Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout10-02-1985 City Council Minutes SAP, ATOC~ CITY COI~NCIL TIME: Wednesday, October 2, 1985 - ~00 p.m. P~CE: Civic ~ea~er, 13~7~ Fruitvale Avenue ~E: Regular Meeting I. ~ON A. RO~ ~ - Comcilmembers Callon, Hlava and ~yor Cleve~er present at 7:01 p.m.; ~mcilm~rs Fanelli and ~yles abs~t. B. ~ - 9~18 ~N/~VA ~ ~0V~ 0F MI~ ~ ~'rl'~. Pass~ 3-0. II. ~ ~~ - None. III. ~ A. ~soluti~ ~ti~ ~le ~1 of ~ ~j~t ~rd 9~18 ~~ 2276 B. Inves~t ~ - A~t C. ~sol~i~ A~rizi~ ~st~ti~ of ~min O~le~ City ~~ 2277 D. R~sol~i~ ~ Fa~m~le Si~t~ for City ~~ 2278 ~ 2279 E. ~ti~ of ~leti~ - ~'-,,,,,mity ~bra~ Parki~ ~t F. ~tice of C~,,[,leti~ - P~la ~y S~ ~ain- G. Final Map Approval, ~. 7499, ~s Gatos Joint ~ion High School District/~rl~ ~ri~, ~ A~ (5 1~) H. Fill Buildi~ Si~ ~1, ~ 1553, E. ~oti~, ~ Pla~ (11~) I. Fill Build~ Site ~p~l, ~ 1594, W. ~itfield, ~i~le A~ (1 lot) J. ~l~se of ~, ~ 1~2 - D. ~ffer, ~x A~ Councilmember Hlava requested removal of Item J and suggested that in the f~ture this t~e of matter be h~dl~ at the staff level if it in~lved release of ~nd due s~ly to a.change in ~ership. ~ere was c~sensus to do so. BVA/~N ~ ~0V~ 0F I~ J. Pass~ 3-0. K. ~er's ~ - Jme L. ~pr~l of Tele~ ~ul~t ~t - ~t M. ~t ~ L~it ~tmi~ ~ ~s ~ A-986, T. ~ C. ~bi~, Park A~ N. ~pm~l of ~t List BVA/C~G~ ~ ~0V~ 0F ~ I~ ~ I~ J. Passed 3-0. 1. Job ~scripti~ - Pl~i~ Dir~r ~N/BVA ~ ~ ~PR0~ JOB DES~I~ION ~ S~Y ~GE. Passed ~-0. 2-10/2/85 2.Discussion of Positions to be ta!~n by Saratoga De{e~a~e .on Legislation at Annual l~a~ue of Caiiforn{a C~ties C~nfere~Ce ' CALLON/HLAVA MOVED AS VOTES WERE IN CONFORMANCE WITH SARATOG~ POLICIES. 'Passed 3-0. . ~-..'-- - 3. Report on Property at Northwesterly Comer of' SaVathga -' 'AVenue and Lawrer~:e Expressway ~ ' ' HLAVA/CALLON MOVED ~D pROCEEn WITH O~TION 4 ESTABLISHING A USE Pt~IIT PROCt~)URE IN RESIDENTIAL ZONES FOR PARKING ADJACENT TO COMMERCIAL ZONES WHEN USED TO PROVIDE PARKING FOR THAT COI~.~fi~RCIAL USE. PasSed 3-0. B. ~ FP~I~ CEi~SSIONS AND CCi~!I'ri~}-~ 1. Pl-~,~,iig C~-,,,,ission AcEions of 9/25/85 - Noted. 2. Copy of Letter from L{brary Commission Chairperson to Supervisor l~ll~ Concerning Library Task Force Staff directed to write McKenna (after checking with Marilyn Kanemura). to suggest Ms. Kanemura be appointed to the proposed task force. 3. Library Commission Recommendations on Feasibility Study for'an Indepe~tent Library Consensusto proceed with formation of c~nnittee t.o undertake study. 4. Oral l~.~orts fr~n Ca,,,,i~sioners - None. 1. Oak Street Area Trafficl Review and Reo'-,.,*~lations Councilmember Hlava noted the good report written by Erman Dorsey. Nikki Tveder, 14760 Oak St., asked if the problem 6f traffic coming down Bohlman to Oak had been addressed, and Community Development IDirector replied that it had ;been, but no stop signs had been recommended at Boh{man or Oak at 6th. He noted that further improvements could be accomplished under the 1986-87 budget if that were considered necessary. An unidentified member o'f the audience stated that speed down Bohlman was the problem. Mayor Clevenger redommended that the concerned citizens return to the Council in six months if they felt the problems had not been taken care of. Councilmember Hlava requested thatithe possibility of a crosswalk across Cox at Seagull be investigated. I -CAILON/HLAVA MOVED lID APPROVE STAFF RECOMMENDATION TO ADOPT RESOLUTION MV-160 ADDING THE PROPOSED STOP SI(;NS. Passed 3-0. D. BIDS ~ (l~rll~IrrS 1. Award of Contract - ~t_cess Improv~r~nta to Gove,'~,,*~nt Buildings HLAVA/CLEVENGER MO~%D TO AWARD THE ~CONTRACT TO CHRISTENSEN CONSTRUCTION IN THE AFDUNT OF $96;325.00, Passed 3-0. There was consensus to approve $1,000] for Senior Center entrance railing. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO ADOPT RESOLUTION 2241.6 MAKING APPROPRIATIONS FOR PROJECT. Passed 3-0. Since the hour of 8:00 p.m. had not arrived, Mayor Clevenger proceeded to items following public hearings on the agen~a. A. Discassion of Oral O~,.-mications, if any -None. B. Written C~m~micatieas fr~ the Public - None. C. New Busine-ss from Staff, Admxnxstratxve Reports not SCheduled 3-10/2/85 City Manager suhnitted report on deferred pavement maintenance for certain streets. D. New Business fr(n Council~mhers Hlava - reported that the Saratoga Sheriff's substation .-personnel would not fingerprint residents and asked that staff determine wby., Hlava - reported on Paratransit Coordinating Council. Cailon - reported on hearing to be held by Planning Commission for public input on use of Paul Masson property. E. Action Referral Log - No conmerits. Since the Council had completed all business except public hearings, Mayor Clevenger returned to that item on the agenda, taking up those for-which little input was expected first. V. PUBLIC HFARINGS A. Amendment of ~ev~ral Plan Designation of Property at 20661 Fifth St. and portion of property at 14644 Oak St. from Residential-Nulti-Family to Retail O-,..~rcial (Applicant, D. Mvrrison) (CPA 85-1) (continued frcm 7/3) Community Development Director explained that the Planning Commission was not yet ready to make recoumendations on the Village; he reccmnended continuing the itch. The public hearing was opened at 7:35 p.m. No one appearing to speak, it was continued for 90 days. B. Ordinances granting Historical Resource designations to the Saratoga Historical Nuseum, Saratoga Village Library at 14410 Oak St., and NcWilli~ra-~ House (Office of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce) (first reading) The public hearing was opened at 7:40 p.m. No one appearing to speak, it was closed at 7:41 p.m. HLAVA/CALLON MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE GRANTING HISTORICAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION TO THE SARATOGA HISTORICAL FIJSEUM BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 3-0. HLAVA/CLEVENGER MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE GRANTING HISTORICAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION TO THE SARATOGA VILLAGE LIBRARY BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 3-0. HLAVA/CALLON MOVED TO INTRODUCE THE ORDINANCE GRANTING HISTORICAL RESOURCE DESIGNATION TO THE MCWILLIAMS HOUSE BY TITLE ONLY. Passed 3-0. C. Amendment to the Zoning Ordinance to include regulations for satellite dish ont~n~s (first reading) In response to Councilmember Hlava, City Attorney stated that the ordinance exempted the cable television franchisee from regulation. He further explained that at the time the ordinance was drafted the franchise, as well as the antenna, had ~bccn owned by Saratoga Cable Television; the franchise, but apparently not the antenna, had since passed to Hearst Cablevision. Councilmember Hlava wished to provide for a hardship exemption in the ordinance. Councilmember Callon expressed concern 'abeut owners of existing installations being required to go through City processes and perhaps to move their antennas. She felt the prohibition against placing antennas in the setbacks might be unjustified if the antenna were lower than the fence. City Attorney stated the accessory structure ordinance could be changed to include these antennas. He explained other liberalizations which could be made, such as extending the time period for relocation, grandfathering in certain installations, or lengthening the amortization period. The public hearing was opened at 7:52 p.m. Charles Gors rose to speak as a seller and installer of satellite dish antennas. He informed the Council abeut the necessary size of antennas and type of installation for various levels of reception, saying that the proposed ordinance would eliminate the most effective types of antennas for this area. Don Jones, 18850 Ten Acres Rd., spoke as a resident of Saratoga, saying the ordinance should be liberalized with respect to existing installations. ,. 4-10/2/85 John Crosley, 20152Pierce Rdl, felt!the'propos~dordinance'Wa~ t00~'~rict ~nd asserted that he would file a claim w~th the City if his ~esent antenna were made 'unusable because of the ord~nance. J He also stated that federal regulations rather than local ordinances controlled-satellite dish antennas. I Scott McLaughlin, Ten Acres Rd., opposed the Ordinance, saying it would cost; over $700 to move his anterma. Anne Cathcart, Pierce Rd., also stated~that it would be costly to move her antenna, and it would receive fewer signals. She added that it was not ugly. Councilmember Callon requested that staff consider'her previous comments on possible changes in the ordinance, perhaps consulting industry representatives, while keeping in mind the need to protect the aesthetics of the neighborhoods. Councilmember Hlava suggested that the staff check records to see if there have been compl.~ints about the satellite dish antennas. There was consensus to continue the public hearing to November 20. D. Public Hearing to continue receiving comment from the community on alternatives for the construction of the Route 85 Freeway through the! City of Saratoga ~nd the impacts thereon which began at the City Council Study Session held on Sapt~ber 10,' 1985. Letters received: Grace Germany (and 13 identical form letters dated 9~25); Frank and Susan Linn (undated); Naomi Moffman (dated Christina G~llrich dated 9~20; Maurice Martin dated 9/6; Brett and Millie Cross dated 9~23; Gay stud Roy Crawford dated 10~2; Shelley William~ dated Sept. 27; ttD. and J~Lnn Powell dated ~Sept. 30; James K~ dated Sept:. 30; Phillip Boyce dated Sept. 30; Robert Dwyer dated Sept. 26; Mr. and Mrs. Ke~ Galso~ ~ted Oct. 2; Francine Beach dated Saptemher 27; F~nice ~ K. E. Peterson (undated); Jack!and Judy Vance dated Oct. 2; Mike Bullock dated Sept. 28. Mayor Clevenger reviewed the procedures to be gone through, noting that any questions raised by the public on the'Draft Environmental Impact Statement must legally be answered by CalTran~. Ron Lemmon of Caltrans confirmed that such was the case. Mayor Clevenger then suggested that the issue be limited to two hours. Councilmember Hlava suggested that the; Council write Assemblyman Konnyu asking the following questions, to be forwarded to the Legislative Counsel: 1. Could the Legislature amend the Tra:ffic Authority enabling legislation to delete the provision giving Saratoga design re~iew? 2. Does each city through which Hwy. ]85 passes have to give its approval in order for it to be built within that city? 3. What agency has the final authority on the design and width of Hwy. 85, the State of California, the Hwy. 85 Policy]Advisory Board or the Traffic Authority? 4. Does the Traffic Authority have the power to overrulethe PAB decision in the event that there is less money availabl~ or protests by individual cities? 5. If the City of Saratoga did not algree with the design adopted by the PAB or Traffic Authority, could it prevent Hwy~. 85 from being completed in Saratoga? Councilmember Hlava moved to send the letter, but there was no second. Other Councilmembers suggested other representatives to whom the letter .could be sent. The public hearing was opened at 8:25 p.m. Col. E. T. Barco, 19101 Camino Bar~ stated that the Council needed more informationbefore making its decision, cluding facts on such matters as the depth of the water table and the effect of not allowing the freeway through the northern borders of the City. H,~ expressed concern that the recent Community Newsletter had not noted that there was a no-build alternative for the corridor. He stated that studies showed that 63% to 70% of Saratoga voters opposed anything in the corridor other than houses. He d ballot on Fecommended an a visory the matter at the next election. 5-10/2/85 Mayor Clevenger stated that the DEIS did consider borlngs which were made .without hitting water. Don Eagleston ~poke as President of the Saratoga Chamber of Commerce. He favored an 8-lane freeway with 3 interchanges, saying that traffic congestion is impeding the development of commerce. Dr. Terry S. Zaccone, 13046 Anza Dr., stated that the DEIR said the noise level would increase 30 db with a freeway. He used a tape recorder to demonstrate the a 30-dbdifference in noise levels. Jeffrey Schwartz, 19281 San Marcos Rd., opposed the corridor although he did not live adjacent to it. He asserted that the freeway had been stopped in the past because Saratoga had taken a stance against it. He expressed concern that there was some doubt whether Saratoga could refuse to allow the freeway to be built. He felt that most Saratogans opposed it and urged the Council to do the same. Mayor Clevenger countered that the freeway had not been built previously because the funds were never available previously. She stated that the issue had not been put to a test in Saratoga. Carol Machol, Ronnie Way, opposed the freeway although she did not live adjacent to it. Using League of California Cities statistics and the TJKM consulant report, she explained how traffic on streets with interchanges would apparently be greatly increased. When the Paul Masson property is developed, she said, traffic would be increased and service levels reduced even more. She felt that the benefits of depressing the freeway would be greater than stated in the DEIS. Finally, she feared many deleterious impacts from the freeway. In response to Mayor Clevenger, Mr. Lemmon of CalTrans stated that CalTrans had the right to make the final decision on the freeway through Saratoga, but as a matter of policy they were relying on the Policy Advisory Board to reach a decision. He added that CalTrans could not approve any construction which was not up to current design standards but said those standards did not involve issues such as whether the freeway=was depressed. He also stated that he did not know whether the Policy Advisory Board or the Traffic Authority was the higher authority. He further stated that Saratoga had not opposed the freeway in the past, as evidenced by its signing an agreement on the corridor with CalTrans. Katharine Toevs, 13120 Via Madronas, spoke representing the League of Women Voters. She said the corridor should be used for a combination of roadway and light rail; the cities involved should immediately cooperate; the League supports measures to discourage single-occupancy modes of transportation. Joan Hershkowitz spoke representing '~rotect Our Env~rohment." She said that group opposed any transportation use of the corridor because of expected decrease in the quality of life. If a freeway must be built, she said, she would want it limited to a 4-lane, fully depressed roadway with no interchanges in Saratoga. Sonja Schurr spoke representing the Cupertino Unified School District. She requested that CalTrans provide a pedestrian crossway/bikeway. over the freeway so that children could get from the Hansen School area to the Blue Hills area and from Blue Hills to Miller and Lynbrook. She also noted the difficulty of reaching Scully Park across the freeway. Councilmember Hlava expressed her dismay that the DEIS states that that pathway is strictly a bikeway and her fear that Azule Park could become a park-and-ride lot. Margaret Russell, Saratoga Glen Court, stated that the railroad should be depressed at Saratoga Avenue. She then inquired as to the relocation of the tracks and transformer towers. Mr. Lemmon of CalTrans said that CalTrans owns the right-of-way on which the tracks and the towers would be relocated south of the present crossing toward Bonnet Way. Mayor Clevenger then inquired as to whether there was some area in Saratoga where the profile was not depressed in the profile shown as depressed as requested by Saratoga, and Mr. Lemmon said there was not. He then explained the meaning of "encasing or capping" utilities as mentioned in the DEIS. Kathy McColdrick, 12860 Paseo Presada, stated that she had'presided at a'meeting to discuss the freeway and Paul Masson, and most of those present opposed the freeway. 6-10/2/85 If construction cannot be stopped, sh~ saia, rit s~0Uldbe d~press~ 20-35'~t withn6. · raised streets or oyezpasses, and no ihterchanges. Paul Wesling, 12250Saraglen Dr., added four questions on'the DEIS: What are the noise profiles in the neighborhoods;: can a ceiling be put on the noise level; can trucks be prohibited on certain roads (including those carrying hazardous materials); can the Prospect interchange be deleted. Councilmember Hlava then asked if, in the case of interchanges[partially in two different cities, one city could bulls part of an interchange. Mr. Lemmon said it could. ; . Vic Monia, Granite Way, stated that ~he issue is whether Saratoga should take a leadership role. He acid that the Council had taken a position against the freeway many years ago, but he did not kno~ the Council's position now. He felt that Saratoga could force CalTrans to terminate the freeway at its borders, as Pasadena had. He believed that a freeway would not improve Saratoga's quality of life. Tom Zimmerman said that Saratoga was!in charge and should take a stand against the freeway; he believed 'the residents did not want a freeway. Bob West, 19920 Buckhaven, stated thatlthe freeway was on the map before many houses in Saratoga were built, so residents had adequate notice of the freeway. He favored good long-tenm planning. George Godlewski spoke as a representative of the Santa Clara Bicycle Association. He asked that CalTrans consider making provisions for bicycles to use the shoulder on the freeway. Cheriel Jensen, Quito Rd., said that other freeways had been stopped which had been on the map, and the Route 85 freeway could also be stopped. She questioned the traffic counts and assumptions which had been made in the DEIS. She feared the freeway would not 8. ive Saratogans access to places they normally go, and she believed pollution would be worse than the DEIS projected. Charles Early, 20098 Chateau Dr., Spoke in favor of the freeway, saying that Saratoga, as well as other cities, needs to contribute to the solution for traffic congestion by allowing the freeway eo run through it. He believed light rail or buses would not solve long-termtransportation problems. John Bruning, 19315 Titus Ct., stated that he opposed the freeway and urged the Council to take a st~md against it. Roy McCloskey, Cambridge Drive, opposed the freeway and stated that property owners along the corridor should be compensated for the freeway's impacts. Joan Rause, 12336 Arroyo de Arguello!, spoke in favor of the freeway, feeling that Saratoga could not stand alone andlis61ated. She stated that those who opposed the freeway were present,. while those wh6 favored it or did not care remained awayand were unheard. She felt the argument~ concerning poor traffic flow because of the freeway were not convincing. She noted that those who had purchased property adjacent to the freeway had done so knowingly and at a discount. Tom Reddick, Larchmont Dr., did not o~ject to a freeway as long as it was depressed, it had adequate sound walls, and there was only one interchange, preferably at Rainbow. Kim Russell, 18591 ~rgrave Way, felt that the freeway would not serve Saratogans, but others, such 'as those traveling t~ Sunnyvale. Roy Cook, Canyon Ct., opposed the freeway but felt if it were built it shoul~ be depressed. He feared it would lower property values and the quality of life, serving mainly south county developers. In addition, he felt it would divide the City into-a desirable and a less-desirable area. Gene Lindstrom, Braemar Dr., suggested that the freeway have a park built on top of it, as had been done in Seattle. Fritz Wittman, 20304 Glenbrae, stated~ that he needed the freeway for commuting and 7-10/2/85 --' that his car would pollute less with the freeway. He felt owners of property newar the freeway bought it at a discount and could not thus complain of lowered property values because of the freeway. Bill Phillips, Bonnett Way, representing homeowners in his area, said he did not want the freeway, but if it were to be built the work should not start until all the land was acquired; it should be four lanes; interchanges should be minimized; a wall should be built before roadway construction starts; it should be depressed. He wished the PG&E towers to be undergrounded and did not wish the railroad tracks relocated nearer his property. The hearing was continued at 10:14 p.m. to November 7. Councilmembers agreed to send Councilmember Hlava's draft letter to Mr. Konnyu and others. They suggested the following items be formulated as questions for CalTrans. Gallon: traffic counts on Saratoga-Sunnyvale Rd.; effects of none, one Or more interchanges in Saratoga; traffic projections if Saratoga took a stand against the freeway within its borders, and the freeway were built up to, but not through, the City; noise profiles in neighborhoods. Hlava: mitigation measures to bring noise to acceptable levels. Mayor Clevenger asked the TJKM consultant about building a freeway where air pollution standards have not been attained; consultant replied that there was no prohibition against it. She then asked about pollution attendant upon park-and-ride facilities, and the consultant said he.was not in a position to provide the information. Councilmember Callon suggested that be added as a question to CallTans. Mayor Clevenger then asked about using earth from the median to create a barrier; Mr. Lemmon stated that about 47-50 feet of land would have to be kept free if that were desired, and the median would have to be at least 22' wide. Councilmember Hlava then asked that the growth-inducing effects of the corridor be considered further in the DEIS. Councilmember Callon asked the TJKM consultant about traffic counts, and he stated that he could prepare some figures on areas near where the interchanges were proposed. Councilmember Callon wished to have them for Saratoga-Sunnyvale Road and for Saratoga-Los Gatos Rd. She feared that not building the freeway through Saratoga might worsen traffic if the freeway were built to Saratoga's borders. City Manager believed that CallTans should be able to project those figures. Councilmember Hlava noted that interchanges may not alleviate traffic in some areas that are now congested. Mayor Clevenger asked whether there was a table showing how many workers leave the city; Mr. LenmDn said that there were for scme other conmunities. Councilmember Callon acknowledged that she had not yet had a chance to read the DEIS and might have further questions later. Mayor Clevenger recessed the meeting from 10:38 to 10:57 p.m. Councilmembers discussed the Planning Commission vacancy. Noting that there were only four applicants and that the full Council would not be present to conduct interviews until next month, Mayor Clevenger suggested that the application period be extended and interviews held in November. Councilmember Hlava suggested, and the rest of the Council concurred, that individual rather than group interviews be held. E. F~rly l~rnir~ Fire Alarm Syst~m~ Letters Received: Douglas Sporleder dated 9/26; William J. L~dd dated 9/26. a. /~.~n~nt to Ch. 3 of the General Plan, Sei-~-{c Safety ~nd Safety Elemeut, to require installation of an Early Warning Fire Alarm System to new residences over 5000 sq. ft., multi-family dwelliDa~, hotels, motels and such co.,.,.,ercial structures as determined by the Fire Chief (first r~dinM) 8-10/2/8~ '. b. Ame~m~s to the City !Code addir~ 'Se(itioa ~;10 ~ ~e SuMi~si~ ~dinance, 1~.1~ ~o ~he ~i~ ~diuauce, 'and XZlI Lo ~. 3 of Lhe City ~de rela~ ~ r~uir~ for i~lla~i~ of ~ ~rly ~ami~ Fire ~am Sys~ (firs~ r~ City A~orney answered Councilmembers' quesLions on ~he proposed chan~es. ~e public heari~as open~ a~ 11:06 p.m. Bruce ~allace rose ~o speak as PreSiden~ of Guardian Alarm. He feared ~ha~ ~he o~di~nce ~ould ~11o~ ~irin~ of fire slams ~hich he bad installed ~o fire dj. stric~ ~uipmen~ ove~ ~hic]3 he had no control. He ~liev~ ~his ~ould ~esult in problems ~iEb moniLo~in~ and maintenance of th'e fire slams, and he.fel~ i~ e~sed ~he City Lo liability. FurLher, he feared tha~Jhis insurance carriers ~ould no~ allo~ him ~o ~ork in Saratoga under ~hose conditions. In answer ~o Councilmember Callon, he sca~ed cha~ his company could moniCSr ~he burglary aspects of ~he system if ~hey installed a separate panel. I City A~omey s~a~ ~baE the specifica~i~s fo~ ~he system require tes~i~once ~r day, ~ich he ~liew~ ~uld be done by the fire district. Russ ~ard s~ke as o~e~ of Pacific Systems slam company. He s~a~ed tha~ Lheir a~omey said the~ could no~ install systems in~lvin~ life safely if ~hey could no~ monitor the systems ~:hemsel~s. Otherwise, he said, he ~ould ne~ a hold hamless a~reemenL. ~e tes~:in~ system mentioned by the CiLy A~orney, be said, did actually ~es~ ~he~her ~he alarm system is ~o:kin~ properly. In answer Councilmember Callon, he s~Led Lh~ ~hey could deal ~i~h ~he sys~em if double alamoere sen~. Chief Kraule of ~he Saratoga Fire Dis~ric~ s~a~ed Lha~ Lhere ~as a difference ~een co~erc/al and residential installations; ~he residential systems are s~d- alone. ~e problems men~ion~ by ~e slam com~ny represen~ives, he said, did no~ relate Co residential applica~i0ns~ He ~ished ~o delay requirin~ diaZers in commercial installations until fur~he:'s~udy could be performed. CiLy Attorney no~ed ~ha~ ~he draft: s~/ll provided~ha~ each chief has ~he aulhori~y ~o require ~ha~ever he ~hinks approp~iaLe. Chief Kraule added thaL if ~he~e are problems ~i~h an alarm ~he fire dis~ric~ can ~espond and fix ~he problem. In answer Councilmember Hlavs, he s~aLed ~ha~ Lhe dis~ic~ bad increased i~s liability insurance ~en they s~r~ed the diale~ sys~. ~ief S~rleder of fi~e Central Fire D~s~ric~ s~a~ ~ha~ he s~r~ed the Task Force findi~s. His dis~ric~ ~ould noL belcakin~ ouL mo~e liability instance, he said, ~cause the dialer ~ss no~ in their s~s~. A~ 11:~9 p.m. the public heari~ ~as~con~inued ~o N0v~r 20, ~hen a full ~cil ~as e~c~ed Lo ~ present. ~e mee~i~ ~as adjourned a~ 11:50 p.m. ~s~c~fully su~i~,~, Crace E. ~puty City Clerk