DOCSLIB.ORG

Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, Yolo County, California Assessor's Parcel Numbers

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, Yolo County, California Assessor's Parcel Numbers Phase I Environmental Site Assessment 1951 South River Road West Sacramento, Yolo County, California Assessor’s Parcel Numbers (APNs) 067-180-004, 067-180-001, 058-260- 019, 058-260-017, 058-260-018, and 058-260-016 Presented to: City of West Sacramento Mr. Jon Robinson Housing and Community Investment Manager 1110 West Capitol Avenue, 2nd Floor West Sacramento, California 95691 (916) 371-0845 Presented by: SCS ENGINEERS 852 Northport Drive, Suite 5 West Sacramento, CA 95691 October 21, 2014 Project Number: 01214093.00, Task 03 Offices Nationwide www.scsengineers.com 1951South River Road (APNs: 067-180-004, 067-180-001, 067-180-019, 058-260-017, 058-260-018, & 058-260-016) Table of Contents Section Page 1 Background ............................................................................................................................................. 1 2 Standards Background ......................................................................................................................... 2 Detailed Scope of Study ....................................................................................................................... 3 3 Objective ................................................................................................................................................. 4 4 Scope of Services .................................................................................................................................. 4 Site Reconnaissance ................................................................................................................................ 4 General Information .................................................................................................................... 4 Site Buildings ................................................................................................................................. 5 Site Grounds ................................................................................................................................. 6 Hazardous Materials/Petroleum Products .............................................................................. 6 Hazardous Wastes ...................................................................................................................... 7 Indications of Releases of Hazardous Materials/Wastes or Petroleum Products ........... 7 On-Site Utilities ............................................................................................................................ 8 Septic System ................................................................................................................................ 8 Non-ASTM Items Considered ..................................................................................................... 8 Asbestos Containing Building Materials (ACBM) .................................................................... 9 Lead Based Paint (LBP) ............................................................................................................... 9 Site Research ........................................................................................................................................... 9 Available Documents ................................................................................................................... 9 Environmental Health Department Records Review ............................................................ 14 Fire Department Records Review ........................................................................................... 15 Community Development Records Review ............................................................................ 17 Air Quality Management District Records Review .............................................................. 17 Central Valley Regional Water Quality Control Board Records Review ...................... 18 Interviews............................................................................................................................................... 18 User Requirements ............................................................................................................................... 19 Data Gaps in Connection With Current Site Land Use ................................................................. 19 Topography, Soil, Geology, Hydrogeology and Water Quality Survey ................................ 20 Topography ............................................................................................................................... 20 Soil Survey ................................................................................................................................. 21 Geology ..................................................................................................................................... 21 Hydrogeology ........................................................................................................................... 22 Groundwater Quality Survey ................................................................................................. 22 Site Vicinity Reconnaissance and Off-Site Source Survey ........................................................... 23 Current Site Vicinity Conditions .............................................................................................. 23 Environmental EDR® Site Assessment Report ....................................................................... 23 Known, Reported, or Suspected Releases within the Site Vicinity ......................... 26 State and Tribal EnviroStor - CERCLIS Equivalent ................................................... 26 California LUSTs ............................................................................................................. 26 Federal RCRA Gen Facilities List ................................................................................. 28 CORTESE database and HIST CORTESE Sites .......................................................... 30 California State Spills, Leaks, Investigations and Cleanup (SLIC) List .................. 32 Phase I ESA ii 1951South River Road (APNs: 067-180-004, 067-180-001, 067-180-019, 058-260-017, 058-260-018, & 058-260-016) US Hist Auto Stat ............................................................................................................ 33 US Hist Cleaners ............................................................................................................. 33 Other EDR Site Listings .................................................................................................. 33 Non-Geocoded Site ...................................................................................................... 33 Water Supply Wells ..................................................................................................... 33 California Division of Oil and Gas ............................................................................. 33 Additional SCS Research ......................................................................................................... 34 Data Gaps in Connection With Off-Site Sources .......................................................................... 34 Historical Land Use Review ................................................................................................................ 35 Historical Site Land Use ........................................................................................................... 35 Historical Site Vicinity Land Use ............................................................................................. 37 Data Gaps in Connection With the Historical Site Land Use ....................................................... 39 Vapor Intrusion ..................................................................................................................................... 40 5 Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................................... 41 Significant Assumptions ....................................................................................................................... 44 Limitations and Exceptions ................................................................................................................. 44 Special Terms and Conditions................................................................................................. 46 6 Report Usage and Future Site Conditions ....................................................................................... 46 7 Likelihood Statements ......................................................................................................................... 47 8 Special Contractual Conditions Between User and Environmental Professional ...................... 47 9 References ............................................................................................................................................. 48 Appendices A Figures and Maps Figure 1 – Site Location Map Figure 2a – Site Plan (APN 067-180-004 – Navigation Lock) Figure 2b – Site Plan (APN 067-180-001; 067-180-019 – WWTP) Figure 2c – Site Plan (APN 058-260-017; 058-260-018 – Corp. Yard) Figure 2d – Site Plan (APN 058-260-016 – Sludge Basin) Topographical Maps (from EDR®) Sanborn Map Report (from EDR®) B Site and Vicinty Photographs and Aerial Photographs (from EDR®) C EDR® Radius Report D City Directory (EDR®) E Agency Records F All Appropriate Inquiry (AAI) User
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bureau of Customs and Border Protection CBP Decision 19 CFR PART 101 USCBP–2006–0057 [CBP Dec
    Bureau of Customs and Border Protection CBP Decision 19 CFR PART 101 USCBP–2006–0057 [CBP Dec. 06–23] ESTABLISHMENT OF NEW PORT OF ENTRY AT SACRAMENTO, CALIFORNIA; REALIGNMENT OF THE PORT LIMITS OF THE PORT OF ENTRY AT SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA AGENCY: Customs and Border Protection; Department of Home- land Security. ACTION: Final rule. SUMMARY: This document amends the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) regulations pertaining to the field organization of the Bureau of Customs and Border Protection (CBP) by establishing a new port of entry at Sacramento, California, and terminating the user fee status of Sacramento International Airport. In order to ac- commodate this new port of entry, this document realigns the port boundaries of the port of entry at San Francisco, California (San Francisco-Oakland), since these boundaries currently encompass area that is included within the new port of Sacramento. This change is part of CBP’s continuing program to more efficiently uti- lize its personnel, facilities, and resources to provide better service to carriers, importers, and the general public. EFFECTIVE DATE: October 5, 2006. FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dennis Dore, Of- fice of Field Operations, 202-344-2776. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: BACKGROUND In a Notice of Proposed Rulemaking (NPRM) published in the Federal Register (70 FR 52336) on September 2, 2005, CBP pro- posed to amend 19 CFR 101.3(b)(1) by establishing a new port of en- try at Sacramento, California. In the notice, CBP proposed to include 1 2 CUSTOMS BULLETIN AND DECISIONS, VOL. 40, NO. 39, SEPTEMBER 20, 2006 in the port of Sacramento the Sacramento International Airport, cur- rently a user fee airport.
    [Show full text]
  • Storm Water Resource Plan for Yolo County
    Water Resources Association of Yolo County Storm Water Resource Plan for Yolo County January 2018 Table of Contents Table of Contents Section 1: Introduction and SWRP Objectives ............................................................ 1-1 1.1 Plan Development ....................................................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1.1 Relation to Other Planning Efforts ...................................................................................... 1-1 1.2 SWRP Objectives .......................................................................................................................................... 1-6 1.2.1 Westside IRWM Plan Objectives .......................................................................................... 1-6 1.2.2 SWRP Objectives .......................................................................................................................... 1-7 1.4 Plan Organization...................................................................................................................................... 1-13 Section 2: Watershed Identification ............................................................................. 2-1 2.1 Surface Water Resources ......................................................................................................................... 2-1 2.1.1 Hydrologic Boundary ................................................................................................................. 2-1 2.2
    [Show full text]
  • Sac-Yolo Port District Public Review Draft MSR May 1, 2019
    2019 F MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW AND SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY FOR THE Sacramento-Yolo Port District YOLO LOCAL AGENCY FORMATION COMMISSION PUBLIC REVIEW DRAFT May 1, 2019 YOLO LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW/SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY Project Name: MSR/SOI for Sacramento-Yolo Port District LAFCo Project No. 052 Yolo Local Agency Formation Commission Conducted By: 625 Court Street, Suite 203 Woodland, CA 95695 Date: May 1, 2019 (draft) Subject Agency: Sacramento-Yolo Port District Agency Address: 1110 West Capitol Avenue West Sacramento, CA 95691 Agency Contact Person: Rick Toft, Port Chief Operations Officer Date of Previous Adopted MSR/SOI: June 22, 2009 Yolo LAFCo MSR/SOI for Sacramento-Yolo Port District Public Review Draft May 1, 2019 i YOLO LAFCO MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW/SPHERE OF INFLUENCE STUDY Contents MSR/SOI BACKGROUND .............................................................................................................................. 3 ROLE AND RESPONSIBILITY OF LAFCO ........................................................................................................ 3 PURPOSE OF A MUNICIPAL SERVICE REVIEW ............................................................................................ 3 PURPOSE OF A SPHERE OF INFLUENCE ....................................................................................................... 4 DISADVANTAGED UNINCORPORATED COMMUNITIES ............................................................................ 5 ORGANIZATION OF MSR/SOI STUDY ..........................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • County of Yolo Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy
    County of Yolo Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy (CEDS) 2009-2014 (As Amended -- August 2009) YOLO COUNTY BOARD OF SUPERVISORS CHAIR, MICHAEL H. MCGOWAN, DISTRICT 1 VICE-CHAIRMAN, HELEN M. THOMSON, DISTRICT 2 MATT REXROAD, DISTRICT 3 JIM PROVENZA, DISTRICT 4 DUANE CHAMBERLAIN, DISTRICT 5 625 COURT STREET, ROOM 206 WOODLAND, CA 95695 Prepared by Yolo County Comprehensive Economic Development Strategy Committee For Further Information Contact: Yolo County Economic Development Division 625 Court Street, Room 202 Woodland, CA 95695 Telephone: (530) 666-8150 Fax: (530) 668-4029 March 25, 2009 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...................................................................................................i CEDS STRATEGY COMMITTEE ....................................................................................iv 1 INTRODUCTION......................................................................................................1 2 BACKGROUND REPORT.......................................................................................2 History of Yolo County ..................................................................................................2 Yolo County Geography and Land Uses.......................................................................2 Communities .................................................................................................................5 Population and Housing Characteristics .......................................................................5 Industry Trends
    [Show full text]
  • Appendix H Utility Infrastructure Analysis
    Appendix H Utility Infrastructure Analysis City of Sacramento West Broadway Specific Plan – Utility Infrastructure Analysis FINAL REPORT FOR THE WEST BROADWAY SPECIFIC PLAN UTILITY INFRASTRUCTURE ANALYSIS City Agreement #2018-0459 Lead Agency: City of Sacramento Community Development Department Planning Division 300 Richards Boulevard, 3rd Floor Sacramento, California 95811 Lead Agency Contact: Helen Selph 916.808.5375 Project Consultants: Ascent Environmental, Inc. 455 Capitol Mall, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95814 NV5, Inc. 2525 Natomas Park Drive, Suite 300 Sacramento, CA 95833 Project Consultant Contact: Ascent NV5 Gary Jacobs Jay F. Radke President Project Manager 916.444.7301 916.641.9139 December 2019 City of Sacramento West Broadway Specific Plan – Utility Infrastructure Analysis TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................... 2 WASTEWATER & STORM DRAINAGE ............................................................................... 5 WATER SUPPLY ..................................................................................................................... 11 NATURAL GAS ...................................................................................................................... 16 PETROLEUM ........................................................................................................................ 18 ELECTRICAL........................................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Transportation Impact Analysis TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY of WEST SACRAMENTO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE
    Appendix D Transportation Impact Analysis TRANSPORTATION IMPACT ANALYSIS CITY OF WEST SACRAMENTO GENERAL PLAN UPDATE APRIL 2016 Contents 1. INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................................................... 5 2. EXISTING CONDITIONS .......................................................................................................................... 5 2.1. Street and Road System ................................................................................................................ 5 Physical Constraints on the Street and Road System ........................................................................... 5 Functional Classification of Roadways .................................................................................................. 6 Major Roadways ................................................................................................................................... 8 Arterials and Collectors ....................................................................................................................... 10 Level of Service ................................................................................................................................... 11 Traffic Conditions ................................................................................................................................ 15 Traffic Operating Conditions ..............................................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Sacramento River Deepwater Shipping Channel Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement
    UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY REGION IX 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105-3901 April 25, 2011 William N. Brostoff U.S. Army Corps of Engineers San Francisco District 1455 Market Street San Francisco, CA 94103-1398 Subject: Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (DSEIS)/ Subsequent Environmental Impact Report for the Sacramento River Deepwater Shipping Channel (SRDWSC), Contra Costa, Solano, and Yolo Counties, California, February 2011 (CEQ 20110055) Dear Mr. Brostoff: The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has reviewed the above project pursuant to the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulations (40 CFR Parts 1500-1508), our NEPA review authority under Section 309 of the Clean Air Act, and the provisions of the Federal Guidelines (Guidelines) promulgated at 40 CFR 230 under Section 404(b)(1) of the Clean Water Act (CWA). We thank the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) for agreeing to accept EPA’s comments through April 25, per your email communication with Tom Kelly, of my staff. EPA has rated the DSEIS as Environmental Concerns – Insufficient Information (EC-2) (please see the enclosed “Summary of EPA Rating Definitions”). Primary among our concerns is that the DSEIS (1) does not sufficiently consider the beneficial use of dredged sediments produced by the project, consistent with USACE-led interagency sediment management planning efforts in the Delta; (2) does not fully assess the likely water management consequences of water quality impacts from the project; and (3) does not address potentially significant direct and secondary impacts to listed fish species. EPA has participated in the USACE-led Delta Long Term Management Strategy (LTMS) process, along with other State and federal agencies, the Ports, dredging community, and local interests, for more than 4 years.
    [Show full text]
  • Monitoring Flow at the Sacramento Deep Water Ship Channel
    MonitoringMonitoring FlowFlow atat thethe SacramentoSacramento DeepDeep WaterWater ShipShip ChannelChannel ShawnShawn MayrMayr DWRDWR -- CentralCentral DistrictDistrict FebruaryFebruary 28,28, 20062006 AcknowledgmentsAcknowledgments ¾¾ Clients:Clients: DWRDWR--DivisionDivision ofof EnvironmentalEnvironmental Services,Services, MaureenMaureen McGee,McGee, andand RogerRoger ChurchwellChurchwell ¾¾ FieldField Operators:Operators: DWRDWR--CentralCentral DistrictDistrict,, DaveDave Huston,Huston, KarenKaren LamLam FatFat ChongChong Him,Him, JohnJohn Ho,Ho, DaveDave SchaapSchaap,, LeijiLeiji LiuLiu ¾¾ DataData Scientists:Scientists: DWRDWR--CentralCentral DistrictDistrict,, DaveDave Huston,Huston, andand KarenKaren LamLam FatFat ChongChong HimHim TwoTwo TalksTalks ¾¾PartPart 1:1: ShipShip ChannelChannel FlowFlow InvestigationInvestigation ¾¾PartPart 2:2: CurrentCurrent EventsEvents inin DWRDWR FlowFlow MonitoringMonitoring z NewNew MonitoringMonitoring StationsStations z IncreasedIncreased AccuracyAccuracy z IncreasedIncreased SafetySafety z ImprovedImproved TelemetryTelemetry andand DataData StorageStorage SummarySummary ¾¾ Purpose:Purpose: AA fishfish migrationmigration studystudy neededneeded flowflow monitoringmonitoring atat thethe SacramentoSacramento DeepDeep WaterWater ShipShip Channel.Channel. ¾¾ TwoTwo flowflow estimationestimation approachesapproaches werewere evaluated.evaluated. 1. VelocityVelocity IndexIndex MethodMethod (Acoustic(Acoustic Doppler)Doppler) 2. OrificeOrifice ++ VerticalVertical SlotSlot EquationsEquations (Acoustic(Acoustic DopplerDoppler Calibration)Calibration) r e v i R n a c i r r r e e e v m v i i A R R s e e n n m m u u l s ∆ e n k o r o e Sacramento C iv M el nto R Sacram er e s Riv a r Thru- e v nn a l a a C h River C e Stockton s n u p m a l u l s i o hi n u a T t S S River San Joaquin e xports Study Purpose – Fish Migration tides Bay San Pablo San Francisco Bay HeadHead ofof thethe SacramentoSacramento DeepDeep WaterWater ShipShip ChannelChannel William G.
    [Show full text]
  • Stitching a River Culture: Trade, Communication and Transportation to 1960
    Stitching a River Culture: Trade, Communication and Transportation to 1960 W. R. Swagerty and Reuben W. Smith, University of the Pacific Swagerty & Smith 1 Stitching a River Culture: Communication, Trade and Transportation to 1960 An essay by William R. Swagerty & Reuben W. Smith The Delta Narratives Project Delta Protection Commission, State of California June 1, 2015 California’s Delta California’s Delta is a unique environment, created by the natural drainage of the state’s Sierra Nevada range into the Central Valley, which in turn delivers the runoff of rain and snowmelt into river basins that meander and spill into sloughs, bays, and ultimately the Pacific Ocean. According to environmental historian Philip Garone, “Rising sea levels between six thousand and seven thousand years ago impeded the flow of the lower reaches of the Sacramento and San Joaquin rivers, creating a labyrinthine network of hundreds of miles of sloughs surrounding nearly one hundred low-lying islands—the historic Delta.”1 Today, the original 738,000 acres of the Delta are among the most engineered lands in the state; and yet, they still have environmental, social, and economic attributes that merit recognition and protection. By the State of California Delta Protection Commission’s own introductory definition: The Primary Zone of the Sacramento San Joaquin Delta (Delta) includes approximately 500,000 acres of waterways, levees and farmed lands extending over portions of five counties: Solano, Yolo, Sacramento, San Joaquin and Contra Costa. The rich peat soil in the central Delta and the mineral soils in the higher elevations support a strong agricultural economy.
    [Show full text]
  • Delta Narratives-Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The
    Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of The Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta A Report to the Delta Protection Commission Prepared by the Center for California Studies California State University, Sacramento August 1, 2015 Project Team Steve Boilard, CSU Sacramento, Project Director Robert Benedetti, CSU Sacramento, Co-Director Margit Aramburu, University of the Pacific, Co-Director Gregg Camfield, UC Merced Philip Garone, CSU Stanislaus Jennifer Helzer, CSU Stanislaus Reuben Smith, University of the Pacific William Swagerty, University of the Pacific Marcia Eymann, Center for Sacramento History Tod Ruhstaller, The Haggin Museum David Stuart, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Leigh Johnsen, San Joaquin County Historical Museum Dylan McDonald, Center for Sacramento History Michael Wurtz, University of the Pacific Blake Roberts, Delta Protection Commission Margo Lentz-Meyer, Capitol Campus Public History Program, CSU Sacramento Those wishing to cite this report should use the following format: Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015). Those wishing to cite the scholarly essays in the appendix should adopt the following format: Author, "Title of Essay", in Delta Protection Commission, Delta Narratives: Saving the Historical and Cultural Heritage of the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta, prepared by the Center for California Studies, California State University, Sacramento (West Sacramento: Delta Protection Commission, 2015), appropriate page or pages. Cover Photo: Sign installed by Discover the Delta; art by Marty Stanley; Photo taken by Philip Garone.
    [Show full text]
  • SECTION 3.6 Cultural Resources 3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES
    SECTION 3.6 Cultural Resources 3.6 CULTURAL RESOURCES The Yolo Basin is rich in cultural history. From the earliest Native American inhabitants to those farming and residing there in recent times, the Yolo Basin has been an important part of people’s being and livelihood. This section provides information on the prehistoric, ethnographic, and historic settings, previous cultural resource investigations in the property and surrounding vicinity, and resources that have been documented and recorded in the Yolo Wildlife Area. The following text was developed through a cultural records search, review of literature and existing data sources, Yolo Wildlife Area staff information, Foundation program information, and EDAW staff expertise. 3.6.2 ETHNOGRAPHIC SETTING The Yolo Basin is within the ethnographic territory of the Patwin. The word “Patwin” literally means “the people” in the native tongue. Although native people did not identify themselves as Patwin, this name is used to describe a series of linguistically and culturally related groups who occupied a portion of the lower Sacramento Valley west of the Sacramento River and north of Suisun Bay. Major sources of information on these groups include the works of Bennyhoff (1977), Johnson (1978), Kroeber (1925), McKern (1922 and 1923), Powers (1877), and Work (1945). These people spoke dialects of a single historically related language. Use of the Patwin language extended southward to the Sacramento-San Joaquin Delta system. There were numerous dialects, which were historically recorded including Hill, River, Cache Creek, Lake, Tebti, Dahcini and Suisun (Shipley 1978). Powers (1877) identified 14 tribes based upon linguistic differences, while Merriam, using linguistic and geographic boundaries identified 10 tribes within three broad distinct dialect divisions (Patwin, Win, and Pooewin).
    [Show full text]
  • Yolo County Transportation District Short Range Transit Plan Fiscal Years 2014-2021
    YOLO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2014-2021 Prepared by: Sacramento Area Council of Governments Prepared For: Yolo County Transportation District THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK Yolo County Transportation District Short Range Transit Plan Page ii YOLO COUNTY TRANSPORTATION DISTRICT SHORT RANGE TRANSIT PLAN FISCAL YEARS 2015-2021 ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS Prepared by: Sacramento Area Yolo County Transportation District Council of Governments TERRY BASSETT, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR 1415 L Street, Suite PAUL NGUYEN, ASSISTANT TRANSPORTATION PLANNER 300 Sacramento, CA JANICE PHILLIPS, DEPUTY DIRECTOR 95814 Tel: 916.321.9000 ERIC REITZ, ASSOCIATE TRANSPORTATION PLANNER Fax: 916.321.9551 www.sacog.org KWAI REITZ, FINANCE OFFICER KATHY SOUZA, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT Prepared for: Sacramento Area Council of Governments (SACOG) Yolo County Transportation GARY TAYLOR, SENIOR PLANNER District 350 Industrial Way VICTORIA CACCIATORE, PLANNER I Woodland, CA 95776 SHARON SPROWLS, SENIOR PROGRAM SPECIALIST LAURA BELL, ASSISTANT RESEARCH ANALYST RENÉE DEVERE-OKI, SENIOR PLANNER TINA GLOVER, ASSOCIATE RESEARCH ANALYST GAYLE GREENE, ADMINISTRATIVE ASSISTANT III CLINT HOLTZEN, ASSISTANT PLANNER AMY MARTIN, TRANSPORTATION INTERN CHRISTINE O’ROURKE, ASSISTANT PLANNER SCOTT OVERTON, ADMINISTRATIVE CLERK III THIS SRTP WAS COMPLETED AS PROJECT #13-003-17 OF THE SACOG OVERALL WORK PROGRAM (OWP) WITH GENEROUS FUNDING PROVIDED BY CALTRANS THROUGH THE STATEWIDE OR URBAN TRANSIT PLANNING STUDIES PROGRAM. Yolo County Transportation District
    [Show full text]