City Council Special Called Meeting Transcript – 8/7/2018 Title: ATXN 24/7 Recording Channel: 6 - ATXN Recorded On: 8/7/2018 6:00:00 AM Original Air Date: 8/7/2018 Transcript Generated by SnapStream ================================== [3:09:52 PM] >> Mayor Adler: We're going to go ahead and convene this meeting, special called August 7, 2018, 9 3:08. We are in the Austin city hall here, chambers, council chambers 30, 1 west 2nd street, Austin, Texas. Council, this is our special called meeting to hear some proposals for mckalla. I'm going to call for presentations in the following order. First, aggerwald, then -- Paul aggwald, then Todd daily, then land design studio, then Marisa Perryman, then the wickfield Chan development team. Council, do we want to put a time on these presentations as they come to us, or are we just calling them to present? Councilmember pool? >> Pool: It's my understanding, and staff may want to confirm this, that they communicated to the various presenters that they would have 15 minutes to make their pitch proposal, much like we do whenever we have presentations. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Pool: But I'm sure our staff are here to confirm or correct. >> Mayor Adler: Sounds good to me. We'll do that, up to 15 minutes. And I need some help because my computer is not on. It's like magic. All right. Let's go ahead, let's start, Paul -- >> Tovo: Mayor, I think you had asked the question about how much time? >> Mayor Adler: 15 minutes was -- >> Tovo: Oh, okay. Thanks. I missed the answer to that. >> Mayor Adler: Is Mr. Aggerwald here? Let's go to number 2. What about Todd daily with [3:11:52 PM] Capella? Why don't you come on down. >> [Off mic] >> Mayor Adler: That will be good. Go ahead and introduce yourself again for the folks that are watching on TV. >> Yes, sir. My name is Scott motsam, cfo with Capella partners. I won't rehash our history. Most of us are familiar with us, an austin-based commercial real estate firm. We are -- we've been interested, just a real quick background, interested in mckalla for quite some time, given proximity to three acres of property that we own and control directly adjacent to the site. We submitted our proposal, which I guess was really two proposals in one. Option a and option B. I'm going to go ahead through this quickly. I don't know that I'm going to need 15 minutes. I know that we have a lot of other great ideas and ultimately it would be, if we had our druthers, it would be ideal for us to be here for a full-blown rfp process, there would be more detail from us and others, a lot of great ideas out there. I think you get the gist of what can be done at mckalla. What you see up here with our pretty rendering, the core and the crux of what we're trying to do, what we'd like to do is a mixed use development, but a mixed use development that focuses on multifamily, with a focus on affordable housing in particular. So what you see here is no less than four multifamily developments, wrap style. You've got a nice central plaza in the middle, a relocated rail station or new rail station, I should say, a central green area for community events, and the citizens to use. We'd have ample parking, both for the residents, retailers, office, and [3:13:53 PM] visitors to the site. It's such a pretty rendering. We would propose a purchase price of 22.1 million for the entirety of the 24 acres or an 80-year lease at 750,000. Again, the core focus of our plan is multifamily development with kind of a -- it would be a high dense -- high density development and keeping with the north burnet, gateway, and tod in particular. We are not maximizing the density under this plan. You could presumably do a lot more, especially with a relocated rail station, which I think would take you from a floor area ratio and maximum height from -- currently we don't have anything too tall here, but on our three acres, we're maxed out at a five to one floor-area ratio and 240-foot height limit. Presumably if the rail station is relocated, that could go up to eight to one and 360 feet. You're going to see something along those lines from one of the other groups here, but this proposal is not that. We are really just proposing the neighborhood, what's in the neighborhood. 1200 units of multifamily, no less than 300 units of those being affordable. We will get that number as high as we possibly can, if we were fortunate enough to be the developers of the site. 140,000 square feet of mixed use retail, locally owned business and grocery store, potential a hotel, 800,000 square feet of office, with a caveat, an existing three acres we have at the northwest border of the site. We've thought of this as one seamless land plan from our perspective. Five acres of park space, which would include what we think is a really cool idea, taking the underutilized existing rail spur, turning it into a linear park, a nice hike and bike trail for people to walk and ride their bikes, walk their [3:15:53 PM] dogs, play with children, and again, sufficient parking. We have had discussions -- we haven't had them in quite some time, but when we were initially going down the path in regards to seeing what we could get done with this site, we had discussions with capmetro. We know those folks pretty well. We would be committed to be responsible for the development of a new transit station, which we think is key to this site, whether it's us or Precourt or another developer. Quickly, community benefits, the big one is again a minimum of 300 units of affordable housing based upon median family income, at least 300 units. We'll get that number as high as we possibly. Can there's a lot of moving parts to affordable housing, and I think one of the key things to point out there is we would not ask for any city funds to get that done. I mean, we'd be happy to have that, but these are done all the time with low income housing tax credits, a federal tax credit, administered at the state level, there's a couple of different types, or one type at two different percentages, 4% tax credit, which is available to everybody that meets the criteria, and then there's a 9% tax credit which is highly competitive if you get the 9%, so much the better. You can do a lot more with -- get a lot more bang for your buck, but it's not something that is known with any certainty. Park space to host concerts, other community activities, transit station. A portion of the retail footage we would allocate for a private day care, provide day care credits to the qualified affordable housing residents. We would also have lease incentives in place for our tenants at retail indoor office to hire and train local residents of the affordable housing units. We envision micro- units for local artist, housing and flex space. We've all heard -- I like to talk about Dale Watson, an [3:17:53 PM] Austin legend, recently moved away to Memphis, sadly for all of us, one of the things he cited was a lack of affordable place to live. We'd be willing, because we are in full support of soccer, whether it's this site or another site, just in general, we're all avid sports fans, myself included, and particularly soccer, showing our commitment to soccer, we'd be willing to construct eight youth soccer fields, working with the city on that, such as rosewood park, butler shores, del valle. We'd do that as our expense. Along those lines we would provide up to $250,000 to youth soccer programs targeting low income families, giving them access to the beautiful game. Then the big community benefit, and this is rehashing, I think you all know this and understand the opportunity costs and we realize that there are a lot of qualitative aspects to having Precourt there, but in terms of just the pure economics, the property tax that are foregone under the Precourt plan versus our plan is substantial. You know, a mixed use development such as ours that we're proposing may generate up to $15 million annually in property taxes, at 2% escalation, that's $476 million over a 25-year period. We have in the last bullet point, we have absolutely no control over this, obviously. We were just trying to solve a problem in relation to ourselves and then for the community. We had discussions with the folks at coda. And Precourt had discussions with the folks at coda, but to the extent they could work something out, it could be potentially a win- win. It's not something we have involvement in, but coda is a great facility. It's arguably the premier concert facility in all of Austin. I think they do pretty well out there with the shows that they have. So people are willing to drive and it's not that much further, you know, from downtown Austin than it is up to mckalla. Obviously not something we have any control over, we're just trying to bring people [3:19:53 PM] together and solve some problems. Option B, kind of working under there, if you can't beat 'em, join 'em, scenario, this is what we would envision for mckalla with soccer, instead of just a beautiful soccer stadium that we all benefit from, I think there's an opportunity here to get the zoning in place, in keeping with the north burnet gateway and tod to do something really special, have high density, you know, mixed use sports complex with the stadium serving as the anchor of the entire development. You can still squeeze in a lot here. 14 acres, roughly, assuming the stadium is nine or ten acres, with 14 acres, you can still get a lot done in terms of multifamily, and then some smattering of retail, possibly a hotel, and still have ample parking. Quickly, through the option B, you know, we would propose -- basically, the alcohol problem premised upon subdividing the land, which could be done very quickly. It's done all the time in commercial real estate, you know, could be done in 60 --60 to 90 days, at a pretty minimal cost, in conjunction with the existing site application plans, whether Precourt or somebody else. Under our plan we would purchase the 14 -- the 14 acres, if that is the correct acreage. The non-stadium acreage, basically, for $11 million, or an 80-year lease at $400,000 annually. The city won open up the non-stadium acreage for an rfp process. The city would have significant oversight. Obviously -- by the way, that would be open to the Precourt folks as well. But that goes without saying. Assuming if it was a different development group that was awarded that, the city has significant oversight. You know, pro development, joint development deals are [3:21:54 PM] complicated, but they're done all the time, and -- but everybody can work together to pull in the right direction. It can be a win-win economically. It can be done in a seamless fashion, and again with the soccer stadium serving as the development anchor and everything kind of spreading out around that, but in a complimentary fashion. Again, continuing biggest thing with option B is, we would have to pare down the other mixed use development but you could still keep core focus being affordable housing. You could still have potentially 250 units, affordable units. You could still have a lot of parking. We envision based on our analysis, you know, a minimum of 2,000 parking spots that could be utilized by Precourt patrons on match days, and then we ultimately will have our project built on the site that we control, and under our current plans, another 1850 parking spots that we would also make available. And then I think under this version, you know, we would also continue to work closely with capmetro, given fact that there's other stakeholders, you know, we have envisioned the various stakeholders working together in order to find a solution to get a new transit station with the site. This is just a quick example of -- that our civil engineer drew up, pretty simple stuff, but not too complicated to subdivide the tract into multiple tracts. You see the stadium there. It shows 8.54 acres. I don't know if that's the right amount or not. It's just an example of what could be done and what could be done pretty quickly if that's the route council wanted to go. Property tax and job creation analysis, don't want -- I think we're all familiar with it, but -- and I don't know what the right valuation would be, but assuming the stadium - - you valued the stadium at cost of 200 million, I don't know the land value. Let's assume 22.1 million. Theoretically, property taxes that Precourt would pay under normal market [3:23:55 PM] conditions would be $5 million a year, at 2% escalation, that's $157 million that's foregone. Under plan a and plan B, it's significantly higher than that plan a would kind of max out the site from our perspective. You're approaching property taxes over the 25-year period with 2% escalation of $476 million, and it's less than that under plan B in terms of just the job opportunities, again, love sports, and there's a lot of beautiful things about having a soccer team here and a lot of great qualitative aspects of it that are extremely hard to quantify, but soccer is not a huge job creator. The 233 million is straight from Precourt's slide deck, and I think the assumptions behind that are roughly 800 part-time jobs at $12 an hour. Basically, folks that work concessions. Then they're going to have roughly 100 full-time employees at roughly $50,000 a year to be determined where those folks are locate. Under a mixed use development like this, particularly with the office component and the retail component, it's not a wild assumption to assume that maybe you have 2,000 or 2500 employees there during the day, most of that would be driven by the office. But the payroll there, you know, working under pretty conservative assumptions, gets you to 2.5 million -- 2.5 billion, I should say, over a 25-year period. Joint community benefits for our plans, you know, the vast majority again is the property taxes. I think we all agree that property taxes is without question a community benefit and it kind of creates the ongoing flywheel. You take a successful development at mckalla, the property taxes flow back to the city and the various agencies, the county, central health and Austin [3:25:57 PM] aisd, and you have an knew the, so to speak, that continues in perpetuity to fund other wonderful things around the city. The last slide I wanted to touch on briefly, we were going back through the term sheet, and it's possible that -- that -- you know, I think this is just something I'd like to get some understanding. It seems like, under the Precourt sports ventures term sheet, they are considering mixed use development, which is great. That's exactly what we'd like to see, and I won't read through everything that it says in regard to ancillary development, but it seems like, if I'm reading it correctly, effectively it's open-ended, that Precourt has the ability through a 10-year period to develop the tract, non-stadium, I.e., ancillary development, and that includes what you'd expect it, include commercial, real estate development, and associated parking. And Precourt would be on the hook for property taxes, which, in my mind, presumes that they're going to be the ownership -- they're going to be the owners of the improvements, and I'm sure this has been fully vetted through staff and legal, but to me it raises the question, does -- would stadium co -- and we don't know for sure who would be in stadium co or not, obviously an affiliate of Precourt, but -- [buzzer sounding] -- Is stadium co the owner of the mixed use improvements? Do they have to pay for the land? Can the stadium sell the improvements in the ordinary course of business? Which is all fine and great, that's what a developer does, but it raises the question maybe to a lay person that it appears, at least in terms of the ancillary developments, that they're circumventing what would be a normal rfp bid solicitation process. >> Mayor Adler: Scott, thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Is land design studio here? [3:28:00 PM] You also have 15 minutes. >> This is Scott Gunder with [indiscernible], I'm with land design studio. We're going to tag team. >> Mayor Adler: I didn't catch your name, sir. Excuse me, I didn't catch your name. >> Yeah, I'm Scott Kinder, principal and founder of forge craft architecture and design. I'd like to thank council for the invitation to present here this afternoon. My firm forge craft architecture and design designs an array of project types including mixed use, affordable housing, custom residential, offices and retail. We are currently designing an affordable community near mckalla at waters park and mopac. This is made in tandem with land designs studio and Gary Bellamy. Gary is one of the authors of the north burnet road gateway plan and knows that plan like the back of his hand. I would also like to commend other makers of some of the alternate schemes provided for having the foresight to make the proposals, some are colleagues, clients, friends and other like-minded people that I admire a lot. We love soccer. We think it's a great sport. However, we think there's a better use for the land at mckalla, and it can be in excess of what a stadium could provide. I'm going to speak about the design component of our proposal and Gary is going to highlight the economic model. I get to talk about the pretty pictures and he can talk about numbers. Let's see. >> Go to the right. >> There we go. Okay. An analysis by Joseph [indiscernible] Of ashville, North Carolina, shows on a per acre basis a densed [3:30:01 PM] mixed use basis far outstrips the value with big box stores. We're proposing storage, environment, productive as a farm, nourish the lives of families that can live here. We're proposing a dense mixed use city center, housing, affordable housing, and office space for people to work in, by building a project at a density level similar to downtown Austin, we can provide for more facets of everyday life, such as civic uses, libraries, museums, art spaces, places of we are worship and day care, allowed for in the north burnet day care plan. To orient everyone on the slide, the rail line is shown at the top of the slide and that is to the east, and burnet road would be to the bottom of the slide and Braker to the left. So we're proposing parking structures, as well as office space, residential, and I'll detail in more detail a little bit more about how those are arranged on the site. But in the center of the site, there is a main green space and tucked in and around the project are smaller pocket parks of green spaces. By providing for the facets of everyday life, we can provide for the needs of families, the needs of families at a range of income levels including affordable housing, and provide opportunities for a wide range of austinites. Families need open space, green space, spaces for socializing and play. Families also need to feel connected and routed and contribute to their community. So, again, in the middle of the space is a main green space. [3:32:01 PM] You're seeing green roofs, as well as in the foreground, you're seeing a cascading effect of, one is parking garages, and two, it's an urban agricultural area. We think the combination of different green spaces speaks to the concept of connecting one with nature. This program diagram shows taller office buildings to the east, aligned along the light rail line, and they're shown in the kind of pink color, as well as a hotel use in kind of the teal color. We're also providing for the civic functions, and that is shown in the purple, and the affordable housing and residential is shown in yellow and green -- or yellow and Orange, and we're intending to step the height of the building down to eight stories into the interior of the site. Our plan provides for a variety of types of green spaces, urban agriculture and secretescape that is positioned as part of the public realm. The main space has a youth soccer field and is intended intendto accommodate an open air market for gatherings. We're trying to bring a large component of green space into this project, again underscoring the ideas of biophilia and connecting one with nature. We're propose ago streetscape design that accommodates commercial uses, restaurants at the ground level, and civic uses such as school. This is not intended to be a high end shopping district and entertainment district but one where the streetscape is truly the public realm. We're proposing a new rail stop to serve as one of the gateways into the project. We're providing for in excess of 6,000 parking spaces and structured [3:34:01 PM] parking integrated into the site so it's not to detract from the streetscape. Our intention is to build to density levels, a city center where people can live, work, and contribute to the same community and not be compelled to commute to the site. Additionally, a district shuttle, with rail service, for the last mile of commutes. This is illustrating some of the circulation routes through the site, connecting through the site shown in yellow with the vehicular root, but also recognizing that as one is in the site and you're body-moving through the site as a pedestrian, is just as important an element as the vehicular traffic. And we're also -- Austin has long demonstrated sustainability leadership, tech logical information. We believe we can build a great community by tapping into the resources Austin has fostered. The rooftop and urban agricultural both offer -- both offer innovative water quality solutions and augment typical detention and water quality strategies for flooding and pollution runoff. And this is illustrating green spaces and urban farms. We're proposing a streetscape that includes a variety of scales that address the unexpected nature of everyday life, museums, grocery stores, and a variety of spaces that create an atmosphere where street musicians feel compelled to set up shop and entertain to the afternoon. We want this to be a place where people feel like they have the right to participate in the public realm of the street as most cities do. And from now on, I'll let Gary take the presentation to talk about the economic model. [3:36:02 PM] >> Thanks, Scott. The idea for organizing this is based on the density suggested in the north burnet master plan that we did, we were involved with about a decade ago. It was adopted unanimously by council and has since been codified as the north burnet overlay zone. It suggests when there is a rail stop nearby, there is a gateway development overlay for that area, which gives you the maximum density in the district. So we're proposing that we will build the rail station in our infrastructure budget and pursue that gateway tod designation which allows densities of between five and eight to one F.A.R. We're showing a concept here that's about a six to one F.A.R. At this point. The chart on the top just shows a quick comparison. We've assumed an 80-year lease like the Capella folks, and we're comparing that. The organization's affordable housing, homeless services, non-elites soccer and sports, public access and green space initiatives, and other nonprofits would be the recipients of a levy system, so we're suggesting that we put in place a special district that, instead of collecting taxes, we would collect levies and use those funds to fund not only the infrastructure but pay out a great deal of money to 30 or 40 different nonprofits in the city, with a real concentration initially on affordable housing and homelessness. The other thing we found in the burnet master plan is that there's a level of transit that doesn't exist in Austin. If you take trains and buses, we really have no fine grain transit, which we're going to call a district shuttle in this case. So what we're showing is a [3:38:03 PM] diagram that with mckalla station in the lower right, the green line suggests going up burnet and making loops through both the domain and the IBM campus, and back to mckalla. Those would be smaller vehicles with 5 to 15 passengers, run on very frequent headways of 5 to 10 minutes, which gives the people living out there in any of those developments, or working out there, the chance to hopefully shed one car from a household, which really contributes to affordability. One of the -- the secondary, I'd say, most important component of our community benefit program is to take a good portion of that money and build soccer fields all over the city in opportune places, school land, parkland, wherever it may be, and also commit to long-term maintenance of those. These are like a third of soccer field up to a small youth soccer field, but we feel that that's a way to get soccer back to the masses and help find those players that might be the stars that don't otherwise get a chance if they can't -- if they can't afford a select soccer program. This is just a quick comparison of two different approaches. The norm on the top assumes a $200 million tax value that would generate about $4.4 million in tax revenue and go to the places we all know generating about 283 million over 50 years. Compared to ours at build-out, the densities we're talking about, a build-out value of about $1.2 billion, generating 27 million in levy revenue, and ultimately about three-quarters of a billion over a four-year period. The pie chart on the right suggests where we see the emphasis of those funds going to help all sorts of community programs. If you look in the detail that's in front [3:40:10 PM] of you, it's got a pretty extensive list of those recipients. This compares the normal taxing method to the Precourt proposal as we understand it, and that there would be no taxes paid, therefore, no benefits financially to anyone, and the 47 million in what we call non-academy benefits are the public -- the dollars that Precourt has suggested they would contribute to the community that are not affiliated with their club soccer program which seems to be more like a player development program than a community benefit. This is the existing entitlement that's there, so the point here is we don't have to go rezone or do a lot of work. We simply take the mckalla station site, build a really wonderful train station there, and that can then be declared a tod gateway zone. These are the building type and density numbers and everything that go with that zone in the north burnet overlay, and we would comply with and the proposal we're showing you does comply with all of those in terms of density height and so forth. We've committed to a minimum of 15% affordable housing. We would like to also get involved with the affordable housing providers elsewhere in the community, foundation communities and the like, and have them be a major recipient of the funding have they can go build affordable housing anywhere in the city of Austin that there's an opportunity. This, as I said, this assumes the same structure that we understood Precourt to be pursuing, which is a long-term ground lease where the city owns the land and all the assets built on it. The 80-year term is very important to ensure that the vertical development that [3:42:10 PM] would be built would be financeable. We've talked to several local and regional developers that support that and are very interested in participating in the project, should we be fortunate enough to get to that point. The last thing I would say is that the council has a pretty unique opportunity here to perhaps reconsider the idea of soccer and consider something that might be a longer term benefit. We like the idea of -- I think it was the [indiscernible] Nation who said you should think about these decisions with regard to seven generations out. It's not a short-term idea or decision. You know, we feel like at the end of the lease period here, you have an appreciating asset instead of a potentially worn-out soccer field or soccer stadium. I would be glad to answer any questions anyone has. I guess we used all of our time. >> Mayor Adler: Any questions? About 14 seconds left. >> 14 seconds, okay. >> I'll concede. >> Mayor Adler: All right. Let's go then to the next presentation. >> Pool: Mayor, do you want to just signal that we'll take all questions from the dais when everybody is done? >> Mayor Adler: We also have people that have signed up that would also like to speak. Thank you very much. Is Marisa here? Perryman? >> Hello. I think he's pulling up the presentation. While we do that, I'll go ahead and introduce myself. I'm Marisa Perryman, I'm a resident of north Austin. I live at home with my husband and kids and chickens and I'm pretty ordinary as far as who I am and what I do. Let's see if they have...I have a presentation. >> Mayor Adler: I'm sorry, [3:44:10 PM] Ms. Houston? >> Houston: I'm sorry, wasn't it another group that you called? Was it just the two? >> Mayor Adler: No, no this is the next person to speak. Marisa Perryman and Judy [indiscernible] >> Houston: Oh, I didn't get that so I'm sorry. >> She's here as well but I think she's going to speak after the presentations. >> Mayor Adler: As a group, you have 15 minutes to present. >> I think she'll speak just as a member of -- thank you. Just to give you a little roadmap of what I'll be talking about today, I wanted to give a brief introduction about who I am, about this proposal, mission statement, talk about why my proposal would help preserve our culture, increase connectivity, and increase a sense of community, and help preserve the wetlands, and finally go on to what I'll do for affordable housing, then conclusion, contact information. So about me, I already went to that. About this proposal, there's been a lot of debate about this psv deal before the city. A lot of people on social media had different ideas of what could be done with this land and weren't necessarily getting heard. So instead of solely sharing my ideas on social media and arguing with people online, which I did some of that, too, I decided to collect a lot of that information presented, put it together in the form of a proposal, and present it to you all as a form of community input of what some was who don't necessarily want -- think that north Austin needs another domain, as some people put it, or a soccer stadium, so just to present an alternative idea. So, thus, keep mckalla weird was born. This is a community proposal for a culture-rich space that everyone can enjoy. Mission statement is to establish a park space dedicated to celebrating and preserving our culture of our amazing city, to have an innovative, sustainably [3:46:11 PM] developed green space and protect our wetlands while making them accessible for the community to enjoy and appreciate, to maximize the community benefit, a piece of city-owned land in a prime location can offer, and to create a public/private partnership. My vision for the space to have a park that really embodies the beautiful aspects of our culture. That's my son crying, so -- to add a metro rail station, to protect the wetlands, to establish a food trailer court to help emerging food court businesses, to incorporate the necessary affordable housing and to create a precious community asset through a private/public partnership. Some of the values you'll find upheld within this proposal are culture, quality of life, green space, increase in connectivity, and mobility, affordable housing, civic pride, and lastly, community input, because I gathered quite a bit of that throughout this process. So I don't think there's any secret to the benefits parks offer. There are economic benefits, so this isn't just a billed-a-park where we can play, there are benefits for the city as well. It makes a safer place and it's an educational space for kids to go out and play and learn. Now on to culture. Mayor Adler, you made some good points when you said that if we need to say what is special about the spirit and sole of the city, then we need to act. You also said the next term is going to be fighting to defend Austin and our culture and our values. I hope you don't wait for the next term. I hope you help me do this now. As the city's second downtown, north Austin is lacking in art and cultural assets. Most downtown areas in bigger cities feature a lot of public art installations and transactions and there's a huge disparate between downtown and north Austin when it comes to those cultural assets. In fact, the city's own 2016 cultural asset mapping project clearly shows that [3:48:11 PM] the cultural -- just to give some background, I'm sure you all are aware, but if the public is watching, dots on the map represent different cultural assets, public art installations, public space, creative space. If you'll notice, downtown is quite colorful and north Austin looks a little bit bland on this map. I didn't zoom out or anything, I just panned over and it showed what a disparate there is. If north Austin is to be Austin's second downtown, we really need to do something to increase the culture up there. So one aspect of our culture I am promoting is our zero waste culture. Previously, any out of towner who visited a grocery quickly became war aware of our ban on single use plastic bags. It was pint of pride for me when I would go out of town and show up with my reusable bags. A lot of times the cashiers would be confused, but I was proud to say I'm from Austin and we don't use single plastic bags. When we lose that element of identity, we ought to compensate in other ways and what better way to do that than create a public space dedicated to recircle and reuse. This is in New York, just to give you an idea of the concept I'm talking about here, and this was a milk crate pavilion, just used -- it's an unusual use for something we see every day to get people's minds going and really foster that zero waste mentality, in older and younger generations alike. This is another piece of recircled art, and I propose to bring in some creativity and commission local artists or eeoc logically focused engineers to design some of the park elements. This is some recycled tire art by an artist that I highly recommend. She does amazing things, with a used tire, something that is normally disposed of. This is another example of a playscape in Greensboro, Alabama, took steel drums and made a playscape with them. That really gets kids -- [3:50:13 PM] that fosters creatiity. My kids love to see stuff like that in different uses. Here are more examples of what I personally think is beautiful. We have a drinking culture so there's no shortage of wine bottles in the city. I'm sure we can come up with enough to build something really cool. And there's a playscape here with recycled materials as well. But as far as the zero waste culture is concerned, using recycled and upcycled materials would inspire visitors, divert materials from the waste stream, create a space for artists and creatives, help keep Austin weird because what's weirder than building with trash, and keep mckalla an interesting and unique space to visit. Secondly, for our culture, it's no secret we're the live music capital of the world and we're losing performances due to rising rents and development and we need to preserve that. So proposed are multiple stages on a first come, first served basis, kind of like picnic tables are at a park so people can kind of freely come and use those spaces, but also available as reservations. I think it would be cool to have some picnic tables there so you can have entertainment for small parties and birthday parties as well. This would also be in line with the city's artist access program, which allows local artists to come and perform in spaces that aren't being used currently. And of course in keeping with the theme of zero waste culture, I propose that we could -- I mean we could use reclaimed and recycled materials to do the stages as well. This one is built of pallets. The next one is built of bridges. There are many different styles and designs for amphitheaters and performance spaces, but since there's no, I am invent deadline for creating a park of this nature, there would be plenty of time to make decisions and gather public input on the various design structures. Another part of our culture is the food trailer culture that's -- it's a big part of [3:52:13 PM] our culture but the permit process makes it hard. My husband and I have a hotdog cart that we still find ourselves in the red tape. So I propose the space for emerging food truck businesses to come and test their concepts so they aren't out a lot of money. Thankfully, without the thousand dollars that we're in so far in permits, that won't make or break my husband and I, but I can't say the same thing for ohm people, and people could test their concepts without going broke and ultimately failing. Another important aspect would be to increase -- to courage inclusivity, would be to commission local art work, representing multiple cultures and not just ethnic cultures, but also vocational cultures as well. This is -- if you look at the pictures here, one of them -- one of the -- the picture on the right is a pots and pans school to pay homage to the restaurant industry, often overlooked and underappreciated, and to honor some of our tech industry, we could do something creative with the recycled circuit boards because that waste is a huge thing. Probably -- I think we're seeing the biggest increase in E waste in our landfills than anything else. As far as connectivity goes, metro rail station is needed, a decent park & ride would be suitable for this area, especially if we're going to have an attraction such as this and with developments going up around in the immediate area, connecting the red line trail to this would be ultimately important to increase connectivity and accessibility. Also, next to the trail I propose a fenced in dog area because this would serve our -- some of the skin parents of our fur babies well when it comes to having a space for them to run around in. I know a lot of our neighborhoods are now seeing dogs and pets outnumber [3:54:14 PM] children, so we should consider that and make a space for them as well. And of course in keeping with the theme with zero waste, we could do something creative with the fencing around the dog park and use recycled elements. This is just a picture of recycled bike tire rims, but of course with community input, somebody else may have other ideas and we could do something really creative and fun there. And to encourage a sense of community, I propose for great lawn/obtain space. This is just a picture of a park in the Netherlands with some lawn chairs made, which I thought was really cool and whether it's yoga or soccer, the -- if you think about all the developments in the area and the apartment complexes in the area, the neighborhood kids are -- or the children in those complexes will need a place to exercise and run around in, and stretch their legs and fly kites, play soccer, and, you know, do fun activities. Ultimately if there was a better idea for adding park elements that space would be, again, a blank canvas for someone else to develop the park a little further as well but the open space would leave room for cultural celebrations, there could be a splash pad there, proposed is a plaza for a farmers market. And onto one of the more important aspects of this proposal is the wetland preserve. Mayor Adler, you yourself the other day said we can't keep letting our cities flood waters go inadequately managed costing our cities hundreds of millions of dollars and untold misery for primarily lower-income residents and you are spot on. I agree with that, which is why I think we should focus on protecting our watershed. We don't want another onion [3:56:16 PM] creek disaster. We don't want a north Austin onion creek and that could very well happen should we put up too much impervious cover. So a park would really maximize the permeable cover and allow water to stay on property versus flowing downstream and running off and flood og our streets and neighborhoods. So the wetland preserve would not only serve as a beautiful space but it would also help mitigate flooding. When it comes to the beautiful space, wetlands are considered the most biologically diverse of ecosystems, a great learning resource for our children. The connecting children to nature plan I believe passed last year -- or the city decided to take part in last year, this would be a great asset to add to that considering the unique flora and fauna. Lastly, of course, affordable housing. I don't believe I would be hear if it wasn't for adding this element to the plan. Proposed is setting aside 3 acres for affordable housing and allowing an experienced developer to develop that and create live-work housing, so a little bit of shops but nothing too crazy in terms of development but really maximize that green space to help our -- not only our connection with nature but our -- protect our watershed. So this is my conceptual drawing. This is a step up from the hand drawing I was going to submit. I went above and beyond and used Microsoft paint so I hope you can appreciate that. This is just to represent how the space could be used and how it could be allotted. The dark blue area would [3:58:17 PM] represent the wetland preserve, the light blue the residential area, sticking towards the soon to be built cappella development and then the rest would be parkland open space. The farrokhers market plaza and the -- farmer's market and stages. Of course at the top by the red line trail there's empty space and that's to leave space to play with, throw parking in there. Of course this is just a conceptual design. If this were to move into the planning stage then this would look a lot more polished. But in conclusion parks do provide countless benefits to the community and the economy alike and we ought to protect our green space and culture and think about what truly would benefit the community, and I urge you to please consider this community proposal, and I would like to thank the voices of north Austin and my contributor, Judy, so thank you. If y'all have any questions I'd be happy to answer them. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Is the wood field Chen development team here? You also have 15 minutes. Is Paul agerwahl here? >> All right. First I want to thank the mayor, mayor pro tem, and council for giving us the opportunity to present our vision for the mckalla district. My name is John Chen, and I have been proud to call myself an austinite since I moved here for law school at UT. After law school I've had the privilege to live and work in New York, Hong Kong and San Francisco including for real estate and infrastructure projects worldwide. Of those I am proud to have worked on one of the largest solar energy facilities in [4:00:18 PM] Texas with Austin energy as the customer, a local connection that inspired my return to Austin. Mckalla district is a project by austinites, for austinites, inspired by a community engagement process. Our team is compromised of my development partner, Marcus wit field in collaboration with design professionals Jody lane and Mitch Wright. I'll turn this over to Marcus who will give an overview of the project. Thank you. >> Councilmembers, mayor, mayor pro tem, thank you all so much for having us here. We are really excited about this opportunity. I have been here since 1984. Do I need to click here? I have been here since 1984, been in the real estate industry since 1989, worked with Gary farmer, goals man -- Goldman Sachs for many years. The Witfield company has been instrumental in 17 shopping centers, retail, 12 home improvement centers, six educational facilities, including the domain's first tenant, la cordon bleu. The first Saks fifth avenue okay, which my mom was quite proud of, first Harley Davidson store, not the south one and numerous industrial deals for pert analysis industrial -- pedernales corporation, and an agri business here in Austin. We've completed six affordable housing transactions here in the last five years. As you can see above the land plan, we designed the mckalla district to bridge the gap between the existing domain and the established neighborhoods of north Austin have been there quite sometime, in conjunction with the north burnet [4:02:19 PM] gateway plan, imagine Austin plan. This was traditionally an industrial area, and the rail service that is existing adjacent to the property serves as the catalyst to a pedestrian-centric multiuse development we are very excited to present. We have a lot of affordable housing in this plan, 840 units, okay? These are not big, tall buildings that are generally more expensive to construct. This consists of approximately 200 family units, 250 senior units, 120 for sale, 120 supportive units, 105 live-work and 54 artist spaces. There are four schools within 1 mile of this location. That benefits the affordable housing folks. That makes their lives easier. In addition, we would have an on-site educational facility that would benefit supportive and the community as a whole. The transportation we're willing to put together the rail station. There's already bus nodes around the property. We have a central board walk that goes through the property that adheres to the burnet gateway plan of adding road systems, connectivity to this area. That's important. Very important to this project. Our plan includes 3,000 parking spaces, about 200 of which would be allocated for park and ride, okay? So this, again, benefits the area residents. The total square footage, 1.6 million, we estimate would cost about 525 million. That would provide $11 million in annual tax revenue, property tax revenues. Obviously a key community benefit, but there's so many more to the affordable housing and overall concept we've put together here. The wetlands and -- we [4:04:21 PM] have -- so our project includes a very large portion of water quality and detention that Mitch designed, knowing that the flooding is a serious concern. And Jody is going to speak to the regenerative concepts that we've employed in this development as well. >> Hello. Thank you all. My name is Jody lane, and I'm trained as an architect. I came to Austin in 1998 to get my master's degree in architecture and since then I've been working on a lot of master plans and a lot of development here in the city. You name it. The airport boulevard master plan, Austin -- downtown Austin master plan. I've been on or part of consultant teams for a long time for master plans and development. And one of the things I'm most proud of is the festival beach food forest we started through the holly shores senior randone park master plan. And now what I've decided to do is work for a nonprofit called clear, center for living environments and regeneration. And why I'm doing that is because regeneration is something that I want to bring to Austin. And there's a group of professionals that I work with that do too. So what is regeneration? So regeneration defined is the process of cultivating the capacity and capability in people, communities, and other natural systems to renew, evolve, and thrive. It's a lot of words. I'll break it down. I'm going to use these five key concepts or lenses, as we call them, to talk about what -- that big term might mean. So working in wholes and not parts is the first one. So the world actually in reality works as a whole [4:06:24 PM] system, and nested systems within that whole. And what I have found in my career thus far is as design professionals we're really good at looking at our parcel and our property, looking at transportation or looking at green spaces from our point of view, from our small parcel. But what now we can do and what I'm excited about these guys, what we've done around the design table, is to really look at how can mckalla district be a benefit for the larger whole? So we're looking at the watershed and seeing what's downstream of us that this project can contribute to? We're looking at green spaces. We're also looking at the full life span of a human. So we're looking at elders living with millennials that have toddlers and combining those systems and resources that all of them really use, and that being our whole that we look at. The second one is being of service. So being of service might sound a little bit like volunteering, but really what it's about is it's being an indispensable piece in the whole. So what I mean by that and what we're looking at at can mckalla is how do our 26-year-olds that are on our site that are going to this educational facility, what's on their minds is how do I fit into society? How do I do what I love too? How do I do what I'm good at? How do I money advertise it? That's being of service to the larger whole and that's important to us. The third lens or regenerative development concept is accounting for uniqueness. So through working to understand and connect to uniqueness we're increasing our ability to discover and be open. So when you're in a new country and you don't know the language, there's something unique about that. You're open to something you don't know. A young toddler might come up to this microphone and [4:08:25 PM] subpoena what is this thing? How does it work? You know, looking. This thing is unique. How do we discover something that we don't already know, keeping from something we don't already know is actually of benefit in regenerative development. The fourth one is to be -- is being -- going from being separate to being aligned with nature. So when we align with nature, we design for storms better. When we align with nature we capture and reuse rainwater like we're doing on our site. We find ways that humans can positively contribute to natural systems. The fifth one is from problems to potential. So each one of us in this room has a problem that you can think of that fast. If you think of what problems do I have, they're right there. City of Austin has their problems. Problems in our political -- we got problems everywhere, right? In regenerative design and development problems are important. They point to what matters to us. They point to what we're committed to. But what we want to do is we want to fold it over and look at when potential comes up, like what creates potential? When do you have potential to create something that is unknown to this city already? So potential is what we're looking at and potential is what Mitch is going to talk about next. Oh, clicker. You have it. >> I'm going to stay over here. Thank you, Jody. And thank you, council. Good afternoon. My name is Mitch Wright. I am a landscape architect and satisfied city planner. Thank you, Marcus. My company is vista planning and design, and I have been a practicing professional for over 30 years. As Jody was talking about, the overall site is really organized with the regenerative design concepts in mind, and in so doing we are also looking at the north burnet gateway plan, [4:10:27 PM] the imagine Austin, the city of Austin strategic housing blueprint and also the city of Austin strategic direction which was recently adopted. We really do hit most of the points of all of these documents, so we feel very good about how we align. Across the entire site, we have envisioned a full tree canopy, and part of that is the edible landscape that Jody described. We are both involved in the festival beach food forest so we are very literate in that aspect. Also across the whole site we wanted to contract stormwater and we consider this as two separate waters. There's waters that hit the surface, the pavements and the parking and the drives but also waters that hit the roofs. The surface waters we have a whole system of rain gardens starting at the top of the site working all the way down to the bottom where water quality and detention are so we're really trying to filter, infiltrate and treat the water prior to getting to the lower portions of the site. The roof waters will be contained in cisterns so we can use that for edibles, irrigation and other uses around the site. We also have shade structures that will be scattered throughout the site and various pods for social purposes and for shading. So looking at the individual pieces of this site I'm going to switch here. This shows a little simpler diagram. At the top of this image you see the metrorail train stop that we're envisioning here. This would be our gateway to the site. People come on to the train, those who ride will come here and enter the side and will have this broad pedestrian landscape plaza open up to them. On the right when you get off the train will be the workforce training building. They'll also have educational components of -- [4:12:28 PM] for young people as well as older folks in getting retrained. On the left would be the building that has the wellness center that will have programming for mind, body, and spirit, so you can get physical support there as well as, you know, yoga and mental wellness support as well. So moving toward the center of this site that's what I consider the creative campus. The one building has the visual arts programs for live-work studios. These studios would have small openings out to the public street where they may have their own private individual galleries but also a cooperative gallery for larger special exhibitions as well as functioning for programming. The building on your right as you're walking through the plaza from the train station would be organized for the performing arts, theater, dance, and music. So we have a creative campus, that campus in between is about collaborative space, where they can get together, or it may function as small festival or exhibition space as well. Further down on the bottom of this screen is probably the more important social space. We have the grocery store, which has a cafe- restaurant with outdoor seating much like the central market near Seton has its catch fay that opens out into a plaza where there is live music so this is a natural play scape so families and so forth all come together. Oh, I got some more time. What we really want to -- this is kind of part of our public engagement. We've been already talking with some folks, getting a lot of great ideas, and outlined in our proposal [4:14:28 PM] we've submitted is a pretty extensive public engagement process. We look forward to moving forward with the project. >> Show them the next picture. >> Oh, next picture. So thank you. [ Laughter ] >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Thank you all very much. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Paul hagerwahl? Is he here? Okay. Those are the presentations that we have. Council, we have -- want to have an opportunity for folks to be able to ask questions from the dais. We also have about 20 people that have signed up. Do we want to hear from the people in the public first? Let's go ahead and do that. Is Judy Garibay here? Is Monica Guzman here? Monica here? What about Marissa Perryman? I think we just heard from. Okay. What about Linda masia. You'll be at podium. >> My name is Judy Garibay, here to support the proposal submitted by Marissa. Keep mckalla weird. Marissa has shown a vision unlike any of the other proposals. Her proposal encompasses everything the city of Austin prides itself on, culture, education for children and adults, activities to get children outside, and that singular Austin uniqueness, aka, "Keep Austin weird." The educational value is a far-reaching vision. Children come to a park and realize it can be more than a playground. It can be a learning adventure and also prove that learning is fun. The opportunity to see that this Earth we live on is ours and we need to take ownership of it. They can learn what good stewardship is in life. [4:16:29 PM] This application carries through everything they do in life. Not only through owning a pet do they learn of taking care of something that belongs to them, but owning a park, they can learn that lesson also. Children can learn what a wetlands is first hand, the effect TVs on our environment and the need to protect it. They can learn by the life a wetland supports. This is a better experience than just reading about it in a book. There will be a playscape for all ages of children using recycled and repurposed materials. A green space for youth to play soccer and baseball will be available. A quote from the national league of cities, nurturing an emerging generation of youth as stewards of and advocates for the natural environment. Mayor Adler, councilmembers pool, Casar, and Renteria, each sent a letter to the national league of cities in Washington, D.C. On September 15, 2016. In this letter they expressed their support for the city of Austin's cities connecting children to nature implementation plan. They each stated they firmly believed that -- and this is paraphrased -- every child has abundant and equitable access to nature at their home, neighborhood, and school. Every parent knows and understands the importance of access to nature for a child's healthy development, and every child considers outdoor play a top option. City codes are designed to allow and encourage kids to play outside in nature more frequently. They also stated that Austin is seen as an innovator and leader in the children and nature movement. So let's not just pay lip [4:18:30 PM] service to these statements. We need for them to become reality. [ Buzzer sounding ] >> By adopting the keep mckalla weird proposal by Marissa Perryman it becomes a reality. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you very much. Ms. Mesia. David king you'll be up at this podium. You have three minutes, ma'am. >> Thank you, mayor, councilmembers, thank you for the opportunity. Today I've provided a handout which you should have in front of you that shows 160 public intoxication arrests and 124dwi offense that's took place between 2017 and June 2018. Three of those wis were fatalities and two fatal crashes involving pedestrians. The topic I'd like to speak to you about is public safety. It's no secret that I'm a proponent of APD, also a graduate of the citizens police academy. That's where my time and energy goes and that's where my focus is today. APD is a priority and it's imperative the impact of decisions being made regarding mckalla place be taken into consideration. That includes police, fire, and ems. It also impacts their budget, staffing, and their ability to respond to calls. And my opinion the city council and mayor have lost focus on the real public safety priorities of Austin. If you don't have a traffic management plan, a real traffic management plan, for this proposed stadium, if that's the way you go, there's no deal. We don't want it. That includes crowd control, emergency management strategies, traffic control, public drinking. That's a major concern. Parking in the rest of the world, there's lack of parking provided by the stadium. That's a major issue. Illegal parking in [4:20:31 PM] businesses, that's a major concern. Let's not forget traffic congestion, which is already a challenge today. Some are in denial but it's reality. Mckalla place is a very different place. It's a different venue than coda was designed, which was designed for large events that they hold. Mckalla place and the surrounding area cannot support a 20,000 seat soccer stadium in its entirety, especially with no parking. A thousand spaces? That's not real. Transparency in the planning process is a must. It's imperative to be sure that all of the public safety issues are addressed up front and all agencies have a seat at the table. It's unfortunate that the appears of so many agencies have not been part of the public discussion and process. The cost of supporting this private event venue come at the expense of funding for the community in terms of policing, ems, training, and the impact of all agencies. I ask you to please give it thought. Please think about the impact of public safety. The police right now are short staffed. They run call to call. To jam 20,000 people into an area that's already congested, it's unrealistic. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. >> Mayor. >> Mayor Adler: Yes. >> Flannigan: Just to clarify, the list of dwi alcohol includes the entire Adams sector, which is my entire district plus parts of district 7 and 10. It's a really big sector. And mckalla to the extent that this was the point is way on the edge. It's almost on the line between Adam and Edward and we often struggle when we report crime data to my district because the geography of the data catchment area is kind of part the why the numbers look the way they look. I just wanted to note for the public that it's not 124 at mckalla. It's 124 over a pretty large section of the city. >> For that sector, yes. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you [4:22:34 PM] very much. Is Susan spitaro here? Why don't you come up. You'll be at this podium. You have time donated from Brad parsons. Is he here? Okay. So you'll have five minutes. Mr. King, you have three minutes. >> Thank you, mayor. Mayor pro tem, and councilmembers. I'm reading the following statement on behalf of Monica Guzman who could not be here today. As mayor Adler recently wrote on the council message board, quote, Austin's biggest challenges, such as increasing unaffordability, displacement, gentrification, flooding and traffic are getting worse. You're right, mayor. They are. Council's focus should be on addressing those challenges. While it is fortunate that an opportunity was made possible for developers and others to submit their respective proposals, some of which we heard today, I am disappointed, saddened and disgusted that a wealthy business owner has been afforded red carpet treatment despite many years of the community struggling, working together and coming before city staff and council in hopes of addressing those needs. While I am confident you are aware of recent updates from Franklin county Ohio for the sake of the public record as well for all here at city hall and watching online I'd like to share a news highlight from the August 6 article, an order from flank inn county court, judge Jeffrey N. Brown ensures the city of Columbus and state of Ohio lawsuit against Precourt sports ventures will extend at least into September. Furthermore according to mayor Adler, quote, we must deliver for our constituents and city's feature. You are willing to stop codenext, time and manpower, to deliver for your constituency and Austin's future. In light of recent -- the recent update from Franklin county, Ohio, I ask you to stop negotiations with [4:24:36 PM] Precourt sports ventures LLC, correct the process with a full, complete request for proposal process, truly engage the community before losing more Austin residents. Thank you. The following comments are mine. I appreciate the opportunity to hear about the additional proposals today but several of them sounded really like they might be P.U.D.S that come before the council, planned unit development projects or density bonus, where in both cases we get a 95 -- 90/10 split is 90% going to the developers, 10% if we're lucky going to the community. Sometimes it's 95/5, where we get 5%. So this is our land. This is our property. If we really care about providing housing for our low -- truly low-income families earning 50% mfi or below, when are we going to step up to the plate and say this is the site we're going to use for that? Why don't we work hard on that instead of doing the density bonus dance where we get so little benefit for those in our community who are struggling to live in our community? So if not this site, which site will we designate for income-restricted housing for low-income families being pushed out of our city and will continue to be pushed out of our city. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Is Francois zulka here? You'll be at this podium. You have five minutes. >> Thank you, Susan spitaro. I hope you are really excited about these plans. Last night at the gracywoods meeting we all got to hear about that. More than that we saw different groups talk to the neighborhood people and to each other to kind of energize as to what could be done in conjunction with what the neighborhoods have been promised. In terms of working together for neighborhood plans, [4:26:36 PM] looking for affordable housing, and it should be obvious, too, when you hear this that there's some really creative solutions out there for affordable housing. It's not a matter of just building or pushing these people into a corner, but building communities that are exciting for a lot of people, low-income people and intergenerational. And this -- if you go out for an rfp, that's what you're going to find because that's what you've seen today. You know, in your budget this year, one of your main tenets is you want a government that works for all. And I agree with that. And I think that the plans you've seen today work for all. They don't work for just a few, but work for all. The other thing in your plans is you talk about transparency and ethical practices. I think that's an rfp process. Where everyone gets their ideas in. It is fair. It is open. And that hasn't been the case. So I hope that you will do that. One of the things that I did a handout here, which just kind of summarizes information that you have seen, and that is look at the property taxes. The stadium would pay none. That's a loss of probably $5 million. And I did one year, because when you multiply by 25 there's so many assumptions in there. The Witfield Chen proposal would provide $11.6 million of property taxes every year. Cappella a, 14.8 million. Cappella B, 7.4 million. And the land design I was not quite clear on so I didn't put that in there. But those are very important contributions where people are -- these companies are paying into the community benefits that we all have to do. One of the things last night the people kept saying in informal conversations, "I pay my taxes. It's really hard and they should pay theirs." And these are creative [4:28:37 PM] Austin ideas where people pay up to their own, pay taxes. Then look at affordable units. What is in the term sheet for Precourt is up to 1 acre. There's not a commitment to affordable housing there. Whitfield Chen, 843 units, cappella a, 300 units, cappella B, 250 units, and the land design 225. That's a lot of units for affordable housing that we need in this community and I hope you will look at that. Transportation. We talk and talk about the realization moving it. The soccer people are not willing to pay to move that. Whitfield Chen, yes. Cappella a, yes. Cappella B, yes. Land design, yes. So you have proposals that provide tax base, provide affordable housing, and help with transportation. And I hope you will look at that. The one other thing I want to say that is so important is that -- and let me do a quote here and it's in my handout, the Austin city council approved a resolution to place 100% of the tax revenues being generated by property previously owned by the city to the city's affordable housing trust fund. What's so important about that is those total tax numbers, about 20% of it is city tax. So if in fact you follow that resolution that you adopted, you in perpetuity will help affordable housing. And it's not just building new units, but the trust fund tries to keep people in their homes. And so you really have to look at that in its entirety. My message for you is to do a formal rfp. Be fair about this. Be fair to the community. And the soccer thing, there's nothing wrong with soccer. A lot of people like soccer. But that is a very narrow focus compared to what you've heard today. So I hope you will give these plans the concern and [4:30:38 PM] the consideration. You know, one of the things that I've heard is well, I mean, these people just popped up out of nowhere. No they didn't. These people have developed in this community and done some really creative things. Cappella interestingly enough I found out at a meeting have been talking to the city for two and a half years on this piece of property. They didn't just pop up. Please consider a full rfp. And I also want to commend you on the issue of affordability to say that you are not going to the rollback rate this year. Thank you very much. [ Buzzer sounding ] [ Applause ] >> Mayor Adler: Is Gary Bellamy here? Gary Bellamy? Okay. You have time donated to you from rome. Is he here? Also from trey farmer. Is trey farmer sneer no. You'll have five minutes, Mr. Bellamy, and you'll be at podium. Please go ahead. You have three minutes. >> Thank you. Thank you, council. But most of all, thank you for allowing the local business community to come forward with their ideas. These are local businesses that have been in Austin for a long time. They're proven, vetted members of our community, and they should get an opportunity through a fair and open bidding process to present their ideas as well as out of town interests. I was really impressed with all of the proposals. They were creative. They were thoughtful. They were all compliant with the north burnet gateway neighborhood plan. That was a plan that was initiated by the city. It was vetted by the community. There were hundreds of hours of community volunteers from all of the neighborhoods [4:32:39 PM] around there and the businesses who participated in creating the vision for that district. And so that vision and that master plan should be respected. Last night at the gracywoods neighborhood association, like Susan mentioned earlier, there was a lot of excitement about all the possibilities and all of the creativity that was presented. And the neighborhoods were really excite -- the neighbors were really excited about the opportunity to have these new amenities and new ideas in their area. But I think the most important thing that we learned last night was what Susan mentioned about the affordable housing ordinance. This is an opportunity to create an endowment for affordable housing. By redeveloping this piece of property as well as other city-owned property, we could be creating long- term revenue for affordable housing and social good in our community. I think that this is probably the most important decision that the council will make this year. Because like one of the presenters mentioned, again, this is not about us today. But this should be about the next seven generations and what this area of Austin can produce for the good of all of our community, not just one single special interest. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. [ Applause ] And then is John Hager here? Why don't you come on down. You'll have three minutes. Mr. Bellamy, you have five minutes. >> Thank you. I think I'd like to talk specifically about homelessness and affordable housing. I think it's hard to understand our proposal because of the special district nature, but if you take into account that we would be able to help other places in the community [4:34:40 PM] build affordable housing and you divide the total potential number based on the levy revenue, which would be essentially the same as tax revenue, we could fund 2500 to 3,000 affordable housing units elsewhere in the community other than in addition to the units we've dedicated or committedded to on our site. I had a long discussion this morning on homelessness with Allan graham, a friend that we've worked with for quite a while now out at community first and asked him his opinion of what we might do to help in the homeless regard, and I'm sure all of you all know Allan. He pointed out and clarified for me that it's -- in Austin we have about 1200 acutely chronic homeless people who will always require subsidy of some kind. That means we have another two to three, maybe 4,000 that are homeless but possibly not chronically homeless. And I know echo met last week and discussed this at length. I think we had a long talk about that on our team and feel like that that would be the other main spearhead necessity the early D in the early years of the special district were we able to form that. Those are issues that are close to us and we all know people that have had issues. If you have not had a chance to serve out at community first you should. As Allan says, we love welcoming people home. And that's what they're doing. And he is solving homelessness with community, not with housing. I'd be glad to answer any questions that anyone has with the remainder of my time. >> Casar: Mayor. >> Mayor Adler: Ty very much. Yes,. >> Flannigan: When you were talking to Mr. Graham did he tell you when he tried to put community first at this site? >> Yes, did he. >> Flannigan: How did that go? I wasn't on the council then. [4:36:40 PM] >> I think he said [indiscernible] It was the last time I was thrown under the bus before they found the site that they have now. >> Flannigan: Yeah. >> I don't know the history of that. But I know that he's done an amazing job where he is and continues to grow. >> Flannigan: It's a phenomenal development. And I don't normally get into the practice of, you know, speaking to folks in this way if I can help it but since you brought up having spoken to Allan I wanted to see if he had relayed that story to you. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Thank you very much. >> You bet. >> Mayor Adler: Mr. Hagar and Scott jinder. Is Scott here? No. What about [indiscernible]? You'll come up here next. You'll have three minutes. You have -- I think you had five minutes. Is that right? >> I'll be briefer than that. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. >> Thank you for your time. >> Mayor Adler: Why don't you pull up the microphone so we can hear you. >> Thank you for your time. We've heard a number of exciting proposals today that I think creative address a number of issues that face our city right now. One thing that I believe they all have in common is that they demonstrate what a great potential this site has in terms of generating and providing community benefits. And to borrow a phrase someone used previously, of benefits that we can offer with equitable access. We have currently and almost certainly continue to have an affordability crisis in this city, which has already been mentioned. And we have -- given that we've seen demonstration already that this area in north central Austin can support rather excessfully high density mixed use and also given opportunities [4:38:41 PM] like this will be increasingly rare, where we can provide affordable housing and a lot of it without either demolishing existing affordable single-family housing stock or displacing existing residents, this is an opportunity to really -- we really cannot afford to pass up. So I'd like to thank council for opening this process. But I urge you now to see it through and this Thursday please do not decide on your agreement with psv. Instead let's continue to vet these ideas and maximize the benefit to the city. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. [ Applause ] Is David Estrada here? You'll come up to this podium. Either one. Mr. Estrada, why don't you come on up. >> Thank you, Mr. Mayor, councilmembers. My name is Elaine, and I'm a resident of gracywoods neighborhood association. We've heard wonderful proposals. I'm very impressed with the creative ideas people have come up with. Everything we've heard today has been of a macro nature. I'd urge you for a few moments to take a microattitude to this and consider this something that you yourself might have experienced in your lives. Just suppose hypothetically that, say, 20 years ago you bought a house in a subdivision in Austin and as preparation for your old age and the income you found you might need you also purchased the lot next door to you with the intention of at some time selling that lot and getting income from it to assist you maybe with your social security payments. Suppose also that about ten years ago someone moved into your neighborhood that you've become great friends with. They've proven to be good neighbors. They've kept their lawn up. They keep their cars in their own driveways. [4:40:41 PM] They assist you if you need help. They're involved in the neighborhood association. In all in all they've been really good neighbors. Also suppose further than within the last six months somebody else moved into your neighborhood right down the block and these people, trash out in their yard, park cars in the street, you've heard via the grapevine they were run out of their previous neighborhood for not paying their rent on time or their house payments on time, they've lost their house. And now you've got these two neighbors and an empty piece of land next door to you that you'd like to sell. They have both made you an offer on the property. One of them, the person who has been there for ten years, says, you know, I'm going to pay you for -- market value for your property. I'm going to give you up front thousands of dollars and in addition if you will finance this property for me, I will pay you interest of 5% a year on it to use as your income. The other person comes to you okay, the person who is new to the neighborhood and says I'd like to have use of your property but I can't afford to buy it so I'd like to rent it from you for a dollar a year and in about five years I may start paying you rent. And if you'll finance it for me, unfortunately, I can't afford to pay you any interest on the loan that you're gonna give me. And, also, I hope you don't mind, but I have this side business and I have about 20 or 30 cars that I'd like to park along the street near your house, in front of your house, and if you have an extra space in your driveway maybe you could let me park that there too. So these are the two offers that you've got. Personally, which one would you take? Which one would be the financially responsible thing for you to do? [ Buzzer sounding ] Andsky you to transfer that as -- and I ask you to transfer that as Austin's financial advisors and [4:42:42 PM] stewards of our budget, what would you think would be the proper thing to do for the citizens of Austin? >> Mayor Adler: Thank you very much. >> Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. [ Applause ] >> Mayor Adler: Nathan Jackson here? Nathan Jackson? No? What about Roy Whaley? No? What about Craig nazer? You'll be up at this podium in three minutes. Sir, go ahead, three minutes. >> Real quick, I'm David he is avoided dark live in the gracywoods neighborhood, north Austin, 11 year homeowner. Things seem to be contentious but at the last meeting I got a ride from a person who opposed my view. So when all comes down, we're all neighbors and friendly so I just want to point that out. So let me address these counterproposals today, and we met with these, these companies yesterday, and there's some concerns, such as the land design studios' proposition. They coin it to be a dense urban central. We don't need that. There's gonna be five, nearly 30-story office buildings. And estimated 10,000 people working and living there. Daily. 365 days a year. That's gonna be a huge traffic concern. Not just 33 times a year with the stadium. Furthermore, Gary Bellamy stated that that -- that came from his mouth, this may take eight to 12 years to build and it could be a headache building up to [4:44:43 PM] that. So as far as [indiscernible] How many people will be on their site, they didn't have a concrete answer. How can you have a traffic plan without knowing those numbers? Last night the same thing for Chen, they had no facts ready. Again, how can they have a traffic plan when you don't know the number of people staying at their place? I like what Marissa brings up, keep Austin weird. I really like that. I know it's probably not feasible because of the fiscal concerns, but, mayor Adler, you're spot on. It's -- we need to maintain our culture. We're not Dallas. It's not about fiscal matters -- no it's not just about fiscal matters, it's about quality of life, entertainment. South park meadows and coda, downtown for entertainment and sports, north Austin needs an entertainment venue because we're the live music capitol of the world. We don't need more high rises. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Sir? You have three minutes. >> Hello, my name is Craig nazer, and I'm a member of the conservation committee of the Sierra club Austin regional group. And of course the Sierra club is soccer. We love soccer. This is not about soccer to the Sierra club. This is about the environmental aspects of this piece of property. And every time I come back here I find a little more. Now they've locked the gate there so I can't go up there anymore, but what I have found out is the water table [4:46:43 PM] on the site is 17 feet below ground level. This is a high area. That's a pretty high water table. Trees growing on there would do well with a water table that high. I've also heard rumors that there's an old fire hydrant on there that has been removed and some people think it might be leaking. I have no idea. I don't know -- I don't think that's enough water because little walnut creek further down is filled with water. It's filled with water right now, even after the drought. What I think more likely is the water table is high up there because somehow that site is collecting water. Now, that site is 100 feet higher than little walnut creek at I-35. So that means 83 feet above little walnut creek at 35 there is a pot of water up there underground. What's holding it back? What's holding it in there? What impervious cover will change that? That's what we want to know before you put anything up there we think that should be decided. Now the process you're taking means there will never be a site plan submitted until you make a deal as to what goes there. We think this is a bad process. If any of these people buy the property, they submit a site plan, and the watershed can look at it and it's a public process and we can see what's going on. So that's a plus. Now, in watershed, we have engineers and we have scientists. Engineer is a verb. I can engineer something. Scientists don't science anything. They look and observe and see what's there. So if you just approach an engineer, he tries to give the best solution to the problem. What we don't know what's going on there. We need some scientific input also before -- in my opinion before we went in and put a whole lot of impervious cover on this [4:48:45 PM] site. That is our concern. That is our major concern. And I think everyone who lives down little walnut creek should be very concerned about that also. Thank you very much. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. [ Applause ] Anyone else signed up to speak that a haven't called? Why don't you come on down. Why don't you give your name to the clerk, please. >> Marcus Whitfield. >> Mayor Adler: Go ahead. >> I just distributed to the city clerk alternative potential stadium sites. One of them being the expo center, separate of coda. There's nine on the list. I wanted to enter these as public record and they really should be considered. And then I also wanted to just reiterate the thing about the wis. From my understanding we had looked at that and there was something like 10% of the city's wis coming from the domain. Now, this maybe really needs to be further investigated as well. Because the soccer stadium is obviously going to increase those numbers either pui, public intoxication, or dwi, much worse, I would presume. But in any case, I wanted to present these potential stadium sites to y'all so you had a chance to look at these. We have confirmed these are available. The Robinson ranch is also included in that, which I believe Mr. Subtle represents. Curious why he didn't bring that to the table. In any case, I understand that the exposition center has a great plan and we should probably be considering that today or along with the psv proposal, obviously it's not associated with mckalla, but associated with soccer. Thank you. >> Houston: Mayor? Sir? Sir? Just for the record, the exposition center site was offered to them when they first came to town and they [4:50:46 PM] refused it. If they want to be in a -- urban area and that's why that wasn't attractive to them. >> I imagine in a few months, years, it might be urban though. Something to think about. >> Houston: [Off mic] >> Mayor Adler: Mayor pro tem. >> Tovo: Mr. Whitfield? I missed the reference that you made to one of the sites on this list. Being the property owner is represented by Mr. Subtle. Which was that tract. >> I believe the Robinson ranch is being considered for development, or I know various parts of it have already been developed. If I'm not mistaken he represents those folks. >> Tovo: Okay. Thanks. >> Mayor Adler: Sir, you have three minutes. >> [Indiscernible] Watson. I'd like to start by saying this. I had my hand up for at least 25 seconds and you didn't see it and you were looking at the crowd. That's exactly how you might be missing what we're saying about this issue. All you need to do is look around. I've -- I decided to do something different than my other constituents that have given you the technicalities and the alternative options and I think you've heard it enough. But I thought I'd walk through the domain and canvass myself. So I knocked on some doors that I knew and spoke to community members within the domain. They don't want soccer cat catty-corner to where they live because right now they can't even get out of the domain. I thought I'd go through the neighborhood restaurants and ask my hospitality -- my colleagues in the hospitality industry what they thought about soccer. They said, well why not play it at UT? Why not put it at coda? They, too, don't want soccer over there. I went to the arm or walk [4:52:47 PM] and asked managers and hospitality staff alike okay, there's already enough traffic on the feeder road and I wish I could gain your attention and eyes, Adler, the whole time because I've been trying to spend this money everywhere I went all the time as well and all it does is tell us you continue to do the wrong thing but not assessing the full capacity of the input. Again, we're not against soccer. But as Paul speaks of in corinthians, everything must be decent and in order and, again, the order is out of order if soccer goes before affordable housing. Last night I, too, was at the meeting and I was pleased to hear I think four different proposals that showed me that since the last time we met at the -- with the gracywoods association people sat down and decided to assess the input given, which I'm looking dead at you and saying that you're not. Laurel Morrison agrees soccer is not right for that. [Indiscernible] As well, Travis Duncan as well. So your competition is all saying we don't need soccer so I'm not understanding why you don't see it as well. I think we could develop an entirely new community engagement concept from the city's standpoint so that you never make this mistake again. You in your professional or your personal life, you go for such a for-profit aim that you forget the people who pay taxes as well. So, again, the domain, the Arbor walk, Braker lane, overwhelmingly against a soccer stadium right there. Now, there's division, right? There's affordable housing. [ Buzzer sounding ] That they went. There's more jobs, more creative spaces but I think you have enough proposals to identify a better option than soccer. So I appreciate the time. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you, sir. [4:54:53 PM] Anyone else that signed up or wishes to speak? Those are all the people in the public. We're back up to the dais. Does anyone want to ask any questions or make any comments? Mr. Flannigan. >> Flannigan: There were moments today, I felt like I had gone through the looking glass. I feel like we dance around this density question, and I hear from parts of the community that density is bad in all cases, and now I'm being told that density is the solution. But to be fair, even some of the neighborhood folks say, don't build anything here. Do a big park. That is the most consistent voice that you hear because we are a city that defaults to doing nothing. I am ambivalent to mls as a proposal, and I find it frustrating because in conversations that I've had with some folks, individually loved to have seen an mls proposal from psv that included hotel, additional buildings, more development, and in those contemplations, the response is generally, I don't think the neighborhood is going to want that much density. I also am blown away that we are considering this an rfp process when, under no circumstances is a government rfp process set up that one bidder puts out their bid really early and then all the other bidders wait until five minutes before the deadline, and then in their own proposals, speak to the one of their competitors. Again, I am ambivalent to the proposals. But this process is ridiculous. I don't think any of this is relevant to the question of the amount of community benefit and [4:56:55 PM] how we're going to pay for it. If we want to see big -- big buildings, if we want to see density, we've got other city tracts. There's a beautiful one by an existing train station on Justin lane. How much affordable housing can we get on that site? There are other tracts across the city. And I would love to see that type of proposal move forward, but what I know will happen is what David king said. And I love David, and I call him out by name because he serves on zap and other boards. He is a community leader as well, but he said it well. This is just like a pud. And any proposal that is brought forward that has density is going to be opposed by some of the same people that say it's an alternative. I'll say it for a fourth time. I am ambivalent to the mls proposal. This process has been one of the most proposal and mind-blowing experiences in my short tenure on the council. And I would love to dig in to these proposals. I have notes here that are going to require me to take answers from developers with no vetting. A process I have learned from some of my colleagues they don't trust. So can I just take input from a developer without it being fully vetted? I don't think that I can. I've been told that before. I see one proposal is in partnership with an organization that vehemently opposes a stadium going on this site. So I'm curious about the financial relationships that are happening behind the scenes. The environmental community, the neighborhoods, they're saying do nothing. Keep it either as it is now, which is a artificial wet land that actually no longer exists, or build a park for which we [4:58:55 PM] don't have the money because we can barely maintain the parks we have now. And I hope that we can consider as a community the fact that when you do development, when you build density, it actually does generate tax revenues and it's not just to mckalla, it's on all kinds of sites. That's how we're going to address affordability in this town, and I really hope that we can get there. But this process is not the process. And I don't know how I'm going to vote on Thursday. I don't know how anyone else is going to vote on Thursday, but I am frustrated by some of my colleagues that are putting us through this process now. How many specially called meetings will it take when I have a long agenda of ballot language and other things I want to deal with, and I will sit through every meeting that y'all force me to sit through because that's my job, but I really hope that we get to a place where we're following regular procurement processes and regular types of projects, and acknowledge that you can't just put out a proposal that's going to cost the city money and expect us to believe it and find the money for it, because we know that we won't. Mayor, I think I've ranted enough. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Anybody has any additional comments or thoughts or questions before we stop? Ms. Alison and Ms. Houston. >> Alter: I do have some questions, but I just want to say that we asked to have an rfp process, we asked to have a different process with psv, and we were denied those opportunities so if we are here where we are now, it is because we were not able to have a process that is worthy of our city, and that's kind of where I'm at. [Applause] >> Alter: I do have a couple of questions unless Ms. Houston wanted to make her comment before questions. >> Mayor Adler: You want to make [5:00:57 PM] your comments first? >> Houston: Thank you, councilmember alter. I just want you all to know I heard some amazing descriptions of things that are possible on this site, from keeping Austin weird to very agricultural, healthy, environmental kinds of farm, agriculture things that you all are talking about, to things that you've tried to talk about for two years before we got to where we are now, so I just want to tell you how much I appreciate all the work and the stick-to-it-tive-ness that you've put into this process, flawed as it is, I'm going to agree with councilmember Flannigan on that I'm not sure how we got off track on this one, but we are where we are, so I appreciate you staying in the game. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. [Applause] >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember pool, do you want to make comments before councilmember alter asks her questions? >> Pool: Sure. Yes. I just want to say that with regard to the Justin lane property, we have a pretty robust community engagement supporting affordable housing at that site, and I do hope that we can move forward with that, and that as far as broadmoor is consenter, we've got commercial business and some parks and the Gracie woods folks are entirely in support of that development up there, and so I just want to make sure that folks understand that the neighbors aren't against dense development or affordable housing or any kind of additional development in the north burnet gateway area. In fact, we're operationalizing a vision that was put into place many years ago, in particular [5:02:58 PM] with the development at broadmoor. So I wanted to thank our neighbors for coming here today and weighing in, and bringing -- I agree, there are really some creative and interesting projects that are here, and there are elements even that could be, no matter what we do on this site, whatever it is, if we do something, that could be used in this -- on this property and elsewhere throughout the city. I'm thinking especially Ms. Perryman's presentation, the reusury cycle and reduce, that is a community value for Austin, and you really showed us how we could use that value and put it into some real -- some public art and some community benefits, so I thank you for that. And just -- I would just close by saying, I agree, the process, to the extent that it's a process -- the city isn't perfect, and we did kind of have to shoehorn this piece in because the community was asking for it. The neighborhood wanted their voices to be heard. There were developers who had an interest on this site from back a couple of years ago with an rfp process that was drafted up. There was a 57-page appraisal that was completed by an outside entity, and it just never was issued. And I still don't exactly know why that is, although I'm trying to find out. But -- since it's in district 7, I thought if there was something pending, at least as recently as August of 2017, which was just about a year ago, that I would know what it was, and I'm still working to try to uncover the mystery of what happened to the draft request for proposal that our friends with Capella have mentioned. So this isn't a perfect process, but we have been given arbitrary deadline after arbitrary deadline by the good people with Precourt [5:04:59 PM] and mls, so that's not the Austin way. And what you see here is Austin standing up and saying, that is not the Austin way. [Applause] >> Pool: And so I thank you again for coming and accommodating this less than perfect process, but I think we got some really good information out there, and I'm really interested to see where we go from today. Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: Councilmember alter. >> Alter: Thank you. I want to ask a couple of questions, but I also want to thank everyone who came, and the developers, Ms. Perryman, for your presentations. As far as I can tell, you're all local, you're all Austin, you're bringing years of wisdom to what might be here, and what I observed when I went to the Gracie woods meeting a couple of months ago, the first one where you presented -- I wasn't able to attend last night, but what I heard from you today was not that you were against density, I heard some people voice that they preferred Ms. Perryman's option, but that's not to say that you don't welcome density. Many people would prefer a park to density if that was the choice before them, but that might not be what's the best thing for the city in this case. I think the same caution that Mr. Flannigan mentioned for us listening to the developers who are here today applies to Mr. Precourt and psv, and why we have been trying to have these conversations is to be able to look deeper into what they're presenting and uncover things like $48 million of their community benefits being for an academy that's open only to boys that is for Austin area youth, not just austinites, and required by mls. You know, we need to go into this with open eyes. We need to know who we're going to this party with. The questions that I have, I want to just get some further clarity, the levels of affordability [5:07:02 PM] available in a couple of the proposals where I had some questions. So I'd like to start first with Capella, if they're still here. So we have two proposals, an a and a B, and I'll get confused, one is 300 -- >> One we think is scaled down a little bit, but one is 300 -- a minimum of 300 units, the other is a minimum of 250 units. We have much more than that, but I don't want to blow smoke up anybody's you know what. >> Alter: Appreciate that. I wanted to get a sense of the level of affordability, so what mfi you'd be targeting at, and the size -- the types of units that you're imagining at this point. >> We're starting from the perspective that 50% below Ami -- >> Alter: How much? >> 50% -- let me clarify. 25% of the units -- if we have 1200 units, 300 of those units would be affordable. >> Alter: Uh-huh. >> We're targeting those units to be available to residents that have, as a starting point, 50% and below median family income. >> Alter: So 300 units or 250 units at a targeted 50% or below mfi. >> That's right. >> Alter: Okay. I just point out that that's a level we struggle sometimes to get. I wrote down a note that I wanted to get a copy of page 10 of your presentation, which I don't think was in our packet. >> Was that in regards to the term sheet? My comments on the term sheet? Or -- >> Alter: I don't -- you read through it and I don't have it, but you can just send me a copy of the presentation and -- >> Yes, ma'am. Certainly. >> Alter: -- That will address the concern with that. And next I have a question for the mckalla district -- thank you, sir. [5:09:03 PM] >> You're welcome. >> Our proposal outlines three structures related to mfi. To some extent, these are dictated by the federal standards for the 4% tax credit deals. And then we've taken it a little bit further. So 25% of the housing units would be for families with 50% or lower of Austin's mfi. 50% -- so that's 25%, below 50. The next -- >> Alter: 25% of how many units that would be affordable? >> Of the 843 or 823 -- my mind is now boggled. >> Alter: So that's over 200 units at 50%. >> That's correct. But that would be spread across seniors, family, supportive -- and then 50% -- excuse me -- yes, 50% of the units would be below 60% mfi, 25 below 40, 65% below 50, and -- >> Alter: If you could make a little table or whatever that has it, that would be helpful. >> I'll do that. >> Alter: Can you tell me, you know, one of the things that I couldn't tell from your proposal was how much green and open space, and I know you're doing 100% affordable so you're not required to do parkland dedication. I know you incorporated it in various places with a nature play and other things, but I wasn't able to tell -- and that would just mean that you wouldn't have to dedicate it to the city, but I am concerned that we have enough green and open space for the people that live there. Can you share a little bit about those numbers? >> I can be very exact. It was just calculated this morning after we drew it through Mitch. 6.7 acres is our estimate of the green space parkland component of our project. And originally we based that on [5:11:03 PM] the Ms -- or the psv proposal said the city of Austin staff would require 15% of the site area to be dedicated for water quality and detention, which I don't believe psv is doing. Actually, we went above and beyond. >> Alter: Okay. And can you help me understand how you are able to fund this? We hear all the time that people can't do affordable developments. You're saying you're going to pass 22.5 million, roughly speaking, for the land, if I get that and you're going to do 843 units. I think there's some office that's offsetting it, but how do you make those numbers work? >> Correct. I'm looking for some master leases from some folks here in the nonprofit community. The office space would be supplementing that situation. There's also the grocery component, local retail components. The models on something like this, when we don't know if there's further environmental things, there's a lot of unknowns that the city has not -- we tried to get an environmental done on the site and were not able to secure that, so there's a lot of unknowns still, but the model kind of speaks to itself. We've put together a pretty comprehensive model. There's parking revenue and other things people may not be including that we're including in ours. Island be happy to show you those at some point. >> Alter: You weren't able to do the environmental because the city wouldn't let you on the property? Is that why? >> From my understanding, yes, that's correct. We requested to do an environmental on the site and were not given a -- I think it was a license, if I'm not mistaken. >> Alter: I'd like to know a little more about that. That's frustrating. And then I'd like to know a little bit about your experience and qualifications with affordable housing. I mean, are you guys -- I know you've done development, but have you ever done affordable -- I mean, it sounded like you did, but I didn't quite have a sense of that. >> So my ground with Goldman Saks [5:13:06 PM] is the acquisition of properties and that's what my primary focus is. We secured the last, I believe, seven sites for foundation communities. >> Alter: Okay. And what assumptions are you making on the parking spaces? Because -- >> We typically use a one to 275, I believe, for the ratios. Now, with senior housing and with supportive, you don't have that requirement. It's not as extensive. And so on the office, it's one to 275, which is per code. But on some of the fair housing components, we pull that back. That's just typical of fair housing. >> Alter: So you're providing more parking than is required by code because you're providing it -- >> I think we're still -- we may be 33 spaces out of 3,000 short of code. But I mean relative to psv's proposal, we've gone above and beyond for parking as well. >> Alter: Okay. >> But like I said, there's a revenue component to that parking and that's part of our modeling. >> Alter: Okay. But you're offering 843 units of affordable, with at least 25% of that, 50% mfi, and what was the highest level? >> 80 -- 25% of 80%. >> Alter: Okay. Thank you very much. Appreciate the clarifications. I think those are my questions. >> Mayor Adler: Mr. Renteria. >> Renteria: What kind of density are you looking at? >> It's a total of 1.6 million square feet. I think the floor to area ratio calculated at maybe one to four. I'd have to go back and look at my notes but it's not particularly dense. >> Renteria: Okay. So how high are you recommending your buildings to go? >> I'm sorry, I couldn't hear. >> Renteria: How high -- how tall are you going to be -- are they required? >> There's one office building that would be ten stories. That's the one closest to the Capella site. The remainder of them vary between four and six stories. Again, we're not -- we're trying to scale this relative to the [5:15:08 PM] surrounding community and also the neighbors have been very clear that traffic is a concern and that the environmental does come first, and so we put those as the priorities. >> Renteria: So what other community benefits besides -- are you going to build a playground, park, the whole -- >> Well, the park - - the parkland area, the 6.7 areas is pretty extensive. >> Renteria: Okay. >> And I would love to sit down and explain it in more detail if you have time. >> Renteria: Okay. >> I don't have my documents in front of me now or the powerpoint so it's a little difficult. >> Renteria: Yeah. Because I just went through one of those developments there at saltillo, and we -- we got 20% but we -- it went to a long-term lease so capmetro could have some revenue coming in, and we allowed them to go up on one of their buildings to 120 so they could get an office building there and bring in a commercial store, which we are going to get whole food 365, so that's, you know, going to be to help, you know, generate revenue. So, you know, it's those kinds of things that, you know, I support, a little bit of density so we can make these kind of units, affordable units work. And that's what gets me excited, you know. I want to see more affordable units concentrated in a more friendly area where, you know, everything was in walking distance. >> Well, this is really meant to be kind of a counterdom, focused on high end retail, national retail, high level rents, we're really focused on affordable housing, the local retail, and the regenerative, include all aspects of society. >> Renteria: And you're willing to help pay for the transit station if one gets moved in? >> That is correct. >> Renteria: Already. Thank you. . >> Renteria: All right. [5:17:10 PM] >> Thank you. >> Mayor Adler: I think those are all the comments we have. Roy Whaley is in the room and I wanted to give him a chance to speak since he had signed up. Mr. Whaley, do you want to speak? >> Yes, sir. >> Alter: Then I have a question for mckalla station. >> Mayor Adler: You have three minutes, Mr. Whaley. You're up. Roy. You're up. >> I thought mayor pro tem had a question first. Thank you very much. Howdy, y'all. Good afternoon. My name is Roy Whaley. I'm the conservation chair for the Austin regional group of the Sierra club. And once again, I hope to make it very clear because I think it has been misreported, Sierra club does not care about soccer, for or against. We're talking about the environmental protection on the site. The potential wet land feature. And it doesn't matter if it's soccer or 100% affordable housing or a Richard suttle hundred dollar bill give away center, we want to see that environmental protection in place, and that's what I just want to stress again and again. I believe there's been some misconception on that. But that is our concern. It does not matter what goes in there. We want to see that the investigation is thorough, the conclusions are accurate, and then the environmental protection is followed through, with or without the wetland, we still have that being the head water of little walnut creek. And so that needs to be taken care of and taken into consideration. It's just on the other side of the railroad track. It's not seen in any of the presentations that I've seen. We're just after environmental [5:19:11 PM] protection. We're an environmental group. Thank you for your attention. >> Mayor Adler: Thank you. Councilmember alter. >> Alter: Thank you. I'd like to ask a question of the mckalla station group. And I apologize, before I wasn't able to read your presentation in advance because it didn't print in the way that I was able to really read the bulk of it. I would like to understand from you the affordable housing. I see a lot of numbers about the amounts going to particular organizations, but you are offering housing on site and then you're also putting -- you're earmarking what would have been tax dollars to providers. Can you help me get a sense of what's on site and then what you're offering off site as well? >> Yes. At this point, we've got about 225 or 15% of our on-site units dedicated to affordable, at about two-thirds of mfi so 65, 66%, average. We have -- we've been working on this for three weeks so we have drilled down as far as some of the other -- some of the other folks. I think the more important thing is that the - - through foundation communities, anyone else who provides affordable housing, we have projected putting out $530 million in the first four years of the lease period, that those people can go build affordable housing with, because that's their business and they're very good at it. I think that's more impactful than trying to crowd a lot of affordable housing onto the site that we're trying to create a new city center on. We're not against doing more affordable housing, but I think the initiative to do it all over the community is a better one than doing it all in one place. Does that answer your question? >> Alter: Yes. So about 200 and something is part of -- at mfi? [5:21:14 PM] >> 65%. >> Alter: Okay. Then you wouldn't be paying any taxes, you'd be paying these -- >> Well, the structure of our deal is completely different than anyone else who's talked. The idea, instead of being taxable, is to set up a special district. We've done a great deal of research about special districts and have been involved in creating some in the past. We've got good counsel on that, and they're helping us formulate a more detailed strategy of how that works, but essentially, we've put a district in place only on the mckalla site. It collects levies, ad valorem levies instead of taxes, and that funds not only the construction of the rail station, the infrastructure, the urban farm and roof gardens and everything else we do, but it also spins off vast amounts of money over an 80-year period to do -- what we did is listed in the proposal -- if you look at page 16, there are probably 25 or 30 nonprofits in categories including affordable housing and homeless services, non-elite community based soccer, public access to green space initiatives, other community nonprofits, including health and wellness, parks and entertainment, k-12 education, animal welfare, boys and girls clubs and on and on. We took a stab at how that might be distributed, but certainly we're open to discussion about how that would work. That's a vastly different approach than saying we're going to pay taxes and y'all figure it out. We think that it's a workable solution because you have a unique situation of having a really well-located piece of public land that is approved for density under a plan that this [5:23:16 PM] council unanimously adopted ten years ago, and we don't feel like we need to debate that any further because it was debated -- I think we worked on the public input of north gateway for the better part it won't have years. We probably had two dozen meetings and talked to hundreds of people. So the situation hasn't changed that significantly since that point it was approved. It was then seen into the overlay district that controls the development on 2000 acres of land that seems to not be well understood, but all you've got to do is look at your own land development code and it's right there. Those are the two sheets that we brought out earlier. So we could build this density without -- without further discussion about it, if that's -- if that's the will of the city. And that density then allows us to create really significant public benefits that most of the other competitions pale in comparison, just because we've chosen a different way to do it. >> Alter: And would you be supporting aid through that? >> No. Our suggestion parallels Precourt. All the real estate taxes that would be subject on this property are exempted from, for the life of the deal. That's what they asked for. We just said we'll take what you're offering them, but we'll structure it in a significantly different way and do a lot of public good with it. I'd really encourage you, if you haven't had the chance to, to read through our leave-behind, which has a lot of detail. I met with councilmember pool's aid this week and agreed to meet with the economic development folks, anyone you'd like for us to talk to about how this might be structured. We've had a good deal of input with the legal department on special districts and we're [5:25:17 PM] ready, willing, and able to do that, so I would encourage you to look at our proposal in sort of a different light than a traditional ground-up development proposal. >> Alter: Thank you. I appreciate your time and the energy you've put into this. >> Sure. >> Alter: And I look forward to looking at it more carefully. The gray didn't print well on my computer so I appreciate the hard copy. >> Mayor Adler: Does anybody have any additional thoughts or questions? Councilmember pool. >> Pool: I wanted to address the environmental -- >> Mayor Adler: Y'all can sit down. Thank you. >> Pool: Yeah. I wanted to address the environmental issues that our friends from the Sierra club have brought to us, a couple or three times or more, and both Dr. Naser and Mr. Whaley today. I wanted to ask the city manager or Ms. Hart, in Mr. Cronk's absence, if the city manager would please direct our staff to do an environmental assessment on this site, and a scientific assessment, as Dr. Naser pointed out, which is different from an engineering assessment. And the reason I want to ask for this, I brought it up on Wednesday when we were having a public hearing for the other proposal for mckalla site. The reason I bring it up now, if there are significant issues on that site and if the water table is as high as Dr. Naser is pointing out, that will have some significant effects on what we may decide to do on this site, whomever it is, whatever it is that may be determined. And to put it off until a site plan is determined means that we've already made -- we've already gone down the road such a distance that it would either -- it would be more expensive than if we find that there are elements on a site that would need to change around the pieces of the site plan, then whoever had submitted that site plan would have to go to additional effort to rearrange the elements on the site plan. [5:27:18 PM] I recognize that this isn't how we do things at the city. This is asking for a different way. But I think in this instance, since we have been pushed on our time frames and people are really stepping up to the plate pretty quickly, that maybe the city also could do something a little bit out of order and a little bit more quick -- a little quicker in order to provide a level of information about the environmental impacts on that site, the assessment of that site from a scientific perspective that would be really informative, for whatever future -- whatever happens at mckalla place into the future. And then I would just end that by saying that I think we've talked a lot about the tceq certification on this site, but that was done a few years ago, and since then, soils have been brought into the site and dumped. We've got compost -- I went out on Sunday, just drove around, and you can't drive into the site anymore. That's right. But you can see through the fence to the edge of the -- to the edge of the property where the trees are growing, and you can see --where the poles are laid down, where tractors are moving stuff around, there's dumpsters out there full of probably Austin resource recovery items. I think there's a mound or two of dillo dirt out there, so I think we need another assessment on the environmental quality of the site, no matter what happens. And I don't want us to be relying on what the tceq said a few years ago for a couple of reasons. One, it was a few years ago, and I don't put a lot of credibility into -- or trust into the environmental assessments that they do do. So, could you relay that along to city manager cronk with that request and let me know? [5:29:18 PM] >> I'll be glad to relay that. We will check into the resources that would take and possible timeline on when we could get some work like that completed. I have no idea what the cost would be. >> Pool: Sure. >> I'll pass it on. >> Pool: I think the cost would be probably the same if we did it early or if we did it late, and depending on who's going to be responsible for the remediation on the site, I think it would need to be done anyway, so at this point it's simply a matter of reorganizing the order in which certain activities would occur. If you could help me -- help me with that. >> I'll pass that on. >> Pool: Thank you. [Applause] >> Mayor Adler: Mayor pro tem? >> Tovo: So -- and I think just to that, Ms. Hart, I think -- so this was an area where I highlighted last week that we -- that I had questions around that I wasn't sure we were going to get to, and then we didn't. We had some staff from watershed here last week. I think what we really need to do is hear from them, too, about what assessments they have done and get a sense from Dr. Naser and others what additional ones are the requests. But, you know, when I -- when I received Dr. Naser's communications, I've communicated -- I made sure that our watershed staff were aware of those, and it was my understanding from talking to Mr. Pentallion and others that they may actually be going back out to the side to do some of that work. So I think we need an update about what assessments have done, how they've responded to the concerns that Dr. Naser and others have raised, and also how they've responded to the information about the corps of engineer letter. And so, you know, again, I think those have all been communicated and it sounded like there was going to be follow- up, but I'm not clear on the status of that current work. >> Okay. We'll see if we can get a status memo out. That I know there was a memo about the response to the U.S. [5:31:21 PM] Army corps. There's already a memo out on that. I think it went out on the 31st of July. And I can send that back out to council if you'd like. >> Mayor Adler: Jimmy. >> Flannigan: I just want to concur with what the mayor pro tem laid out, is roughly what my thoughts were as well before we allocate resources, it would be good to know what remaining analysis there is compared to what analysis has been done. And, you know, I think there's questions about when the city is spending money to do those things versus when a property owner is spending money to do those things. But to better understand, like the mayor pro tem laid out, I think just voicing my support of that. >> Mayor Adler: Okay. Anything else before we leave? Yes, mayor pro tem. >> Tovo: And I think if it's possible for us to get that information by tomorrow, that would be good, if there are terms that need to be included in the agreement to mitigate around -- to require a further study or figure out what we do if there is a critical environmental feature on there, you know, that's information we really need right away. >> Okay. I'll contact acm pentallion tonight and make sure he gets word to staff right away. [Applause] >> Mayor Adler: All right. I think those are all the comments. It is 5:32 and this meeting is adjourned. Thank you, everyone, for participating.