CCMIN051998 - Laserfiche WebLink

Bobbi Troia, 6820 Inglewood Court, gave an update on the odor problem associated with the DSRSD treatment plant. DSRSD has hired an odor consultant to do an assessment of the area. She thanked Steve Cusenza for his efforts. There will be another meeting on May 28 at 7:30 p.m. in the DSRSD training room and at 6:30 p.m. there will be a tour of the facility. She was pleased with the progress. Ms. Ayala congratulated her for spearheading this process. She understood a hotline is going to be established to receive complaints. Mayor Tarver said Councilmember Pico and he met with the DSRSD liaison committee members and expressed the City's concerns that the odor issue be addressed. They also discussed using regional funds or a CIP project to improve the odor problem. Barbara Benda, 6554 Inglewood Drive, said the odors that come from the sewage plant do affect everyone and she was pleased with the good response she has received from DSRSD and the City. She asked about the vacant land that lies between Val Vista and the sewage treatment plant and wondered if trees could be planted there to hide the sewage treatment plant and perhaps help with the odors. Geoff Cooper, 7534 Flagston, commended the Mayor for the Planning Commission appointments. He welcomed the new commissioners and felt they would be excellent. He also mentioned that he could not support Measure G. He felt the City's intentions were good but the approach was incorrect. He felt this issue needed to be discussed at the national level. He felt there were other issues Council should involve itself in, such as the violence on television and what is going on at the Lawrence Livermore Lab. Ms. Dennis agreed with Mr. Cooper regarding violence on television. She mentioned TCI has new cable boxes that can be programmed to be locked to keep children from viewing certain channels. Kimberly Rowland, 3650 Locke Court, apologized for the reference to the endorsement by the Deputy Sheriffs on the "Yes on G" ballot argument. The process, however, had been done with integrity and honest intent. She was told clearly that the Alameda County Deputy Sheriffs supported this ordinance in other Alameda cities. She was unaware of the requirement for signatures with endorsements. She was willing to take people at their word. The Deputy Sheriffs Association was notified in advance and it did not dispute the endorsement, nor did the organization come forward during the ten day public review period. She does have verbal authorization from the California Police Chiefs Association. She said the Police Chiefs Association has a position paper on exactly what is stated in the ordinance. It is willing to say today that it agrees with the ordinance, but due to a professional courtesy to Chief Eastman, it will not be able to endorse it in the City of Pleasanton. She does have a signature from the California Organization of Police and Sheriffs supporting the ordinance. She said the City of Pleasanton is one of three Alameda County cities that has not passed such an ordinance. She Pleasanton City Council 6 05/19/98 Minutes