2.B - Briefing on equity-based historic preservation plan — original pdf

Backup

EQUITY-BASED PRESERVATION PLAN Historic Landmark Commission briefing—July 6, 2022 GOAL Replace Austin’s 1981 preservation plan with an inclusive, equity-focused, and community- oriented process and outcome GOAL • 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 ( l i i n o s u c n I l 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 COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS Professional facilitator Icons from the Noun Project: Community by Gan Khoon Lay, focus group by mikicon, committee by Adrien Coquet COMMUNITY-BASED PROCESS 26 community members 19 ZIP codes 13 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 (withdrew) ! Educational institution ! Engineer ! Heritage organization Heritage tourism professional (withdrew) ! Historic property owner ! Historical commission (City, County, State) Landscape architect (withdrew) ! Neighborhood association ! Preservation organization ! Preservation consultant ! Religious institution ! Social justice organization ! Urban planner/planning organization • 170 responses to community heritage survey • 19 people in 3 community focus groups COMMUNITY-BASED 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. CRITERIA FOR SUCCESS Yes / No - 0 + No / Neutral Yes / harms benefits CENTERING EQUITY Does the proposed recommendation… 1. Reinforce the plan’s vision? If Yes, does the proposed recommendation… 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? CREATING DRAFT RECOMMENDATIONS DIRECTION CREATION REVIEW REVISION Working group Drafting committee Working group Focus groups Drafting committee Rec added to draft plan equity framework Staff Technical Advisory Group Staff Dept. leadership DRAFT PLAN 110 recommendations for… • Inclusive identification, documentation, and designation of resources that tell Austin’s full story • Historic review process changes • New and improved incentives to encourage designation, support building maintenance and rehabilitation, preserve affordability and prevent displacement, and increase sustainability • Partnering with community members on outreach, engagement, and empowerment • Better protection of historic resources • Effective implementation of the plan • & more DRAFT PLAN 12 months 22 working group and drafting committee meetings 1,005+ working group hours 38 focus group hours 1,300+ staff hours (preservation staff only) PHASE 2 OUTREACH + ENGAGEMENT Broad, inclusive public engagement Invite people to share stories and build community around heritage Refine and prioritize recommendations Identify gaps in recommendations Increase public awareness of plan Hire community ambassadors Prioritize outreach and listening to historically underrepresented communities Continue consulting with working group Implementation groundwork Identify partners Estimate costs for priority recommendations Plan adoption Presentations to boards and commissions Presentation to Council Adoption by Council PHASE 2 OUTREACH + ENGAGEMENT One-time budget request for FY22-23 • Community engagement consultant $160,000 • 12 community ambassadors • Working group engagement Ongoing budget request starting in FY22-23 • Project manager to coordinate phase 2 and $140,000 manage plan implementation (permanent staff) Total budget request for FY22-23 $300,000 NEXT STEPS July-August Council sets FY2022-23 budget September Draft plan presented to Historic Landmark Commission Revision workshop with Preservation Plan Working Grp NEXT STEPS July-August Council sets FY2022-23 budget September Draft plan presented to Historic Landmark Commission Revision workshop with Preservation Plan Working Grp NEAR TERM * Tomorrow: fill out the scheduling survey for the revision workshop! * Next week: Staff will send informational flyer on the plan! bit.ly/ATXpresplan