Information is from October 1, 2023 – June 30, 2024 Information compiled via ASO Power BI dashboards. Difference of outcomes - intakes Outcome Year (fiscal) Intake Year (fiscal) Dog totals Cat totals Totals Dog totals Cat totals Totals Dog totals Cat totals Totals Cats Adoption Transfer Euthanasia Died Missing Total Dog Adoption Transfer Euthanasia Died Missing Total RTO/RTO Adopt SNR (former SCRP) RTO/RTO Adopt 2024 4455 4800 9255 2024 4419 4618 9037 2024 -36 -182 -218 2024 2902 130 1035 94 62 2 393 4618 2024 2936 651 731 74 25 2 4419
July 2024 AUSTIN ANIMAL SERVICES REPORT 1 Animal Services News • The live outcome rate for July was 97.31%. • A total of 932 animals were brought to the shelter which included 511 cats, 378 dogs, 28 wild animals, 6 guinea pigs, 2 rats, 1 chicken, 1 turkey, and 1 rabbit. • A total of 769 animals were adopted (166 adult dogs, 123 puppies, 398 kittens, and 82 adult • A total of 70 dogs and cats were returned to their owners (RTOs and RTO-Adopt). • On July 1, there were 1,278 dogs and cats within the ASO inventory (683 onsite, 592 in foster, and • On August 1, there were 1,045 dogs and cats within the ASO inventory (553 onsite, 486 in foster, 2 cats). 1 at a vet clinic). at a vet clinic, and 1 at TLAC). Animal Protection • Animal Protection Officers (APOs) returned 25 animals to their owners in the field. • Officers handed out 24 fencing assistance applications and implanted 7 microchip(s). • Officers impounded 151 injured animals and delivered approximately 92 wildlife animals to Austin Wildlife Rescue. • Officers entered 205 rabies exposure reports and submitted 46 specimens for rabies testing. We had 4 positive bats, 2 decomposed bats and 2 decomposed skunks. • 67 total coyote related activities (Behavior types include Sighting, Encounter, Incident, and Observation. “Observation” is defined as hearing coyotes howling and finding scat or footprints.) o 54 Wild Sick o 9 Sightings o 2 o 1 o 1 Wild Speak Encounters Incident • Out of 67 coyote related activities, 12 (18%) reports fell within the reported behavior types (sighting, encounter, incident, and observation) o Encounters: Pets were a factor in 2/2 (100%) of encounters reported. ▪ An encounter involved a coyote with mange running up to caller and dog. ▪ An encounter involved a coyote following caller and dog. o Incidents: Pets were a factor in 0/0 (0%) of incidents reported. ▪ An incident involved a coyote with mange chasing a man after the caller ran from the coyote. • Out of 67 coyote related reports, 49 (73%) reports were updated to the correct behavior types. o 23 sightings updated to wild sick (Due to mange) o Residents are mistaking coyotes with mange for dogs ▪ 7 stray injured dogs updated to wild sick coyotes ▪ 5 stray roam dogs updated to wild sick coyotes ▪ 1 stray sick dog …
July 2024 Travis County Coyote Report Prepared by: Emery Sadkin Total number of Coyote Calls: 2 Coyote Calls by Behavior Type July 2024 1 0 Sighting 0 0 Encounter Incident Obseravtion Behavior Type Figure 1. Coyote activity by behavior. Out of 2 coyote related reports, 1 fell within the reported behavior types (Sighting, Incident, Encounter and Observation) Coyote Calls by Precinct July 2024 s t r o p e R e t o y o C f o r e b m u N 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 0 s t r o p e R e t o y o C f o r e b m u N 2.5 1.5 0.5 2 1 0 Wild Speak Wild Sick Wild Injured Obseravtion Incident Encounter Sighting P1 P2 P3 P4 Precinct Figure 2. Coyote reports by precinct. All coyote reports took place in P2. Sick and Injured Coyote calls by Behavior Type July 2024 1 1.2 1 0.8 0.6 0.4 0.2 s t o r p e R e t o y o C f o r e b m u N 0 0 Wild Injured Wild Sick Behavior Type 0 Wild Speak Figure 3. Out of 2 coyote related reports, 1 report fell within the reported behavior types. Behavior types including Wild Sick, Wild Speak, Wild Injured. “Wild Speak” is defined as a resident not seeing the coyote (Example: Reporting for a neighbor) or having questions regarding coyotes. Location Where Activity Took Place July 2024 Neighborhood 100% Figure 4. Type of location where activity took place, based on confirmed reports. “Habitat Fragment” is defined as a natural area adjacent to human habitation, which could include dense vegetation, creek beds, greenbelt areas, and other undeveloped land not habituated by humans. “Open field” is defined as an area where vegetation is cleared for industrial or commercial use. “Greenbelt” is defined as a belt of parkways, parks, or farmlands that encircles a community. “House Property” defined as a sighting on side of house, rather than front or backyard. “Building Strip” defined as a series of shops within a strip. Potential Attractants July 2024 50% 50% Open Field Greenbelt Figure 5. Potential attractants which could help explain coyote presence in the location of reported activity. “Habitat Fragment” is defined as a natural area adjacent to human habitation, which could include dense vegetation, greenbelts, or another undeveloped greenspace. “Human Source” is defined …
July 2024 Travis County Wildlife Report Prepared by: Emery Sadkin Total number of Wildlife calls: 38 Wildlife Related Activities s t r o p e R e f i l d l i W f o # 18 16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0 Investigate Exposure Wild Injured Wild Speak Wild Sick Wild Confined Assist Fire Assist Storm Drain Activities Figure 1. Wildlife Related Activities that took place in Travis County. Type of Wildlife Picked Up e f i l d l i W f o e p y T Duck/Goose Hawk Fox Deer Snake Skunk Rabbit Opossum Bird Raccoon Bat 1 1 1 3 2 2 2 4 4 4 7 11 0 2 6 8 10 12 # of wildlife species P4 P3 P2 P1 Figure 2. Type of Wildlife that was involved in activities that took place, based on confirmed reports. “Other” refers to wildlife such as armadillos, porcupines, ring-tailed cat, etc. Jurisdiction Where Activity Took Place 1 1 1 2 35 Travis Bee Caves Manor Pflugerville Rollingwood Figure 3. Where wildlife activity was reported based on Jurisdiction within Travis County.
Strategic Planning Update to Animal Advisory Commission Stephanie Hayden-Howard | Assistant City Manager Audrey Muntz, Budget and Performance Manager Dr. Larry Schooler, Consultant August 12, 2024 What’s Happened so far STAKEHOLDER INTERVIEWS & LISTENING SESSIONS PUBLIC SURVEY (2000+ RESPONSES) CONVENING OF WORKING GROUP Assessment Phase Stakeholder Engagement • ASO Strategic Plan SpeakUp Page went live on July 17th survey • Includes process overview and community • Will be updated throughout process • Additional input opportunities will be posted on this page in the Fall • More than 13k views to date • Community Survey open until August 14th • Survey open from July 17th to August 14th • More than 2k participants to date Strategic Plan Updates Assessment Phase Stakeholder Engagement • ASO Leadership Interviews • Completed in July • 9 participants • ASO Staff Listening Sessions • Underway, Complete on August 15th • 90+ staff participants (attended/scheduled to attend) • ASO Volunteer Listening Sessions • Completed August 10th • 40 volunteer participants • External Stakeholder Interviews • External Stakeholder Listening Session • Planning underway • Reviewed previous stakeholder engagement outputs from the City Auditor and ASO Strategic Planning Updates 4 Working Group Participants • Animal Commission Members • Austin Lost and Found • Austin Pets Alive • Classic Canines • City of Austin Staff • Emancipet • Humane Society • Travis County • TRAPRS • Individual Community Advocates: • Pat Valles-Trelles • Shelly Leibham Strategic Planning Update 5 Working Group Meeting • Dr. Schooler facilitated first working group meeting on August 7th • All partners attended Strategic Planning Update 6 Working Group's Work So Far • Building relationships, mutual respect, and trust • Forming group agreements • Defining expectations and intentions • Understanding stakeholders • Identifying “the elephants in the room” Upcoming Meetings • Meeting #2: Thursday, Aug 29, 4pm-8pm (confirmed) • Potential topic: What are our overarching goals for Animal Services, and what assets can we leverage? • Meeting #3: Thursday, Sep 5, 3p-7pm (tentative) • Potential topic: How do we chart a course to the future state we want? What could we achieve in the short term? • Meeting #4: Tuesday, Sep 17, 12pm-4pm (tentative) • Potential topic: How do all of the pieces fit together? What should we prioritize? How will we know we are successful? Possible Framework #1 • Appreciative Inquiry Possible Framework #2 • Strategic Doing • Courtesy Strategic Doing Institute Next Steps • …
PER CITY ORDINANCE: All individuals scheduling or accepting a meeting invitation with a City Official are requested to provide responses to the questions at the following link: DSD Visitor Log. Please note that all information provided is subject to public disclosure via DSD’s open data portal. For more information please visit: City of Austin Ordinance 2016-0922-005 | City Clerk’s website | City Clerk’s FAQ’s From: Leitch, Steve <Steve.Leitch@austintexas.gov> Sent: Monday, August 12, 2024 12:42 PM To: Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Subject: c15-2024-0025 Good afternoon, Mrs. Ramirez, I would like to ask for a postponement of this case. In recognition of the fact that a second appeal has been filed, which will not be heard until next month’s Board of Adjustment meeting, I believe that it would be most efficient to hear both appeals simultaneously at the September meeting. Thank you for your consideration and please do not hesitate to reach out if you have any questions. Steve Leitch Division Manager, Expedited Plan Review City of Austin Development Services Department 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Rd., Austin, TX 78752 Office: 512-978-1676 ITEM03/1-LATE BACKUP Schedule a virtual or in-person appointment for your development and permitting questions. Please contact my direct supervisor with any kudos or concerns at Brenda.DeLaGarza@austintexas.gov. PER CITY ORDINANCE: All individuals scheduling or accepting a meeting invitation with a City Official are requested to provide responses to the questions at the following link: DSD Visitor Log. Please note that all information provided is subject to public disclosure via DSD’s open data portal. For more information please visit: City of Austin Ordinance 2016-0922-005 | City Clerk’s website | City Clerk’s FAQ’s ITEM03/2-LATE BACKUP
TO: FROM: Jessica Cohen, Chair Board of Adjustment Members Brent D. Lloyd Development Officer Development Services Department DATE: August 7, 2024 SUBJECT: Case No. C15-2024-0025 | 6708 Bridge Hill Cove The matter before the Board is an appeal of an administrative decision by the Development Services Department (“DSD”) to approve a building permit for residential development 6708 Bridge Hill Cove. The issues in the appeal concern the amount of impervious cover (“IC”) approved for the project in relation to applicable zoning regulations. To assist the Board in understanding the issues, this report is laid out as follows: (1) General background, including DSD’s decision approving the permit under appeal and the development history of the subject property, at pp. 1-2; (2) Procedural requirements for the appeal, at pp. 2-3; and (3) DSD’s recommended action on the appeal, at p. 3. 1. Background — Decision on Appeal On March 24, 2024, DSD approved a building permit (BP No. 2023-129658) for construction of a two-story addition and related improvements to the existing residential structure at 6708 Bridge Hill Cove. After the permit was approved, the Appellant (Mr. Warren Konkel) identified errors in the review process related to the calculation of impervious cover. In particular, Mr. Konkel correctly pointed out that some of the impervious cover shown as “existing” on the approved building plans was associated with development that had never received permits from the City. After reviewing Mr. Konkel’s concerns, DSD determined that the proposed plans submitted on behalf of the landowner, Ms. Christy May, incorrectly denoted unpermitted development as “existing” and that review staff had failed to catch the error. Consistent with LDC Sec. 25-11-66 (Errors in Permit Support Documents), DSD placed an administrative hold on the permit halting further inspections pending resolution of the impervious cover issues. Staff Report re: 6708 Bridge Hill Cove BOA Appeal | Page – 1 ITEM03/1-LATE BACKUP While the hold remained in place, DSD reviewed the site’s development history using available plans, aerial photography, and an IC analysis provided by the applicant (see Attachment A) to determine the amount of impervious cover associated with the original construction permitted in 1987 and 1989. Based on that review, DSD determined that approximately 12,811 square feet of impervious cover was associated with the original development and that an additional 1,000 square feet is permissible based on an established policy allowing limited modifications to projects initiated before currently applicable regulations …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM02 DATE: Monday August 12, 2024 CASE NUMBER: C15-2024-0024 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Jeffery Bowen (D6) _______Janel Venzant (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) OWNER/APPLICANT: CHRISTI LANE ADDRESS: 2104 WESTOVER RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-899 (Fences as Accessory Uses) to increase the height from eight (8) feet (maximum allowed) to twelve (12) feet (requested), in order to erect a fence on the east property line in a “SF-3-NP”, Single-Family-Neighborhood Plan zoning district (West Austin Neighborhood Group). Note: The Land Development Code 25-2-899 Fences as Accessory Uses (A) Except as otherwise provided in this chapter, a fence: (1) is permitted as an accessory use in any zoning district; and (2) must comply with the requirements of this section. (B) In this section: (1) an ornamental fence is a fence with an open design that has a ratio of solid material to open space of not more than one to four; and (2) a solid fence is a fence other than an ornamental fence. (C) The height restrictions of this section do not apply to an ornamental fence. (D) Except as otherwise provided in this section, a solid fence constructed along a property line may not exceed a height of six feet measured from the natural grade up. (E) If there is a change in grade of at least one foot measured along any run of a solid fence along a property line, then the portion of the fence where the grade change occurs may be constructed to a maximum height of seven feet. (F) a solid fence along a property line may be constructed to a maximum height of eight feet if each owner of property that adjoins a section of the fence that exceeds a height of six feet files written consent to the construction of the fence with the building official; and (1) there is a change in grade of at least two feet within 50 feet of the boundary between adjoining properties; or (2) a structure, including a telephone junction box, exists that is reasonably likely to enable a child to climb over a six-foot fence and gain …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Interpretation Appeal Decision Sheet ITEM03 DATE: August 12, 2024 CASE NUMBER: C15-2024-0025 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Jeffery Bowen (D6) _______Janel Venzant (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPELLANT’S AGENT: Nicholl Wade APPELLANT: Warren Konkel OWNER: Christy May ADDRESS: 6708 BRIDGE HILL CV SUMMARY OF APPEAL: Appellant challenges issuance of Building Permit 2023-12958 BP on the grounds that the City incorrectly approved impervious cover (IC) of approximately 12,811 square feet, which exceeds IC limitations applicable within the Lake Austin (LA) zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: POSTPONED TO September 9, 2024, DUE TO NOT HAVING ENOUGH BOARD MEMBERS FOR VOTING PURPOSES FINDING: 1. There is a reasonable doubt of difference of interpretation as to the specific intent of the regulations or map in that: 2. An appeal of use provisions could clearly permit a use which is in character with the uses enumerated for the various zones and with the objectives of the zone in question because: 3. The interpretation will not grant a special privilege to one property inconsistent with other properties or uses similarly situated in that: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Chair for
