[{"data":1,"prerenderedAt":-1},["ShallowReactive",2],{"doc-seo-280521-105":3,"detail-sidebar-cat-1-en-105":81,"doc-detail-280521-en":127},{"code":4,"msg":5,"data":6},0,"ok",{"site_id":7,"language":8,"slug":9,"title":10,"keywords":11,"description":12,"schema_data":13,"social_meta":74,"head_meta":76,"extra_data":78,"updated_unix":80},105,"en","letter-of-no-confidence-for-the-austin-oaks-charrette-feb-20-2016","LETTER OF NO CONFIDENCE - For the Austin Oaks Charrette - Feb. 20, 2016","","Letter of No Confidence dated Feb. 20, 2016 challenges the outcomes of the Austin Oaks Redevelopment Charrette held Jan. 25–29, 2016. The undersigned working group members state that key OSM elements—Objectives, Strategies, and Measures—were not met, including insufficient building-height limitations, inadequate traffic mitigation, lack of mass transit integration, failure to identify heritage and protected trees, inaccurate open-space portrayal, and insufficient disclosure of traffic and parking impacts. It further argues the process lacked equal treatment for code-compliant zoning and that amenities were framed as trade-offs leading to rezoning. The letter also questions consensus based on participation figures.",{"@graph":14,"@context":73},[15,34,56],{"@type":16,"itemListElement":17},"BreadcrumbList",[18,23,27,31],{"item":19,"name":20,"@type":21,"position":22},"https://docshare.wps.com","Home","ListItem",1,{"item":24,"name":25,"@type":21,"position":26},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/","Template",2,{"item":28,"name":29,"@type":21,"position":30},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letters/","Letters",3,{"item":32,"name":10,"@type":21,"position":33},"https://docshare.wps.com/template/letter-of-no-confidence-for-the-austin-oaks-charrette-feb-20-2016/280521/",4,{"url":32,"name":10,"@type":35,"image":36,"author":41,"headline":10,"publisher":44,"fileFormat":47,"inLanguage":8,"description":12,"dateModified":48,"datePublished":49,"encodingFormat":47,"isAccessibleForFree":50,"interactionStatistic":51},"DigitalDocument",{"url":37,"@type":38,"width":39,"height":40},"https://docshare.wps.com/thumbnails/letter-of-no-confidence-for-the-austin-oaks-charrette-feb-20-2016/280521.png","ImageObject",442,249,{"name":42,"@type":43},"Elsa","Person",{"url":19,"name":45,"@type":46},"DocShare","Organization","application/pdf","2026-10-29","2026-09-16",true,{"@type":52,"interactionType":53,"userInteractionCount":55},"InteractionCounter",{"@type":54},"ViewAction",8,{"@type":57,"mainEntity":58},"FAQPage",[59,65,69],{"name":60,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":62},"Who issued the Letter of No Confidence and what event does it challenge?","Question",{"text":63,"@type":64},"The letter is issued by working group members and challenges the results of the Austin Oaks Redevelopment Charrette held January 25–29, 2016.","Answer",{"name":66,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":67},"Which OSM areas are cited as not meeting the agreed objectives?",{"text":68,"@type":64},"The letter cites failures regarding building heights, traffic impact mitigation, mass transit integration, protection and identification of heritage/protected trees, accurate open-space representation, and disclosure of traffic and parking impacts for certain uses.",{"name":70,"@type":61,"acceptedAnswer":71},"What does the letter say about consensus and the voting/participation during the Charrette?",{"text":72,"@type":64},"It states the plan is not a consensus outcome, noting the total Charrette process had 251 unique participants, while only 86 attended and voted on the unannounced fourth-night vote between the Developer’s Plan and the Code Compliant Plan.","https://schema.org",{"og:url":32,"og:type":75,"og:title":10,"og:site_name":45,"og:description":12},"article",{"robots":77,"canonical":32},"index,follow",{"doc_id":79,"site_id":7},280521,1790289151,{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":83},"success",[84,89,94,99,104,109,114,118,123],{"id":85,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":86,"show_sort_weight":87,"slug":88},11,"Presentations",90,"presentations",{"id":90,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":91,"show_sort_weight":92,"slug":93},12,"Resumes",80,"resumes",{"id":95,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":96,"show_sort_weight":97,"slug":98},14,"Invoices",70,"invoices",{"id":100,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":101,"show_sort_weight":102,"slug":103},15,"Posters",60,"posters",{"id":105,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":106,"show_sort_weight":107,"slug":108},16,"Social Media",50,"social-media",{"id":110,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":111,"show_sort_weight":112,"slug":113},17,"Forms",40,"forms",{"id":115,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":29,"show_sort_weight":116,"slug":117},18,30,"letters",{"id":119,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":120,"show_sort_weight":121,"slug":122},21,"Paper Templates",5,"papers-templates",{"id":124,"doc_module":22,"doc_module_name":25,"category_name":125,"show_sort_weight":4,"slug":126},158,"General","general-158",{"code":4,"msg":82,"data":128},{"doc_id":79,"user_id":129,"nickname":42,"user_avatar":130,"doc_module":22,"category_id":115,"category_name":29,"doc_title":10,"doc_description":12,"doc_content":131,"file_id":132,"file_url":133,"file_type":134,"file_size":135,"view_count":55,"is_deleted":4,"is_public":22,"is_downloadable":22,"audit_status":22,"page_count":30,"language":136,"language_code":8,"site_id":7,"html_lang":8,"table_of_contents":137,"faqs":138,"seo_title":139,"seo_description":12,"update_tm":140,"read_time":22},137455077381,"https://ap-avatar.wpscdn.com/davatar_994ba38a5ba835b3df7d355c54d3ed8d","Feb. 20, 2016  \nLETTER OF NO CONFIDENCE  \nFor the Austin Oaks Charrette  \nOf January 25-29, 2016  \nWe the undersigned Working Group members hereby state No Confidence in the results of the Austin Oaks Redevelopment Charrette held January 25-29, 2016.  \nFirst 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:  \n1. Building heights were not adequately limited. Charrette designers and the Charrettefacilitator(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)  \n2. 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  \nsignificant 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)  \n3. 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)  \n4. 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)  \n5. 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)  \n6. 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)  \n1  \nFeb. 20, 2016  \n7. Code Compliant current zoning was not given equal treatment in the Charrette. All “Code Compliant”plans presented were in fact not code compliant. Durin","cbCaiiB24zNyyNvJ","https://ap.wps.com/l/cbCaiiB24zNyyNvJ","pdf",932938,"English","# LETTER OF NO CONFIDENCE\n## Basis for No Confidence (OSM not met)\n## Integrity Problems with the Charrette Process","[{\"question\":\"Who issued the Letter of No Confidence and what event does it challenge?\",\"answer\":\"The letter is issued by working group members and challenges the results of the Austin Oaks Redevelopment Charrette held January 25–29, 2016.\"},{\"question\":\"Which OSM areas are cited as not meeting the agreed objectives?\",\"answer\":\"The letter cites failures regarding building heights, traffic impact mitigation, mass transit integration, protection and identification of heritage/protected trees, accurate open-space representation, and disclosure of traffic and parking impacts for certain uses.\"},{\"question\":\"What does the letter say about consensus and the voting/participation during the Charrette?\",\"answer\":\"It states the plan is not a consensus outcome, noting the total Charrette process had 251 unique participants, while only 86 attended and voted on the unannounced fourth-night vote between the Developer’s Plan and the Code Compliant Plan.\"}]","LETTER OF NO CONFIDENCE - For the Austin Oaks Charrette - Feb. 20, 2016 | PDF",1789549973]