Austin's Gilleland Creek District: State of the Community Report

Austin’s Gilleland Creek District State of the Community Report

UTSOA Spring 2017 | Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

The University of Texas at Austin School of Architecture Instructor Dr. Robert Paterson CRP386 Sustainable Land Use Planning, Spring 2017 Authors Daniel Alvarado, Ian Becker, Devin Oliver, Hannah Simonson & Lee Stevens

Part One State of the Community Report Context

Infrastructure

Folk

Economy

Environment

Housing

Land Use

Character

page 5

page 10

page 24

page 38

page 48

page 56

page 66

page 76

Source: Icons courtesy of the Noun Project.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

3

Part Two Suitability & Scenario Planning Development Suitability Analysis 86 Envision Tomorrow Scenario Planning 92 Scenario 1: Trend 94 Scenario 2: Complete Communities 96 Concept Map Future Land Use Map Narrative Summary Goals, Opportunities & Policies

98 99 100 104

Scenario 3: High Sustainability 112 Concept Map Future Land Use Map Narrative Summary Goals, Opportunities & Policies

114 115 116 120

Conclusion 128 4

Gilleland Creek District

CONTEXT

History & Context Upon first glance from the map or from the road, it is difficult to envision the greenfields of “Neighborhood Activity Center 42”--named as such in Austin’s 2012 comprehensive plan-as home to a future mixed-use community that will house approximately 10,000 additional people. Empty brushy fields, farms, abandoned homes, horse stables, and light industrial parks pepper the landscape throughout the site.

However, if one looks more carefully, the signs of future development become clear. Numerous “for sale” signs suggesting commercial land use, new roads and bike lanes that seem to lead nowhere, homes in construction, and a brand new park are some of the signs of speculative development pressures from both Austin and neighboring Pflugerville.

Indeed, the population around Neighborhood Activity Center 42 has continued to increase. With this larger population come new amenities, infrastructure, development, and environmental concerns. These demographic and environmental changes are by no means extraordinary in Austin. Instead, they reflect a broader trend of population growth along the urban fringe--in particular, the extraterritorial jurisdiction (ETJ) areas. Between 2010 and 2017, the City of Austin estimates that the population within the ETJ increased by approximately 23% between 2010 and 2017, and more than doubled between 2000 and 2017. Key factors driving population growth along the urban fringe include unaffordability of housing in central Austin neighborhoods due to gentrification as well as the desire for better quality schools for households with children. Many black Austinites have relocated to peripheral areas and cities to the east and north of Austin, near the activity center site for these reasons and more (see Tang and Falola 2015).

Over the past ten years, much development that is unique

6

Gilleland Creek District

Manor Equestrian Center.

Photo Credit: Hannah Simonson

Cantarra Subdivision.

Photo Credit: Daniel Alvarado

Typical vacant agricultural land.

Photo Credit: Hannah Simonson

Legend Site Boundary Master Boundary Downtown Austin

Legend Master Boundary

Water

Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin

Jurisdictional Boundaries

Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus

City of Austin

Highways Streets

City of Manor

Site_Boundary Master Boundary

City of Pflugerville

$

Greater Travis County

$

$ 0

0

0.5

2.5 1

5

2

10 3

15

Miles 4

Miles 20

Author: Devin Oliver Date: April 2017 Data Source: City of Austin, U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2010)

0

Data Source:

2.5

5

10

15

Miles 20

Author: Devin Oliver Date: April 2017 Data Source: City ofCity Austin, U.S. U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2010) Source: of Austin, Census Bureau (ACS 2010) NAD 1983 State Plane Central Texas Date:Datum: April 2017

Author: Devin Oliver CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

7

in nature has occurred within the activity center site and the surrounding areas. Between 2007 and 2009, the Austin Executive Airport, located in the eastern half of the site, transformed “from turf airstrip to corporate jet center”, viewed by its stakeholders as a “long) term investment” due to population growth in Austin and increasing real estate speculation in the surrounding area (Henriksen n.d., 11). In the northwest corner of the site lies Northeast Metropolitan Park, a 349-acre park run by Travis County Parks. The park, situated along Gilleland Creek connecting the site to other communities in neighboring Pflugerville, has developed tremendously as an extreme sports center in the local area.

The Northeast Metro Skate Park and BMX Racetrack opened recently in 2012 and 2015, respectively. Managed by Central Texas BMX, the park is set to host the 2017 Lonestar Nationals BMX competition April 21-23.

More importantly, the site merits our attention as one of Austin’s Neighborhood Activity Centers, according to the 2012 Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan. Imagine Austin’s Growth Concept Map envisions a variety of compact and walkable activity centers to be developed over the next several years. While some of these centers and corridors are more conducive to the creation of very dense hubs, others are designed to be bikeable, walkable, and connected without overburdening the location with development and activity that harm local quality of life. Within our site is one of the smallest and least intense of the three mixed-use centers: neighborhood activity centers. As with the larger regional and town centers, neighborhood activity centers are walkable, bikeable, and supported by transit. The greatest density of people and activities in neighborhood centers are to be concentrated on several blocks or around one or two intersections. New neighborhood activity centers may be focused on a dense, mixed-use core surrounded by a mix of housing. In other instances, new or redevelopment may occur incrementally and concentrate people and activities along several blocks or around one or two intersections.

Neighborhood centers are more locally concentrated (with a variety of business and services) than either a regional or a town center. Neighborhood centers range in size between approximately 5,000-10,000 people and 2,500-7,000 jobs. (City of Austin 2012, 105)

8

Gilleland Creek District

Site visit at the Inside Outside School.

Photo Credit: Daniel Alvarado

Imagine Austin Centers

CENTER_TYP Austin Activity Imagine Austin Centers Centers Job Center

CENTER_TYP

“Neighborhood Centers” defined

by Imagine Austin: Center JobNeighborhood Center Town Center Imagine Neighborhood Austin’s GrowthCenter Concept Map establishes a variety of compact and walkable activity centers. While SiteCenter Boundary some of Town these centers and corridors are more conducive to the creation ofBoundary very Corridors dense hubs, others are designed to be SiteFuture bikeable, walkable, and connected without overburdening Future High Capacity Bus Future Corridors the location with development and activity.

£ ¤ 130

£ ¤ 130

Future High Capacity Bus Regional centers are the most urban centers proposed; these would ideally become the retail, cultural, recreational, and entertainment destinations for Central Texas. These centers will have the tallest buildings and the most concentrated commercial uses. Regional centers will range in size, and they are designed to sustain around 25,000-45,000 people and 5,000-25,000 jobs.

Legend Master Boundary

Town centers are less intense than regional centers, even though they would also ideally offer a variety of large and small employers with regional customer and employee bases.

The buildings in these centers will range in size from one to three-story houses, duplexes, townhouses and rowhouses, and low-midrise apartments, mixed use buildings and office buildings. These centers will sustain between 10,000-30,000 people and 5,000-20,000.

Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways

Imagine Austin Centers

Streets Site_Boundary Master Boundary

CENTER_TYP Job Center

$$

290

Neighborhood Center

Imagine Austin Centers

Town Center

CENTER_TYP

Future Corridors Future High Capacity Bus

Town Center Site Boundary Future Corridors

00

0.5 0.5

0.51

1 1

2

3

290

Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus JobUSGS, Center DS, USDA, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Source: Esri, DigitalGlobe, GeoEye, Earthstar Geographics, CNES/Airbus DS, USDA,Neighborhood USGS, AeroGRID, IGN, and the GIS User Community Center

Site Boundary

0

£ ¤ £ ¤

Miles 2 Miles Miles 2 4

Future HighCorridors Capacity Bus Future Data Source:

Future Corridors

Activity Centers for Redevelopment in Sensitive Environmental Areas are located over recharge or contributing zones of the Edwards Aquifer or within water-supply watersheds; they are designed to provide opportunities to address longstanding water quality issues while taking into account the sensitive nature of the area. Job centers are designed to sustain businesses not well-suited for residential or environmentallysensitive areas. They would ideally contain office parks, manufacturing, warehouses, logistics, and other businesses with similar demands and operating characteristics.

Data Source:

DataSource: Source:City of Austin

Date: April 2017 Author: Hannah Simonson CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

9

Looking Toward Complete Communities

Within our site is one of the smallest and least intense of the three mixed-use centers - neighborhood centers. As with the regional and town centers, neighborhood centers are walkable, bikeable, and supported by transit. The greatest density of people and activities in neighborhood centers will likely be concentrated on several blocks or around one or two intersections. However, depending on localized conditions, different neighborhood centers can be very different places. If a neighborhood center is designated on an existing commercial area, such as a shopping center or mall, it could represent redevelopment or the addition of housing.

A new neighborhood center may be focused on a dense, mixed-use core surrounded by a mix of housing. In other instances, new or redevelopment may occur incrementally and concentrate people and activities along several blocks or around one or two intersections. Neighborhood centers will be more locally focused than either a regional or a town center. Businesses and services—grocery and department stores, doctors and dentists, shops, branch libraries, dry cleaners, hair salons, schools, restaurants, and other small and local businesses—will generally serve the center and surrounding neighborhoods. Neighborhood centers range in size between approximately 5,000-10,000 people and 2,500-7,000 jobs. (Imagine Austin 105)

As rapid population growth is expected to continue across Austin and greater Travis County, the City of Austin has recognized the need for proactive planning that will guide and manage new growth while maintaining the quality of life of residents. This imperative becomes clear in Imagine Austin’s objective of creating “complete communities”, anchored by future activity centers that mitigate urban sprawl, which are outlined in the plan’s Growth Concept Map. Under these circumstances, the main challenge for the city is knowing “how to accommodate more people, in a considered and sustainable fashion, while preserving what we value so that we get better not just bigger”.

As the City of Austin envisions, “complete communities” are models for future development and growth that result in socioeconomically and environmentally just outcomes for all. As its vision statement, the City states that “all of our residents must benefit” from the outcomes of Imagine Austin (City of Austin 2012, 88). As a development ideal and model, complete communities are at once “livable”, “mobile and interconnected”, economically “prosperous”, culturally “creative”, “natural and sustainable”, highly “educated”, and “values and respects people” overall (Ibid.).

Throughout Austin, a “city of complete communities”, activity centers like our site will attract “amenities, transportation, services, and opportunities that fulfill all Austinites’ material, social, and economic needs”, all while preserving protecting environmental resources and ensuring equitable access to employment and amenities (Ibid.)

Inside Outside School Photo Credit: Devin Oliver

10

Gilleland Creek District

$ 0

Overall Site SWOT Analysis Character Economy Land Use Housing

Our report takes principles of Imagine Austin’s vision of complete communities as a standard against which to carefully assess the site’s current conditions, demographics, and land use patterns and, through an environmental suitability analysis, its potential to serve as a neighborhood activity center that catalyzed such sustainable growth.

Infrastructure Environment

In order to help guide future development within and around our site area, this report analyzes the site’s strengths, weaknesses, opportunities and threats (SWOT) in order to assess current socioeconomic and environmental conditions of Neighborhood Activity Center 42 and its potential as a future complete community.

Strengths Distinct Rural and Equestrian Character Eclectic Population and Businesses

Weaknesses No Distinct Urban Center

2.5

5

10

15

Opportunities

Poor Human Scale in New Development

Foster Community

$

Loss of Equestian and Rural Character 0

0.5

1

Increase Businesses that Retain Residents

Loss of Rural Land Uses

Proximity to Tech Ridge Employement

Existing Businesses Reliant on Rural Location

Increase Accessibility for Labor Force

Increased Automation in Production

No Brownfields

Sprawling Land Use Patterns

Non Agricultural Land Prime for Greenbelt, Flood Prevention

Status-Quo Sprawl

Housing Stock Increasing Steadily

Existing Housing Stock is of Poor Quality

Integrating Expanding Park System

Increasing Housing Costs

Preservation of Affordable Housing

Lack of Community Cohesion Flooding and Erosion

Lack of Ammenities for New Families

Relatively Healthy Ecoysystems

Poor Stream Proection

Regeneration of Native Ecosystems

Productive Agricultural Land

Airport and Highway Pollution

Creation of Greenbelt System

Already Mostly Served by Austin Utilities Growing Active Trans Network

Poor Connectivity Within Site

Complete Streets

No Transit Support

CapMetro Future Service Plans

High Speed Roads

Increasing Youth Pop.

after tak will be i

Increased Impervious Cover

Work/Live Development

Clean Slate for Developing Complete Communities

Ru

Miles 2

Not Included in Form Based Code

Lack of Retail or Service Businesses

Incompatible Land Uses Near Residential

0.5

Threats

Proximity to Major Roads

Significant Open Space for new Recreational, Commercial Activity.

0

Miles 20

Author: Devin Oliver Date: April 2017 Data Source: City of Austin, U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2010) Datum: NAD 1983 State Plane Central Texas

Builiding on Existing Centers: NE Metro Park, Don’s Short Stop

$

$

Environmental Fragmentation Water Quality Car Centered Development Neglect From City Services

CURRENT LAND DISTRIBUTION

$

Agriculture

Vacant - 72

Airport & O

Single Fami

Single Fami

Retail & Offi

0Parks & Com 0.

Mobile Hom

Office 1.4 acres Industrial - 1

Office 1.4 acres

None - 2.6 acres

None - 2.6 acres

11

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

FOLK

“Austin’s greatest asset is its people: passionate about our city, committed to its improvement, and determined to see this vision become a reality.”

Imagine Austin, 82

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

13

Folk Because we recognize that socioeconomic events often take place across multiple scales and places at once, we extended the scope of our demographic analysis beyond the boundaries of the site to include neighboring census blocks and block groups. Thus, as our maps and figures illustrate, we have included the blocks and block groups that both intersect and surround the site area. Social and environmental phenomena do not take place isolated in a geographic vacuum; the population shits to the west and south of the site will likely influence the future demographics of the site activity center and spark new development pressures within it.

Nestled between the fast-growing cities of Pflugerville, Austin, and Manor, the site could play a potential role in anchoring and managing future population growth. Although the site currently seems “empty” and “void” in demographic terms as a greenfield site, we observed important demographic shifts at and around the edges of the site, in adjacent neighborhoods. According to the 2010 Decennial Census 2011-2015 American Community Survey, the site and adjacent census block groups witnessed a population growth rate of approximately 14% between 2010 (20182) and 2015 (34329). This population growth rate is comparable to the overall rate of Austin (18%) but considerably less than those of Manor (50%) and Pflugerville (22%).

In racial and ethnic terms, the broader area within the master boundary a relatively diverse space (see following maps) in relation to the overall racial makeup of the City of Austin.

Racially diverse the area remains somewhat segregated along racial lines. The Black, Latinx, and Asian populations are more concentrated in the census blocks directly west and southwest of the site. Census blocks in and around the city of Manor, more distant from the site to the southeast, also boasts a relatively diverse non-white population. The 2011-2015 American Community Survey estimates that the racial makeup of the population within the broader site area

14

Gilleland Creek District

Source/Photo Credit:

(excluding Manor) is the following: Asian: 13% Black: 19% Latinx: 39% White: 62% Although the broader site area remains majority White, the Black, Asian, and Latinx populations occupy relatively large shares of the area’s population--19%, 13%, and 39%, respectively--in comparison to the overall Austin population in 2010, which are 8%, 6%, and 35%, respectively. Although the population growth rate of the broader site area is comparable to that of Austin, its racial composition of reflects those of neighboring cities Pflugerville and Manor (see table on next page).

Photo Credit: Hannah Simonson

Age Composition Age Composition by Biological Sex (2010 Census)

The nine census block groups that surround and lie within the site contain a fairly young population. According to the 2010 Census, the largest age cohorts are, respectively, children ages 17 and younger (31% of all residents) and adults ages 30-39 (19% of all residents), and young adults ages 18-30 (16%), while the smallest age cohort appears to be seniors ages 65 and up (5% of all residents). In other words, approximately 66% of the area’s population are below the age of 40. The proportion of children within the area is significantly higher than the county average (23%) and seem to concentrate in the western portion of the site area, where approximately over 50% of households have children (see map). These statistics and population pyramid (see next page) suggest that many newly formed families with young children reside within the site and in the adjacent communities to the west of the site. The significant presence of children has immediate implications for the provision of schools and healthcare facilities in the area, which will only become greater if more households with children move to the area.

1500

1000

85 years and over 80 to 84 years 75 to 79 years 70 to 74 years 67 to 69 years 65 and 66 years 62 to 64 years 60 and 61 years 55 to 59 years 50 to 54 years 45 to 49 years 40 to 44 years 35 to 39 years 30 to 34 years 25 to 29 years 18 to 24 years 15 to 17 years

500

10 to 14 years 5 to 9 years Under 5 years 2000

1500

1000

0 500

0

Male Male

500

Female

500 1000

1500

2000

Female

Population of Neighboring Jurisdictions As the table suggests, many of the nearby communities— largely in Pflugerville and Manor—are likely “receptors” of many working-class households of color who have been gradually displaced by gentrification, unaffordable housing, and poor quality schools in more central parts of Austin (see Tang and Falola 2015). Many Black and Latinx households have moved both north and east of Austin to areas such as our site, in search of more affordable housing prices, despite increased transportation costs incurred by relocation.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

15

Median Household Income The overall median household income for the site area, $69,0002, is relatively high compared to that of Austin overall ($50,002). However, this map illustrates disparities in median household income across census block groups, based on data from the 2010 American Community Survey. In the central, southern, and northern parts of the site area, median household incomes rise above $75,000.

However, median household income in the western portion of the site hovers between $40,000 and $50,000. The census block group directly adjacent to the site, on the western boundary near Northeast Metropolitan Park, shows the lowest median household income, which dips below $40,000.

130

Med

Master Boundary Site Boundary

Legend

Streets

£ ¤ 130

Median Household Income Below $40,000

£ ¤ 290

$

$40,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $60,000 $60,000 to $75,000 Above $75,000 Surrounding Areas 0

0.5

1

£ ¤ 290

Master Boundary

Highways

Gilleland Creek District

130

130

Legend

£ ¤

16

Leg

£ ¤

£ ¤

£ ¤ 290

2

Site Boundary

$

Streets Highways

Median Household Income Below $40,000 $40,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $60,000

0 3

0.5

1Miles 2 4 $60,000 to $75,000

Above $75,000 Surrounding Areas

3

$

Data Source: City of Austin, U Datum: NAD Miles 4 0 0.5

Households with Children The map above illustrates the proportion of households with children under the age of 18 across the nine census block groups that comprise the broader site area. According to 2010 ACS data, the proportion of households with children within the area is significantly higher than the county average Legend Legend (23%) and is concentrated in the western portion of Master Boundary the broader area, where approximately over Mastersite Boundary 50% of households Site Boundary have children.

£ ¤ £ ¤ 130 130

Site Boundary Streets Streets Highways Highways

Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways Streets

Legend

Site_Boundary

Master Boundary

£ ¤ 130

Master Boundary

£ ¤ £ ¤ 290

Site290 Boundary

Legend

Streets Highways

Master Boundary Site Boundary

$$

290

Streets

Below 35%

Highways

35% to 40%

Below $40,000 $40,000 to $50,000

00 0

0.5

0.51 290 0.5

£ ¤

12 1

3

2 2

Miles 4

3 3

$50,000 toMiles $60,000 Data Source: 4 Miles $60,000 to 4 $75,000

Above $75,000 Surrounding Areas

Below $40,000 Below 35% $40,000 to $50,000 35% to 40% $50,000 to $60,000 40% to 45% $60,000 to $75,000 45% to 50% Above $75,000 Above 50% Surrounding Areas Surrounding Areas

% Households with Children

Median Household Income

£ ¤

Median Household % Households withIncome Children

40% to 45% Author: Devin Oliver Author: Oliver Date:Devin April 2017 Date: April 2017 Above 50%Data Source: City of Austin, U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2010) Data Source: City of Austin, U.S. Census Bureau (ACSTexas 2010) Datum: NAD 1983 State Plane Central Source: City of Austin, Census Bureau (ACS 2010) Datum: NAD 1983 State PlaneU.S. Central Texas Surrounding Areas

45% to 50%

Date: April 2017 Author: Devin Oliver

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

17

Black Population This map demonstrates the spatial distribution of the Black population (as share of total) around the site and in census blocks in the cities of Pflugerville and Manor. According to the 2010 Census, there are higher shares of Black residents directly west of the site and around the city of Manor to the southeast.

Leg

£ ¤ 130

£ ¤ 130

%

Legend

£ ¤ 130

Master Boundary Site Boundary

£ ¤

Legend

Streets

130

Site Boundary

% Black Population Below 10%

290

Source: City of Austin, U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2010) Date: April 2017 Author: Devin Oliver

18

Gilleland Creek District

$

10% to 25% 25% to 50% 50% to 75% Above 75% No Data Available 0

0.5

1

290

Master Boundary

Highways

£ ¤

£ ¤

£ ¤ 290

2

$

Streets Highways

Median Household Income Below $40,000 $40,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $60,000 0 3

0.5

1Miles $60,000 to2$75,000 4

Above $75,000

Surrounding Areas

3

$

Data Source: City of Austin, Datum: NAD Miles 4 0 0.5

White Population This map demonstrates the spatial distribution of the White population (as share of total) around the site and in census blocks in the cities of Pflugerville and Manor. According to the 2010 Census, there are higher shares of white residents in census blocks northeast, south and southwest of the site.

Legend Legend

£ ¤£ ¤ 130 130

Master Boundary Master Boundary Site Boundary Site Boundary Streets Streets Highways Highways

Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways Streets

Legend

Site_Boundary

Master Boundary

£ ¤ 130

Master Boundary

£ ¤ Site £ ¤Boundary 290 290

Legend

Streets

Master Boundary Site Boundary

$$

Highways

Streets

Below 10%

Highways

10% to 25%

£ ¤

Below $40,000 $40,000 to $50,000

00

0

0.5

0.51 290 0.5

£ ¤

1

2

1

3

2

2

Miles 4

3

$50,000 toMiles $60,000 Data Source:

Miles 4 $75,000 $60,000 to 3 4

Above $75,000

Surrounding Areas

Below $40,000 Below 10% $40,000 to $50,000 10% to 25% $50,000 to $60,000 25% to 50% $60,000 to $75,000 50% to 75% Above $75,000 Above 75% Surrounding Areas No Data Available

% White Population

Median Household Income 290

Median Household Income % White Population

25% to 50%

Author: Devin Oliver Author: Devin2017 Oliver Date: April Date: April 2017 Data Source: City of Austin, U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2010) Above 75% Data Source: City of Austin, U.S.City Census Bureau 2010) Datum: NAD 1983 State Plane Central Texas Source: of Austin, U.S.(ACS Census Bureau (ACS 2010) Datum: NAD 1983 State Plane Central Texas No Data Available

50% to 75%

Date: April 2017 Author: Devin Oliver

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

19

Latinx Population This map demonstrates the spatial distribution of the Latinx population (as share of total) around the site and in census blocks in the cities of Pflugerville and Manor. According to the 2010 Census, there are higher shares of Latinx residents directly west and southwest of the site and around the city of Manor to the southeast.

Leg

£ ¤ 130

£ ¤ 130

%

Legend

£ ¤ 130

Master Boundary Site Boundary

£ ¤

Legend

Streets

130

Site Boundary

% Latinx or Hispanic 0.000000 - 0.100000

290

Source: City of Austin, U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2010) Date: April 2017 Author: Devin Oliver

20

Gilleland Creek District

$

0.100001 - 0.250000 0.250001 - 0.500000 0.500001 - 0.750000 0.750001 - 1.000000 No Data Available 0

0.5

1

290

Master Boundary

Highways

£ ¤

£ ¤

£ ¤ 290

2

$

Streets Highways

Median Household Income Below $40,000 $40,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $60,000 0 3

0.5

1Miles $60,000 to2$75,000 4

Above $75,000 Surrounding Areas

3

$

Data Source: C Datum: NAD Miles 4 0 0.5

Asian Population This map demonstrates the spatial distribution of the Asian population (as share of total) around the site and in census blocks in the neighboring cities of Pflugerville and Manor. According to the 2010 Census, there are higher shares of Asian residents highly concentrated within census blocks west and northwest of the site.

Legend Legend

£ ¤£ ¤ 130 130

Master Boundary Master Boundary Site Boundary Site Boundary Streets Streets Highways Highways

Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways Streets Site_Boundary

Legend

Master Boundary

£ ¤ 130

Master Boundary

£ ¤ Site £ ¤Boundary 290 290

Legend

Streets

Master Boundary Site Boundary

$$

Highways Below 10%

Highways

10% to 25%

Median Household Income 290

$40,000 to $50,000 00

0

0.5

0.51 290 0.5

£ ¤

1

2

1

3

2

2

Miles 4

3

$50,000 toMiles $60,000 Data Source: 3

Miles

Below $40,000 Below 10% $40,000 to $50,000 10% to 25% $50,000 to $60,000 25% to 50% $60,000 to $75,000 50% to 75% Above $75,000 Above 75% Surrounding Areas No Data Available

% Asian Population

Streets

£ ¤ Below $40,000

Median Household Income % Asian Population

25% to 50%

Author: Devin Oliver Author: Devin2017 Oliver Date: April Date: April 2017 Data Source: City of Austin, U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2010) Above 75% Data Source: ofState Austin, U.S.Central CensusTexas Bureau Datum: NADCity 1983 Plane Datum: NAD 1983 State Plane Central Texas No Data Available

50% to 75%

4 $75,000 $60,000 to 4

Above $75,000 Surrounding Areas

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

21

Unemployment The western census block groups boast the highest unemployment rates in the site area, and are relatively high compared to Austin’s overall unemployment rate in 2010 (5.7%). Two of the census block groups saw unemployment rates of approximately 8% and higher. The highest unemployment rate reached 10.5%, according to the 2010 American Community Survey.

Interestingly, the census block group with the lowest median household income also showed the second lowest unemployment rate in 2010 (below 3%).

£ ¤ 130

£ ¤ 130

£ ¤ 130

Leg

Un

Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary

Legend

Streets

£ ¤ 130

Highways

Site Boundary

Below 3%

290

Source: City of Austin, U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2010) Date: April 2017 Author: Devin Oliver

22

Gilleland Creek District

$

3% to 5% 5% to 8% Above 8% Surrounding Areas

0

0.5

1

290

Master Boundary

Unemployment Rates

£ ¤

£ ¤

£ ¤ 290

2

$

Streets Highways

Median Household Income Below $40,000 $40,000 to $50,000 $50,000 to $60,000 0 3

0.5

1Miles $60,000 to2$75,000 4

Above $75,000

Surrounding Areas

3

$

Data Source: City of Austin, Datum: NAD Miles 4 0 0.5

Strengths • Racially diverse in comparison to the City of Austin overall.

• Relatively young population (young parents with young children).

• Population growth is likely a key factor driving the creation of unique public amenities (e.g. Northeast Metropolitan Park).

• Population is expected to steadily grow.

Opportunities • Population growth can increasingly justify the provision of parks and play spaces, schools, and healthy food in the near future.

• The relatively dense population adjacent to the site can be connected and incorporated into future site plans through common parks and public spaces.

• The fast-growing and racially diverse cities of Pflugerville and Manor position Neighborhood Activity Center 42 as a potentially prosperous “bridge” community linking Austin to both cities.

Weaknesses • Racial and economic segregation seems to occur, despite diversity.

• Western portion of site and broader site area appears to house a disproportionate of non-white, lower-income households with children.

• Distance and isolation of area put extra financial burden on working-class households in form of transportation costs

Threats • The low-income, non-white households-particularly those with children--in the western portion of the site area are vulnerable to future displacement if housing does not remain affordable. This is slightly ironic, given that unaffordability in central Austin neighborhoods has been a motive for many households’ relocation to the area in the first place.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

23

ENVIRONMENT

“Austin is a green city. We are environmentally aware and ensure the long-term health and quality of our community through responsible resource use as citizens at the local, regional, and global level. Growth and infrastructure systems are well-managed to respect the limitations of our natural resources.�

Imagine Austin CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

25

Environment Included in our goals for treatment of the environment in future land use scenario plans, we seek to reduce erosion, in part by increasing native plant coverage. Building off the planned greenbelt connecting Activity Center to surrounding neighborhoods, we envision a high sustainability land use plan that increases tree canopy coverage and maintains connected riparian habitats.

In addition to preserving prime agricultural land as viable working land, we seek to prevent incompatibility of adjacent land uses by using the following environmental analysis to inform land use scenario planning.

Flooding and erosion are a major concern on this site and will be strong indicators of development suitability. Currently a number of buildings, including residents, are located in or immediately adjacent to FEMA’s 100-year flood plain.

Photo Credits: Devin Oliver & Daniel Alvarado

26

Gilleland Creek District

Photo Credits: Devin Oliver & Daniel Alvarado CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

27

Drainage Basins

£ ¤ 130

The entire site of Activity Center 42 feeds into the Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin. While the area does not feed into the more sensitive and highly-regulated Edwards Aquifer, the water quality of this area are still of concern.

£ ¤ 130

Section 1428C of Gilleland Creek is classified as “impaired” waters according to the standards Clean Water Act Section 303(d). As part of a plan to restore this water body, a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) is established.

Based on water quality tests, bacteria concentrations are elevated in Gilleland Creek. High bacteria concentrations are a health hazard to people who might swim in or come in contact with the creek. The TMDL is part of a plan to rehabilitate the creek, but it is a situation that will require active monitoring.

£ ¤ 290

£ ¤ 290

Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage BasinBasin2ft

Site Boundary

Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin

Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Basin Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage

Source: U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service Date: April 2017 Author: Hannah Simonson

28

Gilleland Creek District

0

0.5

0

0.5

Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin

150 --164 150 164ft ft Contours 166 - 176 ft

Site Boundary

166- -164 176ft ft 150

$

178 - 190 ft

Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage B

178 -208 190ftft ft 166 192-- 176

Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin

178 192 208ftft ft 210---190 226 0

0.5

1 1

Miles 2

1

Miles 2 Miles 2

290

2ft2ftContours Contours

Site BoundarySite Boundary

$ $$

£ ¤

Data Source:

228-- 208 192 210 -244 226ftft ft

210 228- -226 244ft ft 228 - 244 ft 0

0.5

1

Miles 2

$

D

Data S

0

0.5

0.5

£ ¤ 130

Floodplain

£ ¤ 130

The 100-year floodplain is established by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and is the land that is predicted to flood during a 100-year storm—an event which has a 1% chance of occurrence any given year.

It is worth noting that the 100-year floodplain is subject to change, and could grow larger in the near future. Building in or immediately adjacent to the 100-year floodplain puts both human life and property at sever risk of loss or damage. In addition to residences, vulnerable populations and uses, such as schools and hospitals, should not be developed within the floodplain.

There are already 21 buildings within the 100-year floodplain in the Activity Center 42 site area, and an additional 51 buildings within 100 feet of the floodplain. A number of these buildings are abandoned­—possibly due to previous flooding issues. Other buildings are for uses other than habitation. The Cantarra subdivision backs up very close to the floodplain.

The property of the Inside Outside School is largely in the floodplain, although the school building sits higher up outside of the floodplain.

Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways Streets Site_Boundary Master Boundary

Activity Center 42 Site Parcels

FEMA 100yr Floodplain Creeks

$$

Activity Center 42 Site

Buildings in Site

Parcels

Buildings in Floodplain Activity Center 42 Site Parcels

Miles FEMA 100yr Floodplain

1

FEMA 100yr Floodplain

FEMA 100yr Floodplain

Creeks

Buildings in Site

Creeks

Buildings in Floodplain

0

0.5

1

0.5

0.5

2

13

1

Buildings in Site

Source: Texas Natural Resources Information System, FEMA, City of Austin.

Data Source: Buildings in Floodplain Date: April 2017 Data Source: Buildings in Floodplain Data Source: Author: Hannah Simonson Buildings within 100 ft of Flooplain Buildings within 100 ft of Flooplain

Data Source:

Buildings in Site

Buildings within 100 ft of Flooplain

00

Data Source:

Buildings within 100 ftParcels of Flooplain

2

Creeks

Activity Center 42 Site

Miles 4

Miles

Miles 2 2

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

29

Erosion Highly erodible land is not suitable for farming or, generally, for building construction. Vegetation and water runoff are both major contributors to the erosiveness of soil. The loss of vegetation can contribute to erosion, as plant roots help to keep soil in place.

£ ¤

Currently, most of the highly erosive soil in the Activity Center 42 site is co-located with the watershed and 100-year floodplain, making it an easy decision to minimize development in this area. Much of the land, however, is “potentially” highly erodible, and thus carefully consideration should be given to development through suitability mapping, and soil testing.

130

£ ¤ 130

Creeks No Erosion Data

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Date: April 2017 Author: Hannah Simonson

30

Gilleland Creek District

$

Highly Erodible Land Not Highly Erodible Land Potentially Highly Erodible Land

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

$

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

$

Data Sou

0

0.5

Prime Agriculture

£ ¤ £ ¤ 130

130

Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways Streets Site_Boundary Master Boundary

Much of the site’s “not prime” agricultural land is in the flood plain, which is too erosive and watersaturated to be productive farmland. The site retains large swaths of prime agricultural land, which benefits the local economy and is a valuable cultural and environmental resource.

Creeks

$$

Prime farmland is defined by the U.S. Department of Agriculture as, “Land that has the best combination of physical and chemical characteristics for producing food, feed, forage, fiber, and oilseed crops and is also available for these uses. It has the soil quality, growing season, and moisture supply needed to produce economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods, including water management. In general, prime farmlands have an adequate and dependable water supply from precipitation or irrigation, Creeks a favorable temperature and growing season, Creeks Prime Farmland acceptable acidity or alkalinity, acceptable salt Prime Farmland and sodium content, and few or no rocks. They are Not Prime Farmland permeable to water Not Prime Farmlandand air. Prime farmlands are not excessively erodible or saturated with water for a long period of time, and they either do not flood frequently or are protected from flooding.” [SSM, USDA Handbook No. 18, October 1993]

Prime Farmland Not Prime Farmland

Data Source: 0 0

0

0.5

0.5 1

0.5

1 2

1

3

Miles 4

Miles 2 Miles 2

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture

Data Source: Date: April 2017 Data Source:

Author: Hannah Simonson CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

31

Soil Types

Soil Typ

Alt

130

Ca

Ca

Ed

Ed

Fe

He

He

He

Ho

32

Gilleland Creek District

Ho

Altoga silty clay, 3 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded

£ ¤

Ho

Austin silty clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes Austin silty clay, 3 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Lew

Austin-Whitewright complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Lew

Austin-Whitewright complex, 5 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Lew

Castephen silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Mis

Castephen silty clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes

Oa

Eddy gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Oa

Eddy gravelly loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes

Pa

Ferris-Heiden complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded

Pit

Heiden clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Tin

Altoga silty clay, 3 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Heiden clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Tin

Altoga soils and Urban land, 2 to 8 percent slopes

Heiden clay, 5 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Austin silty clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Houston Black clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Austin silty clay, 3 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Houston Black clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Austin-Whitewright complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Houston Black clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Austin-Whitewright complex, 5 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Houston Black gravelly clay, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Castephen silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Houston Black soils and Urban land, 0 to 8 percent slopes

Castephen silty clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes

Lewisville silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Eddy gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Lewisville silty clay, 1 to 2 percent slopes

Eddy gravelly loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes

Lewisville soils and Urban land, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Ferris-Heiden complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded

Miscellaneous water

Heiden clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Oakalla silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded

Heiden clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Oakalla soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes, channeled, frequently flooded

Heiden clay, 5 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Patrick soils, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Altoga silty clay, 3 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Houston Black clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Pits, gravel, 1 to 90 percent slopes

Altoga soils and Urban land, 2 to 8 percent slopes

Houston Black clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded

Austin silty clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Houston Black clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded

Austin silty clay, 3 to 6 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Houston Black gravelly clay, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Urban land, Austin, and Whitewright soils, 1 to 8 percent slopes

Austin-Whitewright complex, 3 to 5 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Houston Black soils and Urban land, 0 to 8 percent slopes

Water

Austin-Whitewright complex, 5 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Lewisville silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes

Whitewright clay loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes

Castephen silty clay loam, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Lewisville silty clay, 1 to 2 percent slopes

Castephen silty clay loam, 3 to 5 percent slopes

Lewisville soils and Urban land, 0 to 2 percent slopes

Eddy gravelly loam, 0 to 3 percent slopes

Miscellaneous water

Eddy gravelly loam, 3 to 6 percent slopes

Oakalla silty clay loam, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded

Ferris-Heiden complex, 8 to 20 percent slopes, severely eroded

Oakalla soils, 0 to 1 percent slopes, channeled, frequently flooded

Heiden clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Patrick soils, 2 to 5 percent slopes

Heiden clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Pits, gravel, 1 to 90 percent slopes

Heiden clay, 5 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, frequently flooded

Houston Black clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes

0 0.5 1 Houston Black clay, 1 to 3 percent slopes

Tinn clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes, occasionally flooded

Houston Black clay, 3 to 5 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Water

Houston Black gravelly clay, 2 to 8 percent slopes, moderately eroded

Whitewright clay loam, 1 to 5 percent slopes

Soil Type

Soil Type

$

Ho

Altoga soils and Urban land, 2 to 8 percent slopes

130

Tinn Clay - “The Tinn series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils that formed in calcareous clayey alluvium. These soils are on flood plains of dissected plains that drain the Blackland Prairies.”

Source: U.S. Department of Agriculture Date: April 2017 Author: Hannah Simonson

Ho

Soil Type

£ ¤

Definitons from: https://soilseries.sc.egov.usda.gov/OSD_ Docs/H/HOUSTON_BLACK.html

Au

Au

Heiden Clay - “The Heiden series consists of deep and very deep to mudstone, well drained, very slowly permeable soils that formed in clayey residuum weathered from mudstone. These nearly level to moderately steep soils occur on footslopes of base slopes, shoulders of interfluves, and 130 backslopes of side slopes of ridges on dissected plains.”

£ ¤

Au

Au

Houston Black Clay - “The Houston Black series consists of very deep, moderately well drained, very slowly permeable soils that formed in clayey residuum derived from calcareous mudstone of Cretaceous Age. These nearly level to moderately sloping soils occur on interfluves and side slopes on upland ridges and plains on dissected plains.”

Austin Silty Clay - “The Austin series consists of moderately deep, well drained, moderately slowly permeable soils that 130 in residuum weathered from chalk. These soils are on formed nearly level to sloping erosional uplands.”

Alt

£ ¤

While much of the soil around are site can be characterized as Houston Black soils and clay or Heiden Clay, the area is certainly not uniform in soil composition; any future development of our site should take the diversity of soil type into account and take steps to preserve the natural and environmental characteristics of the site. Some of this soil would likely be best used for light agricultural purposes or open green areas rather than dense development. Definitions of some of the more prevalent soil types follow.

Houston Black soils and Urban land, 0 to 8 percent slopes Lewisville silty clay, 0 to 1 percent slopes Lewisville silty clay, 1 to 2 percent slopes

Miles 2

$

Data 0 Source: 0.5

Urban land, Austin, and Whitewright soils, 1 to 8 percent slopes

1

Miles 2

Urb

Wa

Wh

$

0

0.5

Legend

Slope Map

Master Boundary

Most of the land in the site is between a 0-3% Site Boundary incline. The steepest slopes follow drainage basins and waterways. These steeply sloped areas are Slope_Grade_Per undesirable for development and are currently subject to heavy erosion and runoff.

Value

High : 17.7609

£ ¤ 130

Low : 0 Creeks No Erosion Data Highly Erodible Land Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin

Not Highly Erodible Land Potentially Highly Erodible Land

Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways Streets Site_Boundary Master Boundary

Legend Legend Master Boundary Master Boundary Site Boundary Site Boundary Slope_Grade_Percent Slope Grade Percent Slope_Grade_Percent Value

$$

Value

High : 17.7609 High : 17.7609 Low : 0 Low : 0

0

0

0.5

1

0.5

2

Data Source: Source: ftp://tfp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html 1

3

Miles 4

Miles 2

Data Source:

Date: April 2017 Author: Lee Stevens CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

33

Wildfire Hazard The wildfire hazard within Activity Center 42 ranges from low (1) to low-moderate (2). While there is a relatively high risk of wildfires in much of the eastern portion of Austin, this site has a low risk.

However, as the Activity Center and surrounding jurisdictions of Pflugerville and Manor develop, the wildfire risk may change in this area. It is crucial to plan for fire-wise development, and ensure that fire-wise building practices are adopted as a matter of course.

U.S. Climate Data reports that Austin’s average annual rainfall is 34.25 inches, which one factor that affects the wildfire hazard in the region.

Additionally, rivers, watersheds, vegetation, soil type, and the built environment are all contributing factors to wildfire hazards.

Site Boundary Streets Highways Parcel

Wildfire Threat

£ ¤ 130

Source: Texas A&M Forest Service Date: April 2017 Author: Hannah Simonson

34

Gilleland Creek District

$

1 (Low)

Site Boundary

2

Streets

3 (Moderate)

Highways

4

Parcel

5 (High)

Wildfire Threat

6

1 (Low)

7 (Very High)

2

7

3 (Moderate)

£ ¤

29

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

$

0

0.5

Air Parcels Toxics Project Site Project Site

n n

n n nn

Parcels

Austin Executive Airport o Activity Since Center 42 is currently not very Austin Executive Airport o developed, 500ft Buffer point source polluters—such as dry 500ft Buffer cleaners, stations and manufacturing—are k Gasgas Stations k not Gas Stations Fortunately, the site is not in a noncommon.

50ft Buffer attainment 50ft Buffer area. However, as the area sees an X Manufacturing increase in housing density, these types of service X Manufacturing business can be expected to encroach on the area.

k

£ ¤ £ ¤

k

130

k

130

k

k k

n n nnn

X X

nn

oo

Major current sources of pollution are the Austin Executive Airport and Highway 130. The California Air Resources Board (CARB) calls for a 50ft buffer around gas stations and a 500ft buffer from highways for land use siting. “Sensitive receptors,” which is to say populations that might be particularly vulnerable to air toxics—such as children, the elderly, and hospital patients—should be sited with extra care.

kk kk

XX nn

Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin

k k k k

Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways Streets Site_Boundary

Project Site

Master Boundary

Parcels

n on

Project Site 500ft Buffer Parcels Gas Stations

k

£ ¤ o 130

n

$$

Project Site

o

Austin Executive Airport 50ft Buffer

Parcels

X

500ft Buffer Manufacturing

50ft Buffer

0

0

50ft Buffer

Gas Stations

X

X

0.5

0.5 1 0.5

1

k

k

£nk nk £ ¤¤ 290

290

Any land use plans involving hospitals and schools will need to pay particular attention to these point source and non-point source air polluters.

Parcels n nnn nn n n Airport o Austin Executive 500ft Buffer k

Gas Stations 50ft Buffer

X

Manufacturing

Manufacturing

o

Manufacturing 0

k kk k k k kk k k

k Austin Executive Airport Gas Stations

500ft Buffer k

nn

Project Site

Austin Executive Airport

n n

2

1

3

Miles Miles 2 Miles 4 2

Data Source:

Data Source: Data Source:

Source: City of Austin and Google Maps.

Date: April 2017 Author: Hannah Simonson CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

35

Strengths • Activity Center 42 contains significant swaths of prime agriculture land, which is a large contributor to the local economy.

• The wildfire threat in the city is relatively low, but will greatly affected by future development. Thus, fire-wise development will be essential.

Opportunities • Activity Center 42 contains significant swaths of prime agriculture land, which is a large contributor to the local economy.

• Much of the highly erodible land and “not prime” farmland in the site is co-located with the floodplain. Multiple factors support greenbelt and trail network connections in these areas.

• Concentration of outdoor recreational activities such as BMX and equestrian ranches could be leveraged to stimulate more recreational space.

Weaknesses • The Austin Executive Airport is a major source of noise and air toxic pollution, and is likely to see an increase in traffic.

• Highway 130 bisects the site, creating challenges to connecting trails and wildlife habitats.

• Segment 1428C of Gilleland Creek is classified as impaired due to high bacteria concentration.

Threats • Occupied buildings in the floodplain present a potential for human and property loss.

• Encroaching development threatens to destroy or isolate wildlife habitats and contribute further to water and air toxics.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

37

LAND USE

Activity Center 42 has a distinctive agricultural character with valuable riparian resources. Land use planning shall take into account environmental connectivity and suitable adjacent land uses to balance environmental resources with the need for a thriving and just neighborhood center.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

39

Land Use Activity Center 42 is overwhelmingly covered by agricultural land, with nearly 70% of its land use dedicated to crops and livestock. The agrarian landscape is what helps to define the area’s rural feeling and character.

Farmland runoff affects adjacent properties. Schools and residential areas are located within downhill flow paths of agriculture land and have increased erosion and soil contamination because of the increased runoff (Inside Outside School interview).

New subdivisions are under construction to create more single family housing. Currently, single family housing makes up 6% of the total land use in the district while mobile homes make up 4% and no multi-family housing or apartments exist within the site. Industrial uses make up only 2.5% of the total land use and are spread into several small complexes or nodes across the site.

Photo Credit: Daniel Alvarado & Devin Oliver

CURRENT LANDLAND USE USE CURRENT DISTRIBUTION DISTRIBUTION

Though a large portion of the site is flat or gently sloped, areas near the creek beds have much steeper slopes. There is a much greater threat of erosion in these sloped areas, especially when compounded by the increasing impermeable cover of new developments. Some of these slopes lack adequate plant cover to mitigate the erosion, threatening the stability of structures built into these slopes such as the Inside Out School or the Cantarra subdivision under construction.

Agriculture - 5210 acres Agriculture - 5210 acres

Several building and home footprints are within the 100 year floodplain, placing them at higher risk for damage from flooding, posing a safety risk, and increasing insurance costs.

Retail &Retail Office& -Office 23.6 acres - 23.6 acres

Vacant Vacant - 722.6-acres 722.6 acres Airport Airport & Other&Utility 577.8-acres Other- Utility 577.8 acres Single Family - 204.2- acres Single (Medium) Family (Medium) 204.2 acres Single Family - 269.4- acres Single (Large) Family (Large) 269.4 acres

Parks &Parks Common Areas - Areas 194.6-acres & Common 194.6 acres Mobile Mobile Homes Homes - 312.7 -acres 312.7 acres Industrial - 171.8 -acres Industrial 171.8 acres

Office 1.4 acres Office 1.4 acres None - None 2.6 acres - 2.6 acres

40

Gilleland Creek District

Source: City of Austin

Legend Legend

Current Land Use Master Boundary Master Boundary

Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary Single Family Mobile Homes Duplexes

Legend Master Boundary

Apartment & Condo

Site Boundary

Commercial

Single Family

Office

Mobile

Legend Master Boundary

$$

0.5

Legend Homes

Duplexes

Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin

Manufacturing Warehousing

Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Large-lot Single Family

Miscellaneous Industrial

Highways

Apartment & Condo Streets

Landfills

Site_Boundary

Future High Capacity Bus

Large-lot Single Family Apartment & Condo Apartment &makes Condoup a vast majority of the site at Agriculture Commercial 68%.

Vacant or undeveloped land is the second Commercial Office most abundant land use at over 10%. The local Office airport,Manufacturing being quite large, and other utilities within Manufacturing the siteWarehousing comprise 8%. Single Family housing makes Warehousing up 6%, mobile homes make up 4%, and there is no Miscellaneous Industrial multi-family housing in the site. Parks and common Miscellaneous Industrial areas comprise Landfills 2.5%, and industrial uses make up Landfills 2.2%. Government The rest are less than 1%.

Services Government Services

Educational Educational

Site Boundary

CommercialMaster Boundary

Government Services

Single Family

Office

Educational

Mobile Homes

Manufacturing

Meeting and Assembly

Cemetaries Cemetaries

Duplexes

Warehousing

Cemetaries

& Greenbelts Parks Parks & Greenbelts

Large-lot Single Family

Miscellaneous Industrial

Parks & Greenbelts

Master Boundary

Apartment & Condo

Landfills

Common Areas

Common Common Areas Areas

Site Boundary

Commercial

Government Services

Airports & Aviation Facilities

Single Family

Office

Educational

Parking

Parking Parking

Mobile Homes

Manufacturing

Meeting and Assembly

Streets & Roads

StreetsStreets & Roads & Roads

Duplexes

Warehousing

Cemetaries

Utilities

Utilities Utilities

Large-lot Single Family

Miscellaneous Industrial

Parks & Greenbelts

Undeveloped

Apartment & Condo

Landfills

Common Areas

Agricultural

Undeveloped Undeveloped

Commercial

Government Services

Airports & Aviation Facilities

Office

Educational

Parking

Legend

0

Large-lot Single Family

Site Boundary This map shows the land use present within our Site Boundary Single site and the Family land use directly adjacent to our Single Family site. It Mobile is important Homes to understand the context of surrounding land use in order to fully understand Mobile Homes Duplexes the compatibility of neighboring uses, especially as Duplexes Large-lot Single Family they are slated for change.

Miles 1 Manufacturing 2

00 Warehousing 0.51 1 2 0 0.5 0.5 1

Airports & Aviation Facilities Airports & Aviation Facilities

Agricultural Agricultural

Source: City of Austin Date: April 2017 Utilities Author: Lee Stevens Data Source: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html

Streets & Roads MeetingData andSource: Assembly ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html Data Source:

3

Miles Miles Miles Cemetaries 2 24

Data Source: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html

Parks & Greenbelts

Undeveloped

Landfills

Common Areas

Agricultural

Government Services

Airports & Aviation Facilities

Miscellaneous Industrial

Meeting and Assembly Meeting and Assembly

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

41

Leg

Agriculture

£ ¤ 130

This map highlights the parts of our site that are agricultural. Almost 75% of the land use is agricultural, indicating that it is the most prominent factor defining the character and use of the site.

Leg

Vacant Land

£ ¤

£ ¤

130

290

Vacant or undeveloped land is a significant portion of the site. This land has the greatest potential for change as the new Imagine Austin Activity Center develops.

Source: ftp://tfp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html Date: April 2017 Author: Lee Stevens

42

$

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

$

$

Data Source: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_g Miles 0 0.5 1 2 0 0.5 1

Gilleland Creek District

£ ¤ 290

Legend Airport_and_Utility Legend

Master Boundary Industrial Airport Site Boundary

£ ¤ £ ¤ 130

Master Boundary Buildings The Austin Executive Airport is located in the north Site Boundary

130

east corner of the site. It is a small airport that serves parcel_site_clip Buildings private pilots and small commuter aircraft. It takes Parcels parcel_site_clip up a significant portion of the upper corner of the site and makes up a majority of the designated Parcels utility land use in the site.

Legend

Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary

Industrial

Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways

£ ¤ 130

Streets Site_Boundary Master Boundary

£ ¤ £ ¤ 290

290

Master Boundary Industrial Site Boundary

Four mainBuildings pockets of industrial land use are spread throughout the site, most to the west of the highway. parcel_site_clip All are relatively small and isolated.

Parcels

$ $$

0

0.5

0 0

0.5

0.5 1

Miles 2

1

12

3

Miles 2 4Miles

Data Source: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html Source: ftp://tfp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html

Date: April 2017

Data Source:

Data Source: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html Author: Lee Stevens CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

£ ¤ 290

43

Leg

Single Family Homes

£ ¤ 130

Single family lots, both medium and large, make about around 6% of land use within the site, compared to the 4% mobile homes make up. No multifamily housing, apartment complexes, or condos exist within the site boundaries. Most of these homes are in subdivisions, and are distributed throughout the site.

Leg

Mobile Homes

£ ¤

£ ¤

290

130

Land use designated for mobile homes exists in the northern third of our site. Half of these mobile home lots are clustered by the highway and interspersed with single family subdivisions.

Source: ftp://tfp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html Date: April 2017 Author: Lee Stevens

44

$

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

$

$

Data Source: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_g

0

0.5

Miles 2

1

Gilleland Creek District

£ ¤ 290

0

0.5

1

Legend 2001 Land Cover

Changing Land Cover Open Water

GRIDCODE

Development Open Space The top map represents the land cover present in Development Low Intensity this site in 2001. Most of the site was covered by shrub/scrub, grassland herbaceous area, and Development MediumorIntensity cropland. Hardly any of the land was developed.

Development High Intensity The tree cover is sparse but was dense close to the Barren Land, Rock/Sand/Clay riverbed.

Woody wetlands snaked through the site.

The airport did not yet exist, nor did Highway 130.

Deciduous Forest

Legend Land Cover Site GRIDCODE

Evergreen Forest

More crop land was created in 2011 than in 2001, Shrub/Scrub despite the development of the highway. More low, Grassland/Herbaceous medium, and high intensity development was created around the edges of the site. Tree cover Pasture/Hay declined from 2001 to 2011. Woody wetlands Cultivated Crops declined only a little between 2001 and 2011. Hay and Woody pastureWetlands land declined as well from 2001 to 2011.Master BarreBoundary land increased slightly from 2001 to 2011. Woody Wetlands make up 4% of the total Site Boundary land area in the site and adjacent area up to the Legend master boundary. Forest cover makes up only 6% of the site and adjacent area.

Open Water Developed Open Space Developed Low Intensity Developed Medium Intensity Developed High Intensity Barren Land, Rock/Sand/Clay

2001

Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest Shrub/Scrub Grassland/Herbaceous Pasture/Hay Cultivated Crops

Land Cover Site

Woody Wetland Master Boundary

GRIDCODE

Site Boundary

$$

Open Water Developed Open Space Developed Low Intensity

0

0.5

0

Miles 2

1

0.5

2011

1

$

Developed Medium Intensity Developed High Intensity

Data Source: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html

Miles 2

Barren Land, Rock/Sand/Clay

$

Deciduous Forest

Data Source: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html Evergreen Forest Source: ftp://tfp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

0

Shrub/Scrub Date: April 2017 D Miles Author: Lee Stevens 0.5 1 Grassland/Herbaceous 2 3 Source: 4 Data ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data

CRP386Pasture/Hay - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

Cultivated Crops

45

Strengths • A large amount of open space exists within the site.

• There are several horse farms that bring beauty and recreation to the site.

• There is a strong rural character.

• In areas of the site there is good tree cover, especially along the creek beds.

• There is a large agricultural presence.

Opportunities • Activity Center 42 contains significant swaths of prime agriculture land, which is a large contributor to the local economy.

• Much of the highly erodible land and “not prime” farmland in the site is co-located with the floodplain. Multiple factors support greenbelt and trail network connections in these areas.

• Concentration of outdoor recreational activities such as BMX and equestrian ranches could be leveraged to stimulate more recreational space.

Weaknesses • Agriculture is adjacent to residential areas and schools, leading to dangerous runoff.

• Flooding is an issue around the creek beds.

• Erosion is happening along slopes due to runoff and a lack of plant cover.

Threats • As development occurs, there could be growing land use incompatibility.

• New houses being built will increase impermeability, increase flood risks, disrupt drainage, and increase runoff pollution.

• Increased tree removal with development of the site as an activity center.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

47

INFRASTRUCTURE

“By designing for people, not just cars, we can make our streets and roadway corridors more safe, attractive, and welcoming for all. Our streets should work better for all Austinites.�

Imagine Austin

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

49

Infrastructure & Services Activity Center 42 is currently located within the City of Austin’s Extraterritorial Jurisdiction (ETJ boundary). As such, is has some services and infrastructure provided by the city already, but more complete coverage will come once the portion is annexed.

Very little sidewalk infrastructure exists currently within the site, creating poor connectivity for pedestrians. Few bike paths are present, either, though new roads in the site do include designated bike lanes. As the site develops and the city of Austin increases the services provided, more sidewalk and biking infrastructure should be added to support the increased development and population.

There are no public schools within the site but there is a private elementary school at the heart of the site that serves around 35 kids and employs 4 teachers. There are no hospitals or health care facilities within the site, and only one within the adjacent area around the site. More health care facilities are located farther away in Austin.

Capital Metro is not currently connected to the site, meaning that there is no public transportation at this time. When the site is annexed, Austin’s bus transit will be extended to the area, including a high-capacity bus line.

Not very much space in our site is dedicated park land or public green infrastructure. There is potential as the area is developed as an activity center that the designation of parks will help to preserve the site’s open space, tree cover, and permeable drainage land.

The Inside Outside School.

Photo Credit: Hannah Simonson

50

Gilleland Creek District

Power lines and flood gauge over culverted stream.

Photo Credit: Devin Oliver

BMX Park.

Stormwater retention pond.

Future road and bridge over floodplain.

Photo Credit: Hannah Simonson CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

51

Parks & Schools

n

n n

Our site benefits from close proximity to multiple parks to the North, and numerous planned future parks to the West and South. These planned parks also fall within the half-mile service area of a future high capacity bus line. There are numerous schools that fall within the boundaries of future parks, and two that benefit from being just off of the planned future high capacity bus. This area, especially for school age children, has the capacity to have dense connectivity and numerous areas available for play.

n

n

n

£ ¤ 130

nn n

nn n

n

nn

n

n Project Site

n

n

Parcels Public Parks

n

£ ¤

£n n ¤

n Area 1/2 Mile Service

n

130

290

Planned n Future Parks

n

nService Arean 1/2 Mile

n

Source: City of Austin Date: April 2017 Author: Hannah Simonson

n

52

Gilleland Creek District

$

Project Site

Sidewalks

Parcels

Future High Capacity Bus

n

Public Parks 1/2 Mile Service Area Planned Future Parks 1/2 Mile Service Area Sidewalks 0

n

0.5

Miles 2

1

Future High Capacity Bus Schools

n

Schools

$

0 Data Source:

0.5

1

Miles 2

$

0

0.5

!! !! ! !!!! ! ! !! ! !!! ! ! !!! !! !!

G G !!!!

Project Site

! ! !! !$ !!$!

Streets & Transit MasterBoundary Boundary Master

GG

GGGG $ $

$ $$ $ $ $$$ $$ $ $ $$ $

$ $$

$

$

$

$

$ $ $ $$$ $ !! $ $ $ $$$ $ $ !! $ $$ $$ $ ! !! ! $$ ! $ $ !! $ $ !! ! $ $ !! $$ $ $$$ ! $$ !! ! $ $$ ! ! $ ! $ ! ! $$ ! ! $ $$ ! ! ! $ $ $ $$ $$ !! !! $$ $ $ ! ! ! $ $ $$ ! ! ! ! ! $ $ ! ! ! ! $ ! ! $ ! $ !! ! !! ! $ !! $ $ $ $ !!! !! ! !! !! $ $ $ $ ! $ $ ! ! $ $ ! ! ! $$ $ ! $ !!! !! $ !! $ $ $ ! ! ! ! !!! $$ $ ! ! $ ! ! ! ! $$ ! ! !!

130 !! !! £ ¤ ! ! ! ! !

130 ! !!!! ! £ ¤ ! ! ! ! ! ! $ $ !! $ $ $ $ $ $$ $ $ $ $ !! ! $$ $ $ $ !! $ $ $ ! ! $ $ $ !! $ $ ! $ $$ ! !! !!! ! $ ! !! $$ $$$$ !!! ! ! $$$ $ !! $ ! !!!!

I-35 ! $ !! !

I-35 ! !!!!!! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! !! ! !!! !! ! ! ! $ ! ! !!! !!!!!! ! !!!!!!! ! $ ! ! ! ! $ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! $$ ! ! $ !! ! ! ! ! ! ! $ $ ! ! !! ! !! $ $ ! $ $$ $ $ !! !! $ !!! $$ Legend !!!! !! ! $ !!! $ ! ! ! ! ! !

Master Boundary $ ! ! ! ! ! $ ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !! !!!

Site Boundary !! $$ ! ! ! ! $ !!

Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin !!! !!! ! ! $ $ ! ! $ ! ! ! ! ! $ Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin !! !!! ! ! $$ $ !!!!!

Master Boundary ! ! ! $ $ ! $ $ $ ! !

Future High Capacity Bus $$ !! ! $ !!! ! $ $ $ $$ $ !! $ ! ! $$ $ ! $ $ ! $ ! $ !

Highways ! $ ! $$ $ $ !!! ! ! !! ! $ ! !Project ! $ $ $ $ $ ! $ Site Streets ! ! $ ! $ !! !! $ ! ! ! ! $ ! ! ! ! !!

Site_Boundary $$$$ ! ! $$$ ! ! ! $ $ $$ $$ $$$ ! ! ! ! ! $$$ $$ $$$ ! $$ $ $$$ !

Master Boundary !! $ $$ $ $ $$ $$$ !! $$ $ $$ ! ! $ $ $ $$ ! !

Streets $$ !!!! $$$ $ $$$ $$ $$ $ $ ! ! $$$ $ $ $$$$ !! ! $$$$$ $$$$ ! $$$ $ $ $ $ $$$$ ! $ $ $$ $$ $$$ $ $$$$ $$$$ $$ ! ! $ ! $ ! $ $ ! $$ $ ! $ ! ! $$$$ ! ! ! ! ! ! !$ ! ! ! !

4-Way ! Intersections ! !!!! ! ! !!!! !!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! !!! ! !! !!Routes ! !

Public !Transit !! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !!! ! !!!!! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! !!! ! ! !! !!!

Master Boundary ! !!! ! ! ! ! !Transit Stops ! ! ! ! !! !!! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! !! !!!! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! !!! !!!! !

Project Site !!!!!!! !

Future Bus ! ! High Capacity !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! ! !! !! ! ! ! ! !!! !! ! !

Streets !Streets ! !!! !! !!! ! ! !!!Proposed !!!!

Master Boundary ! !! ! !! !! ! !! ! !!!

$ $

G G G G G GGG

GG

GG

G

$

G

G

$

$ $ $$

$

$

$$

$$

GG

$

!

!

TRAVIS COUNTY Transit Stops

Proposed Streets

G

Future High Capacity Bus

0

Miles Miles 0.5 11 Streets 2 000.5Proposed 0.5 2 1 2 3

Data Source:

CITY OF MANOR

Health Care Facilities CITY OF AUSTIN

Health Care Facilities CITY OF AUSTIN

Miles 4

CITY OF PFLUGERVILLE

$ $

$

$

$ $ $

$ $ $$ $ $$ $

$

£ ¤ £ ¤ $ 290 290

$ $ $

$ $ $ $$ $$ $ $ $$

No health care services exist within the site and only one is in the adjacent area. Several are located a drivable distance away in Austin.

Transit Stops Future High Capacity Bus

130

$ $ $

4-Way Intersections

CITY PFLUGERVILLE PublicOF Transit Routes

£ ¤

$ $

are some health care facilities around the periphery of our site, our site CITY OFPFLUGERVILLE PFLUGERVILLE CITY OF would TRAVIS benefit COUNTY from more health care facilities, TRAVIS COUNTY especially considering that the area will likely experience continued population growth in the coming decade.

Public Transit Routes

$

CITY MANOR 4-WayOF Intersections

G

$

GG

CITY OF AUSTIN Streets $

CITYOF OFAUSTIN AUSTIN CITY CITYOF OFMANOR MANOR Moreover, while there CITY

£ ¤ £ ¤

Health ProjectCare Site Facilities

Site While Project there are some available transit stops to the Streets Streets West of our site, the area within our site boundary 4-Way Intersections lacks transit This is probably due to the 4-Wayconnectivity.

Intersections nature of much of our site as relatively undeveloped PublicTransit TransitRoutes Routes Public rural land. Nevertheless, the potential to connect !

TransitStops Stops Transit the! transit stops to the West with the future high Future High Capacity Busmulti-modal transit Future Bus capacity busHigh lineCapacity and future Proposed Streets would enable our site’s within Proposed our site boundary Streets future to use public transit to get around HealthCare Care Facilities G residents Health Facilities G locally.

TRAVIS COUNTY

DataSource: Source: Data Source: City of Austin

Date: April 2017 Author: Hannah Simonson CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

53

£ ¤ 130

Wastewater Service Almost all of the site will be serviced by Austin water and wastewater infrastructure. Once the site is annexed, this service will be supplied by Austin.

The commitment to wastewater service infrastructure is a strong indicator that market forces will promote development in this area.

£ ¤

£ ¤

130

£ ¤

1

Site Boundary Site Boundary Wastewater Service Area Wastewater Service Area

130

£ ¤ 130

Energy Service £ ¤ 130

Austin’s energy service area currently covers the west half of the site. Once the site becomes incorporated into the city of Austin it will be completely covered by Austin energy services.

$ $

0 Source: City of Austin Date: April 2017 Author: Hannah Simonson & Lee Stevens

54

0.5

1

£ ¤

290 Site Boundary

Energy Service Area

£ ¤ 290

£ ¤ 290

0 Miles 2

0.5

1

Miles 2

$

Data S Data Source:

0

0.5

1

Miles 2

Gilleland Creek District 290

$

0

0.5

1

Strengths • Proximity of the site to major roads, like Highway 130, for easy access to the rest of Austin.

• No brownfields exist within the site, making development easier and less expensive.

• There is a growing sidewalk and bike path network across the site.

• Services like water, wastewater, and energy are provided by the city of Austin.

Opportunities • New sidewalk and bike lane infrastructure is being built across the site.

• CapMetro connectivity planned in the future.

• School infrastructure.

• The site has the opportunity to build health centers in the site to give residents better access to health care.

• Water and wastewater connection to Austin central services.

• There is potential for creek greenbelts to be built through the site.

Weaknesses • There is poor connectivity within the site and within subdivisions.

• There are several subdivisions under construction.

• With the new development in the site and the construction of new home comes an increase in impermeable cover.

Threats • The site could become over-developed.

• Loss of coherent community character due to over-development.

• More development could mean a further reduction of the tree canopy.

• The site could become even more drivercentric in its layout and infrastructure.

• Development could lead to a reduction in active transportation, such as walking or biking.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

55

ECONOMY

While the current population of our area is on par to meet Neighborhood Center population goals set by Imagine Austin, the area around our site, and particularly the Wells Branch Neighborhood Center, clearly does not yet have between 2,500 to 7,000 jobs.

However, there are numerous small employers in the area, and one fairly large employer - the Samsung Superconductor. The area should endeavor to establish a sustainable local economy, with local businesses focused on leisure and retail, and generally more opportunities for new residents and existing residents in search of employment to live and work in the area.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

57

Economy While Austin has maintained notably low levels of unemployment over the course of its recent growth, our site area has a level of unemployment that is slightly higher. While Austin is home to many large, national and international employers, it is also home to a large number of small and local businesses that contribute both to our economic strength and the cultural vitality of area. We would like to see the same local business growth that characterizes Austin expand into the area within our site as well. Imagine Austin wants to promote “business entrepreneurship, innovation, and a culture of creativity,� and we would like to see the same thing happen in our site. (Imagine Austin, 144)

Austin Executive Airport Source: Google Maps

While the current population of our area is on par to meet Neighborhood Center population goals set by Imagine Austin, the area around our site, and particularly the Wells Branch Neighborhood Center, clearly does not yet have between 2,500 to 7,000 jobs. There are, however, numerous small employers in the area, and of course one fairly large employer (the Samsung Superconductor).

Samsung Austin Semiconductor Source: Google Maps

58

Gilleland Creek District

Christie ShowJumpers, Inc. Source: Google Maps

Commute to Work

Means of Commuting by Number of Commuters

The majority of individuals in our site have a commute time of 10 to 19 minutes, which is actually a decrease from recent years. Notably, very few individuals have very long commute times - the majority of commute times fall under 30 minutes.

Worked at home Other means Walked Bicycle ACS 2015

Motorcycle

ACS 2012

Public transporta@on (Includes Taxicab)

The great majority of individuals that live near our site drive to work, and almost 80% of them drive alone. While there was a slight increase in the amount of people who carpooled in recent years (16% of commuters up from 14%), there are few commuters who use public transit or other means of transportation.

Carpooled Drove Alone Car, truck, or van 0

1000 2000 3000 4000 5000 6000 7000 8000

Commute Time by Number of Commuters 2500

2000

1500 ACS 2012 ACS 2015 1000

500

0

Less than 10 10 to 19 minutes minutes

20 to 29 minutes

30 to 39 minutes

40 to 59 minutes

60 to 89 minutes

90 or More Worked at minutes home

Data Source: American Community Survey, 2015 (accessed through Social Explorer) CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

59

Job Types & Employers

Types of Jobs by Number of Employees Transporta;on and material moving

The residents within the Census Block Groups we focused on hold an array of jobs, with the greatest proportion of them identified as “professional” workers. There are also large proportions that work in “Construction, extraction, and maintenance,” as well as in the category of “Office and administrative support.” Major employers or sectors include the airport, light industrial, home repair, equestrian, textile production, and agriculture. Many of the businesses are concentrated along Immanuel Road, our site’s Western boundary.

Some local businesses include: Progressive Waste Solutions Almost Free Motors Premium Cuts Lawn Service and Maintenance Delara Landscaping and Lawn Horse Empowered Learning Programs (HELP) Esoteric Farm Angell Plumbing Rew Materials Castelberry Instrument and Avncs SunSigns Matera Paper Hill Country Wholesale, Inc. Top Dawg Electronics Axis Tool and Manufacturing All My Sons Moving and Storage Vanguard Fire Systems LP Crosslink Powder Coating of Austin Sherwin-Williams Floorcovering Store SSI Commercial and Highway DogBoy’s Dog Ranch Platron Manufacturing/Plating M and M Collision Repair Christie ShowJumpers, Inc. Hardcore Survival Boulder Ridge Central Texas BMX Data Source: American Community Survey, 2015 (accessed through Social Explorer)

60

Gilleland Creek District

Produc;on Construc;on, extrac;on, and maintenance Office and administra;ve support Sales and related Personal care and service

ACS 2015

Building and grounds cleaning and maintenance

ACS 2012

Food prepara;on and serving related Protec;ve service Healthcare support Professional and related Management, business, and financial opera;ons 0

Concentration of light industrial and manufacturing businesses.

Photo Credit: Hannah Simonson

200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400 1600 1800

Data Source for Economic & Housing Analysis To distill the economic characteristics and needs of our site area without giving too much weight to areas outside of Austin’s jurisdiction (Manor and Pflugerville), we focused on three Census Block groups for this portion of the report - Group 1 and 2 in Census Tract 18.42, and Group 2 in Census Tract 18.56. Small portions of our site are technically outside of these three tracts, although they are for the most part undeveloped.

We also chose to measure economic and housing data from the ACS 5-year survey taken between 2008 and 2012 against a more recent ACS 5-year survey taken between 2011 and 2015. We decided to choose a more brief timeline so that we would be able to get a clearer picture of our area’s current growth trajectory.

$

Da 0

0.5

1

2

3

Miles 4

Population Density (Per Sq. Mile) by Block Group

Census Block Group used for Jobs/Housing Analysis

Source: Social Explorer Date: April 2017 Author: Ian Becker CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

61

Employment 2015 There are just over 8,000 people in the labor force in the Census Block Groups we measured for economic factors, and about 7,300 of them are employed. Because Imagine Austin sets Neighborhood Centers as locations that can sustain between 5,000 and 10,000 people, our site area has room to grow, and according to Imagine Austin, should try and spur growth close to the Wells Branch Neighborhood Center. The area designated for the center is currently not the area that has the most employed people, although with 290 an increase in available jobs, that would likely change if new residents were able to live and work in the area.

Legend

£ ¤

Class Site Boundary Highways_MasterBoundary

Imagine Austin Corridors Master B

Unemployed People 16+

130

£ ¤

0 1 - 50 51 - 100 101 - 150 151 - 200

130

£ ¤

0.75Unemployment 1.5 3 Miles 2015

62

Gilleland Creek District

Class Site Boundary Highways_MasterBoundary Imagine Austin Corridors Master Boundary

Unemployed People 16+ 0

130

Legend

£ ¤

While most of the labor force is employed, just under 10% of our labor force is unemployed. While there has been an overall drop in unemployment in Austin (it currently stands at around 5%), unemployment has grown in our site area, albeit by a normal rate considering our area’s growth. Similarly, the area Median Family Income for our area has not grown as fast as Austin’s. Both of these changes could be explained by numerous factors; we see them as a justification for proposing changes in our area that fulfill its goal as a neighborhood hub that provides various economic development opportunities.

Source: ACS 2011-15 (5yr estimate) and CAMPO Date: April 2017 Author: Ian Becker

201 - 250 251 - 300

£ ¤

Over 3000

29

$

Legend

$

Class Site Boundary

Highways_Master

0

0.5

1

Miles Imagine Austin Co laborforce16 / none 2 0 0.5 1 0

1 - 1000 1001 - 2000

2001 0 - 3000 29

¤ MEASURED AGAINST EMPLO£ Legend Class Site Boundary Highways_MasterBoundary

Total Employment in Area

Employment & Housing

0

Many of the employees of the Semiconductor may not live in our site, although we did discern a concentration of renter occupied units near the Semiconductor site, as well as a significant number of owner occupied units in the general Western have of our Master Boundary area. This is also explained by the fact that the Northwest corner of our Master Boundary has a lot of vacant land.

1 - 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 501 - 600 601 - 700

We observed a relationship between renter and owner occupied units and the concentration of jobs near our site area.

Near the Samsung reactor, we noticed a particularly high concentration of renter occupied units. This may suggest that some employees of this major business are renting housing nearby, or if they aren’t, that more mixed housing might provide them the opportunity to do so.

701 - 800

130

£ ¤

801 - 1432

Owner Occupied Units

130

£ ¤

0 1 - 350 351 - 700 701 - 1050 1051 - 1400 Over 1400

Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin

Owner

Legend Class Site Boundary

Legend

Future High Capacity Bus

Highways_MasterBoundary

Total Employment in Area

Class Site Boundary

Highways

Highways_MasterBoundary

0

£ ¤

Streets

0 29 0

Total Employment in Area

Site_Boundary Master Boundary

1 - 100 101 - 200

1 - 100

201 - 300

101 - 200

301 - 400

201 - 300

401 - 500

301 - 400 401 - 500 501 - 600 601 - 700

701 - 800

130

£ ¤

$

´

801 - 1432

Renter Occupied Units 0

0

1 - 350

0.75

351 - 700

701 - 1050

1051 - 1400 Over 1400

Data Source: 0

0.5

1

2

3

Miles 4

Renter

1.5

$$

501 - 600 601 - 700

701 - 800

801 - 1432

Owner Occupied Units 0

130

Master Boundary

1 - 350 351 - 700

00

£ ¤

Legend

0.5 1

701 - 1050

12

3 Miles

0.5 - 1400 1051

3

Miles 2 4Miles

Over 1400

Source: ACS 2011-15 (5yr estimate) and CAMPO Date: April 2017 Author: Ian Becker CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

290

63

Labor vs. Employment

PEOPLE IN LABOR FORCE 16 AND OVER BY BLOCK GROUP, 2015 MEASURED AGAINST EMPLOYMENT IN AREA

Legend

The biggest employer in our areaClass is Site Samsung, which has Boundary established the Samsung Austin Semiconductor Southwest Highways_MasterBoundary of our site. According to dataTotal provided by CAMPO, the Employment in Area Semiconductor houses over 1400 jobs.

0 1 - 100 - 200 The residents within the Census101Block Groups we 201 - 300 focused on hold an array of jobs, with the greatest 301 - 400 proportion of them identified as “professional” 401 - 500 workers. There are also large proportions that work 501 maintenance,” - 600 in “Construction, extraction, and as well as in the category of “Office and administrative 601 - 700 support.”

Legend

701 - 800

Class Site Boundary Highways_MasterBoundary

0 1 - 100 101 - 200

130

Total Employment in Area

£ ¤

201 - 300 301 - 400 401 - 500 501 - 600

£ ¤

601 - 700

290

701 - 800

Legend

130

Class Site Boundary

£ ¤

While an Airport might seem like a major regional employer, the Austin Executive Airport seems to 801 - 1432 have a fairly lean operation. The Airport’s website In Labor Force Over 16 only lists one business - People a charter plane service 0 named Tower Aviation. But there is also a company 1 - 1000 named Up Above Austin apparent through Google 1001 - 2000 2001 3000 Maps that provides Airplane tours, sightseeing, Over 3000 and first flying experiences. The only other business apparent through Google Maps is named LIFT Aviation, a professional aircraft management company.

801 - 1432

Highways_MasterBoundary

1 - 1000

101 - 200

1001 - 2000

201 - 300

2001 - 3000

301 - 400

Over 3000

501 - 600 601 - 700

64

Gilleland Creek District

701 - 800

801 - 1432

People In Labor Force Over 16 0 1 - 1000

$

0

130

0

1 - 100

401 - 500

Source: ACS 2011-15 (5yr estimate) and CAMPO Date: April 2017 Author: Ian Becker

People In Labor Force Over 16

0

£ ¤

Total Employment in Area

0.5

1

Miles 2

$

0

0.5

Strengths •

•

• •

Proximity to highway provides the means for Austin residents to commute in from outside the community, should the Neighborhood Center create more job opportunities.

Lots of character-specific businesses, such as equestrian training businesses. The businesses are characteristic of a more rural community, which could be incorporated into consideration of future development.

There is ample land on which to build more businesses, and the Neighborhood Center could spur many smaller businesses.

There are unemployed residents that could potentially work very close to where they live, should more jobs be created in the area.

Opportunities • • • •

• •

Create more retail and entertainment focused businesses that serve the growing population of the community.

Increase the presence of construction/maintenance businesses to be hired for local development.

Attract larger employers but solicit such employers in tandem with numerous smaller regional businesses.

Expand regional transit options or multi-modal opportunities to sustain increased economic growth and keep commute times low for residents of the community.

Increase the presence of leisure-oriented businesses so that residents will want to work as well as play within their community.

Increased interaction between Samsung workers and our site.

Weaknesses • • •

•

Dearth of retail businesses and non-specialized businesses (i.e. general stores, coffee shops, places to spend leisure time).

Very few opportunities to take public transit, not a lot of current multi-modal options.

Many of the businesses rely on a rural character to function - equestrian training businesses, for instance, probably do not want to be surrounded by mixed-use development. This, however, could also be a strength if the community is conscientious about where they site new development.

Samsung workers may not live in the community and probably do not spend their leisure time/lunch time within the community.

Threats • • • •

•

Reliance on manufacturing businesses that do not employ a lot of workers.

Remain a location which outsources much of its development to businesses from elsewhere in the state.

Loss of rural or semi-rural character and charm and the businesses that sustain this.

Over-reliance on the highway as the sole means of transit, lack of development in open space that spurs residents to be active and spend their leisure time close to where they live.

Failing to provide retail service demands (restaurants, beauty salons, coffee shops, etc) that creates the Neighborhood Center character outlined by Imagine Austin - a place to live, work and play.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

65

HOUSING

Austin is a city that is increasingly notorious for its rising housing costs. The loss of affordable housing in Austin changes the demographic, economic, and cultural makeup of the city. But while Austin is in many ways still adjusting from its transition from a small town with predominantly single-family homes into a thriving regional metropolis that necessitates a greater variety of housing options, its surrounding areas will begin to receive more folks and an influx of development, and can still prepare accordingly. The Wells Branch Neighborhood Center site area should develop into a locale that sustains numerous types of housing and provides places for all to live and thrive, regardless of socioeconomic background.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

67

Housing

Number of Houses by Value Bracket Over $300,000

Consistent with other goals in the Imagine Austin plan, preserving a wide range of household affordability is essential to preserving the character of neighborhoods. While our site area is not as expensive to live in as other hotbeds of growth in Austin, the City must provide a range of energy and resource-efficient housing options and prices in all parts of the City to sustainably meet the housing needs of all segments of our diverse population, and to properly plan for the future. In our area, like in the rest of Austin, we need to sustain distinct, stable, and attractive neighborhoods that preserve and reinforce the livability, character, and special sense of place in Austin. New housing in our site should reflect the growth of complete neighborhoods across Austin that offer a mix of housing types and land uses, affordable housing and transportation options, and access to healthy food, schools, retail, employment, community services, and parks and recreation options (Imagine Austin 138).

$150,000 to $299,999 $100,000 to $149,999

ACS 2015

$50,000 to $99,999

ACS 2012

$20,000 to $49,999 Less than $20,000 0 Households By Household Type Households: Family Households: Married-couple Family Other Family: Single Male Householder Single Female Householder Nonfamily Households: Male Householder Female Householder

500

1000

ACS 2012 3454 2542 1926 616 320

1500

% of Total 73.6% 55.8% 17.8% 9.3%

2000

ACS 2015 4327 3071 2139 932 319

% of Total 71.0% 49.4% 21.5% 7.4%

296

8.6% 613

14.2%

912 534 378

26.4% 1256 15.5% 575 10.9% 681

29.0% 13.3% 15.7%

Means of Transportation to Work For Workers 16 Years and Over Workers 16 Years and Over: Car, truck, or van Drove Alone Carpooled Public transportation (Includes Taxicab) Motorcycle Bicycle Walked Other means Worked at home

ACS 2012 4920 4594 3898 696 47 11 0 64 0 204

PERCENT CHANGE

% of Total

ACS 2015 7087 6739 5603 1136 0 0 13 27 19 289

20.2 17.2 10.0 33.9 -0.3 51.7 27.4 7.1 44.5

% of Total

95.1% We observed a notable increase in households led93.4% by a single female householder.

This could 79.2% 79.1% be the result of single parent households getting priced out of Austin proper, or simply finding 14.2% 16.0% 1.0% 0.0% affordable places to live in somewhat close proximity to the schools in the area and arriving from 0.2% 0.0% elsewhere. In either case, this statistic jumped out as0.0% being worthy of consideration for future 0.2% 1.3% 0.4% housing planning endeavors.

Source: U.S. Census Data (ACS 2012, 2015)

68

Gilleland Creek District

0.0% 4.2%

0.3% 4.1%

Photo Credit: Google Maps CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

69

Housing Typologies

$

While much of our site is undeveloped, the highest proportions of housing-related land uses are for mobile home parks and large-lot single family homes. As Austin grows and the population of our site area increases, numerous companies are erecting new subdivisions. Many subdivisions are currently under construction. The median year that the homes in our Census Blocks were built is 1999. Thus, there is not a lot of older housing stock.

However, the ACS 2012 data sets this number at 1980, which reflects the fact that many newer units have recently been built.

Notably, our site currently has no apartment or condo units present; even the area designated by the Neighborhood Center has mobile homes and large-lot single family homes. This would suggest that in order to create more mixed-use development and infill housing around the center, the existing housing may have to undergo a significant shit.

$ Site Activity Center

0

Site Boundary

0.75

1.5

Single Family

3

Miles 6

4.5

Mobile Homes Large-lot Single Family Source: City of Austin 0.75 Date:1.5April 2017 3 Author: Ian Becker

70

Gilleland Creek District

4.5

Miles 6

Apartment/Condo

0

0.75

1.5

3

4.5

Miles 6

$

0

0.5

TAL HOUSING UNITS BY BLOCK GROUP, 2015

Total Housing Units

130

£ ¤

In the last 15 years, there has been a very substantial increase in the amount of housing units built to the West of our site and also West of Highway 130 within our site. While most of these units have been built just West of Imagine Austin’s proposed Wells Branch Neighborhood Center, the direction of housing construction indicates that new units will continue to be built on undeveloped parcels in the coming years. What is also notable about our studies related to new units is that new housing units have been concentrated just West of our site but less so directly to the Southwest; this would suggest that a portion of our site is in a “hotbed” of housing development, and that housing construction in these areas is not simply growing in concentric circles.

Legend

2000

Class Site Boundary Imagine Austin Corridors Master Boundary

£ ¤ 290

Highways_MasterBoundary Street_Names

Total Units 0

$$

130

2 Miles

£ ¤

1

Legend

2015

Class Site Boundary

1 - 350 351 - 700 701 - 1050 1051 - 1400 Over 1400

0 0

0.5

0.5 1

12

3

Miles 2 4Miles

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2012/2015) accessed via Social Explorer Date: April 2017 Author: Ian Becker

Imagine Austin Corridors Master Boundary Highways_MasterBoundary CRP386 Street_Names

0 29Units Total

- Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

71

OWNER OCCUPIED HOUSING UNITSLegend

BY BLOCK GROUP, 201 Owner Occupied Units Land Cover Site

The 2011-2015 ACS survey measured 3,127 owner occupied housing units, as opposed to only 2,563 that were measured in the 2008-2012 survey. From our site visit, it is clear that many of these units fall in line with the existing housing development trend which indicates that people are buying large-lot single family homes or mobile homes and choosing to reside in them.

Open Water Developed Open Space Developed Low Intensity Developed Medium Intensity Developed High Intensity

130

Legend

£ ¤

The greatest portion of homes in our Census Block Groups are valued at between $150,000 and $300,000 dollars.

According to data we sourced from the 2015 ACS 5-year survey, 49% of housing units available in our Census Blocks fell within this range. For Austin, 43% of homes fall within this category, while 23% are valued from $300,000 to $500,000. For our Census blocks, just over 1% of homes within this latter category.

GRIDCODE

Master Boundary Site Boundary Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin

Shrub/Scrub

Future High Capacity Bus Highways

Grassland/Herbaceous

Site_Boundary Master Boundary

Pasture/Hay

Class Site Boundary Imagine Austin Corridors Master Boundary

Cultivated Crops

Highways_MasterBoundary

Woody Wetland

Street_Names

Master Boundary

Owner Occupied Units

£ ¤ 290

130

£ ¤

1 - 350 351 - 700 701 - 1050 1051 - 1400 Over 1400

0 0

0.5

0.5 1

12

3

Miles 2 4Miles

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2012/2015) accessed via Social Explorer Date: April 2017 Author: Ian Becker

72

2000

Site Boundary

0

$$

Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest

Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin

Streets

Legend

Barren Land, Rock/Sand/Clay

Data Source:

Data Source: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html

Legend

2015

Class Site Boundary

Imagine Austin Corridors Master Bou

Gilleland Creek District

Highways_MasterBoundary Street_Names

290Occupied Units Owner

CCUPIED HOUSING UNITS BY BLOCK GROUP, 2015 Renter Occupied Units

130

£ ¤

The 2011-2015 ACS survey measured 1,200 renter occupied housing units, as opposed to only 891 that were measured in the 2008-2012 survey. There has not been a large increase in renter-occupied units as of yet, and our site has the opportunity to plan housing for an eventual likely increase in the renter population.

2000

The median gross rent for our Census Block area is $1,200 (as taken from the ACS 2015), which has actually gone down from $1,123, the number indicated by the ACS 2012 measurements. This reflects the relatively low cost of rent in our area, especially compared to the rising rents in greater Austin.

Legend Class Site Boundary

£ ¤

Imagine Austin Corridors Master Boundary

290

Highways_MasterBoundary Street_Names

Renter Occupied 0

2 Miles

$$

130

1

£ ¤

0.5

Legend

2015

Class Site Boundary

1 - 350 351 - 700 701 - 1050 1051 - 1400 Over 1400

0 0

0.5

0.5 1

12

3

Miles 2 4Miles

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2012/2015) accessed via Social Explorer Date: April 2017 Author: Ian Becker

Imagine Austin Corridors Master Boundary Highways_MasterBoundary CRP386 Street_Names

290Occupied Renter

- Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

73

Vacant Housing Units

Legend

While vacant units were uniformly present throughout our site area 15 years ago, there has been a notable decrease in the availability of vacant units in the same areas that are currently experiencing the most rapid unit growth. Thus, it is evident that new units are being purchased and occupied or rented fairly quickly, and that the supply in housing is probably catching up with demand, rather than the other way around.

GRIDCODE

Land Cover Site Open Water Developed Open Space Developed Low Intensity Developed Medium Intensity

130

Legend

£ ¤

Developed High Intensity

Master Boundary Site Boundary Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin

Shrub/Scrub

Future High Capacity Bus Highways Streets

Grassland/Herbaceous

Site_Boundary Master Boundary

Pasture/Hay

Class Site Boundary

£ ¤ 290

Woody Wetland

Highways_MasterBoundary

Master Boundary

Street_Names

Site Boundary

Vacant Units

130

£ ¤

0 1 - 100 101 - 200 201 - 300 Over 300

0 0

0.5

0.5 1

12

3

Miles 2 4Miles

Source: U.S. Census Bureau (ACS 2012/2015) accessed via Social Explorer Date: April 2017 Author: Ian Becker

74

2000

Cultivated Crops

Imagine Austin Corridors Master Boundary

$$

Deciduous Forest Evergreen Forest

Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin

Legend

Barren Land, Rock/Sand/Clay

Data Source:

Data Source: ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html

2015

Legend

Class Site Boundary

Gilleland Creek District

Imagine Austin Corridors Master Bou

£ ¤

Highways_MasterBoundary

290Street_Names

Strengths • More units are currently being built, which could help mitigate rising costs of housing in the future.

• The median rent is on par for the median rent for greater Austin, meaning that there is likely not a vast disparity in rent cost currently in our area.

• There is a lot of open space on which to build inclusive, affordable, and environmentally considerate housing.

• There is a lot of single family on the edges, but within our site there is an opportunity to define the housing characteristics of the area.

Opportunities • More infill development.

• More dense, connected housing structures that are integrated into a mixed use environment with opportunities for a localized economy.

• Preservation of traditionally affordable types of housing, such as mobile homes.

• Opportunity for live/work balance with increased focus on creating a local economy for the Neighborhood Center with leisure spaces and recreational uses.

Weaknesses • Construction of new subdivisions with massive single family structures.

• Lack of engagement with Samsung workers.

• Airport which could limit the construction of housing due to potential for nuisance.

• Lack of sidewalks, which is notably bad for families looking for welcoming neighborhoods.

Threats • Increasing housing costs and the loss of affordability.

• An influx of homeowners or renters that are strictly commuters and are not connected to the community.

• Increased development to the West of the Neighborhood Center.

• The suburbanization of the area in lieu of the creation of connected complete communities around more dense residential development.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

75

CHARACTER

We seek to extend the concept of “Complete Communities� to Neighborhood Center 42 by building off of existing character, and seeking to improve equity, economic prosperity, and environmental protection and connectivity.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

77

Community Character While the area is relatively undeveloped, there some distinctive characteristics that can be built upon in the future. The area is largely agricultural, with a cluster of equestrian centers, as well as adjacency to a major recreational sports complex.

There is also a budding activity hub at the intersection of Crystal Bend and Immanuel Road, which is within walking distance of major employment and housing developments.

With mounting development pressure, the existing residents and businesses are under threat to be enveloped by suburbia.

The City has already “improved” Wells Branch Pkwy. and Howard Lane in the expectation of major increase in demand.

Unfortunately, these speculative road improvements have set the scale of the developing areas to serve cars, despite the token narrow bike lanes and poorly connected and highly exposed sidewalks. If these road “improvements” continue without taking into account the rural context, the fragile existing character will certainly be lost. Highway 130 also presents a major challenge to connectivity and human scale development. With a right-of-way that is practically 1000 feet wide, there is little hope of creating walkable commercial development along the frontage road.

Photo Credit: haneywood.com.texas-trip.jpg

On the bright side, the creek system is relatively intact and already slated to be included in a future development through the site. There are still many productive agricultural uses, including a recently planted orchard and multiple small organic farms. Traffic is still low enough to enjoy the site by foot and bicycle relatively safely, although it’s lack of connectivity prevents most from doing so. The population of the site is also relatively diverse, and the residents we encountered were incredibly friendly.

Photo Credit: Daniel Alvarado & Devin Oliver

78

Gilleland Creek District

Industrial Park Industrial Park • • • • • • •

High Cover Cover HighImpervious Impervious Near Incompatible Uses Near Incompatible Uses Low Building Values Non-Agricultural Employment Low Building Values

• Non Ag Employment

Housing Subdivision Housing Subdivsion

• • • • • • •

Poor PoorConnectivity Connectivity Limited Site Sensitivity Limited Low BuildingSite ValuesSensitivity Contributing to Sprawl Low Building Values

• Contributing to Sprawl

Highway Corridor Highway Cooridor

• Poor Crossings & Connectivity • Poor Crossings • Limited Adjacent Use • Low Limited Adjacent Use • Traffic Volumes

• Low Traffic Volumes

Photo Credit: Google Maps CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

79

Streetscape Typologies In keeping with the vision of Imagine Austin, we would like to promote streets as places for people, not cars; “While many people are willing to walk or bike short distances, there are few places where it is safe and enjoyable. Complete streets seek to remedy this situation by making it safe and inviting for all users to share public roads. Complete streets should accommodate, but also encourage people to use alternative modes of transportation” (Imagine Austin, 120).

Until the past few years, Activity Center 42 only had two-lane rural roads. Recently, larger suburban corridors and large divided roads have been constructed, and more corridors are planned as part of the Imagine Austin plan.

In order to retain some of the area’s rural character and keep an appropriate human scale, we support the construction of two-lane roads with larger sidewalks and protected or buffered bike lanes.

This emphasis on complete streets will result in a safer, more walkable community.

80

Rural, No Shoulder

Source: Google Maps Author: Daniel Alvarado Gilleland Creek District

Rural, With Shoulder

Rural, Wide Shoulder

Suburban, With Facilities

Divided , With Facilities

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

81

Austin 2014 Bike Master Plan The Austin 2014 Bike Master Plan sets out an aspirational plan for creating bike networks that support the concept of “complete streets.� The Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan defines complete streets as streets that “support active lifestyles that are better for our health. They allow more people to live car-free and independently.

They can also help our economy, spurring private investment and redevelopment (Imagine Austin, 130).

We would like to build on the proposal in the 2014 Bike Master Plan and further emphasize connectivity to Pflugerville and future employment centers. By taking into account the future greenbelt system and budding BMX bike scene in the Activity Center 42 area, we can foster a recreational hub.

Although some bike lanes have been added to streets within the site, these are gutter lanes which provide little protection for bikers. Moving forward, protected or buffered lanes are preferable in order to truly promote use by local cyclists.

Source: Austin 2014 Bike Master Plan

82

Gilleland Creek District

Strengths • Strong Rural Character • Friendly Disposition • Eclectic Small Farms, School and Businesses • Sporting Cultural Around North East Metropolitan Park • New Roads have Bike Lanes and Sidewalks

Opportunities • Building on Agrarian, Equestrian Roots • Creating a Recreational Center Around NE Metro Park • Building on Latino Activity Center Near Don’s Short Stop (Crystal Bend @ Immanuel) • Creating a Recreational Greenbelt in Floodplain/Existing Natural Areas • Creating a new city District Identity Almost from Scratch

Weaknesses • No Identifiable Urban Center • New Roads are Wide and Fast, Scale is for Cars not People • Existing New Development Follows Sprawl Patterns • Fragmented and Scrubby Landscape • Poor Connectivity Between Development • Highway Creates Major Ecological and Cultural Barrier, Dead Space

Threats • Sprawl Development Threatens to turn Area into another placeless Suburbia • Quickly being Surrounded by Growth from Austin and Pflugerville • Increasing Industrial Uses, Especially near incompatible Uses • Not Included In CodeNEXT form Based code • Highway Development Exacerbates Car Culture • No cohesive Neighborhood to advocate for Itself • Proximity to Tech Jobs may Lead to Gentrification CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

83

Austin’s Gilleland Creek District Suitability & Scenario Planning

UTSOA Spring 2017 | Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

Development Suitability Analysis

Soil Suitability

To inform our understanding of the study area, and the ability of certain sections of the study area to support new development, we conducted a suitability analysis by assigning different weights to important factors that should be considered in the development of our study area. These included slope and terrain suitability, soil productivity, floodplain risk, wildfire hazard, highway hazard (from air toxins and other pollutants), as well as current 4-way stops and future planned parks.

We assigned higher weights to the highway hazard component, the future park parcels, and the wetland locations. These are all areas in which we think very limited development, or practically no development, should take place.

We assigned these components higher weights in an effort to preserve the environment, keep residents healthy, and support the existing plans to build or preserve sizeable spaces for parks, thereby creating opportunities for recreation and aesthetic beauty.

The USDA classifies land as “prime farmland” or “not prime farmland” land based on the physical and chemical characteristics of soil that “produce low economically sustained high yields of crops when treated and managed according to acceptable farming methods.”

suitability

In an effort to preserve prime farmland for agricultural production, we created this suitability map to indicate “not prime farmland” as more highly suitable for development.

86

Gilleland Creek District

high

Terrain Suitability

Floodplain Hazard

Steeply sloped terrain is unsuitable for development due to safety concerns about erosion, whereas flat land is more suitable for development because it is low safer and it is less expensive to prepare the site for development.

The FEMA 100-year floodplain is an environmental hazard that poses a human life and property. There are currently 21 buildings within the floodplain. low Future development is within the floodplain, or within 100-feet of it, is not suitable.

high

suitability

This map illustrates that the steeply sloped terrain of the site is less suitable for development. The steeper terrain is co-located with the creeks and floodplains.

high

suitability

This map indicates areas within and near the floodplain that are not suitable for development.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

87

Wildfire Hazard

Highway Hazard

While the wildfire hazard in the study area is mostly low, this map indicates the relative suitability based low on the threat of wild fires.

Highway 130 is a major arterial running through the study area. Although as a toll road, it currently doesn’t see very high traffic, the congestion is likely low to increase as this area becomes more developed.

high

suitability

suitability

The 500 feet on either side of the highway are considered unsuitable for development due to noise and air toxic pollution. This map indicates the areas that are unsuitable for development due to proximity to the major highways.

88

Gilleland Creek District

high

Parks

Street Network Connectivity

Although some currently two parks are immediately adjacent to the project area, the City of Austin has proposed future parks within the area, and a number low of conservation parcels owned by Travis County also exist within the site. These areas designated for future park use are unsuitable for development, as we are interested in preserving as much connected open space as possible.

Four-way intersections are indicative of street network connectivity. The project area and immediate surroundings to the north and east low are relatively undeveloped. However, the street network to the west is more fully. Higher density development should take advantage of extant street network connectivity.

high

suitability

high

suitability

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

89

20 %

10 %

low

suitability

90

10 %

Gilleland Creek District

high rea t

20%

10%

10%

open space & agricultural protection

pa rks

hig

ays

hw

4-w ay sto ps

advantageous street network connectivity

man-made hazard avoidance

20%

natural hazard avoidance

dfir e th

10%

tlan ds

wil

10 %

we

20 %

slo pe

20 %

l

Suitability

soi

10 % Weighted 10%

20%

Legend Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways Streets Site_Boundary Master Boundary

$

low

$

0

0

0.5

1

0.5 2

3

1

Miles 2

Data Source:

Miles 4

Data Source:

high

overall combined Site Bound development ftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.u suitability Value High : 591

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

ENVISION TOMORROW SCENARIO PLANNING

Using the Envision Tomorrow, a development feasibility model, we were able to conceive of three alternative futures for the Gilleland Creek District—a future neighborhood center of Austin.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

93

Scenario 1 Trend Envision Tomorrow, a GIS-based development feasibility modeling tool, allowed us to glimpse what the study area might look like if development continues in a business-as-usual fashion.

This included a percentage of open space at nearly 50 percent, a percentage of single family housing at almost 40 percent, and commercial development along the highway, among other things. The study area would contain approximately 22.6 thousand people, an average per household Vehicle Miles Traveled (VMT) count of 27, an average home price of $243,974, an average household income of $67,411.

While certain aspects of these figures fall within a “healthy” range – a job/housing balance of 1.3 is, for example, just under the ideal ratio of 1.5 – generally these outcomes are somewhat worrisome.

In particular, we wanted to address the average home price and income, and bring their numbers down so that our study area could be accessible to people of all incomes in the future, and not experience what low-income and marginalized populations now face in Austin – a rapid loss of affordability for housing and other necessities.

We also wanted to address the fact that there are virtually no renter-occupied units in this model, and that almost all new housing is single family. This is not a healthy mix; single family housing, when it is the sole form of housing in an urban area, can become very expensive very quickly, and effectively push out low or moderate income people due to ever increasing property taxes. Moreover, if this area is going to be one that supports and welcomes a diverse range of incomes and backgrounds, it will have to include rental housing.

By including different forms of housing, and considering alternative land uses that accord with our suitability analysis, we were able to achieve different possible outcomes for our study area, as we describe in the next two scenarios.

Open Space

Single Family Residential

Airport - Industrial

Corridor Commercial

94

Gilleland Creek District

GRIDCODE 1% civic

Open W

Develop

9%

corridor commercial

Develop

7% industrial

Develop

Develop Barren

46%

Deciduo

open space

Evergre

Shrub/S

Grassla Legend

Pasture

Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin

Cultivat

Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus

37%

Highways

school

Streets Site_Boundary Master Boundary

police station

Woody

single family

post office fire station

Master

Site Bo

library airport hospital

Trend Future Land Use

$$

single family residential

school

compact neighborhood

police station

main street commercial town center civic

0

00.5

1

0.5

2

1

3

Miles 2

fire station

mixed use

library

industrial

airport

office

hospital

airport

Miles 4

post office

agriculture parks & open space Data Source: corridor commercial

Population

22,658

0%

Renter Occupied

TREND Jobs/Housing Balance

1.3

Avg. Home Price

$243,974

VMT

27

Avg. Income

$67,511/ year

19 Affordability $1,660/ Carbon month (Housing + Emissions single family residential per house Energy) compact neighborhood (tons/yr) street commercialftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html Datamain Source: town center civic mixed use industrial

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

95

Scenario 2 Complete Community

96

Gilleland Creek District

VISION Direct new development toward Imagine Austin’s “Activity Centers” in ways that create a compact network of “complete” communities that are livable, interconnected, and environmentally sustainable.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

97

Scenario 2 Complete Community

Concept Map

Compact Neighborhood Mainstreet Gateway

Activity Center

Farmland

95% reduction in conventional lot single family homes compared to Trend Scenario

Industrial Center

Source/Photo Credit:

Greenbelt

Subtitle Highway Average household income reduced by $20,953 compared to Trend Scenario

Open Space

98

Gilleland Creek District

Buffer

20,395 more new jobs than Trend Scenario

Conventional Agriculture

Compact Community

Office

Main Street Commercial

Civic (ie. schools)

GRIDCODE

Open W 2% industrial

4% office

1% civic

5% main street commercial

1% town center

Develop

Develop

6% mixed use

Develop

19% compact neighborhood

Develop Barren

Deciduo

4% single family

Evergre

19% agriculture

Shrub/S

Grassla Legend

Pasture

Master Boundary Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin

Cultivat

Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways

school

39%

Streets Site_Boundary

Woody

open space

Master Boundary

police station post office fire station

Master

Site Bo

library airport hospital

Complete Communities Future Land Use

$$

single family residential

school

compact neighborhood

police station

main street commercial town center civic

0

00.5

1

0.5

2

1

3

Miles 2

fire station

mixed use

library

industrial

airport

office

hospital

airport

Miles 4

post office

agriculture parks & open space Data Source: corridor commercial

Population

41,449

56%

Renter Occupied COMPLETE

COMMUNITY Jobs/Housing Balance

1.4

Avg. Home Price

$174,423

VMT

20

Avg. Income

$46,558/ year

11.6 Affordability $1,490/ Carbon month (Housing + Emissions single family residential per house Energy) compact neighborhood (tons/yr) street commercialftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html Datamain Source: town center civic mixed use industrial

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

99

Scenario 2 | Narrative Summary Our approach to a “Complete Communities” scenario for the Gilleland Creek Activity Center draws heavily from the development patterns laid out in Austin’s comprehensive plan, “Imagine Austin,” while incorporating a strong emphasis on the preservation of agricultural land and open space. In addition, we shifted emphasis away from Imagine Austin activity center #42, which is located adjacent to Highway 130 in the Northeast section of our study area, towards activity center #8, which is in the Southwest section. This shift is intended to deemphasize car-oriented highway development in a depopulated, undeveloped area, while channeling development where there is already housing, employment, infrastructure and services. This decision reflects our overall goal of reducing leapfrog development in greenfield areas, encouraging denser land-uses, and incorporating highly functional ecological, active transportation and transit networks. In short, our vision for this scenario is the following: Direct new development toward Imagine Austin’s “Activity Centers” in ways that create a compact network of “complete” communities that are livable, interconnected, and environmentally sustainable.

Neighborhood Centers According to Imagine Austin, neighborhood centers are the smallest and most locally focused of the three “mixed-use centers” (the others being the regional and town centers). These centers are used in the plan to designate areas where growth is to be encouraged. Neighborhood centers are walkable, bikeable and served by transit, and include amenities such as libraries, dry cleaners, salons, schools, restaurants and related small businesses which serve the immediately surrounding area. These centers have a population between 5,000 and 10,000 people, and support between 2,500 and 7,000 jobs. (Imagine Austin 105) Mainstreet Gateway To achieve this scenario, we propose a “Mainstreet Gateway” mixed use area along Crystal Bend Drive in order to anchor development where it can be connected to neighborhood center #8 and serve the relatively dense residential areas such as Dessau Estates and Boulder Ridge. This development is to precede development in areas further east, such as neighborhood center #42, to promote future growth that follows Imagine Austin’s “Compact and Connected” ethos. Additionally, the development should use the form-based land use code currently being developed, known as CodeNEXT, to administrate development patterns.

The mainstreet gateway is informed by the typology of traditional Texas main streets that are still thriving in nearby towns such as Fredericksburg or Elgin, while incorporating contemporary considerations seen in Boulder, Colorado, or the Mueller neighborhood in Austin. The gateway refers to a physical and psychological entry into the Gilleland Creek Activity Center, which serves to create a sense of place and identity for those who come to live, work and play in the area.

100

Gilleland Creek District

Rural by Design + Active Transportation In addition to the Mainstreet Gateway, we propose taking advantage of the relative blank slate of the study area to create a community that is integrated with the landscape from outset, where the entire community is connected to open space, agriculture and urban areas via network of ecological corridors, active transportation trails and transit. These measures are intended to improve accessibility, reduce car dependence, preserve and enhance the natural landscape, and create a beautiful, highly livable community.

Drawing from Rural by Design, a book and planning framework by Randall Arendt, we insist that the areas outside the neighborhood activity centers develop in a way that is in harmony with the landscape, preserves vital ecological corridors, and maintains agriculturally productive farms. For instance, in areas of low density, single family homes, plots should be laid out in a manner that minimizes the impact on the ecological and aesthetic value of the areas by clustering around common green space rather than large individual yards. By reducing the footprint of individual plots, the residences receive greater access to public parks and amenities in return, while fostering a close knit community with a distinct character.

In addition, these areas should be designed with the primacy of pedestrian and bicycle networks, rather than automobiles, in mind. This can be achieved by developing a network of highly connected off – street paths that utilize the floodplain and utility right-of-ways to promote active transportation as the convenient and safe local transportation option. This active transportation network should provide direct access to transit, education, employment, shopping and entertainment, which will be clustered in the neighborhood centers and other mixed-use areas.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

101

Scenario Distinctions & Outcomes It should be understood that the “High Sustainability Scenario,” is meant as a more ambitious and perhaps utopian iteration of the “Complete Communities Scenario”, and thus it should be assumed that the goals posited in the Complete Communities scenario also apply in the high sustainability scenario, unless it is explicitly stated elsewhere. Both scenarios represent a dramatic departure from the trend scenario, which is of course the intention. To illustrate this departure, we will highlight three metrics that were derived using the Envision Tomorrow software package.

First, we see a decrease of single-family home development by 95% due to our introduction of the “compact neighborhood” development type. Compact neighborhoods differ from single family neighborhoods in its incorporation of the “missing middle” forms of housing such as duplexes, small apartments complexes and mixed use development. It allows for local neighborhood services and employment such as corner stores or small offices. These compact neighborhoods might resemble Hyde Park or Cherrywood, except with more diverse building stock and uses.

Second, the introduction of missing middle housing has allowed us to reduce average household income needed to afford buying home by over $20,000 compared to the trend scenario. This dramatically lowers the barrier of entry into the housing market, which is in line with both Imagine Austin and our own stated goals. By accommodating smaller and more diverse building stock, we introduce a much more flexible housing market that helps generate wealth in the community.

Third, the broad incorporation of mixed – use and main street development types is projected to create over 20,000 new jobs in the study area over the trend scenario, while maintaining a healthy jobs/housing balance of 1.4. Again, this is in line with Imagine Austin and our own goals by dramatically increasing the opportunities to work close to home. This has a ripple effect across our study area beyond improved economic output. For instance, having jobs close to housing reduces VMT’s (vehicle miles traveled), thus increases active transportation, improves air quality, and improves health outcomes.

102

Gilleland Creek District

Elgin Agrarian Community concept.

(Elgin, TX)

Main street corridor in Fredericksburg. (Fredericksburg, TX)

Compact housing development at Mueller. (Austin, TX)

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

103

Scenario 2 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Vision Statement Direct new development toward Imagine Austin’s “Activity Centers” in ways that create a compact network of “complete” communities that are livable, interconnected, and environmentally sustainable.

People & Civic Infrastructure

Community Partners & Programs Inside Outside School Austin Small Business Assistance Program Austin Zero Waste Business Rebate

GOAL 1 Create a more “complete community” that is race, income and age-diverse, values a multicultural and pluralistic community, and is safe for all.

OBJECTIVE 1.1 By 2025, increase access to public services to include a library, fire station, school, and source of fresh food that operates using a corporate or cooperative model.

ACTION STEP 1.1.1 Distinguish and site areas for these services by 2020 along the main community center corridor.

GOAL 2 Create a neighborhood activity center that provides direct access to quality services and creates opportune spaces for political and cultural participation.

OBJECTIVE 2.1 By 2027, attract an additional 5,000 residents to the Wells Branch Neighborhood Center with amenities, public spaces, and affordable housing options for various income brackets.

ACTION STEP 2.1.1 By 2020 commission a study and public engagement strategy to envision ways in which the Wells Branch Neighborhood Center can attract and accommodate cultural events.

104

Gilleland Creek District

Case Studies & Policy Frameworks Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan Rural By Design Framework Elgin Agrarian Community (Elgin, TX) Mueller Housing Development (Austin, TX) Fredericksburg Main Street (Fredericksburg, TX)

Housing GOAL 3 Support the creation of mixed-use and mixed-income neighborhoods with a range of housing types and densities with easy access to multi-modal transportation.

OBJECTIVE 3.1 Ensure the construction of smaller, affordable homes in mixed use and higher density development schemes that provide access to healthy food, schools, retail, employment, and various community services by 2025. To diminish the proportion of conventional single-family homes to less than 10% and increase the proportion of multifamily and townhome residences to 60%.

ACTION STEP 3.1.1 Allocate RHDA (Rental Housing Development Assistance) program funds, which provide additional tenant protections against evictions and rent increases, in order to incentivize the construction of affordable rental housing.

ACTION STEP 3.1.2 City government should create and responsibly manage subsidization program for accessory dwelling units (ADUs) in order to decrease the financial burden of homeowners wishing to construct such units.

ACTION STEP 3.1.3 City should partner with the Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation (GNDC) in order to train interested collectives and equip them with financial and social capital to develop a community land trust.

GOAL 4 Provide more compact, affordable housing options while still preserving the semi-rural character of the surrounding areas.

OBJECTIVE 4.1 Limit housing density in areas outside of the neighborhood center and in recreational areas in order to keep development compact and concentrated and preserve agricultural and open space networks.

ACTION STEP 4.1.1 Encourage agricultural landowners to create conservation easements for their properties through the Texas Agricultural Land Trust (national non-profit organization), in order to preserve agriculture, water quality, and wildlife.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

105

Scenario 2 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Economy GOAL 5 Attract more local business development to the Neighborhood Center by improving connectivity to other commercial enclaves while preserving existing businesses and the semi-rural character of the area.

OBJECTIVE 5.1 Increase the amount of local businesses in the area to meet Imagine Austin’s goal of establishing 7,000 jobs around Neighborhood Centers by 2027, and prioritize locally-owned businesses.

ACTION STEP 5.1.1 Continue investing in and expanding the city’s Small Business Assistance program, offering low-interest loans for small businesses around the Neighborhood Center.

GOAL 6 Diversify the range of business types present in the area, and incentivize “green” business development.

OBJECTIVE 6.1 Create a viable tax incentive program to attract “green” businesses by 2023.

ACTION STEP 6.1.1 Encourage economic growth by reaching out to additional appropriate industry and creative and environmentally friendly businesses oriented towards sustainability.

Expand or target the city’s Zero Waste Business Rebate to the Neighborhood Center for businesses that practice recycling and composting.

106

Gilleland Creek District

Scenario 2 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Environment GOAL 7 Repair and protect the Gilleland Creek riparian zone.

OBJECTIVE 7.1 By 2023, diminish harmful bacteria count within Gilleland Creek to the point that it no longer qualifies as an “impaired” water body.

ACTION STEP 7.1.1 By 2018, Travis County Parks to create a commission to spearhead the clean-up of Gilleland Creek that includes the Cities of Austin and Pflugerville, community leaders, hydrologists, professors and students, and other diverse stakeholders.

ACTION STEP 7.1.2 Carry out participatory action research (UT Austin) and broader public engagement strategies (City of Austin) in order to generate new (community-led) ideas to utilize protected GOAL 8 Maintain and improve tree cover and native flora to foster a livable environment and prevent further soil erosion.

OBJECTIVE 8.1 By 2020, propose an ordinance that protects wildlife habitats and flood-prone areas from future development by 2020 and specifically dictates that no new development will occur in the 100-year floodplain or a 100-foot buffer around it. Attempt to rectify erosion in sensitive areas with landscape interventions.

ACTION STEP 8.1.1 Solicit ideas from community members through participatory workshops related to restoring native plants in environmentally sensitive areas. In order to kick-start new ideas in the participatory workshops, draw from current precedents in the areas, such as The Inside Outside School’s rain gardens in order to capture and reuse stormwater runoff from impervious surfaces.

ACTION STEP 8.1.2 Increase the tree canopy in developed areas by: a) incentivizing developers to keep native trees and to plant at least 2 new trees for every tree that is uprooted for construction, or b) create an ordinance requiring a predetermined quantity of native trees that will provide sufficient shade for pedestrians, cyclists, and residences by 2037.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

107

Scenario 2 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Land Use GOAL 9 Concentrate growth away from sensitive areas, and promote infill development and the proliferation of community gathering spaces and recreational areas.

OBJECTIVE 9.1 By the year 2027, reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) by 25%—in comparison to current development trend—and pass an ordinance that strongly restricts new development in environmentally sensitive areas.

ACTION STEP 9.1.1 Create a protected bike path network along Wells Branch Parkway, Crystal Bend Drive, and Gregg Manor and Immanuel Roads, and connecting to Northeast Metropolitan Park. Expand bus line service (e.g. lines 801 and 275).

ACTION STEP 9.1.2 Establish new open spaces for recreation and community engagement that connect to all neighborhoods within the Activity Center.

GOAL 10 Make growth conducive to compact, mixed-use development and placemaking, contributing to the development of a “complete community.”

OBJECTIVE 10.1 By 2027, attract more retail businesses and local job opportunities to fulfill the threshold of around 7,000 jobs in and around the Wells Branch Neighborhood Center set

by Imagine Austin.

ACTION STEP 10.1.1 Develop a commission focused on spurring local business growth in and around the Wells Branch Neighborhood Center. Incentivize the siting of a smaller-scale fresh foods outlet (e.g. Trader Joe’s) within the Center’s western “Main Street Commercial” Gateway Area by 2022. The siting of a grocery store and other retail shops within this Gateway Area will serve both residents of the Neighborhood Activity Center and of neighboring Pflugerville and Manor.

108

Gilleland Creek District

Scenario 2 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Infrastructure GOAL 11 Make vital services related to health, public safety, and education robust and accessible to every resident.

OBJECTIVE 11.1 By 2025, as the site develops, infrastructure for public health, safety and education will improve contiguously, so that all types of services can be reached residents by means other than the automobile. All such services will be accessible by public or multimodal transit (trips of 20 minutes or less) by 2025.

ACTION STEP 11.1.1 Craft ordinances that require developers to contribute to impact fee funds or to directly develop improved infrastructure in areas adjacent to developed sites such as pedestrian safety improvements. Upgrade and expand wastewater treatment plan in order to accommodate growing population.

ACTION STEP 11.1.2 Create and implement a sidewalk and trail network plan that will connect civic spaces and services to neighborhoods (and different neighborhoods to one another) throughout the activity center.

GOAL 12 Incorporate recreational infrastructure as multi-functional assets for pedestrian mobility and community-building, such as parks, trails, and civic spaces.

OBJECTIVE 12.1 By 2022, improve non-automobile and pedestrian accessibility of all current public infrastructure.

ACTION STEP 12.1.1 Create sidewalk and trail networks that not only connect to main arterials but also adjacent neighborhoods and urban farmland in order to facilitate face-to-face contact between people.

ACTION STEP 12.1.2 Assure that these pedestrian infrastructure is ADA-accessible. In order to facilitate pedestrian mobility, install hybrid beacons near schools and parks along Wells Branch Parkway and Immanuel Road as well as the Main Street Gateway on Crystal Bend Drive.

ACTION STEP 12.1.3 Create protected bike paths and trails that connect Northeast Metropolitan Park, the adjacent school, Activity Center, and Main Street Gateway.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

109

Scenario 2 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Transportation GOAL 13 Provide a complete and convenient transportation portfolio of mobility options that prioritize active transportation.

OBJECTIVE 13.1 By 2027, all residents will live 0.5 miles or less from a transit stop.

ACTION STEP 13.1.1 All new development will be built with complete streets that prioritize transit and active transportation.

GOAL 14 Improve and expand road, sidewalk, and trail networks that connect to existing transportation networks that improves accessibility for all.

OBJECTIVE 14.1 By 2032, all residents will be safely connected with a protected active transportation network.

ACTION STEP 14.1.1 All new roads will be built with sidewalks, and all arterials (both major and minor) will include protected bike lanes that connect all residential areas, services, and activity centers within the area.

110

Gilleland Creek District

Scenario 2 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Community Character & Urban Form GOAL 15 Create the foundational conditions for a thriving, diverse community using the CodeNEXT form-based code guidelines.

OBJECTIVE 15.1 By 2027, at least 30% of all residents will reside in “missing-middle” housing that accommodates two or more households per lot, unlike conventional single family use.

ACTION STEP 15.1.1 As a greenfield development, the city, in partnership with developers with similar principles, will seize land suitable for development as a “blank slate” opportunity to create a model community that reflects the form prescriptions of Imagine Austin and CodeNEXT. We recommend that the mixed-use and civic Mainstreet Gateway Area be developed along Crystal Bend Drive first in order to “anchor” and guide future development in ways that provide sufficient services and mitigate sprawl from the north and west.

GOAL 16 Preserve and celebrate the semi-rural character of the area by incorporating agricultural and equestrian activities into the fabric of civic life.

OBJECTIVE 16.1 Convene a working group by 2019 to plan festivals and community events accessible to all residents that invoke the history of the area, and celebrate the area’s existing businesses.

ACTION STEP 16.1.1 Involve agricultural and equestrian businesses in the planning of cultural events, such as a Polo Festival, horse riding events for community children and adults, and develop strategies to ensure their long term economic viability through small business incentives.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

111

Scenario 3 High Sustainability

112

Gilleland Creek District

VISION Encourage development that prioritizes marginalized, low-income people and the environment. Create communities that value equity, wellness, and resource regeneration while ensuring that everyone has opportunities to shape and benefit from future growth.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

113

Scenario 3 High Sustainability 157 lb/yr reduction in AIR POLLUTION

Gilleland Creek District

Worker Food Co-op

449 lb/yr reduction in CO2 EMISSIONS

Semi-Urban Agriculture

Blackland Trails

CDC Headquarters Agriculture Subtitle Land Trusts

9,385 gallons/ 33% reduction 157 kilowatts/ year of year in in RUNOFF WATER ENERGY REDUCTION POLLUTANT SAVINGS LOAD

114

Recreation Center

Activity Center

Source/Photo Credit:

Organic Agriculture

Concept Map

Community Land Trust

Compact Community

Green Industry

Highway Buffer

Mixed Use

Civic (ie. schools)

GRIDCODE 3% industrial 1% office

2% civic 3% main street commercial

1% town center

4% mixed use

14% compact neighborhood

Open W

Develop

Develop

Develop

Develop

3% single family

Barren

22% agriculture

Deciduo

Evergre

Shrub/S

Master Boundary

Pasture

open space & “productive� open space

Site Boundary Lower Colorado-Cummins Drainage Basin Austin-Travis Lakes Drainage Basin Future High Capacity Bus Highways

school

Grassla

49%

Legend

Streets Site_Boundary Master Boundary

police station post office fire station library

Cultivat Woody Master

Site Bo

airport hospital

High Sustainability Future Land Use

$$

single family residential

school

compact neighborhood

police station

main street commercial town center civic

0

00.5

1

0.5

2

1

3

Miles 2

fire station

mixed use

library

industrial

airport

office

hospital

airport

Miles 4

post office

agriculture parks & open space Data Source: corridor commercial

Population

41,541

HIGH Renter Occupied SUSTAINABILITY

Jobs/Housing Balance

1.5

Avg. Home Price

VMT

20

Avg. Income

44% $68,214 $43,404/ year

11.8 $1,370/ Affordability Carbon month (Housing + Emissions single family residential per house Energy) compact neighborhood (tons/yr) street commercialftp://ftp.ci.austin.tx.us/GIS-Data/Regional/coa_gis.html Datamain Source: town center civic mixed use industrial

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

115

Scenario 3 | Narrative Summary In order to envision a “High Sustainability” scenario for the Gilleland Creek Activity Center, we dared to develop a radical imagination that is not limited by political and economic constraints. This type of re-envisioning is especially important given planners’ main task of imagining, testing, and enacting alternative futures through comprehensive planning. Our approach to high sustainability heavily prioritizes equitable economic development, community development and empowerment, and climate protection. As mentioned earlier in the report, the heavy emphasis on equity (both socioeconomic and environmental) reflects our observation that many of the people for whom we are planning in this area have likely been displaced by gentrification in central Austin (see Tang and Falola 2015).

With that said, our main vision for this scenario is the following: Encourage development that prioritizes marginalized people and the environment. Create communities that value equity, wellness, and resource regeneration while ensuring that everyone has opportunities to shape and benefit from future growth.

Our vision seeks to creates a powerful nexus between socially just community development planning, land use planning, and environmental planning.

Additionally, three community development frameworks—all of which approach equitable development from distinct perspectives and historical periods— directly inform the vision, goals, objectives, and action steps of this scenario.

EcoDistricts First, the EcoDistricts approach to urban development is a place-based sustainability framework and roadmap for “people-centered, economically vibrant, planet-loving”, and collaborative governance structured by three key imperatives: equity, resilience, and climate protection (EcoDistricts 2017, 7-8). We draw upon the EcoDistricts framework for its specific vision that places people and the planet at the center of development at the neighborhood and district scales (ibid., 19).

Movement 4 Black Lives Policy Platform Second, the Movement for Black Lives Policy Platform situates our call for environmental and social equity within a centuries-long legacy of structural racism and colonialism—struggles in which land, property rights, and land use are central. The platform is a community development framework that elevates the voices and experiences of the most marginalized Black people: “those who are women, queer, trans, femmes, gender nonconforming, Muslim, formerly and currently incarcerated, cash poor and working class, disabled, undocumented, and immigrant” (The Movement for Black Lives 2016). In addition, the platform calls for “collective liberation”, which begins with federal, state, and local actions that bring about reparations, economic justice, reinvestment in Black communities and divestment from violent state institutions, rights to restored land and clean air and water, community control, reproductive justice, as well as restorative justice.

116

Gilleland Creek District

The Black Panther Party’s Ten-Point Program Drafted in October 1966 as the visions and goals of the Black Panther Party for Self Defense (BPP), the Ten-Point Program is a party platform that we also see as a radical approach to community development and empowerment. In a time of great social turmoil, BPP states that Black communities can survive, thrive, and empower themselves if provided the following: full employment opportunities, “decent housing fit for the shelter of human beings”, “land, bread, housing, education, clothing, justice and peace”, and freedom from police brutality and mass incarceration (Newton 1980). The Ten-Point Program provided the guidelines for the creation of collective community programs across the nation that served children and those most in need, valuing working-class Black people themselves as the vital infrastructure needed to create resilient communities. These programs include the Free Breakfast Program (which would later transform into Head Start), health clinics, and the Free Food Program—community assets akin to what we call for in our land use scenario. The Ten-Point Program centers land as a key means toward community self-determination while denouncing structural forces that impede just outcomes in urban governance and land use planning.

Maya Angelou speaks to Oakland Community School students.

(Oakland, CA)

West Oakland Farms, founded by former Black Panther Elaine Brown (Oakland, CA)

Southside Community Land Trust (Providence, RI)

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

117

Scenario Distinctions & Outcomes As previously mentioned, our third “High Sustainability” scenario represents a more utopian approach to the Complete Communities vision outlined in our previous scenario. Among all of our goals, objectives, and action steps for this scenario, there are four goals (and scenario outcomes through Envision Tomorrow) that are particularly unique to this vision.

First, the element that most distinguishes our third scenario from the Complete Communities scenario is the emphasis on people themselves as vital community infrastructure. The majority of development is community-led and guided by principles of equity, collectivity and climate protection. Both the public and private sectors play key roles in facilitating community self-organization and capacity-building.

Both public and private sectors would financially support the development of a 501(c)3 non-profit community development corporation (CDC), which would serve as a multifunctional community asset, affordable housing provider, and community organizing hub. In addition, the area’s CDC would help develop community programming (e.g. afterschool programs, recreation, cultural and political events) in communal spaces, committing regularly to partnerships with community organizations, such as Black Pflugerville and other nearby entities. As mentioned below, however, the CDC would play a much more ambitious role as an affordable housing and employment provider, managing both community land trusts (CLTs) and a green-collar workforce training program, which we detail later.

As mentioned in previous scenarios, we used Envision Tomorrow in order to enact this vision and to test the social, economic, and environmental outcomes of this alternative future. Envision Tomorrow projects that the population of the neighborhood activity center area would increase significantly to over 41,541, a projected population that is very similar to our second scenario and almost double the population projected from the existing trend (22,658). The majority of the population throughout the neighborhood activity center resides in several compact neighborhoods and mixed-use areas in the western portion. The jobhousing balance is at a “healthy” level of 1.5. This ratio indicates that there are numerous employment opportunities for both area residents and commuters, with a qualitative matching of skills, job types, and interests across various sectors.

A second distinct element of our High Sustainability scenario has to do with the affordability and socioeconomic roles of housing. In this scenario, housing becomes an even more affordable means toward cooperative living and resource regeneration. A community land trust, managed by the CDC, would help to secure more permanent affordability for lower-income residents. Three case studies that have inspired our model CLT include the Oakland Community Land Trust in Oakland, California, the Southside Community Land Trust and Community Gardens in Providence, Rhode Island, and the Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation’s Community Land Trust here in Austin, Texas.

We envision a network of dense, compact neighborhoods, all linked by foot and bike paths to communal, agricultural, and recreation spaces and trails, creating an “eco-corridor” throughout the area. Developers would incorporate “green” infrastructure (e.g. “smart” rooftop gardens, solar panels, and rain gardens) into new development, and existing housing would qualify for subsidized retrofitting in order to incorporate such infrastructure and bolster resource

118

Gilleland Creek District

regeneration. Future communities would also dedicate park and garden space to civic entities like The Inside Outside School, which would help promote awareness and use of urban agriculture and soil erosion mitigation practices.

The average home price drops even further to $168,214 (compared to $243,974 and $174,423 in scenarios 1 and 2, respectively) and average household income of $43,404 (compared to $67,511 and $46,558 in scenarios 1 and 2, respectively). Monthly housing and energy costs per month decrease significantly to $1,370. Transportation costs—the third cost type considered in housing affordability and represented as vehicle miles traveled (VMT) per housing unit—also reduces to 20 miles (same as scenario 2). Only 56% of all housing units are owner-occupied, leaving 44% of units as rental housing. This housing tenure ratio aligns more with that of scenario 2 and is much more conducive to affordable housing options than the trend scenario. The average rent per month per unit--$1535—is $62 (4%) less than in scenario 2. Our emphasis in compact neighborhoods with a highly diversified yet affordable housing stock translates into a housing mix that skews much more toward multifamily units and townhomes. Of all housing units within the activity center area, 35% are multifamily units, 38% are townhomes, and 23% are small-lot single family units.

A third goal that distinguishes the vision of scenario 3 from that of scenario 2 is our intention to create an ecodistrict that also expands economic opportunities for historically marginalized populations (e.g. youth, women, the poor, the formerly incarcerated). In addition to management of the CLT, the CDC would also catalyze the creation of a worker-owned food cooperative that would purchase as much as possible from private and communal gardens in the area.

Existing food cooperatives that serve as models for this scenario are the West Oakland Farms and Mandela Food Co-op in Oakland, California and Kelly Miller Farms in Washington, D.C. The CDC would also incentivize the incorporation of green technologies in local businesses and residences through a greencollar workforce training program for youth or the formerly incarcerated. As we detail later in the goals, objectives, and action steps, this program would operate as a structured means toward restorative justice (as opposed to incarceration and legalized discrimination thereafter) and optimal natural resource management systems. For our workforce training program, which would provide gainful employment opportunities to a broader range of people, we draw upon the successes and lessons from Sustainable South Bronx in New York City, D.C. Greenworks, and the Second Chance Program in Baltimore, Maryland.

Overall, our High Sustainability development would 36,549 jobs created through our development plan. In other words, our plan would create 25,160 more jobs than the trend scenario. In terms of environmental outcomes, the incorporation of green infrastructure for all building types would result in an annual stormwater reduction rate of 9,385 gallons, 157 kilowatts per year in energy savings, and an annual reduction of 449 pounds in carbon dioxide emissions.

The fourth distinct goal of our High Sustainability scenario is to maintain agricultural areas for productive farming and recreation that is also easily accessible by dense, walkable neighborhoods. The potential strategies through which land would be preserved for productive farming are ambitious but are not totally unprecedented. First, following the City of Boulder’s decades-long greenbelt project, the City of Austin would take a much more proactive role by acquiring agricultural and environmentally sensitive areas, which it would then lease to small-scale farmers for agricultural and light recreational uses. Alternatively, creating agricultural land trusts with Texas Agricultural Land Trust to legally bind future property owners in maintaining agricultural areas. Either (or both) of these strategies would help reduce the level of water pollution by 33% (measured as bacterial count of f. coli), helping to restore the ecosystem services of Gilleland Creek.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

119

Scenario 3 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Vision Statement Encourage development that prioritizes marginalized, low-income people and the environment. Create communities that value equity, wellness, and resource regeneration while ensuring that everyone has opportunities to shape and benefit from future growth.

People & Civic Infrastructure GOAL 1 Build communities based on collectivity and empowerment; designate “highest and best” land uses on the basis of both exchange value and use value; recognize people’s cultural, recreational, spiritual, and economic relationships to place.

OBJECTIVE 1.1 By 2030, acquire land to establish at least civic/communal spaces dedicated for restorative justice youth programs, fresh food systems, sanctuaries for both people and wildlife, and other entrepreneurial uses. 75% of homes must lie 0.5 miles or less from communal spaces.

ACTION STEP 1.1.1 Dedicate and reuse urban agricultural land for aforementioned collective uses. Support--financially and technically--community leaders to develop participatory processes for community asset mapping, participatory budgeting, and radical imaginations for uses of communal spaces.

GOAL 2 Ensure that communities view challenges and opportunities in collective, collaborative ways, both building upon and strengthening current grassroots initiatives.

OBJECTIVE 2.1 By 2020, begin building the civic infrastructure for co-operative land uses by establish and sustain partnerships with local organizations serving low-income households.

ACTION STEP 2.1.1 Commission the development of a comprehensive neighborhood plan based on equity and longterm collaboration between residents, city government, schools (e.g. Inside Outside School), and local institutions (e.g.

Black Pflugerville, Food for Black Thought, Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation, UT Austin, HustonTillotson University).

ACTION STEP 2.1.2 Establish a community development corporation (CDC) with residents and leaders of aforementioned partners as board member, in charge of developing comprehensive plan, actively organizing community members, and providing community services such as daycare and educational/recreational after-school programs.

120

Gilleland Creek District

Community Partners & Programs Inside Outside School Black Pflugerville Food for Black Thought Guadalupe Neighborhood Development Corporation The University of Texas at Austin Huston-Tillotson University Makaila Ulmer - Bee Sweet Lemonade

Case Studies & Policy Frameworks EcoDistricts Framework Ecosystems Services Movement for Black Lives Policy Platform Black Panther Party Ten-point Program Elgin Agrarian Community (Elgin, TX) Carrollton TOD (Carrollton, TX) Oakland Community Land Trust (Oakland, CA) Southside Community Land Trust (Providence, RI) Fannie Lou Hamer’s Freedom Farms (Ruleville, MS) DC Greenworks (Washington, D.C.) Planting Justice (Oakland, CA) Second Chance (Baltimore, MD) Green Collar Work Force Training - Bronx Environmental Stewardship Academy (BEST) (The Bronx, NYC) Windy City Harvest Apprenticeship Program (Chicago, IL) Kelly Miller Farm (run by organization Dreaming Out Loud, Washington, D.C.)

Housing GOAL 3 Foster an environmentally conscious, net-zero region that produces its own renewable energy for use in homes.

OBJECTIVE 3.1 Connect a diverse range of housing types to jobs and amenities that celebrate the semi-rural nature of the area by creating numerous opportunities for sustainable agriculture and green construction.

ACTION STEP 3.1.1 Incentivize green construction, green “smart” roofs and rooftop gardens, and net-positive home building with tax credits. Further incentivize green infrastructure that is installed by the CDC’s green-collar workforce training program (see Economy).

GOAL 4 Create more resilient water resource management systems for both residential and non-residential properties and for all housing types.

OBJECTIVE 4.1 Connect various sustainable housing types to non-carbon producing forms of transportation to increase connectivity. By 2027, restore the water quality of Gilleland Creek to a level that is safe for swimming and wading (based on f. coli bacterial count).

ACTION STEP 4.1.1 Limit the ability to construct traditionally unsustainable forms of housing and water infrastructure that pollutes water resources.

ACTION STEP 4.1.2 Support the creation of agricultural land trusts in order to preserve greenfields and organic agricultural uses.

ACTION STEP 4.1.3 Incentivize homeowners’ associations (HOAs) and CLTs to incorporate stormwater runoff mitigation strategies such as rain gardens, increased tree canopies, forested filter strips between impervious surfaces, and pervious trails when possible).

GOAL 5 Develop a diverse housing stock that supports cooperative living, different income levels, and types of households and lifestyles, guided by community interests, not just profit.

OBJECTIVE 5.1 To establish the area’s first community land trust (CLT)--managed by the CDC--by year 2025. Decrease the area’s average family income by 25% (compared to projected trend) by 2027.

ACTION STEP 5.1.1 Support CDC in acquiring tax-exempt parcel(s) of land that would support up to 20 properties. Integrate high-density housing types that include single-family, multifamily, and mobile and manufactured homes.

ACTION STEP 5.1.2 Partner with nonprofit developer to use Low Income Housing Tax Credits (LIHTC) to finance construction of rental properties, managed by CDC. ACTION STEP 5.1.3 Allocate deep, targeted subsidies to provide affordable housing options for very low-income households making less than $35,000 per year--the subgroup experiencing the most severe affordable housing shortage.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

121

Scenario 3 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Economy GOAL 6 Create an eco-district that boasts various green businesses and increases renewable energy and resource regeneration.

OBJECTIVE 6.1 Incentivize the establishment of “green” businesses, research facilities, and local sustainable agriculture that employ people with various degree/educational levels, especially “at-risk” youth and underemployed adults. Attract enterprises (both for-profit and nonprofit) that either generate “green” jobs or incorporate green infrastructure into their operations.

ACTION STEP 6.1.1 City to provide funding for a 12-week green-collar workforce training program targeting youth, subsidizing the training of the first graduating cohort, teaching youth carpentry, LEED rating system, financial literacy, and green technologies.

Mikaila Ulmer, 11-year-old entrepreneur, Austinite, and owner of Bee Sweet Lemonade (Austin, TX)

ACTION STEP 6.1.2 Incentivize “green” developers and other enterprises throughout region to employ trained youth or, alternatively, encourage the local CDC to create these green jobs themselves via smart neighborhood roofing, retrofitting, and plant nurseries.

GOAL 7 Expand viable economic and employment opportunities for those historically excluded from the formal economy.

OBJECTIVE 7.1 By 2020, partner with local nonprofit organizations in order to develop an economic development projects that train and empower youth and/or the formerly incarcerated.

ACTION STEP 7.1.1 Remove criminal records as barrier to affordable housing provided by the CLT. Use urban agricultural land to run income-generating programs for food justice and restorative justice with youth and the formerly incarcerated. Sustain the community’s green-collar workforce training program (see Economy Goal 6).

ACTION STEP 7.1.2 Open a worker-owned, full-service grocery store (worker food cooperative) that prioritizes community benefits over profits and shares fair portions of profits with its worker-owners. The city should incentivize the cooperative through additional tax benefits which, in effect, can help increase co-op profits and profit-sharing among workers.

122

Gilleland Creek District

Graduates of the BEST (Bronx Environmental Stewardship) Academy applying Coolroof sealant in order to reduce building temperatures and increase energy savings during summer months. (The Bronx, NYC)

Scenario 3 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Environment GOAL 8 Establish a greenbelt along the Gilleland Creek floodplain, and connect to a larger network of greenbelts in Austin and surrounding jurisdictions to promote ecosystem services.

OBJECTIVE 8.1 Improve public access to natural landscapes by achieving locating 50% of residential units within a walkable 1-mile distance from natural open space by year 2027.

ACTION STEP 8.1.1 Travis County Parks Department to complete land acquisition to secure right of way (ROW) for a Gilleland Creek greenbelt.

ACTION STEP 8.1.2 Create network of ADA-accessible trails and footbridges--pervious when possible--linking residential and mixed-use neighborhoods to natural open spaces and light agricultural areas.

ACTION STEP 8.1.3 Monitor bacteria count (and overall water quality index score) in Gilleland Creek so that levels remain safe for “contact recreation” (swimming, wading).

ACTION STEP 8.1.4 Reserve three small agricultural areas along Gilleland Creek to serve as honey bee sanctuaries, managed/operated by Mikaila Ulmer, a local young entrepreneur that will use the honey in her Bee Sweet Lemonade products (sold in local and national Whole Foods stores).

GOAL 9 Facilitate climate protection and the long-term health of the natural environment through smart choices about land use, green infrastructure, and urban form.

OBJECTIVE 9.1 Preserve green space (and restore nonfunctional land) along all floodplains for recreation, light agriculture, and other uses that limit the destruction of open space.

Decrease overall wastewater production, water consumption, and energy use by at least half by year 2037.

ACTION STEP 9.1.1 Create network of ADA-accessible trails and low-impact footbridges--pervious when possible--linking residential and mixed-use neighborhoods to preserved green space along floodplains.

ACTION STEP 9.1.2 Capture and reuse stormwater through rainkeepers and terraced gardens, in partnership with the Inside Outside School.

ACTION STEP 9.1.3 Incentivize (potentially through tax credits) composting, rooftop gardens and water- and energy-efficient appliances in new developments. Subsidize green retrofitting of older homes, carried out through the (paid) labor provided by trainees in the CDC’s “green-collar” workforce training program.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

123

Scenario 3 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps GOAL 10 Develop healthy and environmentally just communities in which vulnerable residents do not bear the burdens of development, but rather reap its benefits.

OBJECTIVE 10.1 Prioritize environmental justice by preventing future location and concentration of hazardous, locally unwanted land uses (LULUs) at least 1 mile away from neighborhoods.

ACTION STEP 10.1.1 Commission community-led research studies that produce accurate data about the impacts of air and water contamination on health and quality of life within and around the neighborhood activity center.

ACTION STEP 10.1.2 Partnership between the CDC and staff of the Inside Outside School in order to teach residents to creatively reuse stormwater and soils for food systems and wildlife.

Land Use GOAL 11 Maintain areas of prime agricultural soil for productive, organic farming.

OBJECTIVE 11.1 Encourage switch from conventional to organic farming on preserved agricultural land.

ACTION STEP 11.1.1 Link both publicly and privately owned agricultural land with the “green-collar� workforce training/apprenticeship program through administrative partnerships.

GOAL 12 Create an activity center with a dense, walkable/accessible core for people to both live, work, and thrive with dignity.

OBJECTIVE 12.1 Access to healthy and affordable fresh food by alternative modes of transit - percentage dwelling units within a 0.5 mile walk of a fresh food outlet.

ACTION STEP 12.1.1 Locate worker-owned food cooperative on a communal space or a civic center (co-located with a school, post office, and community health center) adjacent to compact neighborhoods, accessible by road, sidewalks, and bike lanes. For trails use pervious surfaces when possible or ideals (i.e. not directly in floodplains).

124

Gilleland Creek District

Scenario 3 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Infrastructure GOAL 13 Create a green infrastructure network with long-term viability that regenerates natural resources.

OBJECTIVE 13.1 Assess compromised creek systems and grey storm water infrastructure to develop a Gilleland Creek watershed regeneration plan. Capture renewable energy (eg. solar, wind) and plant and create landscaping that mitigates urban heat island effect and reduces household energy costs by 25% (compared to current trend) by 2032.

ACTION STEP 13.1.1 Infrastructure should be built to a level of quality as to be viable for at least 100 years and ecologically regenerative. Develop and maintain rooftop gardens on community centers, schools, and both single-family and multifamily residences.

ACTION STEP 13.1.2 Develop a continuous tree canopy (using native plant species) along streets, in public/communal spaces and adjacent to homes to provide partial shade, cooling the open air and indoor temperatures.

GOAL 14 People themselves make up the infrastructure of communities. Create a community-driven, civic infrastructural system of services and programs that support equity and climate protection.

OBJECTIVE 14.1 By 2021, establish an after-school program that engages the many children residing within and around the neighborhood activity center, with an emphasis on environmental stewardship, arts-based pedagogy, and equity.

ACTION STEP 14.1.1 In partnership with local nonprofits, the CDC will manage a public after-school program that emphasizes environmental stewardship, arts-based pedagogy, and equity.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

125

Scenario 3 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Transportation GOAL 15 Build out an active transportation network that aligns with land use policies to support a pedestrian-oriented lifestyle.

OBJECTIVE 15.1 90% of local trips are by transit, walk or bike (to grocery store, school, work, etc.).

ACTION STEP 15.1.1 Active transport and transit are the first options built when demand increases, reducing fiscal and social costs on the city. Maintain and expand the bike network that currently exists along Wells Branch Parkway. Plant trees along boulevards, bike and foot trails, and sidewalks that provide ample shade for pedestrians and cyclists.

Case Study | Ohio City Farm (Cleveland, OH)

GOAL 16 Establish dedicated, high-capacity transit options to main employment centers such as Tech Ridge and Downtown Austin.

OBJECTIVE 16.1 Reduce regional travel time to employment centers via transit or multimodal to under 30 minutes.

ACTION STEP 16.1.1 Extend the 801 MetroRapid (or 275) line past Tech Ridge and include stops near the intersection of Wells Branch Parkway and Immanuel Road. More bold yet, construct a light rail line that connects Pflugerville to Downtown and South Austin, with a stop located Immanuel Road, around which a dense community center will develop.

Case Study | Kelly Miller Farms (Washington, D.C.)

126

Gilleland Creek District

Scenario 3 | Goals, Objectives & Action Steps Community Character & Urban Form GOAL 17 Create ecological corridors that integrate well with the built form of neighborhoods throughout the activity center.

OBJECTIVE 17.1 Retain and create new sources of nonpotable water and try to achieve carbon neutrality every neighborhood throughout the activity center.

ACTION STEP 17.1.1 Retrofit homes with solar panels and other equipment, incentivize or subsidize rainkeepers, compost bins, provided by graduates of the green-collar workforce training program and other CDC programming.

ACTION STEP 17.1.2 Create additional urban agricultural areas in communal and residential sites (e.g. rooftop gardens).

GOAL 18 Maintain the semi-rural “character” of the activity center area in ways that do not exclude low-income people, youth, and people of color.

OBJECTIVE 18.1 Incorporate the area’s history of recreational land uses (i.e. extreme sports and equestrian sports) into future youth-oriented and restorative justice programs in partnership with area schools and the CDC. ACTION STEP 18.1.1 As initiatives between the local CDC, the Cities of Austin and Pflugerville, and horse stable owners, develop a youth summer camp on existing horse stables for leisure, educational, or veterinary and “green” workforce training programs on stables and communal gardens for restorative justice purposes (as alternatives to detention, incarceration, and punishment).

GOAL 19 Cultivate a variety of urban forms that function as ecological biomes where streets, buildings, and infrastructure support and create life.

OBJECTIVE 19.1 Ambient temperature in urbanized areas only marginally different than open space temperatures.

ACTION STEP 19.1.1 Situate new housing developments adjacent to or within 0.5 miles from communal and agricultural spaces. Reduce stormwater runoff by increasing tree canopies in residential and non-residential areas and creating forested filter strips between impervious surfaces. Continue investing in honey bee and wildlife sanctuaries throughout the Gilleland Creek corridor in order to restore local ecosystem services (see Environment).

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

127

CONCLUSION

Through this final report we have presented three land use planning scenarios and assessed the social, economic, and environmental performance of each alternative future. Each scenario--trend, “Complete Communities”, and “high sustainability”--presents both strengths and weaknesses and distinct sets of challenges for implementation. The existing trend scenario may provide middle-class households with ample space and privacy and a consistent community character that is single-family residential. However, this approach to land use has immense environmental and social costs: the depletion of local ecosystem services, continued pollution of Gilleland Creek, car-dominated landscapes, and self-segregation of middle-class households at the expense of lower-income households, and the exclusion of more affordable housing options.

Our “Complete Communities” scenario boasts a vision that we have modeled after the 2012 Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan, which maintains a more stable balance between environmental protection, economic growth, and social equity--the three imperatives of sustainability that are often in tension (Campbell 1996). Our second scenario leverages compact yet diverse land use strategies and urban forms in order to catalyze livable and accessible neighborhoods throughout Austin. However, our second scenario--and by extension, the “complete communities” model of Imagine Austin--more heavily emphasizes the positive effects of “smart” growth on people and the natural environment, lacking a critical and historically contextualized understanding of land use and social equity.

Addressing these shortcomings, our third “high sustainability” scenario draws upon the concepts of “complete communities” and “ecodistricts” as well as over fifty years of community development efforts by black youth. This last alternative future challenges us to question and broaden our understandings of community infrastructure, centering people and their collective agency as the vital force needed to achieve all three principles of sustainable development.

Although one could legitimately question the political and economic feasibility of this ambitious land use scenario, we urge that the City of Austin strive toward our “high sustainability” vision, goals, and action steps in order to maximize equitable economic development and climate protection and to foster more collective approaches to land use and community development.

By elevating those historically cast to the “margins” of society to the very front and center of decision-making and envisioning alternative futures, we prioritize the wellbeing of people and the planet over haphazard development. We hope that this development roadmap for the Gilleland Creek Activity Center inspires planners to refashion the taken-for-granted tools within our grasp in order to democratize both the processes and benefits of land use planning.

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

129

REFERENCES

References Arendt, R. (2001). Smart development for quality communities: A design guidebook for towns and villages in Cattaraugus County, New York. Cattaraugus County, NY: Natural Lands Trust.

Campbell, S. (1996). “Green Cities, Growing Cities, Just Cities?: Urban Planning and the Contradictions of Sustainable Development.” Journal for the American Planning Association, 62(3).

City of Austin Planning and Zoning Department. (6 November 2014). 2014 Austin Bicycle Master Plan. Web. Accessed 4 April 2017. Retrieved from https://austintexas. gov/sites/default/files/files/2014_Austin_Bicycle_Master_Plan__Reduced_Size_.pdf City of Austin Planning and Zoning Department. (January 2017). Code Next: City of Austin Draft Land Development Code. Web. Accessed April 4, 2017. Retrieved from https://codenext.civicomment.org/ City of Austin Planning and Zoning Department. (2016). Imagine Austin Comprehensive Plan (amended edition). Web. Accessed April 4, 2017. Retrieved from ftp://ftp. ci.austin.tx.us/npzd/IACP_amended2016_web_sm.pdf EcoDistricts. (2016). EcoDistricts Protocol: Version 1.2. Web. Retrieved from https://ecodistricts.org/get-started/the-ecodistricts-protocol/ Henriksen, R.W. (2015). Austin Executive Airport: A history of Austin’s newest general aviation airport. Web. Accessed April 4, 2017. Retrieved from http:// austinexecutiveairport.com/book/ Movement for Black Lives. (2016). Movement for Black Lives Policy Platform. Web. Retrieved from https://policy.m4bl.org/platform/ Newton, H. (1980). War against the Panthers: A study of repression in America. New York: Writers & Readers.

Social Explorer [website and census data sets]. Retrieved from http://www.socialexplorer.com/.

Tang, E. and B. Falola. (2015). Those who left: Austin’s declining African-American population. Report by The Institute for Urban Policy Research & Analysis (IUPRA) at the University of Texas at Austin). Web. Accessed April 4, 2017. Retrieved from http://liberalarts.utexas.edu/iupra/_files/pdf/those-who-left-austin.pdf Texas Commission on Environmental Quality. (March 2016). Gilleland Creek: Implementing a plan to protect recreational uses. Web. Accessed April 4, 2017. Retrieved from https://www.tceq.texas.gov/waterquality/tmdl/nav/69-gillelandcreekbacteria/69-gillelandcreekbacteria.html

CRP386 - Alvarado, Becker, Oliver, Simonson & Stevens

131