1 20 39 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/fe4930156952a904892684c0537c1696.pdf fbc0fed92214248d2fd3c4b4ac4a2012 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. .------ - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - --- .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? � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document .------ - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - --- .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? � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Complete Folder Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/836a13858e73dbbf72d70d9b8efe6435.pdf 906301a1914305d6ad98b2a21a4081f7 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. .------ - - - - - - - - - - - -- -- - -- - --- .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 • � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ” ®) TEAR cn iw BOORUM ® PEASE “FB — AR” a Sz bs id. & PEASE “RK BOORUM ba NN iv Planer ney 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 Committee members absent: Gregory Griggs Charlie Leftwich George Cotsakis Hugh Pierce Edwin Sterne, ) Housing Authority Frank Etheridge ) The Chairman called the meeting to order and the following business was considered: 1. A. PUBLIC HEARING - ANNEXATION PETITION BY JULIUS SCHNEIDER MEDICAL FOUNDATION, INC., COLUMBUS UNION CONFERENCE ASSOCIATION OF SEVENTH-DAY ADVENTIST AND EUGENE A, ANDERSON. Charles Watkins, First National Bank Building, was present representing the three property owners involved. Two other persons were present in support of the annexation. There was no opposition. The staff presented a detailed report to each committee member present relative to this petition, certifying that it meets all requirements set forth by the State Enabling Legislation and applicable city ordinances, and recommended its approval. The property in question lies in Land Lot 29 of the I4th District of Fulton, formerly Fayette County, and involves 69.1 acres; of the total acreage, 46.6 acres is zoned A-1 apartments; I7 acres is zoned R-3 and a smaller C-1 tract lies in Fulton County. Mr. Gladin explained the city would be annexing this property under the zoning most closely related to the existing county zoning, which in this instance is practically identical to the county's. All city services to the area are available, or can be provided upon request (letters to this effect from the appropriate city departments are included in the report). In answer to questioning by Mr. Summers, Mr. Watkins stated the owners wish to come into the city for the services that are available and to make their land more marketable for housing and sale of apartments. Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Two 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 ai that time, Mr. Eugene Anderson, part-owner of the tract which would become landlocked, appeared speaking for himself and Mrs. Schneider, also part-owner, stating they would be willing to have their property annexed; that, however, he could not officially speak for Mr. Steinmetz, another owner, but Mr. Steinmetz had told him he would be willing to be annexed. 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 fell 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. KRREKEEEEEE 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 Legislation and applicable city ordinances was presented to each committee member present and the staff recommended approval. The property lies in Land Lot I77 of the I7th District and is approximately 2 acres in size. Mr. Gladin stated the property is presently zoned R-1 (Residential) and would be annexed as R-1; that all services are available, or can be provided upon request (letfersto this effect are a part of the report). Mr. Livaditis was present along with his representative, Robert Smith. Mr. Smith acknowledged they were aware of the fact there are no existing sewers to the property and the present plans are to use two septic tanks, but they are hopeful of working out an easement agreement with the adjoining property owner to connect with an outfall a %, / ' Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Three sewer 150 feet from Mr. Livaditis' 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 thereis a charge to tap onto the water for 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 Department indicated that if this committee approves the annexation petition 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 referred to Executive Session, and upon unanimous vote, this petition was approved by the committee. KEKKKEKEKKE o 2. STATUS OF RECERTIFICATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM Pierce Mahony explained that the Planning staff is progressing rapidly toward completion of work for recertification of the Workable Program for a two-year period, rather than one year which has been approved in the past. He stated there have been considerable revisions in the requirements of the program for recertification, making it much more difficult to put together and committing us to a much more solid approach. He commented briefly on some of the new aspects of the program, such as the housing and relocation element and the department's anticipated participation in the HUD 70! planning program. He explained a federal requirement for participation in the 70I program is that one portion of the planning studies be a housing study; further, the personnel situation throughout the city, especially in the technical and professional level, is getting serious and the Planning Department hopes to solve some of its problems by hiring temporary personnel on 70! planning programs who could moveinto permanent planning vacancies as they occur. He went on to say these new requirements, particularly housing planning for low and moderate income families, points up the critical need for the Urban Information System 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" and stated the city will 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 stated, however, a lot of the 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". 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 stated this doesn't concur with figures he obtained from the Planning Department. Mr. Gladin explained the staff analysis referred to was done about a year ago and at that time the zoning approvals were running about 80-90%; that the staff is in the process of preparing an up-to-date analysis of the housing program. Mr. Cook asked for and was furnished with a copy of Mr. Jones' latest housing report. After a cursory examination, Mr. Cook expressed concem about the discrepancy in figures contained in the report and those stated orally by Colonel Jones. Being a member of the Zoning Committee, he stated he was tired of charges being made that the city's housing goals were not being met because of rezoning denials as he did not believe this to be the case, and he finds it very confusing and frustating to be unable to justify his position when he is unable to secure reliable statistics; that he would like statistics differentiating what percentage of the 8,000 units quoted by Colonel Jones is actually low and moderate income housing. Mr. Kennedy stated he had very strong reservations that this percentage was quite low, that as stated by Mr. Gladin, the Planning staff is in the process of analyzing the Housing Program for the last two and one-half years and he felt this report would produce the type statistics Mr. Cook is looking for. ) BOORUM & PEASE “ 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: 1. 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 I5 report and oral figures by Colonel Jones, it would appear we are moving backwards and this prompted Mr. Flanigen to remark he had no doubt but what the program is "slipping". With additional 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 Committee members who are presently spending an inordinate amount of time doing surveys and research in the field of housing. He stated the logical place for such a housing function would be in the Planning Department, particularly in light of the 7Ol planning program; that the staff would like the committee's support; and he presented a letter for Mr. Cook's signature as Chairman of the Planning and Development Committee supporting the department's position. Colonel Jones stated that the Legal Panel has been studying this matter, but they have not submitted a position report to Mr. Alexander and he does not know what type of report will be submitted if and when if is, and he felt any action by this committee on this matter would be premature at this time. Mr. Gladin stated the letter does not request any final action; that it merely makes a recommendation for the Housing Resources Committee to consider in making their recommendation. Colonel Jones stated he still felt the letter was in anticipation of something and premature. er Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Six Mr. Mahony commented that the Planning Department feels very strongly 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 |, 1969; it will then be forwarded to the next 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. REEKEKKEEEE 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 COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Planning Department is presently studying the Plunkettown neighborhood for inclusion in the Atlanta 1970 Neighborhood Development Program, and WHEREAS, the Plunkettown neighborhood extends south of the Atlanta City Limits into the City of Mountain View and Clayton County, and WHEREAS, Clayton County, Mountain View, and the City of Atlanta face common problems in this area. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta that Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. requests the Board of Commissioners of Clayton County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Mountain View to participate in a joint study designed to slove the problems of the Plunkettown neighborhood. The committee heard from Charles Stinson, President of the Federation of Southwest 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. REEKKEREEE R” ® 2fE i BOORUM & PEASE “ R” ®) EASE “Note x Pt Minutes Planning and Development Committee July 18, 1969 - Page Seven Mr. Gladin informed the committee members that the Sign Ordinance 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 will 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. RREKEREKER Mr. Gladin stated he had received a communication from the BOND (Bass Organization for Neighborhood Development) Community requesting 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. 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. The committee concurred for the BOND group to appear at the next meeting. RREKEEEEEEE There being no further business, the meeting was adjourned. KRREKKREERESE Approved: Respectfully submitted: Rodney /Gook, Chairman Joanne Parks, Secretary  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 1 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/34bab60d25c74870dbaa06a478b34172.pdf f4f6af151740aa8ed02112f1393936ea Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ·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 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document #U-69-34-S #Z-69-93-S #Z-69-91-S #Z-69-89-S AGENDA ZONING COMMITTEE Meeting, Thursday, July 24, 1969 Aldermanic Chamber, Second Floor, City Hall, 2:00 P.M. An Application for a Special Use Permit for a church to be located at MACON DRIVE, fronting 40 feet on the east side of Macon Drive, S.W., beginning 316.5 feet north from the corner of Bromack Drive, S.W. Depth approximately 624 feet. Land Lot 70, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Mrs. Thelma Lois Morgan, Owner New Hope Baptist Church - Applicant Proposed Use - Church (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 4 An Ordinance to rezone from A-1-C (Apartment-Conditional) District to C-l (Commercial) District, property located at the Northeast corner of OLD HAPEVILLE ROAD and CLEVELAND AVENUE, S.W., fronting 200 feet on the north side of Cleveland Avenue, S.W., beginning O feet from the northeast corner of Old Hapeville Road. Depth 456 feet. Area 92,000 square feet. Land Lot 69, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Dr. Robert B. Hodgson, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Office & Service Station (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 4 An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-1-C (Apartment-Conditional) District, property located at 2965 BROWNS MILL ROAD, S.E., fronting 78.2 feet on the west side of Browns Mill Road, beginning 930 feet from the southwest corner of Springside Drive. Depth 1,024 feet. Area approximately 78,900 square feet. Land Lot 61, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. William T. Stanfield, Owner Robert A. Young - Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 4 (Planning Board, adverse recommendation): yg? ei An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (nesidentialipiecetce to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 3116 BROWNS MILL ROAD, fronting 251.5 feet on the northeast side of Browns Mill Road, beginning 500.7 feet from the northeast corner of Humphries Drive. Depth varies. Area 23.3 acres. Land Lots 35 & 62, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Ruby Allene Brooks & W. T. Atkinson, Owners B & H Company - Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 4 Sige a ar Aiello, scant ZONING COMMITTEE AGENDA Page 2 July 24, 1969 #Z-69-84-S #Z-69-80-S #U-69-30-S #U-69-31-C An Ordinance to rezone from A-1 (Apartment) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at JONESBORO ROAD, fronting 652.5 feet on the southwesterly side of Jonesboro Road, beginning 707.06 feet from the southwest corner of Macedonia Road. Depth 1048.43 feet. Area 16.4 acres. Land Lot 34, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. The Military Corporation, Owner Theodore G. Frankel - Applicant Proposed Use - Shopping Center & Office Park (Planning Board, favorable recommendation as amended to C-1-C) WARD 4 An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-2 (Apartment) District, property located at 2946 & 2954 HAPEVILLE ROAD, S.W., fronting 192 feet on the east side of Hapeville Road, S.W., beginning 389 feet from the northeast corner of Mt. Zion Road. Depth 293.4 feet. Area 56,208 square feet. Land Lot 68, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Benjamin F. Martin, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use ~- Apartments (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) ‘ WARD 4 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Day Nursery to be located at 3625 ADAMSVILLE DRIVE, S.W., fronting 100 feet on the north side of Adamsville Drive, S.W., beginning 393.7 feet east from the corner of Woodstock Drive. Depth 200 feet. Land Lot 14, 14th FF District, Fulton County, Georgia. Emma Hunt (Renfroe), Owner Doris Strickland - Applicant Proposed Use - Day Nursery (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Nursing Home to be located at 120 LINE ROAD, S.W., fronting 252 feet on the east side of Line Road, beginning 680 feet north from the corner of Branch Drive. Depth 698 feet. Land Lot 13, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia ABDEC, Inc., Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Nursing home (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 #Z-69-85-S - An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) and A~1 (Apartment) Districts to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at STEWART AVENUE, fronting 131 feet on the east side of Stewart Avenue, beginning 0 feet from the north corner of Grant Street. Depth 218 feet. Area 14,258 swuare feet. Land Lot 90, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. 3 Carrie Blake, Owner Cc. M. McChesney,- Applicant Proposed Use - Service Station WARD 4 (Planning Board, favorable recommendation)  sl isha ZONING COMMITTEE AGENDA Page 3 July 24, 1969 #Z-69-83-S_ - #Z-69-94-S = #U-69-33-S - #Z-69-96-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, Inec., Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Service Station (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 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 of Campbellton Road, beginning 293 feet from the east corner of Maxwell Drive. Depth 340 feet. Area 33,000+'square feet. Land Lot 218, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Ellis Maloof, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Car Wash (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Car Wash and Service Station, to be located at 2860 CAMPBELLTON ROAD, S.W., fronting 120 feet on the south side of Campbellton Road, beginning 293 feet east from the corner of Maxwell Drive. Depth 340 feet. Land Lot 218, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Ellis Maloof, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Car Wash & Service Station (Planning Board, favorable recommendation) WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to A-l (Apartment) District, property located at FAIRBURN ROAD, S.W., fronting 100 feet on the west side of Fairburn Road, beginning 720 feet from the, south corner of, Garrison Drive. Depth 800+ feet. Area 236,013 square feet. Land Lot 8, 14th FF District, Fulton County, Georgia. D. E. Norris, Owner E. Lane Brown-Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments (Planning Board, adverse recommendation) WARD 7 i A te he acre to  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 2 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/06dbe5f70f8d22a8ed93471ddcaf558b.pdf 7d2137d4a3c678e69d63a4811faf8c20 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 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 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document #Z2-69-154-N #U-69-68-N #U-69-65-N #2-69-172-C AGENDA ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Meeting, Wednesday, November 12,1969 Committee Room #2, Second Floor, City Hall, 2:00 P.M. An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to C-l (Commercial) 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 square 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 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Church to be located at 1323 S. PONCE DE LEON AVENUE, N.E., front- ing 182 feet on the south side of Ponce de Leon Ave., N.E. beginning 0 feet east from the corner of Springdale Road, N.E. Depth 240.4 feet. Land Lot 241, 15th District DeKabl County, Georgia. Elmer D. Lilley, Owner Church of God of Prophecy, Applicant Proposed Use - Church WARD 2 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Dental Frater- nity-Boarding House, to be located at 1315 PONCE DE LEON AVENUE N.E.,frenting 152.4 feet on the south side cf Ponce de Leon Avenue, beginning 170 feet west from the corner of Springdale Road. Depth 220 feet. Land Lot 241, 15th District, DeKalb County, Georgia. Delta Sigma Delta House, Inc., Owner Clifford Oxford, Applicant Proposed Use - Dental Fraternity-Boarding House WARD 2 An Ordinance to rezone from A=2 (Apartment) District to C-1 (Commercial) District property located at _ 493,497, 503,507 EAST AVENUE and 298,302,304 MACKENZIE, fronting 180 feet on the south side of East Avenue, beginning 210 feet from the southeast corner of Boulevard. Depth 30.5 feet. Area 1.30 acres, Land Lot 46, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Caduceus Properties, Owner Carl Cofer, Applicant Proposed Use = Parking Lot WARD 6 ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12,1969 - Page 2 #U-69-66-C #U-69-69-C #Z-69-174-N #Z-69-183-N #Z-69-169-S An Application for 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 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, be- ginning 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 An Ordinance to rezone from R-3 (Residential) District to O-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, Georgia. Jeannette M. Prince, Owner,Applicant Proposed Use - Office & Apartments WARD 8 An Ordinance to rezone from R-4 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2114 thru 2126 DEFOORS FERRY ROAD, fronting 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 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-FULTON COUNTY JOLNT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Page 3 #Z-69-175-C #Z-69-176-C #Z-69-171-C #Z-69-180-C #Z-69-178-S An Ordinance to rezoné from R-9 (Townhouse) District to C-1 (Commercial) 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., Owner - 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 LYN- HURST DRIVE, fronting 381.09 feet on the west side of Lyn- hurst 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 Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone form R-5 (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at 3335 & 3401 SCOTT ST., S.W., fronting 497.3 feet on the North side of Scott Street, beginning O feet from the northeast corner of Brownlee Road. Depth 100 feet. Area 1.01 acres. Land Lot 245, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Theron & Jackie Bolton, Owner Theron Bolton, Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to A-1 (Apartment) District, property located at SEWELL ROAD S.W., fronting 570.2 feet on the north side of Sewell Road, beginning 1450 feet from the northeast corner of Fairburn Road, Depth 1,930 feet. Area 74.3 acres. Land Lot 245, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Blaclock Machinery, Owner Thornton Properties, Inc., Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from A-1-C (Apartment-Conditional) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2440 FAIRBURN ROAD, S.W., fronting 60 feet on the east side of Fairburn Road, S.W., beginning 1049 feet from the south- east corner of Campbellton Road, S.W., Depth 792 feet. Area 4 acres. Land Lot 5, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Maude H. Waits, Owner David D. Warren, Applicant Proposed Use - Office Building WARD 7 ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY JOINT PLANNING BOARD Wednesday, November 12, 1969 - Page 4 #2-69-170-C #2-69-177-C #U-69-67-C #Z-69-179-C An Ordinance to rezone for R=3 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at ADAMSVILLE DRIVE, S.W.,fronting 100 feet on the south side of Adams- ville 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.1. Kingloff & Mildred L. Kingloff, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Not stated WARD 7 An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to A-l (Apartment) District, property located at 125 FAIRBURN ROAD, N.W., fronting 102.8 feet on the east side of Fair- burn Road, beginning 811.9 feet from the northeast corner of Gordon Road. Depth 838.2 feet. Area 3.611 acres. Land Lot 243, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Rosa G. Washington, Owner King & Spalding, Applicant Proposed Use - Apartments WARD 7 An Application for a Special Use Permit for a Day Care Center to be located at 633 HIGHTOWER ROAD, N.E., fronting 50 feet on the east side of Hightower Road, beginning 515 feet north from the corner of Oldknow Drive. Depth 196.4 feet . Land Lot 208, 14th District, Fulton County, Georgia. Mrs. Julie C. Ogletree, Owner-Applicant Proposed Use - Day Care Center “WARD 3 An Ordinance to rezone from R-5 (Residential) District to C-1 (Commercial) District, property located at 2138, 2098 & 2094 BANKHEAD HIGHWAY, fronting 75 & 133 feet on the south side of Bankhead Highway, beginning 0 & 330 feet 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  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 3 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/2cfb16b24e5f3257b91fb0de366e0c31.pdf 634da2b49adcd247b739ad0dd745c9fa Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. .) 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 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document \\ \ CITY OF' ATLANTA May 29, 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30308 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director Mr. Johnny Robinson Community Development Coordinator Mayor's Office City Hall Atlanta, Georgia 30303 Dear Johnny: Certification of Atlanta's Workable Program for Community Improvement expires on October |, 1969. The U. S. Department of Housing and Urban Development requires that we make our submission by August |, 60 days in advance of the expiration date. Last year, we made our submission on time; we would like to repeat the performance this year. We are enclosing a copy of the néwly revised Workable Program for Community Improvement HUD Handbook along with those portions of the Workable Program that pertain to your operation. Please note the changed requirements in the HUD Handbook. All Workable Program certifications have been extended over a two-year period. The City of Atlanta will not submit another Workable Program until 1971. Therefore, we ask that you make sure you maintain the required data pertaining to your department on a two-year basis. The reporting period for the June 3l Workable Program for this year is March 31, 1968 to June |, 1969, The Planning Department will be glad to assist you in any way possible to get the work done on time. At least a month's time is needed by us for assembling exhibits, typing and reproducing and generally tying up loose ends. Therefore, we must have the sections back by June 1I6. Sincerely yours, OM Collier B. Gladin Planning Director CBG/bls Enclosure  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 4 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/f1a0ffdd483faebea2286997b1ef2fad.pdf 8605f1080f8e6b2bcb6495dad9a8b98e Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ·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 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document \": 7 RHA 7100.1 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT October 1968 A HUD HANDBOOK U. §. DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT WASHINGTON, D. C. 20410  PREFACE FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM HANDBOOK This 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 proce- dures since enactment of the statutory provision in 195). We have several objectives which we hope will be achieved by the re- vision. 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 and 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. The substitution of performance standards for certain formal elements of the Workable Program does not represent any easing in current sub- stantive requirements. Nor does the Handbook envision any reduction in efforts by communities now participating in the program. The intro- duction 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 i 11/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 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 problems 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. Those 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 Work- able Program must be in conformance with the revised policies and requirements. The primary objective of the revision is to provide a flexible and performance-oriented framework within which communities may demon- strate reasonable continuing progress toward achieving the goals sought by the statutory requirement for a Workable Program and those estab- lished by the community to implement them. The revision also modifies reporting and documentation 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 development 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 COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 d. The involvement of citizens, including poor and minority groups, in Workable Program activities and in related HUD- assisted housing and renewal programs. The intent of this Handbook is to strengthén the Workable Program as a flexible and meaningful tool to help communities organize and carry out its community improvement programs. The Handbook envisions no lessen- ing of effort by communities which have been participating under previous Workable Program guidelines. Rather, it is anticipated that communities will make greater progress toward achieving the objectives 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 certification in accordance with the requirements of this Handbook which propose a program with an overall level of effort below that made in the past, will not be acceptable. Certifications and recertifications of Workable Programs will be effec- tive 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 technical 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 programs should become familiar with the policies and requirements 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 process- ing of applications for financial assistance for specific programs. 10/68 iii AT g9/0T HUD REGIONAL OFFICES ; REGIONAL ADDRESS AND GENERAL REGION ADMINISTRATOR TELEPHONE NUMBER JURISDICTIONAL AREA I Judah Gribetz 26 Federal Plaza, Connecticut, Maine, Massachusetts, New York, N.Y. 10007 New Hampshire, New York, Rhode Area Code 212 26)-8068 Tsland, Vermont TI Warren P. Phelan Widener Bldg., 1339 Chest- Delaware, District of Columbia, nut St., Philadelphia, Pa. Maryland, New Jersey, Pennsylvania} 19107 Virginia, West Virginia Area Code 215 597-2560 ee Edward H. Baxter Peachtree-Seventh Bldg., Alabama, Florida, Georgia, Atlanta, Ga. 30323 Kentucky, Mississippi, North Area Code Oh 526-5585 Carolina, South Carolina, “ Tennessee IV Francis D. Fisher 360 North Michigan Ave., Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Michigan, Chicago, Ill. 60601 Minnesota, Nebraska, North Dakota, Area Code 312 353-5680 Ohio, South Dakota, Wisconsin Vv WW. Collins Federal Office Bldg., 819 Arkansas, Colorado, Kansas, Taylor St., Fort Worth, Louisiana, Missouri, New Mexico, Texas 76102 Oklahoma, Texas Area Code 817 33-2867 VI Robert B. Pitts 450 Golden Gate Ave., Post Alaska, Arizona, California, Office Box 36003, San Guam, Hawaii, Idaho, Montana, Francisco, Calif. 9102 Nevada, Oregon, Utah, Washington, Area Code 15 556-752 Wyoming VII Jose E. Febres-Silva Nea! Post Office Box 3869, GPO, San Juan, P.R. 00936 (Dial Long Distance Operator) 767-1515 Puerto Rico and Virgin Islands T°O00TL VHY INANAAOUGNI ALINONWOO YOd WVADONd TIAVAYOM WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 PREFACE FOREWORD TABLE OF CONTENTS HUD REGIONAL OFFICES CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENT Statutory Provision Basic Purpose of Statutory Provision Summary Of Workable Program Requirements Local Administrative Requirements HUD-Assisted Programs for Which Workable Program Is A Requirement CHAPTER 2. GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATIONS General Principles of Administration Requirements for Application Content Criteria for Evaluation of Workable Program Appli- cation Basis for Determining Acceptability CHAPTER 3. ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS AND PROCE- DURES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM CERTIFICATION Filing of Application for Certification Governing Body Approval of the Workable Program Notification of Approval or Disapproval. Certification Period Certification Lapse Technical Assistance to Communities Vv 11/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 Paragraph Wi Relationship of Workable Program and Urban Renewal ; Requirements 8, Availability of Workable Program as Public Document 9. Guides CHAPTER 4, CODES AND CODE ENFORCEMENT lis Statutory Provision 2. Requirements for Code Adoption 5s Rehabilitation Standards 4 Requirements for Code Enforcement Me Examples of Priority Areas 6. Considerations Related to Code Enforcement * CHAPTER 5. PLANNING AND PROGRAMMING 1:5 Planning and Programming Objectives * 2. Comprehensive Planning Requirements 3% : Programming Requirements hu, Characteristics of Planning Process 5; Summary CHAPTER 6. HOUSING AND RELOCATION is General Provisions : 2. Relocation Requirements 3 Housing Requirements h, Criteria for Evaluation of Applications CHAPTER 7. CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT ds Requirements for Citizen Involvement J 11/68 vi = WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 Principles and Purposes of Citizen Involvement Examples of Citizen Involvement Activities Criteria for Evaluation of Applications CHAPTER 8. GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINIS- TRATION FOR SMALL COMMUNITIES General Provisions Special Provisions Criteria for Review and Evaluation of Workable Program Application CHAPTER 9. GUIDELINES FOR WORKABLE PROGRAM ADMINIS- TRATION FOR INDIAN RESERVATIONS General Provisions, Special Objectives General Criteria for Review and Evaluation of Applications Provision for Code Adoption and Enforcement Planning Provisions Housing and Relocation Provisions Citizen Involvement Provisions 10/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 1 CHAPTER 1. SUMMARY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM PURPOSES AND REQUIREMENTS Le STATUTORY PROVISION. The Housing Act of 1949, as amended, requires as a condition of certain financial assistance, the following: ". . . a workable program for community 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 development or spread of slums and urban blight, to encourage needed urban rehabilitation, to provide for redevelopment of blighted, deteriorated, or slum areas, or to undertake such of the aforesaid activi- ties or other feasible community activities as may be suitably employed to achieve the objectives of such a program." The statute also requires the adoption 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 additional 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 STATUTORY PROVISION. The basic purpose of the Workable Program requirement is to ensure that communities desir- ing 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 them- selves, 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 PROGRAM REQUIREMENTS. The specific require- ments of the Workable Program are based on the statutory objectives described above and are designed to provide a flexible framework Page 1 11/63 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 1 for organizing community efforts to eliminate and prevent slums and blight. The Workable Program calls for progress in the follow- ~ ing four areas: a. Code Adoption and Enforcement. The adoption of housing, build- ing, and related codes, and development of an effective code enforcement program which is at least adequate to deal with areas having high priority need for enforcement, including both blighted areas and basically sound but deteriorating neighbor- hoods, and which is geared toward eventual community-wide 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 over- coming the major physical, social, and economic problems related to the slum and blighted areas of the community, and for establishing and preserving a well-planned community with suitable living 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 concerns displaced by public action in the community and the development of a proz> m to expand the supply of housing for low- and moderate-inccuwe families on the basis of equal opportunity. ad. Citizen Involvement. The establishment of programs designed to achieve meaningful involvement of citizens, including poor and minority groups, in planning and carrying out HUD-assisted programs related to the Workable Program. A detailed explanation of the policies and requirements for each of the above four areas is set forth in subsequent chapters of this Handbook. 4, LOCAL ADMINISTRATIVE REQUIREMENTS, In carrying out Workable Program responsibilities, many different local agencies and offices will necessarily be involved, together with various public and private institutions, organizations, and individuals. For example, building departments, planning agencies, health offices, housing authorities, urban renewal agencies, neighborhood organizations, private builders and developers may be involved to provide the wide range of resources needed to meet Workable Program objectives. While no specific. administrative structure is required by the Workable Program, a community will be expected to meet the general - requirement for establishment of an administrative mechanism 11/68 Page 2 ~ WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 1 responsible to the chief executive for the purpose of providing leadership, supervision, and coordination of Workable Program activities. HUD-ASSISTED PROGRAMS FOR WHICH WORKABLE PROGRAM IS A REQUIREMENT Qe Dd. _Urban Renewal Program Neighborhood Development Program Concentrated Code Enforcement Program Interim Assistance for Blighted Areas Demolition Grant Program Community Renewal Program General Neighborhood Renewal Plan Rehabilitation loans and grants in urban renewal and concen- trated code enforcement areas and in other than urban renewal or concentrated code enforcement areas assisted under the provision of Sec, 115(a)(2) and Sec. 312(a)(1). Low-Rent Housing Program, estept for Section 23, Short Term Leased Housing. Mortgage insurance under FHA Sec. 220 for housing construction and rehabilitation in urban renewal project areas. Mortgage insurance under FHA 221(da)(3) at market or below- market interest rate projects for low- and moderate- -income families. Rent Supplement Projects under Sec. 221(a)(3) for low-income families, with certain exceptions. 338-597 O- 69-2 Page 3 10/68 WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 2 CHAPTER 2. GUIDELINES FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATIONS 1. GENERAL PRINCIPLES OF ADMINISTRATION. Workable Program applica- tions will be evaluated in light of the varying conditions, backgrounds, problems, and traditions of the particular community. In view of the difficulty of establishing 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. REQUIREMENTS FOR APPLIGATION CONTENT. The Workable Program is the locality's program, and it is the responsibility of the locality to establish goals, action programs, and timetables for accomplish- ment 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, para- graph 3. Because the emphasis is on the locality's responsibility to develop its own program tailored to its own needs and abilities rather than on complying with specific 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 intends to do during the next certification period in each of the four Workable Program elements. When apply- ing for recertification, the application must also clearly describe what steps the community took in the last period, in order to provide a basis for measurement of the community's continuing progress toward meeting the agreed-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 activities are related to an analysis of the problems or needs, and to longer-range targets for accomplishment. For example , in developing a program to meet the requirement of Chapter 6 to expand the supply of housing for low- and moderate-income families, the application should show the relationship of its proposed program and timetables to an analysis of needs in the community and to its longer-range goals or targets for expansion of such supply. The questions included in Application Form 1081 are designed to elicit 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 RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 2 Se CRITERTA FOR EVALUATION OF WORKABLE PROGRAM APPLICATION. In re- viewing a community's application for certification or recertifi- cation of a Workable Program, the Department's assessment will be based on the following factors: a. Problem Analysis. Adequacy of the community's analysis of the problems and needs where required by the Workable Program elements. b. Long-Range Goals. Adequacy and reasonableness of the long- range goals and targets for accomplishment proposed by the community for overcoming such problems. ec. Action Programs. Adequacy of the specific actions and time- tables proposed to be taken by the community during the next period of certification to deal with the problems identified, in light of available resources and the magnitude of the problems. d. Progress. Demonstration of reasonable continuing progress toward meeting goals and objectives specified by the community. h, BASIS FOR DETERMINING ACCEPTABILITY, The acceptability of a com- munity's initial application for certification will be based on the adequacy of the problem or need analysis in each of the elements, the extent to which longer-range goals or targets have been identified in relation to need, and the adequacy of the pro- posed action programs, in light of both need and available resources. The acceptability of an application for recertification will be based on the performance of the community in meeting the goals, targets, and timetables agreed to at the last certification, as well as on the extent to which the proposed level of effort represents continuing progress from the last period toward meeting its longer-range targets. When unexpected developments or changed conditions prevent a community from meeting its agreed-to objec- tives and timetables, the application for recertification must include a detailed explanation of the reasons. 10/68 Page 2 ee ; WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CRAPTER 3 CHAPTER 3. 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 recertifica- tion of its Workable Program. Careful attention to the prepara- tion 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 certifica- tion. A community desiring to discuss Workable Program policies and requirements or to obtain assistance and guidance in the prepara- tion of the required Form 1081 should communicate with the HUD Regional Office. GOVERNING BODY APPROVAL OF THE WORKABLE PROGRAM. Before being submitted to the Regional Office, the application for certifica- tion and recertification on Form HUD-1081 must be approved by the executive head and the governing body of the community. 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. Applications may be disapproved or conditionally approved for either 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 RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 3 the inadequacy of its proposed plans and programs, and will be requested to submit additional information needed to remedy such inadequacies. 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 with- held 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. ) 4, 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 l, 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 ex- piration date. sem 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. To provide mortgage and home improvement loan insurance under Section 220 of the National Housing Act with respect to prop- erty in the locality situated in: (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 Development 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. 10/68 Page 2 % wai? WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY JMFROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 3 a. To provide mortgage insurance under Section 221(da)(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 requirements not only during the period in which the Workable Program was in effect, but also during the lapsed 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. TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE TO COMMUNITIES. In accordance with Section 101(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 necessary midway through the period of certification and Regional Office staff will be available to the extent resources permit to provide consultation, advice, and technical assistance. RELATIONSHIP OF WORKABLE PROGRAM AND URBAN RENEWAL REQUIREMENTS, Communities intending to apply for urban renewal assistance should be aware of the following statutory requirements: a. No loan or grant contract may be entered into for an urban renewal project unless the Workable Program "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." b. The plan for an urban renewal project must “conform to the general plan of the locality as a whole and to the Workable Program..." ec. In entering into any contract for advances for surveys, plans, and other preliminary urban renewal work, the Secretary must “sive 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  WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 3 in the community of slums and blighted areas, and (2) encour- aging 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 restric- tive practices which unnecessarily increase housing costs." HUD will not authorize a Federal aid contract for a Neighbor- hood Development Program (NDP) unless there is in existence a certified Workable Program 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 pro- visions, requirements for urban renewal assistance may differ from those necessary for Workable Program certification purposes in the following ways: a. Evaluation of Urban Renewal Need. With respect to subpara- graphs a. and d., above, a community intending to apply for urban renewal or NDP assistance should ensure that the studies undertaken in connection with the planning and programming re- quirement described in Chapter, 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 the 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, excessive densities, and so forth. For further information on urban renewal eligibility requirements see RHA 7205.1 of the Urban Renewal Handbook, Chapter 1, General Eligibility Require- ments. A community may, if it so wishes, supplement its' Workable Program submission with other related studies having a bearing, such as a Community Renewal Program, General Neighbor- hood Renewal Program, or other similar studies. 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 improvements 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 prepara- of them helpful in the development of general plans to guide 10/68 Page 4 YA WORKABLE PROGRAM FOR COMMUNITY IMPROVEMENT RHA 7100.1 CHAPTER 3 community growth and development, which is a Workable Program requirement described in Chapter 5. In addition, for purposes of approving specific urban renewal projects, a greater degree of planning completion may be required than would be necessary for Workable Program purposes, especially in smaller communi- ties and others seeking initial certification or recertifica- tion. 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 requirements of the Workable Program will constitute compliance for urban renewal purposes with Section 101(a) of the Housing Act of 1949, and no additional information will be required for that purpose. AVAILABILITY OF WORKABLE PROGRAM AS PUBLIC DOCUMENT. Since the Workable Program is a public document, it must be made available for public perusal and examination. At their request, copies should be made available by the locality to citizen groups and organizations which should be encouraged to participate in the development and implementation of the Workable Program. GUIDES. Supplementary guides will be issued to provide communities with advice and illustrations in connection with carrying out the Workable Program, including description of the scope and content of comprehensive planning programs, ways of organizing and carrying out effective relocation and code enforcement programs, and means for encouraging and developing citizen involvement. Pending issu- ance of the Guides, questions and requests for technical assistance should be directed to the Regional Office. Page 5 10/68  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 5 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/358de1806eee65650a54253905efa038.pdf 72b151cb68df8daab7e2befc571fbdad Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 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 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document HUD-1081 (11-68) CITIZEN INVOLVEMENT REQUIREMENT. The Workable Program requires clear evidence that the community provides and continues to expand, opportunities for citizens, especially those who are poor and members of minority groups, to participate in all phases of the related HUD-assisted renewal and housing pro- grams. The particular organizational means for community involvement is left to the discre- tion of each community, but the community must demonstrate in its Workable Program submis- sion that it provides clear and direct access to decision making, relevant and timely informa- tion, 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 housing. (b) Describe the type of groups (e.g. civic, neighborhood, housing) that are participating, and the constit- uency represented (e.g. poor, middle-class, Negro, public housing residents). = [2-. HUD-1081 (11-68) (c) Describe what particular HUD-assisted programs and projects such groups are participating in, (d) Describe efforts to achieve coordination among citizen participation structures located in the same area or having similar program interests. ‘ - 19 - HUD-1081 (11-68) 2. Describe the arrangements or working relationships set up to provide groups and individuals opportunities for access to and participation in decision-making in the applicable HUD-assisted programs. 3. Describe the steps which have been taken in regard to the applicable programs to provide participating groups and individuals sufficient information and technical assistance. 4. Describe the nature and range of issues relating to the applicable programs with which participating groups and individuals have dealt; the recommendations subsequently made; and the specific results and accom- plishments of the participation. - 20 - U. 5. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE : 1968 O - 327-649  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 6 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/5fce11a0944c64e64431e51a857521ec.pdf 56c9c47cef83fbf56f39d774cbb0281f Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 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 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document CITY OF ATLANTA May 30, 1969 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel, 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director MEMORANDUM TO: Johnny Robinson FROM: C ie LE? SUBJECT: Summer Program '69 Our contacts with the Summer Program for all matters except zoning will be George Aldridge and for zoning, Tom Shuttleworth. CG/jp  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 7 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/1067cee0a5c317e1726e477afc677d9f.pdf d15199df7a6de83bd338c7257ffc2904 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 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- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ’ FUNDING OF URBAN RENEWAL AND NETGHBORROOD DEVELOPMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS APRIL 29, 1969° \ ' The City of Atlanta is presently engaged in eight Urban Renewal Projects and five Neighborhood Development Program Projects (3 in execution, 2 in planning only). These projects are funded jointly by the City and the Federal Government. The funding scdawenest calls for a contribution . equal to one»third of the Net Project costs from the City with the re+ maining two»thirds being supplied by the Federal Government. The City's share may be in the form of cash contributions or non-cash grants-in-aid, these grants-in-aid are demolition and removal work, project or site improvements, public and supporting facilities, and others such as eredits from construction of public housings. At present, the eight Urban Renewal projects presently in execution are summarized as follows: 4 Net Project Costs $60 million! Local Non-Cash Grants-In-Aid 20 million : Local Cash and Real Estate Credits 1 million This points very emphatically to the fact that our present Urban Renewal program has been financed almost completely through the use of non-cash grants-in-aid, The results of this policy can be seen in the long delays encountered os the closing out of these projects, some of which date back into the 1950's, The cash used for these projects has come from money set aside in the 1957 and 1963 General Obligation Bond Issues and totaling $3.2 million, There« fore, we have, at present, $2.1 million of unencumbered funds available from this source, Of this amount, $1.7 is presently expected to be needed 2 . lof this amount $4.5 million or 74% has been incurred as interest charges, to meet the cash requirements of the Beaford-Pine Neighborhood Development Program Project in 1979. The non-cash contributions of $20 million are the eligible portion of total expenditures totaling about $29 million and have some of the following forms. School : $11.4 million Section 1072 & Special Credits 1.3 million Streets 4.7 million Parks «7 million Water Improvement «6 million Sewer Improvements 66 million Special Facilities «3 million Traffic Improvements . el million Other e3 million $20.0 million Some of the problems encountered because of the use of non-cash contribu- tions (94.8% of total city funding) as the City's source of funding Urban Renewal activities are: ie Butler Street A. Middle School with a total estimated cost of $2 million has been delaying the close of this project, but should be under contract by August of 1969, —_ 2. Rawson ~ Washington og he. fetghbostond Facilities, Building with a total estimated cost of $1 million of which $150,0CO will be an eligible project cost. This project is at present unfunded with the only possible source of funds being through Model Cities, It is presently plannedfor the City to purchase the land from the Housing Authority and hold this until a determination is made Iroedits resultine from the construction of Public Housing. regarding the use of Model Cities funds, B. Park with an estimated cost of $240,000 of which $33,000 will be eligible costs, No source of cancine is presently ascertainable, 3. Rockdale A. Elementary School with an estimated cost of $1.5 million and . expected to be under contract by August of 1969, ; B. An expansion of the existing elementary school with an esti- mated cost of $700,000 and at present unfunded. C. Park with an estimated cost of $75,000 which is also presently unfunded. 4. Thomasville 5 A. Elementary school with $1.5 million estimated cost and ex« pected to be under contract by August, 1969. Be park with estimated cost of $126,000 which is at present unfunded. | Cc, Tw primary schools with $1 million estimated total cost and a middle school with an estimated cost of $2 million are un- funded and no source is seen until at least June 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 ert funding became available before completing it. Under the terms of an NDP agreement, the City must have completed or have under contract all non-cash grants-in-aid pledged for that particular year or contribute the required amount in cash. Our present MDP projects were funded for 1969 from already existing improve~ ments or supporting facilities amounting to a total City committment of $10.8 million. This supports a total Neighborhood Development Program of $32.4 million. The 1970 progrem is expected to have the following City requirements; Cash | Non-Cash Bedford-Pine $1.7 million $ .2 million fodel Cities 1.5 million 1.3 million Edgewood . el willion «2 million : Vine City _2k million o2 million $3.4 million $1.9 million This would support a total program of $19.9 million and would increase greatly if the Edgewood and Vine City projects were expanded to a signi- ficant level of activity. This means that to support the fairly light level of activity projected for 1970, the City will need approximately $1.7 willion. If any new areas are added or the level of activity increased this would increase from $2.5 to $4.0 million for 1970, The possible sources of funds include; 1. General Funds ~ This murce is already under considerable pressure and — no relief is presently anvierpaded, 2, The G. 0. Bonds already approved, for issue in the ananne of $4 million annually. The financing of Neighborhood Development Programs finm these bonds wevld requixe the use of almost this entire amount every year and could very likely become embroiled in legal tangles, 3, Another possibility is a special Neighborheod Development Progran General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 + $20 million in 1970 with another - issue 4 or 5 years later or the obtaining of voter approval to issue G. 0. Bonds for this purpose in the amount of $3-5 million per year,  Fh This appreach is naturally subject to ‘ims of the public, and, there+ fore, of uncertain dependability. 4, Pex thaps the best mathod would be through the obtaining of a new revenue ales tax or a payroll tax of which a 0 source, by state approval, such as a certain portion would be earmarked for Neighborhoal Development Programs, Of course in the pursuit of a new source of revenue we are at loggerheads with the state and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory revenue source, Regardless of the method you favor in obtaining the neeced funds, it is QD jiperative, if the City of Atlanta is to maintain its progressive image anc to continue its diamatic development, that a source be found; because the continuation of a sig gnificent program of restoration and rehablitation of the central core of Atlanta is a vital element in the continued evolution of our City.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 8 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/ff4618e736ba87683fb80fd14a186896.pdf d4cdfc8053a1173f4f62fc0b57a8afed Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 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 � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document 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 #1 , 10:00-10:30 a.m., March 12, 1968 I. Jim Smith - Introduction of Meeting, Introduction of Speakers II. Collier Gladin - Importance ae Susvey to City of Atlanta, Planning Department, Housing Code Division. Responsibility of Planning Department and Housing Code Division, introduction of Planning Department Contact Person (ieyers) . III. HUD representatives - Importance of Survey to Housing Code Compliance Program, to Workable Program to other Cities. _ Les In attendance: J. S. Buchanan Tom Ficht Harold Taylor IV. Questions and Answers  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 9 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/2e911b34f9a339161884d7828c98b66a.pdf 206997dad2666cb408b06b89d2acf3f7 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 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. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document AGENDA Meeting: Department of Housing & Urban Development Planning Department Atlanta Housing Authority Housing Code Division of the Dept. of Buildings Held: Office of Collier Gladin 10:30-11:00 a.m., March 12, 1968 Chairman: Helen Meyers Discussion Topics: 1. Evaluation of Atlanta Survey techniques and procedures by Department of Housing & Urban Development and Atlanta _ Housing Authority. Use of Atlanta's survey information by Department of Housing & Urban Development and by the City for Federal program planning. : Development and adoption of a uniform set of standards and definitions for structural evaluation and rating. Organizing a committee or other mechanism from the Department of Housing & Urban Development, Atlanta Housing Authority, Atlanta Planning Department, Housing Code Division to work on the above.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 10 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/7867a34da30a145e6aea32e62f47cfe8.pdf 675d780bdfbcac844e4d549a46bcacde Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. , / 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 •.. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ae ATTENDANCE SHEET NAME Collier Gladin - Planning Dept. W. Buchanan - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Tom Ficht - Dept. of Housing & Urban Development Harold 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 - Housing Code Division 10 Housing Code Inspectors - Housing Code Division  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 11 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/0589b541f9a97ad701465a67e43d124c.pdf 665cb21f5c413754fe99300bfdc73881 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 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- � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document FUNDING OF UPp/n RENEWAL AND NETGHSORHOCD DEVSLOFMENT PROGRAM PROJECTS APRIL 29, 1969 The City of Atlanta is presently engaged in eight Urban Renewal Projects and five Neighborhood Development Program Projects (3 in execution, 2 in planning only). These projects are funded jointly by the City and the Federal Government. The funding were calls for a contribution equal to one-third of the Net Project costs from the City with the re- maining two-thirds being supplied by the Federal Government. The City's share may be in the form of cash contributions or non-cash grants-in-aid, these grants-in-aid are demolition and removal work, project or site improvements, public and supporting facilities, and others such as credits from construction of public housings. At present, the eight Urban Renewal projects presently in execution are summarized as follows: Net Project Costs $60 million! Local Non-Cash Grants-In-Aid 20 million Local Cash and Real Estate Credits 1 million This points very emphatically to the fact that our present Urban Renewal program has been financed almost completely through the use of non-cash grants-in-aid, The results of this policy can be seen in the long delays encountered in the closing out of these projects, some of which date back into the 1950's. The cash used for these projects has come from money set aside in the 1957 and 1963 General Obligation Bond Issues and totaling $3.2 million. There- fore, we have, at present, $2.1 million of unencumbered funds available from this source, Of this amount, $1.7 is presently expected to be needed lof this amount $4.5 million or 74% has been incurred as interest charges. ee to meet the cash requirements of the Bedford=Pine Neighborhood Development Program Project in 1970. The non-cash contributions of $20 million are the eligible portion of total expenditures totaling about $29 million and have some of the following forms. School $11.4 million Section 1072 & Special Credits 1.3 million Streets 4.7 million Parks «7 million Water Improvement e6 million Sewer Improvements 06 million Special Facilities e3 million Traffic Improvements . el million Other e3 million —— es $20.0 million we ee Some of the problems encountered because of the use of non-cash contribu- tions (94.8% of total city funding) as the City's source of funding Urban Renewal activities are: 1. Butler Street A. Middle School with a total estimated cost of $2 million has been delaying the close of this project, but should be under contract by August of 1969. 2. Rawson ~ Washington 7 A. tetenboehood Facilities, Building with a total estimated cost of $1 million of which $150,000 will be an eligible project cost. This project is at present unfunded with the only possible source of funds being through Model Cities. It is presently plannedfor the City to purchase the land from the Housing Authority and hold this until a determination is made rss Beers eee Bia Sha aanenteinedan AF PANTS Paws dries resarding the use of Model Cities funds, B. Park with an estimated cost of $240,000 of which $33,000 will be eligible costs, ascertainable. 3. Rockdale No source of funding is presently A. Elementary School with an estimated cost of $1.5 million and expected to be under contract by August of 1969. B. An expansion of the existing elementary school with an esti~ mated cost of $700,000 and at present unfunded. C. Park with an estimated cost of $75,000 which is also presently unfunded, 4. Thomasville A. Elementary school with $1.5 million estimated cost and ex- pected to be under contract by August, 1969, B. Park with estimated cost of $126,000 which is at present unfunded, C. Tw primary schools with $1 million estimated total cost and a middle school with an estimated cost of $2 million are un-= funded and no source is seen until at least June 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 available before completing it. Under the texms of an NDP agreement, the City must have completed or have under contract all non-cash grants-in-aid pledged for that particular year or contribute the required amount in cash, 23. Our present NDP projects were funded for 1969 from already existing improve~ ments or supporting facilities amounting to a total City committment of $10.8 million. This supports a total Neighborhood Development Program of $32.4 million. The 1970 program is expected to have the following City requirements: : Cash Non-Cash Bedford-Pine $1.7 million $ .2 million Model Gities 1.5 million 1.3 million Edgewood el millica «2 million Vine City el million «2 million $3.4 million $1.9 million Be ere ee ote This would support a total program of $19.9 million and would increase greatly if the Edgewood and Vine City projects were expanded to a signi- ficaht level of activity. This means that to support the fairly light level of activity projected for 1970, the City will need approximately $1.7 million. If any new areas are added or the level of activity increased this would increase from $2.5 to $4.0 million for 1970, The possible sources of funds include; 1. General Funds - This »urce is already under considerable pressure and no relief is presently anticipated. 2. The G O. Bonds already approved. for issue in the amount of $4 million annually. The financing of Neighborhood heveliomment Programs fm these bonds would require the use of almost this entire amouht every year and could very likely become embroiled in legal tangles, 3. Another possibility is a special Neighborhood Development Program General Obligation Bond Issue of $10 - $20 million in 1970 with another issue 4 or 5 years later or the obtaining of voter approval to issue G. 0. Bonds for this purpose in the amount of $3-5 million per year. This approach is naturally subject to the whims of the public, and, there- fore, of uncertain dependability. 4, Perhaps the best method would be thxough the obtaining of a new rvevenve source, by state approval, such as a sales tax or a payroll] tax of which a certain portion would be earmarked for Neighborhool Development Programs, Of course in the pursuit of a new source of revenue we are at loggerheads with the state and may not be able to obtain a satisfactory revenue source. Regardless of the method you favor in obtaining the needed funds, it is imperative, if the City of Atlanta is to maintain its progressive image and to continue its dramatic development, that a source be found; because the continuation of a significant program of restoration and rehablitation of the central core of Atlanta is a vital element in the continued evolution of our City.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 12 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/08900afbcfd44f167c4e0338cfba8b11.pdf b4f3ff9d962510e23a85839f54ad608f Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. 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? � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING OF MODEL NEIGHBORHOOD PROGRAM City Planning Department City Hall Atlanta, Ga. January, 1968 OUTLINE INTRODUCTION IMPORTANCE OF ORGANIZATION PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOALS & PROGRAM STRATEGY STATEMENT - GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING (1) Discussion Reports (2) Distribution ef Reperts ATTACHMENTS Discussion Reperts 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 in the program are well organized. This means that the following organizational matters should be accomplished before planning begins. 1. 3% The Medel Neighborhood Executive Board should be formed to act as the ultimate authority of the program. It should allow representation from all levels of government - city, county, state, and federal; residents of the Model Neighborhood area; and residents of the city-at-large. The Model Neighborhood staff should be formed, including the executive director, the three chief planners and the technical staff. Stable local organizations which adequately represent the residents of the various neighborheods in the area should be in operation. While those organizations should be representative of the interests ef all residents and give everyone a voice in their affairs, they should net be so cumbersome that they cannot work effectively with the planners. In other words, it will be physically impossible fer the planners to carry all of their work directly to the 'grass reets' 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 cemmittee 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 ahead basic imprevements in one of the most problematic areas of Atlanta. The area selected for the program contains all the varied and complicated forms of urban blight which plague American cities today, from overcrowded, substandard housing te incompatible land use mixtures to poor street conditions and inadequete 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 then, The Model Neighborhood Pregram can bring about the 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 those of private interest groups to make a tetal attack on the serious and widespread preblems of the area for a period of several years. The funds it provides will suppert the pregram through the planning and implementation stages, However, if the Model Neighborhood Program is te avoid the mistakes of many previeus efferts to help slum residents it is very impertant that the program be carefully planned and that local residents be involved threughout all stages of planning. The purpose of this report is te shew hew community participation can be effectively fitted into the planning ef the Medel Neivhborheed Program, Hence the neighborhood groups of the area should be capable of forming such a committee which can work with the planners and relay this work to the 'grass roots' groups. It has been suggested that the steering connittee of the various neighborhood groups in the area serve this function, PROCEDURES FOR PLANNING The federal government has set the procedures for the planning of the Model Neighborhood Program. The period allowed for planning is one year, beginning with the date of the congressional announcement of the program (Nov. 15, 1967 - Novs 15, 1968). During this period the following planning items have to be submitted to the federal government for approval: 1. Problem Analysis, Goals & Progran Strategy Statement 2. Five-Year Plan 3. First-Year Action Program 4, Planning and Evaluation Pregran 5. Statement of Administrative Structure for Implementation Of these planning submission requirements, the first one - the Problem Analysis, Goals and Pregram Strategy Statement - is probably the most important, as it will set the stage for the rest of the planning effert. It will establish the general orientation of the Five-Year Plan and the First- Year Action Pregram and will initiate the gencral precedures for community participation in planning. Thus, it can serve as a guide as to how the lecal residents will be involved in planning. PROBLEM ANALYSIS, GOALS AND PROGRAM STRATEGY STATSMENT-GUIDE TO COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION IN PLANNING The preparation of the Problem Analysis, Goals and Program Strategy is divided into three stages or milestones: Problem Analysis; Goals; and Strategy. It is intended that the Model Neighborhood planning staff and the community will be working closely together in this preparation so that the best of their ideas will go into the final statement submitted to HUD. (1) DISCUSSION REPORTS The basis of the working relationship between the Model Neischborhood planning staff and community will center around discussion reports to cover each milestone: Problems; Goals; and Strategy. These reports will be done by the planning staff and designed to stimulate discussion among the residents, They will not be the final word on anything, but merely present the information available to the planning staff so as to initiate community involvement and discussion on the significant planning issues. The community will be able to criticize, add to and/or subtract from the reports, For example, the first report will cover the subject: Problem Analysis and attempt te identify and survey the major conditions and preblems of the Model Neighborhood area which justify treatment. It will: a. define and decument the major conditions «nd problems as far as available data will allow and according to follewing categories: empleyment; housing; scheels; recreation; land use; health services; family, legal services; police protection; and ‘ether, b. present the information in a simple and concise manner so thet lay citizens will have a minimum amount of trouble in reading it. C. provide a brief questionnaire on which residents can rate the priority of problems in their comunity according to the above categories in (a). d. provide space in which residents can criticize the contents of the report, i.e., redefine problems, reorganize 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 information 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 of the area. But perhaps certain people from each community could be responsible fer surveying the responses of the residents, summarizing them, and writing them down to be returned to the planning staff, The reports will be allewed to circulate for a maximum period of two weeks. This should give enough time for residents 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, where residents can freely express their own ideas about the subject matter ef the repert. After this circulation period which hopefully will bring about fruitful dialogue and exchanges between the planners and the community, the planning staff should then be in a position to draw up final reports en Preblems, Goals and Strategy which fully incorporate the ideas of the residents, These reports would then make up the final Problem Analysis, Goals, and Program Strategy Statement. ATTACHMENTS Attached to this report are: 1, a chart which shows how the deadline dates and circulation periods of the discussion reports fit into the work program for the Problem Analysis, Goals, and Program Strategy Statement. 2. a sample outline of Report #1, Problem Analysis, y Milestone DISCUSSION REPORTS CHART PLANNING ACTIVITY Work Tasks Jan, Feb. Mar. Apr. May al 2 3-8 123) 1.2.3) 1) Problem Analysis Goals and Strategy A) Problem Analysis Report #1 Legend Deadline for distributing reports to cemnunity y Circulation period = - = = = Deadline fer collection reperts from community w Summary of Tasks 1) Citizen orientation 2) Problem Analysis 3) Goals Development h) Strategy 5) Preparation of Report 1) Assemble Available Data 2) Decision on Additional Data Required 3) Gather Additional Data Required ) Citizen Analysis of Problems 5) Summarize and Analyze 6) Prepare Report 1234 12 3 - hep ~ —  Jan, Feb. Mar. Apr. May Miltestone Work Tasks ————— 123h 123) 1234 123) 1234 Summary of Tasks B) Goals Report #2 1) Document Existing Goals C) Strategy Report #3 2) Citizen Goals Setting 3) Synthesis and Report Preparation 1) Develop Program Approach 2) Establish Program Priority 3) Identify Critical Changes Required h) Report Preparation 4 pe I. Tt, rid « IV. Ve REPORT #1 = PROBLEM ANALYSIS SAMPLE OUTLINE Introduction A. Purpose of report - to identify and document major conditions and problems of area B, Brief description of Model Neighborhood Area and its six communities Problems of Model Neighborhood Area as a Whole 1. Housing 6, Health services 2. Employment 7. Family, legal services 3. Schools 8. Police protection and community h. Recreation relations 5. Land Use 9. Other Problems Which Are Especially Acute In Particular Community (e.g. Grant Park) While Grant Park contains all of the problems affecting the Model Neighborheod areas as a whole, it is especially hardpressed with the following problems, 1. Employment 2. Family, legal services Questionnaire: How Do You Rate Your Comunity? Schools Housing Etc. good fair poor good fair poor Comments 1. De yeu think this repert adequately covered the main problems ef your neighborhood? 2. What problems de you find not mentioned in the repert?  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 1, Document 13 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 1 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/efbb3afc1b63c43f57609f92bca2feb9.pdf e3502f5313d14718328f16577d459bfb Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ~ ' --. ·. - AN ORDINANCE BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, by ordinance of December 21, 1964, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, caused to be created a standing committee of the Board of Aldermen entitled Urban Renewal Policy Committee, as set forth in Section 2-40.2 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Atlanta, Georgia effective July I, 1965, as amended, and WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable and in the public interest that the number of standing committees of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia be reduced in number and that such action would be in keeping with the precedent established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen in 1967, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the functions and responsibilities of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee can readily and expeditiously be transferred to another standing committee of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, namely, the Planning and Development Committee, and WHEREAS, such action should increase and improve communications between and coordination of activities of both the City of Atlanta, Georgia and its urban renewal agent, the Atlanta Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta as follows: I. That Section 2-40. 2 of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby repealed and the Urban Renewal Policy Committee is abolished. 2. That Section 2-40.1 (b) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the follovving: (b)Membership. The Planning and Development Committee shall be composed of eight (8) members of the Board of Aldermen appointed by th e Mayor and two (2) advis.ory me mbe rs from th e Housing �.---c ~--1-, l I -2- Authority of the City of Atlanta appointed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. The Housing Authority members of this committee shal I have the power to vote only on those items of housing and urban renewal which are going before the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners for further action. The Mayor shcil I appoint from the Board of Aldermen the chairman of said committee and the other seven (7) members. The Mayor sh al I appoint the Planning and Development Committee so that a representation is obtained of aldermanic committees concerned with community development, redevelopment, and improvement. 3. That Section 2-40.1 (c) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in Ii2u thereof the fol lowing: (c) Functions, responsibilities. Th is Planning and Development Committee shall have the primary responsibility to review and coordinate the short and long range plans and programs of all city efforts in the fields of community development, redevelopment, housing, foe ii ities and improvements, and to make suggestions to other appropriate aldermanic committees and to recommend actions and policies for adoption by the Board of Aldermen to insure maximum coordination and the highest quality of urban community development throughout the City. This responsibility shall include but is not limited to the review and evaluation of the elements of the comprehensive (general) plan development by the Planning Department with guidance from the Atlanta - Fulton County Joint Planning Board; th is comprehensive plan to be composed of at least a �r ~-·rr =-= - -· - - ~ I -3land use plan, transportation plan and a community facilities plan with public improvements program. The committee shal I further be responsible for developing pol icy recommendations on al I other matters concerning the planning and coordination of future city developments including, specifically, the Community Improvement Program (CIP), Open Space, Urban Beautification, the 1962 Federal Highway Act, the Workable Program for Community Improvement, Urban Renewal and Neighborhood Development Program, preliminary and project or execution plans, and other related urban renewal matters formerly under the responsibi Iity of the Urban Renewal Committee or the Urban Renewal Policy Committee. The Committee shall further review all applications for federal grants that are referred from the Grants Review Board for planning considerations to determine their conformity with adopted overall plans and policies for the development of the City. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict.with this Ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. �C IT~Y OF .i\_TL TA. CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF ~ COLLIER B. GLADIN. Direccor February 20, 1969 MEMORANDUM i TO: Charles Davis and Bill Wofford FROM: CollierG ~ SUBJECT: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey Attached for your information is the step-by-step program which our staffs have jointly prepared for the update of our housing conditions data. As I understand Mr. Farris has given approval to our request to proceed with this study, and also I understand that our staffs met with representatives from IBM th is morning and all the equipment and cards have been ordered. I am very pleased with the action to date and want to thank you for your cooperation. CG/jp Attachment �I r T RAOFFICE To: MJE ! ORAiN UM DISPOSITION Collier Gladin and George Aldridge Distribut e From: Hold Jack, Helen File Subject: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey D1\TE February 18, 1969 February 19: Info. Only As first step In beginning housing conditions survey, approval for use of data processing time, personnel, and equipment must come from Mr. Milton Farris. This c:pproval must be gained prior to ordering cards and other tools for the housing inspectors to use in the field. Since it will take three to four weeks after the order is placed to receive th is equipment, it is imperative that approval from Mr. Farris be gained at the earliest possible date. February 19: Order cards and other data processing equipment. The actual date for this assignment will correspond to the date final approval for computer use is gained. February 21: Rough draft of procedural manual for field inspections will be submitted to GP.orge, John Watson, Collier, Jim Smith, and Bill Wofford for approval of form and information. February 28: Procedural manual will be completed, printed and distributed to housing inspectors and other interested persons, such as training personnel and non-inspecting members of the Housing Code Division and Planning Department. - February 21 : Definitions pertaining to housing conditions that are now in use by various agencies involved in the city's housing problems wi 11 be collected and assembled . Fe bruary 26: From the assembled information, the Planning Department will prepa re a list of de fi nit ions result ing from a consensus of opinion a nd mail these defin it ions to the in terested agen cie s by this da te . 0 0 0 0 �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Two February 28: Representatives of the agencies involved will meet to discuss the standardized definitions and reach final agreement. March 3: Final listing of standardized definitions will be submitted to the Housing Code Division to be used in the training program and actual survey. March 3: Intensive two-week training program for Housing Code Inspectors will begin. During these two weeks, the use of pun~h cards and check lists will be I I - explained to the inspectors, cost estimation procedures will be standardized through field observation, and the standardized definitions will be explained in the field to the inspectors. March 17: The inspectors, after completing the two-week intensive training program, will enter the field to begin the actual survey. March 17: Data Processing Divisie,n will have cards printed and ready to take into the field by the inspectors. Mr. Steve Carlson of Data Processing will supervise the printing of original cards and programming of collected information back into computer. June 20: Completion of field survey for entire city will take place on this <!_ate, allowing the inspectors 14 weeks in the field. June 23: By this date, collected, standardized information on every housing structure in the city will have been submitted- to the Data Processing Division by the I Housing Code. Running of computer program to give information necessary fo r developing Housing Code Compliance Program will begin at this time. �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Three July 14: Computer printouts of necessary housing data wil I be presented to the Housing Code Division. That is, complete original information on conditions of structures within the city will be in the hands of the Housing Code Division at th is time. August I: Housing Code Compliance Program for n•~xt five years wi Ii be prepared jointly by Planning Department and Housing Code Division by this date. I . September I: Housing Code Compliance Program will be incorporated into application for Workable Program Recertification by the Planning Department. �C ITY OF .ATLANTA. 1 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director February 20, 1969 MEMORANDUM t' TO: Charles Davis and Bill Wofford FROM: CollierGl- ® J SUBJECT: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey Attached for your information is the step-by-step program which our staffs have_ jointly prepared for the update of our housing conditions data. As I understand Mr. Farris has given approval to our request to proceed with this study, and also I understanJ that our staffs met with representatives from IBM this morning and all the equipment and cards have been ordered. I am very pleased with the action to date and want to thank you for your cooperation . CG/jp Attachment �I N TRAOFFICE MJEMO AN UM DISPOSITION To: Collier Gladin and George Aldridge Distribute From: Hold Jack, Helen Subject: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey DATE February 18, 1969 February 19: File D lrifo. Only 0 As first step in beginning housing conditions survey, approval for use of data processing time, personnel, and equipment must come from Mr. Milton Farris. This approval must be gained prior to o!·dering cards and other tools for the housing inspectors to use in the field. I - Since it will take three to four weeks after the order is placed to receive this equipment, it is imperative that I I approval from Mr. Farris be gained at the earliest possible date. February 19: Order cards and other data processing equipment. The actual date for this assignment will correspond to the date final approval for computer use is gained. February 21: Rough draft of procedural manual for field inspections will be submitted to George, John Watson, Collier, Jim Smith, and Bill Wofford for approval of form and information. February 28: Procedural manual wi 11 be completed, printed and distributed to housing inspectors and other _interested persons, such as training personnel and non-inspecting members of the Housing Code Division and Planning Department. -- February 21 : Definitions pertaining to housing conditions that are now in use by various agencies involved in the city's housing problems will be collected and assembled. February 26: From the assembled information, the -Planning Department will prepare a list of definitions resulting from a consensus of opinion and mail these definitions to the interested agenc ie s by this date. 0 0 �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Two February 28: Representatives of the agencies involved will meet to discuss the standardized definitions and reach final agreement. March 3: Final listing of standardized definitions will be submitted to the Housing Code Division to be used in the training program and actual survey. March 3: Intensive two-week training program for Housing Code Inspectors will begln. During these two weeks, the use of punch cards and check Iists will be explained to the inspectors, cost estimation procedures will be standardized through field observation, and the standardized definitions will be explained in the field to the inspectors. March 17: The inspectors, after completing the two-week intensive training program, · will enter the field to begin the actual survey. March 17: Data Processing Division will have cards pdnted and read:,- to take into the field by the inspectors. Mr. Steve Carlson of Data Processing will supervise the printing of original cards and programming of collected information back into computer. June 20: Completion of field survey for entire city will take place on this ~ate, allowing the inspectors 14 weeks in the field. June 23: By this date, collected, standardized information on every housing structure in the city will have been submitted to the Data .Processing Division by the Housing Code. Running of computer program to give information necessary for developing Housing Code Comp Iiance Program wi II begin at th is time. �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Three July 14: Computer printouts of necessary housing data will be presented to the Housing Code Division. That is, complete original information on conditions of structures within the city will be in the hands of the Housing Code Division at this time. August I: Housing Code Compliance Program for next five years will be prepared jointly by Planning Department and Housing Code Division by this date. September I: Housing Code Compliance Program will be incorporated into application for Workable Program Recertification by the Planning Department. �TA. C ITY OF A.nnL CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Dir e ctor February 3, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Board of Aldermen FROM: Collier B. Gladin C,(\t .\-- SUBJECT: Consolidation of Urban Renewal Pol icy Committee into Planning and Development Committee The attached Ordinance, concerning the consolidation of the two committees, has been subjected to some revision. Other than some minor editing the major changes are: I. the phrase "and Capital Improvements Program" has been struck from the last line on Page 2 of the draft forwarded to you on January 29, 1969. 2. The sentence on Page 3, referring to federal grants, now reads: 11 The committee shal I further review al I applications for federal grants that are referred from the Grants Review Board for planning considerations to determine their conformity with adopted overall plans and policies for the development of the City." CBG/jp Attachment �II . I I I AN ORD IN ANCE BY PLAN NI NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, by ordinance of December 21, 1964, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of th e City of Atlanta, Georgia, caused to be created a standing committee of the Board of Alderm en entitl ed Urban Renewal Policy Committee, as set forth in Section 2- 40. 2 of the Code of Ordi nonces, City of Atlanta, Georgia effective July I, 1965, as amend ed, and WHEREAS, it is de emed desirabl e and in the pub Iic interest that the numbe r of standin.g committees of the Board of Alde rmen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia be reduced in number and that such action wou Id be in keeping with th e precede nt establishe d by the Mayor and Board of Alderm e n in 1967, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the functions and responsibi Iiti es of th e Urba n Renewal Policy CommiHee can readily and expeditiously be transferr ed to anothe r standing committee of the Board of Alderme n of th e City of Atlanta, Georgia, name ly, the Planning and Development Committee, and WHEREAS, such action shou Id increase and improve communications betwee n and coordinati on of a ctiviti es of both th e City of Atlanta, G eorgia and its urban renewal agent, the Atlanta Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georg ia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Alde rme n of th e City of Atl a nta as foll ows: I. That Se ction 2- 40.2 of the Cod e of the City of Atlanta is he re by re peal ed and th e Urban Re newal Policy Commhtee is abo li shed. 2. That Secti on 2-40. I (6) of th e Code of the City of Atl a nta is he re by ame nded by strikin g scdd paragraph in its entire ty and inse rting in Iie u the reof th e fo ll ow ing: (b)Membe rship. Th e Planning and De ve lopme nt Committee shall be composed of e ight (8) members of the Board of Alde rme n a ppo inted by th e Mayor and two (2) adv isory membe rs from the Hous ing �II II -2Authority of the City of Atlanta appointed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. The Housing AuthoriJ-y me ber! of this committee shall have the power to vote only on those items of housing and urban renewal which are going be fore the Housing Authority's Board of CQmmissioners for further aclion. The Chairman of said committ-ee shall be appointed by the Mayor and the oJ-her seven (7) members from the Board of Aldermen. The Mayor shall appoint J-he Planning and Development CommiHee so that a representation is obtained of aldermanic committees concerned with community development, redevelopmen1·, and improvement. 3. That Section 2-40. I (c) of 1·he Code of the City of A1·lanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirely and inserJ-ing in lieu thereof the following: (c)Funtions, responsibilities. This Planning and Development Committee shall have the primary responsibility to review and coordinate the long range plans and programs of all city efforts in the fields of community development, redevelopment, housing, foci Iities and improvements, and to make suggestions to other appropriate alderrnanic committees or recommend actions and policies for adopl-ion by !he Board of Aldermen to insure maximum coordination and the highest quality of urban community development throughout the City. This responsibility shall include but is not limited to the review and evaluation of the elements of the comprehensive (general) plan development by the Planning Departm e nt with guidance from the Atlanta - Fulton County Joint Planning Board; th is comprehensive plan to Le composed of at least a land use plan, transportation plan and a community facilities plan with public improvem e nts program and Capital Improve me nts Program. The �II II -3committe e shall further be responsible for developing policy recommendations on all oth e r matl-ers concerning the planning arid coo rdination of future city dev e lopme nl-s including, spe cifically, th e Community Improvement Program (CIP), Open Space , Urba n Be autification, the 1962 Fede ral Highway Act, th e Workable Pmgram for Communil-y Improvement, ewal and Neighborhood Developme pre 1 - 'nary and proje ct or execution plans, and other e loted rban renewal matters formerly under the responsibility of e Urban Renewal CommiJ-tee or the Urban Renewal Policy Com iHee. The Commit·te e shall fu rth e r re vie w all applications for fede ra grants to determine their conformity with adopted overall and polici e s for the d evelopme nt of the City. HER O RDAINED that all ordinances and parts of or e be and the same are hereby re peale . �·yoy~ A.TLA CI CITY H ~ LL ATLANT A, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLI E R B . GLADIN , Dir e ctor January 29, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Board of Aldermen FROM: Collier B. Gladin (~ /)JS_ SUBJECT: Consolidation of Urban Renewal Policy Committee into Planning and Development Committee At the request of Alderman G. Everett Mi 11 ican,the attached proposed Ordinance is being sent to you for rev·iew. The Ordinance calls for doing away with the Urban Renew·a l Policy Committee and transferring its duties and responsibi I ities to the Planning and Development Committee. The matter was brought up at the last Board meeting by Alderman Rodney Cook. With the exception of Alderman Hugh Pierce,the four other aldermanic members of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee are also members of the Planning and Development Committee. In order to facilitate the change, the proposal is made to increase the Planning and Development Committee by one aldermanic member in order to add Alderman Pierce for the remainder of 1969 . For 1970 and beyond, a reduction back to se ve r. al de rma nic me mbers is suggested for consideration at a later date . Since much of the area of concern of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee is a lso shared by the Planning and Development Committee and their membe rsh ips a re prac tica lly the same , little change will actually result in th is a ct ion e x cept to reduce the number of sta nding comm i ttees . �IIII AN ORDINANCE BY PLAN NI NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, by ordinance of December 21, 1964, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, caused to be ,created a standing committee of th e Board of Aldermen entitled Urban Renewal Policy Committee , as set forth in Section 2-40.2 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Al·lanta, Georgia effective July I, 1965, as amended, and WHEREAS, it is deemed desirabl e and in the public interest that the number of standing committees of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia be reduced in number and that such action wou Id be in keeping with the precedent established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen in 1967, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the fundions and responsibilities of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee can readily and exped itiously be transferred to another standing committe e of !"he Board of Alderme n of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, name ly, the Planning and Developmen t Committee, and WHEREAS, such action should increase and improve communications betwee n and coordination of activities of both the City of Atlanl·a, Georgia and its urban renewa l agent, the Atlanta Housing Authority of th e City of Atlanta, Georgia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by th e Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta as fol lows: I. That Section 2-40. 2 of the Code of the City of A!-lanta is hereby repealed and th e Urban Re newa l Policy Committee is abo li shed. 2. Tha t Section 2-40. 1 (b) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is he reby ame nded by s!T iking said paragraph in its e ntire ty and inse rting in Iieu the reof th e fo l low ing: (b)Membersh ip. Th e Planning and Deve lopment Committee shall be composed of e ight (8) members of the Board of Alde rme n a ppo in!·ed by th e Mayor and two (2) ad visory membe rs fr om th e Housing �IIII -2Authority of the Cit-y of Atlanta appointed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. The Housing Authority me ber! of th is committee sh al I have the power f-o vote only on those items of housing and urban renewal which are going before the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners for further action. < The Chairman of said committee shall be appointed by the Mayor and the other seven (7) members from the Board of Aldermen. The Mayor shall appoint the Plcinning and Development Committee so that a representation is obtained of aldermanic commit-tees concerned with community development, redevelopment, and improvemenl· . 3. That Section 2-40. I (c) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph· in its entirety and inserting in li e u thereof 1·he following: (c) Funtions, responsibilities. This Planning and Development Commif-tee shall have the primary responsibilit-y to review and coordinate the long range plans and programs of all city efforts in the fie Ids of community development, red evelopment, housing, facilities and improvements, and to make suggestions f-o other appropriate aldermanic committees or recommend actions and policies for adoption by the Board of Alderm en to insure maximum coordination and the highest quality of urban community development throughout the City. This responsibility shall include but is notI im ited to the review and evaluation of the elements of the comprehensive (general) plan development by the Planning Departme nt with guidance from the Atlanf-a - Fult-on County Joint Planning Board; th is comprehensive plan to be composed of at- least a land use plan, transportal'ion plan and a community facilities plan with public improv ements program and Capi ta l Improvements Program. Th e �II I -3committee sh al I further be responsible for developing pol icy recommendations on all oth er matters concerning J-h e planning and coordination of future city developments including, specifically, the Community Improvement Program (Cl P), Open Space, Urban Beautification, the 1962 .Federal Highway Act, the Workable Program for Community Improvement, Urban Renewal and Neighborhood Development Program preliminary and project or execution plans, and oth er re lated urban renewal matters formerly under the responsibi Ii J-y of the Urban Renewal Committee or J-he Urban Renewal Policy Comm ittee. The Commitl-ee shal I further review all applications for federa l grants to determ ine their conformity with adopted overall plans and policies for the developme 1it of the Ci ty. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED thal· all ordinances and parts of ordi nances in conflict with th is ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. �2!6, 19 9 ~ r Coll1 r: T. ty Mr . E arl Landers �DEPARTMENT OF LAW 2614 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 ROBERT S. WIGGINS MARTIN McFARLAND EDWIN L . STERNE RALPH C . JENKINS JOHN E. DOUGHERTY CHARLES M . LOKEY THOMAS F . CHOYCE JAMES B. PILCHER May 12, 1969 HENRY L . BOWDEN CIT Y ATTORNE Y FERRIN Y . MATHEWS ASSOCIATE CIT Y A S SIST AN T CITY ATTOl', NEY ATTORNEYS HORACE T . WARD DEPUT Y CIT Y ATTORNE Y ROBERT A . HARRIS HENRY M . MURFF CLAIMS ATTORNE Y S . JAMES B . HENDERSON SPECIAL ASSOCIATE CITY ATTORNEY Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. City Hall Atlanta, Georgia In re: Mrs. E. S. Hope, Mrs. Millie Walker, Mrs. Vernie J. Jacobs, Complainants Department of Planning Dear Mayor Allen: Reference is made to mimeograph-type letter dated April 16, 1969 from complai nants, a copy of which was directed to you and to Alderman Griggs. In accordance with your referral of th i s matter to Mr. Gladin and the request of Alderman Gri ggs, an investigation of the matter was conducted by J i m Henderson. Attached hereto is a copy of Jim's memorandtnn to me . I n the event further i nqui ry i s no t he s ita t e to call upon me . do (Bow en y Attorney HLB/jk Enc. cc: Mr . John M. Flanigen (with encl . ) Mr. E. Gregory Griggs (with encl . ) Mr . Collier B. Gladin (with encl . ) �May 12, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO : Henry L. Bowden, City Attorney James B. Henderson, Special Associate City Attorney IN RE: Mrs. E. S. Hope, Mrs. Millie Walker, Mrs. Vernie J. Jacobs, Complainants -- Department of Planning Reference is made to a mimeograph-type letter dated April 16, 1969 from complainants, a copy of which was directed to the Mayor and to Alderman Griggs. In accordance with the Mayor's referral of this matter to Mr. Gladin and the request of Alderman Griggs, an investigation of the matter was conducted with the following results. I conferred with Mr. Collier B. Gladin, Director, and Mr. Thompson H. Shuttleworth, Zoning Administrator, both of the Planning Department, relative to this matter and they furnished the following information. A zoning petition was filed April 25, 1968 by Lewis Cenker for rezoning of property on Brownlee Road. The first public hearing in the matter was set for June 6, 1968 before the Zoning Committee, at which time the matter was deferred for revised site plans by the petitioner. The deferment was until November 7, 1968. Subsequently the petition was denied by the Board of Aldermen on November 18, 1968, as the plans were not available. The matter was again initiated by the Zoning Com- mittee on December 31, 1968, after the petitioner's attorney indicated he would have the plans ready and a public hearing was scheduled for February 6 , 1969 . �The c ase , more specifically described as Zoning Case No. Z-68-225-C, was postponed on February 6, 1969 by the Alderrnanic Zoning Committee at the request of the connnunity and the developer to _provide an opportunity for discussion of the issue. The petition was to be deferred f or a period of 60 days and it was announced that the public hearing would be held on April 10, 1969. A meeting between community residents and the developer was scheduled to be held in the Planning Department office on Monday, March 31, 1969, however, this meeting was cancelled as the City Hall was closed in tribute to the late President Eisenhower. The Planning Department staff did not bring the case before the Zoning Cornmittee on April 10th, since the March 31st meeting had been cancelled. However, when area residents appeared at the hearing on April 10th, Mr. Shuttleworth had the case file brought from the Planning Department to the Alderrnanic Chamber. Mr. Shuttleworth advised that through an error on his part, the ·case was not actually scheduled for hearing on April 10th. In the course of the meeting on April 10th, area residents were offered several options in considering the case. The Committee offered to hear from the residents at that time and the developer at a later time, or, second , to hear from residents and the developer _at a later mutually agreeable time. dents. Neither option appeared agreeable to connnunity resi- They were, however, permitted to speak in opposition to the petition and were assured another opportunity to speak when 'the developer came to present his case. Page Two �Mr. Gladin and Mr. Shuttleworth expressed regret for any inconvenience they may have caused community residents in this misunderstanding over the hearing date for the zoning petition. They are strongly of the opinion , however, that members of the planning staff have made every possible effort to work with the community in discussing the issues in this case and will continue to do so. As a matter of information, the Atlanta-Fulton County Joint Planning Board has recommended approval of this zoning petition. The Planning Department staff also recommends approval in that the proposed use conforms with the Atlanta Land Use Plan, which has been adopted by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. Also of possible interest, it was reported that Mr. Cenker, the petitioner in this matter, has agreed to hold in abeyance any further action in this matter pending a Georgia Tech Land Use Study. As a result of prior telephonic arrangements with Mrs. Jacobs, she and Mr s. Walker appeared at my office to discuss this matter on the morning of May 8, 1969. They explained that Mrs. Hope had planned to be present but was unable to keep the appointment. It was their opinion that Mrs. Hope would have no information of value in addition to that information in their possession. At my request, Mr. Henry M. Murff, of the Law Department, attended this conference. After lengthy discussion of the case at hand, the law as applied to zoning and the administrative handling of zoning matters were explained in detail to Mrs. Jacobs and Mrs. Walker. Page Three �The handling of the case at hand by the Planning Department and cormnittees involved also was explained in detail to these ladies. The contents of referenced letter of April 16, 1969 were reviewed with the ladies, at which time they stated they had no information whatsoever which would indicate any wrongdoing on the part of any employee, official or elected representative of the City of Atlanta. Mrs. Jacobs and Mrs. Walker were more specifically questioned in regard to Paragraph 16 of referenced letter "16. Are persons desiring favorable rulings on rezoning petitions required to pay a fee under the table and off the record to elected officials or paid City Hall staffers?" Mrs. Jacobs and Mrs. Walker advise they have no information to substantiate any possible inference of wrongdoing in the above quoted paragraph. In view of the above information, it would appear that no further action is warranted at this time. Page Four �ATTITUDE SURVEY OF THE P-ESIDENTS OF LIGHTNING City of Atlanta Dep artment of Planning November 13, 1969 �This report deals with the results of an attitude survey conducted in Lightning. The section of Atlanta known as Lightning is bounded by Northside Drive, Hunter Street, and Simpson Street. Lightning is zoned for industrial use. This survey was conducted by the City of Atlanta Planning Department upon the request of the citizens of Lightning. The citizens voiced their support for this survey or a community meeting held Tuesday, October 14, 1969. The Lightning attitude survey was conducted for several reasons. First of all, the questionnaire is aimed at securing two basic types of information. The first group of questions, one through nine, deal with the attainment of factual information, such as the number of persons in each household. The second group of questions, ten through seventeen, explore the attitudes of the people toward living in Lightning and the problems involved . In addition to securing information, a second purpose of this survey is to let the citizens of Lightn ing know that the City of Atlanta is concerned and interested in their problems. A third purpose of the Lightning survey is to get both the citizens of Lightning and the City of Atlanta to start thinking about the short and long range problems of this area. This includes the exposure of short range problems that can perhaps be solved in the near future, with the people of Lightning and the city working together. The survey was conducted Tuesday, October 28, 1969 through Thursday, October 30, on a door-to-door verbal interview basis. Twelve interviewers, bl a ci: end wh it e , ~e r e us e t o cond uc t t .c su . cy : One City Pla nning Department employee, two City Planning Department int erns, one Model Cities employee, and eight HUD interns. (A list of interviewers appears in appendix A). They interviewed a total of 105 households, which is 77% of the total number of households in Lightning. Contact at each household was attempted at least three times: Morning, afternoon, and evening. General Re sult s The factual results of the survey show that: 1. Forty-four per cent (44%) of the respondents live in housing which is overcrowded, having one or more persons per room. 2. Of the 105 households surveyed, eighty-one per cent (81%) rented their residences and the remaining nineteen per cent (19%) were home-owners. Seventy-five per cent (75%) of the renters and eighty per certt (80%) of the homeowners stated that they could not afford to pay more for housing. �- 2 - 3. Seventy-four of the interviewers, or seventy per cent (70%) were unemployed, due to disability, retirement, household responsibility or simple lack of ability to find work. 4. The average length of residence in Lightning of the respondents was nineteen years, with a range of 1.5 months to sixty-six years. 5. The average age of the respondents was 52.4 years, with a range of twelve to eighty-two7 years. The attitudinal results of the survey show the following major findings: 1. The majority of interviewees (85%) like living in Lightning. However, of the ninety-eight respondents saying whether they would like c o live elsewhere (See question 12), fifty-three per cent (53%) answered affirmatively, with the remaining fortyseven per cent (47%) preferring to remain in Lightning. 2. Ninety-one out of the 105 interviewees feel like they are members of the Lightning community and belong with the people there. 3. Housing was the most frequently-mentioned problem in Lightning, with fifty-two per cent (52%) of the respondents listing it. (See question 13). Detailed Results The complete interview schedule and t abulated results for e a ch of the questions in the interview are presented in this section. Questions and Responses l. How long have you lived in Lightning? Average length of residence - 19 years Range - 1.5 month to 66 years 2. Where do you work? Number of respondents unemployed, due to dis ability, re tirement, household responsibility, etc. - 74 number of respondents employed - 29 3. How long does it take y~u to get to work? Average t rave l time t o work - 30 mi nute s Range - 5 mi nutes to 1~ h0ur �- 3 - 4. How do you get to work? Car - 8 ·I.Bus - 15 Walk - 8 Taxi - 1 5. How old are you? Average age of resporident - 52.4 years old Range - 12 - 82 years old 6. How many people live in this house? Average - 3.5 7. How many rooms are in this house? Average - 3.7 (46 houses with one or more persons per room) 8. Do you own this house or rent it? Own - 20 *Rent - 85 9. I f you ar e a rent er, could you aff or d to pay mor e rent fo r a better house? Yes - 20 No - 64 DOU' t know - 1 If you are a home owner, could you afford to buy a different house? Yes - 3 No -16 Don't know - 1 10. Do you like living here? Yes - 89 No - 46 a. Why do you like living h~re? Ni ce neighbors - 14 Li ke the neighborhood - 13 �- 4 - It is convenient - 13 All my friends live here - 10 Raised here or lived here a long time - 9 Economic reasons - 8 No trouble or no one bothers me - 7 Nice landlord - 2 b. Why do you dislike living here? Dislike the people - 4 Dislike the neighborhood - 4 Sub-standard housing - 3 Not a good neighborhood for children - 2 Don't like living alone - 1 11. Do you feel like you are a member of this community and belong with these people? Yes - 91 No - 9 Guess so - 1 No answer - 4 12. Wou l d you like to live .,011 ·-1 ,,er e el se? Yes - 52 No - 46 Don 1 t know - 4 No answer - 3 a. Why would you like to live somewhere else? Would like a bette r neighborhood - 13 Would like better housing - 12 Dislike people here - 3 Want a garden - 3 Not quiet here - 2 See a change as good - 2 Wants a bath or hot water - 2 Want to move for health purposes - 2 Don't like living alone - 1 b. Why would you not like to live somewhere else? This is '·'my home" - 6 Would be hard to get used to new people and church - 4 �- 5 - Friends or relatives are here - 3 Close to church - 2 Close to work - 1 Like it here - 2 Couldn't afford to move - 1 13. What problems need to be solved first to improve the neighborhood? Housing Inadequate water service - 11 Traffic problems - 8 Street repairs - 8 Poor sanitation - 8 Inadequate facilities for children - 5 Crime and poor police protection - 4 Bad pe ople in neighborhood - 3 Poor bus service - 1 Lack of job opportunities - 1 We have no problems I can think of - 15 No answer - 14 14. If you were to live elsewhere, what general area would you like most? Nowhere else - 21 s.w. - 2 N.W. - 10 ALHA project - 1 Griffin St. - 1 Dix ie Hills - 2 Any nice place - 10 Hunte r Homes - 2 Kirkwood - 2 Bowen Homes - 1 West side - 12 Out of s t ate - 1 N.E. A & 1 - 1 Hunter & Mit chell - 2 Sout h side - 1 Unive rsit y Home s - 1 Dec at ur - 1 Hi gh Rise f or e lder ly - 1 Casc ade Ht s. a r e a - 1 Howell Dr. - 1 Bankhead & Hightower - 2 Scott cros sing - 1 Simpson Rd. - 1 In woods - 1 Adamsville area - 1 Around here - 3 McDaniel project - 1 Vine St. - 1 �- 6 =- 15. What kind of place do you think Lightning is to grow up in? Very good- 3 Better than most - 8 Same as others - 42 Not as good - 24 Very bad - 16 No answer - 12 16. What do you like and dislike about living in Lightning? Here is a card which lists some th ing s you might like about living here. Pleas e pick the two you lilce most. If there is anything you l i ke but it is not on the card, go ahead and pick it. A. I am close to work - 15 B. The rent i s low - 34 C. Many of my fri e nds live here - 55 D. I have lived here a long time - 43 E. I own my own home - 10 F. My rel atives live in Lightning - 13 · G. Other reasons Conv enience - 6 Like the people People t ake c are of me when I 1 m sick•> bett e r than l a s t pl a ce I lived i n There is nothi ng I like - 5 No answer - 5 17. This c ard lists s ome pr ob l ems or things you might dislike about Light ning . Pleas e p i ck the fi ve you think a r e t he b i gges t pr ob l ems. If t he r e is any probl em you would like to pick but do not find on the list, go ahead a nd pick i t . A. Not clos e t o shopp ing - 27 B. No t clo se to wor k - 7 C. Lack of fa cilitie s and programs - 35 D. I nadequate bu s s erv i ce - 17 E. No healt h serv ice - 24 F. Inadequate water service - 18 G. Unemployment - 18 H. Hous ing - 65 I. Education a 3 J. Police pro te ction - 34 K. Rat control - 42 L. Traffic and parking prob lems - 44 �- 7 - M. - Other reasons 1. Trash collection and yard maintenance - 5 2. Not close to any shopping centers - 4 l. Crime and juvenile delinquency - 2 4. Absentee landlords - 1 5. Need a laundromat - 1 6. Outside help is hurting us - 1 7. Cab fare is too high - 1 �List of Interviewers Frank Biggins, HUD Intern Gary Brown, HUD Intern Bill Hanuner, HUD Intern John Hiscox, HUD Intern Louise Klaffner, HUD Intern John Matthews, Department of Planning Dot Metcal f, Department of Planning Intern Nancy McKnight, Department of Pla nning Intern Sonja Pevey, HUD Intern Steve Steinart, Model Cities Patricia Williams, HUD Intern �APPENDIX B Interview Guide - Lightning A. General Instructions 1. Make sure that all questions included are answered; however, if a responde nt refuses to answe r a ny questions, go on to the next item on your questionna ire. Re cord reason f or no r e sponse, if possible. You may include other questions; record them as well as the interviewee's a nswer. B. 2. Please record all answers as accurately and ca refully as possible. 3. Let the i nterview continue if the i nterviewee wi shes to t a lk. Howeve r , one hour should be the max i mum time required fo r the interview. 4. Record the date of t he interview, the time at which the interview begins and i s comple t ed , a nd the t ot a l amount of time the interview l a sts. Introduction. The followi ng gener a l introduct i on shoul d be us ed in t he interview situation : " Hello , my name i s _ ______ I represent t he Ci t y of Atlanta (show your identi f icat ion card ) . The Mayor and Boa rd of Aldermen a r e concerned about t he problems of the people living in Lightning . Ma~y diff erent s ugge stions have bee n made about wha t the pe ople of Lightning want and need fr om the city. However, we f eel i t is neces sary t o talk di r e ctly t o the people of Lightni ng , so f or the next few day s we will be t a lking with a l l Lightning residents to he lp us find out exactly wha t the pe ople want. Cou l d you p lease t ake a f ew minutes t o answer these que stions?" If sub j e ct refuse s t o participate i n the int erview , try to find out why . If he indica tes he i s too busy, try t o make an appoi ntme nt t o int erv iew him at a nother dat e. I f he has another reason , try again t o get the interview. However , if he abs olutely re f uses, do not per sist. Re cord a response , a nd i f possible, t he r e a son. I f no one i s a t home , t r y to contact the hou:::ehold t h ree different t i me s. I f some i nt e r vieuee s a r e not av ai l able at certain times , a conve nient t ime will be worked out in t he i ntervi ew i ng schedule so t hese people can be co nt a cted. If more than one member of a hous eho ld want t o participate in the interview session, rec or d the i r responses s eparat ely . Ea ch inte rview record should contai n t he r esponse s of one pers on only . However, if this is not possible , i nd icate that responses came from two or more people. �,. Remember that the main purpose is to get answers to the basic questions contained in our questionnaire. If the interviewee has questions to ask of you, try to delay this discussion until the end of the fo rmal interview. DO NOT, under any circumstances, attempt to answer questions of which you are unsure. The purpose of this int erview is to find out what the people in Lightning think and want. If people ask questions you cannot answer, refer theM to Mr . Johnny Robinson (you will have a supply of his personal cards to pass out to everyone). C. Close Close the interview by answering any questions you can, and by thanking the interviewee for his cooperation. State agai n that if he has any additional questions, he should call Mr . Johnny Robinson. Also, if he has any addit ional comments, attempt to record them on the answer sheet. �l INTERVIEW GUIDE -- PLUN KETTOWN A. Genera l Instructions. 1. This is a gen~ral guide for conducting a house-to- house survey in the Plunkettown neighborhood. Make sure thal· al I qu es tions included a re .answered; however, if a respondent refuses to answer any questions, go on J-o the nex l· item on your questionaire. Record reason for no res ponse if possible. You may include other questions; record them as well as the intervi ewee 's answer. 2. Plea se record all answers as accura te ly and carefully as possible. 3. Let the interview continue if the interviewee wishes to talk, Howeve r, one hour should, in most cases, be the maximum time required for the in terview. 4. Reco rd the date of the intervi ew , the time at which the interview beg ins a nd 1s com- pleted, and the total amount of time the interview lasted. Reco rd the number of times the interview is interrupted by air craft noise, and the approx imate length of such interrupJ-ions. B. Introduction. The following general introduction should be used in the interview situation: name 1s identification card). living in Plunkettown. 11 Hello, my I represent the <;ity of Atlanta (show your The Mayor and Board of Aldermen are concerned about the people Many different suggestions have been made about #wo t the people of Plunkettown want from the City. to the people in Plunkettown. However, we feer that it is necessary to talk di rectly For the next few days we will be talking with all Plunkettow n re sidents and ~sking them questions to help us find out exactly what the people · want. . Could · you please take a few minute s to answer these questions? �i If subject refuses to participate in the interview, try to find out why. If he indicates he is too busy, try to make an appointment 1-o interview him at another date. anol"her reason, try again to get the interv ie w. not persist. If he has Howe ver , if he absolutely refuses, do Record a response and, if possib le, the reason. If more than one member of a household wants to participate in the inte rv iew session, record their answers separa te ly. E.ach interview record should contain the responses of one person only. However, if this is not possible, indicate that responses come from two or more people. Remember that the main purpose is to get answers to the basic que$tions contained §1:IOJ:llquestionaire. in If the interv iewee has questions to a sk of you, try to delay this discussion until the end of the formal interview. DO NOT, under any circumstances, attempt to answer questions of which you are unsure. the peopl e in Plunkettown th ink and wa nL The purpose of this interview is to find out what If people ask questions you cannot answe r, refer them to Mr. Johnny Robinson or George Aldridge. cards to pass out to everyone). (You wi 11 have a supply of their personal �l -- @id :E;7· ~ld:i? ,. Wb@l'l'I 4, ~ ll.~q !, lbai c.1{6) o, &.Nu~ ... ~ ~---~------ --- )',o,w.! .ll. ? d1')\t)· ,. t - -- c;:.-:re: ,-. ,, ~ll '.u t:r~ 1..r..,,.{ L 8,. &, ' XI' 10. 11 ~ \!.>.!!111 ? Do yot ilk 1 ~n.n!J a What do 'lo b Wh.at do yau l ii C . l'J be Kow would l E )'0- o r l i 0 I I 't'_..:, ... - ~ ~ . ~ - - - - ... - · ~ .....:::..-..=.... - ..::::.. - �. l b It tht . W4!re ould ynu U v rco r0ople th~c thy sll o-, her 11 t r~l gT u uh v 8e l2 ~uggeat~ to th . dCIV. - __ - ··-~-~= 1._ ---~- --~- . - ~ ~ out together t~ . new locstion .--- ~- - - .. -- ~---·--- .. ,.,. ? coae tor unk .tto.m ~nd Whdlt d,:, y "' think ebou~ th1" id 1e?_ _ _____ . ~~ out togE-th el -- .. ___ _,__,_ ·--- --··-- ------------ - - ~-----' ?) If you could\ v ~lft w t g nerel ar a vould you lik het Why? 14 ~ ~ Vt> y 1'U &rdly ~t wll ' u i 1f ,d o f s ,> f n7 V'°r~ a• f1yfng o'ftir 'bc,,tb r you? the st CMICb Wh t --- Jl.31 · -· _ _ _ llvtng h r ~ ~it T ?6 Can you kou mu h cirn 1. a>•t? 1'1"' IXIUCh ~ X , ~ Joy n •~ &e-t t: r uu,-t'I tl t.h~t p IIC --- ~- -~ - u th n• P urk ttl'flffl l Not 8\l t -=I _J I t ~ t\d .-n t gtow ... fll\)8 t 8 Jio r: s o thtt.t .,9 " t oc,d ---~r- " l8 C V ry t,. d �" Y' .. · ., u • .h J r • .a t I i .,.,. h ... ,' . [ t. tn n .. , 'l .. .. ti .., t ~ ,.. ,. !',l I 'II"•' I �00 0 3 .M.AP 4 II 12 A OF CITY OF ATLANTA IOARD Of AlDERMEN - - -- GRAPHIC SCAL~ ' _,.., -~~ ,.....- - ,; ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY lGOl.,.,.YGOIGG. . , , .. ., I JAN . • . 0 (.... , . • W:••OD C . - N (ltlllUONtO JOINT PLANNING BOARD ATLANTA - GEORGIA J9e7 C n - w..• "°"""-COO. -......... .. ,........u I ·c I ATLANTA - FULTON COUNTY JOI N T PLANNING BOARD "'" i,~'7';,:.-J,c:!:.. <>• .. ,.,,o~ ..,toPYR•0hT .,. ... ••v,,,o•-C,:,P,R>6 nT-O,S9 o.t,_,.,._c"°"o.'""' ,,..;, oov,,,o.. ..,.,.co,-,.,a.,,.,,., ,,,.,,,o~ ••o=•••••• · D HOUSING COOE COMPLIACE PROGRAM 1970 -1971 1· E H ISTINGNEIGH60RHOOO OCYELOPMENTPROGRU IS ~ UR8ANIIENEWAL J.llf AS COOEtNrORCE:MENT Afl1!:AOIYISIONS .,.,,. . . .. , ~ ,....... .-C;) __ .,.,..- .... ,L'_, F G K ---1 L I M ... I 00 10 1_1_ 12 �ATTITUDE SURVEY OF THE RE SIDENTS OF PLUNKETTOWN City of At l anta Dep artment of Pl anning Augus t 11 , 1969 �- This report presents the results of an attitude survey conducted among the people of the Atlanta section of Plunkettown by the City of Atlanta Department of Planning at the request of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen . The purpose of this survey was to explore, on a broad base, the atti tudes of the people toward living in Plunke ttown versus living elsewhere, and to discover which aspects of life in Plunkettown the people consider to be major problems . The ultimate purpose of this report is to provide information concerning the people ' s desires toward r emai ning in Plunket town to help the Board of Aldermen in making the dec ision as to whether or not an urban renewal project in Plunkettown will be a residential rehabilitation and rebuilding project. Interviews were conducted during the daytime hours on Friday, August 1 , and Monday , August 4, and during the evening hours on Tuesda y, August 5. The group of interviewers who conducted the survey included t wo members of the Planning Department staff and five summer i nterns from the Mayor ' s office . All interviewers were white . (A list of int erviewers appears in Appendix A.) Methodology The survey was c onducted through use of a door -to-door ora l interview . An attempt was made t o conduct at le as t one interview in each household. Contact was attempted at each household at leas t three times : morning , afternoon , and evening. In all, interviews were conducted in eighty-two hous eholds , or 85% of all households. The interview questionnaire contained two basic types of questions . The first type asked f or factu al information such as place of work, travel time to work, number of persons in the household, and ownership of property . The second asked atti tud inal questions about the desirability of Plunket town as a place to live as compared to other places. General Reoults The factual resul ts of the survey show that: 1. The workers who live in Plunkettown have an average reported t ravel time to work of twenty minutes by car; and that over half ( 26 of 41) work within two miles of Plunkettown. 2. Thirty-eight per cent (38%) of the present housing is overcrowded, having one or more persons per room. 3. Of the eighty-two households surveyed, thirty-two (39%) owned their houses while the remaining fifty (61%) are renters. �- 2 - 4. Ten of the interviewed f ami lies own property other than th at upon whi.ch they are living . Six ow-n other property in Plunkettown . four others own property in Cl ayt on County, lorthwest Fulton County, East Point, a nd Eas t Atlanta . These four owners reported plans to build new homes on this property . 5. Forty-two of the eighty-two interviews were conducted during aircra ft peak tra ffic periods . These forty-a~o interviews l asted an average of seventeen minutes and were interrupted an average of seven times for an average of eighty-one seconds per interview, e.g 8% of the interview time was lost due to aircraft noise. 0 The attitudinal results of the survey show the following ma j or results: 1. A majority of interviewees woul d prefer l iving e l sewher e to living in Plunket town as it is presently constituted . (See Question 11.) 2. A ma jority of the interviewees consider aircraft noise, a problem which canno t be fully solved, to be a ma jor probl em to living in Plunke ttown . (See Questions 10a, 15 , and 17b.) 3. There appears to be a desire among some o f the interviewees to move together to a " New Plunkettown". At this point in time , fully reli able attitudes on this issue c annot be expected as the people do not now h ave a real opportunity to consider this choice . (See Questions 12 and the "Many of my friends live here" response in 17 a .) 4. If they were to move, there is a definite desir e among the interviewees to remain in an outlying area, as opposed to downtown , where they c an occupy single family type houses. ( See Questions 12a and 13.) Det ailed Results This section presents the complete interview form and the tabul ated results for each question asked. Interview instructions are presented in Appendix B. uestions and Responses 1. How long have you lived in Plunkettown? Average l ength of res idence among interviewees . - 24.5 years �- 3 - 2. How old are you? Average age of interviewees - 50 .5 year s Range - 13 years to 90 years 3. Where do you work ? Within two miles - 26 Fur t her than two miles - 15 4. How l ong does i t t ake you to get to work? Av erage - 19 minutes Range - 2 minutes to 1 hour 5. How do you ge t t o work ? Car - 35 Wal k - 4 Bus ~·- 2 6. How many people live in this house ? Average - 3.4 7. How many rooms in this house ? Average - 4 . 0 ( 31 houses with one or more persons per room) 8. Do you own this house or rent it ? Own - 32 Rent - 50 9. IF OWN : Do you own any other property? Yes - 10 No - 2 2 I F SO: Where? Plunkettown - 6 Elsewhere - 4 10. Do you like l iving here ? Yes - 50 No - 31 �.- 4 - a. What do you like about living here? ,':It's home - 14 I've been here a long t ime - 11 I l i ke the peopl e - 11 It's ctose to work - 9 Nothing - 9 Low Rent - 8 It's be tt er than where I lived before - 4 The pl ay area - 2 I own my house - 2 It is a convenient loc ation - 2 I like single-family houses - 1 I t' s clos e to church - 1 b. What don't you like about living here ? No sewers - t.,O Unpaved streets - 22 Houses - 20 Planes - 19 No mail service - 8 Poor bus service - 6 No inside water - 6 Poor police protection - 5 No hea lth service - 4 Nothing - 4 Unc ertainty about future - 2 Traffic problems - 2 Inconvenient location - 2 The people who live here - l Poor street lights - l Taxes - l The railroad nearby - 1 Everything - 1 c. Why have you chosen to live here ? Came to live with relatives - 20 Low rent - 11 No other place availab l e - 10 Close to work - 8 Opportunity to buy a house - 7 It used to be a nice area - 7 I like the country - 7 I like the people - 7 Born in the area - 3 It's a better house than before - 3 This is the best I could do - 1 �.. 5 - 11. How would you feel a bw t living somewhere else? - Like to ver y much 33 Like to - 14 No t mind 18 Not want to - 11 No t want to at a ll - 6 - a. IF NO : Why not? I ' m too o ld to move - 2 I ' ve been here a long time - 1 My relative s are here - 1 I don't know o f a ny other place - 1 b. If this were overcome , would you like to l i ve s omewhere e l se? Yes - 3 No - 2 12 . In the past few years , severa l groups have come to Plunkettown and sugges t ed to the peop l e tha t they a ll move out together to a new loca t ion. Wha t do you think of this idea? It ' s a good idea - 20 The idea is 11 0 . k. 11 - 33 The idea is "o.k." i f the people can buy a new hous e - 1 The idea is 11 0 .k. 11 if the people c an move to single-family houses - 1 No opinion - 17 It's a bad idea - 10 The people should be able to move where they want - 1 12a . IF TIIB INTERVIEWEE RESPONDS THAT HE WANTS TO MOVE : Wha t l ocations do you think would be good if e veryone moved out together? No idea - 26 Poole Creek - 14 Atlanta fringe - 17 Eas t Point - 5 West Side - 2 Southwest - 1 Downtown - l Harper Town - 1 Thomasville - 1 Carver Homes - 1 Perry Homes - 1 12b. IF INTERVIEWEE WANTS TO STAY IN PLUNKETTOWN : I �- 6 - Wha t problems need to be so lved f i rst to improve the neighborhood? Sewers - 11 Houses - 9 Pave the stree t s - 6 Be tt er po li ce pr otection - 3 Ins i de water - 3 Stop the p lanes - 2 Railro ad noise - l Better s tre et l ights - 1 13. If you co uld l i ve e l sewher e, wh at gener a l area would you like t he mos t ? Don I t know - 13 Poo le Creek - 9 Atl anta fringe - 7 Downtown - 7 Same general area - 4 Eas t Point - 4 A pro j ec t - 4 Gil bert Road - 2 Wes t Side - 2 Hapevi lle - 1 St adium - l Wil son Road - 1 Cl ay ton Count y - l N• . w. Fu l ton County - 1 Forres t Park - 1 Alpharet t a - l De c atur - l Gordon Road - l Was hington , D.C . - 1 14. Can you a ff or d t o buy a house s omewhere e ls e ? Yes - 16 No - 50 Don ' t know - 16 How much could you p ay ? Nothing $16 / month $30/month $40/month $SO/ month $60/month $70/month $80/month 7 - 1 1 4 5 5 3 2 �- 7 - Re ceipts from sal e of present house - 11 Don't know - 8 15. Does living here with the airplanes flying over bother you ? Very much - 57 Some - 10 Hardly at al l - 5 Not at a Ll - 10 16. What: kind of place do you think Plunkettown is for children to grow up in? Very good - 2 Be tter than most other places - 5 Same as other places - 24 No t as good as most other pl. ac es - 21 ·1cvery bad - 25 No opinion - 5 17a . Now, I would like to find out exactly what: you like and dis like about living in Plunkettown . Here is a card which lists some thi ngs we thought you might like about living here. Would you please pick the two you like most . If t here is anything you like, but is not on the card, go ahead and pick it . (Read card aloud before showing.) a. b . c . d. e. f. b. I am close to work - 26 The rent is low - 38 l.fany of my friends live here - 39 I have lived here a long time - 27 I own my home - 27 Anything else - I like none of them - 3 Away from downtown 2 Good bus service - 2 I have a good home - 1 Here is a card which lists some problems we thought you might have in Plunkettown. Would you please pick the five you think are the biggest problems? If there is any problem you would like to pick but do not find on the list, go ahead and pick it. (Read aloud before showing,) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Not close to shopping - 23 Not close to work - 3 No recreation - 12 No mail service - 61 No sewers - 63 Too much noise - 56 No health service - 28 �- 8 - h. i. j. k. 1. m. n. Poor water servic e - 30 No street paving - 66 Unemployment - 7 Housing - 34 Educ a tion - 8 Poli c e protec tion ~ 41 Anythi ng else - Bus service - 3 Street l ights - 2 Speeding - 2 Too f ar from church - 2 Not a good place f or children - 1 Old we lls are caving in - 1 Yard s are not kept up - 1 There ar e no probl enIB - 1 �7 APPENDIX A List o f Interviewers James 1'1 . Bruce, Offi c e of the Mayor Danie l K. Christenbury , Office of the Mayor Thomas Isaac , Offi c e of the Mayor Joseph Menez , Office of the Mayor Meg So~ell, Office of t he Mayor Mostafa Howeedy , Department of Planning John Ma tthews, Dep artment of Pl anning �,._ APPENDIX B Interview Guide - Plunkettot·m A. General Instruc tions . 1. This is a general guide for conducting a house-to~house s urvey in the Plunkettm,m neighborhood. Make sure t hat al l questions included are answered; however , if a respondant refuses to ans~er any questions, go on to the ne,ct item on your questionnaire . Re cord reas on for no response if possible. You may inc l ude other questions; record them as wel l as the interviewee's answer. 2. Ple ase record all answers as accurately and c arefu lly as possible. 3. Let the interview continue if t he interviewee wishes to t a lk . However , one hour shou l d, in most c ases , be the maximum time r equired for the interview . 4. Record the date o f the interview, the time at which the interview begins and is completed, and t he total amount of time the interview lasts . Record the number of times the interview is interrupted by aircraft noise, and the approximate l ength of such interruptions. B. I ntroduction . The following general introduction should be used in the interview situation: "Hello, my name is________ I represent the City of Atlanta {show your identification c ard) . The Mayor and Board of Aldermen are concerned about the people living in Plunkettown . Many different suggestions have been made about what the people of Plunkettown want from the City. However, we feel that it is necessary to t alk directly to the people o f Plunkettown. For the next few days we will be talking with all Plunkettown residents and asking them questions to help us find out exactly what the people want . Could you please take a few minutes to answer these questions? If subject refuses to participate in the interview, t ry to find out why. If he indicates he is too busy, try to make an appointment to interview him at another date. If he has another reason , try again to get the i nterview . However, if he absolute ly refuses, do not persist. Record a response and, if possible, the reason. If more than one member of a hous ehold wants to participate in the interview session, record.their responses separately. Each interview record should contain the responses . �of one person only . However, if this is not possible, indi c ate that responses c ame from two or more people . Remember that the main purpose is t o get answers to the basic questi ons contained in our questionnaire. If the int erviewee has questions to ask of you, try to delay this discussion until the end of t he fo rmal interview. DO NOT , under any circumstances, attemp t t o answer questions of whi ch you are unsure. The purpose of thi s interv iew is to find out what the peop le in Plunkettown thin and want . If peop l e ask questions you cannot answer, r efer them to Mr . Johnny Robinson or George Aldridge . (You will have a supp ly of their personal c ards to pass ou t to everyone .) C. Close Close the interview by answering any questions you can, and by thanking the interviewee for his cooperation. State again that if he has any additional questi ons he should c all Mr. Johnny Robinson or Mr. George Aldri dge . Also , if he has any additional c onnnents , a ttempt to record them on the answer sheet. (Give Mr. Aldridge's and Mr . Robi ns on's c ards .) �.. ~ ..... .,_ .... --- . ~ - II II II A RESOLUTION BY Fl NANCE COMMITTEE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City has just completed a Community Facilities Plan which indicates the need and desirable location for many capital projects throughout the City, and WHEREAS, the City expects to complete a transportation plan in the near future in conjunction with the five county region and the State Highway Department of Georgia, and WHEREAS, this transportation plan will indicate the need and desirable location for new and improved transportation facilities throughout the City and the region, and WHEREAS, the City has engaged in a capital improvement programming effort for a number of years and has become increasingly effective in th is activity, and WHEREAS, for the first time a means of financing a limited amount of capital improvements on a continuing basis has become available, and WHEREAS, the implementation of plans and projects to reach the City's goals and objectives requires adequate financing and continuing scheduling according to realistic priorities as well as close coordination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that those departments and agencies of the City of Atlanta aiding in preparation of the 1969-1973 Capital Improvement Program make every possible ~Hort to ensure that their projects .and proposals for the coming five-year program reflect accurately and realistically their goals, objectives and plans as expressed in the Community Facilities Plan and the soon to be completed Transportation Plan. BE IT .FURTHER RESOLVED coordinated and cooperative basis. that this effort be on a comprehensive, continuing, �OFFICE OF CITY CLERK ATLANTA, GEORGIA A RESOLUTION BY PLANNING .AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Planning Department is presently studying the Plu.nkettown neighborhood for inclusion in the Atlanta 1970 Neighborhood Development Program and WHEREAS, the Plu.nkettown neighborhood extends south of the Atlanta City limits into the City of Mountainview and Clayton County and WHEREAS, Clayton County, Mountainview, and the City of Atlanta face common problems in this area NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta that Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. request the Board of Commissioners of Clayton County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Mountainview to participate ma joint study designed to solve the problems of the Plu.nkettown neighborhood. AOOPTED by Board of .Aldermen July 21, 1 96 9 APPROVED July 23, 196 9 A true copy, - �OFFICE OF CITY CLF,RK ATLANTA, GEORGIA _., A RESOLUTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Planning Tupartment is presently studying the Plunkettown neighborhood for inclusion in the Atlanta 1970 Neighborhood Development Program and WHEREAS, the Plunkettown neighborhood extends south of the Atlanta City limit s into the City of Mountainview and Clayton County and WHEREAS, Clayton Caunty, Mountainview, and the City of Atlanta face common problems in this area NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of AJ.dermen of the City of Atlanta that Mayor I van Allen, Jr. reque st the Board of Commissioners of Clayton County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Mountainview to participate i.rt a joint study de signed to solve the problems of the PlunkettoW!l neighborhood. ADOPTED by Board of Aldermen July 21 , 1 969 APPROVED July 23, 1969 A true copy, - .~ erk . . .- - .i¢JU___....,. . ~~- �- -.-.- -~--.::-::--.,:-.'.".""'..•.::::--- .-_ - -.~-~ --143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)II" ' I· AN ORDINANCE BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE I , WHEREAS, by ordinance of December 21, 1964, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, caused to be created a standing committee of the Board of Aldermen entitled Urbar:i Renewal Policy Committee, as.set forth in Section 2-40. 2 of the Code of Ordi nonces, City of Atlanta, Georgia effective July I, 1965, as amended, and WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable and in the public interest that the number of standing committees of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia be reduced in number and that such action would be in keeping with the precedent established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen in 1967, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the functions and responsibilities of the Urban Ren ewal Policy Committee can readily and expeditiously be transferred to another standing committee of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, namely, the Planning and Development Committee, and WHEREAS, such action should increase and improve communications between and coordination of activities of both the City of Atlanta, Georgia and its urban renewal agent, the Atlanta Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta as follows: I. That Section 2-40.2 of the Code of the City of Atlanta is here by repealed and the Urban Renewal Policy Committee is abolished. 2. That Section 2-40. I (b) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the follow ing: (b) Membership. The Planning and Development Committee sh al I be composed of eight (8) members of the Board of Aldermen appointed by the Moyor a nd ·two (2) c1clvisory members from th e Housing �r .. II -2Authority of the City of Atlanta appoinl·ecl by the Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. The Housing Authority members of this committee shal I have the power to vote only on those items of housing and urban renewal whic~ are going before the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners for further action. The Mayor shall appoint from the Board of Ald ermen the chairman of said committee and the other seven (7) members. The Mayor shall appoint the Planning and Development Committee so that a representation is obtained of aldermanic committees concerned with community development, redevelopment, and improvement. 3. That Section 2-40.1 (c) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in lieu th ereof the following: (c) Functions, responsibilities. This Planning and Development Committee shall have the primary responsibility to review and coordinate the short and long range plans and programs of oll city efforts in the fields of community development, redevelopm ent, housing, facilities and improvements, and to make suggestions to other appropriate a lde rma nic committees ond to recommend actions and policies for adoption by the Board of Alderm en to insure max imum coordination and the highest qua! ity of urban community deve lopme nt through ou t the City. This responsibility shall include but is not limited to the review and evaluation of th e e lements of th e compre he nsive (general) plan deve lopment by th e Pl ann ing De par tme nt with guidance From th e Atlanta - Fulton County Joint Planning Board; th is comprehensive plan to be composed of at lea st a �,, II II -3land use plan, transpor tati on plan and a comm unily foci! ities plan with pub Iic improv ements program. The comm ii-tee shall further be responsible for developing p91 icy recommendations on al I other matters concerning the planning and coordination of future ; city developments including, specifically, the Community Improvement Program (CIPL Open Space, Urban . . Beautification, the 1962 Federal Highway Act, the Workable Progr"am for Community Improvement, Urban Renewal and Neighborhood Development Program, preliminary and project or execution plans, and other related urban renewal matters formerly under the responsibi Iity of the Urban Renewal Committee or the Urban Renewal Policy Committee. The Committee shall further review all applications for federal grants that are referred from the Grants Review Board for planning considerations to determine their conformity with adopted overall plans and policies for the development of the City. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict_with this Ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. �ATLANTA,GEOROIA FROM: d. Dan E . Sweat, Jr. For your information D Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary reply. D Advise me the status of the attached. FORM 25- 4- S �... 4 URB AN RE N EWAL MONTHLY STATUS PROGRAM REPORT February 28, 1970 .ATLANT.A HOUSING AUTHORITY �-I . -J.Ull2lu'J RENEWAL STJ1.'l'US REPORT I ATLlJITA EOUsnm AUT!-IOR.TIY ~ I ~ ACQUISITION I Parc els to bz Acquired PROJECT I Acquired to Date ! Total to b e Yet to be · Relocated Acquired . Fami ly & Ind. - ,. 'i'CY.!-..L B:Jtl er Street R-·9 l' RELOCATION Bus . Rel ocated To Date Fa mily & Ind • DP.·10LITION Remaining to b e ~tructures Relocated to be b'am1J.y & ma. ~us . e molished Bus . Demolis hed To Date 5507 52o6 301 6668 657 6205 573 463 84 4857 4409 600 600 0 1261 103 1261 1 OJ 0 0 594 594 11 14 77 111 4 76 0 1 811 799 1253 79 1253 0 0 987 987 421 18 421 0 0 Yet to :JG Demolis :ic 448 I ' R:v...;:=:on- Wa.s!:1.i n 6 ton R-10 . 820 81 4 Univa~sity Center R-11 866 866 0 ~ R·'.Jckdale R- 21 941 879 62 ~ 6 ~ 79 18 R---22 463 6 457 315 19 315 19 0 0 305 305 . - Goo:rgi a State R- 59 29 29 GE-oq;ia Tech R- 85 335 335 v!cst E0.d 4 l 4. - 2- -1 lI Gi~orgi a Tech II A-2-2 lbdel Ci ties A-2 -J - 0 66. 4 30.- l-1-1 4 16. 32 7 25 398 278 120 -+--- I 48 20 48 o· 0 261 58 261 58 0 0 359 359 480 104 465 87 15 17 476 365 1094 103 896 77 198 26 539 462 77 18 37 12 3 6 34 21 0 21 ·1 1 187 5 244 6 278 51 227 52 52 111 ' I I i-i ·- 431 I I .. 20 0 527· 593 I - ! ! R-90 Be::::.:crd- Pine I 435 435 I 'Ih0T.asv ille 12 ' �Ul1JJAN II.ENE\ AL STATUS IlliPO.RT Pai:;e 2 . I i TITSFOST'T'T O~if Prcject . l ] Acres \:o be Sold I 'T Ol' /~ E·.1.lter Street !i,.:3.1,:son- 1rlash R- 9 R-10 Acres Sol d to Dat e Under Contract 1127 ~o 62402 87.6 81o6 126 .. 0 105 .. 1 15 , h 1 Ol.i., J 93, 8 1 To t al t o be Rehabi litated Not Undsr Contract 175 .. 8 REHABILITATION I TEM- IlLPROVEI'-IBNT S Complete to date ' I Yet t o be Rehab. Budge t .Amount 2221 3,558, 966 5782 2967 786 182 4°5 NA NA 1..it~ 80? 1804 1744 60 32700 I NA ~ o d:c:.2..le R- 21 242 .. 6 56. 3 ·183 .5 2 .. 8 NA NA NA m· R- 22 2o/5 o;) 1BJ.5 69.6 12 o4 92 87 5 G2o r gi2.S t.a te Ke st- End 662,000 1.762.9~h 653,1 80 1 .406 1864 I R-59 807 8. 7 R-85 45. 0 39.4 ,.. . 1..:c orgia.- Te ch -J 2, 786,798 4 R-11 • .., . ... Completed ' D>.ivers ity Cs nter .;,_ ~ C:-"'. C..S TI..!..J..e I R- 90 . 5.o .6 98. 4 20.6 33.6 154.9 _34o2 22o 5 I 44. 2 NA NA NA NA I ~ 653, 914 553, 773 . 2338 ' 698 1640 168, 598 192 58 134 14, 000 168, 598 I I I I I I . 3c:d.ford- Pine A-2-1 98o2 42, 000 GeJ ~6 i a Tee~ II A-2-2 }:cdel Ci ties A-2-3 It I ~7G- · 192 378 255,500 4,383 i i �Urban Renewal Status Report I -- t r ,) Amount Required FR.OJ:;CT ~, CASH A:n.ount Received from City Amount to be Received -- ITEN II - I! Au:ount to Cn:npl etion ~i $ St:-c9t ? :. :tl.er ~-:}_".-:=ot~- ~·. a. s hi~gtcn 1 627,727 $ 791,078 $ (163,351 ' - ~) ,, ,_, t. I ,;. ~ 37 ,046,089 L :i Ye :-.s::. ty Cs::ter 186 , 567 $ 196,468 $ (9,901 ) R-10 I ;~ $ $ ·' ·.P R-11 49,714 ,, C:ecrgi2. State ~- 59 R- 85 G~>JrG ia Tec h R- 9C· \~:-=:st :-:::1d - 3e~orC-Pi.r.e GG J:--r5 ia ·1> R- 22 T :10:::?..s•JiJ.le . Tech I I Ci :.:'..8S 24,293,299 t~,; J 67,202 ,~ ·:> $ $ $ $ ~:; $ ,.p "' $ ,.., 67,202 13, 988 ,; ,. 324,244 .$ $ 189, 1 76 $ 941,479 - $ . 324,244 L 1$ d· p A-2-2 ~ y $ ~µ A-2-3 $ t $ p ~> 995,283 fl~t ,:,,!) $ 4,571, 692 -~ 5,466,679 $ 5,370,008 ·? 3,003,765 $ 616,134 ->' 2,.387 , 631 4,81 9~ 578 ~~ 733,879 $ 4,085,699 11,222 $ 11,222 $ I~ 0 {'-s t (13,988 ) 12, 752, 790 $ f $ A- 2-1 $ (1°39,462 ) $ g $ 1,936 ,762 ~ R- 21 P~ct·c.::._' 9 $" I i $· R-9 I 6, 046,68,2 ~ • ~ _; ,ce .1. A.mount Completed to Date Total Costs i1 ' T:JT.U, 'f NON-CASH I HPROVB-:E~·TTS ~1 !~ t ' E i $ l $ i $ i ~ ! . .., I 96,671 I I $ ~ '. ~ ~ 'l ii $ 5., 292 ., 344 $ 4, 476,857 ' 2,524,521 $ 407.,616 ) I 5,699,960 ~ " 3,060,063 I ~ )J ~ ~µ 5,584,584 -~,, 1 p 3,696 ,478 $ l I ·? g ~ I 1,474, 9.90 L $ I 780,379 lI I I j I �Page 4 Urban Renewal Status Report . ' TOTAL VALUE OF It1PROVEMENTS NJHBER DWELLING UNITS - - Complet ed PRCJJ~CT .. autlc:c S-t:-eet 1095 650 L~n i v er-s i t ~l Ce;1ter P.- 11 431 F~·: k_j3.le R- 21 0 -- R- 22 1; · 0 ia +e ~~+ .., v2-.v R- 59 ~ -=- """~ ..:.r .! \.,; _, -1 J. .::, - !) .__ R- 85 Teer. ·C" .;.. ·,...; ... ... S:!d 1/1" ..- -· - . - -- -- Complet ed $ .. Unde~ Constru ction . Total Proposed - I I d:- 95,370, 792 $ 30,739, 025 $ 89, 248, 41 2 4' 215, 358 ,229 I R-90 I I .I I $ 105 192 0 842 J 25,029,546 .$ 1 3 435 $ 17 , 149,838 ·s 2,249, 000 325 605 33,069,144 .J 1372 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - $ $ 0 '• 3, 036, 800 ~ i I 38, 1 75, 944 8,235, 000 $ 33, 264,546 $ 2, 783, 000 ,p ,~ 22, 181, 838 $ 5, ooo ~b 3,534, 825 r ...- 2, 070, 000 $ I - ' p 1500 1175 351 0 $ 1200 3,797, 964 3,500,000 .$ $ $ 14, 081 , 325 $ 17, 621,150 ~ . 8,700, 000 'J) s 19 , 623,164 4, 250, 000 $29, 000, 000 ,5 11 , 05 0, 000 .$ 1o, 16 2, 000 ~ 23, 71 2, 000 ·' 8., 452 ,050 7,125,200 ii I 1 ., 36, 750, 000 { 0 1 I ! I I I A- 2- 1 0 .-,c. ~; i c. T :~c l1 I I A- 2- 2 0 0 0 > , Citie s A-2 - 3 0 0 0 'I 0 "' •:) 1 353 ., 2,500,000 $ $ 2,013,300 $ 460,000 $ 5, 978, 750 •;) 353 ~ 8,306.000 $ 0 •!) . 7 . ?71 ~17 ·2 0 $ 0 $ 0 s 0 .:J; 0 - $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 .$ 0 - ~ "3 c2 .: :'c~d- ? i ~e i-r ........~,c;; _ . , _._ 5703 2241 0 416 -Gt3: Total I I i R- 9 R-10 Tr:, :,a:::·ville I I E:-.. ·.~s VY!- \·,Tashi :1~:.on 1 :::: I !Proposed 869 2593 · OT.~ - Under Constructi on ' 0 I , .., 15 ,5.77 ,537 ' ) I I I I ' . •} -- ! �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA ,----------, 1969 I 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST): ~i!l~oF : L-----r---' I r--------, I I I METROPOLITAN ~ l 0E VEL0PME.HT COUHOL L--- I ATlANTACHILD lf! N AHDT0UTH S!RYICU COUNCIL CITIZEIU ADYl!DR1' COMMlTTfE FOlt URBAN RENEWAL COMMU Nl TT RELATIONS COMMIHID N I I _ _ _ _ .J 0 CHIEF A0MINISTRATN( Of"FIC[R ANO I U LAHTA STADIUM .4.TT0IIH!T AOMIHISTRATIVC ST.UT I I I COORDIH ATOR 7I I I PU!DHHEL DEPAIITM[HT PUIILICHOUSING DIVlSIOH UIIU.N REHEW.U. 0IVl~OH Z0MING COMMITT EE PLAHHIHC AHO 0E VELOPMEHT COMMI TTEE :,I AT LAJrfTA MUN1O PAL COURT auocn COORDI NA TOR FOR COMMUNITY RELATI0HS II I I I L._ I ____ _ OFFICE OF TIU COMPTROL LER COMl,IJUI0H r AnAHTA TRAFflC COURT ( I 7I FIH4HCE COMMITTEE I I I I I I PURCHUIHC C'OMMITTEE , - -- -+ - - - - , , I .----- .l----, _ _____ JI OTT Ct.ERK I TU4UES!DII I L-----------1 IIUILOING COO! 4 0Vl!,011' IIOAR0 40"'-110.0N PLUMIIHCAH0SJ.MIT41 PRl!DN COMMJTTEI! PLUMIIINC E.0.1,UNIHC IOUD PLWillllHC40Vll,OIIYI0UD fll!CTIIC4L UJ.M.ltllHC aouo ELl!CTRICAL40Vl!DRYII0UD Bl!TTU ttOU~ NG COMMIUI0N Hl!J.T.4N 0 Vl!HT,AQVl!DRY COMM. PUIICHUIHG DEP4RTMEHT 7 , -1 -! 1 1 rJHAHC( D[PARTM[H'T 1 ~ IUILOIHG COMM.I TTfE IOARD OF PUIE M4$TUS I I I PUIIL1CWOHS COM.ll.l TTl!I! I I FIR£ 0EPAIITMEMT POLICE 0 EPARTMEMT ADMIN ISTRATI VE USISTJ.HT IUILDIMCI MSPl!C TI OH Dl!PAR TMEH T _J PUIILICWORICS DEP ARTMEN T WATER DEPARTMEH T PARKS NID C El,lETfRY DEPARTMEN T 0 IV1SIOH 0F IHHRUCTIOH RU UR CH AMO 0EYEL0PMEHT OIVls.t0H SOlOOL PLANT PL.t.HHIHC '-NO COHSTRUC TI 0H SERVICES DIVISION ADMIMISTRU IV£ SER'flCfSOl'flSIOH �II PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 . --------, r----------, I ~~i~i::: ~ :;.,o, : A~~t:TT:j_f~LH143.215.248.55 ~g~=~yf -, 1iA~~J12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)i u;T~r L-----r ___ J I J r:;n~~fUL~O;-~;;;.,7 " '- - J L - - -" '-" "" -'- ,L __ 'l~ _",'~.fo -~(__ .J' , i -~T:"ufri:n~J~; 7 r, -S~o;-,,,;00-E;IT-IO;M.,; ;T-7I '1. .•_«_" _"'~"-'"' -"-" .J' " J • L ____ 1- ___ ~==================;l=======================:=::=:==5?.':=.=.:;::===========*========iF===================;i: I I ELECTO RATE 1 1 ,----------, I MHROPO LITAH Sot00L I I OEVfl OPJ,rnn COIJH O L I ____ .J L--- I I I AT L.ulTA CHtLDR Di ,UI QTOU TH SUYICU COUHCIL I CITll.EHS' AOVnORT COMMI TTEE FOi COMMUHITT IEL A TI01n COM.WlHIOH I I U U AHR EHE WAL I I I I I I I I I 7I I I PEIUOtot f L 110.1, RO I I I I I I PER SOKM EL 0EP.UTI.IEHT I COOROIIO,TOR FOi CO...WMITY R! LA TI OHS ADMI HISTU,TI VE U SI STAMT OFFICE Of TME COlolP TROL Ll!R PUSOMH EL DIVISIOH I I I I f ::, I ATL.AH'TA MUHI O PAL COURT PU I LICHOUS/ HG OI Vl~OH IUOG ET C0MMlllJOH OIVL SI OH I I I I II l ~ ZOHIHGCQl,IM,JTT U I I I I IL. r r I ATL,lHTA TUHICCOURT UI U ,H REHEW AL P L.IJ,IH IMG AH O OfVE LOPkE HT CDMMI TTU I I .JI ____..._____ , FlHAH CE COMMI TTEE I I __ _ _ _ I I _ _ ____ JI PURCH .UIHG COMMLTT H I I I ,------ J. ____, I T.UUSE U.011 I L...----------1 I UILDI HG CODE ADVl!oORT IO • • D •DV. 10.0H PLUMIIHG I.M D SAM I T AR PLUMI IHC. U~H JHC ao.u o PLUMII IHG ADVl1,0RY80AIO IE L l!C TRIC AL IE J Al1tlH1H C BO ARD EL ECUICAL A0Vli0 11 YIOARD BETTER HOU MH G awMIUIOH HhT. .UIO Vf HT, AO'IUOIIT (01,U,1 . PUROU ,SI HG DEPA RTMEHT ,l -1 -; -f 1 , "1 ~ TRAFFIC AHO IIU ILOI HC. TRAH SPOIITAT IO H COMM ITTEE COM.MISSIOH I I I P UI LI C WOR ICS COMMITTEI! I I FIRE OEPARTMEHT POLICE OEPA II TME HT TRAFFI C OEPAR TMEH T IU1 LOI HC OU P l! CTl OH OEP AIITMEH T _J PU I LtC WOR KS OEPAIITMEHT WAHR OEPARTMfHT PARKS A>ID CEMHUY DEP U T.W.EMT OLVlSIOH OF ltUTR UC TIOH RUURCHA.M D DEVE L0 PMIEH T DIV I M0 H SCHOOL PLAN T PL ,UOIIHC AM O COJO TRUC TIOtt SUYIC U OIV1 $10H AOMIHISTR.t. TIV E SERVIC ES OIVUIOH �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 , I s%f~~: ~ :; ToF , -------- , L---- -r---' I METROPOLITAN SCHOOL I I I DfVfLOPMfHT COUHOL I I I L- - - - ATLAHT A CltlLDREH AHO YOU TH SER VICES COUHCIL _ _ __ J CITIZUI S' ADVU,OIY COM.loWHITY Rf LATIO!iS COMMISSIOH COMMITT U: FOi URIAH IEHEWAL CHICr AOMINISTRATTV[ OfrJC[R AKO ADMINISTRATIVE STAJT I I I I 7I PE U OHH EL aouo I I COORDIHATOR FOR CO-UNITY IU:LATIOHS E XECUTIVE DIRECTOR OFF ICE Of TM£ COMP TROLLU PU8LIC HOUSIHC DIVISIOH - - - ----- :, I I I ATLANTA MUHICIPAL COURT ~ I .J lOHIHC COMMITT EE I I I I I I PUIICHASIHG COMMITTEE ~-- - +---~ , I I L----- FIHJ.NCE COMMITTEE I I I I rI r I I ATLAHTA TRAFFIC COURT I ,--- -- ..L----, _ _ __ __ JI CITY CLERK IUILOIHC COO£ 4DVU,ORY aouo .i.O'(IOOHPLUMIIHGAIIOSIJ,IITU , PLUWBIHG UNillH IHG BOARD ""1 PLLIMIIHG .i. OYISORY aouo fl! CT11CAL flAMIHIHG a.ouo fl!CTRIC4 L ADVISORY BOARD BUTU HOUSIHC COMMISSIOH Hl!AT. al40 VfHT.Jr,OVIKlRT CQl,¥,II, I T U OSESSOII L.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I J PURCHASING OEPARTMEHT 7 1 1 1 ,, ~ IUILOIHG C.0-ITTEE FI RE DEP ARTMEHT POLICED fP UTM!HT TRAHIC Dl! PUTMEH T BUILDI HG IHSPICTIOH O!PARTM!HT I I I I I _J PUILICWOHS COMMJTTH PU BLIC WORKS OEPARTMl!HT WATER OEP ARTW!HT PARltS AHO C!METUT DEPARTMENT DIVIS/OH OF IHSTROCTIOH PUSOHHEL DIVIS/OH RESEARCH AHO O!VELOPNEHT OIY1SIOH SCHOOL PL.t.HT PL.tJOIIHG .t.HO COHSTRUCTIOH SERVICUDIVISION ADMI HISTRAT1VE SUV1CU DI VI MOH �----------, r------ .:. -,L L-----r---' ~ I si:~t~'::: ~:;,,oF : J ATL.itlTA, FUL TOtl COIJ)<ITY ~:T.:L~:tl:11::o -: 1•n~;1~:12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)UHTY I I I IL _ _ PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 i rJ .,,_,_un_• .._ T_ _ ...J r, ELECTORATE 1 1 l 4TL~~t/~~ : ~~wHn7 TA X ASSEUOU 1,_,_EC_RE_ATl~U-THO _ RI_TTJI r-:;:~~;::11:.;;-1 I I L- --~--- -J . ~----.---~ i ...i~T:ui143.215.248.55J'r, 7 Of f otlOTIOH ,--------, I I METIIOPOLITAH sotOOL DEVt:LOPWEJ4T ctlUH O L L--- I I ____ J r.*================i;:===================6E=HE==RA L= Mu==H1=ic,l~l=6=0v==ER=HM ==EH ==,==========i~=====*================= : I ATLAHT4CH ILOR EH AHOTOUTH SER VICES COUHCIL O'.)MMUHITT Rll 4 TIOHS c_oMMJS110H CHl[f AOMIN ISTRAT IV[ orrlC[R ANO AOM IN15TR4TI V[ SlAff I I I I j PUioOl{H fl IIOARO I I I I I I I EU:CUTIVf. OIIIECTOII UIIB 4H REHftt'4L OIVISIOH ::, COOROIH 4TO R FOR COM,IUMITT ll:IELATIOH1 I 1 1 ATLANTA TRAFFIC COURT P L Atl NIHC AtlO OEVELOPM[HT COMMITTEE \.. I I I I l r I I .J FIHAMC E COMMI TTEE 1 1 L------ I PUIIO!UIHC COMMITTEE I I ,----+----,\ 1 I OFFICE Of Tl11;" COl,IP TROL LER I I BUDGET CXlMMI WOH I 1 I I _ _____ JI I ,----- .L----, PLAtlH INCDE PAIITMEHT OTTCLElll I T AI d S[ UO R I PURCHASING DEPARTMEHT L...-- --------' I UIL01NC/.MD 4THLfTICCQl,U,UTTIEf IUI LDING COPE AOVUOaT a o uo A0V. IID.0 H P' LIJMBIHG AHOSAtll T AR 7 7 PLUMIIIHG UAMIHIHC BOARD "1 PLUMll1HG A0Vli,ORTIOUO -i f LE CTRlC AL fX AMIH1HCIIOARD 1 1 fl[ CTIIIC AL AOVlioOIIT IIOUO .WOITOII IUM lllOCIYICCUITU l[TTER HOU11NC C~UIOH H(Af. AHOV[HT. AOVli,ORTCCIMM. LAH D AGE HT 1 7 LAtt'DfPUTM[HT rlNANC[ 0£f'AAT MEM'T ~ TIIAHICAHD TRAHSl'ORT ATIOH COMliUSSIOH Flllf O[ PARTMEM T POLICf DEPARTMENT IUILOIHG COMMIT TU TRAFF IC O[f'ARTMEM T Ao..lH ISTRATIV[ 4 UIST.u! T I 1 r I ATLAHTA MUHIOP•L COUffT PERioOKNfl DfPAIITMEHT IUl LOIH C IHSPl!CTIOH OrP AIITMfHT I I I I I _J PUBLICWOIIU CGMMITTff WAT U COMMITTEE PAIIICSC'Ololl,UTHf PUSL1C WORKS DE PARTME NT WATER O[f'AIITMfNT PAIIUAMOCEJ,1£TUT OEPAII TMEHT OIVl SIDN OF IHSUUCTIDN RESEARCH AH O OEVELOPMEHT OIVISIOH SCHOOL PLA.HT PLAH)II NC AHO COH ST RUCTI OH SERVICES OIVlSIOH ADMINISTRATl'I[ SERVlCESOIVlSIOH �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 ,--------, ,-----------, I 143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)ig: ggi::,,oF : L-----r---' Ai~t:TT:i.'~LH143.215.248.55 ig~=~T ~-, I [L(CJORATE r ; ; : ~ci143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)iu; TY1 . J I L-- ~J143.215.248.55r__ J I rTL~~r.:rF143.215.248.55;~uHnl i ~~T:"ufr~n143.215.248.55; 1 L-~ 143.215.248.55R~-J L~c~E~1~u2_H~1~rj r -s~ ; ; ~ ; : :R~;;-7 __~~E~~T~~-J ,--------, I fllETR0POLITAH SOIOOL I I DEVfL0 P'fllEtH C0UHOL L.--- I ____ J r.:;==================;~===============================t:========::::::::==========*==========?===================;i ', GENERAL MUNICI l GOYERNMENT I ATL.ulTA CHILDREH AHD YDUTH 1ElfYI CES C0UHCl l MAYOR BOARD Of ALDER MEN CITIZEH ~· ADVISORY C0-ITTEEF0R UR9AH REHEW.U. COM.w.UHIT'f RELATI0HS COWMl~!.I0H CH1cr A0M IHISTR AT ,V[ ornccR AHO ADMINISlRATIV[ STA.ff I I I I 7I I I I I I P'fl !.OMM fL DEP'ARTM(HT COORDINATOR FOR COM,1.UNITY RELATtOHS AOMIMISTRATIVE AS-SISTA.NT 0FF1Cf.0F tlif COMPTROLL ER PUSOKHEL DIVl!,IOH I I I I :, UReAH RfHEWAL DIY l!o!0H Z0 HIHGctlwoll TTEE PLAHHIHG AHO DEYEL0P MEMT COl,y/,LfTEf I 1 I I I I ATUH TA MUHIOP'AL COURT PU 9 L1CH 0USI HG 0JVISI0M r I I A.TlAKTA TRAFFIC COURT ~ I I I I I I J I FIHAHC E COMMITT EE I I '------ \ PURCH ASIMG COfllloU TTEE I I I ~----+----~, , - - - - .1 ____, I I ______ JI an PLAHNJMG 0EPARTMEHT a.ERK I TU AUESSOR I L-- --------- J 8UIL0IHGAH0 ATHLL!"TI C COMMITTEE BU1L0IHGCODE ADVISORY BOARD AD'(80. 0 H PL UMBIHCAH0 SAHITA II PLUMB IH G l!U.W.IHIHG BOARD PLUMII IHC ADVISORY II0 ARD EUCTRICAL l!U,MIHJHG IIOARD ELECTR IC AL ADVISORY eouo BETTER HOU!.IHG COMMISSIDH Hf,H.AH0VEHT. ADVl!,OITC014N , AUDITORIUM ,_.0CIYICCCIHH PURCHASJHG 0 !PAI TME HT 7 , --1 -j "1 "1 "1 rlHANC[ 0(PAATMCHT , ~ 8UILDI HG ~ I TTE , IOARD0f FIRE MAHEIS I I I I PU&LICWOR U COMMITTU I flllf 0EPARTMEHT POLICE 0EPAlfMEtlT TR AFflC DEPARTMfMT &UI LDIHGIH 1PECTIOH Df.PAITMEHT _j PU&LIC WORU 0f.P.&ITMf.HT W.t.Tf.R DEP.&ITMf.HT PUUAH0COlETflY 0l!P.&RTMEHT 0IVl!.IOHOF INST RUCTIOH RESEARCH N'D DEYEL0PMEHT DIVIY0H SCHOOL PLANT PLAMHIHC AHD COtUTRUCT10H SERVICES DIVISIOH Atw.lJHISTRA TT VE SERVICES OIVIYOH �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 ~---------, 143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)ig: ~i::.,oF : I L-----,---' I ,--------, I I L--- ATLI.MTACHILD lf EH AHDYOUTHUIYICU CDUHCIL CITIZ[HS' ADYUOl1' COMMJTTU:FOI Ul&I.M REHEWAl. COW.WHITT IEL ATIOH S C.OMMJ U IOH I METIOPOL1T.ut sotOOL I DEVEL0PMEl4T COUMO L I I ____ J CH l[ f AOMJN15 TRAT1V[ OfTJC[ R AHO .t.OM LNISTRATIV[ SUIT I I I I 7I PEISOtOIEL I OAIO I I I I I P EISOHHEL OEPAIT MEHT COOIDIHA TO R FOi COMMUHlTY RE LATIOH S ADl,II HISTIATI YE AUISTANT BUDGET COMM.IUlOH OfflC E OFTllE COM.PTROL LEI PERWH>IEL DI VlSIOH I I I I I PUBLICHOUSIHC DIY ISIOH Ull~Hy~J~!WAL I .t.Tl AHTA TRAFFIC COU RT I- PLI.MHIH C AH O DEYELOPMEHT COM.l,IITTU ZOH IHC COW,ll TTU l' I I J FIHI.MCE C0MMITTEE I I I I I ______ JI I I I I I ____ _ L I I I ~----+----~, PLI.MHtHG OEPAITMEHT OTTCLE U: ,----- .l-- --, I I TAllASSE1S0R "----·- -----' BUI LOIHGAH O ATllLET IC COMMI TTEE PURCHA SIMC COMMITTEE I UI LOI HG C.OOE AOYIS011' IDAIO A0Y8D.0 HP LUMIIHGI.MOUJ'OTAI PLUM BIHG ElA.M IHIHG IOARO PLOM ll HG AO YtSOIY IOAIO ELE CTRICAL UAMIHIHG IOAIO ELECT RI CAL ADYISO RY BOARD U TT ER HOU11HC COMMJU IOH HUT.AHO YEHT.AOYIW IY COMM, PURCH.t.SIHC DE PAITM[ICT 7 , -1 -i ~ -1 "1 j ~ IU ILOtHG COMMITTl!f: IO AIO Of FI RE ,un us I I I I PUI LICWOIU COMMITTEE I FIR E OE PART MEHT POLI CE OV'AITMEHT TRA Fl' IC DEPARTMVtT I U1LD0 4CIH SPECTIOH OEPARTM[HT _J PUB LIC WORKS OEPARTMEMT PARU AHO CEMETERY DEl"ARTMEICT OIV1SIDHO F IHSTRUCTIOH RESEARCH AHO DEV[ LOPMEHT OIVL SI OIC KHOOL PLAMT PLAHHIHG .ulO COH STRUCTIOM SERVICES OIVISIOH AC*IHISTRATI VE SERV1CESOI VUIOH �~---------, PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 r--------, 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST): tg~::TOF : I ATLAHU..f ULTOH COUHTT L L-----r---' I ~~'.:.T~L~:H~l~A~ -.: I ATLA~ci1143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)-r:.~ ~UHTT I I I __ •_OJ_UH_••_••__ J L i ,---------, 'r J ELECTORATE o 1 l jATLAJ~r:t~~!143.215.248.55UHTY7 r -~TYufr~n~l~;1 I IL_ TUASS EUOO _ _JI 0 I RECRt: ATIOH.4UTHORITT I L-----,----.J I L-----,--.JI STATE OEl"ARTMEHT OFEOOC.4TION I , --------, I W.fTROPOLIT.4H SCMOOL I I OEVELOPW. EHT COUHOL I L --- _ _ _ _ .J r,:;====================.~ ========================= cc=.HE:=:':R:':AL=:M=.:=U=.:=Hl=:=C,i.".;:l:;; GO=v:::ER=.:=H=.:=M!; :;H::=T============.:=========r======================;i : ~ MAYO R I SOIRO or ILD!RMEH CITIZ ENS' AOVtSORT ATLAHUCHILOREM C0ll.MUH1TY .4140 TOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL COMMI TTEE FOR URUHREHE•AL RELATIOHS CXlMMIUIOH CHIEF AOMIHISTRATIV[ OHlC(R A.MO ADMINISTRATIVE ST"1'F I ATL.4HU. STAOIUM I 1 1 SIJPUIHTf:HDEHT 7I COOROIHATOR l" USOMH EL 80Alf0 I I I I I I I I I t:lECU TIVE DIRECTOR PUILICHOUSIHG OIVUJOH ATLANTA TRAFF IC COURT I I I I- ZOHIHGCOMNITTH I I FINAHCE COMMJTTU I I I I .---- + - -- --,, I ,----- .!.----, ______ JI CJTY CLERC I TU AUUSOR L- _ _ _ _ _ __ IUILDIHG AHO ATl1LETICCO,,U,UTTU. AUOITOIIUM lN OCl'flC C(NICI l"U RCHASIH& COl,Ur,ILTTE! I I I IL ____ _ IUIL DIHG CODE ADVISOlfT IOUO AOV llD.OH l"LUMlllHG AHO)AH ITAR PLUMIIHG UAMJHJHG BOARD l'LUMIIHG ADVISORY eouo t:L ECTRICAL t:U.WJHl HG BOUD EL !CTIICAL ADVISORY IOARO ll!TTU HOUMHG COtitMJUIOH HfAT.AH OVEHT.AOVISO R'fCOl,IM, _ _ IJ PUICHASIHG OEl'ARht(HT ,, l -t 1 1 , "1 ~ flREDIPAATwE,lT .4DlilHIST RATIVE AUISTAHT OFFICE Of TliE COl,lf'TROLLEI PEISOKHEL DIVISIOH r I _J I I I IOAIO Of FIRE W.ASTEIS COOlfDIHATOR FOR C'OMlilUHlTY RELATIONS I :,I ATLAHTA MUHIOP AL COORT URIAH RENEWAL OIVISIOH P ERSOKHt:L Ot:PUTM EHT TRAFFI C AHO TRAH,.,ORTATIOH cow.w.m10K IUILDIHG Ct>MMI TT U. IUILDIHGIHSl'(CT IOH Dll"AIUMOH I I I I I _J l'UILICWOIIU COMMITTEE PUILIC 110ltl:S DEPUTW.!HT PARU AHO CEMETUT DEPARTMENT DIVISIOtl Of IHSTIUCTIOH RESEARCH AHO O(V(LOPWOIT OIVIMOH KHOOL PL.4HT PLA.XH IHG .lMO COMSTRUCTIOH SERVICES DI VI SIOH AtMIH1STR.4TIYE SfRVfCUDI VI SIOtl �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA ~---------, ,--------, I L l ~~t~~ ~:lyOF : L-----r---' I 1969 ATL.UtTA fUlTOH COUHTT 0 ~~:_r_:l~:"~e~•~-! i ATL'1ci,~:12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)UHTT I I L - - 143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)r_ _ J rJ ELECTORATE f,.rL~~r.tr'143.215.248.55;g:u"n7 L-~ 143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)·~ • -J 11l r-~TYu~~n143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)7 r-s~;;;;;:.-;:.;.:T-7 L_~c~E~l~U2_tto_!~YJ • I ________ L OfEDUCATIOH ..JI ,--------, I 1111!:TIOl"OLITAM SOIDOL I I 0EVEL0l"MfMT COUHOL I L---- ____ J r,:;J===================;,i'========================c==EN=;E=RA=L==M==UN=,c;;,lt=L==Go=vE==R=NM = =E==NT==============*=======~=====================;i: I ~ ATLMITA CH ILOIEH COMMUH I TT ClT!ZflO' AOYIIOIIY ,U,10 l'OUTH SfA VI CU lt ELATI 0 HS COUHCI L COMMI UIOH COloUUTTl!E fOR UIIBAH JIEHfl'.U. SOARD DI ALDERMEN CH l[f ADM IHISTRATI\1£ ATTORHl!T OH IC CR .I.HO ADM lNISTRATM STAIT I I I I lI PflUOIOIEL 1104110 I I I EXECUTIVE DI RECTO R COOIIDIHATDI FOi COMMUKITT lll!L ATI OMS I I I I I I I I I :, OFFICE OF TllE COMP TROLLER rI I I ATLANTA ATLANTA MUMIOPAL COURT TRAFFI C COURT J ~ I I I I It_ _ _ _ _ _ FJHAH CE C0MMJTTfl! I I I I I I .-----+------., I ,----- .L----, ______ JI PLl.t! HIHGOEP.UTMEHT CIT Y CURI( I TU U SUSOI i._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ II UILOIH C AJlO ATHLE TIC COMMI TTEE BUI LOIHC CO OE ADYl l,O IY IIOARO .t,0V.&D.0 N PLUMBJWC'i AMD SAMITAII PL Ulol ll HC'i EU,MJHIHC'i 104110 PL UMI IHC'i A0VIS.O IIT I DAID f LfC HIICAL UAMJH!HC'i 14AIID f Ll!CTIICAL ADVIS(UY A.l.l OIT ORIUM .UDCl'IIC:CCJITU PURCHASJHC'i COMMITTEE I ao uo UTTER ttOUSI HC'i COlolMI WOH HEA T.AH O Yl!HT. AD VUO IIY COt,U,11 , IJ PUIICHASJHC'i DEPARTMEHT 7 7 "1 -i -1 -1 "1 rlHAHC E DE PARTMENT ~ TRAF FIC AHO TI AM Sl'O ITATI0 H COM,i,tJS SI0H IU1LDIHC'i COl,U,IITTff IUILDIHC'i IHSPECTI0H Dl!PAIITlolVCT I I, I I I I I _J PUILtCWOIIU COMMIT TU PUIUCWOHS Dl!l"dTMtHT WATUDEPUTMEHT l".UU ~D CEM!TERY 01!1".UTMl!HT DIVlSlc»I OF IHSTRUCTIOH PERSOHHl!L DIVISIOM IIUUICHA.H0 0EVEL0PMEHT 0IVISI0H SCHOOL PLA.HT PL.u(f41HC'i AHO COHSTIIUCTI0H SERYLCUDIVISI0H ADMIHISTIIATIVE Sl!IIVICUDIVISIOH �,----------, ~~t~~: I ,--------,L J ATLAHTA- FULYOH COUMTY -: i I I ATLAMT.t.-FUL TOH CDUMTY I I I I 1 'L __' 0,_ L-----r---' ~ ~:T~L~:H~l~A~ ~.ATL~~r:-r'143.215.248.55; ~UHTY, ,1 ~r_ u~~-~.._'~-· - _,r-:,l.. ELECTORATE L_ TU AH, !UORS _...J r -~TYufr~n~l~~ I ,----- ---, 7 RECRUTIOH AUTHORITl' I STATE DEPAUMU4 T I 1----- , ----' I I L----,----.J OF EOUCAT IOH I ,--------, I METROPO LJTAH KMOOL I I DEVE LOPMEMT COUNCIL I L - - - _ _ _ _ .J r.:i==================:::::;;:::::=======================6==[N  : :[: : RA=l==M==UN==1c;;,l.1= l ==6o==vc==R==NM:::::lNT::= =============*=======~=====================.i: I ATLANTA CH ILOREH AHO YO UTH U RYIC U COUHCIL CITIZEHS ' AOYISORY CO_.YTEE FOR URIAM R[MEWAL COMMUHt TT RE L ATIOHS COM,w.U ~ H CH l[r A.OM INISTRATIV[ OfflC[ R A.MD ADMINIST RATIVE STM r I I I I SUPERIHTEHOUIT 7I COOROI HATOR PERSOHJIEL IOUO I I I I I I I I COOIIOIH.t.TOR FOR C'OMMUMITY RELATIOHS AOMIHISTJ.ATIYE AUIST.u4T I I OFFICE Of TM[ COMP TROL L ER I I I :, r r I I ATLANTA W.UMJO PAL COURT A.TL.A.HTA TR AFF IC COURT ...J ~ I I I I I ______ JI I I I L---- - r----- QTY CLE Rl I .l----, I TU AUE U.OR '------------1 IUI LOI HG AHO ATHL ETIC COtil.MJ TT!E PURotA SIHGCOl,WITTEE ~----+----~, PLAMHIHG OE PARTW. EMT AlJOIT ORtUW. lNDCITICClNtll I I I I f lMANCECOMM.ITTE E I I IU ILOI HG CO D! ADYU.OIIT IOARO ADY. ID. OH P' LU.WII MGAMD SAM ITAR 7 1 PLU.w l LM G EUMJHIHGIOAI D P' LO.WI IHG ADYISO IY 10.1.10 ELE C TR IC AL l! l AMIM1MG I041f D -1 PURCHASIHG DEPAR TMEHT -i ELECTRIC AL .lOY ISO R1' IO AR D "1 -t IU TU HOU11HG COMMIUI~ HU T. AM DY EMT.AOYISOII YCOMiM. J r lNAHCC OCl'ARTMCN1' ~ IU ILOI HG COMMITT U I I I PUIU C WOIJC.S COMMITTEI! I I IUIL OI HG IM SP ECTIOH OEPA1Tt,1EHT I I zg~::YoF PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 I I ~I _J PUIL1C WORKS OE PARTt,1EMT WA.TU O[P.lJITt,ifMT PARKS AHO CEMETERY OEP.lR Tt,1EHT OIVUION Of IM ST IIUCTIOH RESEARCH AHO DEV ELOPMEMT OIYL110M SCHOOL PLA.HT PLA.H>IIMG AHO COHSTRUCTI OH URYICESOI VlSIOH .lO..U MISTR.lTIYE SERVICES DIVISION �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA , ,--------, J L L-----r---• ~ ~:T~ L~:H~l~A.:° I si:~[~~: tgi;~,oF : ,U U.HTA-F ULTOH COUHTT I ~ I AT L ~ ;1!:12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST) ~UHTT I L __~J143.215.248.55r__ J I I 1969 i J ELECTORATE jArl~~rt/143.215.248.55;~fU HTTI L-143.215.248.55s.~11~_j 11 l r r-s-;:;;;;:.: ;:;-7 -jrJu143.215.248.551~; 7 I L ~c~ E~l~U2_H~i.:, J . OFEOUCAT IO H I ,--------, I NETIIOPOLITAH SOtOOL I IL, OEVEL01'NU4T COUMOL _____ _ _ JI ~--~-.---~ ~==================:::::;,;::::=======================G =EN:E::RA:L::M:UN=IC jl _)::LG=O =VE=RN: M [::NT=============:::;:========*=====================;i: l ATLANT A CHILDIIOI AHO TOUTH SERVICES COUHCI L CITIZENS' AOVU,ORT COIIU4J TTEE FOR URIAH IIEN[WAL COM,MUNITT IIELAT10NS COIIU4JUION CH!tf" AOMIHISTRATIV[ ornCCR ANO AOM IHISTRAT1VC ST>.rr I I 1 , I SIJP ERlHTEHOENT PEIISOMH[L 104110 I I PUSOIOI EL DEPAIITNEH T PUBLIC HOUSING OIVISIO H URIAH RENCW.t.L [)I VISIO H :, ATLAKTA TIIAfFIC COURT 1'LAHHIHG AHO OEVEL 01'N EHT COMMITT EE II I 1 J I FIIO.HCE COI.IMI TTU 1 1 ( I 1 I IL ____ _ I I __ ____ J1 ,----- .1 ____, PLAHMIMG DEPAII TMENT OTT CL ERK I i._ _ 9U ILD1HG J.HD ATttLETIC COMMI TTEE PURCHUI MC COl,l,NI TTU I I I 9UILotHG C.ODE AD VUOIIT 90.UD ADV. I Q OM PLUM91 MG.utDSAHIT AR TA X AUEUOR _ _ _______ l J PURCH,U l MC. DEPARTMENT 7 , PLUNIIMC. UAMIMIHC. IOARD PLUM91 HG AOY ISOIIT90U O ELECTRICAL EU.Nl~MC. ao uo "1 ELECTl1CA L ADYISllllT &OARD -1 -I 1 rncAHC[ OCPAAT M[NT 1-:-,: ,;c-:,:-~:..,:::-';'c:,c~~::c:-:::,c::-" -::,cc:-=~«:..=.-I~ ~ aou o oF Fru lolA$Tf:U IUILOIHC. COM.Ml TT EE I I I PUI LI C WOIU COM.NJTTEE I I FI I EOEP..tJITNUU AOMIHISTRAT1V E AUIST .t.MT OFFICl!OFTlll! COlolPTROLLEII PEUONHEL OIVISIOH r 1 ATLANT.t. MUH IO PAL COURT COOROI HATOR FOR CCJM,LUHlTT RELAT IOHS IIJI LDIMC.IMiPECTIOM Of:PAIITNU4 T _J PU 9LJC WORU DEPAIITMEMT PAII U NIO CUIETEIT DE1'AITMEHT OIVISIOMOF IHURUCTIOH RUURCHNIO OE VELO PMU4T otV ISIOM SCHOOL PLAHT PLt.MM1MC. AHO COttSTRUCTIOH SERV1CUOIVI SI OH ADMIHl5TRAT1VE ~EIIV1CUOIVISl0t'I �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 ,----------, I s%~~'g! 28~:;YoF ,---------, L-----r ___ , I I Ml!TR0,.OLlTAH SOWOL I I 0fVEL0,.MEHT COUHO L I I I L--- ATL.ulTA CHILDRf:H AHO YDU TH SERVICES COUNCIL CITIZl!MS'ADV ISOIIY CO-a TTEE FOR UIIIIAM IIEMEWAL CDMM.IJMITY RELATIDMS C0M.l(JHID M ____ J CH IEF A0MIH ISTAATIV[ OHICER ANO I ADM IHISTRATIV[ STArr I I I WP ERtHTfHDEHT 7I C:OORDIHAT'OR PU!oOHHEl 110.UD I I I I E JCECUTIYI! DIRECTOR COORDIHA TOR fOR I I I I I COMM UH\ TT UL ATIOHS I 0FFICE0I' TliE COMPTROLL ER I I I - :,I r ( I ATLAHTo\ MUHlOP AL COURT ATLANTA TRAFFIC COURT I I I I L----- flHAHCE C01,11,11TTU: I I I PUR CHASI HG COMWI TTEE 0lVUIOHOf IHSTR LICTIOH I ~----+----~, .----- J. ____ , I I I I J II I ______ JI I TA.XUSESSOR I L---------·- -J 1--------~7 AD'(aD.DH "LUMIIIHGAH0SAHITAR , PLUMlll HG U"-"'lH tHG 110.U0 PLUMII IHG ADVISORY 104110 EL"TRICAL U.U.UHIHG IOARD -j ELEC TRICAL ADYIIORY IOAR0 Hl!AT,AHDYtHT.AD VISORTCOMlit. PUROtA!.IHG DEPARTMENT LAW 0EPARTM(HT -i 1 1 >--"-"-'-' _,._.,_.._._,.... _ ,_,.,_••_. ., rlHAHC[ 0 CPAltTM[Nl , ~ IULLOIHG COMtitlT TU I I I I PUIILICWORU CONiM.ITTfE PARUCOMMITTU PUB LIC WORU DEPARTMf:HT PAU:5 AHO COU! TERT OtPAIITMl!HT I FIRE D!PAR TMEHT AOlr,UHl$TRATIVE ASl!STAHT POLICf. OEPARTMl!HT TRAFF IC 0EPARTM~T IIUI LOIHGIHSPECTIOH DEPARTMEHT _J _____ JI Rf:Sl!ARCH AH O Ol!Vfl0PMOIT DIV IS.OH SOIOOL PL Al(T PLAlfHIMG AHO COMSTRUC TI 0H SERVICES DIVIS.OH ADMINI ST RATIVE SERVICES DIVISIOH �·'" .]_4l.A_ Fjy.~~ r' - .. ',.. THE ATLANT A CONSTITUTION, Tues., July 29, 1969 16,(;~'W"'~9:R·" ' ",~---~·w---:.r-TT"-"'··w~-:n~ "-'"?"t-··~-.,,~·.. ·.--· ......... '-·---~r'?'"'.·~- ~ ":'~.., . ~, ..· · . . '1 .1 ~ 1 ~ . ,i I ~ I tc_: Q~"\.\u s. I. I . ,,l'\j i .I \ i \ \ YOUNGSTERS ENGAGE 1N RELAY AT GRADY STADIUM: Foot Race Is Depicted In 'Swinging Summer' I · -- - - - A § JI 11 1P) 2 PUD1ic II §~<e JU,- - - -- . { _f "° 0 r ~II a]_Jr§ •P.rogram§ Tofillight .. By PAUL JONES . Two TV specials which have something pertinent to say about t axes and r ecreation. will be .presented Tuesday by Channel 5. ·.. The first, "Swinging Summer ," a filmed story of what's going on in the Atlanta Parks · · Phyllis and cameraman Dan .Keever and producer Michael Fields spent several weeks pu tting together the special which depicts such areas. as a basketball clinic conducted !,, ,.i,~,,;. 9.30 p.m. by stars of the Atlanta Hawks , golf lessons, track meets, 1::;f /::'": ly ~: : drama classes, guitar lessons, r.::c:c:: 1.· .·.:¥.~r'/.·'.i.;'/·"'j·•· the. Channel 5 arts a nd crafts, bus trips into ·.-~(;?rt ,t;."-; • news departthe country, visits to Channel \'<, ment will of5, the Coca-Cola Co. , and othf ··.: !r:_ ,:Ji. ·, ~ fer a discus~r indus tries to say nothing l'-'~i:L~'-' '"° sion program Pa'.J ! Jor.cg i n V O} V i n g of the various activities on playgrounds and in pools in Clark Harrison, chairman of _the Atlanta area. the DeKalb Coun ty Commission , and Homer Cronin , chair• The "Swinging Summer" will a fford Atlanta area viewm an of the Republican party .ers a better picture of what is in DeKalb County. They will going on in and around the discuss taxes. .city. Thousands will see activ"Swinging Summer" is a ity they never dreamed took happy program. We can't say place here. the same for the di scussion . In the fin ale the program progra m at 10 p.m . will offer a montage of the ,· P hyllis Muller, who wrote many-sided progra m, high"Swinging Snmmer," said she lighted by a "block party" in was surprised to fi nd the great which under privileged yol!ngvariety of activity that exists sters are fed from mob ile in the Atlanta Pa rks and Reciunch rooms. reation Departmen t summ er . ,I: ll: '" program Rnd she said viewers will be agreeably surprised too. · t.tf.ii i;~~P\ !lt$f;'~tij I~~rl143.215.248.55f / F:: 0 .. / ·?,( ~- --=.-; ,.,,. { � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document ~ ' --. ·. - AN ORDINANCE BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, by ordinance of December 21, 1964, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, caused to be created a standing committee of the Board of Aldermen entitled Urban Renewal Policy Committee, as set forth in Section 2-40.2 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Atlanta, Georgia effective July I, 1965, as amended, and WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable and in the public interest that the number of standing committees of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia be reduced in number and that such action would be in keeping with the precedent established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen in 1967, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the functions and responsibilities of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee can readily and expeditiously be transferred to another standing committee of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, namely, the Planning and Development Committee, and WHEREAS, such action should increase and improve communications between and coordination of activities of both the City of Atlanta, Georgia and its urban renewal agent, the Atlanta Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta as follows: I. That Section 2-40. 2 of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby repealed and the Urban Renewal Policy Committee is abolished. 2. That Section 2-40.1 (b) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the follovving: (b)Membership. The Planning and Development Committee shall be composed of eight (8) members of the Board of Aldermen appointed by th e Mayor and two (2) advis.ory me mbe rs from th e Housing �.---c ~--1-, l I -2- Authority of the City of Atlanta appointed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. The Housing Authority members of this committee shal I have the power to vote only on those items of housing and urban renewal which are going before the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners for further action. The Mayor shcil I appoint from the Board of Aldermen the chairman of said committee and the other seven (7) members. The Mayor sh al I appoint the Planning and Development Committee so that a representation is obtained of aldermanic committees concerned with community development, redevelopment, and improvement. 3. That Section 2-40.1 (c) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in Ii2u thereof the fol lowing: (c) Functions, responsibilities. Th is Planning and Development Committee shall have the primary responsibility to review and coordinate the short and long range plans and programs of all city efforts in the fields of community development, redevelopment, housing, foe ii ities and improvements, and to make suggestions to other appropriate aldermanic committees and to recommend actions and policies for adoption by the Board of Aldermen to insure maximum coordination and the highest quality of urban community development throughout the City. This responsibility shall include but is not limited to the review and evaluation of the elements of the comprehensive (general) plan development by the Planning Department with guidance from the Atlanta - Fulton County Joint Planning Board; th is comprehensive plan to be composed of at least a �r ~-·rr =-= - -· - - ~ I -3land use plan, transportation plan and a community facilities plan with public improvements program. The committee shal I further be responsible for developing pol icy recommendations on al I other matters concerning the planning and coordination of future city developments including, specifically, the Community Improvement Program (CIP), Open Space, Urban Beautification, the 1962 Federal Highway Act, the Workable Program for Community Improvement, Urban Renewal and Neighborhood Development Program, preliminary and project or execution plans, and other related urban renewal matters formerly under the responsibi Iity of the Urban Renewal Committee or the Urban Renewal Policy Committee. The Committee shall further review all applications for federal grants that are referred from the Grants Review Board for planning considerations to determine their conformity with adopted overall plans and policies for the development of the City. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict.with this Ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. �C IT~Y OF .i\_TL TA. CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF ~ COLLIER B. GLADIN. Direccor February 20, 1969 MEMORANDUM i TO: Charles Davis and Bill Wofford FROM: CollierG ~ SUBJECT: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey Attached for your information is the step-by-step program which our staffs have jointly prepared for the update of our housing conditions data. As I understand Mr. Farris has given approval to our request to proceed with this study, and also I understand that our staffs met with representatives from IBM th is morning and all the equipment and cards have been ordered. I am very pleased with the action to date and want to thank you for your cooperation. CG/jp Attachment �I r T RAOFFICE To: MJE ! ORAiN UM DISPOSITION Collier Gladin and George Aldridge Distribut e From: Hold Jack, Helen File Subject: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey D1\TE February 18, 1969 February 19: Info. Only As first step In beginning housing conditions survey, approval for use of data processing time, personnel, and equipment must come from Mr. Milton Farris. This c:pproval must be gained prior to ordering cards and other tools for the housing inspectors to use in the field. Since it will take three to four weeks after the order is placed to receive th is equipment, it is imperative that approval from Mr. Farris be gained at the earliest possible date. February 19: Order cards and other data processing equipment. The actual date for this assignment will correspond to the date final approval for computer use is gained. February 21: Rough draft of procedural manual for field inspections will be submitted to GP.orge, John Watson, Collier, Jim Smith, and Bill Wofford for approval of form and information. February 28: Procedural manual will be completed, printed and distributed to housing inspectors and other interested persons, such as training personnel and non-inspecting members of the Housing Code Division and Planning Department. - February 21 : Definitions pertaining to housing conditions that are now in use by various agencies involved in the city's housing problems wi 11 be collected and assembled . Fe bruary 26: From the assembled information, the Planning Department will prepa re a list of de fi nit ions result ing from a consensus of opinion a nd mail these defin it ions to the in terested agen cie s by this da te . 0 0 0 0 �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Two February 28: Representatives of the agencies involved will meet to discuss the standardized definitions and reach final agreement. March 3: Final listing of standardized definitions will be submitted to the Housing Code Division to be used in the training program and actual survey. March 3: Intensive two-week training program for Housing Code Inspectors will begin. During these two weeks, the use of pun~h cards and check lists will be I I - explained to the inspectors, cost estimation procedures will be standardized through field observation, and the standardized definitions will be explained in the field to the inspectors. March 17: The inspectors, after completing the two-week intensive training program, will enter the field to begin the actual survey. March 17: Data Processing Divisie,n will have cards printed and ready to take into the field by the inspectors. Mr. Steve Carlson of Data Processing will supervise the printing of original cards and programming of collected information back into computer. June 20: Completion of field survey for entire city will take place on this <!_ate, allowing the inspectors 14 weeks in the field. June 23: By this date, collected, standardized information on every housing structure in the city will have been submitted- to the Data Processing Division by the I Housing Code. Running of computer program to give information necessary fo r developing Housing Code Compliance Program will begin at this time. �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Three July 14: Computer printouts of necessary housing data wil I be presented to the Housing Code Division. That is, complete original information on conditions of structures within the city will be in the hands of the Housing Code Division at th is time. August I: Housing Code Compliance Program for n•~xt five years wi Ii be prepared jointly by Planning Department and Housing Code Division by this date. I . September I: Housing Code Compliance Program will be incorporated into application for Workable Program Recertification by the Planning Department. �C ITY OF .ATLANTA. 1 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director February 20, 1969 MEMORANDUM t' TO: Charles Davis and Bill Wofford FROM: CollierGl- ® J SUBJECT: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey Attached for your information is the step-by-step program which our staffs have_ jointly prepared for the update of our housing conditions data. As I understand Mr. Farris has given approval to our request to proceed with this study, and also I understanJ that our staffs met with representatives from IBM this morning and all the equipment and cards have been ordered. I am very pleased with the action to date and want to thank you for your cooperation . CG/jp Attachment �I N TRAOFFICE MJEMO AN UM DISPOSITION To: Collier Gladin and George Aldridge Distribute From: Hold Jack, Helen Subject: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey DATE February 18, 1969 February 19: File D lrifo. Only 0 As first step in beginning housing conditions survey, approval for use of data processing time, personnel, and equipment must come from Mr. Milton Farris. This approval must be gained prior to o!·dering cards and other tools for the housing inspectors to use in the field. I - Since it will take three to four weeks after the order is placed to receive this equipment, it is imperative that I I approval from Mr. Farris be gained at the earliest possible date. February 19: Order cards and other data processing equipment. The actual date for this assignment will correspond to the date final approval for computer use is gained. February 21: Rough draft of procedural manual for field inspections will be submitted to George, John Watson, Collier, Jim Smith, and Bill Wofford for approval of form and information. February 28: Procedural manual wi 11 be completed, printed and distributed to housing inspectors and other _interested persons, such as training personnel and non-inspecting members of the Housing Code Division and Planning Department. -- February 21 : Definitions pertaining to housing conditions that are now in use by various agencies involved in the city's housing problems will be collected and assembled. February 26: From the assembled information, the -Planning Department will prepare a list of definitions resulting from a consensus of opinion and mail these definitions to the interested agenc ie s by this date. 0 0 �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Two February 28: Representatives of the agencies involved will meet to discuss the standardized definitions and reach final agreement. March 3: Final listing of standardized definitions will be submitted to the Housing Code Division to be used in the training program and actual survey. March 3: Intensive two-week training program for Housing Code Inspectors will begln. During these two weeks, the use of punch cards and check Iists will be explained to the inspectors, cost estimation procedures will be standardized through field observation, and the standardized definitions will be explained in the field to the inspectors. March 17: The inspectors, after completing the two-week intensive training program, · will enter the field to begin the actual survey. March 17: Data Processing Division will have cards pdnted and read:,- to take into the field by the inspectors. Mr. Steve Carlson of Data Processing will supervise the printing of original cards and programming of collected information back into computer. June 20: Completion of field survey for entire city will take place on this ~ate, allowing the inspectors 14 weeks in the field. June 23: By this date, collected, standardized information on every housing structure in the city will have been submitted to the Data .Processing Division by the Housing Code. Running of computer program to give information necessary for developing Housing Code Comp Iiance Program wi II begin at th is time. �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Three July 14: Computer printouts of necessary housing data will be presented to the Housing Code Division. That is, complete original information on conditions of structures within the city will be in the hands of the Housing Code Division at this time. August I: Housing Code Compliance Program for next five years will be prepared jointly by Planning Department and Housing Code Division by this date. September I: Housing Code Compliance Program will be incorporated into application for Workable Program Recertification by the Planning Department. �TA. C ITY OF A.nnL CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Dir e ctor February 3, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Board of Aldermen FROM: Collier B. Gladin C,(\t .\-- SUBJECT: Consolidation of Urban Renewal Pol icy Committee into Planning and Development Committee The attached Ordinance, concerning the consolidation of the two committees, has been subjected to some revision. Other than some minor editing the major changes are: I. the phrase "and Capital Improvements Program" has been struck from the last line on Page 2 of the draft forwarded to you on January 29, 1969. 2. The sentence on Page 3, referring to federal grants, now reads: 11 The committee shal I further review al I applications for federal grants that are referred from the Grants Review Board for planning considerations to determine their conformity with adopted overall plans and policies for the development of the City." CBG/jp Attachment �II . I I I AN ORD IN ANCE BY PLAN NI NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, by ordinance of December 21, 1964, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of th e City of Atlanta, Georgia, caused to be created a standing committee of the Board of Alderm en entitl ed Urban Renewal Policy Committee, as set forth in Section 2- 40. 2 of the Code of Ordi nonces, City of Atlanta, Georgia effective July I, 1965, as amend ed, and WHEREAS, it is de emed desirabl e and in the pub Iic interest that the numbe r of standin.g committees of the Board of Alde rmen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia be reduced in number and that such action wou Id be in keeping with th e precede nt establishe d by the Mayor and Board of Alderm e n in 1967, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the functions and responsibi Iiti es of th e Urba n Renewal Policy CommiHee can readily and expeditiously be transferr ed to anothe r standing committee of the Board of Alderme n of th e City of Atlanta, Georgia, name ly, the Planning and Development Committee, and WHEREAS, such action shou Id increase and improve communications betwee n and coordinati on of a ctiviti es of both th e City of Atlanta, G eorgia and its urban renewal agent, the Atlanta Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georg ia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Alde rme n of th e City of Atl a nta as foll ows: I. That Se ction 2- 40.2 of the Cod e of the City of Atlanta is he re by re peal ed and th e Urban Re newal Policy Commhtee is abo li shed. 2. That Secti on 2-40. I (6) of th e Code of the City of Atl a nta is he re by ame nded by strikin g scdd paragraph in its entire ty and inse rting in Iie u the reof th e fo ll ow ing: (b)Membe rship. Th e Planning and De ve lopme nt Committee shall be composed of e ight (8) members of the Board of Alde rme n a ppo inted by th e Mayor and two (2) adv isory membe rs from the Hous ing �II II -2Authority of the City of Atlanta appointed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. The Housing AuthoriJ-y me ber! of this committee shall have the power to vote only on those items of housing and urban renewal which are going be fore the Housing Authority's Board of CQmmissioners for further aclion. The Chairman of said committ-ee shall be appointed by the Mayor and the oJ-her seven (7) members from the Board of Aldermen. The Mayor shall appoint J-he Planning and Development CommiHee so that a representation is obtained of aldermanic committees concerned with community development, redevelopmen1·, and improvement. 3. That Section 2-40. I (c) of 1·he Code of the City of A1·lanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirely and inserJ-ing in lieu thereof the following: (c)Funtions, responsibilities. This Planning and Development Committee shall have the primary responsibility to review and coordinate the long range plans and programs of all city efforts in the fields of community development, redevelopment, housing, foci Iities and improvements, and to make suggestions to other appropriate alderrnanic committees or recommend actions and policies for adopl-ion by !he Board of Aldermen to insure maximum coordination and the highest quality of urban community development throughout the City. This responsibility shall include but is not limited to the review and evaluation of the elements of the comprehensive (general) plan development by the Planning Departm e nt with guidance from the Atlanta - Fulton County Joint Planning Board; th is comprehensive plan to Le composed of at least a land use plan, transportation plan and a community facilities plan with public improvem e nts program and Capital Improve me nts Program. The �II II -3committe e shall further be responsible for developing policy recommendations on all oth e r matl-ers concerning the planning arid coo rdination of future city dev e lopme nl-s including, spe cifically, th e Community Improvement Program (CIP), Open Space , Urba n Be autification, the 1962 Fede ral Highway Act, th e Workable Pmgram for Communil-y Improvement, ewal and Neighborhood Developme pre 1 - 'nary and proje ct or execution plans, and other e loted rban renewal matters formerly under the responsibility of e Urban Renewal CommiJ-tee or the Urban Renewal Policy Com iHee. The Commit·te e shall fu rth e r re vie w all applications for fede ra grants to determine their conformity with adopted overall and polici e s for the d evelopme nt of the City. HER O RDAINED that all ordinances and parts of or e be and the same are hereby re peale . �·yoy~ A.TLA CI CITY H ~ LL ATLANT A, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 . DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLI E R B . GLADIN , Dir e ctor January 29, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: Members of Board of Aldermen FROM: Collier B. Gladin (~ /)JS_ SUBJECT: Consolidation of Urban Renewal Policy Committee into Planning and Development Committee At the request of Alderman G. Everett Mi 11 ican,the attached proposed Ordinance is being sent to you for rev·iew. The Ordinance calls for doing away with the Urban Renew·a l Policy Committee and transferring its duties and responsibi I ities to the Planning and Development Committee. The matter was brought up at the last Board meeting by Alderman Rodney Cook. With the exception of Alderman Hugh Pierce,the four other aldermanic members of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee are also members of the Planning and Development Committee. In order to facilitate the change, the proposal is made to increase the Planning and Development Committee by one aldermanic member in order to add Alderman Pierce for the remainder of 1969 . For 1970 and beyond, a reduction back to se ve r. al de rma nic me mbers is suggested for consideration at a later date . Since much of the area of concern of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee is a lso shared by the Planning and Development Committee and their membe rsh ips a re prac tica lly the same , little change will actually result in th is a ct ion e x cept to reduce the number of sta nding comm i ttees . �IIII AN ORDINANCE BY PLAN NI NG AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, by ordinance of December 21, 1964, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, caused to be ,created a standing committee of th e Board of Aldermen entitled Urban Renewal Policy Committee , as set forth in Section 2-40.2 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Al·lanta, Georgia effective July I, 1965, as amended, and WHEREAS, it is deemed desirabl e and in the public interest that the number of standing committees of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia be reduced in number and that such action wou Id be in keeping with the precedent established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen in 1967, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the fundions and responsibilities of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee can readily and exped itiously be transferred to another standing committe e of !"he Board of Alderme n of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, name ly, the Planning and Developmen t Committee, and WHEREAS, such action should increase and improve communications betwee n and coordination of activities of both the City of Atlanl·a, Georgia and its urban renewa l agent, the Atlanta Housing Authority of th e City of Atlanta, Georgia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by th e Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta as fol lows: I. That Section 2-40. 2 of the Code of the City of A!-lanta is hereby repealed and th e Urban Re newa l Policy Committee is abo li shed. 2. Tha t Section 2-40. 1 (b) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is he reby ame nded by s!T iking said paragraph in its e ntire ty and inse rting in Iieu the reof th e fo l low ing: (b)Membersh ip. Th e Planning and Deve lopment Committee shall be composed of e ight (8) members of the Board of Alde rme n a ppo in!·ed by th e Mayor and two (2) ad visory membe rs fr om th e Housing �IIII -2Authority of the Cit-y of Atlanta appointed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. The Housing Authority me ber! of th is committee sh al I have the power f-o vote only on those items of housing and urban renewal which are going before the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners for further action. < The Chairman of said committee shall be appointed by the Mayor and the other seven (7) members from the Board of Aldermen. The Mayor shall appoint the Plcinning and Development Committee so that a representation is obtained of aldermanic commit-tees concerned with community development, redevelopment, and improvemenl· . 3. That Section 2-40. I (c) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph· in its entirety and inserting in li e u thereof 1·he following: (c) Funtions, responsibilities. This Planning and Development Commif-tee shall have the primary responsibilit-y to review and coordinate the long range plans and programs of all city efforts in the fie Ids of community development, red evelopment, housing, facilities and improvements, and to make suggestions f-o other appropriate aldermanic committees or recommend actions and policies for adoption by the Board of Alderm en to insure maximum coordination and the highest quality of urban community development throughout the City. This responsibility shall include but is notI im ited to the review and evaluation of the elements of the comprehensive (general) plan development by the Planning Departme nt with guidance from the Atlanf-a - Fult-on County Joint Planning Board; th is comprehensive plan to be composed of at- least a land use plan, transportal'ion plan and a community facilities plan with public improv ements program and Capi ta l Improvements Program. Th e �II I -3committee sh al I further be responsible for developing pol icy recommendations on all oth er matters concerning J-h e planning and coordination of future city developments including, specifically, the Community Improvement Program (Cl P), Open Space, Urban Beautification, the 1962 .Federal Highway Act, the Workable Program for Community Improvement, Urban Renewal and Neighborhood Development Program preliminary and project or execution plans, and oth er re lated urban renewal matters formerly under the responsibi Ii J-y of the Urban Renewal Committee or J-he Urban Renewal Policy Comm ittee. The Commitl-ee shal I further review all applications for federa l grants to determ ine their conformity with adopted overall plans and policies for the developme 1it of the Ci ty. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED thal· all ordinances and parts of ordi nances in conflict with th is ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. �2!6, 19 9 ~ r Coll1 r: T. ty Mr . E arl Landers �DEPARTMENT OF LAW 2614 FIRST NATIONAL BANK BUILDING ATLANTA, GEORGIA 30303 ROBERT S. WIGGINS MARTIN McFARLAND EDWIN L . STERNE RALPH C . JENKINS JOHN E. DOUGHERTY CHARLES M . LOKEY THOMAS F . CHOYCE JAMES B. PILCHER May 12, 1969 HENRY L . BOWDEN CIT Y ATTORNE Y FERRIN Y . MATHEWS ASSOCIATE CIT Y A S SIST AN T CITY ATTOl', NEY ATTORNEYS HORACE T . WARD DEPUT Y CIT Y ATTORNE Y ROBERT A . HARRIS HENRY M . MURFF CLAIMS ATTORNE Y S . JAMES B . HENDERSON SPECIAL ASSOCIATE CITY ATTORNEY Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. City Hall Atlanta, Georgia In re: Mrs. E. S. Hope, Mrs. Millie Walker, Mrs. Vernie J. Jacobs, Complainants Department of Planning Dear Mayor Allen: Reference is made to mimeograph-type letter dated April 16, 1969 from complai nants, a copy of which was directed to you and to Alderman Griggs. In accordance with your referral of th i s matter to Mr. Gladin and the request of Alderman Gri ggs, an investigation of the matter was conducted by J i m Henderson. Attached hereto is a copy of Jim's memorandtnn to me . I n the event further i nqui ry i s no t he s ita t e to call upon me . do (Bow en y Attorney HLB/jk Enc. cc: Mr . John M. Flanigen (with encl . ) Mr. E. Gregory Griggs (with encl . ) Mr . Collier B. Gladin (with encl . ) �May 12, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO : Henry L. Bowden, City Attorney James B. Henderson, Special Associate City Attorney IN RE: Mrs. E. S. Hope, Mrs. Millie Walker, Mrs. Vernie J. Jacobs, Complainants -- Department of Planning Reference is made to a mimeograph-type letter dated April 16, 1969 from complainants, a copy of which was directed to the Mayor and to Alderman Griggs. In accordance with the Mayor's referral of this matter to Mr. Gladin and the request of Alderman Griggs, an investigation of the matter was conducted with the following results. I conferred with Mr. Collier B. Gladin, Director, and Mr. Thompson H. Shuttleworth, Zoning Administrator, both of the Planning Department, relative to this matter and they furnished the following information. A zoning petition was filed April 25, 1968 by Lewis Cenker for rezoning of property on Brownlee Road. The first public hearing in the matter was set for June 6, 1968 before the Zoning Committee, at which time the matter was deferred for revised site plans by the petitioner. The deferment was until November 7, 1968. Subsequently the petition was denied by the Board of Aldermen on November 18, 1968, as the plans were not available. The matter was again initiated by the Zoning Com- mittee on December 31, 1968, after the petitioner's attorney indicated he would have the plans ready and a public hearing was scheduled for February 6 , 1969 . �The c ase , more specifically described as Zoning Case No. Z-68-225-C, was postponed on February 6, 1969 by the Alderrnanic Zoning Committee at the request of the connnunity and the developer to _provide an opportunity for discussion of the issue. The petition was to be deferred f or a period of 60 days and it was announced that the public hearing would be held on April 10, 1969. A meeting between community residents and the developer was scheduled to be held in the Planning Department office on Monday, March 31, 1969, however, this meeting was cancelled as the City Hall was closed in tribute to the late President Eisenhower. The Planning Department staff did not bring the case before the Zoning Cornmittee on April 10th, since the March 31st meeting had been cancelled. However, when area residents appeared at the hearing on April 10th, Mr. Shuttleworth had the case file brought from the Planning Department to the Alderrnanic Chamber. Mr. Shuttleworth advised that through an error on his part, the ·case was not actually scheduled for hearing on April 10th. In the course of the meeting on April 10th, area residents were offered several options in considering the case. The Committee offered to hear from the residents at that time and the developer at a later time, or, second , to hear from residents and the developer _at a later mutually agreeable time. dents. Neither option appeared agreeable to connnunity resi- They were, however, permitted to speak in opposition to the petition and were assured another opportunity to speak when 'the developer came to present his case. Page Two �Mr. Gladin and Mr. Shuttleworth expressed regret for any inconvenience they may have caused community residents in this misunderstanding over the hearing date for the zoning petition. They are strongly of the opinion , however, that members of the planning staff have made every possible effort to work with the community in discussing the issues in this case and will continue to do so. As a matter of information, the Atlanta-Fulton County Joint Planning Board has recommended approval of this zoning petition. The Planning Department staff also recommends approval in that the proposed use conforms with the Atlanta Land Use Plan, which has been adopted by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen. Also of possible interest, it was reported that Mr. Cenker, the petitioner in this matter, has agreed to hold in abeyance any further action in this matter pending a Georgia Tech Land Use Study. As a result of prior telephonic arrangements with Mrs. Jacobs, she and Mr s. Walker appeared at my office to discuss this matter on the morning of May 8, 1969. They explained that Mrs. Hope had planned to be present but was unable to keep the appointment. It was their opinion that Mrs. Hope would have no information of value in addition to that information in their possession. At my request, Mr. Henry M. Murff, of the Law Department, attended this conference. After lengthy discussion of the case at hand, the law as applied to zoning and the administrative handling of zoning matters were explained in detail to Mrs. Jacobs and Mrs. Walker. Page Three �The handling of the case at hand by the Planning Department and cormnittees involved also was explained in detail to these ladies. The contents of referenced letter of April 16, 1969 were reviewed with the ladies, at which time they stated they had no information whatsoever which would indicate any wrongdoing on the part of any employee, official or elected representative of the City of Atlanta. Mrs. Jacobs and Mrs. Walker were more specifically questioned in regard to Paragraph 16 of referenced letter "16. Are persons desiring favorable rulings on rezoning petitions required to pay a fee under the table and off the record to elected officials or paid City Hall staffers?" Mrs. Jacobs and Mrs. Walker advise they have no information to substantiate any possible inference of wrongdoing in the above quoted paragraph. In view of the above information, it would appear that no further action is warranted at this time. Page Four �ATTITUDE SURVEY OF THE P-ESIDENTS OF LIGHTNING City of Atlanta Dep artment of Planning November 13, 1969 �This report deals with the results of an attitude survey conducted in Lightning. The section of Atlanta known as Lightning is bounded by Northside Drive, Hunter Street, and Simpson Street. Lightning is zoned for industrial use. This survey was conducted by the City of Atlanta Planning Department upon the request of the citizens of Lightning. The citizens voiced their support for this survey or a community meeting held Tuesday, October 14, 1969. The Lightning attitude survey was conducted for several reasons. First of all, the questionnaire is aimed at securing two basic types of information. The first group of questions, one through nine, deal with the attainment of factual information, such as the number of persons in each household. The second group of questions, ten through seventeen, explore the attitudes of the people toward living in Lightning and the problems involved . In addition to securing information, a second purpose of this survey is to let the citizens of Lightn ing know that the City of Atlanta is concerned and interested in their problems. A third purpose of the Lightning survey is to get both the citizens of Lightning and the City of Atlanta to start thinking about the short and long range problems of this area. This includes the exposure of short range problems that can perhaps be solved in the near future, with the people of Lightning and the city working together. The survey was conducted Tuesday, October 28, 1969 through Thursday, October 30, on a door-to-door verbal interview basis. Twelve interviewers, bl a ci: end wh it e , ~e r e us e t o cond uc t t .c su . cy : One City Pla nning Department employee, two City Planning Department int erns, one Model Cities employee, and eight HUD interns. (A list of interviewers appears in appendix A). They interviewed a total of 105 households, which is 77% of the total number of households in Lightning. Contact at each household was attempted at least three times: Morning, afternoon, and evening. General Re sult s The factual results of the survey show that: 1. Forty-four per cent (44%) of the respondents live in housing which is overcrowded, having one or more persons per room. 2. Of the 105 households surveyed, eighty-one per cent (81%) rented their residences and the remaining nineteen per cent (19%) were home-owners. Seventy-five per cent (75%) of the renters and eighty per certt (80%) of the homeowners stated that they could not afford to pay more for housing. �- 2 - 3. Seventy-four of the interviewers, or seventy per cent (70%) were unemployed, due to disability, retirement, household responsibility or simple lack of ability to find work. 4. The average length of residence in Lightning of the respondents was nineteen years, with a range of 1.5 months to sixty-six years. 5. The average age of the respondents was 52.4 years, with a range of twelve to eighty-two7 years. The attitudinal results of the survey show the following major findings: 1. The majority of interviewees (85%) like living in Lightning. However, of the ninety-eight respondents saying whether they would like c o live elsewhere (See question 12), fifty-three per cent (53%) answered affirmatively, with the remaining fortyseven per cent (47%) preferring to remain in Lightning. 2. Ninety-one out of the 105 interviewees feel like they are members of the Lightning community and belong with the people there. 3. Housing was the most frequently-mentioned problem in Lightning, with fifty-two per cent (52%) of the respondents listing it. (See question 13). Detailed Results The complete interview schedule and t abulated results for e a ch of the questions in the interview are presented in this section. Questions and Responses l. How long have you lived in Lightning? Average length of residence - 19 years Range - 1.5 month to 66 years 2. Where do you work? Number of respondents unemployed, due to dis ability, re tirement, household responsibility, etc. - 74 number of respondents employed - 29 3. How long does it take y~u to get to work? Average t rave l time t o work - 30 mi nute s Range - 5 mi nutes to 1~ h0ur �- 3 - 4. How do you get to work? Car - 8 ·I.Bus - 15 Walk - 8 Taxi - 1 5. How old are you? Average age of resporident - 52.4 years old Range - 12 - 82 years old 6. How many people live in this house? Average - 3.5 7. How many rooms are in this house? Average - 3.7 (46 houses with one or more persons per room) 8. Do you own this house or rent it? Own - 20 *Rent - 85 9. I f you ar e a rent er, could you aff or d to pay mor e rent fo r a better house? Yes - 20 No - 64 DOU' t know - 1 If you are a home owner, could you afford to buy a different house? Yes - 3 No -16 Don't know - 1 10. Do you like living here? Yes - 89 No - 46 a. Why do you like living h~re? Ni ce neighbors - 14 Li ke the neighborhood - 13 �- 4 - It is convenient - 13 All my friends live here - 10 Raised here or lived here a long time - 9 Economic reasons - 8 No trouble or no one bothers me - 7 Nice landlord - 2 b. Why do you dislike living here? Dislike the people - 4 Dislike the neighborhood - 4 Sub-standard housing - 3 Not a good neighborhood for children - 2 Don't like living alone - 1 11. Do you feel like you are a member of this community and belong with these people? Yes - 91 No - 9 Guess so - 1 No answer - 4 12. Wou l d you like to live .,011 ·-1 ,,er e el se? Yes - 52 No - 46 Don 1 t know - 4 No answer - 3 a. Why would you like to live somewhere else? Would like a bette r neighborhood - 13 Would like better housing - 12 Dislike people here - 3 Want a garden - 3 Not quiet here - 2 See a change as good - 2 Wants a bath or hot water - 2 Want to move for health purposes - 2 Don't like living alone - 1 b. Why would you not like to live somewhere else? This is '·'my home" - 6 Would be hard to get used to new people and church - 4 �- 5 - Friends or relatives are here - 3 Close to church - 2 Close to work - 1 Like it here - 2 Couldn't afford to move - 1 13. What problems need to be solved first to improve the neighborhood? Housing Inadequate water service - 11 Traffic problems - 8 Street repairs - 8 Poor sanitation - 8 Inadequate facilities for children - 5 Crime and poor police protection - 4 Bad pe ople in neighborhood - 3 Poor bus service - 1 Lack of job opportunities - 1 We have no problems I can think of - 15 No answer - 14 14. If you were to live elsewhere, what general area would you like most? Nowhere else - 21 s.w. - 2 N.W. - 10 ALHA project - 1 Griffin St. - 1 Dix ie Hills - 2 Any nice place - 10 Hunte r Homes - 2 Kirkwood - 2 Bowen Homes - 1 West side - 12 Out of s t ate - 1 N.E. A & 1 - 1 Hunter & Mit chell - 2 Sout h side - 1 Unive rsit y Home s - 1 Dec at ur - 1 Hi gh Rise f or e lder ly - 1 Casc ade Ht s. a r e a - 1 Howell Dr. - 1 Bankhead & Hightower - 2 Scott cros sing - 1 Simpson Rd. - 1 In woods - 1 Adamsville area - 1 Around here - 3 McDaniel project - 1 Vine St. - 1 �- 6 =- 15. What kind of place do you think Lightning is to grow up in? Very good- 3 Better than most - 8 Same as others - 42 Not as good - 24 Very bad - 16 No answer - 12 16. What do you like and dislike about living in Lightning? Here is a card which lists some th ing s you might like about living here. Pleas e pick the two you lilce most. If there is anything you l i ke but it is not on the card, go ahead and pick it. A. I am close to work - 15 B. The rent i s low - 34 C. Many of my fri e nds live here - 55 D. I have lived here a long time - 43 E. I own my own home - 10 F. My rel atives live in Lightning - 13 · G. Other reasons Conv enience - 6 Like the people People t ake c are of me when I 1 m sick•> bett e r than l a s t pl a ce I lived i n There is nothi ng I like - 5 No answer - 5 17. This c ard lists s ome pr ob l ems or things you might dislike about Light ning . Pleas e p i ck the fi ve you think a r e t he b i gges t pr ob l ems. If t he r e is any probl em you would like to pick but do not find on the list, go ahead a nd pick i t . A. Not clos e t o shopp ing - 27 B. No t clo se to wor k - 7 C. Lack of fa cilitie s and programs - 35 D. I nadequate bu s s erv i ce - 17 E. No healt h serv ice - 24 F. Inadequate water service - 18 G. Unemployment - 18 H. Hous ing - 65 I. Education a 3 J. Police pro te ction - 34 K. Rat control - 42 L. Traffic and parking prob lems - 44 �- 7 - M. - Other reasons 1. Trash collection and yard maintenance - 5 2. Not close to any shopping centers - 4 l. Crime and juvenile delinquency - 2 4. Absentee landlords - 1 5. Need a laundromat - 1 6. Outside help is hurting us - 1 7. Cab fare is too high - 1 �List of Interviewers Frank Biggins, HUD Intern Gary Brown, HUD Intern Bill Hanuner, HUD Intern John Hiscox, HUD Intern Louise Klaffner, HUD Intern John Matthews, Department of Planning Dot Metcal f, Department of Planning Intern Nancy McKnight, Department of Pla nning Intern Sonja Pevey, HUD Intern Steve Steinart, Model Cities Patricia Williams, HUD Intern �APPENDIX B Interview Guide - Lightning A. General Instructions 1. Make sure that all questions included are answered; however, if a responde nt refuses to answe r a ny questions, go on to the next item on your questionna ire. Re cord reason f or no r e sponse, if possible. You may include other questions; record them as well as the interviewee's a nswer. B. 2. Please record all answers as accurately and ca refully as possible. 3. Let the i nterview continue if the i nterviewee wi shes to t a lk. Howeve r , one hour should be the max i mum time required fo r the interview. 4. Record the date of t he interview, the time at which the interview begins and i s comple t ed , a nd the t ot a l amount of time the interview l a sts. Introduction. The followi ng gener a l introduct i on shoul d be us ed in t he interview situation : " Hello , my name i s _ ______ I represent t he Ci t y of Atlanta (show your identi f icat ion card ) . The Mayor and Boa rd of Aldermen a r e concerned about t he problems of the people living in Lightning . Ma~y diff erent s ugge stions have bee n made about wha t the pe ople of Lightning want and need fr om the city. However, we f eel i t is neces sary t o talk di r e ctly t o the people of Lightni ng , so f or the next few day s we will be t a lking with a l l Lightning residents to he lp us find out exactly wha t the pe ople want. Cou l d you p lease t ake a f ew minutes t o answer these que stions?" If sub j e ct refuse s t o participate i n the int erview , try to find out why . If he indica tes he i s too busy, try t o make an appoi ntme nt t o int erv iew him at a nother dat e. I f he has another reason , try again t o get the interview. However , if he abs olutely re f uses, do not per sist. Re cord a response , a nd i f possible, t he r e a son. I f no one i s a t home , t r y to contact the hou:::ehold t h ree different t i me s. I f some i nt e r vieuee s a r e not av ai l able at certain times , a conve nient t ime will be worked out in t he i ntervi ew i ng schedule so t hese people can be co nt a cted. If more than one member of a hous eho ld want t o participate in the interview session, rec or d the i r responses s eparat ely . Ea ch inte rview record should contai n t he r esponse s of one pers on only . However, if this is not possible , i nd icate that responses came from two or more people. �,. Remember that the main purpose is to get answers to the basic questions contained in our questionnaire. If the interviewee has questions to ask of you, try to delay this discussion until the end of the fo rmal interview. DO NOT, under any circumstances, attempt to answer questions of which you are unsure. The purpose of this int erview is to find out what the people in Lightning think and want. If people ask questions you cannot answer, refer theM to Mr . Johnny Robinson (you will have a supply of his personal cards to pass out to everyone). C. Close Close the interview by answering any questions you can, and by thanking the interviewee for his cooperation. State agai n that if he has any additional questions, he should call Mr . Johnny Robinson. Also, if he has any addit ional comments, attempt to record them on the answer sheet. �l INTERVIEW GUIDE -- PLUN KETTOWN A. Genera l Instructions. 1. This is a gen~ral guide for conducting a house-to- house survey in the Plunkettown neighborhood. Make sure thal· al I qu es tions included a re .answered; however, if a respondent refuses to answer any questions, go on J-o the nex l· item on your questionaire. Record reason for no res ponse if possible. You may include other questions; record them as well as the intervi ewee 's answer. 2. Plea se record all answers as accura te ly and carefully as possible. 3. Let the interview continue if the interviewee wishes to talk, Howeve r, one hour should, in most cases, be the maximum time required for the in terview. 4. Reco rd the date of the intervi ew , the time at which the interview beg ins a nd 1s com- pleted, and the total amount of time the interview lasted. Reco rd the number of times the interview is interrupted by air craft noise, and the approx imate length of such interrupJ-ions. B. Introduction. The following general introduction should be used in the interview situation: name 1s identification card). living in Plunkettown. 11 Hello, my I represent the <;ity of Atlanta (show your The Mayor and Board of Aldermen are concerned about the people Many different suggestions have been made about #wo t the people of Plunkettown want from the City. to the people in Plunkettown. However, we feer that it is necessary to talk di rectly For the next few days we will be talking with all Plunkettow n re sidents and ~sking them questions to help us find out exactly what the people · want. . Could · you please take a few minute s to answer these questions? �i If subject refuses to participate in the interview, try to find out why. If he indicates he is too busy, try to make an appointment 1-o interview him at another date. anol"her reason, try again to get the interv ie w. not persist. If he has Howe ver , if he absolutely refuses, do Record a response and, if possib le, the reason. If more than one member of a household wants to participate in the inte rv iew session, record their answers separa te ly. E.ach interview record should contain the responses of one person only. However, if this is not possible, indicate that responses come from two or more people. Remember that the main purpose is to get answers to the basic que$tions contained §1:IOJ:llquestionaire. in If the interv iewee has questions to a sk of you, try to delay this discussion until the end of the formal interview. DO NOT, under any circumstances, attempt to answer questions of which you are unsure. the peopl e in Plunkettown th ink and wa nL The purpose of this interview is to find out what If people ask questions you cannot answe r, refer them to Mr. Johnny Robinson or George Aldridge. cards to pass out to everyone). (You wi 11 have a supply of their personal �l -- @id :E;7· ~ld:i? ,. Wb@l'l'I 4, ~ ll.~q !, lbai c.1{6) o, &.Nu~ ... ~ ~---~------ --- )',o,w.! .ll. ? d1')\t)· ,. t - -- c;:.-:re: ,-. ,, ~ll '.u t:r~ 1..r..,,.{ L 8,. &, ' XI' 10. 11 ~ \!.>.!!111 ? Do yot ilk 1 ~n.n!J a What do 'lo b Wh.at do yau l ii C . l'J be Kow would l E )'0- o r l i 0 I I 't'_..:, ... - ~ ~ . ~ - - - - ... - · ~ .....:::..-..=.... - ..::::.. - �. l b It tht . W4!re ould ynu U v rco r0ople th~c thy sll o-, her 11 t r~l gT u uh v 8e l2 ~uggeat~ to th . dCIV. - __ - ··-~-~= 1._ ---~- --~- . - ~ ~ out together t~ . new locstion .--- ~- - - .. -- ~---·--- .. ,.,. ? coae tor unk .tto.m ~nd Whdlt d,:, y "' think ebou~ th1" id 1e?_ _ _____ . ~~ out togE-th el -- .. ___ _,__,_ ·--- --··-- ------------ - - ~-----' ?) If you could\ v ~lft w t g nerel ar a vould you lik het Why? 14 ~ ~ Vt> y 1'U &rdly ~t wll ' u i 1f ,d o f s ,> f n7 V'°r~ a• f1yfng o'ftir 'bc,,tb r you? the st CMICb Wh t --- Jl.31 · -· _ _ _ llvtng h r ~ ~it T ?6 Can you kou mu h cirn 1. a>•t? 1'1"' IXIUCh ~ X , ~ Joy n •~ &e-t t: r uu,-t'I tl t.h~t p IIC --- ~- -~ - u th n• P urk ttl'flffl l Not 8\l t -=I _J I t ~ t\d .-n t gtow ... fll\)8 t 8 Jio r: s o thtt.t .,9 " t oc,d ---~r- " l8 C V ry t,. d �" Y' .. · ., u • .h J r • .a t I i .,.,. h ... ,' . [ t. tn n .. , 'l .. .. ti .., t ~ ,.. ,. !',l I 'II"•' I �00 0 3 .M.AP 4 II 12 A OF CITY OF ATLANTA IOARD Of AlDERMEN - - -- GRAPHIC SCAL~ ' _,.., -~~ ,.....- - ,; ATLANTA-FULTON COUNTY lGOl.,.,.YGOIGG. . , , .. ., I JAN . • . 0 (.... , . • W:••OD C . - N (ltlllUONtO JOINT PLANNING BOARD ATLANTA - GEORGIA J9e7 C n - w..• "°"""-COO. -......... .. ,........u I ·c I ATLANTA - FULTON COUNTY JOI N T PLANNING BOARD "'" i,~'7';,:.-J,c:!:.. <>• .. ,.,,o~ ..,toPYR•0hT .,. ... ••v,,,o•-C,:,P,R>6 nT-O,S9 o.t,_,.,._c"°"o.'""' ,,..;, oov,,,o.. ..,.,.co,-,.,a.,,.,,., ,,,.,,,o~ ••o=•••••• · D HOUSING COOE COMPLIACE PROGRAM 1970 -1971 1· E H ISTINGNEIGH60RHOOO OCYELOPMENTPROGRU IS ~ UR8ANIIENEWAL J.llf AS COOEtNrORCE:MENT Afl1!:AOIYISIONS .,.,,. . . .. , ~ ,....... .-C;) __ .,.,..- .... ,L'_, F G K ---1 L I M ... I 00 10 1_1_ 12 �ATTITUDE SURVEY OF THE RE SIDENTS OF PLUNKETTOWN City of At l anta Dep artment of Pl anning Augus t 11 , 1969 �- This report presents the results of an attitude survey conducted among the people of the Atlanta section of Plunkettown by the City of Atlanta Department of Planning at the request of the Mayor and Board of Aldermen . The purpose of this survey was to explore, on a broad base, the atti tudes of the people toward living in Plunke ttown versus living elsewhere, and to discover which aspects of life in Plunkettown the people consider to be major problems . The ultimate purpose of this report is to provide information concerning the people ' s desires toward r emai ning in Plunket town to help the Board of Aldermen in making the dec ision as to whether or not an urban renewal project in Plunkettown will be a residential rehabilitation and rebuilding project. Interviews were conducted during the daytime hours on Friday, August 1 , and Monday , August 4, and during the evening hours on Tuesda y, August 5. The group of interviewers who conducted the survey included t wo members of the Planning Department staff and five summer i nterns from the Mayor ' s office . All interviewers were white . (A list of int erviewers appears in Appendix A.) Methodology The survey was c onducted through use of a door -to-door ora l interview . An attempt was made t o conduct at le as t one interview in each household. Contact was attempted at each household at leas t three times : morning , afternoon , and evening. In all, interviews were conducted in eighty-two hous eholds , or 85% of all households. The interview questionnaire contained two basic types of questions . The first type asked f or factu al information such as place of work, travel time to work, number of persons in the household, and ownership of property . The second asked atti tud inal questions about the desirability of Plunket town as a place to live as compared to other places. General Reoults The factual resul ts of the survey show that: 1. The workers who live in Plunkettown have an average reported t ravel time to work of twenty minutes by car; and that over half ( 26 of 41) work within two miles of Plunkettown. 2. Thirty-eight per cent (38%) of the present housing is overcrowded, having one or more persons per room. 3. Of the eighty-two households surveyed, thirty-two (39%) owned their houses while the remaining fifty (61%) are renters. �- 2 - 4. Ten of the interviewed f ami lies own property other than th at upon whi.ch they are living . Six ow-n other property in Plunkettown . four others own property in Cl ayt on County, lorthwest Fulton County, East Point, a nd Eas t Atlanta . These four owners reported plans to build new homes on this property . 5. Forty-two of the eighty-two interviews were conducted during aircra ft peak tra ffic periods . These forty-a~o interviews l asted an average of seventeen minutes and were interrupted an average of seven times for an average of eighty-one seconds per interview, e.g 8% of the interview time was lost due to aircraft noise. 0 The attitudinal results of the survey show the following ma j or results: 1. A majority of interviewees woul d prefer l iving e l sewher e to living in Plunket town as it is presently constituted . (See Question 11.) 2. A ma jority of the interviewees consider aircraft noise, a problem which canno t be fully solved, to be a ma jor probl em to living in Plunke ttown . (See Questions 10a, 15 , and 17b.) 3. There appears to be a desire among some o f the interviewees to move together to a " New Plunkettown". At this point in time , fully reli able attitudes on this issue c annot be expected as the people do not now h ave a real opportunity to consider this choice . (See Questions 12 and the "Many of my friends live here" response in 17 a .) 4. If they were to move, there is a definite desir e among the interviewees to remain in an outlying area, as opposed to downtown , where they c an occupy single family type houses. ( See Questions 12a and 13.) Det ailed Results This section presents the complete interview form and the tabul ated results for each question asked. Interview instructions are presented in Appendix B. uestions and Responses 1. How long have you lived in Plunkettown? Average l ength of res idence among interviewees . - 24.5 years �- 3 - 2. How old are you? Average age of interviewees - 50 .5 year s Range - 13 years to 90 years 3. Where do you work ? Within two miles - 26 Fur t her than two miles - 15 4. How l ong does i t t ake you to get to work? Av erage - 19 minutes Range - 2 minutes to 1 hour 5. How do you ge t t o work ? Car - 35 Wal k - 4 Bus ~·- 2 6. How many people live in this house ? Average - 3.4 7. How many rooms in this house ? Average - 4 . 0 ( 31 houses with one or more persons per room) 8. Do you own this house or rent it ? Own - 32 Rent - 50 9. IF OWN : Do you own any other property? Yes - 10 No - 2 2 I F SO: Where? Plunkettown - 6 Elsewhere - 4 10. Do you like l iving here ? Yes - 50 No - 31 �.- 4 - a. What do you like about living here? ,':It's home - 14 I've been here a long t ime - 11 I l i ke the peopl e - 11 It's ctose to work - 9 Nothing - 9 Low Rent - 8 It's be tt er than where I lived before - 4 The pl ay area - 2 I own my house - 2 It is a convenient loc ation - 2 I like single-family houses - 1 I t' s clos e to church - 1 b. What don't you like about living here ? No sewers - t.,O Unpaved streets - 22 Houses - 20 Planes - 19 No mail service - 8 Poor bus service - 6 No inside water - 6 Poor police protection - 5 No hea lth service - 4 Nothing - 4 Unc ertainty about future - 2 Traffic problems - 2 Inconvenient location - 2 The people who live here - l Poor street lights - l Taxes - l The railroad nearby - 1 Everything - 1 c. Why have you chosen to live here ? Came to live with relatives - 20 Low rent - 11 No other place availab l e - 10 Close to work - 8 Opportunity to buy a house - 7 It used to be a nice area - 7 I like the country - 7 I like the people - 7 Born in the area - 3 It's a better house than before - 3 This is the best I could do - 1 �.. 5 - 11. How would you feel a bw t living somewhere else? - Like to ver y much 33 Like to - 14 No t mind 18 Not want to - 11 No t want to at a ll - 6 - a. IF NO : Why not? I ' m too o ld to move - 2 I ' ve been here a long time - 1 My relative s are here - 1 I don't know o f a ny other place - 1 b. If this were overcome , would you like to l i ve s omewhere e l se? Yes - 3 No - 2 12 . In the past few years , severa l groups have come to Plunkettown and sugges t ed to the peop l e tha t they a ll move out together to a new loca t ion. Wha t do you think of this idea? It ' s a good idea - 20 The idea is 11 0 . k. 11 - 33 The idea is "o.k." i f the people can buy a new hous e - 1 The idea is 11 0 .k. 11 if the people c an move to single-family houses - 1 No opinion - 17 It's a bad idea - 10 The people should be able to move where they want - 1 12a . IF TIIB INTERVIEWEE RESPONDS THAT HE WANTS TO MOVE : Wha t l ocations do you think would be good if e veryone moved out together? No idea - 26 Poole Creek - 14 Atlanta fringe - 17 Eas t Point - 5 West Side - 2 Southwest - 1 Downtown - l Harper Town - 1 Thomasville - 1 Carver Homes - 1 Perry Homes - 1 12b. IF INTERVIEWEE WANTS TO STAY IN PLUNKETTOWN : I �- 6 - Wha t problems need to be so lved f i rst to improve the neighborhood? Sewers - 11 Houses - 9 Pave the stree t s - 6 Be tt er po li ce pr otection - 3 Ins i de water - 3 Stop the p lanes - 2 Railro ad noise - l Better s tre et l ights - 1 13. If you co uld l i ve e l sewher e, wh at gener a l area would you like t he mos t ? Don I t know - 13 Poo le Creek - 9 Atl anta fringe - 7 Downtown - 7 Same general area - 4 Eas t Point - 4 A pro j ec t - 4 Gil bert Road - 2 Wes t Side - 2 Hapevi lle - 1 St adium - l Wil son Road - 1 Cl ay ton Count y - l N• . w. Fu l ton County - 1 Forres t Park - 1 Alpharet t a - l De c atur - l Gordon Road - l Was hington , D.C . - 1 14. Can you a ff or d t o buy a house s omewhere e ls e ? Yes - 16 No - 50 Don ' t know - 16 How much could you p ay ? Nothing $16 / month $30/month $40/month $SO/ month $60/month $70/month $80/month 7 - 1 1 4 5 5 3 2 �- 7 - Re ceipts from sal e of present house - 11 Don't know - 8 15. Does living here with the airplanes flying over bother you ? Very much - 57 Some - 10 Hardly at al l - 5 Not at a Ll - 10 16. What: kind of place do you think Plunkettown is for children to grow up in? Very good - 2 Be tter than most other places - 5 Same as other places - 24 No t as good as most other pl. ac es - 21 ·1cvery bad - 25 No opinion - 5 17a . Now, I would like to find out exactly what: you like and dis like about living in Plunkettown . Here is a card which lists some thi ngs we thought you might like about living here. Would you please pick the two you like most . If t here is anything you like, but is not on the card, go ahead and pick it . (Read card aloud before showing.) a. b . c . d. e. f. b. I am close to work - 26 The rent is low - 38 l.fany of my friends live here - 39 I have lived here a long time - 27 I own my home - 27 Anything else - I like none of them - 3 Away from downtown 2 Good bus service - 2 I have a good home - 1 Here is a card which lists some problems we thought you might have in Plunkettown. Would you please pick the five you think are the biggest problems? If there is any problem you would like to pick but do not find on the list, go ahead and pick it. (Read aloud before showing,) a. b. c. d. e. f. g. Not close to shopping - 23 Not close to work - 3 No recreation - 12 No mail service - 61 No sewers - 63 Too much noise - 56 No health service - 28 �- 8 - h. i. j. k. 1. m. n. Poor water servic e - 30 No street paving - 66 Unemployment - 7 Housing - 34 Educ a tion - 8 Poli c e protec tion ~ 41 Anythi ng else - Bus service - 3 Street l ights - 2 Speeding - 2 Too f ar from church - 2 Not a good place f or children - 1 Old we lls are caving in - 1 Yard s are not kept up - 1 There ar e no probl enIB - 1 �7 APPENDIX A List o f Interviewers James 1'1 . Bruce, Offi c e of the Mayor Danie l K. Christenbury , Office of the Mayor Thomas Isaac , Offi c e of the Mayor Joseph Menez , Office of the Mayor Meg So~ell, Office of t he Mayor Mostafa Howeedy , Department of Planning John Ma tthews, Dep artment of Pl anning �,._ APPENDIX B Interview Guide - Plunkettot·m A. General Instruc tions . 1. This is a general guide for conducting a house-to~house s urvey in the Plunkettm,m neighborhood. Make sure t hat al l questions included are answered; however , if a respondant refuses to ans~er any questions, go on to the ne,ct item on your questionnaire . Re cord reas on for no response if possible. You may inc l ude other questions; record them as wel l as the interviewee's answer. 2. Ple ase record all answers as accurately and c arefu lly as possible. 3. Let the interview continue if t he interviewee wishes to t a lk . However , one hour shou l d, in most c ases , be the maximum time r equired for the interview . 4. Record the date o f the interview, the time at which the interview begins and is completed, and t he total amount of time the interview lasts . Record the number of times the interview is interrupted by aircraft noise, and the approximate l ength of such interruptions. B. I ntroduction . The following general introduction should be used in the interview situation: "Hello, my name is________ I represent the City of Atlanta {show your identification c ard) . The Mayor and Board of Aldermen are concerned about the people living in Plunkettown . Many different suggestions have been made about what the people of Plunkettown want from the City. However, we feel that it is necessary to t alk directly to the people o f Plunkettown. For the next few days we will be talking with all Plunkettown residents and asking them questions to help us find out exactly what the people want . Could you please take a few minutes to answer these questions? If subject refuses to participate in the interview, t ry to find out why. If he indicates he is too busy, try to make an appointment to interview him at another date. If he has another reason , try again to get the i nterview . However, if he absolute ly refuses, do not persist. Record a response and, if possible, the reason. If more than one member of a hous ehold wants to participate in the interview session, record.their responses separately. Each interview record should contain the responses . �of one person only . However, if this is not possible, indi c ate that responses c ame from two or more people . Remember that the main purpose is t o get answers to the basic questi ons contained in our questionnaire. If the int erviewee has questions to ask of you, try to delay this discussion until the end of t he fo rmal interview. DO NOT , under any circumstances, attemp t t o answer questions of whi ch you are unsure. The purpose of thi s interv iew is to find out what the peop le in Plunkettown thin and want . If peop l e ask questions you cannot answer, r efer them to Mr . Johnny Robinson or George Aldridge . (You will have a supp ly of their personal c ards to pass ou t to everyone .) C. Close Close the interview by answering any questions you can, and by thanking the interviewee for his cooperation. State again that if he has any additional questi ons he should c all Mr. Johnny Robinson or Mr. George Aldri dge . Also , if he has any additional c onnnents , a ttempt to record them on the answer sheet. (Give Mr. Aldridge's and Mr . Robi ns on's c ards .) �.. ~ ..... .,_ .... --- . ~ - II II II A RESOLUTION BY Fl NANCE COMMITTEE PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City has just completed a Community Facilities Plan which indicates the need and desirable location for many capital projects throughout the City, and WHEREAS, the City expects to complete a transportation plan in the near future in conjunction with the five county region and the State Highway Department of Georgia, and WHEREAS, this transportation plan will indicate the need and desirable location for new and improved transportation facilities throughout the City and the region, and WHEREAS, the City has engaged in a capital improvement programming effort for a number of years and has become increasingly effective in th is activity, and WHEREAS, for the first time a means of financing a limited amount of capital improvements on a continuing basis has become available, and WHEREAS, the implementation of plans and projects to reach the City's goals and objectives requires adequate financing and continuing scheduling according to realistic priorities as well as close coordination. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED that those departments and agencies of the City of Atlanta aiding in preparation of the 1969-1973 Capital Improvement Program make every possible ~Hort to ensure that their projects .and proposals for the coming five-year program reflect accurately and realistically their goals, objectives and plans as expressed in the Community Facilities Plan and the soon to be completed Transportation Plan. BE IT .FURTHER RESOLVED coordinated and cooperative basis. that this effort be on a comprehensive, continuing, �OFFICE OF CITY CLERK ATLANTA, GEORGIA A RESOLUTION BY PLANNING .AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Planning Department is presently studying the Plu.nkettown neighborhood for inclusion in the Atlanta 1970 Neighborhood Development Program and WHEREAS, the Plu.nkettown neighborhood extends south of the Atlanta City limits into the City of Mountainview and Clayton County and WHEREAS, Clayton County, Mountainview, and the City of Atlanta face common problems in this area NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta that Mayor Ivan Allen, Jr. request the Board of Commissioners of Clayton County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Mountainview to participate ma joint study designed to solve the problems of the Plu.nkettown neighborhood. AOOPTED by Board of .Aldermen July 21, 1 96 9 APPROVED July 23, 196 9 A true copy, - �OFFICE OF CITY CLF,RK ATLANTA, GEORGIA _., A RESOLUTION BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, the City Planning Tupartment is presently studying the Plunkettown neighborhood for inclusion in the Atlanta 1970 Neighborhood Development Program and WHEREAS, the Plunkettown neighborhood extends south of the Atlanta City limit s into the City of Mountainview and Clayton County and WHEREAS, Clayton Caunty, Mountainview, and the City of Atlanta face common problems in this area NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED by the Mayor and Board of AJ.dermen of the City of Atlanta that Mayor I van Allen, Jr. reque st the Board of Commissioners of Clayton County and the Mayor and Council of the City of Mountainview to participate i.rt a joint study de signed to solve the problems of the PlunkettoW!l neighborhood. ADOPTED by Board of Aldermen July 21 , 1 969 APPROVED July 23, 1969 A true copy, - .~ erk . . .- - .i¢JU___....,. . ~~- �- -.-.- -~--.::-::--.,:-.'.".""'..•.::::--- .-_ - -.~-~ --143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)II" ' I· AN ORDINANCE BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE I , WHEREAS, by ordinance of December 21, 1964, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, caused to be created a standing committee of the Board of Aldermen entitled Urbar:i Renewal Policy Committee, as.set forth in Section 2-40. 2 of the Code of Ordi nonces, City of Atlanta, Georgia effective July I, 1965, as amended, and WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable and in the public interest that the number of standing committees of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia be reduced in number and that such action would be in keeping with the precedent established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen in 1967, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the functions and responsibilities of the Urban Ren ewal Policy Committee can readily and expeditiously be transferred to another standing committee of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, namely, the Planning and Development Committee, and WHEREAS, such action should increase and improve communications between and coordination of activities of both the City of Atlanta, Georgia and its urban renewal agent, the Atlanta Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta as follows: I. That Section 2-40.2 of the Code of the City of Atlanta is here by repealed and the Urban Renewal Policy Committee is abolished. 2. That Section 2-40. I (b) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the follow ing: (b) Membership. The Planning and Development Committee sh al I be composed of eight (8) members of the Board of Aldermen appointed by the Moyor a nd ·two (2) c1clvisory members from th e Housing �r .. II -2Authority of the City of Atlanta appoinl·ecl by the Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. The Housing Authority members of this committee shal I have the power to vote only on those items of housing and urban renewal whic~ are going before the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners for further action. The Mayor shall appoint from the Board of Ald ermen the chairman of said committee and the other seven (7) members. The Mayor shall appoint the Planning and Development Committee so that a representation is obtained of aldermanic committees concerned with community development, redevelopment, and improvement. 3. That Section 2-40.1 (c) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in lieu th ereof the following: (c) Functions, responsibilities. This Planning and Development Committee shall have the primary responsibility to review and coordinate the short and long range plans and programs of oll city efforts in the fields of community development, redevelopm ent, housing, facilities and improvements, and to make suggestions to other appropriate a lde rma nic committees ond to recommend actions and policies for adoption by the Board of Alderm en to insure max imum coordination and the highest qua! ity of urban community deve lopme nt through ou t the City. This responsibility shall include but is not limited to the review and evaluation of th e e lements of th e compre he nsive (general) plan deve lopment by th e Pl ann ing De par tme nt with guidance From th e Atlanta - Fulton County Joint Planning Board; th is comprehensive plan to be composed of at lea st a �,, II II -3land use plan, transpor tati on plan and a comm unily foci! ities plan with pub Iic improv ements program. The comm ii-tee shall further be responsible for developing p91 icy recommendations on al I other matters concerning the planning and coordination of future ; city developments including, specifically, the Community Improvement Program (CIPL Open Space, Urban . . Beautification, the 1962 Federal Highway Act, the Workable Progr"am for Community Improvement, Urban Renewal and Neighborhood Development Program, preliminary and project or execution plans, and other related urban renewal matters formerly under the responsibi Iity of the Urban Renewal Committee or the Urban Renewal Policy Committee. The Committee shall further review all applications for federal grants that are referred from the Grants Review Board for planning considerations to determine their conformity with adopted overall plans and policies for the development of the City. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict_with this Ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. �ATLANTA,GEOROIA FROM: d. Dan E . Sweat, Jr. For your information D Please refer to the attached correspondence and make the necessary reply. D Advise me the status of the attached. FORM 25- 4- S �... 4 URB AN RE N EWAL MONTHLY STATUS PROGRAM REPORT February 28, 1970 .ATLANT.A HOUSING AUTHORITY �-I . -J.Ull2lu'J RENEWAL STJ1.'l'US REPORT I ATLlJITA EOUsnm AUT!-IOR.TIY ~ I ~ ACQUISITION I Parc els to bz Acquired PROJECT I Acquired to Date ! Total to b e Yet to be · Relocated Acquired . Fami ly & Ind. - ,. 'i'CY.!-..L B:Jtl er Street R-·9 l' RELOCATION Bus . Rel ocated To Date Fa mily & Ind • DP.·10LITION Remaining to b e ~tructures Relocated to be b'am1J.y & ma. ~us . e molished Bus . Demolis hed To Date 5507 52o6 301 6668 657 6205 573 463 84 4857 4409 600 600 0 1261 103 1261 1 OJ 0 0 594 594 11 14 77 111 4 76 0 1 811 799 1253 79 1253 0 0 987 987 421 18 421 0 0 Yet to :JG Demolis :ic 448 I ' R:v...;:=:on- Wa.s!:1.i n 6 ton R-10 . 820 81 4 Univa~sity Center R-11 866 866 0 ~ R·'.Jckdale R- 21 941 879 62 ~ 6 ~ 79 18 R---22 463 6 457 315 19 315 19 0 0 305 305 . - Goo:rgi a State R- 59 29 29 GE-oq;ia Tech R- 85 335 335 v!cst E0.d 4 l 4. - 2- -1 lI Gi~orgi a Tech II A-2-2 lbdel Ci ties A-2 -J - 0 66. 4 30.- l-1-1 4 16. 32 7 25 398 278 120 -+--- I 48 20 48 o· 0 261 58 261 58 0 0 359 359 480 104 465 87 15 17 476 365 1094 103 896 77 198 26 539 462 77 18 37 12 3 6 34 21 0 21 ·1 1 187 5 244 6 278 51 227 52 52 111 ' I I i-i ·- 431 I I .. 20 0 527· 593 I - ! ! R-90 Be::::.:crd- Pine I 435 435 I 'Ih0T.asv ille 12 ' �Ul1JJAN II.ENE\ AL STATUS IlliPO.RT Pai:;e 2 . I i TITSFOST'T'T O~if Prcject . l ] Acres \:o be Sold I 'T Ol' /~ E·.1.lter Street !i,.:3.1,:son- 1rlash R- 9 R-10 Acres Sol d to Dat e Under Contract 1127 ~o 62402 87.6 81o6 126 .. 0 105 .. 1 15 , h 1 Ol.i., J 93, 8 1 To t al t o be Rehabi litated Not Undsr Contract 175 .. 8 REHABILITATION I TEM- IlLPROVEI'-IBNT S Complete to date ' I Yet t o be Rehab. Budge t .Amount 2221 3,558, 966 5782 2967 786 182 4°5 NA NA 1..it~ 80? 1804 1744 60 32700 I NA ~ o d:c:.2..le R- 21 242 .. 6 56. 3 ·183 .5 2 .. 8 NA NA NA m· R- 22 2o/5 o;) 1BJ.5 69.6 12 o4 92 87 5 G2o r gi2.S t.a te Ke st- End 662,000 1.762.9~h 653,1 80 1 .406 1864 I R-59 807 8. 7 R-85 45. 0 39.4 ,.. . 1..:c orgia.- Te ch -J 2, 786,798 4 R-11 • .., . ... Completed ' D>.ivers ity Cs nter .;,_ ~ C:-"'. C..S TI..!..J..e I R- 90 . 5.o .6 98. 4 20.6 33.6 154.9 _34o2 22o 5 I 44. 2 NA NA NA NA I ~ 653, 914 553, 773 . 2338 ' 698 1640 168, 598 192 58 134 14, 000 168, 598 I I I I I I . 3c:d.ford- Pine A-2-1 98o2 42, 000 GeJ ~6 i a Tee~ II A-2-2 }:cdel Ci ties A-2-3 It I ~7G- · 192 378 255,500 4,383 i i �Urban Renewal Status Report I -- t r ,) Amount Required FR.OJ:;CT ~, CASH A:n.ount Received from City Amount to be Received -- ITEN II - I! Au:ount to Cn:npl etion ~i $ St:-c9t ? :. :tl.er ~-:}_".-:=ot~- ~·. a. s hi~gtcn 1 627,727 $ 791,078 $ (163,351 ' - ~) ,, ,_, t. I ,;. ~ 37 ,046,089 L :i Ye :-.s::. ty Cs::ter 186 , 567 $ 196,468 $ (9,901 ) R-10 I ;~ $ $ ·' ·.P R-11 49,714 ,, C:ecrgi2. State ~- 59 R- 85 G~>JrG ia Tec h R- 9C· \~:-=:st :-:::1d - 3e~orC-Pi.r.e GG J:--r5 ia ·1> R- 22 T :10:::?..s•JiJ.le . Tech I I Ci :.:'..8S 24,293,299 t~,; J 67,202 ,~ ·:> $ $ $ $ ~:; $ ,.p "' $ ,.., 67,202 13, 988 ,; ,. 324,244 .$ $ 189, 1 76 $ 941,479 - $ . 324,244 L 1$ d· p A-2-2 ~ y $ ~µ A-2-3 $ t $ p ~> 995,283 fl~t ,:,,!) $ 4,571, 692 -~ 5,466,679 $ 5,370,008 ·? 3,003,765 $ 616,134 ->' 2,.387 , 631 4,81 9~ 578 ~~ 733,879 $ 4,085,699 11,222 $ 11,222 $ I~ 0 {'-s t (13,988 ) 12, 752, 790 $ f $ A- 2-1 $ (1°39,462 ) $ g $ 1,936 ,762 ~ R- 21 P~ct·c.::._' 9 $" I i $· R-9 I 6, 046,68,2 ~ • ~ _; ,ce .1. A.mount Completed to Date Total Costs i1 ' T:JT.U, 'f NON-CASH I HPROVB-:E~·TTS ~1 !~ t ' E i $ l $ i $ i ~ ! . .., I 96,671 I I $ ~ '. ~ ~ 'l ii $ 5., 292 ., 344 $ 4, 476,857 ' 2,524,521 $ 407.,616 ) I 5,699,960 ~ " 3,060,063 I ~ )J ~ ~µ 5,584,584 -~,, 1 p 3,696 ,478 $ l I ·? g ~ I 1,474, 9.90 L $ I 780,379 lI I I j I �Page 4 Urban Renewal Status Report . ' TOTAL VALUE OF It1PROVEMENTS NJHBER DWELLING UNITS - - Complet ed PRCJJ~CT .. autlc:c S-t:-eet 1095 650 L~n i v er-s i t ~l Ce;1ter P.- 11 431 F~·: k_j3.le R- 21 0 -- R- 22 1; · 0 ia +e ~~+ .., v2-.v R- 59 ~ -=- """~ ..:.r .! \.,; _, -1 J. .::, - !) .__ R- 85 Teer. ·C" .;.. ·,...; ... ... S:!d 1/1" ..- -· - . - -- -- Complet ed $ .. Unde~ Constru ction . Total Proposed - I I d:- 95,370, 792 $ 30,739, 025 $ 89, 248, 41 2 4' 215, 358 ,229 I R-90 I I .I I $ 105 192 0 842 J 25,029,546 .$ 1 3 435 $ 17 , 149,838 ·s 2,249, 000 325 605 33,069,144 .J 1372 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 - $ $ 0 '• 3, 036, 800 ~ i I 38, 1 75, 944 8,235, 000 $ 33, 264,546 $ 2, 783, 000 ,p ,~ 22, 181, 838 $ 5, ooo ~b 3,534, 825 r ...- 2, 070, 000 $ I - ' p 1500 1175 351 0 $ 1200 3,797, 964 3,500,000 .$ $ $ 14, 081 , 325 $ 17, 621,150 ~ . 8,700, 000 'J) s 19 , 623,164 4, 250, 000 $29, 000, 000 ,5 11 , 05 0, 000 .$ 1o, 16 2, 000 ~ 23, 71 2, 000 ·' 8., 452 ,050 7,125,200 ii I 1 ., 36, 750, 000 { 0 1 I ! I I I A- 2- 1 0 .-,c. ~; i c. T :~c l1 I I A- 2- 2 0 0 0 > , Citie s A-2 - 3 0 0 0 'I 0 "' •:) 1 353 ., 2,500,000 $ $ 2,013,300 $ 460,000 $ 5, 978, 750 •;) 353 ~ 8,306.000 $ 0 •!) . 7 . ?71 ~17 ·2 0 $ 0 $ 0 s 0 .:J; 0 - $ 0 $ 0 $ 0 .$ 0 - ~ "3 c2 .: :'c~d- ? i ~e i-r ........~,c;; _ . , _._ 5703 2241 0 416 -Gt3: Total I I i R- 9 R-10 Tr:, :,a:::·ville I I E:-.. ·.~s VY!- \·,Tashi :1~:.on 1 :::: I !Proposed 869 2593 · OT.~ - Under Constructi on ' 0 I , .., 15 ,5.77 ,537 ' ) I I I I ' . •} -- ! �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA ,----------, 1969 I 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST): ~i!l~oF : L-----r---' I r--------, I I I METROPOLITAN ~ l 0E VEL0PME.HT COUHOL L--- I ATlANTACHILD lf! N AHDT0UTH S!RYICU COUNCIL CITIZEIU ADYl!DR1' COMMlTTfE FOlt URBAN RENEWAL COMMU Nl TT RELATIONS COMMIHID N I I _ _ _ _ .J 0 CHIEF A0MINISTRATN( Of"FIC[R ANO I U LAHTA STADIUM .4.TT0IIH!T AOMIHISTRATIVC ST.UT I I I COORDIH ATOR 7I I I PU!DHHEL DEPAIITM[HT PUIILICHOUSING DIVlSIOH UIIU.N REHEW.U. 0IVl~OH Z0MING COMMITT EE PLAHHIHC AHO 0E VELOPMEHT COMMI TTEE :,I AT LAJrfTA MUN1O PAL COURT auocn COORDI NA TOR FOR COMMUNITY RELATI0HS II I I I L._ I ____ _ OFFICE OF TIU COMPTROL LER COMl,IJUI0H r AnAHTA TRAFflC COURT ( I 7I FIH4HCE COMMITTEE I I I I I I PURCHUIHC C'OMMITTEE , - -- -+ - - - - , , I .----- .l----, _ _____ JI OTT Ct.ERK I TU4UES!DII I L-----------1 IIUILOING COO! 4 0Vl!,011' IIOAR0 40"'-110.0N PLUMIIHCAH0SJ.MIT41 PRl!DN COMMJTTEI! PLUMIIINC E.0.1,UNIHC IOUD PLWillllHC40Vll,OIIYI0UD fll!CTIIC4L UJ.M.ltllHC aouo ELl!CTRICAL40Vl!DRYII0UD Bl!TTU ttOU~ NG COMMIUI0N Hl!J.T.4N 0 Vl!HT,AQVl!DRY COMM. PUIICHUIHG DEP4RTMEHT 7 , -1 -! 1 1 rJHAHC( D[PARTM[H'T 1 ~ IUILOIHG COMM.I TTfE IOARD OF PUIE M4$TUS I I I PUIIL1CWOHS COM.ll.l TTl!I! I I FIR£ 0EPAIITMEMT POLICE 0 EPARTMEMT ADMIN ISTRATI VE USISTJ.HT IUILDIMCI MSPl!C TI OH Dl!PAR TMEH T _J PUIILICWORICS DEP ARTMEN T WATER DEPARTMEH T PARKS NID C El,lETfRY DEPARTMEN T 0 IV1SIOH 0F IHHRUCTIOH RU UR CH AMO 0EYEL0PMEHT OIVls.t0H SOlOOL PLANT PL.t.HHIHC '-NO COHSTRUC TI 0H SERVICES DIVISION ADMIMISTRU IV£ SER'flCfSOl'flSIOH �II PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 . --------, r----------, I ~~i~i::: ~ :;.,o, : A~~t:TT:j_f~LH143.215.248.55 ~g~=~yf -, 1iA~~J12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)i u;T~r L-----r ___ J I J r:;n~~fUL~O;-~;;;.,7 " '- - J L - - -" '-" "" -'- ,L __ 'l~ _",'~.fo -~(__ .J' , i -~T:"ufri:n~J~; 7 r, -S~o;-,,,;00-E;IT-IO;M.,; ;T-7I '1. .•_«_" _"'~"-'"' -"-" .J' " J • L ____ 1- ___ ~==================;l=======================:=::=:==5?.':=.=.:;::===========*========iF===================;i: I I ELECTO RATE 1 1 ,----------, I MHROPO LITAH Sot00L I I OEVfl OPJ,rnn COIJH O L I ____ .J L--- I I I AT L.ulTA CHtLDR Di ,UI QTOU TH SUYICU COUHCIL I CITll.EHS' AOVnORT COMMI TTEE FOi COMMUHITT IEL A TI01n COM.WlHIOH I I U U AHR EHE WAL I I I I I I I I I 7I I I PEIUOtot f L 110.1, RO I I I I I I PER SOKM EL 0EP.UTI.IEHT I COOROIIO,TOR FOi CO...WMITY R! LA TI OHS ADMI HISTU,TI VE U SI STAMT OFFICE Of TME COlolP TROL Ll!R PUSOMH EL DIVISIOH I I I I f ::, I ATL.AH'TA MUHI O PAL COURT PU I LICHOUS/ HG OI Vl~OH IUOG ET C0MMlllJOH OIVL SI OH I I I I II l ~ ZOHIHGCQl,IM,JTT U I I I I IL. r r I ATL,lHTA TUHICCOURT UI U ,H REHEW AL P L.IJ,IH IMG AH O OfVE LOPkE HT CDMMI TTU I I .JI ____..._____ , FlHAH CE COMMI TTEE I I __ _ _ _ I I _ _ ____ JI PURCH .UIHG COMMLTT H I I I ,------ J. ____, I T.UUSE U.011 I L...----------1 I UILDI HG CODE ADVl!oORT IO • • D •DV. 10.0H PLUMIIHG I.M D SAM I T AR PLUMI IHC. U~H JHC ao.u o PLUMII IHG ADVl1,0RY80AIO IE L l!C TRIC AL IE J Al1tlH1H C BO ARD EL ECUICAL A0Vli0 11 YIOARD BETTER HOU MH G awMIUIOH HhT. .UIO Vf HT, AO'IUOIIT (01,U,1 . PUROU ,SI HG DEPA RTMEHT ,l -1 -; -f 1 , "1 ~ TRAFFIC AHO IIU ILOI HC. TRAH SPOIITAT IO H COMM ITTEE COM.MISSIOH I I I P UI LI C WOR ICS COMMITTEI! I I FIRE OEPARTMEHT POLICE OEPA II TME HT TRAFFI C OEPAR TMEH T IU1 LOI HC OU P l! CTl OH OEP AIITMEH T _J PU I LtC WOR KS OEPAIITMEHT WAHR OEPARTMfHT PARKS A>ID CEMHUY DEP U T.W.EMT OLVlSIOH OF ltUTR UC TIOH RUURCHA.M D DEVE L0 PMIEH T DIV I M0 H SCHOOL PLAN T PL ,UOIIHC AM O COJO TRUC TIOtt SUYIC U OIV1 $10H AOMIHISTR.t. TIV E SERVIC ES OIVUIOH �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 , I s%f~~: ~ :; ToF , -------- , L---- -r---' I METROPOLITAN SCHOOL I I I DfVfLOPMfHT COUHOL I I I L- - - - ATLAHT A CltlLDREH AHO YOU TH SER VICES COUHCIL _ _ __ J CITIZUI S' ADVU,OIY COM.loWHITY Rf LATIO!iS COMMISSIOH COMMITT U: FOi URIAH IEHEWAL CHICr AOMINISTRATTV[ OfrJC[R AKO ADMINISTRATIVE STAJT I I I I 7I PE U OHH EL aouo I I COORDIHATOR FOR CO-UNITY IU:LATIOHS E XECUTIVE DIRECTOR OFF ICE Of TM£ COMP TROLLU PU8LIC HOUSIHC DIVISIOH - - - ----- :, I I I ATLANTA MUHICIPAL COURT ~ I .J lOHIHC COMMITT EE I I I I I I PUIICHASIHG COMMITTEE ~-- - +---~ , I I L----- FIHJ.NCE COMMITTEE I I I I rI r I I ATLAHTA TRAFFIC COURT I ,--- -- ..L----, _ _ __ __ JI CITY CLERK IUILOIHC COO£ 4DVU,ORY aouo .i.O'(IOOHPLUMIIHGAIIOSIJ,IITU , PLUWBIHG UNillH IHG BOARD ""1 PLLIMIIHG .i. OYISORY aouo fl! CT11CAL flAMIHIHG a.ouo fl!CTRIC4 L ADVISORY BOARD BUTU HOUSIHC COMMISSIOH Hl!AT. al40 VfHT.Jr,OVIKlRT CQl,¥,II, I T U OSESSOII L.. _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ I J PURCHASING OEPARTMEHT 7 1 1 1 ,, ~ IUILOIHG C.0-ITTEE FI RE DEP ARTMEHT POLICED fP UTM!HT TRAHIC Dl! PUTMEH T BUILDI HG IHSPICTIOH O!PARTM!HT I I I I I _J PUILICWOHS COMMJTTH PU BLIC WORKS OEPARTMl!HT WATER OEP ARTW!HT PARltS AHO C!METUT DEPARTMENT DIVIS/OH OF IHSTROCTIOH PUSOHHEL DIVIS/OH RESEARCH AHO O!VELOPNEHT OIY1SIOH SCHOOL PL.t.HT PL.tJOIIHG .t.HO COHSTRUCTIOH SERVICUDIVISION ADMI HISTRAT1VE SUV1CU DI VI MOH �----------, r------ .:. -,L L-----r---' ~ I si:~t~'::: ~:;,,oF : J ATL.itlTA, FUL TOtl COIJ)<ITY ~:T.:L~:tl:11::o -: 1•n~;1~:12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)UHTY I I I IL _ _ PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 i rJ .,,_,_un_• .._ T_ _ ...J r, ELECTORATE 1 1 l 4TL~~t/~~ : ~~wHn7 TA X ASSEUOU 1,_,_EC_RE_ATl~U-THO _ RI_TTJI r-:;:~~;::11:.;;-1 I I L- --~--- -J . ~----.---~ i ...i~T:ui143.215.248.55J'r, 7 Of f otlOTIOH ,--------, I I METIIOPOLITAH sotOOL DEVt:LOPWEJ4T ctlUH O L L--- I I ____ J r.*================i;:===================6E=HE==RA L= Mu==H1=ic,l~l=6=0v==ER=HM ==EH ==,==========i~=====*================= : I ATLAHT4CH ILOR EH AHOTOUTH SER VICES COUHCIL O'.)MMUHITT Rll 4 TIOHS c_oMMJS110H CHl[f AOMIN ISTRAT IV[ orrlC[R ANO AOM IN15TR4TI V[ SlAff I I I I j PUioOl{H fl IIOARO I I I I I I I EU:CUTIVf. OIIIECTOII UIIB 4H REHftt'4L OIVISIOH ::, COOROIH 4TO R FOR COM,IUMITT ll:IELATIOH1 I 1 1 ATLANTA TRAFFIC COURT P L Atl NIHC AtlO OEVELOPM[HT COMMITTEE \.. I I I I l r I I .J FIHAMC E COMMI TTEE 1 1 L------ I PUIIO!UIHC COMMITTEE I I ,----+----,\ 1 I OFFICE Of Tl11;" COl,IP TROL LER I I BUDGET CXlMMI WOH I 1 I I _ _____ JI I ,----- .L----, PLAtlH INCDE PAIITMEHT OTTCLElll I T AI d S[ UO R I PURCHASING DEPARTMEHT L...-- --------' I UIL01NC/.MD 4THLfTICCQl,U,UTTIEf IUI LDING COPE AOVUOaT a o uo A0V. IID.0 H P' LIJMBIHG AHOSAtll T AR 7 7 PLUMIIIHG UAMIHIHC BOARD "1 PLUMll1HG A0Vli,ORTIOUO -i f LE CTRlC AL fX AMIH1HCIIOARD 1 1 fl[ CTIIIC AL AOVlioOIIT IIOUO .WOITOII IUM lllOCIYICCUITU l[TTER HOU11NC C~UIOH H(Af. AHOV[HT. AOVli,ORTCCIMM. LAH D AGE HT 1 7 LAtt'DfPUTM[HT rlNANC[ 0£f'AAT MEM'T ~ TIIAHICAHD TRAHSl'ORT ATIOH COMliUSSIOH Flllf O[ PARTMEM T POLICf DEPARTMENT IUILOIHG COMMIT TU TRAFF IC O[f'ARTMEM T Ao..lH ISTRATIV[ 4 UIST.u! T I 1 r I ATLAHTA MUHIOP•L COUffT PERioOKNfl DfPAIITMEHT IUl LOIH C IHSPl!CTIOH OrP AIITMfHT I I I I I _J PUBLICWOIIU CGMMITTff WAT U COMMITTEE PAIIICSC'Ololl,UTHf PUSL1C WORKS DE PARTME NT WATER O[f'AIITMfNT PAIIUAMOCEJ,1£TUT OEPAII TMEHT OIVl SIDN OF IHSUUCTIDN RESEARCH AH O OEVELOPMEHT OIVISIOH SCHOOL PLA.HT PLAH)II NC AHO COH ST RUCTI OH SERVICES OIVlSIOH ADMINISTRATl'I[ SERVlCESOIVlSIOH �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 ,--------, ,-----------, I 143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)ig: ggi::,,oF : L-----r---' Ai~t:TT:i.'~LH143.215.248.55 ig~=~T ~-, I [L(CJORATE r ; ; : ~ci143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)iu; TY1 . J I L-- ~J143.215.248.55r__ J I rTL~~r.:rF143.215.248.55;~uHnl i ~~T:"ufr~n143.215.248.55; 1 L-~ 143.215.248.55R~-J L~c~E~1~u2_H~1~rj r -s~ ; ; ~ ; : :R~;;-7 __~~E~~T~~-J ,--------, I fllETR0POLITAH SOIOOL I I DEVfL0 P'fllEtH C0UHOL L.--- I ____ J r.:;==================;~===============================t:========::::::::==========*==========?===================;i ', GENERAL MUNICI l GOYERNMENT I ATL.ulTA CHILDREH AHD YDUTH 1ElfYI CES C0UHCl l MAYOR BOARD Of ALDER MEN CITIZEH ~· ADVISORY C0-ITTEEF0R UR9AH REHEW.U. COM.w.UHIT'f RELATI0HS COWMl~!.I0H CH1cr A0M IHISTR AT ,V[ ornccR AHO ADMINISlRATIV[ STA.ff I I I I 7I I I I I I P'fl !.OMM fL DEP'ARTM(HT COORDINATOR FOR COM,1.UNITY RELATtOHS AOMIMISTRATIVE AS-SISTA.NT 0FF1Cf.0F tlif COMPTROLL ER PUSOKHEL DIVl!,IOH I I I I :, UReAH RfHEWAL DIY l!o!0H Z0 HIHGctlwoll TTEE PLAHHIHG AHO DEYEL0P MEMT COl,y/,LfTEf I 1 I I I I ATUH TA MUHIOP'AL COURT PU 9 L1CH 0USI HG 0JVISI0M r I I A.TlAKTA TRAFFIC COURT ~ I I I I I I J I FIHAHC E COMMITT EE I I '------ \ PURCH ASIMG COfllloU TTEE I I I ~----+----~, , - - - - .1 ____, I I ______ JI an PLAHNJMG 0EPARTMEHT a.ERK I TU AUESSOR I L-- --------- J 8UIL0IHGAH0 ATHLL!"TI C COMMITTEE BU1L0IHGCODE ADVISORY BOARD AD'(80. 0 H PL UMBIHCAH0 SAHITA II PLUMB IH G l!U.W.IHIHG BOARD PLUMII IHC ADVISORY II0 ARD EUCTRICAL l!U,MIHJHG IIOARD ELECTR IC AL ADVISORY eouo BETTER HOU!.IHG COMMISSIDH Hf,H.AH0VEHT. ADVl!,OITC014N , AUDITORIUM ,_.0CIYICCCIHH PURCHASJHG 0 !PAI TME HT 7 , --1 -j "1 "1 "1 rlHANC[ 0(PAATMCHT , ~ 8UILDI HG ~ I TTE , IOARD0f FIRE MAHEIS I I I I PU&LICWOR U COMMITTU I flllf 0EPARTMEHT POLICE 0EPAlfMEtlT TR AFflC DEPARTMfMT &UI LDIHGIH 1PECTIOH Df.PAITMEHT _j PU&LIC WORU 0f.P.&ITMf.HT W.t.Tf.R DEP.&ITMf.HT PUUAH0COlETflY 0l!P.&RTMEHT 0IVl!.IOHOF INST RUCTIOH RESEARCH N'D DEYEL0PMEHT DIVIY0H SCHOOL PLANT PLAMHIHC AHD COtUTRUCT10H SERVICES DIVISIOH Atw.lJHISTRA TT VE SERVICES OIVIYOH �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 ~---------, 143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)ig: ~i::.,oF : I L-----,---' I ,--------, I I L--- ATLI.MTACHILD lf EH AHDYOUTHUIYICU CDUHCIL CITIZ[HS' ADYUOl1' COMMJTTU:FOI Ul&I.M REHEWAl. COW.WHITT IEL ATIOH S C.OMMJ U IOH I METIOPOL1T.ut sotOOL I DEVEL0PMEl4T COUMO L I I ____ J CH l[ f AOMJN15 TRAT1V[ OfTJC[ R AHO .t.OM LNISTRATIV[ SUIT I I I I 7I PEISOtOIEL I OAIO I I I I I P EISOHHEL OEPAIT MEHT COOIDIHA TO R FOi COMMUHlTY RE LATIOH S ADl,II HISTIATI YE AUISTANT BUDGET COMM.IUlOH OfflC E OFTllE COM.PTROL LEI PERWH>IEL DI VlSIOH I I I I I PUBLICHOUSIHC DIY ISIOH Ull~Hy~J~!WAL I .t.Tl AHTA TRAFFIC COU RT I- PLI.MHIH C AH O DEYELOPMEHT COM.l,IITTU ZOH IHC COW,ll TTU l' I I J FIHI.MCE C0MMITTEE I I I I I ______ JI I I I I I ____ _ L I I I ~----+----~, PLI.MHtHG OEPAITMEHT OTTCLE U: ,----- .l-- --, I I TAllASSE1S0R "----·- -----' BUI LOIHGAH O ATllLET IC COMMI TTEE PURCHA SIMC COMMITTEE I UI LOI HG C.OOE AOYIS011' IDAIO A0Y8D.0 HP LUMIIHGI.MOUJ'OTAI PLUM BIHG ElA.M IHIHG IOARO PLOM ll HG AO YtSOIY IOAIO ELE CTRICAL UAMIHIHG IOAIO ELECT RI CAL ADYISO RY BOARD U TT ER HOU11HC COMMJU IOH HUT.AHO YEHT.AOYIW IY COMM, PURCH.t.SIHC DE PAITM[ICT 7 , -1 -i ~ -1 "1 j ~ IU ILOtHG COMMITTl!f: IO AIO Of FI RE ,un us I I I I PUI LICWOIU COMMITTEE I FIR E OE PART MEHT POLI CE OV'AITMEHT TRA Fl' IC DEPARTMVtT I U1LD0 4CIH SPECTIOH OEPARTM[HT _J PUB LIC WORKS OEPARTMEMT PARU AHO CEMETERY DEl"ARTMEICT OIV1SIDHO F IHSTRUCTIOH RESEARCH AHO DEV[ LOPMEHT OIVL SI OIC KHOOL PLAMT PLAHHIHG .ulO COH STRUCTIOM SERVICES OIVISIOH AC*IHISTRATI VE SERV1CESOI VUIOH �~---------, PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 r--------, 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST): tg~::TOF : I ATLAHU..f ULTOH COUHTT L L-----r---' I ~~'.:.T~L~:H~l~A~ -.: I ATLA~ci1143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)-r:.~ ~UHTT I I I __ •_OJ_UH_••_••__ J L i ,---------, 'r J ELECTORATE o 1 l jATLAJ~r:t~~!143.215.248.55UHTY7 r -~TYufr~n~l~;1 I IL_ TUASS EUOO _ _JI 0 I RECRt: ATIOH.4UTHORITT I L-----,----.J I L-----,--.JI STATE OEl"ARTMEHT OFEOOC.4TION I , --------, I W.fTROPOLIT.4H SCMOOL I I OEVELOPW. EHT COUHOL I L --- _ _ _ _ .J r,:;====================.~ ========================= cc=.HE:=:':R:':AL=:M=.:=U=.:=Hl=:=C,i.".;:l:;; GO=v:::ER=.:=H=.:=M!; :;H::=T============.:=========r======================;i : ~ MAYO R I SOIRO or ILD!RMEH CITIZ ENS' AOVtSORT ATLAHUCHILOREM C0ll.MUH1TY .4140 TOUTH SERVICES COUNCIL COMMI TTEE FOR URUHREHE•AL RELATIOHS CXlMMIUIOH CHIEF AOMIHISTRATIV[ OHlC(R A.MO ADMINISTRATIVE ST"1'F I ATL.4HU. STAOIUM I 1 1 SIJPUIHTf:HDEHT 7I COOROIHATOR l" USOMH EL 80Alf0 I I I I I I I I I t:lECU TIVE DIRECTOR PUILICHOUSIHG OIVUJOH ATLANTA TRAFF IC COURT I I I I- ZOHIHGCOMNITTH I I FINAHCE COMMJTTU I I I I .---- + - -- --,, I ,----- .!.----, ______ JI CJTY CLERC I TU AUUSOR L- _ _ _ _ _ __ IUILDIHG AHO ATl1LETICCO,,U,UTTU. AUOITOIIUM lN OCl'flC C(NICI l"U RCHASIH& COl,Ur,ILTTE! I I I IL ____ _ IUIL DIHG CODE ADVISOlfT IOUO AOV llD.OH l"LUMlllHG AHO)AH ITAR PLUMIIHG UAMJHJHG BOARD l'LUMIIHG ADVISORY eouo t:L ECTRICAL t:U.WJHl HG BOUD EL !CTIICAL ADVISORY IOARO ll!TTU HOUMHG COtitMJUIOH HfAT.AH OVEHT.AOVISO R'fCOl,IM, _ _ IJ PUICHASIHG OEl'ARht(HT ,, l -t 1 1 , "1 ~ flREDIPAATwE,lT .4DlilHIST RATIVE AUISTAHT OFFICE Of TliE COl,lf'TROLLEI PEISOKHEL DIVISIOH r I _J I I I IOAIO Of FIRE W.ASTEIS COOlfDIHATOR FOR C'OMlilUHlTY RELATIONS I :,I ATLAHTA MUHIOP AL COORT URIAH RENEWAL OIVISIOH P ERSOKHt:L Ot:PUTM EHT TRAFFI C AHO TRAH,.,ORTATIOH cow.w.m10K IUILDIHG Ct>MMI TT U. IUILDIHGIHSl'(CT IOH Dll"AIUMOH I I I I I _J l'UILICWOIIU COMMITTEE PUILIC 110ltl:S DEPUTW.!HT PARU AHO CEMETUT DEPARTMENT DIVISIOtl Of IHSTIUCTIOH RESEARCH AHO O(V(LOPWOIT OIVIMOH KHOOL PL.4HT PLA.XH IHG .lMO COMSTRUCTIOH SERVICES DI VI SIOH AtMIH1STR.4TIYE SfRVfCUDI VI SIOtl �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA ~---------, ,--------, I L l ~~t~~ ~:lyOF : L-----r---' I 1969 ATL.UtTA fUlTOH COUHTT 0 ~~:_r_:l~:"~e~•~-! i ATL'1ci,~:12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)UHTT I I L - - 143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)r_ _ J rJ ELECTORATE f,.rL~~r.tr'143.215.248.55;g:u"n7 L-~ 143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)·~ • -J 11l r-~TYu~~n143.215.248.55 12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST)7 r-s~;;;;;:.-;:.;.:T-7 L_~c~E~l~U2_tto_!~YJ • I ________ L OfEDUCATIOH ..JI ,--------, I 1111!:TIOl"OLITAM SOIDOL I I 0EVEL0l"MfMT COUHOL I L---- ____ J r,:;J===================;,i'========================c==EN=;E=RA=L==M==UN=,c;;,lt=L==Go=vE==R=NM = =E==NT==============*=======~=====================;i: I ~ ATLMITA CH ILOIEH COMMUH I TT ClT!ZflO' AOYIIOIIY ,U,10 l'OUTH SfA VI CU lt ELATI 0 HS COUHCI L COMMI UIOH COloUUTTl!E fOR UIIBAH JIEHfl'.U. SOARD DI ALDERMEN CH l[f ADM IHISTRATI\1£ ATTORHl!T OH IC CR .I.HO ADM lNISTRATM STAIT I I I I lI PflUOIOIEL 1104110 I I I EXECUTIVE DI RECTO R COOIIDIHATDI FOi COMMUKITT lll!L ATI OMS I I I I I I I I I :, OFFICE OF TllE COMP TROLLER rI I I ATLANTA ATLANTA MUMIOPAL COURT TRAFFI C COURT J ~ I I I I It_ _ _ _ _ _ FJHAH CE C0MMJTTfl! I I I I I I .-----+------., I ,----- .L----, ______ JI PLl.t! HIHGOEP.UTMEHT CIT Y CURI( I TU U SUSOI i._ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ II UILOIH C AJlO ATHLE TIC COMMI TTEE BUI LOIHC CO OE ADYl l,O IY IIOARO .t,0V.&D.0 N PLUMBJWC'i AMD SAMITAII PL Ulol ll HC'i EU,MJHIHC'i 104110 PL UMI IHC'i A0VIS.O IIT I DAID f LfC HIICAL UAMJH!HC'i 14AIID f Ll!CTIICAL ADVIS(UY A.l.l OIT ORIUM .UDCl'IIC:CCJITU PURCHASJHC'i COMMITTEE I ao uo UTTER ttOUSI HC'i COlolMI WOH HEA T.AH O Yl!HT. AD VUO IIY COt,U,11 , IJ PUIICHASJHC'i DEPARTMEHT 7 7 "1 -i -1 -1 "1 rlHAHC E DE PARTMENT ~ TRAF FIC AHO TI AM Sl'O ITATI0 H COM,i,tJS SI0H IU1LDIHC'i COl,U,IITTff IUILDIHC'i IHSPECTI0H Dl!PAIITlolVCT I I, I I I I I _J PUILtCWOIIU COMMIT TU PUIUCWOHS Dl!l"dTMtHT WATUDEPUTMEHT l".UU ~D CEM!TERY 01!1".UTMl!HT DIVlSlc»I OF IHSTRUCTIOH PERSOHHl!L DIVISIOM IIUUICHA.H0 0EVEL0PMEHT 0IVISI0H SCHOOL PLA.HT PL.u(f41HC'i AHO COHSTIIUCTI0H SERYLCUDIVISI0H ADMIHISTIIATIVE Sl!IIVICUDIVISIOH �,----------, ~~t~~: I ,--------,L J ATLAHTA- FULYOH COUMTY -: i I I ATLAMT.t.-FUL TOH CDUMTY I I I I 1 'L __' 0,_ L-----r---' ~ ~:T~L~:H~l~A~ ~.ATL~~r:-r'143.215.248.55; ~UHTY, ,1 ~r_ u~~-~.._'~-· - _,r-:,l.. ELECTORATE L_ TU AH, !UORS _...J r -~TYufr~n~l~~ I ,----- ---, 7 RECRUTIOH AUTHORITl' I STATE DEPAUMU4 T I 1----- , ----' I I L----,----.J OF EOUCAT IOH I ,--------, I METROPO LJTAH KMOOL I I DEVE LOPMEMT COUNCIL I L - - - _ _ _ _ .J r.:i==================:::::;;:::::=======================6==[N  : :[: : RA=l==M==UN==1c;;,l.1= l ==6o==vc==R==NM:::::lNT::= =============*=======~=====================.i: I ATLANTA CH ILOREH AHO YO UTH U RYIC U COUHCIL CITIZEHS ' AOYISORY CO_.YTEE FOR URIAM R[MEWAL COMMUHt TT RE L ATIOHS COM,w.U ~ H CH l[r A.OM INISTRATIV[ OfflC[ R A.MD ADMINIST RATIVE STM r I I I I SUPERIHTEHOUIT 7I COOROI HATOR PERSOHJIEL IOUO I I I I I I I I COOIIOIH.t.TOR FOR C'OMMUMITY RELATIOHS AOMIHISTJ.ATIYE AUIST.u4T I I OFFICE Of TM[ COMP TROL L ER I I I :, r r I I ATLANTA W.UMJO PAL COURT A.TL.A.HTA TR AFF IC COURT ...J ~ I I I I I ______ JI I I I L---- - r----- QTY CLE Rl I .l----, I TU AUE U.OR '------------1 IUI LOI HG AHO ATHL ETIC COtil.MJ TT!E PURotA SIHGCOl,WITTEE ~----+----~, PLAMHIHG OE PARTW. EMT AlJOIT ORtUW. lNDCITICClNtll I I I I f lMANCECOMM.ITTE E I I IU ILOI HG CO D! ADYU.OIIT IOARO ADY. ID. OH P' LU.WII MGAMD SAM ITAR 7 1 PLU.w l LM G EUMJHIHGIOAI D P' LO.WI IHG ADYISO IY 10.1.10 ELE C TR IC AL l! l AMIM1MG I041f D -1 PURCHASIHG DEPAR TMEHT -i ELECTRIC AL .lOY ISO R1' IO AR D "1 -t IU TU HOU11HG COMMIUI~ HU T. AM DY EMT.AOYISOII YCOMiM. J r lNAHCC OCl'ARTMCN1' ~ IU ILOI HG COMMITT U I I I PUIU C WOIJC.S COMMITTEI! I I IUIL OI HG IM SP ECTIOH OEPA1Tt,1EHT I I zg~::YoF PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 I I ~I _J PUIL1C WORKS OE PARTt,1EMT WA.TU O[P.lJITt,ifMT PARKS AHO CEMETERY OEP.lR Tt,1EHT OIVUION Of IM ST IIUCTIOH RESEARCH AHO DEV ELOPMEMT OIYL110M SCHOOL PLA.HT PLA.H>IIMG AHO COHSTRUCTI OH URYICESOI VlSIOH .lO..U MISTR.lTIYE SERVICES DIVISION �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA , ,--------, J L L-----r---• ~ ~:T~ L~:H~l~A.:° I si:~[~~: tgi;~,oF : ,U U.HTA-F ULTOH COUHTT I ~ I AT L ~ ;1!:12:53, 29 December 2017 (EST) ~UHTT I L __~J143.215.248.55r__ J I I 1969 i J ELECTORATE jArl~~rt/143.215.248.55;~fU HTTI L-143.215.248.55s.~11~_j 11 l r r-s-;:;;;;:.: ;:;-7 -jrJu143.215.248.551~; 7 I L ~c~ E~l~U2_H~i.:, J . OFEOUCAT IO H I ,--------, I NETIIOPOLITAH SOtOOL I IL, OEVEL01'NU4T COUMOL _____ _ _ JI ~--~-.---~ ~==================:::::;,;::::=======================G =EN:E::RA:L::M:UN=IC jl _)::LG=O =VE=RN: M [::NT=============:::;:========*=====================;i: l ATLANT A CHILDIIOI AHO TOUTH SERVICES COUHCI L CITIZENS' AOVU,ORT COIIU4J TTEE FOR URIAH IIEN[WAL COM,MUNITT IIELAT10NS COIIU4JUION CH!tf" AOMIHISTRATIV[ ornCCR ANO AOM IHISTRAT1VC ST>.rr I I 1 , I SIJP ERlHTEHOENT PEIISOMH[L 104110 I I PUSOIOI EL DEPAIITNEH T PUBLIC HOUSING OIVISIO H URIAH RENCW.t.L [)I VISIO H :, ATLAKTA TIIAfFIC COURT 1'LAHHIHG AHO OEVEL 01'N EHT COMMITT EE II I 1 J I FIIO.HCE COI.IMI TTU 1 1 ( I 1 I IL ____ _ I I __ ____ J1 ,----- .1 ____, PLAHMIMG DEPAII TMENT OTT CL ERK I i._ _ 9U ILD1HG J.HD ATttLETIC COMMI TTEE PURCHUI MC COl,l,NI TTU I I I 9UILotHG C.ODE AD VUOIIT 90.UD ADV. I Q OM PLUM91 MG.utDSAHIT AR TA X AUEUOR _ _ _______ l J PURCH,U l MC. DEPARTMENT 7 , PLUNIIMC. UAMIMIHC. IOARD PLUM91 HG AOY ISOIIT90U O ELECTRICAL EU.Nl~MC. ao uo "1 ELECTl1CA L ADYISllllT &OARD -1 -I 1 rncAHC[ OCPAAT M[NT 1-:-,: ,;c-:,:-~:..,:::-';'c:,c~~::c:-:::,c::-" -::,cc:-=~«:..=.-I~ ~ aou o oF Fru lolA$Tf:U IUILOIHC. COM.Ml TT EE I I I PUI LI C WOIU COM.NJTTEE I I FI I EOEP..tJITNUU AOMIHISTRAT1V E AUIST .t.MT OFFICl!OFTlll! COlolPTROLLEII PEUONHEL OIVISIOH r 1 ATLANT.t. MUH IO PAL COURT COOROI HATOR FOR CCJM,LUHlTT RELAT IOHS IIJI LDIMC.IMiPECTIOM Of:PAIITNU4 T _J PU 9LJC WORU DEPAIITMEMT PAII U NIO CUIETEIT DE1'AITMEHT OIVISIOMOF IHURUCTIOH RUURCHNIO OE VELO PMU4T otV ISIOM SCHOOL PLAHT PLt.MM1MC. AHO COttSTRUCTIOH SERV1CUOIVI SI OH ADMIHl5TRAT1VE ~EIIV1CUOIVISl0t'I �PRESENT ORGANIZATION CITY GOVERNMENT OF ATLANTA, GEORGIA 1969 ,----------, I s%~~'g! 28~:;YoF ,---------, L-----r ___ , I I Ml!TR0,.OLlTAH SOWOL I I 0fVEL0,.MEHT COUHO L I I I L--- ATL.ulTA CHILDRf:H AHO YDU TH SERVICES COUNCIL CITIZl!MS'ADV ISOIIY CO-a TTEE FOR UIIIIAM IIEMEWAL CDMM.IJMITY RELATIDMS C0M.l(JHID M ____ J CH IEF A0MIH ISTAATIV[ OHICER ANO I ADM IHISTRATIV[ STArr I I I WP ERtHTfHDEHT 7I C:OORDIHAT'OR PU!oOHHEl 110.UD I I I I E JCECUTIYI! DIRECTOR COORDIHA TOR fOR I I I I I COMM UH\ TT UL ATIOHS I 0FFICE0I' TliE COMPTROLL ER I I I - :,I r ( I ATLAHTo\ MUHlOP AL COURT ATLANTA TRAFFIC COURT I I I I L----- flHAHCE C01,11,11TTU: I I I PUR CHASI HG COMWI TTEE 0lVUIOHOf IHSTR LICTIOH I ~----+----~, .----- J. ____ , I I I I J II I ______ JI I TA.XUSESSOR I L---------·- -J 1--------~7 AD'(aD.DH "LUMIIIHGAH0SAHITAR , PLUMlll HG U"-"'lH tHG 110.U0 PLUMII IHG ADVISORY 104110 EL"TRICAL U.U.UHIHG IOARD -j ELEC TRICAL ADYIIORY IOAR0 Hl!AT,AHDYtHT.AD VISORTCOMlit. PUROtA!.IHG DEPARTMENT LAW 0EPARTM(HT -i 1 1 >--"-"-'-' _,._.,_.._._,.... _ ,_,.,_••_. ., rlHAHC[ 0 CPAltTM[Nl , ~ IULLOIHG COMtitlT TU I I I I PUIILICWORU CONiM.ITTfE PARUCOMMITTU PUB LIC WORU DEPARTMf:HT PAU:5 AHO COU! TERT OtPAIITMl!HT I FIRE D!PAR TMEHT AOlr,UHl$TRATIVE ASl!STAHT POLICf. OEPARTMl!HT TRAFF IC 0EPARTM~T IIUI LOIHGIHSPECTIOH DEPARTMEHT _J _____ JI Rf:Sl!ARCH AH O Ol!Vfl0PMOIT DIV IS.OH SOIOOL PL Al(T PLAlfHIMG AHO COMSTRUC TI 0H SERVICES DIVIS.OH ADMINI ST RATIVE SERVICES DIVISIOH �·'" .]_4l.A_ Fjy.~~ r' - .. ',.. THE ATLANT A CONSTITUTION, Tues., July 29, 1969 16,(;~'W"'~9:R·" ' ",~---~·w---:.r-TT"-"'··w~-:n~ "-'"?"t-··~-.,,~·.. ·.--· ......... '-·---~r'?'"'.·~- ~ ":'~.., . ~, ..· · . . '1 .1 ~ 1 ~ . ,i I ~ I tc_: Q~"\.\u s. I. I . ,,l'\j i .I \ i \ \ YOUNGSTERS ENGAGE 1N RELAY AT GRADY STADIUM: Foot Race Is Depicted In 'Swinging Summer' I · -- - - - A § JI 11 1P) 2 PUD1ic II §~<e JU,- - - -- . { _f "° 0 r ~II a]_Jr§ •P.rogram§ Tofillight .. By PAUL JONES . Two TV specials which have something pertinent to say about t axes and r ecreation. will be .presented Tuesday by Channel 5. ·.. The first, "Swinging Summer ," a filmed story of what's going on in the Atlanta Parks · · Phyllis and cameraman Dan .Keever and producer Michael Fields spent several weeks pu tting together the special which depicts such areas. as a basketball clinic conducted !,, ,.i,~,,;. 9.30 p.m. by stars of the Atlanta Hawks , golf lessons, track meets, 1::;f /::'": ly ~: : drama classes, guitar lessons, r.::c:c:: 1.· .·.:¥.~r'/.·'.i.;'/·"'j·•· the. Channel 5 arts a nd crafts, bus trips into ·.-~(;?rt ,t;."-; • news departthe country, visits to Channel \'<, ment will of5, the Coca-Cola Co. , and othf ··.: !r:_ ,:Ji. ·, ~ fer a discus~r indus tries to say nothing l'-'~i:L~'-' '"° sion program Pa'.J ! Jor.cg i n V O} V i n g of the various activities on playgrounds and in pools in Clark Harrison, chairman of _the Atlanta area. the DeKalb Coun ty Commission , and Homer Cronin , chair• The "Swinging Summer" will a fford Atlanta area viewm an of the Republican party .ers a better picture of what is in DeKalb County. They will going on in and around the discuss taxes. .city. Thousands will see activ"Swinging Summer" is a ity they never dreamed took happy program. We can't say place here. the same for the di scussion . In the fin ale the program progra m at 10 p.m . will offer a montage of the ,· P hyllis Muller, who wrote many-sided progra m, high"Swinging Snmmer," said she lighted by a "block party" in was surprised to fi nd the great which under privileged yol!ngvariety of activity that exists sters are fed from mob ile in the Atlanta Pa rks and Reciunch rooms. reation Departmen t summ er . ,I: ll: '" program Rnd she said viewers will be agreeably surprised too. · t.tf.ii i;~~P\ !lt$f;'~tij I~~rl143.215.248.55f / F:: 0 .. / ·?,( ~- --=.-; ,.,,. { � Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 4, Complete Folder Box 2 Box 2 Folder 4 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/befbb93c80731e3f0a41e59bc765e8b4.pdf 0316a33e22dc374d30beb76b0b640468 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. ~ ' --. ·. - AN ORDINANCE BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, by ordinance of December 21, 1964, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, caused to be created a standing committee of the Board of Aldermen entitled Urban Renewal Policy Committee, as set forth in Section 2-40.2 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Atlanta, Georgia effective July I, 1965, as amended, and WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable and in the public interest that the number of standing committees of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia be reduced in number and that such action would be in keeping with the precedent established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen in 1967, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the functions and responsibilities of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee can readily and expeditiously be transferred to another standing committee of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, namely, the Planning and Development Committee, and WHEREAS, such action should increase and improve communications between and coordination of activities of both the City of Atlanta, Georgia and its urban renewal agent, the Atlanta Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta as follows: I. That Section 2-40. 2 of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby repealed and the Urban Renewal Policy Committee is abolished. 2. That Section 2-40.1 (b) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the follovving: (b)Membership. The Planning and Development Committee shall be composed of eight (8) members of the Board of Aldermen appointed by th e Mayor and two (2) advis.ory me mbe rs from th e Housing �.---c ~--1-, l I -2- Authority of the City of Atlanta appointed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. The Housing Authority members of this committee shal I have the power to vote only on those items of housing and urban renewal which are going before the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners for further action. The Mayor shcil I appoint from the Board of Aldermen the chairman of said committee and the other seven (7) members. The Mayor sh al I appoint the Planning and Development Committee so that a representation is obtained of aldermanic committees concerned with community development, redevelopment, and improvement. 3. That Section 2-40.1 (c) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in Ii2u thereof the fol lowing: (c) Functions, responsibilities. Th is Planning and Development Committee shall have the primary responsibility to review and coordinate the short and long range plans and programs of all city efforts in the fields of community development, redevelopment, housing, foe ii ities and improvements, and to make suggestions to other appropriate aldermanic committees and to recommend actions and policies for adoption by the Board of Aldermen to insure maximum coordination and the highest quality of urban community development throughout the City. This responsibility shall include but is not limited to the review and evaluation of the elements of the comprehensive (general) plan development by the Planning Department with guidance from the Atlanta - Fulton County Joint Planning Board; th is comprehensive plan to be composed of at least a �r ~-·rr =-= - -· - - ~ I -3land use plan, transportation plan and a community facilities plan with public improvements program. The committee shal I further be responsible for developing pol icy recommendations on al I other matters concerning the planning and coordination of future city developments including, specifically, the Community Improvement Program (CIP), Open Space, Urban Beautification, the 1962 Federal Highway Act, the Workable Program for Community Improvement, Urban Renewal and Neighborhood Development Program, preliminary and project or execution plans, and other related urban renewal matters formerly under the responsibi Iity of the Urban Renewal Committee or the Urban Renewal Policy Committee. The Committee shall further review all applications for federal grants that are referred from the Grants Review Board for planning considerations to determine their conformity with adopted overall plans and policies for the development of the City. BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict.with this Ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document AN ORDINANCE BY PLANNING AND DEVELOPMENT COMMITTEE WHEREAS, by ordinance of December 21, 1964, the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, caused to be created a standing committee of the Board of Aldermen entitled Urban Renewal Policy Committee, as set forth in Section 2-40.2 of the Code of Ordinances, City of Atlanta, Georgia effective July |, 1965, as amended, and WHEREAS, it is deemed desirable and in the public interest that the number of standing committees of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia be reduced in number and that such action would be in keeping with the precedent established by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen in 1967, and WHEREAS, it has been determined that the functions and responsibilities of the Urban Renewal Policy Committee can readily and expeditiously be transferred to another standing committee of the Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta, Georgia, namely, the Planning and Development Committee, and WHEREAS, such action should increase and improve communications between and coordination of activities of both the City of Atlanta, Georgia and its urban renewal agent, the Atlanta Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta, Georgia. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT ORDAINED by the Mayor and Board of Aldermen of the City of Atlanta as follows: |. That Section 2-40.2 of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby repealed and the Urban Renewal Policy Covamnitt@e is abolished. 2. That Section 2-40. (b) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following; (b) Membership. The Planning and Development Committee shall be composed of eight (8) members of the Board of Aldermen appointed by the Mayor and two (2) advisory members from the Housing  3. = Authority of the City of Atlanta appointed by the Chairman of the Housing Authority of the City of Atlanta. The Housing Authority members of this committee shall have the power to vote only on those items of housing and urban renewal which are going before the Housing Authority's Board of Commissioners for further action. The Mayor shall appoint from the Board of Aldermen the chairman of said committee and the other seven (7) members. The Mayor shall appoint the Planning and Development Committee so that a representation is obtained of aldermanic committees concerned with community development, redevelopment, and improvement. That Section 2-40.| (c) of the Code of the City of Atlanta is hereby amended by striking said paragraph in its entirety and inserting in lieu thereof the following: (c) Functions, famonabtlutes, This Planning and Development Committee shall have the primary responsibility to review and coordinate the short and long range plans and programs of all city efforts in the fields of community development, redevelopment, housing, facilities and improvements, and to make suggestions to other appropriate aldermanic committees and to recommend actions and policies for adoption by the Board of Aldermen to insure maximum coordination and the highest quality of urban community development throughout the City. This responsibility shall include but is not limited to the review and evaluation of the elements of the comprehensive (general) plan development by the Planning Department with guidance from the Atlanta - Fulton County Joint Planning Board; this comprehensive plan to be composed of at least a L  9 land use plan, transportation plan and a community facilities plan with public improvements program. The committee shall further be responsible for developing policy recommendations on all other matters concerning the planning and coordination of future city developments including, specifically, the Community Improvement Program (CIP), Open Space, Urban Beautification, the 1962 Federal Highway Act, the Workable Program for Community Improvement, Urban Renewal and Neighborhood Development Program, preliminary and project or execution plans, and other related urban renewal matters formerly under the responsibility of the Urban Renewal Committee or the Urban Renewal Policy Committee. The Committee shall further review all applications for federal grants that are referred from the Grants Review Board for planning considerations to determine their conformity with adopted overall plans and policies for the development of the City. | BE IT FURTHER ORDAINED that all ordinances and parts of Ordinances in conflict with this Ordinance be and the same are hereby repealed.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 4, Document 1 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 4 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/63db5fb887a8374ce46eae8898907829.pdf 4f51f32afc5cf4134c18b0d4fd1a4888 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. C IT~Y OF .i\_TL TA. CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF ~ COLLIER B. GLADIN. Direccor February 20, 1969 MEMORANDUM i TO: Charles Davis and Bill Wofford FROM: CollierG ~ SUBJECT: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey Attached for your information is the step-by-step program which our staffs have jointly prepared for the update of our housing conditions data. As I understand Mr. Farris has given approval to our request to proceed with this study, and also I understand that our staffs met with representatives from IBM th is morning and all the equipment and cards have been ordered. I am very pleased with the action to date and want to thank you for your cooperation. CG/jp Attachment � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document CITY OF ATLANTA CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING _ COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director February 20, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Dayis and Bill Wofford ; A FROM: Collier oh” SUBJECT: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey Attached for your information is the step-by-step program which our staffs have jointly prepared for the update of our housing conditions data. As | understand Mr. Farris has given approval to our request to proceed with this study, and also | understand that our staffs met with representatives from IBM this morning and all the equipment and cards have been ordered. | am very pleased with the action to date and want to thank you for your cooperation. CG/ip ah Attachment  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 4, Document 2 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 4 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/d61df254ad5a2e5e290a9674bdaffff1.pdf 1a2597a6b8207f7e40d5a24bdb8fee23 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. I r T RAOFFICE To: MJE ! ORAiN UM DISPOSITION Collier Gladin and George Aldridge Distribut e From: Hold Jack, Helen File Subject: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey D1\TE February 18, 1969 February 19: Info. Only As first step In beginning housing conditions survey, approval for use of data processing time, personnel, and equipment must come from Mr. Milton Farris. This c:pproval must be gained prior to ordering cards and other tools for the housing inspectors to use in the field. Since it will take three to four weeks after the order is placed to receive th is equipment, it is imperative that approval from Mr. Farris be gained at the earliest possible date. February 19: Order cards and other data processing equipment. The actual date for this assignment will correspond to the date final approval for computer use is gained. February 21: Rough draft of procedural manual for field inspections will be submitted to GP.orge, John Watson, Collier, Jim Smith, and Bill Wofford for approval of form and information. February 28: Procedural manual will be completed, printed and distributed to housing inspectors and other interested persons, such as training personnel and non-inspecting members of the Housing Code Division and Planning Department. - February 21 : Definitions pertaining to housing conditions that are now in use by various agencies involved in the city's housing problems wi 11 be collected and assembled . Fe bruary 26: From the assembled information, the Planning Department will prepa re a list of de fi nit ions result ing from a consensus of opinion a nd mail these defin it ions to the in terested agen cie s by this da te . 0 0 0 0 �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Two February 28: Representatives of the agencies involved will meet to discuss the standardized definitions and reach final agreement. March 3: Final listing of standardized definitions will be submitted to the Housing Code Division to be used in the training program and actual survey. March 3: Intensive two-week training program for Housing Code Inspectors will begin. During these two weeks, the use of pun~h cards and check lists will be I I - explained to the inspectors, cost estimation procedures will be standardized through field observation, and the standardized definitions will be explained in the field to the inspectors. March 17: The inspectors, after completing the two-week intensive training program, will enter the field to begin the actual survey. March 17: Data Processing Divisie,n will have cards printed and ready to take into the field by the inspectors. Mr. Steve Carlson of Data Processing will supervise the printing of original cards and programming of collected information back into computer. June 20: Completion of field survey for entire city will take place on this <!_ate, allowing the inspectors 14 weeks in the field. June 23: By this date, collected, standardized information on every housing structure in the city will have been submitted- to the Data Processing Division by the I Housing Code. Running of computer program to give information necessary fo r developing Housing Code Compliance Program will begin at this time. �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Three July 14: Computer printouts of necessary housing data wil I be presented to the Housing Code Division. That is, complete original information on conditions of structures within the city will be in the hands of the Housing Code Division at th is time. August I: Housing Code Compliance Program for n•~xt five years wi Ii be prepared jointly by Planning Department and Housing Code Division by this date. I . September I: Housing Code Compliance Program will be incorporated into application for Workable Program Recertification by the Planning Department. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document INTRAOFFICE MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION To: Collier Gladin and George Aldridge Distribute From: Jack, Helen Hold File Info. Only Subject: = Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey DATE February 18, 1969 February 19: February 19: February 21: February 28: February 2: February 26: As first step in beginning housing conditions survey, approval for use of data processing time, personnel, and equipment must come from Mr. Milton Farris. This cipproval must be gained prior to ordering cards and other tools for the housing inspectors to use in the field. Since it will take three to four weeks after the order is placed to receive this equipment, it is imperative that approval from Mr. Farris be gained at the earliest possible date. Order cards and other data processing equipment. The actual date for this assignment will correspond to the date final approval for computer use is gained. Rough draft of procedural manual for field inspections will be submitted to George, John Watson, Collier, Jim Smith, and Bill Wofford for approval of form and information. Procedural manual will be completed, printed and distributed to housing inspectors and other interested persons, such as training personnel and non-inspecting members of the Housing Code Division and Planning paparieene, Definitions pertaining to housing conditions that are now in use by various agencies involved in the city's housing problems will be collected and assembled. From the assembled information, the Planning Department will prepare a list of definitions resulting from a consensus of opinion ai mail these definitions to the interested agencies by this date. OOOO MEMORAND UM February 18, 1969 Page Two February 28; Representatives of the agencies involved will meet to discuss the standardized March 3: March 3: March |7: March |7: June 20: June 23: definitions and reach final agreement. Final listing of standardized definitions will be submitted to the Housing Code Division to be used in the training program and actual survey. Intensive two-week training program for Housing Code Inspectors will begin. During these two weeks, the use of punch cards and check lists will be explained to the inspectors, cost estimation procedures will be standardized through field observation, and the standardized definitions will be explained in the field to the inspectors. The inspectors, after completing the two-week intensive training program, will enter the field to begin the actual survey. Data Processing Division will have cards printed and ready to take into the field by the inspectors. Mr. Steve Carlson of Data Processing will supervise the printing of original cards and programming of collected information back into computer. , Completion of field survey for entire city will take place on this date, allowing the inspectors 14 weeks in the field. By this date, collected, standardized information on every housing structure in the city will bie been submitted to the Data Processing Division by the Housing Code. Running of computer program to give information necessary for developing Housing Code Compliance Program will begin at this time. MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Three July 14: Computer printouts of necessary housing data will be presented to the Housing Code Division. That is, complete original information on conditions of structures within the city will be in the hands of the Housing Code Division at this time. August |: Housing Code Compliance Program for next five years wili be prepared jointly by Planning Department and Housing Code Division by this date. September |: Housing Code Compliance Program will be incorporated into application for Workable Program Recertification by the Planning Department.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 4, Document 3 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 4 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/12dd901f1edf869e40e53936281dca7b.pdf b7748e3bf97ae05c5195a6dc6bd8d7c2 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. C ITY OF .ATLANTA. 1 CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director February 20, 1969 MEMORANDUM t' TO: Charles Davis and Bill Wofford FROM: CollierGl- ® J SUBJECT: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey Attached for your information is the step-by-step program which our staffs have_ jointly prepared for the update of our housing conditions data. As I understand Mr. Farris has given approval to our request to proceed with this study, and also I understanJ that our staffs met with representatives from IBM this morning and all the equipment and cards have been ordered. I am very pleased with the action to date and want to thank you for your cooperation . CG/jp Attachment � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document -)/ / / cIry OF ATLANTA CITY HALL ATLANTA, GA. 30303 Tel. 522-4463 Area Code 404 DEPARTMENT OF PLANNING COLLIER B. GLADIN, Director February 20, 1969 MEMORANDUM TO: Charles Davis and Bill Wofford FROM: Collier ole! ; SUBJECT: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey Attached for your information is the step-by-step program which our staffs have jointly prepared for the update of our housing conditions data. As | understand Mr. Farris has given approval to our request to proceed with this study, and also | understanu that our staffs met with representatives from IBM this morning and all the equipment and cards have been ordered. | am very pleased with the action to date and want to thank you for your cooperation. CG/jp = Attachment  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 4, Document 4 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 4 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969 https://ivanallen.iac.gatech.edu/mayoral-records/traditional/files/original/a9e21b4c81acf1c3785d56a2f3fb034b.pdf 32a8dc5a09555b5a485a99e0e638e762 Scripto Transcription A written representation of a document. I N TRAOFFICE MJEMO AN UM DISPOSITION To: Collier Gladin and George Aldridge Distribute From: Hold Jack, Helen Subject: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey DATE February 18, 1969 February 19: File D lrifo. Only 0 As first step in beginning housing conditions survey, approval for use of data processing time, personnel, and equipment must come from Mr. Milton Farris. This approval must be gained prior to o!·dering cards and other tools for the housing inspectors to use in the field. I - Since it will take three to four weeks after the order is placed to receive this equipment, it is imperative that I I approval from Mr. Farris be gained at the earliest possible date. February 19: Order cards and other data processing equipment. The actual date for this assignment will correspond to the date final approval for computer use is gained. February 21: Rough draft of procedural manual for field inspections will be submitted to George, John Watson, Collier, Jim Smith, and Bill Wofford for approval of form and information. February 28: Procedural manual wi 11 be completed, printed and distributed to housing inspectors and other _interested persons, such as training personnel and non-inspecting members of the Housing Code Division and Planning Department. -- February 21 : Definitions pertaining to housing conditions that are now in use by various agencies involved in the city's housing problems will be collected and assembled. February 26: From the assembled information, the -Planning Department will prepare a list of definitions resulting from a consensus of opinion and mail these definitions to the interested agenc ie s by this date. 0 0 �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Two February 28: Representatives of the agencies involved will meet to discuss the standardized definitions and reach final agreement. March 3: Final listing of standardized definitions will be submitted to the Housing Code Division to be used in the training program and actual survey. March 3: Intensive two-week training program for Housing Code Inspectors will begln. During these two weeks, the use of punch cards and check Iists will be explained to the inspectors, cost estimation procedures will be standardized through field observation, and the standardized definitions will be explained in the field to the inspectors. March 17: The inspectors, after completing the two-week intensive training program, · will enter the field to begin the actual survey. March 17: Data Processing Division will have cards pdnted and read:,- to take into the field by the inspectors. Mr. Steve Carlson of Data Processing will supervise the printing of original cards and programming of collected information back into computer. June 20: Completion of field survey for entire city will take place on this ~ate, allowing the inspectors 14 weeks in the field. June 23: By this date, collected, standardized information on every housing structure in the city will have been submitted to the Data .Processing Division by the Housing Code. Running of computer program to give information necessary for developing Housing Code Comp Iiance Program wi II begin at th is time. �MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Three July 14: Computer printouts of necessary housing data will be presented to the Housing Code Division. That is, complete original information on conditions of structures within the city will be in the hands of the Housing Code Division at this time. August I: Housing Code Compliance Program for next five years will be prepared jointly by Planning Department and Housing Code Division by this date. September I: Housing Code Compliance Program will be incorporated into application for Workable Program Recertification by the Planning Department. � Text A resource consisting primarily of words for reading. Examples include books, letters, dissertations, poems, newspapers, articles, archives of mailing lists. Note that facsimiles or images of texts are still of the genre Text. Text Any textual data included in the document INTRAOFFICE MEMORANDUM DISPOSITION To: i din and Idrid ° Collier Gladin and George Aldridge cn = From: Jack, Helen Hold a. File ml Info. Only CJ Subject: Schedule for Completion of Housing Conditions Survey DATE February 18, 1969 February 19: February 19; February 21: February 28; As first step in beginning housing conditions survey, approval for use of data processing time, personnel, and equipment must come from Mr. Milton Farris. This approval must be gained prior to ordering cards and other tools for the housing inspectors to use in the field. Since it will take three to four weeks after the order is placed to receive this equipment, it is imperative that approval from Mr. Farris be gained at the earliest possible date. Order cards and other data processing equipment. The actual date for this assignment will correspond to the date final approval for computer use is gained. Rough draft of procedural manual for field inspections will be submitted to George, John Watson, Collier, Jim Smith, and Bill Wofford for approval of form and information. Procedural manual will be completed, printed and distributed to housing inspectors and other interested persons, such as training personnel and non-inspecting ~ members of the Housing Code Division and Planning Department. - February 2I; February 26: Definitions pertaining to housing conditions that are now in use by various agencies involved in the city's housing problems will be collected and assembled. From the assembled information, the Planning Department will prepare a list of definitions resulting from a consensus of opinion ad mail these definitions to the interested agencies by this date. MEMORAND UM February 18, 1969 Page Two February 28; Representatives of the agencies involved will meet to discuss the standardized March 3: March 3: March I7: March |7: June 20: June 23: definitions and reach final agreement. Final listing of standardized definitions will be submitted to the Housing Code Division to be used in the training program and actual survey. Intensive two-week training program for Housing Code Inspectors will begin. During these two weeks, the use of punch cards and check lists will be explained to the inspectors, cost estimation procedures will be standardized through field observation, and the standardized definitions will be explained in the field to the inspectors. The inspectors, after completing the two-week intensive training program, will enter the field to begin the actual survey. Data Processing Division will have cards printed and read; to take into the field by the inspectors. Mr. Steve Carlson of Data Processing will supervise the printing of original cards and programming of collected information back into computer. Completion of field survey for entire city will take place on this date, allowing the inspectors 14 weeks in the field. By this date, collected, standardized information on every housing structure in the city will have been submitted to the Data Processing Division by the Housing Code. Running of computer program to give information necessary for developing Housing Code Compliance Program will begin at this time. MEMORANDUM February 18, 1969 Page Three July 14: August I: September |: Computer printouts of necessary housing data will be presented to the Housing Code Division. That is, complete original information on conditions of structures within the city will be in the hands of the Housing Code Division at this time. Housing Code Compliance Program for next five years will be prepared jointly by Planning Department and Housing Code Division by this date. Housing Code Compliance Program will be incorporated into application for Workable Program Recertification by the Planning Department.  Dublin Core The Dublin Core metadata element set is common to all Omeka records, including items, files, and collections. For more information see, http://dublincore.org/documents/dces/. Title A name given to the resource Box 2, Folder 4, Document 5 Box 2 Box 2 Folder 4 Folder topic: Planning department | 1969