SUPPLEMENTAL - Laserfiche WebLink

Point#11: The City should give guidance to the Land Owner/Developer If you haven't read the letter yet, please do so. Since then, a lot of information has come to light that makes these points even more important. For Point#11, our letter said that `We're concerned that the current land owner, PUSD, and their advisors don't have a good understanding of what they own and what they're allowed to build there " and asked the City staff to help PUSD get this right. Unfortunately, it doesn't look like this has happened. PUSD has put the property up for sale with the attached "Request for Qualifications and Proposals(RFP)" pdf The RFP has several material inaccuracies. On page 11 of the RFP,the 28-house plan says"6,500 SF" lot minimum. As we stated in our Point#8 (and as Ellen Clark confirmed in a May 31st email). the City rezoned the Neal Property to R-1-8500 which is an 8,500 SF lot minimum and we think it's very important for that minimum lot dimension to be respected. In point#11 in our June 1st letter, we mentioned that PUSD had proposed building a park on land they do not own. In the RFP diagram on page 12 PUSD now proposes building a house on land they do not own (parcel 946-4619-28 which belongs to the Reserve at Pleasanton HOA). On page 14 of the RFP, it incorrectly shows the Neal property being located somewhere in Livermore. Some of the numbers on that page, like the number of residents within a 1-mile radius of Neal, look implausible. As neighbors and PUSD tax payers., we're concerned that these material misstatements in the RFP will cause whoever buys the property to have false expectations of what they bought, unnecessary opening PUSD to liability. The purchaser may also waste money putting together unworkable plans that we would then have to fight OMWI As we said in Point#11 we again ask"the City Council and City Staff to make use of their deep knowledge of Pleasanton zoning to proactively give guidance to PUSD and their developer on the requirements their plans have to satisfy" We also ask PUSD to correct the mistakes in their RFP, publish the corrected version and notify any interested buyers. While the Conceptual Land Plan on page 11 of the RFP is just a concept. we think it can influence future actual plans so its important that it's accurate and reasonable. We're happy to see that the plan on page 11 seems to have a vineyard next to Vineyard Ave and a Park closer to Old Vineyard Trail. This fits with points #5 and#6 in the June 1 st letter. As we stated in the letter it would be great if more of the open space was dedicated to the park, and if the park had direct access from Old Vineyard Trail which would give walking and biking access to the park to Vineyard Corridor residents. The Conceptual Land Plan on page 11 connects Thiessen St and Manoir Ln, which we also think is great, and will give both new and existing residents safer ways to exit the neighborhood (see more details in Point #7 of the letter). Other ideas in point#7 which we think would improve upon the Conceptual Plan include: .Facing some houses towards Thiessen St and Manoir Ln. This has a lot of benefits including minimizing the amount of new internal roads(and hence maximizing lot size) and deterring nuisance uses of those existing streets. •The new connection between Thiessen St and Manoir Ln may allow removing the existing access road adjacent to the Old Vineyard Trail, freeing up more open space that can be used for the park. This may require working with the City. To further the conversation,we invite members of the PUSD board and their agents to meet with residents of neighborhoods adjacent to the Neal Property. We'd be happy to arrange such meetings. We had similar meetings with Mayor Brown and Vice Mayor Balch which provided great community engagement. In a January 9, 2023 letter, Superintendent Haglund said that"The District proposes to collaborate with City staff in an extensive community outreach process that ensures voices of community