Backup — original pdf

Backup

EQUITY-BASED HISTORIC PRESERVATION PLAN Briefing to Asian American Quality of Life Advisory Commission—March 15, 2022 GOAL Replace Austin’s 1981 preservation plan with an inclusive, equity-focused, and community- oriented process and outcome WHY NOW? • Substantial population growth • High development pressure • Existing preservation plan approved in 1981 WHY NOW? EQUITY + COMMUNITY • How can we better recognize, preserve, and share important places and stories? • How can preservation policies and tools address essential issues like sustainability, affordability, and displacement? • How can citizens co-create preservation policies? ) t h g i r ( i n o s u c n l I l i a c o S d n a n o i t a v r e s e r P , ) r e t n e c d n a t f e l ( n i t s u A f o y t i C / r i a h C n e p O : s e g a m I EQUITY + COMMUNITY Images (clockwise from top): Westside Preservation Alliance/Esperanza Peace and Justice Center, Columbia University, City and County of San Francisco, Calle 24 Latino Cultural District, National Trust for Historic Preservation, San Antonio Office of Historic Preservation HISTORY MATTERS HISTORY MATTERS HISTORY MATTERS Historic landmark COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS Professional facilitator Community heritage survey Focus: vision for plan City staff from 12 departments Focus groups Cultural and heritage organizations, legacy businesses, neighborhood associations COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS Preservation Plan Working Group Recruitment through community partners $25/hour compensation available Laptop and wifi hotspot loans available COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS Preservation Plan Working Group 150 applicants Multipronged selection process – Short answers – Stakeholder representation – Lived experience + geographic diversity COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS 29 community members 22 ZIP codes 17 members opting into compensation AUSTIN WORKING GROUP COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS ✓ Affordable housing advocate ✓ Archaeologist ✓ Architect ✓ Attorney ✓ Business owner ✓ City board or commission ✓ Community member ✓ Contractor ✓ Developer ✓ Economic development organization ✓ Educational institution ✓ Engineer ✓ Heritage organization ✓ Heritage tourism professional ✓ Historic property owner ✓ Historical commission (City, County, State) ✓ Landscape architect ✓ Neighborhood association ✓ Preservation organization ✓ Preservation consultant ✓ Religious institution ✓ Social justice organization ✓ Urban planner/planning organization LAYING THE FOUNDATION LAYING THE FOUNDATION MEETING SCHEDULE – PHASE 1 Apr. May Enforcement and protection Outreach, education, engagement Review and next steps June June (2) Final review, next steps Review recommendations Essential Background and Process July ’21 Introduction and goals Aug. Sept. Equity workshop Decision-making Topics Oct. Vision for the plan / Heritage in Austin Tangible heritage Intangible heritage Nov. Dec. Feb. ’22 Incentives Mar. Processes and fees MEETING SCHEDULE – PHASE 1 Essential Background and Process July ’21 Introduction and goals Aug. Sept. Equity workshop Decision-making Community heritage survey Topics Oct. Vision for the plan / Heritage in Austin Tangible heritage Intangible heritage Nov. Dec. Feb. ’22 Incentives Mar. Processes and fees Apr. May Enforcement and protection Outreach, education, engagement Review and next steps June June (2) Final review, next steps Review recommendations Focus group conversations: 1) Collect input for working group discussion 2) Get feedback on draft recommendations 3) Engage key stakeholder groups PROCESS VISION Historic preservation in Austin actively engages communities in protecting and sharing important places and stories. Preservation uses the past to create a shared sense of belonging and to shape an equitable, inclusive, sustainable, and economically vital future for all. EQUITY EVALUATION FRAMEWORK Does the proposed recommendation… 1. Reinforce the plan’s vision? If Yes, does the proposed recommendation… Yes / No - 0 + No / Neutral Yes / harms benefits 2. Respect community-based knowledge? Is it based on community-identified needs and input? 3. Increase equitable access to information about historic preservation and equip people to take action? Is it clear to people without previous preservation experience? 4. Recognize and honor the cultures, historic assets, traditions, and stories of historically underrepresented communities in meaningful ways? 5. Ground its reasoning and expected outcomes in good practices around equity, including racially disaggregated data? 6. Balance big-picture thinking with specific, actionable, measurable items that recognize and redress historical inequities, both isolated and systemic? 7. Improve access to preservation policies, programs, tools, and incentives for Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC) and low-income communities? 8. Avoid creating financial or other burdens for BIPOC communities and low-income people? If yes, are there opportunities to mitigate these impacts? Does it place responsibility on institutions to address historical disparities in historic preservation policies, programs, and tools? 9. Advance affordability, economic opportunities, and environmental sustainability for everyone, and especially for BIPOC communities? If not, are there opportunities to do so? 10. Engage and empower BIPOC communities to actively participate in implementation? bit.ly/ATXpresplan THANK YOU elizabeth.brummett@austintexas.gov