311 Agent receives citizen phone call Agent identifies call as Animal Services Assistance Request issue Agent fills out and saves Animal Services – Assistance Request SR Animal Services Employee Reviews SR No contact required Animal Services employee Animal Services Employee closes SR SR Closed SR Review Contact caller Animal Services Employee assists caller s s e c o r P - t s e u q e R e c n a t s i s s A – s e c i v r e S l a m n A i e c a f r e t n I - t s e u q e R e c n a t s i s s A – s e c i v r e S l a m n A i SR Not Currently on an Interface e k a t n I - t s e u q e R e c n a t s i s s A – s e c i v r e S l a m n A i Animal Services – Assistance Request SR Use t hi s SR for requests for records, inquiries about impounded/surrendered animals, adopt ions, etc. or updates to Found Animal reports. Citizens request ing a bite report from a previous animal bit e should be referred to http://www.aust in.gov/pir or they can send an email to publicinformation@ austintexas.gov where they can request the bit e record. If they do not have computer access t hey can go to t he Austin Animal Center where they can fil l out the request in person. Do not submit an Sr for cit izens asking if thei r pet is at the Ani mal Center. Indivi duals wi th missing pets must go to the shelter to search for their l ost pet. They can also view the animals onl ine at http://austintexas.gov/page/view-lost-pets. Animal Services cannot verify someone’s pet ov er the phone 1. What kind of assistance do you need? SLOV Need a copy of a record Wants info on i mpounded/surrendered animal Wants info on an animal up for adoption Other – explain i n the description field Was contacted by Animal Control [CC STAFF ONLY] – SR Update Wants to give/get a dog house Is my pet at t he shel ter? Need a copy of a record Assist ance? Other Continue to …
June 9, 2022 Tony Nguyen 4507 N IH 35 Svrd NB Austin TX, 78722 Re: C16-2022-0004 Dear Tony, Property Description: LOT 1 TERRY ROSS ADDN Austin Energy (AE) has reviewed your application for the above referenced property, requesting that the Board of Adjustment consider a variance(s) from LDC Sections 25-10-123 (B)(2)(a)(i) and (B)(3)(a) at 4507 N IH 35. Austin Energy cannot approve the variance request at this time, as more time is needed to research whether the proposed sign can meet required clearances from the existing overhead electric lines located adjacent to this site. A decision will be reached regarding this variance request prior to the July 2022 Board of Adjustments hearing. Please use this link to be advised of our clearance and safety requirements which are additional conditions of the above review action: https://library.municode.com/tx/austin/codes/utilities_criteria_manual?nodeId=S1AUENDECR_1 .10.0CLSARE If you require further information or have any questions regarding the above comments, please contact our office. Thank you for contacting Austin Energy. Cody Shook, Planner II Austin Energy Public Involvement | Real Estate Services 2500 Montopolis Drive Austin, TX 78741 Cody.Shook@austinenergy.com C-1/1-AE REPORT
C-1/1-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Stefan Sinclair Ramirez, Elaine C16-2022-0004 : Code variance request for sign on IH-35 Srvc Rd / Delwood2 Thursday, June 09, 2022 9:41:09 AM Sign04_2009.png *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Good morning Ms. Ramirez, My name is Stefan Sinclair, and I live on Bentwood Road in the Delwood 2 neighborhood of Austin TX. We were made aware of a request for variance in sign height for the sign at the law office on the IH-35 service road of our neighborhood, case number C16-2022-0004 - and as a resident in the neighborhood I wanted to voice our household's opposition to this variance request. We feel that an increase in sign height is not warranted, and would have a negative impact on our neighbors who live behind the law office in question requesting the variance. An increase in sign height has the potential to bleed light into the homes behind the law office, and would negatively impact the residential character of our neighborhood. Also, as a long-time resident of the neighborhood, I've observed how the sign has become obscured over time simply by virtue of one tree on the law office property that has grown over time to a height which obscures the sign. An increase in sign height is not going to prevent this tree from continuing to grow and obscure the sign once again at a greater height. Regular pruning of the tree seems a viable alternative. I have attached some photos of the sign and surrounding area to illustrate. Sign01_06082022 was taken yesterday (June 8). It shows the sign as viewed from IH-35. The advertisement portion is clearly visible from the highway, however the digital clock below is obstructed by the tree canopy. Sign02_06082022 taken yesterday shows the same area from the service road height Sign03_06082022 shows the sign as viewed from the sidewalk when walking along the service road. The sign is completely obscured by the tree from this angle. Sign04_2009 is a Google Street View shot of the same area taken in 2009, when the tree on the property was much shorter. As you can see, at that time the advertisement and digital clock were both visible. Thank you for considering our opposition to this request for code variance in this matter. Sincerely, Stefan Sinclair Delwood 2 resident C-1/2-LATE BACKUP C-1/3-LATE BACKUP C-1/4-LATE BACKUP C-1/5-LATE BACKUP C-1/6-LATE BACKUP From: …
From: Subject: Date: Attachments: Target 2409 Austin Monday, June 06, 2022 4:27:55 PM image001.png *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I would like to postpone the variance hearing for the Target to the July 11th meeting. Thank you MAY GOD BLESS YOU , Tambra A. Nance Director of Operations TITAN Services, LLC P: (817)778-9195 M: (817)948-5897 W: www.pstitan.com CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. D-1/1-LATE BACKUP
From: *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** C15-2022-0002 June 13th 2022 Elaine Ramirez Please see attached. Thanks Glenn Page owner 705 Franklin blvd. 78759. CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. E-1/1-LATE BACKUP
From: To: Subject: Date: Stephen Stepka Ramirez, Elaine Case # C15-2022-0047 Wednesday, June 08, 2022 11:58:59 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Elaine, Please RSVP that you received this email. Thank you. I was told that replying by email was a satisfactory way to respond to a Public Hearing Notice I recently received in the mail. I am responding to case # C15-2022-0047 for the Board of Adjustment to be heard on June 13, 2022. You are the contact person listed. I object to the proposed code variance request. I feel that instead of reducing the required 10' setback to the proposed 5' on the Rear Yard Setback and compromising their neighbor they should add the 5' they are trying to gain to the front of the Garage/Studio which has ample distance to accommodate the 5'. This added 5' should be on the front side of the building that faces E.46th St. instead of compromising the neighbor and the Rear Yard Setback. Thank you. CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. E-3/1-LATE BACKUP
*** External Email - Exercise Caution *** From: To: Subject: Date: David Ramirez, Elaine case C15-2022-0447 Saturday, June 04, 2022 12:52:14 PM case C15-2022-0447 4522 Caswell Ave We are in favor of the requested variance. David Orr 4509 Avenue F Austin, TX 78751 CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. E-3/1-LATE BACKUP E-3/2-LATE BACKUP CAUTION: This email was received at the City of Austin, from an EXTERNAL source. Please use caution when clicking links or opening attachments. If you believe this to be a malicious and/or phishing email, please forward this email to cybersecurity@austintexas.gov. *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** From: E-3/3-LATE BACKUP
Cindy Marabito From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Fwd: Comments Case #C15-2022-0011 #C15-2022-0012 Saturday, June 11, 2022 10:51:44 AM Screen Shot 2022-06-07 at 4.40.21 PM.png Screen Shot 2022-06-07 at 4.40.21 PM.png Elaine…Karl has been attending these meetings in person and was unaware the case(s) had been postponed again. Would you please include his (attached) commentary for the board to review with our other objections this Monday June 13? Thank you so much!! Cindy *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** From: Karl Van Nostrand < Subject: Re: Comments Case #C15-2022-0011 #C15-2022-0012 Date: June 11, 2022 at 10:28:12 AM CDT To: Cindy Marabito < Hi Cindy, how are you? Are you going to comment at the BOA meeting? I'm not going to be here (I thought this thing was finished already!). We're going out of town. I've been going in person but haven't done the online meeting. If you are commenting, would mind reading my note for the adjustment board. Feel free to forward it to the adjustors if necessary. Thanks KV. Here it is: I'm here to discuss the developers' request for hardship in comparison to the lot next door. The developer sited the lot next door as the reason for the hardship, and I'd like to tell you about those lots. The property next door has a reasonable sized home and minimal impervious cover and has preserved the heritage oak on the property. The lot next door also has undisturbed non impervious cover to absorb runoff into lake Austin. I don't think there is sufficient hardship for the developers request to increase the impervious cover to the extent they're asking based on the comparison of the lot next door. I'm not against the developer from building on his property, I think the variance should be in line with what is reasonable within the code and based on comparison to other lots. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 7, 2022, 4:44 PM Cindy Marabito > wrote: FYI I have been in touch with Elaine to make sure my own objections and photos were included for the upcoming meeting scheduled for this coming Monday @ 5:30. She wrote back and offered this link which shows the owner’s complete request along with out objections. I was shocked to see a tree guy opting to get rid of the oaks..at least that is how I read it! See below first page of tree report and the …
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Cindy Marabito Ramirez, Elaine; Fwd: Comments Case #C15-2022-0011 #C15-2022-0012 Saturday, June 11, 2022 10:51:44 AM Screen Shot 2022-06-07 at 4.40.21 PM.png Screen Shot 2022-06-07 at 4.40.21 PM.png Elaine…Karl has been attending these meetings in person and was unaware the case(s) had been postponed again. Would you please include his (attached) commentary for the board to review with our other objections this Monday June 13? Thank you so much!! Cindy *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** From: Karl Van Nostrand <k Subject: Re: Comments Case #C15-2022-0011 #C15-2022-0012 Date: June 11, 2022 at 10:28:12 AM CDT To: Cindy Marabito > Hi Cindy, how are you? Are you going to comment at the BOA meeting? I'm not going to be here (I thought this thing was finished already!). We're going out of town. I've been going in person but haven't done the online meeting. If you are commenting, would mind reading my note for the adjustment board. Feel free to forward it to the adjustors if necessary. Thanks KV. Here it is: I'm here to discuss the developers' request for hardship in comparison to the lot next door. The developer sited the lot next door as the reason for the hardship, and I'd like to tell you about those lots. The property next door has a reasonable sized home and minimal impervious cover and has preserved the heritage oak on the property. The lot next door also has undisturbed non impervious cover to absorb runoff into lake Austin. I don't think there is sufficient hardship for the developers request to increase the impervious cover to the extent they're asking based on the comparison of the lot next door. I'm not against the developer from building on his property, I think the variance should be in line with what is reasonable within the code and based on comparison to other lots. Thanks. On Tue, Jun 7, 2022, 4:44 PM Cindy Marabito <d wrote: FYI I have been in touch with Elaine to make sure my own objections and photos were included for the upcoming meeting scheduled for this coming Monday @ 5:30. She wrote back and offered this link which shows the owner’s complete request along with out objections. I was shocked to see a tree guy opting to get rid of the oaks..at least that is how I read it! See below first page of tree report …
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Nathan Hobbs Ramirez, Elaine RE: REMINDER: June 13, 2022 PRESENTATION deadline & Virtual Registration deadline Monday, June 06, 2022 3:21:02 PM image001.png image002.png image003.png *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Yes, thank you for all of your help. From: Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 2:42 PM Subject: RE: REMINDER: June 13, 2022 PRESENTATION deadline & Virtual Registration deadline Ok Nathan so it sounds like you will be withdrawing your variance request, correct? Respectfully, Elaine Ramirez Planner Senior / Board of Adjustment Liaison City of Austin Development Services Department 6310 Wilhelmina Delco Dr, Austin, Texas 78752 Office: 512-974-2202 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: Nathan Hobbs [ Sent: Monday, June 06, 2022 10:28 AM To: Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: REMINDER: June 13, 2022 PRESENTATION deadline & Virtual Registration deadline *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Elaine, great news I meet with them on Friday and they informed me I will not need a variance. Sent from my Verizon, Samsung Galaxy smartphone Get Outlook for Android G-1/1-LATE BACKUP From: Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Sent: Monday, June 6, 2022 8:27:37 AM Cc: Ramirez, Diana <Diana.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Subject: REMINDER: June 13, 2022 PRESENTATION deadline & Virtual Registration deadline Good morning Applicants on the Mon. June 13th, 2022 BOA mtg. Agenda, Please read this entire e-mail and note all deadlines The deadline to submit the Presentation (must be submitted in PDF format or PowerPoint) is TODAY, Monday, June 6th, before 3p.m. You will need to submit a Presentation each month you go before the Board, even if you have gone the previous month(s) The deadline for Applicants participating virtually (must be by deadline, no late virtual applicant/additional speakers will be able to register) is TODAY, Monday, June 6th, before 3p.m. Presentation: If you would like the Board to follow along with you as you are giving your presentation (You will have 5 minutes to hone in on the main aspects of the case as you are presenting the case to the Board), you will need to have …
M E M O R A N D U M TO: THRU: Mayor and Council Members Spencer Cronk, City Manager Veronica Briseño, Assistant City Manager Joya Hayes, Human Resources and Civil Service Director April 28, 2022 Living Wage Work Group Process FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the living wage stakeholder review process and transmit to Council a summary of their work and recommendations. In 2014, the City Council passed Resolution 20141016-035 which directed the City Manager to provide staff support for a stakeholder process to develop recommendations regarding the City’s living wage rate and policy. During that process, stakeholders met seven times from January to May 2015, provided their recommendation to Council, and then briefed the Council. After the presentation to Council, the City Manager in conjunction with the annual budget process brought forward a plan to increase the Living Wage rate to $15.00 per hour by 2020. Similar to the 2015 process, the Human Resources Department provided staff support by convening meetings with the community organizations who participated in the previous Living Wage Stakeholder Group. Other organizations were invited upon the Groups' recommendation. The Group met four times: January 26, February 9 and 23, and March 9, 2022. Like the previous process, this memorandum provides the Group’s recommendation to Council. The Group will present their recommendation at a future Council work session. Attached to this memorandum are the summaries of the meeting topics, major data points reviewed, recommendations from the Group, and participating organizations. HRD and the Budget Office have preliminary provided an estimate of costs associated with a $22.00 per hour living wage rate for FY23. The costs to the City budget is estimated between $18.2M to $22.8M. These costs do not include any sworn employees. City staff will provide more information on the budget impact, costs if sworn employees were included, and potential living wage rates that work within a balanced budget. We will also review our current pay grade structure, specifically the number of pay grades that will be impacted, projected increases, and how this impacts our current employees. If you have any questions before the presentation by the Group occurs, please contact me. Attachments cc: CMO Executive Team Department Directors HR Manager’s Forum Living Wage Working Group Participants, Meeting Summaries, Data Reviewed, Recommendations Living Wage Stakeholder Group Participants These are the organizations that attended at least …
A Food Plan for Austin Overveiw of the Com prehensive Food Plan, Food Appendix, and Resilience Hubs What is a Food System ? The Office of Sustainability defines the food system a s a n interconnected network th a t in clu des everyth in g th a t h a ppen s w ith food —w h ere a n d h ow it is grow n , dis tribu ted a n d s old, con s u m ed, a n d idea lly recovered. Th e food s ys tem is s h a ped by its s ta k eh olders , pra ctices , a n d th e la w s th a t regu la te both . Post Consumption & Waste Diversion Processing & Distribution Production Food Justice Consumption & Access Markets & Retail Did you k now ? ● 14.7% food in security in Travis Coun ty an d 18 out of 47 zip codes in Travis Coun ty don ’t have a full service grocery store ● 16.8 acres of farm lan d are lost every day in Travis ● Less than 1% of food con sum ed in Austin -Travis Coun ty is locally produced ● 1.24 m illion poun ds of food is w asted every day in Coun ty Austin Developing Austin’s firs t ever Food Pla n Resolution In June 2021, Austin City Council directed the City M anager to initiate a planning process and m ultilingual engagem ent strategy for the creation of the Austin Travis County Food System Plan, w hich shall convene experts and stak eholders to craft a 5-year plan. The Office Of Sustainability is the departm ent in charge of overseeing the achievem ent of this goal. Source: Austin City Coun cil RESOLUTION NO. 20210610-039 Why do w e need a Food Plan? ● The im pact of the Covid-19 pandem ic & Winter Storm Uri exposed and exacerbated deficiencies in our food system . ● A Food Plan w ill set clear Goals and Str ategi es to m itiga te th e im pa ct of fu tu re cris es , correct th e s ys tem ’s in equ a lities , a n d m ove tow a rd a m ore equ ita ble, s u s ta in a ble & res ilien …
A Food Plan for Austin Overview of the Com prehensive Food Plan, Food Appendix, and Resilience Hubs What is a Food System ? The Office of Sustainability defines the food system a s a n interconnected network th a t in clu des everyth in g th a t h a ppen s w ith food —w h ere a n d h ow it is grow n , dis tribu ted a n d s old, con s u m ed, a n d idea lly recovered. Th e food s ys tem is s h a ped by its s ta k eh olders , pra ctices , a n d th e la w s th a t regu la te both . Post Consumption & Waste Diversion Processing & Distribution Production Food Justice Consumption & Access Markets & Retail Did you k now ? ● 14.7% food in security in Travis Coun ty an d 18 out of 47 zip codes in Travis Coun ty don ’t have a full service grocery store ● 16.8 acres of farm lan d are lost every day in Travis ● Less than 1% of food con sum ed in Austin -Travis Coun ty is locally produced ● 1.24 m illion poun ds of food is w asted every day in Coun ty Austin Developing Austin’s firs t ever Food Pla n Resolution In June 2021, Austin City Council directed the City M anager to initiate a planning process and m ultilingual engagem ent strategy for the creation of the Austin Travis County Food System Plan, w hich shall convene experts and stak eholders to craft a 5-year plan. The Office Of Sustainability is the departm ent in charge of overseeing the achievem ent of this goal. Source: Austin City Coun cil RESOLUTION NO. 20210610-039 Why do w e need a Food Plan? ● The im pact of the Covid-19 pandem ic & Winter Storm Uri exposed and exacerbated deficiencies in our food system . ● A Food Plan w ill set clear Goals and Str ategi es to m itiga te th e im pa ct of fu tu re cris es , correct th e s ys tem ’s in equ a lities , a n d m ove tow a rd a m ore equ ita ble, s u s ta in a ble & res ilien …
ANIMAL ADVISORY COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION 20220613-03E Seconded By: Commissioner Jo Anne Norton Recommended changes to Vicious Dog, 3-4-7, in the City Code Date: 6/13/22 Subject: Motioned By: Recommendation The Commission recommends that City Code 3-4-7, Vicious Dog, is amended to read as in the description below. Description of Recommendation to Council [Include the backup from the May meeting here] Rationale: Currently, once a dog has been determined “vicious,” it cannot be kept in the City. Such a dog may not be a threat as long as the owner is willing to take extra precautions to avoid the circumstances that caused the bad behavior in the first place. It is also possible for dogs to get training to improve their behavior. With no other option, these dogs could end up in a shelter, or worse. They become hard to place in a new home, and without that support, their behavior may deteriorate further in a shelter. We believe the proposed change would allow dogs to stay with their owners, with the potential for improved behavior, with very little risk to the public. Vote For: 12 Against: 0 Abstain: 0 Absent: 1 (vacant) Attest: [Staff or board member can sign] 1 of 2 Proposed revision to Section 3-4-7 2 of 2 Proposed revision to Section 3-4-7 3-4-7 VICIOUS DOG. (A) An owner or handler shall take reasonable measures to protect the public from accidental contact with a dog that, by nature or by training, is dangerous to people or other animals. (B) [ An owner or handler may not keep or permit a dog to be in the city if the dog has] For purposes of this section, a vicious dog is a dog that, while running at large, has: [(1) on at least three separate occasions bitten or scratched a person in the city; (2) on at least one occasion bitten or scratched a person to an extent that the attending physician has presented an affidavit to the health authority stating that the person’s life may have been endangered by the dog; or (3) on at least one occasion:] [(a)] (1) killed a another dog, cat, or other domestic pet, fowl, or livestock, provided, however, that when the incident occurred, the killed animal was not in violation of a provision of this title relating to the confinement or physical control of animals in the City; or [(b)] (2) seriously injured another animal …
M E M O R A N D U M TO: THRU: Mayor and Council Members Spencer Cronk, City Manager Veronica Briseño, Assistant City Manager Joya Hayes, Human Resources and Civil Service Director April 28, 2022 Living Wage Work Group Process FROM: DATE: SUBJECT: The purpose of this memorandum is to provide an overview of the living wage stakeholder review process and transmit to Council a summary of their work and recommendations. In 2014, the City Council passed Resolution 20141016-035 which directed the City Manager to provide staff support for a stakeholder process to develop recommendations regarding the City’s living wage rate and policy. During that process, stakeholders met seven times from January to May 2015, provided their recommendation to Council, and then briefed the Council. After the presentation to Council, the City Manager in conjunction with the annual budget process brought forward a plan to increase the Living Wage rate to $15.00 per hour by 2020. Similar to the 2015 process, the Human Resources Department provided staff support by convening meetings with the community organizations who participated in the previous Living Wage Stakeholder Group. Other organizations were invited upon the Groups' recommendation. The Group met four times: January 26, February 9 and 23, and March 9, 2022. Like the previous process, this memorandum provides the Group’s recommendation to Council. The Group will present their recommendation at a future Council work session. Attached to this memorandum are the summaries of the meeting topics, major data points reviewed, recommendations from the Group, and participating organizations. HRD and the Budget Office have preliminary provided an estimate of costs associated with a $22.00 per hour living wage rate for FY23. The costs to the City budget is estimated between $18.2M to $22.8M. These costs do not include any sworn employees. City staff will provide more information on the budget impact, costs if sworn employees were included, and potential living wage rates that work within a balanced budget. We will also review our current pay grade structure, specifically the number of pay grades that will be impacted, projected increases, and how this impacts our current employees. If you have any questions before the presentation by the Group occurs, please contact me. Attachments cc: CMO Executive Team Department Directors HR Manager’s Forum Living Wage Working Group Participants, Meeting Summaries, Data Reviewed, Recommendations Living Wage Stakeholder Group Participants These are the organizations that attended at least …
