CC MIN 1970 - Laserfiche WebLink

Browse Search

87 The Planning Director responded with respect to lack of notification that while he would have to check whether notice had been sent of the most recent meeting, the matter did go back to July 8, 1c.69, at which time it was determined application had been received prematurely, with the expectation assessment district would be formalized by October, making it possible to build on the lot. Hearing on the application was therefore postponed to October 14, and again to January 13, 1970, anticipating formation of the assessment district. It was apparent at that time, however, that complications in preparation of improvement plans would continue to delay the matter indefinitely, and the Planning Commission therefore, felt that rather than continue to postpone indefinitely, the "termination without prejudice" action would provide a smoother administrative procedure, since it would permit the applicant to return at any appropriate time, after assessment proceedings had progressed. Responding to Council question, it was established that if Council upheld the Planning Commission, applicant could reapply for the Variance at any time, and without further fees. It appeared that applicant's motive for appealing the Planning Commission action was simply to keep the matter active. Mr. Durkee indicated, fdlowing the discussion, that with the clarification of the action of the Commission, he understood there were no restrictions upon him and would, therefore, have no objections to the "termination without prejudice". Following further brief discussion, motion carried. (MINUTE ORDER #70-21) Is polio determination on proposed amendments to the Electrical Mayor Bury noted that Council had previously received material for study, and since it was apparent that a large number of people were present in the interest of this item, established ground rules to limit discussion to twenty minutes to each of the opposing groups, and requesting that one spokesman represent each group, or that a maximum of ten minutes be allotted per speaker. Councilman Keckley briefly commented as Chairman of the Ordinance Review Committee which had met with Chief Building Official to review recommendations, that the Committee had voted to recommend to City Council that they approve adoption of National Electrical Code as outlined in report by the Chief Building Official, and as also supported by Staff. Mr. Jack Cerverha, A. C. Electric Company, and President, National Electrical Contractor's Association, San Mateo County Chapter, distributed material to Council which he explained illustrated comparative results between a piece of Romex and a piece of wire encased in flex cable, after a substantial current was passed through each. Also depicted was a comparison between the two types of wiring methods with a nail driven through a stud. He stated that several years ago when each city had its own code, within the industry new codes were established which were acceptable to the entire County, saved money in many ways, and provided a uniformity throughout the County; under these codes the industry agreed that flex was a system they could live with, and was safe. He noted the County's Director of Building Construction and General Services, Mr. Henry Tarratt, recommended this type of cable but only under limited conditions. He felt the differences in costs for materials and installation labor were insignificant, and that flex cable offered a greater degree of safety, and that this was the more important factor.