DOCSLIB.ORG

Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program - 2021-2024 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program SACOG MISSION BOARD MEMBERS AND MEMBER JURISDICTIONS Provide leadership and a John Allard, City of Roseville dynamic, collaborative public Christopher Cabaldon, City of West Sacramento forum for achieving an efficient regional Kim Douglass, City of Colfax transportation system, Dan Flores, Sutter County innovative and integrated regional planning, and high Lucas Frerichs, City of Davis quality of life within the Sue Frost, Sacramento County greater Sacramento region. Jill Gayaldo, City of Rocklin Bonnie Gore, Placer County Shon Harris, City of Yuba City Robert Jankovitz, City of Isleton Rick Jennings II, City of Sacramento Paul Joiner, City of Lincoln Patrick Kennedy, Sacramento County Mike Kozlowski, City of Folsom Mike Leahy, Yuba County Rich Lozano, City of Galt Pierre Neu, City of Winters Tim Onderko, Town of Loomis Susan Peters, Sacramento County Ricky Samayoa, City of Marysville David Sander, City of Rancho Cordova Michael Saragosa, City of Placerville Don Saylor, Yolo County Jay Schenirer, City of Sacramento Jeff Slowey, City of Citrus Heights Matt Spokely, City of Auburn Tom Stallard, City of Woodland Darren Suen, City of Elk Grove Aleksandar Tica, City of Live Oak Brian Veerkamp, El Dorado County Rick West, City of Wheatland Amarjeet Benipal, Caltrans Ex-Officio 2021-2024 MTIP Contents A Guide to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Contents Page Number Introduction .................................................................................................................................. 2 The 2021-2024 MTIP: Features and Highlights ............................................................................. 2 Investment Decisions: 2020 MTP/SCS and the MTIP .................................................................... 3 2020 MTP/SCS Consistency ........................................................................................................... 3 MTIP Four Year Cycle .................................................................................................................... 5 MTIP Development & Public Participation Process ...................................................................... 5 Development Schedule ................................................................................................................... 6 Relationship of the MTIP to Other Federal and State Transportation Programs ......................... 7 Fund Sources Programmed in the MTIP ....................................................................................... 8 Air Quality Conformity .................................................................................................................. 9 Grouped Project Listings in the MTIP ......................................................................................... 10 Revisions to the MTIP – Administrative Modifications and Amendments ................................. 10 Project Selection in the MTIP ...................................................................................................... 10 Financial Constraint .................................................................................................................... 11 Targets for Encumbering Transportation Funds ......................................................................... 12 Title VI Compliance ..................................................................................................................... 12 System Preservation, Operation, and Maintenance Costs ......................................................... 14 Performance Based Planning ...................................................................................................... 16 How to Read the Project Listings ................................................................................................ 22 Endnotes and Electronic References .......................................................................................... 39 Appendices Resolution ................................................................................................................................. A-1 Public Notice ............................................................................................................................ A-2 Financial Summary .................................................................................................................... A-3 Understanding Grouped and Individually Listed Project Reports ............................................ A-4 Summary of Project Listing (Individual and Grouped) ............................................................. A-5 Detailed Project Listing (Individual and Grouped) .................................................................... A-6 Projects from Previous MTIP (2019-22) that have been Completed ........................................ A-7 Amendment #1 to the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/ Sustainable Communities Strategy ........................................................................................... A-8 Glossary of Commonly Used Terms and Acronyms .................................................................. A-9 Map of the Sacramento Metropolitan Planning Area ............................................................ A-10 Public Comments and Responses ........................................................................................... A-11 1 A Guide to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Introduction The federally required Transportation Improvement Program (TIP or FTIP), called the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program (MTIP)1 in the Sacramento Region, is a comprehensive listing of transportation projects that receive federal funds, require a federal action, or are regionally significant. The Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG),2 as the federally designated Metropolitan Planning Organization (MPO) for the six-county Sacramento Region, prepares and adopts the MTIP every two years. The MTIP covers a four-year period and must be financially constrained by year, meaning that the amount of dollars committed to the projects (also referred to as “programmed”) must not exceed the amount of dollars estimated to be available. The MTIP must include a financial plan that demonstrates that programmed projects can be implemented. Adoption of the MTIP must be accompanied by an evaluation and determination of air quality conformity.3 Federal regulations also require an opportunity for public comment prior to MTIP approval. Transit, highway, local roadway, bicycle and pedestrian investments are included in the MTIP. Apart from some improvements to the region’s airports and the Port of Sacramento, all regionally significant transportation projects or projects requiring federal action are part of the MTIP. All projects included in the MTIP must be consistent with the long range regional transportation plan. The current plan for the SACOG region is the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (2020 MTP/SCS).4 The 2021-2024 MTIP: Features and Highlights Below are some features and highlights of the 2021-2024 MTIP: 1. Addresses the federal requirements as identified in the Fixing America's Surface Transportation Act (FAST Act), enacted December 4, 2015. Approximately every four to six years, Congress adopts, and the President signs a transportation act—an authorization to spend tax dollars on highways, streets, roads, transit and other transportation related projects. 2. Covers four years of programming: federal fiscal years (FFY) 2021 through 2024. 3. Includes approximately 524 projects total (126 individually listed transportation projects and 398 grouped projects in 28 grouped project listing categories). 4. Programs over $2.4 billion of the nearly $3.9 billion of reasonably available federal, state, and local funding during the four years of the MTIP. 5. Refer to Chart 1 below, which breaks down the 2021-2024 MTIP Expenditure Summary across five project categories- Road Maintenance and Rehabilitation; Transit Operations and Maintenance; Road and Highway Expansion; Transit Expansion; and bicycle and pedestrian projects, safety projects, system operations projects, and other related projects. 2 Chart 1. 2021-2024 MTIP Expenditure Summary by Project Category 2021-2024 MTIP Expenditure Summary Transit Operations and Maintenance Road Maintenance 7% and Rehabilitation 36% Road and Highway Expansion 35% Bicycle and pedestrian, safety, system operations, etc. Transit Expansion 13% 9% Investment Decisions: 2020 MTP/SCS and the MTIP The 2020 MTP/SCS, which was approved by SACOG in November 2019, guides and prioritizes all SACOG’s programming decisions. The plan lays out a transportation investment and land use strategy to support a prosperous region, with access to jobs and economic opportunity, transportation options, and affordable housing that works for all residents. The plan also lays out a path for improving our air quality, preserving open space and natural resources, and helping California achieve its goal to reduce greenhouse gas emissions that contribute to climate change. The 2020 MTP/SCS invests $35 billion and proactively links transportation, land use and air quality. Additionally, the 2020 MTP/SCS gives individuals more options for how to get around, with investments in walking, biking, and transit as well as roadway improvements. It focuses on four priority policy areas: 1. Build vibrant places for today’s and tomorrow’s
Load more

Recommended publications
  • APPENDIX a Transportation Study
    APPENDIX A Transportation Study Submitted by: 2990 Lava Ridge Court Suite 200 Roseville, CA 95661 DRAFT OCTOBER 2011 Chapter 4|THE PLAN Exhibit 4-1. Preferred Alternative Plan Prepared for: Old Sacramento State Historic Park General Plan and EIR | Page 4-5 Final Transportation Study for the Old Sacramento State Historic Park and California State Railroad Museum General Plan December 2011 RS10-2810 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Introduction .................................................................................. 1 Project Description .................................................................................................................................... 2 Study Intersections .................................................................................................................................... 3 Data Collection ......................................................................................................................................... 4 Standards of Significance ........................................................................................................................... 4 Analysis Methodology ............................................................................................................................... 6 2. Existing Conditions ........................................................................ 9 Project Area Transportation Facilities ........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix G-1: Frameworks for the 2016 MTP/SCS Update Process
    Appendix G-1: Frameworks for the 2016 MTP/SCS Update Process Table of Contents 1) Schedule of Board Actions Leading to Final Plan Adoption ………………………………….. 2 2) Policy Framework for the MTP/SCS Update Process ………………………………………… 3 3) MTP/SCS Approach to Scenario Development ………………………………………………… 27 4) Framework for a Draft Preferred Scenario ……………………………………………………… 30 5) Endorse 2016 Draft Preferred Scenario …………………………………………………………. 53 Appendix G-1 Draft 8/19 Page 1 2016 MTP/SCS Update: Schedule of Board Actions Leading to Final Plan Adoption Board Action Date of Action Contents/Direction Framework 1.0: Adopted December 2013 • Set implementation-focused theme for plan update with Policy Framework five policy themes: transportation funding, investment strategy, investment timing, land use forecast, plan effects. • Set region-level growth projections of population, employment and housing for the plan horizon year (2036). • Set overall schedule for the plan update. Framework 1.5: Adopted March 2014 • Set parameters for three regional land use and Scenarios transportation scenarios for use in public workshops and Development plan development. Framework • Initiated phasing analysis of transportation investments in current plan. • Initiated analysis of different levels and types of transportation revenue sources. • Set schedule for creation of Framework 2.0. Framework 2.0: Targeted for November or • Sets guidelines, task and process for developing a draft December 2014 adoption Draft Preferred preferred scenario (land use forecast, revenue forecast, Scenario project list, performance outcomes). Framework • Sets a minimum of six weeks for review and vetting of a preliminary draft preferred scenario. Framework 3.0: Targeted for April 2015 • Sets details of Draft Preferred Scenario (for years 2020, Draft Preferred 2035, and 2036) for use in development of Draft Plan and Scenario EIR: o Land use forecast o Revenue Forecast o Budget and Project List o Performance Outcomes Draft Plan (2016 Targeted for September 2015 • Release Draft 2016 MTP/SCS for public comment.
    [Show full text]
  • FY 2011-2012 Capital Budget Represents the One Year Capital Spending Plan for RT
    Fiscal Year 2011-2012 Budget Table of Contents Table of Contents Table of Contents ................................................................................ 1 General Manager/CEO Budget Message ........................................... 3 Board of Directors Board of Directors .................................................................................6 Budget Adoption Resolutions................................................................7 Budget Presentation Award......................................................................8 Executive Management Team ............................................................. 9 Organizational Structure ................................................................... 10 District Overview District Profile ......................................................................................11 Service Area Map................................................................................15 Strategic Plan......................................................................................17 Long-Term Financial Policies ..............................................................19 Budget Process...................................................................................27 Voting System .....................................................................................29 Trends.................................................................................................31 Peer Comparison ................................................................................34
    [Show full text]
  • PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION August 16, 2017 Advice Letter 5042-E Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas An
    STATE OF CALIFORNIA EDMUND G. BROWN JR., Governor PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102-3298 August 16, 2017 Advice Letter 5042-E Erik Jacobson Director, Regulatory Relations Pacific Gas and Electric Company 77 Beale Street, Mail Code B10C P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 SUBJECT: Encroachment Agreement with Sacramento Regional Transit District Request for Approval Under Section 851 and General Order 173 Dear Mr. Jacobson: Advice Letter 5042-E is effective as of August 10, 2017, per Resolution E-4856 Ordering Paragraph. Sincerely, Edward Randolph Director, Energy Division Erik Jacobson Pacific Gas and Electric Company Director 77 Beale St., Mail Code B10C Regulatory Relations P.O. Box 770000 San Francisco, CA 94177 Fax: 415-973-1448 March 30, 2017 Advice 5042-E (Pacific Gas and Electric Company ID U 39 E) Public Utilities Commission of the State of California Subject: Encroachment Agreement with Sacramento Regional Transit District – Request for Approval Under Section 851 and General Order 173 Purpose Pacific Gas and Electric Company (PG&E) requests approval under Public Utilities Code Section 851 (Section 851) and General Order 173 to grant an encroachment agreement (Agreement) to the Sacramento Regional Transit District, a Public Corporation (RT). The Agreement permits the encroachment of a light rail system and passenger station platform (Improvements) within PG&E’s Easement Area (PG&E Easement). A copy of the Agreement is attached hereto as Attachment 1. PG&E has inspected the encroachment agreement and has determined that granting the encroachment will not interfere with PG&E’s operations or its ability to provide utility services to its customers.
    [Show full text]
  • Ridership Report (October 2019)
    Ridership Report (October 2019) Year to Date Summary Category FY20 YTD FY19YTD Difference % Change Trailing 12 Month Trend Bus 3,518,921 3,415,852 103,069 3.0% 11,500,000 Light Rail 3,848,176 3,641,112 207,064 5.7% Rail Bus System Total 7,367,097 7,056,964 310,133 4.4% 11,000,000 10,500,000 Current Month Summary 10,000,000 Category October 2019 October 2018 Difference % Change Bus 1,059,668 1,014,352 45,316 4.5% 9,500,000 Light Rail 1,063,740 1,025,613 38,127 3.7% System Total 2,123,408 2,039,965 83,443 4.1% 9,000,000 Daily Summary Category October 2019 October 2018 Difference % Change Bus (M-F) 41,415 40,275 1,140 2.8% Bus (Sat) 15,390 13,266 2,124 16.0% Bus (Sun) 10,371 7,915 2,456 31.0% October Ridership by Mode Light Rail (M-F) 40,939 40,510 429 1.1% 6% Light Rail (Sat) 17,127 13,500 3,627 26.9% Light Rail Light Rail (Sun) 12,229 9,500 2,729 28.7% Fixed Route 48% Other Services E-Tran Ridership Summary (E-Van included) 46% Category Current Year Prior Year Difference % Change E-Tran (YTD) 280,319 266,440 13,879 5.2% E-Tran (Monthly) 84,775 81,648 3,127 3.8% Other services include E-Tran, Folsom, SmaRT Ride, CBS and Special Services E-Tran (Weekday) 3,560 3,426 134 3.9% Route Level Ridership Comparison (Bus) Weelday Route Comparison Saturday Route Comparison Route Oct 2019 Oct 2018 Difference % Change Route Oct 2019 Oct 2018 Difference % Change 1 2,067 2,190 (124) -6% 1 768 777 (9) -1% 11 972 715 257 36% 11 447 282 165 59% 13 678 315 362 115% 13 426 - 426 15 795 1,215 (420) -35% 15 381 558 (176) -32% 19 423 658 (234) -36% 19 209 271
    [Show full text]
  • City of Sacramento
    CITY OF SACRAMENTO LIGHT RAIL TRANSIT LAND USE POLICIES AND GUIDELINES April 2005 Prepared by Planning Division Long Range Planning Section Development Services Department Todd Leon, Project Manager Jim McDonald AICP, Senior Planner Stacia Cosgrove, Associate Planner Christopher Jordan, Student Assistant Nathan Stephens, Student Assistant http://www.cityofsacramento.org/dsd/planning/plngserv/lngrng/policies.htm TABLE OF CONTENTS PAGE EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...............................................................................................................I I. INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................................................1 II. CITY OF SACRAMENTO GENERAL PLAN...........................................................................5 SECTION 1: POLICIES........................................................................................................7 SECTION 2: RESIDENTIAL LAND USE ELEMENT.........................................................12 SECTION 4: COMMERCE AND INDUSTRY LAND USE ELEMENT ...............................15 SECTION 5: CIRCULATION ELEMENT............................................................................20 III. REGIONAL TRANSIT PLANS .............................................................................................25 A. REGIONAL TRANSIT MASTER PLAN (1993) ............................................................26 B. REGIONAL TRANSIT DESIGN GUIDELINES FOR BUS AND LIGHT RAIL FACILITIES...............................................................................................................33
    [Show full text]
  • Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program
    - 2021-2024 Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program SACOG MISSION BOARD MEMBERS AND MEMBER JURISDICTIONS Provide leadership and a Karm Bains, Sutter County dynamic, collaborative public Krista Bernasconi, City of Roseville forum for achieving an efficient regional transportation system, Gary Bradford, Yuba County innovative and integrated Chris Branscum, City of Marysville regional planning, and high quality of life within the greater Pamela Bulahan, City of Isleton Sacramento region. Trinity Burruss, City of Colfax Jan Clark-Crets, Town of Loomis Rich Desmond, Sacramento County Lucas Frerichs, City of Davis Sue Frost, Sacramento County Jill Gayaldo, City of Rocklin Lakhvir Ghag, City of Live Oak Bonnie Gore, Placer County Martha Guerrero, City of West Sacramento Shon Harris, City of Yuba City Rick Jennings, City of Sacramento Paul Joiner, City of Lincoln Patrick Kennedy, Sacramento County Mike Kozlowski, City of Folsom Rich Lozano, City of Galt Porsche Middleton, City of Citrus Heights Pierre Neu, City of Winters David Sander, City of Rancho Cordova Michael Saragosa, City of Placerville Don Saylor, Yolo County Jay Schenirer, City of Sacramento Matt Spokely, City of Auburn Tom Stallard, City of Woodland Darren Suen, City of Elk Grove Wendy Thomas, El Dorado County Rick West, City of Wheatland Amarjeet Benipal, Ex-Officio Member 2021-2024 MTIP Contents A Guide to the Metropolitan Transportation Improvement Program Contents Page Number Introduction .................................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Rider Alert Service Changes 6/17/19 September 8, 2019 Route Changes Route Changes Route Changes Route Changes
    Updated Changes take effect on Rider Alert Service Changes 6/17/19 September 8, 2019 Route Changes Route Changes Route Changes Route Changes Improve evening frequency and reduce early morning Combine with Route 22 and extend north and west in Shift trips beginning from Arden/Del Paso station at Combine Routes 30 and Route 38. Both routes would frequency. Add new trips from Sunrise Mall at 6:29, 6:59, Natomas. Discontinue part of existing route through 9:45 and 10:45 p.m. later approximately 5 minutes for use J/L Street from Sacramento Valley Station to 39th and 7:29 p.m. and from Watt/I-80 at 7:04, 7:34, 8:04, and Natomas. Improve headways to 45 minutes. Add train transfers. Adjust schedules to maintain more even Street. Route 30 would continue to CSUS as it does 8:34 p.m. Eliminate trips from Sunrise Mall at 5:14 and Saturday/Sunday service with 45 minute frequency from headways and passenger loads. Add outbound trips today. On weekdays, each route would have 30 minute 1 5:44 a.m. and from Watt/I-80 at 5:49 and 6:19 a.m. 7:00 a.m. to 8:00 p.m. Extend north on Truxel Road, west from approximately 1:30 to 3:00 p.m. to help with base frequency. From downtown to 39th Street, 23 Eliminate weekend trips from Watt/I-80 at 5:06, 5:36, and on Del Paso Road to El Centro Rd. From Arden/Del Paso heavy passenger loads from Arden/Del Paso to Watt weekday customers would be able to catch either 6:06 a.m.
    [Show full text]
  • GEI Report Template Feb2009 and Msword 2007
    Final American River Common Features Project General Reevaluation Report Historic Properties Management Plan Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District July 2017 Prepared by: Consulting Engineers and Scientists Final American River Common Features Project General Reevaluation Report Historic Properties Management Plan Prepared for: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sacramento District 1325 J Street Sacramento, CA 95814-2922 Contact: Name: Melissa Montag Title: Senior Environmental Manager Phone: 916-557-7907 Prepared by: GEI Consultants, Inc. 2868 Prospect Park Drive, Suite 400 Sacramento, CA 95670 (916) 631-4500 Contact: Barry Scott, RPA Senior Archaeologist (916) 213.2767 July 17, 2017 Barry Scott, MA, RPA Senior Archaeologist Project No. 1602400 Table of Contents Acronyms and Abbreviations .................................................................................................................................. v Executive Summary and Content of Document .................................................................................................... 1 Chapter 1. Introduction and Description of the Undertaking ................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Application of the Historic Properties Management Plan .......................... 1-1 1.1.1 Roles and Responsibilities ................................................................................. 1-2 1.2 Description of the Undertaking .......................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Public Art Implementation Budget
    CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO WASHINGTON DISTRICT PUBLIC ART IMPLEMENTATION PLAN CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . 1 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS . 5 SECTION 1 . BACKGROUND . 9 SECTION 2 . PROPOSED ART CONCEPTS . 25 SECTION 3 . IMPLEMENTATION . 69 APPENDICES . 79 APPENDIX A: PRELIMINARY ENGAGEMENT AND SURVEY SUMMARY APPENDIX B: COLLECTION MANAGEMENT PROCEDURES APPENDIX C: COMMUNITY ENGAGEMENT 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY intentions for art investments, the WDPAIP will expand PURPOSE opportunities to integrate art into the planning, funding, Public art helps to support a vibrant urban riverfront. and design of capital improvement projects and new It encourages pedestrian, scooter, and bicycle travel private investment. The WDPAIP builds upon the by adding visual interest and wayfinding to the public interaction between the development and redevelopment streetscape and enriching the pedestrian and bicycling of new housing and commercial projects with walkability, experience. Public art is a driver of local economic transportation pathways and nodes, iconic architecture, development and has the potential to catalyze and foster the River Walk, and historical landmarks. Anselm Keifer Sculpture, London community identity. The Washington District Public Art Implementation Plan (WDPAIP) defines a distinct art POLICY CONTEXT West Sacramento, and the Crocker Art Museum, to create investment strategy to foster transit-oriented, pedestrian- a comprehensive plan for public art and arts experiences A primary impetus for the plan is Washington Realized, and bike-friendly development patterns. This Plan connecting both cities with pedestrian-friendly pathways. A Sustainable Community Strategy, which was adopted in provides guidance the City will use to develop public 2015 as a framework for updating the 1996 Washington artworks that highlight the Riverfront, gateway corridors, District Specific Plan.
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department Records
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c8j390d9 No online items Guide to the Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department records Sean Heyliger Center for Sacramento History 551 Sequoia Pacific Blvd. Sacramento, California 95811-0229 Phone: (916) 808-7072 Fax: (916) 264-7582 Email: [email protected] URL: http://www.centerforsacramentohistory.org/ © 2013 Center for Sacramento History. All rights reserved. Guide to the Sacramento (Calif.) CTY0008 1 Planning Department records Guide to the Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department records Collection number: CTY0008 Center for Sacramento History Sacramento, CA Processed by: Sean Heyliger Date Completed: 2019-08-19 Encoded by: Sean Heyliger © 2013 Center for Sacramento History. All rights reserved. Descriptive Summary Title: Sacramento (Calif.) Planning Department records Dates: 1955-2008 Bulk Dates: 1976-1996 Collection number: CTY0008 Creator: Sacramento (Calif.). City Planning Department Collection Size: 16 boxes(16 linear feet) Repository: Center for Sacramento History Sacramento, California 95811-0229 Abstract: The Sacramento (Calif.). City Planning Department records consist of 16 boxes of Sacramento residential and non-residential building surveys conducted mostly between 1976-1996. Each survey consists of a historical/architectural survey form which includes information about the structure such as building type, architect, builder, date of construction, style, significant architectural features, additions/alterations, evaluation desingation and a photograph of the structure. Physical location: 7H1, 7H2, 7I1 Languages: Languages represented in the collection: English Access Collection is open for research use. Publication Rights All requests to publish or quote from private collections held by the Center for Sacramento History (CSH) must be submitted in writing to [email protected]. Permission for publication is given on behalf of CSH as the owner of the physical items and is not intended to include or imply permission of the copyright holder, which must also be obtained by the patron.
    [Show full text]
  • Jesse M. Unruh Building Renovation Project
    Draft Environmental Impact Report Jesse M. Unruh Building Renovation Project SCH#2019039120 Prepared for: California Department of General Services 707 3rd Street, MS-509 West Sacramento, CA 95605 July 16, 2019 Draft Environmental Impact Report Jesse M. Unruh Building Renovation Project SCH#2019039120 Prepared for: California Department of General Services 707 3rd Street, MS-509 West Sacramento, CA 95605 Contact: Jennifer Parson Senior Environmental Planner Prepared by: Ascent Environmental, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 Contact: Suzanne Enslow Project Manager 18010209.01 July 16, 2019 TABLE OF CONTENTS Section Page LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS .......................................................................................................................................................................... vi 1 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................................................ 1-1 1.1 Project Requiring Environmental Analysis .............................................................................................................. 1-1 1.2 Purpose and Intended Uses of this Draft EIR ....................................................................................................... 1-2 1.3 Scope of this Draft EIR ................................................................................................................................................. 1-2 1.4 Agency Roles and Responsibilities
    [Show full text]