeat the performance th is year . We are enclosing a copy of the newly revised Workable Program for Community Improvement HUD Handbook along with those portions of the Wo rkab le Program that pertain to your operation . Please note the changed requirements in the HUD Handbook . All Workable Program certifications have bee n ex tended over a two - yea r pe riod . The City of Atlanta will not submit another Wo rkable Program until 1971 . Therefore, we ask that you make su re you maintain th e required data pertaining to your depa rtment on a two- yea r basis. The report ing period for the Ju ne 31 Workable Prog ram for th is year is March 31, 1968 to June I, 1969. The Planning Department wi II be g la d to assi st you in any way possib le to get the wo rk done on time. At least a month 1s time is needed by us for assemb li ng exhibits, typing and re producing and generally tying up loose ends . Therefore, we must have the sections back by June 16. Sincerely yours , ~ Colli e r B. G ladin Planning Di rector CBG/bls Enclosure �·I I RH A 7100.1 ) • 0 l ROGR FOR COM U ITV I -PR Octo be r 1968 A HUD H D 00 U . S. DEPARTME N T OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASH I NGTON , D. C. 204 10 �• PREFACE FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM HANDBOOK 'Ihis Handbook sets forth a new approach and revised requirements to guide localities that are carrying out a Workable Program for Community Improvement. It represents the first major revision of the Workable Program procedures since enactment of the statutory provision in 1954-, We have several objectives which we hope will be achieved by the revision. One is to respond to the many changes that have taken place in our urban areas over the years. Another is to ensure that our requirements for the Workable Program are focused on performance by localities in dealing with the problem of slums and blight~-not just on compliance with operational procedures. Above all, the purpose is to give local communities both flexibility an4 the responsibility to develop effective programs to achieve the objectives of the statute in light of the particular nature of problems and conditions existing in each locality. ' ' '.Ihe substitution of performance standards for certain formal elements of the Workable Program does not represent any easing in current substantive requi rements. Nor does the Handbook envision any reduction in efforts by communities now participating in the program. The introduction of a performance-oriented approach hopefully will result in a more effective attack on the major problems facing the community. I am confident that, after more than a decade of experience with the Workable Program, the Federal-local partnership has the maturity to operate effectively under the new approach of this Handbook and thereby we can make more meaningful progress toward overcoming the urgent problems facing our cities and towns today. Robert C. Weaver Secretary 1 11/ 68 �WORKABLE PRCGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.11 • FOREWORD This Handbook sets forth revised policies, requirements, and procedures for communities required to carry out a Workable Program for Community Improvement in connection with the use of certain Departmental housing and renewal programs to help overcome probiems of slums and blight. -Workable Program Guides containing illustrative and advisory information will be issued to supplement this Handbook. The revised policies and requirements set forth herein are effective upon issuance of this Handbook. Tnose communities which already have submitted or· have substantially completed documentation in support of an application for certification or recertification of a Workable Program need not revise the material . However, communities may use the revised forms described in this Handbook immediately . After March 31, 1969, all applications for certification or recertification of a Workable Program must be in conformance with the revised policies and requirements. The primary objective of the revision is to provide a fle:x:i.ble and performance-oriented framework within which communities may demonstrate reasonable continuing progress toward· achieving the goals sought by the statutory requirement for a Workable Program and those established by the community to implement them. The revision also modifies reporting and documenta~ion requirements and provides new criteria for evaluating community performance. The revised Workable Program concentrates on four essential areas: a. The · adoption and enforcement of housing, building, and related codes. b. The establishment of an effective action-oriented planning and programming process.

c. The developnent of programs to meet low- and moderate- income housing needs and to meet relocation needs of families , individuals, and business concerns displaced by governmental action. ii 11/68

�WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNI'IY IMPROVEMENT • IRHA 7100.1 d. I The involvement of citizens, including poor and minority groups, in Workable Program activities and in related HUDassisted housing and renewal programs. The intent of this Handbook is to strengthen the Workable Program as a flexible and meaningful tool to help communities organize and carry out its community improvement programs. The Handbook envisions no lessening of effort by communities which h~ve been participating under previous Workable Program guidelines. Rather, it is anticipated that communities will make greater :grogress toward achieving the obj ectives of the statute with the increased flexibility provided by the Handbook to concentrate local efforts and tailor specific needs and problems facing the community. Applications for certtfic?tion in accordance with the requirements of this Handbook which propose a program with an overall leve l of effort below that made in the past, will not be acceptable. Certifications and recertifications of Workable Programs will be e ffective for two years. Field reviews of progress will be made as necessary by HUD Regional Office staff midway through the certification period to provide advice and t echnical assistance. HUD-assisted programs to which the Workable Program applies are listed in Chapter 1, paragraph 5. A community intending to make application for financial assistance under any of these pro grams should become familiar with the policies and requirement s set forth in this Handbook. An understanding of these policies and requirements will facilitate the preparation of the application for certification or recertification of the community 's Workable Program and thus help to expedite the processing of applications for financial assistance for specific programs. 10/ 68 iii �J - HtJD REGIONAL OFFICES RIDIONAL ADMINISTRATOR ADDRESS AND TELEPHONE NUMBER I Judah Gribetz 26 Federal Plaza, New York, N.Y. 10007 Area Code 212 264-8068 Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, New York, Rhode· Island, Vermont n Warren P. Phelan Widener Bldg., 1339 Chestnut St., Philadelphia, Pa. Delaware, District of Columbia, Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania Virginia, West Virginia RIDION 19107 GENER.AL JURISDICTIONAL AREA Area Code 215 597-2560 III Edward H. Baxter Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Kentucky, Mississippi, North Carolina, South Carolina, Tennessee ~ 0 ..... <

e::

Peachtree-Seventh Bldg., Atlanta, Ga. 3032~ Area Code 404 526-5585 ~ ~ >tj IT Francis D. Fi.sher 360 North Michigan Ave., Chicago, Ill. 60601 Area Code 312 353-5680 Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Ohio,. South Dakota, Wisconsin V W.W. Collins Federal Office Bldg., 819 Taylor St., Fort Worth, Texas 76102 Area Code 817 334-2867 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Oklahoma, Texas 450 Golden Gate Ave., Post Office Box 36003, San Francisco, Calif. 94102 Area Code 415 556-4752 Alaska, Arizona, California, Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Wyoming

x:,

Q

' VI I-' ~ VII co °' Robert B. Pitts Jose E. Febres-Silva Post Office Box 3869, GPO, San Juan, P.R. 00936 (Dial Long Distance Operator) Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands ~

x:,

0 0 ~z H 1-3 1-<1 ~ ~~ -.J I-' 0 0 •I-' <:

1-3 767-1515 V ·-· �WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT I • RHA 7100.11 TABLE OF CONTENTS PREFACE FOREWORD HUD REGIONAL OFFICES CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENT Paragraph 1. Statutory Provision · 2. Basic Purpose of Statutory Provision 3, Summary of Workable Program Requirements Local Administrative Requirements 5- \ HUD-Assisted Pro grams for Which Workable Pro gram Is A Requirement CHAPTER 2. .., GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATIONS 1. General Principles of Administration 2. Requirements for Application Content 3. Criteria for Evaluation of Workable Program Application 4. Basis for Determining Acceptability CHAPTER 3. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CER TIFICATION 1. Filing of Application for Certification 2. Governing Body Approval of the Workable Program 3. Notification of Approval or Disapproval. 4. Certification Period 5. Certification Lapse 6. Technical Assistance to Communities V 11/68 �WORK.ABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT I RHA 7100.1 " I ,I Paragraph 7. Relationship of Workable Program and Urban Renewal Requirements 8. Availability of Workable Program as Public Document 9. Guides CHAPTER 4. CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT 1. Statutory Provision 2. Requirements for Code Adoption 3. Rehabilitation Standards 4.·..> , Requi rements for Code Enfor cement 5. Examples of Priority Areas 6. Considerat i ons Relate d to ·code Enforcement CHAPTER 5.

PLANNING AND PROGRAMMI NG 1. Planning and Programming Objectives 2. Comprehens ive Planning Requirements 3. Programming Requireme nts 4. Charact er i stic s of Planning Process 5. Summary CHAPTER 6. HOUSING AND RELOCATION 1. Gen~ral Provisions 2. Relocation Requirements 3. Housing Requ i rements 4. Crite~ia for Evaluation of Applications CHAPTER 7. 1. 11/ 68

CITIZEN I NVOLVEMENT Requirements f or Citizen Involvement Vi -- ---. ' �WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.11 Paragraph 2. Principles and Purposes of Citizen Involvement 3. Examples of Citizen Involvement Activities 4. Criteria for Evaluation of Applications CHAPTER 8. GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES 1. General Provisions 2. Special Provisions 3. Criteria for Review and Evaluation of Workable Program Application V , CHAPTER 9, ' ~- GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINISTRATION FOR INDIAN RESERVATIONS 1. General Provision.§ , 2. Special Obj ectives 3, General Criteria for Review and Evaluation of Applications 4. Provision for Code Adoption and Enforcement 5, Planning Provisions 6. Housing and Relocation Provisions 7, Citizen Involvement Provisions vii 10/68 �I WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT " R1!A 7100.1] CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 1. 1. SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENTS STATU'IORY PROVISION. The Housing Act of 1949, as amended, requires as a condition of certain financial assistance, the following: 11 ••• a workable program for co~unity improvement (which shall include an official plan of action, as it exists from time to time, for effectively dealing with the problem of urban slums and blight within the community and for the establishment and preservation of a well-planned community with well-organized environment for adequate family life) for utilizing appropriate private and public resources to eliminate and prevent the develoµnent or spread of slums and urban blight, to encourage needed urban rehabilitation, to provide for redevelopnent of blighted, deteriorated, or slum areas, or to undertake such of the aforesaid activities or other feasible community activities as may be suitably employed to achieve the objectives of such a program." The statute also requires the ad.option and effective enforcement of a minimum standards housing code, as described in Chapter 4. In addition to the Workable Program requirements contained herein, communities are advised that various HUD-assistance programs may contain additionab separate requirements tailored to meet specific program needs (e.g. relocation requirements of the urban renewal program, general planning requirements for water and sewer, or open space land grants). See Chapter 3, paragraph 7, for further information. 2. BASIC PURPOSE OF STATU'IORY PROVISION. The basic purpose of the Workable Program requirement is to ensure that communities desiring to utilize funds for renewal and housing programs understand the array of forces that create slums and blight and are willing to recognize and .take the steps within their power to prevent and overcome urban blight. The Workable Program is based on recognition that the Federal and local relationship is one of partnership in the task, and that Federal funds for renewal and housing projects cannot, by themselves, be effective unless localities exercise the full range of their powers in community efforts on a sustained and coordinated basis to the objective of preventing and eradicating slums and blight. 3. SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROORAM REQUIREMENTS, The specific requirements of the Workable Program are based on the statutory objectives described above and are designed to provide a flexible framework Page 1 u/63 �T WORKABLE PRCGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT " I l RHA 7100.1 J CHAPTER 1 for organizing community efforts to eliminate and prevent slums and blight. The Workable Program calls for progress in the following four areas:

a. Code Adoption and Enforcement. The adoption of housing, building, and related codes, and development of an effective code enforceme nt program which is at least adequate to de a l with areas having high priority need for en£orcement, including both blighted areas and basically sound but deteriorating neighborhoods, and which is gear ed toward eventual community-wi de compliance with such codes. b. Planning and Programming. The establishment of a continuing public planning and programming process which develops action programs within a comprehensive planning framework for overcoming the major physical, social, and e conomic problems related to the slum and blighted areas of the community, and for establishing and preserving a well- planned community with suitable l i ving environment for family life . c. Housing and Relocation. The development of a centralized or coordinated program for assisting in the relocation of all persons and business concer_n;, displace d by public action in the community and the development of a proi~ ~ to expand the supply of housing for l ow- and mode rate-inc0u1E. famili es on the basis of equa l opportunity. d. Citizen Involvement . The establishment of programs designed to achieve meaningful involvement of citizens, including poor and minority groups , in planning and carrying out HUD-ass i sted programs related to th e Workable Program. A detailed explanati on of th e policies and r equirements for each of the above four areas is s e t forth in subseque nt chapte rs of this Handbook. 4. LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS. In carrying out Workabl e Program responsibil i ties, many different local agencies and offices will necessarily b e involved, together with various public a nd private institutions, organization s , and individuals. For e xample , building departments, planning agencies, health offices, housing authorities, urban renewal agencies, neighborhood organizat i ons, private builder s and dev e l opers may b e involved to proyide the wide range of resources needed to meet Workable Program obj ectives. While no specific a dministrative s tructure i s r equired by the Workable Progr am, a community will be expect e d to meet t he gene ral r equirement for establi shme nt of an administrative me chanism 11/68 Page 2

�,. WORKABLE PRO'.}RAM FOR COMMUNITY I MPROVEMENT I RHA 7100.11 CHAPTER 1 responsible to the chief executive for the purpose of providing leadership, supervision, and coordination of Workable Program activities. 5, ... HUD-ASSISTED PROJRAMS FOR WHICH WORKABLE PROGRJI.M IS A REQUIREMENT a. Urban Renewal Prog_ram b. Neighborhood Developnent Program c. Concentrated Code Enforcement Program d. Interim Assistance for Blighted Areas e. Demolition Grant Program f. Community Renewal Program g. Gene ral Neighborhood Renewal Plan h. Rehabilitation loans and gr ants in urban r enewal and concentrated code enforcement areas and in other than urban r enewal or concentrate d code enforcement areas a ssisted under the provision of Sec. 115(a)(2) and Sec. 312(a)(1). i. Low-Rent Housing Program, except for Section 23, Short Term Leased Housing. j. Mortgage in sura nce under FHA Sec. 220 for housing construction and rehabilitation in urban renewal project areas. k. Mortgage insura nce under FHA 221(d)( 3) at marke t or belowmarke t inter est r at e proj ect s for low- and moderate -income famili es. 1. Re nt Supplement Proj ects under Sec . 22 l ( d)( 3 ) for low-income families, with certain exception s . 338-597 0 - 6 9 - 2 Page 3 10/68 �I I WORKABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT • CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 2. .., RHA 7100. l GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROORAM APPLICATIONS 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION. Workable Program applications will be evaluated in light of the varying conditions, backgrounds, problems, and traditions of the par-ticula~ community. In view of the difficulty of establisQing predetermined standards of compliance having equal applicability to all communities throughout the nation, the Department's review and determination will be guided by the statutory requirements, the adequacy of the community's proposed effort as measured against the magnitude of the job to be done, and the constraints of available Federal, State, and local resources. A second major consideration governing the evaluation of application for recertification will be evidence of reasonable continuing progress toward meeting the statutory goals and objectives and -those set forth by the community. 2. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLJs;:.ATION CONTENT. The Workable Program is the locality's program, and it i s the r esponsibility of the locality to establish goals, action programs , and time t able s for accomplishment in each of the four elements discussed in subsequent chapters. The goals, action programs, and timetables must be approved by the Department, except where otherwise indicated in Chapter 5, pa r agraph 3. Because the emphasis is on the locality 's responsibi l ity to develop its own program tailbred to its own needs and abilities rather than on complying with speci fic Departmental requirements, the community's application must contain sufficient evidence and detail to permit an objective basis for review and evaluation . Therefore, the application must clearly and specifically describe what the community inte nds to do during the next certification period in each of the four Workable Program elements. When applying for r ecertification, the application must also clearly describe what ste ps the community t ook in the l ast period, in order to provide a basis for measurement of the community ' s continuing progress toward meeting the agree d-upon goals and objectives. In developing its "work program" in each of the four elements for the next certification period , the community must also show how the proposed act ivit ies are related to a n analysis of the problems or needs, and t o longer-range tar ge t s for accomplishment. For exampl~ in deve loping a program to meet the r equirement of Chapter 6 to expand the supply of housing for low- and moderate-income families, the applicat ion should show the relationship of it s proposed program and timet ables to an anal ysis of needs in the community and to its longer-range goals or targe ts for expansion of such supply. The questions included in Application Form 1081 are designed to e licit the information and evidence required to provide a reasonable basis for approving or disapproving the community ' s Workable Program Application. Page 1 10/68 �WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT ~HA 7100.1 • I \ ) CHAPTER 2 3. 4. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATION. In reviewing a community' s application for certification or recertification of a Workable Program, the Department's assessment will be based on the followin g factors: a. Problem Analysis. Adequacy of the community's analysis of the problems and needs where required by the Workable Program elements. b. Long-Ra nge Goals . Adequacy and reasonableness of the longrange goals and targets for accompli shment proposed by the community for overcoming such problems . c. Action Programs. Adequacy of the specific a ctions and timetables proposed- to be taken by the community during the next period of certification to deal with the problems identifi ed, in light of available resource s and the magnitude of the problems . d. Progress. Demonstration of r easonable continuing progress toward meeting goals and objectives specified by the community. BASIS FOR DETERMINING ACCEPTABILITY . The acceptability of a community's initi a l appl ication for ; certification will be base d on the adequacy of the problem or nee d ana lysis in each of the e l ement s , th e extent to whi ch longer-range goals or targe t s have been identifi ed in r e lation to need, and the adequacy of the proposed action programs, in light of both need and available resources . The acceptability of an application for r ecertifi cation will b e based on t he performance of the community in meeting the goa l s, t argets, and timetable s agr ee d to at the last certification, as well as on the extent to which the proposed l ev e l of e f f ort r epresent s continui ng progr ess fr om the l a s t per i od t oward meeting its longer-range targe t s . When unexpe cte d developments or changed conditions prevent a community from meeting its agr eed- to obj e ctives and time tabl~s, the application for r e certificat ion must include a de tailed explanation of the r ea sons . .) 10/68 Page 2 �WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'T' I RHA 7100.11 CJW>TER 3 ,, CHAPTER 3. 1. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCEDURES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CERTIFICATION FILING OF APPLICATION FOR CERTIFICATION. Form HUD-1081 is to be used by the community to apply for certification or recertification of its Workable Program. Careful attention to the preparation of format and content will obviate the need for correspondence with the community and thus help to expedite the review and evaluation of the application and its approval. An original and three copies of Form HUD-1081 are to be submitted to the appropriate HUD Regional Office. An application for recertification should be submitted at least 60 days prior to expiration of the community's current Workable Program certification. A community desiring to discuss Workable Program policies and requirements or to obtain assistance and guidance in the preparation of the required Form 1081 should communicate with the HUD Regional Office. 2. GOVERNING BODY APPROVAL OF THE WORKABLE PROO-RAM. Before being submitted to the Regional Office, the application for certification and recertification on Form HUD-1081 must be approved by the executive head and the governing~- body of the community. 3. NOTIFICATION OF APPROVAL OR DISAPPROVAL. The HUD Regional Office will advise the applicant community of approval or disapproval of the Workable Program application for certification. a. Reasons for Disapproval or Conditional Approval. Applicati9ns may· be disapproved or conditionally approved for ~ither of two reasons listed below; an explanation of the basis for such action will be provided to the community. (1) Failure by the community to carry out the plan of action and timetable it proposed for the last certification period. In the event of disapproval or conditional approval for this reason, the community will be advised of the actions it must take to carry out the plans or steps it initially proposed but did not take and did not provide justification for not taking. ( 2) Inadequacy of plans, programs, and timetables -proposed by the community for the next certification period. In the event of disapproval or conditional approval for this reason, the community will be informed of the nature of Page 1 10/ 68 �WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT I Rl!A 7100.1 • I CHAPTER 3 the inadequacy of its proposed plans and programs, and will be requested to submit additional information needed to remedy such inadequacies. b. 4. Time Limit. Applications that are conditionally approved will provide a reasonable, definite time limit for accomplishment of required actions. In the event of a conditional approval, applications for financial assistance under the applicable HUD programs will be processed, but final approvals will be withheld until the Workable Program is fully approved. ( Once a community's application is approved, no further requirements will be imposed during the period of certification.) CERTIFICATION PERIOD. All Workable Program certifications are for a two-year period. If certification of a Workable Program has expired, the execution of contracts for assistance is precluded with respect to the applicable programs listed in Chapter 1, paragraph 5. Certification is deemed not to expire, however, but rather to continue in effect for the following purposes: a. To provide Federal assistance under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 for any urban project in the locality with respect to which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date. -~.-: i b. To provide Federal assistance under the United States Housing Act of 1937 for any low-rent public housing being undertaken by the locality with respect to which a contract for annual contributions or capital grant is executed prior to the ex-. piration date. c. To provide mortgage and home improvement loan insurance under Section 220 of the National Housing Act with respect to property in the locality situated in: 10/68 (1) The area of any urban renewal project for which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date, or (2) Any urban renewal area not involving Federal aid under Title I of the Housing Act of 1949 respecting which prior to the expiration date the Secretary of Housing and Urban Developnent has certified that he has approved the urban renewal plan for the area, that such plan conforms to the general plan for the locality as a whole, and that there exist the -necessary authority and financial capacity to ensure the completion of such urban renewal plan . Page 2 �WORl<".ABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY JMffiOVE:MENT I • RHA 7100.11 CHAPTER 3 d. 5, To provide mortgage insurance under Section 221(d)(3) of the National Housing Act with respect to property in the locality for which a pre-application analysis has been made by the Federal Housing Administration and it has agreed in writing to accept a formal application prior to the expiration date, or located in the area of any urban renewal project for which a loan and grant contract is executed prior to the expiration date. CERTIFICATION LAPSE. Where a Workable Program certification has expired and a lapse has occurred , the community will be required to show the progress made in meeting Workable Program r equirements not only during the period in which the Workable Program was in effect, but also during the lapse d period. Thus, it is important that a community anticipate the expiration -date and initiate the actions necessary to prepare an application for recertification sufficiently in advance of this dat so that lapse may be avoided. 6. .'TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES . 7, RELATIONSHIP OF WORKABLE PR(X;RAM AND URBAN RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS. Communities intending to apply for urban renewal assistance should be aware of the following statutory requirements: In accordance with Section lOl(d) of the Housing Act of 1949, as amended, the Department will endeavor to the maximum extent possible, to assist communities in meeting their Workable Program objectives. Field reviews of progress will be made as necess~ry midway through the period of certification and Regional Office staff will be available to the ext ent resources permit to provide consultation , advice , and t echnical assistance. a. No loan or grant contract may be e ntered into for an urban renewal project unless the Workable Program 11 is of sufficient scope and content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need for the urban renewal project, and such project is in accord with the program. 11 b. The plan for an urban r enewal project must "conform to the general plan of the locality as a whole and to the Workable Program . . . " c. In entering into any contract for advances for surveys, plans, and other preliminary urban renewal work, the Secretary must "give consideration to the extent to which appropriate local public bodies have undertaken positive programs (through the adoption, modernization, administration, and enforcement of housing, zoning, building and other local laws, codes, and regulations . . . ) for (1) preventing the spread or recurrence Page 3 10/68 �i' WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT I RHA 7100.1 J CHAPTER 3 in the community of slums and blighted areas, and (2) encouraging housing cost reductions through the use of appropriate new materials, techniques, and methods in land and residential planning, design, and construction, the increase of efficiency in residential construction, and the elimination of restrictive practices which unnecessarily increase housing costs." d. HUD will not authorize a Federal aid contract for a Neighborhood Development Program (NDP) unless there is in existence a certified Workable Pro gram which is of sufficient scope and content to furnish a basis for evaluation of the need for the proposed NDP activities and such activities are in accord with the Workable Program. Communities are advised that because of the above statutory provisions, requirements for urban r enewal assistance may differ from those nec essary for Workable Program certification purposes in the following ways: a. Evaluation of Urban Renewal Need. With respect to subparagraphs a. and d., above, a community int ending to apply for urban renewal or NDP assistance should ensure that the studies undertaken in connection with the planning and programming requirement describ ed in Chapte;r, 5 are of sufficient scope and quality to provide a basis for evaluation of the need for the urban renewal project or NDP activities. In general, the studies carried out under th e Workable Program should be adequate to determine that the area is sufficiently blighted or deteriorated to qualify for an urban renewal or NDP program. Information should be included to illustrate both building and environmental deficiencies, such as overcrowded conditions, exce·ssive densiti es, and so forth . For further information on urban renewal eligibility requirements see RHA 7205.1 of the Urban Renewal Handbook, Chapter 1, General Eligibility Requirements. A community may, if it so wishes, supplement its' Workable Program submission with other related studies having a bearing, such as a Community Renewal Pro gram, General Neighborhood Renewal Program, or other similar studies. b. Renewal Plans. With respect to b ., above, the Urban Renewal Handbook sets forth the following minimum elements of a general plan: land use plan, thoroughfare plan, community facilities plan, public improvement s program, zoning ordinance and map and subdivision regulations . The preparation of such plans ( except for a zoning ordinance or other comparable memo for guiding land usage) is not a prerequisite to the approval of the Workable Program, though many communities may find the preparaof them helpful in the development of general plans to guide 10/68 Page 4 �I.. I WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.11 CHAPTER 3 • community growth and development, which is a Workable Program requirement describ ed in Chapter 5. In addition, for purpose s of approving specific urban renewal proj ects, a greater de gree of planning completion may be required than would be necessary for Workable Program purposes, e spe cially in smaller communities and others seeking initial certification or recertification. c, .., Codes. With respect to c., above, a community intending to apply for urban renewal assistance is advised that approval of the housing, building , and other code r equir ements of the Workable Pro gram will constitute compliance for urban. r e newal purpose s with Se ction lOl(a) of the Housing Act of 1949, and no additional information will be r equired for that purpo s e. 8. AVAILABILITY OF WORKABLE PR03RAM AS PUBLIC DOCUMENT. Since th e Workable Pro gram is a publi c docume nt , i t must be made available for public perusal a nd examination. At the ir reque st, copies should be made available by the locality to citizen groups and organizations which should be encourage d to participate in the 'develoµn ent and implementation of the Workable Pro gram. 9. GUIDES . Supplementary guide s will be issue d to provide communities with advi ce and illustrat ions in conne ction with carryi ng out the Workable Pro gr am, including des crJption of the s cope a nd conte nt of compr ehensive pl~nni ng progr ams, ways of organizing and carrying out effe ctive r e lo cation and code enforcement pro grams, and means for encouraging and deve loping citi zen involvement. Pending i ssuance of the Guides , questions and r eque sts for technica l assistance should be dire ct ed to the Regional Offi ce. Page 5 10/68 �WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMEN'r RHA 7100.1 • CHAPTER 7 CHAPTER 7. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT 1. REQUIREMENTS FOR CITIZEN I NVOLVEMENT. A guiding principle of Departmental policy is to in sure that citizens have the opportunity to participate in policies and prograijls which affect their welfare. Therefore, the Workable Program requires clear evidence that the community provides opportunities for citizens, including those who are poor and members of minority groups, to participate in all HUD assisted programs for which a Workable Program is a requirement, and in the community's plan to expand the supply of low- and moderate-income housing. (S ee Chapter 1, paragraph 5 for li st of applicable HUD programs.) The community will also be expected to show what progress has be en made durin g each certification period to achi eve an adequate and effective degree of citizen involvement. 2. PRINCIPLES AND PURPOSES OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT, The growing complexity of urban deve lopme nt and gove rnment organization make it essential that widespr ead opportunities for citizen involvement be created, including opportunities for poor and minority groups, for many reasons. In some cases, existing local institutions seem unable to identify the serious proplems of many citizens, as the citizens define them. In turn, th e people may feel cut off from their public r epresentative·s', and lack understanding of what government is doing to and for them. At the same time, traditional acts of pa rticipa.tion--voting , attendance at meetings, letters to Congressmen-- are frequently ineffective in dealing with the immediate problems raised by increasingly l ar ge and complex programs having direct impact on peoples' lives. For these reasons, new forms of collaborative relationships between citizens and government, new means for participation in the decision-making process, need to be developed. Recognizing th e need for experimentation and innovation, the Workable Program does not contain any specific requirements for the form that citizen participation must take. Tne choice of mechanisms depends upon the needs of the particular community and the structure of the local government. However, there are certain principles and objectives which should underlie the community's effort. One is that the community's responsibility does not end with the establishment of a particular mechanism or . set of mechanisms. The Workable Program requires continuing effort on the part of the community to improve and expand the opportunities for creative forms of participation and collaboration that both ensure repres entation by poor and minority groups. as well as enable government to take effective, purposeful, and expert action to deal with the problems and needs facing the community. It is essentia l that the participation be satisfying, rewarding, and not frustratin g if it is to achieve the basic objective of cr eating and sustaining a vo luntary union and mutual trust between governand its citizens. p 338- 597 0 - 60 - J Page 1 11/68 �WORKABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT I RHA 7100.1 " CHAPTER 7 3, EXAMPLES OF CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES. It is important that the community deve lop specific plans for achieving and maintaining adequate and e ffective citizen involveme nt in the programs covere d. A community may establish a new community-wide advisory committee embracing all major interests~ including the poor and members of minority groups or may create several new special-purpose groups, or may make b ette r utilization of existing organi zations. Communities which already have establishe d ef.fective citizen advisory committees for Workable Program purposes are encouraged to retain them and improve their effectiveness. Communities participating in the Mode l Cities program or other programs involving a high degree of citizen participation are encouraged to coordinate the citizen involvement activities under the Workable Program with the citi zen pa rtic ipat ion r equirements of th ese programs , where applicable. In addition to establishing appropriate organizational means for citizen involvement, a community may wish to take such steps as the following in orde-r - t o- further the objectives of this element:

a. .. .. , , , b. The developfilent of specific function s for c itizen committees, such as having t hem hold public hearings , prepare comments on Workable Program appli cation s , evalua t e proj ect pla n s , conduct interviews and surveys of neighborhood residents ' views, etc. The development of specific methods by which the community can establi sh a basis for insuring there will be fa ir and reasonable r epr esentativeness of advisory committee s participa ting in th e Workable Program. For example , one method by which to compo se a community-wide advisory committee might be to choose repres entatives in equal proportions, from private neighborhood groups, government program-connected advisory groups, and civic groups. / 4. c. The establi shment of a planning group t o he l p develop new ideas and t e chniques for generating greater involvement among poor and di sadva ntaged groups . d. The pr ovision of funds and technical assistance to neighborhood and other advisory groups so they may become be tter informed and equippe d t o deal with complex redevelopment problems. e. The assignment of specific activities in HUD- assiste d pro j ects to de signate d ne ighborhood groups, such as evaluating site and design cons ide r ations, e stablishing information centers, and making recommendations with r espect to housing project regulation s. CRITERIA FOR EVALUATION OF APPLICATIONS. To provide a basis for .e valua ting the citize n involveme nt el ement of Workable Program ll/ 68 Page 2

�WORKABLE PROORAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT I RHA 7100.~ CHAPTER 7 • applications and for determining the adequacy of such involvement, the community will be expected to submit the following kinds of information: a. A description of the arrangements or working relationships established to provide citizen groups with opportunities for access to the decision-making pro.cess with respect to the related HUD-assisted projects related to the Workable Program. b. A description of the nature and range of issues with which the participating groups and individuals have dealt, the recommendations subsequently made, and the general results and accomplishments derived from such involvement. c. A description of the specific steps the community took in the preceding period and proposes to take in the next certification period to achieve or maintain an adequate and effective degree of citizen involvement, including plans for providing sufficient information, technical assistance, and access to decision-making. \.>, Page 3 10/68 �HUD-1081 (11-68) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENT. The Workable Program requires clear evidence that the community provides and continues to expand, opportunities for citizens, especiall y tho se who are poor and members of minority groups, to participate in all phases of the related HUD-assisted renewal and housing programs. The particular organizational means for community involvement is left to the discretion of each community, but the community mu s t demon s trate in its Workable Progra m submission that it provides clear and direct access to decision making, relevant and timely information, and necessary technical assistance to participating groups and individuals in programs covered. 1. (a) Identify the groups participating in the HUD-assisted programs related to the Workable Program and in the community's program to expand the supply of low- and moderate-income hou sing. (b) Describ e the type of groups (e.g. civic, neighborhood, hous ing) that are participating, and the constituency repre sented (e.g. poor, middle-class, Negro, public hous ing res idents ) • • 18 • �HUD·! 081 (11-68) (c) Describe what pa rticular HUD-ass is ted programs and proj ects s uch groups a re parti ci pating in . • (_., ., (d) Desc ribe efforts to achi eve coordination among cit.izen participation structures loc ated in the same area or having s imilar program inte res ts. · - 19 - �HUD-1081 (11-68) 2. Describe the arrange ments or working re lations hips s et up to provide groups a nd indi vidua ls opportunities for access to a nd partici pa tion in deci s ion-making in the a ppli cabl e HUD-ass isted progra ms • • 3. Des cribe the s te ps whi ch have been taken in regard to the applicable programs to provide participating groups a nd individua ls s uffi c ie nt information a nd techni ca l ass is tance . 4. Des cribe the nature a nd range of issues re lating to the applicable programs with whi ch participa ting groups and individua ls have dealt; the recommenda tions s ubs eque ntly made; and the s pec ific res ul ts and accomplis hments of the partic ipa tion. • 20 U. S. GOVERNMENT P RINTING OFFICE: 1068 0 - 327 - 649 �CITY OF A.TLANTA. May 30, 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B . GLADIN , Dir e ctor MEMORANDUM TO: Jof1) Robi ~son FROM: c~ SUBJECT: Summer Program 1 69 Our contacts with the Summer Program for all matters except zoning will be George Aldridge and for zoning, Tom Shuttleworth . CG/jp �r . FUl'f0I NG OF URBAN R.EN:SW1~L AND lIBJ.GHBOREOOD DEVELO?i:,fENT PROGB}J,1 PROJ ECTS APRI L 29, 1969 . . �-I ,- . '---· · The City of Atlanta is pres ent ly engaged in eight Urban Renewal Projects and five Neighborhood Developme nt Program Projects (3 in execution, 2 in Thes e projects are fund ed jointly by the City and the planning only). Federal Governmen t. The funding arrangement calls for a contribution equal to one~third of the Net Project costs from tha City with the· re~ rnaini.ng two--thirds being suppJied by ·che Federal Gov ernmen t. The City's share may b e in the form of ca sh contributions or non-ca sh grants-in-aid, th e se grnrits-in- aid are demo lition and removal work, project or site i ~prov eme nt s , public and supporting facilities, and other s such as credits fro~ construc~ion of public housings. At pres ent, the eight Urb an Ren rn-1 al project~ presently in execution are Slunrna rized as follows: Net Project Costs Local Non- Cash Gra nts-In-Aid Local Cash and Real Estate Cr edits $60 millionl 20 rn:i.llion 1 million This points very emphatically to th e feet that our prese nt Urban Renewa l program has been financed al mos t comp l e tely through the use of non-cash grants·· in-aid. The res ults of this policy can be seen in th_e long delays encountered in the clo sing out of these projects, some of which date back into the 1950 's·. The cash used for these projects has cor:ie frcr:rt money set aside in the 1957 and 1963 Genera l Obl igat ion Bond Issue s and totaling $3.2 milliono There- fore, we have, at present, $2.1 million of unencu:.1bered fun ds available f:rom this source. Of this amount, $1. 7 is presently expected to be needed lof this amount $4.5 mi llion or 7\% has been incurred as interest charges. �- I ___·L__- to meet the cash requin:ments of the Be~:fo:cd-Pine Neit;hborhooc1 Develop;T1.2ni: Program Project in 1970. The non.,c ash contributions of $20 million are the eligible portion of total expenditures totaling about $29 million and have some of the following forms . School Sect i on 107 2 & Specia l Credits Streets Parks Water T.mp:r.ove1aent Sewer Improvement s Special Facilities Traffic I r,1p;:-ovemeats . Oth er $llol~ million 1.3 million l~. 7 m:i.llion .7 million . 6 million c6 m:i.lJ.:Lon .3 m:i.11:Lon .1 million million -~ $20.0 million Some of the problems encount ered because of t he use of non-cash contributions (9408% of total city funding) as the City's source of funding Urban Renewal activities are : 1. Butler Street A. Middle School with a total estim.'.lted co st of $2 million has been delaying the close of this proj ect , but should be under contract by August of 1969. 2o Ra-1vson - Washington A• . Neighborhood Fac ilities, Building with a total estimated cost of $1 million of which $150,0C0 will be an e ligibl e proj ect cost. This project is at present unfunded with -the only poss ible source of funds be i ng t~rough Mode l Citi es o It is presen t ly plenned f or the Ci t y to purchase the l and from t he Housing Authority and hold this until a det ermi na tion i s made _; 2r.rN1i rs rP.sulti.n ~ fro m th e construction of Publ ic Housing . �-I -· . L_ __ r egard irrg t h e t.1. se of :t-:ode J. CH :i. es f und s. B. P.s.rk 1-lith an es tiir.a t ed co s t 0£ $2L:0,000 of wh :i.ch $33,000 will b0 el igibl e cos ts . No s our c e of fu nding is pr e sently asce r tainabl e , A. El emen t a ry School 1-1ith an e st i ma t ed cost of $1.5 mj_llion a nd expected to be und er contract by Aui us t of 1969. B. An e:-::pansion of the cx:i.st ing el ernent 8. ry scho o1. with an e s ti- mated co s t of $700,000 and a t pre sent unf:un ded. c. Pa1·l~ with an e s tima t ed co s t of $75,000 which is al s o p:;:-es ently unftinded . 4, Th omasvi ll e A. El ement ary schoo l wi th $1.5 mill i on es timat ed co st and expect ed to b e under contract by Au gus t, 19 69. B. Pa rk with est i ma t ed cost of $126,00 0 which i s at pr esent unfunded. C. Tvn primar y scho ol EJ with $1 million es tina t ed total cost and a middl e school wi th an est i ma t ed co s t of $2 mi llion are unfunded and n o s our c e is s een until nt l eas t J ~~e of 1971. The a dvent of th e Neighb orho od Deve l opment Program has br ought t o a n end t he period during whi ch t he Ci ty could pl edge an i mprovemen t and t he n wai t unt il funding b ecame av.s.i l ab le b efore c ompl et i ng it. Und e r t he t erms of an NDP agreeme nt, the City must h ave co~nple t ed or have unde r cont ract al l non- ca sh grants - in- aid p l edged f or tha t pa r ticul ar yea r or contribut e the requ i r ed amoun t in c ash. - 3- �.. ,.... ' Our p:rc: :, cnt 1-mr p1~ojects We:re funded fo;~ 19 69 £r ora c11;:-eac1y existing imp:rnve·· ments o~ supporting facilities amounting to a tot a l City coDmi ttment of $10. 8 million. This supports a tot a l ·Nei ~hbo:choo<l Development Program of $32.l, million. The 1970 progr~~ is expected to hav e the follo wing Ci~y requirements: Non··Cash Ca sh $1. 7 milli on $ • 2 f\l:i.llion Bedfor<l-Pine 1.3 million 1.5 mi lli on Hocl e l CHie3 Edgei-lOOcl Vine City .1 milU.on .1 mill ion • 2 million . 2 million $3.l} million $1.9 mi J.lio~1 - ·-- --'"-- This would su pport a to tal pro gram o f $19.9 mi ll i on aud wou ld increase gr eat ly :i.f the Edge'i·wocl and Vine Cit y projects were expanded to a signi .. fic abt l eve l of activi ty. This means that to support th e fairly light l eveJ. of r:c tivi.ty projected fo,~ 1970 , th e City i·i:i.1.l need approxima teJ.y $1. 7 million . I£ any new m:eas are added or the l eve l of activity incr eased t his would increase from $2.5 to $4.0 million for 1970 . The possible sourc es of funds include: l. Gen::;ra l Funds ~ This s:i urce is already under consid er-ab l e pressu::ce and no relief is p resent ly anticipated. 2. The G. annually. o. Bonds already ap prov ed, fo r i ssue in the amo un t of $4 mi llion '. The financing of Neighborhood Development Programs f m m these bonds wou ld r equire the us e of almos t this entire amou~t every year and could very likely become erriliroifed in l egal tangle s . 3. Ano ther possibility is a sp ec ial Neighborhoo d Deve lopment Program General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 - $20 mil lion in 1970 with a nother issue 4 or 5 years lat er or the ob ta i ning of voter approva l to issue G. O. Bonds for th i s purpose i n the amount of $3-5 m:i.lJ.ion per year. [ • �. L. - This appr o 2ch is natu~elly sub ject t o .. T'df . ~.E!S of th e _p~b lic, and, there~ fo re , of u~cer tain dep enclabil i ty. L~. I I Ii. !' ' ' . Pe;:-haps the best method would be tln:ou::;h th e obtri:.i.ning of: a n ew rev-e nue sour c e , by state approval , such as a sales t ax or a payro ll tax of which a Cf,rtain portion ,-,oulc~ be eari;;art e d for Ne.:i.ghbo:chocrJ Dev_e lopment Programs . I • Of course in the pEr.suit of a ne-::-1 s ource of revenue we ,:n-e at loige:cheads !I ;, i' . with t he stet e and ma y not be able to obta in a satisfac t ory revenue s ource . I1 · Regardless of th e raetho <l you favor in obta i n ing the nee2c<l funds, it is .. i mperat i ve , if th e City of Atlanta is to 11'.aj_nte.in its progressive i mage and

l

1· •' "•, r

i to continue • ,_ C J_ LV thcrt a som~ce be found ; because the c ont i nuat ion of a signific ant program of r es tora tion and reheblitation of th e c entra l core of Atlanta is a vital cl ement in tl1 e continued evolution H Ii r: of our City. r: il ,I 1 ,.- I j ·1 I

I -5- �AGENDA Meeting: Department of Housing & Urban Development Atlanta Planning Department Atlanta Housing Authority Atlanta Housing Code Division of the Department of Buildings Held: Committee Room frl 10:00-10:30 a.m., March 12, 1968 I. II. III. Jim Smith - Introduction of Mce~ing, Introduction of Speakers Collier Glc>.din - Import.wee of ~rvey , to City of Atlanta, Planning Dep.::rtm.ent, Housing Code Division. Responsibility of Planning Department and Housing Code Division, Introduction of Planning Department Contact Person (Neyers). HUD representatives - Importance of Survey to Housing Code Compliance Progre.m, to Workable Progran, to other Cities.

.' ..

~ In attendance: J. S. Buchanan Tom Ficht Harold Taylor IV. Questions and Answers

�AGENDA Meetine: Department of Housing & Urban Development Planning Department Atlanta Housing Authority Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings Held: Office of Collier Glndin 10:30-11:00 a.m., March 12, 1968 Chairman: Helen l.feyers ~cussion Topics: 1. Evaluation of Atlanta survey techniques and procedures by Department of Housing & Urban Development and Atlanta Housing Authority. 2. Use of Atlanta's survey information by Department of Housing & Urban Development and by the City for Federal program planning. 3. Development and adoption of a uniform set of standards and .definitions for structural evaluation and rating. 4. Organizing a corr.mittee or other mechanism from the . Department of Housing & Urban Developm~ nt, Atlanta Housing Authority, Atlanta Planning Department, Housing Code Division to work on the above. �, / ATTENDANCE SHEET ! j Collier Gladin - Planning Dept. W. Buchanan - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Tom Ficht - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Harpld Taylor - Dept. of Housing &_Urban Development Wally Screws - Atlanta Housing Authority Jim Smith - Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings George Aldridge - Planning Department John Watson - Planning Department Helen Meyers - Planning Department Jack Linville - Planning Department Wallace Edson - Housing Code Division Robert Tipton - HousiP~ Code Division 10 Housing Code Inspectors - Housing Code Division •.. �l\1EIG1-IBOR..1-IOOD D:'!:V:-.:LOP11ENT PROGR.!J :;: PI'OJ ECTS APRI L 29 , 1969 �The City of At l anta i s pres ent l y engage d in ei ght Ur ban Renewa l Pr ojec ts and five Neighbo r ho od Development Pro gram Projects (3 i n ex ecut ion , 2 in planrti ng onl y). Thes e pr oj ec ts a r e f unded jo int l y by t he Ci ty and t h e Fede:r:a l Governmen t. The fu nding a r r angement ca ll s for a contribution equal to one- th ird of the Ne t Proj ect co s t s from t h e City wi t h t h e remaining ti,10~t h i rds being s upplied by the Federa l Government . The Ci t y ' s share ma y be i n the f or m of cash cont r i butions or non- ca sh grants-in-aid , t hes e grant s -in- a i d ar e demol it io n and r emova l wor k , pr ojec t or s it e i mprovements , public and support ing f acil ities , and ot h e r s s uch a s c red i t s f rom cons truct ion of pub lic ho us i ngs . At pr ese nt, t he eight Ur ban Renewa l pro j ec t s presen tl y in execution are s unm1ar i zed a s follows: Net Pro j ec t Cos t s Loc a l Non-C a sh Gran ts - In-Aid Loca l Ca sh a nd Rea l Es t a te Cr edit s $60 millionl 20 million 1 million This poi nts ve ry emphat ic a lly to the f ac t t hat our pr es ent Urban Renewa l pr ogram has b een f inanced al most compl etel y through t h e us e of non- cash grant s-in- aid . The r e su lts of t h is pol i c y c an b e seen in tl~e long d elays enc ountered in th e c los ing out of these pr ojects, some of wh ich da t e back i nto the 1950 ' s ·. Th e cash used f or thes e pr oj ects has c ome from money set aside i n the 1957 a nd 1963 General Ob l igat ion Bond Issue s and to t aling $3.2 mil l i on o Th er efo r e, we have, at present , $2.1 million of unenc umbered f und s ava ilab l e f r om thi s s ource . Of th is amount, $1.7 is pre s ent l y expected to be needed lo£ thi s a,t1ount $4. 5 million or 7}{/4 has been incurred as interest charges o �·. ' - to mee t . tl ,e cash r equi rements of t he Bedfor d-Pine Nei ghbo r hood Development Program Proj ec t i n 1970 . The non- cash con t ributions of $20 mi l lion a re the e l igibl e portion of to tal expenditures tota ling ab out $2 9 million and have some of the fol lowing fo rms . Schoo l Sec tion 1072 & Special Credi ts Stre et s Parks Wa t er I mpr ovement Sewer I mpr ovemen:: s Spec i al Fac i l it i es Tra ff:i. c I m:_Jl'."ovements . Other $11o4 million 1. 3 mi ll ion ~.• 7 mi ll i on • 7 mi ll i on .6 million 06 mill i on .3 mi ll i on .1 million o3 mi llion $20 . 0 million Some o f th e prob l ems encountered becaus e of th e us e of non-ca sh cont ributions ( 9li. o8% of total city f unding) as t he City ' s s our ce of funding Ur ba n Renewal activiti e s ar e: 1. But l er St ree t A. Middle School with a to tal e s timated co st of $2 milli on has been delaying th e c l ose of this pro j ect, but should be under contrac t by August of 1969. 2o Rawson - Washington A. Ne ighbor hood Fa c ilitie s, Build ing with a total es t i ma ted co st of $1 million of wh ich $150, 000 will be a n eligible pr oj ect c ost. This pr oj ect i s at pr esent unfunded with the only pos sib l e s ource of f unds being through Model Ci ties o It is presently planned for the City t o purchase the l and f r om th e Housing Au thor ity a nd hold this unt il a dete rmi nation is made �·• J - r egarding the use of Mode l Ci t ies funds. B. Park with an estimated co st of $240,000 of which $33,000 will be eligible costs . No source of funding is presently ascertainable . 3. Rockdale A. Elementar y School with an estimated cost of $1.5 million and expec ~ed to be under contra ct by August of 1969. B. An expansion o f the existing ele1 entary school with BL esti- mated c ost of $700 ,000 and at present unfunded . C. Par k 1·1 ith an estimc1ted cost of $75,000 which is also pre sent l y unfunded. ~.. Thomasvil le A. Elementary school with $LS million estimated cost and exp ected to b e under contract by August , 1969 . B. Park with estimated cos t of $126,000 which is at p res ent unfunded. C. Tw:> prima ry schoola with $1 million estimated total cost and a middle school with an estimated cost of $2 mi llion are unfunded and no source is seen until &t least J une of 1971. The advent of the Neighborhood Development Program has brought to an end the period during which the City could pledge an improvement and then wait until funding became ava ilable before completing it. Under the terms of an NDP agreemen t , the Ci t y mus t have comple ted or have und er contrac t all non-cash grants-in-aid pl edged f or t h at part i c ular year or contribute t he required amount i n cash . - 3- �-I_ I ' Our present NDP pr oj ec ts we:;_·e funded for 1969 fr om already ex isting i mprove~ ments or suppor ting facilities amoun ting to a tota l City coP-anittment of $10 .8 million. This supports a t ota l l·~eighborhood Development Program of $32.fi. million. The 1970 program is expected to have the following City requirements : Non~Cash Cash Bedfo1·d-Pine $ • 2 million $1. 7 mil lion 1.5 millinn 1.3 million Hodel Cities • l mi ll1.c11 . 2 mi llion Edgewood • 2 million . 1 mil ?. ion Vine City $3.Lf mi ll lou $1.9 mill ion Thi s would support a total program of $1909 mi l lion and would i ncrease great ly if the Edgewood and Vine Cit y proj ect s were expanded to a significant level of activi t y. This means that to support th e fair ly light level of activity projected f.o r 1970, the City wj_ll need approxi mately $1. 7 million . I f any new areas are added or the level of activity increased this woul d increase f rom $2 •.S to $4. 0 mi llion for 19 700 The possible s ources of fund s include: 1. General Funds - This ro urce is already under considerab l e pressure and no relief is presently anticipat ed . 2. The G. annually . o. Bonds already approved, f or issue in the amount of $4 mi llion ' The fi nanc ing of Neighborhood Development Pro6rams from these bonds would require t he us e of almost this entire amoutit every year and could ver y likely be come embroited in l egal tangles. 3. Another possibility is a spec ial Neighborhood Development Program General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 - $20 million in 1970 with another issue 4 or 5 years lat er or the obtaining of voter approval to issue G. O. Bonds for this purpose in the amount of $3-5 million per year. �' .I This approach is n atura l ly s ubject to t:..he ut :Lrns of th e public, and, t herefo re , of unce rtain dependab ility . 4. PerLaps the be st metlod would be th r ough the obtaining of a n eH revenue s ource, by s tate approva l, such as a s ales tax or a payr oll tax of which a c ertain portion wou ld be earma:i::-ked for Neighborhoo:1 Deve lopmen t Progr e....rns . Of cours e in the pursuit of a new sourc e of r ev enue we are a t lo ggerh eads with the sta ~ and may not be able to obta in a s at isfacto ry revenue source . Regard le s s of the method you f avor in ob t aini ng the needed funds , it is i mperat i ve, if the City of At lanta is to ma inta in its progre ssive i mage and t o c ont i nu e its drama t ic deve l opment , that a source be found ; bec au s e the cont i nuat ion of a signific ant program of restoration and rehabl i ta tion of t he c entral co r e of Atlanta i s a v ital element in t he continu ed evo l utio n o f our Cityo - 5- �COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM City Planning Department City Hall Atlanta, Ga. January, 1968 OUTLIN"E .INTRODUCTION IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOAIB & PROGRA..M STRATEGY STATEMENT - GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNI NG (1) Discussion Reports (2) Distributien of Rep0rts ATTACHMENTS Discussion Reports Chart Report #1 - Problem .Analysis, Sample Outline �IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION If the planning of the Model Neighborhood Program is to be successful, it is absolutely essential that all key participants ·i.ir the program are well organized. This means that the following organi zational matters should be accomplished before planning begins. 1. The Model Neighborhood Executive Boa rd should be formed to act as the ultimate authori ty of the pr@gram. It should allow representation from all levels of gover-JLment - city, county, state, and federal; residents of the Model Nei ghborhood area; and residents of the city-at-large. 2. The Model Neighborhood staff should be f ormed, including the executive director, the three chief planners and the technical staff. 3. Stable local organizations which adequ at el y represent the residents of the various neighborhoods in the area should be in operation. While those organizations should be representative of the interests of all residents and give everyone a voice in their affairs, they should not be se cumbersome that they cannot work effectively with the planners. In other words, it will be physica.JJ..v impossible for the planners to carry all of their work directly to the 'grass roots' organizations of the area. This may be necessary for some key issues, but for the most part planners will have to work with a small committee of 10-20 persons if they are to accomplish anything worthwhile. �COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM INTRODUCTION The Model Neighborhood Program offers an excellent opportunity to bring about basic improvements in one of the most problematic areas of Atlanta. The area selected for the pr0gram contains all the varied and complicated forms of urban blight which plague American cities today, from overcrowded, su~standard housing to incompatible land use mj_xtures to poer street conditions and inadequate community facilities to all facets of socio-economic poverty and deprivation. Most of these conditions have deep roots and are so complex and of such a nature that it will take nothing less than a special concentrated long-term effort to eliminate them. So far no major city in the country has been successful in eliminating them. The Model Neighborhood Program can bring about t he special concentrated effort which is needed to alleviate the conditions of the ' Model Neighborhood' area. It is designed to pool the resources of the city, county, state, and federal governments along with tho se of private interest groups to make a total attack on the serious and widespread problems of the area for a period of several years. The funds it provides will support the pr gram through the planning and implementation stages. However, if the Model Neighborhood Program is to avoid the mistakes of many previous efforts to help slwn residents it is very important that the pr gram be carefully planned and that local residents be involved throughout all stages of planning. The purpose of this report is to show how c mmunity par ticipation ean be effectively fitted into the planning f the M del Nei~hborho0d Pr gram. -2- �Hence the neighborhood groups of the area should be capable of fer.ming such a cemmittee which can wor k with the planners and relay this work to the 'grass ro0ts' groups . It has been suggested that the steering committee of the various neighb0rhood gr oups in the area serve this function . PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING The federal government has set the pr ocedure s for the planning of the Model NeighborhQod Program. The period allowed f or planning is one year, beginning with the date of the congressional announcement of the program (Nov. 15, 1967 - Nov• . 15, 1968). During t his period t he foll0wing planning items have to be submitted to the fe de ral government for approval: 1. Problem Analysis, Goals & Progra~ Strategy Statement 2. Five -Year Pl an 3. Firs t-Year Action Progr am 4. Pl anning and Evaluation Progr am S. Statement of Administ rative St ructLITe for Impl ement ation Of t hese planning submission requirements , the firs t one - the Problem Analysis, Goals and Program St rategy'Statemeht - i s probably the most important, as it will set the stage for the rest of the planning effort. It will establish the general orientation of the Five-Year Plan and the FirstYear Action Program and will initiate the general procedures for community participation in planning. Thus, it can serve as a guide as to how the local residents will be involved in plam1ing. -3- �PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOALS AND PROGRAM STRATEGY STAT~j§JIT-GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING The preparation of the Problem Analysis, Goals and Program Strategy is divided into three stages or milestones: Strategy. Problem Analysis; Goals; and It is intended that the Model Neighborhood planning staff and the community will be working cl0sely toget her in this preparation so that the best of their ideas will go into the f inal statement submitted to HUD. (1) DISCUSSION REPORTS The basis 0f the working relationship between the Model Neighborhood planning st aff and community will cent er ar oLU1d discussion repor ts to cover each milestone: Problems; Goals; and Strategy. These reports will be done by the planning staff and designed to st imulate discussion among t he r esi dents . They will not be the f inal word on anything, but merely present t he information available to the pl anning st aff so as to initi ate community involvement and discussion on t he significant pl anni ng is sues. The community will be able to criticize , add to and/or subtract from the reports . F0r exampl e , t he f irst r epor t will cover the subject: Problem Analysis and attempt to identify and survey the major condi t ions and problems of the Model Neighborhood area which ju st ify treatment. a. It will: define and document the major conditi0ns And problems as far as available data will allow and according to f ollowing categories: employment; housing ; schools; recreation ; land use; health services; family, legal services; police protection.; ,and 'ether. -4- �b. preseBt the i..nforrnati0n in a simple and concise manner so th2t lay citizens will have a minimum amount of tr<:mble in reading it. c. provide a brief questionnaire on which residents can rate the priority of problems in their community according to the above categories in (a). d. provide space in which residents caD criticize the contents of the report, i.e., redefine problems, r eorganize data, contribute additional ideas, etc. (2) DISTRIBUTION OF REPORTS The reports are to be distributed to each of the six communicities in the Model Neighborhood area. They will include infonnation on the area as a whole and on the particular community to which it is distributed. It probably will not be feasible to get written responses from all residents ef the area. But perhaps certain people frem each community could be responsible for surveying the responses of the residents, summarizing them, and writing them down to be ret urned to the planning staff. The reports will be all wed to circulate for a maximum period of two weeks. This should give enough time for r esidents to gather up their written responses te the report. Also during this time it would be desirable to have a general meeting in each community, whe r e residents can _freely express their own ideas ab0ut the subj ect matter of the report. After this circulation period which hopefully will br ing about fruitful dialogue and exchanges between the planners and the cormnunity, the planning staff should then be in a position to draw up final reports on Pr blems, Goals and St rategy which fully incorporate the ideas of �the residents. These reports would then make up the final Problem Analysis, Goals, and Pregram Strategy Sta tement . ATTACHMENTS Attached to this report are: 1. a chart which shows how the deadline dates and circulation periods of the discussion reports fit int0 the work program for the Problem Analysis, Geals, and Progr am Strategy Statement . 2. a sample outline of Rep0rt #1, Probl em Analysis. - 6 - �DISCUSSION REPORTS CHART PLANNING ACTIVITY Milestone Work Tasks Jan . Feb. Mar . Apr. May l 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 - 1) Problem Analysis Goals and Strategy Swnmary ef Tasks l) Citizen or i entation 2) Problem Analysis 3) Goals Development 4) Strate gy 5) Pr eparation of Report A) Preblem Analysis Report #1 1) Assemble Availabl e Data 2) Decision on Additional Data Requi red 3) Gather Additional Data Required 4) Citizen Analysis of Problems 5) Summarize and .Anal yze 6) Pr epare Report Legend Deadline for distributing reports to community .A Circulation period - - - - Deadline for collection reports from community -y - ·- .--I- - - �Jan. Miltest0ne Werk Tasks Feb . Mar. Apr. Summary of Tasks ' B) Goals Report #2 1) Decument Exi sting Goal s 2) Citizen Goals Set ting 3) Synthesis and Repor t Pr eparation C) Str ategy Report #3 1) Devel 0p Program Approach 2) Establish Program Pr i ority 3) I denti fy Cr itical Changes Requir ed 4) Report Preparation I May 1234 1234 1234 1234 1234 •--, - L.. ---. -- �REPORT #1 - PROBLEM ANALYSIS SAMPLE OUTLINE I. II. Introduction A. Pu~pose of report - to identify and document major conditiens · and problems of area B. Brief description of Model Neighborhood Area and its six communities Problems of Model Neighborhood Area as a Whole 1. 2. 3. 4. s. I II. 6. Health services 1. Family, legal services Housing Employment Schools Recreation Land Use 8. 9. Police protection and c0mmunity relations Other Problems Which Are Especially Acute In Parti cular C0mmunity (e.g. Grant Park) While Grant Park contains all of the proble s affecting the Model Neighborhood areas as a whole, it is especiall~r har dpressed with the following pr oblems. 1. 2. IV. Employment Family, legal services Questionnaire: How Do You Rate Your Community? Schools ___god ___fair ___poor v. Housing Etc. ---good --- fair ---poor Comments 1. Do you think this report adequat ely covered the main problems f your neighborhood? 2. What problems do you find not mentioned in the report? �