SUPPLEMENTAL MATERIALS - Laserfiche WebLink

As the population of the Vineyard Corridor grows significantly with the Neal property development it might make sense to take this opportunity to add some traffic calming measures that would improve safety. Some options to consider: ● Add a stop sign or a traffic light at Manoir Ln, to give residents a truly safe way to exit the neighborhood. (Unlike Thiessen, Manoir Ln should have enough visibility for Vineyard Ave drivers to see and respect the traffic light). ● Add a raised median to Vineyard Ave to prevent the currently dangerous practice of cars crossing the double-yellow to pass when people are turning or going the speed limit. Point #11: The City should give guidance to the Land Owner/Developer 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. For example, in the diagram in their January 9th letter (attached), PUSD proposed building a park partially on land they do not own. In particular, the land next to the corner of Manoir Ln and Vineyard Ave belongs to the Reserve at Pleasanton HOA (it’s parcel 946-4619-28). That parcel holds a sign for the Reserve neighborhood and landscaping maintained by the HOA. Per the attached City Planning Documents, the City Council only rezoned parcel 946-4619-1 which is indeed owned by PUSD. See the assessor map and the attached City Planning Documents for the actual boundaries of PUSD’s parcel. Another example is the “Vineyard Village” concept in the specific plan. The PUSD letter states that “With respect to the Vineyard Ave. property, we believe that the requirement of a 3-acre park and the resulting loss of housing density is unsupported by any priority city planning efforts including a complete lack of evidence in the Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan…” It’s great that PUSD acknowledges they’re subject to the Specific Plan, but someone familiar with the Specific Plan would be aware of the “Vineyard Village” concept. In both of these examples, it’s clear that the City had a better understanding of the issues than PUSD. That’s not surprising, since PUSD, while working exclusively in Pleasanton, is an educational institution and any developer they work with will not be working exclusively in Pleasanton. We think it’s incumbent on 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 (hopefully including some of the points we made above). We think it would be a mistake for the City to passively wait for the developer to submit plans before checking if they comply. Waiting till that point has a high chance of either the developer having to waste money reworking their plan, or the Neal property being developed in a way that doesn’t comply (to the detriment of the City and its residents). Conclusion June 1, 2023 9