Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!
Get email alerts on the El Charro Alignment topic
No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.
Pleasanton approves study for El Charro road alignment despite council concerns over cost and sequencing
Summary
Council approved a consultant contract to develop a precise alignment for El Charro Road (Fraile) to guide future development and right-of-way acquisition; the study passed 3–1 after debate over cost ($~1M) and funding sources from Tri‑Valley transportation fees.
The Pleasanton City Council voted 3–1 on June 16 to award a contract to study the precise alignment of El Charro (Fraile) Road so the city can move a General Plan line to an implementable corridor. The effort will analyze hydrology, geotechnical constraints, utilities, right-of-way needs and alternatives to guide development and future roadway construction.
Traffic engineer Mike Tasano told council the General Plan shows the road as a line on a map and the precise alignment is needed to avoid unintended consequences—such as fragmented parcels or alignments that force future developers to build expensive, nonoptimal connections. Tasano said a precise alignment will give developers and the city clarity about where future road cross-sections, bridges and undercrossings should be placed.
Council debate focused on cost, timing and sequencing. Councilmember Testa objected to spending more than one-third of the city’s Tri-Valley Transportation Fee allocation (about $2.8 million currently on hand) for a roughly $1 million study when the full roadway construction is estimated at about $120 million and developers’ commitments remain uncertain. Councilmember Neighbor asked whether defining alignment before finalizing development entitlements could pre-shape land use; staff and the interim city manager said the alignment is intended to guide development review and prevent remnant parcels or incompatible layouts.
Supporters of the study said a precise alignment is necessary to protect circulation goals and ensure coordinated development rather than reactive, ad-hoc construction. Councilmembers who voted in favor emphasized that the study would also help refine cost estimates and phasing, inform CEQA analysis and identify mitigation steps.
The motion to approve the contract passed 3–1 (Testa opposed). The council directed staff to return with the preferred alignment and noted the construction would likely be phased and funded through a mix of developer contributions, Tri‑Valley fees, Alameda County Transportation Commission grants and other mechanisms.
What’s next: Consultant work begins to define alternatives and a recommended alignment; staff will return with a preferred alignment and refined cost and funding strategies for council approval.
