pg. 1 June 3, 2021 Presentation to Ryan Companies And Catellus Development Corporation Regarding 350 u ni ts of a partments plus 2,500 s.f. of Gr o und Floor Retail , a Pedestrian P aseo c onnecting the Historic Airport Control T ower to John Ga i nes Park , and structured parking. No project name yet. Si te Approx area p roposed for 2,500 sf Retail Site Map with Adjacent Streets 2 Table of Contents B ackground .......................................... ... .............................................................................................................. 3 Retail Issues ................................ ................................ ................................ ................................ ............ 3 Mueller Master Plan, signs, maps, Design Book Update s , Documents etc ............... 7 2000 Mueller Master Plan drawing ................................ ................................ ................................ .......... 7 Mueller Design Book, 2000 ................................ ................................ ................................ ....................... 8 Mueller Design Book Update 2017 ................................ ................................ ................................ ........... 9 2020 Developer update at PIAC Meeting ................................ ................................ ............................... 10 Mueller Design Book Update re “ Tower Park ”.... .......................................................................................... 1 1 Site Marketing Signs by Catellus........................................................................................................................1 2 Legal documents and disclosures......................................................................................................................13 Issues Regarding “Mixed Use.” Including o ur Group Suggestions for Possible Retail Tenants ........................................................................... ............................................................... ..................20 - 21 Parking Issues ............... ...... ...............................................................................................................................2 2 Summary .................................................................................................................. ...........................................26 B ACKGROUND : We are a n informal group of Mueller residents ( both homeowners and renters) who are concerned about the need for gre a ter retail uses within your 350 - unit apartment project in Mueller , adjacent to the iconic Control Tower. Please note that we are not a formal resident group, but rather simply a group of residents. Our number one specific interest and what brought us together is to open a dialog with you , based on mutual respect, to talk with you about two i ssues: the amount of retail and parking Of these, the great majority of us have been discussing among ourselves is s ues about the amount and kind of retail as the primary interest, then parking . Parking is one area for which the re are many ideas and opin ions and much knowledge , but little consensus. R etail gets by far the most attention , so we will ad d ress it as our primary focus 3 RETAIL ISSUES: Do not misunde r stand ; we are NOT here to tell you how to develop your project. Or to demand or insist on some changes “ or else.” We are not here to hold up your project or revisit it with the City, Catellus or Mueller approvals ... although there are perhaps a few individuals not in our group who might. We don’t control them and don’t condone that approach. That’s not our approach. We don’t intended o tell you how to do your business. You are a preeminent developer. Only you know the specific ins and outs of your project, sizes and mix of units, site layout, parking, architecture, structure, finances and more You also know the difficulties of retail in a predominantly other - use project. We’re not here to educate you on development, b ut we would like to give you our well - considered and serious input and feedback on the project. So, h ere is our “ask.” Location: Ideally, such shops w ould be placed along a portion of the paseo, on one side in a contiguous line of retail spaces. Giving the paseo a much more lively and b ustling area of commerce for the site residents and many others. Or , instead, they could be situated along the exterior of one wing of a buil d ing facing out toward one of the side streets , such as Berkman, in which case head - in parking should possibly be considered as well ( if it is permitted by the City , give n the overall width of the street). Placement along the paseo is definitely preferred , as it would bring life and vitality to this area that otherwis e (except for the trees) appears to be a somewhat blank and potentially hot area O f course we k n ow very little about the paseo at this point as the community is still waiting on a presentation from your company about the paseo and plaza around the co ntrol tower There has been no communication between the developer and residents. Brian Dolezal says it is coming, but no details whatsoever. He indicates at this point whether or not even to actually present to the community is an open question. We urge you to do so. W e are here to ask that instead of a token 2,500 sf of retail, that you very seriously consider putting in an additional 10,000 to 15,000 or more s.f. of retail in addition to that shown on your site plan 4 Paseo: While the rendering shows wonderful trees ( dependi ng entirely on the types of trees and especially the initial plant in g size , of course ), it is still at its most basic a largely hardscape passage Also, the paseo is not a gathering place as it is Is an area in need of programming to promotes positive uses and discourage others. Perhaps it may become place for some groups to hang out, but in doing so makes it less appealing to the rest of the residents. Also , despi te the trees, it’s potentially somewhat unappealing by nature due to the amount of impervious cover and the assumed concrete and brick construction likely adding to the heat island effect. A key issue will be the materials used in the paseo and the ty pe and size of trees at planting. We believe the paseo also offers an opportunity for placement of additional retail to make the paseo a lively place for people to shop and meet. Also other need s to be address ed are trash cleanup, measures to stop skaters ( installed ska t e - stoppers for example ? ) , lighting, security , enforcement, and management Shops here w ould instead be an incredibly significant asset to the project and w ould contribute to the site being a t rue Mix ed - Use , inviting, family - friendly project. As yet, however, no detailed presentations to the community have been given about the paseo or the plaza at the control tower , although there is rumor of such a meeting is to be held this summer. There are other rumors that it won’t be held at all. Which is it? 5 In our view, r etail here can be on the side of minimal construction detailing. We are not expecting you to necessarily increase ceiling heights or to do a major redesign on the architecture or structural integrity of the project , unless you so choose. We assu me the project is well along in DD’s and perhaps working drawings and the like. Th e retail, then, can focus on relatively simple but inviting shops, meeting basic building codes without unnecessary variances , and with proper and necessary signage. Largely occupying space vacated by apartments for this use. We are also not expecting you to add more structured parking ( although even just a small amount more of such parking, dedicated to timed retail use , would be extremely helpful ). These shops however should be able to rely on street parking. An d w h i le the y won’t pay the lease rates of national retailers, of course, you should be able to price them s o that you earn a fair return on your money. In fact, we believe that, based on national models, you can get a better return on these than you would have had from the eliminated apartments. This is not rocket science, developers are doing it all over Austin at present. Here is more of our detailed thinking for yo u r consideration: 1. We strongly view this a s helping solve Mueller’s missed opportunity to have walkable retail on the southern side of the development. T his block and those around it have long been known to be designated , planned for and marketed as M ixed U se including a fair amount of local retail to bring vitality to this par t of M ue ller. Look at pages 7 to 1 5 below to see how it has been uniformly presented as a true Mixed Use site ; in one case , a rendering was prepared showing apartments above retail here. 2. T o a person, every single one of us in our group honestly thought that this site would include t rue Mixed Use with significant retail in a walkable environment. Much more so tha n even the 10,000 to 15,0 0 0 s.f. we are suggesting according to feedback. We’ ve gone back and reviewed the original Master Plan and Design Book, Design Book Updates, the specific site marketing s igns, t emporary signs, renderings, even closing disclosure documents . E ach of us recalls specific conversation s with realtors and others w hen buying our home s or renting an apartment . So me had discussions with Catellus and brokers . There were also peer - to - peer discussions, community meetings, and more. I know it seems convenient for me to report this, but quite honestly it is exactly what people have reported to us based on their understanding. We are not blaming, but h ow did all this go so wrong (in our opinion) ? W h y was there no meaningful input from and dialog with residents ? While probably such a review is not “ technically ” or legally required, given your pre - existing zoning rights, it still seems to us that most any modern, astute, publicly aware, community - oriented sensitive developer would have done so regardless And the same is true for Catellus. (se e below). Had Catellus done what they advertise about their role in garnering input and support , you would have at least had input in a timely manner. And then take it or leave it. 6 3. We’re un sure if technically you can be legally held to more Mixed Use ret ail as we are suggesting , but then we are not approaching you on a legal basis ! That’s not who we are. Some others may possibly cho o se to challenge the project on that basis. But instead we are appealing to you to do what is best for the immediate surrounding neighborhoods, for Mueller overall, for the south end of our community , and quite frankly WHAT IS BEST FOR Y OUR OWN APARTMENT RESIDENTS And for the favorable mix of vibrant uses a nd happy tenants when you eventually sell the project to its next owner. 4. Also, based on your projects in other cities, YOU are clearly aware of the contribution and value of retail with a n apartment (or condo) p roject It appears that your online portfolio includes at least four vertical residential projects that incorporate retail or restaurant space . It’s hard to tell how much is actually under neath residential because the website , stats and images are so vague. Yes, in some of the cases it is true that some of the projects are sited immediately adjacent to existing shops and restaurants, cafes, and boutiques that are integral to the project but not necessarily developed by you . It is cited on the website as a very important consid eration when you chose your pro j ect sites. It is described a s a meaningful asset to your residents. Whether it is below or adjacent, retail serves a similar purpose. But on this development site at Mueller , there is no opportunity for large - scale adjace nt retail. You have to create it yourselves on the ground floor. You already know how to do this and you certainly have expertise within your company to do so . Apparently , you are also adopting some of this know - how in your project announced in early June at The Grove in Austin. In your affordable housing community on Springdale you added a 600 sf café (no comment) for the 290 unit project. This was in response to the fact that the City Council “ wanted a community benefit in the form of a substantial retail component.” Question: Is this a “substantial retail component? Zone small café? ” We’re not privy to that agreement, but it certainly raises questions. 5. Also, because it is the right thing to do in terms of New Urbanism . With sufficient retail, this project will put your company and this project on par with the many, many other mart developers who have stepped out to create “a sense of place.” A s a location to l i ve and shop Plus , a number of non - Mueller residents will be coming to shop here as well. This moves your company into this new , vibrant way of designing a project in Austin , but it is actually not new at all. Th ose who are members of the Urban Land Institute and Congress of T he New Urbanism -- which some of us are -- have studied and praised these concepts for y ears. Because they work! It’s not rocket science. 6. Further, at least among our group, we have never been given information or seen a presentation from your company at all, much less in a time frame in which there would likely have been a serous dialog , before you r plans get set in stone. As best we can tell, your May 7 2021 , up - until - now planned “presentation” (if even held after all ) w ould be view ed a s a fait a c compli by us -- a s opposed to having a meeting for meaningful dialog. T he normal progression on projects in Austin is for the developer to have a dialog with the neighborhoods (or at least with the closest neighbors) before starting to put pencil to paper. We could not have shared our ideas with the Planning Commission, Catellus, or the Mueller board when we were not even aware of your project to begin with Showing us your final plan in May /June seems disingenuous at best. What happened? We don’t bite. By and large , the neighbors in Mueller provide constructive ideas for a developer’s “consideration.” At this poin t , it appears that you may have abandoned plans t o talk to the area neighbors at - large with a full blown project presentation. And now instead we hear you maybe want to give a presentation about the paseo and the ground floor plaza adjacent to the cont rol tower in June. Is that true? What happened to a “ project ” presentation? And by “presentation” one might assume that it is ”presented” by you and is a one - way street, not a mutual Q&A? Or not allowing for input from the audience? At this point w e still have not seen a site plan, or parking , or virtually any of the relevant details, etc. The question applies equally to Catellus. What follows is from t he ir company statement on the value of public outreach: Again, so what happened here? Apparently , Catellus talks a good line, a nd for that matter has done this on othe r projects, but in terms of this project they didn’t follow through. No r d id they require your company to do so , either . Not doing so has done nothing but foment suspicion, engender lack of trust, and create a poor relationship. We ask again, “ W hat happened?” It all comes down to having no reason to trust the developer at this late stage ... and there’s no need for creat ing a bad attitude on our part. We’re not fighting you. We want to be good neighbors with you and your project. But we also want you to at least listen to our concerns and suggestions. From the Catellus website: “ Catellus forms strong public/private partnerships with civic leaders, residents and local civic organizations, and works in collaboration with these groups throughout the development process. Catellus invites public input and organizes public meetings wher e local residents can offer feedback to project plans. Catellus sees that a well - facilitated and thorough input process is followed and also builds consensus within local communities to ensure success.” Catellus web site: Catellus web site: From web s ite 8 From the Mueller Planning Process , from Beginning to Today There are dozens and dozens of d ra wings from the Master Planning process, in the Mueller Design Book (s) , and in the 2014 and 2017 updates that ALL spell out retail here , planed for this sspecific vicinity — in one form or another — as part of Mixed Use. (That means true , actual , in - fact Mixed Use, not one token store ) Below are a few examples. W e are also concerned that there does not appear to have been any kind of neighborhood - wise planning process and input sessions early enough in the site planni ng so that residents could have true input. Not to try and overturn your project (it has many fine assets) but to have given input to you before it was planned. The following examples are not items that one can hold your feet to the fire on a specific amount of retail, however taken as a whole they vividly paint a clear and unarguable picture that retail was always expected to be included here. 9 Mueller Master Pl an and detail Maps and Design Book Updates re : Suburban Retail Target Site and Adjacent Roads 10 2000 Mueller Master Plan → ← Brown area is Mixed Use Resi dential Retail and red (across Berkman from the arrow) i s proposed stand - alone retail 11 Mueller Design Bo o k 2000 Residential, apartment, and retail all “Mixed” together. ← 12 201 7 Design Book Update ← Crosshatched area is Mixed Use, office, residential, retail. 13 202 1 developer update at PIAC meeting. Although the colors are muted and hard to read, it sure seems to imply that there would be a lot more potential for commercial and retail than what is ultimately being delivered. → ← File copy: An original concept submission to neighbor s (date unknown) of the tract across Berkman from your tract. 14 From Mueller Design Book — Final 2017 “SECTION 5.5 TOWER PARK ” “ The utilization of the original aircraft control tower as a prominent visual landmark and activity center within the Mueller community is an important project goal. At approximately 85 feet in height, the tower provides a distinctive focal point for the co mmunity and helps to celebrate the aviation history of the site. The park shall be designed as a simple horizontal plaza or green, to promote flexibility of use, and to provide a gathering space to complement adjacent neighborhood oriented commercial uses. Provision shall be made for seating, small gatherings, and events, as well as informal and passive recreational use. Landscaping and canopy trees should be provided along the perimeter of the park to provide shade and greenery, while preserving sight line s to the tower from the adjacent neighborhoods and from Berkman Drive. At approximately 100 feet, the tower will provide a focal point for the community and help to celebrate the aviation history of the site. It is also envisioned as the focal point of th e southern neighborhoods, surrounded by mixed - use residential buildings with ground - level commercial and community - serving activities including retai l ” ↑ 15 Original Site Marketing Sign for Tower District (Includes “Mixed Use” and “Retail/Restaurants”) → Apologies for the poor quality and readability of the sign in this old photo This is the sign that residents have seen for years about the intended available uses. 16 “Tower “ District pages from Closing Documents Relevant Excerpt Above: “ Additionally the Tower District will contain a number of uses w hich may include but are not limited to multi - story multifamily units ... with ground - floor commercial businesses, office space, retail space/shops, outdoor music venues, outdoor markets.... ” 17 Very early drawing showing area retail 18 Conclusion re Documents above: Clearly, the overall area has long been designated for some kind of retail uses. None of the above maps, signs and documents , etc. , are a “smok i ng gun” saying that retail is absolutely required to be included, or how much . B ut the preponderance of the overwhelming evidence makes it clear (in every single item above) that retail is /was/should be a significant pla n ned use for the Tower District and surrounding developments. One can argue the validity of various items included here, but it would be damned hard to argue overall that retail and restaurants were not and are not an expected use And is some amount more than one percent! 7. Re Mixed Use : In our opinion, wh a t we are NOT getting here i s a n actual “Mixed Use” project , as you r company is calling it in the news media a nd elsewhere Not by a long shot. A mere token 2,500 s.f of retail along with 350 apartments is no t what I would consider real, honest, “ Mixed Use. ” It is less than one percent of the sf of the project. Frank l y, i t ’ s disconcerting every time we hear this proclaimed as Mixed Use D oing so fires up those who are more strident than we are , giving them the rationale they need to be concerned about the project. Bu t of all developers, YOU know what real Mixed Use is. You are an excellent developer and some of your develop ments around the country are actually “ true ” Mixed Use. That is, they have enough of the added c omponent, like retail, to actually make some kind of difference. Not Mixed Use in name only. Trying to call this plan Mixed Use , however, is almost insulting — really, no offense intended , but it’s just a fact 2,500 s.f. is less than one percent of the total building square footage Plus we still don’t know anything about your contemplated use there. You guys are amply aware of the very successful trend of mixing mostly local retail below apartments. It’s happening a ll ov er the country, but especially all over Austin. And n ot just Is this mixed use? 3,350 units X 750 pf average * = 262,500 total sq. ft. 262,500 s .f. / 2 , 500 = .000952 (less than one percent ! ) * Just an estimate as we have no architectural or dimensional plans 19 downtown , where it is required, but in the suburbs , too. For example , using only those projects that are in very close proximity to M u eller , take a look at Crestview, Highland Commons, The Tria ngle and yes, several Mueller sites. One Austin Multifamily Developer we know well, Terry Mitchel, is even looking at adding basic retail such as a grocery store and a cafe etc to his multi family projects and charging them NO RENT because of the tremendous added vitality they add to the proj ect. Retail fronting on Berkman is at a difficult entry location, and it turns it’s back on the rest of the development (sacrificing the vibrancy of “true” Mixed Use) → Retail is a small percentage of the first floor plan. And only 1% of the entire project This is hardl y mixed use except in name only. → 20 Amli ’s true Mixed Use project on Robert Browning Street i n Mueller 8.) And others , such as Mu e ller’s latest apartments project (above) currently under construction , by Am li , located on Robert Browning , and combining apartments above retail. , will have apartments above retail , too Some — not us — may even take delight to point out the exuberance of t h is particular Ryan Mueller project wanting to be mixed use in name only , and passing that on to the Statesman, A ustin Business Journal , Austonia , and other local publications and also ULI and COTNU publications and such. 9.) So, Just What is Mixed Use? (Definitions by the Urban Land Institute) • Mixed Use is a type of urban development , urban planning and/or a zoning type that blends residential, commercial, cultural, institutional, or entertainment uses into one space, where those functions are to some degree phy sically and functionally integrated , and that provides pedestrian connections . Mixed - use development may be applied in new real estate development projects in a city or suburb, or may apply to a single building, existing or new neighborhood, or in zoning p olicy across an entire city or other political unit • Mixed - use project , etc., a mixed - use development refers to " a development" — a building, complex of buildings, or new district of a community that is developed for mixed - use by a private developer, (quasi - ) governmental agency, or a combination