ITEM03/1-SUPPORT ITEM03/2-SUPPORT T o : F r o m : D a t e : S u b j e c t : R a m i r e z , l E a n e i C a s e C 1 5 - 2 0 2 5 - 0 0 3 6 T h u r s d a y , O c t o b e r 2 , 2 0 2 5 4 : 3 6 : 5 0 P M S e n t f r o m m y i P h o n e E x t e r n a l E m a i l - E x e r c i s e C a u t i o n h t t p s : / / a k a . m s / L e a r n A b o u t S e n d e r I d e n t i f i c a t i o n ] [ Y o u d o n ' t o f t e n g e t e m a i l f r o m a c a n d e l s @ g m a i l . c o m . L e a r n w h y t h i s i s i m p o r t a n t a t M e s s a g e " b u t t o n i n O u t l o o k . F o r a n y a d d i t i o n a l q u e s t i o n s o r c o n c e r n s , c o n t a c t C S I R T a t " c y b e r s e c u r i t y @ a u s t i n t e x a s . g o v " . C A U T I O N : T h i s i s a n E X T E R N A L e m a i l . P l e a s e u s e c a u t i o n w h …
Opposition to Variance 2 CASES C15-2025-0026 and C15-2025-0027 1 Site Plan SP-2025-0119D 1750 Channel Rd. & 1752 Channel Rd. By: Bruce & Nellie Slayden, Conforming dock at 1744 Channel Rd. 1 ITEM05/1-OPPOSITION 1750 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 37’ Existing nonconforming: Never Permitted 1 story Uncovered fishing pier NO watercraft slips Proposed nonconforming: • 3 stories • 1 watercraft slip • 37’ Shoreline L is 124% of statutory 30’ Limit • 14’ Wide vs. ~10 existing W • 2 flights of stairs • Proposed dimensions and location different than existing 2 ITEM05/2-OPPOSITION 1752 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 47’ or 46’ 1” Existing nonconforming structure: Never permitted 1-story 1-watercraft slip 47’ Length Proposed nonconforming: • 3 stories across entire structure • 2 watercraft slips • 46’1’ shoreline L is 16’1” (154% of) over statutory 30’ • 22’ W vs. 14’W Existing • 2 flights of stairs • Proposed dimensions and location different than existing 3 ITEM05/3-OPPOSITION Applicants Proposed Docks vs. Existing All dimensions and locations of Proposed nonconforming docks differ from existing allegedly “Grandfathered” footprints 4 ITEM05/4-OPPOSITION NO HARDSHIP Applicants False/Misleading Assumptions for Alleged Hardship Applicant FALSE assumption “‘a modern watercraft’ requires water depth of 4 feet” True: Numerous modern watercraft require much less than 4. “Modern watercraft” operate in 2.5’depths: • Inboard/Outboard Watercraft • Pontoon Watercraft • Tritoon Watercraft • Outboard Watercraft • Jet Watercraft 5 ITEM05/5-OPPOSITION NO HARDSHIP Applicants False/Misleading Assumptions for Alleged Hardship; Ignores Readily Available Options Applicants state “‘modern watercraft’ require 4’ water depth; See Aqua Permit, Item 05/8 Presentation, p. 8 True: Modern lifts designed specifically to protect “modern watercraft” in shallow waters only need 2.5’ depth; no excess dredging • Cantilever Lifts extend and retract 3’ to 6’ into lake for launching and docking Modern Watercraft ; e.g. HydroHoist Ultralift for 6500 lbs watercraft, extends 4.5’ into lake, min depth 2.5’ • Articulating Lifts • Extending Lifts 6 ITEM05/6-OPPOSITION 7 ITEM05/7-OPPOSITION NO HARDSHIP (1750 Channel) Applicants Alleged Hardship Ignores Facts and Alternatives Cantilever Lifts prevalent on Lake Austin HydroHoist Ultra Cantilever Lift; 6500 lbs watercraft, travels 54”, 2.5’ depth Only 8.17 Cu Yds Dredge Volume Less than 25 Cu Yds No dredging needed past ~17.5’ from shoreline Methodology: 2.5’ Depth (Red Line at 490.3’ ) applied to Applicant Data; Intersects “Existing Profile of Lake Bed” at 17.5’ shoreline L, eliminating dredging from 17.5’ to 30’ Using above data for Average End Area Calculation, Dredge Volume = …
ITEM05/1-SUPPORT ITEM05/2-SUPPORT Exhibit A: Image from 09/24/2025 showing the lake depth is 2’9.5” 30 ft from shore 33.5 inches 2 feet 9.5 inches ITEM05/3-SUPPORT Exhibit B: Image from 10/09/2025 showing the lake depth measure 2’1.5” where the hull of a boat would sit with a 30ft long boat dock 25.5 inches 2 feet 1.5 inches ITEM05/4-SUPPORT Exhibit C: Images showing existing structures extend less into the lake than the downstream neighboring dock which is 30ft in length. 1748 dock (downstream) 1748 dock extends much further into the lake Existing 1750 dock Current structure which is 6 inches longer than the proposed is further from the middle of the lake than the adjacent downstream neighbors 30 foot dock. ITEM05/5-SUPPORT Exhibit D: Downstream shoreline curves into the in front of the dock creating several feet of length into the lake. Closeup of neighboring shoreline shows that it protrudes into the lake several feet where the boat dock is. ITEM05/6-SUPPORT
Opposition to Variance 2 CASES C15-2025-0026 and C15-2025-0027 1 Site Plan SP-2025-0119D 1750 Channel Rd. & 1752 Channel Rd. By: Bruce & Nellie Slayden, Conforming dock at 1744 Channel Rd. 1 ITEM06/1-OPPOSITION 1750 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 37’ Existing nonconforming: Never Permitted 1 story Uncovered fishing pier NO watercraft slips Proposed nonconforming: • 3 stories • 1 watercraft slip • 37’ Shoreline L is 124% of statutory 30’ Limit • 14’ Wide vs. ~10 existing W • 2 flights of stairs • Proposed dimensions and location different than existing 2 ITEM06/2-OPPOSITION 1752 Channel Rd - Nonconforming 47’ or 46’ 1” Existing nonconforming structure: Never permitted 1-story 1-watercraft slip 47’ Length Proposed nonconforming: • 3 stories across entire structure • 2 watercraft slips • 46’1’ shoreline L is 16’1” (154% of) over statutory 30’ • 22’ W vs. 14’W Existing • 2 flights of stairs • Proposed dimensions and location different than existing 3 ITEM06/3-OPPOSITION Applicants Proposed Docks vs. Existing All dimensions and locations of Proposed nonconforming docks differ from existing allegedly “Grandfathered” footprints 4 ITEM06/4-OPPOSITION NO HARDSHIP Applicants False/Misleading Assumptions for Alleged Hardship Applicant FALSE assumption “‘a modern watercraft’ requires water depth of 4 feet” True: Numerous modern watercraft require much less than 4. “Modern watercraft” operate in 2.5’depths: • Inboard/Outboard Watercraft • Pontoon Watercraft • Tritoon Watercraft • Outboard Watercraft • Jet Watercraft 5 ITEM06/5-OPPOSITION NO HARDSHIP Applicants False/Misleading Assumptions for Alleged Hardship; Ignores Readily Available Options Applicants state “‘modern watercraft’ require 4’ water depth; See Aqua Permit, Item 05/8 Presentation, p. 8 True: Modern lifts designed specifically to protect “modern watercraft” in shallow waters only need 2.5’ depth; no excess dredging • Cantilever Lifts extend and retract 3’ to 6’ into lake for launching and docking Modern Watercraft ; e.g. HydroHoist Ultralift for 6500 lbs watercraft, extends 4.5’ into lake, min depth 2.5’ • Articulating Lifts • Extending Lifts 6 ITEM06/6-OPPOSITION 7 ITEM06/7-OPPOSITION NO HARDSHIP (1750 Channel) Applicants Alleged Hardship Ignores Facts and Alternatives Cantilever Lifts prevalent on Lake Austin HydroHoist Ultra Cantilever Lift; 6500 lbs watercraft, travels 54”, 2.5’ depth Only 8.17 Cu Yds Dredge Volume Less than 25 Cu Yds No dredging needed past ~17.5’ from shoreline Methodology: 2.5’ Depth (Red Line at 490.3’ ) applied to Applicant Data; Intersects “Existing Profile of Lake Bed” at 17.5’ shoreline L, eliminating dredging from 17.5’ to 30’ Using above data for Average End Area Calculation, Dredge Volume = …
ITEM06/1-SUPPORT ITEM06/2-SUPPORT Exhibit A: Image from 09/24/2025 showing the lake depth is 2’9.5” 30 ft from shore 33.5 inches 2 feet 9.5 inches ITEM06/3-SUPPORT Exhibit B: Image from 10/09/2025 showing the lake depth measure 2’1.5” where the hull of a boat would sit with a 30ft long boat dock 25.5 inches 2 feet 1.5 inches ITEM06/4-SUPPORT Exhibit C: Images showing existing structures extend less into the lake than the downstream neighboring dock which is 30ft in length. 1748 dock (downstream) 1748 dock extends much further into the lake Existing 1750 dock Current structure which is 6 inches longer than the proposed is further from the middle of the lake than the adjacent downstream neighbors 30 foot dock. ITEM06/5-SUPPORT Exhibit D: Downstream shoreline curves into the in front of the dock creating several feet of length into the lake. Closeup of neighboring shoreline shows that it protrudes into the lake several feet where the boat dock is. ITEM06/6-SUPPORT
Animal Advisory Commission Recommendation 20251013-008 – Bird Friendly Design WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission passed and sent Recommendation 20221010-008 to Council regarding the adoption of bird friendly design; and WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission recognizes the City of Austin was named a Bird City in Feb. 2023; and WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission recognizes that over 400 species of birds reside or migrate through Travis County every spring and fall, with endangered species and species of concern utilizing the Central Flyway and geological way finders of the Balcones Escarpment, Colorado River and Blackland Prairie during migration, as well as during nesting and wintering seasons; and WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission recognizes the City of Austin benefits from the annual $5.5 billion generated from bird watching and bird tourism in Texas; and WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission recognizes that biodiversity has benefits to our community in its own right, beyond economic benefit. WHEREAS, the Animal Advisory Commission recognizes city staff has met with stakeholders, reviewed the policies and codes implemented in other cities, and studied how bird-friendly design standards can best fit within the City’s code; and THEREFORE, the Animal Advisory Commission recommends Council initiate the findings and recommendations of staff as listed with the following addition. 1. In addition to commercial and multifamily buildings, the Animal Advisory Commission recommends all City buildings be required to follow the guidelines and set an example for non-public buildings. Motion: Commissioner Dulzaides Second: Commissioner Huddleston Vote: 10-0 For: Chair Nilson, Vice Chair Linder, Parliamentarian Norton, Commissioners: Dulzaides, Daniel, Ferguson, Holt, Huddleston, Loignon, Nemer Against: None Abstain: None Recuse: Commissioner Ahmed Attest: Nekaybaw Watson Nekaybaw Watson
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM02 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0035 ___Y____Thomas Ates (D1) ___Y____Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) ___Y____Jessica Cohen (D3) ___Y____Yung-ju Kim (D4) ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne (D5) ___Y____Haseeb Abdullah (D6) ___Y____Sameer S Birring (D7) ___Y____Margaret Shahrestani (D8) ___Y____Brian Poteet (D9) ___-____Michael Von Ohlen (D10) ___Y____Jeffery L Bowen (M) ___Y____Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) ___-____Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) ___-____VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPELLANT: Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay OWNER: Kateryna Luschchenko ADDRESS: 205 34TH ST APPEAL REQUESTED: The appellant has filed an appeal challenging the approval of a building permit (BP No. 2025-072930) and related construction plans for proposed development of a three-unit residential use at 205 East 34th Street, Austin, TX 78705. The appeal alleges that City staff’s decision to approve the permit failed to comply with applicable zoning regulations, including requirements of the North University Neighborhood Conservation-Neighborhood Plan (NCCD-NP) Combining District (Ordinance No. 040826-58) and/or Chapter 25-2 relating to required setbacks, limits on gross floor area, and other site development standards, as well as requirements for development applications in Section 25- 1-82 (Non-Subdivision Application Requirements and Expiration). Ordinance No. 040826-58 North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District Section 3 - Street yard setbacks. Front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback equals the average of the front yard setbacks of the principal Note: Part 6 General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, the following provisions apply to all property within the NCCD-NP. This section does not apply to Waller Creek/Seminary District 7 or District 7A. a. single-family buildings on the same side of the street of a block. The maximum setback may not exceed the average setback by more than five feet. Part 7 RESIDENTIAL DISTRICT. The Residential District is intended to protect the original buildings and development patterns of the neighborhood that were established for residential use. Single family homes and some of the older multi-family structures were built in the context of the traditional development patterns. New residential development should respect traditional patterns including building orientation, scale, height, setbacks and parking location. 1. regulations apply. Site Development standards table. Except as otherwise modified in this part, the following site development Footnote **a new principal structure must be at least 10 feet from a principal structure on an adjacent lot. Land Development Code, 25-1-82 Non-Subdivision Application Requirements and Expiration This section does not apply to an application …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM03 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0036 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Josh Myers OWNER: Josh Myers ADDRESS: 12302 SPLIT RAIL PKWY VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting the following variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-492 (Site Development Regulations) from setback requirements to decrease the front yard setback from 25 feet (required) to 5 feet (requested) in order to maintain a Carport in a “SF-2”, Single-Family zoning district. BOARD’S DECISION: APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025 BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM04 DATE: October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C16-2025-0005 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Jonathan Perlstein OWNER: Elizabeth McFarland ADDRESS: 4700 WEIDEMAR LN VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-127 (Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations): (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 square feet (maximum allowed) to 192 square feet (requested) (facing south on building extension, not directly facing Weidemar Ln) (E) (2) (a) to exceed total sign area of 35 feet (maximum allowed) to 96 square feet (requested) for Halo signs in order to provide signage for Alexian St. Elmo in a “MF-6-CO-NP”, Multi- Family – Conditional Overlay - Neighborhood Plan zoning district. (East Congress Neighborhood Plan), Multi-Family Residential Sign District. This subsection applies to a multifamily residential sign district: For signs other than freestanding signs, the total sign area for a lot may not exceed the Land Development Code Section 25-10-127 Multi-Family Residential Sign District Regulations (A) (E) lesser of: (1) 0.5 square feet for each linear foot of street frontage; or 35 square feet. (2) Source: Section 13-2-867; Ord. 990225-70; Ord. 031211-11; Ord. No. 20170817-072, Pt. 11, 8-28- 17. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Tommy Ates second on 9-0-1 votes (Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne abstained); POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; Madam Chair Cohen motions to approve postponement request, Board member Jeffery Bowen second, no objection; POSTPONED TO November 10, 2025. FINDING: 1. The variance is necessary because strict enforcement of the Article prohibits and reasonable opportunity to provide adequate signs on the site, considering the unique features of a site such as its dimensions, landscape, or topography, because: OR, 2. The granting of this variance will not have a substantially adverse impact upon neighboring properties, because: OR, 3. The granting of this variance will not substantially conflict with the stated purposes of this sign ordinance, because: AND, 4. Granting a variance would …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM05 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0026 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Red Bud Partners, LP ADDRESS: 1750 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to thirty- seven feet and three inches (37’ 3”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025. September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM06 DATE: Monday October 13, 2025 CASE NUMBER: C15-2025-0027 _______Thomas Ates (D1) _______Bianca A Medina-Leal (D2) _______Jessica Cohen (D3) _______Yung-ju Kim (D4) _______Melissa Hawthorne (D5) _______Haseeb Abdullah (D6) _______Sameer S Birring (D7) _______Margaret Shahrestani (D8) _______Brian Poteet (D9) _______Michael Von Ohlen (D10) _______Jeffery L Bowen (M) _______Corry L Archer-mcclellan (Alternate) (M) _______Suzanne Valentine (Alternate) (M) _______VACANT (Alternate) (M) APPLICANT: Stephen Hawkins OWNER: Tom Davis Jr. ADDRESS: 1752 CHANNEL RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant has requested variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-2-1176 (Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses) (A) (1) to increase the dock length from 30 feet (required) to forty-six feet and one inch (46’ 1”) (requested), in order to erect a boat dock in a “SF-2” Single-Family zoning district. Note: Land Development Code, 25-2-1176 Site Development Regulations for Docks, Marinas, and Other Lakefront Uses (A) A dock or similar structure must comply with the requirements of this subsection. (1) A dock may extend up to 30 feet from the shoreline, except that the director may require a dock to extend a lesser or greater distance from the shoreline if deemed necessary to ensure navigation safety. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen’s motion to Postpone to September 8, 2025; Vice-Chair Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 votes; POSTPONED TO September 8, 2025; September 8, 2025 Applicant requested postponement to October 13,2025; Madam Chair Jessica Cohen’s motion to Postpone to October 13, 2025; Board member Corry Archer-Mcclellan second on 10-0 votes; POSTPONED TO October 13, 2025. October 13, 2025 APPLICANT REQUESTED POSTPONEMENT TO NOVEMBER 10, 2025; BOARD MEMBERS APPROVED POSTPONEMENT TO November 10, 2025, NO OBJECTIONS FINDING: 1. The Zoning regulations applicable to the property do not allow for a reasonable use because: 2. (a) The hardship for which the variance is requested is unique to the property in that: (b) The hardship is not general to the area in which the property is located because: 3. The variance will not alter the character of the area adjacent to the property, will not impair the use of adjacent conforming property, and will not impair the purpose of the regulations of the zoning district in which the property is located because: Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison Jessica Cohen Madam Chair for
Animal Advisory Commission Minutes October 13, 2025 Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting Minutes Monday, October 13, 2025 The Animal Advisory Commission convened in a regular meeting on Monday, October 13, 2025, at Austin City Hall, 301 W 2nd St, Room 1101 in Austin, Texas. Chair Nilson called the Animal Advisory Commission meeting to order at 6:00 p.m. Commissioners in Attendance: Dr. Paige Nilson, Chair, D4 Jennifer Daniel, D6 Erin Ferguson, D8 David Loignon, D10 Jo Anne Norton, Parliamentarian, D7 Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Ann Linder, Vice Chair, D3 Koby Ahmed, Mayor Beatriz Dulzaides, D2 Sarah Huddleston, D9 Whitney Holt, D5 Nancy Nemer, Travis County Commissioners Absent: Ryan Clinton, Travis County PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL Suzie Chase – Prop Q Ben Suddaby – TRE Funding for Animal Care Max Oliver – AAS Dangerous Dog List Concerns Julie Oliver – Budget Increase, Rescue Pull List Rochelle Vickery – Shoutout to Jenn Daniel, Concern with AAS APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on September 8, 2025. 1 Animal Advisory Commission Minutes October 13, 2025 The motion to approve the minutes of the Animal Advisory Commission Regular Meeting on September 8, 2025, was approved on Vice Chair Linder’s motion, Commissioner Loignon’s second on an 11-0 vote. Commissioner Clinton was absent. STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. 4. 3. Staff briefing regarding monthly reports provided by Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. The presentation was made by Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. Staff briefing regarding Good Fix marketing strategies, outreach efforts, and spay/neuter backlogs by Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. The presentation was made by Elizabeth Ferrer, Marketing and Communications Program Manager, Austin Animal Services and Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. Staff briefing on updates to safety protocols, programmatic needs, emergency veterinary services and orthopedic contracts by Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. The presentation was made by Melissa Pool, Interim Chief Administrative Officer, Austin Animal Services, Dr. Debbie Elliott, Veterinary Services Manager, Austin Animal Services, and Rolando Fernandez, Interim Chief Animal Services Officer, Austin Animal Services. DISCUSSION ITEMS 5. 7. Presentation by Austin Pets Alive! regarding license agreement reports. The presentation was made by Stephanie Bilbro, Director of Operations, Austin Pets Alive! Presentation regarding Staff’s response to Council Resolution 20241121-073 related to Bird- Friendly design by Leslie …
BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT REGULAR MEETING MINUTES Monday, October 13, 2025 The BOARD OF ADJUSTMENT convened in a Regular meeting on Monday, October 13, 2025, at 301 West 2nd Street in Austin, Texas. Madam Chair Jessica Cohen called the Board of Adjustment Meeting to order at 5:45 PM. Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance in-Person: Jessica Cohen-Chair, Melissa Hawthorne-Vice Chair, Haseeb Abdullah, Jeffery Bowen, Brian Poteet, Maggie Shahrestani, Corry L Archer-Mcclellan (Alternate) Board Members/Commissioners in Attendance Remotely: Thomas Ates, Sameer S Birring, Yung-ju Kim, Bianca A. Medina-Leal Board Members absent: Michael Von Ohlen, Suzanne Valentine (unavailable) PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first (4) four speakers signed up/register prior (no later than noon the day before the meeting) to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. NONE APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Approve the minutes of the Board of Adjustment meetings on September 8, 2025. On-Line Link: Draft Minutes for September 8, 2025 The minutes from the meeting on September 8, 2025, were approved on Vice Chair Melissa Hawthorne, Board member Brian Poteet second, on 10-0-1 Vote (Board member Haseeb Abdullah abstained). PUBLIC HEARINGS Discussion and action on the following cases. New Interpretation case: 2. C15-2025-0035 Bob Kaler and Carol Journeay (Appellant) Kateryna Luschchenko (Owner) 205 E. 34th Street On-Line Link: ITEM02 APPELLANT-ADV PACKET PART1, APPELLANT-PART2, ITEM02 PERMIT HOLDER- ADV PACKET, ITEM02 STAFF REPORT, APPELLANT PRESENTATION, PERMIT HOLDER PRESENTATION PART1, PART2, PART3, PART4 The appellant has filed an appeal challenging the approval of a building permit (BP No. 2025-072930) and related construction plans for proposed development of a three-unit residential use at 205 East 34th Street, Austin, TX 78705. The appeal alleges that City staff’s decision to approve the permit failed to comply with applicable zoning regulations, including requirements of the North University Neighborhood Conservation-Neighborhood Plan (NCCD-NP) Combining District (Ordinance No. 040826-58) and/or Chapter 25-2 relating to required setbacks, limits on gross floor area, and other site development standards, as well as requirements for development applications in Section 25-1-82 (Non- Subdivision Application Requirements and Expiration). Ordinance No. 040826-58 North University Neighborhood Conservation Combining District Section 3 - Street yard setbacks. Front yard setback. The minimum front yard setback equals the average of the front yard setbacks of the principal single- Note: Part 6 General Provisions. Except as otherwise provided in this ordinance, the following provisions apply to all …
Animal Advisory Commission 2026 Regular Meeting Schedule 2nd Monday of each month at 6:00 pm 1. January 12, 2026 2. February 9, 2026 3. March 9, 2026 4. April 13, 2026 5. May 11, 2026 6. June 8, 2026 7. July 13, 2026 8. August 10, 2026 9. September 14, 2026 10. October 12, 2026 11. November 9, 2026 12. December 14, 2026
Mayor’s Committee for People with Disabilities Community Interest Announcement AWEbility WEE Festival October 10, 2025 at 5:00PM Austin City Hall, Atrium & Chambers, 301 W 2nd Street A quorum of Commission members may be present. No action will be taken, and no Commission business will occur. Nekaybaw Watson 512-974-2562
ZERO WASTE ADVISORY COMMISSION CONSTRUCTION AND DEMOLITION REFORM COMMITTEE Thursday October 9th, 2025 11:00 AM Cepeda Branch Library 651 N Pleasant Valley Rd, Austin, TX 78702 CURRENT COMMITTEE MEMBERS: Ian Steyaert (Chair); Amanda Masino; and Gerald Acuna CALL TO ORDER AGENDA PUBLIC COMMUNICATION: GENERAL The first 10 speakers signed up prior to the meeting being called to order will each be allowed a three-minute allotment to address their concerns regarding items not posted on the agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES 1. Meeting minutes; June 9th, 2025 STAFF BRIEFINGS 2. Staff briefing: Review of potential amendments for Qualified Processors, Registered Evaluators, diversion rate calculations for Qualified Processors, and requiring all projects to use third party verified processors. DISCUSSION 3. Discussion of possible changes to the C&D Recycling Ordinance and rules related to Qualified Processors, Registered Evaluators, and project diversion requirements. FUTURE AGENDA ITEMS ADJOURNMENT The City of Austin is committed to compliance with the American with Disabilities Act. Reasonable modifications and equal access to communications will be provided upon request. Meeting locations are planned with wheelchair access. If requiring Sign Language Interpreters or alternative formats, please give notice at least 4 days before the meeting date. Please email Cahill Ordones at cahill.ordones@austintexas.gov, or call at 512-978-1370, for additional information; TTY users route through Relay Texas at 711. For more information on the Construction and Demolition Reform Committee, please contact Cahill Ordones at cahill.ordones@austintexas.gov.
C&D Committee Meeting October 9th, 2025 Overview 1. Qualified Processors vs Registered Evaluators 2. Review objectives identified in past meetings 3. Refresher on RCI presentation from 2021 4. Amendment options Processors vs Evaluators Qualified Processors Registered Evaluators • Located in the Austin Metro Area; • Can weigh inbound mixed materials; materials reclaimed for use from mixed materials; and residual material disposed • Authorizes inspections of its facility by the department • Makes records available for audit by the department • Has average diversion rate validated by RCI or a registered evaluator • Once registered, submits a report each six months with the average diversion rate, the types of materials recovered, and the beneficial uses for the materials. • Registration is valid for two years • Third-party individual or organization that ARR approves to: • Validate average diversion rates through review of QP’s application • Conduct onsite inspections and onsite audits of QPs • Must have operational or consulting experience • Must complete City-approved training • Registration is valid for one year ARR Comprehensive Plan NEAR-TERM GOAL (0-5 YEARS) Assess potential changes to the Qualified Processor rules. 1. Consider requiring all projects to use a Qualified Processor to improve accuracy of contractor reports and incentivize processors to increase diversion rates. 2. Consider policy changes to remove material that is burned from diversion calculations. 3. Align Qualified Processor rules with any changes made to the C&D Ordinance diversion requirements. Source: ARR. 2023 Comprehensive Plan. Chapter 13, "Construction and Demolition" Committee Considerations 1. Require all projects use a Qualified Processor 2. Change how Qualified Processors report and apply 3. Increase the number of Qualified Processors and Registered Evaluators 4. Remove wood derived fuel / biofuel from RCI diversion rate calculations to align with the City’s definition of “Beneficial Use” in § 15-6-1(3) RCI Meeting Review Thorough Process to Become Certified • Registration Application → Onboarding → Application for Certification (desk audit, prequalification, on-site evaluation by RCI evaluator to verify what was found in audit) → Final Certification Certification • Costs ~$8k to get certified + $629/month subscription fee – RCI Rate Structure • Lasts for five years; initial certification is year one • Recertification required each year for years 2 through 5 • New certification happens in year 6 RCI Benefits • Transparent, consistently accurate reporting • Accurate - requires use of scale weights rather than estimated volumes Potential Amendment Changes Committee Consideration …
