The Pleasanton City Council did the right thing with their recent vote of 4-1 (Brown opposed) to proceed with the completion of the East Pleasanton Specific Plan (EPSP).
Those who called for a halt to the planning process because there's not going to be additional pressure from the State of California to zone for more high density housing, are forgetting that Pleasanton's General Plan has called for an EPSP since the 1990's.
In fact, the EPSP is the eighth and final specific plan to be completed; the seven already finished include: Downtown Specific Plan, Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan, Bernal Specific Plan, Laguna Oaks Specific Plan, North Sycamore Specific Plan, Happy Valley Specific Plan and the Vineyard Avenue Specific Plan.
Even more important, here are three reasons to proceed with planning.
First, to stop now would be a breach of faith with the citizens' task force who volunteered countless hours over many months to study a variety of thoughtful alternatives for this vast area south if I-580, north of Stanley Boulevard, east of Santa Rita Road and west of Livermore.
Second, extending El Charro Road to Stanley Boulevard, is a traffic circulation improvement project critical to all of north-east Pleasanton. If Pleasanton doesn't make it a priority, why should the Alameda County Transportation Commission make it a funding priority with its next transportation sales tax measure?
Third and foremost, Pleasanton should control the future uses of property along its borders, much of which is now unincorporated Alameda County. If Pleasanton has no plan for this area, what's to prevent Alameda County or the City of Livermore from deciding what happens there?
We look forward to a comprehensive EPSP plan in the near future that will meet a variety of important community objectives.