The meeting was broken into 4 agenda topics with the introduction, on site (and adjacent) project design recommendations, off site concerns, and the review of the circulation mapping exercise. The introduction consisted of explaining the project. The developer, Lemke Construction of Calaveras County, is proposing to divide 201.37 acres into 621 parcels consisting of 490 single family residential parcels, 3 commercial parcels which, one industrial parcel, one parcel for a future school site, and 10 parcels for parks and pathway areas. The ACTC is concerned with onsite design issues because this can and will affect the number of automobiles adding to offsite congestion. They had sent a comment letter in April of 2005 specifically outlining their concerns. In response, Lemke said they would be building better access behind Wal-mart, leading to more connections directly to Wicklow Way. Comments that have garnered no response from the developer or an unclear response include issues over direct access to the Amador Plaza, the ability to help build the Sutter Street Extension, Sidewalks and bike lanes on internal streets, Pedestrian/bicycle facilities on or across Highway 88, and one of the chief concerns; pedestrian accessibility. Whether this accessibility will just be in the development itself will it accommodate residents wanting to walk to other areas outside the development.  

Field said there was an offer from ACTC for early consultation to discuss their concerns and that was not taken up by Lemke Construction. He then discussed ACTC’s May 2007 comments. Comments include: the lack of a four-way intersection to provide a direct connection with the Martell Business Park, no direct connection between Wicklow Way and Westview Drive, and no bicycle or pedestrian access for students to reach Argonaut High School, which Field said  could be remedied with the Westview Connection construction. The Sutter Street Extension remains a hot topic because neither Hoffman nor Argonaut Lane (especially taking into consideration the new Court House) are suited to take the weight of traffic the Wicklow Project will generate. If the Wicklow Way project moves forward so will the Sutter Street Project, as it is a project specific plan. Field then moved to ACTC’s Offsite Concerns.  Topics presented included: the Regional Transportation Plan policies; Regional Traffic Mitigation Fee Program; Traffic mitigations to be paid for or built by the project; Impacts to be mitigated by paying traffic mitigation fees as well as impacts to be mitigated by fair share contribution; and impacts to be built and paid back by a fair share/reimbursement agreement. ACTC is currently working with the Board of Supervisors to include some amendments to the current Regional Transportation Plan, with some sense of urgency.

Under project specific impacts Field made it very clear that if a new development project were to create an impact that would otherwise not occur, the project should pay for the full cost of the improvement needed to mitigate that impact and achieve the level of service objectives set forth in county goals. These include Wicklow Way, Argonaut Lane, Hoffman Street, the SR 88/Wicklow Way intersection and the SR 49/Hoffman St. Intersection. The presentation then got down to a main concern; money and how to pay for the improvements needed and those expected to be generated by the Wicklow Way project. Road projects at Ridge Rd and Hwy 49, as well as, Hwy 49 and Argonaut Lane seem to have some funding backing the projects. However, the other necessary projects are considered Tier 2 projects and have no funding sources associated with them at all. With out money for the projects they simply will not be built leading to major traffic problems in the county. The ACTC ultimately recommended that the Planning Commission appoint an ad hoc committee to further discuss the development’s traffic impacts with ACTC and the developer. The Board of Supervisors will have to authorize the committee and then choose whom will be involved on the committee. A few members of the Planning Commission were very interested in the ACTC’s idea for the ad hoc committee.