The Hijacked Park at Festival Beach

Introduction by the Free Zilker Coalition

Members of the Deep Holly Advocates and the East Town Lake Citizens Neighborhood Association recently reached out to us to ask for help. We felt we had to assist them because their cause mirrors our own: to stop moneyed interests that undermine the public trust to carve up the Austin parks for their own uses.

Their case is very interesting in that they devised a Master Plan, working closely with PARD to improve their parkland. Funding was appropriated and the project was well underway. Then, it was decided that this land was too valuable to continue to be available for public use -creating the current controversy.

In the case of Zilker Park, where PARD and associated nonprofits constantly touted their “Vision Plan,” saying it was pretty much a done-deal, created with public input and in all our best interests (which it was not, and we were finally able to defeat it), here they are clearly going against a Master Plan that was truly created in conjunction with public input and was being implemented, simply because of what we suspect are the same kind of behind-closed-doors dealings. Again, the public trust is being undermined, and Austin parks are the battlefields. Should the City of Austin be able to do sell our parkland down the river for personal gain? It’s up to us.

Please read this message from these East Austin parkland advocates. We urge you to sign the petition to stop these schemes from trampling our public heritage. Thank you!

Sign the Petition

NASH HERNANDEZ BUILDING IS AN INTERGENERATIONAL DAY CARE A GOOD FIT FOR OUR NASH HERNANDEZ BUILDING AND PARK?

AN ANALYSIS

A Little Background

In 2013 the East Town Lake Citizens Neighborhood Association (ETLCNA), along with East Cesar Chavez Contact Team and other local advocates, worked as stakeholders to help craft the Holly Shores/Edward Rendon Sr. Park at Festival Beach Master Vision Plan (Master Plan), which was passed by the Austin City Council in 2014, with changes in 2015.

In the adopted Master Plan, the NASH HERNANDEZ BUILDING (NHB) renovation was slated for community use as public meeting space and PARD offices with Park Rangers/Austin Police Department as co-occupants.  In 2015 public pressure removed APD, which was to be replaced by PARD offices.

PARD worked steadily on the many improvements such as new trails, benches, etc., detailed in the Master Plan. A total of $3.3 million in certificates of obligation was approved in 2022 for the renovation. By May of that year, with City Council’s approval, PARD engaged Cotera+Reed Architects, an architectural engineering firm, to begin the long-awaited NHB renovation.

A Sudden Change

Despite the forward progress, only a month later (June 16, 2022), an outgoing City Council member proposed a resolution requiring a study of the NHB for a senior and child day care or Intergenerational Day Care Center (IRAC). The sudden unexpected mandate to study NHB for IRAC use abruptly halted PARD’s progress on the neighborhood’s NHB vision.

A group called Intergenerational Day Care Advisory Group (IDC), UT LBJ School Health and Social Policy, UT researchers, and others, along with several potential partners, decided the NHB was an ideal spot for an IRAC day care/research facility.

Although the name sounds similar, IRAC is quite different from the senior “activity” or recreation and leisure programs sponsored by PARD.  Unlike PARD activity programs, a senior/child day care program requires special licenses, security, and often medical personnel. IRAC materials tend to group it with other local recreation/activity centers; they are not comparable and, in fact, IRAC use is not part of the PARD mission, creating complications going forward.

NHB was proposed as a potential site despite the fact that: 

1)        Senior or child day care is not part of the PARD mission and by state law NHB must be undedicated as parkland/park building to use as such.

2)        Approved plans already existed for the space.

3)        Renovation would be expensive adding up to massive startup costs.

4)        Community has not shown overwhelming approval or endorsement of a new proposal [nor much knowledge of it].

Derailed

The IDC advisory group proposing to renovate the NHB also wants to use $3.3 million dedicated for the Master Plan NHB Renovation (halted by the mandate to study the IRAC), AND they want a free long-term lease, though they don’t say for how long.

The former city council member who introduced the IRAC resolution just before leaving office is currently listed as Executive Committee Chair of the Intergenerational Resource & Activity Center Executive Committee (with his wife shown as secretary of the same).

As mentioned, senior or child day care is not part of the PARD mission. Per state law, park designation must be removed, i.e., the building and grounds “vacated” or undedicated as a park property for such a program to be sited there. Per statute this can be done only If:

“There is no feasible and prudent alternative to the use or taking of such land.” 

Any action taken to remove parkland is also subject to judicial review.

NHB is not the only choice for shared public spaces. Alternatives abound. Several closed area schools, empty offices, the nearby empty RBJ spaces, county and even state buildings could be explored for an IRAC program. Space is currently abundant in Austin.

Doves Springs is actively seeking an intergenerational daycare for their area.

Given the many alternatives for locating an IRAC program in Austin, a park vacation or un-dedication of parkland should not be considered an option.

What Happened?

The community didn’t understand. They’d done everything right, gone through the correct channels to create the Master Plan, worked closely with PARD and consultants, and put in countless [volunteer] hours. The plan had been adopted by City Council, funds had been allocated, and after a long wait, PARD was now able to start renovating.

Most of all, the people’s patience was about to be rewarded and they were excited to see the vision come to life. So, what was happening and why? How could someone just suddenly show up and take that away? Why would anyone disregard the community’s vision and work?

One part of the resolution required a feasibility study. It fell to PARD to complete the study, which it did in October 2022. The results strongly questioned the suitability of NHB for a senior or child day care center.

A recent IDC response to the study indicated that, despite the findingsRisky Business

The NHB sits on a 24.62-acre parcel per Travis County Appraisal records. The exact acreage to be undedicated is not shown in IRAC materials, which omit any mention of un-dedication of parkland except for an oblique hint in the fine print of one flyer. (See graphic)

However, the land beneath the building footprint is around one-quarter acre. So, the minimal amount of undedicated parkland would be approximately a quarter acre.

While one quarter acre of lost parkland might seem trivial, what could happen to that one-quarter acre or the surrounding 24 acres in a few years? Would it lead to requests for more land, if there was to be a program expansion?

If the parcel wasn’t designated as parkland, it would be viewed as prime waterfront real estate, which is, as we all know, desirable to developers. So let’s consider what could happen if a parcel prime waterfront real estate property is vacated, or undedicated, and no longer under protection as a park.

NASH HERNANDEZ PARCEL

Per Travis County tax rolls the NHB sits on a 24.62 Acre Parcel.

How much of this 24.62 acres will be undedicated for the IRAC project? What could happen to the land after it is no longer park?

What if?

If a parcel (or part of it) loses parkland status, it changes the nature of what could be built on the land.

A few years ago, a quietly passed ordinance rolled back the level of Impervious cover protection for the entire waterfront overlay, including Chicano Park*, making it vulnerable to more intensive development. This was to allow more buildings at the nearby RBJ to help pay for renovations.

The RBJ is not in the park, but the ordinance covered their lands and our park, allowing more density of building. This would mean the land under and around the NHB, if no longer parkland, might be developed much like the RBJ—which now has cafes and a hotel.

Given that for years, we’ve heard developer whispers: What if the park could be developed for affordable housing or housing for low-income seniors? (BTW, few, if any, affordable dwellings ever actually materialize). This makes us think that they want our parks—just add hotels, restaurants, and market rate luxury apartments to pay for it.

So, stripped of parkland designation, what could happen to NHB and Chicano Park a few years down the road?

These questions need to be addressed before this project moves ahead.

*Chicano Park: The local name for the 90 acres of park along the lake between I-35 & Pleasant Valley

The Real Picture

In recent years, two non-park programs have claimed Austin parkland—but with three significant differences:

• Both were done with overwhelming community support.
• The area had a strong need for the particular type of program.
• Those parks are not considered prime real estate like Chicano Park.

Overwhelming support is not evident for an IRAC program in Chicano Park nor has a strong need been demonstrated for childcare.  Moreover, demographic trends are changing in 78702, with young professional residents replacing the elderly. The next census will doubtlessly reflect this apparent trend, making the choice of NHB questionable.

Other Options

A report issued by Austin Public Health (APH) and AGE of Central Texas, “Adult Day Center with Intergenerational Programming Feasibility Study” August 2021, identified three zip codes as childcare deserts: 78744, 78753, and 78741.

Due to an intense need for childcare, the Dove Springs Recreation Center (78744) offered to host the IRAC but was turned down by the IDC Advisory Board in July 2022.

A Closer Look

We took a closer look at the proposal, flyers and outreach materials and came up with quite a few questions and almost as many concerns about the proposed IRAC program.

Concerns noted are not just about the halted Master Plan we helped to formulate, but also about fiscal responsibility, transparency, and planning.

The following pages are notes on those questions and concerns about IRAC. After that, for those unfamiliar with the approved Master Plan, or as a refresher, we recap some of the details of what was originally planned for the NHB.

Reality Check

IRAC outreach materials omit many salient facts and raise questions. Some details are fuzzy while others appear to be inaccurate:

• Budget: IRAC estimates are staggeringly lower to launch than in the official city feasibility study by as much as $8 million.

• Numbers: Price tag for serving up to 75 select people (50 seniors and 25 children) is potentially $13 million (+), an astounding cost for so few people.

• Demographics: IRAC presents 78702 as a target, high senior need area. Latest demographics* show that in District 3 (partly in 78702) 6% of people are over 65, the second lowest number of all 10 districts. District 1 (also in 78702), has the fourth lowest percentage (8.2%) of elderly residents. The highest, district 10, has 14.1%.

• Delays: Intensive and time-consuming fundraising would be required to fill the gap between IRAC estimates and actual costs. Delays due to fundraising would further inflate price tag.

• Length of Lease: The lease length is shown as “long term” with no other details—leaving one to guess whether it’s one year or 99 years. Do they actually not know?

• Ecological Impact of Renovation: Such concerns are not mentioned nor apparently even considered. This is a park and on lakefront, which is delicate and likely sensitive to construction, noise, and disturbance.

• Confusing Name: Though part of the name sounds similar, IRAC (Intergenerational Resource & Activity Center), the program, is quite different from senior activity or recreation and leisure programs hosted by PARD. Unlike PARD activity programs, a senior/child day care program requires special licenses, enhanced security, and often special medical personnel. IRAC plans include a laundry, and research observation rooms, not regular features in activity centers.
• Security Requirements: No in-depth security study included. Children are part of this program and require special security measures.

https://housingworksaustin.org/2022-city-council-district-by-district-and-community-at-a-glance-analysis/

Hazy Details

● Contingency: A sentence in the IRAC flyer fine print says that if the program fails, the city will inherit a “state of the art” building to be managed by Public Health or PARD. Program failure is not discussed in any depth.

● Pilot Program: IRAC is titled a pilot program; such projects usually require an operational test period before seeking full funding or renovating buildings. IRAC should finish its pilot period before renovating or launching.

● Omission: The IRAC materials do not openly state that neither senior nor child day care are PARD uses, and that parkland designation must first be removed before a program can use the NHB. After park designation is removed, different building rules apply.

The Fine Print

Shaky Foundations

• Flawed Survey: The IRAC online survey appears to prejudice answers in favor of NHB. An 11^th hour mandate to include Mendez, Morales and Dittmar activity centers, along with NHB, as potential IRAC sites, changed the mix of survey respondents. Language in the survey says that current activity programming could cease if IRAC was to locate at any of those three PARD activity centers. Survey comments show that some respondents chose NHB over their own centers out of fear of their programs closing. Thus, an unknown number of respondents did not actually favor NHB as a site, but voted to save their own activity centers. Despite sparse and questionable results, IRAC promoters claim that an overwhelming majority supported NHB for an IRAC site.
• Research Subjects: The IRAC prospectus for NHB renovation indicates “observation booths” for research. This is not openly discussed in the survey or with the public to our knowledge. Participants may not wish to be part of UT research.  [This raises right-to-privacy concerns.]
• Prior Plans Ignored: IRAC literature patently ignores PARD/neighborhood plans. The IRAC resolution halted forward renovation progress with a mandate to study IRAC suitability for NHB, showing disrespect for the community and the work put into the Master Plan.
• Budget: The proposed IRAC program budget is absurdly low compared to the city feasibility study. The $5.5 million budget (including the free $3.3 million from city) does not agree with the $8 million -$11 million estimate in the feasibility study (plus startup costs = $13 million). This leaves a need for a lot of fundraising.

Fuzzy Outreach Results

The IRAC materials and online survey portray the NHB as vacant, giving the impression of an unused, derelict building with no future. The progress under the Master Plan was not mentioned.

While the survey appears to satisfy community engagement required by the City, it does not reach significant numbers of the targeted population in 78702. This is partly due to the inclusion of stakeholders in other districts and zip codes (Dittmar, Dove Springs), via the last-minute inclusion of 3 other potential sites for the IRAC.

Overall, the handful of 8 possibly valid survey responses doesn’t represent an informed community mandate.

The survey results lack convincing community approval for locating an IRAC program in NHB and the park. In contrast, the PARD Master Plan took two years and did extensive outreach to the community before being adopted by both community and City Council.

Yet Another UT Social Studies Experiment?

Another component of the proposed IRAC program: not much mentioned in IRAC outreach or survey is research. In the online publication titled Nash Hernandez Intergenerational Resource and Activity Center (IRAC) Overview and Background, one paragraph illustrates an aspect of the program that isn’t being openly discussed:

“For research purposes, we’d like to have three small observation booths (50 sq. ft. each; one attached to each classroom)”

While the observation booths may be designed for students to be observed working with children or elders, many locals are wary of being treated as research subjects. A few years ago, at a neighborhood meeting, a group of UT students proposed a research program with locals as subjects. A well-known neighborhood advocate wryly commented, “Quite frankly I’m tired of our neighborhood being used for UT’s social experiments.” 

Research is a great endeavor, and we support it in the right setting. But do we need to spend millions of taxpayer dollars, risk parkland so East Austinites can once again be subjects of UT’s social experiment lab?

Overview

• Derailed: PARD and neighborhood plans for NHB derailed by special interest initiative given traction by political power, but not true community engagement or consent.
• Expropriation: Proposes expropriating $3.3 million in funds earmarked for NHB renovation.
• Misrepresented: NHB is portrayed by IDC literature as derelict—when in fact the IRAC resolution halted PARD’s forward progress on the community approved vision and NHB renovation.
• Unrealistic plans by special interests after minimal and flawed outreach efforts kept alive through influence, ignoring PARD’s realistic Council-mandated study and in-depth investigation.
• Lack of Transparency: IRAC materials do not mention research components, park land loss, or other details, in their survey.

Master Plan

As neighborhood advocates, we sincerely and even passionately embrace supporting low-income seniors and children. However, any such programs should be properly located without sacrificing our parkland or taking money previously allocated for the Master Plan and PARD.

Now is a good time to revisit the Holly Shores Edward Rendon, Sr. Parks Master Vision Plan that earned the approval of both the community and the city council.

Before IRAC showed up, the Master Plan was already in process. So, our main question is, do we allow a group to obliterate plans that have been in the works for years because the group is determined and politically well-connected?

We believe that the Master Plan stands on its own merits and represents the best options for our community, PARD, and for the city.  It is simple, inexpensive, and respectful to the neighborhood. It offers a forum for interaction, inclusion, and local advocacy.

PLANNED USES UNDER THE MASTER PLAN

HOLLY SHORES/EDWARD RENDON, SR. PARKS MASTER VISION PLAN FOR THE NASH HERNANDEZ BUILDING

• Fiscally Responsible:  Starts w/ accurate estimates, renovation; stays within NHB footprint.
• Sustainable:  Once complete won’t require fundraising or large infusions of taxpayer funds.
• Environmentally Friendly: Minimally invasive. Will not grow into a larger building—or worse.
• Legal:  No legal hurdles required. It’s already legal as adopted in 2014. No public hearings required.
• Preservation: Preserves the building & park for future generations.
• Community: In harmony with community values, visions & concerns. Has community consent.
• Culture:  Respects, celebrates & preserves local culture & history.
• Inclusive:  Allows opportunities for local meetings, advocacy, extension of skills & knowledge.
• Open: As parkland & facilities remains open as public property under PARD stewardship.
• Saves: Taxpayers save on PARD offices. Keeps staff in touch with park environment.

Considerations

Allowing the proposed IRAC project to occupy the HNB would signal that our parks are up for use by special interests, thereby weakening the integrity of those beloved parks and facilities created for all of us to use equally.  NHB is in a spot where, if not protected by park status, it would be considered prime waterfront real estate and needs to stay protected.  So many options for the IRAC program exist that we just can’t see how NHB is the only—or even a good—fit.

We strive to preserve our green spaces, keep them safe and tranquil in the middle of a large city.  Now is the time to ask whether we are willing to sacrifice a chunk of parkland and $3.3 million (or more) for a very expensive, unproven pilot program designed to assist 75 individuals (not necessarily from the community) when options for more appropriate spaces abound?

Our concerns are not just about our own overlooked plans, or losing promised meeting spaces, they’re about inclusion, culture, history, and about intelligent economics and what is really best for the larger community.

Final Thoughts

Thank you for taking the time to review these materials. We hope this little missive sheds light on the many concerns and problems with locating the IRAC program at NHB and why it should be located in a more appropriate and welcoming venue.

As community members, we embrace the Master Plan that was vetted and approved by both city council and community stakeholders of East Town Lake, Holly and ECC.  We firmly believe that the Master Plan ensures the best outcomes for the neighborhood, parkgoers and the city.

We hope you will consider these points when it comes time to vote for the disposition of the Nash Hernandez Building.

Sign the Petition