FANs, we have an opportunity to voice our thoughts about neighborhood planning and neighborhood planning contact teams (NPCTs). Let me know if you are interested in participating.,
The Assistant City Auditor, Walt Persons, is managing an audit of neighborhood planning. The City Council approved the audit as a part of the work plan for the office of the City Auditor for Fiscal Year 2015-16. Staff has completed an initial review of documents and internal interviews to better understand current practices and policies. The audit is now in a stage calling for the feedback of a number of community stakeholders and groups.
A representative has reached out to FAN and would like to get the perspectives and experiences of the organization on this topic. FAN as an organization has not adopted a particular position on the topic, but our vision speaks to general principles that we would want the neighborhood planning process to embrace.
They are shooting for the first week of January Who is available that week and would like to participate?
A couple of thoughts on contact teams: First, I think we need to advocate that these small groups of people NOT have disproportionate influence. Ideally, their powers would be administrative only and they would not have any influence on the content of any small area plan. Secondly, I think the city staff needs to commit to the principle (recently embraced officially by the city council in its vote on ADU’s) that the desires of any individual neighborhood or other small area must give way to the needs of the citywide community wherever the two are in conflict, and that the contact team members must understand that principle, and conduct themselves accordingly whenever acting in their official capacity. Of course, this is one of the main tenets of FAN’s vision statement.
And I should be available first week of January, depending on
the day of the week. As an at large member, would I be a good
choice for attending (or not)?
In my opinion, to get the reform we want in the neighborhood planning process we have to separate Neighborhood Plans and Contact Teams into two distinct but connected issues.
The City is currently making the right kinds of adjustments for Contact Teams, as included in their draft recommendations here: http://www.austintexas.gov/edims/document.cfm?id=243827 That said, there is tremendous opportunity for FANs and Contact Team members to weigh in here on ideas for improvement that have not already been shared, or possible revisions to the draft recommendations (for example, one thing I’ve noted is that the grievance process against a Contact Team appears to limited to actual members of the contact team, and not non-members in the planning area–I’d like to get some clarification on precisely whom can file a grievance).
The second issue is that the Contact Teams are by definition merely shepherds of the Neighborhood Plan. Some in my Contact Team (Upper Boggy Creek) chafe at the name “contact team” and regard themselves as a “planning team” (I’m in some agreement here). But the current language governing Contact Teams is fairly limiting and relies heavily upon aging Neighborhood Plans that are extraordinarily difficult to update.
So the next question is: how do reform Neighborhood Plans to make them more “living” documents, which are not only easier to update and maintain but would in fact have a requirement that City- and Neighborhood Planning teams update on a reasonably regular basis?
Contact Team reform is important but not sufficient to get the kind of responsive, progressive small area planning that we need.
I agree, @brwittstruck. Contact team reform is not enough. We need to truly change how the neighborhood plans can be amended and updated. In my opinion, it should be the job of our elected officials and the city staff to make these changes. They have to plan at the city level, and this type of perspective will allow them to update neighborhood plans in a way that benefits the city as a whole.
Of course, I think the best course of action would be to just eliminate neighborhood plans altogether as part of CodeNEXT. This would also have the added benefit of making contact teams irrelevant.
@rickyhennessy I’d also like to see the current plans mothballed as part of CodeNEXT. Fresh start. Bring the City, neighborhood planners (and ideally a third-party consultant) together to craft new Neighborhood/Small Area plans, overlap them at key Imagine Austin corridors, make sure they are reasonably consistent with one another and more importantly that they have a mechanism for being maintained/revised/updated. Contact teams would be re-engaged as planning teams. I think it would be a win for everyone, but the road there will be rocky.
I asked the city how many Neighborhood Plan Amendments had been initiated by Contact Teams over the past 10 years. I have not independently verified their response, but I was told there have been six:
Central East Austin PCT – Amended infill options (had associated zoning case)
Upper Boggy Creek PCT - amended design tools and created subdistricts (had associated zoning case)
North Austin Civic Association (NACA) PCT – NPA-2008-0007.01 – amended text in plan
Montopolis PCT – Created Parks chapter and added trail map
Central East PCT – Amended land use on one property
I’ve heard Neighborhood Plans were designed to be reviewed and updated every 5 years or so. If it holds that only 6 NPs in 10 years have been amended at the request of the Contact Teams, that seems awfully inflexible.
All, this meeting will be with FANs. The audit’s objective is to answer the following two questions:
• Are the city’s communication and governance structures effective in supporting neighborhood planning efforts?
• Are the city’s neighborhood planning efforts aligned with Imagine Austin?
For this of you interested in representing FAN and its vision in this meeting, please throw out some days and times that work for you next week.
I’m afraid I won’t be able to attend during work hours but here are my thoughts, if anyone’s keeping score:
Are the city’s neighborhood planning efforts aligned with Imagine Austin?
Well, no. Duh. NPs were written before IACP and therefore are not structure to respond to its priorities or action items. NPs are an important tool for IACP (as small area plans) but they need to be refined in three critical ways:
Reorganize plans according to 7 IACP Building Blocks (Land Use/Transportation, Housing/Neighborhoods, Economy, Conservation/Environment, City Facilities/Services, Society, Creativity) and in accordance with Core Priniciples
Restructure plans to require an update at least every 2 years and require that updates be publicly vetted by community and public officials; in doing so, NP Contact Teams should be restructured as Planning Teams and subject to open meetings oversight with City staff support (including web support).
Restructure plans so that individual NPs conform to one another in structure for greater clarity and alignment.