From: To: Subject: Date: Fernando Buchetti Ramirez, Elaine case number C15-2022-0060----- 1609 Matthews Lane Wednesday, November 02, 2022 9:14:25 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Good evening Elaine, My name is Fernando Buchetti, I am in opposition to the case since it will change the neighborhood and increase property taxes and overall costs. Please reach out to me at 512-560-6626 My Address is 1504A Matthews Ln, Austin, Tx. 78745 Case number C15-2022-0060 I have lived at this address for more than 10 years and once again, I'm in opposition to this proposal, this will create unnecessary issues and problems and create hardship for the Neighbours around the area. As mentioned before this will increase the property value and overall costs including our housing cost. Thank you very much for your consideration. Fernando Buchetti 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. ITEM10/1-LATE BACKUP
From: To: Subject: Date: Irene Graveline Ramirez, Elaine 7309 Lazy Creek Drive (LBJ High School) Saturday, November 05, 2022 9:14:06 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** C16-2022-0011 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. Sent from my iPhone ITEM3/1-LATE BACKUP
From: To: Subject: Date: Attachments: Jaron Turkington Ramirez, Elaine Re: C16-2022-0005 / 7712 Elroy Rd Wednesday, November 09, 2022 10:59:41 AM image001.png *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** Correct. On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 10:51 AM Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> wrote: Ok so does this mean COTA is withdrawing their request for a Sign variance? 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: Jaron Turkington [mailto Sent: Wednesday, November 09, 2022 10:49 AM ITEM4/1-LATE BACKUP To: Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> Subject: Re: C16-2022-0005 / 7712 Elroy Rd *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I just got a response. They said they will not be moving forward with the variance. Elaine, Thank you, Jaron Turkington Hi Jaron, On Wed, Nov 9, 2022 at 9:42 AM Ramirez, Elaine <Elaine.Ramirez@austintexas.gov> wrote: I am checking in to make sure someone is going to show up to the BOA meeting on Monday, Nov. 14? I did not receive any updated information to include the application, no Presentation, etc. by the deadlines. The Board was not happy that no one showed up in October so I am checking in to see that someone will be there on Monday. I am more than sure if no one shows up they will deny the case. If you want to request a PostPonement you can do so, but someone will still need to be at the meeting in case the Board has questions or deny the request and want to hear the case that evening. Respectfully, Elaine Ramirez Planner Senior / Board of Adjustment Liaison City of Austin Development Services Department ITEM4/2-LATE BACKUP 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 …
From: To: Cc: Subject: Date: Blake Ramirez, Elaine C15-2022-0082; 2406 Sweetbrush Drive Monday, October 31, 2022 4:41:49 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** 1 November 2022 Elaine Ramirez, Liaison Board of Adjustment City of Austin Dear Board of Adjustment: The Board of Directors of West Austin Neighborhood Group (WANG) have been in discussions with the applicant’s representative in the above referenced variance request at 2406 Sweetbrush Drive. The establishment of a 10-foot rear setback along the through lot property’s Matthew Drive frontage is in keeping with the property directly to the south. Electronically the Board has voted to not oppose the requested variance from the City’s Land Development Code. With respect, Blake Tollett for Holly Reed, President, WANG 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. ITEM5/1-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Jeff Jobe Ramirez, Elaine 2406 Sweetbrush Friday, November 04, 2022 5:21:59 PM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** 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. Sent from my iPhone ITEM5/2-LATE BACKUP ITEM5/3-LATE BACKUP ITEM5/4-LATE BACKUP ITEM5/5-LATE BACKUP ITEM5/6-LATE BACKUP ITEM5/7-LATE BACKUP ITEM5/8-LATE BACKUP ITEM5/9-LATE BACKUP ITEM5/10-LATE BACKUP 2405SWEETBRUSH2401SWEETBRUSH2409SWEETBRUSH2402ROCKMOOR2500 MATTHEWS2216MATTHEWSLAKE AUSTINN2400MATTHEWSSUBJECTPROPERTY2405ROCKMOOR3711 WINDSOR2401ROCKMOOR2406SWEETBRUSH2408SWEETBRUSH2404SWEETBRUSH3625WINDSOR3705 WINDSOR2403ROCKMOOR2400SWEETBRUSH2208MATTHEWS3715 WINDSOR2403SWEETBRUSH2204ROCKMOOR2204ROCKMOORITEM5/11-LATE BACKUP
ITEM9/1-LATE BACKUP ITEM9/2-LATE BACKUP From: To: Subject: Date: Rio Tomlin Ramirez, Elaine C15-2022-0067 Monday, November 07, 2022 10:26:31 AM *** External Email - Exercise Caution *** I, Rio Tomlin, residing at 2615 Canterbury St, Austin, TX 78702, am IN FAVOR of 2614 Canterbury street having the two sheds on the property as currently indicated. If there are any further questions of my IN FAVOR position on this matter, I can be reached at 512-444-1114. Please confirm this email has been received and recorded as an IN FAVOR opinion. If any further documentation is needed please let me know. Rio Tomlin 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. ITEM9/3-LATE BACKUP
Item 4 - Letter to Austin CM and CFO concerning SD28 Dear City Manager Spencer Cronk and Chief Financial Officer Ed Van Eenoo: We recommend that the City of Austin include information about our many programs for Austin citizens and their companion animals, as well as all of Austin’s valuable and iconic wildlife, in the upcoming Strategic Development 28 Plan (SD28). The Animal Advisory Commission, as well as Austin Animal Center leadership and staff, were disappointed when no mention was made of Austin’s many programs for helping Austin’s animals in the last Strategic Development Plan. There is a tremendous amount of hard work done every day of the year for the animals of Austin by Shelter Staff, supported by the hard work of many Austin citizens who volunteer their time and donate their money to help make the lives of Austin’s companion and wild animals better. This extends out to our many Austin governmental organizations, such as APD, and all of our partner non-profits, all of whom contribute to our goal of the best No-Kill Shelter in the world. It is an unfortunate omission that such hard work on such an important City function is lacking from a Strategic Plan for our City. Animals are family to many Austin residents, and to others, Austin’s wildlife is simply a part of home. Let us be more inclusive in the upcoming Austin Strategic Plan! Thank you for your attention to this matter.
ATCFPB Priorities from Strategic Planning Fiscal Year 2022 - 2023 Recap from the October 10, 2022 meeting of the Austin-Travis County Food Policy Board Priorities where there is the most energy 1. Emergency Preparedness, Including Resilience Hubs Leadership: Lisa Barden Supporting Members: Errol Schweizer, Joi Chevalier What would it take? What success looks like Other Questions ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Incentivize activation of food [ vendors?] Develop vendor support pipeline Can city/county request assistance of the national guard or similar resources? Understanding of trusted community locations Example , live far from faith institution Grassroots support, flexibility Consider indoor/greenhouse protected fresh food production Can we empower neighborhood to be hubs? Can we hire CHW to lead hubs? CHW are trusted in communities Ambient storage Inventory maintenance City bags locally made Get manufacturer here ● ● ● ● ● ● ● food for power in Colorado Springs model hub Every city county emergency plan includes food Look for grant funding ( USDA, etc) Fresh food is available for free during times of disaster Positive news stories ... " My needs were met, my city cares and made a plan" Have a food distribution plan + vehicles + nodes ready to go! Emergency food utility ( ie: HTAH - Food Storage) How is info related to this being collected? How are different city/county departments working together? Is this a Declaration, Policy, Program (if $ needed, March), Administrative Action, Budget Request (March), or Budget Reallocation (March) Relevant COA and TC Dept: COA Homeland Security and Emergency Management TC Office of Emergency Management TC Health and Human Services COA RISE Offices (Resilience, Innovation, Sustainability, and Equity) Austin Public Health ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● 2. Improved Food Access for People in Need 7 members is a quorum; WG need 6 or fewer members Leadership: Kacey Hanson, Andrea Abel, Lisa Barden Supporting Members: Adrian Lipscombe, Frances Deviney, Cecilia Hogan, Joi Chevalier What would it take? What success looks like Other Questions ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● ● Grants to start food business Transportation to food access options Provide outlet, city-wide county wide that is a referral or need to direct food access. has info in all food access sources. Commit to communications in targeted communities Map + calendar of existing resources for food pantries Reevaluate food pantry permitting …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Electric Utility Commission Recommendation No. 20221114-11A Resolution on Austin Energy’s Base Rate Proposal RESOLVED, the Electric Utility Commission urges the Austin City Council to: 1. Apply the rate making policies of gradualism and avoidance of rate shock for each customer class. Gradualism should be applied equally to classes that would receive a revenue (rate) reduction and to classes that would receive a revenue (rate) increase, under the adopted class revenue distribution approach. 2. Maintain the present residential rate structure of inverted block rates that encourage conservation. While reducing the number of tiers from five to four may be considered, as suggested by the Independent Consumer Advocate, any increase in the basic customer service fee should be limited to no more than 20%. A $2 dollar increase in the monthly fee would on its own with no other changes generate approximately $11.4 million in additional revenues for the utility. 3. Apply its understanding of known and measurable changes and weather normalization to the 2021 test year; 4. Line Loss Study: Require Austin Energy to conduct a new System Loss Study (Line Loss Study) to derive both peak demand and energy loss factors by service level (transmission, substation, primary, and secondary) prior to the next base rate case. The peak demand loss factors shall be used to develop the demand allocation factors in the next rate case. The energy loss factors shall be used to develop the energy allocation factors in the next rate case and the voltage adjustment factors in the Power Supply Adjustment. 5. Primary Substation Rate: Require Austin Energy to develop a Primary Substation rate consistent with the analysis in the IHE report and propose it as part of its rate filing package in its next base rate review, at which point it will be subject to review. 6. Transmission Service: Require Austin Energy to provide a pathway for Primary >20 MW HLF customers to purchase the facilities necessary to upgrade to transmission service. Austin Energy shall provide this pathway no later than 1 year after the Council action approving the rates set in this base rate review. 7. Value of Solar Tariffs. Adopt the Austin Energy proposal in the Base Rate Filing Package, with the exception that the Value of Solar Societal Benefits should be collected through the PSA. Cost recovery for the Societal Benefits will be subject to review in Austin Energy’s next base rate …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Electric Utility Commission Recommendation No. 20221114-11B Resolution on Austin Energy’s Base Rate Proposal RESOLVED, the Electric Utility Commission urges the Austin City Council to: 1. Reject the Austin Energy proposed base rate revenue increase of $35.7 million and the IHE recommendation of $31.3 million increase to Austin Energy’s base rates; 2. Adopt a Revenue Requirement of at least $6.5 million as recommended by the ICA but no more than $15 million, roughly half of the IHE’s proposal; 3. Adopt a Revenue Distribution that would not increase the rates on any customer class more than 7.5%, such as the attached table (WorkPaper H-3.1.1) produced by Austin Energy for the EUC $15 million scenario which limits the rate increase to 7.5% on any customer class. The table is illustrative of a possible cost allocation by rate class with a revenue increase of $15 million limited to a maximum of 7.5 percent, but is not meant to be a specific recommendation from the EUC on cost allocation. 4. Consider adopting the Independent Consumer Advocates proposed residential rate design with the following scope: a. Increase In-City Residential Monthly Customer Charges by no more than 20% or $2, b. Change the current 5 tier structure to 4 tiers as follows: Tier 1 (0 – 500); Tier 2 (501 – 1300); Tier 3 (1301 – 2500); Tier 4 (Over 2500). c. Adopt tier rates similar to that proposed by the ICA, or such as (Tier 1 – 4) those attached in the scenario “WorkPaper H-3.1.1”: 0.03061 per Kwh 0.06200 per Kwh 0.09176 per Kwh 0.11317 per Kwh d. The rates above can be scaled up or scaled down proportionally to achieve the residential target revenue requirement target adjusted for any higher customer charge. Vice Chair Dave Tuttle; Commissioner Randy Chapman; Commissioner Karen Hadden; Commissioner Makenna Jonker; Commissioner Cyrus Reed; Commissioner Kay Trostle Chair Marty Hopkins; Commissioner Marshall Bowen; Commissioner Cary Ferchill Vote: For: 6-3 Against: Abstentions: None Off Dais: None Absences: None Vacancies: District 2, District 3 Attest: Robin Otto, Staff Liaison Austin Energy 2022 Rate Review Class Base Revenue Changes Page 1 EUC Scenario Proposal, $15 Million increase, 7.5% maximum, $12 Customer Charge, 4 steep tiers Austin Energy Filing Proposed Rebuttal Description At Current Rates Change % Change Change % Change Residential Secondary Voltage < 10 kW Secondary Voltage ≥ 10 < 300 kW Secondary Voltage ≥ 300 kW Primary Voltage < 3 …
BOARD/COMMISSION RECOMMENDATION Electric Utility Commission Recommendation No. 20221114-12 Resolution on a Required Update to the Resource Plan WHEREAS, the Electric Utility Commission has been given the important task of reviewing and advising the City Council on progress on the Austin Energy Resource, Generation and Climate Protection Plan to 2030; and WHEREAS, the Resource plan approved by City Council in 2020 includes a specific direction that the plan be updated in five years, unless conditions change warranting a need for a new update, stating “Austin Energy will conduct an update of this 2030 Plan in advance of its cost-of-service study in approximately five years from adoption of the 2030 Plan, or sooner if significant changes in technology or market conditions warrant. At the end of 2022 the EUC will decide whether there have been sufficient changes in circumstances that an interim update would be beneficial.”; and WHEREAS, the plan laid out a vision for ending Austin Energy’s use of power from the burning of coal by stating “Austin Energy will maintain its current target to cease operation of Austin Energy’s portion of the Fayette Power Project (FPP) coal plant by year-end 2022. Austin Energy will continue to recommend to the City Council the establishment of any cash reserves necessary to provide for that schedule.”; and WHEREAS, Austin Energy has not been able to meet this deadline of ceasing operation of Austin Energy’s portion of the Fayette Power Plant (FPP); WHEREAS, the 2020 Resource Plan required Austin Energy to conduct a transmission study to look at how to boost the use of storage and renewables both within our load zone and from imported clean energy from outside our load zone and that transmission study is expected to be completed and reviewed by staff by June 2023; and WHEREAS, since the plan was adopted by city council in 2020, other major changes have occurred, including impacts to the electric grid caused by Winter Storm Uri, and major changes implemented by both the Legislature and the Public Utility Commission of Texas which have and could further change our energy-only market and required ancillary services; and WHEREAS, the Public Utility Commission is expected to take further action in early 2023 that could fundamentally change our energy and ancillary services market; and WHEREAS, the cost of natural gas increased by roughly 288 percent between August of 2020 and August of 2022, creating both major expenses for …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet Item 10 DATE: Monday November 14, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C15-2022-0060 ___Y____Thomas Ates ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___Y____Melissa Hawthorne ___N____Barbara Mcarthur ___N____Darryl Pruett ___-____Agustina Rodriguez OUT ___-____Richard Smith OUT ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___-____Nicholl Wade OUT ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) ___Y____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Victoria Haase OWNER: CMCBH2 Company; LLC ADDRESS: 1609 MATTHEWS LN VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code: Article 10, Compatibility Standards, Division 2 –Development Standards, Section 25-2- 1063 (Height Limitations and Setbacks for Large Sites) a) (B) (1) from setback requirements to decrease the setback from 25 feet (minimum allowed) to 7 feet (requested) on eastern property line and 13 feet (requested) on southern property line (C) (1) (a) from height limitations to increase the height limit from two (2) stories b) and 30 feet (maximum allowed) to three (3) stories and 31 feet (requested) in order to erect a three (3) story Multi-Family/Townhouse style building in a “MF-2-CO”, Multi-Family Residence Low Density-Conditional Overlay zoning district. Note: Section 25-2-1063 Height Limitations and Setbacks for Large Sites (B) in this section, the term "structure" excludes a rain garden using no concrete that is designed in accordance with the Environmental Criteria Manual. A person may not construct a structure 25 feet or less from property. (1) in an urban family residence (SF-5) or more restrictive zoning district; (C) The height limitations for a structure are: (1) two stories and 30 feet, if the structure is 50 feet or less from property: (a) in an SF-5 or more restrictive zoning district; BOARD’S DECISION: July 11, 2022 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Barbara Mcarthur motions to postpone to August 8, 2022; Board member Nicholl Wade seconds on a 11-0 vote; POSTPONED TO AUGUST 8, 2022; Aug 8, 2022 POSTPONED TO SEPTEMBER 12, 2022 BY APPLICANT; Sept 12, 2022 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Michael Von Ohlen motions to Approve with condition that it’s tied to site plan Item 8/3 as shown in the advance packet; Board member Melissa Hawthorne second on 8-3 vote (Board members Barbara Mcarthur, Darryl Pruett, Richard Smith nay); Motion fails; DENIED. RECONSIDERATION REQUEST: The applicant is requesting a variance(s) from the Land Development Code: Article 10, Compatibility Standards, Division 2 –Development Standards, Section 25-2-1063 (Height Limitations and Setbacks …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet ITEM 3 DATE: November 14, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C16-2022-0011 ___-____Thomas Ates NO VOTE ___Y____Brooke Bailey ___Y____Jessica Cohen ___-____Melissa Hawthorne ABSTAINED ___Y____Barbara Mcarthur ___-____Darryl Pruett ABSTAINED ___-____Agustina Rodriguez OUT ___-____Richard Smith OUT ___Y____Michael Von Ohlen ___-____Nicholl Wade OUT ___Y____Kelly Blume (Alternate) ___Y____Carrie Waller (Alternate) ___Y____Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Ezzi Signs OWNER: Michael Mann ADDRESS: 7309 LAZY CREEK DR VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10 Sign Regulations, Article 5 Regulations applicable to all Sign Districts, Section 25-10-101 (General On-Premise Signs), requesting a total of 1 sign(s) on the property (B)(1)(b) to exceed sign area of 12 square feet (maximum allowed) to 80 square feet a) (requested) and b) (B) (1)(c)(ii) to exceed sign height of building façade, 30 feet (maximum allowed) to 36 feet (requested) in order to attach a wall sign on a two-story school building in a “SF-3”, Single- Family zoning district. Note: The Land Development Code Sign Regulations 25-10-101 General On-Premise signs (B) Signs for Commercial, Multi-Family, Civic and Industrial Uses. Unless specifically limited to a particular use, the following signs are allowed on a site containing any lawfully permitted commercial, multi-family, civic, or industrial use; (1) A freestanding or wall sign, such as those typically used to direct the movement or placement of vehicular or pedestrian traffic, provided that: (a) no more than one sign is allowed for each building or curb cut; (b) sign area may not exceed 12 square feet; and (c) sign height may not exceed: (i) four feet, for a freestanding sign; or (ii) the height of the building façade, for a wall sign. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Brooke Bailey motions to approve with a friendly amendment this will not be a lit sign; Board member Michael Von Ohlen second on 7-0 vote (Board members Thomas Ates no vote, Melissa Hawthorne and Darryl Pruett abstained); GRANTED WITH A FRIENDLY AMENDMENT THIS WILL NOT BE A LIT SIGN. FINDING: OR, OR, AND, 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: due to the location of the building being on a low density residential area, an indicator is needed …
CITY OF AUSTIN Board of Adjustment Decision Sheet Item 4 DATE: November 14, 2022 CASE NUMBER: C16-2022-0005 _______Thomas Ates _______Brooke Bailey _______Jessica Cohen _______Melissa Hawthorne _______Barbara Mcarthur _______Darryl Pruett _______Agustina Rodriguez _______Richard Smith _______Michael Von Ohlen _______Nicholl Wade _______Kelly Blume (Alternate) _______Carrie Waller (Alternate) _______Marcel Gutierrez-Garza (Alternate) APPLICANT: Jaden Rodriguez OWNER: Leo Garcia ADDRESS: 7712 ELROY RD VARIANCE REQUESTED: The applicant is requesting a sign variance(s) from the Land Development Code, Section 25-10-130 (Commercial Sign District Regulations) (G) (1) from sign height of 30 feet above frontage street pavement grade (maximum allowed) to 40 feet (requested) above frontage street pavement grade in order to provide signage for The Circuit of the Americas in a “PUD”, Planned Unit Development zoning district. Note: The Land Development Code sign regulations 25-10-130 Commercial Sign District Regulations. (A) This section applies to a commercial sign district. (B) One Freestanding sign is permitted on a lot. Additional freestanding signs may be permitted under Section 25-10-131 (Additional Freestanding Signs Permitted). (G) The sign height may not exceed the greater of: (1) 30 feet above frontage street pavement grade; or (2) 6 feet above grade at the base of the sign. BOARD’S DECISION: The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Board member Melissa Hawthorne motions to postpone to October 10, 2022; Board member Michael Von Ohlen second on 11-0 vote; POSTPONED TO OCTOBER 10, 2022. Oct 10, 2022 The public hearing was closed by Madam Chair Jessica Cohen, Madam Chair Jessica Cohen motions to postpone to November 14, 2022; Board member Melissa Hawthorne second on 9-0 vote; POSTPONED TO NOVEMBER 14, 2022. WITHDRAWY BY APPLICANT FINDING: OR, OR, AND, 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: 2. The granting of this variance will not have a substantially adverse impact upon neighboring properties, because: 3. The granting of this variance will not substantially conflict with the stated purposes of this sign ordinance, because: 4. Granting a variance would not provide the applicant with a special privilege not enjoyed by others similarly situated or potentially similarly situated, because: ______________________________ Elaine Ramirez Executive Liaison ____________________________ Jessica Cohen Madam Chair
