Sutter Creek – About 15 people attended the ad hoc committee meeting Tuesday on Gold Rush Ranch & Golf Resort’s traffic impacts on Sutter Creek. Assistant City Manager Sean Rabe told the committee and public that the committee was to discuss and determine recommendations to the Sutter Creek City Council, for Conditions of Approval and the Development Agreement, which the council must negotiate with Gold Rush. One topic was direct intersection improvements, and Amador County Transportation Commission director Charles Field said his commission “had no formal decision” on such conditions recommended by the Sutter Creek Planning Commission, meaning ACTC supports them as written. Field said as far as impact fees were concerned, if Sutter Creek used the developer’s “fair share,” as determined by a consultant, the “fees would be so low, we would not have a project.” Councilman Pat Crosby asked if Gold Rush build a road opposite Ampine at the existing intersection, would it be adequate mitigation. Field said that was a good question. ACTC Attorney Dave Richardson said: “not at the same time.” And Field said developers “would argue that they are only required to pay part of that cost.” Mayor Pro Tem Tim Murphy said Gold Rush requested $520,000 credit for installing traffic signals there, and for a reduction of “trip ends,” shown in a study. Field said “signals are already warranted” at the Ampine entrance; the property “has been approved for other development;” and Amador County Supervisors sent a letter to Caltrans promising they will get signals installed. Field said they were “leaning on the CMX,” ACTC’s Community Mapping Exercise tool, which will not be operational in time. Crosby said he thought the “greater portion” of traffic would go to the south side of the intersection, and Gold Rush should “be reimbursed in some agreed upon standards.” Gold Rush’s Greg Bardini said a study showed 48 percent of traffic would go to Gold Rush and 52 percent would go to the Martell business park. He thought the percentage of benefits to each showed fair shares of cost. Foothill Conservancy’s Tom Infusino said “without the CMX, they are underfunding this project.” He said: “We call it fair share, but it’s nowhere close to the fair share.” Field said rather than give a $520,000 credit for signal and improvements, they should recommend that the “cost of improving the intersection, including signals, can be reimbursed if it creates excess capacity” for traffic flow. The committee agreed. These and other recommendations will be taken to the city council October 19th. Story by Jim Reece