DOCSLIB.ORG

Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration INITIAL STUDY AND MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION FOR THE 603 SUTTER STREET COMMERCIAL BUILDING PROJECT CITY OF FOLSOM COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT Prepared with the Technical Assistance of: Environmental Planning Partners, Inc. JUNE 2020 This page intentionally left blank. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. Description of Proposed Project ........................................................................................................2 2. City Regulation of Urban Development ......................................................................................... 13 3. Required Approvals ........................................................................................................................... 17 4. Previous Relevant Environmental Analysis ................................................................................... 17 5. Environmental Setting and Evaluation of Potential Impacts ...................................................... 22 I. Aesthetics ............................................................................................................................... 24 II. Agriculture and Forestry Resources ................................................................................... 39 III. Air Quality ............................................................................................................................. 41 IV. Biological Resources ............................................................................................................. 51 V. Cultural Resources ................................................................................................................ 58 VI. Energy ..................................................................................................................................... 62 VII. Geology and Soils ................................................................................................................. 64 VIII. Greenhouse Gas Emissions ................................................................................................ 71 IX. Hazards and Hazardous Materials ..................................................................................... 77 X. Hydrology and Water Quality ............................................................................................. 80 XI. Land Use and Planning ........................................................................................................ 85 XII. Mineral Resources ................................................................................................................. 90 XIII. Noise ....................................................................................................................................... 91 IVX. Population and Housing ...................................................................................................... 98 XV. Public Services ....................................................................................................................... 99 XVI. Recreation ............................................................................................................................ 100 XVII. Transportation ..................................................................................................................... 101 XVIII Tribal Cultural Resources .................................................................................................. 107 XIX. Utilities and Service Systems ............................................................................................. 111 XX. Wildfire ................................................................................................................................. 117 XXI. Mandatory Findings of Significance ................................................................................ 118 6. Preparers of the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration ................................................ 124 7. References .......................................................................................................................................... 125 8. Applicant Agreement to Mitigation Measures ............................................................................. 131 Determination ................................................................................................................................... 133 Appendices Appendix A Air Pollutant and Greenhouse Gas Emissions Modeling Calculations Appendix B Tree Survey Data Appendix C Traffic Impact Assessment City of Folsom i 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building June 2020 Initial Study List of Tables Table 1 Project Site and Surrounding Developed Uses – 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building ...2 Table 2 Proposed Uses and Areas – 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building .......................................6 Table 3 Proposed Retaining Wall Dimensions – 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building ............... 11 Table 4 City of Folsom Municipal Code Sections Regulating Urban Development within the City ... 16 Table 5 Potential City-wide Impacts Determined to be Less-than-significant or No Impact by the 2035 General Plan EIR .................................................................................................... 20 Table 6 Federal and California Ambient Air Quality Standards and Attainment Status .................. 43 Table 7 Annual Air Quality Data for Sacramento County Air Quality Monitoring Stations .......... 44 Table 8 Unmitigated Construction and Operation Related Emissions ............................................... 46 Table 9 Definition of Protected Trees Pursuant to FMC Section 12.16 ............................................ 53 Table 10 Summary of Estimated Greenhouse Gas Emissions from the 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building Project ...................................................................................................... 75 Table 11 City of Folsom Municipal Code Sections Regulating the Effects on Hydrology and Water Quality from Urban Development within the City ...................................................... 82 Table 12 Consistency of the Proposed Project with Environmentally Protective Policies, Regulations, and Requirements ................................................................................................... 89 Table 13 Exterior Noise Level Standards, dBA ........................................................................................ 93 Table 14 Typical Noise Levels during Construction ................................................................................ 94 Table 15 Utilities Available in the 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building Project Vicinity ............ 111 List of Figures Figure 1 Regional Location ............................................................................................................................3 Figure 2 Project Vicinity .................................................................................................................................4 Figure 3 Proposed Site Plan ...........................................................................................................................5 Figure 4 Proposed Project ..............................................................................................................................8 Figure 5 North and East Exterior Elevations .............................................................................................9 Figure 6 South and West Exterior Elevations .......................................................................................... 10 Figure 7 Grading and Drainage Plan ......................................................................................................... 12 Figure 8 Existing and Proposed Views – Sutter Street Looking West ................................................. 26 Figure 9 Existing and Proposed Views – Sutter Street Looking North ............................................... 27 Figure 10 Existing and Proposed Views – Scott / Riley Streets Looking South .................................. 28 Figure 11 Existing and Proposed Views – Sutter / Scott Streets Looking South ................................ 29 Figure 12 Existing and Proposed Views – Sutter Street Panorama ........................................................ 30 Figure 13 Folsom Historic District Subareas in the Project Vicinity ...................................................... 87 Figure 14 Utilities Plan ................................................................................................................................. 114 603 Sutter Street Commercial Building ii City of Folsom Initial Study June 2020 NOTICE OF INTENT TO ADOPT A MITIGATED NEGATIVE DECLARATION The City of Folsom proposes to adopt a Mitigated Negative Declaration pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act for the project listed below: PROPOSED PROJECT: 603 Sutter Street Mixed-Use Building. PROJECT LOCATION: The project site is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of Sutter Street and Scott Street in the City of Folsom. The project site consists of an undeveloped rectangular plot of land measuring 0.17 acres (7,400 square feet). The parcel is identified as Sacramento County Assessor’s Parcel Number (APN) 070-0111-010, and is located in an unsurveyed portion of the Rancho de Los Americanos land grant, at latitude/longitude 38°40’41.88”N, 121°10’30.66”W. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: The project assessed in the Mitigated Negative Declaration is the development
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Environmental Assessment Determinations and Compliance Findings for HUD-Assisted Projects 24 CFR Part 58
    Environmental Assessment Determinations and Compliance Findings for HUD-assisted Projects 24 CFR Part 58 Project Information Project Name: Sage at Folsom (Scholar Way Senior Apartment Community) Project Responsible Entity: Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency Preparer: Michael Baker International, Incorporated Certifying Officer Name and Title: La Shelle Dozier, Executive Director, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency Consultant (if applicable): Michael Baker International, Incorporated Direct Comments to: Stephanie Green, Environmental Coordinator, Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency [email protected] 916-440-1302 Project Location: The Project Site is comprised of approximately 4.2 acres of undeveloped, previously disturbed land located immediately east of the intersection of Scholar Way and East Bidwell Street in the City of Folsom in Sacramento County, California. The address for the Project Site is 89 Scholar Way, Folsom, California, Sacramento County (Assessor Parcel Number [APN] 072-0270-157). The Project Site is surrounded by Scholar Way, College Point Business Park, and Folsom Lake College to the north; the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints (church), Cavitt Drive, and a residential neighborhood to the east; the Broadstone Marketplace commercial center to the south; and Southern Pacific Railroad/Placerville & Sacramento Valley Railroad track, bike trail, and East Bidwell Street to the west. Description of the Proposed Project [24 CFR 50.12 & 58.32; 40 CFR 1508.25]: The Sacramento Housing and Redevelopment Agency (SHRA) is proposing to use HUD HOME Investment Partnership funds to support construction of the Sage at Folsom project (Project), which would consist of the construction of 109 one-bedroom/one-bathroom units of affordable housing for seniors with one additional unit reserved for management staff (for a Project total of 110 units).
    [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]
  • 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]
  • Folsom Short Range Transit Plan Update Project Appendix G.1 Public
    Folsom Short Range Transit Plan Update Project Appendix G .1 Public Comments Summary BUS SERVICE Commuter Feeder Service to Folsom Light Rail Stations Feeder bus essential for Folsom residents to take advantage of light rail; should run all day. Need fast, quick feeders to/from light rail during peak commuter hours only . Local feeder routes need to be within walking distance of residences, not just businesses. Draft bus service plan seems to cater to commercial traffic much more than commuters . Why can't the commuter public be covered during peak time (i.e ., 6 AM - 7 :30 PM & 4 PM - 5 :30 PM) and commercial traffic off-peak. Consider different routes for commuters (5am - 9 am, 3pm - 7pm) than for in-town customers (run all day). Commute routes should be designed to serve largest neighborhood populations possible and travel quickly to L.R. stations . Daytime in-town routes would serve major retail, city hall, college, etc. Early a.m. pick up (bus stop) at East Natoma & Briggs Ranch to light rail to get me to work by 6:30 a.m. Maintain service on Folsom-Auburn Road from Folsom Dam Road and provide feeder service to Historic Folsom light rail station. Add a peak-only loop up Folsom-Auburn, Oak Avenue Parkway, American River Canyon, Greenback, right on Folsom-Auburn, up unused center lane ramp to the Historic Folsom light rail station. Residents in Orangevale seemed to get better service even though they already have current RT service ; RT and Folsom could make arrangements so Folsom would no longer have to loop out to Madison/Main (e .g.
    [Show full text]
  • Transit Service, Capital and Financial Plan
    Chapter 9 Transit Service, Capital and Financial Plan The basis for any transit plan is the development of an effective and appropriate service strategy. The types of service provided, their schedules and routes, and the quality of service can effective determine the success offailure of a transit system. This chapter presents the recommended service changes for implementation in October 2005 when the RT light rail service to Folsom begins, and other service options forfuture consideration over the next five years. Also included in this chapter is a capital plan for replacement of the transitf eet and a detailed financial plan for the City's transit division for fiscal years 2005/06 through 2010/11 that includes recommended modifications to the Folsom Stage Line fare structure. Transit Service Plan Service Recommendations for Phase I Implementation (October 2005) The following service changes are recommended for implementation on Monday, October 17, 2005 when the RT light rail extension to Folsom begins revenue service operations. 1) Discontinue all commuter bus service to Downtown Sacramento. 2) Discontinue the feeder bus service to the Butterfield light rail station. 3) Discontinue the tripper transfer service. 4) Restructure local fixed service (Route 10) into a local feeder route (Route A) that provides service to the Iron Point and Historic Folsom light rail stations, maintaining the connection to RT route 24 at Main/Madison in Orangevale. New local service would be provided on Iron Point Road between East Bidwell Street and Folsom Boulevard, and would continue to serve Folsom Lake Community College . The route alignment is described in Chapter 5 as Alternative Route A (blue route on the map on Figure 25 on page 131 .
    [Show full text]
  • City of Folsom, California
    CITY OF FOLSOM, CALIFORNIA FY 2010-11 CAPITAL IMPROVEMENT PLAN CCiittyy ooff FFoollssoomm,, CCaalliiffoorrnniiaa CCaappiittaall IImmpprroovveemmeenntt PPllaann FFiissccaall YYeeaarr 22001100--1111 City Council Jeffrey M. Starsky, Mayor Andrew J. Morin, Vice Mayor Kerri Howell, Council Member Steve Miklos, Council Member Ernie Sheldon, Council Member Kerry L. Miller, City Manager James W. Francis, Chief Financial Officer Prepared by the Finance Department – Budget & Evaluation Division Terri Hemley, Budget & Evaluation Manager Scott Denny, Financial Analyst Deanne Gabrik, Administrative Assistant June 2010 Table of Contents Capital Improvement Plan (CIP) CIP Introduction CIP Message, City Manager’s ............................................................................................1 CIP Introduction..................................................................................................................3 Summary of CIP Appropriation by Category .....................................................................10 Summary of Total CIP Appropriation by Category............................................................18 Summary of CIP by Funding Source..................................................................................20 Projects Culture and Recreation .......................................................................................................21 Drainage..............................................................................................................................59 General Services
    [Show full text]
  • GOLD Light Rail Time Schedule & Line Route
    GOLD light rail time schedule & line map GOLD Downtown - Folsom View In Website Mode The GOLD light rail line (Downtown - Folsom) has 6 routes. For regular weekdays, their operation hours are: (1) Historic Folsom Station (Wb) →8th & K Station (Nb): 10:00 PM - 11:30 PM (2) Historic Folsom Station (Wb) →Sacramento Valley Station (Wb): 5:00 AM - 9:30 PM (3) Sacramento Valley Station (Eb) →Historic Folsom Station (Eb): 3:49 AM - 10:19 PM (4) Sacramento Valley Station (Eb) →Sunrise Station (Eb): 4:04 AM - 10:49 PM (5) Sunrise Station (Wb) →8th & K Station (Nb): 5:58 PM - 6:58 PM (6) Sunrise Station (Wb) →Sacramento Valley Station (Wb): 4:58 AM - 5:28 PM Use the Moovit App to ƒnd the closest GOLD light rail station near you and ƒnd out when is the next GOLD light rail arriving. Direction: Historic Folsom Station (Wb) →8th & K GOLD light rail Time Schedule Station (Nb) Historic Folsom Station (Wb) →8th & K Station (Nb) 25 stops Route Timetable: VIEW LINE SCHEDULE Sunday 8:00 PM - 9:30 PM Monday 10:00 PM - 11:30 PM Historic Folsom Station (Wb) 300 Reading St, Folsom Tuesday 10:00 PM - 11:30 PM Glenn Station (Wb) Wednesday 10:00 PM - 11:30 PM Thursday 10:00 PM - 11:30 PM Iron Point Station (Wb) Friday 10:00 PM - 11:30 PM Hazel Station (Wb) Saturday 10:00 PM - 11:30 PM Sunrise Station (Wb) Cordova Town Center Station (Wb) GOLD light rail Info Zinfandel Station (Wb) Direction: Historic Folsom Station (Wb) →8th & K Mather Field/Mills Station (Wb) Station (Nb) Stops: 25 Trip Duration: 55 min Butterƒeld Station (Wb) Line Summary: Historic Folsom Station
    [Show full text]
  • 2014 Triennial Security Review of Sacramento Regional Transit District
    2014 TRIENNIAL SECURITY REVIEW OF SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT RAIL TRANSIT SAFETY BRANCH SAFETY AND ENFORCEMENT DIVISION CALIFORNIA PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION 505 VAN NESS AVENUE SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94102 August 31, 2015 (PUBLIC REDACTED) Elizaveta Malashenko, Director Safety and Enforcement Division 2014 TRIENNIAL ON-SITE SECURITY REVIEW SACRAMENTO REGIONAL TRANSIT DISTRICT ACKNOWLEDGEMENT The California Public Utilities Commission’s Rail Transit Safety Section (RTSS) conducted this system security program review. Staff members directly responsible for conducting safety review and inspection activities are: Daren Gilbert, Rail Transit Safety Branch Program Manager Stephen Artus, Rail Transit Safety Branch Program and Project Supervisor Michael Borer, Senior Transportation Operations Supervisor Steven Espinal, Senior Utilities Engineer Raed Dwairi, CPUC Representative to SRTD, Project Coordinator, Utilities Engineer Joey Bigornia, Utilities Engineer Rupa Shitole, Utilities Engineer “Warning: This record contains Sensitive Security Information (SSI) that is controlled under 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520. No part of this record may be disclosed to persons without a “need to know” as defined in 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520, except with the written permission of the Administrator of the transportation security Administration or the secretary of Transportation. Unauthorized release may result in civil penalty or other action. For U.S. government agencies, public disclosure is governed by 5 U.S.C. 552 and 49 CFR parts 15 and 1520.” ii TABLE
    [Show full text]
  • Transitrenewal Draft Report
    TransitRenewal Draft Report Prepared by: Table of Contents 1. Introduction ............................................................. 3 2. RT Market Analysis .................................................. 4 3. Service Analysis ...................................................... 24 4. TransitRenewal Performance Measures ............... 67 5. Public Outreach ...................................................... 73 6. Service Recommendations .................................... 88 Transit Renewal 2010‐2017, Draft Report 1. Introduction The 2011‐2012 Sacramento Regional Transit Comprehensive Operational Analysis, commonly known as “TransitRenewal”, includes a review of existing market conditions and transit service and aims to position the RT network to sustainably meet future transit demand within the service area. Sustainability is the method of using a resource without depleting or gdamagin it for future use. Sustainable transit planning focuses on meeting transit needs of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet such needs1. TransitRenewal responds to changing economic circumstances and RT’s new financial realities. In 2010, RT implemented substantial service reductions which included discontinuing several bus routes, reducing service levels, and reducing spans. TransitRenewal responds to RT’s plan to regain previous FY 2010 service levels and intends to identify core areas of the RT system where investment will have a maximum benefit, and will guide RT to a more financially sustainable future.
    [Show full text]
  • Ridership Report (December 2019)
    Ridership Report (December 2019) Year to Date Summary Category FY20 YTD FY19YTD Difference % Change Trailing 12 Month Trend Bus 5,263,407 4,999,019 264,387 5.3% 11,500,000 Light Rail 5,630,996 5,294,822 336,174 6.3% Rail Bus System Total 10,894,403 10,293,841 600,561 5.8% 11,000,000 10,500,000 Current Month Summary 10,000,000 Category December 2019 December 2018 Difference % Change Bus 847,052 779,788 67,263 8.6% 9,500,000 Light Rail 882,505 820,277 62,228 7.6% System Total 1,729,557 1,600,065 129,491 8.1% 9,000,000 Daily Summary Category December 2019 December 2018 Difference % Change Bus (M-F) 35,181 33,672 1,509 4.5% Bus (Sat) 14,345 12,516 1,829 14.6% Bus (Sun) 8,260 6,833 1,427 20.9% December Ridership by Mode Light Rail (M-F) 36,363 35,320 1,043 3.0% 6% Light Rail (Sat) 15,187 10,700 4,487 41.9% Light Rail Light Rail (Sun) 9,103 9,600 (497) -5.2% Fixed Route 49% Other Services 45% E-Tran Ridership Summary (E-Van included) Category Current Year Prior Year Difference % Change E-Tran (YTD) 401,528 382,416 19,112 5.0% Other services include E-Tran, Folsom, SmaRT Ride, CBS E-Tran (Monthly) 59,692 56,925 2,767 4.9% and Special Services E-Tran (Weekday) 2,731 2,707 24 0.9% Route Level Ridership Comparison (Bus) Weekday Route Comparison Saturday Route Comparison Route Dec 2019 Dec 2018 Difference % Change Route Dec 2019 Dec 2018 Difference % Change 1 1,588 1,688 (100) -6% 1 750 728 22 3% 11 895 567 328 58% 11 412 245 167 68% 13 662 245 417 170% 13 433 - 433 15 698 1,048 (350) -33% 15 365 515 (150) -29% 19 379 594 (215) -36% 19 193 280 (87)
    [Show full text]
  • Sept 2015 NSN Final
    NEXT STOP NEWS September 2015 INSIDE: September 2015 Service Changes Ride RT to Folsom LIVE Rancho CordoVan Public Hearing Extended Light Rail Service for Folsom LIVE Folsom LIVE returns for 2015 on Saturday, September 26. This year’s venue will feature dozens of bands on five indoor and outdoor stages. The festivities will kick off at 5 p.m. RT will extend Gold Line light rail service to Folsom until midnight. Folsom LIVE attendees can ride free with a valid pre-purchased admission ticket. Service on the Gold Line will continue to Folsom beyond the last regularly scheduled departure from the Sunrise Station at 7:05 p.m. Trains to Folsom will continue from the Sunrise Station at 7:35 p.m., 8:05 p.m., 8:35 p.m., 9:05 p.m., 9:35 p.m., 10:05 p.m., 10:35 p.m., 11:05 p.m. and 11:35 p.m. Trains will arrive at the Historic Folsom Station 13 minutes after departure from the Sunrise Station. Service on the Gold Line will continue from Folsom beyond the last regularly scheduled departure from the Historic Folsom Station at 7 p.m. Trains to Sunrise/Downtown Sacramento will depart from the Historic Folsom Station at 7:30 p.m., 8 p.m., 8:30 p.m., 9 p.m., 9:30 p.m., 10 p.m., 10:30 p.m., 11 p.m., 11:30 p.m. and midnight. Trains will arrive at the Sunrise Station 13 minutes after departure from the Historic Folsom Station. Trips departing the Historic Folsom Station at 9:30 p.m.
    [Show full text]
  • EXISTING CONTEXT Historic Folsom Station
    2 EXISTING CONTEXT Historic Folsom Station In order to begin developing TOD strategies, funding recommendations, and design solutions for stations spanning three cities and many unincorporated parts of Sacramento county, it is first necessary to thoroughly understand the current context of the Sacramento region and individual neighborhoods around the light rail system. Specifically, this includes an understanding of the current light rail system and the unique challenges and opportunities facing TOD project within the Sacramento region. SYSTEM OVERVIEW The SacRT light rail system was mostly built along existing freight rail line right-of-way and along major arterials or freeways, placing many of the stations in industrial neighborhoods that are difficult to access and redevelop. The system is made up of three separate lines–Blue, Gold, and Green—and serves approximately 20 million riders each year. Although these lines overlap within Downtown Sacramento, most stations are distinct to one specific line outside of the urban core. The system operates in three cities (Folsom, Rancho Cordova, and Sacramento) and portions of unincorporated Sacramento county, as shown in Figure 1. Operating at headways ranging from 15 minutes during peak times to 30 minutes during off times, the system provides opportunities for riders to access major destinations throughout the region. Planned expansions include an extension of the Green Line to the Sacramento International Airport; more efficient 15 minute frequencies along the Gold Line; and a possible extension
    [Show full text]