CCMIN030789 - Laserfiche WebLink

was the only acceptable site for a residual repository in Alameda County. It was moved by Councilmember Butler, and seconded by Councilmember Brandes, directing staff to forward a letter to the Alameda County Waste Management Authority supporting the Final Hazardous Waste Management Plan with the exception of specifying that the general area west of Vasco Road near the boundary with Contra Costa County, north of Livermore, was the only acceptable site for a residual repository in Alameda County. The roll call vote was as follows: AYES: Councilmembers Brandes, Butler, Mohr, Tarver, and Mayor Mercer NOES: None ABSENT: None item 12d Report on Gatewood Apartments Conditions of Approval Mr. Swift presented his report (SR 89:107) dated March 7, 1989, regarding this matter. Mr. Gregg Wilkinson, Manager of the Gatewood Apartments, stated he just received notice from the Planning Department regarding complaints from residents across the streets because of the RV parking lot. He stated that no one has parked there yet. He presented pictures showing the apartment layout. He stated there is ample shrubbery, but is willing to plant more trees if necessary. He stated that Gatewood is a beautiful place to live and he is providing the RV parking lot because the residents requested it. Ms. Linda Cassens, 4082 Suffolk Way, stated the RV parking lot restricts her view. She questioned this modification being approved as a minor modification, and added that she was not notified of the change. She did not feel the apartment complex needs the RV parking lot, and feels the City should not have allowed it. She asked who would police the lot to see if people are living in the trailers. She felt the minor modification allowing the RV parking lot should be revoked. Ms. Elaine Buckland, Suffolk Way, stated the trees are 40-50 feet apart and there is only a chain link fence, which leaves her with no privacy. She stated the residents met with the developer when this project was being planned. She felt two agreements were completed ignored: there are 240 units rather than the 200 agreed upon, and not enough trees. She stated the RV parking lot will be unsightly, it will be a noise hazard, and it was specifically deleted from the original plan; it never should have been allowed. She added that radios from this complex blare loud, there are loud parties, the car wash is offensive, and the landscaping and fences are not as planned. She added that she thought only senior citizens would be housed in the complex along the arroyo. She asked that the permit for the RV site be revoked. - 30 - 3-7-89