Hazard Identification and Summary

Total Page:16

File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb

Hazard Identification and Summary Annex F: CITY OF SACRAMENTO F.1 Introduction This Annex details the hazard mitigation planning elements specific to the City of Sacramento, a participating jurisdiction to the Sacramento County LHMP Update. This annex is not intended to be a standalone document, but appends to and supplements the information contained in the base plan document. As such, all sections of the base plan, including the planning process and other procedural requirements apply to and were met by the City. This annex provides additional information specific to the City of Sacramento, with a focus on providing additional details on the risk assessment and mitigation strategy for this community. F.2 Planning Process As described above, the City of Sacramento followed the planning process detailed in Section 3.0 of the base plan. In addition to providing representation on the Sacramento County Hazard Mitigation Planning Committee (HMPC), the City formulated their own internal planning team to support the broader planning process requirements. Internal planning participants included staff from the following City departments: Community Development Department Utilities Department Sacramento Fire Sacramento Police Department Media and Communication Additional details on plan participation and City representatives are included in Appendix A. F.3 Community Profile The community profile for the City of Sacramento is detailed in the following sections. Figure F.1 displays a map and the location of the City of Sacramento within Sacramento County. Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.1 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Figure F.1. The City of Sacramento Base Map Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.2 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 F.3.1 Geography and Climate The City of Sacramento is located in the heart of California‟s Central Valley at the confluence of the Sacramento and American Rivers. The Great Valley is a flat alluvial plain approximately 50 miles wide and 400 miles long in the central portion of California. Its northern part is the Sacramento Valley drained by the Sacramento River, and its southern part is the San Joaquin Valley drained by the San Joaquin River. It is surrounded by the Sierra Nevada to the east, the Tehachapi Mountains to the south, Coastal Range to the west, and Cascade Range to the north. The topography of the area is relatively flat. There is a gradual slope rising from elevations as low as sea level in the southwestern portion of the Policy Area up to approximately 75 feet above sea level in the northeastern portion. Sacramento is the cultural and economic center of its six-county metropolitan area (El Dorado, Placer, Sacramento, Sutter, Yolo, and Yuba counties) and the largest city in the Central Valley. The regional location of Sacramento, as shown on the map above, is roughly halfway between San Francisco to the west and Lake Tahoe to the east. Sacramento covers a total area of approximately 99 square miles and is the seventh most populous city in California with a 2010 estimated population of 466,087. Sacramento has a Mediterranean climate that is characterized by mild winters and dry, hot summers. Rain typically falls between November and March, with the rainy season tapering off almost completely by the end of April. Average daily high temperatures range from the 50s in December and January to the 90s in July (with many days of over 100). Sacramento is accessible from Interstate 80 and U.S. Highway 50 (running east/west) and Interstate 5 and U.S. Highway 99 (running north/south). Amtrak serves Sacramento‟s passenger rail needs, while Sacramento International Airport (SMF) provides domestic and international flights through most major airlines. Within the city and surrounding region, Sacramento Regional Transit provides bus and light rail service. F.3.2 History Prior to European settlement, Nisenan (Southern Maidu) and Plains Miwok Indians lived in the area. In the early 1800s, the Spanish explorer Gabriel Moraga “discovered” and named the Sacramento Valley and the Sacramento River after the Spanish term for “sacrament.” Sacramento was founded during the California Gold Rush and grew quickly due to the protection of Sutter‟s Fort, which was established by John Sutter in 1839. The citizens of Sacramento adopted a city charter in 1849 and became the first incorporated city in California on February 27, 1850. During the California Gold Rush and through the 1800s, Sacramento became a major distribution point, a commercial and agricultural center, a terminus for wagon trains, stagecoaches, riverboats, the telegraph, the Pony Express, and the First Transcontinental Railroad, and in 1854 the state capital of California. Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.3 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 The city‟s current charter was adopted by voters in 1920, establishing a city council-and- manager form of government, still used today. The City expanded continuously over the years in the first half of the 1900s and in 1964 merged with the city of North Sacramento, just north of the American River. Large annexations of the Pocket area on the south and Natomas area on the north eventually led to significant population growth throughout the 1970s, 1980s, and 1990s. Sacramento experienced a massive growth in population in the 1990s and early 2000s. Primary sources of population growth are migration from the San Francisco Bay Area due to lower housing costs, as well as immigration from Asia, Central America, Mexico, Ukraine, and the rest of the former Soviet Union. From 1990 to 2000, the city‟s population grew by over 14 percent. F.3.3 Population In 2010, the total population for the City of Sacramento was at 466,087 by the US Census Bureau. F.4 Hazard Identification and Summary This section details how the risk varies across the Sacramento County planning area. Sacramento‟s planning team identified the hazards that affect the City and summarized their frequency of occurrence, spatial extent, potential magnitude, and significance specific Sacramento (see Table F.1). In the context of the plan‟s planning area, there are no hazards that are unique to Sacramento. Information on past occurrences and the likelihood of future occurrences is detailed in Section 4, Risk Assessment, of the base plan. Additional information for high and medium significant hazards for the City is included in the Vulnerability Assessment section of this Annex. Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.4 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 Table F.1. City of Sacramento Hazard Summary Frequency of Potential Hazard Occurrence Spatial Extent Magnitude Significance Agricultural Hazards: Occasional Limited Limited Low Insects/Pests Bird Strike Occasional Limited Negligible Low Dam Failure Occasional Extensive Catastrophic High Drought Occasional Extensive Critical Medium Earthquake Occasional Limited Critical Low Earthquake: Liquefaction Occasional Limited Critical Low Flood: 100/200/500-year Likely Critical Critical High Flood: Localized/Stormwater Highly Likely Significant Critical High Landslide Unlikely Limited Negligible Low Levee Failure Likely Significant Catastrophic Medium River/Stream/Creek Bank Likely Limited Limited Medium Erosion Severe Weather: Extreme Heat Likely Significant Critical Medium Severe Weather: Fog Likely Limited Limited Medium Severe Weather: Freeze Occasional Limited Limited Low Severe Weather: Heavy Rain Likely Significant Critical High and Storms Severe Weather: Tornadoes Unlikely Limited Limited Low Subsidence Likely Limited Limited Low Volcano Unlikely Limited Catastrophic Low Wildfire Occasional Significant Limited Medium Guidelines for Hazard Rankings: Frequency of Occurrence: Potential Magnitude: Highly Likely-Near 100 percent probability in next year Catastrophic-More than 50 percent of area Likely-Between 10 and 100 percent probability in next year or at least affected one chance in ten years Critical-25 to 50 percent Occasional-Between 1 and 10 percent probability in next year or at Limited-10 to 25 percent least one chance in next 100 years Negligible-Less than 10 percent Unlikely-Less than 1 percent probability in next 100 years Significance (subjective): Spatial Extent: Low, Medium, High Limited-Less than 10 percent of planning area Significant-10-50 percent of planning area Extensive-50-100 percent of planning area Source: AMEC Data Collection Guide Sacramento County (City of Sacramento) Annex F.5 Local Hazard Mitigation Plan Update September 2011 F.5 Vulnerability Assessment The intent of this section is to assess Sacramento‟s vulnerability separate from that of the planning area as a whole, which has already been assessed in Section 4.3 Vulnerability Assessment of the base plan. This vulnerability assessment provides an inventory of the population, property, and other assets located within the City and further analyzes those assets at risk to identified hazards ranked of medium or high significance (as listed in Table F.1) to the community. For more information about how hazards affect the County as a whole, see Chapter 4 Risk Assessment in the main plan. F.5.1 Total Assets at Risk This section identifies Sacramento‟s total assets at risk, including values at risk, critical facilities and infrastructure, natural resources, historic and cultural resources, and economic assets. Growth and development trends are also presented for the community. This data is not hazard specific, but is representative of total assets at risk within a
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]
  • Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources
    Chapter 7—Cultural, Paleontological, and Tribal Cultural Resources 7.1 Introduction This chapter describes the existing conditions (environmental and regulatory) and assesses the potential cultural, paleontological, and tribal resources impacts of the 2020 Metropolitan Transportation Plan/Sustainable Communities Strategy (proposed MTP/SCS). Where necessary and feasible, mitigation measures are identified to reduce these impacts. The information presented in this chapter is based on review of existing and available information and is regional in scope. Data, analysis, and findings provided in this chapter were considered and prepared at a programmatic level. For consistency with the 2016 MTP/SCS EIR, paleontological resources are addressed in this chapter even though these resources are grouped with geology and soils in Appendix G of the CEQA Guidelines (SACOG 2016). Impacts to unique geologic features are addressed in Chapter 9 – Geology, Soils, Seismicity, and Mineral Resources. Cultural resources include archaeological sites or districts of prehistoric or historic origin, built environment resources older than 50 years (e.g., historic buildings, structures, features, objects, districts, and landscapes), and traditional or ethnographic resources, including tribal cultural resources, which are a separate category of cultural resources under CEQA. Paleontological resources include mineralized, partially mineralized, or unmineralized bones and teeth, soft tissues, shells, wood, leaf impressions, footprints, burrows, and microscopic remains that are more than 5,000 years old and occur mainly in Pleistocene or older sedimentary rock units. In response to the Notice of Preparation (NOP), SACOG received comments related to cultural and tribal cultural resources from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and United Auburn Indian Community of the Auburn Rancheria.
    [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]
  • 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]
  • 1. Name___6. Representation In
    RECEIVED FHR-&-300 (11-78) AUG 2 7 1982 United States Department of the Interior Heritage Conservation and Recreation Service National Register of Historic Places Inventory—Nomination Form See instructions in How to Complete National Register Forms Type all entries—complete applicable sections_______________ 1. Name_______________ historic Blue Anchor Building (California Fruit Exchange) and/or common Same 2. Location street & number 1400 Tenth Stj not for publication city, town Sacramento 'v "vicinity of congressional district 3rd state California code 06 county Sacramento code 067 3. Classification Category Ownership Status Present Use district X public X occupied agriculture museum _Ji_ building(s) private unoccupied commercial park structure both work in progress educational private residence site Public Acquisition Accessible entertainment religious object in process yes: restricted x government scientific being considered JL_ yes: unrestricted industrial transportation x N/A no military other? 4. Owner of Property name State of California, Department of General Services street & number 915 Capitol Mall vicinity of state California 95314 5. Location of Legal Description courthouse, registry of deeds, etc. County Recorder' S Of f i ce street & number 901 "G" Street city, town Sacramento state California 95814 6. Representation in Existing Surveys City of Sacramento title Historic Resources Inventory has this property been determined elegible? yes no date 1981 federal state county local depository for survey records Sacramento City Planning Department, 915 I Street city, town Sacramento state California 95814 7. Description Condition Check one Check one X excellent • deteriorated unaltered x original site aood ruins _JL_ altered * moved date N/A fair unexposed * interior Describe the present and original (iff known) physical appearance The Blue Anchor Building is an "L" shaped, two story structure constructed of steel and concrete, finished in stucco, and capped by a low-pitched red tile roof.
    [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]
  • Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties
    A Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Appendix A: Agency Coordination, Public Involvement, and List of Receiving Parties Table of Contents A.1 Early Notification Announcement A-1 A.1.1 Early Notification Letter, December 4, 2012 ................................................................................ A-3 A.1.2 Legal Notice Publication, December 9, 2012 ............................................................................. A-13 A.1.3 Comments .................................................................................................................................. A-19 A.2 Project Information Meetings A-35 A.2.1 Project Meeting Notification Letters, August 27, 2013 ............................................................... A-37 A.2.2 Dates, Locations and Attendance .............................................................................................. A-57 A.2.3 Comments .................................................................................................................................. A-59 A.3 Section 106 Consultation A-65 A.3.1 Section 106 Consultation Letters, November 2013 ................................................................... A-67 A.3.2 Comments from the November 2013 Letters ........................................................................... A-107 A.3.3 Section 106 Consultation Letters, April 8, 2014 ....................................................................... A-115 A.3.4 Section 106 Concurrence Letters............................................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Index-1966.Pdf
    2 administered trine Metal ^nflsB tw^^t^tanMBM^ttma*^ ^H ^mmm)ttmmm\^mMrV\,9^* .jrepernesZ Jan 1, 1966 contents page 1 Summary of areas administered by the National Park Service 1 Areas administered by the National Park Service (alphabetical listing) 26 Authorized areas for which lands have not been acquired 28 National Historic Sites not owned by the Federal Government 29 Authorized areas which the National Park Service will not administer 30 Sites declared eligible for the National Registry of Natural Landmarks 31 Sites declared eligible for the Registry of National Historic Landmarks 44 Areas administered by the National Park Service (by category) SUMMARY OF AREAS ADMINISTERED BY THE NATIONAL PARK SERVICE [Note: See page 44 for list of areas by category] LANDS WITHIN EX­ CATEGORY NUMBER FEDERAL LAND TERIOR BOUNDARIES TOTAL LANDS WITHIN (ACRES) NOT FEDERALLY EXTERIOR BOUND­ OWNED (ACRES) ARIES (ACRES) NATIONAL PARKS 32 13,619,099.36 207,068.32 13,826, 167.68 NATIONAL HISTORICAL PARKS 10 33,358.91 6, 259. 74 39,618.65 NATIONAL MONUMENTS 77 8,941,778.02 121,209. 13 9,062,987.15 NATIONAL MILITARY PARKS il 29,367.63 2,570.00 31,937.63 NATIONAL MEMORIAL PARK 1 69,000.34 1,435.66 70,436.00 NATIONAL BATTLEFIELDS 5 2,733.01 1,4%. 35 4,229.36 NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD PARKS 4 7,162. 76 2,105.29 9,268.05 NATIONAL BATTLEFIELD SITES 780.04 5.83 785. 87 NATIONAL HISTORIC SITES 23* 3,088. 95 281.56 3,370. 51 NATIONAL MEMORIALS 16 5,319.80 206.
    [Show full text]
  • Classification
    Form No 10-300 (Rev 10-74) ^^ UNITED STATES DEP/fRlVlENTOE THE INTERIOR NATIONAL PARK SERVICE NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES ftlEpllVtCJ INVENTORY - NOMINATION FORM SEE INSTRUCTIONS IN HOW TO COMPLETE NATIONAL REGISTER FORMS TYPE ALL ENTRIES -- COMPLETE APPLICABLE SECTIONS NAME HISTORIC "Big Four" House AND/OR COMMON "BigFour" House [LOCATION STREETS, NUMBER (no number) North side of I Street between Front and Second Streets _NOT FOR PUBLICATION CITY. TOWN CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT Sacramento . VICINITY OF MUL STATE CODE COUNTY CODE California 06 Sacramento 067 CLASSIFICATION CATEGORY OWNERSHIP STATUS PRESENT USE _DISTRICT X. PUB LIC —OCCUPIED —AGRICULTURE —MUSEUM X-BUILDING(S) —PRIVATE ^-UNOCCUPIED —COMMERCIAL —PARK —STRUCTURE —BOTH XXWORK IN PROGRESS —EDUCATIONAL —PRIVATE RESIDENCE —SITE PUBLIC ACQUISITION ACCESSIBLE —ENTERTAINMENT —RELIGIOUS —OBJECT —IN PROCESS X-YES: RESTRICTED —GOVERNMENT —SCIENTIFIC —BEING CONSIDERED — YES: UNRESTRICTED —INDUSTRIAL _TRANSPORTATION —NO —MILITARY MOTHER work in ___________ ___progress OWNER OF PROPERTY NAME State of California, Department of Parks and Recreation STREETS NUMBER CITY. TOWN STATE Sacramento _ VICINITY OF California HLOCATION OF LEGAL DESCRIPTION COURTHOUSE, County Recorder's Office REGISTRY OF DEEDS, ETC. STREET* NUMBER 901 G Street (P. 0. Box 1206) CITY. TOWN STATE Sacramento California Q REPRESENTATION IN EXISTING SURVEYS TITLE DATE —FEDERAL —STATE —COUNTY —LOCAL DEPOSITORY FOR SURVEY RECORDS CITY. TOWN STATE DESCRIPTION CONDITION CHECK ONE CHECK ONE —EXCELLENT —DETERIORATED —UNALTERED _ ORIGINAL SITE XGOOD RUINS JSALTERED X.MOVED DATf 1966 —FAIR __UNEXPOSED DESCRIBE THE PRESENT AND ORIGINAL (IF KNOWN) PHYSICAL APPEARANCE Leland Stanford, Collis Huntington, and Mark Hopkins built three adjacent stores for themselves in 1852, at 220-226 K Street in Sacramento. The simple, two-storey brick commercial-style buildings were originally separate, but with the union of the three in the railroad venture, the buildings were united into one structure also.
    [Show full text]
  • Text of Section 7 Can Be Found on Continuation Sheets Attached to This Form
    NFS Form 10-900 (Rev. 10-90) OMB No. 1024-0018 United States Department of the Interior National Park Service QQJ 2 g NATIONAL REGISTER OF HISTORIC PLACES REGISTRATION FORM 1. Name of Property Historic Name: PRESIDIO OF SAN FRANCISCO NATIONAL HISTORIC LANDMARK DISTRICT other Names/Site Number 2. Location street & number not for publication city or town San Francisco vicinity _ state California code __ county San Francisco code __ zip code 3. State/Federal Agency Certification As the designated authority under the National Historic Preservation Act of 1986, as amended, I hereby certify that this __ nomination __ request for determination of eligibility meets the documentation standards for registering properties in the National Register of Historic Places and meets the procedural and professional requirements set forth in 36 CFR Part 60. In my opinion, the property __ meets __ does not meet the National Register Criteria. I recommend that this property be considered significant _ nationally _ statewide _ locally. (_ See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of certifying official Date State or Federal agency and bureau In my opinion, the property __ meets __ does not meet the National Register criteria. ( _ See continuation sheet for additional comments.) Signature of commenting or other official Date State or Federal agency and bureau USDI/NPS NRHP Registration Form DOT 23 f ooo Section 4 Presidio of San Francisco '^- NFS Certification San Francisco, California 4. National Park Service Certification I, hereby certify that this property is: __ entered in the National Register See continuation sheet. determined eligible for the National Register National Register _ See continuation sheet.
    [Show full text]