Laserfiche WebLink
<br />SR 89 MOUSEHOLE STAKEHOLDERS COMMITTEE MEETING <br />DECEMBER 11, 2007 MEETING MINUTES <br />4:00 p.m. <br /> <br />Truckee Town Hall <br />Council Chambers <br /> <br /> <br />Present: <br />Becky Bucar, Town of Truckee Assistant Engineer <br />Beth Christman, Truckee River Watershed Council <br />Jan Colyer, Truckee North Tahoe Transportation Management Association <br />Carolyn Wallace Dee, Truckee Town Council <br />Brian Stewart, Placer County <br />Josh Susman, Truckee Town Council <br />Steve Teshara, North Lake Tahoe Resort Association <br />Dan Wilkins, Public Works Director/Town Engineer <br />John Witney, Truckee Donner Chamber of Commerce <br />David Yardas, Truckee Trails Foundation <br /> <br />Meeting Started at 4:10 p.m. <br /> <br />1. Dan Wilkins reviewed the alternatives that are currently under review: <br />a. Alternative A1: Realigned RR/Short Bridge <br />b. Alternative A2: Realigned RR/Long Bridge <br />c. Alternative B: Shoofly <br />d. Alternative C: Tunnel <br /> <br />2. Based upon the outcome of the analysis to date, it was the PDT’s recommendation that <br />Alternative A1 and Alternative C be dropped from further analysis. <br /> <br />3. John Whitney asked who is dealing with the Railroad. Dan Wilkins discussed how we have been <br />reviewing the project with the local railroad staff, although final decisions are made in Omaha. <br /> <br />4. Dan Wilkins discussed the revised cost estimates that are based upon the less stringent railroad <br />design standards. Even with these more relaxed standards, Alternative A1 and Alternative B <br />would cost the same but Alternative A1 would place fill in the creek. <br /> <br />5. Beth Christman indicated that there may be a strategy for keeping Alternative A1 in, as it would <br />eventually get thrown out due to its impacts to the creek. <br /> <br />6. It was noted that the support costs do not include mitigation costs, which would increase the cost <br />of Alternative B because of impacts to the creek. <br /> <br />th <br />7. Staff will also be recommending at the December 20 Council meeting that Alternative A2 be <br />removed from further study because Alternative B appears to be the superior alternative in terms <br />of costs, environmental impacts, ROW requirements, and historical impacts. There is a risk <br />associated with moving forward through the PAED process with only one alternative because if a <br />flaw in Alternative B is discovered such that, for example, Alternative A2 becomes a more viable <br />alternative, additional time and money would be required to develop the alternative. However, it is <br />staff’s opinion that this risk is worth taking because it would result in substantial savings in <br />Caltrans support costs (roughly $450,000). Group concurred with this approach. <br /> <br />8. Group discussed that railroad needs to be brought to the table. <br /> <br />______________________________________________________________________________ <br />Town of Truckee <br />December 11, 2007 Mousehole Stakeholder Committee Meeting Minutes <br />Page 1 <br /> <br />