CHC 1979-06-12 - Laserfiche WebLink

Home

We' ll have the Planning Department. MR. FUKE: Mr. Chairman, do you want me to just answer questions or to give some of my impressions as far as what the proposed merger is?_2 CHAIRMAN SAKATA: I think we' ll hear from you first and then maybe the commissioners will ask questions , later on. MR. FUKE: Thank you, Mr. Chairman, again for giving me this--actually, this third opportunity to speak before the commission. I tried to scribble down some notes as far as what my thoughts were with respect to the proposed merger of the R & D and the Planning Department, so after I do read it I ' ll have it retyped and give it to your secretary and also make it available to the various Charter Commission members. Generally, the organizational theory behind the proposed merger of the Planning and the Research and Development Department is this. . .similar, or like things should all be housed under one roof. In so doing, greater efficiency would • be achieved and important tax dollars could be saved. As expressed at your earlier meeting, I do not support the proposed merger. Let me explain by first giving you my understanding of the functions of the Planning Department. One of the principle functions of the Planning Department, I believe, is to coordinate all land use activities, private and public. In so doing, the department is involved in considera- tions ranging from water, drainage, sewer, roads, historic sites, parks and, yes, economic implications. And after assessing all of those considerations, we then arrive at a decision or a recommendation. The Planning Department is thus viewed as trying to balance all considerations. The physical with the social with the economic environment. And to accomplish that, we must interact with the other agencies and the public. This is why I earlier commented to this commission that I .:thought that the Planning Department functioned, to some extent, like the central nervous system of a body. To generate and maintain public credibility is a full time and tough assignment of any agency, particularly one with planning functions. We have constantly strived to create a spirit of openness, combined with fairness, in arriving at a decision which reflects many, many concerns. Much to my disappointment, but understandably, we have seen in the past and even now, how the Planning Department has been wrongfully branded as being pro-development, or anti-development, or pro-environment, or anti-environment. Such labels are almost inevitable. Especially for an agency like ours that gets involved in making decisions where the applicant does not always have his own way. One of the major tasks of this office does is to convey, or provide, land use directions with an atmosphere of objectivity and neutrality. To get immersed or charged with one function , such as economic development or environmental protection , the Planning Department stands to lose the much needed quality of being objective. -4-