RE: The Grove PUD Zoning Application in District 10 bordering Distric 7

Rosedale Neighbors:

We've just learned that on Wednesday, senior management from the
Development Services and Planning Departments met with
Milestone's lobbyist Jeff Howard and "negotiated" the end of the
review process.
Transportation Review staff (8-10 traffic engineers) were barred from
these negotiations. The work was done behind closed doors with no
technical expertise in the room.
The result? The transportation review has been abruptly aborted and
all of the traffic concerns have been magically resolved. It's our
understanding that the remaining reviews (zoning/environmental,
etc.) will be similarly pre-empted. Game over.
Adding insult to injury, this back-room "negotiation" also resulted in
the City agreeing to turn the single family home at 2627 w. 45th St.
into a STREET that serves the mega-development.
I've attached a photo to show you this house. Imagine for a moment
that the City could condemn the home next to yours tomorrow with
zero public process and turn it into a street on behalf of a billion-dollar
development. It's truly astonishing.
This all happened immediately after Rosedale hired a traffic engineer,
and at a point when review staff still characterized Milestone's TIA as
"incomplete and inaccurate". Staff really thought they might win this
one, then they were told to quit. The public process has been
corrupted, plain and simple.
It's positively uncanny that two of Milestone's most vocal supporters
were so insistent that they "trusted staff" to get the traffic right, and so
ironic that in the end, staff didn't get to say anything about it.
By perverting the public process, cutting back-room deals and
withholding public documents, Milestone/Topfer and its allies, along
with person(s) at the top of our City Government have declared an
all-out WAR on our neighborhoods, folks.
What can you do to help?
• If you have ANY connection to the news media, use it ASAP.
There's a scandal here, and someone should be brave enough
to tell the story. So far, the Statesman has had nothing but
praise for Milestone, but they buy a lot of advertising.
• Get a yard sign! We need to show solidarity with the folks who live
adjacent to this site in the cross-hairs of this mess. Here's the
sign request link: http://www.bcrcatx.org/contact-us/
• Hit the BCRC facebook page, "like" it, and "share" some of the
posts with your friends to raise awareness around Austin.
• Share this news with other neighborhood yahoo groups today.
You have my permission to cut/paste my message and distribute it.
Needless to say, I don't think anyone from the neighborhood needs
to attend Milestone's "Planning Meeting" on Wednesday at the
Austin Board of Realtors, unless they want to hear Garrett Martin
gloating about his victory over the hapless neighbors.
We'll have more later and at tonight's RNA meeting, at 6:45 at the
Yarborough Library on Hancock.
Thanks for your interest and support, neighbors! We may be getting
our asses kicked, but at least we're doing it together. This
neighborhood has a long and proud history of standing up for the
"little guys", and I'm happy to see that spirit lives in 2016 Rosedale.
Chris Allen
w. 39 1/2 St.
Chris Allen
architect
*some assembly required
www.somearchitect.com
(512) 467-2888

Thursday, April 7, 2016 by Jo Clifton
APRIL 5TH AUSTIN ZAP COMMISSION MEETING NEWS

Movement at ZAP to replace chair
Gabriel Rojas, chair of the Zoning and Platting Commission, started Tuesday night’s ZAP meeting with an apology. Referring back to the March 15 meeting of the commission, during which action on the Austin Oaks planned unit development was postponed indefinitely without communication from all the citizens who had signed up to speak on the subject, Rojas said, “I received some emails alleging impropriety on my part, and I apologize if it seemed that way.”

Rojas said he wanted to hear about how the design charrette on the PUD had turned out. “I didn’t understand some of the nuances of both sides not feeling heard,” he said, then went on to explain that once the commission realized that three of the four people he had allowed to speak were all in favor of postponement and only one was against, two more people were added. So, it all turned out fine, he said.

However, three speakers who showed up this week for citizens communications before the commission did not think everything was fine. Not only did they complain about the process at the ZAP, but they complained about the design charrette for the development.

Dan Germain, who attended the March 15 meeting, said, “I’m here to express my deep concern over the process that took place at the last meeting,” where he said commission rules were not followed. “Many of us came down early,” he said – which involved fighting the traffic generated by South by Southwest as well as spring break, he noted – and they signed up to speak believing that they would have a chance to do so. However, that was not the case.

Germain said there were three names on the sheet of people who were in favor of the postponement and “the whole rest of the sheet was full” of names of people who were opposed. “Instead of calling on a balanced group, you called on the names of people who had made private arrangements with you,” he said, addressing Rojas. Germain called that action an example of the “deep corruption” of the process.

Tela Mange did not speak at Tuesday’s meeting but complained to Rojas in an email sent March 27 and obtained by the Austin Monitor. She said she had attended the March 15 meeting and was “deeply surprised to find that the procedure for speaking before the commission had changed and that we should have emailed you in advance of the meeting if we wanted to share our concerns about continuing the (Austin Oaks) application process.”

Rojas responded to her, “I must assure you my intentions were pure and (I) offered to have people speak during our discussions so that we could hear from the community while the charrette was still fresh on everyone’s minds. From the communications we were receiving it felt like we needed to hear directly from those involved. As volunteers with families and jobs we do not have much bandwidth left to know what someone will say before they brief us or on what side of any given issue they will fall.

“Once we became aware that speakers were there both to support the neighborhood led charrette process and also there to question the process, we quickly moved to allow three speakers from each side of the issue so that an equivalent amount of time was given to both perspectives.”

Mange said in another email, “Your intentions may have been pure but the video of the zoning and planning commission (sic) meeting speaks for itself. It is plain from the video that you were deliberately excluding the opposition from speaking and that it was only after Commissioner (Jackie) Goodman prodded you to allow the opposition to speak that you actually did so.”

Later in the meeting, when the question of electing officers for the coming year came up, Rojas called for nominations. Instead, Goodman gave a speech about how officers should be rotated so that people from different parts of the community could serve in those positions.

Goodman noted that her friend, Betty Baker, had served as chair of the ZAP for many years. Everyone admired and respected Baker, and there was no problem with her continued service in that position, she said. However, because the city now has a 10-1 system of representation, she said, she thought the commission should consider rotating those positions.

Goodman, a former City Council member, is vice chair of the commission. She did not make any negative comments about Rojas.

Goodman noted that two members of the commission were not in attendance, and she said she thought it would be a good idea to wait until the next meeting for the vote.

Rojas did not object to the postponement but seemed unready to give up his position as chair. “I’m willing to entertain a motion for postponement,” he said. “I do agree that 15 years might have been a little bit long for prior leadership.” He noted that he had served on the prior ZAP and was pleasantly surprised when Council Member Greg Casar appointed him to continue.

Rojas said he just wants to continue as chair for the coming year and does not intend to be chair in 2017 when the commission will be dealing with the CodeNEXT process, an extensive revision of the city’s land development code.

Andrew Rivera, the commission liaison with the Planning Department, said the Austin Oaks PUD will be scheduled to return to the ZAP within 181 days of the date it was postponed. Neighbors will be renotified at that time, he said.

Mange told Rojas in her second email, “Once the Austin Oaks application is back on your agenda, brace yourself. … My neighbors and I will be back. Although the developer seems to be counting on a war of attrition, we’re not going away.”


As-it-happens update ⋅ April 7, 2016
NEWS    
Austin Monitor
Movement at ZAP to replace chair
Austin Monitor
Referring back to the March 15 meeting of the commission, during which action on the Austin Oaks planned unit development was postponed ...
 Google Plus     Facebook     Twitter    Flag as irrelevant

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
20 February 2016 

Letter of No Confidence
For the Austin Oaks Charrette Of January 25-29, 2016
 
We the undersigned Working Group members hereby state No Confidence in the results of the Austin Oaks Redevelopment Charrette held January 25-29, 2016.
First and foremost, we state this position based on the following material Objectives, Strategies, and Measures (OSM's), developed in good faith collaboration with the property owner, their agent and the Austin Oaks Charrette Working Group, that were not met over the course of the Charrette:

1. Building heights were not adequately limited. Charrette designers and the Charrette facilitator(s) did not creatively work to design concepts in the progression of non-code compliant concept plans to keep building heights to 5 stories. In addition, an effort to place height in the low areas of the site as specifically stated as a strategy in the OSM's was not demonstrated. (OSM, Design/Aesthetics, Objective 1, Strategies)
2. Traffic impact was not mitigated and minimized. Current trips per day were portrayed in the materials shown to the public as 5,000 trips per day; actual trips today are 4,118. Unverified trip counts (no TIA) in the resulting "Developer's Plan" of the Charrette are estimated to be 17,000+ trips per day. This is a 313% increase over the current traffic count. Additional entrances/exits/turnarounds from MoPac to mitigate traffic impacts and bring safety due to significant traffic increases were not incorporated or attempted in the designs. The requirement to fund a pro rata share of traffic mitigation investment (by the Developer) was recognized and glossed over by the facilitator(s), but not enumerated. (OSM, Transportation, Objective 1 & 3)
3. Mass transit was not integrated or considered with any scalability. A single bus stop was incorporated into several designs. The prospective Lone Star Rail station was not incorporated in the plan designs at all. The one bus stop will not significantly reduce trips or accommodate the increase in additional office workers commuting to and from this development. Mass transit was largely ignored as a requirement to the design. (OSM, Transportation, Objective 4)
4. Heritage and Protected Trees to be preserved were not identified. There was no effort to disclose the impact to Protected Trees on all of the plans, despite the fact that architects and designer on the Charrette team had this key information at their disposal. The stated goal of 100% of Heritage Trees preserved in the creek gully and fronting of public roadways was not met. The "Developer's Plan" from the Charrette impacts 19 of the 71 Heritage Trees and 23 of the Protected Trees. This compares to 9 Heritage Trees impacted in the last PUD Land Use Plan submitted in the fall of 2015. (OSM, Environment, Objective 1)
5. Inaccurate portrayal of "Open Space" in the "Code Compliant Plan" option.During the Charrette, there was persistent confusion by the Charrette Facilitator in the representation of "Dedicated Parkland" as opposed to "Open Space."  The Watershed "Open Space" is known to be over 3 acres and was considered as "Open Space" in all of the alternative plans, but reflected as "0 acres" in the "Open Space" summary for the Code Compliant Plan. This fostered a biased comparison to the public that did not recognize the benefit of "Open Space" in a code compliant plan having no added amenity cost. (OSM, Environment, Objective 4)
6. Heavy traffic and parking impacts were not disclosed with regard to certain entertainment and mixed uses, restaurants trips, and amphitheater parking. Handling of traffic and parking for these uses and amenities were not adequately disclosed, visualized in the designs presented, or taken into account by the designers and facilitator.  (OSM, Economic, Objective 2)
7. Code Compliant current zoning was not given equal treatment in the Charrette.All "Code Compliant" plans presented were in fact not code compliant. During the course of the Charrette, design elements that would require a variance, waiver, or rezoning were not identified to the participants, as requested and agreed to by the Working Group and the Developer and the Developer's Agent(s) as stated in the OSM's.  Outside of the watershed, during the course of the Charrette, there was no meaningful effort made to consider and design "code compliant current zoning" with variances, and/or overlays, in order to maintain or maximize current zoning as a real option. (OSM, Regulatory, Objective 1) 
8. Amenities as Trade-Offs. Its worth noting that the Charrette facilitator(s) and design architects kept the focus of their presentations and any discussion on the mix of land uses, heights and placement of amenities as "upgrades for trade-offs" to bring about new entitlements and rezoning versus maximizing designs that leveraged code compliant current zoning, and existing entitlements. The amenities presented throughout the Charrette design week, in all options presented by the Developer and their agents, as either the "Recommended" or "Preferred Plan," might prompt a zoning change from the current zoning. (OSM, Regulatory, Objective 1)

Integrity Problems with the Charrette Process
There are over 10,000 households between Allandale, BCA, NSCNA, NWAN and NWACA communities surrounding Austin Oaks.  Given that the "Developer's Plan" generated as the outcome of the Charrette week is seriously deficient in meeting the key OSM's agreed to by the Working Group participants, this is not a consensus plan. 
The total Charrette process, including the information sessions, Vision & Values Workshops, and the Charrette design week itself, had 251 unique participants.  On the fourth night of the Charrette when the unannounced vote took place between the "Developer's Plan" and the "Code Compliant Plan," there were only 86 attendees voting on the matter, with 6 attendees abstaining. Fifty-five (55) individuals voted in favor of the Developers "Recommended Plan" after a marketing presentation highlighting the benefits of the Developer's Recommended Plan" and stressing the deficiencies of the "Code Compliant" plan. Discussion of the "Code Compliant" plan was not allowed, despite requests. Notably, of the Thursday evening attendees, 35 had not attended any previous sessions.
Further shortcomings that took place during the Charrette included the following:  

• No open negotiation with the developer throughout the design process of the Charrette itself was allowed on total square footage.
• Participants were only able to vote on developer vetted proposals. 
• It had been agreed to beforehand, by all members of the Working Group (including Spire), that the Design Team would meet each evening with the Working Group to review the day's input from participants. There was not any attempt to make these meetings happen. Reasons cited were tiredness and the facility being off limits. These end of day review sessions would have been important to maintaining integrity of the Charrette progress.
• From a process standpoint, from Monday through Wednesday, it was problematic for the Charrette facilitator and project managers to dismiss, across the board, the "unacceptable" votes in the feedback received from the Plans A, B, & C, expressly disclosed on Wednesday. It was also unacceptable for these facilitators to have dismissed on Thursday the votes that took place on Wednesday, particularly the vote on Residential uses.
• Inconsistencies were a theme. On Wednesday, facilitators communicated the proposed plans to be shown on Thursday would incorporate a significant amount of additional office square-footage, required by the owner to "pay for" upgrades and amenities designed into the options by the architects. Participants requested the ability to vote on each amenity and its impacts on the additional square footage, once it was shown the next day. Specifically, it was asked that on Thursday a vote take place on each amenity. This was agreed; expectations were clear.
• Thursday, Charrette attendees were presented with a "Developer's Plan," which included an unidentified, but significant amount of additional height and square footage as office space, in order to "pay for" the amenities.  When asked about the detailed costs and vote on each amenity, promised on Wednesday, to specify the terms of the additional associated square footage and height for the amenities, attendees were told that the facilitator(s) had "changed his/their mind."  No details for each amenity were ever provided to the public. Instead a marketing presentation about "placemaking" ensued, and a vote was forced after vigorous public input.

54% of the participants in the entire process attended only a single meeting. Most significantly, there was no advance notice to the general public that a deciding vote would be taken on the fourth night of the Charrette. On the fifth day of the Charrette there was no facilitator present; only a repeat delivery of the marketing presentation.
Signed in agreement of No Confidence by the Austin Oaks Charrette Working Group members of the following affected neighborhood associations:
-- Balcones Civic Association (BCA) 
-- Allandale Neighborhood Association (ANA)
-- Williamsburg-Charleston Place HOA (WHOA)
-- North Shoal Creek Neighborhood Association (NSCNA)
-- Northwest Austin Neighbors (NWAN)

For Press Inquiries Contact:
Kathy Vermillion, 512-333-1663
Madelon Highsmith, 512-595-0717

​

The topic of "zoning" is hot these days, despite the January chill in the air. At the Austin Oaks charrette this week the topics are carefully centered and managed around "design" and away from what kinds of businesses would actually lease there. The ideas of hotels and health clubs and five star restaurants are bandied about with rolling green acres of park along bustling neighborhood streets and close proximity to mass transportation arteries like MOPAC. You with me? 

As discussions ebb and flow at the "charrette" this week, taking place at the JCC in NW Austin, the conversation about what kind of hotel, or which hotel chain comes up. The same happens when the idea of retail and restaurants is discussed. What restaurant group will come in, folks wonder? And then the ideas and hopes of the locals run the gamut of local fare, like Tacodeli or New World Deli or Huts Hamburgers... Some folks are hoping for upscale style restaurants, like Uchi, or hip local fare, like Buffalina. All would be great! But have you ever considered Hooters? How about some Neon Signage along Wood Hollow and Hart Lane and Executive Center Drive to draw you into the new and improved Austin Oaks?

It hadn't occurred to many of us that this was a possibility until this little Spire Realty news nugget popped in on Tuesday. Turns out that Spire Realty Group, the owner of Austin Oaks made the news in Fort Worth about a recent lease to a restaurant in one of their neighborhood revitalization projects. The restaurant? You guessed it: Hooters. The story is here. (​http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/local/New-Hooters-Draws-Ire-of-Some-Downtown-Fort-Worth-Residents-366634661.html)

What's more fun to find out is that this isn't the first Hooters - Spire location in the Dallas Fort Worth Metroplex. The first venture between the two made headlines in September of 2015 in yet another neighborhood redevelopment project. The story is here with a catchy headline: Original breastaurant motorboats its way to scenic North Texas harbor. ( http://dallas.culturemap.com/news/restaurants-bars/09-14-15-lake-ray-hubbard-breastaurant-hooters/)

​Now that you have this information to noodle-on, and can continue your thinking about all the possibilities for Austin Oaks in its new and better redevelopment...let's recap what we have been experiencing at this "charrette" and what's it true purpose really is.

Firstly, ten years ago, we had never heard the word “charrette.” Had you asked us what it meant, we would have guessed “a jaunty French hat” or “a tiny little chair” or some such. That was before we did a little research... It means "carte" but that is not the point.  Er, or maybe it is. Stay with us here and keep reading.  

The big idea is that the charrette is a series of week-long meetings to gather public input about Austin Oaks and its redevelopment. Only these aren't your typical public meetings. They are charrettes.

We have since learned that the difference between public meetings and charrettes is defined by the level of pre-school craftiness involved. If you sit in a chair the whole time listening to a presentation, you are most likely at a public meeting.
But if the experience is "interactive," if you are allowed to walk around to different “stations” and draw on big white boards and play with glue sticks and colored dots and maps, well, then, you have been charretted. Its much better. 

We have all seen this same exercise play out again and again in other parts of our life.  The public is asked to give input, then their opinions are ignored, the developer and his agents and advocates and city staff do exactly what they had planned to do all along, and the so-called public process is lauded. It’s shameless political theater. 

This week, we have attended more than 10 hours of charrette meetings and presentations for the Austin Oaks redevelopment plan and it has been inspiring to see residents from across the neighborhoods (Allandale, North Shoal Creek, Balcones Civic area and Northwest Hills area) enthusiastically drawing and cutting and pasting and dreaming about the future of our community. All centered around the promise by NWACA board members and the developer's agents, made back in October to the City of Austin and to our own ZAP Commissioners, that this charrette would be fair and include TRUE options for consideration for ALL zoning possibilities. The "charrette" was to include an option for redevelopment under current zoning, some other conventional zoning scenarios to be determined, and more specialized zoning (like PUD zoning). The neighbors went home thinking, okay. We'll try this.  

Now, nearly three days into the "charrette," we have been presented with a series of 3 options and a baseline option called "code compliant" that is meant to reflect what could be built in the current zoning scenario.  The rub is that we are ONLY allowed to vote and give input on the three (3) options that are not-current zoning! 

On Tuesday night they unveiled 3 options with names and letters so we could keep track. They were: A (the Heritage option),  B (the Esperanza option), and C (the Balcones option). All three are basically PUD's, or designed to confuse the term. Regardless, none depict current zoning as an option. Don't believe the tripe being bandied about over on the NWACA facebook pages by a select few PTA moms. Its mis-information. Or dis-information. You decide for yourself what you want to call it.

Regardless, its noteworthy that the first day's drawings A, B and C, were unveiled and showed nothing built over 5 stories tall...but the fine print said 6-8 stories on a few images and notations. The key information shared by Mr. Farr as he walked the group through the options, was this one little pesky slide that said for every $1,000,000 worth of "amenities" (like parks and such) the developer would require a "trade off" from the neighborhood of 15,000 sq feet of additional office equivalent square footage.   

So, it was no surprise after the small, but vocal group who all are lovingly called IwannaparkonMopac said, "See we can have our park. And you "no pudders" are all wrong about this charrette."  

Now, save your applause, because this is getting good.

Fast forward to the next night's unveiling (Wednesday night).

Much to the surprise of the Tuesday night pro-park PUD fans, the drawings unveiled on Wednesday showed 8 - 10 story buildings and various other "modifications" to their dreamy on-site health club facility, senior housing, hip hotel, various parks and bustling retail restaurant areas. "What happened?!" they wanted to know??

To which, the ever amiable, Doug Farr, replied with calm exhaustion, "Folks, we discussed those "amenities" come at a trade off price and that based on your selection the drawings would be updated to reflect those trade offs... "

So, with their little balloons popped, the new Wednesday night design, lovingly called Drawings D and E, respectively, were a bit deflating. It was watching a Dr. Seuss book being read to children with their mouths agape. 

Then came the forced vote again. Neighbors were asked to vote, by raising their hands this time, to select the option form D or E, they preferred.  No mention or consideration of current zoning was again ALLOWED.  To the dismay of many (and I do mean many) repeated requests (from Tuesday and carried forward to Wednesday) for the option to take a vote on a current zoning, we were told politely, NO.

Its notable that none of the smart, thoughtful input from residents had been incorporated into the current zoning drawing options. They were the developer, architect and event manager's PUD centric plans from the inception (shockingly more similar to the 1.4MM square foot options presented last year), and not neighborhood-friendly ones, at all.

To say that folks were incensed, would be an understatement. And this time it wasn't just those pesky Stop the PUD folks. It was an across the board sentiment. The questions and whisperings about our City Council representative backing this charrette process were all abuzz.

It suddenly became clear last night that all those meetings, those fancy “charrette" talking points, have been a sham designed to exploit residents’ reasonable expectation that their voices matter, when in fact, they do not. In the end, come Thursday night and Friday mid-day, the only options we are being allowed to consider are being carefully railroaded into one clear direction: a PUD or a new cool term "a development agreement".  Regardless its going to be taller, denser and maybe have a HOOTERS! :) 

Writer's note: Over the course of my professional life, I have seen this same exercise play out again and again. The public is asked to give input, then their opinions are ignored, city staff does what it had planned to do all along, and the so-called public process is lauded. It’s shameless political theater. 

This same chicanery is playing out yet again, as our City Council awaits an outcome from this this PUD Charrette, it will no doubt reflect on what other developer PUD applicants in Austin, TX do to get their way in Austin zoning. Mayor Adler and our own council members Sheri Gallo and Leslie Pool are no doubt watching this closely. Both face re-election this year. I'd hazard to guess that the neighborhoods on both sides of Mopac are 80+% against this re-zoning and want current zoning to hold. Especially with the recent news that the only Mopac entrance ramp to the HOV for the Allandale, North Shoal Creek, Crestview area is planned for Anderson Lane-Spicewood intersection. But, I digress. The council needs something to distract the public long enough to get their version of the future Austin approved. This charrette is playing a nice role. 

And, yes, if this one yields a PUD for the Spire Group, you can bet your tail feathers that there will be more charrettes. Michael Whellan and Ben Luckens and Joyce Statz will be the Developer's dream team consultants in Austin. :) (We really do need a font for sarcasm.) 

Lastly, even if you don’t give a fig about the Austin Oaks development, this brazen deception should concern you. The dirty little secret, the one that Spire and Whellan and Gallo and a few others hope you don’t catch onto, is this: The design of the Austin Oaks charrette isn't legally binding and has no bearing on anything except pacifying the neighborhoods to get the zoning application approved and through. It can’t be changed once they get their PUD zoning. And to enforce it, we (the neighborhood people) have to band together and sue. Hardly a winning scenario. Very detailed plans will be done after the zoning case is approved. And the city staff and select council members have confirmed that the city must adhere to the code and listen to their constituents and donor supporters respectively. The only question at this point is what shade of lipstick to put on this charrette pig.

My hope is that residents have grown tired of this charrette charade. That they will put away the colorful markers and set down the glue sticks and head to the ballot box. That they will set their sights on the keys to City Hall in the next election.  Some dismiss us as a tiny "fringe group" but so far we have a fan base of about 80% of the neighborhood voters. Others refer to us as the people with tinfoil hats. When they call you names, you know you are making headway. 

Worse case, you can all meet up at Hooters to discuss it. We hear they have an in with Spire to get a lease. LOL!

Well folks, the last time we updated you on the PUD application at Austin Oaks it was down to the wire with the lawyer for Spire Realty, Stephen Drenner at the ZAP Meeting in October. Since then, the developer has changed attorney's and now our new point of contact is Michael Whellan. He's the #1 lobbyist-attorney in the City of Austin with large clients like SXSW. Suffice to say, he knows his way around City Hall.  

At the last ZAP meeting in October where the Austin Oaks PUD application was discussed, NWACA's own Robert Thomas spoke up and said that an agreement with the developer had been reached to do a Charrette in order to develop a design for the property that the neighboring citizenry can support.  This 11th hour agreement for a Charrette came on the heels of a lengthy discussion about the property and the many heritage trees on the site and its many critical environmental features which would prevent the PUD application being approved by the Environmental Commission or ZAP. 

Since this time, the Charrette process has been led by Mr. Whellan who has assumed the controls of this PUD application. By reaching out to the many neighborhood groups, including our NWAustin Neighbors coalition group (known through our efforts currently as " Stop the PUD", Mr. Whellan and Mr. Jon Ruff (Spire Realty & Twin Lakes LLC) have been working to build bridges and unite people around the Charrette design process. There have been several meetings and committees formed over the course of October and November. The schedule for the Charrette is now ready for publish and your participation is now needed.

Here's the SCHEDULE of EVENTS for the PUD CHARRETTE: 

Community Information Meetings:
Please attend one of these meetings to learn about the process and how neighbors can contribute to the Vision and Values Workshops. Neighborhood representatives will be there to provide information and answer questions.
Tuesday, December 1st 6‐8 PM at St. Mathew’s Episcopal Church, Room B‐18, located at 8134 Mesa Drive, Austin, TX 78759
Wednesday, December 2nd 11:30 AM‐1:30 PM at St. Mathew’s Episcopal Church, Room B‐18, located at 8134 Mesa Drive, Austin, TX 78759


Neighborhood Vision and Values Workshops:
Please participate in one of these meetings to provide input.
Wednesday, December 16th 6‐9 PM at St. Mathew’s Episcopal Church, Huffman Hall, located at  8134 Mesa Drive, Austin, TX 78759
Tuesday, January 12th 11:30 AM‐1:30 PM at Austin Board of Realtors, Auditorium A, located at 4800 Spicewood Springs Road Austin, TX 78759


Charrette Design Workshop:  
Additional information is forthcoming about how neighbors can participate, as the workshop schedule is finalized.
January 24‐29th at Austin Oaks Meredith Building (Building #11), Suite 264, located at 3721 Executive Center Drive, Austin, TX 78731

For More Information: 
http://www.nopud.weebly.com 
http://nwaca.org/austin-oaks-pud-information/
http://nwaca.org/awd/wp-content/uploads/2015/11/AO-Charrette-Neighborhood-Update.pdf
http://nwaca.org/awd/wp-content/uploads/2015/06/What-is-a-Charrette-Process.pdf

or send your questions to [email protected] and we will reply to your inquiries personally. 

Its definitely time to put out your Stop the PUD yard sign and display it prominently. 
​

A chunk of residential Northwest Austin has bridled at the prospect of a low-rise office park becoming much more. Our attention was drawn to yard signs suggesting the towering redevelopment at the southwest corner of Spicewood Springs Road and MoPac Boulevard (Loop 1) would quintuple area traffic.

Dallas-based Spire Realty Group LP seeks a zoning change to build up Austin Oaks, an office complex with 12 buildings of two to three stories each. In a version of its proposal made public in 2014, Spire said that on the parts of the site closer to MoPac, it wanted to build two office buildings of 17 stories each, though those plans have since been trimmed to 10-story buildings or so, according to Steve Drenner, an Austin lawyer representing Spire in its zoning case.

Initial plans, also since modified per Drenner, called for up to 610 apartments and townhomes in the three- to five-story buildings, plus retail and restaurant space. The soonest construction was planned to start was around 2020, after existing office leases expire.

The "500%" signs don’t reveal any group or person as the originator or sponsor. By phone, Ann Denkler, a volunteer with a coalition opposing the redevelopment, told us the group did not create them.

City 'unable to verify' traffic impact

We reached out to city officials at first, wondering what data were available. By email, spokeswoman Sylvia Arzola told us: "The project and the traffic impact analysis are currently under review. At this time we are unable to verify the traffic impact until a full evaluation of the project and accompanying mitigation is provided by the developer."

Meanwhile, we found something close to the 500 percent claim in a September 2014 presentation by Jim Duncan of Austin, a city planner by profession. Duncan said he developed the presentation at the urging of a neighborhood friend and based his traffic projection on an engineering report written by another firm at the developer’s request. That report, Duncan said,  indicated daily car trips near the proposed Austin Oaks Planned Use Development would increase from 4,118 to 23,804 once the expansion was finished--a 478 percent uptick.

We turned back to Arzola, who agreed by email it looks like the traffic figures indeed came from "the developer’s consultant’s study." However, she noted, a fresh traffic analysis was released in May 2015 based on the developer changing what it seeks to build.

Duncan said he’d heard the revision talk and for that reason, he said, his calculation of the potential 478 percent increase in daily car trips near the project would likely be outflanked. "I’m sure the number is lower" now, Duncan said.

Traffic impact studies

Arzola emailed us two traffic studies for the project, dated a year apart, and another city official, Bryan Golden, emailed us excerpts from a study completed in August 2014 (which looked to us like the one Duncan relied on). Each study presents predicted  "unadjusted daily trips" in the area should the project be built out with predicted increases ranging from more than 300 percent to more than 480 percent.

Generally, "unadjusted daily trips" means daily car trips in an area, a city official told us, without reductions accounting for trips internal to a development, say, or trips there on city buses. An unadjusted count rolls in trips expected due to existing developments plus the additional trips expected once the project is finished, Bryan Golden told us by email. The projections are generated by an engineering industry "calculator," Golden said.

The initial June 26, 2014, traffic impact analysis was completed by a professional engineer, Bobak J. Tehrany, for Bury-AUS, Inc. That analysis, of 14 nearby intersections and 11 proposed driveways, said the redevelopment on completion in 2031 would generate an additional 20,736 unadjusted daily trips by car compared to some 4,248 daily trips attributed to the existing office complex — which breaks out to an eventual 488 percent increase.

With the redevelopment, Tehrany wrote, all but two of the nearby intersections would need improvements. That is, he said, "the maximum desirable volumes are currently being exceeded along the roadway segments which were evaluated," though he also said that doesn’t mean the roadways had exceeded their respective capacities.

The Aug. 19, 2014, traffic impact analysis--taking into account a nearby intersection the city wanted to add to the analysis, Amanda Swor of Drenner’s firm told us by email--suggested the project would result in nearly 19,700 additional unadjusted daily car trips, up 478 percent from 4,118 of late. We didn’t get a fix on why the count of current-day traffic went down.

Most recently, the May 22, 2015, traffic impact analysis filed on behalf of the developers states: "Based on the proposed land use intensities, it is anticipated that the development will generate a total of 19,819 unadjusted daily trips; however, due to the existing office land uses, the proposed redevelopment is anticipated to generate a net increase of 15,701 unadjusted daily trips. This is taking into consideration the trips which already exist on the roadway network due to the existing development."

That is, once the development is done, nearby traffic would be up 381 percent from the 4,118 daily car trips of late.

Developer's advocate says traffic likely to increase less

By phone, Drenner pointed out the May 2015 analysis includes a chart suggesting that once adjustments are made to account for car trips internal to the development, there would actually be a 332 percent increase in traffic. He said this latest analysis was based on Spire’s modified development plan—halving the number of residential units and reducing retail uses — filed with the city April 30, 2015. Drenner said, too, the developers are suggesting $1.5 million in spending to improve nearby streets and creation of a fund that would accumulate money for area road improvements.

Next, we wondered how much traffic near the site would increase if the developers added nothing. Denkler and Golden counseled that analysts assume a 2 percent annual increase in car trips. At our request, Golden calculated the 4,118 current unadjusted daily car trips would escalate 37 percent to 5,653 in 2031--again, provided there’s no expansion on the site.

Our ruling

Yard signs posted in opposition to a proposed Northwest Austin redevelopment say: "500 percent more traffic?"

Traffic studies filed in 2014 based on the developer’s original proposal support the 500-percent figure, yet the developer later submitted a revised plan and its May 2015 traffic analysis suggests at most a 381 percent increase in daily car trips, still a substantial spike.

Perhaps the project and predicted traffic effects will continue to change. For now, taking into account the information available when the signs were made, we rate the claim Mostly True.

MOSTLY TRUE – The statement is accurate but needs clarification or additional information.

Click here for more on the six PolitiFact ratings and how we select facts to check.

A. NOMINATION AND ELECTION OF DIRECTORS

1.  Nomination.

Nomination for the election of the Board of Directors shall be made by a Nomination Committee. The Nomination Committee shall consist of a Chairman who shall be a member of the Board of Directors, at least two members of the Board of Directors, and two or more members of the Association who are not Board members. The process of constituting the Nomination Committee shall take place beginning in April of each odd-numbered year. The Nomination Committee shall be appointed by the Board of Directors at the June Board meeting during the election cycle in odd-numbered years. The Nomination Committee shall solicit, receive, and make as many nominations for election to the Board of Directors as it shall in its discretion determine, but not fewer than the number of vacancies that are to be filled. The nominations shall be made from among members who have been members of the Association for at least one year prior to the nomination.

2.  Elections.

Elections of the Board of Directors shall be held bi-annually in odd-numbered years during the month of September or October, in a manner consistent with the policies and procedures adopted by the board. Ballots may be returned by mail or by e-mail. Each member household in good standing as of 30 days prior to the election (paid membership not expired as of 30 days prior to the election date) shall be entitled to one vote. A quorum shall constitute those members present and by proxy and by mail and/or e-mail ballots received. Election to the Board of Directors shall require a majority of the votes received.

Contact http://nwaca.org/ to try to get nominated!

PUD Community Meetings
Hosted by the Drenner Group

June 11, 5:00P-7:00P

Dell Jewish Community Center
7300 Hart Lane | Community Room

 

June 15, 5:00P-7:00P

Dell Jewish Community Center
7300 Hart Lane | Community Room

 

At this point, all we know is the time and location; as more information is available, we will publish that.

2 HIGHLIGHTS ON TIMELINE FOR PUD and MEETINGS IN JUNE: 

#1 - We have confirmed that the DRENNER GROUP IS COMING BACK TO THE HOOD for more community conversations! This is our chance to ask them all questions, give them our feedback, get it all on the table. MARK YOUR CALENDARS to attend one or both meetings: 
6/11/15 and 6/15/15; 5:00 – 7:00 PM – Dell Jewish Community Campus, Community Room. 

#2 - OVERALL TIMELINE of the PUD APP and when the City will vote to decide on it - Per the City of Austin's Case Manager, Tori Haase:

City is still waiting on Drenner's final submissions - they expect several weeks of review time after that is done; 

1. 6/16/15 - Zoning & Platting (ZAP) meeting: City will ask for a status report from City Staff and the Applicant. No decision will be made at this time, since Environmental Board has not voted yet and City review won't be done (they might set a date for a ZAP hearing or agree to an extension of deadlines). 

2. 6/17/15 - Environmental Board (EB) meeting: Staff unlikely to have completed its review by then; not likely they will take action; 
July meetings of ZAP and Environmental Planning are used for training because they will have a lot of new members starting 7/1; 

3. 8/5/15 - First ZAP meeting with zoning cases (light only, no PUDs); 

4. 8/18/15 - First ZAP meeting where Austin Oaks PUD could be voted on (assuming Staff review is complete and EB review is complete); 

5. Typically 2‐4 weeks between ZAP decision and City Council votes. 

6. The TIA has been submitted and the count is 19,800+ car trips per day. Today it's 4,100 per day @ AustinOaks. (Almost exactly a 500% increase).

Well folks, its clear this is high stakes poker.  Austin is either a community or a commodity.  You decide. 
The latest news is that the Austin Oaks owner, SPIRE  (a.k.a. Twin Lakes, Jon Ruff) have hired a PR outfit to help with the PUD "marketing" effort and bolster the Steve Drenner Group lobbying of city hall effort. You can read all about it here: http://impactnews.com/austin-metro/northwest-austin/developer-revises-austin-oaks-plan/  This news story reads like it was hand prepared for the journalists over at Impact Austin by the developer's PR firm. The diagram is what you may want to pay particular attention to... The building footprints don't even come close to what Twin Lakes submitted to the city's zoning dept.  See below the contrast of the building footprints vs the parcels of land.  

Once they get their PUD, there is NO REQUIREMENT that they build what they have in these drawings submitted. These are MOCK UPS.  The final drawings are a long way away.  The platt notes are the key thing to read on the documents submitted.  They contain all kinds of caveats to what is being itemized in their fancy charts that they have provided to the neighborhood folks at NWACA.  Be sure to read the fine print, as they say.  One thing remains true: the devil is in the details. 

Spire/Drenner, the AustinOaks PUD Applicants are " push polling " the neighborhood and Districts tonight to try to confuse folks about what a PUD will allow or won't. Tell them no PUD (planned unit development).

Withdraw the application Spire. Then we'll talk.

Don't fall for the lies & spin friends! They have zero credibility now.

First it was payoffs for schools, then parks, then roads. Still an incomplete application. No traffic study submitted. Very sneaky operation to "slow roll" the neighborhood.

STOP the PUD. Conventional Zoning folks. Save the oaks! Keep to the Imagine Austin comprehensive plan!

When will city hall demand developers follow imagine Austin plan we paid for???

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/push+poll

https://www.facebook.com/NoPUDinNWHills/posts/786543414785875:0

If Spire & Drenner are really "good guys" they claim, and not the greedy birds we suspect, they can design & build a park and save trees without a PUD. More simply put: They don't have to have a PUD to do the right thing for the locals.

This is about the future value of this property folks. PUDS give unlimited height & density possibilities to the property FOREVER.

Don't fall for the "locals are just anti growth crap". It's just their only defense.

http://m.bizjournals.com/austin/blog/real-estate/2015/05/new-north-austin-mixed-use-plan-dangles.html?surround=etf&ana=e_article&r=full

The biggest new incentive has to do with Spire offering to contribute $10 million for traffic mitigation. Funds would be administered through a trust over the course of development — 15 years or so. Drenner said he believes the concept is unprecedented in the Austin real estate community and possibly across Texas.

The question for the citizens is WHO is managing the trust funds and will be accountable financially & legally for making sure the money is spent on roads and not a neighborhood association slush fund?

The city can't manage the trust or its contract zoning which is illegal.

Photo: the latest mock up for the Austin oaks PUD. It's mostly huge parking garages. 3,000-5,000 jobs and cars are planned. This is over half of all the jobs defined for a neighborhood center in imagine Austin's comprehensive plan.

Fast forward the clip to 2:23 to skip the fal-de-rol to get to the presentation. 

The Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) is still not completed by the applicant.  Recall, December ZAP meeting Drenner Group and the Austin Oaks owner had the City of Austin Zoning staff asked for a continuance so that they (the applicant) could get the TIA completed.   It was due this past month.  It didn't happen. 

The City of Austin ZAP Meeting Video from May 5, 2015 in on this link. See item C1 to to right to the Austin Oaks PUD Application. https://austintx.swagit.com/play/05052015-595 

(UPDATED at 7:45 PM 57-2015)
Commissioner Rahm speaks, clearly to Mr. Drenner,  the paid consultant for the developers of AustinOaks, and requests they take a step in the right direction to educate folks on their PUD proposal.  All folks, not just the neighborhood associations. Rahm says local Citizens have little knowledge or understanding of the complexities of zoning and are in need of education.  Sadly, the City staff and Council and Commissions have been overly dependent on the developers and their consultants to lead the discussions in most Austin zoning cases.  This in essence becomes the fox watching the hen house.  Councilman Rahm McDaniel contacted us to clarify his position and we THANK him for reaching out.  He is the first and ONLY person in this process, besides the local district 10 and 7 council persons to reach out to groups besides the neighborhood associations.  We applaud Commissioner Rahm McDaniel and pray that other ZAP Commissioners will follow his leadership.  

The message remains clear, in terms of how the City typically operates in these Zoning cases:  If you are a paid consultant for a big high-powered developer you have more credibility and are given deferential treatment when speaking up. And, if you are an average citizen speaking up to protect your city and community from harm of over-development you are a hobbyist or a grandstander.  We seek to bring about change and we will work with any and all who will have a civil meeting between all parties to discuss real and NEW solutions, not foregone conclusions or pre-determined outcomes.  

What you STILL need to do:  Folks, send your letters to city council today with your views on this REZONING project.  The link to email ALL City Council and the Mayor is here:  https://austintexas.gov/email/all-council-members

The reasons to NOT grant this PUD to AustinOaks are many.  The amount of traffic on MOPAC this PUD will cause (15,000-22,000 additional car trips per day) between the Domain and Downtown is reason enough to VOTE NO.  Keep the regional centers as hubs for density. Stick to the Imagine Austin plan and stop allowing developers to manipulate the city's planning.  Otherwise, why did we bother?  
_______________________________________________________________________________
Here's a sample letter you can use to send to the Mayor & Council:

Dear Mayor and Council -
Please vote NO on the Austin Oaks PUD. 

The current attempts at a forced negotiation to arrive at a foregone conclusion of a PUD is simply not a principle this country was founded on at all.  We all are educated enough to know that PUDs are suited best for property that is out of town that will be annexed; or land that is raw and undeveloped but within the city limits. To REDEVLOP existing developed properties that are inside the city limits we need a better way. Something other than a PUD. Something that has a mechanism within it that includes the expenses built into its zoning designation for infrastructure and road redevelopment and such. Fees for infrastructure in exchange for the zoning designation of PUD wont' work because that becomes CONTRACT ZONING (unconstitutional and dicey business practice). Hence the need for a new zoning category for REDEVELOPMENT of large previously developed parcels within the city limits. Its time we put our thinking caps on and came up with a better solution. This is why we ask you to VOTE NO on the PUD and to work hard on our behalf for better government. 

Those of us in the neighborhood who have voted no (80% of us) would be willing to negotiate if something OTHER than a PUD were on the table. But to have a forced outcome is not a negotiation at all. 
ZAP is currently encouraging the Developer's representatives (Drenner Consultants) to work with the neighbors (all of them) to negotiate and compromise. And, once again as in previous zoning cases in this city, we have neighborhood volunteers trying to negotiate with the Developer’s lobbyist.  Neighborhood volunteers do this for free because we love our neighborhood and we want to protect our quality of life.  The developer’s lobbyist is a professional and paid healthy fees to get this through City Council.  


Negotiations/mediations should never be held when there is an imbalance of power and/or the outcome is predetermined.  

There is a huge imbalance of power in this scenario and the city continues to neighborhood people negotiate from a position of weakness on an issue that is considered a foregone conclusion, ie there will be a PUD, but we will pretend to let the volunteer citizens think they had some input into what goes in the PUD.  

Anyway, let's not let the developers make a mockery of Austin any longer. Please choose to represent the folks who elected you and not just the big money developers and real estate folks in Austin.  Let's get some real, and tough zoning rules in place and then let's make a united decision to ENFORCE them. I'm thankful for the environmentalists and local citizens speaking up on behalf of homes and communities.  Its time more of us stood together.  Compromise is great, and possible in this situation if we have more options than a PUD as the pre-determined outcome and result. 

Using the "current zoning" scare tactics argument and saying that a car dealership "could go in there" if we don't give them their PUD is basically setting the tone for lunacy that will follow in the discussions.  We all know the Austin Oaks owner won't put in a car dealership...why?  Because it doesn't have RECURRING RENT income $$$$ they require. 

Ok, enough. Just please Vote NO. The traffic JAM on MOPAC between the Domain and downtown is reason enough.

Sincerely, 

Austin Citizen and Voter

This is the forecasted # of trips per day which will result from the PUD AT Austin Oaks based on the 5-1-2015 proposal.

The application keeps trickling into the city's zoning department as the Drenner Group and Spire Realty keep slow rolling this project. We're reviewing the docs here in context with what has already been submitted to date.  It may have improved.  Stay tuned. 

Here are today's docs for your own review: 

The northwest hills area of Austin was surveyed in March over Spring Break about the latest application by the Dallas Developer (Spire Realty) and the Drenner Group of Austin for the Austin Oaks rezoning case.  The owner is requesting the Austin Oaks parcels be combined into one campus and given a PUD zoning designation which allows them to build higher and denser and "more superior" buildings and amenities than is claimed that the current zoning, which varies by parcel, will allow. 

The neighborhood overwhelmingly voted against the PUD rezoning (81%) AGAIN in this latest survey.  In September of 2014, 86% of the area voted against the rezoning.  Since September, 5% of the neighbors have changed heart. Not much ground gained, despite the $9M "trust fund offer" to the local neighborhood associations which would pay up in 2032. The funds would be usable by the neighborhood groups for what they want to help the local area.  This figure has a few neighborhood leaders salivating, as control of such a large purse is attractive. The jury is still out on whether or not this "solution" of payment by the developer to the neighbors is legit. 

Regardless, despite the clear message sent by the local community with both surveys, efforts continue to keep the project alive.  The "updated" application for the PUD.  Allandale is considering surveying its area next.  Meanwhile, the city's ZAP Commission will review the case again on Tuesday, May 5 (Cinco de Mayo).  We dont' know yet what the "updated" application has in it...but as soon as we know, we'll publish it here. 

Meanwhile here are the Survey results as published by NWACA.  The "comments report" from the survey which is attached after the main survey report below are an entertaining read.   Enjoy!  

Contact us to get your STOP the PUD yard sign if you haven't already. [email protected] 
And CALL or WRITE to the Austin City Council (all of them) IMMEDIATELY and tell them we don't want 500% more traffic at the intersections of Spicewood Springs and Far West. Tell them to VOTE NO on the Austin Oaks PUD case.  We need council to hear from even MORE citizens.  We need council persons from across the city to VOTE NO on this, not just Councilwoman Gallo. Email and Call Mayor Adler too! 

Last night at the Austin Neighborhoods Council (ANC) meeting a resolution for NO PUD rezoning of Austin Oaks was passed. The Mayor, Mayor Pro-Tem and Council were also sent a letter making them aware of the resolution.

Kudos to Ann Denkler who worked tirelessly with ANC to prepare and discuss this resolution which was formally voted on and passed last night.

Last night Zoning meeting had a discussion regarding the PUD. Our own Ann Denkler spoke on behalf of the neighborhood and did s fantastic job of filing the void and setting the facts straight.

Watch the meeting here:

http://austintx.swagit.com/play/04072015-849