City government for the future, p. 77 |
Save page Remove page | Previous | 77 of 253 | Next |
|
small (250x250 max)
medium (500x500 max)
Large (1000x1000 max)
Extra Large
large ( > 500x500)
Full Resolution
All (PDF)
|
This page
All
|
Loading content ...
64
CITY GOVERNMENT FOR THE FUTURE
tifies social and economic as well as physical goals. The
stated central goal of the Chicago general plan is to improve the quality of life through the implementation of
action programs which enlarge human opportunities, improve the environment, and strengthen and diversify the
economy. The plan views human welfare and the quality
of life as ends while physical development, social welfare,
and efficiency are means of achieving these objectives.
In Los Angeles the product of the planning process has
been limited to plans for physical development. Expansion
of the scope of planning will promote the adoption of
goals and policies for improving the overall quality of life
in the city. Such goals and policies will also permit the city
to exert more influence on policy formulation by other
governments. The city does not have to possess jurisdiction over the performance of a public service to express a
policy about it. Such expressions by the city on matters
under the jurisdiction of other governmental bodies follows a guiding principle of the Charter Commission that
the city government should concern itself with all the public needs of its citizens, including those for which it does
not directly provide the service. (Discussed in Chapter 4.)
ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE
To strengthen the planning function and make possible
the fulfillment of expanded scope, major changes are
advocated in the organization and structure of the Planning Department. These proposals are made in the light of
modern approaches to management and in the interest of
improving the representativeness of the city's Planning
Commission.
Director of Planning
Under the proposed charter, the Director of Planning is
the head of the Planning Department and responsible for
its management and control. He reports directly to the
Mayor, and his primary responsibility is to prepare and
develop the city's comprehensive general plan. In addition, he shares responsibility with the CAO for assisting
the Mayor in developing specific programs to implement
the comprehensive general plan, including the capital improvement program. He is the chairman of the Executive
Planning Coordinating Board and performs other duties as
prescribed by ordinance.
Placing the head of the planning agency directly under
the Mayor is consistent with the recent nationwide trend
to make planning an integral part of an executive staff.3 It
is also an element of the integrated management system
provided in the proposed charter. The Director of Planning will continue his current charter responsibility for
preparing the comprehensive general plan; however, as
explained earlier, its scope will be significantly enlarged.
Also carried over from the present charter is his role as
chairman of an executive planning coordinating board. As
the chief adviser to the Mayor on long-ranre planning '* *
Director of Planning should aid him in the dcvcloprr
programs to implement the plan, including assistance ..ith
the capital improvement program which is an essential element of long-range planning.
Planning Commission
The proposed charter establishes an eleven-member
Planning Commission, which advises the Director of
Planning on all matters related to the planning function,
including the preparation and amendment of the comprehensive general plan. The Commission may perform additional functions as assigned by ordinance. Specific powers,
which are discussed later, are allotted to an appeals committee of the Commission.
The proposed provisions regarding the Planning Commission's role in city planning will eliminate two problems
created by the present charter. First, existing charter provisions establish the Director of Planning as the head of
the Planning Department and also place him under the
"supervision" of the Commission for preparation of the
general plan. If he is to be the head of the department, he
should have full authority, under the supervision of the
Mayor, to perform the most important facet of his job-
preparation of the general plan. This is provided in the
proposed charter. Second, the present charter requires th<
Planning Commission's approval of the general p'
fore its adoption by the City Council. This leads to _u
sion as to which body actually has primary responsibilir
for approval of the city's general plan. As the governin
body, the Council should have the authority and responsi
bility to adopt the guiding policy for the city's social, ecc
nomic, and physical development. The proposed charte
clearly assigns tilts responsibility to the City Council.
The importance of citizen influence and involvement i
the planning process is stressed in the proposed charter..
significant change is the expansion of the Coramissic
from the present five to eleven members. The larg<
number will permit the inclusion of representatives from
wider range of geographic and community interests. At tl
same time, responsibility for all aspects of the plannii
function is specifically placed with the heads of the exec
tive and legislative branches. In the executive branch, r
sponsibflity rests with the Mayor and his appointed Dire
tor of Planning. In the legislative branch, the City Coun
has final responsibility for policy-making, including t
adoption of the general plan. The Planning Commission
expected to exercise its influence to the fullest and to ma
strong contributions to the planning process. Its r<
should remain a vital one.
New developments in the United States concerning n
resentativeness of planning bodies and citizen invol
ment in the planning process merit consideration by
city's policy-makers. In some sections, community ?*•»—*
boards are forming to advise the professionals i
Object Description
| Title | City government for the future, 1969-07 |
| Description | Section 2: City government for the future: report of the Los Angeles City Charter Commission. Los Angeles, California: Los Angeles City Hall, 1969 July. PART OF A SERIES: A critical component of the Commission's investigation centered on the idea that governance of the LAPD was shared between the Office of the Chief of Police, an administrative body, and the Board of Police Commissioners, a citizen body. To better understand the dynamic between these two entities, the staff of Heller, Ehrman, White, & McAuliffe researched the history of the Los Angeles City Charter, focusing primarily on its provisions regarding the distribution of power and the structure and organization of the LAPD. Included in the series are reproductions of reports, dissertations, article clippings, excerpts from city documents, and charter amendments related to the charter's conception and development over time. The series also includes several summaries of expert witness interviews regarding the effectiveness of this structure. |
| Coverage date | 1809; 1850/1974; 1984 |
| Publisher (of the original version) | Los Angeles City Hall |
| Place of publication (of the original version) | Los Angeles, California, USA |
| Publisher (of the digital version) | University of Southern California |
| Date issued | 1969-07 |
| Type | texts |
| Format | 253 p. |
| Format (aat) | reports |
| Format (imt) | application/pdf |
| Language | English |
| Contributing entity | University of Southern California |
| Part of collection | Independent Commission on the Los Angeles Police Department, 1991 |
| Series | Heller, Ehrman, White & McAuliffe |
| File | Los Angeles City document index |
| Box and folder | box 21, folder 7, item 3 |
| Provenance | The collection was given to the University of Southern California on July 31, 1991. |
| Rights | This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License. https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ All requests for permission to publish or quote from manuscripts must be submitted in writing to the Manuscripts Librarian. Permission for publication is given on behalf of Special Collections as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained. |
| Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Repository name | USC Libraries Special Collections |
| Repository address | Doheny Memorial Library, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189 |
| Repository email | specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Filename | indep-box21-07-03 |
Description
| Title | City government for the future, p. 77 |
| Format (imt) | image/tiff |
| Physical access | Contact: Special Collections, Doheny Memorial Library, Libraries, University of Southern California, Los Angeles, CA 90089-0189; specol@dots.usc.edu |
| Full text | 64 CITY GOVERNMENT FOR THE FUTURE tifies social and economic as well as physical goals. The stated central goal of the Chicago general plan is to improve the quality of life through the implementation of action programs which enlarge human opportunities, improve the environment, and strengthen and diversify the economy. The plan views human welfare and the quality of life as ends while physical development, social welfare, and efficiency are means of achieving these objectives. In Los Angeles the product of the planning process has been limited to plans for physical development. Expansion of the scope of planning will promote the adoption of goals and policies for improving the overall quality of life in the city. Such goals and policies will also permit the city to exert more influence on policy formulation by other governments. The city does not have to possess jurisdiction over the performance of a public service to express a policy about it. Such expressions by the city on matters under the jurisdiction of other governmental bodies follows a guiding principle of the Charter Commission that the city government should concern itself with all the public needs of its citizens, including those for which it does not directly provide the service. (Discussed in Chapter 4.) ORGANIZATION AND STRUCTURE To strengthen the planning function and make possible the fulfillment of expanded scope, major changes are advocated in the organization and structure of the Planning Department. These proposals are made in the light of modern approaches to management and in the interest of improving the representativeness of the city's Planning Commission. Director of Planning Under the proposed charter, the Director of Planning is the head of the Planning Department and responsible for its management and control. He reports directly to the Mayor, and his primary responsibility is to prepare and develop the city's comprehensive general plan. In addition, he shares responsibility with the CAO for assisting the Mayor in developing specific programs to implement the comprehensive general plan, including the capital improvement program. He is the chairman of the Executive Planning Coordinating Board and performs other duties as prescribed by ordinance. Placing the head of the planning agency directly under the Mayor is consistent with the recent nationwide trend to make planning an integral part of an executive staff.3 It is also an element of the integrated management system provided in the proposed charter. The Director of Planning will continue his current charter responsibility for preparing the comprehensive general plan; however, as explained earlier, its scope will be significantly enlarged. Also carried over from the present charter is his role as chairman of an executive planning coordinating board. As the chief adviser to the Mayor on long-ranre planning '* * Director of Planning should aid him in the dcvcloprr programs to implement the plan, including assistance ..ith the capital improvement program which is an essential element of long-range planning. Planning Commission The proposed charter establishes an eleven-member Planning Commission, which advises the Director of Planning on all matters related to the planning function, including the preparation and amendment of the comprehensive general plan. The Commission may perform additional functions as assigned by ordinance. Specific powers, which are discussed later, are allotted to an appeals committee of the Commission. The proposed provisions regarding the Planning Commission's role in city planning will eliminate two problems created by the present charter. First, existing charter provisions establish the Director of Planning as the head of the Planning Department and also place him under the "supervision" of the Commission for preparation of the general plan. If he is to be the head of the department, he should have full authority, under the supervision of the Mayor, to perform the most important facet of his job- preparation of the general plan. This is provided in the proposed charter. Second, the present charter requires th< Planning Commission's approval of the general p' fore its adoption by the City Council. This leads to _u sion as to which body actually has primary responsibilir for approval of the city's general plan. As the governin body, the Council should have the authority and responsi bility to adopt the guiding policy for the city's social, ecc nomic, and physical development. The proposed charte clearly assigns tilts responsibility to the City Council. The importance of citizen influence and involvement i the planning process is stressed in the proposed charter.. significant change is the expansion of the Coramissic from the present five to eleven members. The larg< number will permit the inclusion of representatives from wider range of geographic and community interests. At tl same time, responsibility for all aspects of the plannii function is specifically placed with the heads of the exec tive and legislative branches. In the executive branch, r sponsibflity rests with the Mayor and his appointed Dire tor of Planning. In the legislative branch, the City Coun has final responsibility for policy-making, including t adoption of the general plan. The Planning Commission expected to exercise its influence to the fullest and to ma strong contributions to the planning process. Its r< should remain a vital one. New developments in the United States concerning n resentativeness of planning bodies and citizen invol ment in the planning process merit consideration by city's policy-makers. In some sections, community ?*•»—* boards are forming to advise the professionals i |
| Filename | indep-box21-07-03~077.tif |
| Archival file | Volume68/indep-box21-07-03~077.tif |
