Laserfiche WebLink
than one percent of the increased value. She stated it did not seem fair and she would like to <br /> see the amount contributed by the applicant be closer to $1 million. <br /> Chair Ritter expressed agreement with Commissioner Brown that the funding for an amenity <br /> should come from a nearby project and funds should not just be put in a general fund. He also <br /> stated he liked that the trail would be complete with the applicant's contribution and it would <br /> not just be a "Phase 1" of the project. He agreed that the matter should be referred to the <br /> Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Committee for feedback. <br /> Discussion Point #3: Other Items <br /> 4. Is there additional information needed to assist the Commission in its decision on <br /> the proposal? <br /> Chair Ritter stated he was a customer of Public Storage in the past and wanted to reassure the <br /> other Commissioners there was no problem with traffic. He stated additional storage would <br /> serve the community. <br /> Commissioner Allen requested staff obtain more input on the proposed project from the <br /> Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Committee. Ms. Clark stated the Committee was not meeting <br /> due to limitations under the Alameda County Health Department's Shelter-in-Place order, and <br /> her concern that requiring the entire Committee's input prior to the next hearing on the Public <br /> Storage project could cause significant delay. Commissioner Allen amended her request and <br /> asked if the Committee could share its feedback in letters and in a non-voting fashion, where <br /> the letter could be shared with the Planning Commission at the next meeting. <br /> Commissioner Pace expressed the importance of being clear on the work that was already <br /> done. He stated it would be useful to understand how the conclusion was reached within the <br /> Trails Master Plan ranking the trail as the number one priority and the Commission should <br /> have the information prior to suggesting changes. <br /> Chair Ritter stated he was previously on the Bicycle, Pedestrian, and Trails Committee during <br /> prioritization and Bike/Ped Master Plan and expressed his desire to know why there were now <br /> objections from the Committee members. Ms. Hosterman explained the Trails Master Plan was <br /> the plan for all the trails in the City of Pleasanton which could be identified. She discussed the <br /> outreach including meetings with the Planning Commission, City Council, and the Bicycle, <br /> Pedestrian, and Trails Committee, along with doing a large amount of public outreach. They <br /> then vetted all of the trail options over the course of the year. The trail identified in the Public <br /> Storage project connected Downtown, east, to the Iron Horse Trail, making it a year-round, <br /> Class One trail. She then explained the ranking system used to identify the trail as priority <br /> number one and reasserted her excitement to work on the trail as it was previously assumed it <br /> would not be possible due to lack of funding. <br /> Commissioner Allen again expressed her concern about the dissent amongst the BPTC and <br /> inquired whether there was anything of concern the Planning Commission should know about. <br /> City Traffic Engineer Mike Tassano informed Commissioner Allen that he had read the letters <br /> received from the various Committee members and believed additional opportunity to discuss <br /> the proposal would reflect a balanced consideration of this project versus the hundreds of <br /> projects across the City. The letters expressed the passion of those specific Committee <br /> Planning Commission Minutes Page 6 of 7 August 12, 2020 <br />