Working to:

  • Protect our Urban Growth Boundary
  • Preserve Ridgelines and Open spaces
  • Retain the best qualities of ourcity for future generations.  

On March 31, 2017, the Pleasanton Weekly published a Point/Counterpoint article titled “Studying El Charro Road”.  The following is an excerpt by President, Kelly Cousins. For the complete text, go to:

Hundreds of community members made it very clear through 300 emails to the City Council and by speaking at public meetings that we do not support a plan for massive residential developments in East Pleasanton. Additionally, we do not support an extension of El Charro Rd from I-580 to Stanley Blvd. It is imperative to wait and see the full impact from 2,000 new apartments and houses already under construction and how it will affect school over-crowding and traffic congestion. Recently, the Council unanimously conceded to voter pressure and deferred planning of the East Side for the next two years. Shortly before the close of the public meeting, however, Council Members Narum, Pentin and Thorne approved a last minute feasibility study for the construction of an El Charro Road extension. This critical addition to the City's Work Plan was approved without adequate notice and input from the public. 

An extension of El Charro has many negative impacts. It facilitates building the largest residential development in Pleasanton and it would be a conduit to I-580/E Dublin area, bringing even more traffic to our city streets. The estimated cost of El Charro is a staggering $90 million-the equivalent of three new elementary schools. Who foots the bill? Perhaps our ½ cent sales tax, Measure BB funds, could be used but how does this benefit Pleasanton with more cut-through traffic? Isn't it funded by our tax dollars? This is a lose-lose proposition. Extending El Charro from I-580 to Stanley Blvd. does 2 things: It funnels cut-through traffic from I-580/680, and is a first step for a massive East Side Development. Pleasanton residents can direct and influence the future of our city. Email your concerns to and visit to learn more about what is going on in Pleasanton.

News from Pleasanton Voters

Your urgent attention is required!
It’s as easy as sending a simple email by 5:00 p.m. on Thursday, March 9

An El Charro Extension Offers NO Benefit to Pleasanton
Kelly Cousins, Ph.D, President of


2,000 new housing units are currently under construction or in the planning in Pleasanton. At a special meeting of the Pleasanton City Council on Tuesday, March 14 at 6:00 p.m., the Council will consider adding the planning of the last large undeveloped parcel of land in the city (the East Side) to its two-year priority list.

The meeting is open to the public and will be held in the Remillard Room in the main administration building of the City’s Operation Services Center, 3333 Busch Road in Pleasanton.

A potential developer has already launched a paid marketing campaign to sway community support and City Council approval for this prospective project, which entails the construction of approximately 900 new homes. The campaign includes form letters of support and newspaper advertisements for the project, which could ultimately bring more than 3,500 new residents to Pleasanton.

As residents and voters, we have the ability to defer the planning and ultimate construction of a massive housing project that will further compound traffic and add to commuter cut-through traffic, school overcrowding, and water use in our city. Just send a simple email and your opinion will be counted too!
SAMPLE EMAIL that can be sent to

 Dear Pleasanton City Council members:

Please consider my request NOT to include prioritizing planning for the east side in your 2017/18 work plan. Our community should experience the impacts from the 2,000 new housing units that are currently under construction or in the planning before we approve another large development that is not mandated.
Your Name
Your Address

March 25, 2017

April 4, 2017

June 19, 2015
Tuesday evening, June 16, the City Council voted 3:0 to stop the East Pleasanton Specific Plan.  

This is a historic victory for Pleasanton residents.  While Council member Karla Brown consistently opposed this development plan, which ranged as high as 2,279 new homes from the outset, each time continuing the EPSP came to a vote all other Council members voted to continue this plan.

It was the residents of Pleasanton who turned out by the hundreds to express their opposition to this massive development in our already resource constrained city that ultimately caused the City Council to vote to put it on the ballot.  Knowing they had a losing cause if the residents got to vote, the land owners pulled the plug on continuing to pay for any further EPSP planning costs, which led to the Council agreeing to stop the entire process and put it in "Deep Freeze" until, at earliest, the drought is over. 

Our city still needs to digest the 1,700 new homes approved for construction as part of the State mandate, most of which are currently in the process of being built.  And Dublin has 8,787 MORE homes approved for building that have yet to be built.  We have more challenges to come as our demand for water increases, more children come to our overcrowded schools, and much more traffic further clogs our streets.

Right Now: Pleasanton leadership is planning the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP) of up to 1430 new residential homes and 1.6 million square feet of new commercial development.  Plans show part of the project will be located on over 100 acres outside of our UGB!

We think the majority of Pleasanton residents would NOT support this HUGE project, which is not required by any outside agency – and is being pushed by Pleasanton’s own elected officials.  Please help us educate you and other residents by giving us your email address for future updates, and pass along the emails of others that may be interested.  The power to protect Pleasanton is in our own hands. 




The City has been working to develop a "Specific Plan" for the open land on the eastern side of Pleasanton.  In the coming months the City will be presenting a plan to rezone 1,110 acres of currently open land (with the exception of the transfer station) to allow for major development.  This planned rezoning and development includes both an expansion of our Urban Growth Boundary of 112 acres, as well as the use of reclaimed quarry land in a manner expressly contrary to its intended use as open space and a buffer of separation from Livermore.

We oppose changing the usage of this land for several reasons:

  • URBAN SEPARATOR:  This land was never intended to be developed.   Much of this land is reclaimed quarry land.  Our 1996 General Plan specified that, "The quarry lands create a valuable urban separator between Pleasanton and Livermore.   This land should be carefully studied during a future  General Plan update., and its qualities as an urban separator  should be substantially protected.  Agriculture, recreation, open space, and water management should become its primary uses as opposed to residential."
  • MOVING THE URBAN GROWTH BOUNDARY: The people of Pleasanton approved ballot measure FF in 1996 which established with clarity the intention that the UGB's purpose is to, "distinguish areas generally suitable for urban development...from areas generally suitable for protection of long-term protection of natural resources, large lot agriculture and grazing, parks and recreation, public health and safety, sub-regionally significant wildlands, buffers between communities, and scenic ridgeline views."  Moving the UGB eastward by 112 acres for residential development violates the intent of the General Plan and also does not meet the five criteria necessary for a "minor adjustment" to be made.  The following five criterion must ALL be met in order to make a change to the UGB - (1)  are otherwise consistent with the goals and policies of the General Plan; (2) would not have significant adverse impact on agriculture, wildlife areas, or scenic ridgelines; (3) are contiguous with existing urban development or with property for which all discretionary approvals for urban development have been granted; (4) would not induce further adjustments to the boundary; and, (5) demonstrate that the  full range of urban public facilities and services will be adequately provided in an efficient  and timely manner." We believe that at the very least the proposed East Pleasanton Specific Plan does not meet criteria 4 and 5 and would therefore not qualify for expansion of the UGB.
  • LAND USE WITHIN UGB: The General Plan also makes it clear that Lower Densities should be encouraged along the inside edge of the Urban Growth Boundary to provide a transition/buffer for preventing potential conflicts with uses immediately beyond the boundary such as agriculture or wildlands.    The proposed Plan for East Pleasanton does not incorporate lower densities along the inside edge of the UGB.  This is yet another area where it does not comply with our City's long held plan for progress.