Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout12-08-1986REGULAR MEETING - December 8, 1986 A regular meeting of the City Council of the City of Dublin was held on Monday, December 8, 1986 in the east room of the Shannon Community Center. The meeting followed the annual tree lighting ceremony. The meeting was called to order at 7:56 p.m. by Mayor Linda Jeffery. ROLL CALL PRESENT: Councilmembers Hegarty, Moffatt, Snyder, Vonheeder and Mayor Jeffery. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE The Mayor led the Council, Staff and those present in the pledge of alle- giance to the flag. PROCLAMATION: THE HOLIDAY PROJECT Mayor Jeffery read a proclamation declaring December 20, 1986 as "The Holiday Project Day" in the City of Dublin. The Holiday Project, which was initiated in 1971 provides a truly meaningful service of volunteers supplying holiday gifts and visits to confined persons. The proclamation was presented to Bob Wooden. CONSENT CALENDAR On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council took the following actions: Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 138 - 86 APPROVING 3 SAFETY-RELATED IMPROVEMENT PROJECTS AND DIRECTING STAFF TO APPLY FOR TRANSPORTATION DEVELOPMENT ACT FUNDING Adopted RESOLUTION NO. 139 - 86 AMENDING AGREEMENT FOR STREET SWEEPING AND LITTER PICK-UP SERVICES Authorized Staff to solicit bids for janitorial services for Shannon Community Center; Approved the Final Financial Report for Period Ending June 30, 1986; Approved the Pro-Forma Financial Report for Period Ending October 31, 1986; [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-256 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 Approved a revision to the Accounting Procedures related to Accounts Receivables and future revisions to the Procedures; Approved Warrant Register in the amount of $287,568.27; Cm. Moffatt requested that~the minutes of the November 24th meeting be pulled for discussion. On Page 245, Cm. Moffatt requested that the minutes reflect that Ordinance No. 5-82 was never revoked. With~this addition, on motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved Minutes of Adjourned Regular Meeting of November 18, 1986 and Regular Meeting of November 24, 1986; Rick Wendling, 7194 Elk Court asked that the item related to the tax bill on the Civic Center be removed from the Consent Calendar. City Manager Ambrose indicated that the City had received a supplemental tax bill in the amount of $2,511 which would necessitate the item being pulled also. Mr. Wendling indicated that he had spoken with a friend whO is the president of a non-profit corporation in Livermore that faced a similar situation. They had received conflicting information regarding a ruling on the Payment of taxes. Staff reported that we have had to make our first payment which was due on December 10th in order to avoid a penalty. In the meantime, the City Attorney will work with the Assessor's Office to obtain a ruling. Staff advised Mr. Wendling that any information he could provide would be appreciated. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the revised appropriation of $41,467 from the fund balance of the Civic Center Enterprise Fund to pay (under protest), the property tax bill for the CiviC Center Property. 1-580 IMPROVEMENTS NORTH PLEASANTON IMPROVEMENT DISTRICT Pleasanton has requested that the City of Dublin begin studying the improvements proposed to 1-580 for the purpose of determining the City of Dublin's benefit in those improvements as well as funding for those improvements. The District Director of CalTrans has stated that the projects proposed to 1-580 could be phased. Pleasanton feels that a logical first phase would result in approximately $45 million in improvements, $9 million of which they believe would benefit properties north of 1-580. Pleasanton has suggested that Dublin form a benefit district to reimburse Pleasanton for these $9 million in costs. They have implied that if Dublin does not set up such a district, they would attempt to have those improvements deleted from their phase I construction. It is not clear whether or not the State Department.of Transportation would allow these improvements to be excluded. Cm. Snyder and City Manager Ambrose indicated that notes which were taken at the November 5th meeting were distributed to the Council. These notes were not precise minutes, but rather general notes. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-257 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 Cm. Vonheeder felt that if we agree to the $9 million, we are in a sense, agreeing with the split percentage and at this time there is no way to put a number to the benefit on Dublin's side of the freeway. An impartial third party doing a study would be a possible solution. The Council questioned who would pay for such a study. Cm. Hegarty felt that until a developer plans a project, there is no way we can determine the benefit. Pleasanton is many years ahead of Dublin in development, and we simply must wait to see what develops on Dublin's side of the freeway. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the County might be willing to enter into some kind of a financial obligation for some kind of a study. City Manager Ambrose indicated that the Alameda County Board of Supervisors has not taken any position as yet. Cm. Moffatt felt that since it's obvious that the County will probably be the first player, they should make a decision on whether they want to participate in a study. · Discussion was held related to boundaries and City Manager Ambrose reported that the freeway is completely within Pleasanton. Cm. Vonheeder felt Dublin should agree to enter into a study if we don't have to pay for it. Other Councilmembers disagreed as the study would then have to be funded by Pleasanton. They questioned if this would provide accurate information from Dublin's standpoint. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council directed Staff to send a letter to the City of Pleasanton indicating that the Council had again discussed the issue and their position remains basically the same; i.e., Dublin cannot do anything until an actual development comes in. REPORT FROM ASSISTANT CITY ATTORNEY ON THE DEVELOPMENT OF A MUNICIPAL CODE Assistant City Attorney Elizabeth Silver explained that during the 1986 Goals & Objectives meeting, the Council established the development of a Municipal Code as an objective which should be pursued during 1986. Such a code would incorporate nearly all of the City's ordinances into one volume which will make it easier for City Officials, as well as the public to use. A format for a proposed table of contents has been developed for consideration. The format is very important because the Council may wish to add or delete certain ordinances during the process of considering those ordinances which would be included in the Municipal Code. The table of contents, as well as the entire code will have to be adopted after all the [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-258 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 ordinances have been codified. Before the codification can occur, the Council will need to consider a number of ordinances revising the County Code which the City adopted by reference in 1982; as well as some of the City's existing ordinances. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the format of the proposed table of contents of the Dublin Municipal Code. PUBLIC HEARING - RAFANELLI & NAHAS REQUEST FOR VARIANCE TO SECTIONS 508 & 3804 OF UNIFORM BUILDING CODE AND REQUEST FOR INTERPRETATION OF SECTIONS 42.3 & 42.4 OF ORDINANCE NO. 02-84 Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Section 11.13 of Ordinance No. 02-84 provides that the City Council may grant variances to the Building & Plumbing codes where the Council finds that the variance is consistant with ~the purpose and intent of the Ordinance and the variance will not lessen the protection to the people and property situated in the City of Dublin. The Council may also consider appeals regarding interpretation of the codes by the Building Official. Rafanelli & Nahas propose to construct 8 3-story buildings containing 96 units as part of the 248-unit condominium project known as Alamo Creek Village II. The Building Code requires 3-story buildings of this nature to be constructed with 1-hour fire-resistant materials throughout. This would require all of the interior walls and ceilings to be covered with 5/8" gypsum board. The exterior walls would be required to have 1/2" gypsum board under the exterior siding material. All exterior decks, eaves, posts and beams must also be protected with either gypsum board of stucco. Section 508 of the Building Code allows automatic fire sprinklers to be substituted for 1-hour construction if the sprinklers are installed THROUGHOUT the building. Section 3804 lists where sprinkler heads may be eliminated. The applicants propose to utilize the provisions of Section 508 to eliminate the fire-resistive construction but are requesting to omit 3 sprinkler heads in each unit. These omissions are not allowed by Section 3804. Sprinklers would be omitted in the coat closet, the laundry and under the exterior deck. The Building Official felt that granting this variance will lessen the protection to the people of the City of Dublin and the property situated therein. Cm. Moffatt questioned the possibility of putting in gypsum board where the sprinklers are left out. Fire Chief Phil Phillips reported that they had received no information from the developer stating they can meet the flow demand. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-259 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 Ron Nahas indicated that they do see the 2 requests as being related. They do not feel there is an insufficiency with regard to fire flow. They have done flow calculations. They have just completed a 3-story building in Hayward with no problems. They felt that in order to get a safer building, these trade-offs are desirable. Mr. Nahas indicated they had hired Steve Foster as a consultant to advise them with regard to fire sprinklers. Mr. Foster indicated that the system they are proposing to put in will operate 5 to 6 times faster than the system in use at the Shannon Center. There have been many many technological advances in the fire sprinkler industry° Various statistics were reported. Cm. Hegarty felt the fire hazard potential was fairly great in a laundry room area. Cm. Vonheeder'questioned if the area they were proposing not to sprinkle is the alcove outside the laundry area and the closet. It was clarified that the alcove area would be sprinkled, but the enclosed closet and the enclosed laundry area would not be. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the.plastic pipe was fireproof or flammable. Mr. Foster indicated that it was recently approved with tests at 1600 degrees farenheit. Mayor Jeffery felt that since the Council was discussing bOth requests, this would be the proper time for Staff to relay information regarding the use plastic drain waste and vent pipe which was the applicant's second request for a variance. Mr. Taugher explained that Sections 42.2 and 42.3 of Ordinance No. 2-84 limits the use of plastic pipe to 2-story residential construction. The background relating to the use of plastic pipe was given. If a variance is granted, the City and the applicant run the risk of being involved in litigation for failure to provide an environmental impact report. The applicant is requesting that the phrase "ABS and PVC installations limited to residential construction, not more than 2 stories in height" be interpreted to permit the top 2 stories of a 3-story building to utilize plastic pipe. The first story would use metallic pipe. The applicant has indicated that some cities are allowing this type of installation. However, in the opinion of the Building Official, the Code is intended to limit the use of plastic pipe to residential buildings not more than 2 stories in height. Again, there is a risk of becoming involved in litigation because of the environmental impact report issue. Cm. Hegarty questioned if the State's position is just bureaucracy or is technology actually moving faster that the State can adjust tOo He also questioned if the original specs show plastic pipe. Mr. Taugher indicated that the specs show that the building is to 'be sprinkled but actual supplies are not shown. The question arises because the buildings are now to be 3 instead of 2 stories. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-260 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 Cm. Snyder questioned the rationality of allowing plastic in 2 story structures. Mr. Taugher explained that his only argument is the potential for the City to be drawn into litigation. Cm. Snyder questioned the Assistant City Attorney regarding potential liability to the City. Ms. Silver indicated she was not familiar with litigation other than what was contained in the Staff Report. The question would be with regard to the City's action. She did not see it as a major area of concern. A legal issue could possibly arise. Mr. Nahas indicated that the Health & Safety Code provides that modifications may be made on a case by case basis. It has been done by many cities surrounding Dublin. Cities want the safety of fire sprinklers and are willing to offer trade-offs. Reference was made to various code sections with discussion. Mr. Taugher indicated that the City could act either under the State Code or the City's Ordinance, but since the State did not permit this type of use without an EIR he questioned if Dublin should proceed. Mayor Jeffery felt that since politics entered into these types of things, questioned if there was any chance that perhaps the plumbers union got together to slow things down. ~ Mr. Wendling felt that the code allows them to sprinkle certain areas and then use 1/2" sheetrock in areas that are not sprinkled. He stated he was against allowing developers to take shortcuts. Cm. Moffatt questioned if the developer was requesting these variances for economic or safety reasons. , Mr. Nahas responded that they want safer buildings and at the same time, are trying to build buildings that they can afford. The question was asked which was safer, the use of fire sprinklers or 5/8" gypsum. Mr. Taugher felt that fire sprinklers are safer, but when used completely. Mr. Nahas felt the code provides for 2 options - sprinkle or use 5/8" gypsum. He reported that 99.7% of fires originate in areas that they are proposing to sprinkle. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. Cm. Vonheeder indicated she would rather see the high fire areas sprinkled. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-261 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 Cm. Hegarty stated he was willing to give trade-offs, but did feel that sprinklers are need inside. His trade-off would be to allow plastic pipes on the 2nd and 3rd floors. Cm. Moffatt felt the building should be sprinkled throughout. Mayor Jeffery felt the entire inside area should be sprinkled, but she was willing to allow plastic pipe on the 2nd and 3rd floors. Cm. Moffatt made a motion that would require the 3-story buildings to be completely sprinkled, including the patio area. The motion died due to lack of a second. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder~ and by unanimous vote, the Council adopted, with wording changes RESOLUTION NO. 140 - 86 GRANTING THE APPEAL OF AN INTERPRETATION OF THE PLUMBING CODE BY THE BUILDING OFFICIAL (Allow use of plastic pipe in 3-story buildings) On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Snyder, and by majority vote, the Council agreed to require the 3-story buildings to be completely sprinkled inside with no sprinkler required in the patio area. Cm. Moffatt and Cm. Vonheeder voted against this motion. The Council directed Staff to prepare a modified resolution and bring it back to the Council at their December 22, 1986 meeting. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE ESTABLISHING TITLE I (GENERAL PROVISIONS) OF THE DUBLIN MUNICIPAL CODE Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff explained that this ordinance is brought to the Council as part of the comprehensive revision of the CitY's ordinances and development of a Municipal Code. This ordinance revises Title I, Chapter I of the Alameda County Code which the City adopted by Ordinance No. 13-82. This ordinance establishes definitions for words which will be used throughout the Municipal Code; penalty provisions for violation of any provision of the Code; an appeal process; a severability clause which would apply to all ordinances adopted and included in the Code; and a 90 day statute of limitations for filing a writ of mandate to challenge any administrative action taken by the Council or a Commission. This ordinance also covers the procedure for filing claims against the City for money or damages which are exempted by State Law and which are not governed by any other statutes or regulations expressly related thereto. No public comments were made. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-262 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance establishing Title I of the Dublin Municipal Code (General Provisions). PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE REGULATING PRIVATE PATROL OPERATORS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff explained that this ordinance is being brought to the City Council as part of the'comprehensivce revision of the City's ordinances and development of a Municipal Code. This ordinance would provide for the revision of the provisions of Chapter 7 of Title 2 of the Alameda County Code which the City adopted by Ordinance No. 13-82. This ordinance requires a Private Patrol Operator to conform with State Law; to register with the Dublin Police Department; and to receive approval from the Police Department regarding the uniform to be used by the Operator. The purpose of the ordinance is to minimize the chance that a private patrol officer would be mistaken as a Dublin Police Officer. No public Comments were made. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Vonheeder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimOus vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance regulating private patrol operators. PUBLIC HEARING ORDINANCE REGULATING FORTUNETELLING FOR PAY Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff explained that this ordinance is being brought to the City Council as part of the comprehensive revision of the City's ordinances and development of a Municipal Code. The Council recently adopted an ordinance revising the City's Zoning Ordinance which permits fortunetelling with the approval of a conditional use permit. In addition to this ordinance, the City Attorney's Office has prepared a draft ordinance which establishes other regulations for fortunetelling for pay. This ordinance provides for the revision of Title 4, Chapter 1, Article 4 of the Alameda County Code which the City adopted by Ordinance No. 13-82. This draft ordinance makes it unlawful for a person to engage in the business of fortunetelling within the City without first obtaining a permit from the Chief of Police. The Police Department has prepared a draft permit form and permit application form. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-263 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 No public comments were made. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing° On motion of Cm. Hegarty, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance regulating fortunetelling for pay. PUBLIC HEARING - ORDINANCE REGULATING THE SALE TO, USE BY, OR POSSESSION BY ANY MINOR OF DANGEROUS WEAPONS Mayor Jeffery opened the public hearing. Staff explained that this ordinance is being brought to the City Council as part of the comprehensivce revision of the City's ordinances and development of a Municipal Code. This ordinance provides for the revision of Title 4, Chapter 1, Article 6 of the Alameda County Code which the City adopted by Ordinance NO. 13-82. This ordinance regulates the sale to, use by or possession by any minors of dangerous weapons. Use of such weapons is lawful by minors provided there is parental consent and direct supervision by an adult; the weapon is necessary for the minor's lawful occupation or employment; or for the purpose of lawful recreation. Assistant City Attorney Silver indicated that a correction should be made to Section 2. The reference in the first sentence to Section 1 should be corrected to read Section 3. Cm. Moffatt questioned the penalty for violation. Assistant City Attorney Silver explained that it is a misdemeanor. Cm. Moffatt questioned who would be prosecuted if a minor has a weapon, the parent, the person who sold the weapon or the minor. Chief Severini responded that it would depend upon the circumstances. A minor may be cited into juvenile court and parents could also be charged. City Manager Ambrose indicated that we did have an occasion in the past where a person was arrested for selling weapons to minors. The Police Chief must use discretionary enforcement. Norman Pitchford questioned the rights of minors to hunt. Ms. Silver indicated that there is an exception clause relating to, among other things, lawful recreation. Mayor Jeffery closed the public hearing. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. HegartY, and by unanimous vote, the Council waived the reading and INTRODUCED an ordinance regulating the sale to, use by, or possession by any minor of dangerous weapons. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-264 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 CITYHOOD FIVE-YEAR BIRTHDAY CELEBRATION The Committee organizing this celebration has met on several occasions in the last 6 weeks'to plan activities. The events planned will span the weekend of January 30-February 1, 1987. The events will include a poster contest, essay contest, photo contest, volunteer recognition reception, Cityhood birthday party, dance and historic buildings tours. Cm. Vonheeder indicated that the money taken in from the dance would go toward teen activities. On motion of Cm. Moffatt, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council approved the events planned and authorized a budget transfer in .the amount of $5,000 from the Contingent Reserve. CIVIC CENTER SELECTION OF CONSTRUCTION MANAGEMENT FIRM Pursuant to City Council direction, a sub-committee reviewed 6 submittals received for Construction Management & Inspection Services on the Civic Center project. The early involvement of a Construction Management Firm on this project was a key recommendation by Mr. Arnie Hollander, who prepared the Architectural scope of work. During the design process, the firm will provide expertise which will assist the City in evaluating recommendations submitted by the Architect. In addition, the firm will produce a report on potential approaches to various aspects of the design. The report will identify advantages and disadvantages and an estimate of the cost impacts. Staff recommended that the City enter into an agreement with the firm of Harris & Associates. The agreement has been organized on an hoUrly basis with a maximum cost for the project. The maximum costs for construction services will not exceed $14,520 per month. A breakdown of the costs associated with their services was presented to the Council. City Manager Ambrose stated that it was hoped that this Contractor would be able to save the City enough money to pay for the contract. Mr. Harris advised the Council that his firm approach to the contract would be one of team work. It is not their intent to get into an architectural mode, but rather to help the Council make decisions on costs. He indicated that they were really looking forward to this assignment. It was pointed out that this firm is the construction team on the Merced Civic Center site. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Hegarty, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized the Mayor to execute the Agreement with Harris & Associates. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-265 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 CITY COUNCIL COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS Staff prepared an up-to-date list of those committees, commissions and governing bodies upon which Councilmembers presently service. Also included were the appointing authority and the length of'time each Councilmember has served. Mayor Jeffery asked if there were any assignments which any Councilmembers wished to change'. Cm. Moffatt~felt that the Council should consider the appointments and discuss in the future. Discussion Was held with regard to who actually was the appointing, authority for Cm. Hegarty's position on the Library Commission and County Housing Authority. Staff indicated that it would investigate and report back to the Council. By a consensus of the Council, this item was tabled until the City Council meeting of January 12, 1987. COMMISSION & COMMITTEE APPOINTMENTS MADE BY CITY COUNCIL At its meeting of November 24, 1986, the City Council requested that Staff prepare a list of the appointees to the various commissions and committees established by the City Council. The Council also requested a copy of all the policies related to these appointments. Mayor Jeffery thought that there was some kind of a .sunset provision with regard to the Downtown Improvement Study Committee that was tied to the election. City Manager Ambrose thought that this was discussed at the first meeting of the Committee and it was felt that the requested assignment of the Committee might take longer. Cm. Moffatt questioned if individuals appointed by each Councilmember could be removed by the reverse if necessary. He felt the appointments should be ratified every 2 years. Cm. Snyder indicated that the original ordinance was amended which completely changed the means of appointment and/or removal. Cm. Moffatt felt the COuncil should modify Section 3 (Members: Removal ~from Office) of Ordinance No. 5-82. Cm. Snyder again indicated that Section 3 was amended by Ordinance No. 12-84, but it could be reviewed again if the Council wanted a further change. Following discussion, no Council action was taken on this item. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-266 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 PUBLIC SERVICE SIGNS FOR HOWARD JOHNSON'S MOTOR LODGE REPORT FROM CITY ENGINEER AS a result of Council direction, Staff has conducted a field investigation regarding the feasibility of installing public service "Lodging" signs on San Ramon Road between the freeway and Dublin Boulevard for northbound traffic and on Dublin Boulevard between San Ramon Road and Regional Street for Dublin Boulevard eastbound traffic. The City Engineer stated it would be possible to install the Dublin Boulevard sign, however, an encroachment permit from the State of California Department of Transportation would be required in order to install a sign between the freeway and~Dublin Boulevard on San Ramon Road since this area is presently under the control of the State. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Vonheeder, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to install a public service lodging sign on Dublin Boulevard and authorized Staff to obtain encroachment permit for installation of sign on San Ramon Road. COMMUNITY CALENDAR On Friday, December 5, 1986, the City received 5 bids for the printing of a community calendar. The apparent low bidder was R. J. Moret Printing of Dublin with~a bid of $8,378.17. The Council questioned when the calendar wOuld be distributed. Staff responded that it is trying to schedule it for distribution the first week in January. On motion of Cm. Snyder, seconded by Cm. Moffatt, and by unanimous vote, the Council authorized Staff to award the bid to R. J. Moret Printing and authorized the issuance of a purchase order pursuant to the specifications. ,, OTHER BUSINESS Employment Development Office in Valley Cm. Moffatt reported that he had recently met with the Vice Mayor of Pleasanton and they had discussed the possibility of trying to generate some enthusiasm toward regaining an EDD office in this area. We should write letters to Assemblyman Baker and Senator Lockyer. Paul Rankin, Assistant to the City Manager reported to the Council that meetings had taken place approximately a year ago and at that time, the EDD statistics maintained indicated that the numbers are not there to support an office in this area. They have more requests from this area from employers looking for.people to work than they have unemployment claims. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-267 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 Cm. Vonheeder felt that this area needs services offered by an EDD office other than processing unemployment claims. Staff responded that it would provide the Council with available EDD infor- mation and past correspondence. Campaign .Exp~ndit.ure Ordinance Cm. Moffatt requested that a revision be considered to the ordinance which sets forth the accounting time schedule for campaign contributions. It was requested that this item be placed on the agenda for consideration at the December 22, 1986 meeting. League of CA Cities Structure Cm. Vonheeder indicated that in the future, each division of the League of CA Cities will be looking at redefining the purpose of the League. There are 10 Departments and 13 Divisions. The East Bay Division is the only one that limits service on the State Board to 2 years. They will be asking each Division to redefine structure. Cm. Vonheeder asked that any comments be given to her prior to Wednesday. City Council Salaries Cm. Snyder requested that Staff bring a draft of a propOsed increase to Councilmembers salaries at the January 12, 1987 meeting. D.ougherty. Road Reopening Staff reported that-Dougherty Road had been reopened this week and felt that a ribbon-cutting ceremony would be appropriate. The date of December 15, 1986 at 10:00 a.m., was scheduled for this ceremony and Staff was directed to contact Ron Nahas, the press and other interested parties regarding this ceremony. [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-268 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986 ADJOURNMENT There being no further business to come before adjourned at 10:45 p.m. the Council, the meeting was M~yO~ ~ / ~ Cit~ '~lerk [[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[[ CM-5-269 Regular Meeting December 8, 1986