CCMIN052896 - Laserfiche WebLink

without the provision of standard urban water and sewer services. So it is considered an exception to the Urban Growth Boundary. Ms. Michelotti referred to the proposed study on the feasibility of uses of the Southern Pacifxc railroad right of way, except for vehicular circulation. Is that saying there will never be use of the corridor for vehicular traffic? The 1986 General Plan reviewed this as another route for downtown to take traffic off Stanley Boulevard. She wanted to make sure it is understood that will be deleted forever in case anyone has concerns. She pointed out the Planning Commission recommended the annual growth rate be 0-650 units per year, but there is a sentence that says the midpoint should guide the Council's decision, so that the aim is for 350 units. The next comment indicates the San Francisco property is not included in that calculation. She then referred to the Planning Commission recommendation to delete the Committee to study the West Las Positas interchange. Does that mean it is not appropriate for the Committee to be mentioned in the General Plan or that no Committee should be set up? Mr. Rasmussen indicated that when the City wants to plan for the improvements to the interchange, the environmental review process would begin and there would be public hearings. If the Planning Commission recommendation is accepted, then there would not be an ad hoc committee formed to do the additional study recommended by the Steering Committee. Mr. Tarvet felt that was just delaying. Ms. Mohr disagreed. She felt until the data is available from the EIR, there is nothing substantial for a committee to review. Mr. Rasmussen indicated if an ad hoe committee were formed, it would look at the environmental impacts, traffic impacts, and economic impacts. Mr. Mohr felt the EIR information should be gathered at the time a project was likely to go forward. Ms. Micheloff referred to the lower income housing fee recommendation by the Planning Commission to change the basis of the fee to reflect the house size and parcel size. She questioned whether there was a nexus. Ms. Dennis asked for clarification. Mr. Tarvet said if there were larger lots, there would be larger fees, if larger units, larger fees. Mr. Rasmussen believed the rationale was that if larger parcels develop a single-family home, that would be taking land that could be developed for affordable housing, which is why the in-lieu affordable housing fee should be greater. The Planning Commission said we should 05/28/96 - 14 -