DOCSLIB.ORG

Historic & Cultural Resources Evaluation

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
Historic & Cultural Resources Evaluation HISTORIC & CULTURAL RESOURCES EVALUATION HISTORIC RESOURCES EVALUATION FOR SECTION 106 REVIEW Ashland Family Apartments 16309-16331 Kent Avenue San Lorenzo, California 94580 AUGUST 2012 AEM CO NS UL TI N G LLC 310 Pacific Heights Drive Santa Rosa, California 95403 (707) 523-3710 Ashland Family Apartments- Historic Evaluation TABLE OF CONTENTS BACKGROUND ..................................................................................................................................................... 3 REGULATORY CONTEXT ....................................................................................................................................... 3 National Historic Preservation Act ................................................................................................................. 3 State of California.......................................................................................................................................... 4 The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) ........................................................................................... 4 Public Resources Code (PRC) Section 5020.1 ................................................................................................... 4 Public Resources Code Section 5024.1 ............................................................................................................ 4 Public Resource Code, Section 5097 ............................................................................................................... 5 Public Resources Code Section 21084.1 .......................................................................................................... 5 Health and Safety Code, Sections 7050.5 and 7052 ........................................................................................ 5 California Native American Historical, Cultural and Sacred Sites Act ............................................................... 5 Alameda County ............................................................................................................................................ 5 The Preservation Ordinance codifies: ............................................................................................................. 6 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................................................ 6 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................. 9 PROJECT LOCATION ............................................................................................................................................... 10 SITE CONDITIONS/CONTEXT .............................................................................................................................. 11 AREA OF POTENTIAL EFFECTS ............................................................................................................................ 14 CALIFORNIA HISTORIC RESOURCE INFORMATION SYSTEM - RECORDS SEARCH ................................................. 15 NATIVE AMERICAN CONTACTS .......................................................................................................................... 16 HISTORIC DISTRICTS........................................................................................................................................... 16 EVALUATION ..................................................................................................................................................... 30 Archaeology - Field Survey ........................................................................................................................... 30 Architectural Survey .................................................................................................................................... 30 ACCIDENTAL DISCOVERY ................................................................................................................................... 33 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................................................... 34 RECOMMENDED DETERMINATION .................................................................................................................... 34 Works Cited ................................................................................................................................................. 34 Ashland Family Apartments- Historic Evaluation Page 2 of 34 Ashland Family Apartments- Historic Evaluation BACKGROUND Resources for Community Development (RCD) proposes to use funding from the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as administered by Alameda County to construct an affordable housing project. To se- cure HUD release of funds for the project, Alameda County must provide a suitable federal Environmental Review Record to HUD prepared according to the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) and HUD’s own Environmental Regulations found in 24 CFR Part 58. The appropriate level of federal environmental review in this case is an Environmental Assessment leading to a Finding of No Significant Impact (FONSI). Both the Environmental Assessment and FONSI must be prepared for signature by the Certifying Officer for Alameda Coun- ty. To achieve a FONSI, HUD requires that the Environmental Assessment demonstrate that the project complies with all applicable federal laws and regulations, including Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act. Regula- tions pertaining to Section 106 Review are found in 36 CFR Part 800. REGULATORY CONTEXT NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) requires federal agencies to take into account the effects of their undertakings on historic properties. The section 106 process seeks to accommodate historic preservation concerns with the needs of federal undertakings through consultation among the agency official and other interested parties, beginning at the early stages of project planning. The goal of consultation is to identify historic properties potentially affected by the undertaking, assess its effects and seek ways to avoid, minimize or mitigate any adverse effects on historic properties. To evaluate the significance of an historical resource and its integrity, the ability of a property to convey that significance, a building is evaluated according to the National Reg- ister Criteria for Evaluation. According to the guidelines of the National Register Criteria for Evaluation, the quality of significance in American history, architecture, archeology, engineering, and culture is present in districts, sites, buildings, structures, and objects that possess integrity of location, design, setting, materials, workmanship, feel- ing, and association, and: A. That are associated with events that have made a significant contribution to the broad patterns of our history; or B. That are associated with the lives of persons significant in our past; or C. That embody the distinctive characteristics of a type, period, or method of construction, or that repre- sent the work of a master, or that possess high artistic values, or that represent a significant and distin- guishable entity whose components may lack individual distinction; or D. That has yielded or may be likely to yield, information important in prehistory or history. Section 106 compliance requires Alameda County to obtain the views of the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) as to whether any of the project activities could have an “adverse effect” to the setting or character- defining features of any historically significant property in the Area of Potential Effects (APE). A historically signifi- cant property is one that would be eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places, whether it is cur- rently listed or not. Ashland Family Apartments- Historic Evaluation Page 3 of 34 STATE OF CALIFORNIA THE CALIFORNIA ENVIRONMENTAL QUALITY ACT (CEQA) The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), encoded in Sections 21000 et seq of the Public Resources Code (PRC) with Guidelines for implementation codified in the California Code of Regulations (CCR), Title 14, Chap- ter 3, Sections 15000 et seq., requires state and local public agencies to identify the environmental impacts of pro- posed discretionary activities or projects, determine if the impacts will be significant, and identify alternatives and mitigation measures that will substantially reduce or eliminate significant impacts to the environment. CEQA identifies historic resources as those listed in or eligible for listing in the California Register of Historic Re- sources, based on a range of criteria, such as association with events or patterns of events that have made signifi- cant contributions to broad patterns of historical development in the United States or California, including local, regional, or specific cultural patterns (California Register Criterion I). Alternatively, structures which are directly associated with important persons in the history of the state or the country (Criterion 2), which embody the dis- tinctive characteristics of type, period or other aesthetic importance (Criterion 3), or which has the potential to reveal important information about the prehistory or history of the state or the nation (such as archaeological
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Bicycle Master Plan in 2007
    CITY OF HAYWARD BICYCLE MASTER PLAN October 2007 Prepared by Alta Planning + Design This page left blank intentionally. TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. INTRODUCTION 1. Introduction..................................................................................................................................................1-1 1.1. Why Bicycling?.............................................................................................................................1-1 1.2. Purpose of the Bicycle Master Plan ...........................................................................................1-1 1.3. Summary of Changes between 1997 and 2006 Plans ...............................................................1-2 1.4. Plan Contents...............................................................................................................................1-4 2. GOALS AND OBJECTIVES 2. Goals and Objectives...................................................................................................................................2-1 2.1. New Facilities...............................................................................................................................2-1 2.2. Bicycle Commuting and Recreational Opportunities ...............................................................2-1 3. EXISTING CONDITIONS 3. Existing Conditions......................................................................................................................................3-1 3.1. Setting...........................................................................................................................................3-1
    [Show full text]
  • Environmental Hazards Incorporates the State-Mandated “Safety” and “Noise” Elements of the General Plan
    7 HAZARDS ENVIRONMENTAL A. OVERVIEW Environmental Hazards incorporates the state-mandated “Safety” and “Noise” elements of the General Plan. The Chapter addresses natural and man-made hazards in the City, including earthquakes, landslides, floods, sea level rise, wildfire, air and water pollution, hazardous materials, and aviation accidents. It includes a summary of emergency preparedness in San Leandro, with policies that provide the foundation for disaster planning in the City. The Element also addresses noise issues, with the dual objective of mitigating existing noise problems and avoiding future disturbances and conflicts. The overall purpose of this Element is to minimize the potential for damage and injury resulting from environmental hazards. The State Government Code requires that the Element identify and evaluate the hazards that are present and establish appropriate goals, policies, and action programs to reduce those hazards to acceptable levels. Environmental hazards define basic constraints to land use that must be reflected in how and where development takes place. Public education is critical to the successful implementation of this Element. Although San Leandrans are generally aware that the City is located in “earthquake country,” there is still much that can be done to improve readiness and response when disaster strikes. The Environmental Hazards Element takes a pro-active approach to emergency preparedness, emphasizing mitigation and reduced exposure to hazards as well as response and recovery. This Element is closely coordinated with the City’s Local Hazard Mitigation Plan (LHMP), a federally mandated plan to reduce exposure to hazards and ensure eligibility for federal disaster preparedness and relief funds. 7-1 SAN LEANDRO GENERAL PLAN ENVIRONMENTAL HAZARD S The Element also sets forth a pro-active strategy for addressing noise issues in the community.
    [Show full text]
  • Mcconaghy House Teacher Packet Contains Historical Information About the Mcconaghy Family, Surrounding Region, and American Lifestyle
    1 WELCOME TO THE McCONAGHY HOUSE! Visiting the McConaghy House is an exciting field trip for students and teachers alike. Docent-led school tours of the house focus on local history, continuity and change, and the impact of individuals in our community. The house allows students to step into the past and experience and wonder about the life of a farming family. The McConaghy House is also an example of civic engagement as the community mobilized in the 1970’s to save the house from pending demolition. Through the efforts of concerned citizens, an important part of our local history has been pre- served for future generations to enjoy. The McConaghy House Teacher Packet contains historical information about the McConaghy family, surrounding region, and American lifestyle. Included are pre and post visit lesson plans, together with all necessary resources and background information. These lessons are not required for a guided visit but will greatly enrich the experience for students. The lessons can be completed in any order, though recommendations have been made for ease of implementation. We welcome comments and suggestions about the usefulness of this packet in your classroom. An evaluation form is enclosed for your feedback. Thank you for booking a field trip to the McConaghy House. We look forward to seeing you and your students! Sincerely, Education Department 22380 Foothill Blvd Hayward, CA 94541 510-581-0223 www.haywardareahistory.org 2 Table of Contents Teacher Information The Hayward Area Historical Society .................................................................................... 4 Why do we study history? How does a museum work? ....................................................... 5 History of the McConaghy Family for Teachers ...................................................................
    [Show full text]
  • Street, Hayward, CA 94541 (510) 881-6700
    Minutes – July 25, 2011 – Page 1. Hayward Area Recreation and Park District 1099 “E” Street, Hayward, CA 94541 (510) 881-6700 M I N U T E S March 26, 2012 MEETING The Regular Meeting of the Board of Directors of the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District was called to order by President Waespi at 5:30 p.m. on Monday, March 26, 2012 in the Board Room of the Administration Building at 1099 ‘E’ Street, Hayward. BOARD OF DIRECTORS’ President Waespi announced that the Board of Directors would adjourn the CLOSED SESSION meeting to hold a Closed Session for a meeting with designated representatives to discuss negations with the SEIU 1021 Bargaining Unit of the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District, followed by a meeting with Legal Counsel regarding existing litigation in the case of the Hayward Area Recreation and Park District and Alameda County regarding 16301 and 16635 E. 14th Street, San Leandro, CA. RECONVENE TO The Board Meeting reconvened at 7:01 p.m. and was followed by the REGULAR SESSION Pledge of Allegiance and Roll Call. PLEDGE TO FLAG The Pledge of Allegiance was followed by Roll Call. PRESENT Directors: Andrade, Hodges, Jameson, Pereira, Waespi Staff: Ely, Giammona, Gouveia, Lepore, Hamid CLOSED SESSION President Waespi reported that the Board of Directors held a Closed Session ANNOUNCEMENT at 5:30 p.m. on this date as reported above at which no reportable action was taken. MONTHLY VOLUNTEER President Waespi postponed presentation of the Monthly Volunteer RECOGNITION AWARD Recognition Award to the Monday, April 9, 2012 Board of Directors’ meeting, as the recipient of the February 2012 award, Mr.
    [Show full text]
  • Historical Status of Coho Salmon in Streams of the Urbanized San Francisco Estuary, California
    CALIFORNIA FISH AND GAME California Fish and Game 91(4):219-254 2005 HISTORICAL STATUS OF COHO SALMON IN STREAMS OF THE URBANIZED SAN FRANCISCO ESTUARY, CALIFORNIA ROBERT A. LEIDY1 U. S. Environmental Protection Agency 75 Hawthorne Street San Francisco, CA 94105 [email protected] and GORDON BECKER Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration 4179 Piedmont Avenue, Suite 325 Oakland, CA 94611 [email protected] and BRETT N. HARVEY Graduate Group in Ecology University of California Davis, CA 95616 1Corresponding author ABSTRACT The historical status of coho salmon, Oncorhynchus kisutch, was assessed in 65 watersheds surrounding the San Francisco Estuary, California. We reviewed published literature, unpublished reports, field notes, and specimens housed at museum and university collections and public agency files. In watersheds for which we found historical information for the occurrence of coho salmon, we developed a matrix of five environmental indicators to assess the probability that a stream supported habitat suitable for coho salmon. We found evidence that at least 4 of 65 Estuary watersheds (6%) historically supported coho salmon. A minimum of an additional 11 watersheds (17%) may also have supported coho salmon, but evidence is inconclusive. Coho salmon were last documented from an Estuary stream in the early-to-mid 1980s. Although broadly distributed, the environmental characteristics of streams known historically to contain coho salmon shared several characteristics. In the Estuary, coho salmon typically were members of three-to-six species assemblages of native fishes, including Pacific lamprey, Lampetra tridentata, steelhead, Oncorhynchus mykiss, California roach, Lavinia symmetricus, juvenile Sacramento sucker, Catostomus occidentalis, threespine stickleback, Gasterosteus aculeatus, riffle sculpin, Cottus gulosus, prickly sculpin, Cottus asper, and/or tidewater goby, Eucyclogobius newberryi.
    [Show full text]
  • (Oncorhynchus Mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California
    Historical Distribution and Current Status of Steelhead/Rainbow Trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in Streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California Robert A. Leidy, Environmental Protection Agency, San Francisco, CA Gordon S. Becker, Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA Brett N. Harvey, John Muir Institute of the Environment, University of California, Davis, CA This report should be cited as: Leidy, R.A., G.S. Becker, B.N. Harvey. 2005. Historical distribution and current status of steelhead/rainbow trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) in streams of the San Francisco Estuary, California. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration, Oakland, CA. Center for Ecosystem Management and Restoration TABLE OF CONTENTS Forward p. 3 Introduction p. 5 Methods p. 7 Determining Historical Distribution and Current Status; Information Presented in the Report; Table Headings and Terms Defined; Mapping Methods Contra Costa County p. 13 Marsh Creek Watershed; Mt. Diablo Creek Watershed; Walnut Creek Watershed; Rodeo Creek Watershed; Refugio Creek Watershed; Pinole Creek Watershed; Garrity Creek Watershed; San Pablo Creek Watershed; Wildcat Creek Watershed; Cerrito Creek Watershed Contra Costa County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 39 Alameda County p. 45 Codornices Creek Watershed; Strawberry Creek Watershed; Temescal Creek Watershed; Glen Echo Creek Watershed; Sausal Creek Watershed; Peralta Creek Watershed; Lion Creek Watershed; Arroyo Viejo Watershed; San Leandro Creek Watershed; San Lorenzo Creek Watershed; Alameda Creek Watershed; Laguna Creek (Arroyo de la Laguna) Watershed Alameda County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p. 91 Santa Clara County p. 97 Coyote Creek Watershed; Guadalupe River Watershed; San Tomas Aquino Creek/Saratoga Creek Watershed; Calabazas Creek Watershed; Stevens Creek Watershed; Permanente Creek Watershed; Adobe Creek Watershed; Matadero Creek/Barron Creek Watershed Santa Clara County Maps: Historical Status, Current Status p.
    [Show full text]
  • Bart at Twenty: Land Use and Development Impacts
    ffional Development BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with research assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich July 1995 University of California at Berkeley - 1 BART@20: Land Use and Development Impacts Robert Cervero with Research Assistance by Carlos Castellanos, Wicaksono Sarosa, and Kenneth Rich This paper was produced with support provided by the U.S. Department of Transportation and the California State Department of Transportation (Caltrans) through the University of California Transportation Center. University of California at Berkeley Institute of Urban and Regional Development Table of Contents ONE: BART at 20: An Analysis of Land Use Impacts 1 1. INTRODUCTION 1 TWO: Research Approach and Data Sources 3 THREE: Employment and Population Changes in BART and Non-BART Areas 6 3.1. Population Changes 6 3.2. Employment Changes 3.3. Population Densities 15 3.4. Employment Densities 15 3.5. Summary 20 FOUR: Land Use Changes Over Time and by Corridor 21 4.1. General Land-Use Trends 23 4.2. Pre-BART versus Post-BART 25 4.3. Early versus Later BART 30 4.4. Trends in Non-Residential Densities 33 4.4. Summary 37 FIVE: Land-Use Changes by Station Classes 38 5.1. Grouping Variables 38 5.2. Classification 38 5.3. Station Classes 41 5.4. Trends in Residential and Non-Residential Growth Among Station Classes 44 5.5. Percent Growth in Early- versus Later-BART Years Among Station Classes 46 5.6. Trends in Non-Residential Densities Among Station Classes 46 SLX: Matched-Pair Comparisons of Land-Use Changes near BART Stations Versus Freeway Interchanges 51 6.1.
    [Show full text]
  • Hayward Regional Shoreline Marina
    CHANNEL ST. 2.25 miles along S.F. Bay Trail from San Lorenzo Creek bridge to San Leandro BOCKMAN Hayward Regional Shoreline Marina. .19 .19 ROAD San Lorenzo Creek/San Francisco Bay Trail and return To 880 SAN LORENZO CREEK GRANT AVE. Length: 6.1 miles Elevation Gain: 55 feet Hike Start/ Del Ray Sewage Park Location: Hayward .37 End Treatment BANDONI AV. VIA MELINA GPS Coordinates: 37.669742, -122.157782 Plant 26 parking spots VIA CARRETA S A N PARTIAL Intensity: Moderate USE L O R E N Z O BOCKMAN CHANNEL San Lorenzo Park and Community VIA BUENA VISTA Center – H.A.R.D .41 Park Features: Hayward Regional Shoreline contains over a thousand acres VIA SARITA of marshlands and seasonal wetlands. The park’s levees, originally built for salt evaporation ponds, now provide visitors with long, flat paths along the bay that Skywest Golf Course are perfect for biking, hiking, or jogging. Fishing is allowed at various points along ORO LOMA MARSH the trail, but only with a license. Although the park is unshaded, the cool bay air is HAYWARD REGIONAL refreshing and makes this park a wonderful spot at almost any time of year. .29 Please note: Dogs are not allowed on this route past Hayward Landing. SHORELINE Trail Highlights: This route follows the trail out and back, with a loop at the far SULPHUR CREEK end around the landfill and along the flood control channel. With marsh views to Featured Trail B I L the east and the Bay to the west, there is always plenty to marvel at.
    [Show full text]
  • A Geographic History of San Lorenzo Creek Watershed
    A GEOGRAPHIC HISTORY OF SAN LORENZO CREEK WATERSHED LANDSCAPE PATTERNS UNDERLYING HUMAN ACTIVITIES IN THE LANDS OF THE YRGIN MISSION SAN JOSE RANCHO, 1796-1834 SAN LEANDRO, SAN LORENZO, AND SAN RAMON RANCHOS, 1830s-1849 TOWNS OF HAYWARD’S, SQUATTERSVILLE, AND MT EDEN, 1850s CITIES OF HAYWARD, SAN LORENZO, AND CASTRO VALLEY Robin Grossinger and Elise Brewster San Francisco Estuary Institute Regional Watershed Program Prepared for the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District Clean Water Program SFEI Contribution 85 December 2003 Some agents of change in the San Lorenzo Creek watershed, 1769-2003. Rainfall data (July-June year) compiled by Lester McKee from Hayward data, using correlation to early San Francisco rainfall records that were developed by Jan Null (ggweather.com). Local flooding data from FEMA 1986 and Modrell (pers. comm.). Mission livestock data from Jackson 1994. Population data from Eden Writers 1975. San Francisco Estuary Institute 2 San Lorenzo Creek Landscape Patterns in the San Lorenzo Creek Watershed and Surrounding Areas Table of Contents San Lorenzo Creek Watershed ……………………………………………………………………………. 2 San Lorenzo Creek …………………………………………………………………………………………… 2 Alluvial Plain …………………………………………………………………………………….……………. 5 The Bay - Tidal Marshland ………………………………………………………….……………………. 6 Salt Ponds ………………………………………………………….………………………………………….. 7 Landings ……………………………………………………………………………………………….………. 7 Mission San Jose Rangeland ………………………………………………………………….……….. 9 Diramaderos - Sausals - Indian Grant - San Lorenzo Grove …………………….……………
    [Show full text]
  • Ongoing and Potential Wetland Habitat Projects Ongoing And
    6 OngoingOngoing andand PotentialPotential WetlandWetland HabitatHabitat ProjectsProjects JOHN STEERE he San Francisco Bay Joint Venture partners Ongoing and Pending T have been undertaking a wide array of wetland Habitat Projects projects throughout the region. The following listing of their habitat projects comprises 43,000 acres of ongoing and potential initiatives. It demonstrates The projects below are well distributed among both the great level of activity and the promise for acquisition, enhancement, or restoration. They can wetland and riparian restoration and enhancement be regarded as in process or partially completed, but throughout the geographic scope of the Joint generally in need of additional funding for comple- Venture. To underscore the reality and the potential tion. Together, these habitat projects constitute of the SFBJV’s efforts, this listing is divided between roughly 31,400 acres. “Ongoing and Pending Habitat Projects” and “Potential Projects for 2001 and Beyond.” These cat- egories serve to distinguish near-term initiatives North Bay Subregion (N) from long-term opportunities. The projects listed below are keyed to Figure N2. Triangle Marsh, Marin County. The 31-acre 6-1, “San Francisco Bay Joint Venture Habitat Triangle Marsh property, near Corte Madera, is a Projects: 2000.” These are partnership-based and remnant tidal area (with a tidal panne) along the are grouped by subregion, beginning with the North Marin Baylands. Marin Audubon initiated the proj- Bay, moving clockwise around the Bay. The project ect and it was recently purchased with grants from codes refer to these subregions, where “N” means the Coastal Conservancy and Marin Open Space North Bay, “CB” equals Central Bay, etc.
    [Show full text]
  • Community Profile a Guide to the Unincorporated Communities of Alameda County: Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview and San Lorenzo
    asz 2008 Community Profile A guide to the unincorporated communities of Alameda County: Ashland, Castro Valley, Cherryland, Fairview and San Lorenzo Eden Area Livability Initiative: Integrated Strategic Vision & Plan First Edition February 20, 2008 Prepared by the Office of Supervisor Nate Miley, District 4, Alameda County Board of Supervisors L. Wicks i Last saved on 3/11/2008 L. Wicks ii Last saved on 3/11/2008 TABLE OF CONTENTS PART PAGE FOREWORD v INTRODUCTION: EDEN AREA LIVABILITY INITIATIVE 1 Mission, Goals, Objectives , and Background PURPOSE , STRUCTURE & DESCRIPTION OF THE COMMUNITY ANALYSIS 2 LIVABILITY PRINCIPLES 3 THRIVE ELEMENTS OF LIVABILITY 4-5 EXPLANATION OF DATA PART 1 6 Communities & Zip Codes Census data = Census Designated Place Community Descriptions Explanation of data, maps and boundaries of data comparison GEOGRAPHIC BOUNDARIES & MAPS PART 2 7- 12 HISTORY OF AREA PART 3 13-29 DEMOGRAPHICS PART4 30-58 Population 30 Percentage of Population, by age in Alameda County and in the Eden Area 31 Race 32-34 Language Spoken at Home 35 Educational Attainment 36-37 Grandparents as Caregivers 38 Disability Status of the Civilian non-institutionalized population 38 Nativity and Place of Birth 39-40 Employment Statistics 41 Occupation 42-44 Occupation Trends & Industries of Employment 46 Common Industries for Females 47 Common Occupations for Females 47 Income 48 Poverty 48 Housing 49-57 Household by Type Housing Occupancy and Tenure Housing Stock and Ownership Year Structure Built Year householder moved into unit Housing Value Selected monthly owner Costs as a percentage of Household Income in 1999 Gross rent Gross rent as a percentage of Household Income in 19 L.
    [Show full text]
  • Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, Circa 1852-1904
    http://oac.cdlib.org/findaid/ark:/13030/hb109nb422 Online items available Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Finding Aid written by Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Finding Aid to the Documents BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM 1 Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in Cali... Finding Aid to the Documents Pertaining to the Adjudication of Private Land Claims in California, circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California Finding Aid Written By: Michelle Morton and Marie Salta, with assistance from Dean C. Rowan and Randal Brandt. Date Completed: March 2008 © 2008, 2013 The Regents of the University of California. All rights reserved. Collection Summary Collection Title: Documents pertaining to the adjudication of private land claims in California Date (inclusive): circa 1852-1904 Collection Number: BANC MSS Land Case Files 1852-1892 Microfilm: BANC MSS C-A 300 FILM Creators : United States. District Court (California) Extent: Number of containers: 857 Cases. 876 Portfolios. 6 volumes (linear feet: Approximately 75)Microfilm: 200 reels10 digital objects (1494 images) Repository: The Bancroft Library University of California, Berkeley Berkeley, California, 94720-6000 Phone: (510) 642-6481 Fax: (510) 642-7589 Email: [email protected] URL: http://bancroft.berkeley.edu/ Abstract: In 1851 the U.S.
    [Show full text]