CCMIN080696 - Laserfiche WebLink

Robert Cordtz, 262 West Angela, wanted to know if the ti~e to the residential property to be developed on the San Francisco Bernal property would be fee simple. Ms. Mohr indicated the residential properties will be sold fee simple. The commercial property will likely be on a long term lease. Ms. Acosta indicated San Francisco has not actually decided what it will do; however, all discussions have surrounded the commercial property, not the residential. Frank Neu, 18210 Carmel Drive, Castro Valley, felt it was unfair to zone land outside the city limits. Those affected by the zoning should have a say. Mr. Pico asked if he wanted his land outside the Urban Growth Boundary. Mr. Neu said no. Tom Gill, 4540 Muirwood Drive, referred to the Table in the General Plan regarding traffic during peak hours on 1-680 south of Sunol Boulevard. It is listed at Level of Service (LOS) C. This is totally inaccurate. He commutes on this road and referred to comments in the press that this is the worst commute in the Bay Area. He believed it was actually LOS F, unacceptable. This freeway is now at gridlock and when the San Francisco property and Dougherty Valley are developed, he felt traffic will be backed up to 1-580. The General Plan does not adequately address cut-through traffic. He was strongly opposed to building the West Las Positas interchange, which would only add cut-through traffic to the residential areas. He believed the improvements to Highway 84 would be a detriment to 1-680 because it will only make it easier for the commuters from the Central Valley to cut-through and further burden the Sunol Grade. Bill van Gelder indicated the data in the report was the most accurate available at the time when the General Plan review was begun. He agreed 1-680 south was a major problem. There are limits on how much traffic can cut through a town depending on what can get off the freeway and what the systems can hold. Martin Inderbitzen, 4218 Casterson Court, indicated he had served on the General Plan Steering Committee. He felt the Urban Growth Boundary initiative is a de facto growth cap. It creates a closed system, or moat, around the community. All the vacant land has a specific holding capacity and essentially there is a growth cap. He felt the housing cap initiative would be rendered moot. He felt people have focussed on the negative impacts of growth: traffic, air pollution, school crowding, etc. However, people should not lose sight of the positive things brought by growth: People, the greatest asset of a community, with ideas to solve challenges to the community. Last year, there was an auction to raise funds for his children's school and it was directed by people who did not live here two or three years ago. He would hate to turn people away because some were too focussed on the negatives. He remembers when people on Kottinger campaigned against the neighborhood Mr. Tarver now lives in; and Mr. Tarver's 08/06/96 -5-