Placerville planners field strong public opposition to 'Trip to Green' traffic project as Section 106 consultation begins

The Placerville Planning Commission on Oct. 7 heard extended public comment objecting to early-stage plans for the federally funded “Trip to Green” project, which would install permanent traffic-management infrastructure and a proposed pedestrian overcrossing at Canal Street along U.S. 50.

Staff said the item before the commission was an initial Section 106/NEPA consultation request focused on effects to historic properties; commissioners and staff urged interested parties to provide written comments to the consultant, and the commission asked staff to summarize comments for review at the commission’s next meeting.

Carol Kendrick, the city’s director of development services, told the commission the project is in a preliminary environmental phase and that letters seeking input were sent to identified consulting parties. “At this time, we are just seeking initial comments, but it really does just begin the process,” Kendrick said.

Several longtime merchants and residents urged the commission to oppose design elements that they said would divert traffic off Main Street and reduce customer visits. Greg Rezak, identifying himself with Placerville Antiques and Merchants on Main and the Golden History Association, said merchants have gathered signatures opposing the plan and asked to be included in subsequent workshops. “We want to be a part of this. We want to be a part of the meetings, the workshops,” Rezak said.

Don Tornincasa, owner of Empire Antiques, told commissioners that downtown weekend traffic is the businesses’ “lifeblood” and said closing or restricting movements on U.S. 50 at peak weekends helped shutter businesses during prior changes. Resident Vince Darwin urged the commission to give the business community “some latitude” so storefronts do not fail.

Commissioners and staff repeatedly emphasized that the project remains conceptual. A staff speaker identified only as Miss Savage described project elements including intelligent-transportation signage, channelization devices and the Canal Street pedestrian overcrossing; she said the effort requires NEPA/Section 106 review because of federal funding and that the consulting engineer will collect historic-resources comments as the environmental study proceeds.

Members of the public and several commissioners asked for more detail: where temporary or permanent elements would be placed, how many signs and devices are planned, and the likely construction footprint. A resident told the commission she was told the design contract for project work was about $3,600,000; staff confirmed design work is under contract and said they are developing technical studies but that detailed siting is still months away. Staff said the consultant identified roughly 40 permanent signs as part of concept materials distributed to identified parties.

Kendrick said the consultant, Jenna Kasher (GPA Consulting), asks that interested entities submit written comments identifying historic properties or concerns; the consultant’s letter gave an initial comment deadline that staff said effectively fell around Oct. 22. Commissioners agreed it would be difficult for the commission to prepare an approved, formal comment before the consultant’s stated date and asked staff whether an extension could be requested.

Chair Keeney said the commission will compile a written summary of the concerns heard at the meeting — including merchants’ economic concerns and requests that new hardware and bollards respect the city’s historic character — and asked staff to include that draft on the next meeting agenda for review. “I will type this up, send it to staff to be included in our next agenda for everyone's approval,” Keeney said.

Staff, commissioners and multiple public speakers said there will be additional public outreach as the environmental studies proceed, including opportunities to review design-level documents. Commissioners and members of the public repeatedly requested clear maps and preliminary siting information before the project advances beyond the environmental scoping stage.

The commission’s immediate direction was procedural: to assemble the concerns voiced at the meeting, ask staff to attempt to confirm whether the consultant will accept a short extension of the initial comment window, and bring a draft summary back to the commission at its next scheduled meeting for possible transmission to the consultant.

Proponents of the project and the project team said the Section 106 process is intended to identify consulting parties and document the effect on historic properties; they reiterated the project is in early design and the city will hold additional outreach as plans develop.