PC 041107 - Laserfiche WebLink

She also commented that the automall sign is huge and suggested that the applicant prepare a better sign. Commissioner Blank informed Ms. Solis that the EIR would evaluate and address any protected animals living in the area. He proposed that the consultant include a comprehensive visual analysis with simulations of what the signs would look like. Jeff Birschtein, 2754 Chocolate Street, noted that he was impressed with the proposed design. He stated that he moved to the area because Stoneridge Drive was a dead end. He indicated that he understood that the applicants would like the road to be extended but was pleased that it would not be connected to I-580. He expressed concern both as a homeowner and parent of small children who ride bikes on Stoneridge Drive and inquired if construction truck route to the development would be via El Charro Road or Stoneridge Drive. Bjorn Jensen, 3334 Vermont Place, noted that his home would abut the proposed senior community. He expressed concern about light pollution over the wall and suggested that the lights be shrouded. He added that the grade of his property is higher than that of the project site and inquired what would happen to the drainage. He noted that at the last neighborhood meeting, concerns were expressed about the wall and the form it might take; he is in favor of a big wall as it would preserve his privacy and block the light. He commended the applicants for a well laid-out plan and was pleased that the development would not be a big retail facility. He noted that it was a great use of land and would not be a burden to schools. Karen Sweet, 3585 Greenville Road in Livermore, stated that she works with the Alameda County Resource Conservation District and lives on the opposite side of the valley on the hills east of Livermore. She noted that her comments are more cultural in nature and may not fit in with what is being considered at this time. She noted that she did not see any community separators on the maps presented and indicated that this is very important politically. She pointed out that there is a need for mitigation for the loss of agricultural land since Alameda County and the cities have invested significant amounts of money to develop agricultural infrastructure and support for industry. With respect to agricultural water, she inquired if there are still existing water rights and wells in the immediate property and if these are still available for agriculture in the larger sense of the community interested in supporting agriculture. She requested that the EIR include discussion on any mitigation that results from agricultural or resources issues to be considered to be put on private agricultural lands elsewhere through conservation easements. She stated that Alameda County has invested in a partnership for land conservation stewardship and now has its own vehicle to help match mitigation needs to private lands; this is a new process that was not available when the Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan was being prepared. PLANNING COMMISSION MINUTES April 11, 2007 Page 10 of 18