Laserfiche WebLink
Ms. Hosterman asked about the economies of scale and asked for the difference between <br />the $202,700 and what it may cost two years in the future. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the biggest cost would be the environmental permitting. In addition, as <br />there is more traffic on the interchange, costs go up for traffic diversion. As soon as Dublin <br />development uses that interchange there will be conflicts with the gravel trucks. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wilson could not state a dollar amount, but there would be additional costs for <br />environmental studies, mitigations, and a Project Study Report for CalTrans. The PRS is a major <br />cost. At present, the market is extremely good for bidding construction projects. Also because <br />this is such a large project, there are benefits because the loop is a small piece ora larger project. <br />He felt construction costs would be at least 20% greater at a later date. He also noted that <br />CalTrans acknowledges the need for the loop from the Pleasanton side and will not allow the <br />interchange to be improved unless the loop is included. <br /> <br /> Ms. Hosterman indicated she needed more time to understand why this money had to be <br />spent now. She asked that this item be continued to a future Council meeting. <br /> <br /> Mr. Wilson asked for questions fi'om Council, so staff could have the answers ready for <br />the next hearing. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala referred to the possibility that Livermore would be responsible for a second <br />phase of the interchange improvements, and asked why Pleasanton could not participate at that <br />time? The Stoneridge Drive Specific Plan was adopted in 1989. There was a General Plan <br />review in 1993 and the committee was told not to address the east side of Pleasanton because it <br />would probably be 25 years before the quarries stopped operation. Times have changed and <br />some of the quarry land is already available. The new General Plan update will address the east <br />side of Pleasanton and she did not see how one could say the loop is necessary now because it is <br />unknown how the area will develop. <br /> <br />Mr. Wilson said the expectation is based on the current General Plan. <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift said the build-out traffic model includes the level of intensity on the Staples <br />Ranch which is included in the current General Plan; that is, industrial, warehouse, a large park <br />and a small amount of commercial. It does not include much traffic from the Hansen/Kaiser area <br />because it is designated sand and gravel related businesses. <br /> <br /> Ms. Ayala asked if it were possible to have any scenario emerge from the General Plan <br />review that would not require that loop? <br /> <br /> Mr. Swift could not think of one. If there were no use on the Staples Ranch or Hansen <br />properties, the loop would still be necessary to have that interchange function. The question <br />would be whether Pleasanton or Dublin would pay for it. The loop is definitely necessary for the <br />existing gravel truck and other industrial traffic which uses E1 Charro Road. We do not want to <br />divert that traffic onto Santa Rita Road. Dublin started the design of the interchange to <br />accommodate its traffic only and Pleasanton felt that was being short-sighted and asked for <br /> <br />Pleasanton City Council 12 05/06/03 <br />Minutes <br /> <br /> <br />