DOCSLIB.ORG

UNR Neighborhood Historic Context Statement

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNR Neighborhood Historic Context Statement UNR Neighborhood Historic Context Statement Final Report | July 2017 Prepared for: Claudia C. Hanson, AICP Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Reno 1 East 1st Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Prepared by: JoEllen Ross-Hauer, M.S. Shannon Davis, M.A. Jennifer Gorman, M.S. Sarah Branch, M.A. 433 West Plumb Lane Reno, Nevada 89509 (775) 324-6789 ASM Project Number 27580 UNR Neighborhood Historic Context Statement Prepared for: Claudia C. Hanson, AICP Planning Manager Community Development Department City of Reno 1 East 1st Street Reno, Nevada 89501 Prepared by: JoEllen Ross-Hauer, M.S. Shannon Davis, M.A. Jennifer Gorman, M.S. Sarah Branch, M.A. ASM Affiliates, Inc. 433 West Plumb Lane Reno, Nevada 89509 July 2017 PN 27580 The Historic Context Statement that is the subject of this investigation has been financed in whole or in part with federal funds from the National Park Service, U.S. Department of Interior, and administered by the State Historic Preservation Office. The contents and opinions, however, do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the United States Department of the Interior or the State Historic Preservation Office. This program receives federal financial assistance for identification and protection of historic properties. Under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, and Age Discrimination Act of 1975, as amended, the U.S. Department of the Interior prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, color, national origin, disability or age in its federally assisted programs. If you believe you have been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility as described above, or if you desire further information, please write to: Office of Equal Opportunity, National Park Service, 1849 C Street, NW, Washington, DC 20240. Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page SUMMARY ............................................................................................................ v 1.0 PROJECT OBJECTIVES ................................................................................ 1 2.0 METHODOLOGY ............................................................................................ 3 2.1 ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA ........................................................................................ 3 2.1.1 National Register of Historic Places Significance Criteria ............................. 3 2.1.2 City of Reno Register of Historic Places Significance Criteria ...................... 4 2.1.3 Integrity ........................................................................................................ 4 2.2 ARCHIVAL RESEARCH ....................................................................................... 5 2.3 RECONNAISSANCE SURVEY AND DATA ANALYSIS ........................................ 5 2.4 PROJECT PERSONNEL ...................................................................................... 6 3.0 HISTORIC CONTEXT STATEMENT .............................................................. 9 3.1 OVERVIEW OF RENO HISTORY ......................................................................... 9 3.1.1 Settlement and Nineteenth Century Development ........................................ 9 3.1.2 Early Twentieth-Century Development ........................................................13 3.1.3 Reno in the Post-World War II Era ..............................................................14 3.2 THEME 1: COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT (1876-1970) ......................................15 3.2.1 Sub-theme: Establishment of the University Neighborhood (1876-1910s) ..16 Western Addition (1876) .......................................................................................16 Evans North Addition (1879-1910s) ......................................................................19 University Addition (1896-1917) ...........................................................................21 Hillside Cemetery .................................................................................................22 Ward’s Addition (1899) .........................................................................................23 Evans Northwest Addition (1906) .........................................................................23 Evans Northeast Addition (1906) ..........................................................................24 St. George Addition (1901-1930s) ........................................................................27 Anderson Addition (1902) .....................................................................................30 McKenna’s Addition (1907) ..................................................................................31 University Heights (1907-1920s) ..........................................................................31 Registration Requirements ...................................................................................32 3.2.2 Sub-theme: Early Twentieth-Century Development in the University Neighborhood (1910s-1930s) ......................................................................34 University Terrace (1916-1928) ............................................................................34 Duborg Tract, Campus Heights, Christensen’s and Edmonds Additions (1922-1928) .........................................................................................................35 Evans Vista (1928) ...............................................................................................37 Registration Requirements ...................................................................................39 3.2.3 Sub-theme: Mid-Twentieth Century Development in the University Neighborhood (1930s-1970) .......................................................................40 New Sunnyside Addition (1938-1945) ..................................................................40 University Heights (1941) .....................................................................................45 Washington Heights (1942) ..................................................................................45 Highland Terrace Housing Project (1944) .............................................................45 Miller and Pray Additions (1946)...........................................................................46 University Park (1948) ..........................................................................................46 UNR Neighborhood Historic Context Statement i Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS Chapter Page Grand View Heights (1947) ..................................................................................46 Amphitheater 1 (1951) ..........................................................................................47 Amphitheater 2-6 (1954-1965) .............................................................................47 Reno Highlands (1953) ........................................................................................47 Reno Highlands 2 and 3 (1955-1957) ...................................................................47 Sterling Village 2 (1958) .......................................................................................47 Registration Requirements ...................................................................................49 3.3 THEME 2: FHA MINIMUM HOUSE AND SMALL HOUSE PROGRAM AND GI BILL (1936-1960).............................................................................................50 The GI Bill ............................................................................................................51 New Sunnyside ....................................................................................................52 3.3.1 Registration Requirements ..........................................................................52 3.4 THEME 3: EDUCATION (1886-1960s) ............................................................53 3.4.1 The University of Nevada, Reno .................................................................53 3.4.2 The Fraternity Movement at the University of Nevada, Reno ......................53 3.4.3 Registration Requirements ..........................................................................55 3.5 THEME 4: ARCHITECTURAL HISTORY .............................................................56 3.5.1 Character-Defining Features of Architectural Styles and Types Present in the University Neighborhood ......................................................57 Second Empire Style ............................................................................................57 Queen Anne .........................................................................................................58 Front-Gable Type .................................................................................................59 Foursquare Type ..................................................................................................60 Craftsman ............................................................................................................61 Bungalow Type ....................................................................................................62 Spanish Colonial Revival Style .............................................................................63 Tudor Revival Style ..............................................................................................64 Colonial Revival Style ...........................................................................................65
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Early New York Houses (1900)
    1 f A ':-- V ,^ 4* .£^ * '"W "of o 5 ^/ v^v %-^v V^\^ ^^ > . V .** .-•jfltef-. %.^ .-is»i-. \.^ .-^fe-. *^** -isM'. \,/ V s\ " c«^W.».' . o r^0^ a? %<> **' -i v , " • S » < •«. ci- • ^ftl>a^'» ( c 'f ^°- ^ '^#; > ^ " • 1 * ^5- «> w * dsf\\Vv>o», . O V ^ V u 4- ^ ° »*' ^> t*o* **d« vT1 *3 ^d* 4°^ » " , ^o .<4 o ^iW/^2, , ^A ^ ^°^ fl <^ ° t'o LA o^ t « « % 1 75*° EARLY Z7Ja NEW YORK HOVSEvS 1900 EARLY NEW YORK HOVSES WITH HISTORICAL 0^ GEN- EALOGICAL NOTES BY' WILLIAM S.PELLETREAV,A.M. PHOTOGRAPHS OFOLDHOVSES C-ORIGINAL ILLVSTRATIONSBY C.G.MOLLER. JR. y y y v v v v v v v <&-;-??. IN TEN PARTS FRANCIS P.HARPER, PVBLIS HER NEW YORK,A.D.jQOO^ * vvvvvvvv 1A Library of Coi NOV 13 1900 SECOND COPY Oeliv. ORDER DIVISION MAR. 2 1901 fit,* P3b ..^..^•^•^Si^jSb;^^;^^. To the memory of WILLIAM KELBY I^ate librarian of the New York Historical Society f Whose labors of careful patient and successful research w have been equalled by few—surpassed by none. w Natvs, Decessit, MDCCCXU MDCCCXCVIII ¥ JIT TIBI TERRA LEVIJ , ^5?^5?^'55>•^••^•^=^,•^•" ==i•'t=^^•':ft>•' 1 St. Phuup's Church, Centre; Street Page 1 V 2 Old Houses on " Monkey Hill " 3/ 3 The Oldest Houses in Lafayette Place 7 / 4 The Site of Captain Kidd's House ll • 5 Old Houses on York Street 15/ 6 The Merchant's Exchange 19 V 7 Old Houses Corner of Watts and Hudson Streets 23 </ 27v/ 8 Baptist Church on Fayette Street, 1808 . 9 The in Night Before Christmas" was House which "The •/ Written 31 10 Franklin Square, in 1856 35^ 11 The First Tammany Hall 41 </ 12 Houses on Bond Street 49^ 13 The Homestead of Casper Samler 53/ 14 The Tank of the Manhattan Water Company 57 ^ 15 Residence of General Winfield Scott 61 l/ 16 The Last Dwelling House on Broadway, (The Goelet Mansion) 65^ \/ 17 Old Houses on Cornelia Street , n 18 The Last of LE Roy Place 75*/ 19 Northeast Corner of Fifth Avenue and Sixteenth Street .
    [Show full text]
  • Enabling Safe and Inclusive Communities Through Housing a CHRA Congress Session Summary
    Enabling Safe and Inclusive Communities Through Housing A CHRA Congress Session Summary With thanks to BC Housing for their generous support of this initiative April 2014 Prepared for and Property of: THE CANADIAN HOUSING AND RENEWAL ASSOCIATION. All Rights Reserved. Introduction This paper builds on a workshop held at the Canadian Housing and Renewal Association’s (CHRA) 2014 Annual Congress. It highlights three projects where housing is the catalyst for urban inner city neighborhood regeneration. The workshop ‘Enabling Safe and Inclusive Communities Through Housing’ held on May 1st, 2014, addressed the preservation of Vancouver’s Downtown East Side for low-income residents, plans for a new Edmonton community built on the site of a decommissioned airport, and the renewal of a downtown Winnipeg neighborhood. In each case, housing served as the foundation for neighborhood preservation, redevelopment and renewal, respectively. Inner city neighborhoods that offer housing options for diverse household types and income levels can increase social and economic opportunities for those living in the area while strengthening urban growth. Increasing the number of households in urban neighborhoods also reduces pressures on transportation networks and related environmental impacts. The health benefits of walkable urban neighborhoods are also well documented. Yet many inner city neighborhoods across Canada are experiencing pressures due to a variety of economic, social and environmental factors, and strategies are needed to ensure neighborhoods remain safe and inclusive places for individuals and families to live. In some cases, preserving neighborhoods for existing residents is a challenge if the cost of housing and retail space rises too quickly. In others, the opposite challenge is true, whereby declining inner city infrastructure and services require added investment and support in order to be stabilized.
    [Show full text]
  • How Housing Supply Shapes Access to Opportunity for Renters
    A TERNER CENTER REPORT - NOVEMBER 2019 How Housing Supply Shapes Access to Opportunity for Renters Elizabeth Kneebone Research Director Mark Trainer Graduate Student Researcher Copyright 2019 Terner Center for Housing Innovation For more information on the Terner Center, see our website at www.ternercenter.berkeley.edu Executive Summary An increasing number of local, state, and federal policies aim to increase access to areas of opportunity for lower-income households. Housing supply—the amount, mix, and location of housing options—plays a central role in dictating neighbor- hood form and affects the availability and distribution of rental housing within and across regions. This analysis assigns census tracts to one of four categories based on the share of housing stock that is single family: Single-Family, Predomi- nantly Single-Family, Mixed Housing Stock, and Majority Multifamily. It then uses census tract-level data from the decen- nial census, American Community Survey, and the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development’s Low-Income Housing Tax Credit (LIHTC) database to analyze the ways in which housing supply shapes neighborhoods and access to opportunity for renter households in the nation’s 100 largest metro areas. We find: ■ The number of Single-Family neighborhoods in the nation’s largest metro areas has grown by almost 40 percent since 1990, largely at the expense of neighborhoods that offer a more diverse mix of housing types. Single-family homes accounted for the majority of new units added since 1990 in almost every type of neighbor- hood. As a result, roughly one-quarter of neighborhoods that had more mixed housing stock in 1990 became predomi- nantly single-family by 2016.
    [Show full text]
  • Architectural Styles/Types
    Architectural Findings Summary of Architectural Trends 1940‐70 National architectural trends are evident within the survey area. The breakdown of mid‐20th‐ century styles and building types in the Architectural Findings section gives more detail about the Dayton metropolitan area’s built environment and its place within national architectural developments. In American Architecture: An Illustrated Encyclopedia, Cyril Harris defines Modern architecture as “A loosely applied term, used since the late 19th century, for buildings, in any of number of styles, in which emphasis in design is placed on functionalism, rationalism, and up‐to‐date methods of construction; in contrast with architectural styles based on historical precedents and traditional ways of building. Often includes Art Deco, Art Moderne, Bauhaus, Contemporary style, International Style, Organic architecture, and Streamline Moderne.” (Harris 217) The debate over traditional styles versus those without historic precedent had been occurring within the architectural community since the late 19th century when Louis Sullivan declared that form should follow function and Frank Lloyd Wright argued for a purely American expression of design that eschewed European influence. In 1940, as America was about to enter the middle decades of the 20th century, architects battled over the merits of traditional versus modern design. Both the traditional Period Revival, or conservative styles, and the early 20th‐century Modern styles lingered into the 1940s. Period revival styles, popular for decades, could still be found on commercial, governmental, institutional, and residential buildings. Among these styles were the Colonial Revival and its multiple variations, the Tudor Revival, and the Neo‐Classical Revival. As the century progressed, the Colonial Revival in particular would remain popular, used as ornament for Cape Cod and Ranch houses, apartment buildings, and commercial buildings.
    [Show full text]
  • Chiles Ranch Project Description / Justification
    CHILES RANCH PROJECT DESCRIPTION / JUSTIFICATION With Chiles Ranch, we wish to create a residential community that will not only provide much- needed housing, but also contribute to neighborhood connectivity. We wish to produce several for-sale housing types and levels of affordability; create greenbelts, public open space and habitat; construct safe pedestrian and bike routes; and make for a vehicular circulation system that will serve the project appropriately, while minimizing impacts to the neighboring residents. Over the last several months we were able to produce a plan that evolved from a collaboration of skilled professionals, City officials and neighbors - who have a stake in the property’s fate. We, Steve Sherman and Don Fouts, over the past 33 years have built many high quality homes in the City of Davis. Our well-established local companies have strong reputations and a proven track record. For Chiles Ranch, we have joined together as New Urban Development, LLC, with the name reflective of our objectives for the property. With this project we will continue our commitment to provide housing that is of high quality and is a good fit for the community. Our proposed Chiles Ranch, at 2411 East 8th Street, consists of 12.1 acres of three vacant parcels. Parcel One, APN 71-401-03, is currently zoned as R-2, Parcel Two, APN 71-020-15, and Parcel 3, APN 71-401-02, are zoned agriculture. All three parcels have a land-use designation of Residential Low Density in the General Plan. We are requesting a rezone of all three parcels to a Residential Planned Development with a General Plan Amendment to Residential Medium Density.
    [Show full text]
  • Cultivating Communities
    Cultivating Communities AHP Rental Application Guide Table of Contents Tab 1 Rental Application Example Tab 2 Project Summary/Description Tab 3 Sponsor Capacity Tab 4 Commitment Letters Tab 5 Empowerment Services Tab 6 Supportive Service Projects Tab 7 Phase 1 Environmental Study Tab 8 Appraisal Tab 9 Construction Budget Example Tab 10 Market Study – Contents do not provide a complete study Tab 11 Capital Needs Assessment for Rehabilitation Tab 12 Affirmative Marketing Plan Tab 13 Common Application Mistakes and Helpful Hints Tab 14 Required Documents Tab 15 GuideConnect Guide and Glossary Rental Application Example Jan 11, 2021 01:50 PM Application ID: 2021B000001 Affordable Housing Program Sponsor Organization Name: Passion for Affordable Housing Address: 8500 Freeport Parkway South City: Irving State: Texas Zip Code: 75063 What is the sponsor's organization type? 501(c)3 Not-For-Profit What is the sponsor's involvement in the project? Control Over Planning, Management of Development, Arranging or Providing Financing Does the sponsor have an ownership interest in the project? Yes Is there developer fee? Yes Does the sponsor receive at least 25% of the total developer's fees? Yes Name: Mr. Steven R Matkovich Job Title: Sr Affordable Hsg Analyst Phone: 312-471-3007 Fax: Email: [email protected] All Rights Reserved FHLB Dallas 2021 version 1.0.0 Page 1 of 32 Jan 11, 2021 01:50 PM Application ID: 2021B000001 Affordable Housing Program Member Member Name: Ennis State Bank FHFA ID: 52839 Name: Mr. Steven R Matkovich Job Title: Sr Housing
    [Show full text]
  • Postwar Modern Housing and a Geographic Information System Study of Scottsdale Subdivisions
    Postwar Modern Housing and a Geographic Information System Study of Scottsdale Subdivisions By Elizabeth S. Wilson, M.E.P. August 2002 TABLE OF CONTENTS LIST OF FIGURES ........................................................................................iii STUDY OVERVIEW...................................................................................... 1 RESEARCH DESIGN...................................................................................... 3 HISTORIC SUBURBAN HOUSING DEVELOPMENT ......................................... 5 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 5 RAILROAD SUBURBS .................................................................................. 6 STREETCAR SUBURBS................................................................................. 7 EARLY AUTOMOBILE SUBURBS..................................................................... 9 The Federal Housing Administration........................................................... 11 Land Use Controls................................................................................... 13 Builders................................................................................................. 14 NATIONAL POSTWAR TRENDS .................................................................. 16 AUTOS AND ROADWAY EXPANSION ............................................................. 16 SOCIOECONOMIC AND CULTURAL TRENDS ................................................... 17 The Boom Years, 1946-1956
    [Show full text]
  • Article V – ADMINISTRATION
    Division VI: General Terms Chapter 11.72 Use Classifications ................................................................. VI-1 11.72.010 Purpose and Applicability ................................................................................ VI-1 11.72.020 Residential Use Classifications ........................................................................ VI-1 11.72.030 Public and Semi-Public Use Classifications .................................................. VI-3 11.72.040 Commercial Use Classifications...................................................................... VI-6 11.72.050 Industrial Use Classifications ........................................................................ VI-13 11.72.060 Transportation, Communication, and Utilities Use Classifications ........ VI-15 11.72.070 Agricultural and Natural Resource Use Classifications ............................ VI-17 Chapter 11.73 List of Terms and Definitions ............................................. VI-21 11.73.010 List of Terms ................................................................................................... VI-21 11.73.020 Definitions ....................................................................................................... VI-25 Chapter 11.74 Land Use Regulation Table ................................................. VI-55 Yuba County Development Code This page intentionally left blank. VI-ii Division VI: General Terms Chapter 11.72 Use Classifications Sections: 11.72.010 Purpose and Applicability 11.72.020 Residential
    [Show full text]
  • William Krisel Papers, 1935-2014
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/c82j69td No online items Finding aid for the William Krisel papers, 1935-2014 Finding aid for the William Krisel 2009.M.23 1 papers, 1935-2014 Descriptive Summary Title: William Krisel papers Date (inclusive): 1935-2014 Number: 2009.M.23 Creator/Collector: Krisel, William Physical Description: 390.6 linear feet(57 boxes, 411 flatfiles, 36 boxed rolls) Repository: The Getty Research Institute Special Collections 1200 Getty Center Drive, Suite 1100 Los Angeles, California, 90049-1688 (310) 440-7390 Abstract: Southern California architect William Krisel is a pioneering designer of mid-century residential and commercial architecture, known mainly for his affordable homes expressing the modern aesthetic. Consisting of drawings, photographs, documents, and articles, the archive contributes greatly to the study of mid-century modernism and postwar housing trends, particularly the development of tract housing, in California. Request Materials: Request access to the physical materials described in this inventory through the catalog record for this collection. Click here for the access policy . Language: Collection material is in English Biographical/Historical Note William Krisel was born in 1924 in Shanghai, China to American parents and was raised there until the family relocated to Beverly Hills, California in 1937. Krisel developed an early interest in architecture that he attributes to his father's correspondence with Rancho Santa Fe architect Lilian Rice, who designed a home for the family in California. He enrolled at the University of Southern California (USC) as an architecture student in 1941, but his studies were interrupted by the onset of World War II.
    [Show full text]
  • Development Data Book 2020
    NYCHA DEVELOPMENT DATA BOOK 2020 Created by the Performance Tracking and Analytics Department 1 2 SIGNIFICANT CHANGES FOR 2020 Welcome to the 2020 Edition of the NYCHA Development Data Book. The Performance Tracking and Analytics Department (PTAD) has made a variety of changes to the book this year that will enhance its value as an information source. 302 Developments This year, the data for the Resident Data Book includes data for all 302 developments in NYCHA’s portfolio as of February 13, 2020. 9 RAD transactions occurred on February 12, 2020 and these developments are not included in any summary totals, development pages, or overall counts in the 2020 Development Data Book or Resident Data Book. Rental Assistance Demonstration (RAD)/Permanent Affordability Commitment Together (PACT) Developments Below is the list of developments that underwent a Rental Assistance (RAD) / Permanent Affordability Commitment Together (PACT) conversion as of February 13, 2020. Disposed February 2020 Disposed November 2018 • 572 Warren Street • Betances I • Armstrong I • Betances II 13 • Armstrong II • Betances II, 18 • Berry Street - South 9th Street • Betances II, 9A • Independence • Betances III, 13 • Marcy Avenue - Greene Avenue Site A • Betances III, 18 • Marcy Avenue - Greene Avenue Site B • Betances III, 9A • Weeksville Gardens • Betances IV • Williams Plaza • Betances V • Betances VI Disposed July 2019 • Franklin Avenue I Conventional • Bushwick II (Groups A & C) • Franklin Avenue II Conventional • Bushwick II (Groups B & D) • Franklin Avenue III Conventional • Bushwick II CDA (Group E) • Highbridge Rehabs (Anderson Avenue) • Hope Gardens • Highbridge Rehabs (Nelson Avenue) • Palmetto Gardens Disposed October 2018 Disposed December 2018 • Twin Parks West (Sites 1 & 2) • Baychester • Murphy Disposed January 2017 • Ocean Bay (Bayside) 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS 1.
    [Show full text]
  • Design Guidelines
    Grandview Heights Design Guidelines 1. Introduction The city of Grandview Heights is a vibrant and livable place of neighborhoods, commercial enterprises, schools, parks, and pubic places. To its residents the community is unique and special, with a character and feel that is worth preserving for future generations. All across the nation, people have recognized these same qualities in their own communities. They have sought ways to ensure that their special sense of place is not lost or compromised as growth and development continue. Communities are under the pressure of ongoing change; it cannot be stopped, but change can be managed for the benefit of the entire community. One successful approach long used by hundreds of communities is local design review. Created by municipal ordinance, design review processes take many forms and are implemented in many different ways. Some of the most historic communities—Charleston, SC, or New Orleans’ French Quarter, and even Columbus’ German Village—have fairly strict design review procedures that exert significant control over the exterior appearance of buildings in designated historic districts. In these areas, building and business owners accept this level of review because it is critically important in preserving the districts’ historic character and economic value. Other communities take a much less strict approach, allowing considerably more flexibility in how buildings are renovated, demolished, or enlarged. Each community decides for itself the level of design review that is right for it and its citizens. Regardless of the type or level of design review, it has been shown again and again that having some form of design review has many benefits for a community, including increased property values, a more stable tax base, increased tourism and visitation by non-residents, and fewer run-down properties that adversely affect their neighbors’ property rights and values.
    [Show full text]
  • Sunset District Residential Builders, 1925–1950
    SUNSET DISTRICT RESIDENTIAL BUILDERS, 1925-1950 Historic Context Statement April 3, 2013 Prepared by Mary Brown, Preservation Planner San Francisco City and County Planning Department 1650 Mission Street, Suite 400 San Francisco, CA 94103 1 The activity which is the subject of this historic context statement has been financed in part with Federal funds from the National Park Service, Department of the Interior, through the California Office of Historic Preservation. However, the contents and opinions do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation by the Department of the Interior or the California Office of Historic Preservation. * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Regulations of the U.S. Department of the Interior strictly prohibit unlawful discrimination in departmental federally‐assisted programs on the basis of race, color, sex, age, disability, or national origin. Any person who believes he or she has been discriminated against in any program, activity, or facility operated by a recipient of Federal assistance should write to: Director, Equal Opportunity Program U.S. Department of the Interior National Park Service P.O. Box 37127 Washington, D.C. 20013‐7127 2 Table of Contents Chapter 1: Project Description 4 Chapter 2: Historic Context Methodology 13 Chapter 3: Historical Development: San Francisco and Sunset District 17 Chapter
    [Show full text]