CCMIN050702 - Laserfiche WebLink

constructed, the cost of the mitigations would be enormous. She felt government projects always run over budget because the mitigations are not included in the original price. Mayor Pico said that one of the dates for the traffic count was incorrect. Ken Duron, 5270 Hummingbird Road, indicated he was an at large representative to the committee. He thanked Council and staff for their patience over the last five years as this process has continued. This was his first experience on a local committee and found it to be very educational and collaborative until the last twelve months. It was very inclusive until that last eight or nine months. There was a commitment by all. The recommendation is prudent and well thought out. It is a constructive second step although not the final solution. He was frustrated to have a report that recommends further study, but he agreed that is what is needed at this point. The staff recommendation is excellent and he urged Council to support it. He felt there needed to be more consideration of city-wide impacts. As the at-large representative he felt outnumbered. The committee was selected from those most directly affected by the interchange. The business community is more removed and did not have a personal interest as so many other members did. From his experience, he said the NEPA process, like the CEQA process, would require a lot of public, well-documented and clearly delineated studies. That is a logical next step in the process. Jo Molz, 7550 Driftwood Way, said she has been involved with the committee from the beginning. She represents the Highland Oaks area. She delivered a poll to each homeowner and the vast majority opposed the interchange. She wanted Council to be aware of their feelings. Tom Gill, 6415 Amber Lane, said there have been a lot of newspaper articles about this whole process. It is important that everyone understand that the reason we are discussing the interchange is that Pleasanton will not be able to get its afternoon commute traffic off northbound 680 with only the current Stoneridge interchange. Over five years, there has been extensive traffic analysis and we have come down to two alternatives to get northbound 680 traffic onto the freeway in the afternoon. Plan A is the general plan alternative and includes the West Las Positas interchange. Without any mitigations, it will cost $76.4 million. The alternative the committee suggested is a consensus and would cost $52.8 million. It is important to note that both plans would require the braided ramps. Those will cost $45.3 million before mitigation. The difference is between Plan A, general plan plus West Las Positas interchange, and Plan C, including widening of Stoneridge. Basically the West Las Positas interchange, plus intersections improvements at the West Las Positas and Hopyard intersection, would cost $31.1 million without mitigation. There have been impassioned comments about safety and impacts on school children. On Stoneridge, there is concern about traffic safety. Obviously those things have to be studied. $31.1 million in Plan A to build West Las Positas interchange and widen West Las Positas and Hopyard vs. $7.5 million needed for Plan C to widen Stoneridge to eight lanes; a difference of $23.6 million without mitigation. There will be millions of dollars for mitigations with both plans. No one knows where that money will come from let alone the funds for widening Stoneridge under Plan C. What we do know is there is an ever growing wish list of capital projects, such as the Happy Valley Golf Course, Vineyard realignment, new City Hall, Bemal field of dreams improvements. Will we be willing to give up one or more of these because we choose to build a West Las Positas interchange that costs an extra $23.6 million? Pleasanton City Council 21 05/07/02 Minutes